Search Results

Interest in rear-seat occupant safety has increased in recent years. Information relevant to rear-seat occupant interior space and kinematics are needed to evaluate injury risks in real-world accidents. This study was conducted to first assess the effect of size and restraint conditions, including belt misuse, on second-row occupant kinematics and to then document key clearance measurements for an Anthropomorphic Test Device (ATD) seated in the second row in modern vehicles from model years 2015-2020. Twenty-two tests were performed with non-instrumented ATDs; three with a 5th percentile female Hybrid III, 10 tests with a 10-year-old Hybrid III, and 9 tests with a 6-year-old Hybrid III. Test conditions included two sled bucks (mid-size car and sport utility vehicle (SUV)), two test speeds (56 and 64 km/h), and various restraint configurations (properly restrained and improperly restrained configurations). Head and knee trajectories were assessed.

Objective: Sled test video and data were independently analyzed to assess the validity of statements and conclusions reported in Bidez et al. SAE paper 2005-01-1708 [7]. Method: An independent review and analysis of the test data and video was conducted for 9 sled tests at 35 km/h (21.5 mph). The 5th female Hybrid III was lap-shoulder belted in the 2nd or 3rd row seat of a SUV buck. For one series, the angle was varied from 0, 15, 30, 45 and 60 deg PDOF. The second series involved shoulder belt pretensioning and other belt modifications. Results: Bidez et al. [7] claimed “The lap belts moved up and over the pelvis of the small female dummy for all impact angles tested.” We found that there was no submarining in any of the tests with the production lap-shoulder belts. Bidez et al. [7] claimed “H3-5F dummies began to roll out of their shoulder belt at… 30 degrees. Complete loss of torso support was seen at 45 degrees without significant kinetic energy dissipation.”

During the past decade, there has been a steady increase in studies addressing rollover crashes and injuries. Though rollovers are not the most frequent crash type, they are significant with respect to serious injury and interest in rollovers has grown with the introduction of SUVs, vans, and light trucks. A review of Occupant and Vehicle Responses in Rollovers examines relevant conditions for field roll overs, vehicle responses, and occupant kinetics in the vehicle. This book edited by Dr. David C. Viano and Dr. Chantal S. Parenteau includes 62 technical documents covering 15 years of rollover crash safety, including field crash statistics, pre- and rollover dynamics, test procedures and dummy responses.

In this study, U.S. accident data was analyzed to determine interior contacts and injuries for front-seated occupants in rollovers. The injury distribution for belted and unbelted, non-ejected drivers and right front passengers (RFP) was assessed for single-event accidents where the leading side of the vehicle rollover was either on the driver or passenger door. Drivers in a roll-left and RFP in roll-right rollovers were defined as near-side occupants, while drivers in roll-right and RFP in roll-left rollovers were defined as far-side occupants. Serious injuries (AIS 3+) were most common to the head and thorax for both the near and far-side occupants. However, serious spinal injuries were more frequent for the far-side occupants, where the source was most often coded as roof, windshield and interior.