Infants head injuries from hitting the vechile seat back??

ADS

Pixels

New member
Well, I know that at least one statement is patently false, which leads me to not trust anything else in that article. "Infant seats performed significantly better, if they were secured by universal anchorage systems, known in the U.S. as LATCH (Lower Anchors and Tethers for Children), because there was less excursion." Unless we're talking about ramping up, head excursion does not exist for RFing seats. Ramping up would not be influenced by lower anchors vs seatbelt install. When TC did all those tests, they found that in some cases, with FFing seats, LATCH allowed less excursion. They also found that in some cases, seatbelt allowed less excursion. In most cases, the difference was not significant.

That article is also completely ignoring side impact crashes, which are the reason for the center seat recommendation.
 

menfusse

New member
They are all rigid barrier sled tests too, which translates to a much different scenario in real life in terms of forces and speeds. Crashing 30mph into a solid barrier is different than being in a 30 mph collision with another car.

I think where they are coming up with head excursion #'s is when the seat cocoons into the back seat? Which you would expect in that kind of collision no matter what, right?
 

Pixels

New member
A 30 mph rigid barrier test is the same as two identical vehicles, both moving 30mph, head on. It is the crash test standard for car seats.

Vehicles are tested at 35 mph, rigid barrier.
 

menfusse

New member
A 30 mph rigid barrier test is the same as two identical vehicles, both moving 30mph, head on. It is the crash test standard for car seats.

Vehicles are tested at 35 mph, rigid barrier.

I thought I read that it was different, on here if I'm not mistaken. Because of breaking, human reaction, and movement after the crash, that the rigid barrier tests don't translate the same when it comes to car seat #'s in them vs car seat #'s in a real crash? Maybe I was reading about something else. Sorry about that.
 

SafeDad

CPSDarren - Admin
Staff member
I'm seeing some conflicts between the test findings and the conclusions.

There were four areas of impact: direct head contact with the rear seat back in front of the dummy; contact between the child restraint and the forward seat back; dummy head contact with the carry handle; and child seat with the center console between the front seats.

In three years of testing, Transport Canada confirmed their earlier findings. In several cases they saw the back of the infant seat slamming into the back of the front seat backs or the infant dummies ramping up their seat back, allowing the head to contact the back of the front seat backs, again, resulting in high HICs. In some instances, the carry handle interacted with the front seat back and broke off hitting the infant dummy in the head. The center position also revealed vulnerabilities – the back of infant seat and dummy head would hit the center console between the front two seats.

All these sound like issues with over rotation, possibly made worse if the seat is not braced. The other issue seems to be direct contact with the head, that could happen regardless of bracing the seat as the dummies ramp up the seat back.

Their main conclusion is about energy absorbing padding in the infant seat. I'm not seeing how such padding is going to help at all when the issue is the direct dummy head contact from ramping and striking part of the vehicle interior, like a vehicle seat back, center console, pillar, etc. It should help for the back of the dummy head, though. Besides, I'm not sure if they've looked at current infant seats, but many of them do have energy absorbing foam around the head.

Anyway, I do agree with one thing, something I have been saying for some time. Head excursion is critical and likely to be more important in terms of serious injury than other measures. As for rear-facing seats, we really need standards updated not only for the testing they describe with a front seat back, but also to allow for things like foot props that would help resolve the rotation-related injury.

I'm not sure how their advice on LATCH is likely to help. They didn't describe the dynamic at all. In fact, a European routed shoulder belt that goes behind the back of a rear-facing seat could actually be a benefit for the injury mechanism they discuss. Of course, rear-facing seats that allow this type of routing are not very common in the USA.
 

Pixels

New member
I'm seeing some conflicts between the test findings and the conclusions.





All these sound like issues with over rotation, possibly made worse if the seat is not braced. The other issue seems to be direct contact with the head, that could happen regardless of bracing the seat as the dummies ramp up the seat back.

Their main conclusion is about energy absorbing padding in the infant seat. I'm not seeing how such padding is going to help at all when the issue is the direct dummy head contact from ramping and striking part of the vehicle interior, like a vehicle seat back, center console, pillar, etc. It should help for the back of the dummy head, though. Besides, I'm not sure if they've looked at current infant seats, but many of them do have energy absorbing foam around the head.

