Chicago Tribune Article (3/1/09) Titled "Car seat tests reveal 'flaws'"

[MomToEliEm]

Here is an interesting article published today from the Chicago Tribune website. I guess maybe it will be published tomorrow since it has 3/1/09 for the date, but on the website a day earlier.


Car seat tests reveal 'flaws'
As transportation secretary orders review of safety standards, makers of baby restraints question crash results
By Patricia Callahan | Tribune Reporter
March 1, 2009

In a government crash-test video, the infant car seat flies off its base, smashing the baby dummy — still strapped into the carrier — upside down and face-first into the back of the driver's seat.

Think what could happen in a real crash.

This seat was one of 31 that either flew off their bases or exceeded injury limits in a series of frontal crashes conducted by federal researchers using 2008 model year vehicles, a Tribune investigation found. The test results were never publicized, and even some infant-seat makers were unaware of their existence.
...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-car_seatsmar01,0,2504501.story?page=1

Here is there listing of different infant seat test results:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-carseats-html,0,5094939.htmlpage

[Judi]

"Graco executives said there were too many uncontrolled variables in all of the tests to draw any conclusions about any of the seats. They cautioned consumers not to compare one seat to another based on these tests. “I don’t think we’re yet at a point where this is terribly meaningful data in the child restraint world,” said Dave Galambos, a Graco engineer."

I tend to agree. They did all these different cars, etc. Who installed?

[Kecia]

I tend to agree. They did all these different cars, etc. Who installed?


"The allegation that the infant seats were improperly installed during NHTSA's tests was common among the car seat makers. But federal safety officials stressed that all car seats for the tests were installed by highly trained technicians. In tests where manufacturers told the Tribune their seats were incorrectly installed, NHTSA officials juxtaposed crash photos and owner's manual diagrams to prove the seats were installed properly."

[joolsplus3]

This is my favorite quote....

'Car seats save lives. If infant seats performed as poorly on American roads as they did in these crash tests, said Ron Medford, NHTSA's acting deputy administrator, "We would expect to see higher numbers of fatalities or serious injuries than we're aware of."'

[Judi]

"The allegation that the infant seats were improperly installed during NHTSA's tests was common among the car seat makers. But federal safety officials stressed that all car seats for the tests were installed by highly trained technicians. In tests where manufacturers told the Tribune their seats were incorrectly installed, NHTSA officials juxtaposed crash photos and owner's manual diagrams to prove the seats were installed properly."

Yep, I took the special needs class with a "highly trained tech". I was ready to pound my head against a wall. Not all techs are created equal.

[Kecia]

Of course I agree that not all techs are equal. But if you're a NHTSA technician and you're installing a seat for a crash test then I'd like to have a little faith that it was installed according to the manufacturer's specific instructions.

I'm not sure if all the same procedures apply to these tests, but when lab technicians test CRs on the sled bench to see if they meet all 213 standards - these tests are set up and carried out with meticulous attention to every detail. I know that's true with the IIHS tests as well.

On the other hand, if the seat(s) really weren't installed properly by the "highly trained technicians" - what hope does the average parent have of getting it right?

[Judi]

No chance, really, with close to 100% misuse in my area.

[minismom]

does anyone understand how the same carseat can fly off the base when installed in one car and not another? Is it that some cars are better at dissipating force? it just doesn't make much sense to me, it seems that either the carseat is designed right and it cant snap off the base, or it's not. :confused:

[Judi]

See, that freaks me out.

[murphydog77]

It seems that when NHTSA tests vehicles for safety, they're testing for driver safety only. Sure there's always going to be a driver, but we need to realize that vehicles are for transportation and often carry backseat passengers too.

I think it's fair to wonder about the qualifications of the techs who installed the test seats. Just as we know that techs who are fresh out of the class (who take the class for their jobs and haven't felt the pull to this field like we have) don't have the most top notch skills, we wonder about who these guys are. I really feel for the person who's new and has to figure out the Latch Loc just by reading *that* manual.

[joolsplus3]

The seats may or may not have been installed properly, but if you watch the videos, the bases stays in place and the harness looks good, and the seat just flies away :o

[Judi]

This has always bugged me.

"You can compare safety ratings for cars, but not for the safety of car seats."

[Kecia]

I find this information rather unsettling as well:

"... a problem with the back seat can have a dramatic effect on child safety restraints. Photos from NHTSA's testing show that the back seat of the model-2008 Infiniti EX35 hatchback moved so much during its frontal crash test that the bottom and top seat cushions separated. Both the Combi Connection and the Graco SnugRide in that test exceeded limits for head and chest injuries in that crash.

The strap that fastens between the baby's legs on the Combi Connection ripped out of the infant carrier, a structural failure that didn't happen in a subsequent crash test in a Saturn Vue SUV where the back seat remained intact. The Infiniti has a four-star frontal crash rating."

I'll be honest, I have never worried about the integrity of the backseat in any vehicle. Until now. And this really pisses me off because there are so many other things to consider every time I try to make an educated decision regarding my children in motor vehicles. I really don't need to add one more worry (particularly something that I cannot control or influence) to that plate.

[Steve Breden]

This has always bugged me.

"You can compare safety ratings for cars, but not for the safety of car seats."

I agree.

I'm afraid the average reader will not grasp why this is though. Most consumers I encounter feel that if they follow consumer reports buying recommendations that they are subscribing to "safety ratings."

News writers never convey (although the Tribune writer one hints at it) that "safety ratings" are of little value when they exist because variables relating to what car one is installing the restraint in and if correct installation was acheived are so numerous.

Car safety ratings simply have less variables to contend with to establish useful baselines for the consumer.

[NannyMom]

Why did they only release some of the videos, not all? After reading how the SS1 did in a Toyota Sequoia, it makes me nervous about the SS1 in my Sienna. But, at least it stayed on the base.

