Comparison of child and ATD belt fit and posture on belt-positioning boosters during self-selected, holding device, and nominal conditions.

OBJECTIVE: Pediatric anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs) are important tools for the assessment of child occupant protection and should represent realistic child belt fit and posture on belt-positioning boosters. Previous comparisons have been made to children in either self-selected or nominal postural conditions. This study compares belt fit and postural measurements between pediatric ATDs and a single cohort of children assuming different postures on boosters: self-selected, holding a portable electronic device, and nominal. METHODS: A cohort of children (n = 25) were evaluated in a stationary vehicle on five boosters and in three postural conditions: nominal, self-selected, and a representative holding electronic device position. The Hybrid III 6- and 10-year-old and Q-Series 6- and 10-year-old ATDs were evaluated in the same five boosters and in two postural conditions: nominal and a representative holding electronic device position. A 3D coordinate measurement device was used to quantify belt fit (shoulder belt score, lap belt score, maximum gap size, and gap length) and anatomic landmark positions (head, suprasternale, ASIS, and patella). Landmark positions and belt fit were compared between ATDs and children for each booster and postural condition, and Pearson correlations (r) were assessed across boosters. RESULTS: ATDs generally represented Nominal child postures across boosters. In the Device condition, ATDs were seldom able to be positioned to represent both the torso and head position of children, due to limited ATD spinal flexibility. When the torso position was matched, the ATD head was more rear by 63 mm. Correlations between Nominal child and ATD belt fit and belt gap metrics were generally weak and not significant, with the exception of lap belt score (all ATDs p < 0.07, r = 0.8549-0.9857). DISCUSSION: ATDs were generally able to represent realistic child postures and lap belt fit in Nominal and short duration Self-selected postures in a laboratory setting. However, these results display the potential difficulty of utilizing ATDs to represent more naturalistic child postures, especially the more forward head positions and flexed spinal posture associated with utilizing a portable electronic device.

Characterizing neck and spinal response in booster seated reclined children in frontal impacts.

OBJECTIVE: Belt-positioning booster seats (BPB) and pre-pretensioner (PPT) belts may be effective in preventing injuries from submarining and head excursion in reclined children. It is unknown if injuries at the neck and spine could still occur. This study's goal is to characterize neck and spine responses in reclined children with and without the BPB and the PPT. METHODS: Eleven frontal impact sled tests were performed (56 kph) with the Large Omnidirectional Child (LODC) dummy on a production vehicle seat. A 3-point simulated seat-integrated-belt was used with a load-limiter (∼4.5 kN). Testing was conducted with and without the BPB with the seatback at ∼25°, ∼45° and repeated once. One test was conducted at ∼60° with the BPB. 100 mm of belt-slack was removed to simulate PPT in two 45° BPB tests and the BPB 60° test. The LODC peak thoracic spine accelerations and angular rotations, and peak neck and lumbar force/moment loads were compared between conditions. RESULTS: Neck shear forces were the highest in the 60° BPB & PPT (-1.9 kN) and 45° noBPB (-1.3 kN) than all other BPB conditions (-0.5 to -0.8 kN). The highest peak neck moments were found in the 45° noBPB (-40.5 N-m), and in the 60° BPB & PPT (-34.2 N-m) conditions compared to all others (-20.8 to -27.9 N-m.). The 60° BPB and PPT condition demonstrated thoracic forward rotation similar to the 25° noBPB condition (25° noBPB -24.8 to -35.0 deg, 60° BPB&PPT -27.5 to -43.2 deg.). Thoracic spine peak resultant accelerations (T1, T6, T12) were higher in the 25° and 45° noBPB conditions (53 g to 71 g) and in the 60° BPB & PPT (T6: 61.8 g) compared to all other BPB conditions (48.4 g to 53.1 g). The lumbar peak shear forces and moments were the highest in the 45° noBPB (4.9 kN, -296 N-m) and the 60° BPB & PPT condition (1.7 kN, -146 N-m). CONCLUSION: These findings show similarities in neck, spine, and lumbar responses between the 60° reclined condition with BPB and PPT and the 25° and 45° conditions without the same countermeasures. This study highlights the need for future restraint developments to protect moderate and severe reclined BPB-seated child occupants.

A naturalistic study of passenger seating position, posture, and restraint use in second-row seats.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the current study was to increase scientific understanding of rear-seat passenger seating position, postures, CRS use, and belt use through a naturalistic study. A secondary objective was to compare data from vehicles used in ride-hailing with data from other vehicles. METHOD: Video cameras were installed in the passenger cabins of the vehicles of 75 drivers near the center of the windshield. The video data were downloaded after the vehicles were operated by their owners for two weeks. Video frames were sampled from near the ends and in the middle of each trip, and at five-minute intervals in trips longer than 15 min. A total of 7,323 frames with second-row passengers were manually coded. RESULTS: A total of 444 unique second-row passengers were identified in video frames from 1,188 trips taken in 65 of the 75 vehicles in the study. Two of the vehicles that were driven for commercial ride-hailing during the study period accounted for 199 (45%) of the passengers. Considering multiple passengers in some trips, a total of 1,899 passenger-trips were identified. For passengers not using child restraint systems (CRS), the belt use rate was 65% in the non-ride-hailing vehicles versus 32% among passengers in the ride-hailing vehicles. No CRS use was observed in the ride-hailing vehicles. Among children using backless boosters, the shoulder belt was lateral to the clavicle or under the arm in 26% of frames. Among belted passengers not using CRS, the belt was lateral to the clavicle or on the neck about 6% of the time. Belted passengers not using CRS were observed leaning to the left or right about 27% of the time, with leaning away from the shoulder belt more common than leaning into the belt. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to report seating position, posture, and belt fit observations for a large naturalistic sample of second-row passengers that includes adult occupants. The data suggest that low rear seat belt use rates remain a concern, particularly in ride-hailing vehicles. Non-nominal belt placement and posture may also be common in second-row seating positions.