QuassEE
Moderator - CPST Instructor
Original (and properly formatted) version available at:
http://www.couponsurfers.com/crashtests.html
Cut and paste version:
October 7, 2009
Introduction
On September 25, 2009, Transport Canada made the unprecedented step of publishing numerous crash test videos of child restraints performed under conditions as close to "real-world" as possible. It was an admirable attempt at public accountability. However, the move may produce more confusion than clarity in the public sector. In response to Transport Canada releasing this crash test footage, a group of Canadian Children's Restraint Systems Technicians and Instructors and American Child Passenger Safety Technicians and Instructors met online to analyze and discuss the crash test footage in an attempt to create and update recommendations for parents and other professionals based on the observations that were made by the group. The following document summarizes the observations and recommendations made by this group.
Methodology
This crash test footage and specific crash test methodology are available on Transport Canada's web site.[1][2] Standardized or compliance crash tests utilize sled-method simulations rather than real-world simulated in-vehicle testing. In-vehicle testing introduces additional variables to the crash test scenario, making it difficult to isolate any specific variable's impact on the overall results of the test. For the most part, these crash tests, which exceed the minimum compliant standards required by Transport Canada, represent ideal conditions, where child restraints are properly secured in late-model vehicles equipped with modern safety features.
Our group looked at similar performance among restraint types and orientation (rear-facing only, rear-facing convertible, forward-facing convertible and combination, and booster seats), specific restraints across vehicle models, and different restraint models in similar vehicles.
Rear-facing infant restraints
Utilizing: 12 month old Anthromorphic Test Dummy (ATD)
Observations
Numerous rear-facing infant seat tests resulted in partial or complete detachment of the infant restraints from their bases. As a result of these detachments, the ATDs came into contact with the vehicle interior. Some of these restraints have been recalled[3] or have Consumer Advisory Notices.[4] Numerous tests demonstrated significant rebound, frequently resulting in the ATD coming into contact with the vehicle interior upon rebound. Shoulder belt guide use may have increased the force with which one infant seat rebounded. In instances where infant seats were either installed in a third row or with limited clearance between the restraint and the vehicle seatback in front, rotation and distance resulted in ATDs striking the interior of the vehicle. Lowered handle positions (even with, or below, the top of the shell) may have limited the downward rotation when the handle came into contact with the vehicle interior. A raised handle position (fully upright) may have limited ATD contact with the vehicle interior on rebound. Increased shell height may be correlated with a decrease in ATD-vehicle contact upon initial downward rotation. LATCH/UAS installations may limit movement away from the seat bight, reduce downward rotation and limit rebound. A larger sample would be required to make a more firm observation with regard to LATCH/UAS versus seatbelt installations.
Recommendations
We strongly recommend advising parents not to exceed maximum height limits on infant-only child restraints; when a limited distance exists between the rear of the child restraint and the vehicle seat in front, even more conservative height limitations should be advised. We consistently observed ATD contact with vehicle interiors, primarily during instances of initial downward rotation. According to Transport Canada, this is “the way they are designed to work” and because they are coming into contact with a soft portion of the vehicle seat, "the risk of injury is low." [5] Most Child Passenger Safety Technicians and Children's Restraint Systems Technicians currently recommend that children continue to use their rear-facing child restraints until there is 1” of hard shell left above the child's head, unless weight limits are reached first. The 12 month ATD is, in most cases, at or near the maximum recommended height limit for the infant restraints tested, although it was observed that often at least 1” of hard shell existed above the ATD's head during testing. Despite clearly satisfying the 1” rule and being within the stated numerical maximum height limit of the tested child restraints, the ATDs frequently struck the vehicle interior during testing. It may be advantageous for parents to move children from infant-only restraints to rear-facing convertible seats even before the child meets the maximum stated height limits of the infant-only restraint, especially when limited front-back distance exists between vehicle seats.
ATD-vehicle contact during rebound may be limited by an anti-rebound device or a child restraint handle in an upright position. Additional ATD contact was observed upon rebound of infant-only restraints in a number of cases. Because the majority of crash forces have been transferred and absorbed prior to the rebound effect, the ATD contact with the vehicle interior upon rebound is less forceful than the initial strike when moving toward the front of the vehicle. As a result, we believe it to be of greater importance to address the factors associated with initial downward rotation than with the rebound effect. One observation that was made from the crash test footage is that ATD-vehicle contact during rebound may be limited by an anti-rebound device or a child restraint handle in an upright position; therefore, additional crash test footage and data would be beneficial to further assess the benefits of these methods.
