3 ms·

Roadway deaths fall 8%, number of miles driven falls 18%, fatalities per mile increases 14%... What is noteworthy about this? Do most accidents occur near inter

by sivex 6y ago

Roadway deaths fall 8%, number of miles driven falls 18%, fatalities per mile increases 14%... What is noteworthy about this? Do most accidents occur near intersections or in urban areas rather than on highways? Where is the data on where these accidents happen? There are a lot less people commuting far distances due to the increase in remote work - and now these statistics are based on fewer people taking lower mileage trips. To go to the grocery store, I need to drive 3 miles and I go through 18 intersections. To go to work I'm driving 50 miles and going through 12 intersections. Intersections create scenarios where some vehicles are going 50mph faster than those stopped or turning. With some location data added, would this show that fatalities are higher in areas where there are larger concentrations of vehicles going drastically different speeds? Fender benders on the highway aren't going to cause deaths. Being T-Boned or being hit by someone running a red light....

throwaway0a5e 6y ago
I think you're right that it's the intersections/interactions. I commute ~50mi day across varied roads. The intersections on the "not a totally limited access highway but pretty close" seem to be where most of the stupid stuff happens. It's not any different than the normal stuff but now the speed differentials are higher so stupid has the potential to hurt more. Most people drive around what's reasonable for the road. Some people drive insanely fast and some people drive whatever the speed limit is, reasonableness be damned. With normal traffic the latter group combined with the sheer volume of cars limit the ability of the two former groups to have large speed differentials with any of the other two groups. Now with 'rona traffic volumes you've got the people that want to drive 100, weaving around the people who want to do 70-85 while the idiots who think it's acceptable to merge at 30mph less than traffic speed do just that. The net situation is just one unsignaled lane change away from a crash. That said, I've seen a lot less aggressive passing because the roads are so empty that you get lots of chance to pass people so you don't need to take a crappy one.
radialTired 6y ago
Maybe it means that the quantity of reckless or otherwise terrible drivers remains fixed, despite advisories to stay home, since the personalities of all these careless individuals implicitly defines them as rule breakers. Criminals don't abide by laws, and the standing population of such people on the road was not significantly changed by new rules advising to shelter in place. Automobile interiors, after all, are a certain form of personal shelter. So, with fewer lawful drivers on the road, the chances of encountering members from a fixed population of rule breakers is higher. If getting into an accident is like winning the lottery, this is like keeping ticket prices the same (the geographic range of roads drivers travel is mostly the same, and if you have a car, you've already paid to play for the most part), the amount of winning numbers (people who are prone to accidents) stays the same, but the wider pool of losing numbers is diminished in that your interactions with prudent and cautious drivers are reduced, so you're more likely to pick a winning number (get in an accident) if you choose to play the game (by driving in your local geographic region).
Causality1 6y ago
There's also the fact that any change from the norm is going to increase fatalities. Everyone's driving skills, instincts, muscle memory are tuned to the driving conditions they expect on a particular road at a particular time. Change anything and they make more mistakes than usual.
nerdponx 6y ago
It would be interesting to know if the number of collisions per mile has increased, or if the lethality of collisions has increased, or both.
mirimir 6y ago
Exactly. And TFA jumps to conclusions about speeding and reckless driving with only some quoted speculation. FWIW, your speculations make more sense to me. Your speculation about "fatalities [being] higher in areas where there are larger concentrations of vehicles going drastically different speeds" is consistent with what data I've seen. And it's not just about intersections. In some states, ~official policy is that drivers ought to move with traffic, even if traffic is moving faster than the speed limit. Edit: carelessness

by sivex 6y ago

throwaway0a5e 6y ago

I think you're right that it's the intersections/interactions. I commute ~50mi day across varied roads. The intersections on the "not a totally limited access highway but pretty close" seem to be where most of the stupid stuff happens. It's not any different than the normal stuff but now the speed differentials are higher so stupid has the potential to hurt more. Most people drive around what's reasonable for the road. Some people drive insanely fast and some people drive whatever the speed limit is, reasonableness be damned. With normal traffic the latter group combined with the sheer volume of cars limit the ability of the two former groups to have large speed differentials with any of the other two groups. Now with 'rona traffic volumes you've got the people that want to drive 100, weaving around the people who want to do 70-85 while the idiots who think it's acceptable to merge at 30mph less than traffic speed do just that. The net situation is just one unsignaled lane change away from a crash. That said, I've seen a lot less aggressive passing because the roads are so empty that you get lots of chance to pass people so you don't need to take a crappy one.

radialTired 6y ago

Maybe it means that the quantity of reckless or otherwise terrible drivers remains fixed, despite advisories to stay home, since the personalities of all these careless individuals implicitly defines them as rule breakers. Criminals don't abide by laws, and the standing population of such people on the road was not significantly changed by new rules advising to shelter in place. Automobile interiors, after all, are a certain form of personal shelter. So, with fewer lawful drivers on the road, the chances of encountering members from a fixed population of rule breakers is higher. If getting into an accident is like winning the lottery, this is like keeping ticket prices the same (the geographic range of roads drivers travel is mostly the same, and if you have a car, you've already paid to play for the most part), the amount of winning numbers (people who are prone to accidents) stays the same, but the wider pool of losing numbers is diminished in that your interactions with prudent and cautious drivers are reduced, so you're more likely to pick a winning number (get in an accident) if you choose to play the game (by driving in your local geographic region).

Causality1 6y ago

There's also the fact that any change from the norm is going to increase fatalities. Everyone's driving skills, instincts, muscle memory are tuned to the driving conditions they expect on a particular road at a particular time. Change anything and they make more mistakes than usual.

nerdponx 6y ago

It would be interesting to know if the number of collisions per mile has increased, or if the lethality of collisions has increased, or both.

mirimir 6y ago

Exactly. And TFA jumps to conclusions about speeding and reckless driving with only some quoted speculation. FWIW, your speculations make more sense to me. Your speculation about "fatalities [being] higher in areas where there are larger concentrations of vehicles going drastically different speeds" is consistent with what data I've seen. And it's not just about intersections. In some states, ~official policy is that drivers ought to move with traffic, even if traffic is moving faster than the speed limit. Edit: carelessness