Tag Archives: autosafety

Small Car Safety: The Safest are Safer than Large SUVs

January 1, 2016 Mike

The Toyota Prius - safer than many SUVs and pickup trucks? — The Toyota Prius – safer than many SUVs and pickup trucks?

A lot of people think that car safety can be summed up in three words when it comes to staying alive on the roads:

Bigger Is Better.

Is that true sometimes?

Definitely.

I’ve written about head-on and side impact collisions involving semi trailers and passenger vehicles, such as this one and this one, where that “bigger is better” maxim certainly applies. There isn’t a passenger vehicle on the road that would have kept Santos Reyes or Sarah Sanagan alive–no, not even a 2016 XC90, which currently leads all vehicles in side impact resistance, or a 2016 Tesla Model S, no matter how much Elon Musk and Co. tout it as the safest vehicle ever tested. There are some cases where mass simply wins.

However, there are a lot of cases where it doesn’t. And we’re going to talk about those today. Not specific collisions, but the driver death rates of certain smaller vehicles vs. certain larger vehicles. You might be surprised to learn that the big, bad pickup trucks and huge SUVs you see on your daily commutes aren’t always the safest things on the road. Statistically, a lot of them are more likely to kill their drivers than vehicles weighing half or even a third as much. Ready to challenge some misconceptions? So am I!

Which small cars are safer than which big SUVs, pickups, and minivans?

Every few years, the IIHS crunches numbers collected by the NHTSA on fatal crashes throughout the United States within a given period, and spits out a status report that describes an extrapolated driver death rate for a range of new vehicles sold within the given time period.

It’s not a perfect measure by any means, and there are a number of limitations to the design (for example, the margin of error for individual vehicles can be large enough that drawing conclusions comparing individual vehicles becomes difficult), but it does give us a good starting point to estimate, on average, how likely drivers are to die when driving one vehicle vs. another. And in 2015, they released the most recent driver death rate (DDR) status report, which I wrote about here. And guess what the safest small vehicle was?

The 2010-2011 Toyota Prius. It had a DDR of 16, which is a fancy way of saying that if 1 million people drove a ’10-’11 Prius for a year, you’d expect 16 of them to die as drivers in a collision. Nine of those deaths would be predicted to occur in multi-vehicle collisions while 7 would be predicted to occur in single vehicle crashes. This is pretty good.

The ’10-’11 Prius, by the weigh (ha!), weighs 3,042 lbs.

In comparison, only 12 other cars did better, and they were all either mid-sized family cars, mid-sized luxury cars, or very large cars. So who did worse?

Which large cars were less safe than a Toyota Prius?

2010-2011 Ford Taurus 2WD — 20. Weighing a minimum of 4,015 lbs, the Taurus had a DDR of 20, which, while very close to that of the Prius and within the margin of error, was still higher.

Think about that for a second. In a vehicle that weighed at least 1,000 lbs more, you’d have been slightly more likely to die overall in collisions than if you’d been in a Prius. Incidentally, the multi-vehicle death rate of 10 was also higher than that of the Prius at 9, suggesting you’d be more likely to die in a multi-vehicle collision in a Taurus than in a Prius.

Surprised? You’re not alone. But there are even more standouts. Here are a few.

2009-2011 Cadillac DTS — 46. Weighing 4,009 lbs, the DTS is a beast on the roads compared to most cars, but it didn’t keep its drivers any more safe than those who chose a Prius. In fact, your odds of dying in a DTS were more than 3 times higher than those odds in a Prius.

2009-2010 Mercury Grand Marquis — 57. Weighing 4,118 lbs, it’s another very heavy vehicle that was far, far more likely to be involved in driver fatalities than the Prius.

Which mid-size SUVs were less safe than a Toyota Prius?

2008-2011 Jeep Wrangler 4-door 4WD — 21. The 4-door 4WD Wrangler weighs around 4,005 lbs at the Sahara trim level, but was still more likely to be involved in driver fatalities, both in multiple-vehicle collisions (11) and in single vehicle crashes (10). It’s important to note that this is one of the few vehicles still sold today in the United States that doesn’t come standard with side airbags.

2008-2011 Ford Edge 4WD — 41. The Edge 4WD weighs around 4,086 lbs, but was approximately 3 times more likely to be involved in driver fatalities than the Prius, and featured much higher multiple-vehicle fatalities (17) and single vehicle crash fatalities (24).

2008-2011 Dodge Nitro 2WD — 51. Despite weighing at least 3,932 lbs, the 2WD Nitro was the worst-performing mid-sized SUV in the IIHS survey of new vehicles, and was more than 4 times as likely to be involved in driver fatalities as the Prius. The multiple-vehicle fatality figure (7) was lower, but the single vehicle figure (50) was much, much higher.

Which large SUVs were less safe than a Toyota Prius?

2008-2011 Chevrolet Tahoe 2WD — 18. Weighing in at more than 5,636 lbs, the 2WD Tahoe had a higher DDR than the Prius despite weighing close to 2,000 lbs more. The multiple vehicle fatality rate (8) was slightly lower, but the single vehicle fatality rate (10) was slightly higher.

2008-2011 Ford Expedition 2WD — 36. The Expedition is a beast, weighing at least 5,578 lbs, yet it still had a DDR more than 2x as high as that of the Prius. In fact, the 2WD Expedition was the worst large SUV surveyed in the IIHS study, primarily due to its multiple vehicle fatality rate (30). The single vehicle fatality rate was lower (5).

2008-2011 Chevrolet Suburban 1500 2WD — 60. The dubious honor of the worst “very large” SUV surveyed by the IIHS went to the 2WD Suburban, which, despite its starting weight of 5,607 lbs, had a DDR nearly 4x higher than that of the Prius.

Think about that. As a driver, you were nearly 4x more likely to die if you were driving a new Suburban than if you were driving a new Prius. If that doesn’t suggest large vehicles aren’t always as safe as we think they are, I’m not sure what does. And we can’t even argue that it just did particularly badly in one area, as it had both a high multiple vehicle fatality rate (31) and a high single vehicle fatality rate (28). It was safer to be a driver in a Prius both in single vehicle crashes and in multiple vehicle crashes than it was to be a driver in a Suburban.

Which large pickup trucks were less safe than a Toyota Prius?

2009-2011 Ford F-150 Super 4WD — 39. The F-150 is the most popular pickup truck in the US and also the most popular passenger vehicle sold in the US. However, if you drove one in the above model years, you were statistically 2x as likely to die as you would have been while driving a Prius, despite its weighing 5,683 lbs. Both the multiple vehicle rate (13) and single (26) rate were higher than that of the Prius.

2008-2011 Toyota Tundra Crew Max 2WD — 41. The Tundra is the largest vehicle Toyota sells in the US, but the numbers reveal it to be far from the safest. Despite weighing close to 5,785 lbs, it suffered from a DDR more than 2x as high as that of the Prius, with a multiple vehicle fatality rate of 34 and a single vehicle fatality rate of 6. In other words, you were more likely to be involved in a fatal multiple-vehicle collision while driving this Tundra than while driving a Prius.

2010-2011 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 Crew 4WD — 79. The dubious award for the most dangerous pickup truck surveyed by the IIHS went to the Crew 4WD trim of the Silverado, which was just about 5x as likely to be involved in a crash that killed its driver than the Prius during the years surveyed. This occurred despite its approximately 5,345 lbs of curb weight. It performed poorly both in multiple vehicle situations (40) and single vehicle fatalities (36).

Which minivans were less safe than a Toyota Prius?

2008-2011 Chrysler Town & Country — 25. Multiple family vans scored more poorly than the Prius when it came to preserving their drivers, including the T&C, which weighs at least 4,335 lbs. Its multiple vehicle fatality rate (16) and single vehicle fatality rate (8) were both higher than that of the Prius.

2008-2011 Dodge Grand Caravan — 27. The badge twin of the Town & Country, the Grand Caravan started at 4,321 lbs, but this still wasn’t enough to protect its drivers over those in a Prius. It featured a lower single vehicle fatality rate (4) but a much higher multiple vehicle fatality rate (22).

2011 Toyota Sienna 2WD — 27. Finally, Toyota’s van offering, the Sienna, also performed poorly compared to the Prius, with a multiple vehicle fatality rate of 12 and single vehicle fatality rate of 16, despite its starting weight of 4,275 lbs.

Why is the Toyota Prius safer than so many large cars, SUVs, pickup trucks, and minivans?

This, to me, is the most important–and interesting–question: why did the Prius do so much better at keeping its drivers alive than a plethora of large cars, mid-sized and large SUVs, large pickup trucks, and minivans, especially when dwarfed in weight by so many of them?

To me, it comes down to the drivers, rather than the vehicles themselves. Nearly all of these vehicles featured ESC as a standard feature, and nearly all of these vehicles featured side airbags and good frontal and side crash scores. However, the way we drive is often influenced to a large degree by what we drive. Beyond that, different kinds of drivers tend to choose different kinds of vehicles. Male drivers are less safe than female drivers at every stage of life, and male drivers are more likely to drive large SUVs and pickup trucks than female drivers. Male drivers are also less likely to use seat belts than female drivers and more likely to speed, drive aggressively, and drive drunk than female drivers, which contributes to their higher death rates.

Prius drivers (or rather, hybrid drivers), however, overlap a number of safer demographics. They’re more likely to have college educations (a survey indicated they were twice as likely as the average car driver), which means they’re more likely to engage in safe driving behaviors like driving while sober and while belted, they’re more likely to be older (remember that drivers in their 60s are actually the safest drivers on the road, despite what the media would lead you to believe), and they’re also less likely to drive aggressively since they’re more likely to be invested in obtaining better fuel mileage.

Am I saying you’d be better off sitting in a Prius than in a Tundra if the two were about to meet in a head-on collision? No. I am saying you’re less likely to drive in a way that leads you to get killed if you’re in a Prius than in a great many vehicles on the road, including many (e.g., all of the above) that weigh thousands of pounds more than a Prius.

Drive carefully. The life you save may be your own. Check out my 3 across guides and remember to buckle up.

—

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.

Norway: Where (Almost) No Children Die in Car Crashes

December 21, 2015 Mike

With all the time I spend talking about car safety, car seats, and children’s welfare on this blog, it’s heartening to read a bit of good news now and then around the Internet. In the US, we’re still fighting to make extended-rear facing a thing, and not just an odd thing overprotective parents do.

We’re up to 3 states that require it until age 2, but it’s still only required until 1 in the remaining 47. Meanwhile, the Swedes have known for years that all children should remain rear-facing at least until the age of 4, which is why I sound like a broken record recommending the Fllo, the Foonf, the Rainier, and the Pacifica, since these are the best seats for keeping children rear-facing until 4 or more currently available in the United States.

It’s a lot of work trying to spread best practices, especially since most parents are still forward-facing somewhere between 1 and 2.

Norway - The Car Crash Detective — It’s where Elsa would go. It’s also a safer place for children in cars than the United States.

However, in Norway, things are different. They’ve got their issues (racism, xenophobia, and a lot of cold weather), but they’ve listened to Sweden, and the nation that served as the outdoor and thematic inspiration for Frozen (yes, really) is on the verge of going an entire year without losing a single child under 10 to a car crash.

That’s right. Not a single child fatality (under 10) has been recorded so far this year in Norway.

What would that look like in the US?

Norway child traffic deaths much better than US car crash fatalities

Well, let’s look at the most recent year for which complete data is available: 2013. In 2013, per the IIHS, 939 children under 13 died in motor vehicle crashes, which included passenger vehicle occupants, pedestrians, bicyclists, and ATV riders. Of those 939 children, 60 were under 1, 245 were 1-3, 368 were 4-8, and 266 were between 9 and 12. For a fairer comparison, let’s just look at the children who passed away between 0 and 8. That adds up to 673 children.

We can’t really compare that to Norway since they haven’t lost any children. However, we *can* compare the proportions. There were 316.5 million people in the US in 2013, vs 5.166 million in Norway today. To put it another way, there are 61.3 Americans for every Norwegian. Dividing 673, by 61.3, then, would give us the number of children under 9 we’d expect to die annually in car crashes in Norway: 11.

Instead, zero have died.

That’s pretty impressive. Scratch that. That’s wonderful! Let’s read about the details from The Local, a Norwegian English-language paper, and get some historical context:

“In 1970, nearly 100 hundred children died on Norwegian roadways, and many were seriously injured.

Okay, so Norway went from just about 100 child deaths in 1970 to zero in 2015. In 1970, there were 3.876 million Norwegians. In the US, it’s hard to find 1970 child traffic death data, but in 1975, 1036 children under 9 died in traffic deaths in the US, and our population then was 205.1 million. To put it another way, back then, there were 52.9 Americans for every Norwegian, which means we’d expect 53x as many US child deaths as Norwegian deaths. However, dividing 1036 by 100 shows only 10x as many child deaths.

To put it simply, it was actually 5 times *safer* to be a child, traffic wise, in the US in 1975, than it was in Norway in 1970. What in the world could have changed so much to make it much safer to be a child in Norway today than a child in the US in the last 30-35 years? Let’s turn to the director of the Norwegian Council for Road Safety (Trygg Trafikk, or TT), for a response:

Extended rear-facing in Norway credited with zero kids dying in car crashes

We can see that seatbelts, car seats, lower speeds, safer cars, better roads and more knowledge saves lives,” TT director Jan Johansen said in a press release. The council said that Norwegian parents have gotten much better at ensuring that their kids are buckled up in the back seat and in keeping children in rear-facing car seats until the age of four.

There you have it: per the director, Norwegian parents have caught on to the need to keep children restrained in the back seat–but not just restrained; restrained in rear-facing seats, and until the age of 4. It’s what the Swedes do, and it’s why they have the lowest rates of child car deaths in the world. And it looks like Norway’s getting the same results by following best practices.

Norway’s introduction of mandatory child vehicle restraint systems received much of the credit for the drastic cut in child deaths, and TT said that more pedestrian and cycle paths, plus the increased use of bike helmets, have also contributed to better traffic mortality figures.

For sure, other factors come into play, including the addition of segregated (dedicated) paths for pedestrians and cyclists, who inherently suffer when we prioritize auto transportation over human transportation. They also credit bike helmets, which makes complete sense when you consider how many cycle deaths occur due to head trauma. But the lion’s share of the credit goes to the use of child vehicle restraint systems that are becoming ubiquitous in Norway.

If they can get their child deaths down to zero after once having a rate 5 times as high as that in the United States, there’s no reason why we can’t. But it starts with rear-facing, and we need to keep rear-facing our kids as long as we can. It makes more of a difference than the kind of car you drive, even though safer cars assuredly help.

But what about when it comes to adults? Has the dramatic increase in child safety been an isolated phenomenon, or could it be reflective of greater trends in Norway, and a more encompassing view of community needs to create safe roadways for everyone?

I’m dying to find out, and I think I have the answer.

We’ll take a look at how much safer it is to be a Norwegian driver than an American one very soon. In the mean time, drive safely and remember to safely restrain your children for as long as possible: rear-facing at least until 4 if you can, forward-facing until 8 if possible, and boostering until 10 to 12, depending on how long it takes them to pass the 5-step test.

It takes a bit more time to do these things than to just pop your kids into a seat belt, but the difference can be between around 700 deaths a year, as in the US, or close to zero, as in Norway. I know which camp I’d rather have my kids fall in.

If you want the seats that will help you rear-face the longest, go with the Fllo, the Foonf, the Rainier, and the Pacifica. They’ll let you RF to 50 pounds, which will get most kids to 5 or beyond.

If you want ERF for under $200, the Size4Me, Fit4Me, Head Wise, and Contender will get you to 40 pounds, which will get most kids to 4.

—

The Safest Affordable Used Cars for Teen Drivers, 2016 Edition

December 5, 2015 Mike

Last year, the IIHS published their first list of used car recommendations for teenagers, and I explained here why the list was less helpful to most parents than it could have been. While well-meant, the article was tone-deaf to the economic realities of the country at best and destructive by enabling misconceptions and vehicular arms races at worst.

Strong words, I know. Let’s look at that a bit more closely, and then I’ll have my recommendations for safe, affordable used cars, SUVs, minivans, and pickup trucks for teen drivers, based on vehicle availability in 2016.

Why was the previous IIHS analysis of safe teen vehicles a poor one?

The main reason for its relative unhelpfulnesss was because a.) it ignored the realities of how much money parents were actually spending on vehicles for their teenage drivers, b.) it misled readers into believing that all teenage drivers were the most dangerous (they’re not), and entirely avoided the greater issue that teenage male drivers are the most dangerous on the road, and c.) it encouraged a vehicular arms race by telling parents to buy large and heavy vehicles for the least experienced drivers on the road.

So if there were so many issues with the 2014 article, why am I looking at their 2015 report? Well, the IIHS does provide a lot of good information on crashworthiness, and I was hopeful they would provide far more useful, accurate, and relevant information to parents this year on safe and budget-friendly car choices for adolescent drivers. Let’s see how they did.

1. How much are parents spending on cars for their teenagers, and do IIHS recommendations address these amounts?

Last year in 2014, the IIHS reported the median amount spent by parents on vehicles for teens was $5,300. Adjusting for inflation, this yields a sum of $5,327 in 2015. The IIHS states, once again, that parents should spend more money for more safety. Of course, the median household income in 2014, per the US Census Bureau, was $51,339, which tends to be the same from year to year. Furthermore, median household debt in 2010 was $3,300, which is unlikely to have changed significantly in the last few years. Oh, and college, which most parents aspire their children attending, still costs around $23,410 if you’re aiming for average costs as an in-state student at a public 4-year school.

As a result, urging parents to spend more is unlikely to occur for a variety of reasons. So let’s look at the IIHS’ 2015 vehicle list and see how relevant it is for median parents:

They tag 81 vehicles as “best” choices and 68 as “good” choices, for a total of 149 vehicles. Of these, ideally, at least 74 should be below $5,327, with the other half above that amount, if this list is truly designed to help parents where they are, rather than where the IIHS would like them to be financially.

How many vehicles fall below the median?

Nineteen.

In other words, just under 13% of vehicles, or 19 out of 149, show up at or below the median price. An ideal list would feature 50% of vehicles in that range. Unfortunately, the list this year, much like the list last year, remains out of reach for the vast majority of American families.

2. Does the IIHS paint an accurate report of how dangerous teenage drivers are, who the most dangerous teens are, and how to reduce their danger?

Last year in 2014, the IIHS urged parents to consider “the risks teens take” and pay more to keep them safe. However, as I noted, the groups most likely to be involved in fatal crashes are teenage males between 16 and 19, followed by young men between 20 and 29. Teenage girls are safer than *all* male drivers until male drivers turn 30. The IIHS ignored their own data when omitting this information last year. Did things change this year?

Unfortunately not. The IIHS did recommend parents choose vehicles without high horsepower, with a lot of weight, and with ESC, but said nothing about reducing the amount of unsupervised driving teenage males were allowed or delaying their acquisition of licenses. Is it a good idea to put teens in vehicles with ESC? Yes, the same way it’s a good idea to put everyone in vehicles with ESC. Is it a good idea to avoid high horsepower vehicles for teens? Yes, for the same reason it’s a good idea for adults (speed kills). Is it a good idea to suggest teens drive giant vehicles to keep them safe? I’ll tackle that in a moment.

But finally, is it helpful for the IIHS to continue to paint all teens with a broad brush when the most dangerous drivers are, quite plainly, teenage males?

No; there is much left unsaid here, and an opportunity was missed.

3. Does the IIHS continue to encourage destructive policies for all road users by encouraging parents to buy large and heavy vehicles for the least experienced drivers on the road?

Last year in 2014, the IIHS directed parents to choose bigger and heavier vehicles for their teenage drivers, and explicitly stated they wouldn’t recommend minicars or small cars to parents of teenagers. I countered that this advice only made the roads more dangerous for all drivers by encouraging a vehicular arms race through telling parents to buy large and heavy vehicles for the least experienced drivers on the road. Did this change this year?

Unfortunately not. The IIHS repeats their “every driver for him/herself” mantra by urging parents outfit their teenage drivers with vehicles capable of doing more harm to others by doing less harm to them by extension. I understand the logic behind this thought process, but it’s ultimately a futile one.

If everyone follows the advice and drives heavy vehicles, heavy vehicles offer no advantages to anyone inside them, while making the roads that much more dangerous for people who aren’t in any vehicles, such as cyclists, motorcyclists, and every single pedestrian in the country. And whether we acknowledge it or not, all of us are pedestrians at one point or another in the day, even if only when walking to and from our vehicles when leaving or arriving our homes, places of work, of food, of commerce, of worship, and so on.

Am I stating parents should only buy tiny cars for their teenage drivers? Not necessarily. But I am absolutely stating that parents should not buy large vehicles for their children, or for themselves, if not absolutely necessary.

It is the height of irresponsibility to buy vehicles that increase the already-grandiose sense of invincibility felt by far too many teenage males (which, of course, is what leads to their having a far higher rate of involvement in fatal collisions than teenage females or males of any other age before 80).

To put it frankly, the IIHS’ recommendation to avoid a number of very safe, practical, affordable, and fuel-friendly vehicles (e.g., a used Prius that yields 50 mpg while having a driver death rate better than dozens of 4000-6000 lb pickup trucks and SUVs) is an unpleasant one for a number of ethical, environmental, financial, and humanitarian reasons.

This list isn’t helpful. Let’s make one that is.

If the IIHS is unhelpful in choosing safe and budget-friendly vehicles for teenagers, which ones would you recommend in 2016, Mike, and why?

At this point, it’s clear that the IIHS’ agenda isn’t necessarily the most relevant or helpful one for parents interested in keeping their teenagers safe and financially solvent without increasing the risks they pose to others on the road (of all ages). My recommendations are based on those assumptions.

As a result, I primarily include mini (subcompact) and small (compact) cars and SUVs, add mid-sized cars, and completely leave out mid-sized and larger SUVs, minivans, and pickup trucks, which are unnecessary for most teenagers (who ideally should either be driving with parents or driving alone, and certainly shouldn’t be driving with other teens). 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 or acceptable side crash scores. All prices are based on private party costs in November 2015 in the Chicago metro area.

The safest affordable mini cars and subcompacts for teenagers in 2016

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. It has both good frontal and side crash test scores.

The safest affordable small cars and compacts for teenagers in 2016

2010+ Ford Focus

The Focus sedan is another good choice for parents interested in safety, affordability, and fuel economy. It’s rated for 24/34 in the automatic and 24/35 in the manual, and comes standard with side airbags and ESC from 2010 onward, or simply with side airbags from 2008 onward. It has a good frontal score but only an acceptable side score.

The safest affordable small SUVs and crossovers for teenagers in 2016

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 is rated at 20/26 in the automatic FWD. It’s also one of only 2 vehicles on the list with an AWD option (the other is the S60).

The safest affordable mid-sized cars for teenagers in 2016

2004+ Saab 9-3

The Saab 9-3 is the most affordable vehicle on this list to buy, although probably not the cheapest to maintain. It has come with both ESC and side airbags since 2003, which is earlier than any vehicle on this list and the vast majority of vehicles ever made. It has both good frontal and side crash test scores as of 2004, and is rated at around 18/27 in the automatic.

2007+ Volvo S60

Finally, the S60 is another good choice for parents interested in safety and affordability. Like the 9-3, however, it’s likely to cost more to maintain over time. It has good frontal and acceptable side crash test scores and has come with ESC since 2007 and side airbags since 2001. It is rated at around 19/28 in the best of the automatic transmissions, and is also available in AWD.

I hope you’ve found this article helpful and informative as a parent interested in finding safe and affordable transportation for you teenage 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.

—

Side Impact Crash Protection: The Safest Small SUVs and Crossovers in 2016

November 10, 2015 Mike

I’ve spent a lot of time recently writing about how dangerous side impact collisions can be, and how to keep our loved ones alive if we’re unfortunate enough to be involved in them. First I described the safest cars of 2015 per IIHS side impact intrusion metrics. Next I wrote an article describing the safest minivans available in 2015 for surviving t-bones based on the same metric. I then set to work to write the equivalent article on surviving side impacts in SUVs made in 2015. Most recently, I wrote about how to survive side impact collisions in small cars made in 2015. Today’s article is the latest in the series, and brings the focus to small SUVs and crossovers currently on the road.

To put it simply, side impact collisions are the collisions that are most likely to take your life or the life of a loved one, when compared with front-, and rear-end collisions. From doing the math in an earlier post on side impact collisions, we know that even though only around 1 out of every 5 collisions involve side impacts, they lead to 1 out of every 3 vehicle occupant deaths in multiple vehicle collisions. In comparison, basically 1 out of 2 collisions involve frontal impacts, which lead to around 1 out of every 2 multiple collision deaths. Even more dramatically, while more than 1 out of every 4 collisions are rear enders, they only result in around 1 out of every 12 multiple collision deaths.

Looking at the numbers shows us side impacts are the collisions most likely to be fatal, even though they’re the least common. Knowing this, it’s worth figuring out how to reduce our risks of dying from one.

How to keep from dying in a side impact collision – what options do we have?

Unfortunately, if you live in the United States, you live in a country that isn’t the most willing to make changes to make our roads safer for everyone. In the US, you can drink much, much more before you’re considered drunk than you would in many parts of Europe (where the driver death rates are lower). Similarly, you don’t really have restrictions on how big your vehicle can be, regardless of how little experience you have as a driver. This isn’t the case in a number of other countries. You also live in a country that turns a blind eye toward many speed limits and is vehemently opposed to traffic cameras, despite their prevalence in countries with lower crash death rates. And of course, you’re also in a country where it’s hard to travel long (or short) distances inexpensively without driving.

I’ve written about some of these issues in past articles, such as one on why Swedish roads are among the safest in the world, and another on why driving in Europe is safer than driving in the US. I’ll have more articles soon about the things we can learn from other countries when it comes to driving safely.

However, until we’re willing to make a number of necessary changes, if you’re invested in keeping your family safe from death in t-bone collisions, I’d recommend you:

1.) Avoid driving (e.g., by using public transportation or by cycling or walking…eventually this leads to a critical mass where everyone is safer).

2.) Limit driving (by the same measures above and by combining trips).

3.) Drive the most side-impact-resistant vehicles possible.

Ultimately, to truly bring an end to side impact collisions, as well as to all collisions, we’re going to need to be forced to invest in the first two measures. I’d consider self-driving or autonomous vehicles to be part of “avoiding driving,” even though those aren’t going to eliminate collisions completely until the vast majority of vehicles on the road are no longer being driven by humans (the critical mass argument).

However, unless you’re in a position to completely follow step 1, you’ll need to focus on 2 and 3. Step 2 isn’t always feasible either, so this post focuses on Step 3, and deals specifically with choosing the safest small SUVs and crossovers available for side impact protection in the US in 2016. I’ve written about the best cars for surviving side impacts, the best small cars for surviving small impacts, the best minivans for surviving small impacts, and the best SUVs and crossovers for surviving small impacts, all for 2015 models. It’s time to focus on 2016 models, since the technology is always improving, and unfortunately, these crashes aren’t going away–not yet, anyway.

Calculating which small SUVs and crossovers are the safest for side impact collisions by structural integrity (crush distance)

I’ve written about the math behind these calculations in previous posts, such as in the relevant articles on surviving side impacts in 2015 cars, minivans, and SUVs and crossovers, so hop back to those articles to read about this in detail. The short version is that the IIHS runs a side impact test. It simulates a 3300 lb SUV crashing into the side of a vehicle at 31 mph, or 143.7KJ of kinetic energy. Every vehicle deforms somewhat at the B-pillar when absorbing such an impact, and there’s a subscore in the IIHS test known as the “structure and safety cage” looks into how close the B-pillar intrudes into the center of the driver’s seat during the collision. Less intrusion is better. Let’s see who has the least intrusion right now in the small SUV market.

I searched through the test scores of every small (compact) or mini (subcompact) SUV or crossover currently available in the US to make this best-of list. Keep in mind that the IIHS continually updates their side impact information while gathering additional information, so in a few months, it’s likely that these numbers may be slightly different. All data is accurate as of late October 2015, and all images are either from yours truly or courtesy of Wikipedia.

The safest small SUVs and crossovers for side impact collisions in 2016

19.5 cm – 2013-2016 Ford Escape.

The current generation Ford Escape at 19.5 cm of intrusion protection was the highest-ranked small SUV in the overall 2015 SUV comparison, and it retains the title in 2016. The current Escape is a great improvement over the previous Escape, which only featured between 5.5 and 7.5 cm of intrusion protection. However, the current gen Escape still has a poor small overlap crash score, and is one of only a handful of vehicles on this list to do so. Ford can and needs to do better here, as more and more vehicles are acing the small overlap test, and the Escape is standing out in a bad way.

The ’09-’11 model years of the previous generation were estimated in the most recent driver death rate survey to have had DDRs of 27 and 35 in the 2WD and 4WD models respectively.

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

19 cm – 2016 Fiat 500X.

Hot on the heels of the Escape with 19 cm of impact resistance is the newly released Fiat 500X. It shares the same platform with the newly released Jeep Renegade and Fiat 500L, and is essentially a slightly Europeanized version of the Renegade. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles also scored a safety hit with the Fiat 500L, which was the most impact-resistant small car of 2015, and the Dodge Dart, which was the second best small car in 2015 for impact resistance. Unlike the 500L and Ford Escape, however, the 500X features a good small overlap score in addition to good scores in all other areas tested by the IIHS.

18.5 cm – 2013-2016 Mazda CX-5.

Immediately after the Fiat comes the current generation Mazda CX-5. Once again, unlike the Escape, it has a good small overlap score, and has had one since the ’14 model year. As with several other vehicles on this list, I look forward to seeing the CX-5 show up on a driver death rate study; Mazda will need to sell more of them for it to make an appearance.

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

16.5 cm – 2014-2015 Jeep Patriot / Jeep Compass.

I have to admit that I almost forgot to include the Jeep Patriot or its curvy twin, the Compass. Both suffer from poor small overlap scores and are also among the only vehicles on the list to have no form of front crash prevention equipment whatsoever. However, with 16.5 cm of side impact resistance, both stand out in a good way, at least in this measure. These are also the second and third vehicles, respectively, by Fiat Chrysler Automobiles to make this list. The ’14 refresh of the Patriot / Compass also brought badly-needed side torso airbags to the front passenger seats; stay away from older years than 2014 if you’re considering used Patriots and Compasses.

The ’08-’11 model years of this generation were estimated in the most recent driver death rate survey to have had a DDRs of 7 for the 2WD Compass, and 11 and 57 for the 4WD and 2WD Patriots, respectively.

My full 3 across car seat guide to the Patriot is available here, while my Compass guide is available here.

15.5 cm – 2013-2016 Buick Encore / Chevrolet Trax.

The Buick Encore and its twin, the Chevrolet Trax, are recent debuts in the small SUV / crossover market, but have already shown themselves to be strong contenders with 15.5 cm of side impact intrusion resistance. Once again, both feature good small overlap scores, and are among the first GM vehicles to show up on any of the impact resistance lists I’ve written so far.

You can read my full 3 across guide to the Encore / Trax here.

14.5-15 cm — 2013-2016 Toyota Rav4.

The Rav4 makes its first appearance in a positive light on this blog with the strong showing in 14.5-15 cm of side impact intrusion resistance. After being plagued with a poor small overlap score for years, Toyota finally addressed this in models built after November 2014, and now the Rav4 joins the ranks of small SUVs and crossovers with a good small overlap score.

Unfortunately, it still suffers from the overlapping seat belt issue; hopefully Toyota will address this soon, as it significantly limits the utility of this sport utility vehicle. For now, however, we can celebrate the improved small overlap score and the improvement in intrusion resistance over the previous generation, which featured only 7 cm of intrusion resistance. The ’08-’11 model years of that generation were estimated in the most recent driver death rate survey to have had DDRs of 19 and 35 in the 4WD and 2WD editions respectively.

My full 3 across car seat guide to the Rav4 is available here.

14 cm – 2015-2016 Honda CR-V.

The CR-V has long been one of my favorite small SUVs due to its rock solid reliability, but until recently, it had been dogged by a marginal small overlap score. Honda finally addressed this in 2015, and now the CR-V joins the ranks of small crossovers with good scores up and down the board.

Featuring 14.5 cm of impact intrusion resistance, it remains competitive with some of the best small crossovers on the market today, although the current generation’s resistance is nearly identical to that of the previous generation at 13 cm. The ’08-’11 model years of that generation were estimated in the most recent driver death rate survey to have had DDRs of 17 and 19 in the 4WD and 2WD editions respectively.

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

14 cm – 2014-2016 Subaru Forester.

Tied with the CR-V at 14 cm is the Forester from Subaru. Like most of the vehicles on this list, it features a good small overlap score from 2014 onward, as well as good scores in every other area. The 14 cm is an improvement over the 11.5 cm of the previous generation Forester. The ’09-’11 model years of that generation were estimated in the most recent driver death rate survey to have had a DDR of 20.

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

14 cm – 2015-2016 Audi Q3.

Finally, the Audi Q3 completes a 3-way tie with the Forester and CR-V at 14 cm of side impact intrusion resistance. The Q3 is a new entry from Audi, introduced in 2014 as a smaller counterpart to the mid-sized Q5, which itself is a smaller version of their Q7. Like nearly all vehicles on this list, it has good crash test scores, including a good small overlap score.

More broadly, once again, I have to give Fiat Chrysler Automobiles credit for making three of the most intrusion-resistant small SUVs available in the US market today in the Fiat 500X, Jeep Patriot, and Jeep Compass. They dominate this list the way they dominated the small car side impact resistance list of 2015, which they dominated the same way Volvo, Ford and Mercedes-Benz dominated the SUV/crossover list and Subaru, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, and Mercedes-Benz dominated the overall car list. If you’re looking for safe vehicles, these are the manufacturers to pay attention to right now.

How to choose a small SUV or crossover to keep your loved ones safe in side impact crashes

In conclusion, the market for safe small SUVs keeps getting better every day in the United States. There are several compact crossovers that came within a fraction of a centimeter of making the list, but which I did not include in order to keep the list at the best of the best. The 2014-2016 Nissan Rogue, for example, featured 13.5 cm of intrusion resistance.

As in the other lists I’ve written, one of the overriding lessons is to consider the subscore for structural integrity rather than just stopping at the “good” overall side impact score. Small numbers can make a big difference in a high speed collision, and much as with an unbuckled seat belt, we don’t get the chance to change our minds in which vehicle we’ve chosen in the instant before a collision.

We can’t control everything. The safest option is still not driving at all, followed by driving as little as possible. But if you’ve got to drive, drive safely, and do your best to choose a safe vehicle. If you’re going to use it with children, definitely check out the plethora of best practice articles I’ve written here on choosing safe car seats, installation tips, seat reviews, and more information to help you make informed decisions.

I loved writing this article, and I hope you enjoyed reading it. I look forward to writing more articles examining various factors in car safety design and how they relate to keeping you and your loved ones safer while on the road. Stay tuned, remember to avoid common mistakes parents make with car seats, and check out some 3 across car seat guides while you’re here.

—

Poor NHTSA Standards Encourage Seat Back Fatalities in Car Seats (Another Reason to Rear Face)

November 2, 2015 Mike

This crash test dummy might be wondering why the NHTSA doesn't have tougher seat standards. — This crash test dummy might be wondering why the NHTSA doesn’t have tougher seat standards.

I’ve spent a lot of time deconstructing fatal crashes and writing about the safest kinds of vehicles sold each year in various classes, with the goal of keeping parents and children safe throughout the United States. However, it’s hard to keep your family safe when the organizations charged with setting safety standards let us down, and a recent article from CBS News adds one more data point to the long list of ways in which the NHTSA’s standards are woefully inadequate. We’re going to break down that CBS report and look at the issue through a number of lenses.

What are the NHTSA FMVSS safety standards?

In short, the NHTSA comes up with standards under the United States Code, Title 49, Ch. 301, in Motor Vehicle Safety, called Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, or FMVSS, which are basically a set of rules manufacturers need to comply with in order to sell their wares in the United States. Each standard describes a minimum level of safety performance, and the relevant one here is FMVSS 207, which deals with Seating Systems. Like a great many FMVSS standards, however, it doesn’t go nearly far enough. Here’s a summary of it:

This standard establishes requirements for seats, attachment assemblies, and installation, to minimize the possibility of failure as a result of forces acting on the seat in vehicle impact.

In other words, it has to do with how much force seats should be able to withstand in a vehicle during a collision to keep from failing, whether through disintegration, collapse, or disconnection. The problem is that the standard is a weak one, as are many other FMVSS standards, which means it has very little protective effect in a crash if a manufacturer doesn’t build beyond it. It was put into effect on January 1st, 1972, in a time where no vehicles in the US came standard with front or side air bags, ESC, or even ABS. Seat belt use was optional in all 50 states back then, and the road fatality rate was far worse than it is today. That’s the world the NHTSA is still living in with that standard.

Experts say in certain crashes, some car seats can break and collapse, leading to paralysis or death. Even if you bought a car with a five-star safety rating, if you’re hit from behind, your seat may not protect you or the children sitting behind you.

In other words, FMVSS 207 doesn’t go far enough, and when manufacturers don’t go any farther than the standard (which is what most manufacturers do, since they’re in the business of making money first, rather than keeping people safe), these seats break down. And if your children are forward-facing behind these seats, they’re directly in the line of fire.

Can rear-facing reduce the risks of severe injury or death from seat back collapse?

In a word: yes. This is yet another reason to rear-face. But the knowledge came too late for many families, including the Warners profiled in the article:

Sixteen-month-old Taylor Warner loved the water and was just learning to walk.

“She had about six weeks when she was toddling around, and then it was over,” said her mother, Liz Warner. Five years ago, the Warners’ 2010 Honda Odyssey was rear-ended at 55 miles an hour. Taylor was in her car seat behind her father.

“I thought maybe she had just fallen asleep. And then when I looked and I noticed there was blood coming out of her face, I knew that something else was wrong,” said Liz Warner.

That something was her father’s seat back. It broke after collapsing on impact and struck Taylor in the face, killing her.

“And it was all because of some stupid car that we thought was the safest thing we could get for our family to protect them,” said Warner, crying.

But crash tests show what can happen when a seat collapses — the driver is launched backwards and slams into the child’s face.

Make no mistake–this was a terrible, preventable tragedy. But it is important to note that it was preventable in many ways. One of the most obvious ways would have been through tougher federal standards in the case of FMVSS 207. Another would have been if Honda had spent a tiny amount more money per seat to reinforce their front seats beyond the government requirement. Another might have been if Taylor had been sitting in a different seat position, such as in the center position or in the 3rd row of the vehicle. Yet another, and that which we have the most control over as parents in any vehicle, would have been if Taylor had been rear-facing.

I’ve written before about the protective effects of rear-facing, in terms of the dramatic reduction in severe injury and fatality risks it brings our children, and in terms of how many more children should rear-face for far longer than they do in the United States. I’ve written about how it has been standard practice to rear-face until 4 in Sweden, where parents lose the fewest children to car collisions per capita, for decades. But how would the Warners have known this? The AAP, after all, didn’t change their recommendation from rear-facing to 1 to rear-facing to 2 until 2011.

The collision described above occurred in 2010.

How can I reduce the risks of my child being injured or killed in a seat back collapse?

Unfortunately, we can’t wait for government organizations to act in our best interest. The NHTSA has known of this issue for more than 30 years and has refused to update its legislation, undoubtedly due to relentless lobbying by the auto industry. However, if you read this blog, you know that best practices are best practices whether or not they’re practiced in the United States. To reduce the risks of losing a child in this kind of tragedy, I’d recommend parents:

Rear-face your children as long as you can

Seats like the Clek Fllo, Clek Foonf, Diono Rainier, Graco Extend2Fit, Safety 1st Grow and Go EX Air, and Safety 1st Advance EX 65+ Air+ allow most children to rear-face until they’re at least 5, while seats like the Diono Radian RXT, Chicco NextFit, Graco Size4Me 65, Britax Advocate ClickTight, and many more will allow most children to rear-face until they’re at least 4. There are too many reasons to continue rear-facing to start forward-facing a minute before you have to.

If you have one child, place him or her in the center position

It’s statistically the safest position compared to either outboard position, as it’s impossible for a child to receive a direct hit from a side impact collision there, and it also provides a much greater amount of protection against a seat back collapse than a car seat installed directly behind a vehicle seat.

Install your car seats in the 3rd row

There’s a common misconception that the 3rd row isn’t as safe as the 2nd row due to the potential for rear impacts, but the statistics show children are more likely to suffer injuries the farther forward they sit in a vehicle, simply because the majority of fatal collisions are frontal, head-on collisions. Fatal rear-end collisions are the most rare, making the 3rd row the safest row in a 3 row vehicle, on average.

Buy a Mercedes-Benz, BMW, or Volvo

This is by far the most expensive option, but it’s worth noting that these 3 companies have an extensive history of going above and beyond federal guidelines in many elements of their vehicle design. Per the researchers questioned in the report, these were 3 automakers who consistently designed seats to higher standards than the federal guidelines. You can read my 3 across guides for vehicles by the manufacturers above (and a great number of other manufacturers) here.

—

35,000 Americans will die this year on the road. You don't have to be one of them. A car seat and car safety blog to promote best practices for families.