News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

Increased speed limits on Oklahoma interstates

Started by dchristy, April 20, 2019, 10:30:35 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

jakeroot

Is long term competency not taught? I don't feel like drivers ed is just about "here's what signs look like" and "here's how to turn left", but also theoretical concepts. Things like why staying right except to pass is not just important for flow, but how it plays a role in road rage. Or why speed limits vary and why they're enforced. So on and so forth. Things that allow drivers to leave their home area but remain competent; learning how to drive is easy enough, but the 'why' of roads is just as important.

I do have to question the long term viability of same-day in-person driving exams. It's easy enough to learn how to pass a driving test, but driving around a small urban area isn't enough. Drivers must be taught how to handle different conditions, at different times of day, etc.

Couple ideas (very conceptual):

(1) multiple driving tests on multiple days: day 1 might be day driving in urban areas, day 2 driving on freeways, day 3 driving at night; each test could take place in different areas. Simulations could be used to test for skills not available in the area (like snow, freeways, or busy CBDs).

(2) entirely simulation based testing: again, multiple days, split up into different skills.

Both of these would decrease testing capacity, but this could be offset by increasing the cost of a licence, or implementing a lottery system.

Pilots have been using 'sims' for as long as I can recall, since it's not feasible to test pilot competence at the helm of a jet every time retesting occurs. I don't see why we can't adopt similar measures for driving schools.


kalvado

Quote from: kphoger on October 16, 2020, 02:30:56 PM
Someone can get a Hawaii license (max speed limit 60 mph) and then rent a car in Nevada (max speed limit 80 mph).

Where would it stop?
Right there. Once the reciprocality of driver licenses is broken, retaliation is more than likely to occur. Expect NV lawmakers to get crucified within a month by those who flew to HI only to realize their vacation plans are no more.
Quote from: jakeroot on October 16, 2020, 05:47:34 PM
Is long term competency not taught? I don't feel like drivers ed is just about "here's what signs look like" and "here's how to turn left", but also theoretical concepts. Things like why staying right except to pass is not just important for flow, but how it plays a role in road rage. Or why speed limits vary and why they're enforced. So on and so forth. Things that allow drivers to leave their home area but remain competent; learning how to drive is easy enough, but the 'why' of roads is just as important.
a VERY high bar - and even bigger can of worms.
For one, few engineers - definitely very few from NYSDOT traffic devision - show understanding of "why". Requiring that from drivers.. Heck, we have hard time requireing that from graduate students in their area of study..
Second, you just made ALL road laws relative. If a driver need to understand WHY certain regulations are imposed, they are entitled to violate if conditions allow. Stop sign on a straight empty road with good visibility is now "yield" at best, and any speed limit is a mere suggestion - if that (not that those are taken seriously anyway). Those are commonly discussed ones.  But how about a red light on an intersection?

skluth

Regarding license reciprocity: I was stationed in Rota in the early 80's. If someone already had a driver's license from your state, all they had to do was pass a sign test for European signs to get a Spanish license that was valid as long as they were stationed there (military, and I think civilian) or a dependent. It meant I could buy a POS Seat and drive it around much of Europe (though it wouldn't have made it to Madrid, much less France). I believe military personnel in other countries had the same deal.

I'd say the challenges of driving in Andalusia frequently presented me with problems I would never have encountered in Wisconsin. Streets narrower than anything in Boston. Streets that literally had steps across the entire width on steep hills. Hundreds of scooters weaving in-and-out of traffic. Not to mention the UK with its left-side driving.

It's just not possible to cover every situation. That's why insurance costs less for those who have had driver's training.

Plutonic Panda

I'm good with current drivers license laws. Some the ideas suggested are flat out ridiculous. If anything, we should train drivers to be able to drive at higher speeds and inclement weather conditions. That's about it.

