are nothing new. This issue has come up a number of times in the 10 years I’ve been involved in child passenger safety. Testing seats with different methods is not a new thing, either. This new research by the NHTSA put child seats in actual vehicles (rather than a test sled), during a frontal crash test. Keep in mind that the vehicle crash test itself isn’t new, it basically the same as those that have been done for about 30 years in the NCAP program. The result? Some infant seats failed in a major way. Consumer Reports made a big blunder over a year ago with an infant seat test. Their report had a number of flaws, but the largest one was a lack of oversight that led to a test that simulated a much, much higher speed than intended. Ironically, part of their mistake was because they didn’t consider that putting a child seat in a real vehicle allows the vehicle to absorb some of the crash energy. This must be considered when you simulate a real crash on a sled. The result? Some infant seats failed in a major way.
Anyway, there’s still a lot we don’t know about these tests and the results. It’s both premature and a little unfair to speculate on why some infant seats failed, on whether or not the new NHTSA research test was fair or even on the actual risks posed to infants in these particular seats.
There are a couple things we do know for certain, though. First, some infant seats didn’t detach from their bases. That’s right. In both tests, there were models that remained intact, despite the alleged severity of the test. Second, at least one company, Combi, has already done something about it.
Those two things make me a little suspect of the JPMA response that Heather mentioned in her blog. In reading it, I have to think they’ve overlooked the fact that at least one manufacturer believes it is a real concern, despite the cost and weight issues that might be a consequence. The JPMA has also overlooked that some manufacturers have designs that don’t separate in these tests. Given the number of failures reported, I think they’ve overlooked that there may be a real issue involving the safety of infant seats in actual vehicles, perhaps even at speeds lower than NCAP speeds. Speed is not the only issue involved here.
Like many parents, I have to wonder why there is such a furor over testing in real vehicles and/or at higher speeds, in the same exact test that vehicles have undergone for decades to get a “star” safety rating. Sure, maybe it’s not a reasonable test for an updated minimum pass/fail standard on child seats. On the other hand, given the results from the research, I think it appears to be a very reasonable basis to show parents which models may be safer than others in a supplemental test, like NCAP does for vehicles.
This is the key difference. NCAP testing is not used to determine if a car or SUV is safe enough to be on the market. There are other federal standards for that. NCAP is a supplemental test that shows consumers that differences in safety may exist among vehicles and helps them decide what to buy. So, sure, like all the vehicles being sold today, maybe all the infant seats being sold are safe enough to protect babies in most frontal crashes. In that, the JPMA and all these other agencies are probably right. Even so, is it such a bad thing to allow parents to know which models might be safer than the minimum requirements allow?
I sure don’t think it’s a bad thing. I think it’s a great thing. I think the JPMA is very disingenuous when they said, “As noted by these and other experts, there is no evidence that infant child restraints would protect children better in real world crashes if they were designed to meet a crash test conducted at a higher speed.” Well, that’s because we don’t have a system that tests child restraints to a higher standard and real life data to determine if the test helped! It’s unscientific to assume the outcome of such a test when you haven’t even done the test yet. Duh. The same chicken-and-egg reasoning could have been used by the NHTSA and IIHS against the implementation of their crash testing programs, yet it turns out these programs have correlated well with real world reduction in fatal injury. In fact, this very NHTSA research test clearly shows that some important differences exist among infant seats in a scenario consistent with the NCAP program.
So, I think the JPMA is very short-sighted with their response. We’re not just talking about infant seats rotating a little more than the standard allows or exceeding dummy criteria by some percentage. No, we’re talking about the possibility of carriers detaching completely from the base and being violently thrown through the passenger compartment. While the JPMA and others seem concerned about what this might do to the cost and weight of infant seats, I’m concerned about what this might do to the baby and the other passengers in the vehicle.
