https://autos.yahoo.com/news/where-u-most-likely-die-car-crash-193031742.html (https://autos.yahoo.com/news/where-u-most-likely-die-car-crash-193031742.html)
Whatcha think about dees apples?? :hmmm:
No details about methodology. But the mention of the tiny population of Kenedy County TX, compared to traffic deaths therein, hints that the article looked at only traffic deaths vs. county population, rather than a more appropriate comparison of traffic deaths vs. county traffic volume.
Sure enough, all of the five "most dangerous counties" have very small local populations, but lots of out-of-county traffic passing through. Three of the five have Interstates passing through them; the others (Kenedy County TX, Esmeralda County NV) have one or more major US highways.
Given that the most dangerous counties in Illinois are rural and not Chicagoland, I also question the methodology. Certainly does not seem to be a shortage of fatal wrecks in Chicagoland per the data IDOT provides (http://apps.dot.illinois.gov/fatalcrash). Although I cannot seem to separate fatal crashes from the number of fatalities, Cook County is definitely leading the state in 2015 with 36.
Least likely: Inside a building.
Quote from: Revive 755 on March 22, 2015, 01:03:42 PM
Given that the most dangerous counties in Illinois are rural and not Chicagoland, I also question the methodology. Certainly does not seem to be a shortage of fatal wrecks in Chicagoland per the data IDOT provides (http://apps.dot.illinois.gov/fatalcrash). Although I cannot seem to separate fatal crashes from the number of fatalities, Cook County is definitely leading the state in 2015 with 36.
The first thing I came away with after reading the article is the absence of a description of the methodology used in determining their results. I'm not sure I really trust their "results".
You have to dig down into the underlying Auto Insurance Center article (http://www.autoinsurancecenter.com/americas-deadliest-driving-counties-and-states.htm) to find the methodology. It's (number of fatal crashes, not fatalities, in the county from 1994-2013 per NHTSA statistics) divided by (2013 US Census Bureau estimates of county population). Kenedy County, TX saw 43 fatal crashes, or 2 per year, over the 20 years, with a population of about 412, so that divides out to 0.1044 fatal crashes per capita and a "Most Dangerous" rating. Los Angeles County saw 13,488 fatal crashes, or 2 per day, but with a population over 10 million that's just 0.0013 fatal crashes per capita. Los Angeles County is therefore 80 times safer to drive in than Kenedy County, according to their methodology, and earns a "Safest" rating.
It seems like you can twist these numbers to support any argument you want. This particular torturing of the stats makes all urban areas look relatively safe.
The article might be trying to push the "slower is always safer" narrative. Note that the states with the most red are the ones with maximum speed limits in the 75-85 range and the states with the most green are in the 65 block.
Quote from: vdeane on March 22, 2015, 09:29:48 PM
The article might be trying to push the "slower is always safer" narrative. Note that the states with the most red are the ones with maximum speed limits in the 75-85 range and the states with the most green are in the 65 block.
Actually, the safest county (based on the article, Nantucket County, MA) is an island that has no freeways in it.
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 23, 2015, 11:09:07 AM
Quote from: vdeane on March 22, 2015, 09:29:48 PM
The article might be trying to push the "slower is always safer" narrative. Note that the states with the most red are the ones with maximum speed limits in the 75-85 range and the states with the most green are in the 65 block.
Actually, the safest county (based on the article, Nantucket County, MA) is an island that has no freeways in it.
Quickly followed by at least 2 other counties with freeways, so the sole fact that there's no freeways in the county doesn't really mean much when the next safest county on the list has some very major freeways.
Also interesting that in some states, one county may be one of the safest in the county; a bordering county may be one of the most dangerous.
Regardless of this article's methodology, I think the one thing people overlook is that even though there will be more crashes at a given spot in a heavily populated area, 2 factors come into play that will make them less likely to be fatal:
1) in a really congested area, speeds are usually low enough to keep injury severity down
2) response times of fire/EMS resources are quicker in built up areas than in rural areas, and the local hospital is much closer.
So it actually makes sense that a congested area may seem safer than a rural county because per capita deaths would be lower.
All that said, I'd rather take my chances driving out in the middle of East Podunk, USA than attempting to navigate Michigan Ave in Chicago during rush hour-I'm less likely to come in contact with another vehicle to begin with that way.
One can generally prove anything if the statistics are framed the right way.
Actually 755 Illinois is short of fatals (if you were in one I am sure you wouldn't think so) At this rate Illinois would have less than 600 The lowest since cars. That is how IL compares its data over time . 1000 or less 2-3 a day about half in Chicago area is historically low. Even though traffic volumes are down a little driving is statistically safer than almost ever here. I did see the study once that showed most of the fatals are at night and on rural roads. Drive in daytime on the Illinois Interstates and its pretty safe
I do know that when I started driving Illinois had something near 2000 fatals and murders were not that far behind. It sounds like a media disappointed the police blotter is dull
Quote from: vdeane on March 23, 2015, 09:55:32 PM
One can generally prove anything if the statistics are framed the right way.
Figures can lie and liars can figure.