In distracting times, rumble strips are saving lives — and money — on rural Maine roads
But they wouldn't get very far before their trip — and their lives — were nearly upended.
Heading north on Route 102, Lavrenz noticed a red pickup truck on the other side of the thoroughfare veering toward his Subaru rental car. Growing up in Iowa, Lavrenz had always held his breath on these kinds of two-lane rural roads, keeping one eye on oncoming traffic to ensure passing cars stayed in their lane.
So when the Nissan crossed the centerline, Lavrenz was quick to react, swerving away from the approaching vehicle. The maneuver may have saved his life: The truck crashed into the door just behind Lavrenz, totaling the car but leaving him physically unscathed.
Madan and the truck's driver also escaped the incident without injury, which is fortunate after what transit experts call a 'lane-departure crash.' While representing just 30 percent of Maine's traffic collisions between 2010 and 2022, lane-departure crashes accounted for 73 percent of fatalities.
These head-on and sideswipe collisions are especially deadly in Maine, where researchers say that extreme weather, an aging population and infrastructure and a preponderance of winding, two-lane rural roads contribute to the highest crash fatality rate of any state in New England.
Though Lavrenz was physically unharmed, the crash rattled him for a different reason than most. As a transportation safety researcher, he'd spent years thinking about lane-departure crashes and trying to prevent them from happening. But it was the first time the Wayne State University professor had ever personally faced the life-or-death consequences of his profession.
Lavrenz had once worked with the Federal Highway Administration to add rumble strips to rural roads. Transportation departments around the country have gradually installed these grooved lines to jolt drivers who are asleep or distracted, the most common causes of lane-departure crashes. The strips vibrate the vehicle when it passes over the centerline or into the shoulder.
Yet there were no rumble strips on this stretch of Route 102 that could have stirred the distracted truck driver, Lavrenz observed after their destroyed Subaru sputtered to a stop next to a Maine Department of Transportation facility. The next morning, after they secured another rental car and caught their flight, he decided to tweet at the agency.
'Centerline rumble strips could've prevented this,' he wrote, linking to a dashcam video of his crash.
Research from a bevy of states backed his assertion at the time. But a new study led by civil engineers at the University of Maine provides the most relevant data yet for the effectiveness — and cost-effectiveness — of centerline rumble strips on Maine's sprawling network of rural roads, many of which remain without these life-saving grooves.
In a before-and-after analysis, the researchers found that installing centerline rumble strips on rural two-lane roads reduced head-on and opposite sideswipe collisions by anywhere from 28 to 48 percent. By limiting these dangerous crashes, the state saves not only lives but money, according to the authors, who estimated that 'the benefits of the rumble strip installations are at least 14 times the cost.'
'They're one of our most cost-effective safety countermeasures that we can deploy out there — and also one of the most effective,' said Bob Skehan, the director of MaineDOT's Office of Safety and Mobility.
Jhan Kevin Gil-Marin, one of the study's co-authors, started working on the paper as a master's student in civil engineering at the University of Maine. With guidance from Ali Shirazi, who was then the principal investigator of the Maine Transport Lab based at the school, Gil-Marin used data from MaineDOT to compare crashes on similar roads with and without rumble strips.
Unlike some past analyses in Maine and elsewhere, however, the study examined before-and-after crash data on roads specifically with centerline rumble strips. And it used these figures to model how many crashes would ensue if the grooves had never been installed on them, allowing the researchers to better determine the safety measure's true effectiveness.
It also enabled them to perform a cost-benefit analysis, calculating this number based on MaineDOT's reported installation cost ($3,500 per mile, according to the study, though Skehan said it can now be higher) and the Federal Highway Administration's assigned costs for different types of crashes. Even using a very conservative service life for rumble strips of seven years, the study showed the strips pay for themselves and then some.
'I think rumble strips are a very good idea,' said Gil-Marin, who's now pursuing his PhD at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.
Before uprooting to Maine from Colombia to work with Shirazi, Gil-Marin had never seen rumble strips. On a quiet road, he guided his car over the grooves and felt the vibration for the first time.