A number of handle positions were tested. With the exception of one test that was performed with the handle in an unapproved position, all tests were done with the handles in positions approved by manufacturers. In many tests the position of the handle seemed to influence the performance of the seat, but benefit was seen in tests done with the handle in the upright position as well as in tests done with the handle down. Because benefit was observed in both positions, it is impossible to form a definite recommendation regarding whether one position may be preferable to another when the manufacturer gives parents the choice. Given that the maximum allowed rotation is regulated by standards, it may be preferable to leave the handle up when allowed by the manufacturer in order to reduce rebound. However, this recommendation needs to be factored in with other things such as the importance of a tight harness on a child to prevent the child from impacting a handle that has been left up. More information is needed on the exact effects of any additional energy transfer to the ATD as a result of handles impacting the vehicle interior before more specific recommendations, seat-specific recommendations or vehicle-specific recommendations can be made.
We recommend LATCH/UAS installations when the chosen seating position allows it - provided parent and/or Technicians are able to create a suitable installation of the restraint. From our observations, we believe it possible for there to be an increased benefit in utilizing LATCH/UAS over the vehicle seatbelt for infant-only restraints, based on the results showing that most tests measured higher head impact for infant dummies when secured with seatbelt compared to those secured by LATCH/UAS. However, we will continue to advise parents of the benefits of a centre seat install, even when LATCH use in the centre position is prohibited by either vehicle or restraint manufacturer, making a seatbelt install necesssary.
Future Forecast
Although our group did not have enough information to make specific observations about the use of rear-facing tethers, we urge Transport Canada, NHTSA, and restraint manufacturers to release in-vehicle crash test footage comparisons both with and without rear-facing tethers. Because the primary function of these crash tests was to collect data on adult occupant protection, the ability of Transport Canada to potentially alter the performance of the front vehicle seats with a rear-facing tether being added during testing may have been limited. Currently, Transport Canada’s only recommendation regarding rear-facing tethering (when allowed by the carseat manufacturer) is that it only be done to vehicle manufacturer approved tether anchorage points.
Additionally, we feel it would be beneficial to have additional information on the performance of "bracing" during in-vehicle testing. Bracing is where the top of a rear-facing child restraint is secured snugly to the vehicle seatback in front of it. Theoretically, this would limit downward rotation and the resulting child-vehicle contact during a crash. However, because the vehicle seat also moves forward at the same time as the child restraint, it is difficult to determine whether there is any true benefit to bracing. As with rear-facing tethers, more information is needed about this technique.
Technicians frequently advise parents to install restraints more upright as a child's physical development allows. In our observations of the released crash test footage, tests seemed to consistently be performed with restraints installed at or near 45 degrees. However, most Technicians would advise parents of a 12 month old to install the rear-facing restraint at an angle more upright than the maximum recline angle allowed by the manufacturer. Additional information is needed on the effects of a more upright install. Due to the ATD-vehicle contact during initial rotations, we would still recommend advising parents to install restraints as upright as suitable for their older child, to a maximum of 30 degrees, unless otherwise restricted by manufacturers.
Forward-facing restraints:
Utilizing: Hybrid-III 6yo ATD; Hybrid-III 10yo ATD
Observations
Harness failures were observed in numerous forward-facing restraints. In most of these cases, either the required minimum test speeds were exceeded or the maximum weight limits of the seats were exceeded. Some harness failures were the result of harnesses breaking through the restraint shell, whereas other failures were the result of slippage in the harness locking mechanism. Some of the latter may be addressed by a Consumer Advisory Notice. Some vehicle/restraint combinations seemed to perform poorly whereas the same seats tested at similar speeds in other vehicles performed without failure. Harness failures frequently resulted in the ATD striking the vehicle interior. According to Transport Canada, the “injury measures [of 7 out of 8 seats where harnesses failed] were within acceptable limits.”[6]
Recommendations
It is important to continue to advise parents according to Safe Kids/NHTSA and St. John Ambulance/Transport Canada curriculum and recommendations for forward-facing restraint use and is necessary to acknowledge that child restraints save lives. Even in the instances of gross failure of the restraints under real-world testing conditions that frequently exceeded the required minimum compliant standards, injuries to the ATDs were still minimal. More testing and data are needed in order to identify what factors may have contributed to the harness failures in the specific child restraints and/or vehicles in these crash tests. Although Technicians may want to be cautious about upper weight limits in certain circumstances (e.g. 2006 Honda Civic with the Britax Marathon—where we saw gross failures) there is currently no cause for alarm as a result of these tests. The forward-facing restraint failures illustrate the need for further in-vehicle crash testing and investigation.