Scott5114

Quote from: jakeroot on October 16, 2020, 05:47:34 PM
Is long term competency not taught? I don't feel like drivers ed is just about "here's what signs look like" and "here's how to turn left", but also theoretical concepts. Things like why staying right except to pass is not just important for flow, but how it plays a role in road rage. Or why speed limits vary and why they're enforced. So on and so forth. Things that allow drivers to leave their home area but remain competent; learning how to drive is easy enough, but the 'why' of roads is just as important.

My driver's ed class was taught by football coaches with nothing else to do for the month of June. They went with their normal approach to teaching anything–showing videos. Most of them were just videos of people who had been injured in car crashes. The practical driving practice did, however, include a tour of I-35 and I-240. I don't remember any specific discussion of lane discipline.

It could be done better.

Quote
Both of these would decrease testing capacity, but this could be offset by increasing the cost of a licence, or implementing a lottery system.

Neither of these would be acceptable in most states, because the rural American lifestyle is utterly incompatible with not having a license. There is no bus out there. Not having a license means you are totally reliant on the good will of friends and neighbors, or even hitchhiking, if you want to do anything other than sit at home. If you live 14 miles from the nearest store (a Walmart, naturally), the prospect of having to luck into getting a testing berth through a lottery system is simply unreasonable.

And increased license fees are essentially a regressive tax that disproportionately impacts the poor.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

J N Winkler

Having successfully avoided an injury accident in almost 30 years of driving, yet failed the only behind-the-wheel driving test I ever took, I am not really in favor of methods of tightening driver licensing procedures that result in it becoming significantly harder to drive legally.  As others have pointed out, many geographical areas afford limited scope for developing behind-the-wheel experience in certain types of driving, and making it hard to get a license also creates an income barrier to automobility.  My own experience has been that jurisdictions with difficult driver licensing often experience some clawback in safety outcomes because the licensing process itself has a negative impact on drivers' attitudes (e.g., "This license is hard to get, and I have it" = "Other drivers are idiots and need to get out of my way").  As a result, there are some countries with difficult-to-get licenses that have quite good safety records (e.g., Britain, Switzerland, Sweden), and others that don't (e.g., Germany).

In any event, the best a driving test can do is measure proficiency at a point in time.  Driving safely for the rest of your life on the road is largely about attitude:  you have to understand what defensive driving is, commit to doing it at all times, and never get behind the wheel unless you are prepared to use anything you learn on the trip (as well as independent study using any training resources that are available, such as the MUTCD, geometric design references, etc.) to become a better driver going forward.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

kalvado

Quote from: J N Winkler on October 17, 2020, 03:23:09 PM
As a result, there are some countries with difficult-to-get licenses that have quite good safety records (e.g., Britain, Switzerland, Sweden), and others that don't (e.g., Germany).
Frankly speaking, Germany is still about 2x better than US for road fatalities per mile driven. Not a bulletproof metrics, but still a good one.

MCRoads

My mom grew up in the armpit of New Mexico, and still hates parallel parking because she never had to do it where she grew up. Hell, for the longest time, in order to go through a stoplight for the driving test, they had a stoplight on a pole in the HS parking lot that just had switches to turn in and off the lights, which is honestly kind of fancy for a town of (when she grew up) 6.8K. It's still there, but they have an actual stoplight now. And the speed limit on the highway might be 75, but except for a speed trap, we go 85-90 and still get passed when we visit her parents.
I build roads on Minecraft. Like, really good roads.
Interstates traveled:
4/5/10*/11**/12**/15/25*/29*/35(E/W[TX])/40*/44**/49(LA**)/55*/64**/65/66*/70°/71*76(PA*,CO*)/78*°/80*/95°/99(PA**,NY**)

*/** indicates a terminus/termini being traveled
° Indicates a gap (I.E Breezwood, PA.)

more room plz

SoonerCowboy

Quote from: MCRoads on October 19, 2020, 02:09:39 AM
My mom grew up in the armpit of New Mexico, and still hates parallel parking because she never had to do it where she grew up. Hell, for the longest time, in order to go through a stoplight for the driving test, they had a stoplight on a pole in the HS parking lot that just had switches to turn in and off the lights, which is honestly kind of fancy for a town of (when she grew up) 6.8K. It's still there, but they have an actual stoplight now. And the speed limit on the highway might be 75, but except for a speed trap, we go 85-90 and still get passed when we visit her parents.

