Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[kphoger]

Dual license plates lead to lower divorce rates in the under-30 demographic.





I would say there is a correlation.  Someone may look for numeric data and averages, but for me correlation is good enough. Of course, correlation doesn't imply causation... Another map to put here would be obesity rates and time differential from solar noon.

[J N Winkler]

Older cars and lack of maintenance can easily be an issue. That's why I assume  rudimentary safety inspection is a must. Part of an overall "tighter regulation" package.

(Cough cough)  While I acknowledge I drive a 29-year-old car, I speak with complete disinterest when I say I can't really support measures that burden those who try to help the environment by keeping their current vehicles running.

[kalvado]

Well... Lets see....
Fatality rate:
...
Single plate states:
...

I would say there is a correlation. Someone may look for numeric data and averages, but for me correlation is good enough. Of course, correlation doesn't imply causation... Another map to put here would be inspection requirement by state - and overall conclusion may be that tighter regulation indeed means safer roads. Looking at these maps, I always ask myself  why  snowy northeast is somehow much safer region to drive than snow-free south....

Cmon...  That has nothing to do with the lack of a front license plate. 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-15/the-geography-of-car-deaths-in-america

It's higher speed, more rural driving and a slight correlation to poorer states where people drive older cars.

Higher speed is probably just a usual bullshit. Not that people follow those speed limits anyway...
 More rural would be plausible explanation if I didn't look at statistics in my area. Upstate NY isn't really very urban, but still doesn't get much higher rates as south does. Super-urban NYC, on the other hand....
Older cars and lack of maintenance can easily be an issue. That's why I assume  rudimentary safety inspection is a must. Part of an overall "tighter regulation" package.

I mean, there are actual studies that show correlation between speed limits and fatal accidents. You call that "just a usual bullshit," but are completely OK with posting a couple maps with colors and saying "correlation is good enough?" OK then.

I went through some of those speed limit studies by IIHS. They do not pass my quality test for an acceptable study. I don't know how they do peer review, but I would turn at least some of those things down as a reviewer, even though my field is physics rather than transportation - but general scientific principles should remain the same.

Sincerely,
Kalvado, PhD. 

[kalvado]

Older cars and lack of maintenance can easily be an issue. That's why I assume  rudimentary safety inspection is a must. Part of an overall "tighter regulation" package.

(Cough cough)  While I acknowledge I drive a 29-year-old car, I speak with complete disinterest when I say I can't really support measures that burden those who try to help the environment by keeping their current vehicles running.

There is a huge difference between an old beloved car which sees good care and a rusty clunker which falls apart on the road. 
I am pretty sure most of us wouldn't set a foot in a car if brakes and steering are not working properly, or tires are worn down to nothing.  While it is hard to judge brakes from outside, rusty panels somewhat held together by leftover paint are a red flag IMHO...   

[kalvado]

Dual license plates lead to lower divorce rates in the under-30 demographic.
....
....

I would say there is a correlation.  Someone may look for numeric data and averages, but for me correlation is good enough. Of course, correlation doesn't imply causation... Another map to put here would be obesity rates and time differential from solar noon.

And I wonder if there is a deep common cause here. Probably a lot of socioeconomic involved after all, with government role being part of it.
I am not a huge fan of excess government control, but I really wonder where is a sweet spot for vehicle regulation. I expect  most of us do accept the need for some regulation, question is how different areas are willing to get  and able to afford regulations.

[Ted$8roadFan]

Well... Lets see....
Fatality rate:

Single plate states:


I would say there is a correlation. Someone may look for numeric data and averages, but for me correlation is good enough. Of course, correlation doesn't imply causation... Another map to put here would be inspection requirement by state - and overall conclusion may be that tighter regulation indeed means safer roads. Looking at these maps, I always ask myself  why  snowy northeast is somehow much safer region to drive than snow-free south....

I believe Ohio and Alaska have repealed their front plate requirements.

[kphoger]

I believe Ohio and Alaska have repealed their front plate requirements.

Oh, great.  Now more kids are going to have to grow up in a single-parent household, due to the impending increase in both traffic accidents and divorce.  Will someone please think of the children!!!