Anyway, I do agree with one thing, something I have been saying for some time. Head excursion is critical and likely to be more important in terms of serious injury than other measures. As for rear-facing seats, we really need standards updated not only for the testing they describe with a front seat back, but also to allow for things like foot props that would help resolve the rotation-related injury.

I'm not sure how their advice on LATCH is likely to help. They didn't describe the dynamic at all. In fact, a European routed shoulder belt that goes behind the back of a rear-facing seat could actually be a benefit for the injury mechanism they discuss. Of course, rear-facing seats that allow this type of routing are not very common in the USA.

I believe they were talking about padded front seat backs.
 

SafeDad

CPSDarren - Admin
Staff member
I thought I read that it was different, on here if I'm not mistaken. Because of breaking, human reaction, and movement after the crash, that the rigid barrier tests don't translate the same when it comes to car seat #'s in them vs car seat #'s in a real crash? Maybe I was reading about something else. Sorry about that.

I think you may be referring to a different issue. Different "pulses" are used to do sled testing in a laboratory. One type simulates the federal standard 213 to make sure child restraints meet a minimum requirement based on a generic 30mph crash.

Other types pulses may be more severe. For example, you sometimes hear about an "NCAP" pulse. This is a more energetic crash test that simulates what a carseat might experience in a 35mph frontal crash, like the crash they use for the vehicle crash tests you see at www.safercar.gov. Of course, the pulse will be more or less severe depending on the vehicle, as some vehicles absorb more crash energy than others. Sometimes you might hear someone refer to the "Toyota Echo" pulse, as that is apparently one of the most severe NCAP tests in terms of forces applied to the occupants or child restraints.

This might help, too:

http://carseatblog.com/1456/respond...e-article-car-seat-tests-reveal-flaws-part-i/

http://carseatblog.com/1468/combi-crash-tests-a-better-way/
 

SafeDad

CPSDarren - Admin
Staff member
I believe they were talking about padded front seat backs.

They mentioned that, too, but the conclusion paragraph was about the foam in the infant seat. I suppose the combination of better padded front seat backs and head restraints together with energy absorbing foam behind the head (in those few models that lack it) would cover most scenarios, with the exception of perhaps a direct head impact to the B-pillar.

I know some child seat manufacturers have lamented the lack of a standard/test that permits a front seat structure for at least a decade. That very issue is one reason behind the changes we've seen moving toward a 1" rule in rear-facing convertibles, when there were more models in the past that allowed the top of the head or even the top of the ears to be even with the top of the shell when rear-facing.

Rear-facing is very safe inherently, but there are factors that can lead to serious injury, especially when misuse is present.
 

Car-Seat.Org Facebook Group

Forum statistics

Threads
219,656
Messages
2,196,898
Members
13,530
Latest member
onehitko860

You must read your carseat and vehicle owner’s manual and understand any relevant state laws. These are the rules you must follow to restrain your children safely. All opinions at Car-Seat.Org are those of the individual author for informational purposes only, and do not necessarily reflect any policy or position of Carseat Media LLC. Car-Seat.Org makes no representations as to accuracy, completeness, currentness, suitability, or validity of any information on this site and will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or delays in this information or any losses, injuries, or damages arising from its display or use. All information is provided on an as-is basis. If you are unsure about information provided to you, please visit a local certified technician. Before posting or using our website you must read and agree to our TERMS.

Graco is a Proud Sponsor of Car-Seat.Org! Britax is a Proud Sponsor of Car-Seat.Org! Nuna Baby is a Proud Sponsor of Car-Seat.Org!

Please  Support Car-Seat.Org  with your purchases of infant, convertible, combination and boosters seats from our premier sponsors above.
Shop travel systems, strollers and baby gear from Britax, Chicco, Clek, Combi, Evenflo, First Years, Graco, Maxi-Cosi, Nuna, Safety 1st, Diono & more! ©2001-2022 Carseat Media LLC

Top