RESUMO
This study examined the performance of a booster seat in different seating configurations in side-impact hyGe sled tests (crash severity 30 km/h) with two attachment systems: a standard seatbelt and ISOfix (rigid). The objectives of the study were twofold: (i) to identify the relative benefits of ISOfix attachment compared with seatbelt attachment of a near-side booster seat in a 3-abreast seating configuration with adjacent occupants in child restraints (CRS); and (ii) to examine the effects of 3-abreast seating configurations compared with no adjacent passengers on booster seat crash protection characteristics. Overall, the findings confirmed the superior performance of the rigid anchorages in reducing lateral motion of the booster as well as the two adjacent CRS. However, the expected benefits of the rigid attachment in reducing head accelerations were not uniformly observed across the three occupants/seating positions and also appeared to be influenced by seating configuration (3-abreast versus no adjacent occupant). Further research is warranted to explore the applicability of the findings for different CRS types and seating configurations.
Assuntos
Acidentes de Trânsito , Condução de Veículo , Automóveis , Proteção da Criança , Equipamentos para Lactente/normas , Segurança/normas , Cintos de Segurança/normas , Fenômenos Biomecânicos , Criança , Pré-Escolar , Humanos , Lactente , Recém-Nascido , Projetos Piloto , Fatores de RiscoRESUMO
This study examined the performance of three rear-facing and two forward-facing child restraints (CRS) with three anchorage systems: standard seatbelt, LATCH (flexible) and ISOFIX (rigid). Frontal (64 km/h) and side impact (15 km/h) HyGe sled tests were conducted using a sedan buck. Overall, the preliminary findings suggested superior performance of rigid over seatbelt and flexible anchorages, particularly in side impacts. The results also suggest a need for design improvement for CRS with flexible anchorages to increase stability in side impacts. The findings have important implications for the proposed introduction of changes to Australian Standards for CRS to permit both flexible and rigid systems to coexist with conventional seatbelt anchorage systems.