Where exactly is "the armpit of New Mexico"? LOL I see you are in Colorado Springs, I just got home from a wonderful trip to the Springs.

Scott5114

Well, the only thing New Mexico has that could be considered an "arm" is the southern tip of Hidalgo County, which would make the "armpit" somewhere west of Columbus, NM...
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

jakeroot

#85
Quote from: J N Winkler on October 17, 2020, 03:23:09 PM
As others have pointed out, many geographical areas afford limited scope for developing behind-the-wheel experience in certain types of driving, and making it hard to get a license also creates an income barrier to automobility.

I would not use this is as an argument, personally. There seems to be a connection between poorer countries and automobile crashes. This is especially evident around the African continent, where there seems to be widespread corruption around drivers licence procurement, where a test is not necessarily a "requirement" with the right connections. This leads to a large number of uneducated drivers behind the road, driving because they have little other choice. Some of these countries, like the Congo, Nigeria, and Cameroon have hiddeous fatality rates, far worse than the US.

Ignoring the dangers of driving simply because of "income barriers" or because of vehicle reliance is sticking our heads in the sand and giving up. This especially egregious when you consider the basic fact that driving is a privilege. A damn important one, granted, but it's not a right. The US, in my opinion, has a duty to step in and consider how driving reliance creates dangerous situations, and doing nothing about it is not the best option.

Quote from: J N Winkler on October 17, 2020, 03:23:09 PM
Having successfully avoided an injury accident in almost 30 years of driving, yet failed the only behind-the-wheel driving test I ever took, I am not really in favor of methods of tightening driver licensing procedures that result in it becoming significantly harder to drive legally....My own experience has been that jurisdictions with difficult driver licensing often experience some clawback in safety outcomes because the licensing process itself has a negative impact on drivers' attitudes (e.g., "This license is hard to get, and I have it" = "Other drivers are idiots and need to get out of my way").  As a result, there are some countries with difficult-to-get licenses that have quite good safety records (e.g., Britain, Switzerland, Sweden), and others that don't (e.g., Germany).

I experience this first hand in BC, where "L" and "N" signs are used in the same manner as the UK. These drivers are often the butt of jokes and gags, and many drivers have created their own signs ("A" for "Asian") to further joke about them. This can sometimes create a rift between classes of drivers who have those stickers and those that don't. Still, by and large, road safety in BC is superior to WA, where there is no equivalent system (5.3 fatalities per 100,000 in BC compared to 8.9 per 100,000 in WA). Even sadder is that WA does quite well in the rankings.

Quote from: J N Winkler on October 17, 2020, 03:23:09 PM
In any event, the best a driving test can do is measure proficiency at a point in time.  Driving safely for the rest of your life on the road is largely about attitude:  you have to understand what defensive driving is, commit to doing it at all times, and never get behind the wheel unless you are prepared to use anything you learn on the trip (as well as independent study using any training resources that are available, such as the MUTCD, geometric design references, etc.) to become a better driver going forward.

I don't think it take a genius to work out that long-term experience will be a driver's best asset. But that doesn't mean giving up all hope at the beginning. I previously outlined at a least a couple options for improving proficiency at testing time; ideally, it should involve some form of virtual simulation. I don't find this to be unrealistic at all when you consider how heavily other industries rely on it for maintaining proficiency (pilots, transit operators, delivery drivers, etc).

jakeroot

Quote from: Scott5114 on October 17, 2020, 02:25:44 PM
And increased license fees are essentially a regressive tax that disproportionately impacts the poor.

Use increased fees to fund subsidized housing and public transit routes :D.

