Mapping 10 Years of Fatal Traffic Accidents

Source: Metrocosm

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

What's been said:

Discussions found on the web:
  1. just-sayin commented on Nov 22

    Nothing really earth-shattering to me here. Higher density population areas have more fatal accidents. I would expect to see a similar graphic for murders, gunshot deaths, STDs and anything else that people do to each other…. JMHO…

  2. trafficengineer commented on Nov 22

    What matters for true comparison is the fatality rate. The rural states have higher a higher fatality rate, most likely due to lax seat belt laws. Every day there is news of people not wearing seat belts and being ejected from their pick-ups when they hit an unexpected curve or when involved in a crashes. In several of these rural states the cops cannot legally pull you over if you are not wearing a seat belt because they believe that is some sort of a personal freedom which needs to be protected.

    • DeDude commented on Nov 23

      Or maybe it is a cleanup of the gene pool.

    • Rogue Medic commented on Nov 23

      I would also prefer to see a map of fatality rates, but should we look at rates by total population, by driving population (non-drivers die in traffic collisions, too), by miles driven, or some other metric?

      Seat belts are important, but they are not the only factor. Rural populations will drive more on roads that are less safe – poorer lighting, with more disparities between traffic speeds (slow moving tractors or buggies sharing the road with cars and trucks travelling much faster, farther from ambulances and trauma centers, et cetera.


    • WallaWalla commented on Nov 23

      People in rural areas also have longer commute distances, higher a avg trip speed, and lack of safer mass transit options.

Posted Under