Traveling Infants Still Woefully Unprotected

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo.--July 30, 2002-- Xportation Safety Concepts, Inc. (XSCi) voices concerns that infants are still being neglected under the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) proposed changes to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 213 (FMVSS-213). XSCi, which in the last seven years conducted over 100 crash-tests with state-of-the-art, heavily instrumented infant dummies, encourages a second look at safety standards for children less than twelve months old.

No doubt, the proposed new rules are a welcomed step towards protecting traveling children. Sadly, they leave a void when dealing with infants. Infants have unique needs and should not be lumped with older children. Over 100 infants are killed on U.S. roads every year and many of these deaths could be avoided with better rules that address the special needs of infants. In addition, studies through XSCi as well as others (including opinion in The Washington Times article "Who's Driving?" published February 7, 2002) show that the simplistic requirement that children ride in the back seat, especially rear-facing infants (harder for a driver to reach), cause driver distractions responsible for numerous fatal crashes.

XSCi commissioned numerous tests using Child Restraint Air Bag Interaction (CRABI) dummies in six- and twelve-month configurations. XSCi has also used less sophisticated nine-month TNO (Holland made) dummies. The differences between newborn to six-month old infants, and older infants from six to twelve months are very significant and simply cannot be ignored, especially when their needs are overlooked for convenience.

The differences between smaller and larger infants are not only attributed to the laws of physics, but also to the biomechanical make-up of infants and children. The physics suggest that the heavier, generally older, infants in a crash are subjected to higher levels of energy. However, the biomechanical developments allow the older body and muscles to better handle the increased load.

As many safety supporters, including NHTSA, generally ignore the special overall needs of infants, they are still uniquely required to ride rear facing in a car. This is a clear recognition that neck muscles require a number of months to develop well enough to allow children to ride forward facing. Since this issue is clearly recognized, why not address many of the other special needs?

On the positive end, young infants are in many ways more flexible and deal with crash energy better than older children and this must be considered when rules are established. On the negative side are issues relating to muscle development. In order to offer meaningful protection, it is important for our government to offer rules based on biomechanical parameters for infants less than one year old. Biomechanical testing parameters would provide additional protection based on the impact of crash energy on the infant body rather than only a cursory look at how the infant moves during a crash, such as presently required. Infants, as parents know intuitively and scientists recognize based on data, do require different care and protection than older, more developed children.

It is very important that in the two years between September 2002 when NHTSA plans to announce its proposed FMVSS-213 changes and the September 2004 effective date for the new standard, NHTSA incorporate separate rules for younger infants than are now planned.

XSCi is a Colorado-based organization that works closely in automotive safety for infants and children.