If these are NHTSAs own tests, why are the seats still on the market? Not that I think they should all be pulled. I'm just wondering. I understand the flaws to the Consumer Reports tests. But isn't this different? Or am I missing something?

[mominabigtruck]

I'm not saying the installs weren't correct because from what I could see you couldn't see the bases in any of the videos. BUT, is anyone else wondering how they got a discovery outboard in a midsized sedan with the handle down with the requisite 1 1/2 inches??

[tumblebug]

Those cars were run into a wall at 35mph. Can you imagine the force of another car going 35mph and hitting that one head on?

[Jennifer mom to my 7]

See, but I still don't think that crashing a car into a wall at 35 mph simulates a real life crash, unless you are crashing into a brick wall. I noticed most of the handles were down, except the combis, which is required to be up, so they must have read manuals.

I am glad that someone has finally realized to take back seat passengers and restraints into account. I also think they may have installed the seats using the 1 inch of movement at the belt path.

[joolsplus3]

I'm not saying the installs weren't correct because from what I could see you couldn't see the bases in any of the videos. BUT, is anyone else wondering how they got a discovery outboard in a midsized sedan with the handle down with the requisite 1 1/2 inches??

Is it that hard to do when there's no front passenger?

[cryswilkins]

You know, in the article they talk about the SS1 mainly. It only came off the base in one of the cars that they tested it in. I would have to consider that a flawed test, if it only happened once, until they can replicate it.

[LISmama810]

Wow, that was really interesting.

The thing that struck me the most is the idea that the bench currently used for crash tests might not best simulate real-world crashes. If that's the case, what's the point?

I did wonder about a few things. In some of the tests, it looked like those long beige strap-type things they connected might have gone between the carrier and the base, thus increasing the risk of separation, but after watching a them a few times, it looks like they were tucked out of the way. Hard to say for sure, though.

Also, in some of those tests, it looks like the dummy's head is even with or above the shells of the seats, possibly causing over-rotation, or at least adding to the likelihood that the child's head would hit the front seat.

In any case, that article provides a lot of food for thought. It sounds like there are people already pushing for changes in the standards, and there likely will be a lot more once more people read it.

[bobandjess99]

Hmm..interesting. If the overall effect is that crash tests are required to become more realistic, i think that's great. I do think it's hard to interpret what this one test means though, given all the variables. And for example, in at least 1 of the tests, the dummy's head was well OVER the shell of the seat, so that rigth there is blatant misuse.

I do have a question though...?? Do rearfacing CONVERTIBLES also cocoon all the way back like those infant seats. I'l be honest, even knowing everything I do, my involuntary visceral response was "OMG, their legs are getting CRUSHED!".....I found myself wanting to not leave the house until I can get a TF with anti-rebound bar, at the very least. And I'm afraid your average parent seeing those videos is going to have the SAME reaction, and it will become more fuel to the anti-erf fire.....

[Mylilboyblue]

I watched the Keyfit Video. Is that what the seat is supposed to do? If so then that looks like it faired pretty well. But I am glad my DS is in a RF tethered convertable now. Sia on the other hand.....now what am I supposed to do with her? She fits horribly in convertables.

[New grandma]

I think the article is very interesting. Hopefully it will stimulate reform of the testing standards which would be nice. However, I don't think the tests themselves tell us much. They only tested a few combinations of seats and cars and as noted, installations could have been flawed. I do wish there were more information on cars back seat performance in crashes as that was the scariest part to me.

[UlrikeDG]

Those cars were run into a wall at 35mph. Can you imagine the force of another car going 35mph and hitting that one head on?

By the laws of physics, a car running into a wall at 35 MPH is the same as a car hitting an identical car head-on if both vehicle are moving 35 MPH.

30 MPH "into a wall" is the same as a head on collision where both vehicles have the same mass and are moving toward each other at 30 MPH at the time of the collision.

The 30 MPH sled test more closely approximates a collision where one vehicle is moving 30 MPH and the other vehicle (with identical mass) is at a complete stop. The 2nd vehicle will move and absorb about half the crash forces. This would also be similar to a head-on collision where both vehicles were moving toward each other 15 MPH at the time of the crash; or running into a wall at 15 MPH.

You know, in the article they talk about the SS1 mainly. It only came off the base in one of the cars that they tested it in. I would have to consider that a flawed test, if it only happened once, until they can replicate it.

I thought the same thing. That test may say more about the performance of the Scion than of the SS1. The seat that failed consistently across the board in a variety of vehicles, the Combi Centre was recalled. The other seats may or may not be "safe enough". These tests just don't tell us one way or the other.

[CelticLabyrinth]

Maybe they need to test on multiple types and styles of benches in order to make sure the car seat is compatible with the variety of situations it will be used in. They should also have to pass an ease of use test, IMHO.

With that Graco, though, it looks like it was improperly snapped into the base.

[cpsaddict]

That's great. Not. Here I have a brand new SS1 sitting in my living room. *I* am not personally comfortable with my newborn in a convertible, so I will use the Safeseat. I'm just not sure this article and the tests really prove anything. I will just have to trust Graco and my car and use my seat correctly every single time.

[bobandjess99]

This study aside, I have never felt comfortable using infant seats with bases. It's just one more thing that could possibly go wrong, and it scares me.
For your average parent? I'm not sure....does the risk of them not installing the seat securely with seatbelt every time outweigh the risk of a base hookup failure? maybe? probably, in fact...(unless they had an old combi centre.) But for me personally? If I ever choose to use an infant bucket, I'd use the seatbelt to strap it in, every time.
It's sort of like when we start talking abotu LATCH limits and whether the weight is carseat plus kid or just kid, and whether the latch anchors can withstand the force, and every time, it ends up that we say "when in doubt,use the seatbelt" because the seatbelt is teated with a whatever 200 pound person dummy, and it's going to hold....but that's me.

