Getting Hit By a Car is Like Falling Off a Cliff – Precipice Pictures

February 21, 2017 Mike

A few months ago, while perusing my favorite international safety organization, the International Traffic Safety Data and Analysis Group (IRTAD), I came across a recent report titled Zero Road Deaths and Serious Injuries: Leading a Paradigm Shift to a Safe System. It’s 172 pages of Vision Zero talk, which made for excellent evening reading. Within the report and within a section on the efforts various countries had made to raise awareness of the dangers of auto traffic, I came across this series of graphics (on page 46) published by one of the pioneers of Vision Zero, Sweden.

Precipice pictures used in Sweden to communicate inherent road safety risks (credit: IRTAD)

Specifically, the Swedish Transportation Agency, the Swedish equivalent of the NHTSA, sought to show the public in a naturally understandable way how the risks we exposed ourselves to while driving were significant ones, based on the premise that people were inherently more likely to understand the risks of high levels of kinetic energy when applied vertically compared to when applied horizontally.

To put it simply, people naturally understand how dangerous it is to fall from great heights than we get how dangerous it is to crash into obstacles at high speeds. There are likely strong evolutionary reasons related to this that have to do with falling from trees and off cliffs, but whatever the reason, this way of connecting with people seems to have some effect in raising risk awareness.

Survival speeds and Shared Responsibilities

As a reminder, Vision Zero principles are based on the ideas that road systems should be designed in ways that eliminate the risk of death or serious injury from auto use. In contrast to the predominant way of approaching road safety in the US and in most low- and middle-income countries, the risks and responsibilities of road use are not primarily assumed to rest with the end user (e.g., the passenger vehicle occupant, the cyclist, the pedestrian, the child), but are designed to be shared equally across road users, road designers, policy makers, and vehicle manufacturers.

As a result, in the examples above, it’s not simply the responsibility of the car driver to avoid being hit by the truck while navigating the turn, or the pedestrian to avoid being hit by a motor vehicle while crossing the street. In the car/truck example, both drivers should certainly be paying attention, but the truck should be designed in a way that minimizes the risk of injury it poses to others relative to its size, while the car should also be designed to offer as much protection as reasonably possible (e.g., being equipped with a crashworthy structure, seat belts, airbags, etc). Additionally, the roadway, being one that presents a risk of head-on vehicle-vehicle collisions, should have a posted and enforced speed limit no greater than 70 kph, or 43 mph, not 45 or 50 or 55 or even 65 mph as is the case in many rural areas throughout the United States.

In the second example, the zebra crossing should be clearly marked and clearly visible to give pedestrians a clear view of traffic and traffic a clear view of pedestrians. The pedestrian should have the right of way, always, and that right of way should always be defended and enforced. The traffic on that road should not be traveling at any higher than 30 kph, or 18 mph, since it has the potential to come into contact with pedestrians, and the survival rate when hit at under 20 mph is at around 95%. The roadway should be narrow enough to naturally encourage motorized traffic to travel more slowly and cautiously, as well as to make it possible for pedestrians to traverse it without spending exorbitant amounts of time in a highly vulnerable position.

Best practices aren’t secret practices; they’re just ignored ones in the United States

These are just a handful of safety modifications that should be present in two situations highlighted above. How many of them do you find present when you find yourself in either of the above scenarios? Because each factor, when present, reduces the risk of injury or death if and when a collision occurs while also reducing the risks of collisions occurring to begin with. Conversely, each factor, when absent, increases the risk of collision while simultaneously increasing injury and fatality risks should said collisions occur.

Best practice in auto safety isn’t a mystery; we know what should be done. The trick is to convince the people with the power to put best practices into place that it’s worth more to make these changes than it is to accept things the way they are.

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!

When Should Your Teenager Get a Driver’s License? Not Before 18!

February 14, 2017 Mike

The later teens drive independently, the safer they become behind the wheel

In the United States, we have a heavy driving culture. Millions of teenagers began driving throughout the country as soon as they’re eligible to take their driver tests, which is at 16 in most states, with the notable exception of New Jersey at 17. However, as is often the case when comparing actual practices to best practices, just because teens can legally drive from when they turn 16 doesn’t mean this is what’s best–neither for teens, nor for society. An analysis of the risk teen drivers pose to themselves and others, as well as comparisons of driving and licensing patterns in comparable countries around the globe, suggests the age for independent driving and licensing shouldn’t be 16, but 18. Let’s take a closer look at why together.

