Every day in commercial establishments, we meet the great demand generated by the famous safety tests. These Tests assess and rate "The best SRI (Child Restraint Systems) on the market".
It's logical to think:
"How good! A serious test, carried out by engineers at the ADAC facilities (Germany) and disclosed / endorsed by the main European Automobile Clubs (among others, RACE and RACC) and consumer protection means (Stiftung Warentest, OCU)! impossible for you to be wrong! I pass what they try to sell me in the store! What will they know! ”
This 'supposed' legitimacy towards the famous tests greatly influences the decision to buy something as technical and sensitive as the SRI. A prescriptive and commercial power that is too 'sweet'.
In Spain we can see in the newspapers how, every day, between political power and private commercial interests there is a line that is too fine, which is called ethics and which correctly maintains the balance. Does this line exist in the Eurotest? Will they have succumbed to this 'temptation'? "No, the Germans are stricter, surely not. The handling of Volkswagen cars was only an exception ” Insurance? We are not talking about contamination, we are talking about the safety of our children! Power demands responsibility.
Those of you who have come to Baby Experience or Born To BE !, you already know the answer. The rest, yes
you are followers of child retention (highly recommended reading), you will also know it by its clear posts that talk about it. There are also great professionals, our colleagues, who for some time pedagogically defended the importance of children traveling in reverse gear as long as possible.
For those who have doubts, I will try to make a brief summary about the existence of conflict of interest of RACE, OCU and the brands that make SRI before making safe chairs, chairs that seem safe or chairs that score well on tests.
- Legitimacy
ADAC (provides facilities and qualified personnel) and The manufacturers, they have sufficient and sufficient knowledge to have this legitimacy that we grant them. Allow me the simile: they have "the Force". I also gave it to him at the time as a father and as a professional in the sector.
- Conflict of interests
The disseminators, the Stiftund Warentest and the equivalents in each European country (RACE, RACC and OCU in Spain) they are private companies, with their private clients, they are not public bodies. The services of one and the credibility of others are at stake in each study. Maybe his first intention was good, I don't know, but What if it shows that the criteria they have used to measure the safety of SRIs across this time, do not correspond to reality and that the 'winning' chairs are very insecure? Even very dangerous (we'll talk about it, about the “safety cushions”)! Why are the ones that get the worst grades lately, the ones that are defending (the ones that go the longest in the opposite direction of the march)?
To be more specific:
Gentlemen of the RACE,
They are telling me and recommended that you use chairs in the opposite direction to the march, "at least until 2 years old" because "A chair in reverse reduces the risk of serious injury by up to 75%" since April 2014 (almost two years!) and the notes of all the chairs that meet this requirement (Group 1-2) tend to be, at best, "Unsatisfactory". Something doesn't add up. What you say does not correlate with what you score. Conversely, chairs that are knownly dangerous with the safety "cushion" system (which we will talk about another day), are winners!
Is the interest of the ranking to find the best chair? Is the best chair the safest? Assuming yes, Why are your tests / rankings not correlated on your categorical reports?
Perhaps the tests / rankings are poorly done, intentionally or not. But recognizing it would be a scandal, because thousands of users who have trusted them would feel disappointed. Users or clients? This is the problem. Without wanting to think about manipulation, the simple conflict of interest highlights the speech inconsistency.
- And the brands, what role do they play?
There is no doubt that like any 'company', it should satisfy the customer by making good products and giving good services. But What are good products at SRIs? Parents hope they are the safest, but Do parents "on foot" criteria to assess it? In general, they know that they are not normally SRI specialist engineers, so it is clear that they do not, that they have this deficiency. Companies are due to sales and who detects this "need" is the department. marketing and not engineering.
When a parent wants to buy an SRI, they will do so based on these criteria:
- Those that only comply with the Law of minimums and that we put to avoid the fine and get fired in the event of an accident, that is, the most economic.
- The ones someone I trust recommend me (friend, family member, etc.) based on criteria such as: "the brand is good", "I have been told that it is safe", "the child is doing very well there".
- The winners of the rankings.
Unfortunately, it is difficult to find, in these three criteria chairs that are technically the safest, those that go in the opposite direction to the march as long as possible (4-5 years). So here we have the answer: 'If I am a trademark, what do I do? Chairs for sale or safe chairs?' I leave it for everyone to get their opinion.
- Ethics and responsibilities
Clearly, the balance between power, business interests, and ethics is as laudable as it is lacking.
The grave in this case, is that we are talking about the safety of our children. Few things excite us and our guts 'twist' so much. That someone plays with it is not 
nice.
Brands manufacture to sell and this keeps them alive as companies. If what you sell is what the tests say, well here we go! If we have to make "cushions", because they are cheap to produce and get good marks in the ranking, let's do them! Although there is evidence that causes unsustainable abdominal pressure for babies / children, an unnatural movement of the cervicals in children and a frontal impact ejection when the car is lifted from behind. Well nothing, we must continue to maintain the business. Welcome to the dark side of the force.
And of course, the one who continues to legitimize with his notes and his power of disclosure, what will he say? What are you realizing that your rankings are poorly done because your "dummie" doesn't measure abdominal pressure? Why don't you take ejection into a frontal impact because your impact train is anchored on a rail?
How will this end? Well, if nobody says anything. The approval regulations change is already underway and, possibly at the end of the year, the “cushion” chairs will no longer pass new approvals. We assume that after the summer, all the brands that have always defended the cushion, will start to approve harnesses. Some of them have already started to put "the beards to soak" and have taken 'their most successful group 0-1 cushion', with harnesses.
Time to time and that "the criteria be with you"
Thank you for making this deception visible. I was very happy to read a clarifying and courageous article :). THANK YOU.
Gentlemen responsible for this misleading advertising by way of rankings… they are playing with the lives of children with impunity for money. Gentlemen, behind each sale there is a child who will be sitting in that chair. There is no more argument than this.
And please, even if it is the most damaging, we do not stop at the "cushions", which are true impact screens ... but rather that any child restraint system that immobilizes the torso and allows the head to tilt uncontrollably, is potentially harmful in In the event of an accident or sudden stop of the vehicle, that is, there is ONLY a retention system designed for the children to travel against the march, until it is physically impossible to do so and they can already be at least 4 years old (but the later the better) expose yourself to a properly guided seat belt. With headgear, they are also at risk of cervical injury.