Double Your Driving Safety by Cutting Your Annual Mileage in Half

November 7, 2016 Mike

One of the points I try to drive home on this blog is that there are really only two ways to make driving safer for yourself and your loved ones: the first is to drive safer vehicles, and the second is to drive with safer techniques. I recently focused on some of those safer techniques here, and estimated that following them 100% of the time could cut your risk of being involved in a fatal crash by half, based on the fact that roughly 50% of auto fatalities don’t involve crashes with other vehicles, but traumas like rollovers, hitting embankments or trees, or simply leaving the roadway.

However, there is an even more basic way to make driving twice as safe, reducing your risk of being involved in a fatal crash by 50%. And unlike the previous set of tips, which were mainly focused on driving more defensively to reduce your risks of a single vehicle crash, this tip reduces both your risks of single- and multi-vehicle crash involvement. What is it?

You’re half as likely to be involved in a fatal crash if you can reduce your annual mileage by 50%.

This might sound like a tip so obvious that it doesn’t merit mention, but with the stakes as high as they are (driving is literally a matter of life and death for the approximately 90 people who die every single day of the year on our roads in the US), it’s worth considering and trying to implement. To put it simply, the less you drive, the less likely you are to be involved in fatal crashes with other vehicles or with your vehicle in isolation. This holds true no matter how safe of a vehicle you’re already driving. It holds true no matter how good (i.e., safe) of a driver you already are. It holds true no matter how many miles you already are (or aren’t) driving. It holds true no matter which state or country you’re driving in. It’s pretty fool proof.

If only it were that easy! I have to drive for work / family / daily life reasons!

I’m not saying we should all go and sell our cars now, or at least park them and throw away the keys. I understand the realities of life; we have jobs and families and daily chores and expectations to meet. The kids have school and soccer practice and band and all kinds of things (although hopefully not too many things). Life is busy. But at the same time, every mile counts, and they can either count for us or against us. It’s worth taking a look at what “normal” mileage is in the US, and comparing it to your personal figures to see if you can’t reduce it a little.

How many miles does the average American drive, and does it vary by age or gender?

These are great questions. Per the Federal Highway Administration, which tracks annual mileage across age and gender lines, male drivers drive more than female drivers at every stage of life, while the most mileage-heavy stages of life for men and women respectively are at 35-54 (18.858 miles) and 20-34 (12,004 miles). Overall, men average approximately 16,500 annual miles while women average approximately 10,142 miles. The national average across all ages and genders is around 13,500 miles per year. What does this mean for you?

Well, perhaps you’re between 20 and 54, as are the majority of (though certainly not all) readers of this blog. If you’re a man in this age range, you’re probably driving between 18,000 and 19,000 miles per year. That’s an astonishing 51 miles a day. If you can cut your miles in half, you’ve just cut your risk of dying in a car crash in half. If you’re a woman in this age range, you’re probably driving between 11,500 and 12,000 miles a year, or just over 32 miles a day. This is far better than what most men in these age ranges are driving, but if you can cut this in half, again, you’ve just reduced your risk of death by 50% without buying a safer vehicle or changing anything about the way you drive (although I heartily recommend making such changes too!).

Are annual miles why women are less likely to be involved in fatal crashes than men across all stages of life?

I’ve written before about how women are safer drivers than men at all stages of life. On the surface, when combining that information with the chart above, it might be easy to presume that women die less in crashes simply because they drive less. While that is true in absolute numbers, the truth is that women also have a lower rate of involvement in fatal crashes per mile traveled. In other words, if a man and a woman drive 10,000 miles per year, the woman will still be less likely to be involved in a fatal crash. This is because female drivers are more likely to make use of the safe driving techniques I’ve written about earlier, or at least less likely to make use of unsafe driving techniques. It all adds up, for better or for worse.

If you can combine the ethos of driving safely with that of driving as little as possible, you eventually get to a point where your odds of dying in a car crash drop to effectively zero. On the way there, you’ll be much safer than almost every other driver on the road, and that much more likely to keep your family safe and make it back to your loved ones every day. These are things worth striving for.

—

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.

How to cut your risk of dying in a car crash by 50% overnight

November 1, 2016 Mike

You can cut your odds of dying in a car crash by 50% by following a few basic steps 100% of the time.

