|
For
the second successive year, Drive and Stay Alive is bringing you an
important, alternative way to look at the death toll on America's roads.
Also,
click here for an
example of how VMT death rates can be very misleading.
The
U.S. Government and its various bodies almost inevitably use the method
of measurement known as 'VMT' (which is the number of
people killed in road crashes for every 100 million Vehicle Miles
Traveled, collectively, by all the registered motor vehicles in
America).
VMT
is a perfectly valid means of measuring relative changes in death rates
but it does have one debatable flaw: It is measured not only against a
continually changing parameter but also the total mileage figure that is
needed is known only to the relevant official bodies and is
therefore open to accusations of manipulation, as follows:
|
Extract
from the DSA Road
Safety in the News web page
August 12, 2004: Not Everybody Believes the NHTSA Figures
...It is so difficult to achieve a drop in overall highway
fatalities in the face of increased driving and a greater use of
less stable vehicles that some experts are doubtful. After
reviewing the NHTSA report on a flight back from California, Clarence
Ditlow concluded: "This agency is cooking the numbers to
make it look like they've accomplished something" before an
election. [Ditlow is] the director of the Center for Automotive
Safety, a private agency founded by Ralph Nader."...
[Source:
The Christian
Science Monitor]
|
|
The [vehicle safety] progress comes at a time of consumer ambivalence,
with many drivers mindful of safety features but not
eager to pay more money for them...
"It's very difficult to move this huge
needle," says NHTSA spokesman Rae Tyson. "And
this is a big reduction."
[Source:
The Christian
Science Monitor]
DSA
Comment: With respect, if a 0.03 cut in the
VMT rate, from 1.51 to 1.48, is a "big
reduction" this does not bode well for the DOT target of
getting the rate down to 1.00 by 2008.
|
|
VMT
figures can also be rather misleading. For example, the US Department Of
Transportation has a target of
reducing the VMT death rate to 1.0 by 2008 and this sounds good,
but it is quite possible to reduce the VMT rate, over time, even
though the actual number of people killed might remain constant, or even rise. For example, in 1992
39,250 people were killed and the VMT rate was 1.75. Yet in 2003, even though the actual number of people killed had risen by
almost nine percent, to 42,643, the VMT rate was down by over
fifteen percent, to 1.48.
[VMT
data source
here, from the Detroit News and NHTSA]
By
comparison, many countries -- mostly in Europe -- have targets to reduce
the actual number of people killed by 50 percent, rather than just seeking a lower rate
of deaths. One of the reasons is that the latter option might not represent any reduction in the
number of people killed each year, whatsoever. Many of those other
|
countries have
already succeeded in significantly reducing the number of people killed
each year so the argument in America that lowering the actual number is
not feasible is very questionable, especially in light of the fact that
in 2003, seven states had a reduction in deaths of 10-15%.
Back
to Top of Page
In
international circles, the more commonly used method of measuring the
problem is known as the per capita death rate: the number
of people killed relative to every 100,000 members of the population.
This, too, is measured against a moving target -- the rise in the
population each year -- but we would argue that not only is this method
more understandable to ordinary people but it is also the preferred
international method and should therefore be quoted alongside VMT
figures.
Accordingly,
we have two tables for you to view.
The
first shows the per capita death rate for each American state, including
the good progress shown by seven states in particular: Connecticut,
Washington (n.b. for non-US
readers, that is Washington State, not Washington D.C.),
Ohio, Vermont, Colorado, Oklahoma and West Virginia, all of which
witnessed a reduction in their fatality rate of between 8-14 percent.
These
results closely echo the percentage reduction in deaths, as published by
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, but the left-hand
column in the table below shows what effect they have had on these
states' relative achievements. Connecticut, for example, halved its
position, from sixth to third, and Vermont has leapt from twentieth to
eleventh.
Because
there are so many intertwined causative factors for road crashes and the resultant
casualties, it can be very difficult to determine the precise reasons
for changes in crash and casualty rates. But big improvements such as
these rarely occur for no ascertainable reason so there has undoubtedly
been much good work done by law enforcement and road safety agencies in
these seven states in particular.
Back
to Top of Page
|
Table
1
The
Per
Capita Death Rate for Each American State - 2003
|
|
Position
2003
(2002) |
State
|
Population
(millions)
1
|
Road
Deaths
2003
2
|
Rate
2002
3, 4 |
Rate
2003
3 |
|
1 (
1)
|
Massachusetts
|
6.4
|
462
|
7.17
|
7.22
|
|
2 ( 3)
|
New
York
|
19.2
|
1,491
|
7.93
|
7.77
|
|
3 (
6)
|
Connecticut
|
3.5
|
294
|
9.2
|
8.40
|
|
4 (
5)
|
New
Jersey
|
8.64
|
747
|
8.95
|
8.65
|
|
5 ( 2)
|
Rhode
Island
|
1.08
|
104
|
7.77
|
9.63
|
|
6= (
8)
|
New
Hampshire
|
1.29
|
127
|
9.84
|
9.84
|
|
6= ( 9)
|
Washington
|
6.1
|
600
|
10.80
|
9.84
|
|
8 (
7)
|
Hawaii
|
1.26
|
135
|
9.4
|
10.71
|
|
9 (16)
|
Ohio
|
11.44
|
1,277
|
12.40
|
11.16
|
|
10
(10)
|
Illinois
|
12.65
|
1,453
|
11.15
|
11.49
|
|
11
(20)
|
Vermont
|
0.6
|
69
|
13.00
|
11.50
|
|
12
(13)
|
Maryland
|
5.5
|
649
|
11.98
|
11.80
|
|
13
(11)
|
California
|
35.5
|
4,215
|
11.49
|
11.87
|
|
14
(
4)
|
District
of Columbia
|
0.56
|
67
|
8.4
|
11.97
|
|
15
(12)
|
Michigan
|
10.08
|
1,283
|
11.73
|
12.73
|
|
16
(21)
|
Pennsylvania
|
12.37
|
1,577
|
13.05
|
12.75
|
|
17
(15)
|
Virginia
|
7.39
|
943
|
12.37
|
12.76
|
|
18
(19)
|
Minnesota
|
5.06
|
657
|
12.98
|
12.98
|
|
19
(23)
|
Utah
|
2.35
|
309
|
13.96
|
13.15
|
|
20
(18)
|
Indiana
|
6.2
|
834
|
12.77
|
13.45
|
|
21
(27)
|
Colorado
|
4.56
|
632
|
16.1
|
13.86
|
|
22
(14)
|
Oregon
|
3.56
|
512
|
12.25
|
14.38
|
|
23
(17)
|
Alaska
|
0.65
|
95
|
12.43
|
14.62
|
|
24
(22)
|
Iowa
|
2.94
|
441
|
13.74
|
15.00
|
|
25
(24)
|
Wisconsin
|
5.47
|
848
|
14.68
|
15.50
|
|
26
(28)
|
Maine
|
1.3
|
207
|
16.62
|
15.92
|
|
27
(30)
|
Nevada
|
2.24
|
368
|
17.01
|
16.43
|
|
28
(29)
|
Texas
|
22.1
|
3,675
|
16.86
|
16.63
|
|
29
(25)
|
North
Dakota
|
0.63
|
105
|
15.40
|
16.67
|
|
30
(32)
|
Nebraska
|
1.74
|
293
|
17.64
|
16.84
|
|
31
(35)
|
Kansas
|
2.7
|
471
|
18.96
|
17.44
|
|
32
(26)
|
Delaware
|
0.8
|
142
|
15.5
|
17.75
|
|
33
(34)
|
North
Carolina
|
8.4
|
1,531
|
18.75
|
18.23
|
|
34
(31)
|
Georgia
|
8.7
|
1,603
|
17.5
|
18.43
|
|
35
(33)
|
Florida
|
17.0
|
3,169
|
18.4
|
18.64
|
|
36
(40)
|
Oklahoma
|
3.5
|
668
|
20.97
|
19.09
|
|
37
(37)
|
Louisiana
|
4.5
|
894
|
19.44
|
19.87
|
|
38
(38)
|
Arizona
|
5.6
|
1,120
|
19.9
|
20.00
|
|
39
(39)
|
Tennessee
|
5.8
|
1,193
|
20.26
|
20.57
|
|
40
(36)
|
Idaho
|
1.37
|
293
|
19.27
|
21.39
|
|
41
(41)
|
Missouri
|
5.7
|
1,232
|
21.19
|
21.61
|
|
42
(43)
|
Alabama
|
4.6
|
1,001
|
22.46
|
21.76
|
|
43
(47)
|
West
Virginia
|
1.8
|
394
|
24.39
|
21.89
|
|
44
(42)
|
Kentucky
|
4.1
|
928
|
22.32
|
22.63
|
|
45
(45)
|
Arkansas
|
2.7
|
627
|
23.7
|
23.22
|
|
46
(46)
|
New
Mexico
|
1.88
|
439
|
23.88
|
23.35
|
|
47
(48)
|
South
Carolina
|
4.1
|
968
|
25.68
|
23.61
|
|
48
(44)
|
South
Dakota
|
0.76
|
203
|
23.68
|
26.71
|
|
49
(49)
|
Montana
|
0.92
|
262
|
29.35
|
28.48
|
|
50
(50)
|
Mississippi
|
2.88
|
871
|
30.73
|
30.24
|
|
51
(51)
|
Wyoming
|
0.5
|
165
|
35.20
|
33.00
|
|
----------------
|
USA
National Total
|
|
42,643
|
14.9
5
|
|
Copyright
©, Drive and Stay Alive, Inc., 2004
Back
to Top of Page
Explanatory
Notes
1.
Source:
US Census Bureau, figures for July 2003
2.
Source: NHTSA Press Release 35-04, August 10, 2004
3.
The number of deaths for each 100,000 population -- known as the per
capita rate;
4.
Source: Drive and Stay Alive, Inc. -- viewable here
5.
Source: International Traffic and Accidents Database (IRTAD) -- for 2002
|
"America's leadership in highway safety is not yet established but we're going in the right direction."
From a statement by NTSB Chairman Ellen Engleman Conners on the decrease in highway fatality injuries
in 2003. National Transportation Safety Board press release SB-04-23, August 12, 2004.
|
Our
second table has been created to reinforce the Drive and Stay Alive
suggestion that the USA could benefit greatly from looking more to other
countries for ideas and methods that would help reduce America's
excessive, annual road death toll.
It
is a commonly held belief in the USA -- even among experts -- that the
country is actually among the global leaders in terms of road safety.
|
"...The
fatality rate of drivers in the United States is far better than
any other country. You know, sometimes we don't step back and look
at our successes. Even though our fatality rate is much better
than any other country, it's not satisfactory to us."
Dr.
Allen Robinson -- director of and professor in the Highway Safety
Center at the Indiana University of Pennsylvania, [and] ... the
Chief Executive Officer of the American Driver and Traffic Safety
Education Association (ADTSEA) -- speaking at the NTSB 'Public
Forum on Driver Education and Training,' Washington D.C., October
28-29, 2003. [Transcript
of conference here -- page 32.]
|
It
is the DSA standpoint, however, that while America deservedly leads the world
in many different fields and disciplines, road safety is regrettably and
categorically not one of them. See the table below. We make this
point not to antagonize anyone but to highlight the fact that erroneous
suggestions that the USA is doing well, when it so clearly is not, will
serve only to encourage apathy when the opposite sentiment is needed.
|
It
is important, in this context, to add that when comparing international
VMT rates -- as opposed to per capita rates -- the USA lies in
tenth position among twenty-four countries [IRTAD,
2002 data].
In
the second table, the individual states of America have been
shown mixed together with all of the countries from the IRTAD database in
order to show comparative, per capita performance on a broader scale.
Apart from the USA having only three countries from thirty with a worse
per capita rate, it can also be seen that almost one third of all American
states have an even higher death rate than the worst of those thirty
countries. |
|
VMT
Tip
To convert deaths per one billion vehicle kilometres to
deaths per one hundred million vehicle miles traveled,
divide the km figure by 6.214.
To reverse the calculation, multiply the miles figure by
the same factor.
