Recent research results from real crashes shows that a child under age 4 has a 43-percent lower risk of injury riding in a car seat in the center of the back seat than in a side position.
The problem of head restraints (HRs) interfering with CR installation seems to be growing because HR design improvements for non-CR passengers can actually be at odds with CR installation ease.
New babies do not have enough strength in their necks to hold their heads up to keep their airways open. Their heads tend to flop sideways or forward. Placing padding alongside the baby’s head can keep it from flopping sideways.
There is new, unequivocal, real-world evidence that children under age 2 are best protected riding in a rear-facing (RF) CR. Injuries to rear- and forward-facing children under age 2 were studied in crashes from 1998 to 2003.
On August 30, 2008, Joel and his mother were involved in a front car crash. Joel, at 18 mos & 33lbs, was in his front facing car seat and still...broke his neck. Go to JoelsJourney.Org for real life evidence of the benefits of staying rear-facing longer.
A recent report by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) rates the belt fit of many booster models. A booster should route the lap belt flat across a child’s upper thighs, position the shoulder belt at mid-shoulder, and consistently fit this way in a variety of vehicles. The IIHS has revised its evaluation system since its prior report from 2008.
Economist Steven Levitt and author Stephen Dubner teamed up to analyze and challenge a variety of economic beliefs and practices, including a cost-to-value comparison of add-on CRs versus seat belts. Their 2005 book, Freakonomics, raised many questions, and the pair even wrote a paper on their analysis (though it was never published in a peer-reviewed journal). Their new sequel, SuperFreakonomics, expands on the earlier theme with additional assertions that further challenge the value of CRs for children over age two.
A new analysis of Partners for CPS (PCPS) data reaffirms that boosters are an important step in providing protection to child passengers. The research input was more complete than previously published studies, and the results still prove that belt-positioning booster (BPB) use is more protective than seat belts alone. Children ages 4 to 8 using BPBs were 45 percent less likely to sustain injuries than those using just the vehicle seat belt.
Though the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not keep data on how often passengers are injured by loose items in vehicles, such as unsecured booster seats, these injuries do occur. Two such incidents made headlines in Wisconsin in the past couple years. While not fatally injured, both victims still suffer from lingering effects due to their injuries.
For the second period in a row, teen driver deaths in the U.S. have increased, after steadily declining in each of the previous eight years. This article summarizes the report by the Governor’s Highway Safety Association, outlines the optimum components of a graduated driver licensing law, and lists useful resources.
A study by The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) and State Farm insurance shows that teens who drive in states with primary seat belt law enforcement are more likely to buckle up than those in states with secondary enforcement.
While relatively few children are driven by teenage drivers, those young passengers are three times more likely to be injured than those driven by adults. Children riding with teens are often not correctly buckled up and more children under age 13 ride in the front seat.
A new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) shows that one in every four deaths in crashes of children under age 15 is related to alcohol use.
Safe Ride News Publications, P.O. Box 38, Edmonds, WA 98020-0038
Phone: 425-640-5710 / 800-403-1424 • Fax: 425-640-5417
All rights reserved, by copyright E-mail: Webmaster