See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/333921722

Safety analysis of children transported on bicycle-mounted seat during traffic

accidents

Article  in  International Journal of Crashworthiness · June 2019

DOI: 10.1080/13588265.2019.1626967

CITATIONS READS

3 631

3 authors:

Mariusz Ptak Johannes Wilhelm

Wroclaw University of Science and Technology Wroclaw University of Science and Technology
77 PUBLICATIONS   396 CITATIONS    14 PUBLICATIONS   47 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Marek Sawicki
Wroclaw University of Science and Technology
7 PUBLICATIONS   15 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

YEAHM Finite Element Head Model for Brain Injury Evaluation View project

TRIALS View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mariusz Ptak on 22 June 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Crashworthiness

ISSN: 1358-8265 (Print) 1754-2111 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tcrs20

Safety analysis of children transported on bicycle-

mounted seat during traffic accidents

Mariusz Ptak, Johannes Wilhelm & Marek Sawicki

To cite this article: Mariusz Ptak, Johannes Wilhelm & Marek Sawicki (2019): Safety analysis
of children transported on bicycle-mounted seat during traffic accidents, International Journal of
Crashworthiness, DOI: 10.1080/13588265.2019.1626967

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13588265.2019.1626967

Published online: 20 Jun 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tcrs20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CRASHWORTHINESS
https://doi.org/10.1080/13588265.2019.1626967

Safety analysis of children transported on bicycle-mounted seat during

traffic accidents
Mariusz Ptak , Johannes Wilhelm and Marek Sawicki
Department of Machine Design and Research, Wrocław University of Science and Technology, Wrocław, Poland

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The paper concentrates on the safety analysis of children transported in bicycle-mounted baby car- Received 16 November 2018
riers. The biomechanics are widely researched for pedestrians and cyclists, but there is no clear under- Accepted 29 May 2019
standing of children’s kinematics during accidents in commonly used baby carriers. Using a finite
KEYWORDS
element vehicle model coupled with a multibody bicycle, dummies and a generic baby carrier, the
Cyclist safety; baby carrier;
authors numerically simulated various impact scenarios. The results of the simulations proved a com- Accident analysis;
plex motion of the bicycle. Validation of the simulative outcome was done by comparison to full-scale vulnerable road user; child
tests from the literature. This includes Wrap Around Distances and cyclist kinematics as well as the transport; numerical
frontal shape parameters of the impacting vehicle. Further, the crashworthiness of the baby carrier simulations
was investigated. It was concluded that the belt system, which is attached to the baby carrier, was in
several cases not able to secure the child in its position. In a result, the studied baby carrier showed
poor performance as a passive safety device during the simulated accidents. In this respect, also pos-
sible injuries of the child’s head, brain and neck were discussed. Finally, the authors concluded that
the kinematics of the impacted child buckled in a baby carrier are neither representing cyclist’s nor
pedestrian’s kinematics.

1. Introduction
The current evolution of urban traffic shows tendencies
toward green and sustainable types of movement and trans-
portation. In this context, cycling is representing an active
and modern lifestyle besides the work often dedicated to
achieve a specific fitness level. Additionally, by trying to
find possibilities to secure appropriate air conditions in
urban areas, this type of movement is more often present in
the fields of ethical education and parenting, to lead chil-
dren already in their young years of life to the topic of
muscle-based movement and sustainable transportation.
Even if, according to this new understanding of short-dis-
tance travelling in urban or even rural areas, infrastructure
for cyclists increased as well, a large number of injuries and
accidents involving cyclists is reported every year [1]. As
cycling requires developed motor skills, proper age might be
a necessity for taking part in traffic actively. According to
the parental choice of transportation as well as legislation,
children are transported on bicycles during their first years
of life in so called baby carriers, on cargo bikes, in trailers
or bike-a-like-trailers to get used to the parental lifestyle [2].
Among others, accidents occur due to the increasing com-
plexity of current traffic while decreasing space for the cor-
responding contenders on the road and lead to a wide range
of possible injuries and even death, especially of the
Vulnerable Road Users (VRU) – the safety issues of this
group was recently described by Ptak [3]. A lot of research
has been carried out to analyse the crash situations, level
and severity of injuries, affected or injured regions of the
cyclists, in regard of involved vehicle types, front-end design
etc. An anatomically-based and universally used scoring tool
for the injury classification of a body region according to its
relative importance is the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS)
[4]. Most of injuries classified at least as AIS2þ, corre-
sponding to moderate to serious injury, were counted as
fractures mainly in the upper extremities, torso and lower
extremities, which shows the vulnerability of these road
users due to the non-securing geometry of their vehicle [5].
Following fractures in the ranking, brain injuries represent
10% of all AIS2þ injuries [6]. Projecting the possibility of
bicycle-usage related Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) to
bicycle-transported children, these injuries could be found
in children falling out of a baby carrier as well as out of a
single fall [7] or even flip-over. The transport of children by
bicycle is popular in America since the late 1970s [8]. It is
also described by the Australian National Cycling Strategy
2011–2016 (NCS) as a safe, viable and enjoyable mode of
transport and recreation and enabling families to cycle safely
[9,10]. Based on the introduction given so far, this statement
shall be over thought in a critical way. Especially, as infor-
mation about occupant safety concerning baby and child
carriers attached to bicycles is very limited [11] and related
to the latest authors’ publications [12,13]. Herein, the
authors present advanced numerical simulations of accidents

CONTACT Johannes Wilhelm johannes.wilhelm@pwr.edu.pl

ß 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 M. PTAK ET AL.
involving a bicycle with a baby carrier – the device used
mainly for the urban short-distance transport. Basing on the
following literature review, it is one of the first attempts in
the literature to numerically simulate and oversee such a
traffic situation.
2. State of the art – norms, seat construction, injury
criteria, gained insights
Due to the high cost-benefit-ratio, the use of a rear-
mounted baby carrier is a very popular way to transport
children in urban areas. The typical baby carrier fits to most
road-use bicycles. Transporting a child in a bike seat elimi-
nates the need for parents to pay attention to their child
riding their own bike [2]. Bicycle-mounted child seats con-
sist generally of a horizontal platform supported by vertical
struts, which are connected to the bike’s frame. The com-
mon mounting configurations are visualized in Figure 1.
Safety features include spoke guards, reflectors, seat belt or
harness, and on some models a grab bar that acts as a front
restraint [14]. It is also important to note the disadvantages
of bike seats that some of them include; items dropped by
the child may fall into the spokes of the bicycle wheels;
adults may land on top of the child in the event of a fall;
interference with pedaling in some seat configurations; diffi-
culties in mounting, dismounting and placing the child in
the seat. These difficulties arise from instability of the bike/
seat structure as well as the child’s unwillingness
to cooperate.
The different baby carrier models offer the possibility to
handle thereby a maximum child weight of approximately
22 kg. From a constructive point of view, baby carriers have
to match the demands of DIN EN 14344 [15] to be sold as
such a device on the European Union market. As a main
criterion, the device needs to be able to secure the carried
child from getting its feet caught by the wheels’ spokes.
Furthermore, the seat itself needs to be sufficient shock-
and temperature resistant. Overall, the facts point more
toward the used material and the devices lower geometry
than to the device’s safety behavior in the worthiest of pro-
tection regions - the upper body and especially the head.
These regions are reported to be among others the most
affected [10,16]. Focusing the spot of incident, a
Figure 1. Mounting configurations of bicycle-mounted seat—rear-rack (left), rear-frame (middle), front (right) [3].
recognizable amount of accidents is registered in regions of
lower velocities [17], which underlines the motivation for
this type of transport on urban areas. However, as in most
accident situations it is difficult to obtain reliable data –
especially for child related injuries. Case specific data is
unfortunately not always provided by the police because in
many scene observations it was not collected or even never
reported to the police. As literature reveals, this includes the
lack of knowledge about the specific bicycle type or
mounted additional equipment, especially the used type and
mounting version of the baby carrier [6,10]. Alternatively
the data or indicators for impact and injury can be collected
by hospital emergency departments and hospital admission
data [10], as well as by insurance companies [6]. For virtual
reconstruction of accidents, unclear input variables as initial
velocity, unknown kinematics or pre-impact sitting posture
may lead to deviations between reconstruction and the real
case. On the other side of unknown initial data, also the
continuing changes of the skull Young’s modulus over the
first years of life indicate that in relation to material prop-
erty values [18], the need of understanding and appropriate
research of the accident situation is inevitable. Besides scien-
tific literature, also, full-scale tests carried out by private
organisations in terms of product safety and quality has to
be named as informational input. These tests may support
the sceptics mentioned in the introduction, that a safe ride
for the child depends not only on a bought and properly
mounted baby carrier. Also the devices safety details and
the impact scenario itself [19] are playing a central role in
this context. In this concern a study showed, that traffic
accidents are mainly connected with older car models. This
indicates, that by current research and consecutively intro-
duction of safety systems general safety improvements can
be achieved [20]. As such a possible influence, the including
of Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB) systems to secure
cyclists in the Euro NCAP testing assessment and final score
up from 2018 is named. The protocol included before only
Automatic Emergency Braking for Pedestrian (AEB-Ped)
and will be extended in this regard consequently [21].
However, as a common result out of all studies, wearing
a safety helmet during cycling is recommended for both
driver and child to reduce the risk of severe or life-threaten-
ing injuries. Passive safety devices that are sold as safety

helmets have to match the demands out of EN 1078 and
EN 1080 in drop tower tests. Finishing these drop tower
tests with a 5 kg headform and a maximum occurring accel-
eration of 250 g enables their certification as safety gear.
Nevertheless, for instance in Germany there is still no law
to wear a helmet as the demand of using seatbelts during
car usage. It was stated, that in 2014 in Germany statistically
more than two thirds of children aged between 6 and
10 years were wearing a safety helmet while riding.
Respectively for age groups of cyclist that were at least
17 years old, the helmet wearing rate decreased to a value
between 7 and 16% only [21]. Safety gear in terms of geom-
etry and quality itself spreads also widely, so the hazard out
of the usage of improper safety devices for a urban bike ride
remains as well [7]. In regard of child transportation, the
discussion about appropriate safety gear and ride prepar-
ation is additionally extended. The correct fastening situ-
ation of the child in its restraint system and the use of an
appropriate seatbelt system is thereby a major point [22].
In the case, that it may come to a major accident, the
possible outcome of head and brain injury after this incident
is often connected to the Head Injury Criterion (HIC). As
declared by its definition, Head Injury Criterion considers
only the linear, translational acceleration during the impact
over its defined time window. Rotational components of
acceleration, which occur naturally as well, are not consid-
ered in the assessment of HIC [16,23]. As a result, both
revealed peak acceleration and calculated HIC need to be
below a threshold, which is defined by regulations for test-
ing or certification of safety devices. Exemplarily in ECE
Regulation 22.05, which is base for the certification process
of road-legal motorcycle safety helmets, a maximum value
of HIC(36) ¼ 2400 is stated, while the peak acceleration
needs to be limited to 275 g [24]. Out of literature review,
the representation of a threshold of severe, but not life-
threatening, injuries HIC(36) ¼ 1000 is widely accepted as
an empirical predictor for head injury [25]. Regardless if the
procedure is described by legislation or testing regulation:
the background of establishing these thresholds is to avoid
in a result Traumatic Brain Injuries (TBI) by the appropri-
ate performance of a passive safety device. Nonetheless,
commonly occurring injuries during or after bicycle acci-
dents are Diffuse Axonal Injury (DAI) and Subdural
Hematoma (SDH). As initially remarked, HIC is not consid-
ering rotational components of acceleration. In terms of
their injury mechanism, DAI as well as SDH are connected
in the literature to these components of acceleration, which
are present during a direct cranial impact scenario and
cause a relative movement of brain to skull, white to grey
matter respectively. In case of SDH, relative motion between
skull and brain causes tearing or failure of the bridging
veins of the subdural space. The DAI may also arise out of
relative motion, but due to relative motion of white and
grey matter. This relative motion affects the integrity of
neuronal axons, which are connecting both parts of the
brain tissue [26]. The axons might get swollen due to this
event, which leads consequently to the secondary severe
effects of DAI. Nonetheless, these injuries may also arise
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CRASHWORTHINESS 3
below the HIC(36)-threshold of safety helmet certification
[27–29]. Connected to this, long-term disability or vegeta-
tive states after the incidents may point on a limitation of
this approach [30–32]. It needs to be mentioned, that some
researchers showed, in opposite to these previously pre-
sented points, a correlation of the magnitude of angular
acceleration with the magnitude of linear acceleration [33].
Nonetheless, the discussion about this possible discrepancy
between related injury mechanism and the current state of
regulations sets the crash behavior and performance of a
baby carrier during accidents in a spotlight as a possible
safety device. Thereby, the aspects of head movement, which
are connected to the restraint system and the geometrical
construction of the baby carrier, are gaining importance in
the assessment of the overall babies’ safety during the
impact scenario [19].
Besides injuries, which are counted directly to head and
brain, phenomena as whiplash effect or excessive movement
of the head due to the lack of muscular tension are as well
occurring during accidents. They affect mainly the anatom-
ical structure of the neck. For example, rear-end-crashes are
leading to relative motion between the torso and the neck
of the victim. In the result, this can lead to distortion of the
neck and fractures of cervical vertebrae [34]. This phenom-
enon of relative motion in the regarded region can be as
well recognized in accidents, which concern a cyclist or a
child transported on a bicycle. Nevertheless, the specific
impact scenario – especially in terms of driving and impact
direction – may influence the occurrence due to the com-
plex head and torso motion. As the basic kinematics of
these types of injuries in bicycle crashes might be recog-
nized, mentioning injury criteria concerning neck injuries
get reasonable. In this concern, research about the outcome
of neck injuries is often connected to the Neck Injury
Criterion (NIC). This criterion was initially proposed in
1996 by Bostr€ om and describes a value to correlate the
movement of the head during the impact incident to its
base in T1 vertebrae and the related damage that can be
found in the cervical spinal ganglia [35]. The damage itself
is mentioned as to be caused by transient pressure changes
in the spinal canal [36]. It was assumed to be an explanation
for the symptoms that occurred or were typical for patients
after rear impact situations resulting in AIS 1-neck injuries
[35]. Another standard, which considers the neck movement
and adds additional tolerance levels, is the Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208 [37]. It intro-
duced individual tolerance limits for: 1) compression, repre-
sented by the compression of the neck itself; 2) tension,
which considers the force stretching the neck; 3) shear,
occurring perpendicular forces to the neck column; 4) flex-
ion moment, bending the neck in forward direction and 5)
extension moment, bending the neck in rearward direction.
A limitation of the presented approaches is the absence of
general possible angular acceleration, lateral bending or
movement of the head around the human’s z-axis [34]. In
this context, it needs to be noted that a cyclist as a VRU is
not protected by a crumple zone nor cage construction in
comparison to vehicle occupants. This circumstance
4 M. PTAK ET AL.
increases the complexity of possible injury outcome due to
the increased complexity of body motion during the acci-
dent. Hence, the considered motion cannot be limited only
to the components, which are considered by the presented
neck injury related criteria. The excessive rotation of the
head around the humans’ z-axis may also occur after direct
hits. Cadaver tests revealed 114 of rotation as a critical
value, when an atlantoaxial dislocation was recognizable in
post mortem tests [38]. Such an injury is categorized as AIS
3 (serious injury). Yoganandan et al. estimated a human tor-
sional tolerance of approximately 28 Nm. They showed fur-
thermore, that the lower cervical spine can be seen as
stronger in torsion than the atlantoaxial joint. As a primary
cause of lower cervical injury, torsion was mitigated.
The presented neck-related injury criteria point on the
complexity of body motion and general limitation of pos-
sible injury forecast due to the variety of variables in an
accident scenario. Especially, due to this complexity, the
majority of these injury criteria may not be calculated and
used without any doubt on their outcome meaning for cyc-
list accidents. The background thereby needs to be seen in
the usage of most of these criteria for passengers in vehicles
during rear-end or frontal impacts without major lateral
neck bending or rotation of head to torso [34]. Nonetheless,
further research to understand characteristic kinematics of
bicycles with mounted baby carrier shall be a feasible pro-
posal to state about the performance of a baby carrier in a
more convenient way. Therefore, the combination with the
evaluation of injury criteria at the one hand and general
accepted approaches of considering translational behavior
on the other hand is proposed.
Accident reconstruction related to the articles topic of
transported children might be found only in small
Figure 2. The 2-way approach to create the bike-dummy-vehicle coupling: 1. (top row): child seat modelling and verification 2. (lower row): bike modelling;
dummy and child seat adjustment; vehicle set-up.
numbers for single cases or out of insurance data. In
authors’ opinion, after literature review, numerical tests or
reconstructions are now only available for the contender
situation of a motorized vehicle versus a single-seat bicycle.
Numerical simulations concerning two-person bicycle
usage, especially concerning the transport of children on
bikes related to urban traffic situations or incidents are
missing completely. Apparently, proper safety gear is in its
stage of geometrical design dependent on possible accident
kinematics and possible injury outcome as inevitable data
input. Hence, the safety situation needs to be connected in
a further step also to brains injury tolerance in terms of
direct cranial impacts, as the impact situation may lead
also to rotational accelerations of the child’s brain [16,25].
The simulation of possible kinematics and the overall
after-incident situation is highlighted consecutively as a
base for further related research to state about the safety
situation of children being transported on the baby car-
riers. Thus, the authors present the methodology of a
simulation in this specific concern.
3. Methodology
The focus is set to the assessment of the general safety
situation of the baby in the baby carrier. This leads firstly
to the decomposition of the problem. The authors decided
therefore to realise a 2-way approach. It consists out of the
child seat modelling and verification at the one hand, com-
bined with bike modelling and the corresponding set-up of
the dummies, the child seat and a vehicle at the other
hand. Figure 2 represents schematically a graphical abstract
and shows all the steps that were performed by
the authors.

A short description of each step is given below.
1.1 Considering a real-world case 2.1 Choosing MADYMO dummy models
1.2 The baby carrier as 2.2 MADYMO multibody (MB)
physical object bicycle modelling
1.3 3D scan of the baby carrier 2.3 Adjusting and positioning the dummies
1.4 Creating a geometrical 2.4 Coupling of FE baby carrier
(CAD) model with MB bicycle and dummy
1.5 Establishing a material model models (inclusion of steps 1.1-1.7)
1.6 Finite Element (FE) model 2.5 FE vehicle set-up
1.7 Experimental verification of 2.6 Final coupling of bicycle
the FE model and vehicle
3.1. Representing the impacting vehicle as FE-model
The impact situation and after-impact kinematics of pedes-
trians have been proven to be highly affected by the vehicle
frontal shape [39,40]. The vehicle front-end geometry made
it necessary to define an initial setup for the further
research. Besides the rising number of SUV in current traf-
fic as well as the occurrence of similar shaped cross-over
cars [6,41–43], literature research revealed that impacts are
more likely registered for older car models. This may be
explained by increasing safety standards in terms of add-
itional assistance systems in newer cars. Out of this point of
view, the authors decided to use an Audi TT 2007 model,
which has been already validated for the reconstruction of a
fatal accident with a pedestrian [44] and further used a cyc-
list accident [45]. As this research is not intended to recon-
struct a specific incident with this vehicle, the chosen
frontal design of Audi TT can be seen as a generic vehicle
model. This choice is also supported by the state of the art.
The only comparable example of a baby carrier accident in
literature was found in a full-scale test performed by the
Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt) Germany [46].
In this test, a Volkswagen Golf Mk.5 was used with similar
front-end geometrical parameters as the Audi TT.
Consecutively, initial comparison of both cars was done
at the stage of a geometrical model. In common use for the
description of the frontal design in terms of VRU safety are
Bonnet Leading Edge (BLE) and Lower Bumper Reference
Line (LBRL) in accordance to regulation (EC) No. 78/2009
and No. 631/2009 [47,48]. BLE and LBRL will be used in
this concern as a qualitative tool for comparison of both car
models. The frontal shape of VW Golf Mk.5 and the
Figure 3. Front-end main geometrical parameters of two compact vehicles: VW Golf Mk.5 – left, Audi TT 2007 – right.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CRASHWORTHINESS 5
authors’ model of an Audi TT seem to be comparable, as
their bonnet height and initial angle is similar, which is add-
itionally shown in Figure 3. In general, the VRU kinematics
is affected significantly by this frontal shape, especially due
to the height of the bonnet [39]. A discrepancy between
both models and consequently the resulting values will be
expected in terms of the distance to the vehicles’ windshield
and the impact angle on the windshield. The intention to
use a different vehicle model than the Golf Mk.5 used in
the full-scale test needs to be seen in the already performed
validation of the vehicle FE-model within an accident recon-
struction by the authors [44].
3.2. Establishing a generic model of the baby carrier
Because this research is not funded or intended to prove or
question the safety aspects of any specific baby carrier
model, establishing a generic model of a widely used baby
carrier is a mandatory step. This is realized in a first step by
the 3 D scanning of a representative rear-mounted baby car-
rier. The authors recognized that in European Union major-
ity of baby carriers were made out of polypropylene. The
baby carriers are installed by the use of a bracket to the seat
post tube of the bicycle frame and are equipped with a 3-
point seat belt. According to these criteria, the baby carrier
was chosen as representative for this research. The action of
scanning was done by the use of a Leica ScanStation. The
head of scanner rotates in horizontal and vertical axis. The
combination of two-axis rotation results in measurement of
a spherical coordinate system. The interferometry is realized
by Waveform Digitizing technology (WFD) where a proces-
sor calculates the distance basing on the time difference
between reflected laser signal and referent signal. The result
of the measurement is a combined cloud of points from all
scans, which is the basis for reproducing the geometry of
the baby carrier (Figure 4).
Consecutively, the cloud of points was converted into
CATIA software, which enables the author to reconstruct a
surface model out of this data. Adjustments of geometry
and mesh were done to recreate surfaces; also, functional
elements as ribs and the mounting construction to the pre-
viously created surface model were added. The additional
installation is intended to secure the position and the
6 M. PTAK ET AL.
Figure 4. 3 D laser scanning: left – spherical images mapped on the cloud of points; middle – reflectivity colour spectrum; right – a generic and meshed baby car-
rier model.
Figure 5. Specimen while tensile test (left) with the outcome data.
function of the baby carrier during the simulation. The cre-
ated, generic model of the chosen baby carrier is further
transferred as FE model to LS-DYNA.
3.3. Material testing
The main material used for baby carriers is polypropylene
(PP) without additional fiber reinforcement (code: 05).
Because of the wide range of material property in literature
for PP, the authors decided to apply properties obtained
through physical experiments. Material data was obtained
from tensile tests where specimens were cut off from the
already used baby carrier. The test procedure is described
by a quasi-static tensile test with 10 mm/min crosshead vel-
ocity. The tensile force was measured by a build-in absolute
force sensor, whereas the displacement was measured paral-
lel by crosshead travel and macro extensometer. Based on
this test, the Young’s modulus, maximum tensile force and
maximum elongation were obtained. Figure 5 shows the
specimen during the test procedure with clear necking of
the structure.
Several tensile tests were conducted for gathering the
average value of the material Young’s modulus. The aver-
aged value for Young’s modulus is 1.11 GPa. In the litera-
ture, Young’s modulus varies for PP in the range of
0.89–1.55 GPa [49]. The Poisson’s ratio was assigned to
m ¼ 0.4. The shell thickness was defined by a value of
2.5 mm in order to match the chosen baby carrier structure
thickness. The material model MAT_ELASTIC in LS-DYNA
was used for the baby carrier within the simulations.
3.4. Seat belt modelling
As there was no official information given to the authors by
the manufacturer, tensile tests were performed to gather
knowledge about the material’s force-extension curve. The
belt in the carrier is made out of polyamide fibers, and it is
different compared to a usual seat belt used in automotive.
It is different also out of a technical point of view, as nei-
ther a belt roller nor a retractor can be found in a bicycle
carrier seat belt system. In a consequence, placing a child in
the baby carrier might lead to seat belt slack because of
clothing (e.g. compressible winter jacket) or sitting posture
(e.g. forward-bended neck due to helmet/head to backrest
interaction). Thus, this suboptimal belting situation leads to
a natural slack between the child’s body and the seat belt. In
this concern, the authors recognized the general recommen-
dation of usage and the instructions for the rollover test in
the DIN EN 14344 [15]. There, 30 mm spacers are firstly set
on the dummies shoulders, before any slackness has to be
taken out of the restraint system by tightening. After remov-
ing the spacers, the baby seat is about to be rotated with
(4 ± 0.5) RPM three times forward and backward. If neces-
sary, the dummy should be repositioned during the test to
its initial position without altering the restraint system.
Furthermore, the authors want to highlight that the baby
carrier with its specific geometry and material (polypropyl-
ene) can be deformed significantly. This includes also the
mounting points of the seat belt system. This important
issue has to be kept in mind by considering the initial seat-
ing configuration during the experimental tests. Overall, we
tried to respect all of the mentioned circumstances by
including a light initial slack of approximately 5 mm

measured between seat belt and dummy in the numerical
approach. The seat belt itself was modelled out of quad
SHELL elements and orientated on common seat belt cre-
ation and routing routines out of literature [50]. The elastic
material model with a Young’s modulus of E ¼ 607.5 MPa
was applied, which showed correlation to the experimental
tests in our accredited laboratory.
3.5. Generating a multibody model of the bicycle
A multibody (MB) model of a mountain bike (MTB) was
recognized by the authors in their area as a popular bicycle,
which was also often used in combination with a baby car-
rier. The geometry of the bicycle was created with particular
effort to reflect the geometry and moments of inertia of a
real-world bicycle. The frame was modelled by a rigid body
including mass and inertia computed as aluminum alloy
pipes and connected by ‘bracket’ joints. The frame-front
fork and frame-pedal board were connected by revolute
joints. The frontal damper and handle bar ends were also
added, as it is a common feature for MTBs.
3.6. Coupling LS-DYNA with MADYMO, dummy
description
The coupling is a tool in the field of computer methods to
combine different simulation codes. The idea of the cou-
pling tool is to establish an interface between two different
codes during calculation. Thus, it enables simulating mod-
els, which are not available only in a primary code, but are
achievable over a secondary code. Moreover, the exchanged
data between codes works as input for both of codes
respectively. The authors use the code combination of LS-
DYNA and MADYMO. This coupling is regarded as a
common coupling-method for crash-test analyses. The
main benefit of using MADYMO is the significantly
decreased calculation time by using the Facet Quality mod-
els, which represent the human body in a reduced
Figure 6. Visualization of setup of impact angle a and offset distance “d”.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CRASHWORTHINESS 7
complexity. Furthermore, it is described as a method to
achieve a good correlation of simulative tests to real-world
results. The 50th percentile male Hybrid III-dummy used
here is the most popular implemented test dummy in
terms of performance evaluation of automotive restraint
and safety devices [44]. Also implemented in this approach
is the dummy of a 1.5-year-old, 11 kg child from
MADYMO 7.5 [50].
In a consecutive step, the connection between baby car-
rier with the bicycle itself and calculatory to the FE-model
of the vehicle is realised by the use of COUPLINGs,
CONTACT and RESTRAINTs. The relation of the real
mounting, which is used to attach the baby carrier to the
bicycle with one bracket, compared to the description of a
restraint in between the parts of the assembly is intended to
express a simplified, but reasonable compromise in respect
to the envisaged outcome and calculatory effort.
3.7. Accident configurations
The most common accident configuration between cars and
cyclists can be described by a forward driving car hitting
the cyclists’ side [6]. Consequently, the majority of cases of
this study are intended to represent these incidents with
varying values of the cycles offset to the center of the car,
initial velocities of the contenders and initial angle of
the bicycle to the driving direction of the car. Additionally,
several configurations were established to simulate the over-
taking maneuver. The simulations were calculated for max-
imum 350 ms. Observation and reconstruction of accidents
revealed a time range of approximately 100–200 ms for the
first head impact of an impacted cyclist [51]. A second head
impact to the ground is possible but not simulated in
this approach.
The following figure visualises one initial setup of the
simulated accident scenario by showing all general variables
and concerned directions. Impact angle a and offset distance
d are shown in Figure 6. Variable d describes in this context
8 M. PTAK ET AL.

Table 1. Configuration matrix of the bicycle-vehicle setups.

Initial velocity

# First impacted area of the bicycle Impact angle a [ ] Offset distance d [mm] Audi TT v0 [kmh-1] Bicycle v1 [kmh-1]
1 rear wheel; baby carrier 30 275 30 15
2 rear wheel; baby carrier 90 589 30 0
3 adult, centered to car 90 210 30 10
4 adult, centered to car 90 210 40 0
5 adult, centered to car 90 210 40 10
6 front wheel 90 810 30 0
7 direct rear impact 0 0 20 0
8 taking over, urban velocity 0 700 30 0
9 baby centered to the car 90 390 30 15
10 baby centered to the car 90 590 30 0
11 adult, centered to car 90 221 20 0
12 direct rear impact 0 700 40 0

Figure 7. Head impact positions for adult (black markers) and child (yellow markers) on the vehicle with Wrap Around Distance (WAD) marking lines – some con-
figurations are not marked as there was no vehicle contact.

the distance between the bike transition plane and the
vehicle longitudinal symmetry plane. The bike transition
plane is located perpendicular to the ground and crosses the
bottom bracket of the bicycle.
An impact angle of 0 indicates a rear-end-impact of the
vehicle in the bicycle, while 90 shows the vehicle impacting
into the left side of the bicycle. A negative value for the off-
set distance between the bicycles’ transition plane and
vehicle longitudinal symmetry plane means a general shift
of the bicycle to the right side of the vehicle according to its
forward driving direction. If a specific velocity is defined as
v > 0 kmh1 in a configuration, the vehicle is moving with
v0, the bicycle with v1 in its own forward driving direction.
The values used for each configuration are listed in Table 1.
4. Discussion of the obtained results
The investigation of the overall impact situation is neces-
sary, as the impact to the ground might be only the second
impact after a primary contact between the cyclists’ head
and the front of the car. During the simulation, we figured
out that only in a few cases a head impact on the bonnet or
windshield did not occur. In a consequence, in most of
simulated accident scenarios, the VRU might be exposed
to a secondary head impact to the ground. The material,
which is commonly used in safety helmets, is Expanded
Polystyrene (EPS). The EPS can only be subjected to one
major impact. The first direct cranial impact is considered
as the more important impact to focus on, as the safety hel-
met loses the ability to protect in worst case after this
impact [23,52]. Statements concerning possible additional
application of safety gear on both rider and seat device
might be dependent on the gathered output data. The
Figure 7 gives an overview about the recognized head
impact positions of the child (yellow markers) and adult
(black markers). The written number within the marker cor-
responds thereby to the specific accident configuration,
which were given in an overview in Table 1.
The gained head impact positions out of the authors’
simulation serve in this context as well as comparison to the
full-scale test that was executed by BASt. The authors of the
full-scale test concluded that the Wrap Around Distance