It wasn't long ago that many Mainers may have had the same experience.
Getting ready to rumble
When Per Gårder arrived in Maine in 1992, there were no rumble strips in the state. During the Swedish engineer's interview for a position at the University of Maine, however, he met John Alexander, a fellow engineer who'd taken a personal interest in the safety measure. A neighbor of Alexander's had died after driving off the interstate and hitting a tree.
'He started talking to me about installing rumble strips by driving a bulldozer down the highway and roughing up the shoulder so that people would wake up before they go off the road,' recalled Gårder, a professor emeritus of civil and environmental engineering and co-author of the new study.
Road safety was personal for Gårder, too. As a kid, he recalls one trip when his sleepy father ceded the wheel to his mother late at night. When Gårder woke up, they were in a ditch — his mother had dozed off. 'We didn't hurt ourselves, but that was probably the first time I started thinking there should be waking you up when you are drifting to sleep, and that it actually could happen to everybody,' Gårder said.
After Gårder joined the faculty, he made shoulder rumble strips a focus of his research. There were few studying it at the time. In the U.S., 'singing shoulders' debuted on the Garden State Parkway in New Jersey during the 1950s, but they were rarely seen elsewhere for decades. MaineDOT and the Maine Turnpike Association didn't start installing rumble strips along the edges of Interstate 95 in Maine until 1994.
In his early years at the school, Gårder photocopied and analyzed police reports of fatal crashes on Maine's interstates between 1989 and 1993, which revealed that nearly half of them involved drivers falling asleep. Yet, after the installation of hundreds of miles of continuous shoulder rumble strips along Maine's interstates, driver drowsiness was no longer as deadly; an analysis co-authored by Gårder in 2006 showed that the safety measure had reduced sleep-induced 'run-off-road' crashes by 58 percent.
That same year, MaineDOT began installing rumble strips on the centerline of state roads. While the addition of the safety measure to the shoulders of interstates had helped prevent drivers from veering off the interstate, implementing rumble strips in the middle of rural thoroughfares could reduce the often lethal head-on collisions between cars in opposite lanes.
'When you have two vehicles traveling at 50 miles an hour that hit head on, essentially, it's the same as being in a 100 mile an hour crash and hitting a fixed object, like a tree, if you went off the side of the road,' Skehan said. 'So they're definitely our biggest risk from a safety perspective.'
Initially, the agency targeted corridors with a speed limit of at least 45 miles per hour and a traffic volume of more than 8,000 vehicles per day to add rumble strips. The pilot produced excellent results: the new rumble strips on these roads cut head-on crashes in half and eliminated fatal collisions entirely during an initial period, Skehan recalled.
That level of effectiveness wouldn't quite hold up over the long term. And as MaineDOT installed more rumble strips in areas where head-on crashes were common, there were still some deadly collisions even after the safety measure was implemented.
But time after time, the little grooves significantly reduced crashes and fatalities.
'It's still, by far, our biggest lifesaver with regards to two-lane, rural, head-on collisions,' Skehan said.
He pointed to a 20-mile stretch of Route 202 between Lewiston and Manchester where head-on and sideswipe collisions dropped precipitously in the three years after the installation of centerline rumble strips about a decade ago.
'It was pretty remarkable,' he said.
Still, part of what made rumble strips so effective also disturbed more than a few neighbors when they were first installed on rural roads.
'There were some noise concerns,' Skehan said.
After MaineDOT added rumble strips to Route 302 in Bridgton, neighbor Bill Muir compared their clamor to a tractor trailer 'going down a steep grade and shifting into low gear.'
'I know from personal experience that it could be heard inside our home quite clearly even with all windows closed,' Muir wrote to The Bridgton News in February of 2017.
The next year, MaineDOT began exclusively using sinusoidal rumble strips, colloquially known as 'mumble strips.' When they're driven over, the quieter, shallower alternatives to rectangular rumble strips create slightly less sound inside the car but drastically decrease the noise outside of the vehicle, according to Skehan.
'That has pretty much eliminated all noise calls that I've received.'
Looking down the road
Rumble strips now line the edges of all interstate highways in Maine. But centerline grooves remain absent from most roads in rural areas, particularly in the northern part of the state.
MaineDOT aims to add about 100 miles of rumble strips to state roads every year, according to Skehan. The agency prioritizes areas with high traffic and fresh pavement to maximize the service life of the grooves. MaineDOT allocated about $750,000 for these projects annually, per Skehan, with about 90 percent of this funding coming from the federal Highway Safety Improvement Program funding, and the remainder from the state.
Route 102 doesn't have rumble strips yet. It's a candidate to receive them, according to Skehan, but the area where a truck crashed into Lavrenz and Madan's rental car is less of a priority than other corridors.
The state also doesn't manage town and city roads that thread through communities. Bar Harbor police chief David Kerns doesn't see much of a need for rumble strips on these generally lower-speed roads.
'Really, those in-town streets are so narrow anyway, people tend to go center of the road more to get away from parked cars and open doors,' Kerns said.
Still, he's noticed a rise in collisions he attributes to the distraction of cell phones and displays in cars.
The town of Bar Harbor received a federal grant to make its streets safer after five fatal and 17 incapacitating crashes between 2019 and 2023. Additional signage and collapsible line delineators are among the interventions under consideration.
At the same time, Kerns recognizes that technology can also be part of the solution. Some cars are now built with sensors to detect when the vehicle has left its lane. And though Gårder doesn't advocate checking your phone while driving, he stresses glancing at displays every once in a while to stave off sleep, which is still a common cause of crashes.
'Like in an airplane, pilots are supposed to have certain tasks every now and then,' he said. 'They are not supposed to be completely inactive.'
For Lavrenz, it's simple: 'Human drivers are always going to make a mistake.' And instead of waiting for crashes like his to happen, transportation departments can address the problem proactively by deploying low-cost safety measures like rumble strips across many miles.
'Let's go out and try to treat a broad swath of these two-lane rural roads because we know that they're a major risk factor,' he said, 'and hopefully prevent a lot of these crashes from happening in the first place.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Both the 2025 Toyota RAV4 and Subaru Forester Hybrid Are Winners. But One is a Champ.
Subaru is directly competing with the Toyota RAV4 hybrid after finally producing the Forester hybrid. Both are excellent, but I don't think Toyota has much to worry about… Yet. The Toyota RAV4 has been a hybridized hit since 2016. The system was so good, it helped Toyota sell millions upon millions of the economical SUV. In 2022, the RAV4 broke records by selling 1 million units globally. The Toyota RAV4 has plenty of competition, like the Hyundai Tucson Hybrid, the Kia Sportage Hybrid, and the Honda CR-V Hybrid. It also competes with the Mazda CX-50 hybrid (which uses the same hybrid system), and finally, a decade after the first RAV4 hybrid model year, the Subaru Forester Hybrid has entered the fray. Unlike the Crosstrek hybrid of 2019, which used an older Toyota system, the 2025 Subaru Forester hybrid is mostly Subaru's doing. Toyota was there to help develop the system, but Subaru engineers were at the helm this time—creating a hybrid SUV with a true, mechanical AWD system. Subaru may have shown up fashionably late to the compact AWD hybrid SUV party, but she's here to disrupt the numbers and show people what she's made of. Is it enough to top the charts? After driving both back-to-back, here's what I think. This story is 100% human-researched and written based on actual first-person knowledge, extensive experience, and expertise on the subject of cars and trucks. The Forester is Priced Fairly, But the Toyota Has More Options For the Toyota RAV4 hybrid, there are seven trims, ranging from the base LE to the plush Limited. Prices range from $32,600 to $40,905 MSRP, making it a very cost-effective choice for a wide range of buyers. The Forester hybrid has four trims, starting with the Premium Hybrid and going up to the Touring, ranging from $36,385 to $43,295 MSRP. That price range is fair for both SUVs, especially compared to their competitors. The Kia Sportage ranges from $30,290 to $40,390, and the Hyundai Tucson starts at $34,960 and goes up to $42,790. The Honda CR-V hybrid's base price is $35,630, while the top-tier price is $42,250, and the Mazda CX-50's pricing is $33,970 to $40,050. Therefore, the Subaru is the most expensive option out of the best AWD hybrid SUVs. Of course, this is all based on MSRPs—the dealer is who sets the final price—but it raises an important question: do the options and AWD system justify the price?The Subaru's AWD System is More Capable, But at a Cost I'll explain the differences between the RAV4 hybrid's AWD system and the Subaru Forester hybrid's simply: the Subaru's AWD system is permanently active, while the Toyota's is 'on demand.' When slipping isn't detected, the Toyota's electronic rear axle—which isn't physically connected to the front axle with a driveshaft like the Subaru—doesn't see 50% of the engine's power. Instead, it's front-wheel drive biased, so it's more FWD until computers and sensors determine a 50:50 split is needed. So, it's no surprise that the Subaru was incredibly poised and ready for off-road driving. Toyota's system is still effective in slippery conditions, especially in 'Trail' mode, but it's not as rugged as Subaru's, making the Subaru more appealing for those who want to push their Forester to the limits (especially with X-MODE). But a more robust system that can't be shut off or have power diverted to save mileage is thirsty. When I was driving the Forester hybrid, I averaged 29.5 mpg. In the Toyota, I saw 36.2 mpg, and 36.3 when I put it in Eco mode. That's a very significant difference. Granted, 29.5 mpg combined is a vast improvement over the gas-powered version of the Forester, and impressive for a truly AWD SUV. And it should be noted that a majority of my driving was around town. Bend doesn't have a freeway with speeds higher than 45 mph; otherwise, I'm sure mileage would have been much Far as Space is Concerned, the Subaru Felt Roomier If we look at cargo space figures, the Toyota offers more space. Behind the rear seats, it has 37.6 cubic feet of space. The Subaru has technically less at 26.9 cubic feet, but after having both back-to-back, the Subaru felt bigger. The rear passengers had more legroom, and the taller ceiling means more stacking capabilities. When the rear seats are folded down, though, the Forester has more space at 74.2 cubic feet compared to the Toyota's 69.8 cubic feet. What I also noticed was that a taller roof meant larger windows, which helped open up the interior, let in more natural light, and provide a much better view of the world around me. The large sunroof was a bonus, too, since my toddlers got to enjoy looking up at the trees while we played around off-road. The RAV4 also had a large sunroof, but the lower seating position combined with the smaller windows made it slightly harder to see out of. Both SUVs, too, come with ample aftermarket support so roof rails, crossbars, and cargo boxes or baskets can be installed for added Power is Important, Toyota is On Top No trim level of either the Toyota RAV4 or the Subaru Forester hybrid comes with a turbo. And neither SUV is known for its track capabilities. However, it should be noted that if power is factored into a buying decision, the RAV4 is not power-shy. Combined with the battery pack, the Toyota generates 219 horsepower. It's no F1 car, but it's pretty quick off the line and has just enough power to pass slow trucks (safely, of course). The Subaru Forester hybrid produces a combined 194 horsepower, and Subaru says the battery improves acceleration by 10 to 15%. I immediately noticed an improvement in acceleration and handling over the gas-only Forester, but it's still pretty slow compared to the RAV4. No one buys a hybrid for the power in the pedal, but the RAV4 had a lot more spirit compared to the Subaru's Interior Is More Open and Tech-Forward As I mentioned before, the high seating position paired with the large windows made it super easy to see out of. Especially since there wasn't a tablet sticking up over the dashboard line. Subaru's 12-inch infotainment screen is nicely integrated into the center console, so everything's easy to access and see. Now, I do have a bone to pick with whoever decided to bury a majority of the controls in the screen, but I at least appreciate that they're easy to manipulate and see, even with a phone mirroring program in use. Toyota's interior was much more no-nonsense, which I liked. But the typical Toyota issues with connectivity quickly showed themselves, while I didn't have a single issue with Android Auto in the Subaru. I do prefer the sound system in the Subaru, too. Both utilize traditional shifters, and have easy-to-read digital gauges that can be customized and manipulated fairly easily. But, I liked the differing colors and textures in the Subaru better. The RAV4 I drove was the XSE model, which came in the beautiful Calvary Blue with the black leather interior and blue accent stitching, which was very complementary. But the wide-open and colorful interior of the Subaru was much more Families, the Forester Hybrid Feels like Home The Toyota RAV4 hybrid is popular for several excellent reasons: it's easy to drive, easy to pack the family into, the mileage is impressive, and it's very cost-effective. The car seats were easy to install, there was plenty of room for them and their toys, and the sunroof was adored. Just like the Forester. However, the first thing my oldest said when she climbed into the Forester was how big the windows were, and the lower entry point made it easy for her to climb in and out of. The lower entry point and bigger doors made their car seats even easier to install over the Toyota, too. The upper tether point was just on the back of the seat, and it was so easy to access and secure that I didn't even need to open the trunk. Loading the truck was also easier thanks to the lower entry, making Costco trips a breeze, and unloading the groceries even easier. It felt like a more seamless addition to my family with littles, and dog owners would appreciate it, too. The Toyota's seats were leather with a fabric center, which helped the seats keep their shape after I installed car seats in it, which was a huge perk to me. The Forester's seats were a leatherette material, which was super easy to keep clean, but definitely suffered creases from their car seats.I Recommend Both, But for Different Reasons If someone were cross-examining either AWD hybrid SUV solely for the hybridization, the Toyota wins every time. Toyota's been making and refining its hybrid systems for decades, and now, on its fifth generation, the hybrid system is—dare I say it—superior to just about any other hybrid system out there. The RAV4 hybrid gets 36.2 mpg combined because Toyota's got hybrids down to a simple science, while other automakers are playing catch-up. Subaru benefits from having Toyota's engineers on speed dial, but this is the first model year of the Forester hybrid, and that always makes me wary. Now, if someone were looking at the two based on the AWD capabilities or passenger space, I'd wholeheartedly suggest test-driving the Subaru. Similar to my logic with Toyota, Subaru's been making its legendary AWD system for decades. They know better than to fix what isn't broken, and the Forester hybrid shows that. Yes, it's thirsty, but it's a testament to the system's capabilities and rigidity over an 'e-axle.' All that is to say that both are excellent choices, and I wouldn't harshly judge anyone who bought one instead of the other. Even as family SUVs, I was sad to see both of them go. Now, let's hope Subaru takes notes and gets an Outback hybrid out. Both hybrids will sell like hot cakes.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Both the 2025 Toyota RAV4 and Subaru Forester Hybrid Are Winners. But One is a Champ.
Subaru is directly competing with the Toyota RAV4 hybrid after finally producing the Forester hybrid. Both are excellent, but I don't think Toyota has much to worry about… Yet. The Toyota RAV4 has been a hybridized hit since 2016. The system was so good, it helped Toyota sell millions upon millions of the economical SUV. In 2022, the RAV4 broke records by selling 1 million units globally. The Toyota RAV4 has plenty of competition, like the Hyundai Tucson Hybrid, the Kia Sportage Hybrid, and the Honda CR-V Hybrid. It also competes with the Mazda CX-50 hybrid (which uses the same hybrid system), and finally, a decade after the first RAV4 hybrid model year, the Subaru Forester Hybrid has entered the fray. Unlike the Crosstrek hybrid of 2019, which used an older Toyota system, the 2025 Subaru Forester hybrid is mostly Subaru's doing. Toyota was there to help develop the system, but Subaru engineers were at the helm this time—creating a hybrid SUV with a true, mechanical AWD system. Subaru may have shown up fashionably late to the compact AWD hybrid SUV party, but she's here to disrupt the numbers and show people what she's made of. Is it enough to top the charts? After driving both back-to-back, here's what I think. This story is 100% human-researched and written based on actual first-person knowledge, extensive experience, and expertise on the subject of cars and trucks. The Forester is Priced Fairly, But the Toyota Has More Options For the Toyota RAV4 hybrid, there are seven trims, ranging from the base LE to the plush Limited. Prices range from $32,600 to $40,905 MSRP, making it a very cost-effective choice for a wide range of buyers. The Forester hybrid has four trims, starting with the Premium Hybrid and going up to the Touring, ranging from $36,385 to $43,295 MSRP. That price range is fair for both SUVs, especially compared to their competitors. The Kia Sportage ranges from $30,290 to $40,390, and the Hyundai Tucson starts at $34,960 and goes up to $42,790. The Honda CR-V hybrid's base price is $35,630, while the top-tier price is $42,250, and the Mazda CX-50's pricing is $33,970 to $40,050. Therefore, the Subaru is the most expensive option out of the best AWD hybrid SUVs. Of course, this is all based on MSRPs—the dealer is who sets the final price—but it raises an important question: do the options and AWD system justify the price?The Subaru's AWD System is More Capable, But at a Cost I'll explain the differences between the RAV4 hybrid's AWD system and the Subaru Forester hybrid's simply: the Subaru's AWD system is permanently active, while the Toyota's is 'on demand.' When slipping isn't detected, the Toyota's electronic rear axle—which isn't physically connected to the front axle with a driveshaft like the Subaru—doesn't see 50% of the engine's power. Instead, it's front-wheel drive biased, so it's more FWD until computers and sensors determine a 50:50 split is needed. So, it's no surprise that the Subaru was incredibly poised and ready for off-road driving. Toyota's system is still effective in slippery conditions, especially in 'Trail' mode, but it's not as rugged as Subaru's, making the Subaru more appealing for those who want to push their Forester to the limits (especially with X-MODE). But a more robust system that can't be shut off or have power diverted to save mileage is thirsty. When I was driving the Forester hybrid, I averaged 29.5 mpg. In the Toyota, I saw 36.2 mpg, and 36.3 when I put it in Eco mode. That's a very significant difference. Granted, 29.5 mpg combined is a vast improvement over the gas-powered version of the Forester, and impressive for a truly AWD SUV. And it should be noted that a majority of my driving was around town. Bend doesn't have a freeway with speeds higher than 45 mph; otherwise, I'm sure mileage would have been much Far as Space is Concerned, the Subaru Felt Roomier If we look at cargo space figures, the Toyota offers more space. Behind the rear seats, it has 37.6 cubic feet of space. The Subaru has technically less at 26.9 cubic feet, but after having both back-to-back, the Subaru felt bigger. The rear passengers had more legroom, and the taller ceiling means more stacking capabilities. When the rear seats are folded down, though, the Forester has more space at 74.2 cubic feet compared to the Toyota's 69.8 cubic feet. What I also noticed was that a taller roof meant larger windows, which helped open up the interior, let in more natural light, and provide a much better view of the world around me. The large sunroof was a bonus, too, since my toddlers got to enjoy looking up at the trees while we played around off-road. The RAV4 also had a large sunroof, but the lower seating position combined with the smaller windows made it slightly harder to see out of. Both SUVs, too, come with ample aftermarket support so roof rails, crossbars, and cargo boxes or baskets can be installed for added Power is Important, Toyota is On Top No trim level of either the Toyota RAV4 or the Subaru Forester hybrid comes with a turbo. And neither SUV is known for its track capabilities. However, it should be noted that if power is factored into a buying decision, the RAV4 is not power-shy. Combined with the battery pack, the Toyota generates 219 horsepower. It's no F1 car, but it's pretty quick off the line and has just enough power to pass slow trucks (safely, of course). The Subaru Forester hybrid produces a combined 194 horsepower, and Subaru says the battery improves acceleration by 10 to 15%. I immediately noticed an improvement in acceleration and handling over the gas-only Forester, but it's still pretty slow compared to the RAV4. No one buys a hybrid for the power in the pedal, but the RAV4 had a lot more spirit compared to the Subaru's Interior Is More Open and Tech-Forward As I mentioned before, the high seating position paired with the large windows made it super easy to see out of. Especially since there wasn't a tablet sticking up over the dashboard line. Subaru's 12-inch infotainment screen is nicely integrated into the center console, so everything's easy to access and see. Now, I do have a bone to pick with whoever decided to bury a majority of the controls in the screen, but I at least appreciate that they're easy to manipulate and see, even with a phone mirroring program in use. Toyota's interior was much more no-nonsense, which I liked. But the typical Toyota issues with connectivity quickly showed themselves, while I didn't have a single issue with Android Auto in the Subaru. I do prefer the sound system in the Subaru, too. Both utilize traditional shifters, and have easy-to-read digital gauges that can be customized and manipulated fairly easily. But, I liked the differing colors and textures in the Subaru better. The RAV4 I drove was the XSE model, which came in the beautiful Calvary Blue with the black leather interior and blue accent stitching, which was very complementary. But the wide-open and colorful interior of the Subaru was much more Families, the Forester Hybrid Feels like Home The Toyota RAV4 hybrid is popular for several excellent reasons: it's easy to drive, easy to pack the family into, the mileage is impressive, and it's very cost-effective. The car seats were easy to install, there was plenty of room for them and their toys, and the sunroof was adored. Just like the Forester. However, the first thing my oldest said when she climbed into the Forester was how big the windows were, and the lower entry point made it easy for her to climb in and out of. The lower entry point and bigger doors made their car seats even easier to install over the Toyota, too. The upper tether point was just on the back of the seat, and it was so easy to access and secure that I didn't even need to open the trunk. Loading the truck was also easier thanks to the lower entry, making Costco trips a breeze, and unloading the groceries even easier. It felt like a more seamless addition to my family with littles, and dog owners would appreciate it, too. The Toyota's seats were leather with a fabric center, which helped the seats keep their shape after I installed car seats in it, which was a huge perk to me. The Forester's seats were a leatherette material, which was super easy to keep clean, but definitely suffered creases from their car seats.I Recommend Both, But for Different Reasons If someone were cross-examining either AWD hybrid SUV solely for the hybridization, the Toyota wins every time. Toyota's been making and refining its hybrid systems for decades, and now, on its fifth generation, the hybrid system is—dare I say it—superior to just about any other hybrid system out there. The RAV4 hybrid gets 36.2 mpg combined because Toyota's got hybrids down to a simple science, while other automakers are playing catch-up. Subaru benefits from having Toyota's engineers on speed dial, but this is the first model year of the Forester hybrid, and that always makes me wary. Now, if someone were looking at the two based on the AWD capabilities or passenger space, I'd wholeheartedly suggest test-driving the Subaru. Similar to my logic with Toyota, Subaru's been making its legendary AWD system for decades. They know better than to fix what isn't broken, and the Forester hybrid shows that. Yes, it's thirsty, but it's a testament to the system's capabilities and rigidity over an 'e-axle.' All that is to say that both are excellent choices, and I wouldn't harshly judge anyone who bought one instead of the other. Even as family SUVs, I was sad to see both of them go. Now, let's hope Subaru takes notes and gets an Outback hybrid out. Both hybrids will sell like hot cakes.
Yahoo
10 hours ago
- Yahoo
Why the speed limit on stretch of I-74 near Peoria has changed
Drivers traveling on Interstate 74 near Peoria will notice that the speed limit now remains 55 mph for about a mile longer. A speed limit interchange, one which dictates a change from 55 mph to 70 mph, on I-74 near the Pinecrest Drive interchange, has been moved one mile east, thus meaning there is a longer distance of interstate where the speed limit is 55 mph on I-74 between Peoria and Morton. The Illinois Department of Transportation told the Journal Star said this change was made because crash data showed a "disproportionate" number of accidents taking place due to wet pavement along the curve traveling westbound. The speed limit sign signaling a shift to 70 mph had previously been located on the curve. It is now about a mile farther east near the Pinecrest interchange. "By moving the 55 MPH speed limit one mile east, motorists will have more time to slow down prior to the curve. We are also evaluating additional potential improvements to reduce crashes in this area," IDOT said in a statement. More: Amphitheater once proposed for Washington could find home on Peoria riverfront This article originally appeared on Journal Star: Why the speed limit on I-74 near Peoria has changed Solve the daily Crossword