When a Picture is Worth More Than 10,000 Words…

SRN Website Invites You to a Gallery of the Oddities of the LATCH World

The newest feature on our website is the LATCH Gallery. It‘s like a rogue’s gallery, featuring the unusual, if not to say “weird,” LATCH anchors we’ve found in vehicles.

Denise and Katrina, SRN’s crack LATCH vehicle team, started the gallery by collecting photos of anchors they’ve seen while visiting auto shows and checking vehicles. Simply by taking a stroll through the gallery you will find it easier to recognize the possible variations, making trouble-shooting in the field easier for CPSTs.

I’m sure our intrepid LATCH investigators haven’t seen every odd anchor out there. If you have found an unusual configuration hiding in a vehicle, please inform all of us by contributing photos to the gallery.

You’ll find a submission form on our LATCH Gallery page.

Deborah

An accident “waiting to happen”

... did happen, just as I was writing an editorial on school bus safety improvements for the December issue of Safe Ride News. A fatal crash occurred in Texas that illustrates many of the benefits and conundrums of school bus standards and occupant restraints. The outcome was no "accident."

The facts (from KTXS News)

Scene: November 4, 2011, south of Abilene, Texas

Crash: single-vehicle end-over-end rollover; vehicle traveling65 mph in 70 mph zone

Vehicle: 24-passenger bus (not a school bus), 16 occupants

Restraints: seat belts were available for all, but only the driver was using a belt

Injuries: 1 death (Anabel Reid), 15 injuries including 4 critical; twelve occupants were ejected when fiberglass roof tore off

Lessons to learn:

• Use of school buses for student transport is required only for young people of high-school age or below. College and university students can be transported in any type of bus, no questions asked.
• School bus-body strength standards (FMVSS 220 and 221) would not allow a flimsy fiberglass roof that could tear off in a crash, as happened here.
• State law in Texas does not require occupants in buses to wear available seat belts.

The message that seat belts are “not needed” in large school buses has been well learned. It very likely influenced these students to ignore the available belts, despite the fact that they were riding in a very different type of bus. This type of bus does not have the built-in protections of a school bus body (even one without seat belts). How ironic it is that the belts that could have prevented many/most/all of the ejections/injuries/deaths were present but left unused.

So now do we have to teach college students and others the differences between ordinary buses and school buses, so they will know to buckle up if they are NOT in a school bus? Better, I say, to get ALL buses up to the body strength of school buses as well as seat belts on buses of all types.

Deborah Davis Stewart

P.S. For a photo of the roof torn off the bus, see KTXS News, ACU Bus Crash: Driver Was Only One Wearing Seat Belt - Abilene News Story - KTXS Abilene

Bravo, California!!!

Cudos to the dedicated and persistent CPS Advocates and like-minded legislators who finally achieved an important change in the California CPS law.

After five years of effort, a bill was signed today (10/4/11) by Governor Jerry Brown raising the CR requirement from 6 and 60 pounds to 8 years.

It has an exemption for kids who are medically unfit (including over 4'9"). It includes a "correct belt fit" requirement for kids, so older kids may come under the requirement, depending on fit in their vehicle (5-step test).

California, which had been among the first states to pass a “booster law,” had seen two vetoes (by Gov. Schwartzenegger) of earlier attempts. The fight has been long but worthwhile, since we all know that a well publicized change like this can influence many caregivers’ behavior.

This reminds me that we all need to keep in mind that CPS education is only one part of a comprehensive effort to protect children’s lives:

Education

Legislation/Enforcement

Engineering/Standards

True CPS advocacy involves awareness of and support for all these aspects.

Fighting for years for improving legislation is one of the toughest struggles. Our California colleagues and Governor Brown deserve our thanks!

Deborah

The details of the revised law are at:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0901-0950/sb_929_bill_209_bill_20111004_chaptered.pdf


Crossed off the to-do list!—DS

With weeks full of graduations, birthdays, a newsletter to get out, and trip planning, you would think we had a full enough plate. However, Denise and I were pleased to add to the list, the opportunity to send suggestions to the CPS Board for the major revision of the curriculum.

We worked overtime with Cheryl Kim of Safety Belt Safe USA to review the current curriculum and provide our feedback. Our focus centered on all the places where LATCH is discussed, including a suggested reorganization of Chapter 6, additional material on tethers for rear facing car seats to Chapter 9, new FAQs on LATCH for the Appendix.