Figure 8. Child slips with the right shoulder out of the seatbelt in configuration #9 in 90 ms and 125 ms after impact.
(WAD) of 2100 mm was not an appropriate rearward limita-
tion for the adult, as it covered only in one of their cases
the adults’ head completely [46]. This simulation is in
accordance to the previous made statement, as the full-scale
test corresponding configuration No. 4 revealed a WAD
2200 for the adult. In opposite to this, Zander et al. con-
cluded for the child that its rearward limitation of WAD
1700 covered the impact points, while most impact point
were located around WAD 1500. The authors’ simulations’
showed thereby in configuration No. 2 a maximum of
WAD 1600 and support this statement. In an overall state-
ment, it can be said that if a direct cranial impact on the
vehicle occurred during the presented configurations, the
child impacted always the bonnet, while the adult impacted
always on the windshield except of configuration No. 11. In
this one exceptional case, the adult hit the rear-edge of the
bonnet. It might be respected here, that subjectively the kin-
ematical results out of full-scale test and simulation seem to
correlate with Zander et al. results. Even though, the bicycle
geometry differed in each of the five presented full-scale
tests to each other, as well to the MB-bicycle used in our
simulation [46]. Additionally, the overall height of the
bicycle positioned dummies differed, especially in the case
of the adult. While the real dummy was measured overall
with a height of in average 177.6 cm, the simulative dummy
measured only 153.0 cm but represented an equivalent mass
as both are based on 50th percentile male. The children both
real and simulative were measured by an overall height of
134.6 cm, 130.0 cm respectively. Only the mass was with
11 kg instead of approximately 15 kg less in case of the
simulative child, as the Q1.5 was chosen instead of a 3yo
dummy [53,54].
By observing the kinematical outcome, it can be recog-
nized, that the general motion of each of the bodies are sig-
nificantly different. The baby can – with a specific
limitation – only move as a part of the bicycle due to its
belted situation. This leads especially to the circumstance,
that if the bicycle is lifted by the car or even just dragged to
its side, a direct-cranial impact to the side or front of the
child’s head is very likely to occur as a first head impact.
The addendum “with a specific limitation” shall be
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CRASHWORTHINESS 9
explained by pointing on a case specific situation during the
impact, visualized in the following Figure 8.
Due to the flexibility of the baby carrier and the only
roughly positioned 3-point-seatbelt, the baby is likely able to
loosen from the harness, which might be recognized by slip-
ping with a shoulder out of the seatbelt or harness. In this
moment, it represents the case, when a child is not properly
belted or the situation is influenced by some clothing, exem-
plarily by wearing a thick jacket in wintertime. The here
presented simulative research and general given advices
from manufacturers agree with each other and are indicat-
ing thereby a higher risk of useless seatbelt systems, as
improper clothing situations like thick jackets are negatively
influencing the restraint system in their effectivity [15]. As a
result, the baby carrier is even unable to act furthermore as
a safety device or to drive the babies’ direction of motion,
as the torso and especially the head of the child is beyond
any geometrical border of the device, as the baby carrier is
not constructed like a cage. Especially, Figure 9 is pointing
on this behavior. In several configurations, it was also recog-
nizable that first impacts were cushioned by the initial con-
tact between the babies’ body and the bonnet. A muscle
contraction was not assumed in this model, but this might
lead to a differing outcome.
In opposite to this general kinematics of the child, the
adult is generally able to loosen from the bicycle. This ena-
bles to recognize a less driven or restricted rotational
motion of the adults’ body. However, this is not an indica-
tor, which leads to more occipital-directed or face-first
impacts on the car either. To demonstrate the motion, con-
figuration No. 4 is shown in Figure 9, which corresponds to
the full-scale test setup of Zander et al.
Thus, it can be seen that the adults’ kinematics is com-
parable to the general cyclists’ kinematics, which was
described in the literature. In opposite to this, the belted
child is also after the first contact to the car connected to
the baby carrier and consequently implies the bicycle
motion. Following to the first major impact to the vehicles’
bonnet, the vehicle drags the bicycle in its driving direction.
The deformation takes place in a recognizable amount on
the representation of the baby carriers’ mounting structure.
10 M. PTAK ET AL.

Figure 9. Visualisation of the impact situation in configuration #4 in intervals of 50 ms.


The pushing of the baby and the bicycle toward a possible
second major impact to the ground or tarmac gets
thereby feasible.
By concentrating on the first 70 ms after the initial
impact, in all simulated cases of lateral vehicle impacts a
specific movement of the infant and the baby carrier could
be observed. Figure 9 with the portraiture of the times t ¼ 0
and 50 ms helps to visualize the following explanation. By
the first contact between a vehicle and bicycle left side in
the lateral impact situations, the bicycle is shifted to its right
side. The child bounces due to inertia with the left hip to
the geometry of the baby carrier as the 3-point-seatbelt is
limited in handling lateral forces [55]. The center of mass is
shifted in this moment aside the bike’s longitudinal sym-
metry plane and the baby carrier tilts for several degrees, as
it can be seen in Figure 9 for t ¼ 50ms. The tilt indicated in
all simulative cases the direction of the vehicle impact.
Reference [46] stated the same behavior by visuals in their
publication. In the following milliseconds – but dependent
on the initial impact conditions – the infant bounced back
to the other side of the baby carrier, while the tilt remained.
The hazard of severe head injury from this moment on
remains, as the vertical dropping height leading to a specific
vertical impact velocity is still in the range of a regular
bicycle fall accident.
It is noticeable over the whole set of configurations, that
a change of the bodies motion occurs especially regarding
arms and legs of child and adult. The reasons or influences
for that can be found in different sources. The literature
stated generally the importance of the leg position during
the first impact for the kinematical outcome [56]. In the
authors’ attempt, the initial posture of adult and child on
the bicycle was always the same. In opposite to this, the
full-scale test which is used for general comparison used
five different bikes with different frame geometries and
wheel sizes [46], which lead consequently not only to differ-
ent overall sitting heights of the dummies in the five crash
tests but also to different postures and initial leg positions.
In this simulative approach, the authors agreed to change
only the initial position of the whole bicycle to the longitu-
dinal symmetry plane of the vehicle. Nevertheless, also the
shift of the bicycle to the vehicle leads in a specific range to
a changing leg position due to the varying geometrical front
shape of the vehicles’ FE-model. This offset distance as the
variable d was described already as the distance between the
bike transition plane, which crosses the bottom bracket of
the bicycle and the vehicle longitudinal symmetry plane. It
was the authors’ intention to compare despite the discrep-
ancy in riders’ postures the outcome of kinematics and
WAD qualitatively, so the shift of bicycle to vehicle was
chosen also in the range of 850 to þ850 mm, as most of
recognized bicycle accidents in literature were recorded for
this range of shift [46]. Nonetheless, the authors want to
point on the significantly changed moment of inertia of the
bicycle by mounting a baby carrier and seating the child
[57]. Also, within this described range of the first impact
position, the authors revealed three simulative cases, in that
the child’s head did not impact to the bonnet. Moreover,
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CRASHWORTHINESS 11
the bike was dragged to the side. The results indicate the
existence of a critical line, to which a prediction might be
possible, the bicycle is either dragged to the vehicles side or
pushed in driving direction of the vehicle. Out of the
obtained results, the frontal shape of the vehicle seems to
play a central role as well. In a consequence to this behav-
ior, the head of the child impacted always to the bonnet, if
the bicycle was pushed in driving direction. In the authors’
eyes, this leads to an additional variation of the assumptions
out of literature. Even if the first impact point seems to be
mostly the foot or leg of the adult rider, the influence of the
moment of inertia of the bicycle is significant. Thus, the
kinematics of bicycle riders to a single rider and especially
to pedestrians will differ. This effect can be noticed also
during the accident simulation, when the adult rider loosens
from the bicycle. Changes in the bicycle kinematics in terms
of dragging or flipping were clear. This happened when the
adult dummy loosened from the bicycle but was still kept
partially by the steering bar during the impact. A reason for
this can be seen also in the seated and belted baby, which
acts like a high located, concentrated mass. Furthermore, a
shift of the head impact zones was recognizable due to the
introduction of an initial velocity of the impacted bicycle.
The authors refer thereby to the configurations 3, 4 and 5
according to the previously given Table 1 and the corre-
sponding head impact positions in Figure 7. The consider-
ation of a moderate velocity of 10 kmh1 leads to a head
impact zone of the adult close to the A-pillar of the vehicle.
The baby’s head impact zone changed less in the same con-
figurations. A circumstance that was not considered in the
full-scale test but points on the importance of both the ini-
tial velocity as well as the location of the baby carrier to the
vehicles’ longitudinal symmetry plane. Also here, it might
be important input for the general result in terms of drag-
ging the baby to the vehicles side or expose it to a direct
impact on the upper frontal geometries of bonnet and wind-
shield of the vehicle. To achieve knowledge about the quan-
titative influence or a possible critical line for this
phenomenon, additional simulations by including different
vehicle frontal shapes and vehicle types should be a future
point of research. A justification for intensified research
needs to be seen in the direct casually determined outcome
of possible head injury due to the impact situation.
The velocity of the adults’ head in the moment of impact
is presented in Table 2. The additional information of the
impacted region of the head, as in this context the impact
position resulting out of the calculated kinematics and to
this connected Wrap Around Distance, can be assumed
as valid.
The calculated HIC(36)-values for the child dummy
model are spreading widely through the considered setup
matrix. As HIC is dependent on the resultant acceleration,
the stiffness of the impacted material or the ability to be dis-
placed plays a central role during the observation. In several
cases, it came to an interaction between the cars’ geometry
and the child’s head, but with its extremities in between as
a cushioning instance. The high HIC(36), over the general
threshold of 1000, was calculated for the rear impacted
12 M. PTAK ET AL.

