snowbird25ca
Moderator - CPST Instructor
It's been awhile since I've looked through the Transport Canada research testing and today I was looking through the ff'ing info.
There is very specific discussion regarding lower anchor forces and whether they failed at different speeds and different weight dummies.
Some of the tests were done with the 10yr old dummy - 77lbs, in a regent. Out of 10 tests - some of which included no top tether in order to see if the lower anchors on their own could withstand the forces, there was 1 failure. That 1 failure happened in a vehicle where the seat was installed in a center position using borrowed anchors where borrowing wasn't allowed and also was influenced by the top tether slipping in to the split in the seat and leading to a sudden side shift during the test.
I've done a ton of research in the last few months on the amount of force that lower anchors are required to take and compared to things like the amount of release force that a seatbelt buckle is required to take. (To help give perspective on what the force means that lower anchors are required to withstand, lower anchors are tested to over 2/3 the force that a seatbelt buckle is required to withstand without releasing. If we are to believe that lower anchors can fail starting at 65lbs, then that means that seatbelts can fail starting with an adult who weighs 100lbs - we know that seatbelts don't fail regularly even with occupants over 200lbs - so how can we believe lower anchors are able to withstand so much less weight despite the force they're tested to?)
There is in vehicle research testing with high weight dummies at relatively high speeds that show an absence of failure. I'm not in the US and not in a position to push for the facts that NHTSA is apparently using to try and justify the 2014 rule. But I'd really really encourage those of you in the US to push for the facts and challenge these rules instead of just accepting them and passing out the new limits.
There are also some comments on this page about the difference between seatbelt and UAS install (which is the Canadian term for lower anchors,) and the amount of distance the seat came forward in a crash. This is a specific concern that was part of NHTSA's financial assessment prior to deciding to implement LATCH in the US.
There were reasons beyond ease of use for the implementation of LATCH, and the ridiculous limitations that this ruling is imposing could make kids less safe or result in kids being prematurely boostered. I care about what is happening down in the US on this because it has created a spillover of concern and questions in Canada and based on everything I've dug up, there is no evidence or data to support the move. (I've read FMVSS, I've contacted car seat manufacturers, and I've also contacted crash test facilities.)
So I guess this is me saying to all the techs and advocates out there - you are the voice that needs to be heard. I've seen so much focus on disseminating the changes and only a limited amount of questioning the data - if enough people challenge NHTSA, and push Safety Belt Safe to also challenge NHTSA, maybe there will be pressure put on the auto manufacturers - maybe the whole issue will be dropped, or a more reasonable limit put on things. This ruling isn't about increasing the safety of kids, it's bureaucracy. And when bureaucracy has the potential to decrease safety, advocates and techs need to question and challenge it. You are the voices for the kids and your fellow techs and advocates.
For everyone's reading, here is the link to the summary on the ff'ing tests. http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/roadsafety/safedrivers-childsafety-programs-testing-harness-report-923.htm
Picking on the Radian because it's one of the heaviest seats - it was only tested with the 6yr old, but that dummy is 51lbs. It was also tested at 56km/hr in many tests (higher than standards require and higher than what most collisions are,) and there were zero tether and lower anchor failures. (This was also pre-superlatch, and in the case of the Nissan Murano, the lower anchors on it would've been tested to the previous lower anchor standard which required the lower anchors to be tested to a lower force than what they've had to meet since 2005. So this case is significant overall in that regard that there was no failure even when the anchor minimum strength was lower.)
I still have hope that techs and advocates can create enough questions that the whole 2014 rule might be stopped in regards to lower anchor limits - or that the weight might be revised. Give me a total weight of 105lbs and I could support that as more reasonable. It would also mean that the majority of seats would be able to be used with UAS as long as the child fit the seat. Just because the vehicle manufacturers have more power when it comes to lobbying doesn't mean that they should get final say when it's the government who ultimately makes the rules that they have to meet.
Thanks for reading if you've gotten through this. I feel strongly about this because things like this often eventually spill in to Canada. I'm prepared to fight it and get a strong group together up here should similar legislation eventually show up here, but it would sure be easier for everyone if the initial legislation gets revised in the US first. :thumbsup:
There is very specific discussion regarding lower anchor forces and whether they failed at different speeds and different weight dummies.
