By on April 9, 2013

 

Juan Barnett, aka DCAutoGeek, put together this infographic on “distracted driving” using NHTSA’s own data from their latest study. I’ll let you be the judge on the matter, but the numbers are straight from NHTSA itself.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

89 Comments on “Distracted Driving: An Infographic...”


  • avatar
    Summicron

    “No seatbelt” only kills idiots, the act isn’t transitive. Can’t say the same about the others.

    • 0 avatar
      CV Neuves

      “No seatbelt” might only kills idiots, but it also injures lots of people that become a ward of the state, hospital bills, etc.. You are also dealing with their families, children might not get an education and have their life chances destroyed, etc., …

      The same applies for “distracted by mobile device:” many more people get injured, with all the usual consequences.

      Altogether, the costs for individuals, families and the whole economy are enormous.

      (Edit 10:57: “warden” to “ward”)

      • 0 avatar
        danio3834

        “but it also injures lots of people that become a warden of the state”

        Is that like the attorney general or the vice president or something? I know many politicians suffer from mental deficiencies, but I didn’t know it was brain damage from not wearing their seat belts.

        I agree, the Warden of the State really cramps my style.

      • 0 avatar
        Landcrusher

        It’s not an enormous drain at all. If it were, the free treatment would get rationed.

        Besides that, if you use socialized medicine as an excuse to pass bad laws, why not just outlaw frivolous trips? Why put others at risk to get an ice cream cone? Etc. etc.

        And before you cry ridiculous, try to to think about actually drawing the line on ridiculous.

        • 0 avatar
          CV Neuves

          Landcrusher: In a democracy people can draw the line at different places. Just the overuse by your ilk of “socialized,” “socialist,” etc. is just revolting. If you have kids, a wife, or a girlfriend, why don’t you just buckle up? Do you think they want to push you around in a wheelchair and wipe your arse?

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            We do buckle up, and we drive safely (though my wife sometimes still tail gates).

            If you can somehow draw a logical line between what I said and your insinuating we don’t do those things while you spewed inflammatory language like “ilk” then I will be impressed.

            If you don’t think we have socialized medicine in this country you don’t understand the term. It may not be socialized enough for you and yours, but we are running out of other people’s money.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            And by the way, I got sidetracked by your attack. You didn’t really say how we decide ridiculous. We don’t have plebiscites on all our legislation because we aren’t a Democracy. We are a Democratic Republic.

            So, just saying “Democracy” isn’t a reasonable response.

  • avatar
    CJinSD

    So we’re wasting our time with brainwashing campaigns and law enforcement resources focusing on a problem that causes 1.5% of highway deaths? Even that’s assuming that the people using mobile devices were all wearing their seatbelts and sober. We have the government that the people that voted for it deserve.

    • 0 avatar
      gslippy

      I agree with your comment, although it could be that the brainwashing campaign is actually working to reduce accidents and deaths.

      I’d guess most people acknowledge the dangers of distracted driving because they know their eyes aren’t on the road. Drunks and seatbelt scoffers still think they’re in control.

    • 0 avatar
      carrya1911

      .gov safety pushes are often about objects or phenomena that are only responsible for a tiny percentage of the overall problem. Par for the course.

    • 0 avatar
      PCP

      Maybe 1.5% sounds like not much to you. Hundreds of deaths is still a lot, though. It’s more a thing of perspective.

  • avatar
    Sundowner

    you need to realize that the government is cash poor for transportation. They literally have nothing better to do than twiddle their thumbs with ad campaigns like this one. Actual productive work? PFT! that’d take money. We live in a country where the bridges literally fall down out of the sky for lack of maintenance or replacement and there’s no money to fix the issue. However, there’s always a loose billion here or there to subsidize a mall or tourist attraction.

  • avatar
    michaelfrankie

    At first I thought the mobile device statistic was low, but they are only listing deaths. My subjective experience while jogging along the side of the road is that they play a signficant factor in more minor accidents. Nothing makes me more nervous than a green 1999 Dodge Neon coming at me and all I see is the glow of a 21-year-old college student’s face looking down.

    • 0 avatar
      gasser

      +1
      When did piloting a two ton auto in heavy traffic become less relevant than texting or tweeting???
      The high end “infotainment” LCD screens are also distractions….four finger pokes and four screens to distract rather than a big round knob to adjust the radio volume. Driving is a full time job, if you want to live to get to your destination.