Our editorial in the issue of SRN that’s at the printer right now (May/June) deals with the continuing concern about tether anchor weights that we have expressed to the board.

It will be a huge task and we greatly appreciate the work that we know lies ahead for all the board members!

Deborah

Lighter Than Air

What a relief!  I’ve just finished the updated version of the Hooked on LATCH presentation CD. This package of four PowerPoint shows for CPST refreshers and update classes was originally the brainchild of Mary Anderson and me, after we had finished the 2009 LATCH Manual.  Translating key messages from the LM seemed like a great idea.  But after the long struggle of giving birth to it, I promptly forgot the pain.

So, once the 2011 manual was finished, I nonchalantly said “no problem” to the idea of “just” updating our original work.  I was excited to have a chance to make this tool even more useful and to incorporate all the changes in the LATCH world that fascinate me.

I thought of Mary every step of the way.  Reviewing, reorganizing, and adding new slides for four interrelated presentations plus rewriting presenter notes was like going through the four stages of labor all over again.  Now, four months later, it is finally ready to burn to disk and send out to all of you who have been waiting patiently.

So this afternoon I feel like I’m walking a few feet off the ground!  I’m ready to forget the pain once again and move on—out to the garden on this lovely spring day.

Deborah

P.S. And I really will be up in the air tomorrow.  Next stop, a CPS research conference in Detroit on Friday.

Phew–-more time to respond to NHTSA on compatibility

This morning I heard from Sandy Sinclair at NHTSA that we will have an additional month to respond to the request for comments mentioned in my blog from last week (see below).  So we will have until April 26th to get our thoughts in on the Vehicle-CRS Fit Program.

Deborah

In the thick of it -- Again!

There's never a dull moment around here. 

Although I'm out of the conference loop right now -- and sad to miss seeing a lot of friends at Lifesavers -- I'm working on a response to NHTSA's latest program plan.  This project, the Vehicle-CRS Fit Program, is an attempt to improve compatibility for installation of CRs in vehicles.  If you are interested in how the agency proposes to have vehicle manufacturers evaluate CRs to find ones that are compatible with their models, take a look at http://www.regulations.gov:

     Docket NHTSA–2010–00062 

     Consumer Information Program for Child Restraint Systems

The response time allowed was only a month, so comments are due by March 28, right in the midst of the Lifesavers Conference.  That means I'm scrambling to fully understand the document right now ... and I urge interested folks to take the time to comment. 

The proposal is particularly interesting for the description of the findings of the pilot evaluation.  The various problems that cropped up all sound very familiar, such as head restraints interfering with tether anchorage and lower anchors raised so high above the seat bight that LATCH straps cannot be tightened completely.  The evaluation forms proposed are based on these observations and will rely also on the explicit instructions on installation in the vehicle and CR guides.

The general plan, which will be entirely voluntary for vehicle manufacturers, would have them list a minimum of three current CR models of each type (RF, FF, BPB) that will fit well in various vehicle models, starting with the 2012 model year.  CRs within three price ranges must be listed and three CR manufacturers should be represented within each type of CR covered.  However, I wonder whether new, small manufacturers will easily be able break into such a system, which could have effects on the diversity of the market.

I can see a lot of value in using the evaluation form in planning new designs for both CRs and vehicles. It could serve as an expanded update of the Society of Automotive Engineers "J1819" voluntary agreement for seat belt configurations that improved CR-seat belt compatibility in the 1990s.

For vehicle models during the next few years, however, I can imagine that the limitation to three or more CR models per type could limit listings too much.  It would mean that, if only one CR will fit, the vehicle could not be listed and consumers would not have any guidance.  In addition, if no CR is found that fits in a vehicle, it would not be listed—but the vehicle manufacturer would not have to try all the possibilities and there would be no way of knowing whether it had or not. 

I also personally disagree with the assumption that the default tether anchor weight limit should be set at 40 pounds for vehicles whose manuals that do not list a weight. In such cases, the compatibility of the tether and tether anchor for high-weight harness CRs would not be incorporated into the evaluation.

There will be much more in our response to the agency.  For now, please consider taking a look at the plan yourself and letting the agency know what YOU think.

Deborah Davis Stewart