https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/6827fp/motor_vehicle_deaths_by_state_oc/dgv21ja/
So amazingly, despite the stereotypes about how bad New York/NJ/Mass drivers are, they are the among least accident prone of any states. whoddathunkit
State motor vehicle deaths per 100k. `
- Thread starter Nick R
- Start date
- Status
https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/6827fp/motor_vehicle_deaths_by_state_oc/dgv21ja/
So amazingly, despite the stereotypes about how bad New York/NJ/Mass drivers are, they are the among least accident prone of any states. whoddathunkit
I think large metro area numbers are twisted result because much of the population doesn't drive but takes public transportation.
Originally Posted By: Brybo86
I think large metro area numbers are twisted result because much of the population doesn't drive but takes public transportation.
That could be true, if it weren't for the fact that the trend is the same if you look at deaths per million miles driven.
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/general-statistics/fatalityfacts/state-by-state-overview
I think large metro area numbers are twisted result because much of the population doesn't drive but takes public transportation.
That could be true, if it weren't for the fact that the trend is the same if you look at deaths per million miles driven.
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/general-statistics/fatalityfacts/state-by-state-overview
Originally Posted By: Nick R
So amazingly, despite the stereotypes about how bad New York/NJ/Mass drivers are, they are the among least accident prone of any states. whoddathunkit
Accident does not equal death. The chart you posted only covers deaths.
So amazingly, despite the stereotypes about how bad New York/NJ/Mass drivers are, they are the among least accident prone of any states. whoddathunkit
Accident does not equal death. The chart you posted only covers deaths.
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: Nick R
So amazingly, despite the stereotypes about how bad New York/NJ/Mass drivers are, they are the among least accident prone of any states. whoddathunkit
Accident does not equal death. The chart you posted only covers deaths.
That is true, and in terms of absolute number of accidents (both fatal and non) the highly populated states of NY, NJ, and CA top the list, but in terms of deaths per miles driven, the states you think would be highest are in fact some of the lowest.
Originally Posted By: Nick R
So amazingly, despite the stereotypes about how bad New York/NJ/Mass drivers are, they are the among least accident prone of any states. whoddathunkit
Accident does not equal death. The chart you posted only covers deaths.
That is true, and in terms of absolute number of accidents (both fatal and non) the highly populated states of NY, NJ, and CA top the list, but in terms of deaths per miles driven, the states you think would be highest are in fact some of the lowest.
Originally Posted By: Phishin
It's hard to get killed or be killed in rush hour traffic, city traffic, etc. etc.
The additional link I provided to deaths per million vehicle miles driven partially offsets this in my opinion. And especially if this were true, CA wouldn't be quite as high as it is, considering how terrible traffic in LA and San Francisco are.
It's hard to get killed or be killed in rush hour traffic, city traffic, etc. etc.
The additional link I provided to deaths per million vehicle miles driven partially offsets this in my opinion. And especially if this were true, CA wouldn't be quite as high as it is, considering how terrible traffic in LA and San Francisco are.
Originally Posted By: Nick R
So amazingly, despite the stereotypes about how bad New York/NJ/Mass drivers are, they are the among least accident prone of any states. whoddathunkit
It's pretty clear-most of the states with higher numbers also have much more highway driving. New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts all have huge urban populations where speeds are slower. Other states like North Dakota and Wyoming have far less urban traffic, and much more high speed highway/interstate traffic. That single fatality datapoint doesn't show anything about how accident prone an area is or how good the drivers are.
Allstate does a "best drivers report" that gives a better view of how accident prone areas are by determining the length of time between accidents a driver in that area will average. Needless to say the dense urban populations generally fare much worse (especially the east coast areas you mentioned) than rural areas. Boise Idaho has an average of almost 13 years between claims, Boston Massachusetts has an average of 3.7 years between claims.
Kinda reinforces the stereotype of poor drivers in those areas.
So amazingly, despite the stereotypes about how bad New York/NJ/Mass drivers are, they are the among least accident prone of any states. whoddathunkit
It's pretty clear-most of the states with higher numbers also have much more highway driving. New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts all have huge urban populations where speeds are slower. Other states like North Dakota and Wyoming have far less urban traffic, and much more high speed highway/interstate traffic. That single fatality datapoint doesn't show anything about how accident prone an area is or how good the drivers are.
Allstate does a "best drivers report" that gives a better view of how accident prone areas are by determining the length of time between accidents a driver in that area will average. Needless to say the dense urban populations generally fare much worse (especially the east coast areas you mentioned) than rural areas. Boise Idaho has an average of almost 13 years between claims, Boston Massachusetts has an average of 3.7 years between claims.
Kinda reinforces the stereotype of poor drivers in those areas.
The stereotypes apply to urban to the Dense urban area around NYC and Boston. The balance of MA is relatively tame.
Originally Posted By: Pop_Rivit
Originally Posted By: Nick R
So amazingly, despite the stereotypes about how bad New York/NJ/Mass drivers are, they are the among least accident prone of any states. whoddathunkit
It's pretty clear-most of the states with higher numbers also have much more highway driving. New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts all have huge urban populations where speeds are slower. Other states like North Dakota and Wyoming have far less urban traffic, and much more high speed highway/interstate traffic. That single fatality datapoint doesn't show anything about how accident prone an area is or how good the drivers are.
Allstate does a "best drivers report" that gives a better view of how accident prone areas are by determining the length of time between accidents a driver in that area will average. Needless to say the dense urban populations generally fare much worse (especially the east coast areas you mentioned) than rural areas. Boise Idaho has an average of almost 13 years between claims, Boston Massachusetts has an average of 3.7 years between claims.
Kinda reinforces the stereotype of poor drivers in those areas.
Allstate......ROFLMAO.
Originally Posted By: Nick R
So amazingly, despite the stereotypes about how bad New York/NJ/Mass drivers are, they are the among least accident prone of any states. whoddathunkit
It's pretty clear-most of the states with higher numbers also have much more highway driving. New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts all have huge urban populations where speeds are slower. Other states like North Dakota and Wyoming have far less urban traffic, and much more high speed highway/interstate traffic. That single fatality datapoint doesn't show anything about how accident prone an area is or how good the drivers are.
Allstate does a "best drivers report" that gives a better view of how accident prone areas are by determining the length of time between accidents a driver in that area will average. Needless to say the dense urban populations generally fare much worse (especially the east coast areas you mentioned) than rural areas. Boise Idaho has an average of almost 13 years between claims, Boston Massachusetts has an average of 3.7 years between claims.
Kinda reinforces the stereotype of poor drivers in those areas.
Allstate......ROFLMAO.
Lots of variables could effect the numbers, median age of vehicles (newer usually safer) and access to EMS and trauma treatment can impact survivability.
Definitely interesting statistic but like they say.... statistics lie and liars use statistics.
Definitely interesting statistic but like they say.... statistics lie and liars use statistics.
The metric you've presented is meaningless.
What actually matters is fatalities per miles driven.
NY and NJ don't look so good by that standard.
Parts of NY, Greater NYC in particular feature, low rates of vehicle ownership with many people renting a car for their weekend trips. As people who lack regular driving experience, they are especially accident prone.
The average eighty year old Ohioan drives more than the average thirty year old resident of Manhattan Island, so they have the currency of experience that makes them better able to manage the task.
Here in Ohio, almost everyone still breathing owns and uses a car on a daily basis and so has much more as well as more current experience in operating a motor vehicle.
Fatality rates per hundred million miles traveled reflect this.
What actually matters is fatalities per miles driven.
NY and NJ don't look so good by that standard.
Parts of NY, Greater NYC in particular feature, low rates of vehicle ownership with many people renting a car for their weekend trips. As people who lack regular driving experience, they are especially accident prone.
The average eighty year old Ohioan drives more than the average thirty year old resident of Manhattan Island, so they have the currency of experience that makes them better able to manage the task.
Here in Ohio, almost everyone still breathing owns and uses a car on a daily basis and so has much more as well as more current experience in operating a motor vehicle.
Fatality rates per hundred million miles traveled reflect this.
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: Nick R
So amazingly, despite the stereotypes about how bad New York/NJ/Mass drivers are, they are the among least accident prone of any states. whoddathunkit
No. Your metric is deaths, not accidents. There could well be more accidents and payables in NJ/NY/MA (actually, NJ has gotten much better from a premium standpoint), just not as many deaths coupled to them.
Originally Posted By: Brybo86
I think large metro area numbers are twisted result because much of the population doesn't drive but takes public transportation.
For a place like dc, where it is really just a city and a lot of commuters, with not many high speed roads, perhaps. But explain a place like MN, or RI. Not much/great public transit overall. Even a state like NY. There's a LOT of upstate.
Interestingly, this chart presents very similarly to the violent crime deaths chart, numbers wise.
So amazingly, despite the stereotypes about how bad New York/NJ/Mass drivers are, they are the among least accident prone of any states. whoddathunkit
No. Your metric is deaths, not accidents. There could well be more accidents and payables in NJ/NY/MA (actually, NJ has gotten much better from a premium standpoint), just not as many deaths coupled to them.
Originally Posted By: Brybo86
I think large metro area numbers are twisted result because much of the population doesn't drive but takes public transportation.
For a place like dc, where it is really just a city and a lot of commuters, with not many high speed roads, perhaps. But explain a place like MN, or RI. Not much/great public transit overall. Even a state like NY. There's a LOT of upstate.
Interestingly, this chart presents very similarly to the violent crime deaths chart, numbers wise.
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
The metric you've presented is meaningless.
What actually matters is fatalities per miles driven.
NY and NJ don't look so good by that standard.
Parts of NY, Greater NYC in particular feature, low rates of vehicle ownership with many people renting a car for their weekend trips. As people who lack regular driving experience, they are especially accident prone.
The average eighty year old Ohioan drives more than the average thirty year old resident of Manhattan Island, so they have the currency of experience that makes them better able to manage the task.
Here in Ohio, almost everyone still breathing owns and uses a car on a daily basis and so has much more as well as more current experience in operating a motor vehicle.
Fatality rates per hundred million miles traveled reflect this.
Your logic is flawed too.
NYC overall has around 8.4M people. NYS has around 19.8M people.
Ohio has 11.6M people.
NYS is MUCH bigger. So densities are necessarily much lower elsewhere. So by your (assumed) metric, NYers may drive more...
The metric you've presented is meaningless.
What actually matters is fatalities per miles driven.
NY and NJ don't look so good by that standard.
Parts of NY, Greater NYC in particular feature, low rates of vehicle ownership with many people renting a car for their weekend trips. As people who lack regular driving experience, they are especially accident prone.
The average eighty year old Ohioan drives more than the average thirty year old resident of Manhattan Island, so they have the currency of experience that makes them better able to manage the task.
Here in Ohio, almost everyone still breathing owns and uses a car on a daily basis and so has much more as well as more current experience in operating a motor vehicle.
Fatality rates per hundred million miles traveled reflect this.
Your logic is flawed too.
NYC overall has around 8.4M people. NYS has around 19.8M people.
Ohio has 11.6M people.
NYS is MUCH bigger. So densities are necessarily much lower elsewhere. So by your (assumed) metric, NYers may drive more...
You make a good point in that NYS is about 20% larger in area than is Ohio as well as in noting that NYS population outside of NYC is about equal to the total population of Ohio, although Ohio has no conurbations that even approach that represented by NYC. Indeed, all of Ohio's urban areas combined barely equal the population of NYC, which also suggests just how rural most of the state is.
Still, what actually matters is the number of serious and fatal injuries by unit of exposure, and the proper metric for that is by hundreds of millions of passenger miles, not by hundreds of thousands of population.
Still, what actually matters is the number of serious and fatal injuries by unit of exposure, and the proper metric for that is by hundreds of millions of passenger miles, not by hundreds of thousands of population.
- Status
Similar threads
