User:Delirious4museli/sandbox

EZ-On Products began as a division of Rupert Industries, Inc. Founded during World War II, by Gloria and Carl Rupert, the firm manufactured parachutes for the United States Armed Forces later expanding into producing and selling safety belts for aircraft and professional auto racing applications throughout the 1950s and 1960s.^[1] In 1980, Rupert Industries, Inc. was acquired by C&J Associates, before being purchased by Jim and Connie Murray for $200,000 one year later.^[2]

After being renamed E-Z-On Products, Inc. in 1985, the operation moved to a 3,500 sq. ft. facility in Jupiter, Florida in 1986.^[3] The development and design of safety restraints continued, mainly concentrating on applications for school buses. By the early 1990s, the company was selling 600,000 automotive safety restraints per year while developing specialist products for family vehicles that lacked the features necessary for the optimum use of vehicle safety belts.^[4] Connie Murray assumed full control of the business in 1994,^[5] overseeing annual sales growth of between ten and fifteen percent from 1992 to 1998. In 1999, the firm relocated to a nearby larger 8,500 sq. ft. premises.^[6]

By 2000, E-Z-On Products was active in community education projects regarding vehicle occupant safety and employed a nationally certified Child Passenger Safety Technician.^[7][8]

In 2008, the company were described as "an inventor and customizer of occupant protection strategies in areas where few alternative solutions [have] existed" through continued "long-standing efforts and evolutions" of design ideas.^[9]

The company changed ownership in 2017 and continues to develop products for specialized transportation needs.^[10]

Throughout their history, the company has retained the use of the parachute logo due to their background in aviation.^[11]

Technical drawing of the Rupert E-Z-On Harness showing the vest with specialized anchors

Technical drawing of the Rupert E-Z-On Harness showing the vest with a seat belt

Patent drawings of the Rupert E-Z-On Harness from 1979.

A transportation vest is a type of vehicle occupant safety harness which is worn by the passenger. It is secured to the vehicle through use of a seat mount system.

Following the signing of legislation designed to provide education rights for those with disabilities in 1975, school transportation providers faced legal requirements to ensure the safe travel of students. In response, Rupert industries designed a "safety vest" harness "to fasten [a] child to the seat of a vehicle and maintain the child in a safe position at all times" during travel. The invention addressed the "instances where a handicapped child needs considerable support for maintaining a seated position" and the patent was granted on the basis that the safety vest was "capable of satisfying that need." The harness could also be used regardless of the availability of seat belts and was also suitable for use by passengers without special healthcare needs.^[12]

In 1978, the safety vest was tested at the Highway Safety Research Institute at The University of Michigan, and "performed effectively in both the head-on and 33 degree oblique impact tests." Though small corrections were necessary to the design, the crash testing noted that "head excursion was limited" and "prevented the dummy's head from contacting the front bus seat." The design was also found to distribute crash forces "over the chest and shoulders as well as the lap region thereby preventing excessive loading of the abdominal organs."^[13]

Following the successful safety testing, the patent was granted two years later.^[14] As sales of safety vests continued, Rupert Industries was officially renamed after the invention in 1986.^[15][16]

In 1992, the safety vest received public attention after eight students were involved in a school bus rollover accident in Franklin County, Ohio.^[17][18] The children suffered only minor cuts and bruises and doctors "commended the...safety vest system," stating it "probably saved the children’s lives." The school board was also praised for buying and using the vests despite their use not being mandatory. The local news coverage of the accident was later developed into a free educational video on vehicle occupant restraint awareness and school bus safety.^[19][20]

By 1993, in Indiana and Iowa, the E-Z-On vest was used by 82% of special education students who were unable to use a standard child safety seat or seat belt (excluding wheelchair users).^[21]

Under the direction of Connie Murray, a registered nurse and the owner of E-Z-On Products, two derivative designs of the safety vest were developed: a more adjustable and versatile version of the existing invention,^[22] and another version which allowed passengers to travel in a supine position.^[23]

EZ-On Products 103Z Adjustable Transportation Vest from 2017. With the exception of the crotch straps, the design is identical to that from 1996.