    • 0 avatar
      redav

      It reminds me of the drive drunk/stoned exercises where someone pilots a car through a loop of cones. When they don’t hit anything, they say: “See! It’s not a big deal.” But instead, it’s the decision making process that really matters. When that is impared, it guarantees a worse situation.

  • avatar
    wsn

    1) By not wearing a seat belt, the driver endangers himself more. But doesn’t affect me. So I don’t care.

    2) Drunk drivers are already being dealt with.

    3) How do you really catch people “daydreaming”? And exactly how do you know they died of driving while daydreaming? I mean, they are dead, do you interrogate dead people?

    4) From my own personal close calls, of the drivers who are both reckless and affecting my safety, maybe 70% of them were using a mobile device at the time (I know, because my wife drives). The lower proportion in the study is likely due to that the police doesn’t catch offenders as effectively as catching drunk drivers.

    • 0 avatar
      mikey

      Its not everyday I agree with “wsn”and “CJinSD” however this time they have nailed it. If you don’t want to wear a seat belt,who cares. Driving drunk is scary,sooner or later,you will pay the price. I just hope the cops get them before they kill somebody.

      I guy texting while stuck in traffic? This is just the justice system,the governments,and the cops picking the low hanging fruit.

      • 0 avatar
        danio3834

        I agree also. No seat belt is a primary offense in some places? Many states don’t require a motorcycle rider to wear a helmet, yet they still have seat belt laws.

    • 0 avatar
      Landcrusher

      1. Incorrect. Lacking a seat belt can cause a driver to lose control after an accident when he shouldn’t have creating more fatalities.
      2. True, but due to it having become a revenue stream rather than public safety issue, the problem persists in being too large
      3. The fatalities are not always the responsible party. Furthermore, you can’t legislate away all problems. We should be using resources currently spent on crap to getting people to wear seat belts and not drive drunk.
      4. Or, the NTSB is correct and you are simply experiencing a common cause and affect issue our brains all have.

      • 0 avatar
        danio3834

        “1. Incorrect. Lacking a seat belt can cause a driver to lose control after an accident when he shouldn’t have creating more fatalities.”

        This is a stretch. It would be very difficult to ever directly correlate driver A not wearing a seatbelt to secondary fatalities of driver or passengers B, C or D that weren’t already being caused by the primary event.

        The majority of people will agree you’re usually better off to be wearing it during a crash, so there’s no need to make additional tangental claims that a single driver wearing his seat belt will save any more lives than his own.

        • 0 avatar
          Landcrusher

          Well, it may be or may not be a stretch. Back in the days of creating the seat belt laws it was an often heard retort. My search fu yielded no statistics, but that means nothing. I will look some more.

          You may be right on this one. The safety zealots are really good at lying about something so much it gets accepted as fact.

      • 0 avatar
        redav

        Some decisions we make are life/death decisions. Making a poor decision that results in your death doesn’t just affect you. That’s why I reject arguments along the lines of “If he wants to be stupid, let him.”

        • 0 avatar
          CJinSD

          I guess it comes down to whether you see people as individuals or merely a piece of a larger pool of serfs.

        • 0 avatar
          Landcrusher

          What you say is true, but if you use that as an excuse to make laws it’s next stop tyranny. It’s not so much a slippery slope as an unassailable mountain face combined with a cliff. You can go down, but rarely up, and one step to far and you fall.

        • 0 avatar
          GoCougs

          Yup, and in particular, the effect that is the cost to the state (= MY cost) of mopping up after one’s poor decision – anything from probate, to the accident investigation, to corner oversight, etc.

    • 0 avatar
      APaGttH

      ThoughtCrime!

    • 0 avatar
      el scotto

      Once, Just Once I wish the TV reporters would finish the sentence’ “he/she was thrown from their car” “because they weren’t rearing a seat belt”. Cranium, tree; tree, cranium. News at 11.

  • avatar
    Landcrusher

    Lies, Lies, Lies!

    These numbers are clearly from TEA Party propaganda designed to oppress women and kill minorities with lower taxes. :)

    I nearly fell out of my chair this morning. An inference was made to texting being an issue in the Colgan Air crash. IIRC, it was clearly shown to be a training and experience issue, but NTSB did note a text was made BEFORE takeoff. (Insert dramatic musical sound here).

    Now the press are trying to blame texting for a life flight crash. I could be wrong, but I don’t believe an autopilot is available for the model in question and you simply can’t fly a chopper and text. Either they are purposefully ignoring the presents of a copilot or an auto pilot in the story.

  • avatar
    noreaster

    Wow! Seatbelts killed 21,000 people!

  • avatar
    danio3834

    But think of the children.