[jen_nah]

If the Safe Seat was flying off in all the tests then why in the Combi Centre video the other seat in the video (pass outboard) is a Safe Seat and it stayed on the base in that crash.

I think there is way more to this then anyone knows just yet. Also if NHTSA was seeing these results don't you think recalls would have been issued by now for all these manufactures?

[irishmama3]

After watching those videos, I am confused about effect of the seats rebounding. Isn't that a lot of force on an infant? I'm guessing not as much as the initial impact with them going backwards, but the rebound looked pretty bad too. If I remember my high school physics right, it would have an equal and opposite reaction as the initial impact? :scratcheshead:

[UlrikeDG]

If the Safe Seat was flying off in all the tests then why in the Combi Centre video the other seat in the video (pass outboard) is a Safe Seat and it stayed on the base in that crash.

The SafeSeat wasn't "flying off in all the tests". Of the 6 SafeSeat tests listed, only one shows as separating from the base (Scion Xd).

[kaylee18]

By the laws of physics, a car running into a wall at 35 MPH is the same as a car hitting an identical car head-on if both vehicle are moving 35 MPH.

No, actually, the laws of physics tell us that a car running into a wall at 35 MPH involves only one-fourth the energy of two cars running into each other if both are moving at 35 MPH. That's why frontal collisions tend to be much worse than rear-enders: no one drives in reverse at 35 MPH all the time.

[snowbird25ca]

No, actually, the laws of physics tell us that a car running into a wall at 35 MPH involves only one-fourth the energy of two cars running into each other if both are moving at 35 MPH. That's why frontal collisions tend to be much worse than rear-enders: no one drives in reverse at 35 MPH all the time.

The way that the HyGE crash tests are run presently - the 30mph ones simulate a speed that only 5% of collisions are more than.

That being said, a brick wall has no give while a another vehicle does have give in that it has a crumple zone allowing ride down time for the passengers in the vehicle. When 2 cars collide, there are 2 crumple zones decreasing the force of each vehicle. (Hopefully I'm explaining that clear enough. Physics was never my thing, all I know is that the set up of the test as it is currently reflects a speed that only 5% of all collisions exceed.)

[snowbird25ca]

This has always bugged me.

"You can compare safety ratings for cars, but not for the safety of car seats."

I have recently gained some insight into part of the reason why there aren't safety ratings released... What if everyone went out and bought "the absolute safest seat" while there was an ongoing defect investigation? Sometimes safety agencies know of defects but it takes time to work with the manufacturer. In a case like that, all of those parents who thought they were buying the safest seat might have really had it backfire on them - not to mention that incompatibilities would be bound to arise if everyone bought the same seat across the board which would also suddenly turn that "safest seat" into a ticking time bomb...

For that reason I don't believe that car seats should be given safety ratings the same way as a car - there are just too many variables affecting the safety of a car seat.

Why did they only release some of the videos, not all? After reading how the SS1 did in a Toyota Sequoia, it makes me nervous about the SS1 in my Sienna. But, at least it stayed on the base.

If these are NHTSAs own tests, why are the seats still on the market? Not that I think they should all be pulled. I'm just wondering. I understand the flaws to the Consumer Reports tests. But isn't this different? Or am I missing something?

All of the Combi seats were recalled and the base was updated to remove the problem of the seat detaching from the base. The Evenflo Discovery in the test was also one that has been recalled and I could tell by the footage that it didn't have the "fix" on it, so again - irrelevant in terms of current Discovery seats.


I thought the same thing. That test may say more about the performance of the Scion than of the SS1. The seat that failed consistently across the board in a variety of vehicles, the Combi Centre was recalled. The other seats may or may not be "safe enough". These tests just don't tell us one way or the other.

I agree, it does seem that there is something about the Scion that makes car seats perform less than optimally in it.

Maybe they need to test on multiple types and styles of benches in order to make sure the car seat is compatible with the variety of situations it will be used in. They should also have to pass an ease of use test, IMHO.

With that Graco, though, it looks like it was improperly snapped into the base.

I also thought the Graco looked like it wasn't properly snapped in to the base. It seemed to fly off pretty much immediately and I wouldn't have expected detachment from the base until the seat had rotated a bit while still on the base had it initially started out attached.

The limitations of multiple types and styles of benches is that car manufacturers are always updating their interiors. There are potentially infinite combinations and designs, and when you start trying to test a carseat for every single variable a car manufacturer might put into a car, it becomes a very expensive prospect at the very least. It also means that a seat which passes with flying colors in one model year might do poorly a few years down the road when the car manufacturer re-designs the interior. That's a big expense to carseat manufacturers if they're left to bear the burden of changing their designs constantly...



I think there is way more to this then anyone knows just yet. Also if NHTSA was seeing these results don't you think recalls would have been issued by now for all these manufactures?

Combi and Discovery were recalled. They were the only consistent flying off the base results. As for the other values, given that it's very vehicle dependent, I don't think that a carseat manufacturer should bear the responsibility to recall and redesign the seat because there is a problem with it in one specific vehicle. Idealistically we'd like to see all seats compatible and easy to use in all vehicles, but we don't live in an ideal world. Additionally, some of the factors of pass/fail in regards to HIC could be influenced by the position the front passenger or driver seat is set at, whether or not there is cargo in the trunk and how much that cargo weighs. I would imagine there's an additional difference between leather and plain fabric upholstery because one is often more easily compressible than the other. So in other words, there are just so many things to account for, I think it would be insane to force recalls on all the manufacturers that had any of the tests with a failure - at least the ones that haven't been recalled... The ones that were recalled were recalled for widespread failure, not episodic ones related specifically to the vehicle the seat was installed in.