Teens are most likely to be involved in fatal collisions at 16

The numbers are clear: 16-year-olds are more likely to be involved in collisions, fatal or otherwise, than drivers of any other age. Specifically, the IIHS chart above notes the rate of fatal crash involvement per 100 million miles traveled was 9.1 at 16, compared to 6.6 at 17 and 3.8 at 18. From 18, the rate of fatal crash involvement remained virtually constant between 3.6 and 3.8 until drivers reached the 30-34 age bracket, at which point the rate of fatal crash involvement dropped again to 1.8. I’ve written about teen crash involvement before, and while the risks are primarily related to male teens, this is a problem we need to tackle with all teenagers and all parents.

This chart alone explains why teenagers shouldn’t drive alone at 16. Simply waiting a year cuts the risk of death by 27%, and waiting another year until 18 before independent driving cuts the risk by 58% compared to the risk of death faced by a 16-year-old driver. To put it another way, if 100 16-year-olds were involved in fatal crashes in their first (and final) year of driving, it’s likely that 42 of them would have survived their first year of driving had that cohort of 100 drivers begun driving at age 18 instead of at age 16.

If we simply delay our children’s independent driving by a couple of years, they effectively become as safe as drivers nearly a decade older. We need to give them the gift of time.

But doesn’t this just mean that 18 year olds have 2 years more driving experience than 16 year olds? What about new 18 year olds vs new 16 year olds?

It’s tempting to think that the only reason the driver death rates drop so dramatically between 16 and 18 is because all of the 18 year olds have the benefit of the 2 years of driving and hopefully not dying between 16 and 18. However, numerous studies have found this to be erroneous, whether in the US, Canada, or overseas.

A Canadian study found in 1992 that novice 16 year olds were more likely to be injured while driving than novice 17 or 18 year olds, with novice drivers defined as those with under a year of experience. A meta analysis of 11 studies since 1990 found the same results: 16 year old new drivers were more likely to crash than new older drivers.

It’s not about driving experience; it’s about cognitive development and life experience. Sixteen year olds simply aren’t as ready to drive as 18 year olds. Giving them lots of training before they turn 16 doesn’t change this, whether that training comes from parents or from driving instructors. This doesn’t mean that supervised driving time is meaningless for teenagers; it’s very valuable. However, it can’t overcome, statistically speaking, the increased risk of allowing unsupervised driving before 18. A 14-year old with 400 hours of supervised driving experience is still going to be a poorer driver than a 16-year old with 200 hours of supervised experience, because training time can’t overcome maturity when the maturity gap becomes too large. By the same measure, that 16-year old with 200 supervised hours will, statistically speaking, still be a much more dangerous driver than an 18-year old with 100 supervised hours.

Delaying licensing until 18 gives parents more time to drive with their teens

Besides the maturity that comes with having two additional years of life experience, a significant reason why teenagers are safer drivers at 18 than they are at 16 is because they have more experience behind the wheel. However, what we want is to give them supervised experience so they aren’t gaining experience while engaging in risky behavior (e.g., driving at night, driving with passengers, having minimal supervised hours, etc). To that end, when we require our teens to wait before obtaining their licenses, we can spend more time driving with them and modeling and monitoring safer driving tactics. We can take the time to choose safer vehicles for them rather than simply choosing the cheapest ones we can find because we feel pressured to reward them as soon as they turn 16.

Remember: teenagers driving in and of itself isn’t the problem; most teens manage to drive responsibly enough while under their learners’ permits or while taking their drivers’ tests to obtain licenses. The problem is that when teenagers drive on their own, there is a strong tendency for them to leave behind responsible driving habits and engage in risky behavior. The more time we spend driving with them, the more likely they are to internalize safe driving habits that they’ll be more likely to use when we don’t drive with them.

Sweden and Norway don’t license their teens until they turn 18

Finally, it’s worth considering the practices of countries with significantly safer driving cultures than those domestically. Sweden and Norway feature two of the lowest auto death rates on the planet per capita (at <3/100,000 people, compared to roughly 10-11/100,000 in the US), and both countries also feature the lowest rates of child auto fatalities on the globe. What do they do to keep their youngest drivers safe?

You guessed it: both countries restrict the age of licensure for car driving to 18. Both countries allow supervised driving before 18, just as in the US, but neither country allows teenagers to get behind the wheel without adults until they turn 18, without exception. They have extensive driver preparation and training programs as well, and in Norway, in particular, it can cost up to $4,000 to obtain one’s license before all is said and done, due to the various safety classes one must take on the way to licensure.

What can we take away from all of this?

Driving is a serious responsibility, not only for the driver but for every other citizen who may be impacted by the driver’s competence. In Sweden and Norway, where citizens are less likely to die from auto traffic than in any other wealthy country on the planet, no one drives a car before s/he turns 18. There’s just too much at stake. On the way to driving at 18, teens get lots of supervised practice, take lots of classes, and need to prove their competence in a number of ways. They take driving seriously there. Here, we lose approximately 2,600 13-19-year-olds each year. It doesn’t have to be this way. We can change the driving culture.

However, it starts with changing how we view driving, and how easily we’re willing to turn over the keys to our children. We can’t wait for the laws of 50 states to come together toward best practice; there isn’t a single state that’s following best practices yet. But as parents, we can take the first steps and make sure we aren’t putting our children in harm’s way any sooner than necessary, and not a minute before we’ve shared everything we know with them about safe driving. The stakes are too high to treat driving as a simple rite of passage.

—

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.

Eight-month-old Infant Thrown from Crash in Texarkana, AR, Survives

February 7, 2017 Mike

Who

An 8-month-old infant in Texarkana, Arkansas, survived a car crash at approximately 7 PM on Friday, November 25th, close to mile marker 3 in the eastbound lanes of I-30. She was mildly injured with a forehead scratch. Four other occupants were in the vehicle, which appears to be a 6th-gen Nissan Sentra, and none received serious injuries.

The Nissan was clipped by an 18-wheeler, which led to the crash. The driver of the 18-wheeler was cited for unsafe and improper lane changes.

How

Per news reports, the child was thrown from the vehicle during the crash and landed 25 feet away inside a drain in the median of the highway. She was located 3 feet beneath the drainage grate, which itself was covered with hay. Family members had begun to search from the child after the crash and enlisted the help of a Good Samaritan who had arrived on the scene after the collision, as well as first responders who also arrived. The baby was reportedly sitting upright in the drain and waiting for help. She was pulled out through the grate by 3 first responders and apparently had little more than a forehead scratch.

Police later confirmed that the child’s car seat, which first responders located outside the vehicle, had not been installed properly within the vehicle and that the child had additionally not been restrained properly within the vehicle.

Why

This is an unfathomably fortunate ending to what could have easily been a tragedy. I won’t venture to explain how the child escaped unharmed from being thrown from a vehicle and through a grate 25 feet away, and will limit my analysis to the parts of the story that could have been prevented. The circumstances of the initial collision are unclear, but it appears that poor maneuvering by an 18-wheeler led to the first impact. Given the massive weight discrepancies between 18-wheelers (which can weigh up to 80,000 pounds, or 40 tons), and passenger vehicles (which typically weigh between 2,000 and 5,000 pounds, or 1-2.5 tons), it’s no surprise that even a minor error by the driver of the heavy truck led to such large consequences experienced by the occupants of the normally-sized vehicle. This kind of error will unfortunately remain a risk on our roads until we have automated trucks. That day is coming, but we’re not there yet.

However, the factors within the control of the parties involved had to do with the improperly installed car seat and the improperly restrained child within the seat were. These errors, while unfortunate, are also representative of the typical state of children in this country who travel in personal vehicles. I’ve written before about how the majority of car seats in this country aren’t installed properly (typically they’re not installed tightly enough), and how the majority of children in this country aren’t installed properly within their car seats (again, they’re typically not installed tightly enough). This story provided an example of what’s at risk when children aren’t properly restrained, whether within their car seats or within their vehicles.

What to do

Please take the time to make sure your car seats are correctly installed and that your children are safely harnessed within their car seats each time you drive. The safest vehicles on the road won’t do much for your children if they fly out of them in a collision due to not being installed correctly in their seats, or due to their seats not being installed correctly in your vehicles.

—

Speeding IS the Magic Bullet (for Safe Driving)

February 1, 2017 Mike

The quickest way to drive more safely is to drive more slowly. — The quickest way to drive more safely (year round) is to drive more slowly.

The NHTSA, or National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, is the governmental organization in charge of monitoring, proposing, and enforcing road safety policy throughout the United States. There are a great many things they get right, including their position that the approximately 35,000 people who die each year in the US shouldn’t be dying.

However, there are also points they miss due to an overfocus on the United States as a unique entity…

and not simply as one of many wealthy countries interested in increasing road safety with the potential to learn from other wealthy countries. A recent NPR article discussed Vision Zero, the NHTSA, and our slowly changing climate of road safety. Let’s look at it together, as well as the most significant things that were and weren’t said.

Zero. That’s the stated goal of transportation officials in the U.S., no traffic fatalities by 2046. Zero deaths is a movement that began in Sweden. There, it’s called Vision Zero. The idea is simple. “No loss of life is acceptable.” That is the one sentence motto of Sweden’s campaign.

The opening paragraph nicely summarizes both Vision Zero…

which I’ve discussed in multiple prior articles, and the US’ current take on it, which aims for zero traffic deaths 30 years from now. That’s much later than I’d like to see the goal, but it’s at least a start to have a goal, and to have it relatively soon in the future. The Vision Zero mentality is where we have to begin, after all, with the idea that no deaths are acceptable, and that all lives are valuable.

One of the tragic coincidences is that as economic activity increases and more people with jobs are on the road, traffic fatalities go up. U.S. drivers put in a record 1.58 trillion miles on the road in the first half of this year, the Federal Highway Administration said this week. That’s a 3.3 percent increase over the same period in 2015. Meanwhile, the rate of deaths is up by more than 10 percent.

This is old news in the auto safety world, but it’s always new to normal folks;

…the more you drive, the greater your odds are of being involved in a collision, fatal or otherwise.

There are plenty of reasons to drive less, whether from ecological, financial, familial, or spiritual reasons, but one of the most basic reasons to drive less should be because the less you drive, the safer you are. It’s a lot cheaper than buying the latest and greatest technology, too.

“The really sad part is that in the United States we accept 35,092 people dying on the roadways and thinking that’s okay. It should be unacceptable,” says Mark Rosekind, the head of NHTSA. Rosekind’s father was a motorcycle policeman in San Francisco, who was killed on the road in the line of duty. “There are too many stories like this,” Rosekind says.

I completely agree with Mark Rosekind here; the subtitle of this blog has to do with those 35,000 people and how to avoid you or our loved ones joining them each year. If you’re reading this blog, or any information related to car seat safety or auto safety in general, you’re already ahead of the game, because most people aren’t reading this kind of information and most people have no idea how much of a bloodbath our roads are.

The truth is that our annual traffic statistics are the equivalent of a 9/11 every month on the roads, over and over and over again.

This isn’t something that comes up during the elections; you won’t hear President Obama or Trump talking about 35,000 fatalities each year, even though your odds of dying in a car crash are thousands of times higher in the US than your odds of dying in a terrorist attack. It’s not attractive news; it doesn’t sell papers. But it’s real.

Practically, getting to zero is not only an ambitious goal, but a complex one as well. In Sweden, a premium is placed on safety over convenience, traffic or speed. Low urban speed limits, strict policing of drunk driving, bike lanes with barriers separating cyclists from traffic, and smart pedestrian crossings are some of the solutions implemented.

This is absolutely true; however, it underemphasizes a crucial point–

The speed limits are a huge, huge part of the equation.

Yes, the separated cycling traffic is significant (best practice suggests people in cars and people not in cars shouldn’t mix when road speeds can surpass 20 mph). Yes, cultural abhorrence of drunk driving is important (the blood alcohol limit there is .02%, compared to the boozehound limit of .08% in the US). However, the recognition and implementation of road design and speed limits in concert with the physiological tolerances of the human body make up the majority of the equation. There are speeds the human body can’t survive. Keep traffic below them, and you keep people alive. It’s as simple as that if we want it to be.

“There isn’t actually a single magic bullet. It’s not like you can say if the entire country just changed its speed laws then we’d get rid of all fatalities on the road,” Rosekind warns.

This is where Rosekind goes off track. Technically, he’s right that we wouldn’t eliminate every traffic fatality by lowering speed limits; there’d still be the occasional freak accident here and there.

But there’s a reason why most fellow rich countries have sliced their roadway fatalities…

by an average of close to 75% in the last fifteen years while the US has only dropped by around 33%, and it’s not because all the other countries are keeping cyclists away from drivers; the primary reason has to do with following Vision Zero speed limits in roadway design. The longer we make excuses for a fundamental error in roadway design throughout the country, the longer we’re going to suffer tens of thousands of needless deaths year after year.

The next time you drive on an undivided roadway with a speed limit above 45 mph, know that you’re driving on a road that wouldn’t exist in Sweden. The next time you drive through a city with a speed limit above 30 mph, know that you’re driving on a road that wouldn’t exist in Norway. The next time you drive through a neighborhood or past a cyclist at more than 20 mph, know that you’re driving on a dinosaur-age level of road design that’s going extinct around the world. These are unsafe designs, and we need to get rid of them if we really want to get rid of road deaths. Everything else is just taking the long, winding, and potentially useless way home.

Side Impact Crash Protection: What’s the Safest Station Wagon in 2017?

January 21, 2017 Mike

I love station wagons and I’m pretty fond of hatchbacks. Unfortunately, neither are nearly as popular today in the US as they used to be. They’re still all the rage in Europe (where the roads are safer and the cars are smaller), but in the US and Canada, they’ve largely been replaced by SUVs, which have largely been replaced by crossovers. At any rate, I’m still a fan of them, and there’s a growing number of folks around the US who feel the same way.

However, if you’ve got a family, or are simply safety-conscious, you might be concerned about giving up something by choosing a station wagon or hatchback over an SUV or a minivan. The good news is that you don’t have to sacrifice safety for the practicality of a good wagon. In fact, the leading wagons are among the safest vehicles on the road; you just have to know which ones to look for.

Here’s a recap of my favorites on the market at the moment, along with leading safety features and 3 across car seat guides for fellow parents. The wagons are sorted by levels of side impact resistance, given the importance of reducing B-pillar penetration in surviving side impacts and the high fatality rate of side impact collisions. I’ll write a similar comparison of hatchbacks (e.g., vehicles like the Prius, Golf, 500L, and Impreza) later on.

2010-2017 Mercedes-Benz E-Class Wagon

If you’re looking for luxury combined with safety in wagon form, the E-Class wagon is the vehicle most likely to meet your needs. Based on the E-Class sedan which boasts the highest level of side impact protection of any sedan at 24 cm of B-pillar resistance, we can expect the wagon variant to perform similarly, placing the E-Class wagon at the top of station wagon safety mountain. It has great frontal small overlap and moderate overlap scores, side scores, roof scores, as well as good frontal crash protection. Like most of the vehicles on this list, it received a Top Safety Pick+ award by the IIHS in 2016 when equipped with optional frontal crash prevention packages.

The biggest strikes against the E-Class wagon are its purchase price (it currently retails at $59,000, which is more than the median family household income in the US) and the price to maintain it; like almost all luxury vehicles, you can easily end up spending thousands each year to keep it on the road, which make it a potentially hazardous choice if you don’t have the maintenance skills, social network, or pocketbook necessary to keep it happy.

My 3 across car seat guide to the E-Class wagon is here.

2015-2017 Subaru Outback

The Outback is the undisputed king of station wagons and hatchbacks in the US; sales estimates for the year are beyond 160,000 models, making it one of the 30 most popular vehicles sold in the country. Based on the Legacy, its sedan counterpart, the Outback includes a range of modern safety features, including solid crash scores as well as good frontal crash prevention with the purchase of an additional package. It also features 22 cm of side impact intrusion resistance, more than any other non-luxury station wagon (only the E-Class wagon is estimated to be higher at 24 cm). If you want a safe family station wagon, statistically, you’re probably going to end up with the Outback. And that’s not a bad choice at all.

My 3 across car seat guide to the Outback is here.

2017 Volvo V90

The V90 is the station wagon version of Volvo’s recently released S90, which itself is a successor to the S80. Because the IIHS rarely tests luxury wagons and because Volvo, like most manufacturers, doesn’t change much from the sedan to wagon version, we can assume the V90 is structured identically to the S90 from a safety standpoint, which means it’s going to be another good choice for families, as well as a direct competitor to the E-Class wagon. We can estimate its side impact intrusion resistance at 18.5 cm due to the S90’s performance in this area. Similarly, because the S90 received a Top Safety Pick award by the IIHS for 2017, we can expect the V90 to be at the same level of recognition by the IIHS.

The primary downside to the V90 is the fact that it costs almost as much as the E-Class Wagon at $55,000 MSRP while having no availability whatsoever in the used market due to its debuting as a 2017 model year vehicle.

My 3 across car seat guide to the V90 is coming soon.

2009-2017 Volkswagen Jetta SportWagen

The Jetta SportWagen design is the oldest of the vehicles on this list, but it competes admirably against the rest. Dating back to 2009, the current design is still relevant among the competition with 15.5 cm of side impact intrusion resistance, as well as good frontal, side, and roof scores. It’s important to note that the IIHS has not evaluated the SportWagen for small overlap performance, so this area is likely poor or marginal. However, in the ultimate test of driver safety–actual driver death records–the IIHS found the ’09-’11 SportWagen to do just as good of a job as the ’10-’11 Outback with a driver death rate of 6, one of the lowest of all vehicles surveyed.

My 3 across car seat guide to the Jetta wagon is here.

2015-2017 Volvo V60

Like its larger sibling the V90, the V60 is the wagon version of a sedan, the S60. And like the S90 (on which the V90 is based), the V60 is outfitted with a wide array of safety features and scores well in a range of areas. Notably, unlike the S90 (and V90 by extension), the V60 has a good torso subscore in the side impact test. The B-pillar intrusion resistance is decent at 15.5 cm and tied with that of the SportWagen. As a nod to its good performance in a battery of IIHS tests, it received a Top Safety Pick+ award by the IIHS for 2016 when equipped with optional additional frontal crash prevention technology.

My 3 across car seat guide to the V60 is here.

2013-2017 Toyota Prius V

The Prius V is the reigning champion of hybrid station wagons, and its smaller cousin, the Prius, was also the safest small car sold in the US a few years ago per the IIHS’ most recent driver death rate study. As a result, I do recommend the V for families or individuals in search of a fuel efficient safe station wagon. It’s also worth keeping in mind that the current Prius V has many more safety features than the prior regular Prius that ranked well in the IIHS study. Howevr, keep in mind that as with many vehicles that rank well in actual death rate studies, I feel the performance has far more to do with the drivers of the vehicles than it does with the vehicles themselves.

The biggest strikes against the Prius V from a side impact standpoint are that it only offers 10.5 cm of intrusion resistance, earning it an “acceptable” subscore in that area from the IIHS (who prefer to see at least 12.5 cm), and the fact that the head protection for rear passengers scored “marginal”, indicating there’d not be an adequate level of head protection in an actual side impact collision. This is something Toyota needs to fix, and soon. That said, the vehicle still received a Top Safety Pick+ award by the IIHS for 2016 when equipped with optional additional frontal crash prevention technology.

My 3 across car seat guide to the Prius V is here.

Conclusions

In conclusion, while these aren’t the only station wagons worth looking at from a safety perspective in the United States, these are definitely the primary players worth considering if safety is a priority.

Each vehicle here has its benefits; if you’re looking for the safest vehicle on paper, the most expensive, or the most luxurious, you’ll want the E-Class wagon. If you’re interested in the cheapest to maintain, you’ll want the Prius V. If you’re looking for the absolute cheapest to buy on the used market, you’ll want the SportWagen. The most ground clearance and the most popular? That’s the Outback. Some luxury without E-Class attractiveness to thieves? The V90 or the V60, depending on your budget and size requirements. Of course, you can look at each of these vehicles in entirely different ways. The most important thing to remember, however, is that at these levels of safety, how you drive will make far more of a difference than what you drive.

We can’t control everything. The safest option is still not driving at all, followed by driving as little as possible. But if you’ve got to drive, drive safely, and do your best to choose a safe vehicle. To that end, my guides to the various safety levels available in used and new vehicles on the market are worth reading.

1. How Old is Too Old For a Safe Used Car / SUV? Part 1

2. How Old is OK For a Safe Used Car, Minivan, or SUV? Part 2

3. What To Look For in a Safe Used Car, Minivan, or SUV? Part 3

4. The Best Safety Features in Used Cars, Minivans, SUVs: Part 4

I hope you enjoyed reading this as much as I enjoyed writing it. It’s exciting to see where we’re headed in vehicle safety these days. I’ll have followup articles soon comparing comparing car and SUV safety along the same metrics. Stay tuned, remember to avoid common mistakes parents make with car seats, and check out some 3 across car seat guides while you’re 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.