Scott5114

#87
Quote from: jakeroot on October 20, 2020, 01:27:47 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 17, 2020, 02:25:44 PM
And increased license fees are essentially a regressive tax that disproportionately impacts the poor.

Use increased fees to fund subsidized housing and public transit routes :D.

Some of the poorest parts of Oklahoma are in the rural parts of the state where neither of those make sense. Or are you proposing we set up public transit in places like Hugo (pop. 5310, 41% poverty rate) and Idabel (7010, 29%)? Even if you did, that would do little to help the rest of Choctaw and McCurtain counties, which have similar poverty rates, but an even lower population density.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

jakeroot

Quote from: Scott5114 on October 20, 2020, 01:55:42 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 20, 2020, 01:27:47 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 17, 2020, 02:25:44 PM
And increased license fees are essentially a regressive tax that disproportionately impacts the poor.

Use increased fees to fund subsidized housing and public transit routes :D.

Some of the poorest parts of Oklahoma are in the rural parts of the state where neither of those make sense. Or are you proposing we set up public transit in places like Hugo (pop. 5310, 41% poverty rate) and Idabel (7010, 29%)? Even if you did, that would do little to help the rest of Choctaw and McCurtain counties, which have similar poverty rates, but an even lower population density.

I don't think I'd be going out on a limb in assuming that many of those in extreme poverty couldn't afford to drive anyway. If someone can afford to buy, insure, fuel, and service a vehicle, I don't think a one-time license procurement cost is really going to stand in their way even if it costs $2000+. That barely buys you a decent used car.

Many of the most "progressive" countries around the world have extremely expensive drivers licensing programs; Sweden is around $1700 USD combining all possible costs (largest expense being schooling); Norway is around $3500 USD; other countries in Europe have similarly expensive licenses, although not all. There is not necessarily a 1-to-1 relationship, however, with some countries have very cheap licensing programs but low fatality rates (Italy).

In every country, there are places where driving is the only option. Japan is famed for its public transit, but driving is still dominant outside of urban areas even though the average license costs around $1400 USD (probably cheaper for Japanese speakers). Driving is still not a right, and licences are not just handed out like a bus pass because there's a few people in poverty who can afford an entire car but not a license.

Rothman

Hm.  Wonder if there's a way to normalize those numbers as a percentage of income.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

kalvado

There are probably much lower hanging fruit to pick if it comes to safety. Of course, punitive measures and bashing neighbors are much dearer to many people than technical risk analysis - but do you realize that, for example, NY and WA are pretty much on par with Germany (and better than Japan) in terms of fatalities per mile traveled?
Low hanging fruit, IMHO, are (improving) alcohol and no-seatbelt related deaths; and if you look at the map - states with mandatory safety inspections tend to be better off than those without inspection. For one, north east as a region seems to have more inspections and less fatalities. I wonder if those are related?  :confused:
There may be more complex underlying links - like being able to afford (and maintain) a safer vehicle may be difficult in wast rural stretches; but this is definitely not something that can be fixed by higher fees.

US 89

Quote from: SoonerCowboy on October 19, 2020, 09:22:33 PM
Quote from: MCRoads on October 19, 2020, 02:09:39 AM
My mom grew up in the armpit of New Mexico, and still hates parallel parking because she never had to do it where she grew up. Hell, for the longest time, in order to go through a stoplight for the driving test, they had a stoplight on a pole in the HS parking lot that just had switches to turn in and off the lights, which is honestly kind of fancy for a town of (when she grew up) 6.8K. It's still there, but they have an actual stoplight now. And the speed limit on the highway might be 75, but except for a speed trap, we go 85-90 and still get passed when we visit her parents.

Where exactly is "the armpit of New Mexico"? LOL I see you are in Colorado Springs, I just got home from a wonderful trip to the Springs.

Based on New Mexico's road and signage quality, that could probably describe just about anywhere outside of Albuquerque or Santa Fe.


Scott5114

Quote from: jakeroot on October 20, 2020, 02:38:07 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 20, 2020, 01:55:42 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 20, 2020, 01:27:47 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 17, 2020, 02:25:44 PM
And increased license fees are essentially a regressive tax that disproportionately impacts the poor.