Again, it all comes down to real world experience, and kids aren't being killed in mass numbers due to carseat failures. Most of the time when kids die in a collision it's due to improper use in one aspect or another. Unfortunately I don't even know how easy it would be to correct ease of use... some people don't have the reading comprehension to understand a manual, and what's common sense to one person isn't common sense to another. Maybe a video manual being included with seats would be a good thing - though that could have limitations too due to variations in vehicle designs and rules...

I think in an ideal world we'd see more car manufacturers doing tests of carseats before sending a new car to market, and including a list of carseats which were compatible in their vehicle. There would still be situations which would make even the recommended seats fail, but it would be a starting point.

FWIW, some of the points of failure in terms of exceeding head or chest injury criteria I suspect we would see in convertible seats as well. This study here (http://www.anec.eu/attachments/ANEC-R&T-2008-TRAF-003.pdf) talks about rf'ing seats and additional loads imposed on the child when there was cargo in the trunk. It includes crash scene photos and injury/death descriptions, so isn't reading for those of you who are sensitive. Pg 5 does have the summary about rf'ing restraints though, so that would be a safe place for everyone to look. :thumbsup: There were 2 interesting points made in that study that the Tribune article seems to support... The first was that some sort of energy absorbing foam should be required in the head area to reduce the force on the child's head. It was noticed that in small vehicles there was the impact of the carseat hitting the vehicle seat during downward rotation and the child having that additional force placed on his/her head in an impact. The other point showed the pictures of back seats post collision and analyzed the weight of the cargo in the trunk and talked about how it could affect a child in a rf'ing restraint. The conclusion was still one showing rf'ing to be much safer in real world experience, but the points raised are very good points...

Anyways, my point is that I believe we would see many of the increases in injury measurements - except obviously separation from the base, if it was a rf'ing convertible seat in the test. Perhaps a design limiting downward rotation - like Australian style tethering or something along those lines, would do more in the way of making sure rf'ing seats performed as expected.

In the end though, it all comes down to the same thing.. We know that rf'ing seats do an excellent job of protecting children. We know that head injuries in rf'ing children are mostly due to misuse, and that rf'ing restraints are more effective at protecting children under age 2 than a ff'ing restraint.

I'd like to see CHOP put together an evaluation of injuries to kids in rf'ing restraints and evaluate the cause of those injuries - loose harness, over weight limit, improper install, small backseat, etc.

In the meantime, I wouldn't panic over a seat on a base, and in most cases prefer base install over baseless. Less room for error for the average parent. I also don't find the results to be that worthy of panic given that the repeat failures were recalled seats. Given the recall we'd expect those seats to fly off the base. :shrug-shoulders:

[romanoma]

no one has pointed out what didn't happen. While I'm sure the study was flawed and it's impossible to determine a "bad" seat from a study like this, it's nice to know the snugride didn't ever come off, and it seemed to be the most tested seat. That makes me feel pretty good about having a snugride (again, not that the SS is unsafe...)
I agree that reproducibility is very important in determining if study results are valid. Too bad in this instance, each test is so expensive!

[joolsplus3]

After watching those videos, I am confused about effect of the seats rebounding. Isn't that a lot of force on an infant? I'm guessing not as much as the initial impact with them going backwards, but the rebound looked pretty bad too. If I remember my high school physics right, it would have an equal and opposite reaction as the initial impact? :scratcheshead:

As I understand it, the rebound force is not nearly as strong as the initial crash force. And injuries to children in RF seats are so minimal that what 'looks' dramatic simply isn't.

Carseat.org says this, "
The first U.S. infant restraint, which is the model for subsequent ones, did not use a tether in either direction nor a shoulder belt, but it worked very well. During development, the engineers observed that it turned over toward the vehicle seatback after a crash test and, largely in order to justify what happened anyway, they called this the "cocoon effect." There was also some justifiable concern that the small infant's neck might be injured on rebound or rear-impact unless the restraint were allowed to freely rotate in this direction. Justified or not, this concept has remained and seems to make intuitive sense. The counter-argument that the infant's head will "slam" into the seatback and be injured on rebound has not been validated in over 30 years of crash experience."

[Jennifer mom to my 7]

Like the article states, why have we not seen these results in real world collisions? ANd someone on another board asked, did they use brand new seats each crash? or just continue to use the same ones?
ANd, then I have to ask, if the forces on the babies were so great rf, what would they have done to an infant ff? Or even a 2 year old? Also, I wonder if they used a 30 pound dummy for the keyfit, when, in the real world, it would be a rare 30 pound kid that would fit in it.

Also, fwiw, my dh has always found the rf infant to be the least hurt out of any accident scene he has been on. Including finding one in the remains of a car that had fatalities with only minor injuries.

Maybe what needs to be done is on scene info taken, in real world crashes, to see if these results to occur in the real world, kwim?

[LISmama810]

Combi and Discovery were recalled. They were the only consistent flying off the base results. As for the other values, given that it's very vehicle dependent, I don't think that a carseat manufacturer should bear the responsibility to recall and redesign the seat because there is a problem with it in one specific vehicle.

I agree that seats shouldn't be recalled based on one vehicle, and especially not based on one test. However, the fact that ANY seats flew off the base is what worries me. I've convinced myself that infant seats are as safe as convertibles--despite a nagging feeling that they're not--and now I'm questioning that.

I also agree that an incompatibility in ONE model of car might not be cause for a recall, but if a seat fails consistently in one car, it seems that there would likely be other cars that would produce similar results. Did seats fail in Scions because it's a Toyota model? Because it's a small car? Because of some anomaly found ONLY in the Scion?

As for "Why don't we hear about this happening in the real world," we do. Maybe not often, (keep in mind these are very high-speed, severe crashes), but I have heard of it happening. I posted on another thread about an article I read while I was pregnant with DS. A local family got hit, the infant seat (with a newborn in it) detached from the base and was ejected from the car. The baby lived but lost an arm.

I was convinced I wouldn't use an infant seat because of that, but a technician convinced me they were as safe as convertibles.