There also seems to be an implication that it would be a hardship for manufacturers (and thus consumers) to comply with the requirements to pass a test like this. As it turns out, there is no compliance requiring vehicles to do well in NCAP tests. If you are willing to do just the minimum required to get a vehicle on the market, then you may be content with a 1-star, 2-star or 3-star rating. This could be the same for child restraints if we had a similar program for supplemental testing. I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t be too much of an expense or hardship to get 4-star or 5-star ratings, as the JPMA might lead us to believe. After all, some seats didn’t detach in these tests and at least one manufacturer is already doing something in response.
Just because, “No product is more effective at reducing fatalities and injuries to our precious children,” as the JPMA states, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be given the means to decide which of those products are safer than others. The JPMA goes on to say that, “It is irresponsible to suggest that infant child restraints may not perform well in crashes.” I happen to think it is irresponsible to deny the fact that some models clearly perform better than others in crashes and that one manufacturer has already shown that it is possible to improve designs in order to prevent carriers from flying off bases in situations other than a sled test with a very narrow set of parameters.
Maybe we don’t need a new standard for child seats, at least maybe not any major changes beyond those already being implemented. On the other hand, these tests have shown us that there clearly are differences among child seats. It sure doesn’t seem like a bad idea to know which ones perform better than others. That would also encourage improvement, as it has in vehicle crash-worthiness for many years. Again, not a bad thing in my opinion, when the life of your child may depend on it.
That’s my soap box for today, and I’m sticking to it.
———
As much as I disliked the response from the JPMA, I liked the response from Safe Kids USA. Instead of focusing on what shouldn’t be done, they focused on what should be done to keep your kids safe. They also agreed that, “More testing for car seats and vehicles can only continue to advance the child passenger safety field and improve the level of protection we can offer children when they ride. The more we know about car seats and how they react in crashes, the better equipped we will be to push for new technology and improvements that will keep children safer.” As for keeping your kids safe, like I’ve said over and over, there is one thing we know for sure. Driving undistracted/unimpaired and keeping your child properly restrained in a rear seating position with an appropriate car seat will offer them the best possible chance in a crash. Do that much, and the choice of car seat is a relatively smaller issue in terms of risk.
I dunno… I think the most telling part of the entire article was the fact that the vehicle crash test ratings were only for the driver of the vehicle, and that the rear seat(s) never even factored into the equation! Say what? If you’re going to tout a safety rating, and even more damning, GIVE a safety rating for a vehicle, then by gum that safety rating should be for the ENTIRE VEHICLE! That’s what the consumer assumes. We don’t assume that in a vehicle with a 4* safety rating that the entire back seat will disintegrate in a frontal crash, even though the driver is well protected. Whoopty doo!
That just means you’ve designed a vehicle that’s safe for a single person who will never have passengers. It has NOTHING at all to do with the real world as we know it, and yet the vehicle manufacturers and NHTSA lead us to believe that it does. What a load of hogwash…
To me, it’s like the Consumer Reports test. It could have been related to the test speeds, the installation, the vehicle, who knows. If it was my child, I would continue using the seat for now, until more information becomes available. My second option would be to use a convertible seat rear-facing, since I would eventually need a convertible seat anyway. I would suggest that you contact Graco for their recommendations, even though it may not be as re-assuring as you’d like.
Seats that failed this test might be just “adequate”. They may also be “extremely safe”, with those that passed being marginally safer. It’s impossible to say from the results of this limited research. It really would take a comprehensive test designed for public release to be of any value to the consumer.
So, knowing what we know about the test, what would you do if your child was riding in one of those seats that detached from the base? My niece is currently using a Safeseat (DOM in 2006) for her 6 month old son, what should I tell her? I don’t want to raise a panic and throw out a seat that can do it’s job, but I also don’t want him riding in a seat that might not offer as much protection as another seat. Would we say it’s “adequate”? How many parents want their kid to be “adequately” safe?
I agree with your question, Kecia.
When put that way, the answers must be no and no. As CPSTs how could we ever argue otherwise.
How might we get the best bang for our buck. Is there a test that might grab all the “low hanging fruit” that might be immensely better than what we have without requiring every seat to be crash tested with every vehicle?