Use increased fees to fund subsidized housing and public transit routes :D.

Some of the poorest parts of Oklahoma are in the rural parts of the state where neither of those make sense. Or are you proposing we set up public transit in places like Hugo (pop. 5310, 41% poverty rate) and Idabel (7010, 29%)? Even if you did, that would do little to help the rest of Choctaw and McCurtain counties, which have similar poverty rates, but an even lower population density.

I don't think I'd be going out on a limb in assuming that many of those in extreme poverty couldn't afford to drive anyway. If someone can afford to buy, insure, fuel, and service a vehicle, I don't think a one-time license procurement cost is really going to stand in their way even if it costs $2000+. That barely buys you a decent used car.

You would be. Pretty much all of the people below the poverty line in rural Oklahoma drive. There's no other way to get to a job, so maintaining a car is basically a cost of living much the same way that housing is. Nobody out there is driving nice cars, but they're driving.

A high license fee would not necessarily be a barrier to entry, but it would definitely impose a hardship. That would be a non-starter, politically. If somehow that passed, you'd probably just see people driving without a license. Stick to the back roads, don't leave the county, trust the cops to be good ol' boys and look the other way...
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

jakeroot

Quote from: Scott5114 on October 20, 2020, 02:10:59 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 20, 2020, 02:38:07 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 20, 2020, 01:55:42 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 20, 2020, 01:27:47 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 17, 2020, 02:25:44 PM
And increased license fees are essentially a regressive tax that disproportionately impacts the poor.

Use increased fees to fund subsidized housing and public transit routes :D.

Some of the poorest parts of Oklahoma are in the rural parts of the state where neither of those make sense. Or are you proposing we set up public transit in places like Hugo (pop. 5310, 41% poverty rate) and Idabel (7010, 29%)? Even if you did, that would do little to help the rest of Choctaw and McCurtain counties, which have similar poverty rates, but an even lower population density.

I don't think I'd be going out on a limb in assuming that many of those in extreme poverty couldn't afford to drive anyway. If someone can afford to buy, insure, fuel, and service a vehicle, I don't think a one-time license procurement cost is really going to stand in their way even if it costs $2000+. That barely buys you a decent used car.

You would be. Pretty much all of the people below the poverty line in rural Oklahoma drive. There's no other way to get to a job, so maintaining a car is basically a cost of living much the same way that housing is. Nobody out there is driving nice cars, but they're driving.

A high license fee would not necessarily be a barrier to entry, but it would definitely impose a hardship. That would be a non-starter, politically. If somehow that passed, you'd probably just see people driving without a license. Stick to the back roads, don't leave the county, trust the cops to be good ol' boys and look the other way...

If I'm not mistaken, those same drivers (who can barely afford a car) are the same ones who are already doing shifty things: driving without insurance, driving with expired registration, driving on a suspended license. The difference, to me, is that those drivers often already have a license. It may be from a state they haven't lived in for 10 years, or even expired, but they at least had a license. I don't believe never-licensed drivers is a serious issue in most civilized countries, no matter the cost of a license.

From what I've seen (again, anecdotal evidence), the biggest barrier to driving in places with expensive licenses is not the license itself, but everything else: finding a car that can pass an inspection (possibly repairing a car to pass an inspection), finding insurance for the car, paying for registration, cost of fueling the vehicle on a regular basis, paying road usage fees, etc. The license itself is relative chump-change. I would be curious how (why?) those drivers in rural OK are able to afford a car to drive illegally, but not a license, especially when considering the ongoing cost of ownership. It is a cost-of-living situation regardless of your state of 'licensed or not'.

