Tag Archives: autosafety

Which is the Safest Electric / Hybrid Car: A Volt, Leaf, or Prius? IIHS Death Rates 2017

September 7, 2017 Mike

Per the IIHS' 2017 driver death rate math, the Volt is the safest electric / hybrid on the market right now. — Per the IIHS’ 2017 driver death rate math, the Volt is the safest electric / hybrid on the market right now. But statistically, it’s no safer than the Leaf or Prius.

Whenever the IIHS comes out with its computation of the safest new vehicles on the road by driver death rates, I take a look at the data. While the confidence intervals (margins of error) are huge, trends still tend to pop out, and even though vehicle safety is only one third of a network of motor vehicle best practices (along with individual driver behaviors and road and societal infrastructure), it’s still the segment families are most likely to pay most attention to. Last year I wrote about how the safest small cars are safer than some of the largest SUVs and pickups on the road per driver death rate (DDR) data, and today’s post dives into that train of thought with the most recent DDR data available from the IIHS’ summer 2017 Status Report (volume 52, number 3). Today we’re going to look at three electric and hybrids, the Chevrolet Volt, the Nissan Leaf, and the Toyota Prius.

2011-2014 Chevrolet Volt – 7 driver deaths (0-39)

Per the IIHS, the electric / hybrid with the lowest estimated driver death rate during the 2011-2014 model years was the Chevrolet Volt, clocking in at 7 driver deaths over the exposure period. This figure is based on an exposure of 143,042 registered vehicle years, which is IIHS speak for one vehicle registered for one year. To put it plainly, the IIHS is saying that after crunching NHTSA FARS data for vehicle deaths and IHS Automotive data for vehicle registrations, if 1 million individuals drove around in 1 million ’11-’14 Chevy Volts across the country for a year, we would expect only 7 of them to die. This is the best figure ever recorded for a small car in an IIHS driver death rate survey, even besting the 16 achieved by the 2010-2011 Prius in the previous survey. Of the 7 estimated deaths, all occurred due to multiple vehicle collisions (i.e., they all involved another vehicle). There were no single vehicle fatalities in the estimate.

2011-2014 Nissan Leaf – 8 driver deaths (0-44)

Hot on the trail of the Volt comes the Nissan Leaf, with only 8 estimated deaths during the same exposure period. This figure is based on an exposure of 126,702 registered vehicle years. It’s worthy noting that both the estimated death rate and registered vehicle years of the Leaf are almost identical to those of the Volt, which is why the confidence interval (which is a 95 percent confidence bound) of the Leaf is also almost exactly that of the Volt. Practically speaking, this means both vehicles were exactly the same in terms of the risk of dying in either as a driver during the aforementioned exposure period. Interestingly, while the Volt’s fatalities came exclusively from multiple-vehicle collisions, the Leaf’s were reversed, and came exclusively from single vehicle crashes, which were, more specifically, all from rollovers.

2011-2014 Toyota Prius – 31 driver deaths (21-42)

The Prius is the standout among the three vehicles, and not in a good way. With 31 estimated deaths over the same exposure period, it certainly appears to have done more poorly. both relative to the Volt and Leaf and relative to its impressive DDR of 16 during the 2010-2011 model years in the last survey. However, as we’ll discuss below, due to overlapping confidence intervals, there’s no way to say with certainty that it was any less safe than the Volt or Leaf.

The driver death rate figure here is based on an exposure of 1,290,605 registered vehicle years, a figure roughly 10 times as large as that of either the Volt or Leaf. The much larger exposure can be seen as a potential reason for the higher death rate; within the pool of Prius drivers, there would have been much greater odds of careless or unlucky pilots who drove the driver death rate up. An analysis of the crash types leading to the 31 figure shows 23 multiple vehicle crashes and 8 single vehicle crashes, none of which were rollovers.

Does This Mean I Need to Sell My Leaf or Prius for a Volt?

Not at all. It’s important to remember two things: first of all, the confidence intervals in these studies are always quite large, and often encompass most vehicles people reading them are comparing anyway. In this case, the 95% confidence intervals, or 95% probabilities that the true death rate would within the parenthesized bounds when repeatedly sampled, of the Volt (0-39) and Leaf (0-44) overlapped, suggesting, as noted above, that there was no actual difference in likelihood of death as a driver between either vehicle. The only area of no overlap was within 40-44, or 9% of the bound (4/45). As 91% of the bounds overlapped, there’s a 91% chance both vehicles shared the same true driver death rate.

Even the Prius, which had a much higher confidence interval, still overlapped the Volt’s interval by half (e.g., 21-39). The area of no overlap was 0-20 and 40-42, or 24/42, or 57%. This means there was still a 43% chance both vehicles shared the same true driver death rate. So while the Volt and Leaf were both possibly safer to be in than the Prius, we still can’t say that the differences in the numbers weren’t simply due to chance. It’s entirely possible the Prius was the safest of the three; statistically, all three were identical.

Second, the actual odds of dying are quite small; the way the numbers are presented trains our minds to perceive each death rather than the number of individuals who didn’t die. Of course, we do want to value each life, since the ultimate goal of auto travel should be a world where no one loses a life to a motor vehicle (see Vision Zero), but it’s important to keep in mind how good things have already gotten. Flipping the figures makes this more obvious. In the case of the Volt, where there were 7 estimated deaths vs 1 million registered vehicle years, this means the odds of dying in an ’11-’14 Volt were 7/1 million. Or to put it another way, the odds of living when driving an ’11-’14 Volt were 99.9993%.

In the Prius, those odds dropped to a measly 99.9969%.

That looks a lot different than the glaring figure of 31 fatalities, doesn’t it?

What about the Tesla Model S or Model X? Aren’t those safer?

Yes, no, and maybe. On paper, both the Model S and Model X are safer vehicles than the Volt, Leaf, and Prius (even though neither is perfect; the IIHS noted several flaws in the Model S compared to fellow large cars when they crash tested it). However, the main advantage of both vehicles is that they’re larger, which is only an advantage in head-on collisions against smaller vehicles. Weight isn’t an advantage in side collisions or rollovers. And as noted above, there are plenty of heavy vehicles that are less safe than small cars.

Because not enough Teslas have been sold for the IIHS to factor them into their DDR calculations (they require a minimal exposure of 100,000 registered vehicle years), there simply isn’t a way to know how well the Teslas are doing at keeping their drivers safe besides either a.) tracking individual deaths via news coverage, or b.) crunching the FARS data on your own. Both are options–here, for example, I noted the first Tesla Model S death–but for now, it’s most likely simpler to say that the Teslas are about as safe as the average large non-hybrid car and non-hybrid SUV respectively. On paper, this makes them about as safe as the Volt, which is either pretty darn good, or not that impressive, depending on what you were hoping for.

So What Do I Take Away From All This?

The main thing to take away from this report is that while individual cars are safer than they’ve ever been, it’s still not nearly enough to drive death rates to the ground in the US the way they’ve been dropping like rocks in Europe. We need best practices in road design, because that’s far easier to change than individual driver behaviors, and ultimately far more effective as a result. Cars in Norway, Sweden, or the UK aren’t more sophisticated than those in the US. But they only lose a fraction of their population per capita to auto traffic compared to us because they follow best practices to a much greater degree. The proper speed limits. The proper types of roads. The proper (fewer) miles driven and the transportation alternatives to make this possible. These are the directions that will take us to fewer deaths, if we choose to follow them. We’ll lose a lot more blood for a lot longer if we put our hopes on the vehicular end while waiting for decades for self-driving cars to fully turn over throughout the US driving fleet.

—

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.

Teen Safe Driving Tip #3: If you’re a teenager, the most dangerous parts of your day are the parts you spend in a car

May 20, 2017 Mike

I’m happy to announce that my first book on driving safety is now available for purchase here. Beyond Driver’s Ed: 44 Quick Ways to Explain the Risks of Speeding to Teenage Drivers is a guide to explaining the risks of speeding to teen drivers. I’ll publish excerpts from time to time on the blog and dive into the book’s topics in greater detail. Today’s topic is tip #3 in the book; let’s give it a closer look.

If you’re a teenager, the most dangerous parts of your day are the ones you spend in a car.

No matter where you live, statistically, your greatest risks of dying as a teenager involve the times you spend traveling in a car. That applies whether you’re the driver or the passenger, and whether your parents are with you or not. This doesn’t apply to the bus, if you take one.

What does this mean? It means that if you want to keep your teenagers as safe as possible, you’ll want to encourage them to minimize the amounts of time they travel in cars. Let’s look at the numbers to help us visualize just how much of an issue this is from a public health perspective.

What are the exact statistics on death rates by age in the US?

The National Safety Council publishes an annual statistical report categorizing unintentional injuries in the United States. Here’s an example of the 2015 report.

If you skip ahead to page 19 in the 218-page PDF (page 12 by the report’s pagination), you’ll note that unintentional injuries are the 5th highest cause of death across age groups. When researching individual ages, unintentional injuries are the top cause of death for every single year between 1 and 42. Within that subcategory, motor-vehicle deaths are the single greatest factor for both the 5-14 and 15-24 year old cohorts.

What percentage of deaths of teenagers are caused by cars?

Page 45 provides significant information regarding the degree to which unintentional injuries shorten the lifetimes of our teenage sons and daughters in the United States.

Unintentional injuries are a major public health concern affecting children and adolescents in the United States. They are the underlying cause of death in nearly 4 out of 10 childhood mortality cases for people 1-19 years old, and about 41% of the deaths among 15- to 19-year-olds.

In other words, for every 10 deaths in individuals between 13 and 19, 4 of them–nearly half–will be due to unintentional injuries, with motor vehicles contributing to more of those deaths than any other cause. It’s important to note that this doesn’t mean that 40% of teenage deaths are due to auto traffic; the actual figure is significantly smaller, since it would only represent a fraction of that 40%. However, let’s take the time to figure this out for 15-19-year olds:

Teens (15-19 years) made up 27% of the U.S. population between the ages of 1 and 19 and 59% of all injury mortality cases in that age group. Most importantly, about 67% of teen injury deaths are attributed to motor vehicle crashes. Of the 4,298 injury deaths among teens in 2011, 2,863 occurred in crashes.

To put it another way, in the 15-19-year age range, if a teenager died for any reason at all, there was a 41% chance that death was the result of an unintentional injury, and a 67% that this unintentional injury came from a motor vehicle crash. Multiplying .41*.67 provides a figure of .275; in other words, for 15-19-year olds, close to 28% of deaths, or more than 1 out of every 4, was directly attributed to auto traffic.

How many teenagers specifically die each year from car crashes or motor vehicle trauma in the United States?

Per page 45 in the NSC 2015 report, in 2011, the number of deaths directly attributable to motor vehicle traffic were as follows:

100 13-year olds,
156 14-year olds,
213 15-year olds,
414 16-year olds,
543 17-year olds,
820 18-year olds,
873 19-year olds.

Note how the number of deaths continued to increase with the year of the adolescent. This, of course, was also directly related to the increased rate of driving with age, particulalry between 15 and 16, where the rate nearly doubled, and between 17 and 18, where a number of adolescents leave home on a full time basis to attend college or begin working.

How often does someone die from a car crash in the United States?

In 2013, there were approximately 35,000 fatalities from auto traffic; that works out to 680 deaths a week, or 97 deaths a day, 4 deaths an hour, or one death every 15 minutes. The injury rate, in terms of injuries requiring hospitalization, works out to 4.3 million a year, or 82,700 a week, 11,800 a day, 490 an hour, or 7 every seconds.

This information is available on page 44 of the NSC 2015 report.

Why don’t the above findings apply to taking the school bus?

The above findings don’t apply to taking the school bus because school buses are by far the safest form of transportation for children as well as one of the safest overall forms of transportation; this has much to do with the physics and design of school buses, but it also has to do with how, when, and where they’re driven; you can learn more about this topic in this article on school bus safety. Despite the occasional tragic story that makes the news whenever a number of school children die while riding the bus, these events are statistically very rare and much less likely to occur than the daily tragedy of children dying due to traveling in personal motor vehicles.

What can we do to reduce the odds of our teens dying in cars?

To reduce the odds of teenagers dying in motor vehicle collisions, the simplest step is to reduce the amount of time teens spend in or around motor vehicles; this can be done in a number of ways, but perhaps the most effective is to delay the acquisition of driver’s permits and licenses by teenagers. For a number of additional tips on how to turn teenagers into safer drivers, you can review a number of best practice findings for teenage drivers here.

Mike, I’d like to buy your book and learn more about how to keep my teen safe. Where can I get it?

You can buy this book at Amazon here (or via Canada or the UK).

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!

Americans Drive More than Anyone Else in the World, And Are Dying For It

May 1, 2017 Mike

How much do you drive? Is there any way you could reduce this amount? — Is there any way you could drive less than you currently do?

One of the most basic, yet most effective, means of reducing our odds of death by auto traffic is to reduce our exposure to said traffic. I’ve written about this before, in terms of how we can double our driving safety by cutting our annual mileage in half. However, the information bears repeating, given the fact that we drive more, on average, in the United States than in any other country on the planet.

I find it helps to have international frames of reference when discussing driver safety, as it often provides us with a greater perspective of how things we take for granted in the US might not necessarily be the safest or even most practical ways of doing things. Today’s article will explore US driving rates across ages and compare them to a number of countries with a focus on Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. We’ll then extrapolate what death rates in each country would look like if each nation adopted the other’s driving habits.

Just how much do Americans drive per year, on average?

According to the Federal Highway Administration, Americans drive 13,476 miles per year on average. These figures vary significantly by age and gender, with men driving more than women at all stages of life. The peak driving ages for both genders occur between 35 and 54 for men, with an average just beneath 19,000 miles, and and between 20 and 34 for women, with an average of just over 12,000 miles. On average, then, the typical American drives a shade under 37 miles a day.

Per the IIHS, 35,092 Americans died from auto traffic in 2015, making it the worst year since 2008, where more than 37,000 died. The per capita death rate was 10.9 auto deaths per 100,000 residents, while the death rate per 100 million miles driven was 1.12.

Let’s look at how this compares to the average Norwegian, Swede, and Englishman or woman.

How many miles do Norwegians drive on average?

Per Statistisk Sentralbyra, or Statistics Norway, Norwegians drove an average of 12,289 km in 2015, or 7,636 miles per year. This translates to an average of 21 miles a day, or about 57% of the average US daily mileage.

Per SSB, 117 Norwegians died from auto traffic in 2015, making it the best year since 1948. I’ve written before about how Norway compares very favorably to the United States in auto safety, whether in overall fatalities or in child safety, and this was underscored in 2015. The per capita death rate was 2.2 auto deaths per 100,000 residents, which was one of the lowest in the world.

The 2016 IRTAD road safety report notes the peak fatality figures were reached in 1970 with 560 deaths. The report credits the dramatic drops in death rates since the 70s to a variety of causes, including safer cars, reduced speed limits, introductions of median barriers, and seat belt campaigns, as well as an overall Vision Zero strategy.

How many miles do Swedes drive on average?

Per Transport Analysis, Swedes drove an average of 12,216 km in 2015, or 7,591 miles per year. This translates to an average of just under 21 miles a day, or about 57% of the average US daily mileage.

Per Transport Analysis, 259 Swedes died from auto traffic in 2015. The 2016 IRTAD road safety report notes the peak fatality figures were reached in 1965 and 1966 with 1,313 deaths, and 2015’s figure appears to be Sweden’s lowest in modern history. The report credits the dramatic drops in death rates since the 60s to “safer cars, lower speeds, and the introduction of median barriers” – all elements of Vision Zero.

As with Norway, I’ve written about how Sweden experiences very few deaths, proportionally speaking, to the US, both in terms of overall deaths or in child safety (this is where extended rear-facing was born). In 2015, the per capita death rate was 2.7 auto deaths per 100,000, also one of the lowest in the world.

How many miles do UK citizens drive on average?

Per the UK Government’s Road Use Statistics 2016, the British drove an average of 6,488 miles in what appears to be 2013. This translates to an average of just under 18 miles a day, or about 49% of the average US daily mileage.

Per National Statistics, 1,732 Britons died from auto traffic in 2015, which appears to be the second best year in modern history after 2013, when 1713 died. This figure also represented a 46% drop in 10 years compared to the 3,201 death toll in 2005. The 2016 IRTAD road safety report notes the peak fatality figures were reached in 1941 with 9,000 deaths. In 2015, the per capita death rate was 2.7 auto deaths per 100,000, again one of the lowest in the world.

Interestingly, Sweden and the UK shared the same per capita death rate, indicating that the difference in total road deaths between the two countries could be entirely explained in 2015 due to the difference in total population between the two countries. There were approximately 6 Brits for every Swede, so with an identical death rate, the death toll was 6x higher in the UK than in Sweden.

How do the average miles driven by Americans affect our annual road death toll?

We’ve established that Americans drive more miles per day (and by extension, per year) than Norwegians, Swedes, and Britons, on average. However, the next step in figuring out how our driving patterns–or more specifically, the extent of our driving–affect our annual road death toll. To put the numbers into focus, let’s compare each of the three countries to the US.

If Americans drove as few miles as Norwegians or Swedes (i.e., 21 miles a day, or 57% of 37 miles a day), instead of 35,092 deaths in 2015, we’d have had approximately 20,002 deaths, representing 15,090 lives saved.

If Americans drove as few miles as the British (i.e., 18 miles a day, or 49% of 37 miles a day), instead of 35,092 deaths in 2015, we’d have had approximately 17,195 deaths, representing 17,897 lives saved.

That’s huge.

How would the annual fatality rate in the US change if the per capita death rate were the same as those in Norway, Sweden, or the UK?

Now that we’ve compared how many fewer road deaths the US would suffer annually if we reduced our driving rates to those found in Norway, Sweden, and the UK, let’s compare how the annual fatality rate would change if we shared per capita rates with those countries. This figure is particularly interesting when combined with the changes based on mileage, as the closer the road death toll from a modified per capita rate is to the road death toll from a modified mileage, the more our mileage (i.e., amount of driving) explains our per capita rate.

To put it simply, if adopting the per capita death rates of other countries wouldn’t give us significantly different annual death tolls than if we simply adopted other countries’ driving frequencies, this suggests the primary problem in the US with respect to road safety is simply how much we’re driving. On the other hand, if the modified road death toll from a modified per capita rate isn’t close to that of a modified road death toll from a modified driving rate, it suggests the US’ road safety issues are primarily due to other factors (e.g., the safety of the road network or the safety of our vehicles). The availability of other transportation options (e.g., buses and trains) also counts as a separate factor that could explain the difference in safety. Let’s see.

If the US shared Norway’s per capita death rate (2.2 instead of 10.9 deaths per 100,000 citizens), instead of 35,092 deaths in 2015, we’d have had approximately 7,083 deaths, representing 28,009 lives saved.

If the US shared Sweden or the UK’s per capita death rate (2.7 instead of 10.9 deaths per 100,000 citizens), instead of 35,092 deaths in 2015, we’d have had approximately 8,693 deaths, representing 26,399 lives saved.

Once again, this is huge.

Which matters more? Reducing driving rates or the overall per capita death rate?

Comparing the projected fatalities from the two types of adjustments (by mileage and by per capita rates) shows much, much bigger drops in total deaths by changing per capita rates than by changing driving rates.

Adopting Norwegian per capita death rates would result in roughly 1/3rd of the deaths we’d have if we simply adopted their driving rates.

Adopting Swedish per capita death rates would result in fewer than 1/2 of the deaths we’d have if we simply adopted their driving rates.

Adopting British per capita death rates would result in just over 1/2 of the deaths we’d have if we simply adopted their driving rates.

As a result, it looks like the primary reasons for much greater safety results in the leading countries as compared to the US cannot simply be explained by the fact that they drive less (although that explanation is the leading factor in the UK-US comparison). There are a range of other factors at work, including an overall pattern of safer driving habits, safer vehicle options, a safer road network, and more public transportation alternatives.

However, does this meant that it’s not worth driving less? Absolutely not. The fact is that we could immediately chop off 43-51% of our annual road death toll simply by committing to drive at roughly half our current rates. This applies at the national, state, local, and personal level. The majority of the difference in death tolls cannot be explained primarily by driving rates, but driving rates remain one of the largest factors in affecting that difference.

Advocate for safer road systems, for public transportation. Advocate for safer vehicles and for safer driving practices. However, in the mean time, drive less, and encourage your loved ones to do the same. It’s quite possibly the single most effective driving technique you can master.

…

If you find my information on best practices in car and car seat safety helpful, you can buy my books here or do your shopping through this Amazon link. Canadians can shop here for Canadian purchases. Have a question or want to discuss best practices? Send me an email at carcrashdetective [at] gmail [dot] com.

Why Are Norwegian Drivers Safer Drivers Than Americans?

April 10, 2017 Mike

Drivers in Norway are safer than those in the US. Let's unpack way. — Drivers in Norway are safer than those in the US. Let’s unpack why.

This is part of an ongoing series in lessons on international perspectives in driving safety and culture. My goal is to shed light for American audiences on how the leading countries in auto safety (as measured by the lowest death rates per capita) manage the complex and dangerous relationship between human beings, our environments, and our automobiles.

I’ve written before about how Norwegian roads are among the safest on the planet and about how children in Norway are less likely to die due to traffic than children in virtually any other country on the planet. Today’s article focuses on some factors that tie into why drivers are less likely to be involved in fatal crashes in Norway than in the United States. To put it simply, Norwegian drivers are, on average, safer drivers than Americans. I wanted to find out why, so I learned about the process behind becoming a legal driver on Norwegian roads. The short of it is that by the time a licensed Norwegian driver gets behind the wheel for the first time, s/he has received far better training and is required to behave far more responsibly as a lifelong driver than the equivalent American driver. Let’s look into the how and why together.

1. Norwegian teens don’t drive until they turn 18

To get a category B driver’s license in Norway, which is necessary for driving a car, you need to be at least 18 years old. This is two years longer than in most states in the United States (with the exception of New Jersey, which doesn’t offer an intermediate license until 17, and South Dakota, which allows 14-year-olds to obtain licenses), which gives teenagers two more years to gain crucial cognitive maturity and supervised driving experience.

The provision of additional time for development and practice is particularly key when one notes that, in the United States, 16-19-year-olds have the highest rates of fatal crash involvement per mile for all drivers below the age of 80. Within that subset, 16-17-year-olds have nearly twice the rate of fatal crash involvement per mile as 18-19-year-olds. Norway bypasses the highest risk years by restricting eligibility for driving multi-ton vehicles until drivers are at least 18.

2. Norwegian driver’s education classes are among the most detailed on the planet

Driver’s education in Norway can be divided into three steps: taking the mandatory (and optional) courses, passing the theoretical test, and finally, passing the practical test. The coursework can be divided into four stages: basic traffic knowledge, basic driving skills, road traffic skills, and long-distance training.

In stage 1, you’re required to take courses on first aid and night driving. If you’re under 25, you also need to take a basic traffic course. The basic traffic course is 10 hours long, and the first aid course is 4 hours long and includes training on how to administer basic first aid and effectively convey information to first responders and emergency personnel. You also deal with a simulated crash scene involving crash test dummies. The night driving course is 3 hours long and involves an actual nighttime driving demonstration to illustrate the hazards drivers can encounter during night driving. Before you take any of this, you will typically also take a 45 minute driving assessment so the driving instructor at your driving school can assess your training level and determine whether you’d be likely to pass the practical test with only the mandatory courses or whether you’d also benefit from the optional courses.

In stage 2, you focus on basic driving techniques, including steering, braking, vehicle positioning, and parking. However, you also learn to locate basic parts of the car, including how to open the hood, check and apply wiper fluid, and more. To advance from stage 2 to 3, you need approval from your driving instructor, which comes after a 45-minute driving lesson and a self-assessment you conduct in concert with instructor feedback.

In stage 3, you focus on road traffic, in terms of navigating environments with numerous other vehicles while processing signs and other road information. There are 3 required hours of driving a closed course safety circuit, 3 hours of driving in a 2-lane road, and a 45 minute guidance class again with approval required for advancement. Within stage 3, you also will get slippery road training on the closed circuit. Within this training, you’ll drive on roads coated with oil and water to provide you with exposure to low-traction conditions. Once again, with instructor approval after your 45 minute driving lesson, you’ll be able to advance to stage 4.

In stage 4, you focus on final training before the theoretical and practice tests. There are 13 required hours that are a mixture of driving and theory (class time). No other stages involve class time besides parts of stage 1. The theoretical course presents risky driving situations and means of avoiding or mitigating them. Next comes a 5 hour long-distance driving course, during which you’ll spend up to 5 hours driving under supervision; you also get to practice emergency procedures you’d use if your car malfunctioned. Finally, you have a tour planning course where you need to plan (and then drive) an efficient route to get from point A to B (both selected by the trainer).

The theoretical test is 45 questions long and requires a 85% score (38 questions correct) to pass. If you fail, you need to wait for 2 weeks before you retake it. From then, you have 3 years to pass the practical test. The practical test includes a vehicular safety check, actual driving, and parking after the drive. You learn if you pass at the end of the test. If you fail, you need to wait for 4 weeks before retaking it and take additional courses in between.

In comparison, in the United States, the rules for driver’s licensure vary considerably from state to state due to federalism. However, applicants generally must complete some sort of driver’s training before completing a theoretical and then practical test. The requirements for training may be waived for drivers above a certain age (e.g., 18).

3. It can cost up to $4,000 to obtain a Norwegian driver’s license

In Norway, it’s not unusual to need to spend up to 30,000 NOK (~$4,000 USD) from start to finish in the process of becoming a licensed driver. When you consider the sheer number of mandatory and optional courses you might end up taking on the way to licensure, it’s not surprising. The goal behind the process isn’t simply to extract money from citizens, but to put them through a gauntlet that results in far better competence for beginning drivers there than that in drivers throughout most of the rest of the world.

In comparison, in the United States, it typically doesn’t take more than around $25 to obtain a permit and license, as the US doesn’t consistently require license candidates take professional driving courses, as is the case in Norway and numerous countries around the world. Some states (e.g., Maryland) require a minimal amount of coursework (e.g., 30 hours of class time and 6 hours of driving time), and prices for such courses can reach into the low-to-mid hundreds, which is overpriced for the pittance of hours actually spent driving.

While there is something undeniably democratic about making driver’s licenses essentially free, as they are in most parts of the United States, it does come at a cost, in that it invariably leads to far less trained drivers obtaining their licenses. Of course, each country could fully fund detailed and professional driver’s education (especially countries as rich as the United States and Norway), but it appears far more common to either offer free bare-bones universal training (as is the case in the United States through the public high school system) or expensive private professional training (as is the case in Norway). The Norwegian approach results in far fewer people driving, but it also does result in a significantly safer population behind the wheel, because you can’t just buy your way into a license–you need to do a lot of supervised driving along the way.

4. Every newly licensed driver faces a 2 year probationary period in Norway

It doesn’t matter if you’re 18 or 80; if you’ve passed all the tests, paid all the fees, and become a licensed driver for the first time in Norway, you’re considered to be on probation. It’s called a trial license, and it lasts for 2 years. During this period, it’s literally twice as easy to lose your license as it is when you aren’t in the probationary period.

Norway features a point system, where the accumulation of 8 points in 3 years leads to a temporary revocation of your driving license. Most traffic tickets result in an automatic 2 points. However, if you’re on a trial license, points are doubled. In other words, two traffic tickets in your first two years of driving means a revoked license. The revocation period is typically six months long. However, if it occurs during a trial license, you’ll need to take all of your tests again–both the theoretical (written) tests and the practical (driving) ones. And you don’t get to take them again until after your suspension ends, which means there’s no fast-forwarding the process.

In the US, new and young drivers typically face various forms of probation upon license acquisition, but once again, the details can vary considerably from one state to the next.

Why is the US so much more freewheeling about driving compared to Norway?

The difference in the driving culture between the two countries is likely due to a variety of reasons. However, one of the most pertinent is the US’ much greater identification with the automobile than that present in Norway. This, of course, is largely due to deliberate collusion between the auto industry and the government in the early 20th century, as our highway systems, grid-based cities, and auto-centric living spaces and spacing didn’t arise by accident (or else they would exist in equal degree throughout fellow rich nations, and they most certainly do not). To put it simply, Americans were programmed to view auto travel as the only reasonable means of travel, and our lives were largely spaced in ways that reinforced this line of thought. As a result, it was necessary to make car access as easy as possible for the average person (this also explains credit access in the US, which is far less regulated than its equivalent in fellow rich countries).

How do we change this culture?

We need to drive less, drive more carefully, and advocate for the return of human-centric (and not auto-centric) living spaces. That means lower speeds, fewer cars, more space for people–pedestrians, children, cyclists, the elderly. It means a lot of changes in the long term. It means alternative transportation options–bicycles, buses, trains. And in relation to auto travel, it means following and advocating Vision Zero principles. Every human has the right to live without fear of dying from auto traffic.

—

A Guide to Swedish Child Car Seat Safety for Americans

March 20, 2017 Mike

The Swedish approach to child car seat safety is deceptively simple, yet it results in the best child traffic safety numbers on the planet. Virtually no children die from traffic incidents in Sweden each year, and this has been the case for many years now. As far as child traffic safety is concerned, they are the standard (although their western neighbor, Norway, has followed their example, and is now demonstrating stunningly low child death rates in traffic as well). I like learning from people doing things well.

Of course, the world-class results aren’t simply due to how they restrain kids in cars–there are a number of other factors that tie in, nearly all of which are related to Vision Zero principles, a practical and philosophical belief in Sweden that no one, adult or child, should die from traffic incidents. This manifests itself in areas like nation-wide laws requiring driving with headlights on 24/7, using snow tires throughout the winter months, an acceptance of traffic cameras everywhere, extremely low alcohol limits for driving, $2000 driving licenses, and traffic speeds and road designs based on the trauma limits of the human body.

But today’s article isn’t about any of these factors, although I love writing about them. Today’s article is a quick guide to how Swedes approach car seats with their kids. Today, we’ll pretend we’re Swedish parents, and look at the kinds of seats they choose and why. The great news is that the Swedish approach is rather simple, yet quite effective, as evidenced by the near-nonexistent death rates for young children from traffic. There are only three main seats used: the infant seat, the rear-facing convertible, and the high back booster.

What kinds of car seats do Swedish parents use with infants and babies?

The first car seat nearly all Swedish children use is the infant seat (known as the cradle abroad). This is essentially the same approach as in the US; the infant seat is easy to carry and can be moved in and out of a vehicle without waking a sleeping baby (very important). Swedish parents will typically use it for the first six to nine months of life. Naturally, it’ll be rear-facing.

A great example of an equivalent infant seat in the US is the Chicco KeyFit 30. It doesn’t need to have a high height or weight limit; that doesn’t matter. What matters is that it’s easy to install and easy to carry. It’ll be used for less than a year before parents get tired of carrying it and switch to the next seat.

What comes after the infant seat, and how long do the Swedes use it?

After the infant seat, the Swedes, well-versed in the importance of extended rear-facing, invest in a rear-facing convertible seat. The typical Swedish family will rear-face until 4-5 even though there isn’t actually a law in the country requiring parents to do so. What you’ll find is a deep cultural knowledge of the value of rear-facing due to an effective and long-lasting public awareness campaign began by the government and media with guidance from research conducted throughout the country.

Parents don’t feel like outliers when rear-facing until 4-5 because everyone else is doing it; it isn’t known as “extended rear-facing” there, and parents don’t have to justify to fellow parents or spouses why they haven’t turned their car seats around. It’s just what you do.

An Extend2Fit will let you rear-face most kids until 5 and forward-face most kids until at least 6 while costing well under $200.

In Sweden, you can buy car seats that allow you to rear-face all the way to 55 pounds, potentially allowing rear-facing until 6 or even longer. In the US, our best seats–The Graco Extend2Fit, Clek Fllo, Diono Rainier, Clek Foonf, and Diono Pacifica–allow you to rear-face until 50 pounds, which is a great improvement over how the car seat scene looked just a few years ago here. Fifty pounds will be enough to allow you to make it until 4 or 5, which is how long you’ll find the typical Swedish child rear-facing. The kids don’t protest it there because their parents treat it as normal, as do their grandparents and everyone else they come into contact with.

Among seats available in the United States, the Extend2Fit is one of my favorite examples for this phase, as it not only features one of the highest weight limits at 50 lbs, it also features the highest height limit (it’s 49″, or the same as the forward-facing height limit), which means you’ll might even be able to rear-face until 6 or 7 if you really want to, depending on the height of your child.

In comparison, in the US, children are only required to rear-face until 1 in all but 4 states, and 75% of children are forward-facing by their 2nd birthday. That’s too soon. Aim for at least 4 if at all possible.

What comes after rear-facing in Sweden, and for how long? And what about harnessed seats?

Once parents stop rear-facing in Sweden, they don’t typically use harnessed forward-facing seats. In fact, the general Swedish perception is that booster seats are actually safer than forward-facing seats for children of an appropriate age (i.e., 4+). The reasons for this involve research in Sweden regarding how the harness system may put more load on the neck by restraining the rest of the body (and allowing the neck to snap forward), compared to how the body moves more completely when in a seat belt, spreading forces across the body.

As a result, parents will typically move from a rear-facing convertible directly to a high-back booster. The particular booster they choose doesn’t matter too much as long as it’s a high-back booster; the reason behind this is that they keep the child in place even if she or he falls asleep in the car.

Three of the best dedicated boosters on the market today are the Clek Oobr, Peg Perego Flex 120, and Maxi-Cosi RodiFix, and I’d give the edge to the RodiFix because, like most Swedish car seats (and European ones in general), it doesn’t feature cup holders. The lack of arm rests also means your kids won’t get the seat belts stuck on them while buckling themselves in. If you’re on a smaller budget, the Britax Parkway also does a great job. Whichever seat you choose, it’s worth looking for ones that include LATCH connectors, as these will allow you to permanently attach the seats to your vehicle, preventing them from becoming projectiles when they aren’t buckled in.

Swedish parents use booster seats as long as the law requires (there is a law here regarding this), which is until they’re 135 cm tall, or 53″ tall. This is a rather common law throughout the EU.

But aren’t harnessed forward-facing seats safer than booster seats?

It’s a common belief in the US that forward-facing harnessed seats are safer than booster seats, and this is true in certain contexts. It’s true when children should still absolutely be rear-facing (i.e., under 4), simply because children who are boostered too early are at tremendous risk for suffering abdominal injuries or submarining out of their car seats.

Even beyond 4, children who don’t sit properly will be safer in harnessed seats (which force them to sit correctly) than in boosters, where they can move themselves out of safe positions. However, once children are mature enough to sit properly (i.e., straight up in the centers of their seats), there is no safety difference between harnessed forward-facing seats and booster seats. The NHTSA recommends waiting until 8 (or until children outgrow their forward-facing seats) to cover all bases here, but it’s likely that most children who are 6 or older will be able to sit appropriately enough to use booster seats.

When do Swedish parents stop using car seats and just use seat belts?

Swedish parents typically stop using car seats and switch their kids to seat belts once they’re at least 135 cm (53″) tall. See the NTF’s responses for more information here. Their recommendations are generally in line with those of the NHTSA, which recommend that children stay in booster seats until they have good belt fit, which they state is generally around when they’re between 8 and 12 years old.

Do you recommend following the Swedish approach to car seat selection?

Absolutely. The American in me wants to suggest harnessed forward-facing seats over boosters, but the evidence doesn’t support their being necessary for most children beyond 5 or 6. I do think the 5-step test for seat belt readiness is a good idea, but I also think the harness/booster debates and 5-step test aren’t nearly as important as the core element of rear-facing as long as possible. If you take nothing else from this, take that and spread the word.

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.