Something happened two years ago that the professionals of child safety in Spain cannot leave us indifferent. There are no excuses, the information is very present, you no longer have to look it up on page 20 of Google. Furthermore, knowing what we know, it is difficult not to fall into impotence before those who do not want to listen.
Our work as professionals is that of containment to avoid that someone may feel attacked by the excessive zeal with which we feel the risk and the infinite pain with which we can solidarity in the distance.
Pain and rage. I have doubted if 'they', the 'technocrats' capable of measuring life in “Newtons”, “G's” or “Bars” cheated the solitaire while, those of us who measured it by innocent looks and unconditional love, trusted the robe white with academic title that was behind a man speaking in German on his dolls. Didn't it give you an added credibility? In the end, it turns out that perhaps the tests should be done with the José Luis Moreno dolls because, perhaps, they would transmit certain feelings of sympathy and tenderness more effective than the lost gaze of a Q3 (anthropomorphic mannequin equivalent to a 3-year-old boy).
I am one of those who believes in the good faith of people and words until the facts indicate otherwise. After Mr. Antonio Lucas's invitation to collaborate with Cristina Barroso and Laboratorio de Mamá in the comments from the next post, I really believed that on behalf of RACE , was positioning itself in the defense of the smallest, that is, in a type of child restraint systems in the opposite direction to the march until 4 years without conditions. I really believed it, innocent of me.
But in little more than four months they publish the report of shame again with all the artillery, with several national media supporting it. They are still in their thirteen. These 
Reports tell me that the best chair for my 9kg and 9month daughter is a Kiddy Phoenixfix 3 in favor of the march with a precious "cushion" on the belly with the risk of bursting the organs of the abdominal part, in addition to the risk of breaking his neck. Of course, the colors, precious, a phosphor green that is the envy of the community of neighbors, especially at night.
Today we have to bile, because there are too many cases and in each of them, someone legitimized the system. Sometimes from ignorance, sometimes from a lack of critical spirit and sometimes from a lack of scruples.
Gentlemen of the ADAC:
We know that companies are due to their owners and not to the community, they are not NGOs. For this reason, some of them will not hesitate to go to the legal limits in order to offer commercially attractive products. And yes, one thing usually comes into contradiction with the other, whether it is a question of cost / price, aesthetics or comfort.
We also know that legislation is a mandatory minimum at European level, but parents, in this, want to get as close as possible to the maximum protection. Passing is not enough for us.
We also know that security is explained in a very simple way: Absence (or reduction) of risk. For this, the answer can never be a brand or an SRI model, but must go through an optimal strategy in an uncertain scenario, but with known probabilities. So that, To reduce risks, we must know three things:
- What are the most frequent and damaging scenarios of an impact?
- What magnitude of forces act in these scenarios?
- How can we distribute the load of these forces causing the least possible damage?
Nobody today (coherently) disputes that frontal impact answers the first question, without a doubt, due to the very nature of a vehicle's movement (forward), which is an essential element in an accident. Two stopped cars do not usually collide with each other.
The magnitude of forces, yes, is more variable, since we must consider very variable decelerations and masses, although we can speak of impacts at 50km / h of 30g's without problem (factor by which we multiply our mass and calculate the force that we generate). A 10-month-old baby is generating more than 300kg that we must compensate with an equivalent force in the opposite direction so that he does not hit the vehicle or get thrown.
Finally, the ability of the human body to absorb this energy with the least possible damage. Obviously, we adults channel it to the most resistant parts through which the 3-point seat belt is installed. The airbag can help us not to eat the wheel, since the head is not retained by the belt But a baby? A baby cannot stand it, it is more vulnerable and its injuries will always be greater. Is this acceptable? Not
Of course, given this approach, a child restraint system oriented in the opposite direction to the march, is the one that offers less risk of injury to any occupant. If the occupant is especially vulnerable due to their immature development of their physical capacity (babies and children), This is the ONLY way that most parents could accept the risk of taking the car with our children. Other risks of irreversible or fatal injury at legal city speeds should not be allowed in a prescriptive safety test.
Gentlemen of the ADAC, Do you really think that most parents, with all the information available on the risks they are taking in the event of an accident, would choose your winning systems? The tools you use are not perfect, we know and tolerate it, as long as its limitations are explained. Perhaps then, the results would be different. It is not the case. We have been talking for several days about chairs that are shot out and others that are breaking that have allowed the main media to fill headlines. Too bad chairs with a high risk of injury in low-speed impacts continue to win tests. Will we continue to consider family dramas of minors who have used this system as "bad luck"? Surely we couldn't have done a little more to avoid it?
Today is not a day to talk about sensors, pressures or loads, it is a day to talk about lives. Of dozens of lives that can be saved thanks to the force of the Green Wave that through emotion and information, tries to look us in the eye to tell us to look beyond a simple ranking. With a great deal of common sense, let's listen to all the parts, look at our children and decide.
David Millà