scenarios, when it came to a collision of the child carried by maximum torque in the child’s and adult’s neck as a resultant
the seat with the adult from the front, respectively of the constraint torque for each configuration of the simulation.
child’s head with the bike frame. The overall calculated According to experimental testing and approaches of
HIC(36) values for the child are given for each configur- data scaling, the estimated neck protection reference values
ation in Table 3. for low probability of serious injury tend to be in the range
Overall, in any case, the baby carrier was not able to act of 25–45 Nm for flexion torque and 8–13 Nm for extension
as a passive safety device – in regard to HIC threshold. torque of 12-month-old and 3-year-old children, respectively
Neither the side pads were present to act as a neither [59]. The presented values are calculated as max. Resultant
absorption liner nor movement restrictor nor was the 3- constraint torques as well as max. extension and max. flex-
point-belt able to secure the child in its optimal position. ion torques in order to serve no more as an estimation or a
Increased movability resulted in slipping partially out of the comparison in their value in this attempt. This way is
harness. In the rear-impacted bicycle scenario, the baby car- chosen because reference values are described that they
riers’ backrest even acted as a hazardous “wall” behind the underlie the insufficiency of biomechanical data or limited
child’s head. Besides this, the hazard of suffering diffuse applicability [59]. Furthermore, the authors point again on
injury, which regularly occurs in whiplash or whiplash-simi- the complex motion, including both the rotation and lateral
lar accidents, may be still an important issue [58]. bending. In consequence, the data cannot be assessed within
The introduction of neck injury criteria in the literature the whiplash-related neck injury criteria. An even complex-
raised already the question of adequate criteria for possible ity-increasing circumstance is explained by the results of
neck injury outcome in cyclist accidents. Besides the lateral configuration #12. Therefore, Figure 9 depicts the corre-
bending also, the rotation between torso and head is identi- sponding impact scenario at t ¼ 120 ms and t ¼ 245 ms.
fied in almost all cases, partly even in an excessive way. Due The higher risk of injury due to an improper belting situ-
to the complex motion of both the rider and seated child, the ation gets visible in configuration #12, as the baby is able to
application of NIC is vague. Nonetheless, indicators can be loosen from the seat during the accident. The loosened situ-
revealed by observing occurring torque in the neck area in ation enables the baby to escape from the restricting geom-
the specific situation. In combination with the case specific etry of the carrier. This is followed by an excessive bending
behavior of the baby carrier as a passive safety device during of the neck over the backrest of the carrier and the consecu-
the accident simulation, statements about a considerable pro- tively direct cranial impact on the vehicles’ bonnet. A calcu-
portion in the injury risk of the baby carrier can be given. lated extension torque acting on the child’s neck in this
Thus, Table 4 presents an overview about the calculated situation can be valued by approximately 30 Nm. The baby’s
head is thereby penetrated occipital as well as parietal. The
Table 2. Adult head impact velocity and impacted head region for the first calculated extension torque exceeds the given reference val-
recognized direct cranial impact.
ues for low risk of severe neck injury. The penetrating struc-
Head impact velocity
Configuration (resultant) [ms1] Impacted head region ture of the carrier points on a suboptimal passive safety
1 – No head impact behavior of the carrier – consequently increasing risk of
2 – No head impact severe injury of the baby in this combined head and neck
3 5.02 Temporal, parietal
4 9.35 Temporal, occipital
incident. Nevertheless, the situation cannot be assessed due
5 7.50 Temporal, parietal to the interaction of neck and backrest within regularly used
6 2.82 Temporal, parietal neck injury criteria. However, it is once again important to
7 1.70 Frontal to handlebar
8 2.00 Temporal to steering bar
name that the necessity of fastening the carrier seatbelt
9 7.93 Temporal, parietal to tarmac properly is inevitable. Compared to solutions of baby car-
10 – No head impact riers within vehicles, the wide geometry of the carrier with-
11 3.25 Temporal, Parietal
12 3.03 Parietal to steering bar out any paddings or head movement restricting supportive
structures needs to be remarked as well. A possible benefit

Table 3. Calculated HIC(36) and impacted head region for Q1.5-dummy model.
Child’s head velocity at bonnet impact
Configuration Resultant [ms1] Component in –Z [ms1] HIC(36) for child Affected child’s head region at impact
1 – – 125.1 Occipital to carriers’ backrest
2 7.4 5.1 146.5 Frontal, parietal to bonnet
3 12.5 3.8 369.3 Frontal to bonnet
4 15.7 5.2 1699.0 Frontal, parietal to bonnet
5 17.3 3.6 1433.7 Frontal to bonnet
6 – – 120.8 No direct cranial impact observed
7 – – 1808.3 Occipital to carriers’ backrest and frontal to adult;
HIC(36)-value observed during child’s frontal head impact to the adult’s body
8 6.7 1.1 311.1 Occipital to carriers’ backrest and bonnet
9 11.2 4.2 401.6 Frontal, parietal to bonnet
10 7.1 4.5 123.9 Frontal, parietal to bonnet
11 5.5 1.9 77.6 Frontal to bonnet
12 6.1 5.8 3943.9 Occipital to carriers’ backrest and parietal to bonnet;
HIC(36)-value observed during child’s frontal head impact to the bicycle frame
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CRASHWORTHINESS 13

Table 4. Maximum torque in adult’s and child’s necks as resultant constraint torque [Nm] in relation to the configuration matrix.
Torque [Nm]
Adult’s neck Child’s neck
Configuration Lower neck, max. resultant Upper neck, max. resultant Max. resultant Max. flexion Max. extension
1 27.31 27.31 29.02 19.18 28.64
2 110.54 27.91 19.60 11.68 10.69
3 154.51 145.77 22.50 15.89 16.64
4 160.84 128.36 38.46 28.41 20.54
5 214.45 93.23 93.82 35.91 48.07
6 176.99 92.12 11.01 6.12 5.55
7 223.61 170.79 70.52 69.53 24.22
8 667.87 250.86 47.13 28.67 40.16
9 57.61 12.61 20.16 18.21 13.17
10 114.50 28.21 23.90 13.86 9.89
11 84.04 37.23 16.04 14.73 7.88
12 492.20 389.87 46.11 28.24 30.48

Figure 10. Overstretching the baby’s neck by the carrier device combined with a direct cranial impact in configuration #12 at t ¼ 120 ms (left, a) and t ¼ 245 ms
(right, b).

for bicycle-mounted baby carriers should be researched in

this context. Figure 11 illustrates for configuration #12 both
the acceleration of the CoG of the child’s head and the tor-
que, which is acting on the child’s upper neck around the
Y-axis. The overall maximum value for acceleration of the
child’s head CoG is recorded at approximately t ¼ 245 ms.
This corresponds to the situation shown in Figure 10(b),
when the child’s head is hit by the bicycle frame. The calcu-
lated maximum of neck torque is registered already at
t ¼ 121 ms. In this moment, the child’s neck is bended over
the backrest of the baby carrier. The situation was visualized
in Figure 10(a). For the sake of readability, both situations
are marked by a) and b) within the graph in Figure 11.
In a summary, it needs to be pointed again on the high
possibility of numerous direct cranial impacts. These can
occur due to the child’s head impact again an adult cyclist
or bicycle structure.