Could designers look at a cross section of the vehicles manufactured year to year and periodically create “test cars” that are some sort of amalgamation of several vehicles where useful and dependable results can be yielded? Maybe 5-10 “test vehicles” (or sled I suppose if accurate physics can be managed)would be feasible. Their might be an SUV test car, a sedan test car and so on down the road.
Darren, something tells me you have the best vantage point for this question as well.
Darren, I totally agree that more testing isn’t a bad thing. How can more research ever be a bad thing? I like this comment from the CHOP response:
“As vehicle and restraint designs change, we need to continue to monitor the safety of children in motor vehicle crashes, or we risk jeopardizing the incredible progress that’s been made to date. We should not assume that the safety solutions of yesterday remain the optimal solutions for the future.”
You can see the entire response here:
http://stokes.chop.edu/programs/injury/docs/CHOP_Response_Crash_Tests.pdf
Steve also makes a very good point. The vehicle may have a lot to do with how well or how poorly the CR performs. One CR may perform spectacularly in a Honda Accord and yet the same seat might do very poorly in an Infinity EX35. There are just so many possible variables. It’s overwhelming. It may seem downright impossible. Does that mean we shouldn’t even bother to try?
UMTRI states that “…designing child restraints to pass a test at higher crash severity may lead to child restraint design changes that make the restraints less effective or more easily misused at lower severity crashes, which occur much more frequently.”
Sure, that’s always a possibility. But maybe design changes will lead to CRs that are MORE effective and LESS easily misused. Did they ever consider that possibility?
No one has a crystal ball here. The question is – should we be satisfied with the status quo? And should we assume that the safety solutions of yesterday are the optimal solutions for the future?
You’re exactly right. The only way to know for sure is more comprehensive testing. Okay, okay, I’m an engineer, but that’s what testing is all about. A testing system like this could be implemented and five years later we do find out it made no significant reductions in injury or fatalities.
Getting no benefit is a possibility with any type of research, automotive, medical, high energy physics, going to the moon, you name it. In this case, I’m pretty sure it would put to rest the issue of detaching infant seats, whether it is carseat related, vehicle related or some of both.
I agree with what you’ve said. The only thing that concerns comes from a testing point of view. Yes some seats flew of their bases and some didn’t. But, can we isolate the car seat as the main issue and not the car itself. From what I gather not every seat was tested in the same set of vehicles. That very well could make a difference.
I would hate for a parent to choose a seat based on those tests only to find out later that the orientation of their vehicle’s front seat backs were to blame for many carriers detaching. I believe they pointed at the Infiniti EX35 as being suspect to something similar.
Anyone have some insight into this?
I’m going to look at the article again.
I agree with Heather’s point about misuse. I mean, I almost never see a FF seat come in with the top tether in use, even when the parent has installed it with LATCH. How could we expect them to use seats that are even more complicated?
Fantastic post, Darren.
Keep in mind who the JPMA is representing. Of course they’re not going to suggest improving upon the design because it costs so much to re-engineer a seat, then tens of thousands of dollars to test it. But I can see their (UMTRI’s) point in that too. We have seats on the market now that parents can’t seem to use correctly: let’s say manufacturers decide to add some kind of latch to keep the seat on the base that parents would have to manually attach to the infant seat. I’m thinking of something very simple to use, like a ski boot buckle: http://www.advancedbuckle.com/buckle7-lg.htm . Even something that easy to use would still lead to misuse.
I’m all for transparency in these government tests. I want to know when these tests are being run; I want to see the videos when they’re done; I want to see the data. I *don’t* want to have to go dig through the nasty NHTSA web site to find this information either. But again, I’m not sure that just throwing these car seats into these vehicles is showing us anything. Maybe it is.
I’m glad you liked the Safe Kids response to the article. I thought it was wishy-washy. But the one true way that parents CAN take charge with their children’s safety in vehicles is to make sure they’re driving carefully and to make sure the car seat is installed properly and used properly. Keep the kids buckled up snugly all the time every ride.