This study aimed to investigate the utility of the responses of the two child dummies (P1.5 and P3) that are placed in the rear seat, in identical forward facing child restraints during frontal Australian New Car Assessment Program (ANCAP) tests. Dynamic responses of the two child dummies, vehicle crash parameters, and frontal dummy responses were extracted from the ANCAP report database for 35 frontal crash tests. Linear regression analysis was used to assess: the similarity between the two dummies’ responses; variation between frontal dummy responses; and relationships between the child dummy responses and other measured crash parameters. Dynamic responses from the P1.5 and P3 dummies were highly correlated with each other, including head accelerations, neck forces, and chest accelerations (p 0.05 for all). Unlike the two front-seated occupants, where the dummies provide different information about the vehicle’s safety performance, the two rear-seated child dummies in child restraints are providing essentially duplicate information. Head excursion of the dummies is not measured in the current ANCAP test protocol, and this may be a more sensitive and meaningful assessment of child restraint occupant serious head injury risk. Only 35 vehicles were included in the analysis, and data on some variables (including neck moments, and harness and top tether payout during testing) were not recorded in all tests. These results suggest that using two child dummies in forward-facing child restraints is not providing significantly more information than could be gleaned from a single child dummy in a child restraint. This suggests that one of these child dummies could be usefully replaced with an alternative dummy representing an older rear seat occupant, without loss of information on a vehicle’s ability to protect child-restraint users. Possibilities for such a replacement occupant include a 10 year old child dummy using the lap-sash seatbelt (as is being trialed in Japan NCAP tests), a booster-seated 6 year old dummy, or a small female occupant. Any of these options would provide additional information on vehicle safety performance than is currently being reported in most NCAPs.
[1]
Lynne E Bilston,et al.
Geometry of rear seats and child restraints compared to child anthropometry.
,
2007,
Stapp car crash journal.
[2]
David Paine,et al.
Revised assessment protocols and scoring methods for the Australian child restraint evaluation program
,
2007
.
[3]
Yasuhiro Matsui,et al.
Effectiveness of Seat Belt for Rear Seat Occupants in Frontal Crashes
,
2007
.
[4]
Kennerly Digges,et al.
Trend of Rear Occupant Protection in Frontal Crashes over Model Years of Vehicles
,
2009
.
[5]
Suzanne Tylko,et al.
Protection of Rear Seat Occupants in Frontal Crashes
,
2005
.
[6]
Jason Forman,et al.
Rear Seat Occupant Protection in Frontal Crashes and Its Feasibility
,
2007
.
[7]
Matthew P. Reed,et al.
Comparison of Child Body Dimensions with Rear Seat Geometry
,
2006
.
[8]
Shashi Kuppa,et al.
Rear seat occupant protection in frontal crashes
,
2005
.
[9]
Julie Brown,et al.
Development of occupant protection systems: leaving the rear seat behind
,
2009
.
[10]
Julie Brown,et al.
A matched-cohort analysis of belted front and rear seat occupants in newer and older model vehicles shows that gains in front occupant safety have outpaced gains for rear seat occupants.
,
2010,
Accident; analysis and prevention.
[11]
H. George Johannessen,et al.
Rear Seat Occupant Protection
,
1981
.
[12]
Richard M. Morgan,et al.
A Study of the Rear Seat Occupant Safety using a 10-Year-Old Child Dummy in the New Car Assessment Program
,
2008
.