How potential changes to child seat regulations could affect you

Calls by two of Australia’s most popular car brands to fully harmonise the national standards for road vehicles with global regulations could have a big knock-on effect for Aussie parents, as one of the three main unique Australian Design Rules (ADRs) on the chopping block controls the design and number of child seat anchor points that must be fitted by the factory.

If successful, it will make the central top tether anchor point optional rather than mandatory, potentially reducing the choice for Australian parents who need to install two or more child seats, or who prefer to install a child seat in the middle due to space or safety reasons.

Australian Design Rules specify certain safety, anti-theft and emissions requirements that road vehicles must meet. For some time now, Mitsubishi and Nissan have recommended that the Australian Government review the ADRs with a view to harmonising them with Global UN Regulations to make it quicker, easier, and cheaper to import new models.

Mitsubishi and Nissan’s request now has the backing of the car industry’s influential peak body, the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries (FCAI).

The two car-makers’ main argument is that harmonising ADRs will help car manufacturers to meet the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard (NVES) by bringing less-polluting cars to the Australian market more quickly.

Nissan Australia General Manager of Corporate Communications, Emily Fadeyev, told carsales that the process of getting a new model approved for Australia “…can currently take 20 months and we want to speed up that process”.

It has also been said a lot of unnecessary costs are involved in meeting some of these ADRs, which are ultimately passed on to the consumer, meaning manufacturers can’t make a viable business case for bringing certain cars to Australia.

“The recommendation to update the Road Vehicle Standards Act (RVSA) Type Approval Pathway has now been endorsed by the FCAI board of directors and is an official FCAI position,” said Ms Fadeyev.

Reading between the lines, Mitsubishi and Nissan seem to think that making the central top tether anchor point optional for small cars is the most appropriate way of meeting the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard (NVES), as they wouldn’t expect customers to put three child seats across the back of vehicles anyway.

Others, however, argue that all parents need cars to offer the flexibility to position a child seat in any of the rear seating positions.

Unique to Australia is ADR 34, which mandates that passenger vehicles be equipped with top-tether anchor points in all three rear seating positions. These anchor points play a crucial role in securing child seats effectively.

A Mitsubishi spokesperson pointed out that “Australia is currently the only market that has mandated a top tether point for the rear central seating position.

“Other advanced markets with similarly strict safety regulations [including Japan, the US and the European Union] have not followed Australia’s lead on this. These markets have similar vehicle safety concerns as Australia does, so it remains a valid question to ask why Australia continues to be an outlier regarding accepted child seat safety regulations.”

Ms Fadeyev confirmed that if ADR 34 is harmonised with the equivalent type approval of other countries, it would no longer be mandatory for vehicle manufacturers to install a central top tether anchor point.

“Direct acceptance of type approvals from major markets would make the centre top tether point optional,” she said.

“This would allow OEMs to either bring overseas specified vehicles to market quickly, or provide a centre top tether in segments where customers require this. Importantly, there is no compromise on safety.”

However, Mitsubishi and Nissan don’t seem to be taking into account that the central seat is statistically the safest position for any passenger, so Australian parents, grandparents and guardians will understandably want the option to position their child seat in the central position no matter the size of the vehicle.

Australian Child Restraint Resource Initiative Operations Director Andrew Pepper said that to get the proposed changes to ADR 34 over the line, “…data would need to be shown that the specific change will enhance the safe travel of little Aussies, not just make it easier and cheaper for international vehicles to be imported into Australia.”

There is also a practical element for Aussie parents.

When fitting passengers into the back of a small five-seater car, you can often position two child seats next to each other, one in the central seat and one in an outer position, and still fit a passenger beside them. However, it isn’t easy for a passenger to access or fit into a central seat between two child seats installed at the outer positions.

Besides safety, another practicality issue for consumers is that the central seating position is often the best place to install a single child seat in small cars because it allows the front occupants to bring their seats back further, providing them with the most legroom.

If a child suffers with motion sickness, sitting in the central position can help as it gives them a good view out of the windscreen.

With the current cost of living crisis, smaller cars may be the only affordable option for families. Many families can’t afford to buy or run a bigger car, don’t have enough parking space or don’t feel comfortable driving a large car.

For blended families who carry more children with potentially large age gaps on some days of the week, having the option to position two child seats next to each other is often the best solution to allow a third passenger to sit beside the two child seats in the back.

If central top tether anchor points become optional for car manufacturers, the cost and responsibility of installing a central top tether anchor point would be passed on to already confused parents to navigate alone, potentially resulting in misuse.

It’s commonly regarded that the greatest safety problem with child seats in all countries is consumer misuse; the removal of a central top tether anchor point in some cars could only exacerbate this aspect, and parental confusion in general.