5. Limitations of this study

Figure 11 Graphs of resultant acceleration a in CoG of child’s head (upper
graph) and torque M around child’s neck Y-axis (lower graph) in configur- Besides the fact, that this research is not intended to validate
ation #12. a previously specified and by data provided real-world case,
14 M. PTAK ET AL.
limitations that might lead to variations need to be named
here. One aspect has to be seen in a possible, different kind
of movement of both riders in a realistic accident case. The
general situation of a human being impacted by a car may
lead to a safety movement of adult and child to avoid a
painful impact. The VRU in this study is not showing such
a corresponding behavior or the muscular action. It could
change the kinematics due to the body orientation and
include additional moments. In addition, the pre-impact
driving behavior or initial sliding or turning of the bicycle is
not included. Regarding the proven influence of the riders
posture in the moment of impact [56], an amount of error
needs to be included in the results evaluation. An addition-
ally worn backpack by the adult also might be recognised in
real-world traffic scenes. Comparable to a possible contact
between the seated child and the front seats within cars
[60], this circumstance might be influencing the gained
results but is also not considered in this approach.
6. Conclusion
The motivation of this paper was to analyze the vulnerabil-
ity of children travelling in bicycle-mounted child seats. To
this date, there are very limited findings in the area of
crashworthiness of bike seats, despite the fact that they are
used frequently in today’s society. The main point of inter-
est was set in this regard to the overall safety situation of on
bicycle-transported children, which describes the baby car-
rier as a possible passive safety device. Furthermore, the
influence on the crash characteristics was proven. The pre-
sented research helped to understand the crash situations in
order to improve in future baby carriers as safety devices.
The regular advice to use a safety helmet is underlined, as
the baby carrier was not able to secure the child from lateral
head impacts due to inefficient seat geometry or head move-
ment restriction. Additionally, the importance of a proper
harnessing of the child in the carrier was shown by the out-
comes. This includes the statement that the 3-point-belt was
not able to secure the child properly during most of the
accident configurations. The research proved not only the
regular hazard of direct cranial impacts. The authors also
highlighted that this type of harness allowed the child to be
lifted with its head out of the securing geometry of the baby
carrier. It resulted in bending and stretching the neck over
the backrest. Moreover, the characteristic movement of the
baby carrier was reported due to structural elasticity, which
includes its mounting to the bicycles frame. The simple
mounting to one point of the bike frame played a specific
role in this simulation. Another aspect to include in future
research is the consideration of the initial offset (d) between
the baby carrier and longitudinal symmetry plane of the
impacting vehicle. The article proved that this offset has a
significant influence in the overall kinematics of the bicycle.
In case of a forward projection of the bicycle, it leads always
to a direct cranial impact of the child to the bonnet. It is
important to notice that this behavior is not in accordance
to the literature-recorded WAD for single-user bicycles.
Furthermore, the introduction of initial bicycle velocity
showed a significant influence for the adult rider and the
later registered head impact positions. The effects were less
visible for the seatbelt fasten child, whose impact positions
remained rather constant. In a conclusion, the overall
observed kinematics of the child showed neither the charac-
teristics of a pedestrian nor a cyclist. Generally, injuries for
cyclists are mainly reported for extremities and head, which
corresponds with the authors results. Overall, the article
proves that there is a need to intense the research in the
field of the child transport, especially regarding the increas-
ing popularity of this type of transport and growing traffic
density at the same time.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge SEARCH – Safety Engineering
Research for their support in developing the multibody bicycle models
in MADYMO.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
This research was co-funded by the National Centre for Research and
Development of Poland, grant number LIDER/8/0051/L-8/16/
NCBR/2017.
ORCID
Mariusz Ptak http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8081-8336
Johannes Wilhelm http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5114-5400
References
[1] Scholten AC, Polinder S, Panneman MJM, et al. Incidence and
costs of bicycle-related traumatic brain injuries in the
Netherlands. Accid Anal Prev. 2015;81:51–60.
[2] Murray J, Ryan-Krause P. Bicycle attachments for children:
Bicycle seats, trail-a-bikes, and trailers. J Pediatr Heal Care.
2009;23:62–65.
[3] Ptak M. Method to assess and enhance vulnerable road user
safety during impact loading. Appl Sci. 2019;9:1000.
[4] Haasper C, Junge M, Ernstberger A, et al. Die Abbreviated
Injury Scale (AIS): Potenzial und probleme bei der anwendung.
Unfallchirurg. 2010;113:366–372.
[5] Arkusz K, Klekiel T, Sławi nski G, et al. Influence of energy
absorbers on Malgaigne fracture mechanism in lumbar-pelvic
system under vertical impact load. Comput Methods Biomech
Biomed Eng. 2019;22(3):1–11.
[6] Lindman M, Jonsson S, Jakobsson L, et al. Cyclists interacting
with passenger cars; a study of real world crashes. International
Research Council on Biomechanics of Injury. Lyon, France;
2015;1–12.
[7] van Baar GJC, Ruslin M, van Eijnatten M, et al. 3D assessment
of damaged bicycle helmets and corresponding craniomaxillo-
mandibular skull injuries: A feasibility study. Injury 2017;
48(12):2872–2878.
[8] Powell E, Tanz R. Tykes and bikes, injuries associated with
bicycle-towed child trailers and bicycles-mounted child seats.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2000;154: 351–353.

