The Safest Used Cars for High School and College Teens in 2017

October 1, 2016 Mike

How do you keep your grown-up kids safe?

If you’re a parent of young children, car safety can be complicated in a number of ways (how long do you rear-face? how long do you keep them in a 5-seat harness? when do you stop using boosters? when can they sit in the front seat?). However, you’ve got one big advantage, and that’s that you typically are the one responsible for driving your children everywhere. But this inevitably changes once your kids become old enough to drive if you gift them a vehicle or if they buy their own. What then?

Your worries don’t end once they’re old enough to strap themselves in and turn the key. In fact, in a way, you’ve just traded one set of worries for another; this is particularly the case if you’ve got a male teen (or young adult) driver, given their extremely high propensity for fatal crashes compared to female teen drivers, or all other drivers in general. What can you do to keep your high-school or college-aged kids (because they’re always your kids, no matter how old they get) safe?

That’s precisely what this article’s about. I’m not going to go into general safe driving tips (like avoiding speeding, driving on the right, using DRLs, etc) here; those topics are well worth pursuing and applying, but this article is focused on safe and affordable choices for high school- and college-aged drivers.

What do you define as safe and affordable when it comes to a good car for a teen / high-school / college driver?

As I’ve noted in previous articles on teen drivers, I’m not a fan of the theory that the least experienced drivers (teens, high-schoolers, and college students) should be placed in the heaviest and largest vehicles to keep them safe at the expense of every other driver, pedestrian, and child who shares the roadway. This approach ultimately makes the roads less safe for everyone, and research has shown certain small cars can be much safer than much larger ones; what matters most is the behavior of the driver.

Instead, I recommend only small cars and SUVs and mid-sized cars and completely leave out mid-sized and larger SUVs, minivans, and pickup trucks, which are unnecessary for most teenagers and high schoolers (who ideally should either be driving with parents or driving alone, and certainly shouldn’t be driving with other teens). Even college students don’t need vehicles capable of hauling thousands of pounds of anything or more than 4 passengers at a time (and ideally, they shouldn’t be carrying more than one passenger).

Furthermore, all of my recommendations are around the median price parents are spending ($5,327), and all of my recommendations include vehicles with side airbags, ESC, and good frontal and good side crash scores. Unlike in my previous teen safety ranking, I removed vehicles with only acceptable side crash test scores, as more vehicles have since become available within the budget limit with good side scores. And because fuel isn’t free, I also looked at the fuel economy of each vehicle on the list and provided the numbers below. Keep in mind that these are the pre-adjusted (pre-2008) EPA numbers with older vehicles; what you actually get will be less if you drive more aggressively. All prices are based on private party costs in September 2016 in the Chicago metro area.

The safest used cars for teens, high schoolers, and college students in 2016

Mini cars

2010+ Toyota Yaris

The Yaris is a good choice for teens on a budget who prioritize fuel economy; the EPA ratings are 29/35 city/highway in the automatic and 29/36 in the manual. From 2010 onward, ESC is standard, while side airbags are standard from 2009 onward. As with every vehicle on this list, it has both good frontal and side crash test scores. It also has the lowest horsepower on the list at 106, which makes it the safest teen choice, since cars that don’t come with a “fast” reputation are less likely to be used for speeding.

Small cars

2011+ Kia Forte

The Forte is the only small (compact) car to make the list of safe choices for teen drivers in 2016. It boasts good front and side crash test scores, side airbags, and ESC standard. It’s rated at up to 26/36 city/highway, making it one of the most fuel-efficient vehicles on this list. I’m also a fan of its low top horsepower (173); when it comes to teen drivers, the lower that figure, the better. And additionally, it’s one of the few vehicles on this list with a good roof strength rating and an existing small overlap rating, even though that’s unfortunately marginal.

Small SUVs

2005+ Honda CR-V

The CR-V, along with the Yaris, is one of the two most reliable vehicles on this list, and is highly recommended for parents who would like vehicles their teens can pay to repair due to low maintenance costs. It comes with ESC and side airbags as standard features from 2005 onward. It has both good frontal and side crash test scores and was rated at 23/29 in the automatic FWD. It’s also one of very few vehicles on the list with an AWD option. I’m also a fan of the lower horsepower at 160 hp.

2007+ Mitsubishi Outlander

The Outlander is one of only two small SUVs to make the cut, and it’s another good choice for teens. Originally rated at up to 20/27 mpg city/highway, it’s also fuel friendly. An additional safety bonus is the fact that it comes with an acceptable roof strength rating; most of the vehicles on this list weren’t evaluated for roof strength by the IIHS due to their age. Horsepower is higher than I’d like at 220 hp, but no vehicle is perfect.

Mid-sized cars

2004+ Acura TL

The TL is essentially a fancy and slightly larger Honda Civic, which says good things about its reliability. It’s also one of the best mid-sized cars on the list when it comes to fuel economy, with old EPA ratings as high as 20/30 city/highway in the manual and 20/28 city/highway in the automatic transmission. A significant downside is the large amount of horsepower; 270 hp is more than any teenager needs on the road.

2005+ Audi A4

The A4 is a souped up Volkswagen, which means it’s going to be expensive to maintain. However, it’s loaded with safety features and was rated at up to 24/32 city/highway, meaning you’ll save a bit at the pump (although you’ll then pay it back by having to fill up with premium…). The main negatives to the A4 beside the cost of maintaining them (which is huge) is the horsepower; they’re available with up to 255 hp, which is far more than any teen driver needs.

2006+ Volkswagen Passat

The Passat is another of several VW’s to make the list, which speaks well of VW’s commitment to safety (if not to their resale value). The Passat is essentially a less fancy and slightly larger A4, and is one of the largest vehicles I’m willing to recommend. Mileage is good at up to 23/32 city/highway in the manuals and up to 22/31 city/highway in the automatics in old EPA ratings. Downsides include maintenance and the availability of up to 280 horsepower, which is by far too much. It’s also one of the few vehicles on this list to come with a good roof score.

2009+ Volkswagen Jetta

The Jetta sedan and wagon didn’t make my affordability list last year, but have since fallen into the 5k price range, partially due to VW’s recent emissions scandals. It’s not going to be a very cheap vehicle to maintain compared to many others on the list, but it’s solid from the safety standpoint. As with its larger sibling the Passat, it comes with a good roof strength score. Mileage-wise, it’s at the top of the list, with up to 30/41 city/highway available, although this will require the diesel. Horsepower isn’t terribly high, topping out at 200 hp (remember: less is better).

2009+ Chevrolet Malibu

The Malibu is the first domestic vehicle to make the list, but holds its own well, coming in with a good roof strength score and up to 22/33 city/highway miles per gallon. Horsepower is the downside here, as it tops out at 252 hp, which, along with the size of the Malibu, could encourage more risk-taking behavior (though it’s still better than the truly excessive amounts in the Passat and TL).

2010+ Ford Fusion

The Fusion also represents the domestics well with a good roof strength score as well as all of the other safety features common to vehicles on this list. Mileage is even better than that in the Malibu, with up to 23/34 city/highway available in the “S” configuration. Horsepower, again, is the main downside, topping out at 263 horses.

2010+ Mitsubishi Galant

Finally, the Galant makes an appearance, although I add it with hesitation since Mitsubishi no longer makes vehicles in the US and appears to be retreating from the US market, which could make spare parts more difficult to find in the future. That said, the Galant is a strong vehicle, and offers an acceptable roof score and up to 21/30 city/highway miles per gallon. Horsepower is also a wonderfully restrained 160 hp.

So would you recommend avoiding high horsepower vehicles for my teen driver, Mike?

Absolutely. While not every teen will use a vehicle with lots of horsepower irresponsibly, if it’s a risk you can avoid, it’s worth avoiding. This is especially the case if your child is male, since teenage boys are far more likely to engage in risky behaviors while driving than female teen drivers, which is reflected in the significantly higher driver death rates for male teens than for female teens.

I hope you’ve found this article helpful and informative as a parent interested in finding safe and affordable transportation for you high-school or college-aged child. We can’t protect them from everything, but we can certainly keep them safer without going into debt or making the roads less safe for others in our communities.

—

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

Which Road Lane is Safest? Driving on the Left, Right, or Center?