[newmomapril2008]

Ok, I just watched the Keyfit video and have a question.

It didn't detach from the base, but on the rebound it did come up and hit the back seat. The base has two latch hooks on the "foot," or bottom of the side of the seat. Would it be possible to somehow latch the front of the base to the bench seat to keep it from rebounding like it did?

I know True Fit has the C670 coming out with the ARB, which is what I'm holding out for. But on the chance that I may someday have a need for the KF carrier and base again I wonder if that would be a possibility.

Any ideas?

[Judi]

Ok, I just watched the Keyfit video and have a question.

It didn't detach from the base, but on the rebound it did come up and hit the back seat. The base has two latch hooks on the "foot," or bottom of the side of the seat. Would it be possible to somehow latch the front of the base to the bench seat to keep it from rebounding like it did?

I know True Fit has the C670 coming out with the ARB, which is what I'm holding out for. But on the chance that I may someday have a need for the KF carrier and base again I wonder if that would be a possibility.

Any ideas?


Never add things to a seat. The car seat was not tested that way and is meant to come up, to let the baby ride down the crash longer.

The Britax Companion and Combi Tyro have anti rebound bars, if you want something like that.

[CPSDarren]

I agree.

I'm afraid the average reader will not grasp why this is though. Most consumers I encounter feel that if they follow consumer reports buying recommendations that they are subscribing to "safety ratings."

News writers never convey (although the Tribune writer one hints at it) that "safety ratings" are of little value when they exist because variables relating to what car one is installing the restraint in and if correct installation was acheived are so numerous.

Car safety ratings simply have less variables to contend with to establish useful baselines for the consumer.


Now maybe some people will go read Carseatblog!

http://carseatblog.com/?p=121

Maybe this report will change some priorities and get us a comprehensive child seat testing system.

It could also turn out to be like what happened with the Consumer Reports testing. Lots of hysteria about car seats that fail, only to discover that there was a major flaw in the testing. Ya never know...

[Steve Breden]

Now maybe some people will go read Carseatblog!

http://carseatblog.com/?p=121

Maybe this report will change some priorities and get us a comprehensive child seat testing system.

It could also turn out to be like what happened with the Consumer Reports testing. Lots of hysteria about car seats that fail, only to discover that there was a major flaw in the testing. Ya never know...

Great blog post! :thumbsup:

Time will tell I suppose. I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop. That shoe being something that renders the results useless and prods the Trib into making some sort of "clarification/retraction".

To be perfectly honest I'm not sure what outcome I'm rooting for.

Parents, at least in my neck of the woods, tend to fixate on the wrong things and might take this article to mean that car seats are innately flawed so they shouldn’t focus on them at all. They may even think they should use a convertible for newborns because infant carriers have been proven dangerous. They won’t care where the convertible’s harness slots fall on their child’s shoulders. They’ll just be convinced that infant carriers are death traps. Who knows what they may extrapolate from this? Think of all the crazy things you’ve heard at check events. The writer did little to direct their fears into something positive.

Because of this type of reaction it would be easier to simply tell parents that the test was flawed and re-focus their attentions on what we seat techs know to be important. On the other hand, an overhaul of the testing procedure is definitely in order. If the tests are proved valid, the creation of improved testing criteria might be expedited.

BTW Illini only 2 to MSU ATM!

[Jennifer mom to my 7]

Great blog post! :thumbsup:

Time will tell I suppose. I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop. That shoe being something that renders the results useless and prods the Trib into making some sort of "clarification/retraction".

To be perfectly honest I'm not sure what outcome I'm rooting for.

Parents, at least in my neck of the woods, tend to fixate on the wrong things and might take this article to mean that car seats are innately flawed so they shouldn’t focus on them at all. They may even think they should use a convertible for newborns because infant carriers have been proven dangerous. They won’t care where the convertible’s harness slots fall on their child’s shoulders. They’ll just be convinced that infant carriers are death traps. Who knows what they may extrapolate from this? Think of all the crazy things you’ve heard at check events. The writer did little to direct their fears into something positive.

Because of this type of reaction it would be easier to simply tell parents that the test was flawed and re-focus their attentions on what we seat techs know to be important. On the other hand, an overhaul of the testing procedure is definitely in order. If the tests are proved valid, the creation of improved testing criteria might be expedited.

BTW Illini only 2 to MSU ATM!

:yeahthat:
We are already seeing it on other boards. So far they haven't looked for help yet, but the birth boards seem to be heading toward not erf because of it. I guess we will see as time goes on. But, like I said before, if the infant seats don't hold, and so much force is being exerted on the infants, what about those same 9+ month olds that are already ff.......and if they are ff at that age, do we really think they are using a top tether? scary stuff imo.
I don't want to imagine those same forces on a ff infant.

[CPSDarren]

The concern about infant carriers separating from the base has been around for at least 10 years (the time I've been involved in CPS) and probably much longer. Every few years it seems there is a study, news story or other report questioning the safety of this type of system.

There's no harm in buying a convertible seat and using it rear-facing, instead of an infant carrier. While some convertible models won't fit preemies or small newborns very well (some infant carriers don't either!), most older babies will fit just fine in the vast majority of convertibles. As with any child seat, try the fit to your child and vehicle before you buy it if you can. If you can't, make sure to get a good return policy.

[irishmama3]

As I understand it, the rebound force is not nearly as strong as the initial crash force. And injuries to children in RF seats are so minimal that what 'looks' dramatic simply isn't.

Carseat.org says this, "
The first U.S. infant restraint, which is the model for subsequent ones, did not use a tether in either direction nor a shoulder belt, but it worked very well. During development, the engineers observed that it turned over toward the vehicle seatback after a crash test and, largely in order to justify what happened anyway, they called this the "cocoon effect." There was also some justifiable concern that the small infant's neck might be injured on rebound or rear-impact unless the restraint were allowed to freely rotate in this direction. Justified or not, this concept has remained and seems to make intuitive sense. The counter-argument that the infant's head will "slam" into the seatback and be injured on rebound has not been validated in over 30 years of crash experience."

