RiveMove child safety seat adapter from RiveKids and its official approval.

The RiveKids RiveMove child safety seat adapter is an isofix anchor point which allows safety seats to move within the vehicle with a view to increasing safety and freeing up space.

Regardless of the car and the seat, RiveMove’s isofix anchor point accessory allows the safety seat to move to a new position within the vehicle. Moving car seats is beneficial on several fronts: firstly, an adult is able to travel comfortably and safely between two car seats; and secondly, three car seats can now be fitted in a car – this was not previously possible unless the isofix anchor point was removed.

Some families choose a RiveKids RiveMove child safety seat adapter so that an adult’s back is fully supported during a car journey between two child safety seats.
Some families choose a RiveKids RiveMove child safety seat adapter so that they can fit three safety seats into the car. Without the adapter, this would not have been possible without removing the isofix anchor point.

The adapter allows you to place or fit three child safety seats into a vehicle which would not ordinarily be big enough to accommodate them. The adapter also frees up space for anyone travelling between two safety seats, etc. These are the primary reasons why families choose to buy the RiveKids RiveMove child safety seat adapter.

Many media outlets specialising in the automotive industry have published reports about RiveMove, its technology and its capacity to increase safety and space in cars with children.

One report to which we would like to draw your attention can be read by clicking here. The report relates to an interview with a vastly experienced road traffic accident researcher from the University of Zaragoza, Juan José Alba. He is a Doctor in Industrial Engineering and Mechanical Engineering and his professional career has exclusively focused on road safety research and contributed to a range of international research projects. He has absolutely no commercial interest in the child safety seat sector.

Here is a word-for-word extract of one of the answers given by Juan José Alba during the interview: “In relation to RiveMove, what we can say is that its integration into commercial children’s restraint systems means that some parameters assessed in approval tests improve markedly. In layman’s terms, we can say, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that ‘it improves safety’, but we tend to be thorough and state that it improves the results of official tests”.

This article makes a factual error in relation to rear-facing seats and RiveMove. At RiveKids, from the very outset, we have tested numerous cases of rear-facing seats with RiveMove and the results have been very promising, although to date we have not devised a genuine and viable solution for this kind of safety seat. We are currently working with this aim in mind.

What is the RiveKids RiveMove child safety seat adapter?

The technology behind RiveKids RiveMove child safety seat adapter has been devised with one aim in mind: to make it safer for your children to travel. The RiveKids RiveMove child safety seat adapter is an independent accessory of the car and of the child safety seat and it allows the isofix anchor points to be moved.

On the face of things, RiveMove simply frees up space in the central seat for an adult or a third safety seat. However, its benefits are far-reaching that: it improves safety in the event of a crash as it absorbs part of the energy and improves biomechanical values in the event of impact.

How is RiveMove able to absorb energy? In a very simple way that is very commonly used in the automotive industry: By controlled deformation of steel.

Is it really safe to move safety seats closer to doors?

In multi-purpose vehicles, child safety seats are virtually touching the doors. This happens because the distance between the front and rear axle is greater and the second row of seats does not interfere with the rear axle and the wheel arch.

In a sedan, compact vehicle or SUV, the distance between the front and rear axle is less than the distance found in a multi-purpose vehicle. This is why the wheel arch directly interferes with the second row of seats, making it physically impossible for the car manufacturer to fit three independent seats or weld isofix points closer to the doors. At RiveMove, we overcome the issue of the wheel arch based on an accessory designed with a view to absorbing energy in the event of a crash.

Based on the available data, what do you think? These data are also as verifiable as if you were to walk down the street of any city or town and measure the distances between the front and rear axles with a tape measure, or as if you saw how the safety seat fits in relation to the door panel. Are cars in which safety seats virtually touch the doors any less safe? Of course they aren’t and prove it, you only have to consider the impact tests published by EuroNCAP. In any case, if you want to refine the details a little, we have helped you by providing access to a post we write to analyse the values published by EuroNCAP in relation to different vehicle models for which we know the distance to the door panel of the tested safety seat model; take a look for yourself by clicking here.