When it comes to driving safely, there are really only two basic approaches you can take as an individual: one is to use safer vehicles (e.g., driving safer cars with side airbags, ESC, and winter tires in cold weather), and the other is to drive more safely (e.g., by following the speed limit or avoiding rural roads). Or as I’ve put it elsewhere, you can either avoid driving entirely, drive as little as possible, or drive the safest vehicles you can justify. It’s really that simple. But let’s go into the details, because it’s never that simple.

I talk a lot about safe vehicle choices because for most people, choosing a safer vehicle is easier than adjusting driving habits. However, it’s important to note that you can get the same safety benefits from changing how you interact with the roadway and your vehicle as you do from the vehicle you choose. In fact, you’ve probably heard it before, but the most important driver safety feature is the part between your ears. Now this doesn’t mean that you should go off and ride a motorcycle or drive a car made in the 80s (or older) as long as you do so carefully; I always advocate at least a few basic safety features no matter how careful you are as a driver (e.g., Safety Level 1, or ideally Safety Level 2). However, once you’ve got a reasonably safe vehicle, it’s worth taking a long look at how and why you drive, as the more behavioral changes you can put into place, the safer you and your loved ones will be whenever you get into a vehicle.

What’s most important from my end as a driver?

Looking at the 80 / 20 rule, there are a few big changes you can make as a driver that make the lion’s share of a difference in your safety as a driver and in the safety of your passengers. Driving sober (i.e., without a drop of alcohol or other drugs in your body), driving restrained (and making sure every other occupant is also restrained), driving without a cell phone (not even the hands-free kind), and driving at or below the speed limit 100% of the time will automatically make you a safer driver than 99% of other drivers on the road, because 99% of other drivers on the road break at least one of those rules every single time they drive. You’ll be a safer driver than nearly everyone else on the road because speeding, alcohol or drugs, distracted driving, or a lack of seat belt use are implicated in nearly every fatal crash on our roadways. If you aren’t doing any of these things, you’re far ahead of the game.

But what about everyone else on the road?

Now, you can’t control what other drivers are doing, and given the information above, it doesn’t sound like they’re doing good things at all. But you can control what you’re doing in your car and how safely you’re driving. And that goes much, much farther than you might think. In fact, a full 50% of fatal crashes occur due to drivers leaving the roadway and crashing completely by themselves without any other vehicles involved. What does this mean for a careful driver?

It means that if you can follow the instructions above, along with a few others (e.g., using winter tires whenever temperatures are under 40 degrees), your chances of being involved in a single vehicle crash drop to almost zero. I won’t tell you that you’re guaranteed not to crash, because that’s not a guarantee any human can make. But I can tell you that your odds of being involved in a fatal crash by driving off the road or into a tree or telephone pole or house or cement barrier or off a bridge will be effectively zero, because it’s very hard to kill yourself while driving if you’re alert, attentive, sober, buckled in, and following the speed limit every single time you drive.

What about animals in the road, or medical conditions, or falling trees, or…?

It’s true that there are always random and tragic deaths that affect people each year while driving, even in single vehicle crash situations. I once profiled a case where an unfortunate lady was killed by a loose trailer tire from a passing vehicle in a different lane that happened to bounce her way and crashed through her windshield. The only way such a death could have been prevented (besides by the driver not being in that precise and unfortunate location at that instant) would have been by the trailer tire having been affixed more securely to its axle. However, statistically, these kinds of events are quite rare, and while it’s impossible to insure against every possibility, the steps above do still come into play for reducing your risks of death while driving in a wide range of situations.

—

Two Big Reasons Why Lower Horsepower is Safer for Teen Drivers

October 21, 2016 Mike

High horsepower and teenage drivers don't mix well. — High horsepower and teenage drivers don’t mix well.

It’s tough shopping for a car for your teenage drivers. You want them to be safe, of course, but you also don’t want to spend a fortune, especially since college costs are just around the corner (or are already part of your monthly expenses). I’ve written guides for safe and affordable vehicles for young drivers in the past, and there are simply more issues to consider than when buying vehicles for safer drivers with larger budgets. Even organizations like the IIHS don’t necessarily steer parents in the right directions.

