Study: Roads are safer in urban areas

Study: Roads are safer in urban areas
By Larry Copeland, USA TODAY

Your odds of dying in a motor vehicle crash vary dramatically because
of one simple thing: where you live.

The safest places to drive in the USA are Washington, D.C., and
Massachusetts. Among the most dangerous: Montana, Wyoming, Louisiana
and Mississippi. Those conclusions are based on federal data of
traffic fatalities per 100,000 population and per 100 million miles
driven.

The primary reason for the difference: Urban roads are safer than
rural roads.

<via link>
LIST: Highway death rates
DRIVING: States take aim at distracted pedestrians

Even in states with low overall road death rates, rural areas often
have rates twice as high as urban ones. That's because urban areas
usually have roads with lower speed limits, more safety engineering
features such as divided highways and faster access to emergency
medical care than rural routes. Many rural deaths occur when vehicles
leave the road and crash into trees or other obstructions.

"An urban state in the Northeast is going to have a much lower
fatality rate than a rural Western state with a lot of high-speed, two-
lane rural roads, where serious crashes are more likely to happen,"
says Russ Rader, spokesman for the Insurance Institute for Highway
Safety.

Many traffic safety groups such as the Governors Highway Safety
Association argue that such comparisons don't accurately reflect how
safe a state's roads are. A better measure, they say, is whether
states have enacted proven safety enhancements such as motorcycle
helmet laws and primary seat belt laws, which allow police to stop
motorists solely for being unbuckled.

State legislatures around the country are gearing up this month to
debate scores of highway safety measures that address everything from
texting while driving to booster-seat use.

The National Transportation Safety Board urges states to adopt five
"most wanted" safety measures, covering extreme drunken driving, seat
belt use, child-occupant protection, eliminating distractions for
young drivers and motorcycle safety.

Judith Stone, president of Washington, D.C.-based Advocates for Auto
and Highway Safety, says the group does not consider fatalities when
issuing its annual report card on states. "We look at laws and whether
they've been passed," Stone says.

Advocates of stronger laws say it's difficult to persuade a state such
as New Hampshire, which has no seat belt or motorcycle helmet laws, to
enact such rules when its death rate is below the U.S. average.

"States like ... New Hampshire could certainly save more lives by
passing stronger laws," says governors safety association spokesman
Jonathan Adkins. "Legislators note these states have relatively low
fatality rates and tend not to see the benefit in passing stronger
laws."

Charts, etc.:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...ery25_ST_N.htm
-----

- gpsman

On 1/25/2011 8:21 AM, gpsman wrote:
> Study: Roads are safer in urban areas
> By Larry Copeland, USA TODAY
>
> Your odds of dying in a motor vehicle crash vary dramatically because
> of one simple thing: where you live.

It would seem to me to be a pretty simple reason why. Average speed on
an urban street is much lower than it will be in the wide open spaces.

On Jan 25, 7:53*am, Rich Piehl
> wrote:
> On 1/25/2011 8:21 AM, gpsman wrote:
>
> > Study: Roads are safer in urban areas
> > By Larry Copeland, USA TODAY
>
> > Your odds of dying in a motor vehicle crash vary dramatically because
> > of one simple thing: where you live.
>
> It would seem to me to be a pretty simple reason why. *Average speed on
> an urban street is much lower than it will be in the wide open spaces.

Exactly! The article mentions it but glides right over the difference
between collision speed on each type of road. Horrendous crashes with
multiple fatalities are very rare on urban roads and it is not because
the roads are "safer".

Harry K

gpsman > wrote:

>Study: Roads are safer in urban areas
>By Larry Copeland, USA TODAY
>
>Your odds of dying in a motor vehicle crash vary dramatically because
>of one simple thing: where you live.
>
>The safest places to drive in the USA are Washington, D.C., and
>Massachusetts. Among the most dangerous: Montana, Wyoming, Louisiana
>and Mississippi. Those conclusions are based on federal data of
>traffic fatalities per 100,000 population and per 100 million miles
>driven.
>
>The primary reason for the difference: Urban roads are safer than
>rural roads.
>
Only if you're looking at fatalities, and only if you are talking
about motorists. Crash rates are much higher in urban areas, and
injury rates for pedestrians and cyclists caused by collisions with
vehicles are much higher as well. Lower speeds help reduce crash
severities, but there are more of them in urban areas as well.

The study is nothing more than an exercise in cherry picking your
statistics.

John Lansford, PE
--
John's Shop of Wood
http://wood.jlansford.net/

On 01/25/2011 05:39 PM, John Lansford wrote:
> > wrote:
>
>> Study: Roads are safer in urban areas
>> By Larry Copeland, USA TODAY
>>
>> Your odds of dying in a motor vehicle crash vary dramatically because
>> of one simple thing: where you live.
>>
>> The safest places to drive in the USA are Washington, D.C., and
>> Massachusetts. Among the most dangerous: Montana, Wyoming, Louisiana
>> and Mississippi. Those conclusions are based on federal data of
>> traffic fatalities per 100,000 population and per 100 million miles
>> driven.
>>
>> The primary reason for the difference: Urban roads are safer than
>> rural roads.
>>
> Only if you're looking at fatalities, and only if you are talking
> about motorists. Crash rates are much higher in urban areas, and
> injury rates for pedestrians and cyclists caused by collisions with
> vehicles are much higher as well. Lower speeds help reduce crash
> severities, but there are more of them in urban areas as well.
>
> The study is nothing more than an exercise in cherry picking your
> statistics.

I don't really see lower speeds in urban areas, if you only consider
freeways, at least from my DC-centric perspective. typical travel
speeds are 70+ without visible enforcement or congestion, even in 55 zones.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On Jan 25, 5:39*pm, John Lansford > wrote:
> gpsman > wrote:
> >Study: Roads are safer in urban areas
> >By Larry Copeland, USA TODAY
>
> >Your odds of dying in a motor vehicle crash vary dramatically because
> >of one simple thing: where you live.
>
> >The safest places to drive in the USA are Washington, D.C., and
> >Massachusetts. Among the most dangerous: Montana, Wyoming, Louisiana
> >and Mississippi. Those conclusions are based on federal data of
> >traffic fatalities per 100,000 population and per 100 million miles
> >driven.
>
> >The primary reason for the difference: Urban roads are safer than
> >rural roads.
>
> Only if you're looking at fatalities, and only if you are talking
> about motorists. *Crash rates are much higher in urban areas, and
> injury rates for pedestrians and cyclists caused by collisions with
> vehicles are much higher as well. *Lower speeds help reduce crash
> severities, but there are more of them in urban areas as well.
>
> The study is nothing more than an exercise in cherry picking your
> statistics. *
>

How about this omission:
In rural areas, emergency medical facilities are fewer and farther
apart.

Guy Olsen, PE(NJ), PTOE

On Jan 25, 7:17*pm, Guy Olsen > wrote:
> On Jan 25, 5:39*pm, John Lansford > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > gpsman > wrote:
> > >Study: Roads are safer in urban areas
> > >By Larry Copeland, USA TODAY
>
> > >Your odds of dying in a motor vehicle crash vary dramatically because
> > >of one simple thing: where you live.
>
> > >The safest places to drive in the USA are Washington, D.C., and
> > >Massachusetts. Among the most dangerous: Montana, Wyoming, Louisiana
> > >and Mississippi. Those conclusions are based on federal data of
> > >traffic fatalities per 100,000 population and per 100 million miles
> > >driven.
>
> > >The primary reason for the difference: Urban roads are safer than
> > >rural roads.
>
> > Only if you're looking at fatalities, and only if you are talking
> > about motorists. *Crash rates are much higher in urban areas, and
> > injury rates for pedestrians and cyclists caused by collisions with
> > vehicles are much higher as well. *Lower speeds help reduce crash
> > severities, but there are more of them in urban areas as well.
>
> > The study is nothing more than an exercise in cherry picking your
> > statistics. *
>
> How about this omission:
> In rural areas, emergency medical facilities are fewer and farther
> apart.
>
> Guy Olsen, PE(NJ), PTOE- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

That was implied in the 5th paragraph of the OP:

"That's because urban areas usually have roads with lower speed
limits, more safety engineering
features such as divided highways and faster access to emergency
medical care than rural routes. "

On 01/25/2011 10:12 PM, Justin Rhodes wrote:
> On Jan 25, 7:17 pm, Guy > wrote:
>> On Jan 25, 5:39 pm, John > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> > wrote:
>>>> Study: Roads are safer in urban areas
>>>> By Larry Copeland, USA TODAY
>>
>>>> Your odds of dying in a motor vehicle crash vary dramatically because
>>>> of one simple thing: where you live.
>>
>>>> The safest places to drive in the USA are Washington, D.C., and
>>>> Massachusetts. Among the most dangerous: Montana, Wyoming, Louisiana
>>>> and Mississippi. Those conclusions are based on federal data of
>>>> traffic fatalities per 100,000 population and per 100 million miles
>>>> driven.
>>
>>>> The primary reason for the difference: Urban roads are safer than
>>>> rural roads.
>>
>>> Only if you're looking at fatalities, and only if you are talking
>>> about motorists. Crash rates are much higher in urban areas, and
>>> injury rates for pedestrians and cyclists caused by collisions with
>>> vehicles are much higher as well. Lower speeds help reduce crash
>>> severities, but there are more of them in urban areas as well.
>>
>>> The study is nothing more than an exercise in cherry picking your
>>> statistics.
>>
>> How about this omission:
>> In rural areas, emergency medical facilities are fewer and farther
>> apart.
>>
>> Guy Olsen, PE(NJ), PTOE- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> That was implied in the 5th paragraph of the OP:
>
> "That's because urban areas usually have roads with lower speed
> limits, more safety engineering
> features such as divided highways and faster access to emergency
> medical care than rural routes. "

I still say "lower speed limits" is a red herring. Nobody actually
drives slower, just the number on the sign is different. (unless we are
talking about somewhere out west where people typically drive 85+)

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On Jan 25, 8:18*pm, Nate Nagel > wrote:
> On 01/25/2011 10:12 PM, Justin Rhodes wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 25, 7:17 pm, Guy > *wrote:
> >> On Jan 25, 5:39 pm, John > *wrote:
>
> >>> > *wrote:
> >>>> Study: Roads are safer in urban areas
> >>>> By Larry Copeland, USA TODAY
>
> >>>> Your odds of dying in a motor vehicle crash vary dramatically because
> >>>> of one simple thing: where you live.
>
> >>>> The safest places to drive in the USA are Washington, D.C., and
> >>>> Massachusetts. Among the most dangerous: Montana, Wyoming, Louisiana
> >>>> and Mississippi. Those conclusions are based on federal data of
> >>>> traffic fatalities per 100,000 population and per 100 million miles
> >>>> driven.
>
> >>>> The primary reason for the difference: Urban roads are safer than
> >>>> rural roads.
>
> >>> Only if you're looking at fatalities, and only if you are talking
> >>> about motorists. *Crash rates are much higher in urban areas, and
> >>> injury rates for pedestrians and cyclists caused by collisions with
> >>> vehicles are much higher as well. *Lower speeds help reduce crash
> >>> severities, but there are more of them in urban areas as well.
>
> >>> The study is nothing more than an exercise in cherry picking your
> >>> statistics.
>
> >> How about this omission:
> >> In rural areas, emergency medical facilities are fewer and farther
> >> apart.
>
> >> Guy Olsen, PE(NJ), PTOE- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > That was implied in the 5th paragraph of the OP:
>
> > "That's because urban areas usually have roads with lower speed
> > limits, more safety engineering
> > features such as divided highways and faster access to emergency
> > medical care than rural routes. "
>
> I still say "lower speed limits" is a red herring. *Nobody actually
> drives slower, just the number on the sign is different. *(unless we are
> talking about somewhere out west where people typically drive 85+)
>
> nate

I was responding to Guy's assertion that the article omitted the fact
that emergency services are fewer and farther between in rural areas,
when in fact the article does mention that urban areas have the
advantage of quicker access to emergency services.

In any event, I agree with you. Unless the speed limit is rigorously
enforced, ISTM the SL sign is generally treated as optional on urban
freeways.

On Jan 25, 5:39*pm, John Lansford > wrote:
> gpsman > wrote:
> >Study: Roads are safer in urban areas
> >By Larry Copeland, USA TODAY
>
> >Your odds of dying in a motor vehicle crash vary dramatically because
> >of one simple thing: where you live.
>
> >Those conclusions are based on federal data of
> >traffic fatalities per 100,000 population and per 100 million miles
> >driven.
>
> >The primary reason for the difference: Urban roads are safer than
> >rural roads.
>
> Only if you're looking at fatalities, and only if you are talking
> about motorists.

That seems to be what they're looking at.

> Crash rates are much higher in urban areas, and
> injury rates for pedestrians and cyclists caused by collisions with
> vehicles are much higher as well. *Lower speeds help reduce crash
> severities, but there are more of them in urban areas as well.

I think in this case safer mean less dead.

> The study is nothing more than an exercise in cherry picking your
> statistics. *

To be fair, I think those criteria would pollute a study of fatalities
among motorists.
-----

- gpsman