Safest US States for Drivers

[Orchid PE]

Yet somehow my car insurance was almost cut in half by moving from FL to TN...

 

[txjennah PE]

What metrics are they using to determine this graph? 

 

[Orchid PE]

What metrics are they using to determine this graph? 

Total traffic fatalities per 1000 drivers.

 

[Road Guy]

mine went up moving from GA to CO 

Not a huge amount but it was more..

 

[Supe]

VA is only "safe" because you can't drive more than 6 feet without passing a trooper sitting in a speed trap.  

 

[Dothracki PE]

I wonder if NY, NJ, and CA are high up on the list because you will likely be sitting in traffic in these states. Obviously if everyone is driving 10 mph, it is safe.

 

[mudpuppy]

Total traffic fatalities per 1000 drivers.

I suspect these numbers would be quite a bit different if the denominator was "miles driven."

 

[Road Guy]

Yeah I agree - you certainly dont feel unsafe driving through Woyming as compared to Atlanta

Even in Colorado we average around 500 vehicle deaths a year (half of that is no seat belt)

 

[Orchid PE]

I think per number of people is relevant. E.g. if 500 people die in Georgia from traffic accidents , and 500 people die in Montana, it really doesn't matter the number of miles driven. Based on more statistics from the source, the higher numbers in those BFE states were from drunk driving. I guess that's really all they have to do up there sometimes.

 

[mudpuppy]

I think per number of people is relevant. E.g. if 500 people die in Georgia from traffic accidents , and 500 people die in Montana, it really doesn't matter the number of miles driven. Based on more statistics from the source, the higher numbers in those BFE states were from drunk driving. I guess that's really all they have to do up there sometimes.

It's relevant yes, but fatalities per mile driven is relevant too.  E.g. if 200 of the 500 people who die from traffic accidents in Montana are people that don't live in Montana (e.g. tourists or truckers), then being a native Montana driver isn't as dangerous as the map suggests.  Tracking the fatalities per mile driven wouldn't completely solve this, but at least it should take into account all the miles nonresidents drive in the state.

I'll say I'm a helluva lot more scared to drive through Chicago than Casper, WY, but the map makes me think WY is way more dangerous.  Illinois has a lot higher denominator on that map that falsely makes it look safer.

 

[ChebyshevII PE PMP]

Shennanigans. All of it.

 

[Orchid PE]

It's relevant yes, but fatalities per mile driven is relevant too.  E.g. if 200 of the 500 people who die from traffic accidents in Montana are people that don't live in Montana (e.g. tourists or truckers), then being a native Montana driver isn't as dangerous as the map suggests.  Tracking the fatalities per mile driven wouldn't completely solve this, but at least it should take into account all the miles nonresidents drive in the state.

I'll say I'm a helluva lot more scared to drive through Chicago than Casper, WY, but the map makes me think WY is way more dangerous.  Illinois has a lot higher denominator on that map that falsely makes it look safer.

I think dividing by the numbers of drivers tells you how likely you are to get in an accident in those states. Though you may be more scared to drive through Chicago, the statistics say you are more likely to die while driving through a state with long roads and higher speed limits. These big cities may have more accidents (I'm just guessing), but there are more fatalities in the states where you can drive a faster speed limits. Speed limits in highly populated areas average lower. Whereas less populated states have a higher average, mainly because of the long stretches of roads. And the statistics from the source state says "Despite having longer average commute times, states with lower speed limits have fewer fatalities. The data shows that while you might spend more time on the road, chances are you’ll get there safely when traveling at slower speeds."

if 200 of the 500 people who die from traffic accidents in Montana are people that don't live in Montana (e.g. tourists or truckers), then being a native Montana driver isn't as dangerous as the map suggests

The map isn't specific for residents. It's about the highest number of fatalities per 1000 drivers that occur in that state. So driving through Montana you are more likely to die in a car accident than you are in New Jersey, and it's regardless if you live in Montana or not. So yes, if you live in Montana you are more likely to die in a car accident than if you lived in Illinois.

 

[Orchid PE]

Here are some more interesting statistics from the source (they looked at different factors such as speeding, drunk driving, distracted driving, etc.).

 

[csb]

Um, there's only like a 1000 of us anyway, so this is FAKE NEWS.

 

[mudpuppy]

So driving through Montana you are more likely to die in a car accident than you are in New Jersey, and it's regardless if you live in Montana or not. 

Sorry, but I have to disagree.  From https://www.policygenius.com/blog/the-10-most-least-dangerous-states-in-america-for-drivers/ :



Another way to look at it is if I drive 100 miles in Montana I have a specific chance of dying, which is lower than, say driving 100 miles in Kentucky.  If the denominator is # of drivers, then the statistic is only accurate for a person who drives the average number of miles of all drivers in that state, which seems like it would typically be a resident of that state--though admittedly some people may drive a ton of miles in another state without living there (or drive very little in the state they live in).

I think both these statistics and maps have value and it's interesting to compare the two.  For instance it seems Wyoming drivers are relatively safe per mile, but they're dead last in fatalities per capita, which seems to imply they drive a lot of miles.

 

[Orchid PE]

It looks like from that map and from the other map there are a few usual suspects.