Consumer usability and acceptance of a load leg on an infant child restraint system in the United States

Load legs are a newly emerging safety feature on child restraint systems (CRS) in the United States (US). However, consumer usability of load legs has never been studied in the US. This study aims to characterize how US caregivers navigate load leg installations and their acceptance level of this safety feature.

A convenience sample of fifty caregivers with children ages zero to two installed a rear-facing infant CRS with a load leg into a provided vehicle. Researchers observed whether the caregivers used the load leg. Participants who did not use the load leg were prompted to repeat the installation with the load leg. Researchers checked if the load leg length and angle settings were appropriate. Verbal and written surveys were used to collect caregivers' feedback on the load leg and their demographic information.

Overall, 32% of participants immediately noticed and used the load leg, 22% initially disregarded the load leg but self-corrected, and 46% finished their first installation without using it. Participants who were male, had higher household incomes, and those who used the instruction manual were more likely to use the load leg without being prompted. Once prompted, 68% of participants had the load leg set at the correct length and 74% were at the correct angle. Almost all participants (96%) correctly inferred that the intended purpose of the load leg was to provide stability, security, reduce movement, and/or increase the safety of the installation. Just over half of participants (56%) said they overall liked having the load leg. Concerns were expressed about the amount of space that the load leg takes up (30%), whether it would stay in place (18%), uncertainty about whether it would provide the intended protection in a crash (18%), and lack of clarity in the manufacturers' instructions provided (14%).

Many US caregivers are not accustomed to performing installations with load legs. Their general response to the feature was mixed, with most recognizing its intended purpose but expressing questions about its functional use.