[9] Austroads. The Australian National Cycling Strategy
2011–2016: Gearing up for active and sustainable communities,
Australian Bicycle Council. Sydney, Australia: Austroads; 2010.
[10] Oxley J, O’Hern S, Raftery S, et al. How safe are children when
transported by bicycle? Traffic Inj Prev. 2016;17:163–167.
[11] Raftery SJ, Oxley J, Thompson J, et al. Transportation of chil-
dren with bicycle seats, trailers, and other carriers: considera-
tions for safety. Adelaide: Centre for Automotive Safety
Research; 2016 (NRMA-ACT Road Safety Trust ISBN
9781920947778 ISSN 1449-2237; no. CASR139).
[12] Ptak M, Wilhelm J, Saunders N. Safety analysis of a bicycle-
mounted child seat. In: 2018 XI International Science-Technical
Conference Automotive Safety; 2018 April 18–20; Casta,
Slovakia: IEEE; 2018: 1–6.
[13] Ptak M, Wilhelm J, Sawicki M, et al. Child safety on various
bicycle-mounted seats during vehicle impact. Transport. 2019c;
34:1–8.
[14] Tanz RR, Katherine Kaufer Christoffel MD. Tykes on bike.
Pediatric Emergency Care. 1991;7(5):297–301. http://
Injuriesassociatedwithbicycle-mountedchildseats.pdf.
[15] European Committee for Standardization. DIN EN 14344:
Child seats for cycles - Safety requirements and test methods,
DIN EN 14344. Brussels: European Committee for
Standardization; 2004.
[16] Milne G, Deck C, Bourdet N, et al. Assessment of bicyclist
head injury risk under tangential impact conditions. IRC-13-90
IRCOBI Conference. 2013;33:735–746.
[17] Kroeyer HRG. The relation between speed environment,
age and injury outcome for bicyclists struck by a motorized
vehicle - A comparison with pedestrians. Accid Anal Prev.
2015;76:57–63.
[18] Meyer F, Deck C, Willinger R, et al. Development of a 3-year-
old child head–neck finite element model and derivation of
novel head injury criterion. Int J Crashworthiness. 2014;19:
233–243.
[19] Kumar S, Friedman K, Hutchinson J, et al. Biomechanical ana-
lysis of child restraint system. Biomed Sci Instrum. 2009;45:
436–441. February.
[20] Otte D, J€ansch M, Haasper C. Injury protection and accident
causation parameters for vulnerable road users based on
German In-Depth Accident Study GIDAS. Accid Anal Prev.
2012;44:149–153.
[21] Bundesministerium f€ ur Verkehr und digitale Infrastruktur.
Halbzeitbilanz des Verkehrssicherheitsprogramms 2011–2020.
2015. Available from: https://www.bmvi.de/SharedDocs/DE/
Publikationen/StV/halbzeitbilanz-verkehrssicherheitsprogramm.
pdf?__blob=publicationFile
[22] Skjerven-Martinsen M, Naess PA, Hansen TB, et al. In-depth
evaluation of real-world car collisions: Fatal and severe injuries
in children are predominantly caused by restraint errors and
unstrapped cargo. Traffic Inj Prev. 2011;12:491–499.
[23] Fernandes FAO, Sousa RJAD. Motorcycle helmets — A state of
the art review. Accid Anal Prev. 2013;56:1–21.
[24] United Nations. ECE Regulation 22.05, 2002. Uniform provi-
sion concerning the approval of protective helmets and their
visors for driver and passengers of motor cycles and mopeds.
New York, NY: United Nations; 2002.
[25] Shuaeib FM, Hamouda AMS, Radin Umar RS, et al.
Motorcycle helmet - Part I. Biomechanics and computational
issues. J Mater Process Technol. 2002;123:406–421.
[26] Ratajczak M, Ptak M, Chybowski L, et al. Material and struc-
tural modeling aspects of brain tissue deformation under
dynamic loads. Materials 2019;12:271. (Basel).
[27] Fernandes F, Alves de Sousa R, Ptak M, et al. Helmet design
based on the optimization of biocomposite energy-absorbing
liners under multi-impact loading. Appl Sci. 2019;9:735.
[28] Migueis GFJ, Fernandes FAO, Ptak M, et al. Detection of
bridging veins rupture and subdural haematoma onset using a
finite element head model. Clin Biomech. 2019;63:104–111.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CRASHWORTHINESS 15
[29] Ptak M, Wilhelm J, Klimas O, et al. Numerical simulation of a
motorcycle to road barrier impact. In: Rusi nski E, Pietrusiak D,
editors. Proceedings of the 14th International Scientific
Conference: Computer Aided Engineering. CAE 2018. Lecture
Notes in Mechanical Engineering. Springer, Cham; 2019.
[30] Fernandes FAO. Analise Biomec^anica de impactos com capa-
cetes: novos materiais e geometrias, Biomechanical analysis of
helmeted head impacts: novel materials and geometries. Aveiro,
Portugal: Universidade de Aveiro; 2017.
[31] Kleiven S. Finite element modeling of the human head. Med
Biol. 2002;12(1):14–21.
[32] Ratajczak M, Sa˛siadek M, BeR dzinski R. An analysis of the effect
of impact loading on the destruction of vascular structures in
the brain. Acta Bioeng Biomech 2016;18(3):21–31.
[33] Miller K, Wittek A, Joldes G. Biomechanics of the brain for
computer-integrated surgery. Acta Bioeng Biomech 2010;12(2):
25–37.
[34] Mu~ noz D, Mansilla A, Lopez-Valdes F, et al. A study of current
neck injury criteria used for whiplash analysis. Proposal of a
new criterion involving upper and lower neck load cells.
Proceedings of the 19th Exp. Safety of Vehicle Conference;
2005; Washington, DC; 1–14.
[35] Bostr€om O, My S, Aldman B, et al. A new neck injury criterion
candidate – Based on injury findings in the cervical spinal
ganglia after experimental neck extension trauma. Proceedings
of the 1996 International IRCOBI Conference on the
Biomechanics of Impacts; 1996 Sept 11–13; Dublin (Ireland);
1996; 123–126.
[36] Schmitt K-U, Muser MH, Niederer P. A new neck injury criter-
ion candidate for rear-end collisions taking into account shear
forces and bending moments. Proceedings of 17th International
Technical Conference on the enhanced safety of vehicles. CD
rom; Amsterdam, Netherlands; 2000; 1–9.
[37] National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 49 Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 571 Section 208, Occupant
Crash Protection. Washington, DC: Office of the Federal
Register, National Archives and Records Administration; 2018.
[38] Yoganandan N, Yoganandan N, Nahum AM. Accidental injury:
Biomechanics and prevention. New York: Springer-Verlag;
2015.
[39] Ptak M. Pedestrian safety: a new method to assess pedestrian
kinematics. Transport. 2018;33:41–51.
[40] Simms C, Wood D. 2009. Pedestrian and cyclist impact, solid
mechanics and its applications, solid mechanics and its applica-
tions. Dordrecht: Springer.
[41] Fanta O, Boucek J, Hadraba D, et al. Influence of the front part
of the vehicle and cyclist’s sitting position on the severity of
head injury in side collision. Acta Bioeng Biomech. 2013;15:
105–112.
[42] Ptak M, Rusi nski E, Karli
nski J, et al. Evaluation of kinematics
of SUV to pedestrian impact—Lower leg impactor and dummy
approach. Arch Civ Mech Eng. 2012;12:68–73.
[43] Ptak M, Karli nski J. Pedestrian passive safety during the SUV
impact: regulations vs. reality. 2012 IRCOBI Conference.
Dublin, Ireland; 2012:103–113.
[44] Ptak, M., Rusi nski, E., Wnuk, M., et al.. Numerical simulation
using finite element method and mulitbody pedestrian dummy-
Wykonanie symulacji numerycznej, z wykorzystaniem metody
elementow sko nczonych i manekina pieszego, potra˛cenia pies-
zego przez pojazd Audi TT 2007 r. Raporty Wydziału
Mechanicznego Politechniki Wrocławskiej. 2016, Ser. SPR nr
142. 1–125; 2016.
[45] Ptak M, Ratajczak M, Kwiatkowski A, et al. Investigation of
biomechanics of skull structures damages caused by dynamic
loads. Acta Bioeng Biomech 2019a;21(1):143–150.
[46] Zander O, Gehring D, Leßmann P. Improved safety of bicy-
clists in the event of a collision with motor vehicles and during
single accidents. 23rd International Technical Conference on
the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (ESV), 2013. Seoul, South
Korea. Paper Number 13-0180; p. 1–11.
16 M. PTAK ET AL.
[47] European Parliament and Council. Regulation (EC) no 78/2009
of The European Parliament and of the Council. Official
Journal of the European; 2009.
[48] Commission Regulation (EC) No 631/2009 of 22 July 2009 lay-
ing down detailed rules for the implementation of Annex I to
Regulation (EC) No 78/2009 of the European Parliament and
of the Council on the type-approval of motor vehicles with
regard to the protection of pedestrians and other vulnerable
road users, amending Directive 2007/46/EC and repealing
Directives 2003/102/EC and 2005/66/EC OJ L 195; 2009, p.
1–60.
[49] Cambridge University Engineering Department. Materials data
book. Mater Courses 2003;1–41. Available from: http://www-
mdp.eng.cam.ac.uk/web/library/enginfo/cueddatabooks/materi-
als.pdf
[50] Madymo TASS. Release Notes Manual. Release 2013;7:5.
[51] Nie J, Yang J. A study of bicyclist kinematics and injuries based
on reconstruction of passenger car-bicycle accident in China.
Accid Anal Prev. 2014;71:50–59.
[52] Wilhelm J, Ptak M, Rusi nski E. Simulated depiction of head
and brain injuries in the context of cellular based materials in
passive safety devices. Scientific J. 2017;50:98–104.
[53] European Enhanced Vehicle-safety Committee. Q-dummies
Report, Advanced Child Dummies and Injury Criteria for
Frontal Impact, Working Group 12 and 18 Report, Document
No. 514; April 2008. Available from: http://www.eevc.net/
View publication stats
fileuploads/server/php/?file=EEVC_WG12%2618_DOC514_Q-
dummies_%26_Criteria-April_2008.pdf&download=1
[54] Tass International BV. MADYMO, Human Body Models
Manual, Release 7.6, April 2015; Netherlands.
[55] Mazurkiewicz L, Baranowski P, Karimi HR, et al. Improved
child-resistant system for better side impact protection. Int J
Adv Manuf Technol. 2018;97:3925–3935.
[56] Bourdet N, Deck C, Serre T, et al. In-depth real-world bicycle
accident reconstructions. Int J Crashworthiness. 2014;19:
222–232.
[57] Jamroziak K, Bocian M, Kulisiewicz M. Identification of a
subsystem located in the complex dynamical systems subjected
to random loads. J Comput Nonlinear Dynam. 2016;12:
014501.
[58] Hernandez F, Wu LC, Yip MC, et al. Six degree-of-freedom
measurements of human mild traumatic brain injury. Ann
Biomed Eng. 2015;43:1918–1934.
[59] Klinich KD, Saul RA, Auguste G, et al. Techniques for develop-
ing child dummy protection reference values, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Washington, DC:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; 1996.
[60] Andersson M, Pipkorn B, L€ ovsund P. Evaluation of the head
kinematics of the Q3 model and a modified Q3 model by
means of crash reconstruction. Traffic Inj Prev. 2012;13:
600–611.