Compared to the original, the updated version of the safety vest was "adjustable in diameter and in length to accommodate different passenger torso sizes," so could be "easily applied to and removed from the passenger" while also being "lightweight and easily portable."^[24] The revised design was more "easily installed on traditional bus seats" including those without seat belts, and the "many options...to ease fit and allow for better customization" made the newer design "the [safety] restraint of choice for students" with special educational needs.^[25] In a 2011 study conducted by the Riley Hospital for Children and the Indiana University School of Medicine, the safety vest design was recommended for two-thirds of special healthcare categories which necessitated using specialized vehicle safety restraints.^[26]

Prior to the availability child safety seats with more comprehensive size ranges, the adjustable E-Z-On safety vest was also recommended by various state and federal agencies for children without special needs whose weight, height, and/or age precluded them from safely using a child safety seat or vehicle seat belt. In 1990, the American Academy of Pediatrics noted that "a larger-size E-Z-On Vest" offered "the best protection" for children "who get too tall or broad for their convertible seats."^[27]

In 2004, the design was updated again with changes designed to further increase the versatility and application of the design.^[28].

E-Z-On Products also designed a safety vest to enable passengers to travel in a supine position. The invention addressed how standard vehicle safety restraints were unusable "when a passenger is wearing an appliance, such as a leg cast, body cast, brace, or any other appliance that affects the lower limbs, because the appliance often requires that the passenger be transported in a Supine position with the torso of the passenger and the appliance being secured to the seat." During the design process Murray worked with Marilyn J. Bull, MD, a specialist in behavioral pediatrics and neurodevelopmental disabilities. Together, they focused on developing the safety vest to allow for various types and uses of medical casts and equipment as well as the need for it to be donned and removed with minimal complication. The safety vest makes use of multiple vehicle seat belts to safely secure the passengers legs.^[29]

The vest is the only vehicle occupant safety restraint crash tested to United States federal standards for passengers who require supine positioning while traveling in vehicles. In 1999, the American Academy of Pediatrics, recommended the vest for children in body casts noting it had been dynamically tested to 105lbs/47.2kg and was a solution for "preschool through school-aged children" for which there were "limited resources available for safe transport in motor vehicles." The policy statement regarding the vest was reaffirmed in 2006 and the recommendation is now part of the National Child Passenger Safety Board basic awareness training for special needs child restraints.^[30][31]

While the design is recognized and recommended by healthcare professionals, it has been noted that the suitability of the vest is limited by both the height of the occupant and the width of the rear seats of the vehicle in which it may be used. Additionally, by having ancillary elements unlike regular child safety seats, some have called for a revised design to help prevent misuse by inexperienced caregivers. The design was modified in 2021.^[32][33]

For transportation vests to be used safely, they require mounting systems. These are a series of straps which are attached to the vehicle onto which a transportation vest can be attached and detached.

When used on school buses, transportation safety vests are most often secured to the seat using a "CamWrap" system. A CamWrap consists of a "main longitudinal strap" of webbing with four protruding clips. The longitudinal strap fits vertically around the school bus seat with the clips being positioned to face the seat area. The safety vest can be attached to the clips "so the passenger is secured to the seat in a safe and comfortable sitting position." The design permits a safety vest to be attached and detached without the need for the CamWrap to be unfastened, adjusted, or removed from the seat.^[34]

EZ-On Products 100M2SMU Model CamWrap System (Front)

EZ-On Products 100M2SMU Model CamWrap System (Back)

EZ-On Products Max 2 Mount installed on a school bus seat in 2022. The Max 2 Mount is a CamWrap system very similar to Murray's original design from 1983.