These test results also warrant the recommendation that parents consider the distances between vehicle seating rows when installing forward-facing child restraints. When at all possible, forward-facing child restraints should be located in seating positions that maximize available space for frontal movement without striking the vehicle interior in the event of a crash.
It is advisable to continue recommending use of the top tether whenever possible. Although top tether use for forward-facing harnessed restraints is required by law in Canada, top tether use is not mandated in the United States. Technicians have historically recommended utilizing the top tether, when available, in the United States. The likelihood of a child striking the interior of the vehicle in a severe crash and the results of this crash test footage demonstrate the necessity of having all forward-facing harnessed restraints top tethered.
Belt Positioning Boosters:
Utilizing: Hybrid-III 6yo, 10yo, 5%
Observations
Test circumstances included a variety of booster types, such as: built-in, no-back, high-back and "LATCHed" vs. "non-LATCHed." Some of the test instances represented misuse by the occupant. Some tests resulted in the shoulder portion of the belt slipping off the ATD's chest and shoulder (upward to the neck, or downward to the body) or in lapbelts riding up on the ATDs during the crash. According to Transport Canada, “no-back booster seats attached to the vehicle with the lower anchors or UAS worked well in mild crashes, but increased the risk of the belt injuring the child's abdomen and under the arm in moderate to severe crashes, especially when the child is sitting in a slouched posture.”[7]
Recommendations
According to Transport Canada, the booster seats that provide the best protection in a crash are high-back boosters “with the shoulder belt guide located close to the shoulder,” identified as “Type 3.”[8] Type 3 booster seats are dedicated belt positioning booster seats. More information is needed on how specific boosters perform under different circumstances and in a larger variety of vehicles. In the meantime, we acknowledge that there may be some performance benefit to Type 3 booster seats and that such restraints may be preferable to alternatives. It would also be beneficial to obtain comparison data between the use of rigid lower anchor attachments (such as with Magna Clek products) and flexible lower anchor attachments (such as with the Sunshine Kids Monterey) to determine whether the additional loading on ATDs when using the lower anchors applies to both types of attachments before making any recommendations with regard to securing boosters with lower anchors.
Summary
We would like to extend our gratitude to Transport Canada for releasing such a comprehensive collection of in-vehicle crash test data to the public. The Canadian government has clearly taken a step toward acknowledging the importance of real-world crash test data and the more accurate representation of human occupant crashes as compared to the traditional sled tests. Although it is impossible to test every child restraint in every vehicle, we are better able to extrapolate real-world performance with a significant sampling of restraints and vehicles.
As much as these tests may bring up more questions than answers for us, it seems apparent that they do highlight the importance of real-world test data as compared to sled test data. Many of the observations made here would not have been possible based on sled test footage alone. The variables associated with vehicle crash performance are necessary in developing the greater picture of how child restraints are performing in real-world crashes.
It is our hope that the data collected will eventually contribute to updated recommendations for parents and caregivers in addition to improvements in child restraint and vehicle technologies to further increase protection for child occupants.
Authors and contributors:
Julie Abel-Gregory, CPST
Nicole Carlson, B.A., CPST, CRST-I
Fiona Dionne, CRST
Kecia Healy, CPST-I
Jennifer Matlock, CPST
Joy Miller, CPST
Trudy Slaght, CRST-I
Andrea Smith-Ruff, CPST
Thanh To, CRST-I
[1] Source: http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/roadsafety/safevehicles-mvstm_tsd-tm-2131_e-671.htm
[2] Source: http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/roadsafety/...rograms-regulations-research-research-887.htm
[3] Source: http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/roadsafety/safedrivers-childsafety-notices-2008p01-menu-268.htm
[4] Source: http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/roadsafety/safedrivers-childsafety-notices-2009c02-menu-844.htm
[5] Source: http://www.tc.gc.ca/roadsafety/safedrivers/childsafety/programs/testing/program.htm
[6] Source: http://www.tc.gc.ca/roadsafety/safedrivers/childsafety/programs/testing/harness/report.htm
[7] Source: http://www.tc.gc.ca/roadsafety/safedrivers/childsafety/programs/testing/booster/report.htm
[8] Source: http://www.tc.gc.ca/roadsafety/safedrivers/childsafety/programs/testing/booster/report.htm
http://www.couponsurfers.com/crashtests.html
Cut and paste version:
October 7, 2009
Introduction
On September 25, 2009, Transport Canada made the unprecedented step of publishing numerous crash test videos of child restraints performed under conditions as close to "real-world" as possible. It was an admirable attempt at public accountability. However, the move may produce more confusion than clarity in the public sector. In response to Transport Canada releasing this crash test footage, a group of Canadian Children's Restraint Systems Technicians and Instructors and American Child Passenger Safety Technicians and Instructors met online to analyze and discuss the crash test footage in an attempt to create and update recommendations for parents and other professionals based on the observations that were made by the group. The following document summarizes the observations and recommendations made by this group.