If someone is in true financial dire straits, I think it's reasonable that the state could offset the cost of a license in some way, with the provision that drivers must show greater responsibility behind the wheel, or risk losing the license and being required to pay the original cost of a license. This would allow people in poverty to acquire a license relatively inexpensively, so they can still get the behind the wheel; if they rack up too many tickets, they lose the license and must pay the original cost.

jakeroot

Quote from: kalvado on October 20, 2020, 08:29:44 AM
There are probably much lower hanging fruit to pick if it comes to safety. Of course, punitive measures and bashing neighbors are much dearer to many people than technical risk analysis - but do you realize that, for example, NY and WA are pretty much on par with Germany (and better than Japan) in terms of fatalities per mile traveled?
Low hanging fruit, IMHO, are (improving) alcohol and no-seatbelt related deaths; and if you look at the map - states with mandatory safety inspections tend to be better off than those without inspection. For one, north east as a region seems to have more inspections and less fatalities. I wonder if those are related?  :confused:
There may be more complex underlying links - like being able to afford (and maintain) a safer vehicle may be difficult in wast rural stretches; but this is definitely not something that can be fixed by higher fees.

I'm more used to fatalities per 100,000 people, as there is far more data available (per miles/kilometres travelled is harder to come by -- where do you get your data?). Places like NY, NJ, and DC likely do well because there are more people who don't drive in these areas.

Per 100,000 people (per the NSC and roadskillmap.com), WA (8.9) and MN (8.7) compares strongly to Belarus (8.9); NY's rate of 5.4 is slightly better than France (5.5) (!!!); then there are states like MS (23.6) and AL (21.8), which are slightly worse than Nigeria (21.4). OK (17.9) is about the same as Russia (18).

States that are above or at the US average of 12.4 include: WA, OR, CA, NV, UT, CO, MN, IA, WI, MI, IL, OH, VA, MD, DE, NJ, NY (highest in USA), CT, MA, VT, NH, and ME.

J N Winkler

Quote from: Scott5114 on October 20, 2020, 02:10:59 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 20, 2020, 02:38:07 AMI don't think I'd be going out on a limb in assuming that many of those in extreme poverty couldn't afford to drive anyway. If someone can afford to buy, insure, fuel, and service a vehicle, I don't think a one-time license procurement cost is really going to stand in their way even if it costs $2000+. That barely buys you a decent used car.

You would be. Pretty much all of the people below the poverty line in rural Oklahoma drive. There's no other way to get to a job, so maintaining a car is basically a cost of living much the same way that housing is. Nobody out there is driving nice cars, but they're driving.

When I was active on the SaturnFans forum (dedicated to a marque that has now been dead for 12 years), I discovered most of the posting traffic was still on the S-Series boards (production ceased with model year 2002), with lots of posters buying mid-nineties Saturns more or less for scrap value (about $400) and fixing them up for use as daily drivers.  There is a lot of lifestyle variation even in the lower income deciles, but I'd peg $2000 at the upper end of what many are willing to pay for a used car, especially in the parts of rural Oklahoma Scott is talking about.  (These comments also apply to rural areas in the frontier-tier states more generally.)

Quote from: jakeroot on October 20, 2020, 03:34:14 PMIf I'm not mistaken, those same drivers (who can barely afford a car) are the same ones who are already doing shifty things: driving without insurance, driving with expired registration, driving on a suspended license. The difference, to me, is that those drivers often already have a license. It may be from a state they haven't lived in for 10 years, or even expired, but they at least had a license. I don't believe never-licensed drivers is a serious issue in most civilized countries, no matter the cost of a license.

The behavior you describe sounds more characteristic of immigrant communities in entrepôt cities where driving tends to be a smaller part of the puzzle of staying legal on low and very insecure income.

Quote from: jakeroot on October 20, 2020, 03:34:14 PMI would be curious how (why?) those drivers in rural OK are able to afford a car to drive illegally, but not a license, especially when considering the ongoing cost of ownership. It is a cost-of-living situation regardless of your state of 'licensed or not'.