Ok, that helps a lot, and makes sense. Thank you!:thumbsup:

[snowbird25ca]

:yeahthat:
We are already seeing it on other boards. So far they haven't looked for help yet, but the birth boards seem to be heading toward not erf because of it. I guess we will see as time goes on. But, like I said before, if the infant seats don't hold, and so much force is being exerted on the infants, what about those same 9+ month olds that are already ff.......and if they are ff at that age, do we really think they are using a top tether? scary stuff imo.
I don't want to imagine those same forces on a ff infant.

This really doesn't make sense to me. Are they freaking out because of the rebound or the legs? Perhaps they need to see a crash test of a child in a ff'ing child and see how the legs fly forward and back so violently that the lower portion of the dummy's legs actually flip back up with such force that the knees bend backwards - an action that a human child's knees could never do without severe injury. I don't remember the exact statistic right now - I want to say 27% but I don't recall if it's slightly less than that - but it's for sure over 25%, of all ff'ing injuries are lower leg injuries. We don't see that happening in rf'ing seats. So if people are freaking out because of the rebound they're seeing in those videos, it's a very very sad thing.

At the tech course we ran a week ago there was a video of the nautilus. The seat was within the values to meet standards in the video, so the movement seen wasn't "abnormal." Yet the lower legs flipped back up with such force that you could see the knees rotate down while the legs went up. I'm not sure I'm describing it exactly right, but suffice it to say that human legs don't move that way...

It's unfortunate if people are drawing the conclusion that it's dangerous to erf when there is no such comment that should lead to that conclusion being drawn. And perhaps what's worse, is that the people who figure it doesn't hurt to turn their 10 mo old ff'ing can only learn the hard way if they're unfortunate enough to have a crash. Imagine having just turned your 10mo old ff'ing, having a major collision, and the kid being fatally injured. That would be unbelievable guilt. :(

[Hollyob]

I often read the online comments on the Trib, and this story brought out the Freakonomics thing again. A person commented about the "study" that found that carseats are not effective for children over a certain age, and how much money the carseat manufacturers make based on parents' paranoia. My response:

Lol - a "rather meticulously researched article" that is "available somewhere on the Internet." Umm, yeah. Have you actually read the Freakonomics "study?" Have you read the results of the research done by the Center for Injury Research and Prevention at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia? Or did you just throw your pesky car seats out based on an economist's hot air (who was trying to sell a book, btw)?

Maybe not the most constructive response but I was so annoyed. :thumbsdown:

[crunchierthanthou]

And for example, in at least 1 of the tests, the dummy's head was well OVER the shell of the seat, so that rigth there is blatant misuse.

Also, in some of those tests, it looks like the dummy's head is even with or above the shells of the seats, possibly causing over-rotation, or at least adding to the likelihood that the child's head would hit the front seat.

but not all manuals state the 1" rule. it may have fallen under proper use as long as the dummy was within the weight and overall height requirements.

out of curiosity I just looked at the ones available online- Chicco and Britax state the 1" rule (I'll assume Evenflo because that's where it originated). Combi and Peg Perego say head even with the top of the seat. Graco and Baby Trend don't mention it at all.

ANd someone on another board asked, did they use brand new seats each crash? or just continue to use the same ones?

the article mentions 66 tests and there certainly aren't that many infant seats on the market. It also references 6 tests for the SS1. my guess is they tested 11 models of infant seats in 6 vehicles with a new seat each time.

[An Aurora]

Just a quick note, not all Combi seats were recalled. Only the Centre, Centre ARB (10/2005-12/2007 DOM) and Shuttle (same DOM) were recalled. Also, the Tyro does not have an ARB. It has a RF'ing tether. The Shuttle and Centre have ARB.

[UlrikeDG]

No, actually, the laws of physics tell us that a car running into a wall at 35 MPH involves only one-fourth the energy of two cars running into each other if both are moving at 35 MPH. That's why frontal collisions tend to be much worse than rear-enders: no one drives in reverse at 35 MPH all the time.

:confused:

Force equals mass times acceleration (F=ma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion)). Two objects with equal mass traveling in opposite directions at the same speed should stop almost instantaneously. One object hitting another stationary, immovable object should stop almost instantaneously. If acceleration (what we'd call "deceleration", but in the world of physics, acceleration is just change in velocity, so slowing down or speeding up are both "acceleration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration)")... if acceleration is identical and mass is identical, then force will be equal.

Now, obviously in the real world, mass will never be exactly the same, and there will almost always be some degree of offset. However, the principle holds. A passenger inside a vehicle that hits a solid barrier going 35 mph should experience the similar force on his/her body as he/she would if that vehicle hit another vehicle with the same mass head-on, assuming both vehicles were traveling at 35 mph at the time of the crash.

A vehicle traveling at 35 mph that hits a movable object, such as a parked car, will transfer a great deal of that kinetic energy to that second object, moving it and greatly reducing the amount of force transferred to any passengers inside the vehicle.

[Qarin]

This link talks about almost this math problem:

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/60747.html

Except that the question it addresses is 35mph head on with another car at 35mph vs. a car driving 70mph into a wall; halving the into-a-wall portion of the question, so that it's 35mph into a wall, assuming that wall is totally solid, his calculations would put the wall-hit at 2x the energy of the two-car-hit (assuming cars of equal mass and crumpleability).