Methodology
This crash test footage and specific crash test methodology are available on Transport Canada's web site.[1][2] Standardized or compliance crash tests utilize sled-method simulations rather than real-world simulated in-vehicle testing. In-vehicle testing introduces additional variables to the crash test scenario, making it difficult to isolate any specific variable's impact on the overall results of the test. For the most part, these crash tests, which exceed the minimum compliant standards required by Transport Canada, represent ideal conditions, where child restraints are properly secured in late-model vehicles equipped with modern safety features.
Our group looked at similar performance among restraint types and orientation (rear-facing only, rear-facing convertible, forward-facing convertible and combination, and booster seats), specific restraints across vehicle models, and different restraint models in similar vehicles.
Rear-facing infant restraints
Utilizing: 12 month old Anthromorphic Test Dummy (ATD)
Observations
Numerous rear-facing infant seat tests resulted in partial or complete detachment of the infant restraints from their bases. As a result of these detachments, the ATDs came into contact with the vehicle interior. Some of these restraints have been recalled[3] or have Consumer Advisory Notices.[4] Numerous tests demonstrated significant rebound, frequently resulting in the ATD coming into contact with the vehicle interior upon rebound. Shoulder belt guide use may have increased the force with which one infant seat rebounded. In instances where infant seats were either installed in a third row or with limited clearance between the restraint and the vehicle seatback in front, rotation and distance resulted in ATDs striking the interior of the vehicle. Lowered handle positions (even with, or below, the top of the shell) may have limited the downward rotation when the handle came into contact with the vehicle interior. A raised handle position (fully upright) may have limited ATD contact with the vehicle interior on rebound. Increased shell height may be correlated with a decrease in ATD-vehicle contact upon initial downward rotation. LATCH/UAS installations may limit movement away from the seat bight, reduce downward rotation and limit rebound. A larger sample would be required to make a more firm observation with regard to LATCH/UAS versus seatbelt installations.
Recommendations
We strongly recommend advising parents not to exceed maximum height limits on infant-only child restraints; when a limited distance exists between the rear of the child restraint and the vehicle seat in front, even more conservative height limitations should be advised. We consistently observed ATD contact with vehicle interiors, primarily during instances of initial downward rotation. According to Transport Canada, this is “the way they are designed to work” and because they are coming into contact with a soft portion of the vehicle seat, "the risk of injury is low." [5] Most Child Passenger Safety Technicians and Children's Restraint Systems Technicians currently recommend that children continue to use their rear-facing child restraints until there is 1” of hard shell left above the child's head, unless weight limits are reached first. The 12 month ATD is, in most cases, at or near the maximum recommended height limit for the infant restraints tested, although it was observed that often at least 1” of hard shell existed above the ATD's head during testing. Despite clearly satisfying the 1” rule and being within the stated numerical maximum height limit of the tested child restraints, the ATDs frequently struck the vehicle interior during testing. It may be advantageous for parents to move children from infant-only restraints to rear-facing convertible seats even before the child meets the maximum stated height limits of the infant-only restraint, especially when limited front-back distance exists between vehicle seats.
ATD-vehicle contact during rebound may be limited by an anti-rebound device or a child restraint handle in an upright position. Additional ATD contact was observed upon rebound of infant-only restraints in a number of cases. Because the majority of crash forces have been transferred and absorbed prior to the rebound effect, the ATD contact with the vehicle interior upon rebound is less forceful than the initial strike when moving toward the front of the vehicle. As a result, we believe it to be of greater importance to address the factors associated with initial downward rotation than with the rebound effect. One observation that was made from the crash test footage is that ATD-vehicle contact during rebound may be limited by an anti-rebound device or a child restraint handle in an upright position; therefore, additional crash test footage and data would be beneficial to further assess the benefits of these methods.