If you buy for scrap and fix things yourself (often using salvage parts--some people even save money by using salvaged tires), then gas and insurance are probably the biggest ongoing expenses.  I don't know about Oklahoma, but in Kansas, registration renewal has an ad valorem component that levels out to a fairly small amount.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

kalvado

Quote from: jakeroot on October 20, 2020, 03:59:59 PM
Quote from: kalvado on October 20, 2020, 08:29:44 AM
There are probably much lower hanging fruit to pick if it comes to safety. Of course, punitive measures and bashing neighbors are much dearer to many people than technical risk analysis - but do you realize that, for example, NY and WA are pretty much on par with Germany (and better than Japan) in terms of fatalities per mile traveled?
Low hanging fruit, IMHO, are (improving) alcohol and no-seatbelt related deaths; and if you look at the map - states with mandatory safety inspections tend to be better off than those without inspection. For one, north east as a region seems to have more inspections and less fatalities. I wonder if those are related?  :confused:
There may be more complex underlying links - like being able to afford (and maintain) a safer vehicle may be difficult in wast rural stretches; but this is definitely not something that can be fixed by higher fees.

I'm more used to fatalities per 100,000 people, as there is far more data available (per miles/kilometres travelled is harder to come by -- where do you get your data?). Places like NY, NJ, and DC likely do well because there are more people who don't drive in these areas.

Per 100,000 people (per the NSC and roadskillmap.com), WA (8.9) and MN (8.7) compares strongly to Belarus (8.9); NY's rate of 5.4 is slightly better than France (5.5) (!!!);  OK (17.9) is about the same as Russia (18).
And that is a simple, easily calculable from basic data - but pretty misleading metrics since it doesn't take into account amount of driving. If you take NYC alone with few people having a car, it will be a safest place on earth in terms of driving. Insurance rates tell a very different story, though.  US data: https://cdan.nhtsa.gov/stsi.htm#

Quote from: jakeroot on October 20, 2020, 03:59:59 PM
then there are states like MS (23.6) and AL (21.8), which are slightly worse than Nigeria (21.4).

WHich has a good correlation with distribution of black population in US.
Two possible conclusions:
1. N-word cannot drive, so lets  ban them from driving by high license fees or whatever other means we can invent
2. Certain ethnic groups, dominant in those states, are at historical disadvantage, and then  see Scott's  message above about how cars and jobs are related. You may easily push poor further down the drain by requiring more costly this and that, though. Those states being in a less than great economic shape is also a part of it.

I-55

Quote from: kalvado on October 20, 2020, 04:31:16 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 20, 2020, 03:59:59 PM
Quote from: kalvado on October 20, 2020, 08:29:44 AM
There are probably much lower hanging fruit to pick if it comes to safety. Of course, punitive measures and bashing neighbors are much dearer to many people than technical risk analysis - but do you realize that, for example, NY and WA are pretty much on par with Germany (and better than Japan) in terms of fatalities per mile traveled?
Low hanging fruit, IMHO, are (improving) alcohol and no-seatbelt related deaths; and if you look at the map - states with mandatory safety inspections tend to be better off than those without inspection. For one, north east as a region seems to have more inspections and less fatalities. I wonder if those are related?  :confused:
There may be more complex underlying links - like being able to afford (and maintain) a safer vehicle may be difficult in wast rural stretches; but this is definitely not something that can be fixed by higher fees.

I'm more used to fatalities per 100,000 people, as there is far more data available (per miles/kilometres travelled is harder to come by -- where do you get your data?). Places like NY, NJ, and DC likely do well because there are more people who don't drive in these areas.

Per 100,000 people (per the NSC and roadskillmap.com), WA (8.9) and MN (8.7) compares strongly to Belarus (8.9); NY's rate of 5.4 is slightly better than France (5.5) (!!!);  OK (17.9) is about the same as Russia (18).
And that is a simple, easily calculable from basic data - but pretty misleading metrics since it doesn't take into account amount of driving. If you take NYC alone with few people having a car, it will be a safest place on earth in terms of driving. Insurance rates tell a very different story, though.  US data: https://cdan.nhtsa.gov/stsi.htm#

Quote from: jakeroot on October 20, 2020, 03:59:59 PM
then there are states like MS (23.6) and AL (21.8), which are slightly worse than Nigeria (21.4).