Safe distance in the event of a side impact

Some people may believe that the distance between the child safety seat and the door (door panel) represents a safe distance, but nothing could be further from the truth. There is not a standard in existence that makes provision for this “safe distance”. This seems strange given the automotive industry is a highly regulated sector. You can review ECE R129, ECE R44/04, ECE R16 or ECE R14 without coming across a single reference to this safe distance in relation to the door panel.

What is a safe distance? The explanation is simple and easily verifiable by any user. In any store where child safety seats are sold, you will see that most seat manufacturers offer accessories of varying measurements and geometries with a view to supplementing the distance between the door panel and the seat. Child safety seat manufacturers are the first to try to anticipate impact by attaching elements to seats; these manufacturers are also the first to add “the child safety seat adapter” as it anticipates contact. The part on automotive manufacturers shows that this distance is replaced by side airbags. Only one curious piece of information is provided: The most luxurious and expensive cars in the world do not move the 2 rear passengers away from the sides; on the contrary, they fit a large central console and choose to place the passengers as close as possible to the door panel. But from a completely objective viewpoint, if you got into the back of a car for the first time, would you wonder whether there was a safe distance? Wouldn’t it be safer to move the driver and front passenger much closer together so that a large safe distance is maintained with the door panel?

Is there really such a thing as a safe distance between the door panel and the passenger? We are convinced that there is not. What’s more, almost all car manufacturers have one model where the child safety seats are virtually touching the doors and one where they do not:

Is a Citroen C4 or C4 Cactus safer than a C4 Picasso?
Is a Peugeot 3008 safer than a 5008?
Is a VW Touran safer than a VW Passat?
Is a Renault Grand Space safer than a Renault Talisman?

There are always differences between models, even when they are produced by the same brand. However, the most familiar cars fit child safety seats in such a way that they are virtually touching the doors. Don’t car manufacturers realise that there’s a safe distance? No one knows a car better than its manufacturer and if the most familiar models fit child safety seats so that they are virtually touching the doors, it is because the inappropriately named “safe distance” is simply a misnomer.

Volvo’s safety in the event of a side impact

We will attempt to treat the term “safe distance” rigorously for the purpose of side impacts. It is therefore convenient to look at what Volvo does, for example:

As per the explanation provided by Volvo in the video link, SIPS (Side Impact Protection System) is a complex system designed to protect passengers from the impact of a side collision. It was integrated into a Volvo vehicle for the first time in 1995.

This system ensures that most of the force is directed through the floor of the vehicle using a complicated structure of high-strength steel and pillars towards a deformation area in the centre of the vehicle.

The sides of the car include diagonal beams and a shell to increase the car’s ability to withstand side forces caused by a possible impact with a vehicle such as an SUV.

The system also comprises airbags fitted into the sides of the front seats to protect the hips and torsos of the passengers, and also a curtain airbag.

Volvo’s SIPS does not move the passenger away from the door; the passenger is kept close to the point of impact as an airbag is deployed to cover the distance or separation between the body and the door panel and anticipate the impact. By means of the controlled deformation of the steel, energy is absorbed and transferred towards the vehicle’s axle where energy is also absorbed by the controlled deformation of the bodywork’s steel.

Various studies have been produced about side impact protection, but we have decided to share just one as we believe that it very clearly illustrates our point. For many years, Volvo has been one of the most safety-conscious vehicle brands. Its concern for safety is reflected, for instance, by the 3-point seat belt or the protection against whiplash that its seats and headrests have offered for a number of years. In terms of side impact protection, Volvo has gradually improved the protection that it able to provide for this kind of collision over the years. As indicated above, a SIPS has been produced and integrated to this end. There is a study about Volvo’s side impact protection in the next link. The study identifies some of the improvements made over time and quantifies, on the basis of data from actual accidents, the extent to which serious consequences of side impacts have been reduced: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3242537/

To summarise this text, we will not share the following information in a bid to assess side protection improvements based on various Volvo models; the models are divided into groups of 4 generations of vehicles from 1992 to 2010 and the improvements that have been made. The study names each of the models under consideration.

Data from actual accidents are used to quantify the risk of injury to which the passengers of the vehicles under consideration are exposed. And the effect on that rate of injury as Volvo gradually improved its side impact protection. It should be noted that Volvo’s access to the accident data involving a Volvo in Sweden, along with its impressive R&D centre, give it clear competitive edge in the race to improve vehicle safety.

MAIS is an objective scale used to assess the injury of a patient and, in this case, the victim of a road traffic accident. It determines the kind of injury and also the severity of the injury. The injuries referred to in the aforementioned study belong to severity group MAIS2 or higher (MAIS2+), classified as moderate injuries for the purposes of this document.

Based on verbatim extracts from the study of L. Jakobbson [2010], it is possible to conclude as follows:

“Side impact protection has developed considerably over the past 20 years, resulting in an overall reduction in risk of injury of more than 70%. During this time, several generations of side impact protection systems, including structural improvements and the introduction and refinement of head and chest airbags, have been produced as a result of an initiative to continuously improve the safety of passengers. […]”.

We can also point out another very important thing. Throughout the 20 years of developments, as indicated in the study on the side protection systems of Volvo and their effectiveness, NOT ONE of its protection-improvement initiatives has sought to increase the distance between the passenger and the door panel. The distance between the passenger and the door HAS NOT BEEN INCREASED IN 20 YEARS and, yet, as we have stated, other systems have managed to improve side protection, basically in the form of controlled deformation of steel, limited displacement and contact anticipation.

With a view to examining in greater depth the position that the manufacturers of child safety seats or child restraint systems take, we will now look specifically at what they do. Most add “the child safety seat adapter” designed by the respective manufacturer to fill in the space between the seat and the door and therefore anticipate the impact and reduce injury. We will look at the case of a well-known Nordic manufacturer which explains the situation on its website as follows: How does it work? SIP+ is fitted onto the side of the seat that is closest to the car door. This way, it reduces the distance between the seat and the door, thus shortening the movement that will take place in the event of a side impact. Less movement means less force on the child. SIP+ also functions like a car’s crumple zone and provides your child with additional protection”.

These two examples, which are by no means exclusive, show us that reducing the distance between the child safety seat and the vehicle door improves safety and that mechanical engineering can be used to absorb energy; at least this is the basis on which Nordic and worldwide manufacturers of child safety seats and vehicles have operated for many years.

Is RiveMove useful or necessary?

RiveMove is an attractive solution to the problem of space without having to change car. Easy, straightforward and available to most families. Have you ever travelled or seen an adult travelling between two child safety seats? It’s a real nightmare for the adult involved.

RiveMove resolves a common problem with a simple solution that does not involve buying a multi-purpose vehicle. Do all families have the means to buy a multi-purpose vehicle when their child is born?

Although RiveMove is also a safer solution, families are initially attracted by the proposition of extra room. The RiveKids team’s obsession with safety has enabled us to develop technology that not only increases space, but also improves safety.

For further information about the safety provided by RiveMove, click here. Although the RiveKids RiveMove child safety seat adapter is not officially approved, it improves biomechanical values in the event of a crash.

Is it safe to move children or adults closer to the car doors?

Many, many years ago, Volvo engineers designed the SIPT system. It is interesting to see how this technology, which improves performance in the event of a crash based on the controlled deformation of steel, does not move passengers towards the centre of the car, but rather leaves them in their nominal position and allows the vehicle axis under the gear lever and handbrake to absorb the energy.

Years later, in all vehicles, the driver and front passenger seats continue to be the same distance from the door panel, regardless of how wide the car is, and the excess centimetres are left in the vehicle axis. Can it be that car manufacturers are aware of a safe distance in the event of a side impact? If you are ever fortunate enough to drive, for instance, a Mercedes A-Class, a Mercedes E-Class or a Mercedes S-Class, you may observe that the distance in all models between the seat and the door panel is almost identical and the excess width of the overall vehicle is always dedicated to the separation between the driver and front passenger seats.

mercedes_s_class_measurements_rivekids_01

mercedes_s_class_measurements_rivekids_03

mercedes_s_class_measurements_rivekids_02

mercedes_s_class_measurements_rivekids_04

Changing brand, because maybe the Volvo or Mercedes engineers “do not know a lot about safety”, we can see how the new top-of-the-range Audi A8 has an airbag between the right and left rear passenger seats which, despite being separated from each other, are obviously not separated from the doors.

The Autofácil magazine includes a detailed post about the new Audi A8 and some of its safety-based innovations.

Media news items have recently reported on the imminent arrival of an airbag that will separate the driver from the front passenger in the event of a side impact, in order to restrain their displacement. One example is BMW while another much more general brand is Hyundai: “Hyundai hopes to reduce head injuries by 80% with its new central lateral airbag”.

We could give even more examples but we realise that the simplest thing to do is allow you to judge for yourselves whether or not the inappropriately named “safe distance” actually exists.

RiveMove Approval

As in the case of ALL automotive industry accessories, RiveMove is unable to obtain an approval number. Ours is not the only element or accessory that is unable to obtain an approval number. Other elements such as seat belt extenders, seat belts for pregnant women or harness approximators, tablet supports, etc. are also lacking an approval number.

Why are so many vehicle components unable to obtain an approval number?

Because international standards, according to which accessories are given approval, do not give consideration to anything other than the child safety seat or the car itself. Innovation in any area of activity should prevail over regulation and this is the case of RiveKids RiveMove and of so many other accessories that we carry with us every day in our car journeys. These kinds of accessories are not part of platforms unrelated to the sector. Nothing could be further from the truth. Most child safety seat manufacturers offer a range of accessories, all of which have no approval number, and even though vehicle manufacturers have accessories authorised for those vehicles, they do not have an approval number. Regardless of the manufacturer, these accessories are not governed by any legal framework which enables them to obtain approval. However, if they are produced by a well-known brand, they do not need to offer explanations about approval, certification or safety in general.

What can manufacturers of these accessories, such as RiveMove, do? Some (actually, most) manufacturers choose to do nothing; others produce self-certification and, in our case, we have certification from an independent third party:

RiveMove is certified according to the parameters and requirements of ECE R129 (i-Size) with CSI Spa, a leading research centre for child safety seat and car approval in Italy, valid at international level and a founding member of EuroNCAP.

We at RiveKids also have conformity of production similar to that used in the manufacture of child restraint systems and product traceability engraved into the steel of every sold or tested device. Engraved into steel? Yes. We do not use stickers or erasable or falsifiable screen printing. It is not possible to remove or eliminate the engraving undetected. It is even more difficult to change than the chassis number of vehicle manufacturers.

Needless to say the standard does not require us to conduct all these tests, to obtain conformity of production or to mark by laser for traceability purposes. And as for the manufacturers of child safety seats who place a sticker of their seats, has anyone ever stopped to check whether the sticker actually matches the seat to which it is affixed? Car manufacturers, on the other hand, stamp every serial number onto the chassis of their vehicles and we believe that to be a much more reliable method. For that reason, besides a number of differences, we apply something similar in production, so that the RiveKids RiveMove child safety seat adapter has a serial number engraved into the steel for traceability purposes.

The current regulatory framework would have enabled us to sell RiveMove without having conducted more than 80 crash tests in accordance with ECE R129 and the so-called “ADAC” requirements at an independent centre; it would also have enabled us to sell without obtaining conformity of production or product traceability engraved by laser; be that as it may, our aim is different and that is why we are working under the same standards as those seat manufacturers with ECE R129, which is the most stringent standard currently applicable to the manufacture of child restraint systems. We would have liked to receive certification and obtain an approval number, because what we do matches or even exceeds the performance of a manufacturer of child safety seats who releases a seat onto the market under ECE R129, except without an approval number.

Why do we stress the importance of ECE R129 so much? Because acting in accordance with the requirements of ECE R44/04 is much more straightforward, as it only measures the biomechanical value in the chest of a P dummy and does not make provision for side impact tests.

