The answer, generally, is anywhere in the South, and specifically, South Carolina:
The safest state, for some reason, is Rhode Island.
31 thoughts on “Which states do you want to avoid driving in?”
Comments are closed.
Cats, charts, and politics
Cats, charts, and politics
The answer, generally, is anywhere in the South, and specifically, South Carolina:
The safest state, for some reason, is Rhode Island.
Comments are closed.
So Trumpers are also worse drivers than liberals. Is there anything they don’t suck at?
Is Puerto Rico Trump country?
TBF, they're VERY good at homicide (per capita) -- much better than blue states generally -- and especially with firearms. And of course their ability to take far more from the federal government than they contribute -- generally the opposite of blue states -- is arguably, ah, good business, of a sort.
They excel at domestic violence and low education levels.
Also obesity and smoking rates.
Is it because winter driving skills last all year?
Anyone who has driven in Rhode Island will find this hard to believe. If there is a legitimate explanation it might be that traffic congestion doesn't allow you to get up to fatality speed very often.
Fewer miles of interstate highway than other states. Speed kills.
Interstates are fairly safe roads . It's high speed rural highways with grade crossings that are riskiest. Delaware is high on the list; it has one small stretch of Interstate, but lots of high speed roads. when I lived there fatalities on 13 and113 were constantly in the news
Thank you for today's lesson in confirmation bias.
And because of it's small size I imagine Rhode Island topography is very homogeneous so unexpected traffic conditions never arise.
Ahem. it's = it is
Just take an antihistamine and all that itsing goes right away.
Congestion in the NE US, I agree, seems like a credible hypothesis for lower rates.
Just a guess. Maybe RI is too SMALL to get up much speed, you know? I mean look at it. But I don’t know.
Rhode Island and Massachusetts are safe? Somebody better double check this data.
That's just it, we should go by data, and not perception. Or do you still think inflation is raging?
My one long distance drive though Texas (Dallas to San Antonio) in a too small rental was more harrowing than a taxi ride in Mexico City. Speed limit of about 75mph, which means most are doing close to 90mph, a piece of furniture fell off a truck, just sitting in the middle lane, there was a motorcycle on its side on the road (no driver seen), and lots of shredded truck tires all over the highway.
Northeasterner here, so used to 55 mph speed limits on non-interstates. On a trip to Texas I found myself on a narrow road, one lane each direction, only a painted line to separate opposite directions, and no shoulder. Of course the speed limit was 70.
Texans are absolutely batshit insane drivers. Speeding way over the (already ridiculously high) limits, aggressive no-signal lane-changing, and tailgating left right and center. And that is of course on top of there being far more giant trucks and SUVs here than anyplace else in this country I've seen.
It's nuts.
it's been a few years since i've driven through S.C. so things might have changed, but the palmetto state has the crappiest roads i've driven on. my guess is low gas taxes and resulting lack of maintenance. don't know if this is the reason why the roads are more dangerous, but it doesn't help.
I'm blaming the stretch of I-95 in South Carolina, which is only two narrow lanes, and is packed any time of year due to people scrambling up and down to Florida and generally driving like maniacs.
Does this include black drivers?
I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.
We all know that driving while black can be extremely dangerous
It's interesting that MN is the third lowest, and almost the same as Massachusetts. I'm not surprised by RI and MA being low - with very large urban populations, I would expect the congestion to limit high-speed crashes. Half of MN lives in the Twin Cities - is that really enough to create the same congestion protection? But how can it be so much better than Connecticut and New Jersey?
It also suggests that Minnesotans really know how to drive on snow and ice.
How to explain Oregon? Tied for 7th with Delaware. The climate, geography and population distribution closely resemble Washington, which has a below average rate.
I can't speak for Washington, but "don't stop" policies adopted in the Portland area appear to have induced worse driving. This of course doesn't account for the higher rates in the South which also seem to have police with nothing better to do than cite or engage in a high speed chase.
It would be interesting to see this across a decade or so.
Shortly after you get up to speed on Rhode Island highways, you’re out of state.
You may recall seeing the statistics about what percentage of automotive fatalities were caused by drunk driving, trotted out by organizations like MADD.
My reaction: If I had to choose a state to live in based on that statistic, I would go with the highest percentage. Why? Because the lower the percentage of drunk driving fatalities among all auto deaths, the higher the incidence of auto deaths caused by sober (and bad) drivers.
Posted speed limits in WA are rarely observed. If you drive 75 mph on I-5 (speed limit 70 for 2 axles) you will be tailgated and/or passed on the right at speeds that make you feel like you are parked. Big trucks with trailers routinely drive 75 mph despite a 65 mph posted limit. So do cars and pickups pulling trailers. Then there are the video game drivers who swerve from lane to lane without signaling so they can be first.
Police stopped ticketing speeders years ago. What's a few dead motorists/passengers when the freedom to speed is guaranteed (apparently) by the 1st Amendment?