A number of handle positions were tested. With the exception of one test that was performed with the handle in an unapproved position, all tests were done with the handles in positions approved by manufacturers. In many tests the position of the handle seemed to influence the performance of the seat, but benefit was seen in tests done with the handle in the upright position as well as in tests done with the handle down. Because benefit was observed in both positions, it is impossible to form a definite recommendation regarding whether one position may be preferable to another when the manufacturer gives parents the choice. Given that the maximum allowed rotation is regulated by standards, it may be preferable to leave the handle up when allowed by the manufacturer in order to reduce rebound. However, this recommendation needs to be factored in with other things such as the importance of a tight harness on a child to prevent the child from impacting a handle that has been left up. More information is needed on the exact effects of any additional energy transfer to the ATD as a result of handles impacting the vehicle interior before more specific recommendations, seat-specific recommendations or vehicle-specific recommendations can be made.
We recommend LATCH/UAS installations when the chosen seating position allows it - provided parent and/or Technicians are able to create a suitable installation of the restraint. From our observations, we believe it possible for there to be an increased benefit in utilizing LATCH/UAS over the vehicle seatbelt for infant-only restraints, based on the results showing that most tests measured higher head impact for infant dummies when secured with seatbelt compared to those secured by LATCH/UAS. However, we will continue to advise parents of the benefits of a centre seat install, even when LATCH use in the centre position is prohibited by either vehicle or restraint manufacturer, making a seatbelt install necesssary.
Future Forecast
Although our group did not have enough information to make specific observations about the use of rear-facing tethers, we urge Transport Canada, NHTSA, and restraint manufacturers to release in-vehicle crash test footage comparisons both with and without rear-facing tethers. Because the primary function of these crash tests was to collect data on adult occupant protection, the ability of Transport Canada to potentially alter the performance of the front vehicle seats with a rear-facing tether being added during testing may have been limited. Currently, Transport Canada’s only recommendation regarding rear-facing tethering (when allowed by the carseat manufacturer) is that it only be done to vehicle manufacturer approved tether anchorage points.
Additionally, we feel it would be beneficial to have additional information on the performance of "bracing" during in-vehicle testing. Bracing is where the top of a rear-facing child restraint is secured snugly to the vehicle seatback in front of it. Theoretically, this would limit downward rotation and the resulting child-vehicle contact during a crash. However, because the vehicle seat also moves forward at the same time as the child restraint, it is difficult to determine whether there is any true benefit to bracing. As with rear-facing tethers, more information is needed about this technique.
Technicians frequently advise parents to install restraints more upright as a child's physical development allows. In our observations of the released crash test footage, tests seemed to consistently be performed with restraints installed at or near 45 degrees. However, most Technicians would advise parents of a 12 month old to install the rear-facing restraint at an angle more upright than the maximum recline angle allowed by the manufacturer. Additional information is needed on the effects of a more upright install. Due to the ATD-vehicle contact during initial rotations, we would still recommend advising parents to install restraints as upright as suitable for their older child, to a maximum of 30 degrees, unless otherwise restricted by manufacturers.
Forward-facing restraints:
Utilizing: Hybrid-III 6yo ATD; Hybrid-III 10yo ATD
Observations
Harness failures were observed in numerous forward-facing restraints. In most of these cases, either the required minimum test speeds were exceeded or the maximum weight limits of the seats were exceeded. Some harness failures were the result of harnesses breaking through the restraint shell, whereas other failures were the result of slippage in the harness locking mechanism. Some of the latter may be addressed by a Consumer Advisory Notice. Some vehicle/restraint combinations seemed to perform poorly whereas the same seats tested at similar speeds in other vehicles performed without failure. Harness failures frequently resulted in the ATD striking the vehicle interior. According to Transport Canada, the “injury measures [of 7 out of 8 seats where harnesses failed] were within acceptable limits.”[6]
Recommendations
It is important to continue to advise parents according to Safe Kids/NHTSA and St. John Ambulance/Transport Canada curriculum and recommendations for forward-facing restraint use and is necessary to acknowledge that child restraints save lives. Even in the instances of gross failure of the restraints under real-world testing conditions that frequently exceeded the required minimum compliant standards, injuries to the ATDs were still minimal. More testing and data are needed in order to identify what factors may have contributed to the harness failures in the specific child restraints and/or vehicles in these crash tests. Although Technicians may want to be cautious about upper weight limits in certain circumstances (e.g. 2006 Honda Civic with the Britax Marathon—where we saw gross failures) there is currently no cause for alarm as a result of these tests. The forward-facing restraint failures illustrate the need for further in-vehicle crash testing and investigation.
