Side Impact Safety: Honda Odyssey Safest Minivan Again in 2018

The 2018 Odyssey is the safest minivan ever made (so far) when it comes to side impact crash resistance.
The 2018 Odyssey is the safest minivan ever made (so far) when it comes to side impact crash resistance.

I’ve written endlessly about side impact collisions and how dangerous they can be for all of us who travel in passenger-sized vehicles. They are overrepresented in fatal crash scenarios, and have been so for years in every country with modern infrastructure. As illustrated in an earlier post on fatality rates in side impact collisions, even though only 21% of all collisions feature side impacts, 34% of fatal multiple-vehicle collisions involve side impacts, compared to frontal impacts, which make up 52% of all collisions and 56% of fatal multi-vehicle collisions, and rear impacts, which make up 28% of all collisions and only 8% of fatal multiple-vehicle crashes. To put it simply, despite side impacts being the least common type of crash, they’re proportionally the most likely to be deadly. So what can we do about them?

Which factors affect your odds of dying in a side impact collision?

No matter where you live, there are three primary factors in auto safety: how you drive, what you drive, and where you drive. You can reduce your odds of dying in a side impact collision by increasing your driving safety–e.g., avoiding driving entirely, limiting annual miles driven, following the speed limit, and so on. You can also improve your odds of survival by monitoring where you drive–e.g., on divided vs. undivided roads, or in areas with lower speed limits, speed and traffic cameras, and forgiving roads. However, today we’ll look at how to increase your odds of avoiding and surviving side impact crashes by changing what you drive–specifically by choosing the minivans with the greatest levels of side impact resistance available in 2018.

Structural integrity (crush distance) as a metric for side impact resistance

This is the 2018 Odyssey after an NHTSA crash test, but the principles behind the test are similar to that of the IIHS.
This is the 2018 Odyssey after an NHTSA crash test, but the principles behind the test are similar to that of the IIHS.

I’ve written about the IIHS’ side impact test in detail in previous posts on surviving side impact crashes in cars, minivans, and SUVs, but here’s the short version: the IIHS has a side impact test that involves ramming a 3,300 lb barrier (with the same height and size profile of an equivalent-weight SUV) into a vehicle’s side at 31 mph, delivering 143.7KJ of kinetic energy. This deforms every vehicle to some degree at the B-pillar, and the IIHS’ subscore called the “structure and safety cage” measures how deeply the B-pillar intrudes into the center of the driver’s seat during the collision. The less it does, as reflected by increased distance between the B-pillar and the center of the driver’s seat, the better. We’ll use this metric to rank the minivans on the market.

I combed through test scores of every minivan currently sold in the US to make this list, and it’s accurate as of mid October 2017, with images sourced from yours truly, Wikipedia, or the NHTSA. The 2016 minivan side impact review is here.

The 5 safest minivans for surviving side impact collisions in 2018

21.5 cm – 2018 Honda Odyssey.

The newest version of the Honda Odyssey looks, feels, and drives very similarly to the prior generation; it speaks to the strong foundation established in the model that preceded it. The most significant change in side impact protection is a slight increase in door and frame strength leading to a B-pillar distance of 21.5 cm from the center of the driver’s seat.

19.5 cm – 2017 Chrysler Pacifica.

2017-pacifica-selfThe last time I wrote a side impact comparison of minivans available in the US and Canadian market, the Chrysler Pacifica had just come onto the scene and pushed the Odyssey out of first place for the first time since 2010, when the Sienna led with 8.5 cm. Chrysler brought their A-game to the Pacifica, and I was happy to see a significant challenger to the Odyssey’s 6-year reign from 2011-2016. However, with the new Odyssey, the Pacifica has slipped into second place, which is still very respectable. The difference between it and the first place ’18 Odyssey is a scant 2 cm.

18.5 cm – 2011-2017 Honda Odyssey.

odyssey-2011-publicdomainIf the Pacifica receives credit for coming in only 2 cm behind the current Odyssey, the previous Odyssey deserves heaps of credit for having a 6-year old design (dating back to 2011) that falls only 1 cm short of a minivan more than half a decade newer (the current Pacifica) and 3 cm short of the current leader, which is the current Odyssey. The 2011+ Odyssey currently represents the sweet spot for side impact safety among used minivans, and its value is hard to beat. This van also had a driver death rate of 8 for the ’11-’14 model years per the most recent IIHS survey.

14.5 cm – 2015-2017 Kia Sedona.

sedona - 2015 - publicdomainThe Sedona is several cm behind the previous gen Odyssey and even farther behind the current Odyssey, but it still provides a solid 14.5 cm of side impact resistance at the B-pillar. Not enough have been sold to show up in any IIHS driver death rate surveys, but the previous generation Sedona was one of the best performing minivans of its generation, and it’s likely that the current generation Sedona will rank as well as the perennial chart-toppers, the Sienna and the Odyssey, once it sells enough models in the current generation.

14-15.5 cm – 2011-2017 Toyota Sienna.

sienna--publicdomainFinally, the Sienna rounds up the list of recent-model year minivans worth purchasing for side impact safety. At 14 cm of side impact resistance, it slots right behind the Sedona. A different test by Toyota gave it 15.5 cm, but I always rank via the lower score, as it’s the more conservative value. It’s worth keeping in mind that although the Sienna has less side impact resistance on paper than the equivalent 2011-2017 Odyssey, both vehicles have statistically identical driver death rates per the most recent IIHS driver death rate, showing again that how and where vehicles are driven has far more of an effect on driver safety than what vehicles are driven, even though both vehicles are nearly identical in on-paper safety to begin with.

What about the Quest, Town & Country, and Grand Caravan?

There are several minivans that didn’t make the list because they’re so far behind the aforementioned minivans that I wouldn’t consider them if I had the choice. The Quest, Town & Country, and Grand Caravan continue to come in last position, just as they did when I last wrote this article. The Pacifica clearly shows  Fiat Chrysler America can make a class-leading minivan when they decide to; they have not yet decided to with either the T&C or with the GC, both of which don’t score any better in side impact resistance in 2017 than the 2006 Toyota Sienna made *11*  years earlier.

What if I can’t afford any of these vans?

Remember that no matter what you’re driving, and whether your van appears on this list or not, the majority of your family’s safety won’t depend in majority on your minivan (or SUV, or car, or pickup truck). It will depend on the degree to which you consistently choose safe speeds, follow best practices with car seats,  and choose safe roads. These are the factors that have the greatest impact on whether you can avoid and survive car crashes, no matter whether you’re in a 2018 Odyssey, a 2006 Sienna, or anything in between.

If you find the information on car safety, recommended car seats, and car seat reviews on this car seat blog helpful, you can shop through this Amazon link for any purchases, car seat-related or not. Canadians can shop through this link for Canadian purchases.

In Sweden, When is a Booster Seat as Safe as a Forward-Facing Seat?

If your kids are under 5, rear-face them. Once you can't, forward-face them until 6, 7, or 8, and then high-back booster them. Save seat belts until 10, 11, or 12. Save the front seat until at least 13, and save driving alone until at least 18.
Per Sweden, if your kids are under 5, rear-face them. Once you can’t, high-back booster them. Save seat belts until 10, 11, or 12 and the front seat until at least 13.

Just as with rear-facing, there’s a lot of debate in the United States over what actually constitute best practices when it comes to when to switch from harnessed front-facing seats to booster seats. However, just as with rear-facing, the Swedes are more than happy to provide guidelines for what to do and when, no matter how much we go back and forth over the basics in the United States.

As a review, rear-facing best practices means doing so for as long as possible, and ideally at least until 4 or 5. This is standard practice in Sweden, where they’ve enjoyed the best child auto safety records on Earth for decades, and it’s now becoming standard practice in neighboring Norway, which has joined Sweden at the top of the mountain in terms of the all-important task of keeping children alive in and around car traffic. While most parents in the United States are still forward-facing shortly after 1, more and more are learning about the benefits of extended rear-facing and are following the Swedish (and now Norwegian) example. So what can they teach us about forward-facing and boostering? We’ll review their practices today.

When do parents forward-face children in Sweden?

Rear-facing, forward-facing, and booster guidelines for car seats in Sweden, via The Car Crash Detective.
A high-back booster like the Flex 120 is the next step after rear-facing until 4 or 5 in Sweden.

This is actually a trick question, because parents in Sweden don’t typically forward-face. Yes, there are some parents who do (just as there are some parents who forward-face their kids before 4 in Sweden), but the vast majority of parents there don’t use forward-facing seats. If they rear-face with convertible seats, which almost all parents do, they simply stop using the seats when their kids outgrow them and switch to…booster seats.

Booster seats?

Yes! In Sweden, the standard practice is to start boostering kids once they outgrow rear-facing seats. This is visible here directly from the NTF, Sweden’s equivalent of the NHTSA:

“Question: At what weight/height/age, the child can be placed on the booster seat instead of in a car seat?

Answer: Children should travel rearward facing car seat (seat for the infant) as long as possible, to the age of 4-5 years. When the child has grown out of its rearward-facing child safety seat (seat for the infant seat) recommend NTF to move on to a booster seat.”

There is no mention whatsoever of a forward-facing harnessed seat; the standard recommendation is to move directly from a rear-facing seat to a booster seat after spending the first 4-5 years (or as long as possible) in a rear-facing seat.

Why do Swedish parents switch to high-back booster seats instead of harnessed or forward-facing seats?

Swedish booster / forward-facing guidelines on The Car Crash Detective.
In Sweden, once you stop rear-facing (at 4 or 5), you move directly into a high-back booster (e.g., something like the Clek Oobr).

This is done for a few different reasons. One involves the Swedish belief that older children who are harnessed absorb the tremendous collision forces in the head, neck, and shoulders, which is something to be avoided. In fact, this is the reason why rear-facing is so much safer–when rear-facing, the much stronger muscles and much larger surface area of the back are available to absorb forces instead of having them concentrated in the head, neck, and shoulders. The Swedish belief is that when boostered (which is essentially using a seat belt that’s adjusted to fit children as well as adults), the entire torso can move forward in a collision, spreading crash forces throughout the upper body instead of concentrating them in two of the most fragile areas of the body (the head and neck).

Does this mean that “extended harnessing” is not considered best practices in Sweden?

This is correct; in Sweden, virtually no parents practice harnessing, extended or otherwise, because it’s not believed to be safe. What’s done is to move directly from rear-facing in the first 4-5 years to using a high-back booster.

It’s also worth noting that a number of studies in the US have also shown that high-backed boosters are as safe as forward-facing (harnessed) seats once children are mature enough to sit safely in both. In other words, if you raise your child to sit upright and still in a high-back booster seat (and not reach out of it, play with the seat belt, unbuckle himself/herself, or do anything else unsafe), s/he’ll be equally safe in both kinds of seats. In Sweden, the expectation is for kids to do this from 4 or 5 onward, and kids are taught to do so the same way they’re taught not to play in the street or touch stove tops.

If forward-facing isn’t safer than boostering, then why is it recommended in the US?

Forward-facing, or harnessing, is recommended in the US due to a mixture of a lack of knowledge of best practices and due to efforts to mitigate the additional risks of premature boostering.

First of all, most parents in the US aren’t rear-facing until 4 to 5 as in Sweden. Three out of four kids are forward-facing before they turn 2, and only around 1 out of every 100 children will still be rear-facing at 4, which means that forward-facing is the only stage between most 1 year olds in the US and being placed in a booster seat. We know booster seats are absolutely inappropriate for toddlers, so recommending forward-facing at least keeps children in a better position than they’d otherwise face in most homes.

Second, as noted above, most parents aren’t aware of how much safer it is to rear-face instead of forward-face, and this is largely because extended rear-facing isn’t propagated by any large-scale authority in the United States. The NHTSA simply says to rear-face “as long as possible” but fills their diagrams and pamphlets online with references to children forward facing from 1 or 2. The AAP is hopelessly out of date with their recommendations and only switched to recommending rear-facing until 2 a few years ago. The vast majority of states don’t require rear-facing past 1. To put it simply, the US is backwards when it comes to car safety, and the main Americans you’ll see advocating extended rear-facing (for example, yours truly) are those who have taken the time to learn about best practices in car seat safety, which are nearly-exclusively found in Sweden.

This adds up to a vicious circle. Parents stop rear-facing after 1 because they don’t know any better, and they don’t know any better because all of the authorities are telling them that they only actually need to rear-face until 1. Meanwhile, they’re told to forward-face with the focus on keeping very young children out of booster seats, which leads to very little emphasis on rear-facing and a lack of understanding of the fact that harnessed seating doesn’t necessarily offer any advantages over boostering once children are mature enough to sit in booster seats. This maturity point, additionally, will vary tremendously with how children have been raised, as well as with individual differences between children.

So what’s best if I want to follow best practices for my child?

Here’s a guide to the first 13 years:

From birth to 5, rear-face. If your child still fits at 5, keep rear-facing. There are several seats that will let you rear-face until 6 or 7, including the the Clek Fllo, the Clek Foonf, the Diono Rainier, the Graco Extend2Fit, the Graco Extend2Fit 3-in-1, the Graco 4Ever Extend2Fit, the Nuna Rava, the Safety 1st Advance EX 65 Air+, and the Safety 1st Grow and Go EX Air.

From 5 (or later, if you can still rear-face) to 10, 11, or 12, use a high-back, then low-back booster. Keep boostering until your child passes the 5-step test. Two of my favorite high-back boosters include the Clek Oobr and Maxi-Cosi RodiFix. Low-back boosters are fine once kids are about 7; high-back boosters are designed to keep kids’ heads in place even if they fall asleep.

Keep your child in the back seat at least until s/he turns 13. Later is always better here. For tips beyond the first 13 years, see the best practices page for teens and drivers of all ages.

If you find the information on car safety, recommended car seats, and car seat reviews on this car seat blog helpful, you can shop through this Amazon link for any purchases, car seat-related or not. Canadians can shop through this link for Canadian purchases.

Which Prius is Safest for Families? Original, “C”, or “V”? Per IIHS Driver Death Rates

According to the IIHS' 2017 driver death rate calculations, a Toyota Prius V, C, and Original are equally safe vehicles to drive.
According to the IIHS’ 2017 driver death rate calculations, a Toyota Prius V, C, and Original are equally safe vehicles to drive.

The Toyota Prius is easily the most popular family of hybrids sold around the world, and in the United States in particular. Spurred by the success of the original Prius, Toyota later released the smaller “C” version and the larger “V” variant (although they unfortunately decided to limit the V in the US to a 5-seater instead of giving it the 7-seater option available overseas). At any rate, while all variants of the Prius have found favor with families, the original remains the most popular, followed by the station wagon-styled V, followed by the mini-styled C. One of the most frequently asked questions among Prius owners, especially parents, involves the relative safety of each. They’re all loaded with the latest safety features, but if you’re going to trust your life to a Prius, which is the best to buy?

To answer this question, I turned yet again to the IIHS’ latest batch of driver death rate calculations. I’ve written in the past about how, per IIHS math, the original Prius is just as safe as–or safer than–a variety of much larger cars, pickup trucks, minivans, and SUVs. Today we’ll crunch the numbers again, but this time, comparing each Prius to its platform sibling. Even though the IIHS calculations include lots of error and pay no mind to two of the most important factors in auto safetyhow we drive and where we drive–they’re still interesting to review.

This is yet another article in an ongoing series examining the IIHS’ 2017 Status Report (volume 52, number 3); recent crash safety comparisons include Volt, Prius, and Leaf, the Civic and the Accord, the Cruze and Suburban, the Outback, Legacy, and Forester, the Camry and Accord, the CR-V and the Pilot, and the Odyssey and the Sienna. Today we’ll compare the death rate math for each Prius and see if any has a clear safety advantage over the other.

2012-2014 Toyota Prius V  (Versatile) – 29 driver deaths (2-56)

Per the IIHS’ status report, the Prius V had a predicted driver death rate of 29, all from multiple vehicle crashes. The figure is based on an exposure of 245,905 registered vehicle years and a 95% confidence bound of 2-56.

The figure doesn’t mean 29 drivers died behind the wheels of Prius Vs during the surveyed years. Rather, it’s a computation the IIHS came up with after combining NHTSA fatality data for the ’12-’14 Prius V between ’12 and ’15 and IHS data on registered Prius Vs. Running the numbers through statistical programs suggests that, for example, if 1 million drivers drove 1 million of the aforementioned Prius Vs for a year throughout the US, 29 of them would be predicted to die.

2011-2014 Toyota Prius (Original) – 31 driver deaths (21-42)

Statistically tied with the Prius V is the original Prius, which clocked in with a driver death rate of 31, with 23 predicted deaths from multiple vehicle collisions and 8 due to single vehicle crashes. The figure was based on an exposure of 1,290,605 registered vehicle years with a 21-42 9% confidence bound. As before, this suggests that, according to the IIHS, if approximately 500,000 million drivers drove the Prius around the US for 2 years, we’d expect 31 of them to die.

As noted in a recent article comparing the driver death rates of the Prius, the Nissan Leaf, and the Chevy Volt, there was no statistical difference between the Prius and two highly cross-shopped hybrid/electrics: the Leaf and the Volt. This is the case here as well; although the Prius had a higher driver death rate than that of the Prius V, statistically, they were the same. We’ll go into why soon below.

2012-2014 Toyota Prius C (City) – 44 driver deaths (18-71)

Before comparing the three vehicles in depth, let’s review the driver death rate of the smallest Prius, the Prius V. It was estimated to have 44 driver deaths per million registered vehicle years, with 32 predicted multiple car deaths, 12 predicted single car deaths, and 3 of those resulting from rollovers. These figures were based on an exposure of 250,557 registered vehicle years. Once again, the figures suggest, per the IIHS, that if a large population (e.g., 250,000 drivers) drove Prius Cs for an amount of time that equaled 1 million registered vehicle years (in the above example, 4 years), the model predicts 44 would die. However, due to the confidence intervals of 18-71, the C’s safety was statistically indistinguishable from that of the other two Prii. Let’s dive into why.

How can the Prius V, Original, and C be equally safe if they have different driver death rates?

Despite having three different driver death rates, all three vehicles were statistically indistinguishable in driver safety? Why? Because their confidence intervals overlapped.

A 95% confidence bound is a way of estimating where the true driver death rate of a vehicle would span 95% of the time we sampled it by following a population of drivers (e.g., 1 million Prius drivers driving Prii for a year).

Per the IIHS math, that figure would almost always fall between 2 and 56 for the Prius V, between 21 and 42 for the original Prius, and between 18 and 71 for the Prius C. There’s a chance (21-42, or 22, out of 2-71, or 70, or 31%) that all three vehicles shared the same true driver death rate. However, it’s also possible that the lowest true driver death rate belonged to any of the three vehicles; there’s no way to statistically prove which had the lowest. And if this can’t be proven, then practically speaking, each vehicle was just as safe as the other.

Can the same Prius (or other vehicle) really have widely ranging driver death rates?

Yes! A clear example of the effects of confidence intervals on variance in the true driver death rate is visible when comparing the ’11-’14 Prius’ rate of 31 (21-42) here to that in the last driver death rate status report where it had a rate of 16 (5-28) as a ’10-’11 model. While there were slight differences between the Prii involved and perhaps in the statistical models the IIHS used, at least one model year of the Prius overlapped (2011) and, most relevantly, the confidence intervals overlapped (21-28). As a result, despite one driver death rate showing 16 and the other 31, it’s entirely possible (and highly likely) that both model ranges of the Prius were equally safe. Similarly, in the current study, the Prius V’s driver fatality rate at 29 was not statistically different from the original Prius’ rate at 31, which did not statistically vary from the Prius C’s at 44.

Does this mean my loved ones are as safe in the Prius C as they are in the original Prius or Prius V, or vice-versa?

Yes, according to the IIHS’ math. Similarly, since all three vehicles share the same core safety features (i.e., good frontal and side crash scores, side airbags with head protection, and ESC), any passengers in each vehicle would be likely to share the same benefits extended to drivers. If your family has the fortune of traveling in any of these Prii, the safety differences that exist won’t involve the vehicles–which are already very safe–but how and where you drive them.

What can I do to keep my family safe in any Prius, no matter the year or variation?

No matter which Prius you drive, and whether it has the latest safety features or not, the key thing to remember is that the safety of your family does not primarily depend on your vehicle. To keep your loved ones alive, you increase your odds when you choose safe speeds, follow best practices with car seats,  and choose safe roads. These are the keys to avoiding and surviving car crashes, no matter what you’re driving.

If you find my information on best practices in car and car seat safety helpful, you can do your shopping through this Amazon link. Canadians can shop here for Canadian purchases. Have a question or want to discuss best practices? Join us in the forums!

3 Across Installations: Which Car Seats Fit a Volkswagen Atlas?

The Volkswagen Atlas (marketed as the Teramont overseas) is Volkswagen’s newest, largest, and safest SUV. Featuring a record-breaking 32 cm of side impact resistance, it’s set the new standard for occupant protection during t-bone collisions. Go Volkswagen! Based on the already popular Touareg, the Atlas also competes with a bevy of 3-row non-luxury SUVs like the Nissan Armada, Chevrolet Tahoe, Dodge Durango, GMC Yukon, Toyota Sequoia, Buick Enclave, Chevrolet Traverse, GMC Acadia,  Ford Expedition, Nissan Pathfinder, Ford Explorer, Chevrolet Suburban, Toyota Highlander, Mazda CX-9, and Honda Pilot. However, unlike any of them, it’ll also be backed by VW’s 6 year, 72,000 mile warranty, bringing an awful lot of peace of mind to its price tag. It’s also made in Chattanooga, Tennessee, for fans of things done locally.

With so many features targeted toward families built into the Atlas, I was eager to see how well it would do when it came to fitting car seats across the 2nd and 3rd rows–especially since this was one of the most directly marketed features of the Atlas. But before going into which seats fit (an awful lot of them) and which ones didn’t (very few), let’s review which kinds of seats are best for particular developmental ages and stages for your kids, and why.

In my books, the core of car seat safety involves rear-facing. It’s the safest position available in every vehicle, statistically speaking, and the benefits of extended rear-facing extend from childhood through adulthood. I typically suggest keeping children rear-facing as long as possible (until 4 or 5 like the Swedes), followed by harnessing until they can safely use booster seats (until 6, 7, or 8, like the Swedes), and then boostering until the 5 step test is passed (typically between 10, 11, and 12). Beyond that, I suggest keeping kids in the back seat until at least 13, and delaying teen solo driving until 18 if possible. The goal isn’t to move through seats as quickly as possible; it’s to keep kids as safe as possible whenever they’re in motor vehicles.

If you find my list of what I believe to be the most detailed 3 across guide for the Volkswagen Atlas / Teramont on the Internet, you can shop through my Amazon link below. I’ll add more seats as I test them over time.

You can access the complete 3 across guide for every vehicle here and the complete list of recommended seats here. The Canadian car seat guide is here. 3 across car seat images are taken by yours truly or are courtesy of Wikipedia or the NHTSA.

2018-2019 Volkswagen Atlas

Guaranteed 3 across installations: None!

2018 update: Due to the NHTSA recall, none of the 3 across installations below are valid, as VW has revealed that using wider ceats in the 2nd row center position can lead to unlatching of outboard buckles. How wide is too wide? Greater than 12.6 inches, apparently, in the base. Practically speaking, this means that only two car seats can be safely installed in the 2nd row (or 3rd row). Hopefully this will be fixed in future model years, but until it is, this is not a 3-across capable vehicle. Thanks Mike R. for the update reminder!

Clek Fllo (x3).

Clek Foonf (x3).

Diono Radian RXT (x3).

Diono Radian R120 (x3).

Diono Radian R100 (x3).

Graco 4Ever Extend2Fit (x3).

Safety 1st Grow and Grow EX Air (x3).

Maxi-Cosi Pria 85 (x3).

Chicco KeyFit 30 (x3).

Graco Size4Me 65 (x3).

Graco Fit4Me 65 (x3).

Graco Contender (x3).

Combi Coccoro (x3).

Chicco KeyFit 30, Diono Radian / RXT, Chicco KeyFit 30.

Tips and Tricks:

The initial generation of the Volkswagen Atlas is 198.3 inches long and 77.9 inches wide in addition to 69.6 inches tall. Volkswagen wasn’t lying when they claimed the 3rd row would fit adult passengers; it’s more than large enough to accommodate a range of car seats, as is the 2nd row, where 3 car seats can be accommodated. With seat belts, you can fit pretty much anything in the 3rd row, and with LATCH, you’ll still be able to get most seats installed without too much trouble. The 3rd row does have less front-to-back room than the 2nd, but it definitely still has enough to install rear-facing infant and (some) convertible seats. Forward-facing, pretty much any convertible seat will fit in either row.

If you find my information on best practices in car and car seat safety helpful, you can do your shopping through this Amazon link. Canadians can  shop here for Canadian purchases. Have a question or want to discuss best practices? Join us in the forums!

Minivan Safety: Which is safer, a Toyota Sienna or Honda Odyssey? Neither, Per IIHS Driver Death Rates

According to the IIHS' 2017 driver death rate calculations, a Honda Odyssey is no safer (or more dangerous) than a Toyota Sienna.
According to the IIHS’ 2017 driver death rate calculations, a Honda Odyssey is no safer (or more dangerous) than a Toyota Sienna.

The Toyota Sienna and Honda Odyssey are consistently the two most popular minivans in the United States. It’s no surprise why; they’re safer, more reliable, and simply better designed than the competition. Both, interestingly enough, are also manufactured in the United States (in Indiana and Alabama respectively). As a result, it’s no surprise many parents choose them for carting around the family. I’ve compared their safety before, whether in head-to-head comparisons, in side impact safety, or in rollover safety, but I’m always up for writing more articles. Today we’ll compare them via IIHS calculations on driver death rates. Their calculations have loads of error and overlook two of the three top factors in auto safetyhow we drive and where we drive–but they’re always interesting to look over. This is yet another article in an ongoing series examining the IIHS’ 2017 Status Report (volume 52, number 3); recent crash safety comparisons include Volt, Prius, and Leaf, the Civic and the Accord, the Cruze and Suburban, the Outback, Legacy, and Forester, the Camry and Accord, and the CR-V and the Pilot. Today we’ll look at the figures behind the safety statistics for two of the most popular family haulers and see if there’s actually a difference between them.

2011-2014 Honda Odyssey – 8 driver deaths (1-15)

According to the IIHS, the ’11-’14 Honda Odyssey had a driver death rate of 8, with 6 predicted multiple vehicle crash deaths and 2 predicted single vehicle crash deaths both occurring from rollovers. They based their predictions on an exposure of 1,155,445 registered vehicle years with a 95% confidence bound of 1-15.

The stats above don’t mean that there were 8 driver fatalities in the aforementioned model years during the 2012-2015 surveyed years. They mean the IIHS looked at NHTSA fatality statistics for the Odyssey in the aforementioned years and crossed it with IHS data on how many Odysseys were registered in those years. Their number crunching suggests that it, for example, 500,000 drivers drove 500,000 of the aforementioned Odysseys for 2 years throughout the United States, only 8 would be predicted to die. More broadly, if the sets of drivers and vehicles were sampled repeatedly, 95% of the time, the predicted death rate would fall between 1 and 15 (the confidence interval).

2011-2014 Toyota Sienna 2WD – 9 driver deaths (2-16)

In a statistical tie with the Odyssey, the 2WD ’11-’14 Sienna had a driver death rate of 9, with 6 predicted multiple vehicle fatalities and 3 single vehicle fatalities with 2 of those occurring from rollovers. This exposure was based on a nearly identical 1,175,091 registered vehicle years with a 2-16 95% confidence bound. Again, the general meaning here is that, per the IIHS, if something like 1 million drivers drove 1 million Siennas for a year around the US, we’d expect 9 of them to die.

The 4WD trim had a nearly identical (and again, statistically identical) driver death rate of 10. The confidence bound at 1-37 was significantly larger due to the smaller exposure at 194,536 registered vehicle years (reflective of the fact that only around 11% of total Sienna sales come from the 4WD trim in the US). We can’t state the 2WD trim was safer than the 4WD trim despite the already-tiny difference in driver death rates because both vehicles have overlapping confidence bounds. We’ll dive further into what this means below, but for now, keep in mind that statistically, the 4WD and 2WD Sienna had indistinguishable driver death rates.

How can the Sienna and Odyssey be equally safe if the Odyssey had a (very slightly) lower driver death rate?

The reason the Sienna and Odyssey are equally safe despite the difference in death rates is because both have overlapping confidence bounds. The 95% confidence bounds are a way of expressing where we’d find the true driver death rate 95% of the time we searched for it by sampling drivers of each vehicle (e.g., if we sampled 1 million drivers of Odysseys for a year or 2 million Sienna drivers for 6 months, etc).

According to the IIHS’ math, the Odyssey’s true driver death rate would almost always fall between 1 and 15 while that of the 2WD Sienna would almost always fall between 2 and 16 (1 and 37 for the 4WD). There’s a chance (2-15, or 14, out of 1-16, or 16, or 87%) that the Odyssey and 2WD Sienna shared the same true driver death rate. Even expanding the comparison to all three vehicles, the overlap was 2-15, or 14, out of 1-37, or 37, or 38%, that all three trims of both vehicles shared exactly the same true driver death rate. It’s possible the Odyssey had the lowest true driver death rate. It’s just as possible the Sienna did. There’s no way to know, though, or to statistically prove which vehicle was safer (or safest, if we include the 4WD trim). As a result, all three trims were effectively the same, safety-wise.

Is there a safety difference between the 2WD Sienna and 4WD Sienna?

As noted above, both trims were statistically equal. Although there’s a long-running myth of 4WD being safer than 2WD (which I mention in the CR-V / Pilot comparisons), the statistics don’t show a difference between most vehicles that include both trims when considering actual driving safety as measured by your likelihood of dying while driving. 4WD helps you start when you might get stuck with 2WD (e.g., in heavy snow). It doesn’t increase safety in steering, braking, or stopping. Every four-wheeled vehicle you’ll find on the road has two wheel steering and four wheel braking.

Are my loved ones–my spouse, my children, my family–just as safe in a Sienna as they are in an Odyssey?

Yes, per the IIHS’ calculations. The same essential safety features (i.e., good frontal and side crash scores, side airbags with head protection, and ESC) are present, and these would likely extend the same safety benefits to passengers as they did to drivers. If your family is lucky enough to travel in either vehicle, your primary safety differences won’t involve the vehicles–which are statistically equal in safety–but how and where you drive them.

What is most important for keeping my family safe in a minivan–or a car or SUV?

If you take away one thing from this article, take away the core point that your family’s safety doesn’t primarily depend on the vehicle you’re driving. The most important things you can do to keep your loved ones alive in vehicles are to choose safe speeds, follow best practices with car seats,  and choose safe roads. Following these guidelines will up your family’s chances of both avoiding and surviving road trauma more than any benefits you’d get from choosing the “right” vehicle.

If you find my information on best practices in car and car seat safety helpful, you can do your shopping through this Amazon link. Canadians can shop here for Canadian purchases. Have a question or want to discuss best practices? Join us in the forums!

35,000 Americans will die this year on the road. You don't have to be one of them. A car seat and car safety blog to promote best practices for families.