[o_mom]

From that link, it appears we are talking about kinetic engergy, not force. He also says it could be anywhere from 0 to 4 times more. I think NHTSA is saying they are about the same for simplicity's sake. This also jives with what Safe Ride News released after the CR mess. That increases in velocity cause exponential increases in force: http://web.archive.org/web/20070203100414/http://www.saferidenews.com/html/Side_Impact_NCAP_testing.html

"2) The 30 mph change in velocity of the NHTSA sled test required for child restraints is, itself, more severe than 97 percent of real-world frontal crashes. It is approximately the same as two similar sized vehicles colliding head-on at 30 mph or a vehicle going 60 mph into a parked car. In the latter scenario, the vehicle hits the parked car at 60 mph, accelerates the parked car to 30 mph, and continues forward at reduced speed of 30 mph, so the change in velocity for the passengers is 30 mph.

People get hurt when the change in velocity happens very fast, like hitting the brick wall, unless a restraint system helps slow them down. When a vehicle brakes to a stop from 30 mph, no one gets hurt because it happens over a long period of time.

3) Simulating the frontal NCAP crash on a sled is done by setting the speed of the test sled at 35 mph. The bench with the child restraint installed faces squarely forward. This test is the equivalent of hitting an immovable wall at 35 mph. Although the difference in speed between a 30-mph test (required for car seats to pass FMVSS 213) and a 35-mph test (used by CU) is only about 16%, the change in force (energy) is much greater—36 percent. This is because the force changes exponentially, meaning the energy goes up with the square of the speed (velocity). "

[codex57]

no one has pointed out what didn't happen. While I'm sure the study was flawed and it's impossible to determine a "bad" seat from a study like this, it's nice to know the snugride didn't ever come off, and it seemed to be the most tested seat. That makes me feel pretty good about having a snugride (again, not that the SS is unsafe...)
I agree that reproducibility is very important in determining if study results are valid. Too bad in this instance, each test is so expensive!

Thank you. I got a lot of long time members pissed at me cuz I said something similar after the CR test came out. I don't care if it only happens in 1% of all crashes. There are drunks everywhere. And not every road I drive has a divider so a head on crash is a real possibility for me. It's why I rear face my kid past the minimum. Poop happens. I don't care if it's supposedly "survivable" or not (people all the time get told that it was a miracle they survived some crash). When talking about the SnugRide, the CR test wasn't "flawed" in such a way as to discount the SnugRide staying put. Basically, the SnugRide is overqualified. That doesn't mean the test is totally useless. It just tells me the SnugRide is damned secure. Hell, every other seat needs to step up their game. None of this "it meets minimum standards" crap. Yeah, everyone shoot for a D instead of an A cuz a D is a passing grade! :rolleyes: If that cheapass SnugRide can handle an "unsurvivable" crash, why the hell can't all the other ones?

And don't get me started on the Kyle Miller video. :p

[skaterbabscpst]

My biggest beef with recommending the SR over the SS1 is that in my experience the SR is not nearly as idiot-proof as the SS1, and it's incompatible with more vehicles. :twocents:

[CelticLabyrinth]

For the physics question- there is a simple, nonscientific way to see how it works :whistle:

If you take both of your hands, move them together at about the same speed, and let them collide, you'll notice that they both stop immediately on impact (Unless, of course, one was moving faster than the other or you have one hand that weighs a great deal more than the other). That's the same as two 35 mph cars, carrying the same weight, hitting each other. Now take one hand, and hit it into the wall. You'll notice that your hand, again, stops on impact, and your wall doesn't move. This is the same as hitting a car into a wall. Assuming your hand is moving at the same speed both times, in both situations the impact on your hand is the same, because in both times it stops on impact.

Now, if you take one hand and hold it in one place, and hit that hand with your other hand, you will displace the stationary hand. This is similar to hitting a parked car or using a test sled.

Make sense?

[April]

This study aside, I have never felt comfortable using infant seats with bases. It's just one more thing that could possibly go wrong, and it scares me.
For your average parent? I'm not sure....does the risk of them not installing the seat securely with seatbelt every time outweigh the risk of a base hookup failure? maybe? probably, in fact...(unless they had an old combi centre.) But for me personally? If I ever choose to use an infant bucket, I'd use the seatbelt to strap it in, every time.
It's sort of like when we start talking abotu LATCH limits and whether the weight is carseat plus kid or just kid, and whether the latch anchors can withstand the force, and every time, it ends up that we say "when in doubt,use the seatbelt" because the seatbelt is teated with a whatever 200 pound person dummy, and it's going to hold....but that's me.

:yeahthat: I'm personally more comfortable with a seatbelt as well. Not to say there aren't things that can happen there as well...I might be swayed to consider latch if I were installing in say, an older model Grand Caravan with Gen 3 belts, but I'd likely still lean towards installing without the base. Now if I were to let someone else transport my child, I'd likely install the base and show them how to click it in. I know I can install an infant carrier correctly without a base 100% of the time, but I wouldn't trust anyone else to do it. And of course if I couldn't get a good install with the seatbelt, I'd try latch, but in that order. Then again, I've never had a problem installing a ff Radian with a seatbelt in ANY vehicle.:shrug-shoulders:


At the tech course we ran a week ago there was a video of the nautilus. The seat was within the values to meet standards in the video, so the movement seen wasn't "abnormal." Yet the lower legs flipped back up with such force that you could see the knees rotate down while the legs went up. I'm not sure I'm describing it exactly right, but suffice it to say that human legs don't move that way...



I think the word you are looking for is hyperextension and/or hyperextended. I did that to my knee once when I was a competitive gymnast, and have permanent knee damage from it.

Carry on now folks:2thumbsup:

[CPSDarren]

No, actually, the laws of physics tell us that a car running into a wall at 35 MPH involves only one-fourth the energy of two cars running into each other if both are moving at 35 MPH. That's why frontal collisions tend to be much worse than rear-enders: no one drives in reverse at 35 MPH all the time.

Ulrike is correct in terms of the energy that is transferred to the passengers.

Kinetic energy has a vector associated with the velocity component of each vehicle. Two cars of moving toward each other have a net kinetic energy that is double that of a single car. Moving in opposite directions, this vector cancels when the two objects impact, resulting in no net motion as the cars crumple to absorb all the kinetic energy. So, the forces seen by either vehicle are the same is if it had crashed into a fixed barrier.

http://www.safercar.gov/portal/site/safercar/menuitem.13dd5c887c7e1358fefe0a2f35a67789/?vgnextoid=b2c72d0e0c2c8110VgnVCM1000002fd17898RCR D#iq8

[CPSDarren]

See, but I still don't think that crashing a car into a wall at 35 mph simulates a real life crash, unless you are crashing into a brick wall.

It is identical to a head-on crash with an identical vehicle heading in the opposite direction at the same speed. The IIHS does an offset crash that varies somewhat. Together, these closely resemble the majority of serious crashes. Of course, actual crashes are never with identical vehicles traveling at exactly the same speed head-on, but it's impossible to test every possible variation.

[CPSDarren]

On the other hand, if the seat(s) really weren't installed properly by the "highly trained technicians" - what hope does the average parent have of getting it right?

Exactly. Can you imagine the results if misuse had been a factor? Even if a mistake was made in one or more tests by an experienced technician, you know it would be a lot worse with the average parent that we see at checkup events. It's pretty awful to blame the results on improper installation by a technician when the real world is going to be a lot worse in that regard. The fact is that some seats didn't separate. Unless serious mistakes were made in only a certain number of tests, I'm not seeing the point in passing the buck in this manner.

[codex57]

Of course, actual crashes are never with identical vehicles traveling at exactly the same speed head-on, but it's impossible to test every possible variation.

Other than the possible misuse issue, isn't this proof that it's ok to test car seats for safety? Yeah, you can't cover every variable, but testing is better than not testing. If you have some minimum standard to try and better, that can only be good for the consumer.

We can work on the misuse. That's a separate issue that is more about educating. But we still want to make sure seats get safer and safer.

[CPSDarren]

Other than the possible misuse issue, isn't this proof that it's ok to test car seats for safety? Yeah, you can't cover every variable, but testing is better than not testing. If you have some minimum standard to try and better, that can only be good for the consumer.

We can work on the misuse. That's a separate issue that is more about educating. But we still want to make sure seats get safer and safer.

I agree. In fact, I have a soap box for this very issue-

http://carseatblog.com/?p=1495

[codex57]

Oooh, good stuff. Gracias!

From a consumer standpoint, the JPMA is worthless. It's like listening to the spokesperson for the cigarette industry on whether smoking is safe or not.

[mightymarce]

I agree. In fact, I have a soap box for this very issue-

http://carseatblog.com/?p=1495

I just started doing research for a convertible car seat for my son, and am truly appalled that there appears to be no public safety ratings for the seats on the market. It seems insane. So we're left t just speculate over whether added "safety" features that cost $$$ even do anything significant during a crash.

I just don';t understand how this information isn't out there for consumers to use when making decisions about the seats they want to buy to protect their children.

[codex57]

While it is appalling that the info isn't out there, the misuse/nonuse by parents is equally appalling.

What most parents do and what the best practice is is pretty much at complete opposite ends of the spectrum. In many areas, if the kid is even in a seat at all is considered a victory. And not the proper seat for his age/weight, but any seat at all.

[Wineaux]

I agree.

I'm afraid the average reader will not grasp why this is though. Most consumers I encounter feel that if they follow consumer reports buying recommendations that they are subscribing to "safety ratings."

News writers never convey (although the Tribune writer one hints at it) that "safety ratings" are of little value when they exist because variables relating to what car one is installing the restraint in and if correct installation was acheived are so numerous.

Car safety ratings simply have less variables to contend with to establish useful baselines for the consumer.

(Bolded by me for emphasis.)
Well, of course we now know that is not true at all based up this article. While testing for the variable of driver safety seems pretty straight forward, it's obvious that they didn't even bother to worry about rear seat safety, or even integrity in a crash! There are obviously lots of variables when crash testing anything, but consumers deserve at least an inkling as to how the most important purchase of their life performs, and how it compares to other seats on the market.

I stated in a previous thread somewhat related to this subject that as CPST's we stress that car seat laws are BARE MINIMUMS.
A crash test ratings system will give consumers a voice in car seat safety that quite frankly they have never had in this country, and Canada. Seriously, we tell parents ALL.THE.TIME that the law of 1 year AND 20 lbs is just the "bare minimum", and that it's so much safer to RF longer. So why on earth should we be happy with purchasing car seats that just pass the bare minimum? Give us the ability to make an INFORMED choice, and stop leaving us in the dark where we are now!

This article restates much of what I, and many others on this board, have been arguing for well over a year now. We need stricter and more transparent standards for car seat safety, and we need a simple 1-5* crash rating system similar to what we see in vehicles. The vehicle manufacturers also need to be telling us what seats work and don't work in their specific vehicles. This whole "roll the dice and hope that the seat you researched and chose to put your child in will actually FIT in your vehicle" is ridiculous. Enough already! NHTSA is supposed to be protecting the people of this country and not the manufacturers of the products it tests. They need to get back to basics and seriously redo the entire testing process, both for vehicles AND for car seats.

[wherryj]

Yep, I took the special needs class with a "highly trained tech". I was ready to pound my head against a wall. Not all techs are created equal.

Exactly who was installing the car seats during the original testing that "proved" the manufacturer's seats were safe? Why are these people NOW so incompetent?

A lot of these seats are now failing due to hitting a rear seat that isn't present on the testing sled. Guess what? I actually USE a front seat in the vehicle that I drive. I suspect that these Tribune tests just MIGHT be a bit more accurate than the previous sled results. At the very least they call for a very close look at the NHTSA methods and a possible complete overhaul of the testing methods.