These test results also warrant the recommendation that parents consider the distances between vehicle seating rows when installing forward-facing child restraints. When at all possible, forward-facing child restraints should be located in seating positions that maximize available space for frontal movement without striking the vehicle interior in the event of a crash.
It is advisable to continue recommending use of the top tether whenever possible. Although top tether use for forward-facing harnessed restraints is required by law in Canada, top tether use is not mandated in the United States. Technicians have historically recommended utilizing the top tether, when available, in the United States. The likelihood of a child striking the interior of the vehicle in a severe crash and the results of this crash test footage demonstrate the necessity of having all forward-facing harnessed restraints top tethered.
Belt Positioning Boosters:
Utilizing: Hybrid-III 6yo, 10yo, 5%
Observations
Test circumstances included a variety of booster types, such as: built-in, no-back, high-back and "LATCHed" vs. "non-LATCHed." Some of the test instances represented misuse by the occupant. Some tests resulted in the shoulder portion of the belt slipping off the ATD's chest and shoulder (upward to the neck, or downward to the body) or in lapbelts riding up on the ATDs during the crash. According to Transport Canada, “no-back booster seats attached to the vehicle with the lower anchors or UAS worked well in mild crashes, but increased the risk of the belt injuring the child's abdomen and under the arm in moderate to severe crashes, especially when the child is sitting in a slouched posture.”[7]
Recommendations
According to Transport Canada, the booster seats that provide the best protection in a crash are high-back boosters “with the shoulder belt guide located close to the shoulder,” identified as “Type 3.”[8] Type 3 booster seats are dedicated belt positioning booster seats. More information is needed on how specific boosters perform under different circumstances and in a larger variety of vehicles. In the meantime, we acknowledge that there may be some performance benefit to Type 3 booster seats and that such restraints may be preferable to alternatives. It would also be beneficial to obtain comparison data between the use of rigid lower anchor attachments (such as with Magna Clek products) and flexible lower anchor attachments (such as with the Sunshine Kids Monterey) to determine whether the additional loading on ATDs when using the lower anchors applies to both types of attachments before making any recommendations with regard to securing boosters with lower anchors.
Summary
We would like to extend our gratitude to Transport Canada for releasing such a comprehensive collection of in-vehicle crash test data to the public. The Canadian government has clearly taken a step toward acknowledging the importance of real-world crash test data and the more accurate representation of human occupant crashes as compared to the traditional sled tests. Although it is impossible to test every child restraint in every vehicle, we are better able to extrapolate real-world performance with a significant sampling of restraints and vehicles.
As much as these tests may bring up more questions than answers for us, it seems apparent that they do highlight the importance of real-world test data as compared to sled test data. Many of the observations made here would not have been possible based on sled test footage alone. The variables associated with vehicle crash performance are necessary in developing the greater picture of how child restraints are performing in real-world crashes.
It is our hope that the data collected will eventually contribute to updated recommendations for parents and caregivers in addition to improvements in child restraint and vehicle technologies to further increase protection for child occupants.
Authors and contributors:
Julie Abel-Gregory, CPST
Nicole Carlson, B.A., CPST, CRST-I
Fiona Dionne, CRST
Kecia Healy, CPST-I
Jennifer Matlock, CPST
Joy Miller, CPST
Trudy Slaght, CRST-I
Andrea Smith-Ruff, CPST
Thanh To, CRST-I
[1] Source: http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/roadsafety/safevehicles-mvstm_tsd-tm-2131_e-671.htm
[2] Source: http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/roadsafety/...rograms-regulations-research-research-887.htm
[3] Source: http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/roadsafety/safedrivers-childsafety-notices-2008p01-menu-268.htm
[4] Source: http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/roadsafety/safedrivers-childsafety-notices-2009c02-menu-844.htm
[5] Source: http://www.tc.gc.ca/roadsafety/safedrivers/childsafety/programs/testing/program.htm
[6] Source: http://www.tc.gc.ca/roadsafety/safedrivers/childsafety/programs/testing/harness/report.htm
[7] Source: http://www.tc.gc.ca/roadsafety/safedrivers/childsafety/programs/testing/booster/report.htm
[8] Source: http://www.tc.gc.ca/roadsafety/safedrivers/childsafety/programs/testing/booster/report.htm
Last edited by a moderator:
