RACE response to the scandal about child safety tests for children (part II)

A few days ago I promised you the second part of the RACE response to the request of thousands of parents to clarify what is happening with the chairs with front shield (link here).

As you can see the answer is being divided into several 'posts' since it is something of great interest and we do not want to leave anything unanswered.

In this case I want to send you the text of the email that accompanied the reply. We want to share it with you since I think it is a reply addressed to everyone. So that it does not become eternal and since we have already done many points in the previous post, let's get straight to the point. (You will always find its text in italics).

FIRST PART (Body of the mail):

This first part is the body of the email in which they explained some things that I would like to answer in public, since this answer was not requested by me, but by the many parents who are in doubt.
1.- COMMERCIAL AGREEMENT: 
'Good afternoon,
I enclose the answer We have prepared on the comments posted on the safety of children in the car. Above all, I would like to highlight the following:
There is no commercial interest behind the test results. Absolutely none. The evaluation depends exclusively on the tests and analyzes carried out by European automobile clubs and consumers. We have said this as active and passive, and we believe that it should be made clear once and for all. ' RACE
In mom's lab We did not say there was a commercial interest behind the tests. We are not talking about a specific brand but about a retention system that seems doubtful to us. Those types of systems are manufactured by Cybex, Kiddy, Recaro, Casualplay, among others. But since you expose it yourself, we will review documents from 2011,2012 and 2013:
  • A few years ago (2011- 2012-2013) we could find photos where the RACE recommends cybex, only the cybex logo appears in its test lane and only a Cybex advertisement appears in its exhibition:

logo_RACE_Cybex           IMG_0790         IMG_0791 Puericultura-Madrid-Stand-de-Cybex-pruebas-de-choque-con-el-RACE hqdefault

  • Entering youtube and putting 'RACE recommends CYBEX' we can find videos like East (where you can see the 'RACE recommends Cybex' logo) and  East (All the chairs that appear are Cybex).
  • In 2011-2012 we could read several posts like this  where there is talk of an agreement with Cybex (at which point Cybex chairs started to win): (…) Cybex is a young brand, what does it do to make its products known to consumers?  You are right, Cybex is a very young brand that has made a name for itself in the market very quickly, and our marketing team has done an incredible job in this regard. On the one hand, we attend all the consumer fairs that are held and in this way we present our products directly to the end customer. On the other hand, we collaborate very actively in the magazines of the sector, providing very interesting information for consumers. And on the other hand, we hold conferences on child safety for both consumers and retailers. Our sales team also place a lot of emphasis on training in stores, our product is technical and needs a good explanation, which sellers are very grateful for. Finally, our agreement with the RACE under which CYBEX promotes child safety in the car also It has helped us to publicize the brand in Spain(¿?¿?¿?¿?)
  • And coincidentally, at that time, we could see that there was 'controversy' in this case: (…) As can be seen in the 2013 Children's Chairs Comparison that appears on the RACE website, and that we reproduce along these lines, the analysis of the 103 models –in the reports that go from 2011 to 2013– it has a sixth column, titled 'RACE Store'. In that column the icon of a shopping cart is included in certain models. An icon that, when pressed, leads to the RACE Online Store, and allows the user to directly purchase that seat. So far, everything normal. The problem is that the mentioned icon appears, specifically, in nine of the 103 seats that are analyzed in the table. A very low percentage. Another curiosity: the nine seats available in the RACE store are from the same brand, Cybex. And a third: the nine seats have obtained the same rating in the analysis: 'satisfactory'. Logical on the other hand, since it would be very striking if RACE sold seats in their store that had obtained a simple approval or, worse, a suspense. The fact is that this redirection of the users to the Online Store so that they buy the Cybex seats forces to investigate the relationship that exists between the company and the RACE. By surfing the Net, you can find numerous examples of this collaboration: reports made jointly or express recommendations by RACE towards Cybex products. Obviously, nothing prevents both of them from collaborating. But, for RACE's credibility, the report seems suspiciously favorable to products from a particular brand. " Some time later this 'cart' disappeared.

All this (although we had not mentioned it because we focused exclusively on the technical part) makes us doubt even more. Why is it the only recommended brand? Why is it the only brand with which an 'information dissemination' agreement is established? Isn't this an agreement that brings publicity to Cybex (How well does the same brand express in the interview)? Why was there that 'shopping cart' with Cybex chairs and no other? 

 2.- ESTABLISHED PRESSURE LIMIT:
'- In the attached document it will look like there is no set limit for shields. So, The 1.5 bar has been considered to establish a penalty in the final grade, even when there is no agreed rule. Once again, we include a criterion even when there is no consensus, as we did years ago with the lateral crash test, when it was not mandatory, and which, however, is now one of the tests that must be passed for the i-homologation. Size. ' RACE

As you will have read in the attached studies in the post we dedicated to this expressly, yes there is a consensus although at the moment it is not published:

3.- WHAT THE EXPERTS SAY ABOUT HARNESS / SHIELD PRESSURE

'- We have seen that it was considered an increased risk in shield chairs. In this sense, the pressure criteria between harnesses / belts versus shields cannot be compared.. We explain it in the document. ' RACE
This point is not entirely correct since they do exist studies (2007, 2009, 2012) where they have been compared and although in the same document it is said that it is necessary to continue investigating, they already support the possibility that the shield puts more pressure on the abdomen than the harness: 
'(…) Because it is flexible, the harness adapts to the shape of the child and potentially transfers loads to the most rigid structures in contact. The five point harness system has contacts with the clavicle, the rib cage, the abdomen and the pelvic bones. Similarly to the 3-point-belt for adults, main load are expected to be transferred to clavicle, pelvis and rib cage. Loading of the abdomen is expected
to be very limited as the contact to pelvic bone and rib cage prevent the belt from penetration into the abdomen. Because they are rigid and stop lower than the shoulders (Figure 1), shield systems are expected to interact very differently with the child. They could mainly load ribcage and abdomen [Mizuno, 2007]. In principle it is possible to design them in way that they are also loading the pelvic bone in order to prevent abdominal loading but this does not always seem to be the case [Tanaka, 2009]. There are no geometrical requirements for shield systems
defined and they are assessed based on their dynamic performance. However, the body regions that should receive special attention for shield systems (chest and abdomen) are not adequately
observed. Due to the main loading to the lower rib cage and the abdomen - ie regions that are not very stable or able to sustain large loads - thoracic and abdominal injury risk could be expected to be higher than with harness systems. However, despite the very different working biomechanical principles, there is only limited data supporting the use of a particular architecture or demonstrating its adverse effects. The objective of this study is to provide an overview of evaluation procedures and past results, recent observations from the field and new testing that could be relevant for the assessment of shield systems and 5-point harnesses. While the review is not exhaustive, it is hoped that it can provide material for the discussion on the respective performances, risks and possible benefits of the two systems and highlight future research needs in this area (..) '
Bold translation: Due to the main load on the lower rib cage and abdomen - regions that are not very stable or capable of supporting large loads - a greater risk of chest and abdominal injury could be expected than with harness systems (We will develop this idea further in the next post)
However, it is not the intention of Mom's lab to start a 'battle' over whether the harness or shield is better. We We support that going in the opposite direction to the march is safer until at least 4 years. That is the main focus.
4.- JUSTIFICATIONS: 
 
'- Finally, the RACE He has been working to improve child safety for many years, NEVER responding to any commercial interest. We do not play with the lives of children, as we have read on some occasion, nor do we have hidden interests. If someone says it, show it. These accusations must stop now, or be defended in other instances. It's not worth everything when it comes to criticizing us. When there are doubts or procedural questions, such as the ones you sent us, we try to give precise answers, but insults as serious as those we have had to read cannot be accepted.. I hope you understand.
 By last, we are absolutely at your disposal for everything we can help, even in a meeting if you consider it appropriate, where to put all these issues together. We will be delighted. And of course, you can count on us for everything we can be of help, especially if it is the safety of the little ones. ' RACE
 
The Mom's Lab team has never made any insults at RACE. Our team has simply read, has inquired for help from industry engineers, has collected multiple studies contributed by specialist technicians and has studied the conclusions. All this has led us to doubt and the only thing we have done, so far, has been ask for a technical explanation that contradicts what we have provided. Thus, In the answer provided by the RACE, there are still doubts and it does not seem to us to be a precise answer or elaborated by technicians as we had been promised. to all the parents who are still in doubt. The document we have received is a document from the communication department and not a technical case study.

And now only the PDF document that accompanied this mail is missing. Again, not to overload with information, we will present it in a new post (part III). We believe that this is very important, dense information and therefore we prefer that everything be understood perfectly.

 

You may also like

32 Comments

  1. After reading the post, we believe we qualify some point that leads to confusion. The first thing is that the agreements with CYBEX, as they have also been with ROMER, CASUALPLAY, CHICCO OR BEBE COMFORT (an important oversight on your part ...), have nothing to do with the test. These agreements are parallel, and in the test results you can see bad results in all of them, a fact that is required for any agreement.
    What we do with these manufacturers is to investigate road safety. We would love to have many resources to make these reports, but unfortunately they are very expensive. So when a brand wants to do something about security, we use these resources to make INDEPENDENT reports in reference laboratories like CIDAUT. You can also see this on Youtube, with all brands, not only with CYBEX. And we believe that these works have addressed issues that have served for ALL manufacturers, such as the risk of using the airbag in reverse, the risk of carrying a baby in their arms, the importance of support in groups 2 and 3, the sense Reverse to the march ... I wish there were more manufacturers to invest in research, and everyone who wants to, will have us as allies, because this is the only way to advance in the safety of children. And it is not a "crime" that these investments are publicized. We see it daily. Is it better not to investigate? We think not.
    On the other hand, you talk about the sale. You also forget that we sold ROMER, CasualPLAY, Baby Comfort and the ones you mentioned about CYBEX. The reason is simple: when the tests came out, the parents asked us to buy them, and we thought that this service could be offered to the members, as we also have agreements for the sale of cars, for example, and we also participate in EuroNCAP. We insist once again: we do not test and then sell chairs. We do not usually recommend chair brands in consultations, and many parents can verify this when they have asked for our help on social networks. We refer to the tests. For credibility purposes, for example, there are other blogs or pages where there are preferences for some specific brands, but it will be each parent who finally makes the decision with the information received.
    To avoid misunderstandings and confusions, at RACE we have two DIFFERENT lines of work: international reports, independent and carried out between European clubs and consumers; and on the other hand, work with manufacturers, with many of them, not only with CYBEX. And it is a practice that they have also done in other clubs, such as the RACC with Jané, for example, to name a few.
    You also comment that it is better to carry the child in the opposite direction to the march. No one has questioned this fact, we even made a report that was widely accepted, with good comments from experts such as Cristina Barroso, a great defender of this location, and who accompanied us in the presentation. And if there were doubts about the test, what we have also seen, the evaluation of the results of the chairs with i-Size in this last report thus demonstrates its effectiveness, obtaining the best marks. The only thing the international test does is analyze the chairs that are sold according to the manufacturer's instructions, which can be used, either in the direction of travel, in the opposite direction, and for the different weight and height groups. And it undergoes crash tests.
    Finally, the document is sent from communication, which is who runs the social networks, but it has been prepared by technicians. We do not know what relevance this fact may have, but better clarify it.
    We are available to all readers to clarify or clarify anything we can help them with.
    A cordial greeting.

    1. Mr. Antonio Lucas,
      First of all I want you to read carefully the logo that appears as the head of this post:
      «The RACE recommends CYBEX»

      In the PDF (we will see tomorrow) do not forget that they have stated that (I quote. We will see tomorrow):
      »(…) Therefore RACE does not recommend a chair model, or BRANDS, or specific restraint systems above the others (…)»

      You must understand, then, that before THESE WORDS (yours) and seeing a very specific logo, the OBJECTIVES and CREDIBILITY are at stake and that we have doubts. We all know that you cannot be a judge and an interested party in a fact. Do you understand why it is so logical that these signs lead us to think about it?

      On the other hand, we thank you for your clarifications, but we repeat that WE HAVE NOT TAKEN THIS THEME in any of our posts first because we do not know the details and we can only affirm emphatically what we can demonstrate.

      Second: LET'S NOT LOSE THE FOCUS. In all our analyzes and posts we have asked some technical questions that have not been answered with studies that contradict them. At the moment the RACE is limiting itself to moving the ball towards commercial doubts THAT WE HAVE NOT RAISED. With this answer it is simply highlighted again that THEY CONTINUE TO NOT RESPOND TO:

      - If the RACE says, since 2012, that traveling against the counter is safer, why do the seats that win the tests remain chairs in favor of the march? Do they not consider this to be contradictory and lead parents to the wrong choice of safety seat for their child?
      - Why are there still winning chairs that exceed 1.5 bars of pressure when the new regulations speak of 1.2 bars?
      - Do you consider it acceptable that some chairs with more than 75% probability of suffering serious injuries, according to their own measurements and assessment criteria of dynamic tests (R129, CASPER ...), can be winners of their test?
      - Why was this information not easily available to us? What technical data can you provide that shows the opposite of the results of the EuroNCAP laboratories?
      - Why are the test trains anchored to the ground?

      And an infinity of questions that can be found in all the posts we have written about it. LET'S STOP TALKING ABOUT TRADE AGREEMENTS, BECAUSE IT IS A SUBJECT THAT WORRIES US A LITTLE LITTLE, AND PLEASE TALK ABOUT THE TECHNICAL PART, PLEASE. Thank you

  2. Part by part…

    When you comment that «The RACE recommends CYBEX», it is because they are excellent chairs, as at the time it was the recommendation of the RACE for the Romer, or CasualPLAY or Baby Comfort chairs, but these recommendations are made apart from the international test. We only take into account their assessment, always with the essential criterion that the chair has a Satisfactory or «Very Satisfactory» quality level. What's wrong with that? On other blogs it is recommended to buy chairs from Swedish brands, for example, and nobody questions the credibility of those forums.

    On the other hand, you comment that »Why do the winning seats in the tests continue to be pro-driving chairs?» In the last report, and I quote the headline of our press release, it says: "The I-Size, a guarantee of safety ..." since the best seats in the test were those homologated under that standard, as they go in the opposite direction on the go. What's more, they require side shocks, increasing their safety. That is the challenge, that all that are sold be like this.

    And once again, if you want us to collaborate in proposals to improve the test, awareness campaigns, in what you want to improve the safety of children and in the information of parents, we are open. Adding up we will get more. You have our hand outstretched.

    a cordial greeting

    1. Part by part:
      Are they great chairs in 2013? Under what criteria? The one of the test that gives it as the winner or your recommendation that says that it must be in the opposite direction to the march? I am absent-minded because I have not yet seen the criteria, since both are impossible, they are antagonistic. What is done in other forums is a matter of other forums. As a nuance, the brands that are usually recommended are from Finland, Sweden and Norway if I remember correctly. German in some cases ... The problem is COHERENCE and CRITERIA. In other forums, wrong or not, they have the same criteria to evaluate what is SAFE and what is not. RACE, as we see, lacks a single criterion and its ability to reach many people, makes it dangerous by confusing the message.
      The headline leads to error once again. What minimizes risk is NOT the I-SIZE, but the direction of travel. If at 15 months we turn the child in favor of the march, the chair is no longer safe. Therefore, the standard guarantees absolutely nothing. The security information, you have it long before the I-Size appears and this, we all know that they are insufficient minimums. The demand for side crashes is not a panacea and their weighting (equating them to frontal crashes), another nonsense, when it is known that the probability of accidents is not equitable (in the Eurotest weighting, it has been).
      The collaboration is great if the concrete facts are beyond the words: Dedicate resources to alert about the doubts that abdominal pressure generates, dedicate resources on ACM safety up to 4 years (and not on the I-Size, which is limited to the mandatory 15 months) and, most importantly, BE COHERENT in the messages with the test evaluations. If you see that the ADAC is less demanding and you do not take communion, stop buying the test and focus resources on messages and reports. What's more, if you dress in technicalities in favor of transparency, the analyzes, for those who ask, the data from the sensors of the dummies should be accessible. By limiting ourselves to evaluating “very high frontal impact loads”, which we have seen technical studies, we find absurd. In which sensor? The head, neck, thorax, hip ...? In what percentage with respect to the limit? Understanding that it may be data that does not interest everyone, but we should have access to those who request it and believe the real desire for transparency.
      And to finish LET'S INSIST AGAIN THAT THE DOUBT WAS NOT IN THE TRADE AGREEMENTS, IN ONE BRAND OR IN ANOTHER, WHICH WE ARE LITTLE INTERESTED IN, the question is why are retention systems that generate all those doubts are winning or are Recommended by RACE?
      Let's stop throwing balls out, thanks

  3. One more clarification regarding the quotation mark you are commenting on. The complete sentence that we send you is the following:
    “Therefore, the RACE does not recommend a specific chair model, brands, or restraint systems above the others. We only expose the data obtained, and it is the parents who have to choose the retention systems that best suit their circumstances. ” And the context, which is important, refers to the publication of the test results, as I indicated in the previous post, where we limit ourselves to giving the data, without including recommendations.
    In this sense, there are also chair manufacturers that include the logos of the clubs in the test, such as the one that appears in the Klippan Kiss model user manual (page 3) in which the ADAC logo appears when explaining who have passed the demanding tests of the clubs test.
    At RACE we independently treat the international test with national agreements and works to promote study and improve child safety. And if we believe that there is a chair that can be recommended, it will be the RACE, not the test, that recommends it, under our criteria, which, at the risk of being insistent, are never commercial.

    1. "RACE, as we see, lacks unique criteria and its ability to reach many people, makes it dangerous by confusing the message." Our criteria is, on the one hand, to participate in a test carried out by clubs, consumers, laboratories ... that extends the information to parents. And by the way, not since 2004 that we have seen in other posts, but since 2002, when it was EuroTEST.
      On the other hand, at RACE we invest with our own resources, and when we can with the help of manufacturers, in research. For this we do it with INDEPENDENT laboratories, beyond doubt. And the results are published explaining how and with whom, so that the tests and results are not confused. If it is not clear, we cannot explain it better.
      We do not want to enter into controversy. We want to continue with what we do, and if there is any improvement proposal, incorporate it to improve security. And if there is a collaboration proposal, analyze it to improve information for parents. But you call us "dangerous", and we cannot ignore it ... What exactly do you mean?

      1. I dismiss as dangerous the message that is sent when it is not clear:
        I mean, you still haven't answered any of our specific questions.
        I mean there are a ton of studies endorsed by top child safety technicians and forensics who say shield systems are 'dubious', 'possibly harmful' and you overlook them the moment you give up winning chairs with shield.
        I mean that other countries have prohibited chairs with these retention systems and you defend them as winners.
        I mean that the new regulation says that 1.2 bars should be the abdominal pressure limit and you ignore this recommendation giving as winners chairs that exercise more than 1.5 (1.8-2 bars in some cases)
        I mean that your message that 'the safest thing is to go into reverse gear until 4 years old' stays in the i-size (which is up to 15 months)
        I mean all of that.
        As you can see we are willing to understand the answers BUT IT IS THAT AT ALL TIMES YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THE COMMERCIAL PART, THE TESTS AND THINGS THAT WE HAVE NOT ASKED YOU. Can you attach to your answers data that contradicts the studies that we have provided? In that case we will be talking about the same thing. Meanwhile the only thing I see is that you drain the change and answer things that do not come to mind.

    2. The complete sentence does not add anything to the answer either. If you do not present a father with clear and concrete information, he will not know what is best for him. What has happened. There are parents who do not know what it means to go into reverse gear, but they do firmly believe that a seat in favor of driving with a shield is the safest thing in the world because RACE says so. But, it turns out, you say that the safest thing is to go into reverse gear, but that information has not come with force.
      Do you see the confusion? Do you see how many parents with half information? That is dangerous and inconsistent. You can't put all the medals on and you can't play all the games because you end up confusing.
      About what you say about other manufacturers and the ADAC seems to me little relevant. If it is true (I have consulted the manual and it does not appear anywhere), it seems to me that on your part it is to take refuge in: 'The others also do it' but it continues without explaining: Why the chairs with such a retention system doubtful how the shield wins the RACE tests? And why does the RACE say that up to 4 years old it is much safer to go into reverse gear but they are left with 'the insufficiency of I-SIZE'?
      And for the third time, we insist that you have not yet answered your questions. You are just throwing balls out and talking about the commercial part WHEN WE ARE INTERESTED IN IS THAT YOU TELL US ABOUT THE DOUBTS THAT THE SHIELDS IN THE STUDIES AND THE PRESSURE LIMIT OF 1, 2 BARS OF THE NEW APPROVAL GENERATE.
      Don't divert the FOCUS, thanks.

  4. Today we have answered the questions you raise in your post, especially our recommendations and trade agreements. That is why we have put the focus where you wanted to put the focus. We sincerely hope that it has become clear that we have no commercial interests, and that we clearly differentiate international tests, and their results, with the work we have carried out for manufacturers such as Romer, Chicco, CasualPlay, Cybex, Bébé Confort in Spain, and which we will continue to do to promote safety. And if necessary, we will promote a meeting between manufacturers, experts, technicians ... to improve procedures. We already did it in its day, we collaborated in the one that took place in the DGT and we will help a new meeting if necessary to improve information to parents.

    Regarding the last question, we answer you with the clarification that we consider most answered your question. And as we imagine that you will shortly publish your comments to this, it will be when we answer the questions you raise. We are also in contact with an Industrial Engineering Doctor in Spain, specialized in these issues, to whom we have asked for his independent advice to clarify what is needed, and who will surely help us better understand this analysis, and if necessary, we would raise his proposals and suggestions to improve the test. Why not if security can be advanced.
    In addition, we will transfer those responsible for the international test of the questions that you raise for their study, so that we can better explain those that have not been made clear in our first response. For obvious reasons, we will not be able to comment on the issues as quickly as we would like, but we will try. We also do not handle the technicians' vacation deadlines, so we can find a delay in the responses.
    A cordial greeting.

    1. No no and no. At no time have I asked you for that answer. If you read all the posts that go back to February WE NEVER HAVE ASKED YOU FOR THAT EXPLANATION. You yourselves are the ones who have included it in your answers, I suppose because it is easy to answer, because you already did it at the time or for what you thought appropriate. I insist again, because it seems that you do not want to read it, THAT WE DO NOT CARE ABOUT YOUR TRADE AGREEMENTS (exist or not) that what we want to know from February 2016 is the answer to this:

      https://www.laboratoriodemama.com/2016/02/17/el-escandalo-de-las-sillas-con-cojin-o-escudo-frontal/
      https://www.laboratoriodemama.com/2016/02/23/casos-reales-sillas-seguridad-cojin-escudo-frontal/
      https://www.laboratoriodemama.com/2016/03/01/100-000-padres-buscan-una-respuesta/
      https://www.laboratoriodemama.com/2016/06/06/sillas-escudo-coche-bebe/

      It doesn't matter if this takes a month. It is logical that August is not the best month for it. But please, we ask again that you don't throw balls again, and that the topic focuses again on what we had asked for.

      Thank you

    2. Just for information, for your truthfulness ...

      About the user manual, I imagine that the Klippan Kiss you have is imported into Spain, and the reference to the analysis of the clubs in their translation and adaptation to Spanish will not come (it would not be logical to criticize the test and then put it as a reference in your own documentation). But yes in the central house, and in their manuals, they consider it relevant.
      I leave you the link to the official Klippan website for its Kiss model (Click on Download Brochure) and you will find it on page 3. Also in the parent company it seems that they do consider the side impact as something to highlight, as I mentioned when I spoke i-Size.

      http://www.klippan.fi/content/en/1006/1156/KISS%202.html

      a cordial greeting

      1. The fact that Klippan in its parent company or Besafe this year have been able to commit the awkwardness of legitimizing the ADAC test does not change in any way the meaning of what has been said. That is up to each brand that decides to include more or less logos in their communication, with more or less success. If we go further, the Plus test of which is preached by active and passive "as valid only", for the defenders of the MCA, does not add relevant information in itself, beyond removing consciousness. I think I have understood so far, that this is not about brands, but we are already looking at another site, to see if we can mislead the staff,
        Greetings

        1. Good Morning:

          From Klippan Spain (by allusions) we want to clarify that, although it is true that in the old "Broschure" of our KISS model mention is made of the test carried out by ADAC, said mention has no other objective than to aseptically inform consumers of that the KISS chair was subjected to this test.

          An informative and transparent action towards consumers should not be confused with an advertising or legitimizing action, since in the latter case, the information is not presented to the consumer in the same way.

          The ADAC and STIFTUNWARENTEST rules require that, in case of dissemination of the information obtained in their trials, the corresponding stamp be shown in the corporate colors of the granting club or association and the final classification obtained in the study, as shown in the following link:

          http://cybex-online.com/es/safetycenter/adac-real-automovil-club-aleman.html

          In the cited broschure of our product, despite the good result that was granted at the time, there is no trace of the seal or the result. Where is the legitimacy of these trials if there is no dissemination of the seal in any official brand document and in any of its different versions of web pages (whether or not they are Spanish)?

          We hope that this clarification is to the liking of readers, however, for any other questions, we are at your entire disposal through the usual contact channels.

          A greeting.

          The Klippan Spain team

  5. My applause for Mr. Antonio Lucas. A phenomenon. A great professional, without seconds, seriously. For a reason: To defend the indefensible, stoically. For putting up with Mama's laboratory plot avalanche that hammering common sense and knowledge at Mr. Lucas's literary juggling on behalf of RACE. I have the feeling of attending, on the part of Mr. Lucas, a repertoire of "nothing around here and nothing over there, where is the beanbag"?
    This, at the communication level, would be useful if you wanted to mislead the staff a little and the reader thought "because if the RACE have an industrial superengineer, it may be that they are not making a mistake either ..." But I think who we have been following the subject and we have come to read all these paragraphs, we do not eat fireworks at the first change.
    In fact, the problem is much simpler: RACE is at the crossroads between a conceptual vision and accepted by all on risk reduction that blesses child restraint systems in the opposite direction to the march and results that until this year , have not corroborated the theory.
    And why is this happening? Have they manipulated the results? No, at least, I don't think so, it's not necessary. Simply, the tools they use have another purpose and great limitations typical of research processes. These limitations limit the conclusions of the results obtained, but are still useful to improve knowledge. Thus, they should be used only for research purposes, as they have been shown to be lacking and are not part of a prescriptive test that leads to misleading conclusions. In the hands of researchers and technical professionals, these tools are useful, but they do not allow for simplification as a global mark or a qualitative assessment. The nuances are relevant and the tool is only useful with these considerations. Nailing nails with screwdrivers gives us inefficient results.
    In short, Laboratorio de Mamá has demonstrated the hypothesis that "the chairs with front shields that won the tests in different years may not be the safest in their category." It has demonstrated this in different ways, both conceptual and limitations in the measurement of relevant variables. What the RACE, the OCU, the RACC and other "loudspeakers" of the ADAC test should do is alert to these limitations instead of defending a professional commitment through and through, because gentlemen, we are not talking about washing machines or bread…

  6. Good afternoon:

    For allusions.

    To you Cristina, I want to congratulate you publicly for the research you are doing. My admiration and respect go to you. Once again I put at your disposal my broadcast channels so that your information reaches as far as possible as soon as possible. Tomorrow if nothing prevents it I will share your entry in the FB of "Let the children travel in reverse gear, please". Congratulations and go ahead, champion. That you are doing very well.

    And as for you, Mr. Lucas, I would also like to clarify some things, but they are not all equally important, so I will focus on the questions one by one.

    FIRST ISSUE

    You say:

    “You also comment that it is better to carry the child in the opposite direction to the march. Nobody has questioned this fact, we even made a report that was widely accepted, with good comments from experts such as Cristina Barroso, a great defender of this location, and who accompanied us in the presentation. ”

    And against this, I would like to clarify that:

    1.- Every initiative, whoever comes from who promotes, spreads and / or helps carry the message of security against the march to Spanish homes will always be supported by me and my spaces. It is a mere matter of coherence, not recognition.

    2.- I am not a "great defender" of a "location", Mr. Lucas. I am fundamentally a great defender of the right to life in the first place, and of the right of parents to be properly informed, both in length and in quality and veracity of information, on all those issues that may affect health or safety of their children. I do not think I am wrong in affirming (that some lawyer corrects me if I am not correct) that our Constitution is also an advocate of both rights.

    Having said that:

    Gabriel López Chamorro was 2 and a half years old when he suffered an accident sitting in a shield system (not "cushion") recommended by RACE. Just 2 months ago it was a year since his death as a result of the aftermath. His parents did not know the information about the security against the march until after their son had died.

    And based on this unfortunate fact, both Gabriel's parents and I want to take advantage of his predisposition to intervene publicly in this space to also ask you a couple of questions:

    1.- Why if you admit that the best security system for "children under 2 years" is a chair in the "reverse direction of travel" this information did not reach the hands, eyes or ears of Gabriel's parents, a despite the fact that at the time of purchase he was not yet 2 years old, and despite the fact that his only source of information and consultation (by trust) for the purchase of his chair were his RANKINGS (specifically those of the years 2010, 2011 and 2012) ?.

    2.- Do you consider that the dissemination of this important message throughout those 3 years (and preceding until 2002 - as you have remarked well-) was carried out by the RACE with the transparency, insistence and objectivity that a Research company as it seems to be yours is presumed? Do you think that on the dates that Gabriel's parents consulted their RANKINGS and bought his chair, they exercised their free right as Spanish citizens and parents to the correct and complete information on the security offered by the different devices (all of them) that Were they then for sale in the Spanish market?

    3. And if so, would you be so kind as to link me to studies, interventions and press releases or various statements published by RACE in the interval from years 2002 to 2012 (you can omit the one from Cybex that we already know about) because we were present) where YOU have warned Spanish parents actively, passively and insistently over time, about the NEED TO KEEP CHILDREN IN THE REVERSE SENSE OF THE MARCH, up to AT LEAST “THE 2 YEARS” of age ?

    4.- Could you refer us to the OFFICIAL study in which the age of “TWO YEARS” is stipulated as a sufficient limit to be able to place a minor in favor of the march with, at least, the same security guarantees that are maintained while traveling to the “reverse direction of travel”?

    The clarification of this last point is especially important because Gabriel was two and a half years old when, in a chair facing the march recommended by you, he fractured his neck at the height of C2 despite sitting in the only place in the vehicle where the airbag did not detonate ... and despite the fact that the other adult in the car did not suffer serious injuries. (As the adult who traveled in the opposite car did not). An explanatory or justifying study would be highly appreciated. Always OFFICIAL, please.

    5.- And finally, I would like to know your personal opinion (if possible) as a Doctor in Road Safety.

    Could you affirm that the injuries that GABRIEL suffered would have occurred equally if he had been sitting in a chair placed "in the opposite direction of travel"? A "Yes" or "No" is sufficient.

    Thanking you in advance for your willingness to clarify issues for the safety of Spanish children, the three of us, Fernando, Elena and I (and I suppose a lot of parents too) are waiting for your answers.

    A cordial greeting!

  7. Good Morning,

    I speak simply as a mother, as a mother very indignant after knowing the truth.

    When we went to transfer my daughter to group 1 and considering that it is a security issue, we investigated a lot and found so much information that we turned to a source that we thought we trusted, RACE. In all the stores we went to, they sent us to the tests published by RACE and we just got the news of Gabriel's accident. I am lucky, on the one hand bad and on the other good, to have mutual friends with Gabriel's parents. We live its entire history, from its accident to its tragic end. And then I opened my eyes.

    Mr. Lucas, I searched a lot because the safety of my daughter is the most important thing in my life, just like for any mother, and I don't remember finding on her website anything about what children have to travel ACM until 4 years old, if I found the rankings where the winners were AFM chairs.

    I don't buy a chair because of its color or why it looks beautiful in the car, I buy it for the safety of my son. They can value what they want, but assuming that security is the only decisive point.

    I don't know what reasons there will be behind RACE for an AFM chair to win the rankings and I honestly don't care. What I believe is that RACE is playing with the safety and lives of thousands of children and with the trust of their parents.
    THANK YOU VERY MUCH TO THE TWO CRISTINAS, for getting the truth about MCA to parents. There are many false myths that little by little you help to knock down and spread something that is basic physics.

  8. Mrs. Barroso,

    I will try to answer your questions briefly. First, show my solidarity with Gabriel's parents, and extend it to all those who have suffered an accident with their children. It is something that should never happen.

    Let me share that desire to protect the lives of children, and to offer parents the most information. It is what has moved us these years, and it is what will continue to move us in the coming years. Nobody, absolutely nobody, can assume the decrease in child lesivity in Spain in recent years, but it is possible to quantify the number of actions, campaigns, work groups, investigations ... that have been developed to improve that right to life that we share. In one way or another, more parents know about child safety, which has surely had an impact on the reduction of accidents.

    Before answering your questions, I would like to clarify a few points. The first is conceptual, and as an expert in child safety you know. Injuries in a traffic accident depend on many factors: the type of seat, its placement, the slack of the restraint system, the position of the child, its but, height, type of impact, the location of other passengers and loading, efficiency and / or activation of passive safety systems, the model of the car… Therefore, the result of injuries should not be reduced to a single cause. If Gabriel had worn a harness system instead of wearing the "shield", would he have avoided those injuries? What if he had been in a plaza with an airbag? The police report of the accident, the expert report or if a subsequent investigation was made to clarify these factors. That is OFFICIAL. Each accident is different, operational hypotheses can be established, conclusions can be drawn, but there are no absolute answers to these questions, much less in the face of such a fact.

