The 11 most dangerous states for drivers

[cpzilliacus]

Washington Post: The 11 most dangerous states for drivers

A new report on highway safety says more states have a "dangerous lack of basic safety laws"  than have strong safety regulations.

Eleven states received a red rating, reflecting poor protections, while 10 received a green rating, according to the report from Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, a coalition of business and safety groups. The remaining states got a yellow rating meaning they showed moderate adoption of optimal safety laws.

[hotdogPi]

They're not the most dangerous. This doesn't even mention which states have crazier/stupider drivers.

[Zeffy]

Just because your state doesn't have rules governing safe driving practices, everyone should be following the basics to make sure that you are not a threat out there to other drivers (or yourself). The only thing I got from this article is that quite a few states have people who don't wear seatbelts (and subsequently lost their lives because of it). They don't get sympathy from me because if you want to be the idiot who doesn't wear his seatbelt while in a motor vehicle then so be it, just be aware that you won't be surviving anything that's more serious than a fender-bender.

You shouldn't need a law for common sense.

[Brandon]

Hardly a report on the most dangerous states to drive in.  Any such report should take into account road conditions and driver behavior.  Having a state with as many idiots on the road as Illinois qualify as "safe" is simply moronic.

[hotdogPi]

This article is very wrong. Crazy drivers cause lots of accidents. There are many in the "green" states. They're not as safe as the article thinks they are.

And the article says there are more red states than green. If I read the article right, they just chose the top ten and bottom eleven! It was their choice!

[TCN7JM]

South Dakota's restriction of nighttime driving among teens isn't even that. It restricts driving between 10PM and 6AM until you are 16 years of age and can upgrade from a restricted minor's permit to an operator's license (remember, the driving age here is 14). 16 is still a teenager last I checked.

[hotdogPi]

If you read the comments to the article, you will find that all of the comments say the article is wrong.

[agentsteel53]

They're not the most dangerous. This doesn't even mention which states have crazier/stupider drivers.

nah, it's good, they've got Florida in red. 

that said, if you're basing your level of danger whether or not there's a law compelling you to wear a seatbelt, then your understanding of reality is severely flawed.

[agentsteel53]

Hardly a report on the most dangerous states to drive in.  Any such report should take into account road conditions and driver behavior.  Having a state with as many idiots on the road as Illinois qualify as "safe" is simply moronic.

I've always wondered about the Illinois hatred.  come to California some time, where the left-lane parkers do 62 as opposed to 71.

[NE2]

If you read the comments to the article, you will find that all of the comments say the article is wrong.

And they did when CP posted this poo. He doesn't care; he gets kickbacks from the goat lobby.

[Brian556]

Florida has some of the best roads.
They have good pavement markings, signage, and street lighting. They thing that stands out to me is that they set up medians to prevent left and straight movement from side roads and business driveways at unsafe locations, which goes a long way to prevent accidents.

The problem there has to be lax enforcement and bad drivers.

I know y'all hate enforcement, but it does work. People drive a lot better in areas where everybody knows that BS ain't tolerated.

[agentsteel53]

The problem there has to be lax enforcement and bad drivers.

not lax.  just based on outmoded ideas. 

I was once followed by the sheriff of Franklin County from one end of the county to the other on US-98, because I dared drive through at 4am with California plates.  so while I was doing 33 in a 35 on cruise control, I'll bet someone somewhere in his county was doing something actually reckless.

[SD Mapman]

South Dakota had the fewest safety laws in place.

That point actually makes sense.
I wouldn't be surprised if when someone does a REAL study, that SD would still be near the bottom. (Lots of bad drivers out west who think speed limits are "guidelines")

[agentsteel53]

(Lots of bad drivers out west who think speed limits are "guidelines")

that is one of the lower-ranking notions that makes one a bad driver.

I'd rather have people zooming past me doing 90, while paying close attention to their travel, than idiots driving three-abreast at 58mph, each applying makeup to their mobile phone.

[SD Mapman]

(Lots of bad drivers out west who think speed limits are "guidelines")

that is one of the lower-ranking notions that makes one a bad driver.

I'd rather have people zooming past me doing 90, while paying close attention to their travel, than idiots driving three-abreast at 58mph, each applying makeup to their mobile phone.

Oh, don't worry, we have those too.

[TCN7JM]

(Lots of bad drivers out west who think speed limits are "guidelines")

Here in the Sioux Falls area I've found that a lot of people do 70 no matter what, for whatever reason. In the rural urban area where the speed limit is 65? Do 70. Heading west of the city toward Mitchell where the speed limit raises to 75? Do 70.

[SD Mapman]

(Lots of bad drivers out west who think speed limits are "guidelines")

Here in the Sioux Falls area I've found that a lot of people do 70 no matter what, for whatever reason. In the rural area where the speed limit is 65? Do 70. Heading west of the city toward Mitchell where the speed limit raises to 75? Do 70.

It's the river, man. We don't have as many people or slow-moving farm equipment.

[JoePCool14]

I thought Illinois would be at the top of the unsafe list. But alas, I was wrong.

[hotdogPi]

I thought Illinois would be at the top of the unsafe list. But alas, I was wrong.

You're not wrong. The article is.

[Brandon]

Hardly a report on the most dangerous states to drive in.  Any such report should take into account road conditions and driver behavior.  Having a state with as many idiots on the road as Illinois qualify as "safe" is simply moronic.

I've always wondered about the Illinois hatred.  come to California some time, where the left-lane parkers do 62 as opposed to 71.

It's really more about Chicago drivers.  They have a habit of closing gaps, being rather impatient (shoulder riding, tailgating), running red lights (I've seen up to 8 go through after the signal turned), pulling Pittsburgh Lefts, and just outright inconsistency.  It's what's earned them the title of FIB by the Cheeseheads (Fucking Illinois Bastard).

I found LA rather pleasant when I drove through once.  At least they used their turn signals to change lanes and merged in at speed.

[jeffandnicole]

The states were ranked based on adoption of the 15 safety laws considered optimal by the rating organization. The laws included those...allowing officers to ticket individuals sitting either in the front or the back for not wearing a seat belt without another offense having first taken place...

What does someone sitting in the back seat without a seat belt have to do with driving? 

Is the study now using back seat drivers as a basis for safe driving???  Clearly, the article is really a study on laws for teens and impared driving, but since they are finding their normal press releases a little tiredsome, they decided to make it a study on dangerous driving.  Most of the article is based on teen driving restrictions and estimated lives that could've been saved, when in itself is a random number.

[froggie]

The states were ranked based on adoption of the 15 safety laws considered optimal by the rating organization.

Exactly.  I think this is a point lost (or not noticed) by some of the earlier commenters.

What does someone sitting in the back seat without a seat belt have to do with driving?

Probably minimal for the driver, but still a safety hazard for driving since the latter accounts for everyone within the vehicle (emphasis mine).

[hbelkins]

Aren't there some states that don't require back-seat passengers to wear seat belts?

[PHLBOS]

Aren't there some states that don't require back-seat passengers to wear seat belts?

Yes, PA is one of them.  Largely because when it adopted their seatbelt law in 1987; no vehicle the majority of vehicles on the market at the time came w/ did not offer shoulder belts for outward rear passengers (aka 3-point belts), the rear seatbelts on most vehicles were strictly lap-belts back then. 

Additionally, RVs and limos w/unconventionally laid-out rear seats (parallel to the vehicle doors) had no seatbelts on them.

[1995hoo]

Aren't there some states that don't require back-seat passengers to wear seat belts?

Yes, PA is one of them.  Largely because when it adopted their seatbelt law in 1987; no vehicle on the market at the time came w/shoulder belts for rear passengers, the rear seatbelts were strictly lap-belts back then. 

Additionally, RVs and limos w/unconventionally laid-out rear seats (parallel to the vehicle doors) had no seatbelts on them.

No offense, but your statement about no rear shoulder belts ("three-point belts" is the technical name) in 1987 is incorrect. My father had a 1982 Honda Accord (he sold it to me in 1991) and it had three-point belts for both rear side seats (but only a lap belt for the center position). I spent a lot of time riding in the rear seat of that car, including on some long family vacations. I believe, but at this point I don't really recall for certain, that my mom's 1979 Volvo wagon (200 series) had rear three-point belts for the side passengers as well. I'm pretty sure it did because I definitely remember their 165 sedan in the 1970s had only rear lap belts and it was a Big Deal that the wagon had the full three-point belts back there.

A search I just did suggests that Volvo (no surprise) were the first to include rear three-point belts beginning in 1972.