Using child age or weight in selecting type of in-vehicle restraint: implications for promotion and design.

Robert W G Anderson, T Paul Hutchinson, Sally A Edwards
{"title":"Using child age or weight in selecting type of in-vehicle restraint: implications for promotion and design.","authors":"Robert W G Anderson,&nbsp;T Paul Hutchinson,&nbsp;Sally A Edwards","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A survey of motor vehicle child restraint use found around 28% of children under the age of six using weight-inappropriate restraints. Many parents did not know when a child was likely to outgrow a booster seat nor the weight of their child, but they did know the child's age. Anthropometric data show that, if advice on restraint transition, given solely in terms of age (6 months, 4 years, 8 years) were followed in Australia, incorrect restraint selection would occur in 5% of children under the age of six. Further analysis suggests how rewriting the Standard could reduce this number. We present an argument for placing age-based transitions at the heart of the strategy to improve child restraint compliance. This may be superior to one based on the child's weight or other anthropometric measurement. Our argument may be summarized as follows: 1 Age-based rules for selecting child restraints are simple, require less information to be retained, and might be more natural criteria for parents. They might have a greater chance of being adopted as norms, and of encouraging good peer cues. Anthropometric rules, on the other hand, assume that parents know the current dimensions of their children and have the tools at their disposal to measure these dimensions. 2 The consequences of age-based promotion for the proportion of children in a restraint suitable for their weight can be estimated for alternative regulatory frameworks. We will report such Calculations below and show that this rate can potentially be very high. The rate would be even higher if child restraint design standards were drafted with age-based transitions in mind. Age-based transitions imply restraint specifications (weight and height limits) that can be determined from anthropometric survey data. 3 Such standards would necessarily imply overlapping anthropometric ranges for the different types of restraint. However, we emphasize that these overlaps would exist to facilitate age-based transitions, not to feature in publicity advising on the correct selection of child restraints. Under such a regime, promotion is driven by what information is readily usable by parents, and ceases being consequential to the standards-setting process. In support of this argument we shall report a survey of restraint use among parents of pre-school and school aged children, and an analysis of the weights (or other dimensions) of children that provides a technique for estimating how well age-based transition could work. The remainder of this paper is divided into sections covering the survey and the anthropometric study. These are synthesized in a discussion of their implications for restraint promotions and standards setting.</p>","PeriodicalId":80490,"journal":{"name":"Annual proceedings. Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine","volume":"51 ","pages":"181-95"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2007-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3217500/pdf/aam51_p181.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annual proceedings. Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A survey of motor vehicle child restraint use found around 28% of children under the age of six using weight-inappropriate restraints. Many parents did not know when a child was likely to outgrow a booster seat nor the weight of their child, but they did know the child's age. Anthropometric data show that, if advice on restraint transition, given solely in terms of age (6 months, 4 years, 8 years) were followed in Australia, incorrect restraint selection would occur in 5% of children under the age of six. Further analysis suggests how rewriting the Standard could reduce this number. We present an argument for placing age-based transitions at the heart of the strategy to improve child restraint compliance. This may be superior to one based on the child's weight or other anthropometric measurement. Our argument may be summarized as follows: 1 Age-based rules for selecting child restraints are simple, require less information to be retained, and might be more natural criteria for parents. They might have a greater chance of being adopted as norms, and of encouraging good peer cues. Anthropometric rules, on the other hand, assume that parents know the current dimensions of their children and have the tools at their disposal to measure these dimensions. 2 The consequences of age-based promotion for the proportion of children in a restraint suitable for their weight can be estimated for alternative regulatory frameworks. We will report such Calculations below and show that this rate can potentially be very high. The rate would be even higher if child restraint design standards were drafted with age-based transitions in mind. Age-based transitions imply restraint specifications (weight and height limits) that can be determined from anthropometric survey data. 3 Such standards would necessarily imply overlapping anthropometric ranges for the different types of restraint. However, we emphasize that these overlaps would exist to facilitate age-based transitions, not to feature in publicity advising on the correct selection of child restraints. Under such a regime, promotion is driven by what information is readily usable by parents, and ceases being consequential to the standards-setting process. In support of this argument we shall report a survey of restraint use among parents of pre-school and school aged children, and an analysis of the weights (or other dimensions) of children that provides a technique for estimating how well age-based transition could work. The remainder of this paper is divided into sections covering the survey and the anthropometric study. These are synthesized in a discussion of their implications for restraint promotions and standards setting.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
使用儿童年龄或体重选择车内约束类型:对推广和设计的影响。
一项关于机动车儿童约束装置使用情况的调查发现,约28%的6岁以下儿童使用了与体重不相称的约束装置。许多家长不知道孩子什么时候可能不再需要增高座椅,也不知道孩子的体重,但他们确实知道孩子的年龄。人体测量数据显示,如果在澳大利亚仅根据年龄(6个月、4岁、8岁)给出约束过渡建议,那么5%的6岁以下儿童会出现不正确的约束选择。进一步的分析表明,如何重写标准可以减少这个数字。我们提出了将基于年龄的转变置于提高儿童约束依从性战略的核心的论点。这可能优于基于儿童体重或其他人体测量的方法。我们的论点可以总结如下:1基于年龄的选择儿童约束装置的规则很简单,需要保留的信息较少,对父母来说可能是更自然的标准。它们可能更有可能被采纳为规范,并鼓励良好的同伴线索。另一方面,人体测量学规则假设父母知道他们孩子的当前尺寸,并拥有测量这些尺寸的工具。2基于年龄的促进对儿童在适合其体重的约束中所占比例的影响可以根据其他监管框架进行估计。我们将在下面报告这样的计算,并表明这个比率可能非常高。如果在起草儿童约束设计标准时考虑到基于年龄的过渡,这一比例甚至会更高。基于年龄的转变意味着约束规范(体重和身高限制),可以从人体测量调查数据确定。这样的标准必然意味着不同类型约束的人体测量范围存在重叠。然而,我们强调,这些重叠的存在是为了促进基于年龄的过渡,而不是在宣传中建议正确选择儿童约束装置。在这样的制度下,促进是由哪些信息容易被父母使用,而不再是标准制定过程的结果。为了支持这一观点,我们将报告一项关于学龄前儿童和学龄儿童的父母使用约束的调查,以及一项对儿童体重(或其他维度)的分析,该分析提供了一种评估基于年龄的过渡如何有效的技术。本文的其余部分分为涵盖调查和人体测量学研究的部分。这些在讨论它们对约束、晋升和标准制定的影响时加以综合。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Other high-risk factors for young drivers - how graduated licensing does, doesn't or could address them. Characteristics on fractures of tibia and fibula in car impacts to pedestrians and bicyclists - influences of car bumper height and shape. The impacts of functional performance, behaviour and traffic exposure on road-crossing judgements of young children. The association between age, injury, and survival to hospital among a cohort of injured motorcyclists. Are child passengers bringing up the rear? Evidence for differential improvements in injury risk between drivers and their child passengers.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1