    There is no safe chair at 100%. Ms. Barroso, as the world's best Klippan distributor in 2015, will know that even the product you market cannot guarantee 100% safety, because it depends on many factors. What can be done is to work and investigate its efficacy according to the manufacturer's use, both for the weight group and the direction of travel. And that's what we do in tests. Therefore, the manufacturer must also assume this responsibility to inform. We give the information obtained in the impact tests, and the buyer, the distributor like you, and the manufacturer also have their responsibility to inform about the product when buying it.

    In your first point, you ask us if we have not alerted you to this fact in the reports 2010, 2011, 2012. I put a paragraph on PAGE 3 of the 2010 Test:
    “As SRIs that are mounted in the opposite direction to the direction of travel are very well protected in the event of a frontal collision, the change of a carrycot to a SRI placed facing forward should be done as late as possible. For forward-facing saddles, only the thorax is attached to the saddle, so the head will move forward in the event of an accident. "

    Another from Test 2011, page 5:
    "Nine products achieved a very satisfactory rating. (...) Seven of the highest-rated child seats are installed in the opposite direction to the march. During the crash, these SRIs prevent any relative movement between the head and torso, as they retain the child's entire body. This is because both head and neck loads are particularly low. As the head of a baby or a toddler is relatively large compared to the rest of the body and the nape of the neck is vulnerable, the change from the carrycot-type chair (in which the child always sits in the opposite direction to the march) to Forward-facing SRIs should be delayed as long as possible to minimize the risk of injury to the child. ”

    And in 2012, along with the specific campaign against the march that you already know, the 2012 International Test said the following on its page. 6:
    «Of the SRIs tested, in the frontal collision six chairs received the
    Very satisfactory rating, with the common characteristic that the child travels with his back to the direction of travel. (…) The importance of traveling with a child in the opposite direction to the march lies in the fact that in the event of a collision, there will hardly be a relative movement between the head and the torso, since the SRI will hold the child's entire body. In this way, the loads that occur for both the head and the neck will be very reduced. (…) Therefore, it is recommended to protect newborns with a carrycot or other type of SRI installed in a position contrary to the direction of travel. The change to a seat placed in the same direction of travel should be carried out as late as possible to minimize the risk of injury to the child. "

    Ms. Barroso, do you collaborate with or advise the DGT on Child Safety, participate in discussions with other safety spokespeople… Have you asked the other institutions the same question about their responsibility to report on child safety? We have researched and worked for years, with more or less success according to your criteria. And the rest? Where were the manufacturers and their preventive campaigns? Insurers? Car manufacturers? In the Swedish Plus Test that you defend, and of which I will now comment, chair manufacturers including car brands work. Why don't you promote the same in Spain with chair manufacturers? I anticipate that you have our full support.

    In your question 3 you ask us if in previous years we have warned about the importance of traveling in reverse. For not making it extensive, I indicate the page and year of some of the points where this recommendation appears:

    - Year 2002. Page 4

    - Year 2004. Page 6

    - Year 2005. This is worth putting what we indicated on page 3 ...
    "According to legal requirements, transport in the opposite direction to the march
    It is recommended only for babies weighing up to 9 kg. Children's head
    small weighs a lot compared to the relatively weak nape that
    they usually have. To prevent the risk of cervical injury, changing the
    carrycot seat to a forward facing seat should be done only
    when the child's head has reached the head of the carrycot. In the
    seats facing forward, cervical load triples and quintuples
    (and thus the risk of cervical fracture) in the event of a frontal collision. "
    And we analyzed the special products for the Nordic market («Nordic Batch»), with the possibility of installing them in the opposite direction to the march
    even for the transport of older children (for example, in the seat
    posterior, for children from 0 to 18 kg of weight).

    - Year 2006. Page 9 «once again, that the children will be safer if they sit in the opposite direction to the march»

    - Year 2007. Pág 5, 9, 14 («(The baby must always be looking back!« All the chairs classified as «very satisfactory», the child travels with his back to the direction of travel (…)

    - Year 2008. Page 10

    - Year 2009. Page 3, 10

    And those already commented on in 2010, 2011, 2012 ...

    Has it been enough? Surely not, that more could have been done. But we have tried. All the information is always available on the web. In addition, Mrs. Barroso, together with the DGT we have trained health professionals, highlighting the importance of the reverse direction to the march. Dr. Elena Valdés, whom you know, can expand this information.

    At RACE we have always worked for the safety of children. It seems incredible that, in addition to having investigated and worked with our own resources, and instead of limiting ourselves to "sending cranes" as you say, we are now justifying whether the information was "transparent, insistent and objective". You know the test, so we don't hide anything, we publish it every year, and the good and bad notes have affected everyone equally. And if not, ask the manufacturers.

    Finally, he asks us about the age of two years for reference. Those studies are from the DGT, but yes, taking advantage of this question, I would like to comment on one point. Vehicle IsoFIX anchors are not designed for weights above 18 kilos (there are many links about it, this is one of them ( http://retensioninfantil.blogspot.com.es/2012/08/nociones-basicas-sobre-isofix-i.html ). Even in the Plus Test this fact is indicated, that "In bakåtvänd isofixstol kan som högst få 18 kg and plusmärket eftersom bilens fästen inte är dimensionerade för 25 kg." so that, from the original, each one can read and interpret its meaning ... ( http://www.ntf.se/konsument/barnibil/default.asp?RecID=39460 ). Specifically, the UNECE R14 regulation establishes an anchor design capable of withstanding a load curve of 8 KN (more than 800 kilos of force). This parameter, as you know, depends on the weight of the child and the speed of impact.

    If we take into account these data, the limitation in the load curve, and the holding capacity, it is only enough to go to the WHO, to see that in their percentiles the maximum 18 kilos of weight would correspond to 3 years of age, half. Available at :(http://www.who.int/childgrowth/standards/en/)

    What I mean by this? That the child's safety age depends not only on the seat, or on the age, on whether it has to be 3 or 4 years old, but also on the limitations of the car and its anchorages. The further we move the little one because of his height, the more problems we will encounter, having to use other support systems. Specifically, regarding your 2-year question that you comment, we said "until at least two years" (you can see it in http://www.elmundo.es/elmundomotor/2012/12/03/seguridad/1354560063.html with action information…) based on reports like the APP News from the American Academy of Pediatrics. AAP News Vol. 32 No. 4 April 1, 2011, or originally the work of Aldman B. A Protective Seat for Children - Experiments with a Safety Seat for Children between One and Six. Proc. of 8th Int. Stapp Car Crash Conf., 1964: 320-328. As you can see, we have now modified this message to the "maximum time possible", with the aforementioned limitations.

    Our two-year recommendation was based on the scientific evidence of the 2012 Crash test at CIDAUT, in which he used a 1 1/2 dummy of 18 months, evaluating the damage. That is why we cannot establish a cause-effect relationship for more age, which is in addition to what was previously commented. We think it is a good idea to analyze this fact, and we will be happy to participate in any project or research that establishes the criteria that, in combination of the chair and the car, can provide more data. Hopefully all car and chair manufacturers will launch their products according to these requirements. But from the moment chairs are sold to the market, for a specific use and group of children, we will continue to analyze them according to the manufacturer, without prejudice to the fact that the analysis criteria can be improved.

    I feel the extension, and I reiterate that the RACE only wants to help improve training. We reach out to collaborate, debate, launch joint campaigns, give parents the information they need, sit at a table or open debate that tries to improve this training. We are for the Safety of children ALWAYS. And if there are unclear messages, we will clarify them, and if it is necessary to qualify, it will be done. And if there is to investigate, it will be done.

    Mrs. Barroso, I recognize your work, as well as the people who collaborate in your project. As we have spoken in recent years, you know my implication, and of course that of RACE, in improving child safety, even in these forums where we stand up, even though I am branded as a "trilero" hiding the ball. You can count on me, and my commitment to seek efforts within the house to advance. We all add up. And if something can be collaborated so that tragedies like Gabriel's can be avoided, we will be first.

    Finally, you ask me a question. I cannot affirm anything with the data that it provides me, it does not even indicate the speed of the impact, but the studies show, as we have always said, an unquestionable efficacy in the opposite direction to walking. That, at this point, I think is already more than clear.

    A cordial greeting.

    1. Mr. Lucas, after your comments, I do the same search again that I did a little over a year ago when I went looking for a group 1 chair for my daughter, in case things have changed.

      The first entry returned by the search engine is
      http://www.race.es/seguridadvial/formacion-race/sillas-infantiles/comparativa-sillas-infantiles

      I see that the date is February 2016 and I am looking for the group that interests me. There are only two chairs with a very acceptable rating, both are pro-driving chairs and both are with a shield. In this page it is not indicated or I have not seen that the child should go against the gear as long as possible. And if so, would it not be a contradiction with the evaluation made on those chairs?

      Do you understand RACE and you as a spokesperson in this case, what does that mean for a father or mother? I feel indignant and cheated and that in the end I did not pay attention to her ranking and my daughter travels safely in an ACM chair. And not only what does it mean for a father or mother, do you understand what it means for RACE itself? How those of us who have had to learn about physics, children's anatomy, will talk about RACE… Anyway, those of us who are convinced of the ACM seats.

  9. Mr. Lucas, don't be offended by the "trilero", it is not a personal qualification, just a metaphor regarding the way you focus on issues. My apologies if you have been offended and my appreciation for showing your face, have no doubts, I think you are brave.
    I will be very brief, since the allusions are to Mrs. Barroso, but so that she understands why we are so "pissed off" by this permanent contradiction, I will be very precise. Year 2012: I am a father with a son who has exhausted his Group 0+ with a baby of 15 months. With all the information available, what would you have advised me?

    Option A: A chair that won the 2012 test, be a Kiddy Phoenixfix Pro 2 with a "very satisfactory" mark (Group 1 with cushion). If we want to "lengthen" the chair, we can choose a "satisfactory" Recaro Monza Nova IS Seatfix (Group 1,2,3, also with cushion). Both winners in their category. In the most frequent and damaging impact (frontal), 1.4 notes the first by 3 the second.

    Option B: An ACM chair as long as possible. Test possibilities: Britax Max Way (Group 1.2 up to 25kg ACM only). Rated "unsatisfactory" and in frontal impact, it does not drop below 1.5. Better a Kiddy with shield in case of frontal impact, apparently, right? Oh, we can also choose a Triofix with base that we can install ACM up to 18kg, but it only has an Acceptable.

    What do you advise me? Do parents need to search for information about ACM benefits between the lines? The proportion of information and the campaign carried out is not balanced, so the information does not arrive properly. I repeat, what would you have, personally, to someone close, advised?

    a greeting

  10. Good morning, Mr. Lucas.

    Go ahead and thank you for the time and resources you are dedicating in this arduous task of understanding the information that you present to professionals and parents.

    I go by parts:

    You say:

    “Injuries in a traffic accident depend on many factors: the type of seat, its placement, the slack of the restraint system, the child's position, its but, the height, the type of impact, the location of the other passengers and load, the effectiveness and / or activation of passive safety systems, the model of the car… Therefore, the result of injuries should not be reduced to a single cause. ”

    What if you can give the 100% of the merit of survival to a specific type of chair? I just can't understand it. What do you mean exactly when, in the section "PURCHASE TIPS" and more specifically on p. 37 of your study “RESPONSIBLE SECURITY” (year 2011) you affirm (and I quote verbatim):

    "Always buy the most modern models and with new safety systems, such as the safety cushion that reduces the risk of cervical injuries in front of the harness."

    This statement does not appear to be subject to all the conditions you have mentioned. Must I understand, Mr. Lucas, that if the system that you recommend works, it is the merit of the system and if it fails, is it the fault of possible external conditions?

    You say below:

    "Each accident is different, operational hypotheses can be established, conclusions can be drawn, but there are no absolute answers to these questions, much less in the face of such a fact."

    Continuing with the above, it would be highly appreciated if you yourselves lead by example when making absolute recommendations to parents and refer them to the direct purchase of a specific type of system, don't you think? Coherence Mr. Lucas. Coherence.

    In response to my first question I have found no reply that matches what I am asking. Perhaps because I did not express myself clearly, so I ask him again:

    Why if you admit that the best security system for "children under 2 years" is a chair in the "reverse direction of travel" this information did not reach the hands, eyes or ears of Gabriel's parents, despite the fact that at the time of purchase, he was not yet 2 years old, and despite the fact that his only source of information and consultation (by trust) for the purchase of his chair were his RANKINGS (Specifically, those of the years 2010, 2011 and 2012) ?.

    And I say that I have not found a replica that fits what I am asking because, it is true that in their reports they refer to the position of the back as the most protection but I can not find any reference anywhere from the age of TWO YEARS old.

    You will understand that the recommendation to place the baby facing forward "as late as possible" without further guidance does not clarify the issue of age. And if in the same ranking in which this recommendation is read, we go to the five “winning” products to which to make this change (MODELS KIDDY ENERGY PRO, MAXI COSI PEARL (with base), JANÉ EXO, KIDDY GUARDIAN PRO and CYBEX PALLAS) and in all of them you indicate their use from 1 year, do not you think it is difficult not to deduce that the "longest possible time" to which you refer does not exceed one year of age? I know this is an assumption subject to particular interpretation, and I know that you are sticking to what the manufacturer's instruction manual dictates, but isn't the purpose of these rankings to make recommendations and nuances beyond what the regulations and indications - subject to regulations - from manufacturers?

    This same reflection is applicable to the rest of the texts that you have quoted in which the age of TWO YEARS does not appear anywhere. And if I am wrong and in the years 2010, 2011 and 2012, you in any type of document, study, article or report point out the importance of maintaining the position in the opposite direction of the march UNTIL AT LEAST TWO YEARS, be so kind as to put the link

    He says:

    "Mrs. Barroso, do you collaborate with or advise the DGT on Child Safety, participate in discussions with other safety spokespeople… Have you asked the other institutions the same question about their responsibility to report on child safety? We have researched and worked for years, with more or less success according to your criteria. And the rest? Where were the manufacturers and their preventive campaigns? Insurers? Car manufacturers? In the Swedish Plus Test that you defend, and of which I will now comment, chair manufacturers including car brands work. Why don't you promote the same in Spain with chair manufacturers? I anticipate that you have our full support. "

    I answer your delighted question. I have not asked you these same questions because none of the above mentioned unilaterally publishes a RANKING annually evaluating the different chair models, nor suggesting which to buy and which not. At most they refer to the one you publish, so I have no choice but to ask you. If you know of any parallel RANKING published in Spain by any of those mentioned above, let me know so that I can study it and if I have any doubts, consult them.

    He says:

    “In his question 3 he asks us if in the previous years we have warned about the importance of traveling in the opposite direction. Because it is not extensive, I indicate the page and year of some of the points where this recommendation appears (….) ”… .And you cite different pages of the RANKINGS corresponding to different years.

    Can you refer me to the exact paragraphs where you recommend maintaining this position until AT LEAST TWO YEARS OF AGE? Because my question is not if you recommend the opposite direction to the march. My specific question was if you can provide me with the links where you recommend this position UNTIL TWO YEARS OF AGE in any of the studies or rankings published by you in the period from 2002 to 2012.

    He says:

    “Finally, he asks us about the age of two years for reference. (….) “If we take into account these data, the limitation in the load curve, and the holding capacity, it is only enough to go to the WHO, to see that in their percentiles the maximum 18 kilos of weight would correspond to the 3 years old, on average. Available at :(http://www.who.int/childgrowth/standards/en/) (….)

    What I mean by this? That the child's safety age depends not only on the seat, or on the age, on whether it has to be 3 or 4 years old, but also on the limitations of the car and its anchorages. ”

    Leaving aside the part in which a consumer should not have to read a minimum of 5 documents - in Spanish and English - to reach the conclusion that 18 kilos corresponds to an age of three years, can you tell me what Does reverse running have to do with the Isofix anchor? Are you not familiar with the chairs that are installed in reverse gear with seat belts, their use being extended to 25 kilos?

    He says:

    “Our two-year recommendation was based on the scientific evidence of the 2012 Crash test at CIDAUT, in which he used a 1 1/2 dummy of 18 months, assessing the damage. That is why we cannot establish a cause-effect relationship for more age, which is in addition to what was previously commented. "

    Thanks for the clarification. This test was carried out with a chair model that is approved for use installed in the reverse direction of travel up to 18 kilos, that is, that chair is tested with a P3 or Q3 manikin (corresponding to a 3-year-old child). Why was it not carried out in a trial under the conditions dictated by the instruction manual, and therefore, with both mannequins? Why is this disparity of criteria? With what moral or technical authority do you limit your recommendation to Spanish parents based on an essay conducted on the 50% of their ability? Can I interpret then that if you had carried out the test only with the P1 manikin (corresponding to a 1-year-old child), your recommendation on the reverse position would have been limited to ONE YEAR OF AGE? What if they had done it with a P6 (corresponding to a 6-year-old boy)? Would they have discouraged the anti-march position in view of the dire result that the device would surely have obtained?

    Clarify one thing for me:

    When you do rehearsals what objective do you really pursue? Find answers or find excuses?

    In short and for clarification:

    The recommendation by the RACE to use a chair in the reverse direction of movement UNTIL TWO YEARS comes from carrying out a half test with a single model of seat. Thanks for the clarification.

    He says:

    Finally, he asks me a question. I cannot affirm anything with the data that it provides me, it does not even indicate the speed of the impact, but the studies show, as we have always said, an unquestionable efficacy in the opposite direction to walking. That, at this point, I think is already more than clear. ”

    Indeed, Mr. Lucas. The effectiveness of the opposite direction to the march over any system (either with a shield or with a harness) is, today, UNMATCHED. And its effectiveness has been disseminated to parents thanks to Internet spaces outside of your company and to the work of professionals and parents who do not have laboratories, tools, or all the means of communication that you have within their reach. It is seen that the one who wants does more than the one who can.

    We could extend this debate hours, days and even weeks. But I have spent too many years debating this topic (with each other –as you well know-) to know when to stop. It is not my intention to rob you of more time or to remove the pain. My mission, as well as that of the people who support my project, is none other than to bring Spain to the low death rates due to traffic accidents that today the Nordic countries are considering. I firmly believe that if they can get it, so can we. Surely you will agree with me.

    I read his interventions and in all of them reiterates his will to improve what is needed and add in the right direction. And you know what? I believe you. And not only do I believe him, but I take him at his word.

    Do you want to add? Do you want to stop being part of the problem and start being part of the solution? Do you want RACE to be recognized as a company that bets on safety and watches over our little ones?

    For me there is no problem. Every day new children are born who must be protected, so it is never too late to JOIN our cause.

    And now is when I publicly make a PROPOSAL to you and your company from this space:

    In view of the results obtained and what happened to Gabriel, I propose that you STOP BUYING THE RANKIGS published by ADAC and invest that money in TWO CAMPAIGNS A YEAR in which PARENTS, MANUFACTURERS, AUTHORITIES, ASSOCIATIONS AND MEANS OF COMMUNICATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF KEEPING CHILDREN AGAINST UNTIL AT LEAST FOUR YEARS OF AGE and highlighting that no device that is installed in favor, NEITHER WITH SHIELD, OR WITH HARNESS, can ever REACH on stage more Frequent and harmful, THE LEVEL OF PROTECTION that parents expect and that our children (theirs, mine and those of other Spanish parents) deserve.

    Mr. Lucas: Gabriel will no longer be returned to us by anyone and the damage that has been caused to that family is irreparable. Having said this, I am aware that your regret regarding your case is sincere (I don't know you very much, but I do know something about you ...). So…. If what you want is to comfort the family in some way in their pain, help us to avoid that no other Spanish family has to go through and live what they suffered.

    HELP US TO CAST. Join our campaigns. Spread our messages and let ADAC continue on its way sowing doubt and marking hundreds with blood and tears? Thousands of families? in its path. Your time is running out. You can't fool everyone all the time, and just as information runs in Spain, it also runs in Germany. Let them go. Let go of the hand of those who confuse and grasp (now that there is still time) the hand of those who need you.

    RACE is a Spanish company. Take care of us and help us protect what we love most.

    Only if at the end of this year we do not see any German RANKING published in Spanish media again, will we trust in the goodness of their intentions and will we open a table for dialogue and consensus on future collaborative actions in which together, WE will add the correct one, and above all, in the SAFE direction.

    That tells me? Do you accept the proposal?

    Kind regards and thanks again for your time and willingness to read and reply.

    1. Totally in accordance with the proposal of Cristina Barroso, Mr. Lucas. All this has not started as a meaningless criticism of the RACE, this was started in search of solutions for current and future families. It's time to move in the right direction for the safety of babies and children

  11. Many thanks to Laboratorio de Mamá for this enormous informative document that opens the eyes of many families.
    Thank you very much to Cristina Barroso for everything contributed in these comments.
    Señor del Race, there are many of us who continue to have doubts (and more and more).
    Take advantage of the outstretched hand and join the right direction.
    Thank you

  12. I have been reading this debate that has been generated on social networks for a long time and personally, I have more and more doubts about all this. I have read the post with the RACE response in the full pdf and I think it responds quite a lot to what has been asked from this blog, but in the posts the answer has been dissected in several parts, introducing own opinions on each paragraph, what It makes it much more difficult for everyone to draw their own conclusions on this topic, without being influenced by your personal opinion.

    Personally, from what I have seen, the reports published by the RACE detail the results of each test (frontal collision, lateral collision, installation ...), and explain what criteria have been followed, so that any mother or father can read them. and see where each chair has failed and what strengths have been. I think that in the RACE tests information is given for each one to read and interpret. I don't think that just one brand is being recommended. I honestly don't see the deception or the contradiction discussed above. Countermarch is recommended in general, but tested countermarch saddles do not give the best results. And I do not think they have to recommend a chair that has not given good results just because it is in reverse gear.

    I don't think RACE wants to cheat, because it is publishing arguments. In another comment someone said that a Triofix only has an Acceptable. The RACE publishes a report of why it has an Acceptable, because in lateral impact it has high load coefficients. Therefore I think it is argued: http://www.race.es/race.es/documentos/seguridad_vial/formacion_vial/sillitas/comparativas/lista_9/Klippan_Triofix_Isofix_base.pdf

    I am quite concerned that in the end this whole stream on child safety has turned into a self-defeating counter-march, attacking anyone who can say that the rear-facing seats are not 100% effective. I think that if a chair gets an Acceptable in the RACE tests, you also have to ask yourself why it has had it and if it can be improved and not only attack RACE for giving it an Acceptable.

    That is my opinion, very possibly I will receive attacks. But I think that if we talk about the safety of our children we cannot settle for just the chairs that give good results in frontal collisions, (even if it is the most frequent scenario). We have to guarantee their safety in all scenarios. And a chair that is not safe in all scenarios must be improved.

    1. - The information has been given in full, I even thought that the RACE should respond from its space and that it was not my turn to respond to the parents. Obviously it is normal to see, in this space, personal opinions. The rules, likewise, are simple, trying to give the maximum information in a clear, understandable and respectful way, which is also given. It is not an academic journal. If RACE does not want to use its spaces to present its answer "in its own way", that's fine. Mine is this.
      - Well, with all due respect, Marisa, have you read only what interests you in a biased way without stopping at the slightly more technical part? It is strange that someone who has really read "all this" can affirm what you are saying. RACE has recommended a brand and that is not debatable. That this is part of an agreement and that this type of agreement has been with other brands, I do not know. How far the agreements go, I do not know either, and therefore, nothing has been stated about it either. That the commercial agreements of the RACE with the brands could have influenced the final results, I cannot affirm it either, since the test is carried out by ADAC and not by RACE. In any case, it does not dispel the doubt about a conflict of interest where the RACE collaborates with the "judges" and with the "courts".
      - Posting arguments is not synonymous with "not wanting to deceive" nor is there a cause-effect relationship. Perfectly, the arguments can also be used to not tell the reality, call it deception, half-truths, manipulation, "lies" and others. In the case of RACE, I think it has been more towards "excuses" and "diverting attention", to be gentle. The specific link, they are not arguments, they are conclusions based on a poorly done test for reasons of coherence and long exposed during all these posts. I am not judging the chair in question, I do not know if it is better or worse than another, I do not have the capacity or tools to know it.
      - RACE is not attacked for giving an acceptable to any chair, but for giving as winners to chairs that, in consensus with EVERYONE, are not the ones that reduce risk the most, therefore, the safest. The self-criticism, will be done if it has to be done, without problem. We do not defend ACM as a religion, but as a more secure way today to protect our children. We do defend that! If tomorrow it is shown that the safest means are airbags in the harnesses and head, in the pro-march direction, we will also be defending them there.
      - We cannot guarantee security in all scenarios today, so we will have to settle for what is most likely and harmful. In any case, if you show me that there is a chair that reduces the risk of serious injury in all scenarios, we will be happy to share it with everyone. At the moment, the ones that do the best are ACM, without a doubt

