In 1995, new seat specifications were adopted by GM to provide high retention and improve occupant safety in rear crashes. With more than five years of phase-in of high retention (HR) seats, an analysis of FARS was undertaken to determine the initial field performance of HR seats in preventing fatalities. The 1991-2000 FARS was sorted for fatal rear-impacted vehicles. Using a VIN decoder, GM vehicles with HR front seats were sorted from those with baseline (pre-HR) seats. The fatal rear-impacted vehicle crashes were subdivided into several groups for analysis: 1) single-vehicle rear impacts, 2) two-vehicle rear crashes involving light striking vehicles, and 3) two-vehicle crashes involving heavy trucks and tractor-trailers, and multi-vehicle (3+) rear crashes. While more field data is needed to increase confidence in the results, FARS analysis shows that high-retention seats reduce the risk of driver fatalities in single-vehicle rear crashes by 50% (-26%, 80%, ′95% Cl) and driver/RF deaths by 59% (11%, 81%). For two-vehicle rear-impact crashes, high-retention seats reduce the risk of driver death by 54% (-23%, 83%) and driver/RF deaths by 35% (-38%, 70%) when impacted by light vehicles. There is no difference in risk with heavy truck or tractor-trailer impacts or in multi-vehicle (3+ vehicles involved) crashes. The new generation of seats was developed for high retention based on a perimeter seat frame design that allows the occupant to penetrate between the side frames of the seatback giving a "yielding" performance and pocketing of the pelvis. This increases retention and provides uniform support for the spine. The new generation of seats also includes a higher and more forward placement of the head restraint to reduce neck extension-related injury. That aspect of the seat performance cannot be studied with the FARS data. The initial trends show that high-retention seats are effective in reducing the risk of fatal injury in single vehicle and light vehicle-to-vehicle rear impacts.
[1]
Derwyn M. Severy,et al.
Vehicle design for passenger protection from high-speed rear-end collisions
,
1968
.
[2]
David C. Viano,et al.
Response of the Head, Neck and Torso to Pendulum Impacts on the Back
,
2001
.
[3]
Astrid Linder,et al.
Evaluation of the BioRID P3 and the Hybrid III in Pendulum Impacts to the Back: A Comparison with Human Subject Test Data
,
2000,
Annual proceedings. Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine.
[4]
D. Viano,et al.
Neck Displacements of Volunteers, BioRID P3 and Hybrid III in Rear Impacts: Implications to Whiplash Assessment by a Neck Displacement Criterion (NDC)
,
2002
.
[5]
Michael B. James,et al.
Occupant protection in rear-end collisions, II: the role of seat back deformation in injury reduction
,
1991
.
[6]
Priya Prasad,et al.
Relationships between passenger car seat back strength and occupant injury severity in rear end collisions: field and laboratory studies
,
1997
.
[7]
Michael B. James,et al.
Evaluation of Seat Back Strength and Seat Belt Effectiveness in Rear End Impacts
,
1987
.
[8]
David C. Viano,et al.
Role of the Seat in Rear Crash Safety
,
2002
.
[9]
J. H. Mathewson,et al.
Controlled automobile rearend collisions, an investigation of related engineering and medical phenomena.
,
1955,
Canadian services medical journal.
[10]
David C. Viano,et al.
High retention seat performance in quasistatic seat tests
,
2003
.
[11]
D. Viano,et al.
The effectiveness of active head restraint in preventing whiplash.
,
2001,
The Journal of trauma.
[12]
Derwyn M. Severy,et al.
BACKREST AND HEAD RESTRAINT DESIGN FOR REAR-END COLLISION PROTECTION
,
1968
.
[13]
Derwyn M. Severy,et al.
Collision Performance, LM Safety Car
,
1967
.