September 21, 2016 Mike

The safest lane of travel is the right-most lane.

Lately, I’ve been writing a lot about best practices in driving safety. The truth of the matter is that, while around 35,000 people lose their lives due to auto traffic every year in the United States, we have a lot of influence over whether we or our loved ones become statistics or not. For example, did you know that the state you live in makes a big difference in your likelihood of involvement in a fatal crash? Or that you’re almost guaranteed to survive a head-on collision with a similarly-sized vehicle at up to 43 mph, but are very likely to die in that exact collision at 70 mph? Or that children should stay in rear-facing car seats until they’re at least 4, even though all but a handful of states only require them to do so until they’re 1? Or that driving with head lights or DRLs reduces the risk of frontal collisions?

What you know makes a big difference in your survival. Today’s topic deals with how to increase your odds of surviving car collisions on multi-lane roads. Specifically, my goal is to answer the question of which lane is the safest when you can choose between an outer and an inner lane, or an outer, center, and inner lane (or more) on larger roads.

Which lane is safest in city driving or at city (<30 mph) speeds?

At city speeds (i.e., up to 30 mph), you’re nearly guaranteed to survive both head-on and side impact collisions with minimal injury, presuming you’re in a vehicle with good crash scores and frontal and side airbags. However, I’d recommend driving in the outermost lane (that closest to the shoulder) as much as possible, as this reduces the risks of head-on collisions with vehicles that may be speeding or that may have considerable more mass (e.g., school buses).

Which lane is safest on undivided high sped roads (e.g., 55 mph roads)?

Undivided high speed roads are a bad, bad idea. — Undivided high speed roads (with or without motorcycles) are a bad, bad idea.

Undivided high speed (i.e., above 45 mph) roads are the most dangerous kinds of roads frequently found in the United States; they have the highest fatality rates because they are diametric to best practices. Hurling two vehicles at each other and expecting them to pass each other with inches to spare without any kind of barrier whatsoever would sound like a bad idea to anyone in theory, yet this is precisely what these roads are in practice. Best practices indicate avoiding such roads if they have speed limits above 43 mph. Because speed limits in the US are based in 5 mph increments, this means avoiding undivided roads with speed limits above 40 mph whenever possible, especially if there’s only one available lane in each direction.

If you need to drive on such a road, do your best to drive at or below 43 mph. And if you have multiple lanes to choose from, choose the outermost one. This won’t keep you from getting into a head-on collision by a distracted or inebriated driver who drifts into your lane, but it might give you vital seconds to slow down or steer out of the way, and sometimes, that’s all it takes to make the difference between life and death.

Which lane is safest on divided high speed roads (e.g., interstates)?

On divided (protected) roads, the biggest danger–that of oncoming traffic–is ideally eliminated or at least severely reduced. However, I still recommend the outermost lane because it’s the lane that will allow you to reach the shoulder most easily if you have vehicle trouble or if you need to avoid a vehicle traveling dangerously (e.g., speeding, swerving, etc) behind you. Such vehicles are additionally more likely to be using the innermost lanes, since those are the higher speed and passing lanes. Using the outermost lane reduces your risks of getting mixed up in things you want to stay away from.

Why do you recommend the outermost lane over the center lane?

I recommend the outermost lane in nearly every situation over the center or innermost lanes because the outermost lane is most likely to be the slowest lanes, and as discussed above, slow is safer. Additionally, if you’re unlucky enough to get bumped by a vehicle passing you while in the center lane, that can send you into a lane on your right or a lane on your left; neither of which is a desirable situation. When you’re in the outermost lane, the road works with you as a natural barrier and you also can make a much quicker exit in an emergency situation.

But doesn’t the outer lane place you at greater risk for side impacts?

No. Studies have shown that the risk of a side impact is roughly equal on both sides of a vehicle, and I also think the risk of side impacts are roughly equal no matter which lane you’re in. However, what’s certain is that if you’re hit while on an undivided road, there’s a 50-50 chance that the impact will send you toward or into oncoming traffic. The farther you are from that oncoming traffic (by being in the outermost lane), the lower your odds are of suffering a second severe impact.

In conclusion, while there are a lot of circumstances we have little to no control over when driving (e.g., 50% of auto fatalities among vehicles involve multiple vehicles), there are a great many we can influence by when and how we drive. Learn and live best practices. The life you save may not just be your own, but those of many you love (and many loved by others).

—

Four of the Narrowest Infant Seats for 3 Across Car Seat Installations

September 14, 2016 Mike

When it comes to 3 across car seat installations, the good news is that you can fit 3 car seats in almost any vehicle sold in the US if you have the right seats; this is why I put together (and continue to add to) my mega 3 across car seat guide. However, I don’t have every combination that will work in every vehicle listed, and sometimes you just want a quick guide to seats that are pretty much guaranteed to work in whatever you’re driving. I’ve written a guide to convertible seats that will fit 3 across in pretty much any vehicle out there, but a lot of parents asked for an equivalent guide for infant seats. This is that list. It doesn’t cover every single narrow infant seat on the market, but these are the narrowest I’ve measured that also have at least 30-pound rear-facing weight limits.

It took a while to test these in my narrowest vehicles (e.g., the Honda Fit and Toyota Yaris) to make sure they really would work just about everywhere, but I’m now confident that if you’ve got three functional seat belts and three seats attached to them, you’ll almost certainly be able to get 3 of the infant seats below to work in them. These seats can also be mixed and matched with the super narrow convertible seats I profiled earlier. As usual, you’ll want to use seat belts instead of LATCH when attempting any installation where space is an issue; remember that it’s just as safe as LATCH but far more convenient when it comes to multiple adjacent car seat installations.

The 4 narrowest infant car seats for 3 across installations in nearly any vehicle

Chicco KeyFit 30 – 17 inches. Review here, buy here.

The Chicco KeyFit 30 is my default infant seat recommendation for parents looking for a straightforward and 3-across-friendly infant option. It’s easy to install, it’s affordable at under $200, it has a great reputation, and it’s also among the narrowest infant seats you can buy.

Additional things I like about the KeyFit 30 include its compatibility with a range of Chicco strollers, the included infant insert that makes it easy to use with smaller babies, and the single pull tightener to adjust harness tension. The main downside to the KeyFit 30 is that its weight range is 4-30 pounds rather than 4-35 like much of the competition. I’d also like the 30″ height limit to be larger. However, it’s also one of the easiest infant seats on the market to install, and that’s a big, big pro for first time parents. And on the aesthetic end, it’s available in at least 9 colors.

Cybex Aton – 17 inches. Review coming, buy here.

The Cybex Aton raises the bar compared to the KeyFit right off the bat by including a 4-35 pound weight range, offering more room for growth by weight before you’ll need to look for a convertible seat (because you’ll want to keep rear-facing long past when your baby outgrows his or her infant seat). The seat itself also comes in at a svelte 9 pounds without the base, which makes more of a difference than you’d think when toting a 10 pound baby around.

Like the KeyFit, the Aton comes in at 17 inches in width, meaning you’ll be able to install it just about anywhere. It clicks into the base with a satisfying click and, like almost all infant seats on the market, can also be used without the base through a seat belt installation. I also like how it includes European belt routing as an option during baseless installs; it’s a nice alternative to the standard American belt routing, although either is safe. The main con to the Aton is that it costs a bit more than the KeyFit 30 and may not be as easy to find in stores; I recommend buying seats from Amazon anyway due to their hassle-free return system.

Cybex Aton 2 – 17 inches. Review here, buy here.

I reviewed the Cybex Aton 2 years ago and am still a fan of it as a well-designed and functional infant seat. The Aton 2 retains many of the great features of the original Aton while adding 10 color options and an adjustable load leg, which I discuss in detail in my review above. Overall, either seat is a solid choice when looking for a more high-end infant seat. It’s worth noting that the Aton 2 is also a little lighter than the Aton at slightly fewer than 9 pounds.

Something else to note is that I consistently found myself able to fit the Atons in slightly shorter spaces, in terms of front-to-back distance, than I did the KeyFit, when really pressed for space. In most situations, the seats were interchangeable, but it wasn’t always the case. The main disadvantage to the Aton 2 is the price, which is steeper than that of the original Aton, and significantly steeper than that of the KeyFit.

