Misunderstanding caused Consumer Reports child seat snafu
by John Neff on Mar 21st 2007 at 12:02PM 
The independant review set up to study what went wrong in a controversial Consumer Reports test that found 10 out of 12 rear-facing child safety seats to be unsafe has concluded that a misunderstanding between the magazine and the lab caused the error.
The misunderstanding apparently revolves around how fast the crash was supposed to be versus how fast struck car would move after the impact. Since an impacted car moves at half the speed of the object it was struck by, the independant lab misunderstood its instructions by performing crash tests in which the struck vehicle was set to move at 38 mph by an object going twice that speed. Obviously, the instructions for the test meant for the crash to be conducted at 38 mph, a much more reasonable speed, resulting in the struck vehicle moving at 19 mph.
In order to avoid such misunderstandings in the future, president of CR's parent company Consumers Union, Jim Guest, will sign off on "any report that calls a product Not Acceptable or raises questions about an entire group of products." In addition, the independant review suggested that CR be more open when it devises new tests and consult outside experts.
As for the car seats that were wrongly judged to be unsafe, CR plans to retest them again, though this time with a frontal crash test. A new side-impact test is still being developed according to the report by the Detroit Free Press.
[Source: Detroit Free Press]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Car Workshop 12:36PM (6/17/2009)
This is an interesting take on the concept. I never thought of it that way. I came across this site recently which I think will be of great use http://www.driveafrica.co.za . Check it out! Big thanks for keeping me entertained.
Reply
RuneSpyder 12:16PM (3/21/2007)
Soooo..the seat you really want is the one that passed this test, even though it was too fast.
Reply
The Penguin 3:51PM (3/22/2007)
This probably isn't the first time they have been wrong, they are also way overrated.
Reply
The Penguin 1:39PM (3/21/2007)
This probably isn't the first time that they have been wrong, and they are so overrated.
Reply
Snutz 12:25PM (3/21/2007)
"...an impacted car moves at half the speed of the object it was struck by"
Ummm the basketball I just threw at my neighbor's car would beg to differ.
Seriously though, this isn't always true. I wish it was, it would make my statics and dynamics classes a lot easier, but it's not. Maybe in this case it is, but you're saying it like it's true in every case.
Reply
synergeist 12:26PM (3/21/2007)
"The predicted reliability of the Toyota child seat is above average..."
Reply
RP 12:31PM (3/21/2007)
A few months back, they goofed on calculating the true cost of hybrid cars -- they double-counted depreciation.
Now they goofed again.
These are supposed to be the "smart" guys -- the guys we trust and turn to for accuracy.
You'd think they would have someone double-check the articles before they print a million magazines... I spotted the depreciation error 5 minutes after I started reading the article. When you see an 83% failure rate in car seats -- maybe -- just maybe -- you double-check your tests.
Reply
Lithous 12:34PM (3/21/2007)
"In order to avoid such misunderstandings in the future, president of CR's parent company Consumers Union, Jim Guest, will sign off on 'any report that calls a product Not Acceptable or raises questions about an entire group of products.'"
You forgot the caveat, if the report is in respect to American cars then no sign off is needed for a "Not Acceptable" rating and for Japanese cars, no testing is required, as they have undoubtly spent no resources on real world safety and relied on the EXACT NHTSA and CR test criteria for all their development.
Reply
Matt W. 12:52PM (3/21/2007)
I agree with poster #1, which is why I bought a Graco SnugRide for my newborn. After all, it was the only seat to hold up at 76 mph crash, so I feel a little safer driving on the Garden State Parkway where people think its a race to the death on the weekends. BTW, Graco is an American brand owned by Newell Rubbermaid.
Reply
Michael Karesh 12:57PM (3/21/2007)
Their auto reliability survey is also deeply flawed, just not so obviously.
http://www.truedelta.com/pieces/cr_survey.php
Interesting that they say they're now going to be more open to outside critique. They frequently dodge questions asked by members in their forums. I've written about this here:
http://www.truedelta.com/blog/?p=58
Outside critcism rarely gets an organization, any organization, to change. Outside criticism plus the development of an alternative might be a different story.
Reply
Brad 2:26PM (3/21/2007)
I agree with the first post. I can't imagine any fit parent settling for a second-rate car seat for his or her child. I have a Graco SnugRide for my little girl too. Second-best isn't good enough when it comes to keeping her safe.
Reply
paul34 1:27PM (3/21/2007)
Well, this is what people get for actually trusting CR..
also known as CRap. Nothing but a politically charged organization.
Reply
Jim Sanders 1:46PM (3/21/2007)
What kind of lab is this?!?!?!??!
There are labs that CLUELESS?!?
Who runs these labs???1 Pack mules?!?!
Reply
ikate 1:50PM (3/21/2007)
Matt W. - yes, the sung ride was the only one that held up to a 76 mph SIDE car crash, an event very unlikely in the "real world". They were simulating crashes such as someone running a red light - this doesn't happen a such high speeds in normal circumstances. Yes, the Graco Sung Ride is always a top performer, but how does it match up in a frontal crash. Not to mention that something like 80% of kids outgrow this car seat before the one year mark, meaning many are are moved to less-safe forward facing seats too early.
When I read the original report, I knew something had to be wrong - 80%+ failure on seats that had been tested and passed by other agencies? The fact that this didn't send up a red flag prior to publishing the report is astounding!
Reply
CH 3:51PM (3/21/2007)
Misunderstanding? More like incompetence and negligence!
Any initial misunderstandings should have been caught early in the planning and review sessions leading to an approved test plan. Key goals of these sessions include ensuring that everyone is on the same page, and that the test design is consistent with the test objectives. This is basic stuff.
In addition, proper oversight of the contractor should have included validation during and after each test to ensure conformity with the desired test parameters. The crash speed is of course a key test parameter. The results should also have been examined for reasonableness.
The NHTSA raised doubts immediately when CR reviewed the results with them. Unlike the NHTSA, CR lacked the expertise and experience to spot that something was amiss. In light of the doubts raised by the experts, CR should have delayed publication pending further validation.
I guess the sensational nature of the story was too much for CR to resist. Plus CR has this arrogant know-it-all attitude even in areas where they have minimal expertise or experience.
Reply
Richie638 6:17PM (3/21/2007)
I hope the Japanese publish a Consumer Reports type magazine. I'm sure it will be a 'Best Buy' when compared to the American Consumer Reports.
Reply
Bruno 6:56PM (3/21/2007)
This is what happens when you hire people for their political outlook rather than based on competence. Odds are the guy who would have caught this error wasn't enough of a fan of big government controlling various aspects of our lives and didn't make it through the interview process.
Reply
Jake Ryan 7:20PM (3/21/2007)
Shocking that ANOTHER post about CR brings out Troll #1 Michael Karesh with his OPINION on CR's testing methods. Karesh, you are a clown. I've read your CR forum comments, your "think pieces" on your site.
How is it that you can't ever explain how your super-fast responses on reliability aren't any different than the JD Power IQS reports that you mock?
Karesh, you need to come clean on who is funding your work and you REALLY need realize you aren't that important. CR has no obligation to respond to you and your little rantings.
Reply
Cheezedog 9:46PM (3/21/2007)
Despite this error, I would consult through Consumer reports for help to make my dissection's on major purchases... Its not like someone intentionally went out to slam child car seats... And all the products tested still had to be tested all in the same manner. So the two car seats that got a acceptable rating of some sort, probably would get a outstanding rating with the tests run correctly.
Of course... I would have to be a regular reader of consumer reports to catch that... So that's why I never let consumer reports run all my purchasing dissections..
Reply
whofan 8:14PM (3/21/2007)
"I hope the Japanese publish a Consumer Reports type magazine. I'm sure it will be a 'Best Buy' when compared to the American Consumer Reports."
I pray they do!
"Well, this is what people get for actually trusting CR..
also known as CRap. Nothing but a politically charged organization"
I trusted them on a $600.00 washing machine.
Their top rated model six years ago.
During the six years I owned it I paid $400.00 in repairs after the repairs that were done under warranty. When the tub cracked I finally pulled the plug. The tub was still under warranty but the labor wasn`t.
As for testing cars. When you read the reviews the predisposition written right in the review. This disposition is there before the reviewers even get in the car to test them.
We predict Toyota will be above average. BS!
Reply