News

This guest article continues SRN’s “Ask an Engineer” series with Dave Sander, CPST-I and engineer (formerly with Evenflo). This series gives an insider view of how CR engineers develop and design CRs, as well as new insights into CR functionality.

Load legs (aka stability legs, foot props) are not a new invention. They’ve been a common feature of CRs for many years in other parts of the world, especially Europe.  But in the U.S., load legs continue to be a bit of a novelty and are found only on a handful of (mostly high-end) RF-only CRs.  The feature employs an adjustable metal bar that extends vertically from the CR base to the floor of a vehicle to help manage crash force (see photo, left).

Read More from “Ask an Engineer: How Do Load Legs Improve CR Performance?”

The following guest article was inspired by an enlightening conversation between SRN editor Denise Donaldson and Dave Sander, CPST-I and engineer (formerly with Evenflo, but employed elsewhere at the time this article was written).

Have you ever given close attention to the webbing used for car seat harnesses, LATCH straps, or vehicle seat belts? If so, you may have noticed that some are wider or feel thicker, smoother, or rougher than others. You may have also noticed that some have stripes (actually called panels), and that those panels vary in appearance and number.

Read More from “Ask an Engineer: Are Differences Among Webbing Types Important?”

Published: SRN November/December, 2017. Updates will be posted here as they become available.

Update: August 31, 2018. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has revised their policy on child passenger safety.

As anticipated, the journal Injury Prevention in November published a new study by University of Virginia and other researchers titled “Rear-facing versus forward-facing child restraints: an updated assessment.”  This reexamination of field data was spurred by recent concerns about the accuracy of an earlier study by Henary, et al. (See SRN’s July/August and Sept/Oct 2017 issues.) That 2007 study strongly favored the safety benefits of riding rear facing (and supported subsequent policy updates by the AAP and NHTSA). The new study could not confirm the earlier study’s findings, nor did it result in new, statistically significant outcomes.
Read More from “Updated Study on RF vs. FF Effectiveness”

Articles in the last issue of SRN (July/August 2017) covered the major CPS news story that a key, real-life study on the benefits of riding rear facing up to age 2 had been discredited and the status of updated research that will potentially replace it.   Since the journal Injury Prevention issued an Expression of Concern about the 2007 Henary, et al, study—essentially voiding its validity—the CPS community has eagerly awaited a valid study that will replace it in order to guide future policy.

At press time, at least two studies have been completed to reanalyze this data. Neither, however, has completed the peer-review and publication process that is necessary before any scientific research can be relied upon.  Therefore, this is an ongoing and evolving situation; this article aims to summarize new developments since the last SRN issue went to press in late August.

Read More from “Car Seat Orientation and Safety”