The purpose of the Australian Child Restraint Evaluation Program (CREP) is to provide consumers with independent safety information;​ and to apply commercial and public consumer pressure on manufacturers to deliver child restraint systems (CRS) that perform well beyond the requirements of the Australian Standard. This paper describes the evolution of the dynamic assessment protocols and presents a summary of areas where improvement in dynamic performance has occurred. Areas of dynamic performance where there is still room for improvement, are also reviewed.

The dynamic assessment protocol has evolved from a system that separately scored the performance of CRS in frontal, 90 degrees and 66 degrees simulated impacts to a system that provides a single overall score for front and side impact tests to determine CRS ratings. The current protocols also nominate a number of ‘Critical’ ‘Performance Aspect’ (PAs) and a CRS is limited to one star if a score of ‘0’ is achieved for any critical PA. There have also been significant changes to the dynamic test and assessment methods over the years to ensure assessment methods are as objective as possible, and some variation in the types of performance features assessed. For rearward facing infant restraints, CREP currently assesses the ability of the CRS to retain the head and torso in front and side impacts, control upward and rotational displacement of the CRS in rebound and distribute the load over the back of the dummy, in frontal testing, , manage dummy head and torso energy in frontal testing and manage dummy head energy in side impact. Similar assessments of dummy and head retention and energy management are used in the rating of forward facing child restraints. These assessments also include head and knee excursion. For booster seats, the ability of the booster to provide and maintain good sash belt geometry, and to prevent submarining in frontal impacts. Assessments of head retention and energy management in side impact and dummy retention both in near and off-side impacts are also included for booster seats. There have been substantial improvements in the side impact protection features of rearward facing and forward facing child restraints observed in the program, and increasingly better performance of booster seats in maintaining good seat belt geometry in frontal impact. However, there is a need for more attention to head energy management in side impact, particularly among rearward facing restraints. Among rearward facing restraints, there are also concerns about poor performance of most restraints to adequately distribute crash forces through the back of the torso in frontal impact. Among forward facing restraints, there are concerns over head containment during rebound in frontal impact.

While there have been significant improvements to the test and assessment methods used in CREP there is a possibility that some aspects of good performance are being overstated and aspects of poor performance understated due to limitations in the assessment and rating procedures. Areas for possible future refinements of the protocols are also discussed.