  • avatar
    sitting@home

    How many drunks were distracted while trying to put on their seat-belt and so appear 3 times in those statistics ?

  • avatar
    mikey

    Here in Ontario, even a couple of beers has some nasty consequence’. Spot checks can be anywhere at any time. So I take cabs,walk,or stick to diet coke.
    I put my seatbelt on automatically.
    I don’t text unless I’m stopped,and parked. Why? because I’m nearly sixty and texting takes all my resources. I figured out how to pair my I phome to my Impala. I used it for two weeks, and disabled it. After I traded the Impala I paired my I phone to the “Info-tainment” system in my Camaro. I keep it paired, for my wireless I tunes. If I get a text or a call, I let it go to message.
    Thats just me. I manage to struggle through modern technology,but I’m slow, and I have to think it about it.
    There is no way, that I pesonally, can safely drive a vehicle while using an electronic device. I accept it.
    Thats not say that my standards should apply to everybody else.

    • 0 avatar
      krhodes1

      I have no problem with phone conversations on the open highway. I won’t talk on the phone in heavy traffic or if I am having to actively navigate. I don’t see ANY difference in the distraction level between hands free and handheld devices. It’s the conversation that is a distraction. Texting is simply stupid while driving.

  • avatar
    Conslaw

    If my wife calls me and tells me to stop off at the store and pick up a loaf of bread on the way home. Great, I don’t have to make a separate trip. That’s what most of my calls are – calls to keep me from making extra trips. In theory, if I didn’t take those calls, I would be on the road more, and subjecting everyone to proportionally greater risk.

  • avatar
    CJinSD

    Reading the study only makes this farce worse. They assume anyone reading it can’t figure out that they’re eliminating 90% of causality with each consecutive point. Who would focus on 12% of distraction caused fatalities when distraction caused fatalities are only 10% of the total if they have the mathematical literacy of a fifth grader? Isn’t the temptation to ask what the sources of distractions were for the other 88%, and the larger question of what cost the ignored 90% their lives? Any way you look at it, they’re playing a basic misdirection con where they have their simpering marks focusing on an almost imaginary problem to justify yielding both personal freedom and police protection. The police will be tasked with revenue generation at the expense of whatever it is we’re supposed to appreciate their existence for. The sheep will have jumped through yet another hoop to embolden their masters.

    • 0 avatar
      gslippy

      I don’t think there’s any misdirection con. The DOT is going after what they can (see my post, above, in response).

      We already have multi-year efforts in place to deal with seatbelts and drinking.

      The 3000 or so people killed while distracted is like having a 9/11 every year. Distracted driving is a new phenomenon; a campaign to fight it is worthwhile.

      • 0 avatar
        CJinSD

        They’re focusing on 12% of the 3,000 people. 9/11 was a big deal because it was a willful act. We’ve lost more in natural disasters, and we looked the other way while the denizens of New Orleans went full savage. This is about raising revenue and eroding personal responsibility.

        • 0 avatar
          gslippy

          Helmet laws violate the personal responsibility tenet; distracted driving laws do not.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            But that’s not the point is it? The point is whether the cost of the war on distracted driving is worth the costs. If you exaggerate the costs of the problem and ignore the costs and effectiveness of the solution, then you are throwing away money, lives, and breeding contempt for government.

          • 0 avatar
            gslippy

            @Landcrusher: It depends on how you count the costs of the war and the benefits.

            If it’s a public service information campaign, that’s fairly low cost and pretty effective. I wouldn’t count tickets issued to distracted drivers as an onerous cost. Does anyone know what this campaign is costing nationally?

            If a driver’s texting costs someone else their child’s life, the benefit of preventing that death through PSAs is incalculable.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            Public service campaign would be unusually appropriate here. It seems the budget for those is too often spent on partisan propaganda these days.

            If the cost of a child’s life is incalculable, then so is the waste of that child’s fifteen minutes while Dad is being fined for checking his location on an iPhone at a stop light. Then add the loss of opportunity for getting some real work done by government while they were wallpapering their reputations with the war on texting, the apathy of the voters…

        • 0 avatar

          CJ, I believe that some of the reporting from New Orleans during Katrina was not entirely reliable. It was down to the MSM’s usual standards.

    • 0 avatar
      APaGttH

      Because most Americans don’t have the mathematical literacy of a 5th grader. They also don’t care to actually research, they just let CNN, Fox, MSNBC, etc. etc. tell them what to think and go with it.

      Distracted driving bad! Bad! Bad! Blood on the highway! We need laws! Fines! Punishment!