Are we at RiveKids naive for not taking the easy path of the P dummy instead of the difficult path of the Q dummy? No, our methods are thorough. Be in no doubt that if a more advanced dummy existed, we would use it.

The mission of RiveKids is to work towards the objective of “zero victims in road traffic accidents” which is why we feel compelled to comply with the strictest requirements and make use of the most advanced technology.

Is RiveKids in any way related to any safety seat or car manufacturer?

RiveKids has always been, and continues to be, completely independent of all child safety seat and car manufacturers.

We can assure you that independence comes at quite a cost.

Impartiality, at least as far as we are concerned, is favourable in terms of developing bias-free technology geared towards the safety of passengers. As part of the research which resulted in the RiveMove child safety seat adapter, we have subjected hundreds of seats both to static and dynamic testing. This has enabled us to develop a very clear understanding of how they perform and of the differences between the various models.

We would like to stress the following points: At RiveKids, we are independent of child safety seat and car manufacturers. While this may not be to the liking of some parties, that is our policy. Similarly, on demand, we have issued ready-to-sell devices without “solo test” bias to some manufacturers of child safety seats and of cars.

At RiveKids, faithful to our innovative and progressive spirit, we have answered the call of professionals from engineering industries and a diverse range of other sectors, to share, in the broadest sense of the term, the research we have carried out.

On what basis would the RiveKids RiveMove adapter not be recommended?

We know that some people advise against the use of RiveMove within the child safety seat industry. We are fully aware that when a highly innovative product is released onto the market, it takes time for some people to come to terms with the new product. Human beings instinctively reject what is new, which is why we are happy to sit down with people and discuss any questions or concerns they may have. If the questions are raised by highly-qualified professionals from the sector, we then disclose information at greater length, such as the precise results of the measurements of crash tests.

Everyone asks about crash tests involving dummies, but what people fail to realise is that there are many kinds of dummies which can be used to measure very different things. Do we actually know why dummies are used in these kinds of tests? For car crash tests and subsequent certification, we at RiveKids use cutting-edge children’s dummies which have the greatest measurement capability, i.e. Q dummies.

Do people really think that a child safety seat approved on the basis of a P dummy in the absence of side impact tests is safer than a comprehensively tested Q dummy which has been subjected to side impact tests? With a choice of test methods, we at RiveKids selected the most stringent, most expensive and, therefore, the most difficult option.

People write and talk so much about isofix in cars and the load that it is able to bear. On the other hand, very few people understand that the load and the related standard, by virtue of the ECE R14 requirements in static-test mode (low-speed test) enable the vehicle’s chassis to deform by up to 125 mm. RiveMove has undergone hundreds of static tests based on the requirements of ECE R14 at two independent Spanish research centres: CTAG and CEMITEC. To ascertain how many joules (energy) we are able to absorb, we and the rest of the sector resort to these tests which enable forces to be applied in a very controlled manner. Did you know that the conformity of production of manufacturers such as Citroën or VW under the regulatory requirements of ECE R14 in relation to the isofix anchor points is achieved at these two research centres? If you didn’t, well now you do.

Of course, RiveMove has undergone the same crash tests as a child safety seat approved under ECE R129 and has also undergone the same tests as any isofix in the car based on the approval tests of ECE R14. Conducting tests on the basis of regulatory requirements means that we act in accordance with a very carefully considered and standardised regulation. We are hopeful that international passive safety standards will soon evolve in the same vein as autonomous driving standards so that we have a stable regulatory framework which protects us from less scrupulous competitors as far as safety is concerned.

Advising against a technical element based on statements which, though appearing to be technical, are actually false.

One of the great myths that is often held us as the gospel truth, especially by so-called “Passive Safety experts”, out of pure ignorance, relates to the weight of the objects in the car and may put prospective customers off RiveMove.

To explain the physics to a layperson: F=m*a (Force equals mass times acceleration). We see so many completely inaccurate statements on forums where people, instead of talking about force and acceleration, tend to relate weight to speed. The mass of objects does not determine whether we travel more quickly or slowly, but it does affect the impact force of objects in the case of sharp deceleration. In view of the general misunderstanding, we will provide two data-based examples:

An object with a mass of 1.4 kg * a deceleration of 12.92 g is equal to a force of 177 Newtons or, expressed as another unit of measurement, a force of 17.7 kilograms.
An object with a mass of 1.4 kg * a deceleration of 23.88 g is equal to a force of 327 Newtons or, expressed as another unit of measurement, a force of 32.7 kilograms.

Is 12 g or 23 g significant or insignificant? It is an example of measurable, comparable and reproducible data. Specifically, 23 g represents the deceleration of a test car that decelerates from 49 km/h to 0 in approximately 650 mm, as indicated by the ECE R129 (i-Size) standard. In turn, 12 g represents the deceleration of the car in the case of a side impact at 25 km/h.

On the basis of all these measurable, comparable and reproducible data, it makes absolutely no sense to state: “at 36 km/h, a dead weight of 1.5 kg becomes 15 kg. At 70 km/h, it becomes 60 kg; and at 90 km/h, it becomes 135 kg”. We believe that there are two reasons for such nonsensical assertions: firstly, data are misinterpreted out of pure ignorance; and secondly, experts knowingly attempt to confuse prospective users who are oblivious to the laws of physics. In any event, measurable, comparable and reproducible data are able to prove and disprove assertions as appropriate.

Another nonsensical argument is: “The excess strain put on the car’s isofix anchor points is considerable”. Obviously the isofix is exposed to a lot of strain, but to a considerable degree? Come on! What unit of measurement is that based on? Once again, we defer to data rather than opinions:

The car’s isofix anchor points and the safety seat’s isofix connectors are tested under static test conditions (low speed) and must be able to withstand forces (N) and maximum displacement distances (mm) within a given period of time (s).

Taking ECE R14 (the Spanish version of which can be read here) as a reference again, we will examine the test method for the vehicle’s isofix in detail. Firstly, it should be noted that, instead of using child safety seats, these tests involve a static force application device. The same device is also used as part of the ECE R14 tests in all cars.

regulation_ece_r14_isofix_anchorages_systems

According to the requirement, the deformation of the car’s isofix anchor points, and therefore the vehicle’s chassis, should be less than 125 mm during the maximum application of the aforementioned load; a partial or total rupture is also permitted provided that the deformation does not exceed this limit.

As we are now aware of the maximum deformation, we have to identify the force being applied and the timeframe of its application. The standard describes the force very clearly: 8 or 5 kN (depending on the oblique or forward position) with a tolerance of 0.25 kN.

As for the time during which the load is applied, the standard outlines a maximum and minimum force application period.

As we are using ECE R14, the concept of “safe distance” in relation to the side of the vehicle should be clearly noted. To this end, we must bear in mind the standard’s sole description of isofix rings concerning their spacing based on maximum and minimum dimensions that also allow any safety seat fitted in a car with isofix anchor points to be moved a few millimetres longitudinally to the car seat by hand. Based on the dimensions described in the standard, we may encounter isofix rings of up to 5 cm wide which means that a safety seat fitted with relatively narrow isofix anchor points can be moved by up to 20 mm after it has been installed.

Distance_between_both_low_anchorage_zones

In the automotive sector and in terms of passive safety, most elements are tested outside the vehicle as separate components. For that reason, we are going to replay a video of a seat belt test so that we can all see how tests are actually conducted and fact-check some of the assertions that you might see on the internet.

Another naive or spiteful assertion tends to be: “Motor vehicle manufacturers have spent decades freeing up millimetres of side space for passenger safety, by increasing their distance from doors and rigid elements (pillars, windows and supports)”. This assertion would lead us to believe that manufacturers of cars and child safety seats are experts in safety and that they improve safety for passengers every year, but under no circumstances are they able to do so by freeing up millimetres of space between passengers and rigid elements. If they did, the driver and front-seat passenger would be close to each other and further away from the doors. We have previously seen in the same post that an image and measurement of a 2019 and a 1995 Volvo show that the difference in door panels is less than 10 mm, without even considering the shapes of current door panels.