Designed by Connie Murray in the early 1980s, the invention enabled safety vests to be used on school bus seats without seat belts and did not therefore require transportation providers to modify their buses. First used in 1983, "the school bus industry embraced it as the best solution available to help student transporters safely secure younger students." Despite widespread uptake in the student transportation industry, and a safety record without fatalities or any insurance claims, Murray was not fully satisfied with the design until 1996. The revised design, which was granted a patent in 1998^[35], made the CamWrap system easier to use for caregivers and improved positioning for passengers.^[36]

In 2001, the safety of CamWrap systems was questioned by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). After further testing and public debate, the technology and design was ruled safe to use.^[37]

In 2015, the CamWrap was recognized as "an industry standard" system with Murray being noted as a "true safety pioneer" for her design and development of the technology.^[38]

Changing safety protocols for school bus seat design have necessitated design changes in CamWrap systems.^[39] In 2019, EZ-On Products began revising their various CamWrap designs and launched a new version in 2020 which consolidated the technology into a single design suitable for all sizes of school bus seats.^[40]

As the original Rupert E-Z-On harness was designed to be used in seats which may not have had seat belts, a system of straps was designed simultaneously with the vest. These "anchoring straps" were "suitably connected to the seat in which the child may ride or…attached to suitable eye bolts on the floor of the vehicle."^[41]

Besides maximizing the safety performance of transportation vests, the floor-mounted system also permitted the "anchoring straps [to] remain with the vehicle at all times" thereby avoiding the constant removal, installation, and/or continued readjustment. As each element was adjustable,^[42] the occupant could "ride comfortably and safely."^[43]

While innovative and able to provide effective occupant protection, the "process of installing the restraint belts properly with appropriate belt lengths was somewhat tedious,"^[44] resulting in "numerous complaints about how difficult it was to install."^[45]

The floor tether system was developed during a period when transportation providers were becoming reluctant to modify their vehicles. Combined with the time-consuming installation process, a change in design was needed. Murray redesigned the system (as the CamWrap system),^[46] but the original design remains in production as "a unique system for bypassing seat belt" installations if required." The system is now recommended primarily for passengers with specific behavioral needs. For passengers who are at "risk of unfastening restraint systems during travel,"^[47] use of the "floor mount tether may be necessary to avoid escaping behaviors."^[48]

EZ-On Products "Single Mount or "Tether Mount" system (left) installed in the rear of a family car (right). The system can utilize the vehicle top tether anchor avoiding any modifications to the vehicle.

To further improve the versatility of transportation vests, especially in family vehicles, E-Z-On Products developed a more basic mounting system which eliminated "the need to install two additional straps...where a lap belt may already be provided." The revised design allows the safety vest to be used without any modifications to a vehicle.^[49]

Conversion harnesses are designed to work with the existing seat belts in a vehicle. Most commonly they are used to mitigate the potential dangers of lap-only seat belts.^[50]

The increasing awareness of the dangers of lap-only seatbelts in the late 1980s and early 1990s led Murray to design the first "Conversion" harness to improve rear seat safety. The 86Y harness, which Murray and E-Z-On began developing in the Fall of 1987,^[51] is "the shape of an upside down ‘Y’" ^[52]and which "supplements vehicle lap belt with 2 straps to hold [the] upper body [and] attaches to [the] car with single bolt."^[53]

The final variant was crash tested in March 1998 by NHTSA, at which time the federal government were working to address the then outdated child restraint standards.^[54] The design was found to have "dramatically limited head excursion to…approximately 33 percent below limit prescribed…and significantly below the other tethered systems. Knee excursion was also limited to values well below established limits."^[55] In their evaluations of the ergonomics of the design, the NHTSA also remarked that "the potential for misuse…seemed to be significantly less than for tethered child seats [as] it would be obvious to parents that if the tether were not attached, [the] child would be completely unrestrained in a crash."^[56] Medical practitioners praised the design and recommended it as a solution for children over 40 pounds travelling in rear seats with lap-only belts.^[57]

Another advantage was the low price to consumers. By 1999, E-Z-On were the only company producing conversion harnesses for lap-only belts with each harness selling for under $50^[58][59] and able to be made in a "variety of colors to match a vehicle's interior."^[60] A decade later the price had risen to around $80 but still remained well below the cost of a child restraint with equivalent weight limits.^[61]