Some of the tests were done with the 10yr old dummy - 77lbs, in a regent. Out of 10 tests - some of which included no top tether in order to see if the lower anchors on their own could withstand the forces, there was 1 failure. That 1 failure happened in a vehicle where the seat was installed in a center position using borrowed anchors where borrowing wasn't allowed and also was influenced by the top tether slipping in to the split in the seat and leading to a sudden side shift during the test.
I've done a ton of research in the last few months on the amount of force that lower anchors are required to take and compared to things like the amount of release force that a seatbelt buckle is required to take. (To help give perspective on what the force means that lower anchors are required to withstand, lower anchors are tested to over 2/3 the force that a seatbelt buckle is required to withstand without releasing. If we are to believe that lower anchors can fail starting at 65lbs, then that means that seatbelts can fail starting with an adult who weighs 100lbs - we know that seatbelts don't fail regularly even with occupants over 200lbs - so how can we believe lower anchors are able to withstand so much less weight despite the force they're tested to?)
There is in vehicle research testing with high weight dummies at relatively high speeds that show an absence of failure. I'm not in the US and not in a position to push for the facts that NHTSA is apparently using to try and justify the 2014 rule. But I'd really really encourage those of you in the US to push for the facts and challenge these rules instead of just accepting them and passing out the new limits.
There are also some comments on this page about the difference between seatbelt and UAS install (which is the Canadian term for lower anchors,) and the amount of distance the seat came forward in a crash. This is a specific concern that was part of NHTSA's financial assessment prior to deciding to implement LATCH in the US.
There were reasons beyond ease of use for the implementation of LATCH, and the ridiculous limitations that this ruling is imposing could make kids less safe or result in kids being prematurely boostered. I care about what is happening down in the US on this because it has created a spillover of concern and questions in Canada and based on everything I've dug up, there is no evidence or data to support the move. (I've read FMVSS, I've contacted car seat manufacturers, and I've also contacted crash test facilities.)
So I guess this is me saying to all the techs and advocates out there - you are the voice that needs to be heard. I've seen so much focus on disseminating the changes and only a limited amount of questioning the data - if enough people challenge NHTSA, and push Safety Belt Safe to also challenge NHTSA, maybe there will be pressure put on the auto manufacturers - maybe the whole issue will be dropped, or a more reasonable limit put on things. This ruling isn't about increasing the safety of kids, it's bureaucracy. And when bureaucracy has the potential to decrease safety, advocates and techs need to question and challenge it. You are the voices for the kids and your fellow techs and advocates.
For everyone's reading, here is the link to the summary on the ff'ing tests. http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/roadsafety/safedrivers-childsafety-programs-testing-harness-report-923.htm
Picking on the Radian because it's one of the heaviest seats - it was only tested with the 6yr old, but that dummy is 51lbs. It was also tested at 56km/hr in many tests (higher than standards require and higher than what most collisions are,) and there were zero tether and lower anchor failures. (This was also pre-superlatch, and in the case of the Nissan Murano, the lower anchors on it would've been tested to the previous lower anchor standard which required the lower anchors to be tested to a lower force than what they've had to meet since 2005. So this case is significant overall in that regard that there was no failure even when the anchor minimum strength was lower.)
I still have hope that techs and advocates can create enough questions that the whole 2014 rule might be stopped in regards to lower anchor limits - or that the weight might be revised. Give me a total weight of 105lbs and I could support that as more reasonable. It would also mean that the majority of seats would be able to be used with UAS as long as the child fit the seat. Just because the vehicle manufacturers have more power when it comes to lobbying doesn't mean that they should get final say when it's the government who ultimately makes the rules that they have to meet.
Thanks for reading if you've gotten through this. I feel strongly about this because things like this often eventually spill in to Canada. I'm prepared to fight it and get a strong group together up here should similar legislation eventually show up here, but it would sure be easier for everyone if the initial legislation gets revised in the US first. :thumbsup: