Which is the Safest Electric / Hybrid Car: A Volt, Leaf, or Prius? IIHS Death Rates 2017

September 7, 2017 Mike

Per the IIHS' 2017 driver death rate math, the Volt is the safest electric / hybrid on the market right now. — Per the IIHS’ 2017 driver death rate math, the Volt is the safest electric / hybrid on the market right now. But statistically, it’s no safer than the Leaf or Prius.

Whenever the IIHS comes out with its computation of the safest new vehicles on the road by driver death rates, I take a look at the data. While the confidence intervals (margins of error) are huge, trends still tend to pop out, and even though vehicle safety is only one third of a network of motor vehicle best practices (along with individual driver behaviors and road and societal infrastructure), it’s still the segment families are most likely to pay most attention to. Last year I wrote about how the safest small cars are safer than some of the largest SUVs and pickups on the road per driver death rate (DDR) data, and today’s post dives into that train of thought with the most recent DDR data available from the IIHS’ summer 2017 Status Report (volume 52, number 3). Today we’re going to look at three electric and hybrids, the Chevrolet Volt, the Nissan Leaf, and the Toyota Prius.

2011-2014 Chevrolet Volt – 7 driver deaths (0-39)

Per the IIHS, the electric / hybrid with the lowest estimated driver death rate during the 2011-2014 model years was the Chevrolet Volt, clocking in at 7 driver deaths over the exposure period. This figure is based on an exposure of 143,042 registered vehicle years, which is IIHS speak for one vehicle registered for one year. To put it plainly, the IIHS is saying that after crunching NHTSA FARS data for vehicle deaths and IHS Automotive data for vehicle registrations, if 1 million individuals drove around in 1 million ’11-’14 Chevy Volts across the country for a year, we would expect only 7 of them to die. This is the best figure ever recorded for a small car in an IIHS driver death rate survey, even besting the 16 achieved by the 2010-2011 Prius in the previous survey. Of the 7 estimated deaths, all occurred due to multiple vehicle collisions (i.e., they all involved another vehicle). There were no single vehicle fatalities in the estimate.

2011-2014 Nissan Leaf – 8 driver deaths (0-44)

Hot on the trail of the Volt comes the Nissan Leaf, with only 8 estimated deaths during the same exposure period. This figure is based on an exposure of 126,702 registered vehicle years. It’s worthy noting that both the estimated death rate and registered vehicle years of the Leaf are almost identical to those of the Volt, which is why the confidence interval (which is a 95 percent confidence bound) of the Leaf is also almost exactly that of the Volt. Practically speaking, this means both vehicles were exactly the same in terms of the risk of dying in either as a driver during the aforementioned exposure period. Interestingly, while the Volt’s fatalities came exclusively from multiple-vehicle collisions, the Leaf’s were reversed, and came exclusively from single vehicle crashes, which were, more specifically, all from rollovers.

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

The Prius is the standout among the three vehicles, and not in a good way. With 31 estimated deaths over the same exposure period, it certainly appears to have done more poorly. both relative to the Volt and Leaf and relative to its impressive DDR of 16 during the 2010-2011 model years in the last survey. However, as we’ll discuss below, due to overlapping confidence intervals, there’s no way to say with certainty that it was any less safe than the Volt or Leaf.

The driver death rate figure here is based on an exposure of 1,290,605 registered vehicle years, a figure roughly 10 times as large as that of either the Volt or Leaf. The much larger exposure can be seen as a potential reason for the higher death rate; within the pool of Prius drivers, there would have been much greater odds of careless or unlucky pilots who drove the driver death rate up. An analysis of the crash types leading to the 31 figure shows 23 multiple vehicle crashes and 8 single vehicle crashes, none of which were rollovers.

Does This Mean I Need to Sell My Leaf or Prius for a Volt?

Not at all. It’s important to remember two things: first of all, the confidence intervals in these studies are always quite large, and often encompass most vehicles people reading them are comparing anyway. In this case, the 95% confidence intervals, or 95% probabilities that the true death rate would within the parenthesized bounds when repeatedly sampled, of the Volt (0-39) and Leaf (0-44) overlapped, suggesting, as noted above, that there was no actual difference in likelihood of death as a driver between either vehicle. The only area of no overlap was within 40-44, or 9% of the bound (4/45). As 91% of the bounds overlapped, there’s a 91% chance both vehicles shared the same true driver death rate.

Even the Prius, which had a much higher confidence interval, still overlapped the Volt’s interval by half (e.g., 21-39). The area of no overlap was 0-20 and 40-42, or 24/42, or 57%. This means there was still a 43% chance both vehicles shared the same true driver death rate. So while the Volt and Leaf were both possibly safer to be in than the Prius, we still can’t say that the differences in the numbers weren’t simply due to chance. It’s entirely possible the Prius was the safest of the three; statistically, all three were identical.

Second, the actual odds of dying are quite small; the way the numbers are presented trains our minds to perceive each death rather than the number of individuals who didn’t die. Of course, we do want to value each life, since the ultimate goal of auto travel should be a world where no one loses a life to a motor vehicle (see Vision Zero), but it’s important to keep in mind how good things have already gotten. Flipping the figures makes this more obvious. In the case of the Volt, where there were 7 estimated deaths vs 1 million registered vehicle years, this means the odds of dying in an ’11-’14 Volt were 7/1 million. Or to put it another way, the odds of living when driving an ’11-’14 Volt were 99.9993%.

In the Prius, those odds dropped to a measly 99.9969%.

That looks a lot different than the glaring figure of 31 fatalities, doesn’t it?

What about the Tesla Model S or Model X? Aren’t those safer?

Yes, no, and maybe. On paper, both the Model S and Model X are safer vehicles than the Volt, Leaf, and Prius (even though neither is perfect; the IIHS noted several flaws in the Model S compared to fellow large cars when they crash tested it). However, the main advantage of both vehicles is that they’re larger, which is only an advantage in head-on collisions against smaller vehicles. Weight isn’t an advantage in side collisions or rollovers. And as noted above, there are plenty of heavy vehicles that are less safe than small cars.

Because not enough Teslas have been sold for the IIHS to factor them into their DDR calculations (they require a minimal exposure of 100,000 registered vehicle years), there simply isn’t a way to know how well the Teslas are doing at keeping their drivers safe besides either a.) tracking individual deaths via news coverage, or b.) crunching the FARS data on your own. Both are options–here, for example, I noted the first Tesla Model S death–but for now, it’s most likely simpler to say that the Teslas are about as safe as the average large non-hybrid car and non-hybrid SUV respectively. On paper, this makes them about as safe as the Volt, which is either pretty darn good, or not that impressive, depending on what you were hoping for.

So What Do I Take Away From All This?

The main thing to take away from this report is that while individual cars are safer than they’ve ever been, it’s still not nearly enough to drive death rates to the ground in the US the way they’ve been dropping like rocks in Europe. We need best practices in road design, because that’s far easier to change than individual driver behaviors, and ultimately far more effective as a result. Cars in Norway, Sweden, or the UK aren’t more sophisticated than those in the US. But they only lose a fraction of their population per capita to auto traffic compared to us because they follow best practices to a much greater degree. The proper speed limits. The proper types of roads. The proper (fewer) miles driven and the transportation alternatives to make this possible. These are the directions that will take us to fewer deaths, if we choose to follow them. We’ll lose a lot more blood for a lot longer if we put our hopes on the vehicular end while waiting for decades for self-driving cars to fully turn over throughout the US driving fleet.

—

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.

Swedish Car Seat Safety FAQ – Frequently Asked Questions Answered By Swedes

August 19, 2017 Mike

Some things in life never change. Children need adults who love them. And if they're in cars, they're safest rear-facing. — Some things in life never change. Children need adults who love them. And if they’re in cars, they’re safest rear-facing.

Every now and then a pop science article or research paper comes out stating forward-facing is safer than rear-facing (it isn’t), or insisting boosters are just fine for 2 year olds (they aren’t) or that preschoolers are just as safe in seat belts as they are in car seats (that’s wrong too). Unfortunately, with the influence corporations and ad dollars have over the dissemination of information in the United States, it’s quite easy to get tricked into believing nonsense (or “fake news”, to use recent parlance). Fortunately, good ideas remain good ideas no matter whether we believe in them or not. Let’s see what best practices look like by people who practice them.

Here’s a look at what the NTF, the Swedish National Society for Road Safety (their version of the NHTSA) has to say about car seats and car seat safety. As the Swedes continue to have the best record in child traffic safety as well as in overall traffic safety (two titles they’ve held for decades), I’ll continue to follow their lead and not the outdated or just plan bad advice bandied about in the US (where the AAP only recently began recommending rear-facing until 2, and where almost all states continue to require it only until 1).

How Long Should Children Rear-Face, Per Swedish Recommendations?

Per the NTF, children should rear-face as long as possible and be turned forward facing earliest at 4-5 years of age.

Note how the response doesn’t state that children should stop rear-facing at 4 or 5; it says they should be rear-facing as long as possible, but no earlier than when they are 4 to 5. In other words, if you can rear-face past 4 or 5 due to a child continuing to fit in his or her car seat, that’s a good idea. But your baseline goal should be 4 to 5. As I’ve noted in previous articles, that means preschool. That means kindergarten. It means prioritizing rear-facing and not forward-facing earlier than necessary, regardless of what fellow parents or family members are saying. It’s easier in Sweden since fellow parents and family members will be doing the same thing. But whether in Sweden or in the US, these are best practices.

What About Rear-Facing Safety For Side and Rear Impacts, Per Swedish Recommendations?

Per the NTF, rear-facing is always the safest position for young children. They note it would also be safer for adults, but that because we have stronger necks, we’re slightly more capable of handling crash stresses. They then note that forward-facing might be slightly safer for rear-impacts, but because most collisions are frontal collisions, while rear-enders are typically not at the high speeds inherent in frontal collisions, it’s best to always rear-face. They add that the best position for a side impact is away from the point of impact, but that this is of course impossible to predict. They concede that other factors are probably more important than rear- or forward-facing in side impacts, but that rear-facing is still not a bad position in such collisions.

This recommendation is in line with those I’ve made indicating that rear-facing is still overall the safest orientation for a car seat when aggregating all crash positions and risks. By extension, it supports the argument that the 3rd row is a safe one for child and adult passengers (I posit the safest). The Swedes additionally believe that the front and back rows are equally safe for rear-facing children as long as the frontal airbag can be disabled. This isn’t the case in the US for 99% of passenger vehicles, so on this side of the Atlantic, the back rows are safer.

How Long Should Children Use Booster Seats, Per Swedish Recommendations?

Per the NTF, children should remain using booster seats until they are 10 to 12 years old. They note this is because children’s hips aren’t fully formed until then and that controlling the belt path around the child is necessary to keep the lap belt from penetrating a child’s abdomen and causing internal injuries. They note that the amount of time a child will be able to sit on a booster seat will depend on the child’s length as well as on the vehicle one uses. If the shoulder belt path is affected, they suggest bypassing the booster seat and ensuring that the shoulder belt path is appropriate.

This recommendation is directly in line with those from the 5-step test, which most children are typically not able to pass until they are between 10 and 12 years old. While the 5-step test is not specifically mentioned, the principles are the same, as are the risks of bypassing the recommendation (internal organ damage).

What Makes a Car Seat Dangerous, Per Swedish Recommendations?

Per the NTF, what makes a car seat dangerous is allowing a child to forward face from age 1. They recommend car seats capable of rear-facing up to 25 kg, or 55 lbs, and state once again that the safest way to travel in a car is rear-facing. They then state that children should rear-face for as long as possible, and preferably until they are 4-5 years old.

This section is rather self-explanatory. To the Swedes, the main danger in a car seat is using it to forward face young children. They explicitly recommend rear-facing for all occupants and car seats that allow rear-facing until 55 pounds. Such seats don’t yet exist in the US as of 2017, but as late as Spring 2014, there was only one car seat sold in the entire country that allowed rear-facing until 50 pounds (the Clek Foonf). Now there are many more–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. Things have improved immensely, but we still have a ways to go in all elements of transportation safety and in child traffic safety. The key takeaway is to max out your seat to its height and weight limits, and ideally to do whatever possible to rear-face until at least 4 or 5.

What Do I Do With This Information? What If I Want To Know More?

There are more questions to answer, but this is a good start. You can read far more on the NTF site; if you don’t read Swedish, you can use built-in browser translators or head over to Google Translate or your favorite translation tool. But the answers are rather clear in most cases. Resist the urge to follow one breathless study after another suggesting something’s good one week and bad the next. Rear-facing is what’s safest no matter how young or old a passenger vehicle occupant is. Aim for at least 4-5, and continue to booster until 10 to 12. Beyond that, drive as little as possible, and choose safe speeds and choose safe roads whenever you do. None of these steps require any money whatsoever aside from that for convertible or all-in-one seats, which are available for well under $200 (e.g., the Graco Extend2Fit, the Graco 4Ever Extend2Fit, the Safety 1st Advance EX 65 Air+, and the Safety 1st Grow and Go EX Air). The driving techniques are completely free and will far, far, far more of a difference than the safety benefits from buying the latest and greatest vehicles.

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!

Cara Klemm, 31, Killed in WI Crash; Three Sons 6, 4, and 1 Survive

August 17, 2017 Mike

Who

Cara Klemm, 31 of Brillion, Wisconsin, was killed in a collision while driving what appears to have been a red 2009-2014 Volkswagen Jetta SportWagen.

The collision occurred with an unnamed male driver from Gillett who was driving a dump truck on Thursday, April 6th, 2017 at around 10 AM. The collision occurred at the intersection of Highway32/ 57 and Country Road Z / Hill Road in Holland in Brown County, Wisconsin. Cara died at the scene. The dump truck driver survived and was treated at the scene for minor injuries. Cara’s 3 children, Wyatt, 6; Wesley, 4; and Wesley, 1 also survived with mild injuries. Aside from her children, Cara is survived by her husband, the father of the three boys.

How

Per reports from ABC 2 WBAY, Cara was eastbound on County Z and did not stop at a stop sign. The Jetta was hit in the front by a southbound dump truck described by the Brown County Sheriff’s office as “fully loaded”; the crash appears to have occurred at the intersection.

Per Lt. John Bain from the Sheriff’s Office, neither alcohol nor drugs appeared to be factors in the crash. Cara died at the scene while her sons, who were in car seats, were mildly injured. The dump truck driver was treated at the scene. An image of the vehicle in storage after the crash is available here while video of the vehicle is available here. Investigators later stated she had no chance of survival due to the primary impact occurring just forward of the driver’s seat. However, they noted that the three car seats in the back seat were virtually untouched. Captain Dan Sanberg, one of the first responders from the Brown County Sheriff’s Office described the seats as age appropriate and credited them with helping hte children survive with minor injuries. Per Kimberly Hess from the Center for Childhood Safety’s description, the 1-year old was rear-facing.

After the crash, Cara’s husband, Teddy Klemm, credited his wife’s proper use of car seats for saving their sons’ lives. He then went on to plead with other parents to properly restrain their children in car seats whenever they traveled. He noted how he was always lazy and would simply let her strap them in, but how she would always make sure seats were anchored with tightly strapped harnesses. Teddy noted that Wyatt had two black eyes likely from hitting the front vehicle seat with his face, but did not have additional injuries. Wesley, who was sitting behind his mother in a high-back booster, apparently received a slight cut above his eye. Wiley received a few scratches on the top of his head, but was otherwise perfectly fine.

“It was kind of hard to hear from him that he was checking her over and pushing on her and opening her eyes and all that stuff to say, come on, mom wake up, and she didn’t,” says Teddy.

…

“Be more comprehensive, because I’m telling you, I would never in a million years expected this to ever happen, and it can, and it did,” he says.

…

“You share your life together and you think you’re going to grow old together to watch your kids grow up and be good wholesome adults someday by all of your labors, and something like this comes along and just throws it all upside down,” said Teddy Klemm.

Why

The Outback is one of the safest vehicles on the road. But like every other vehicle, it isn't designed to protect occupants from side impacts above ~30 mph. — The Jetta SportWagen is one of the safest vehicles on the road. But like every other vehicle, it isn’t designed to protect occupants from side impacts above ~30 mph.

This is yet another senseless tragedy on our bloodbath of a road network. Reviewing the facts as presented, it seems clear that Cara was responsible for the collision. We don’t know how she was distracted (e.g., a phone, fatigue, daydreaming, talking to her children), but we can analyze the crash and the larger context of the tragedy.

The Jetta SportWagen

The ’09-’14 Jetta SportWagen is one of the safest cars on the road, and one of the best vehicles you could ask to be in before an imminent side impact. It received a “good” score overall and in all subcategories in the IIHS side impact test as well as a 5 star NHTSA side score. The side impact intrusion resistance as measured by the IIHS clocked in at 15.5 cm, which is one of the best side impact scores you can get in a station wagon even in 2017. It was a good vehicle.

If this sounds familiar, it’s because it’s exactly what I wrote when describing a similar crash from this past summer involving a young mother, a station wagon, rural roads, and a side impact while she drove with her 3 children. However, in that crash, which also involved one of the safest vehicles of the road, the mother (who was pregnant) and her 3 sons died. So what made the difference?

As in that case, the Jetta SportWagen was designed to handle 143.7KJ of kinetic energy in a side impact collision safely. In my experience calculating forces, individuals tend to survive up to 200% of designed force tolerances in their vehicles. Above that, however, survival odds drop significantly; I’d estimate the survival rate at 300% of expected forces drops to somewhere around 33%. Around how many KJ of energy did the dump truck transfer?

I’ve written about dump truck crashes before (e.g., here and here). The results are very frequently fatal, simply due to the massive amounts of kinetic energy carried by even empty dump trucks. A fully loaded truck can weigh 60,000 pounds or more. Using that as a baseline estimate and given the likely speeds of the collision (given the road design, I’d estimate 55 mph), the collision likely impacted at least 8.23 MJ (8,226 KJ) of energy into the dump truck / SportWagen. That would ordinarily be a fatal amount of energy for the SportWagen (or any passenger vehicle) to handle, especially when keeping in mind that the standard side impact test simulates 143KJ of energy (a 3300-lb sled impacting a vehicle at 31 mph). So if the SportWagen faced 5752%, or 57x the force it was designed to make survivable, how did anyone in it survive?

While it would be easy to give credit to the car seats, we do need to be realistic. Orphan seats they were; immortal seats they are not. Children do still die in rear-facing car seats; it’s just far less common due to how incredibly protective they are since they work with physics instead of against it. In this case, an examination of the photos and videos of the post-crash SportWagen provide the likely answers. It appears the car was impacted directly ahead of the driver door; this likely spun the vehicle severely and pushed it far away. It likely didn’t roll it, as evidenced by the virtually pristine right side of the vehicle (visible in the video above).

However, the forces of the dump truck were likely absorbed by the engine bay and the motion of the vehicle, with the most dangerous impact occurring away from the back seat area where the boys were stationed. Cara likely perished due to her proximity to the epicenter, while the boys survived due to being well restrained far from the impact, relatively speaking. It’s not the best explanation, but it’s the best I can come up with after reviewing this and similar cases in the past. Had the point of impact occurred directly at the driver’s door or any farther toward the rear of the vehicle, all three boys would likely have perished, as was the case in the tragedy I referenced above involving Lindsey and her boys.

Vision Zero

As usual, though, as tempting as it is to look at this as one more case study of personal responsibility, we mustn’t start and stop by shaking our heads at the fact that Cara Klemm didn’t stop at the stop sign at the intersection. Why she didn’t stop doesn’t matter very much if our goal is to eliminate all car deaths, as we’ll never reach a point where every driver is paying attention 100% of the time. I certainly don’t, and I don’t believe there is another living being who does. I’ve just been lucky not to have not being paying attention when my life depended on it. A better approach is to look toward best practices–i.e., Vision Zero principles–so see how such a collision could have been either avoided or mitigated. And best practices here indicate, as they did in the Schmidt case, that a road such as that which enabled this collision should never have existed.

Once again, VZ principles forbid speed limits above 50 kph (31mph) at intersections where the potential for side impacts exist. Now, given the fact that the vehicle that hit the SportWagen weighed up to 20x more than a typical passenger vehicle, it’s entirely possible the SportWagen would not have been able to protect Cara anyway. In fact, a 60,000 lb truck would still have delivered 2.45MJ at 30 mph, a life-ending amount of force. However, given the fact that Cara’s sons survived the crash which involved forces 3x higher, it’s entirely possible that Cara might have survived had the forces been 3x lower. Remember, it wasn’t a direct hit to the occupant cabin of the SportWagen–had that been the case, everyone in the vehicle would have died. And as much of an advocate as I am for proper car seat use, I don’t believe even rear-facing all 3 children would have kept them alive from a direct hit by a dump truck at speed. But the lower the speeds of all vehicles involved in a given collision, the wider the window of survivability opens.

In this case, it didn’t open enough for Cara. But the fact that her sons survived meant that something in this crash was survivable, and had the intersection’s speeds been governed by best practices, it’s possible she might have lived.

Lindsey Schmidt, 29 and Pregnant, and 3 Sons Killed in Beecher, IL Crash

August 2, 2017 Mike

Who

Lindsey Schmidt, 29 and 4 months pregnant, Owen Schmidt, 6, Weston Schmidt, 4, Kaleb Schmidt, 21 months were killed in a collision while driving in a green 2014 Subaru Outback.

The collision occurred with a 25-year old man from Maneno driving a grey 2002 Chevrolet S10. The man survived. The collision occurred around 8:30 AM on Monday, July 24th, 2017 at the intersection of Yates Avenue and Corning Road in Beecher, Illinois (Will County, Washington Township). Lindsey and Kaleb died at the scene; Weston died Tuesday evening at 5:55 PM and Owen died at 2:39 AM Thursday. The children are survived by their father, Lindsey’s husband.

How

Per reports from the Chicago Tribune and ABC 7 Chicago, Lindsey was driving her boys to VBS (vacation bible camp) at Trinity Lutheran Church when the crash occurred a block from their home in Beecher, Illinois. They were northbound on Yates Avenue and were struck on the driver’s side by the male driver, who was traveling east on Corning Road and did not yield at the stop sign.

Police estimate the crash occurred at 55 mph per the sole survivor of the collision, who stated that his cruise control was set at that speed. The collision forced both vehicles off the road into a nearby field. The pickup driver was taken to St. James Hospital and later to Christ Medical Center where he was described as in stable condition; he underwent minor surgery due to a large arm laceration.

Lindsey and Kaleb were pronounced dead at the scene. Kaleb’s brothers were transported to St. Margaret Hospital in Indiana and later airlifted to Chicago. Weston was pronounced dead in Comer Children’s Hospital in Chicago at 5:55 PM on Tuesday; he had been placed on life support the previous day. His older brother Owen was placed in a medical coma and passed away two days later at 2:39 AM Thursday.

Per a minister at the church, Lindsey had lost a brother to a car crash in the same town 12 years ago. The pickup driver was initially cited for not yielding to a stop sign, but the charges were dropped to avoid double jeopardy complications while investigations probed the possibilities of more serious infractions (e.g., chemical inebriation or phone use). He was described as cooperative with the authorities, and said he had been on his way to work and did not know the area.

Why

This is another in an endless line of tragedies in our butcher-worthy road network. Reviewing the facts as presented, it seems clear that the man driving the S10 was responsible for the collision. We don’t yet know how he was distracted (e.g., a phone, drugs, alcohol, fatigue, daydreaming…), but we can analyze the crash and the larger ramifications of the tragedy.

The Outback

The ’14 Outback is one of the safest cars on the road, and one of the best vehicles you could ask to be in before an imminent side impact. It received a “good” score overall and in all subcategories in the IIHS side impact test as well as a 5 star NHTSA side score. The side impact intrusion resistance ranged between 15 and 17.5 cm, which is one of the best side impact scores you can get in a station wagon even in 2017. It was a good vehicle.

With that said, the Outback was designed to handle 143.7KJ of kinetic energy in a side impact collision safely. In my experience calculating forces, individuals tend to survive up to 200% of designed force tolerances in their vehicles. Above that, however, survival odds drop significantly; I’d estimate the survival rate at 300% of expected forces drops to somewhere around 33%. Around how many KJ of energy did the S10 transfer?

The 2002 S10 weighs 3,016-4,039 lbs, depending on the trim level. It comes with a “marginal” frontal score. Estimating the weight as 3,500 lbs and given the likely speeds of the collision (let’s use the provided estimate of 55 mph), the collision likely imparted at least 480KJ of energy into the Outback / S10. The standard side impact test simulates 143KJ of energy (a 3300-lb sled impacting a vehicle at 31 mph). In other words, the Outback faced 336% of the force it would have experienced in the types of crashes cars are rated to make survivable. Given these forces, it is sadly understandable that the occupants of the Outback succumbed to their injuries, even with the use of seat belts and car seats.

The S10 driver’s survival was expected, in contrast, as he experienced a frontal impact that featured survivable forces. Despite the marginal frontal score, the S10 would have been expected to perform reasonably safely in a 254KJ collision, which means its occupant experienced 188% of tested forces. His survival was almost guaranteed as a result.

Vision Zero

Looking at the collision through the lens of personal responsibility, it’s easy to start and stop with blame centered squarely on the S10’s driver. However, we’re never going to improve our road safety figures significantly as long as we continue to rely on people to behave safely with a minimum of external influences. Best practices–i.e., Vision Zero principles–stipulate that a road like that on which the Schmidts tragically lost their lives and which turned Lindsey’s husband into a widower and robbed him of four of his children should never have existed.

Specifically, VZ principles forbid speed limits above 50 kph (31mph) at intersections where the potential for side impacts exist. To put it another way, if that intersection had been designed in accordance with best practices, every member of both vehicles should have survived, because the Outback was designed to protect occupants–to the degree to which they’d have been able to leave the vehicle with zero to minimal injury–in a 31 mph crash. That’s what it means to have a “good” IIHS or NHTSA side impact score. It’s no coincidence that this is where VZ sets the speed limit for such intersections.

A 55 mph intersection throws 3.14x as much energy into a side collision as a 31 mph intersection. That means 314% as much force as any well-designed vehicle is designed to handle. Time and time again, reviewing crashes has suggested that survivability odds drop dramatically once forces surpass 200%, or 2x of designed limits.

A large factor in why many European countries are experiencing glorious decreases in car deaths year after year is because they’re putting these kinds of principles into place. The longer we continue to beat the bloody drum of “personal responsibility” and “paying attention”, the longer we’ll ring the church bells for needless tragedies. T-bone intersections become death traps above PSLs of 30 mph. Undivided highways become bloodbaths above PSLs of 43 mph. Any road with a PSL above 20 mph becomes a gauntlet for pedestrians. These principles aren’t going to change with more air bags and crumple zones. We either engineer drivers out of the equation (through transportation alternatives and self-driving vehicles) or we engineer the roads to be safer; ideally, we do both. But as long as people aren’t taking the bus, riding bicycles, and reclining in self-driving vehicles, the most effective approach to increase the safety of our road network is to equip it with speed limits that respect the boundaries of human crash tolerances.

—

Safety 1st Grow and Go EX Air Review: 50 Pounds Rear-Facing, Forward-Facing, Boostering Under $200!

July 20, 2017 Mike

Safety 1st Grow and Go EX Air review on The Car Crash Detective. — The Grow and Go EX Air is like a cheaper version of the Diono Rainier in many ways.

There has never been a better time to rear-face in the United States and Canada than today. Even though most parents continue to forward-face shortly after their children turn 1, more and more parents are learning about how much safer it is to continue rear-facing until 4 or beyond, and we’re finally moving in the direction of our fellow parents in Sweden and Norway. However, extended rear-facing wouldn’t be possible if manufacturers hadn’t begun offering more choices in convertible seats with high weight and height limits.

Today in the United States, to rear-face your child until s/he reaches 50 pounds, you have a number of options: 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. However, with few exceptions, almost all of these seats are two-stage, rear-and forward-facing options, and most cost over $200. Today we’ll take a closer look at a seat that includes a booster mode while clocking in below the $200 price point: the Safety 1st Grow and Go EX Air 3-in-1 Convertible Car Seat. Depending on the color you choose, you can buy it for as little as under $150! But how does it compare to the other, more expensive 50 pound-class convertibles and 3-in-1 options on the market? Very well, to tell the truth. Let’s take a closer look below.

Safety 1st Grow and Go EX Air – What’s the big deal?

The Safety 1st Grow and Go EX Air is a 3-in-1 car seat and Safety 1st’s answer to the Graco 4Ever Extend2Fit. Graco had experimented with all-in-one seats for a number of years, and finally hit upon a big success with the Graco 4Ever All-in-one. They then came out with their first 50-pound capable convertible, the Extend2Fit (which remains one of my favorite car seats available in the US). Realizing the growing popularity of ERF-seats, Graco then pushed out the Extend2Fit 3-in-1, adding a booster mode to the Extend2Fit, and then brought the reinforcements in the Extend2Fit design to the 4Ever All-in-one, creating the 4Ever Extend2Fit, which combined 3-in-1 functionality with 50-pound rear-facing capabilities. Safety 1st, for their part, released the Advance EX 65 Air+, their equivalent of the Extend2Fit, and the Grow and Go, their equivalent of the 4Ever All-in-one. They then rolled both into one with the Grow and Go EX Air, which, like the 4Ever Extend2Fit, combines 50-pound rear-facing with 3-in-one capabilities. In short, all of these new seats mean more opportunities for extended rear-facing and combination seats for parents to choose between. But what exactly is a 3-in-1 seat?

A 3-in-1 seat like the Grow and Go EX is simply a seat that allows you to rear-face, forward-face in a harness, and then booster a child, allowing you to get much more time out of a single seat before needing to replace it. This saves waste, money, and the time needed to find additional seats.

Being a a convertible seat, you can use it from the day your baby is born to take him or her home from the hospital rear-facing. While most parents use infant seats, using a convertible seat with a newborn is perfectly safe as long as the seat fits your baby in terms of harness adjustability, recline angle, head support, and of course, the lower weight limit. Once your child maxes out the weight or height limits for it in a rear-facing configuration, you can turn it forward-facing until reaching the weight and height limits there. Once your child outgrows it forward-facing, you can turn it into a high-back booster and then a low back booster.

In other words, it’s potentially capable of being the only car seat your child ever needs. Additionally, because it has a 10 year lifespan, you’ll be able to use it with multiple children if you’re interested in doing so, or at least use it to make the most of the 50 pound rear-facing limit and 65 pound forward-facing weight limit, in addition to the booster modes.

Safety 1st Grow and Go EX Air Limits for Weight and Height

Safety 1st Grow and Go EX review on The Car Crash Detective. — The Grow and Go EX lets you rear-face for years without worry, and in complete safety.

Rear-facing: 5 to 50 pounds. It’s best practices to rear-face as long as possible, which in this case means rear-facing up to 50 pounds if at all possible, since rear-facing is the safest way for a child to travel in a moving vehicle. The rear-facing height range ranges from 19″ to 49″, and your child’s head must also stay completely within the headrest when extended. The shell height is a wonderfully large 27″ when fully extended, and according to Center for Disease Control growth charts (which are the same for girls and boys), a 50th percentile child reaches 50 pounds when 7 years old and 49″ when 7:5 (7 years, 5 months).

This makes this a seat where rear-facing is actually limited by weight instead of height, which is very rare (but very good) in car seats. Four other examples of this in the rear-facing world are the Safety 1st Advance EX 65 Air+, the Graco 4Ever Extend2Fit, the Graco Extend2Fit, and the Nuna Rava, all of which feature 50 pound and 49″ weight and height rear-facing limits due to the same design. What’s key to remember here is that you’ll be able to rear-face virtually every preschooler (all of whom should be rear-faced) and kindergartner (who still benefit from rear-facing, although they can also be forward-faced) without worry.

Forward-facing: 22 to 65 pounds. The forward-facing height range starts at 29″ and ends at 49.” The child’s ears must fit within the headrest when the headrest is fully extended. This height limit, as noted above, will be reached by a 50th percentile child at 7:5. The weight limit won’t be reached by a 50th percentile child until 10, but it’s overruled by the height limit. If you were to max out the rear-facing limits before forward-facing, this suggests you could rear-face the average child until 7 and then forward-face until 7:5 before converting to the booster modes.

In practice, you could move directly from rear-facing into boostering, as the Swedes do, as most children will be able to sit appropriately in high-back booster seats by 7, which means there aren’t any safety advantages in continuing to forward-face at that point. There is no harm, however, in continuing to forward-face until your child outgrows that configuration by weight or height. As with the Safety 1st Advance EX 65 Air+, there is a minimum age requirement of 2 for forward-facing, although, as noted above, it is best to continue to rear-face until the seat’s weight or height limits are met.

High-back booster: 40 to 100 pounds as a high-back booster. The height range is between 43″ and 52″ with the same fit restriction as when forward-facing–in other words, your child’s ears must fit completely within the extended headrest.

Safety 1st added a minimum age of 4 years to the booster use requirements. This is far better than previous car seat recommendations where manufacturers stated boosters could be used as early as 3 (a very unsafe idea), but it’s crucial to remember that preschoolers should never be in boosters and kindergartners are almost never ready for boosters either. On the other end of the scale, kids should stay in boosters until they pass the 5 step test for seat belt readiness, which most kids won’t pass until they’re between 10 and 12.

Compared to the Graco 4Ever Extend2Fit, a few things stand out in the booster mode. First of all, there’s only a high-back mode in the Safety 1st, unlike the high- and low-back modes in the Graco. Second, the height and weight limits in the Safety 1st are smaller (53″ vs 57″ inches and 100 vs 120 pounds respectively). What this means in theory (and in practice) is that the booster modes in the 4Ever Extend2Fit will be usable for a longer span of time than those in the Grow and Go EX Air.

Buy the Safety 1st Grow and Go EX Air on Sale at Amazon here.

Dimensions and Key Features of the Safety 1st Grow and Go EX Air

The Grow and Go EX Air’s shell is 18.5″ wide at the widest points across the dual cupholders; it’s 24″ tall and 24″ long front to back. The seat itself weighs 15.5 pounds on my scale when all inserts are included and 14.7″ without them. It can be used for 10 years from its manufacturing date, and its harness height ranges from 5.5″ on the low end to 16.5″ on the high end. To take advantage of the lowest harness position, you need to use the newborn routing, which negates the otherwise-present no-rethread harness. The highest booster position is 18.5″ and the lower anchor weight limit (LATCH) is 40 pounds; after that, you’ll need to use seat belts to restrain the seat.

I measure the shell height at 27″ when the headrest is fully extended. Three crotch buckle positions are included (at 4.5″, 5.5″, and 6.5″ from the seat bight) in addition to a no-rethread harness (which, again is not functional when using the newborn harness routing). There are 3 recline positions to choose from (the 1st position is for forward-facing or boostering while positions 2 and 3 are for when rear-facing). The seat is FAA certified for air travel when harnessed (but not in booster mode) and the expiration date is located beneath the seat and is stamped into the plastic. You can find the date of manufacture sticker on the outside left side of the seat.

The Grow and Go EX Air is available in 5 colors: Black, Purple, Arctic Dream (dark blue, grey, and light blue), Lithograph (grey, black, and metallic blue), and Royal Grape (black, purple, and grey).

Using the Safety 1st Grow and Go EX Air (Rear-Facing Installation, Forward-Facing Installation, Booster Installation, Child Fit, and Additional Bonuses)

Installing the Grow and Go EX was straightforward in both rear-facing and forward-facing configurations. I was happy to see the inclusion of a no-rethread harness, as they simply make adjusting harness heights easier as your child grows, or when it’s necessary to swap a new child into a car seat, such as when carpooling or giving rides. It’s important to note that if you’re planning on using the seat from birth, you’ll need to convert the harness into newborn mode, which does take a few minutes the first time you do it. Fortunately, you should only need to do it twice: when getting into newborn mode and when getting out of it several months later.

I was happy to be able to achieve a good fit for newborns, toddlers, preschoolers, and elementary-aged students. However, it’s important to note that the booster mode is not nearly as functional as those in the 50-pound 3-in-1 seats it competes with: the Diono Rainier and the Graco 4Ever Extend2Fit. The top seat belt guide is too low to make the seat usable for an extended period of time in booster mode, and this is reflected in the lower top height limit for booster mode. If you want to be able to use the booster mode for more than a year in your 3-in-1 seat, you’ll definitely want either the Rainier or the 4Ever Extend2Fit, as both come with much more realistic belt height ranges and height and weight limits.

Similarly, it’s not a seat you’ll want to tote through an airport; something that folds compactly like the Diono Rainier will be a far better choice. It’s also not a seat you’ll want to turn to for 3 across installations; the best 50-pound seats for that are the Clek Fllo and Clek Foonf at 17″ in width.

When installing the seat, remember that the lower LATCH anchor weight limit is 40 pounds. Since you can install the seat either through seat belts or LATCH, I’d simply install it from the start with seat belts to avoid having to reinstall it that way later when approaching the 40 pound weight limit. I typically always recommend seat belt installations since they make 3 across installations easier and because seat belts are just as safe as LATCH.

When rear-facing, besides making use of the newborn harness mode, remember you also need the bottom and back newborn inserts, although you can remove the shoulder pads if necessary for fit. Once your child is in the standard rear-facing configuration, you can choose between crotch buckle positions 1 and 2; the second position provides more space, and you should choose the position closest to your child. When forward-facing, you’ll want to use the included forward-facing tether to limit head excursion. When forward-facing, you can choose between the 3 crotch buckle positions at will.

Why Buy the Safety 1st Grow and Go EX Air?

The Safety 1st Grow and Go EX Air is one of an increasing number of car seats that make extended rear-facing available to parents of all budgets. It specifically lets parents rear-face to 4, 5, and even longer by featuring a 50 pound rear-facing weight limit and the highest height limit currently available at 49 inches. This is huge.

It’s hard to find things wrong with the seat without being very picky; it could be narrower, but seats like the Clek Fllo and Clek Foonf satisfy that need by allowing rear-facing to 50 pounds while coming in at a svelte 17.” It could fold into a more travel-friendly configuration, but you can turn the Diono Rainier into a backpack while still being able to rear-face to 50 pounds, forward-face, and booster. It could be cheaper, but the Graco Extend2Fit and Safety 1st Advance EX 65 Air+ is already available to let you rear-face until 50 pounds for less than $200 and is more or less the same price, depending on which seat is more on sale at the moment at Amazon. The booster mode is largely ineffective, but the Graco 4Ever Extend2Fit takes care of that for a little more money.

Just as its other 50-pound Safety 1st sibling, the Grow and Go EX Air lets you rear-face as long as any other seat currently available in the US market while costing a fraction of the price of most of them. There isn’t anything safer than rear-facing, and this seat makes that possible on a small, small budget. Unless you have particular needs (such as for a narrower, shorter, more compact, or lighter seat), this is a good choice to keep your kids very, very safe for a modest price.

You can buy the Safety 1st Grow and Go EX Air in 5 colors here. Unfortunately, it’s not yet available in Canada, but Canadians can buy a similar seat, the Diono Rainier, here.

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.