Most Head Restraints Fail To Stop Neck Injury

Anthony Fontanelle
July 6, 2007

Of 87 models evaluated, 21 received the highest rating, according to results released Tuesday by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). Fifty-four vehicles, or 62 percent, flunked the test, which gauges how well the head and neck restraints prevent whiplash when the vehicle is hit from behind.

The Institute evaluated current vehicle models based on the geometric measurements of the head restraints and their performance in a crash simulation sled. Fifty-four of the vehicles were rated marginal or poor, the two lowest rankings, while a dozen received the second-highest score of acceptable. Twenty-one received the best rating of good.

“Any given day, you’re more likely to need a good head restraint to protect you from a neck injury than you are an air bag to protect you in a head-on crash,” said David S. Zuby, the senior vice president of the Institute’s Vehicle Research Center. “People don’t think too much about the fender benders that can result in neck pain for weeks or even months after the crash.”

Head restraints in several passenger vehicles provided marginal or poor protection against neck injuries, the Institute reported Thursday. Only 22 of 75 vehicles tested in a simulated rear crash at 20 mph received the top score of good from the Institute.

Overall, reported The Early Show consumer correspondent Susan Koeppen, 60 percent of cars tested fall short of giving you the protection you need. Almost two out of three models were rated marginal or poor. Neck injuries are the most common injuries reported in car crashes, she added.

"People think of head restraints as head rests, but they're not. They're important safety features," said Adrian Lund, the Institute's president. "You're more likely to need the protection of a good head restraint than the other safety devices in your vehicle because rear-end crashes are so common."

Bill Kwong, a Toyota Motor Corp. spokesman, said that the test does not take into account other aspects of a vehicle's response to a crash under normal driving conditions, such as the vehicle's structure, rear crumple zones and bumpers. "We feel our in-house procedures are good predictors of how it will perform in the real world," Kwong said. "We feel our test procedures are good predictors of how well our seat or head restraints will protect occupants from neck injuries in the event of a rear impact.”

The Institute said that the simulated rear crashes at 20 miles per hour showed that many large vehicles fall short in protecting against neck injuries, which lead to two million insurance claims a year costing at least $8.5 billion. "It's not a major feat of engineering to design seats and head restraints that afford good protection in these common crashes," said Zuby.

"We're seeing some improvement, but it's not across the board," Lund said. "We still have a lot of vehicles out there that we rate as marginal poor. In fact, 59 percent of the SUVs and pickups and minivans that we evaluated we gave marginal or poor rating for their whiplash protection."

Several automakers defended their methods of testing for rear crash protection. DaimlerChrysler noted that many of the vehicles were designed before the Institute began conducting the tests. General Motors Corp. said that it designs head restraints "to meet a variety of driver sizes rather than focusing on a single set of metrics in all GM vehicles." The company added it is ensuring the quality of head restraints the way they secure the reliability of Saturn bug shield and other auto parts accessories.

Now the key to better protection is making sure head restraint is in the proper position, Lund noted.

Source:  Amazines.com