[SP Cook]

Older cars and lack of maintenance can easily be an issue. That's why I assume  rudimentary safety inspection is a must. Part of an overall "tighter regulation" package.

(Cough cough)  While I acknowledge I drive a 29-year-old car, I speak with complete disinterest when I say I can't really support measures that burden those who try to help the environment by keeping their current vehicles running.

The NHTSA actually did a study. 

In the year 2015, 94% of accidents were caused by driver error, and 2% each by vehicle failures, environment, and “other”.  Of the 2%, 35% were tires, 22% were brakes, 3% were steering/supension/transmission/engine, and 40% was “other”, sue to incomplete police reports.  Even if we attribute all of the “other” to either tires or brakes, which is all they check in state inspections really, then that works out to about 40K of the over 2M accidents. 

The next step would be to look for a statistically significant difference between inspection jurisdictions and non-inspection jurisdictions.  One would think there would be one, but I really doubt it, considering the very cursory inspection most states perform. 

[kphoger]

Even then, comparing states might only be so useful, considering how many "driver error" incidents could be attributed to weather conditions not found with the same frequency between states.

[kalvado]

Older cars and lack of maintenance can easily be an issue. That's why I assume  rudimentary safety inspection is a must. Part of an overall "tighter regulation" package.

(Cough cough)  While I acknowledge I drive a 29-year-old car, I speak with complete disinterest when I say I can't really support measures that burden those who try to help the environment by keeping their current vehicles running.

The NHTSA actually did a study. 

In the year 2015, 94% of accidents were caused by driver error, and 2% each by vehicle failures, environment, and “other”.  Of the 2%, 35% were tires, 22% were brakes, 3% were steering/supension/transmission/engine, and 40% was “other”, sue to incomplete police reports.  Even if we attribute all of the “other” to either tires or brakes, which is all they check in state inspections really, then that works out to about 40K of the over 2M accidents. 

The next step would be to look for a statistically significant difference between inspection jurisdictions and non-inspection jurisdictions.  One would think there would be one, but I really doubt it, considering the very cursory inspection most states perform.

So, again, what makes southern states more accident prone?

[Poiponen13]

Well... Lets see....
Fatality rate:

Single plate states:


I would say there is a correlation. Someone may look for numeric data and averages, but for me correlation is good enough. Of course, correlation doesn't imply causation... Another map to put here would be inspection requirement by state - and overall conclusion may be that tighter regulation indeed means safer roads. Looking at these maps, I always ask myself  why  snowy northeast is somehow much safer region to drive than snow-free south....

I believe Ohio and Alaska have repealed their front plate requirements.

All states should use front plates.

[kphoger]

All states should use front plates.

All new islands should use Karo pancake syrup.

[kalvado]

How can we be sure that the enforcement cited actually increases public safety?

Excellent post over all.  To answer this specific question, a study would have to prove, as the uninformed poster suggests, that somehow overall public safety statistics are better in, say, Maryland than in Pennsylvania, or Ontario than in Quebec, or pick any pair you want.   This is what I asked for, and which the poster failed to produce.  Rather googling up a blurb that is not academic in nature and which was off-topic.   Mainly because no such study exist.  No one can prove that front plates in any way are about “public safety”.

Because they are not.  And if you disagree, link please.  Academic article, showing “public safety” statistics are different between such jurisdictions and then an at least thoughtful explanation of why.  Link please.

There are too many variables to make such comparison simple. And simple visual correlation is, apparently, less than convincing

[kalvado]

All states should use front plates.

All new islands should use Karo pancake syrup.

Only if it is Jade in color

[Scott5114]

Honestly, I see more correlation between the fatality rate map and the red-and-blue map that's seared into everyone's brain at this point than I do the front-plate map.

(Which makes more sense, since after all the red-and-blue map is going to dictate policies that are likely to have more of an effect on safety than license plate provisioning.)

[kphoger]

Remember, kids:  voting Democrat reduces traffic fatalities!

[GCrites80s]

Well... Lets see....
Fatality rate:

Single plate states:


I would say there is a correlation. Someone may look for numeric data and averages, but for me correlation is good enough. Of course, correlation doesn't imply causation... Another map to put here would be inspection requirement by state - and overall conclusion may be that tighter regulation indeed means safer roads. Looking at these maps, I always ask myself  why  snowy northeast is somehow much safer region to drive than snow-free south....

The thing about Ohio being surrounded by one-plate states until 2020 is that if you were in Columbus or Central Ohio the cops would pay attention to a car with no front plate but within 20-30 miles of the border they didn't notice if you had no front plate unless they pulled you over and also looked at the front of the car. There were too many cars from neighboring states running around for them to dedicate mental bandwidth to whether a passing car was from Ohio or another state.

[jakeroot]

So, again, what makes southern states more accident prone?

I always thought they were just worse drivers. Not as much seatbelt wearing and more drunk-driving. Anecdotally: there's also a general dimwittedness that seems worse in the south, like failing to yield, vigilantism (like blocking people from zipper merging or chasing people who wronged you), using the wrong lane for something, mobile phone usage, etc.

[Scott5114]

Remember, kids:  voting Democrat reduces traffic fatalities!

I mean, it probably honestly does. Democrats tend to favor more stringent regulations on most everything, and also tend to favor greater use of mass transit and less use of private vehicles, so it would stand to reason that this could result in reduced traffic fatality rates. (I'm not going to try to dig up a study proving that it does because I don't really care enough to go through the trouble; I'm just pulling a theory out of my ass here.)

That doesn't necessarily mean that that's a good reason to vote a certain way, however. I got into it with a Wisconsin Democrat on Reddit who was appalled at the fact that I was fine with Oklahoma having 80 mph speed limits and pointed to Oklahoma's higher fatality rate as a reason to why I should be in favor of lower speed limits. My response was basically that I was fine with the fatality rate being higher because the higher speed limit accrues benefits to so many trips that occur without incident. They seemed flabbergasted that someone could look at it from that point of view and ended the discussion with something like "well at least your beliefs are self-consistent" or some such.

[kalvado]

Remember, kids:  voting Democrat reduces traffic fatalities!

I mean, it probably honestly does. Democrats tend to favor more stringent regulations on most everything, and also tend to favor greater use of mass transit and less use of private vehicles, so it would stand to reason that this could result in reduced traffic fatality rates. (I'm not going to try to dig up a study proving that it does because I don't really care enough to go through the trouble; I'm just pulling a theory out of my ass here.)

That doesn't necessarily mean that that's a good reason to vote a certain way, however. I got into it with a Wisconsin Democrat on Reddit who was appalled at the fact that I was fine with Oklahoma having 80 mph speed limits and pointed to Oklahoma's higher fatality rate as a reason to why I should be in favor of lower speed limits. My response was basically that I was fine with the fatality rate being higher because the higher speed limit accrues benefits to so many trips that occur without incident. They seemed flabbergasted that someone could look at it from that point of view and ended the discussion with something like "well at least your beliefs are self-consistent" or some such.

I really wonder what is the %% of all fatalities on those 80 MPH roads? My understanding that there is a noticeable increase with speed limit increase in many cases (not always, though!), but seemingly not enough to trip state-wide statistics.

[Scott5114]

I doubt it's very high, given that the vast majority of roads with an 80 MPH speed limit are freeways with low traffic counts. Obviously, going off the road and hitting a tree at 80 MPH isn't going to be good for your general well-being, but...

[StogieGuy7]

Remember, kids:  voting Democrat reduces traffic fatalities!

I mean, it probably honestly does. Democrats tend to favor more stringent regulations on most everything, and also tend to favor greater use of mass transit and less use of private vehicles, so it would stand to reason that this could result in reduced traffic fatality rates. (I'm not going to try to dig up a study proving that it does because I don't really care enough to go through the trouble; I'm just pulling a theory out of my ass here.)

That doesn't necessarily mean that that's a good reason to vote a certain way, however. I got into it with a Wisconsin Democrat on Reddit who was appalled at the fact that I was fine with Oklahoma having 80 mph speed limits and pointed to Oklahoma's higher fatality rate as a reason to why I should be in favor of lower speed limits. My response was basically that I was fine with the fatality rate being higher because the higher speed limit accrues benefits to so many trips that occur without incident. They seemed flabbergasted that someone could look at it from that point of view and ended the discussion with something like "well at least your beliefs are self-consistent" or some such.

The only problem with this theorem is that it's clearly not that simple. If it was, you'd find Boston and New York to be bastions of fine driving skill and etiquette. Of course, quite the contrary is true as both areas are full of rude, poorly skilled drivers. So, the red/blue thing falls apart there.

That said, one thing that may make more sense is true:

The southern red states in question are poorer and therefore the average vehicle fleet age is far older and in worse condition than you find (on average) in wealthier "blue" states. Older cars are far more likely to be involved in fatal collisions than newer vehicles.

I'll also note that a disproportionate amount of social issues leading to crime and poverty lie within communities that tend to vote "blue" in those "red" states.

[1]

One thing I want to point out is that the fatality rate map looks closer to the US version of the Human Development Index than the red/blue map. Note the Upper Midwest being better than red/blue would suggest, California (5-way tie for 15th) being below the Northeast, and New Mexico (41st in this map) being bad rather than good. The main exception is Illinois, which ranks 22nd out of 50 despite the color on this map but has very few fatalities.



By posting here, I will now get an 81-page thread in my unread replies.

[kalvado]

Remember, kids:  voting Democrat reduces traffic fatalities!

I mean, it probably honestly does. Democrats tend to favor more stringent regulations on most everything, and also tend to favor greater use of mass transit and less use of private vehicles, so it would stand to reason that this could result in reduced traffic fatality rates. (I'm not going to try to dig up a study proving that it does because I don't really care enough to go through the trouble; I'm just pulling a theory out of my ass here.)

That doesn't necessarily mean that that's a good reason to vote a certain way, however. I got into it with a Wisconsin Democrat on Reddit who was appalled at the fact that I was fine with Oklahoma having 80 mph speed limits and pointed to Oklahoma's higher fatality rate as a reason to why I should be in favor of lower speed limits. My response was basically that I was fine with the fatality rate being higher because the higher speed limit accrues benefits to so many trips that occur without incident. They seemed flabbergasted that someone could look at it from that point of view and ended the discussion with something like "well at least your beliefs are self-consistent" or some such.

The only problem with this theorem is that it's clearly not that simple. If it was, you'd find Boston and New York to be bastions of fine driving skill and etiquette. Of course, quite the contrary is true as both areas are full of rude, poorly skilled drivers. So, the red/blue thing falls apart there.

That said, one thing that may make more sense is true:

The southern red states in question are poorer and therefore the average vehicle fleet age is far older and in worse condition than you find (on average) in wealthier "blue" states. Older cars are far more likely to be involved in fatal collisions than newer vehicles.

I'll also note that a disproportionate amount of social issues leading to crime and poverty lie within communities that tend to vote "blue" in those "red" states.

Two basic versions here, if you will: worse vehicles or worse drivers. Looks like nobody really thinks it's worse roads.
I suspect worse drivers are at least a contributing factor. Correlation between poverty and instant gratification may be significant factor. Education, both school - including driver ed - and less college can be part of mindset (although I maybe overestimating that).
Going back, I can see how that contribute to reduced regulation (front plates and inspections), less serious family and health altitude (divorce and obesity) and, well, more aggressive driving.
NYC aggressive driving is more of "because I have to" rather than "because I can", and that may make a difference.

[Scott5114]

Does aggressive driving/lack of etiquette actually result in higher accident rates? The obvious answer is that it would, since an aggressive driver probably takes a lot more risks and sometimes they'll misjudge. But perhaps aggressive driving is correlated with greater ability to judge what sort of gaps they can fit in and thus cancels out the higher risks they're taking?

I have no idea if data for this exists. I'm not really sure how you'd even quantify aggressive driving in order to study it.