“Currently, all child seats in Australia require the upper tether anchorage to be in use at all times and a change to the ADR removing the requirement for smaller vehicles to have these anchorages will result in increased misuse,” said Mr Pepper.

“As a culture, Australia is making great progress with increased awareness of safe child transport yet we still commonly experience upper tether misuse. Now we want to increase the complexity for the end user? That seems bizarre to me.”

Top tethers originated in the 1970s, when Australia was ahead of the world in terms of child safety in cars. They remain the safest method of attaching child seats in vehicles. They keep the top of the child seat securely attached to the vehicle and prevent it from tipping forward in the event of an accident.

Why did Australia not fully adopt European-style ISOFIX child seat anchor points?

In Australia, ISOFIX or the seatbelt can be used to connect a child seat to the car but a top tether anchorage must always be used. The below image illustrates why the top tether anchorage is important.

Child seats used in this country must meet Australian Standards (AS/NZS 1754), which includes strict specifications for the top tether. Some child seats sold overseas have other ways of preventing them from tipping or rotating during a crash, such as a ‘load leg’ that goes down to the footwell.

Mr Pepper told carsales there was “controversy surrounding the European and US load legs”.

He said this “stems around the lack of conclusive evidence that it performs equally or superior to the upper tether”.

“In fact, ACRI’s sources indicate that it’s likely the upper tether outperforms load legs in side impact or T-bone sled testing.”

There is a chance that the Australian Standard for child seats could change if ADR 34 is harmonised, which might also result in the introduction of more global child seat brands into the Australian market. Our market is currently dominated by three manufacturers.

Mr Pepper said none of the big three child seat manufacturers operating in Australia “have indicated they view upper tethers as inefficient, outdated, or burdensome”.

Why would Australia want to swap the safest method of connecting a child restraint for something that is potentially not as safe for Australian children?

Currently, ADR 34 makes it mandatory for passenger vehicles to have top tether anchor points in all second-row positions with a seatbelt. However, light commercial vehicles, including Australia’s wildly popular dual-cab utes, have an exemption.

In November 2019, ADR 34 was changed to include specifications for light commercial vehicles but the inclusion of any child restraint anchorage remains optional; ADR 34 only applies if there is one or more top tether anchor or ISOFIX point installed and a central top tether anchor is not required.

Since this changed, the number of dual-cab utes with three top tether anchor points has reduced. For example, the previous-generation Isuzu D-MAX and Volkswagen Amarok had three but the latest versions have only two. Now vehicle manufacturers are meeting the minimum requirements rather than what is best for the family consumer.

The Jeep Gladiator and SsangYong Musso are the only remaining dual-cab utes in Australia that have three metal top tether anchorages in the back. Subsequently, these are the only new models in which consumers can install three child seats across the second row, or have the option of installing a child seat in the central position.

As the Mitsubishi spokesperson put it, under the proposed changes, “some vehicles may continue to provide a centre anchor; some may not”.

“It is worth noting that for light commercial vehicles, which now make up a significant portion of the market, that child restraint anchors are optional, and only need to comply if they are fitted.”

If the proposed change to ADR 34 is pushed through, Aussie car-buying parents might experience a similarly negative result as those trading up from an older D-MAX or Amarok to the latest model.

The saying “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” comes to mind or, as we say in the parenting world, “pick your battles”.

Our ADRs and other regulations are reviewed regularly, so this is not new, but not all vehicle manufacturers are onboard with the idea of harmonising.

The ACRI reported that “an anonymous source close to the automotive industry has indicated that at least two well-known safety-orientated manufacturers will be opposing the proposed change”.

It does beg the question that if other vehicle manufacturers can do it – including the many new Chinese brands entering the Australian market – why can’t Mitsubishi and Nissan?

This was a question that went unanswered during this investigation other than to point out that some of the newcomers have fallen foul of ADR 34.

In recent times, the BYD Atto 3 had to be recalled due to non-compliant top tether anchors and the illegal inclusion of ISOFIX points in the front passenger seat. Tesla’s updated Model 3 arrived without a flap in the parcel shelf for accessing the central top tether anchor and was recalled. It’s also thought that Honda decided to sell its HR-V here as a four-seater to avoid having to include a central top tether anchor.

Mr Pepper said “major revisions to ADR 34 seem unlikely”.

“Regulatory bodies have indicated that historical standards were established based on specific safety requirements for Australian roads and vehicles.

“Additionally, any alterations to the rules would require extensive evaluation and consensus from various stakeholders, including safety authorities.

“The reality is for this modification to the ADR to be successful, it will need to have the support of many involved within the revision process – and from the research ACRI has done regarding this topic, it appears there aren’t many supporters.”

Join the conversation at our Facebook page
Or email us at editor@carsales.com.au