Vehicles get safer, but crash fatalities climb
While new
vehicles continue to sprout ever-increasing numbers of safety features, traffic fatalities still hit a 15-year high in
2005, notching 43,200 fatalities according to a recent release by the National Highway Transportation Safety
Administration (NHTSA). This represents an increase of 1.2 percent over 2004, while miles traveled only increased
by 0.03% to a jaw-dropping 2.964 trillion. The projected death rate is still only 1.46 per 100 million
miles traveled, which is only a slight increase from the record low of 1.44 in 2004 (which suggests that most means
that motorists should spend less time worrying about automotive safety and put more effort into improving
their health).
Deaths in passenger cars fell by approximately 2 percent, while SUVs and light trucks saw a 4 percent increase in body count. The motorcycle death toll jumped by 7.7 percent last year and has now doubled in less than a decade. Tellingly, two-wheelers now account for nearly 10 percent of all traffic deaths.
Seatbelts are now used by over 80 percent of drivers, but fully 55 percent of those who died in a car crash were not using one.
Related: Distracted driving may account for most accidents
[Source: The Detroit News]
_opt_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Dr. Woo 9:08AM (4/28/2006)
Your related entry almost says it all. Distractions. There are more and more these days and drivers are getting worse and worse. Today's 38-year-old housewife is not prepared to do her makeup, talk on the phone, and pilot her 5,000 lb SUV, weaving through traffic at unsafe speeds.
Reply
Michael Karesh 9:15AM (4/28/2006)
Let's see...maybe because SUVs roll over and their drivers cannot see the motorcycle to their right?
Even a mild uptick like this could lead to new legislation. Making side and rear obstacle detection mandatory on vehicles with beltlines over X inches would be a good start. When my Mazda was a month old a woman backed up into me in the CostCo parking lot because she couldn't see out the back of her Lexus RX 300.
Reply
kwc 9:23AM (4/28/2006)
I think not only is it the distractions that we have nowadays, but I believe people are driving A LOT more aggressively. People drive their cars as if they were weapons of mass destruction! If there was a serious crackdown by law enforcement on aggressive driving I think you would see a drop in the death toll too. I know here in Tampa I NEVER see the police patrolling any of the side streets (state troopers do patrol the interstates on a regular basis however). I see more aggressive driving on the city streets than I do the interstate and there are definitely more fatal accidents on the city streets, so I think this is where the police really need to be in order to stop rising traffic fatalities.
Reply
XJ 9:30AM (4/28/2006)
Hmm...SUVs, cyclists, not wearing seatbelts...one less of those fools suits me just fine.
Reply
csavage 9:32AM (4/28/2006)
Cell phones, loud music, TV's, and busy lifestyles. That's why we are killing each other on our streets. I live in Dallas where it's like some sort of Roller Derby on the streets. I have a 16 year old and I am horrified that he is about to start driving.
I agree that it's a law enforcement issue in that they have to slow people down and be agrresive with the aggressive drivers who act like they are what I like to call "the chosen one" who is such a good driver that they can never have an accident.
Reply
XJ 9:40AM (4/28/2006)
It's fine when somebody wants to feel more protected and does something about it, but it's not when it also puts others in danger in doing so. There are way too many people buying SUVs, who really don't need them.
Reply
Ted Craig 9:41AM (4/28/2006)
You make a classic statistical error in this entry. The number of crashes increased by 1.2 percent while the miles driven increased by .03 percent and you make it seem as if the increase in crashes is far greater than the increase in miles driven. But the crashes are in tens of thousands and the miles driven are in trillions. A smaller percentage of a larger number is still a larger number. That's why the increase is essenitially insignificant. Also, it's one year. You cannot draw any conclusions from one year's worth of data.
Reply
Tad 9:43AM (4/28/2006)
Distractions is exactly right. How many gadgets does the modern driver have at his/her disposal in the car today? GPS, DVD, XM, Sirius, cell phones and even iPods are becoming something you see in modern cars. These things are not self operating and can not read your mind so driver input is required, therefore taking attention away from driving. Since we spend so much time in our automobile, everything is being geared towards a more convient and entertaining driving experiance. Whens the last time you went to a fast food resturant? Did you see the line for the drive through? Things that used to be something you did at home, has now been made available for the auto. Its really getting crazy, they need to start making legislation to stop the # of distractions allowd in a car.
Reply
Mike 9:44AM (4/28/2006)
so, SUV deaths rose by 4% last year... what % did SUV sales increase last year?
providing anything but ALL the figures will skew the results to however the author wants. Throwing out seatbelt figures but not intoxication figures... including accident figures but not sales figures...
Reply
Michael Karesh 10:30AM (4/28/2006)
It's not just one year's worth of data. Note the "fifteen-year high." For decades fatalities steadily dropped. The problem this year isn't so much that they went up a very slight amount, but that despite all of the safety equipment added in recent years fatalities/mile driven have pretty much plateaued.
43,200 people is a large amount of people. It's over 15 times as many as were lost in the September 11 attack. Put another way, pretty much any given month as many people die in traffic accidents as were lost in September 11.
Ditto for Iraq. If we lost 43,200 soldiers in Iraq, we'd have huge demonstrations. But lose them in traffic accidents, and it's just "well, this happens every year."
Reply
Michael G 10:40AM (4/28/2006)
Instead of passing the buck on the car companies to make their car safer we should concentrate on the driver. Like making it a little harder to get a drivers license for instance and making driving a required course in high school.
In my state it's a joke, you could be blind, 2 feet tall, and people with not enough inelegance to tie your shoe getting a driver licenses. Then you have the 15 year old to 16-year-old drivers on the road. In this state you can drive at 15 during the day.
Reply
frank d 11:30AM (4/28/2006)
To sum it up in one line:
" Lack of defensive driving "
Or add up:
tailgating / not keeping safe distance
aggressive driving (the lane switchers to get one or two cars ahead)
slower traffic not keeping right
passing on the right (highly illegal in many countries)
inexperienced drivers (too young)
lack of using turn signals (intersections, lane changes, ...)
lack of obeying stop, yield & traffic signals ( I see this every day more than once in a little town of 25000 people)
lack of drivers education and training
overestimating your cars limitations
driving while tired / sleepy
driver distractions (cellphone, passengers, tv/video/game in car ...)
driving handsfree as in one hand on your cellphone while the other is holding your cigarette!
driving while applying makeup
un(der)-serviced car (worn brakes, shocks, ... aged lights you can barely see from a distance
...
Most accidents have more than one of these contributing factors.
One I still don't understand in the US regulations: No mandatory rear fog light.
Reply
NEBTEK2002 11:57AM (4/28/2006)
In my area, we've had a lot of fatal crashes involving teens driving either high-powered or high-profile vehicles.
Driver's ed uses low-powered, low-profile econoboxes, yet parents allow Junior and his 5 buddies to bomb around in Mom's 250 hp. Solara, or they let him buy a Jeep with
tarp doors with his McD's check.
Either teens should have horsepower-restricted and ride-height-restricted licenses that can only be upgraded via completion of specialized driver's ed courses using high-profile and/or high-powered vehicles or give every kid training on what his/her idiot parents are most likely to let them drive.
Reply
JH 11:58AM (4/28/2006)
on thetruthaboutcars there's a review of the Mazda MX-5 Miata that said "the best way to survive an accident is not to have one" suggesting that we'd be better off with light, super nimble cars with excellent brakes, suspensions, and steering. I tend to agree. Most vehicles these days are big, dumb, slow, and isolate you from your surroundings, making you unaware of, or indefferent to what you're about to hit. If people's idea of safety is to make sure they are driving the most vault-like tank so they survive WHEN they hit something, well I think we need to reconsider our thinking here. Drive something engaging, with road feel, visiblity, handling, and big brakes, learn how to drive, and you'll be less likely to be a victim.
Reply
Takeo 12:34PM (4/28/2006)
Anyone notice that the Ford SUV in the picture has a roof that's totally caved in? Stay out of SUVs!
Reply
psych101 12:39PM (4/28/2006)
Distractions, absolutely. Some of you can remember the choke knob, and a few of you might remember the steering-wheel mounted spark advance. Automobiles today are easier to operate, so it takes less concentration to make them work. This theoretically frees up the operator to pay more attention to piloting the vehicle. Practically, however, the gizmos in the car take up that extra attention, leaving the operator right back where they started or perhaps even more entangled in the human-machine interfaces. These extra gadgets aren't necessary to pilot or operate the car, and therein we find a candidate for policy change. The rule would be simple: the driver drives the car, passengers can play with gizmos all they like. We would not tolerate motorcyclists using cell phones or putting on makeup or drinking coffee while they were riding, would we? We've come a long way towards reducing the interface complexity, now its time for policy.
Reply
psych101 12:45PM (4/28/2006)
JH, you're right about small, nimble cars. Risky behavior really goes down the less protected one feels. Like in football versus rugby: heavily padded football players use contact and brute force to power their way through the opposition, rugby players use agility and speed to go around and avoid the tackle.
Reply
Tim 12:47PM (4/28/2006)
13. Sure, it's a truck and trucks don't have the same roof standards as cars. When you dump 3+ tons (probaby 4 that looks like an Excursion) on to one corner of a roof in a roll over it's gonna crush. Better to dive a car that won't roll over in the fist place. Also when you get in a car, drive. That means pay attention to what's going on around you, keep a safe distance, stay off the ^%$%^$&^$@@ phone etc.
Signed Frusterated Chicago driver!
Reply
MP 12:50PM (4/28/2006)
Distractions are the major factor. High powered audio systems, cell phones, TVs, etc. Cars, SUVs and Trucks have been safe for a long time. The number of entertainment and communications devices has been significantly increasing. No wonder distractions are up.
In the following case no amount of additional safty features would have mattered.
Six Texas workers die in SUV-train collision
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_4621068,00.html
LAMAR - Six migrant workers from Texas were killed and a 15-year-old boy was clinging to life Thursday after the SUV driven by the teen was struck by a fast-moving freight train in southeastern Colorado near the Kansas border. . .
. . . "When we got here, the vehicle still had the music blaring full blast," said Lopez. "They wouldn't have heard the train as loud as the music was going." . . .
Reply
Peter 1:30PM (4/28/2006)
Anyone catch that overall figure of 1.46 deaths per 100 million miles? At 14k per year, I might drive 700,000 mile in my lifetime. Makes my personal chance of dying in an auto accident pretty low...
Then, considering I'm a 40-year old accident-free driver who takes driving seriously- my chances are probably even better. The wild card, of course, are the drunks, kids, and very old drivers out there that I may not be able to avoid.
Reply