It’s easy to overlook details, as a result, when trying to make the right decisions. Airbags? Of course! ESC? Definitely! Good crash scores? Yes! But there’s a bit more to the picture when it comes to choosing a safe vehicle for your teen driver. One of the most significant areas parents tend to overlook, in my experience, is the horsepower of the vehicles they’re considering for their children. And this can be a rather big area to overlook. Let’s dive into why.

Why is it important to consider horsepower when looking at cars for teen drivers? Aren’t safety features more important?

It’s absolutely true that safety features like crash scores, airbags (front and side), and ESC should be your first priorities when looking for vehicles for teen drivers; these features should also be your priorities when looking for personal or family vehicles at any stage of life. However, horsepower is also particularly important when choosing vehicles for teen drivers because it’s rather significantly linked to the way your teens are likely to drive once alone behind the wheel. To put it simply, vehicles with higher horsepower tend to encourage more dangerous styles of driving, while vehicles with lower horsepower tend to encourage safer driving, either directly or by not encoruaging more dangerous driving. Let’s look at two specific ways lower horsepower can do your teen drivers a favor.

1. Teens are less likely to speed in vehicles with less horsepower

Speeding is implicated in roughly one out of every three fatal crashes, per the NHTSA, although the actual figures are likely much higher, given the near universal prevalence of speeding in our society. However, given that teenagers are more likely to be involved in fatal crashes per mile traveled than any other group of drivers until age 80, and that male teenage drivers are more than 4x as likely to be involved in fatal crashes than male drivers between 30 and 70 (and almost 6x as likely as female drivers between 30 and 70), it’s in our best interest as parents to do whatever we can to reduce the risks of our teenage drivers making bad decisions. This is particularly the case if we’re parents of male teenage drivers, who are statistically the most dangerous drivers on the road.

High horsepower is seductive to teenage drivers for the same reasons it seduces older drivers; it’s exciting and makes driving seem more fun, more exciting, more like a video game. Our culture glorifies speed and adrenaline and excitement; we equivocate the ability to drive quickly with the ability to free ourselves from the worries of society, blaze new paths, and experience all manner of adventure. It’s a big part of why muscle cars are popular among middle-aged and senior adults; speed symbolizes vitality and youth and vigor and power. Unfortunately, these false associations also attract teenagers, who have less life experience than older adults and are less likely to be able to restrain themselves from chasing the thrills that come with speeding.

Vehicles with less horsepower, on the other hand, simply aren’t exciting. Yes, it’s possible to break the speed limit in any vehicle, but we’re much less likely to do it, or at least do it grievously, in vehicles that aren’t designed to do so easily and with impunity.

2. They’re also less likely to engage in risky driving (like aggressive lane-changing, racing with friends or strangers, and red-light running)

The second and more broad reason to avoid vehicles with high horsepower for ones with low horsepower is that vehicles with less horsepower are less likely to encourage teenagers to engage in a wide range of risky behaviors, including aggressive lane changes, street-racing (whether with friends or with strangers), and running red lights.

The reasons behind this are related to the reasons behind why teens (and all drivers) are more likely to speed when behind the wheels of more powerful vehicles and more likely to drive prudently when piloting normally powered vehicles: the power is seductive. Many studies have shown people are more likely to display aggressive behaviors when driving or commuting than when walking or cycling, and statistically speaking, we’re more likely to act as if we’re characters in action movies (changing lanes rapidly, revving our engines at stop lights, trying to beat stale yellows) when we think we’ve got the muscle beneath the hood to do so. If this doesn’t sound like something you’d do, that’s great! But if you’ve got a teenage driver–and a male one in particular–he or she is unlikely to have as much temperance as you do, and it’s highly likely that you didn’t have as much restraint as you currently do when you were 16, 17, 18, or 19.

Cars with less power are driven more practically and less aggressively, which makes them and their drivers safer.

But I heard higher horsepower was safer, since it allows you to merge safely / avoid errant vehicles / etc…?

This is a frequently-given reason for choosing vehicles with a bit of “get up and go!” as a good friend of mine calls it. However, the truth is that virtually any vehicle made since 2000 onward has more than enough power to merge safely, and you don’t need 250 horsepower to make it into a lane or to avoid a vehicle that has swerved into yours. What you are more likely to do with that extra horsepower is speed or drive recklessly, which is more likely to lead to a collision or a loss of control. Don’t believe the hype; pretty much anything that comes with an EPA sticker has enough power to get you where you need to go or keep up with traffic. If you’re wanting more power just so you can”have it when you need it”, keep in mind that your teenager isn’t going to be nearly as good of a judge of “when s/he needs it” as you are.

What do you recommend as a horsepower limit for vehicles teenagers are likely to drive?

That’s a great question. I hesitate to give a specific number, as different vehicles react differently with different amounts of weight and engine capacities. However, more broadly, I’d recommend choosing the smallest cylinder option available within a given vehicle, and the lowest horsepower trim level available if you have the choice. Again, whatever you choose will have more than enough power to help you travel wherever you’re going safely. The smaller engines and lower horsepower trims, as an aside, will almost always result in better fuel economy too, as the engines won’t be excessively large. And if you’re considering two otherwise similar vehicles, be sure to take a look at the horsepower figures; what you find may surprise you, and may make a large difference in how safe of a driver your teen is when s/he gets the keys.

If pressed for a number, I’d recommend trying to keep the horsepower to 200 or lower, or at least as low as possible past 200 if you can’t get below 200. In my most recent comparison of safe vehicles for teen drivers, for example, that would mean choosing the Galant or Jetta over the Passat or TL; it would mean choosing the CR-V over the Outlander, and the Yaris over the Forte.

—

How To Survive a Head-On Collision – Slow Down (to below 43mph)!

October 14, 2016 Mike

To survive a head-on collision, your odds are best below 43 mph.

Lately, I’ve been writing a lot about Vision Zero. It’s an initiative a number of wealthy countries around the world are following to different degrees with the overall goal of reducing auto fatalities in their populations. One of the central tenets of Vision Zero is the belief that roadways need to be designed to protect different kinds of travelers from coming into contact with each other above particular speeds. For example, if you’re an unprotected traveler, like a pedestrian, any roadways you use that might put you in contact with cars (e.g., cross-walks) should not have traffic traveling any faster than 20 mph. These guidelines also exist for individuals traveling in cars who might come into contact with other cars, which is precisely what this article is about.

What can we do to increase our odds of surviving a head-on collision?

To put it simply, if you want to survive a head-on collision, the best way to do so is to avoid getting into one to begin with. But if that’s not possible, the second best way to survive is to drive as slowly as possible prior to the collision–ideally, no higher than 43 mph. More broadly, since collisions are difficult to predict but the roadways we choose are far more likely to be under our control, I’d avoid driving on any undivided roadway with a posted speed limit above 40 mph.

What makes 43 mph the limit for survivability?

The specific figure comes from research related to Vision Zero, such as a Monash University study in 1999. The researchers came up with a series of guidelines related to the highest amounts of violence, or crash forces, the human body could tolerate under certain assumptions (e.g., well-designed vehicles with crash structures, or passengers wearing seat belts) without risks of serious or fatal injuries. For vehicle occupants traveling on roads where frontal impacts were a possibility between cars, they recommended a long term speed limit no higher than 70 kph, or approximately 43 mph.

But I know / heard of someone who survived a head on at 50/60/80 mph!

While it’s certainly possible to survive frontal crashes at higher speeds, the odds of doing so drop exponentially above this speed. After analyzing dozens of crashes over the last several years, I’ve found survivors of head-on collisions in a range of speeds, but the rate of fatalities has always risen dramatically with the speeds of the collisions, while the rate of survival has always dropped as quickly. Remember that a crash with a 50% survival rate suggests that if you and someone you love are sitting in the front row of a vehicle, statistically speaking, either you or your loved one isn’t going to survive such a collision. Those aren’t the kinds of odds you want on your side each time you drive.

How do other safety organizations (i.e., the IIHS) feel about this figure?

While the IIHS doesn’t specifically advocate 43 mph speed limits, they have repeatedly advocated slower speed limits and bemoaned the rising tide of speed limits throughout the country. Additionally, one of the most direct endorsements of a 43 mph limit for head-on collision survivability comes from the IIHS’ frontal moderate- and small-overlap crash tests. Both of these tests are conducted at 40 mph, and are designed to simulate the effects of a vehicle crashing into a vehicle of equal mass traveling in the opposite direction at 40 mph. They’ve noted that these kinds of crashes are already considered to be “severe” ones, and that tests are not conducted at higher speeds due to the impracticality of designing vehicles capable of protecting occupants at higher speeds.

Does this mean my car / SUV / minivan / pickup is only designed to protect my family at up to 40 mph?

In a head-on collision, yes. This isn’t because car manufacturers don’t care much about keeping people safe at high speeds or that organizations like the NHTSA and IIHS don’t care about things that happen at higher speeds; again, it’s simply a reflection of how much additional energy vehicles carry at higher speeds, and how difficult it is to design vehicles to protect individuals above those speeds because of how energy increases with speed. But once again, when you hear that your vehicle comes with a 5-star frontal crash rating or a “good” frontal impact score (whether head-on, moderately overlapping, or small overlapping), it’s essential to remember that this only applies for crashes at 40 mph, and with vehicles that weigh as much as or less than your vehicle. At higher speeds, there are no guarantees.

How much more severe is a crash at 70 mph than one at 40 mph?

It’s important to remember that the forces in a collision quadruple when speeds are doubled, rather than simply doubling, because kinetic energy increases with the square of velocity. To put this in practical terms, a crash at 80 mph carries 4x the energy as a crash at 40 mph, even though the speed is only 2x as fast. As noted above, your vehicle is only designed to protect you from a crash with an equal or lighter mass vehicle at 40 mph. Let’s use that as a baseline, where your vehicle handles 100% of tested forces while allowing you to survive the crash with minimal injury. At these speeds, your odds of survival in a vehicle with a “good” frontal score are close to (not quite, but close to) 100%.

A 70 mph crash carries more than 2x as energy, or precisely 306% as much energy as the 40 mph crash (100% of tested forces). In my observations from studying crashes, once you get up to around 300% of the forces your vehicle was designed to handle, your odds of survival drop down to around 25%. To put it another way, in a head-on crash at 70 mph involving 2 vehicles with 4 people in the front seats, only 1 of the 4 people involved is likely to survive.

This is the risk we run every time we drive at 70 mph in an environment with a possibility of head-on collisions (i.e., every undivided highway in the country).

If crashes are this much more dangerous above 40 or 43 mph, then why do we have speed limits at 55, 65, or 75 mph?

That’s a great question. A basic answer is because our society (as well as virtually every other around the world) prioritizes speed over safety when it comes to auto travel. Additionally, most people aren’t aware of the dramatically increased risks that come from higher speed limits until it’s too late (you can’t advocate from beyond the grave). However, it’s important to remember, too, that speed limits beyond 43 mph can be tolerated with low risks of severe injury or death as long as the risks of head-on collisions are eliminated, which is possible through good road design. The challenge is to bring that good road design to a country that’s plagued with poor road design.

What do you mean by poor road design?

Poor road design, per Vision Zero, in this context refers to roadways with an opportunity for head-on collisions that permit or encourage vehicles to travel beyond 43 mph. In other words, two-lane undivided highways with 50, 55, or 60 mph (or higher!) speed limits are roadways that shouldn’t exist, but do throughout the US (and globe).

What does this mean for my family and I? Do we have to drive at 43 mph everywhere?

Not necessarily. But as noted earlier, I’d certainly try to avoid driving on any undivided roadway with a posted speed limit above 40 mph. The risk increases exponentially with the speed of traffic. And given the propensity of people to speed in this country, a road with a 40 mph PSL will most likely already be dealing with 45-50 mph traffic. You can do the math for higher speeds.

If you’re about to get into a crash, the best thing you can do in the three seconds beforehand are to slow down as much as you possibly can. If you have the luxury of choosing your roadway, stay away from undivided roads with speed limits above 40 mph. Your life could literally depend on it.

—

When Can Children Ride In the Front Seat? For Safety, Not Until 13!

October 7, 2016 Mike

Just because your kids say all their friends ride in the front seat doesn't mean they're ready to. — Just because their friends and older siblings ride in the front seat doesn’t mean they’re ready to.

I’ve written extensively about the benefits of extended rear-facing, reasons to keep kids harnessed well into the elementary school years if possible, and why to keep older children in booster seats until they pass the five-step test for seat belt readiness. However, many parents of older children (or those simply looking ahead) wonder what comes next. Can kids sit in the front seat as soon as they’re ready for adult seat belts?

Not necessarily. Let’s take a closer look at why in this article.

When should children ride in the front seat?

The blunt truth is that the safest place in a car for children, teenagers, and adults of any age is in the back seat. Specifically, the center seat of the farthest rear row possible is, statistically speaking, the safest seat in a passenger vehicle. However, most children and teenagers aren’t going to want to sit in the back forever, even if it’s the safer choice, so what’s the next best thing? To keep kids in the back seat at least until they turn 13. This is a recommendation directly from the NHTSA.

Why should parents wait until 13, instead of 12, 11, etc, or even 14 or 15 or older?

Waiting until 13 is important because this is a threshold at which most children will generally already have passed the 5-step test for seat belt use, meaning most parents who do nothing else but wait this long before placing their kids in the front row will have a very high chance of having children who can safely use the seat belt in the front row. Additionally, the significant amount of force used in frontal airbags is significantly less likely to severely injure or kill children once they have a certain amount of mass, height, and bone strength; these 3 factors are more likely to be achieved when most children are at least 13 than at earlier ages.

On the other end of the spectrum, it’s quite correct that kids are likely to be in even better strength and shape, physically speaking, at 14 or 15 than at 13, and as noted above, I do believe it would be better to prioritize placing teens and adults in the back seat over the front seat at any age. However, it’s also important to honor and respect the growing autonomy of adolescents, which means each family must find its balance between safety and practicality. To put it simply, if your teens are okay staying in the back seats past 13, by all means do so. It’s unquestionably safer for them than it is for them to be in the front seat. But if you can’t or don’t want to head in that direction, then draw the line at 13.

But I want to speak to my child / reward them / provide them with driving experience / etc!

All of these reasons are frequently chosen by parents who sit their < 13-year-old children in the front row, and as a parent, I understand them. It’s easier to speak to someone beside you than behind you, it’s an easy and effective way of rewarding a child for good behavior, it can promote closeness, and it can also give a child a chance to see what you’re doing as you drive before s/he is ready to get behind the wheel. However, none of these reasons are compelling enough to override the increased safety risk of placing children in the front row before necessary.

Regarding the driving reason in particular…teenagers will learn far more from watching you drive at 16 than they will at 13, much less at 12 or 11 or 10. Certain things are easier to teach at certain stages of development, and cognitively, a 16-year-old will be much more likely to absorb relevant safety lessons related to driving than will a 13-year-old. This doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t talk to your teen or tween or child about safe driving practices; I started talking to my oldest child about street safety and parking lot safety when she was 1, if not earlier. However, it does mean that you shouldn’t use osmosis as an excuse to place your child in a more dangerous seating position before necessary.

What if my child points out that his/her friends or older siblings are / were sitting in the front seat at (insert age under 13)?

This is one of the most frequently attributed reasons for bypassing the guideline of keeping kids in the back seat until 13. Many parents would prefer to keep their kids in the back seat but move them forward early because of peer pressure. They either hear from their children, or at times from other parents, family members, or even co-workers, that “all” kids were sitting in the front seat by their kids’ age, and that it’s silly, impractical, or unreasonable to expect a child older than 12, 11, 10, 9, etc to sit in the back seat. What do you do then?

Well, you’ve got to make a decision at that point. There are a lot of things in our society related to the safety and welfare of people in relation to the automobile where the societal pressure is to prioritize the automobile over people. Rear-facing past 1 is inconvenient; harnessing past 5 is silly. Booster seats aren’t even required! Everyone speeds! One drink doesn’t make you drunk! Why would you walk or bike when you could drive? It goes on and on.

What’s prudent isn’t always popular. Best practices are often buzzkills. Waiting until 13 is safer, and no one will value the life of your child more than you will.

Remember – avoid driving if you can. If you have to drive, do so as little as possible in the safest vehicles possible, while doing so as safely as possible. And you’ll cut your driving risk a lot more quickly and effectively by reducing your miles, following the speed limit like your life depends on it, never, ever, ever drinking before driving, buckling up as consistently as you breathe, and keeping kids restrained safely through all the stages of child development than you will by buying any passenger vehicle on the market.

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.