Peg Perego Primo Viaggio 4-35 – 17 inches. Review here, buy here.

Finally, the Primo Viaggio deserves mention as yet another strong competitor in the 17″ waistline range. As with the Atons, you’re also paying at least partly for the additional style and prestige of a European car seat, for whatever that’s worth, as the Atons are made in Germany and the Primo Viaggio is an Italian product. All of the seats I profile here are good ones, and the Viaggio is no exception.

Things I like in particular about the Primo Viaggio include the dizzying array of colors and fabric styles available for choosy parents (there are 18 options at last count), as well as the 4-35 pound weight limit and 32″ height limit, which is handy since most infants will end up outgrowing their seats by height before they do so by weight. The seat is a bit heavier than the Axons at 9.5 pounds, but is still comfortably under 10 pounds. The biggest downside is the price, which hovers consistently between $280 and $330 or more, depending on which color print you’re interested in and how available (or unavailable) it currently is.

Once I’ve got my infant seat, do I still need to worry about convertible seats or rear-facing down the line, or can I switch straight to forward-facing or booster seats after my child outgrows one of these seats?

Once your child outgrows his or her infant seat, you’ll absolutely want to continue rear-facing, and continue to do so for as long as possible. I recommend all parents rear-face until at least 4 if at all possible, just as parents do in Sweden (and now Norway). It’s safer than rear-facing at all ages, and we finally have seats in the US that are capable of allowing kids to stay safely harnessed rear-facing until the preschool or even kindergarten years. Seats like the Fllo, Foonf, Rainier, Pacifica, and Extend2Fit allow for rear-facing until 50 pounds, and in the case of the Extend2Fit, can be had for under $200. The protection they offer kids is immense, and well worth the investment.

If $200 is too much, you can still get at least 40 pounds of rear-facing goodness from seats like the Size4Me or Contender, which will allow most kids to rear-face until 4 or close to 4. Once you forward-face, I’d then recommend continuing to do so until your child turns 8 if possible, but that’s covered in detail in a different article (as is boostering until the 5-step test is passed, and remaining in the back seat until at least 13). Keeping kids safe in cars might seem complex, but it’s not too hard once you get into the habit of doing so.

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!

How Safe Are Your Passengers in a Small Overlap Crash?

September 7, 2016 Mike

The Hyundai Tuscon is the only vehicle tested with a "good" passenger-side small overlap score — The Hyundai Tuscon is the only vehicle tested with a “good” passenger-side small overlap score

Vehicles in the US today are, on average, safer than they have ever been. I’ve written about the best kinds of vehicles for avoiding and surviving some of the most dangerous kinds of crashes, including rollovers and side impact collisions, and will continue to do so. However, there is still much work to be done in car safety, and in the safety of all travelers. Today’s post focuses on the passenger component of the small impact collision. More and more new vehicles on the market are acing the IIHS’ small overlap test, which impacts the front left quarter of the vehicle. However, the IIHS recently ran the same test on the right quarter of a number of small SUVs and found that nearly all of them performed worse there than they did on the left, traditionally tested end, where all were rated “good.”

What does this mean for your family?

It means that if you’re unlucky enough to get into a passenger-side small overlap collision, your passenger might far significantly worse than you’d expect given the severity of the crash and the “official” (driver’s side) small overlap score of your vehicle. It means your spouse, partner, teenager, adult child, or other loved one might not be as protected as s/he should be because your vehicle’s manufacturer cut corners, knowing that part of the vehicle would not be subject to IIHS or NHTSA testing.

This is serious. But how serious is it, in terms of relative risk compared to other collisions?

How many annual right small overlap passenger fatalities occur in the US?

The IIHS stated more than 1,600 right-front passenger fatalities occurred from frontal crashes in 2014. They did not distinguish between crashes that occurred from direct (head-on) frontal crashes, passenger-side moderate overlap frontal crashes, and passenger-side small overlap frontal crashes, however, not to mention driver-side moderate overlap or small overlap crashes that still resulted in front passenger fatalities, so this figure is not particularly useful, especially since they also note that 32,675 people died overall in 2014 due to vehicular collisions.

Digging into the numbers further, the IIHS also states that 65% of the 32,675 motor vehicle deaths that year involved occupants of motor vehicles, or 21,102. Of those 21,102 individuals, 27% were passengers, which suggests approximately 5,698 passengers died in motor vehicles that year. If 1,600 of those passengers sat in the right front seat, it suggests at least 28%, or more than 1/4th of passenger fatalities occur in that seat. However, we still are left without an answer regarding the number of individuals who lost their lives while riding as front-right passengers in passenger-side small overlap collisions.

We don’t know how much of a risk this is. But if it’s easy to prevent some portion of those 1,600 deaths, it’s worth looking into.

Which small SUVs were involved, and how did they score? Let’s take a closer look.

The IIHS looked at a total of 7 small SUVs. I recently named four of these as the best in their class for rollover resistance (the Mazda CX-5, Hyundai Tucson, Honda CR-V, and Toyota RAV4). All had recent “good” driver-side ratings in the IIHS small overlap test, but when tested on the passenger-side, only one, the Hyundai Tucson, also featured a good passenger small overlap rating. Three, the Encore, CR-V, and CX-5, featured “acceptable” scores; two, the Rogue and Forester, featured “marginal” scores; and one, the RAV4, featured a “poor” score.

Good small SUVs

2016 Hyundai Tucson

The 2016 Tucson was the only vehicle the IIHS tested to feature a “good” small overlap score on the passenger side in addition to on the driver’s side. The Tucson was also one of the best small SUVs I found for all-around rollover protection. In light of its performance in this particular test, I have no issues describing it as the safest small SUV currently on the market.

My full 3 across car seat guide to the current Tucson is here.

Acceptable small SUVs

2015-2016 Buick Encore

The Encore, which is the same vehicle as the Chevrolet Trax, was one of three vehicles to receive a good driver-side small overlap score but only an acceptable passenger-side equivalent score. While the IIHS only tested the 2015 Encore, I would also extend my rating to the 2016 Encore, as it has not had any significant changes in its structural design in the past year.

My full 3 across car seat guide to the Encore is here.

2012-2016 Honda CR-V

The current generation CR-V was described as having a symmetrical front undercarriage structure, and besides gaining an acceptable score for passenger-side small overlap protection, it also got a good score for an additional passenger-side moderate overlap test, which the IIHS found reassuring. Although the IIHS only looked at the 2015 CR-V, I’m extending my rating to the 2012-2016 years, as the last significant change to the CR-V occurred in 2012.

My full 3 across car seat guide to the CR-V is here.

2013-2016 Mazda CX-5

Like the CR-V, the CX-5 also had a good driver-side small overlap score but only an acceptable one on the provision passenger-side test, indicating Mazda, like Honda, has work to do in this area. The CX-5 was the highest-rated small SUV in my list of rollover-resistant vehicles.

My full 3 across car seat guide to the CX-5 is here.

Marginal small SUVs

2014 Nissan Rogue

The Rogue already has the dubious distinction of being one of the few small SUVs that is currently 3 across incompatible due to overlapping seat belts, and on top of that, was also one of the worst performing SUVs tested by the IIHS in its provisional passenger-side small overlap screener. The IIHS noted that the Rogue appeared symmetrical when inspected, but had much more intrusion on the passenger end than they did on the driver’s end. Specifically, the IIHS stated there were 10 more inches of intrusion on the passenger-side compared to the driver-side in the Rogue, and that the door hinge pillar was completely torn off.

My explanation of car seat challenges related to the Rogue is here.

2014-2016 Subaru Forester

Like the Rogue, the Forester also had a disappointing performance in the passenger-side small overlap test, which is surprising given Subaru’s recent touting of the safety of their vehicles. Ideally, they’ll correct this, and soon. The IIHS noted that the Forester, like every SUV on the list besides the Rogue and RAV4, appeared symmetrical when inspected, but had much more intrusion on the passenger end than it did on the driver’s end.

My 3 across guide to the Forester is here.

Poor small SUVs

2013-2016 Toyota RAV4

The only small SUV to score poorly in this preliminary passenger-side small overlap test was the RAV4. The IIHS noted that the RAV4 was one of only two asymmetrically structured vehicles they tested (the other being the Rogue), and was the worst performing vehicle on the list with the greatest amount of passenger-side intrusion. In particular, there were 13 more inches of intrusion on the passenger-side when tested than on the driver-side. Additionally, the passenger door opened during the collision, which would have placed the passenger at a much higher risk of ejection from the vehicle. This is completely unacceptable, and Toyota needs to work on this immediately.

My 3 across guide to the RAV4 is here.

How do I keep my passengers safe if I don’t drive one of the “good” or “acceptable” vehicles on this list?

This is a great question. As of today, the IIHS has only released passenger-side small overlap crash test information for 7 small SUVs, which represents a small fraction of currently available vehicles. My advice for families who don’t drive one of the 4 vehicles rated “good” or “acceptable” on this list would be to stick with the basics of driving safely. In particular, making sure every occupant is buckled on every drive, only driving with a 0.00% BAC, and driving the speed limit every single time will make your occupants safer than those of 90% of vehicle occupants on the road.

Will the IIHS begin to test all vehicles for passenger-side small overlap performance?

Yes! The IIHS suggested a ratings program for passenger-side small overlap tests would resolve the tendencies of manufacturers to cut corners on passenger-side small overlap performance. They hinted at starting a testing program in 2017, and making good or acceptable performance on such a test a requirement for a safety award as soon as in 2018, two years away. Whether they will do this remains to be seen, but I’d rate the likelihood as high, given the IIHS’ penchant for devising new testing programs and continually raising the bar for their Top Safety Pick awards.

—

Vision Zero: Which speeds make car crashes unsurvivable?

September 1, 2016 Mike

This is an example of an unprotected vehicle. — This mother and child have as much of a right to life as do the travelers in the protected vehicles around them. But their odds of survival drop dramatically if the vehicles around them travel faster than 20 mph.

I’ve written about Vision Zero before in the context of Volvo, which made a pledge some years ago to have none of their customers die or be seriously injured by the year 2020. Whether or not they achieve this goal, the core value behind the Vision Zero approach (approved in Sweden in 1997 and brought to a growing number of additional countries, including the US) is that the death and destruction caused by the automobile does not have to be a given, and that we can, should, and must work to reduce the negative impact of the automobile on human life.

I fully agree with this goal, and it’s a guiding principle behind the articles I write on this blog. Yes, it’s great to get safer vehicles, but we also need to remember that the greater goal must involve the protection of all citizens, including those who don’t have access to the safest vehicles due to financial reasons, such as the poor and elderly, or those who can’t or use cars, trucks, and SUVs at all, like cyclists, motorcyclists, children, and pedestrians.

Is Vision Zero Working, and who should we learn from?

It’s worth noting that Sweden has improved their road safety to the point of becoming one of the global leaders in the minimization of deaths and serious injuries. In 1997, their per capita auto death rate was approximately 7 per 100,000; today, they’re among the top nations on the planet with a rate of 2.8/100,000 in 2014. The US, in comparison, had a death rate of 10.2/100,000 in 2014.

Vision Zero is working in Sweden, as well as in other countries around the world that have taken meaningful and consistent steps to adopt it (e.g., Norway, which also had a 2.8 per capita rate in 2014). It has not shown as much success in nations unwilling to fundamentally alter their principles in road design. It’s worth looking into some of the central tenets of the approach from people who work with it on a daily basis.

With this in mind, here’s an excerpt from a 2014 interview with Matts-Ake Belin, a traffic safety strategist in the Swedish Transport Administration. He’s one of the main figures behind VZ, and here’s what his team has found about the human body’s capacities to absorb injury. Much of this will ring true with policies I advocate on the blog.

What speeds make crashes unsurvivable in and out of vehicles?

…in Vision Zero, the accident is not the major problem. The problem is that people get killed or seriously injured. And the reason that people get serious injuries is mainly because people have a certain threshold where we can tolerate external violence, kinetic energy. And we know quite well now how much violence we can tolerate.

Right off the bat, Belin brings good information. Just as there is a limit to the number of individuals our planet can support, there is a limit to the amount of force the human body can manage. The VZ folks call it “external violence”, but whatever the terminology, the point remains the same: we can only absorb so much energy.

I’ve written about this endlessly in the context of frontal and side collisions in vehicles, as well as in reasons to rear-face instead of forward-face. When you rear-face a child, the energy in a collision is primarily distributed throughout the child’s back, which has a much larger surface area, mass, and ability to absorb shock than solely the child’s head and neck, which are charged with absorbing that same shock in a frontal collision.

In the context of crashes, I’ve repeatedly found that once the forces in a head-on or side collision exceed about 200% of the forces the vehicle was designed to support (i.e., the forces it withstood in a crash test where it received a “good” score), survival rates seem to drop rapidly from close to 100% to much, much lower odds (I’d estimate 67% at 200% of tested forces). At 300% of crash-tested forces, I’d estimate survival odds tentatively at around 33%. These aren’t good odds. And remember that the IIHS tests head-on and side-impact collisions at 40 and 31 mph, respectively. If you’re involved in a head-on collision at 70 mph, you’re already at 306% of the forces your vehicle was designed to keep you alive in. The odds are pretty strong that anyone in the front row is going to die. Similarly, if you’re t-boned at 55 mph, you’re already at 315% of the forces your vehicle was designed to keep you alive in. Once again, anyone on the impacted side of the vehicle is probably going to die.

Speed kills.

One of the major things with Vision Zero now is to put that more explicitly on the table. It’s like if we’re talking about the environment, and you know you have a certain threshold when it comes to poison, or whatever. You can tolerate up to a certain level. So it’s not just to stop the traffic. You can actually allow traffic. But if you have places in your system where you have unprotected road users and protected road users, according to Vision Zero you can’t allow a higher speed than 30 kilometers per hour [18.6 mph].

Belin here underscores the logic behind the “20 is plenty” campaigns throughout Europe that are slowly (very slowly) making their way to the US. Actually, we’ve had an equivalent policy for decades in the US–it’s the reason why school zones throughout the country have 20 mph speed limits when children are present. The problem is that pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists, and children don’t get any of this protection unless they happen to be moving through school zones while children (and perhaps police) are present. But the physics doesn’t change. If you’re an unprotected road user (which basically means anyone who isn’t in a vehicle with a steel frame, closed doors, crash scores, seat belts, and front and side airbags), you can’t mix with protected road users (anyone in a car, truck, SUV, minivan, etc) at more than 20 mph, or else your odds of death in a collision rise rapidly.

Once again, speed kills. This time, much lower speeds kill.

This is huge. But what do our odds look like if we’re in protected vehicles? Let’s turn to a study done by Monash University in 1999:

As you can see, this is where Belin got his numbers from. If pedestrians meet cars, traffic can’t move beyond 30 kph (18.6 mph). It just can’t.

If individuals are in cars and wearing seat belts on roads with risks of side impacts, traffic can’t move beyond 50 kph, or 31 mph. This, not-coincidentally, is the typical speed in residential areas in the US. However, it’s frequently exceeded by drivers, and it’s already far in the danger zone for the kinds of individuals who are and should be everywhere in residential areas (pedestrians, children, cyclists, etc). Also note how that is exactly the threshold at which the IIHS tests side impact collisions.

If everyone is buckled in and in protected vehicles and there isn’t a risk of side impacts, the limit for frontal impacts is described as 70 kph, or 43.4 mph. Note again how this is right about where the IIHS tests its moderate- and small-overlap crashes.

Finally, if there isn’t a risk of side or frontal impacts due to barriers between opposing route traffic, the top speeds for well-designed vehicles and restrained passengers can exceed 100 kph, or 62 mph. However, this again requires the impossibility of head-on or side-collisions. When restrained in well-designed vehicles, we can handle collisions with forgiving barriers at high speeds. We can’t handle those collisions or speeds when interacting with other vehicles in head-on collisions. We’re even more vulnerable to side collisions. We’re at our most vulnerable when we aren’t in protected vehicles at all.

Best practices in survivability thresholds have been open knowledge for decades. But it won’t help us until we start designing our roads with this knowledge in mind.

We are all worth protecting, regardless of how we move.

—