WHich has a good correlation with distribution of black population in US.
Two possible conclusions:
1. N-word cannot drive, so lets  ban them from driving by high license fees or whatever other means we can invent
2. Certain ethnic groups, dominant in those states, are at historical disadvantage, and then  see Scott's  message above about how cars and jobs are related. You may easily push poor further down the drain by requiring more costly this and that, though. Those states being in a less than great economic shape is also a part of it.

MS and AL have poor driver behaviors, I've been cut off by people when no traffic is present, seen plenty of blown red lights, and never seen a turn signal. They lack proper funding to maintain their infrastructure to good conditions, and Mississippi has virtually no highway patrol so people are speeding all the time (not that I've had any problems with it).
Let's Go Purdue Basketball Whoosh

hotdogPi

Quote from: jakeroot on October 20, 2020, 03:59:59 PM
Quote from: kalvado on October 20, 2020, 08:29:44 AM
There are probably much lower hanging fruit to pick if it comes to safety. Of course, punitive measures and bashing neighbors are much dearer to many people than technical risk analysis - but do you realize that, for example, NY and WA are pretty much on par with Germany (and better than Japan) in terms of fatalities per mile traveled?
Low hanging fruit, IMHO, are (improving) alcohol and no-seatbelt related deaths; and if you look at the map - states with mandatory safety inspections tend to be better off than those without inspection. For one, north east as a region seems to have more inspections and less fatalities. I wonder if those are related?  :confused:
There may be more complex underlying links - like being able to afford (and maintain) a safer vehicle may be difficult in wast rural stretches; but this is definitely not something that can be fixed by higher fees.

I'm more used to fatalities per 100,000 people, as there is far more data available (per miles/kilometres travelled is harder to come by -- where do you get your data?). Places like NY, NJ, and DC likely do well because there are more people who don't drive in these areas.

Per 100,000 people (per the NSC and roadskillmap.com), WA (8.9) and MN (8.7) compares strongly to Belarus (8.9); NY's rate of 5.4 is slightly better than France (5.5) (!!!); then there are states like MS (23.6) and AL (21.8), which are slightly worse than Nigeria (21.4). OK (17.9) is about the same as Russia (18).

States that are above or at the US average of 12.4 include: WA, OR, CA, NV, UT, CO, MN, IA, WI, MI, IL, OH, VA, MD, DE, NJ, NY (highest in USA), CT, MA, VT, NH, and ME.

Fatalities per 100,000 people is flawed. It gives worse numbers than it should to places where many cars pass through without stopping (such as the states of North Dakota, South Dakota, and Delaware).
Clinched, minus I-93 (I'm missing a few miles and my file is incorrect)

Traveled, plus US 13, 44, and 50, and several state routes

I will be in Burlington VT for the eclipse.

kphoger

Quote from: jakeroot on October 20, 2020, 01:24:01 AM


Jake, do you have any life experience in farm country?  Ten-year-olds drive ten-ton grain trucks in order to help the family farm.  I went to junior high school with kids who drove their own cars to school.  How, exactly, do you think someone who lives on a farm down 15 miles of dirt and gravel roads is going to get to town, except by car?

Quote from: jakeroot on October 20, 2020, 01:24:01 AM
There seems to be a connection between poorer countries and automobile crashes. This is especially evident around the African continent, where there seems to be widespread corruption around drivers licence procurement, where a test is not necessarily a "requirement" with the right connections. This leads to a large number of uneducated drivers behind the road, driving because they have little other choice. Some of these countries, like the Congo, Nigeria, and Cameroon have hiddeous fatality rates, far worse than the US.

I knew a man who did mission work in west Africa for many years.  He jokes that, in Ghana, you could send your pet dog out with some money in its mouth, and an hour later it would come back with a driver's license.
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.