Bing Julie A, Bolte John H, Agnew Amanda M
a Injury Biomechanics Research Center, Division of Anatomy, The Ohio State University , Columbus , Ohio.
Traffic Inj Prev. 2015;16 Suppl 2:S1-8. doi: 10.1080/15389588.2015.1061663.
Child restraint system (CRS) misuse is common and can have serious consequences to child safety. Physical incompatibilities between CRS and vehicles can complicate the installation process and may worsen CRS misuse rates. This study aims to identify the most common sources of incompatibility between representative groups of CRS and vehicles.
Detailed dimensional data were collected from 59 currently marketed CRS and 61 late model vehicles. Key dimensions were compared across all 3,599 theoretical CRS/vehicle combinations and the most common predicted incompatibilities were determined. A subset of 34 physical installations was analyzed to validate the results.
Only 58.2% of rear-facing (RF) CRS/vehicle combinations were predicted to have proper agreement between the vehicle's seat pan angle and the CRS manufacturers' required base angle. The width of the base of the CRS was predicted to fit snugly between the vehicle's seat pan bolsters in 63.3% of RF CRS/vehicle combinations and 62.2% of forward-facing (FF) CRS/vehicle combinations. FF CRS were predicted to be free of interaction with the vehicle's head restraint in 66.4% of combinations. Roughly 90.0% of RF CRS/vehicle combinations were predicted to have enough horizontal clearance space to set the front seat in the middle its fore/aft slider track. Compatibility rates were above 98% regarding the length of the CRS base compared to the length of the vehicle seat pan and the ability of the top tether to reach the tether anchor. Validation studies revealed that the predictions of RF CRS base angle range vs. seat pan angle compatibility were accurate within 6%, and head restraint interference and front row clearance incompatibilities may be more common than the dimensional analysis approach has predicted.
The results of this study indicate that RF CRS base angles and front row clearance space, as well as FF CRS head restraint interference, are frequent compatibility concerns. These results enable manufacturers, researchers, and consumers to focus their attention on the most relevant CRS/vehicle incompatibility issues in today's market.
儿童约束系统（CRS）使用不当的情况很常见，会对儿童安全造成严重后果。CRS与车辆之间的物理不兼容性会使安装过程变得复杂，并可能使CRS的误用率升高。本研究旨在确定CRS代表性组别与车辆之间最常见的不兼容来源。
收集了59种当前市场上销售的CRS和61款新型车辆的详细尺寸数据。对所有3599种理论上的CRS/车辆组合的关键尺寸进行了比较，并确定了最常见的预测不兼容性。对34个实际安装案例进行了分析，以验证结果。
预测只有58.2%的后向（RF）CRS/车辆组合在车辆座椅座面角度与CRS制造商要求的底座角度之间能有适当的匹配。在63.3%的RF CRS/车辆组合和62.2%的前向（FF）CRS/车辆组合中预测CRS底座的宽度能紧密贴合在车辆座椅座面的支撑之间。在66.4%的组合中预测FF CRS与车辆的头枕无相互作用。大约90.0%的RF CRS/车辆组合预计有足够的水平间隙空间将前排座椅设置在其前后滑动轨道的中间位置。与车辆座椅座面长度相比，CRS底座长度以及顶部系绳到达系绳固定点的能力方面的兼容性率高于98%。验证研究表明，RF CRS底座角度范围与座椅座面角度兼容性的预测准确率在6%以内，并且头枕干涉和前排间隙不兼容性可能比尺寸分析方法预测的更为常见。
本研究结果表明，RF CRS底座角度和前排间隙空间，以及FF CRS头枕干涉，是常见的兼容性问题。这些结果使制造商、研究人员和消费者能够将注意力集中在当今市场上最相关的CRS/车辆不兼容问题上。