The trend is precisely the opposite; the Volkswagen group was the first to move seats closer to the doors in a sedan, doing so on the chassis of the current Seat Toledo, where the safety seat is off-centre from the seat and 30 mm closer to the door than its predecessor from the previous year. Are those at Volkswagen totally unaware that “they have spent years freeing up millimetres for separation purposes” and they suddenly get closer by no less than 30 mm?

The child safety seat manufacturer Kiddy has, since approximately 2015, integrated a system into its model which allows the seat to be moved 30 mm towards the door with the dual aim of improving safety and freeing up space.

The biomechanical values of the head are reduced by 20% in relation to the head performance criterion (HPC15) when the RiveKids RiveMove child safety seat adapter is used. How is that possible?

Improvements to biomechanical values are made possible by mechanical engineering both on the RiveMove child safety seat adapter and on car seats or the vehicles themselves.

Improvements to biomechanical values can be measured on the basis of the sensor system attached to Q dummies and their biofidelity.

We could speak at length about energy absorption and impact anticipation and how both these factors are an integral part of passive safety in the vehicle. We are aware that now is not the time to be addressing the origin of bumper deformation, the origin of the airbag, etc.

Who are we to dispute objective, empirical, reproducible and standardised data?

Anyone with little understanding of the matter or anyone with an interest in undermining the child safety seat standard ECE R129 and, specifically, its side impact testing, may have reasonable doubts. For non-experts, let us put the issue into some context: Passive safety standards are established by Global Road Safety Partnership (GRSP), a body comprising experts from innovation centres, manufacturers and other experts. Approximately 100 experts from various entities and of various nationalities take part in different working groups to determine the standard and its corresponding requirements.

Did you know that a car can be approved in just 5 comprehensive car crash tests? Did you know that the overwhelming majority of a vehicle’s components are separately approved outside of the car? Did you know that a car’s approval does not involve a crash test with child safety seats inside? Did you know that EuroNCAP tests have no bearing on a car’s approval?

GRSP experts conduct the side crash test on the basis of reproducible conditions which are almost identical to real-life situations. Experts have used collisions with actual cars in previous side crash tests, as in the case of ECE R129, and have defined a ranking to conduct the test by reference to a bench that is sufficiently representative of real-life situations. Are GRSP experts not able to conduct side crash tests on the basis of a test bench? The test requirement will doubtlessly become more stringent over time, but we should note that it IS representative, it HAS been conducted on the basis of actual collisions and it is INFINITELY more demanding than the absence of any such test, as in the case of ECE R44/04. Who would want to dispute the results of a crash test under ECE R129? Perhaps someone with little knowledge of the subject or someone with an economic interest that conflicts with the requirements of the standard?

In response to the following assertions: “RiveMove is the direct consequence of an absurd side test”: it’s one thing to say that the ECE R129 side crash test is not perfect and quite another to say that it is absurd. Maybe it would be better not to conduct a side crash test? Is the RiveKids RiveMove child safety seat adapter really that important that it can be used to call into question the side crash test of ECE R129?

If you have little understanding of the matter, you may be forgiven for thinking that, in a side crash involving a test shuttle, pad or trolley, the result or violence and consequences of the same may depend on the proximity of the seat to the point of impact. In actual fact, you couldn’t be any further from the truth.

To the extent that a side impact test is conducted as per the requirements of the standard, the trolley travels with zero relative acceleration before impact (well before impact), it has a constant speed of 25 km/h based on the tolerance described in the standard and collides with an absolutely rigid object. The fact that the trolley is travelling at a constant speed allows us to replicate the same effect, as if the trolley were stationary and hit by another object. In any event, we can compare the telemetries of the control test (child safety seat without RiveMove) with the telemetries of the test involving the RiveKids RiveMove child safety seat adapter, to see if there really is a significant difference and subsequently improve the HPC15 or head performance criterion by up to 20% in 15 milliseconds.

Using steel to absorb energy

Throughout the history of the modern automotive industry, metals have always played a key role in the structures of vehicles and, specifically, in their passive safety.

Can a vehicle with a wooden structure absorb energy in the event of a crash? No doubt it can, but not in a controlled way.