|
|
Back
to Top of Page
|
Table
2
Per
Capita Road Death Toll
Comparing
IRTAD Countries (2002)
With
Each American State (2003)
|
|
Country Position
|
Country
or State
|
Rate
a
|
|
1
|
Sweden
|
6.0
|
|
2
|
UK
|
6.1
|
|
3
|
Netherlands
|
6.1
|
|
4
|
Norway
|
6.9
|
|
5
|
Switzerland
|
7.1
|
|
|
Massachusetts
|
7.22
|
|
6
|
Japan
|
7.5
|
|
|
New
York
|
7.77
|
|
7
|
Finland
|
8.0
|
|
8
|
Germany
|
8.3
|
|
|
Connecticut
|
8.40
|
|
9
|
Denmark
|
8.6
|
|
|
New
Jersey
|
8.65
|
|
10
|
Australia
|
8.8
|
|
11
|
Canada
|
9.3
|
|
12
|
Ireland
|
9.6
|
|
|
Rhode
Island
|
9.63
|
|
|
New
Hampshire
|
9.84
|
|
|
Washington
|
9.84
|
|
13
|
Iceland
|
10.1
|
|
14
|
New
Zealand
|
10.3
|
|
|
Hawaii
|
10.71
|
|
|
Ohio
|
11.16
|
|
15
|
Slovak
Republic
|
11.3
|
|
|
Illinois
|
11.49
|
|
|
Vermont
|
11.50
|
|
16
|
Italy
|
11.7
|
|
|
Maryland
|
11.80
|
|
|
California
|
11.87
|
|
17
|
Austria
|
11.9
|
|
|
District
of Columbia
|
11.97
|
|
|
Michigan
|
12.73
|
|
|
Pennsylvania
|
12.75
|
|
|
Virginia
|
12.76
|
|
18
|
France
|
12.9
|
|
|
Minnesota
|
12.98
|
|
|
Utah
|
13.15
|
|
19
|
Spain
|
13.2
|
|
|
Indiana
|
13.45
|
|
20
|
Slovenia
|
13.7
|
|
|
Colorado
|
13.86
|
|
21
|
Czech
Republic
|
14.0
|
|
22
|
Hungary
|
14.0
|
|
23
|
Luxembourg
|
14.0
|
|
24
|
Turkey
|
14.0b
|
|
|
Oregon
|
14.38
|
|
25
|
Belgium
|
14.5
|
|
|
Alaska
|
14.62
|
|
26=
|
USA
(overall figure)
|
14.9
|
|
26=
|
Republic
of Korea
|
14.9
|
|
|
Iowa
|
15.00
|
|
28
|
Poland
|
15.3
|
|
|
Wisconsin
|
15.50
|
|
|
Maine
|
15.92
|
|
29
|
Portugal
[see note 'a']
|
16.1c
|
|
|
Nevada
|
16.43
|
|
|
Texas
|
16.63
|
|
|
North
Dakota
|
16.67
|
|
|
Nebraska
|
16.84
|
|
|
Kansas
|
17.44
|
|
|
Delaware
|
17.75
|
|
|
North
Carolina
|
18.23
|
|
|
Georgia
|
18.43
|
|
|
Florida
|
18.64
|
|
|
Oklahoma
|
19.09
|
|
30
|
Greece
[see note 'a']
|
19.3
|
|
|
Louisiana
|
19.87
|
|
|
Arizona
|
20.00
|
|
|
Tennessee
|
20.57
|
|
|
Idaho
|
21.39
|
|
|
Missouri
|
21.61
|
|
|
Alabama
|
21.76
|
|
|
West
Virginia
|
21.89
|
|
|
Kentucky
|
22.63
|
|
|
Arkansas
|
23.22
|
|
|
New
Mexico
|
23.35
|
|
|
South
Carolina
|
23.61
|
|
|
South
Dakota
|
26.71
|
|
|
Montana
|
28.48
|
|
|
Mississippi
|
30.24
|
|
|
Wyoming
|
33.00
|
Copyright
©, Drive and Stay Alive, Inc., 2004
Back
to Top of Page
Explanatory
Notes
a.
The rates shown are 2002 for IRTAD countries, and 2003 for individual
American
states. The national rates for 2003 were obtained after this table
was published
and are available here.
b.
The rate published by IRTAD in respect of Turkey (2002) was not believable
for more
reasons than one. In July, 2004, DSA found media reports from Turkey that
led us to
believe that the true per capita rate was around 14. DSA contacted IRTAD
and it
acknowledged our concerns then added a footnote to the IRTAD database
pointing
out that the rate of 5.6 shown for Turkey only represented a proportion of
the problem.
c.
The rate for Portugal, 2002, was amended by IRTAD during 2004 to reflect
more
up-to-date information.
Table
2 surely shows good enough reason why America may have things it could
learn from some of the better-performing countries.
Table
showing multi-country per capita death rates since 1988
As
always, Drive and Stay Alive welcomes feedback on our articles. We may
add pertinent comments to the foot of this page (edited for length,
if necessary). Contact
us here.
|