However, despite the safety and financial benefits of the technology, the NHTSA evaluations also noted that the invention did "not ‘look like’ traditional child restraint systems so…might not be as readily accepted by some consumers as a…[child safety] seat might be."^[62] Additionally, because conversion harnesses "require a tether anchor during use, and most vehicles made before 1999 do not have that capability,"^[63] the potential popularity and effectiveness of the design was somewhat limited. This was recognized by Murray who described being "just a little ahead" of the legislation changes, and made various efforts to help "educate auto dealers on installing the anchors necessary" for newer designs of occupant safety restraints.^[64]

While conversion harness "systems can be used for any passenger,"^[65] by differing in "fit, securement, capacity and customization"^[66] they are now primarily recommended for passengers with specific healthcare needs, such as those using a halo brace.^[67][68]

In August 2001, the NHTSA questioned the design and protection of CamWrap systems. In November, Agency representative Charles Hott stated CamWrap "Seat Mounts" were illegal as they did not comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 213 (FMVSS213). Section 5.3.1 of the law stated that the securing of child restraints to the upright section of a vehicle seat was prohibited and CamWrap systems were therefore non-compliant.

Due to the widespread use of CamWraps and safety vests in school buses, the announcement "ignited a firestorm of anguish throughout the transportation community."^[69] Initially most industry leaders exercised caution towards countering the directive from the NHTSA and supported prioritizing alternative restraints to CamWrap systems.^[70] However, there was also general agreement the actions of the NHTSA had been "very poor,"^[71] having "reversed decades of acceptance" and left "school districts and Head Start agencies...scrambling to figure out how to comply" with the ruling.^[72] Industry commentators described "the safety of many hundreds of thousands of students with disabilities hang[ing] in the balance."^[73]

As a result of the "monumental" complications for the industry, child restraint researchers called for the NHTSA to provide clear evidence of any safety issues with CamWrap systems and to resolve the issue with a "fair, clear, public process" that would "afford industry and advocates opportunity for input."^[74]

Immediately after NHTSA’s announcement, E-Z-On Products conducted an online survey seeking opinions from student transportation professionals. The survey found that "95.7% of respondents said that seat-mounted safety vests should not be removed from school buses."^[75] Respondents raised concerns that the removal of CamWrap systems would reduce crash protection, lower bus capacities, compromise behavioral standards, lessen versatility and flexibility of safety restraint options, limit the equipment available for special needs students^[76], and sharply increase costs. One school district estimated the ruling could cost their administration $5.4m.^[77]

Following the survey, in February 2002, Murray publicly called for an update to FMVSS213.^[78]. In an open letter to the industry, Murray sought acknowledgement of both the crash worthiness and legality of the CamWrap technology. That the NHTSA had "purchased 13 Vests with CamWraps to test every year from 1999 until 2003," proved a significant factor in the controversy – especially since the NHTSA had not issued any product recalls for E-Z-On CamWrap systems.^[79] Murray also petitioned the NHTSA for a review of their position which was formally acknowledged by the NHTSA on March 20, 2002.^[80]

Subsequently, Executive Director of the National Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation (NASDPTS), Charles Gauthier, spoke of "the dilemma of laboratory tests for conditions that…indeed may never…exist in the real world." The NHTSA’s unrealistic interpretation of testing standards was also noted as "ridiculous" by the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute.^{[81][page needed]}

In response (and also taking account of the survey and industry representatives), NHTSA Highway Safety Specialist Susan Kirinich, informed student transportation professionals that the agency were reviewing their position. She stated it was apparent that CamWraps and safety vests "may be safe and useful in most situations."^{[82][page needed]}

As the NHTSA appeared to have altered their position, the National Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services (NASDPTS) launched an independent survey of CamWrap and safety vest usage. Twenty State Directors of Pupil Transportation responded largely reiterating the findings of E-Z-On Products' previous survey, including reports of school bus accidents involving safety vests with no injuries to any student.^[83]

Under increasing pressure from the industry to clarify the situation the Department of Transportation invited public comments on the issue.^[84] The NHTSA also reinstated safety vests and CamWrap training procedures into their training manual for child passenger safety for school buses.^[85] The Ohio Department of Education subsequently issued a statement referencing the "history of successful use" of CamWraps and safety vests "and the dependence upon them for safe transport." The statement instructed that "school bus transporters may use restraint devices (including harness systems) that have been certified by the manufacturer."^[86]