Can energy be absorbed by steel and other metals? Not only do they absorb energy, but they do so in a controlled way based on optimised geometry and material compositions.

Does the following statement make any sense? “Its iron bar absorbs up to 20% of the impact energy. That’s not possible for a number of reasons, including the fact that the material is very hard, meaning that it is only absorbent when the energy discharge is very high; in an impact of this kind, it is barely affected”.

Two points should be noted in response to this statement: firstly, if the RiveKids RiveMove child safety seat adapter is barely affected, why is it not deemed to be dangerous in other statements? Secondly, according to which scale is steel classified as a very hard material that cannot absorb energy? It looks like the statement is based on a lack of understanding of the subject. All isofix connectors on the market and the vast majority of child safety seat sub-frames are manufactured from steel (different alloys) and, in the event of a side impact, they absorb energy via generally controlled deformation. Can steel absorb energy or not?

Did you know that the isofix connector, isofit, fix, click, etc. of the left child safety seat is attached to the steel sub-frame with steel, while the right-hand one is attached to the sub-frame with a polymer-based (plastic) manufactured part?

Admirers and detractors of RiveMove?

Like all highly innovative products, the RiveKids RiveMove child safety seat adapter has its admirers and detractors. Although our many admirers are very much satisfied with the product and the measures taken by the company to guarantee road safety, we also have our detractors. We respect all opinions without seeking to make anyone see things our way. Some car manufacturers claimed that the three-point seat belt “took drivers’ heads off” in the first few months, and even years, of its release onto the market by Volvo. People are afraid of and subsequently reject what they do not understand; we do not want and cannot oppose them.

Some childcare stores have even informed users that installing a child safety seat with isofix anchor points and the RiveMove seat adapter is dangerous and propose, as an alternative, to install the seat without isofix, in the same position, exclusively using a seat belt. Does that make sense? In our opinion, it does not.

We generally tend to post that it is possible to install 3 child safety seats with a seat belt in most cars and that RiveMove is also a safer solution.

Other than RiveMove, what solutions are available to families? (if any at all)

If a family has to fit three child safety seats into a vehicle, they have several options:

Buy a multi-purpose vehicle in which the child safety seat is virtually touching the door, without the alleged safe space which we have previously shown to be short on credibility.
Keep the same car and fit the child safety seats in such a way that they are virtually touching the doors, by removing the isofix and using the seat belt.
Fit two child safety seats in the back and the third in the front, which means only one adult can travel with the children.
Keep the same car and fit the seats nearest to the doors by maintaining the isofix anchor points and using, for this purpose, the RiveMove child safety seat adapter.
Multimac which, for £ 5,000, means you do not have to change cars and provides a solution to the safety seat problem of adults who do not live together; it is also approved according to ECE R44/04 and side crashes are not therefore tested.

Every family needs help, especially large families so why not help them? There are many reasons for the demographic winter that is currently affecting society, including the burden of moving around with three or more children, which is why we should help families so that they do not have to buy a multi-purpose vehicle, and we should provide a solution so that families with two children are not compelled to change car when their third child is on the way… So let’s help.

Cars with three independent rear seats which do not require the RiveKids RiveMove child safety seat adapter

Even if the users of these vehicles do not, in principle, need the RiveKids RiveMove child safety seat adapter, we can list a great deal of exceptions when they do. We have families that buy RiveMove to free up access to the seat belt, even with these car models; we have families that buy it because it represents a safer option and we even have families who buy it so that their seats are more adaptable for their children as they can be reclined to meet the particular requirements of children.

Whatever the reason may be, at RiveKids our mission is crystal clear: To work towards the objective of “zero victims in road traffic accidents” based on three fundamental principles:

Research applied to the actual needs of families.
Technologies within reach of most families, such as in the case of the RiveKids RiveMove child safety seat adapter. This way families do not have to wait 20 years or to buy a high-end vehicle to access an accessory which makes car travel safer for passengers.
Education: “the biggest life-saver in the world is education”.

If you have any questions or would like further clarification, please contact us at atencion.cliente@rivekids.es