3 Across Installations: Which Car Seats Fit Well in a Lexus GX?

February 10, 2016 Mike

The Lexus GX, known as the Toyota Land Cruiser Prado outside of the US, is one of the most popular mid-sized luxury SUVs sold in the United States. It competes with a range of 3 row luxury SUVs like the Volvo XC90, Acura MDX, BMW X5, Mercedes-Benz GL-Class, Buick Enclave, Land Rover Range Rover Sport, Cadillac Escalade, Audi Q7, and Infiniti QX60. It’s also reliable that pretty much all of the rest put together, being based on Toyota architecture (much like its smaller and larger twins, the RX and the LX).

As a result, it’s no surprise that the GX in its various iterations (e.g., the GX 470, GX 460, GX 400, etc) is a popular vehicle among families interested in safety, luxury, and Lexus reliability. It seats 7-8 passengers, depending on which generation you’ve purchased, and is one of the safest vehicles on the road. However, I wanted to figure out just how well it did when it came to fitting car seats across the 2nd row (and 3rd row if you’ve got a 1st gen 8-seater).

Before going into which seats worked (a lot of them) and which ones didn’t (very few), let’s take a quick look at which kinds of seats you’ll want to use with your children, when you’ll want to use them, how you’ll want to face them, and why.

For me, the most basic and essential part of car seat safety involves rear-facing. It’s the safest position we know of, and the longer our kids rear-face, the safer they’ll be, regardless of what kind of vehicle they travel in. I recommend keeping children in rear-facing infant or convertible seats as long as possible (ideally until 4!), then keeping them harnessed in forward-facing seats for several years more (ideally until 6, 7, or 8!), and then only switching them out of booster seats when they pass the 5 step test (which typically happens between 10 and 12). The goal is to keep kids in the safest kinds of seats for as long as possible to increase their odds of surviving serious car crashes.

With that all in mind, I got to work with my seats to create what I believe to be the most detailed 3 across guide for the GX / Land Cruiser on the Internet. If you find the list helpful when shopping for car seats, you can shop through my Amazon link below. I’ll add more seats as I test them over time.

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

2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 Lexus GX (J150)

Guaranteed 3 across installations:

Clek Fllo (x3).

Clek Foonf (x3).

Diono Radian RXT (x3).

Diono Radian R120 (x3).

Diono Radian R100 (x3).

Chicco KeyFit 30 (x3).

Graco Size4Me 65 (x3).

Graco Head Wise 65 (x3).

Graco Fit4Me 65 (x3).

Graco Contender (x3).

Combi Coccoro (x3).

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

Tips and Tricks:

The second generation Lexus GX is currently just over 192 inches long and just over 74 inches wide. As a result, you’re going to be able to fit a lot of car seats in 3 across configurations in the 2nd row, but you’ll only be able to fit 2 across in the 3rd row, because the 2nd gen GX is only a 7-seater instead of an 8-seater. That said, as long as you use your seat belts instead of the LATCH anchors, you’ll be able to fit most common seats there, including the ones I’ve described above.

The generous amount of room between the 1st and 2nd row also means you shouldn’t struggle with front-to-back room, although you’ll definitely struggle with the installation of rear-facing seats if you try to use them in the 3rd row. Fortunately, you can either slide or tilt the 2nd row to access the 3rd row, which makes getting back there at least a little easier.

2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 Lexus GX (J120)

Guaranteed 3 across installations:

Clek Fllo (x3).

Clek Foonf (x3).

Diono Radian RXT (x3).

Diono Radian R120 (x3).

Diono Radian R100 (x3).

Chicco KeyFit 30 (x3).

Graco Size4Me 65 (x3).

Graco Head Wise 65 (x3).

Graco Fit4Me 65 (x3).

Graco Contender (x3).

Combi Coccoro (x3).

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

Tips and Tricks:

The first generation Lexus GX is just over 188 inches long and exactly 74 inches wide, which makes it about 4 inches shorter than the generation that follows it. Because the interior dimensions are about the same in the 2nd row, however, you’ll be able to fit pretty much all the seats of the current generation there.

Additionally, if you have the 8-passenger GX, you’ll be able to squeeze a few seats (the Radians and the Clek seats) into the 3rd row in 3 across setups, although it will be a very tight fit. As usual, use seat belts for all installations instead of LATCH to avoid frustration and make the installations possible with wider seats.

—

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.

Why Should Everyone Drive Small Cars? It Makes Us All Safer!

February 5, 2016 Mike

Small cars are better for everyone, including the planet. Here's why. — Small cars are better for everyone, including the planet. Here’s why.

Driving small cars is one of those things that sometimes gets looked down on in the United States. Sure, poor college students, city dwellers, and tree huggers might be interested in compacts and sub-compacts, but everyone knows that if you’ve got the money for it, big vehicles are not only safer but a sign of your success in life, right?

Well, I won’t speak to the second point (that’s more of a topic for another kind of blog), but I can definitely speak to the first, and have multiple times in the past, such as when arguing for pedestrian safety, when informing parents about safe budget-friendly vehicles for teen drivers, or when describing how small cars can have lower death rates than large cars, SUVs, minivans, and pickup trucks.

Here are 4 reasons why every driver should drive a small car or SUV instead of a large car, pickup truck, or minivan unless necessary to do otherwise. If you need to transport more than 5 people at least once a month, for example, or if you actually use 5,000+ pounds of towing capacity on a monthly basis, you get a pass.

Small cars are safer for pedestrians, children, cyclists, and motorcyclists due to smaller mass and better visibility.

This is the most humanitarian reason to choose a small car over a large one, and it’s the argument I make the most often for this choice. To put it simply, no matter how many additional pounds we cram into vehicles under the auspices of safety, there are certain road users who will never be able to take advantage of them by definition: people who walk or wheel around.

Each of us is a pedestrian at some point in the day, unless we’re completely convalescent. Each of us either has a child, knows a child, knows someone with a child, or was once a child. Many of us are also currently, once were, or know cyclists and motorcyclists. And all of these people–all of us–deserve protection. We deserve to be able to use our streets and sidewalks and cities and towns without fearing death each time we step out of buildings and dare to use modes of transportation that don’t involve four wheels and steel cages.

Large cars, pickups, and SUVs are more likely to kill people outside of vehicles than small ones at any speed, simply because they have more mass, which means they transfer more energy into people. And there is a very limited amount of energy, relatively speaking, that a person can handle. Small vehicles give people a fighting chance, however small, of survival.

Besides the mass point, small vehicles also tend to have much better visibility than large vehicles, which makes them less likely to run over (forwards or backwards) pedestrians, children, cyclists, and motorcyclists. You rarely hear of people in Ford Fiestas backing over toddlers while reversing out of their driveways. You hear it much more frequently when it occurs with a large SUV or pickup truck, because it happens much more frequently in those (giant) kinds of vehicles.

Big cars / pickup trucks / SUVs are more likely to kill occupants in small vehicles in multiple-vehicle collisions while offering no advantage in single vehicle crashes.

This is one of the most readily-understood reasons to choose a small car over a large one; larger vehicles put smaller vehicles at risk. Unfortunately, many people draw the selfish instead of the selfless conclusion, and buy the largest vehicles possible in order to “improve their odds” in a crash.

It makes sense on the surface; if everyone else is driving big vehicles, you should buy one too to avoid being the odd man or woman out.

Unfortunately, the sense becomes senseless with a bit more thinking: if everyone else is driving big vehicles, then there aren’t any advantages to driving big ones too, unless you can find a bigger one.

In other words, you either have to join the insanity and in fact propagate it by buying ever-larger vehicles to stay ahead of the curve, or you have to put yourself at greater risk by driving a smaller vehicle, even though if more people followed your decision, the risks of driving a smaller vehicle would be eliminated.

The reason larger vehicles put smaller vehicles at risk in multiple vehicle collisions is…well, physics. Every body (e.g., a person, a bullet, or a vehicle) carries some amount of kinetic energy while in motion. The formula is .5 * mass * velocity * velocity. In a head-on collision between two vehicles of identical mass and speed, they deliver equal amounts of energy to each other. If one vehicle weighs significantly more than the other, however, such as when a 3,000 lb vehicle is hit by a 4,000 lb vehicle at the same speed, the heavier vehicle delivers significantly more energy to the lighter one while the lighter one delivers significantly less to the heavier one. In short, the occupant of the heavier vehicle puts the occupants of the smaller vehicle at greater risks of injury or death.

Many of us are okay with this. But we shouldn’t be. If not because we shouldn’t be okay with harming others, then because we can’t guarantee that we or our loved ones will always be in the bigger vehicle.

Beyond these points, large vehicles offer no advantages in single vehicle crashes. This is readily visible by the fact that around 50% of fatalities in vehicles of all sizes tend to be single vehicle crashes. Your mass doesn’t help you in a rollover or if you run into a tree or a telephone pole. It just makes you more likely to kill any pedestrians or occupants of smaller vehicles you run into.

Besides that, remember that some small cars have lower driver death rates than many much larger cars, pickup trucks, and SUVs.

Big cars / pickup trucks / SUVs offer no protection in collisions with large vehicles (e.g., semi-trailers, box trucks, school buses, regular buses, dump trucks, garbage trucks) or any vehicle requiring a CDL.

This is the least considered drawback to choosing a large car, SUV, or pickup truck, yet it’s closely tied to the previous reason to avoid them: big cars, pickup trucks, and SUVs aren’t going to keep you or your family safe if you’re hit by a truly large vehicle–the kind that requires a CDL, or commercial driver’s license. And there are a *lot* of those vehicles on our road.

You see them every day: semis, delivery trucks, school buses, normal buses, and garbage trucks are everywhere. And a vehicle that weighs 20,000; 40,000; or even 80,000 pounds is going to do exactly the same kind of life-ending damage to a 2,000; 4,000; or 8,000 lb vehicle. Your F-150 won’t protect you; nor will your duallie or your Tahoe or any other typical vehicle. Don’t even think about RVs; they don’t have to adhere to crash safety standards, so they offer no protection against vehicles that do (i.e., anything that requires a CDL).

So even if you don’t care about pedestrians or people in small cars, you might want to care about the fact that your big car is still a very, very small car compared to many of the truly large vehicles that roam our roads.

Small cars are better for the environment and better for your wallet.

This final set of reasons appeals to both individualist and collectivist mindsets. On the environmental side, small cars produce fewer emissions, which results in greater health across our country and less damage to the atmosphere. They also require less gasoline, which leads to less environmental destruction and hopefully fewer wars. They require less infrastructure to support them, which means fewer giant highways, pedestrian-killing high-speed city roads, and concrete desert parking lots.

On the personal end, small cars get better fuel economy, are easier to park, and are also cheaper to buy and maintain. And any of these reasons are worth considering.

Consider a smaller car for your next purchase, and encourage those you love to do the same. In the long run, it increases the safety and quality of our planet for everyone. And remember that small doesn’t have to mean unsafe.

—

3 Across Installations: Volkswagen Touareg, Which Car Seats?

January 31, 2016 Mike

The Volkswagen Touareg is one of many mid-to-large SUVs available for families in the US. A larger counterpart to the Tiguan, it competes with a range of 2-row crossovers, including the Nissan Murano, Ford Edge, Dodge Journey, Kia Sorento, Hyundai Santa Fe, Chevrolet Equinox, GMC Terrain, Jeep Cherokee, and Jeep Grand Cherokee. It shares the same platform as the Audi Q7, which stands to reason since both are ultimately made by Volkswagen. In 2017, it was replaced in the US market with the slightly larger Atlas, which I review here.

As a result, the Touareg is frequently considered by families interested in safe and capable transportation, particularly when there’s a need for impressive towing capabilities. I took a look at the Touareg across both generations to figure out how well of a job it does when it comes to installing 3 car seats in the back row. The Touareg comes with great safety features, including good moderate overlap front and side crash scores, a strong roof, ESC, side airbags with rollover sensors, and daytime running lights. These are all features every vehicle made in this century should have, but when it comes to car seats, we don’t want to assume things will work because the vehicles themselves are good.

Before we figure out which seats I was and was not able to make work in the Touareg, let’s take a look at which kinds of seats should be used, when they should be used, for how long, and why. If you know all of this already, feel free to skip down to the guides below.

For me, car seat safety starts with rear-facing. It’s the safest position we know of, and the longer our kids rear-face, the safer they’ll be, regardless of what kind of vehicle they travel in. I recommend keeping children in rear-facing infant or convertible seats as long as possible (ideally until 4!), then keeping them harnessed in forward-facing seats for several years more (ideally until 8!), and then only switching them out of booster seats when they pass the 5 step test (which typically happens between 10 and 12). The goal is to keep kids in the safest kinds of seats for as long as possible to increase their odds of surviving serious car crashes.

With that all in mind, I got to work with my seats to create what I believe to be the most detailed 3 across guide for the Volkswagen Touareg on the Internet. If you find the list helpful when shopping for car seats, you can shop through my Amazon link below. I’ll add more seats as I test them over time.

2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 Volkswagen Touareg (7P5)

Guaranteed 3 across installations:

Clek Fllo (x3).

Clek Foonf (x3).

Diono Radian RXT (x3).

Diono Radian R120 (x3).

Diono Radian R100 (x3).

Chicco KeyFit 30 (x3).

Graco Size4Me 65 (x3).

Graco Contender (x3).

Chicco NextFit (x3).

Clek Oobr (x3).

Combi Coccoro (x3).

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

Tips and Tricks:

The second and current generation Touareg is a shade larger than the first at just under 189 inches long and more than 76 inches wide. The interior is designed reasonably well and will allow you to fit nearly any combination of infant, convertible, combination, or booster seats in 3 across combinations that you can think of, as long as you’re willing to use seat belts if necessary.

You’ll be able to get away with using LATCH on the outboard seats if they’re narrow enough, but I always recommend starting with seat belt installations when aiming for 3 across, since seat belts are as safe as LATCH but give you much more room for 3 across setups.

Given the length of the Touareg, you probably won’t need to worry too much about front-to-back room with most seats. However, if you’ve got taller drivers or are planning on using seats like Dionos or Cleks with infants (and remember, you can use convertible seats to leave the hospital), you might want to check out the rear-facing convertible space comparison to help you preserve as much leg room as possible.

2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 Volkswagen Touareg (7L)

Guaranteed 3 across installations:

Clek Fllo (x3).

Clek Foonf (x3).

Diono Radian RXT (x3).

Diono Radian R120 (x3).

Diono Radian R100 (x3).

Graco Size4Me 65 (x3).

Graco Contender (x3).

Chicco NextFit (x3).

Chicco KeyFit 30 (x3).

Clek Oobr (x3).

Combi Coccoro (x3).

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

Tips and Tricks:

The first generation Touareg is just over 187 inches long and just under 76 inches wide. The interior is designed reasonably well and will allow you to fit nearly any combination of infant, convertible, combination, or booster seats in 3 across combinations that you can think of, as long as you’re willing to use seat belts if necessary.

—

Kelli Smith is Innocent, Missouri Highway Patrol Incompetent

January 26, 2016 Mike

It’s been a while since I’ve written about a crash, but I couldn’t let this one go. On the surface, it looked like a head-on collision caused by a drunk driver speeding the wrong way down the interstate, like the case I wrote up involving Reagan Hartley some time ago. The Missouri Highway Patrol and Judge Dalton thought so too, and essentially railroaded Kelli Smith into a conviction.

However, they were wrong, and thankfully Smith’s lawyer, Jennifer Bukowsky, didn’t give up, and convinced the Missouri Court of Appeals to take another look. It’s been a while since I’ve seen such incompetence in a traffic case. Let’s take a look at the tragic timeline of events as outlined in the St. Louis Today and try to make some sense of everything that happened.

The Crash

On the night of February 25th, 2012, Kelli Smith, then 22, was at a bar with friends in Columbia, Missouri, and then drove a number of male acquaintances to their home nearby. She remembers nothing from this point on.

Three of the seven men at that home were later interviewed, and each denied they had had sex with Smith, though all stated they had been drinking. Everyone denied seeing Smith with drinks, and no one remembered who had last been seen with her.

However, later that evening, she reversed her Nissan Xterra into a parked car in Columbia, then entered Interstate 70 in the wrong lane. At 3 AM she caused a minor collision in Callaway County, and then at around 3:30 AM crashed into Thomas David Sullivan II, 35. He unfortunately perished at the scene.

Smith was discovered naked below the waist with her pants crumpled in the back seat of her vehicle. She was suffering from a brain injury. Her underwear, purse, cell phone, and one of her shoes were missing. She was later discovered to have matching bruises on her inner wrists, cervical injuries, finger marks on her inner thighs, and hand prints on the inside ceiling of her vehicle.

Smith had no memory of anything beyond driving acquaintances home that evening. Paramedics would later state her breath had smelled of alcohol, but that they had not noticed her missing pants at first.

At University Hospital in Columbia, where she had been airlifted, she did not regain consciousness for a week. However, the night she arrived, a doctor had examined her, noticed thigh bruising, and ordered a sexual assault exam, suspecting rape.

The Blood

More than 7 hours after the collision, the Missouri Highway Patrol drew her blood and determined her BAC to be 0.085, and assumed it had been significantly higher many hours earlier. Cpl. Miller had a nurse draw the blood, although he did not retrieve Smith’s jeans to test them for evidence.

The blood draw on February 25th was not sterile, and it was done without a warrant or an arrest. He did nothing with the blood sample for two days besides store it in his patrol vehicle before he dropped it off at a court house. It did not undergo refrigeration until March 6th or testing until March 12th, despite patrol policy requiring such samples be kept from extreme temperatures. Miller later testified he’d kept his car in a heated shed and hadn’t exposed it to freezing temperatures while driving.

During the trial, an expert for the defense testified BAC levels could increase due to (alcoholic) fermentation during improper storage, especially if that improper storage occurred over time. The witness also stated that delayed or overly general tests could miss frequently chosen date rape drugs.

The test used on Smith’s blood also missed a pair of drugs given to Smith in the hospital. An expert testified that either drug could also have been used as a date rape drug.

Bukowsky stated that too little blood had been drawn from Smith to allow for further tests to be conducted.

The Judge and Jury

Smith was charged with involuntary manslaughter in May. Smith’s attorney, Jennifer Bukowsky, mounted the defense that Smith had been given a date rape drug and then sexually assaulted. She argued the MHP didn’t look at this possibility, even though the crash was a strange one and Smith’s injuries should have triggered warnings.

During the trial, Eric Stacks, a Highway Patrol investigator with the MHP, testified that due to his prior involvement in dozens of rape cases, he had been consulted regarding the likelihood of sexual assault in this case. He stated that Smith had been examined and no semen had been found. He also added that after reviewing the accident scene and photographs from the hospital, he discussed the case with other investigators and decided none of her injuries necessarily occurred due to any factors beyond the crash. He closed his investigation at that point.

When cross-examined, Bukowsky questioned Stacks regarding the bruises on Smith’s cervix.

Smith responded that he did not know what a cervix was.

The Montgomery County Circuit Judge, Wesley Dalton, made a number of rulings before the trial to prevent Bukowsky from mounting a full defense of involuntary intoxication. Specifically, he stated she could not mention that the case involved a potential sexual assault and date rape drugs when selecting a jury or when making opening statements. While she was later allowed to make some of these inferences during the trial, Bukowsky stated the judge still restricted her ability to mount a full defense.

During the trial, unbeknownst to Bukowsky, one juror had stated during deliberations that she had been raped four times and believed Smith would have remembered the trauma of rape had it occurred. Two other jurors had apparently had loved ones who had been subjected to date rape drugs and they had stated that Smith would not have been capable of driving had she been drugged.

Upon learning this after the trial, Bukowsky stated these jurors could have been stricken before selected, or at least questioned further regarding their potential partiality. However, she did not have this information prior to or during the trial.

The jury convicted Smith in December 2014. She was sentenced to 5 years in prison.

Bukowsky appealed.

The Appeal

Three judges who formed the Missouri Court of Appeals threw out her conviction and sentence on December 22, 2015. They noted the jury wasn’t informed about potential issues with interpreting Smith’s blood-alcohol content, and noted that they might have examined the evidence differently if they’d known better.

Mike’s Thoughts

This is one of the most unfair auto cases I’ve looked into in years. So many factors should have prevented this case from going to trial to begin with, or from being completed as a trial as the facts stand. Smith should never have spent a minute in jail, and should be compensated by the state for their gross incompetence.

How did things go this wrong?

Multiple jurors were extremely uneducated and highly prejudiced regarding the varied effects of date rape drugs (because yes, much like alcohol, they can drug people to the point of erasing memories of any conceivable trauma, and yes, they can wear down over time enough to leave people capable of driving yet incapable of driving safely, much like alcohol). The judge made a number of questionable and sexist decisions to cripple the defense (why else would he effectively bar Bukowsky from suggesting Smith might have been drugged and raped, rather than simply drunk?). The “highway investigator” did not know what a cervix was (how is he still employed in any capacity related to the determination of assaults involving the female body?). The highway patrol officer drove around with perishable medical evidence (the blood of a drugged rape survivor) in his car for days. The hospital drug test missed multiple potential date rape drugs administered by the hospital. Smith was discovered without pants, underwear, or any memory of the last several hours.

This is insanity.

We have a long way to go in our treatment of sexual assault survivors in this country. Well, in every country. But right now my focus is on this country.

Kelly Smith is innocent. The Missouri Highway Patrol is incompetent. Thomas Sullivan is dead, and his murderer, and Smith’s rapist, is walking the streets as you read this.

—

How Dangerous are Senior Drivers Compared to Teenagers?

January 21, 2016 Mike

More than 30,000 Americans die each year due to auto-related collisions. I started this blog to reduce this number, and am happy to have helped thousands of parents make safer car seat and vehicular choices for their children and families. This has become my life’s work.

Drilling down into the numbers, it becomes apparent, however, that some drivers are more dangerous than others.

How safe are seniors (65+) compared to teenagers?

Earlier I wrote about how the most dangerous drivers on the road, in terms of involvement in fatal collisions per mile traveled, weren’t seniors, as is commonly thought in the US, but actually 16 to 29-year-old male drivers in general, and 16 to 19-year-old male drivers in particular. This information is summarized again here through this IIHS chart:
The chart is a good start, as at first glance, it clearly disproves the notion that senior drivers are our most dangerous on the road. In the United States, citizens are typically classified as seniors once turning 65, as this is when they become eligible for Medicare (and when they used to become fully eligible for Social Security, although this has age of eligibility has unfortunately been scaled up over the years).

The chart suggests the safest drivers, both male, and female, are those between 30 and 69, or more specifically, between 30 and 59 and between 60 and 69. The 60-69 group clearly involves a number of seniors, yet they still contribute to the group of the safest drivers.

The 70 and over crowd becomes somewhat less safe, but both male and female drivers 70 or older are still less likely to be involved in fatal collisions per mile traveled than men between 16 and 29 and women between 16 and 19. Overall, drivers as a whole 70 and older are safer than drivers as a whole between 16 and 29, primarily due to just how unsafe male drivers are between 16 and 29.

To put it simply, 16-19-year-old teenagers are more likely to be involved in fatal collisions per mile traveled than drivers over 65, regardless of gender.

OK, so seniors 65 and over are safer overall than teenagers. But how safe are seniors 80 and over compared to teenagers?

With this question, the picture becomes a bit more complicated, as information involving large numbers of people tends to be. Let’s split the age cohorts a bit more, adding a category of drivers between 20 and 24, a category of drivers between 25 and 29, a category of drivers between 70 and 79, and a category of drivers 80 and older. Are seniors still going to be universally safer than the average male driver under 30 or the average female driver under 20?

Not quite. Let’s look at another chart of IIHS data that answers this question:

The chart offers more resolution than the other one. Seventy to 79-year-old drivers overall are still safer than 16 to 29-year-olds overall, but as a group, 80 and older drivers become the group most likely to be involved in fatal collisions per mile traveled.

Specifically, male drivers 80 and over are still less likely to be involved in fatal collisions per mile traveled than male 16 to 19-year-olds, who remain the most dangerous age and gender cohort, and almost identical to 20 to 24-year old male drivers. However, because of how safe female drivers are overall–even the 16 to 19-year-old female cohort–the 80 and older female cohort become the most dangerous female cohort, and the overall cohort of 80 and older drivers becomes the most dangerous group on the road.

To put it simply, 16 to 19-year-old teenagers are more likely to be involved in fatal collisions per mile traveled than drivers between 65 and 79, regardless of gender. However, drivers 80 and over are more likely to be involved in fatal collisions than teenagers between 16 and 19, even though drivers 80 and over are still safer than male drivers between 16 and 19 and almost identical to male drivers between 20 and 24.

The problem with this data, though, is that it’s still incomplete. Even though it provides a more detailed look at driver safety than the previous chart, there are still many unanswered questions. For example, where between 70 and 79 does the rate of fatal driver collision involvement show its steepest inflection, or change?

I can’t answer that question right now. But what’s clear from this analysis is that seniors don’t become more dangerous drivers than teenagers until they’re past 80, and even then, they’re still safer than teen males between 16 and 19, and just about as safe as male adults between 20 and 24. Teen males between 16 and 19 remain the most dangerous drivers on the road.

—

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.