An interim ruling was issued by the NHTSA in October 2002. It amended the FMVSS213 law "to facilitate the safe transportation" of "many different populations of children." The ruling noted safety vests and CamWrap systems "were popular with… transportation administrators…and operators who said that if seat-mounted vests were unavailable, they would have great difficulty in transporting their children." It also noted financial and practical concerns of having to rapidly update school bus fleets, including having to "train personnel" and "that if seat-mounted vests were unavailable, they might not restrain their children with any kind of child restraint system."^[87]

Following previous recommendations of E-Z-On Products,^[88] the ruling also noted that effective February 1, 2003 "the entire seat directly behind the child wearing the seat-mounted vest must be either unoccupied or occupied by restrained passengers." The Department of Transportation also acknowledged it had conducted successful prior crash testing of E-Z-On safety vests and CamWrap systems, between 1996 and 1998. In conclusion, the Department of Transportation and the NHTSA stated "that sanctioning the manufacture and sale of seat-mounted vests for use on school buses will enhance the safe transportation" of students.^[89]

On March 9, 2004 having received feedback from "state departments of education, school transportation associations, public and independent school districts, school bus transportation facilities, school bus operators, Head Start programs, individuals employed in the pupil transportation industry, physical therapists, child restraint manufacturers, the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI), [and] the American Academy of Paediatrics," the interim ruling (which was set to expire on December 1, 2003) was adopted indefinitely allowing the permanent and legal use of CamWrap systems on school buses.^[90] To ensure the optimum selection and use of child restraints on school buses, amendments related to warning and instructional labels were included in the final ruling. The proceedings also covered questions about possible revisions to the interpretation and applicability of testing standards to real-world situations.^[91]

Due to language used in the final ruling, the patent held by Murray and E-Z-On Products was rendered void allowing other manufacturers to produce CamWrap technology for school bus seats. In an interview Murray expressed the patent loss was not of any concern to her personally nor E-Z-On Products stating it "was okay with me. At least I knew the doubt was gone and the children who had been on buses without my products would be protected again."^[92]

While the initial actions of the NHTSA had been abrupt and generally poorly received by the industry, the resolution process conducted by the Department of Transportation and the NHTSA was ultimately widely praised. Murray recognized that "professionals from many different levels and sectors…responded to the call to relate their experiences…their input helped NHTSA to make an informed decision." The verdict, E-Z-On Products said, "demonstrated the 20-year track record of seat-mounted safety harnesses" and that the design was "shown to be a safe and effective option highly valued by pupil transporters.^[93]

Constance "Connie" Newton Murray spent her early life in Duncan Falls, Ohio. She qualified as a Registered Nurse before specializing as an Orthopedic Surgical Assistant. She worked at hospitals in Ohio, California, and later Florida. In 1981, she resigned her position at the Palm Beach Gardens Medical Center moving to Palatine, Illinois to focus on designing and manufacturing transport safety restraints.^[94] Noting how she "had put people back together from not wearing their seat belts," Murray described the development of the transportation vest and CamWrap system as being on "the other side of the fence" to nursing.^[95]

While initially prioritizing products for school buses, Murray began drafting designs for other safety applications in the mid-1980s. The first "conversion harness" for family vehicles underwent federal testing in 1989. Throughout the 1990s, Murray continued to work with medical experts on product design as well as on education and awareness regarding vehicle safety topics such as transportation for those with special needs and vehicle tether anchors.^[96]

Murray was profiled in the April 2002 issue of School Transportation News being recognized by the industry for her "influential contributions in evolving the pupil transportation industry to an extraordinary point of safety, efficiency and integrity."^{[97][page needed]}

Murray retired in 2017.

The company is a sponsor of Safe Kids Worldwide, and a member of the National Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services.

Category:Automotive_safetyCategory:Vehicle safety technologiesCategory:Manufacturing_companies_of_the_United_States