Before parenthood, it’s near impossible to fully understand just how much a child takes over your once-freewheeling life. Sometimes you can’t even get a moment of peace when you’re driving. That’s where Nissan’s Iruyo, a fuzzy doll that can entertain a baby, comes in.
When your humble scribe was growing up, kids just rode seatbelt-less and moved freely around the car, station wagon cargo area, or pickup bed. Then some genius decided to install airbags everywhere so that babies have to be strapped into the back seat facing the rear of the car. Yes, this is the safest option, but it doesn’t change the fact that it makes it nearly impossible for a lone parent to see what the kid is up to without perfectly angling a bunch of mirrors like you’re trying to bounce lasers.
Trying to soothe an upset baby while driving can be a major distraction. For a whole year and a half, they can’t even talk to indicate what’s wrong. According to Nissan’s research, more than 80% of parents driving solo with a child said they couldn’t comfort their babies when they cried.
To solve this problem, Nissan developed Iruyo, a plushie that resembles that red haired monster from Bugs Bunny. Described as an “Intelligent Puppet,” it’s strapped to the car in view of the baby and works with a smaller matching doll, called Baby Iruyo, that rides up front with mom or dad.
The Baby Iruyo acts like a mic, picking up the parent driver’s words and transmitting them to the Iruyo riding in the back with the baby. The big Iruyo then moves in accordance with the parent’s voice, waving, doing a little dance in rhythm with the parent’s singing, or playing peek-a-boo.
Iruyo, which is Japanese for “I’m here,” also uses facial recognition tech to see when the baby is sleeping. When the kiddo closes their eyes, it transmits that back to the Baby Iruyo in front, which then closes its eyes to let the parent know junior is off to slumberland.
Nissan found that 90% of babies pay attention to Iruyo’s movements, and that the emotional state of more than half the babies in their study improved when interacting with the doll, even when strapped into the carseat.
Nissan developed a few variations of Iruyo as well. There’s one with white fur and one with pink. Each color Iruyo also gets three different looks — plain, wearing a beanie, or wearing glasses.
For now, Iruyo is still an experimental item, but Nissan says it will do some trials in Japan and take feedback from customers. Who knows, maybe you can have an Iruyo of your very own someday. Now if they could only figure out how to prevent food from getting all over the upholstery.
The overarching trend in the car world has been that the manual transmission is on the way out. People like automatics for the convenience, but they can be faster than manually shifting, and they’re frequently better at saving fuel. But the manual still has advantages. It’s small and light, it’s still sometimes more affordable than an equivalent automatic model, and, of course, it’s much more engaging than an automatic. For these reasons, automakers are still selling a variety of models with manuals. The list is certainly short compared to a couple decades ago, but the variety is impressive. Whether you’re looking for an extremely affordable commuter, a sports car or even an off-road oriented truck or SUV, there’s a manual-equipped car for you. And we’ve assembled the whole list of every single make and model of car with an available manual transmission for you three-pedal diehards.
A new study has concluded that Vermont tops the list of states with the highest percentage of fatal car crashes in which someone tested positive for drug use. The study by the Jackman Law Firm of Tacoma analyzed data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System within the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
It showed that in Vermont, 62.7% of people — specifically, 153 out of 244 — in fatal crashes tested positive for drugs. Of that number, 81 were found to be under the influence of drugs that were not specified in the report, and 26 were positive for Delta 9 and 8 of benzoylecgonine, which is contained in cocaine.
A question mark over the data has to do with the fact it does not specify what “people” were under the influence. A spokeswoman for the law firm confirmed that they may have been drivers, passengers in a vehicle, pedestrians who may have been injured, or others. We can only assume that if law enforcement drug-tested someone in these crashes, it was typically the driver, but we can’t be sure.
In second place in the study was Massachusetts, with 57.75% of crashes involving a positive drug test. Out of the 1,451 people involved in a fatal accident in 2021, 838 tested positive for drugs. Among the most common drugs detected in Massachusetts were cannabinoids and Delta 9.
Hawaii was third, with 54.75% involved in a crash testing positive for drugs. In 2021, the NHTSA reported 292 people involved in the state, 159 of whom tested positive for one or more types of drugs. Methamphetamine, THC and Delta 9 were the three most common drugs detected.
North Dakota was reported fourth, and Oregon fifth.
On the opposite side of the report, North Carolina, Mississippi and Nebraska were the three states with the lowest number of people involved in drug-related incidents. Respectively, the states registered 1.7%, 4.35%, and 9.74% of people involved in a fatal crash.
According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the effects of marijuana on drivers include an increase in lane weaving, poor reaction time, and altered attention to the road. Some studies, the agency says, report that opioids can cause drowsiness and impair thinking and judgment. Other studies have found that being under the influence of opioids while driving can double your risk of having a crash.
Said Chris Jackson of the law firm, “The opioid epidemic has been particularly impactful, leading to increased overdose deaths and strains on public health resources in all 50 states. However,” he added, “as the data shows, in certain areas, the problem seems to be deeper and more concerning.”
A study of fatal crashes involving inexperienced drivers has revealed the most dangerous U.S. states for those just getting behind the wheel. It found that Kentucky leads the nation in traffic deaths involving learner’s permit holders — at 2.21% of total fatal crashes.
The study, conducted by law firm Bader Scott, looked at crash data from the National National Highway Traffic Safety Administration between 2017 and 2021. It defines “learner driver” as those holding a learner’s permit.
While Kentucky had the highest percentage, the actual number of new driver fatalities was 119 out of a total of 5,392 fatal crashes during the five-year span. Texas had the most fatal crashes of any state in that period, 27,392 total. Of those, 328 involved learner’s permit holding drivers. Percentage-wise, that’s 1.20%, putting the Lone Star State 10th on the list.
While the numbers of deaths on this list are in some cases in single digits, the fact that there are fatalities at all is sobering, given that a learner driver by law has an experienced driver at their elbow and is likely driving slowly and cautiously.
The 10 most dangerous states for learner drivers
Kentucky: 119 learner’s permit holding drivers involved in a fatal crash (2.21% of total fatal crashes in the state)
Massachusetts: 44 (1.78%)
District of Columbia: 4 (1.75%)
Colorado: 79 (1.72%)
Alaska: 7 (1.50%)
Vermont: 6 (1.40%)
New York: 89 (1.29%)
Alabama: 81 (1.24%)
Connecticut: 24 (1.21%)
Texas: 328 (1.20%)
The study also found that the country roads of West Virginia were the safest, The Mountain State reported zero fatal crashes involving a learner’s permit holder. Next safest were South Carolina and Louisiana, which reported one fatality each. California followed in fourth place with nine new driver fatalities, despite the state’s high population and car-centric culture.
The 10 safest states for learner drivers
West Virginia: 0 (0.00%)
South Carolina: 1 (0.01%)
Louisiana: 1 (0.02%)
California: 9 (0.03%)
North Carolina: 9 (0.08%)
Tennessee: 8 (0.10%)
New Hampshire: 1 (0.13%)
Arizona: 10 (0.14%)
Hawaii: 1 (0.15%)
New Jersey: 9 (0.21%)
Overall traffic fatalities are down nationwide as of the first half of 2023, the most recent data the NHTSA has available. While individual states have seen a slight uptick, the general trend is moving in the right direction.
Trucks aren’t known for being fuel efficient, though times are changing. Not only are pickups getting more economical, but there are also smaller options.
Electric car range is one of the top concerns car buyers have when considering whether to make the switch to an EV — a concern so profound, the term “range anxiety” was added to the dictionary to describe it. But just how much EV range is enough? How much range do you actually need? The answer differs for everyone, and we’re here to help you figure it out.
The problem is that, like most things in life, we judge a situation based on our past lived experiences. We’re used to thinking about cars in internal combustion terms: Quick fill-ups, gaining hundreds of miles of driving range. You’ll make dozens of trips, perhaps over weeks, on that one fill-up. That’s what “normal” feels like to most of us. So, an electric car with a range of anything less than several hundred miles seems … scary, impractical.
But electric cars can’t be thought of like that. They don’t work the same way as gas cars — “several hundred miles” is the wrong context. Even with internal combustion, it’s rare that we utilize all that range in one sitting.
A gas-powered car has a marvelous convenience factor: a vast reserve of energy in a tank that can be quickly and occasionally replenished. But an EV has a convenience factor, too, it’s just different: You replenish the battery in many sips rather than one big gasoline gulp, and you do it from the comfort of your own garage. That might not sound like an advantage — until you’ve experienced the smug pleasure of driving past gas stations, saving $50 or $100 on fill-ups you no longer need.
When the Nissan Leaf was introduced to the world for the 2011 model year, it had an EPA range rating of just 73 miles — and as a practical matter had less range than that when charged to just 80% as recommended for battery longevity. Nissan pointed out that the average daily commute at that time was less than 35 miles, which could easily be replenished in an overnight charge. But many thought the first-generation Leaf sounded like a science experiment.
Except it wasn’t. It just required a different way of seeing what a car can be.
We Americans tend to buy cars based on extreme use cases. We buy SUVs but don’t go off-road. We buy trucks but use them as cars. We want the ability to take a long cross-country highway trip, but might only do that once a year. That original 73-mile Leaf obviously couldn’t road-trip, but it was a clever commuter. When buying an electric car — when buying any car, really — it is important to confront what your actual use case is, not what you hope or imagine it to be.
So how much electric car range is enough? For you? Here are questions to ask yourself.
How far do you really drive in a day?
If you’re considering an EV, first do some research — on yourself. Get a notepad and pen, and log your mileage for a few days. For a week. For a month. How much do you really drive in a day? Is it something like the commuting average that Nissan cited? Or more like 100 miles? Even 200 miles? Do you actually do that much driving day-in, day-out? Be honest.
For some broader context, on average, Americans drive 14,263 miles per year, according to the Federal Highway Administration. Which breaks down to 1,188 miles per month — or 40 miles per day. (A stat that grew a smidge since Nissan cited 35, but by now it may have shrunk again given our post-pandemic work-from-home habits.) But let’s say the average is 40.
So, is your daily mileage below that average, or at it? Then you’ll love an EV. Are you over average? An EV will probably still work great for you. Read on.
Many automakers recommend charging your EV to 80% for daily use and for the sake of battery longevity, reserving a 100% charge for those times when you know you’ll need maximum range. Likewise, not typically letting your battery percentage fall below 20% is also good battery longevity hygiene, and it ensures you’ve got some reserve range if needed, which should provide some peace of mind. So, setting aside that ceiling and floor leaves a typical daily operating range of 60% of a battery’s capacity.
Now pick an EV you’re interested in, and look up its EPA range estimate at fueleconomy.gov. Ignore the government’s “MPGe” numbers, which for many buyers are not particularly useful, and focus on the range ratings. Now let’s use a Mustang Mach-E AWD in GT trim for this example. Its EPA rating is 270 miles, so 60% of that is 162 miles.
Consumer Reports testing found that cold weather can easily cost an EV 25% of range. (Of course, cold weather is hard on gas mileage in conventional cars, too.) If you live in a cold climate and want to be even more conservative with your calculations, then think of our hypothetical Mach-E’s range as 120 miles in bad weather.
If your daily driving routine is less than this, you’re going to be perfectly comfortable with that car.
Also, keep in mind that many EVs today are excellent at meeting or even exceeding their EPA range, thanks to regenerative braking (the Mach-E is a good example of this).
Yes, you do have a garage, carport, etc.? Sweet. Conversely, charging an EV is obviously far more difficult for, say, apartment dwellers who don’t have a dedicated space or access to a 240-volt outlet, and maybe the time is not yet right for those people to buy an EV.
There is a lot of talk these days about public charging infrastructure (or lack thereof). It seems we want DC fast chargers to be as plentiful as gas stations (there we go again, applying internal combustion context to EVs). And we want to be able to charge fast, fast, fast. But ideally, you’ll want/need to use public charging only rarely if ever, as it presents drawbacks in terms of time, will cost more than charging at home, and rapid charging perhaps has long-term implications for battery longevity. Home replenishment is an EV’s party trick. Read on.
We’ll return to the Nissan Leaf for this example, in this case the base 2024 Nissan Leaf S. The Leaf is one of the most affordable EVs currently on the market, at $29,280. That’s before the $3,750 federal tax credit it’s eligible for.
The Leaf S has a relatively modest range of 150 miles (for daily driving, that’s more like 90 miles based on our 60% formula) with a relatively modest 40 kWh battery pack. Plugged in to a 240-volt outlet, a Leaf S will receive a full charge in about eight hours, and replenish a 60% use in even less. In other words, it’s easily refreshed while you sleep. A Tesla will similarly take about 8-10 hours. Park the car at night, pop it on the charger, enjoy your evening and a good night’s sleep, and in the morning you’re topped off and good to go. What could be easier?
There’s an important reason why you should be realistic about your daily driving needs and overall use case. If you tell yourself that you want a range of many hundreds of mile on a charge, you for starters are going to be paying a lot more to purchase your car. Just five or six years ago, battery costs made up nearly half the cost of an EV. They are now closer to about a third of the cost, and are projected to continue falling in the years ahead. But if you don’t need hundreds of miles of range on a daily basis, then why pay for it? Beyond the unnecessary cost of buying capacity you don’t need, a bigger battery will require longer charging times.
How often do you road-trip, say for a vacation? Once a year? Twice a year? Five times? In a 2018 study, the University of Michigan’s Transportation Research Institute found that EV owners saved about $600 a year powering their vehicles, spending $485 on electricity vs. $1,117 for a gas-powered vehicle. But that study was based on gas prices four years ago — the savings would be far greater at today’s higher gasoline prices. And this doesn’t even take into account the savings EV owners enjoy from reduced maintenance costs when compared to an internal combustion engine. Ask yourself if it would make sense to drive an EV most of the time, then use all those savings to rent an ICE car for that rare long-distance road trip.
Public chargers are becoming far more common along major highway corridors, if you’re willing to do longer layovers and carefully plot your route. But this is a situation for which “range anxiety” is still a reality.
You don’t have to leap into the EV world without looking back. You might find you can ease your range concerns by simply hedging your bet.
More than half of American households own two or more cars. The best scenario for buying an EV is if you are among that multi-car majority. We’re convinced that virtually every two-car family in America could replace one of their ICE vehicles with an EV, and they would gain a powerful mix of capabilities. One car saves gas, the other can be employed when range is a concern. (Interest in hybrids is also surging right now as buyers seek to hedge their bests by having internal combustion and battery propulsion in the same car.)
In the two-car-family situation, we can practically promise you that you’ll find yourself driving the EV most of the time. And you’ll never again have to ask how much EV range is enough range.
