Dangerous by Design 2026

[kphoger]

Here's my overall take on the map:

It's a fairly narrow range between 0.65 and 1.55 deaths per 100,000,000 vehicle miles for the map to be drawn with such starkly different colors.  When you make the max and min of most any map dark red and dark blue, the results are going to look like there's a stark difference between regions, even if there really isn't much of one.

3x is actually quite a bit of a difference.

Only as a ratio.  But both numbers are actually pretty low.

For reference:

1.  The national average was 1.36 back in 2007, and 2003 is the first year in recent memory that the national average wouldn't be in the dark red range on that map.

2.  The 2021 national average would be the same color as Arizona and Utah in that map, which is still lower than the 2006 national average.

[kphoger]

I wouldn't be surprised if the colors on that map more closely align with average vehicle age than with anything else.

[CtrlAltDel]

Also, the farther south you are, the longer it stays light in the evening, so the less likely you are to be going to that store after dark to begin with.

This depends on the time of year. Generally speaking, in the winter this is true, but in the summer it is not.

[kphoger]

Also, the farther south you are, the longer it stays light in the evening, so the less likely you are to be going to that store after dark to begin with.

This depends on the time of year. Generally speaking, in the winter this is true, but in the summer it is not.

Ah, yes.  But, of course, during the summer, it's light out longer anyway.

There are more days with a sunset before 6:30 PM in Minneapolis than in Springfield MO, for example.

[kphoger]

North-south exists not only for pedestrians. And please note, this is normalized per miles h although per capita looks similar
https://www.caliper.com/featured-maps/maptitude-

I drew up a quick-and-dirty line graph to illustrate what I'm talking about.  Colors correspond to the same ranges.

[kalvado]

North-south exists not only for pedestrians. And please note, this is normalized per miles h although per capita looks similar
https://www.caliper.com/featured-maps/maptitude-

I drew up a quick-and-dirty line graph to illustrate what I'm talking about.  Colors correspond to the same ranges.

I don't see a good picture of the data, honestly speaking.  My impression of US data is things are mostly stable, in contrast with many other countries. I wonder if their lower numbers are achieved by fewer cars - likely better public transportation (which is a whole different topic), as little per-VMT data is shown outside of US (maybe can be dug out though). There is also a per-driver normalization, which is another can of worms (with NH and AL having more licenses than eligible people)

Looks like it may be interesting to dig to the bottom of this data mine, but I don't feel I can do that
As for increased number of pedestrian deaths.... I wonder if marijuana status is collected along with alcohol... 
 

[kphoger]

I don't see a good picture of the data, honestly speaking.

My point was really that "red" was actually just the national average two decades ago, so forgive me if I'm not as blown away by the blue-to-red differences.

[kalvado]

I don't see a good picture of the data, honestly speaking.

My point was really that "red" was actually just the national average two decades ago, so forgive me if I'm not as blown away by the blue-to-red differences.

Again - it is a 2x per-VMT drop over 20-30 years. Which would be more than 20% drop in total as well.
It may  be a pretty significant development after all.
I suspect that you are (like me) not getting a general sense of data trends -  and a bit frustrated over it. yet I wouldn't call the changes and variations insignificant. It's lack of useful correlations that makes it seem random.

[interstatefan990]

I wouldn't be surprised if the colors on that map more closely align with average vehicle age than with anything else.

What does vehicle age have to do with it?

Looking at the way Albuquerque is, I'm not surprised that NM is high.  WY and MT are both rural with high speeds, so it doesn't take much to get their "per 100 million" number up.  Boise is another new auto-oriented city.

The ones that really surprise me are Oregon and Utah.

Colorado has Denver, yet it's considered safer than NM according to the map.

[Max Rockatansky]

Why are some you surprised that New Mexico ranks low in road related anything?  The only thing it would score high on is scenery. 

[vdeane]

Colorado has Denver, yet it's considered safer than NM according to the map.

Albuquerque has more stroads than most cities of its size.  As I understand it, a lot more.  And half the freeways that other cities would have are instead surface expressways with at-grades and traffic lights.  Denver is also a lot more urbanized; Albuquerque is mostly suburban sprawl, even in areas that would be urban core in any other city.

[kphoger]

What does vehicle age have to do with it?

Because newer cars are better at preventing passenger deaths.

[Scott5114]

There's a reason why New Urbanists call them "stroads".

The reason is because they like inventing stupid-sounding words.

[kphoger]

stroads

stupid-sounding words

Thank you.  Someone had to say it.

[kalvado]

stroads

stupid-sounding words

Thank you.  Someone had to say it.

Word may be stupid, but poorly operating arterials do exist.

[kphoger]

Word may be stupid, but poorly operating arterials do exist.

True as that may be, stupid made-up words have a tendency to make me stop listening to the people who made them up.

[Max Rockatansky]

Word may be stupid, but poorly operating arterials do exist.

True as that may be, stupid made-up words have a tendency to make me stop listening to the people who made them up.

The Urbanist crowd isn't necessarily wrong about everything.  When they are right about something it often gets buried in their rhetoric and terrible branding.

[interstatefan990]

What does vehicle age have to do with it?

Because newer cars are better at preventing passenger deaths.

That may be generally true, but not to the point where it would be statistically significant to road fatality rates. Virtually nobody is driving around in 1970s or 1980s deathboxes anymore, and structural car safety has improved a lot less in the past decade or two than it has in preceding ones.

Two of the biggest safety innovations, airbags and three-point seatbelts, have been mandatory since 1999 and 1974, respectively. The vast majority of cars on the road today are newer than that.

[Scott5114]

Word may be stupid, but poorly operating arterials do exist.

True as that may be, stupid made-up words have a tendency to make me stop listening to the people who made them up.

Indeed. It doesn't help that they created it as a combination of "street" and "road", which to the vast majority of people who aren't New Urbanists, are entirely synonymous.

[kphoger]

Because newer cars are better at preventing passenger deaths.

That may be generally true, but not to the point where it would be statistically significant to road fatality rates. Virtually nobody is driving around in 1970s or 1980s deathboxes anymore, and structural car safety has improved a lot less in the past decade or two than it has in preceding ones.

Two of the biggest safety innovations, airbags and three-point seatbelts, have been mandatory since 1999 and 1974, respectively. The vast majority of cars on the road today are newer than that.

meh.  My 2002 Ford Focus has only two airbags, no ABS, and no rear headrests.

[pderocco]

What does vehicle age have to do with it?

Because newer cars are better at preventing passenger deaths.

That may be generally true, but not to the point where it would be statistically significant to road fatality rates. Virtually nobody is driving around in 1970s or 1980s deathboxes anymore, and structural car safety has improved a lot less in the past decade or two than it has in preceding ones.

Two of the biggest safety innovations, airbags and three-point seatbelts, have been mandatory since 1999 and 1974, respectively. The vast majority of cars on the road today are newer than that.

I think the use of cameras and machine vision (e.g., my Subaru's "Eye-Sight") must be having a significant effect because, at least here in California, the presence of that feature is part of the classification of the car with respect to insurance rates.