      1. Hi Marisa,
        Seeing that Mama's Laboratory has already answered you, for the part that touches me, the problem is not that the Triofix has an acceptable, since being an SRI that contemplates the option of turning and the test, it is done in the worst scenario , it can even be understandable to accept a bad judgment, "despite" being a chair that can go ACM up to 18kg. The serious issue is when an SRI that only ACM can go, such as Britax, takes out an unsatisfactory in front of a pro-driving chair ... and with a shield. We could think of a poorly done weighting in which the weight of the subjective variables and the technical variables of crash test is unbalanced. Even assigning a 50% (20% of total) to the front impact as well as the side impact is not realistic. But no, in frontal impact, where there should be no doubt about which chair reduces the risk the most, a chair with a pro-gear shield scores better than an ACM chair. Someone explain to me clearly, how is that possible! And this, dear Marisa, is the dark game. The famous 1.4 of the Kiddy Phoenixfix Pro 2, is the result of a “formula” (a magic potion I would say), which has the ability to synthesize with maximum precision, the acceptable deviations of loads of each sensor with the risk of serious injury in each area where it is located. It turns out that this superprecision has stopped measuring abdominal pressure. It turns out that all of a sudden, the test-winning system will not even pass the new homologation regulations. Perhaps the ADAC has deified and focused on its prescriptive power above its social and moral responsibility, leaving aside the necessary rigor and prudence in this type of product. If you want to play at being a judge in a security product for our children, what less than demanding rigor and seriousness, applying scientific methodology and this also happens by exposing the values of the sensors, not only the synthesized results (according to " potion ”), in the same way as accepting the limitations of the essay itself and scope of interpretation. This is not a scattergories. It does not go through a validated theoretical framework and, when it comes to using tools under rules of use from the scientific literature, call it an abdominal sensor, they pass it through the arc of triumph without shame, without demonstrating why and simply replying "You demonstrate that what I say is a lie, that I am the RACE, because I am worth it ”. Disguising a commercial tool, where “what consumers ask for”, the media, the “top sellers” are analyzed with technical tools without respecting their conditions of use and without exposing the test data, seems to me not very serious. Taking into account the media magnitude of the test and what is at stake in the parents' decision-making, I find it absolutely reprehensible in every way. Assuming good faith on the part of the ADAC and the RACE (and other national and European institutions that publish the test), if you see the "error", assume it instead of hiding it.
        a greeting

  13. I would know that I would be attacked, but even so, I find it quite shocking that I am called a troll simply for writing a comment that does not go in the same line as the others. I have not insulted or attacked anyone.

    I fully understand that it is your blog and your personal space, but when it comes to talking about something as important as child safety, questioning regulations and organizations and "uncovering a scandal" (as you call it) I think that the information should be more objective and less biased. And if something is reportable because there is conclusive evidence, it should be reported. And of course, by allowing us to comment, I thought that our personal opinion could also be expressed, although the 100% does not agree with what is exposed in this blog.

    Like me, there are several of us who have doubts about certain information that is being shared on the internet about this topic. The attack on RACE or the new regulations sounds like we want to limit the sources of information so that people do not trust and cannot contrast. And that at the end of all these types of publications, the same brand always ends up being recommended, since it sounds like we want to scare the consumer so that they end up buying that particular recommended chair, which, as you well say, cannot guarantee safety in all scenarios.

    So why do we have to trust that there is no commercial interest in all this if it turns out that in the end the same chair model is always being recommended? Why is it recommended to go to certain stores and not others? Why are people attacked who question all this by calling us uninformed?

    In the end you cannot ask or question anything you say. I think that all this is not really about child safety but rather that we stop buying some chairs and that we buy others, without solving the safety problem of our children's chairs.

    1. Marisa, I think you should read all the technical information provided in the posts and your answers will be solved.
      There is no interest in convincing anyone, only in presenting information that both the engineers we work with and those who work at RACE know first hand. The question should rather be directed to RACE. Why have they never wanted to publish these technical studies? It is not something that I am inventing, as you can see they are always signed by technicians (look at the beginning of all the links and you will see the names that you can verify yourself)
      It is more if you look at the studies published by the RACE also refer to these professionals.
      Marisa, I would love to tell you that this is not real, but it is. Sadly it is.

    2. Hi Marisa,
      I am not going to recommend one brand or another, if you ask me for a store, I will recommend you in which I bought my girl's, because they spent more than an hour ASESORANDOME, they asked me what my little girl was like, the car that I had, if I used to change the car seat, if I made short or long trips… While in other stores I went to and there were many, they took me to a chair without asking me anything. In that store they even assembled the chair with the girl in the car before buying it (if I try on a € 3 shirt before buying them, why not a chair that has to protect my daughter ?? !!)
      The next time you drive and brake, it doesn't even have to be a brake, look at the co-pilot, see what his head does. Goes forward. Now imagine your child in his child seat in favor of the march, with his body fully supported, his neck not fully developed and with a head weight proportionally higher than that of an adult, what happens to him in case of braking? His head following the inertia goes forward, his body does not move and therefore it is very likely that his neck breaks. And if in that same case, are you in a chair against the wheel? His chair supports his head and his neck does not suffer. Now, can you tell me that you do not see strange that the RACE on its website, in a February 2016 publication of how very satisfactory two chairs in favor of the march? Seriously, very satisfying two chairs that can kill your child with one braking ?? !!
      A month ago I had an accident, I could avoid that it was front, and it was lateral, but between the braking and the blow, tooooodo what was not subject ended up on the floor of the front seats, all even if they were in the door holders or in the rear cup holders or in the trunk tray, everything except a stuffed toy that went in my daughter's ACM chair (which fortunately was not in the car). It was the only thing that had not been shot, if I had gone in the car, my daughter would have been safe, would have been physically unharmed while I have my neck injured, for going in favor of the march.
      I'm not saying that all ACMs have to be very satisfactory in the rankings, what is clear is that one in favor of the march should suspend, it is pure physics. I do not care what reason is behind, I do not care who is behind the tests, that ranking deceives. And it deceives in the most important thing, in the safety of children.

      1. I wish it were different, Marisa, but you see that both technically and in Sonia's experience, it's a matter of physics. It is not a fad, we do not talk about diapers we talk about security. a greeting

  14. Good morning Marisa:

    I personally do not believe that you are a mother concerned about the safety of your children who trembles the ground because from this space you are generating mistrust ... I do not believe it because people are much simpler, you know? If something doesn't add up, stop reading and another butterfly. And if something bothers you, the most used argument in your defense is that of "good" or "bad" mother.

    The fact that you enter to debate (2 times) and that you do not mention your maternal goodness and "all mothers want the best for our children" already indicates to me that your concern goes further. And having that clear, the logical question is: What is your concern about?

    And after removing all the "fat" from your messages (the one that serves to distract from the focus) I come to the key paragraph:

    ————————————-

    “Like me, there are several of us who have doubts about certain information that is being shared on the internet on this subject. The attack on RACE or the new regulations sounds like we want to limit the sources of information so that people do not trust and cannot contrast. And that at the end of all these types of publications, the same brand always ends up being recommended, since it sounds like we want to scare the consumer so that they end up buying that particular recommended chair, which, as you well say, cannot guarantee safety in all scenarios.

    So why do we have to trust that there is no commercial interest in all this if it turns out that in the end the same chair model is always being recommended? Why is it recommended to go to certain stores and not others? Why are people attacked who question all this by calling us uninformed? "

    ————————————

    So this does not mean that questioning the RACE is more or less legal or more or less justified. Nor is it going to determine if from here one speaks rigorously or not on a serious subject. This really means that it bothers you that a “certain brand” or “certain stores” is recommended and that you consider that there is a commercial interest behind this whole issue.

    Well, in front of this I have a question:

    Could you tell us, in which or which of the 7 posts in which this topic has been discussed? Mom's laboratory has recommended the purchase of a specific chair or brand? And where exactly have you recommended going to certain stores? Copy and paste the paragraph or paragraphs please.

    I ask you because I have read all the posts and interventions several times and I have not found any mention or recommendation to brands or stores. But perhaps my ability to discern is impaired, so I refer you to indicate the literal paragraphs in which that happens. Thank you.

    That said, if your discomfort has to do with my page (acontramarcha.com) or with my FB (Let the children travel in reverse gear, please) because you know ... you direct your complaints there and we will respond appropriately, but please , do not mess up an investigation like the one that has been carried out (IMPECCABLE) and a debate that has developed in the most cordial of tones by all parties, affirming things that are not relevant and diverting attention to another site.

    They say the best defense is a good attack. And so it is ... but the attack has to be powerful, with substance and resounding ... the tantrums and various grumbles are useless ... well yes, it has helped me to measure very well who I have in front and realize that, while some of us open and focus the debate on a question of SAFETY, others distort it by reducing it to a question of SALES. Why will it be?

    Greetings!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *