Road Safety, Child Safety: The Importance of Learning from Other Countries

We learn the most when we learn together.

I like comparisons, especially ones based on proportions.  Why?Because they’re fun!

But they’re more than just fun. Comparisons are an essential way of making sense of the world, while proportions help you figure out if there are any elephants in the room, metaphorically speaking. To put it another way, comparisons through  proportions give you a quick and accurate way of understanding whether certain figures (e.g., the number of miles driven annually by the average adult or the number of people killed per 100,000 due to road traffic) are larger or smaller than you’d expect them to be when crosschecked with other countries.

Which kinds of comparisons stand out?

We once looked at how many children died per year due to road traffic in Norway compared to in the US, and concluded that it was far, far safer to be a child in Norway than one in the US. At another time, we compared the per capita death rates in Iceland to those of every state in the United States, and concluded that it was far safer to be a driver in Iceland than anywhere in the US, and several times safer than a state with a similar population and size, Wyoming. Another time, we compared the average number of miles driven per man and woman in the US with those driven in Norway, Sweden, and the UK, and deduced that we drove a lot more in the US each year.

What about car seats? Alcohol? Where else have we looked?

At another time, we compared the kinds of car seats available in Sweden to those available in the US to figure out whether or not the seats were why kids were so much less likely to die in road traffic there than here. We’ve looked at how much alcohol you can get away with drinking before getting behind the wheel in the United States compared to amounts in other wealthy countries. Most recently, we took a look at how current laws by US state regarding car seat use compared to those based on best practices in Sweden to see which differences, if any, existed between the average US state and Swedish national policy.

These comparisons teach us things. In many cases, they underscore how important simple behavioral changes (such as driving less or at slower speeds or on safer roads) can add up to the tune of thousands of lives saved–or lost–per year. At a very personal level, they can give us the tools to help us make it home to our loved ones each night.

We do many things right. But we’ve still got a ways to go

It’s important to be able to learn from our neighbors, because there are a great many things we do in the United States that, while better than they are in a great many poor countries, are far worse than how things are done in a great many rich countries. We can learn from Sweden about how long kids actually benefit from rear-facing. We can learn from the UK about how important it is to limit our annual miles. We can learn from Iceland about how few deaths we actually need to accept per capita if we make safe driving and community-oriented living national level priorities. We need fewer heros and more Vision Zeroes.

We need to be able to learn from each other to improve.

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.  It costs nothing extra to do so, but when you shop through my links, a small portion of your purchase, regardless of what you buy, will go toward the maintenance of The Car Crash Detective.

 

Swedish Car Seat Safety: Which Car Seats are Dangerous to Swedes?

Even the Swedes have limits. What kinds of car seats are taboo in the land of best practices?

One of my favorite resources for information on best practices is the Swedish national Society for Road Safety, or the NTF (Saker Trafik). They’re basically the Swedish version of the NHTSA, and they have a lovely frequently asked question section with all kinds of answers related to the promotion of safe road traffic. I’ve written about them before here (Swedish Car Safety FAQ) and revisited to share their thoughts on a question that comes up from time to time: which kinds of car seats are dangerous?

We know that best practices from a car seat perspective basically means to rear-face until your child is at least 4 or 5 and then to booster until your child is at least 10 to 12. You can do this with two seats readily available in the United States: the Graco Extend2Fit and the Clek Oobr (or if you want to keep within the same company, the Clek Fllo can be your convertible car seat). But what do you want to avoid when it comes to a car seat? We’ll tackle that question today.

Which Kinds of Car Seats are Dangerous, Per Swedish Best Practices?

According to the NTF, the kinds of car seats they’d call “dangerous” are the ones that allow you to forward-face from the age of 1. To quote them specifically, thanks to Google Translate:

There are car seats on the market that are approved for forward-facing placement from about 1 year of age. We could probably call them “dangerous”.

NTF recommends using a car seat that can withstand rear-facing occupants for as long as possible, preferably up to 25 kg. The absolute safest way to travel in a car is in reverse. Children should therefore go back as long as possible, preferably up to 4-5 years of age.

Sounds simple enough. Forward-facing from 1 is dangerous in any seat; what you want to do is to rear-face as long as possible, preferably up to 55 pounds. Now you’re not going to be able to rear-face until 55 pounds in the US; our car seats top out at 50 pounds because the demand just isn’t there yet, per the manufacturers. However, you can easily get to 4 or 5 with nearly any child as long as you use a good 50 pound seat like the aforementioned Graco Extend2Fit or Clek Fllo. If you’re looking for other options, check out the top seats on the recommended car seat list here. The full list as of 2020 features the Clek Fllo, the Clek Foonf, the Diono Rainier 2AX, the Graco Extend2Fit, the Graco Extend2Fit 3-in-1, the Graco 4Ever Extend2Fit, and the Nuna Rava.

Is that really all it takes to make a car seat safe?

Per the Swedes, yes. And no one knows more about car seat safety than they do; they have and continue to have the best track record when it comes to keeping kids alive on the road of any country. Now, there are other parts to road safety, of course. You’ll want to drive as little as possible (the Swedes average only a fraction of Americans’ average annual mileage), and choose safe speeds (that means 43 mph on undivided highways and 62 mph on divided ones) and choose safe roads (the divided ones) whenever you do, and you’ll be far ahead of the game. The full list of articles related to best practices in driving behaviors, vehicle selection, and road infrastructure is here.

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.  It costs nothing extra to do so, but when you shop through my links, a small portion of your purchase, regardless of what you buy, will go toward the maintenance of The Car Crash Detective.

The 2020 Guide to Car Seat State Laws (US) vs Best Practices

How safe is this sweet little boy when riding in a car across the 50 states? Let’s take a look together!

One of the most tricky parts of keeping kids safe is knowing what best practices are – then following them. I’ve reviewed what best practices look like for rear-facing, forward-facing, and boostering–best practices largely based on Swedish norms, which have been the best in the world for decades and continue to be. However, it’s also helpful to know what the rules and regulations are across the United States. Unfortunately, none of  them come close to Swedish best practices, but knowing how far individual states are from what’s best for keeping kids safe gives you knowledge of where to advocate next, whether with friends and family or at the local, state, or national levels if you’re so inclined. Today we’re not simply going to recite chapter and verse of whatever laws are on the books; that’s information you can find easily, but without context, it’s just numbers. The fun part comes when we compare what each state requires with what we’d see if each state followed the policies that lead to the best outcomes for kids overseas. Ready? Let’s go!

As a reminder, the core of car seat safety involves rear-facing. It’s the safest position available in every vehicle, statistically speaking, and the benefits of extended rear-facing extend from childhood through adulthood. I typically suggest keeping children rear-facing as long as possible (until 4 or 5 like the Swedes), followed by harnessing until they can safely use booster seats (until 5, 6, 7, or 8, like the Swedes), and then boostering until the 5 step test is passed (typically between 10, 11, and 12). Beyond that, I suggest keeping kids in the back seat until at least 13, and delaying teen solo driving until 18 if possible. And seat belts, of course, are required for life. The goal isn’t to move through seats as quickly as possible; it’s to keep kids as safe as possible whenever they’re in motor vehicles.

Alabama

  • Rear-Facing: Until 1 or 20 pounds.
  • Forward-Facing: Until 5 or 40 pounds.
  • Boostering: Until 6.
  • The rear-facing law is at least 3 years too short. The forward-facing law would be fine without the weight exemption. The boostering law is at least 4 years too short. And there’s a bizarre law that seat belts aren’t required once children reach 15 years of age. The correct answer, of course, is that seat belts or an equivalent restraint system are required for safety for any form of 4-wheeled travel, regardless of age.

Alaska

  • Rear-Facing: Until 1 and 20 pounds.
  • Forward-Facing: Until 5.
  • Boostering: Until 8 or 57 inches and 65 pounds.
  • The rear-facing law is at least 3 years too short. The forward-facing law is fine. The boostering law is at least 2 years too short. The 57 inch requirement is sensible, but the way the law is written, the driver can override weight and height considerations once the child turns 8, which makes 8 the functional bottleneck.

Arizona

  • Rear-Facing: N/A.
  • Forward-Facing: N/A.
  • Boostering: N/A.
  • The state laws are bizarre. They don’t specifically mandate rear-facing, forward-facing, or booster use, but state that children who are under 8 and not more than 57 inches must use child restraint systems. Additionally, you don’t need to use such restraints (and can presumably use seat belts) if you transport multiple children, have at least one properly restrained, and decide that there isn’t room to properly restrain the rest. Needless to say, there is little here to admire in a discussion of best practices.

Arkansas

  • Rear-Facing: N/A.
  • Forward-Facing: N/A.
  • Boostering: Until 6 and 60 pounds.
  • The state laws are bizarre. Again, rear-facing and forward-facing are not explicitly required, but simply child restrained systems for those under 6. Seat belts do not appear to be required after age 15. Again, there is little to admire here in a discussion of best practices. The implied booster limit is at least 4 years too short, and there are no guidelines whatsoever to encourage rear-facing.

California

  • Rear-Facing: Until 2 or 40 pounds or 40 inches.
  • Forward-Facing: N/A.
  • Boostering: Until 8 or 57 inches.
  • The rear-facing law is at least 2 years too short. There is a requirement that children under 8 sit in the back, but no requirement to forward-face until at least 5 if parents aren’t willing to rear-face until then. The booster limit is at least 2 years too short.

Colorado

  • Rear-Facing: Until 1 and 20 pounds.
  • Forward-Facing: Until 4 and 40 pounds.
  • Boostering: Until 8.
  • The rear-facing law is at least 3 years too short. The forward-facing law is a year too short. The boostering law is at least 2 years too short. It includes wording about part of the 5-step test, but not all of the language, and it also allows children to be restrained by lap belts, which are absolutely not enough for safe transportation.

Connecticut

  • Rear-Facing: Until 2 or 30 pounds.
  • Forward-Facing: Until 5 or 50 pounds.
  • Boostering: Until 8 or 60 pounds.
  • The rear-facing law is at least 2 years too short. The forward-facing law would be fine without the weight exemption. The booster law is at least 2 years too short.

Delaware

  • Rear-Facing: N/A.
  • Forward-Facing: N/A.
  • Boostering: Until 8 or 65 pounds.
  • The state laws are bizarre. As in other states, there are no explicit requirements to rear-face or forward-face. The booster law is at least 2 years too short, and again, seat belts do not seem to be required once children reach 16.

Florida

  • Rear-Facing: N/A.
  • Forward-Facing: Until 4?
  • Boostering: Until 6.
  • Here’s another state with bizarre laws. It doesn’t seem to matter what your child is doing as long as she’s in some kind of car seat until 4, at which point you can switch to a booster. The booster law is at least 4 years too short, and the law actually states children 6 and above must use seat belts. Of course, you can most likely continue to use boosters (or forward-face or even rear-face with the right seats).

Georgia

  • Rear-Facing: N/A.
  • Forward-Facing: N/A.
  • Boostering: Until 8 or 57 inches.
  • Here’s another state that doesn’t require rear- or forward-facing but simply says you’re good to go, seat-belt wise, once your child hits 8 or 57 inches. Additionally, once kids turn 9, they can ride in the front seat (another bad idea).

Hawaii

  • Rear-Facing: N/A.
  • Forward-Facing: Until 4?
  • Boostering: Until 8, 40 pounds, or 57 inches.
  • Another state, another set of poor, poor laws. There are no guides for rear-facing, the forward-facing law is implied simply due to the fact that kids between 4 and 8 can use boosters, suggesting kids under 4 cannot, and the booster law ends 2 years too soon with an absurdly low weight exception that would allow many 4-year olds to use seat belts.

Idaho

  • Rear-Facing: N/A.
  • Forward-Facing: N/A.
  • Boostering: Until 7?
  • These are the worst laws I’ve come across yet. Children under 7 must be restrained in child restraints, but the kinds of restraints are never discussed, nor are rear-facing, forward-facing, or boostering. The law additionally notes that restraints of any kind are optional if all available seat belts are being used as long as the child is placed somewhere in the back. Restraints are also optional if the child is being held to be nursed or cared for in any other immediate need. In other words, if you decide to feed your child while speeding down the highway, you are free to hold her.This is, quite frankly, insane, and the kind of practice found all over the poor parts of the world with devastating results. The law additionally notes that people can’t be charged with negligence for not restraining their children. Idaho is a backwards state when it comes to child car safety.

Illinois

  • Rear-Facing: Until 2 or 40 pounds or 40 inches.
  • Forward-Facing: N/A.
  • Boostering: Until 8.
  • The rear-facing law is at least 2 years too short, there isn’t a forward-facing law, and the boostering law is at least 2 years too short. That said, the laws are far better than those in Idaho.

Indiana

  • Rear-Facing: N/A.
  • Forward-Facing: N/A.
  • Boostering: Until 8.
  • Another state with bizarrely unclear laws. There’s no guide to rear- or forward-facing, and the implied booster limit is at least 2 years too short. The law also implies that seat belts are optional once children turn 17.

Iowa

  • Rear-Facing: Until 1 and 20 pounds.
  • Forward-Facing: N/A.
  • Boostering: Until 6.
  • The rear-facing law is at least 3 years too short, there isn’t a forward-facing law, and the booster law is at least 4 years too short. Overall, as has been the case with every state so far, Iowa remains far away from best practices.

Kansas

  • Rear-Facing: N/A.
  • Forward-Facing: N/A.
  • Boostering: Until 8 and 80 pounds or 57 inches.
  • Here’s another state with obtuse laws. The only clear limit appears to be a requirement to use something besides a seat belt until a child turns 8 and reaches certain height and weight limits. The age limit is still at least 2 years too early, and again, there’s no guidance on how long to rear- or forward-face.

Kentucky

  • Rear-Facing: N/A.
  • Forward-Facing: Until more than 40 inches tall.
  • Boostering: Until 8 and 57 inches tall.
  • The law is, as we’ve seen repeatedly in this survey, vague. There is no guide to rear-facing and only a height limit to curtail booster use. The booster limit itself is at least 2 years too early, even though at 57 inches, most children would have the height to sit safely. Height, however, does not automatically bring maturity. And the laws as written are immature.

Louisiana

  • Rear-Facing: Until 2.
  • Forward-Facing: Until 4.
  • Boostering: Until 9  and the 5-step test is passed.
  • Louisiana currently has the best car seat laws in the country. Rear-facing is still 2 years to short and I’d like to see a year more for forward-facing (because while 4-year olds can sit safely in boosters, they need to be taught very explicitly to do so, and waiting until 5 will be easier for many US parents), but the booster law, while a year shorter than I’d like to see, is the first that explicitly walks parents through (most of) the 5-step test for readiness, which is textbook best practices. The law also states to choose the more protective category if a child can fit in multiple categories, as well as that children must be transported in the back seats when under 13. Go Luisiana! The laws aren’t perfect, but they’re better than any I’ve seen so far.

Maine

  • Rear-Facing: Until 2.
  • Forward-Facing: Until 55 pounds.
  • Boostering: Until 8 and 80 pounds and 57 inches.
  • Maine’s rear-facing law is 2 years too short, but I like their 55 pound forward-facing restriction, as that’ll carry children well into 5 years of age, if not further. The booster law is 2 years too short but when combined with the height and weight limits is better than most in the country. I also like the inclusion of the requirement to seat children under 12 and 100 pounds in the back seats, although raising the requirement to 13 would be better.

Maryland

  • Rear-Facing: N/A.
  • Forward-Facing: N/A.
  • Boostering: Until 8 or 57 inches.
  • Maryland joins an unhealthy number of states with near-nonexistant guidance regarding rear-facing or forward-facing, and simply tells parents to put their kids in something until they’re 8. This, once again, is bum practice, not best practice.

Massachusetts

  • Rear-Facing: N/A.
  • Forward-Facing: N/A.
  • Boostering: Until 8 or 57 inches.
  • Massachusetts takes after Maryland with next-to-no guidance for parents interested in basic (never mind best) practice.

Michigan

  • Rear-Facing: N/A.
  • Forward-Facing: Under 4?
  • Boostering: Under 9 and under 57 inches.
  • Michigan’s laws on car seat safety continue the trend of laws that leave much to the imagination and much to be improved. There’s no rear-facing guideline, the forward-facing guideline can only be inferred from the boostering guideline, and the booster guideline ends a year too early while lacking any mention of the 5-step test.

Minnesota

  • Rear-Facing: N/A.
  • Forward-Facing: N/A.
  • Boostering: Until 8 or 57 inches.
  • Minnesota’s laws are as bad as those in most parts of the US, but to their credit, they explicitly note that they are only providing a minimum standard of safety and have nothing to do with best practices. I suppose it’s good that they at least made this obvious to parents.

Mississippi

  • Rear-Facing: N/A.
  • Forward-Facing: Under 4?
  • Boostering: Under 7 and under 65 pounds or 57 inches.
  • Another state, another bad set of laws. The boostering law, which is the only law explicitly declared, ends 3 years too early.

Missouri

  • Rear-Facing: N/A.
  • Forward-Facing: Under 40 pounds?
  • Boostering: Under 8 and under 80 pounds and 57 inches.
  • Missouri’s laws are rather wordy but still don’t say much when it comes to best practices. A positive is the requirement for children below 40 pounds, regardless of age, to use a harnessed seat. Cons include the lack of guidance toward rear- and forward-facing as well as the booster limits that end 2 years too soon.

Montana

  • Rear-Facing: N/A.
  • Forward-Facing: N/A.
  • Boostering: Under 6 and 60 pounds.
  • Montanta’s wording is sparse but gets the point across: we don’t care about best practices. Your only restraint requirements end at 6 years and 60 pounds, which is 4 years too early to end boostering.

Nebraska

  • Rear-Facing: Until 2,
  • Forward-Facing: N/A.
  • Boostering: Until 8.
  • Nebraska beats Michigan by having one of the best rear-facing rules in the nation (until 2), but it still falls at least 2 years behind best practices. Nothing is mentioned for forward-facing, and the booster law ends 2 years too soon.

Nevada

  • Rear-Facing: N/A.
  • Forward-Facing: N/A.
  • Boostering: Under 6 and 60 pounds.
  • Nevada channels Montanta with next-to-no guidance and next-to-no attention to best practices. Again, the booster law ends 4 years too soon.

New Hampshire

  • Rear-Facing: N/A.
  • Forward-Facing: N/A.
  • Boostering: Under 7 years or 57 inches.
  • New Hampshire joins the worst of the worst states with next-to-no laws on the books aside from a catch-all put them in something law that ends 3 years too soon for boostered children.

New Jersey

  • Rear-Facing: Until 2 and 30 pounds.
  • Forward-Facing: Until 4 and 40 pounds.
  • Boostering: Until 8 and 57 inches.
  • New Jersey’s laws are among the best in the nation in that they provide specific guidelines for rear-, forward-facing, and boostering. That said, the rear guidelines end 2 years too soon, the forward guidelines end a year sooner than I’d like, and the booster laws end 2 years too soon. That said, we’d be better off if every state’s laws looked at least like New Jersey’s.

New Mexico

  • Rear-Facing: Until 1.
  • Forward-Facing: Until 5 or 40 pounds.
  • Boostering: Until the 5-step test is passed.
  • New Mexico’s rear-facing rule ends 3 years too soon. Their forward-facing law has a good year limit but far too low of a weight limit, as it could allow 40-pound 3 year olds to move into boosters, which isn’t safe under any circumstances. However, the booster limit is right in line with best practices, as it mandates booster use until the 5-step test is passed.

New York

  • Rear-Facing: Until 2.
  • Forward-Facing: N/A.
  • Boostering: Under 8.
  • New York’s laws are wordy but confusing. The core points are to rear-face until 2, which is still 2 years too short, and to booster until 8, which is also 2 years too short.

North Carolina

  • Rear-Facing: N/A.
  • Forward-Facing: N/A.
  • Boostering: Until 8 and 80 pounds.
  • North Carolina’s laws are brief and, as is the case in most states, next to useless. The one positive note is the booster requirement until 8 and 80 pounds, although it’s still 2 years too early with no mention of the 5-step test.

North Dakota

  • Rear-Facing: N/A.
  • Forward-Facing: Until 4 or 40 pounds.
  • Boostering: Until 8 and 57 inches.
  • North Dakota’s standards are as poor as those in most states; there’s no rear-facing requirement, the forward-facing requirement is only implied and is nullified by the 40 pound exclusion, and the booster limit is 2 years too early. There’s also the ditty about how children only need proper restraints until 15.

Ohio

  • Rear-Facing: Until 2.
  • Forward-Facing: Until 4.
  • Boostering: Until 8 or 57 inches.
  • Ohio receives some credit for requiring rear-facing until 2, although that’s still 2 years too short, but all credit can be removed by their inclusion of the exclusion that children can be forward-faced once they outgrow their seats by weight or height (whichever comes first). This naturally defeats the purpose of the initial requirement, as a parent bent on forward-facing could do so in most infant seats before 1 by simply following height restrictions. I mention this here not to particularly shame Ohio’s lawmakers, but to point out again how these laws are poorly written in just about every state, as dozens of states have similar exclusions in their rear-facing guidelines. If you want a child to rear-face until 2, you make that the law and additionally stipulate that parents must seek seats capable of reaching this requirement. You can provide links to suitable seats or similar resources for parents who need help finding or affording such seats. You don’t simply allow parents to opt out by telling them “we don’t mean it once your child outgrows her first infant seat wink wink.”Oh, and the forward-facing law is a year too short and is only implied. The boostering law is 2 years too short. If you read prior state laws, you knew this already.

Oklahoma

  • Rear-Facing: Until 2.
  • Forward-Facing: N/A.
  • Boostering: Until 8 or 57 inches.
  • Oklahoma uses the same “rear-face until 2 or you decide your seat doesn’t fit tee-hee” approach as Ohio and too many other states. Even without the neutering exclusion, kids there would still fall 2 years short of best practices. There are no guidelines for forward-facing and the booster requirement is the standard 2-year too short one found in many states.

Oregon

  • Rear-Facing: Until 2 and 20 pounds.
  • Forward-Facing: Until 40 pounds.
  • Boostering: Until 8 or 57 inches.
  • Oregon doesn’t rear-face long enough by 2 years, but at least requires the first 2 years. The forward-facing law is too short, as is the booster law (by 2 years).

Pennsylvania

  • Rear-Facing: Until 2.
  • Forward-Facing: Until 4.
  • Boostering: Until 8.
  • Pennsylvania’s laws have a lot of words but, as we’ve seen repeatedly in this survey with other wordy states, don’t actually say much. The bottom line is that rear-facing is only required for half as long as would be optimal from a best practices standpoint, forward-facing is implied for 4 years instead of for 5, and boostering can be ended 2 years too soon.

Rhode Island

  • Rear-Facing: Until 2 or 30 pounds.
  • Forward-Facing: Until outgrown.
  • Boostering: Until 8 or 80 pounds or 57 inches.
  • Rhode Island requires rear-facing until 2 (2 years too short), forward-facing until seats are outgrown (good, but a requirement until 5 would be best), and boostering until 8, which is (as almost always) 2 years too soon.

South Carolina

  • Rear-Facing: Until 2.
  • Forward-Facing: Until outgrown or 4.
  • Boostering: Until 8 and 57 inches tall with the 5-step test.
  • South Carolina does better than most states. They don’t rear-face long enough (2 years too short), forward-face long enough, or booster long enough, but do require the 5-step test (for the most part) be passed before children can use adult seat belts.

South Dakota

  • Rear-Facing: N/A.
  • Forward-Facing: N/A.
  • Boostering: Until 5 or 40 pounds.
  • You’ve got a friend, Idaho! Welcome to the second-worst laws in the nation, courtesy of South Dakota. Here, you only need to restrain your child in a car seat (which may be a booster) until she turns 5. However, even that bizarre requirement can be waived once your child tips the scales at 40 pounds. From that point on, she’s good to go in a seat belt just like a full-fledged adult!Needless to say, these are terrible laws. That said, Idaho still gives them a run for their money by encouraging you to feed your unrestrained child. I think they’re still the worst I’ve found.

Tennessee

  • Rear-Facing: Until 1 and 20 pounds.
  • Forward-Facing: Until 3.
  • Boostering: Until 8 or 57 inches.
  • Tennessee’s laws are typically bad, but as we’ve seen, have no dearth of company. The rear-facing laws are too short by 3 years, the forward-facing ones by 2, and the booster laws by 2, although the 5-step test is the ultimate authority there.

Texas

  • Rear-Facing: N/A.
  • Forward-Facing: N/A.
  • Boostering: Until 8 or 57 inches.
  • Texas’ laws are nothing to write home about; the only actual guideline they seem to have is the standard one about boostering, which ends 2 years too early and lacks the 5-step test. You’re on your own for rear- or forward-facing.

Utah

  • Rear-Facing: N/A.
  • Forward-Facing: N/A.
  • Boostering: Until 8 or 57 inches.
  • It becomes obvious how many of these states simply copied each others’ laws without adding any thought or consultation to their improvement. Utah does what Texas and half of the other states do, which is next to nothing.

Vermont

  • Rear-Facing: Until 1 or 20 pounds.
  • Forward-Facing: N/A.
  • Boostering: Until 8.
  • Vermont’s laws are far too short for rear-facing safely (4 years too short), say nothing about forward-facing, and say next to nothing about boostering (and are 2 years too short). Next!

Virginia

  • Rear-Facing: Until 2.
  • Forward-Facing: N/A.
  • Boostering: Until 8.
  • Virginia requires rear-facing until 2 while, as is often the case, giving parents the ol’ weight/height exclusion. They don’t mention forward-facing and do tell you to booster until 8. They also note that you can’t throw kids in the cargo area without restraining them. Progress, I suppose.

Washington

  • Rear-Facing: Until 2.
  • Forward-Facing: Until 4.
  • Boostering: Until 57 inches  and encouraged until 5-step test is passed.
  • Washington has some of the better rules on the books as of 2020; they require rear-facing until 2 (2 years too soon), forward-facing until 4 (1 year too soon), and boostering until 57 inches with encouragement to continue to do so until the 5-step test is passed. They also encourage rear-facing past 2 although they allow the weight/height escape clauses. And unlike most states, require transporting kids under 13 in the back, although they allow an escape clause if it is not “practical.”

West Virginia

  • Rear-Facing: N/A.
  • Forward-Facing: N/A.
  • Boostering: Until 8 and 57 inches.
  • West Virginia uses the same basic copy-pasted, lowest-bidder legislation found in dozens of other states. Ignore it and do better (as is the case throughout this article, without exception).

Wisconsin

  • Rear-Facing: Until 1 and 20 pounds.
  • Forward-Facing: Until 4.
  • Boostering: N/A?
  • The Wisconsin law is both bad and confusing. The rear-facing law is bad, the forward-facing law is better, although 1 year too short, but the boostering law goes from urging booster use for kids under 8 who weigh at least 80 pounds and are under 57 inches tall to stating that kids under 8 can also just use seat belts. Perhaps it’s a riddle, or just an extremely poorly-written law. In either case, it still wouldn’t be best practices. Booster until the 5-step test is passed. This typically isn’t until 10-12. End of story.

Wyoming

  • Rear-Facing: N/A.
  • Forward-Facing: N/A.
  • Boostering: Until 8 or younger?
  • Wyoming’s law is bad, but as you’ve seen above, it has company. They briefly mention not placing rear-facing infants in front of airbags, but don’t mention if you’re supposed to rear-face at all, and if so, for how long. There’s a similar dearth of information on forward-facing and boostering, although we can assume the need to booster ends at 8 since they provide information encouraging seat belt use at 8 or younger provided that the belt fits properly. From reading the CCD, you know the belt’s not going to fit properly, so they’re essentially giving useless advice at best and bad advice at worst, as very few parents interested in seat belting their 7 or 6 or 5 or 4 year olds will stop and buy a car seat instead after deciding the belt didn’t fit properly. This is a bad law, and it’s a fitting end to a country full of them.

The United States is full of bad laws related to car seat safety

As you can see, the state of car seat legislation in the United States in 2020 is enough to make your head hurt. This isn’t Sweden. If you want best practices, you’ll need to learn them and enforce them yourself. Keep your family safe. Encourage your friends and family to do the same. Don’t follow state guidelines, because they’re not based on the rules that keep far more kids alive in Sweden and Norway when seconds away from a serious crash than the rules we’ve written up here.

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.  It costs nothing extra to do so, but when you shop through my links, a small portion of your purchase, regardless of what you buy, will go toward the maintenance of The Car Crash Detective.

Why you Never Let Your Children Cross the Street to Board a School Bus

School buses are safe. Making your child cross a street to catch one is not.

If you’re like most parents, your children go to the public schools. There are other valid options, including homeschooling and private schooling, but today’s article is for how the majority of children are educated in the United States (and in most countries beyond these borders). Furthermore, many to most kids around the US who attend public schools do so through the school bus. I’m a fan of school buses. Statistically, they are by far the safest way to transport children to school (yes, safer than driving them yourself, walking them, having them walk themselves, or having them ride themselves).

Are school buses perfect? Not by a long shot

That said, there are a number of unresolved issues in school bus safety in the United States. One is the lack of seat belts, which we’ll discuss another day. Another is the propensity of children to be run over by the buses themselves, which we also won’t discuss today. A third involves children’s tendencies to be hit by other vehicles when the buses themselves are stopped. This is today’s topic, and as with the second issue, it most commonly involves the bus route, or the bus stop.

The majority of kids who are casualties in situations involving school buses are casualties outside the buses, not inside them. Sometimes they’re killed or injured by the buses due to standing or crossing in front of the buses when the buses are ready to take off. But a great many times, they’re hurt because the bus routes that serve their neighborhoods result in a need to cross traffic to reach the bus stop itself, which is where the bus is located.

Bus stops that require children to cross streets are death traps

This is dangerous. At times, this is deadly. This is why I taught you how to force your school district to change such policies immediately by raising the spectre of legal liability. And unfortunately, the case of Xzavier Ingle, Mason Ingle, Alivia Stahl, and Maverik Lowe shows just what can happen when school districts are allowed to get away with such awful bus stops.

How did these children die at the hands of Alyssa Shepherd?

On October 30th, 2018, 24-year old Alyssa Shepherd drove her husband, Neil, to work at approximately 7 AM in Rochester, Indiana. She had her younger brother and two children in her current-generation Toyota Tacoma with her, and was apparently en route to her mother’s house to drop off her brother. Per her testimony, it was “pitch black” outside. She approached a set of flashing lights in the distance on Indiana 25 and was, per her attorney, confused about what she saw, but apparently continued heading toward it at 45 mph. What she was actually approaching was an extended stop sign from a school bus waiting to pick up Xzavier, Mason, Alivia, and Maverik. They lived in a mobile home complex and were required to cross the highway to get to the bus waiting on the other side of the street. It appears Shepherd was westbound while the bus was parked on the south side of the street facing east. The children needed to cross the street southbound to reach the bus. It was a two-lane highway. Shepherd did not stop. She did not appear to slow down whatsoever. There were witnesses, including the bus driver, who reportedly honked his horn in vain to alert her. She hit all four children. One flew 30 feet in the air (Lowe, who survived with critical injuries, including fractures in his ribs, patella, arms, wrist, and legs, in addition to slipped spinal disks close to his neck). The other three children were killed.

The driver was not the only one at fault; the decision to place the stop on the opposite side of the street was that of the school district

While the responsibility for directly hitting the children squarely lies with Ms. Shepherd, who was sentenced to 4 years in prison in December 2019, the responsibility for the atrocious placement of the bus stop lies squarely with the school district. It doesn’ t take a psychic to understand it would not have been placed there for a second had the mobile housing complex (i.e., the trailer park) been a subdivision filled with wealthy, powerful parents. That’s not how this country works. The powerful have voices. The powerful have choices. The rest of us are thrown to the wolves (or at least have our children cross high speed traffic to get to safe modes of transportation). The school district moved the stop after the crash, of course. They always do. But wouldn’t it have made sense for the stop to have been placed in the complex to begin with?

Of course. That’s how things are done in rich neighborhoods, and that’s how things are done in countries that place much higher priorities than ours on child safety (as well as the safety of adults navigating the dangers of auto traffic). It wasn’t done here because the school district didn’t want to do the extra work of setting up the bus stop in the complex. Perhaps it would have involved adhering to ever-so-slightly higher construction standards. Perhaps it would have resulted in a need to talk to the complex’s owners. Perhaps it would simply have added two minutes to the bus route due to the bus’ need to enter the complex and reorient itself facing out. I’m guessing this was the core reason, and the fact that the population served there was not a powerful one was the underlying justification–whether at a conscious or subconscious level–for placing the stop on the other side of a 55-mph trafficked road.

It sounds insane, doesn’t it?

This is why we advocate for changes

This is why this site exists. Because it’s far better to have better policies put into place when children are living, rather than after they’re dead. But when you live in a country, a state, or a city or town that doesn’t prioritize the lives of people over non-people things (such as profits or property or auto traffic), the next best thing to do is to educate yourself. It’s how you defend yourself in today’s society. And if you’re ever asked to put your children in harm’s way for the convenience of your school district, you write that letter, and you read it loud and clear to the school board or district. They might not care about your child, but they’ll certainly care about the legal implications of acknowledging they were warned about risks to life and limb and refused to act in a timely manner.

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.  It costs nothing extra to do so, but when you shop through my links, a small portion of your purchase, regardless of what you buy, will go toward the maintenance of The Car Crash Detective.

How to Make Your School District Choose a Safer Bus Stop

Not all bus routes are created equal. Here's how to make yours count.
Not all bus routes are created equal. Here’s how to make yours count.

Keeping kids safe around auto traffic isn’t just about car seats–that’s just a part of the equation. The broader picture involves infrastructure, driver choices, and vehicle safety. Choosing a safe car seat and using it correctly falls under driver choices and vehicle safety. But what about when the vehicle is your child’s school bus and the infrastructure involves the bus route and bus stop?

Let’s talk about how to optimize things.

If you’re a parent, grandparent, foster parent, or any kind of caring adult involved in the life of a child, you’ve probably noticed that not all bus stops are created equally. Certain neighborhoods (the wealthy ones) tend to get bus stops far away from traffic, on quiet, practically dead-end roads and cul-de-sacs, on streets so safe you could let your baby crawl about while you went to fetch the paper.

Other neighborhoods? You know the ones. They get the bus stops practically in the middle of the highway. To get to the stop, your kids might need to walk along up to a mile or two of high-speed traffic, most likely without a sidewalk, often without a shoulder, and so on. Or you’ll have the stops that require your kids to cross multiple lanes of traffic with nothing but a hexagon and their prayers to protect them. This, incidentally, was exactly the kind of “stop” that led to the deaths of Xzavier, Mason, and Alivia on October 30th, 2018 in Rochester, Indiana.

The worst part of that story – and of all of these stories – is that the school districts almost always have a very good idea of the risks involved in setting up these awful bus routes and stops. They don’t change them for the same reasons powerful people do bad things everywhere – because they think they can get away with them. And they think so because for the vast portion of recorded and unrecorded history, they’ve been right.

So how do you prevent this as a 21st-century advocate and reader of the Car Crash Detective?

You channel your inner Legally Blonde!

You have the right to a safe school bus route.

There are certain buzz words that strike fear into the hearts of school boards. There are things their lawyers don’t want to hear in a court of law, because if it’s proven they heard them at any point in the past from a parent, the school district will need to start writing 6, 7, or 8 figure checks to parents. These are the words you want in writing. These are the words you want to share with your principal, your school board, your superintendent. These are the words that will bring an end to whichever gauntlet an HR weenie decided your child would run each day simply because you were zoned as a “non-VIP” parent.

Child Endangerment.

Legal Implications.

Willful Negligence.

Criminal Negligence.

Risk of Harm.

Grievous Bodily Injury.

You get the idea. You don’t need a ton of these words. You just need a few of them, and you just need them in writing. If you show up in person with your complaints in addition to your letter (typed), you’ll get an even quicker response. Perhaps as quickly as the day after your complaint. But you do have to use this kind of language, and you do have to make it clear that A.) the school district is putting children at risk of grave injury due to bus stops or bus routes, and B.) you have made the school district aware of your concerns.

This is a powerful process, and not one to be used lightly. But it’s the second quickest way to avoid senseless deaths due to criminally negligent bus stop placements. The first way, of course, is to have children mowed down by oncoming traffic.

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.  It costs nothing extra to do so, but when you shop through my links, a small portion of your purchase, regardless of what you buy, will go toward the maintenance of The Car Crash Detective.

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.