Bilston Lynne E, Sagar Nipun
Prince of Wales Medical Research Institute, University of New South Wales, Barker St, Randwick, Sydney NSW 2031, Australia.
Stapp Car Crash J. 2007 Oct;51:275-98. doi: 10.4271/2007-22-0012.
The objective of this study was to evaluate the geometry of a wide range of restraints (child restraints, booster seats and rear seats) used by children, and how these match their anthropometry, and to determine limitations to restraint size for the population of children using them. The study is motivated by the widespread premature graduation from one restraint type to another, which parents often attribute to children outgrowing their previous restraint. Currently, recommended transitions are based on a small sample of vehicles and children. Outboard rear seat and seat belt geometry (anchorage locations, sash belt angles) from 50 current model vehicles were measured using a custom-developed measuring jig. For 17 child restraints, a 3-dimensional measuring arm was used to measure the geometry of the restraint including interior size and strap slot locations (where relevant). These measurements were compared to anthropometric measurements, to determine the suitability of a given restraint for children of particular ages. The results for the rear seat geometry indicate that all seat cushions were too deep for a child whose upper leg length is at the 50th percentile until approximately 11.5 years, and half of vehicle seat cushions were too deep for a 15 year old child whose upper leg length is at the 50th percentile. Sash belt geometry was more variable, with approximately a third of vehicles accommodating 6-8 year olds who approximate the shoulder geometry measurements at the 50th percentile. Dedicated child restraints accommodated most children within recommended age groups, with two exceptions. Several high back booster seats were not tall enough for a child whose seated height is at the 50th percentile for 8 year olds (who is still too short for an adult belt according to current guidelines and the results from the rear seat geometry study), and a small number of forward facing restraints and high back boosters were too narrow for children at the upper end of the recommended age ranges. Analysis of the results from this study indicates that alterations in restraint geometry, particularly shortening the seat cushion, allowing for adjustable upper sash belt anchorages in the rear seat of vehicles, and increasing the height of high back booster seats would substantially improve the fit of restraints for child occupants. This data confirms findings from a recent study that looked only at rear seat cushion depths and provides new data on seat belt and child restraint geometry for child occupants.
本研究的目的是评估儿童使用的各种约束装置（儿童约束系统、增高座椅和后排座椅）的几何形状，以及这些装置如何与儿童人体测量数据相匹配，并确定使用这些装置的儿童群体在约束装置尺寸方面的限制。该研究的动机是普遍存在的过早从一种约束类型过渡到另一种约束类型的情况，家长们通常将其归因于孩子长大了，不再适合之前的约束装置。目前，推荐的过渡是基于少量车辆和儿童样本。使用定制开发的测量夹具测量了50款当前车型的外侧后排座椅和安全带几何形状（固定位置、肩带角度）。对于17种儿童约束系统，使用三维测量臂测量了约束装置的几何形状，包括内部尺寸和安全带插槽位置（如适用）。将这些测量结果与人体测量数据进行比较，以确定特定约束装置对特定年龄儿童的适用性。后排座椅几何形状的结果表明，对于大腿上部长度处于第50百分位的儿童，直到大约11.5岁时，所有座垫都太深；对于大腿上部长度处于第50百分位的15岁儿童，一半车辆的座垫太深。肩带几何形状的变化更大，大约三分之一的车辆适合6至8岁、肩部几何测量处于第50百分位的儿童。专用儿童约束系统在推荐年龄组内适合大多数儿童，但有两个例外。对于8岁、坐姿高度处于第50百分位的儿童（根据当前指南和后排座椅几何形状研究结果，该儿童使用成人安全带仍太矮），几款高靠背增高座椅不够高；对于推荐年龄范围上限的儿童，少数前向约束装置和高靠背增高座椅太窄。对本研究结果的分析表明，改变约束装置的几何形状，特别是缩短座垫、在车辆后排座椅上设置可调节的肩带上部固定点以及增加高靠背增高座椅的高度，将大大提高约束装置对儿童乘员的适配性。这些数据证实了最近一项仅关注后排座垫深度的研究结果，并提供了关于儿童乘员安全带和儿童约束装置几何形状的新数据。