      Of course cash strapped states eat it up. We’ve made stupidity itself a crime. Terrible for the courts try to process real crime – great for the coffers.

      Highway safety is not about safety – it’s about the Benjamins. And the bleating masses of the electorate applaud the continued criminalization of stupidity in the name of public safety.

      It is practically Orwellian.

      It’s a rare moment – you and I are in 100% complete agreement on this one.

  • avatar
    sportyaccordy

    Fatalities are way different from accidents. The two are related but not necessarily direct micro/macrocosms of each other.

  • avatar
    Rod Panhard

    It reminds me of a filthy joke that involves a trucker, a highway patrolman he’s giving a police report to from inside the wreck of his cab, and it’s regarding the dead female hitchhiker who went through the windshield because she wasn’t wearing a seatbelt.

  • avatar
    Sky_Render

    In California, I can’t use my phone as a GPS unit. But the cop tailgating me is allowed to use his laptop to look up my registration.

    Yeah, that makes sense.

  • avatar
    NormSV650

    I’d love to see a male/female break down of these stats. I think men would edge out woman for no seat belt award but those damn girls texting are everywhere this past week in Ohio.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    This will put a few noses out of joint.

    I remember a study in Australia in the early 90s showed that each road death costs over a million dollars.

    Using mobile phones when driving is plainly irresponsible. For that matter anything other than basically operating a vehicle should attract some sort of reprimand or fine.

    A TV station in Brisbane set up a camera on a main arterial road to show what people did when driving to work and it was an amazing video clip. From eating a bowl of cereal, applying makeup, shaving etc. Even a dog was on someones lap to look as if it was driving the vehicle.

    Seat belts must be worn at all times, this also helps the driver when a vehicle is out of control prior to an accident.

    I think people should look at why safety and restrictions are in place when operating a vehicle. Most treat them as a personal attack.

    Remember, regulations and rules are made to suit the lowest common denominator on the roads. Maybe better screening of applicants to gain a licence should be in place with better education.

    The US has a very high rate of road deaths compared to most other developed nations. Across the board changes should be looked at.

    • 0 avatar
      geeber

      The fatality rate per 1 billion kilometers driven in the United States is 8.5.

      The rates for other advanced countries:

      Australia – 5.8

      Austria – 8.9

      Belgium – 10.8

      Canada – 8.2

      Finland – 7.0

      Germany – 7.2

      Netherlands – 5.6

      New Zealand – 9.1

      Norway – 6.1

      Spain – 11.7

      Sweden – 5.1

      Switzerland – 5.6

      United Kingdom – 5.7

      As you can see by those statistics, the United States does not have a “very high rate of road deaths” compared to other advanced countries.

      • 0 avatar
        RobertRyan

        @geeber,
        Looking at that graph 8.5 is near the top. The significant falls in other countries means considerable work has been done to minimize fatalities.

        • 0 avatar
          CJinSD

          Do you suppose Australia’s lower figure is related to its lower population density? What was the considerable work that achieved that? I’d be curious to know why the Netherlands does so much better than Belgium. Something stinks in Brussels. Makes sense that it would be the capital of the EU.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @CJinSD
            No, we are one of the most urbanised societies in the world.

            Also, we now operate in many ways similar to the Eurozone countries.

            The cause of road fatalities covers everything from physical infrastructure, vehicle design, level of compentency of drivers and the compliance to road rules.

            Check the link out I have given to geeber. I is quite sobering.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @CJinSD,
            Good Point. Popualtion density is not generally a major player. Lack of road regulations, poor infrastructure, unsafe vehicles etc pay a MUCH larger role. Similar sized countries can be very different in how they approach road safety.

        • 0 avatar
          geeber

          That is not what Big Al from Oz said. He specifically said that the traffic fatality rates in the United States are “very high” compared to those of other advanced countries.

          Looking at the chart, his contention is obviously incorrect. The figures for the United States are below the fatality rates of Austria, New Zealand and Spain, and roughly equal to those of Canada.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @geeber
            He is correct. You have a high rate compared to other advanced economies.That does suprise me as I have found US drivers much less aggressive and courteous than Australian Drivers.

          • 0 avatar
            geeber

            That’s not what he said. He said our rate is “much higher” than that of other countries. Note that the rate for the United States is not higher than Austria, Belgium, New Zealand and Spain. What he posted is incorrect.

            We’re not going to move the goalpost now that he has been proven incorrect.

            As far as our drivers being “aggressive” – my cousin from Germany commented how polite and “meek” American drivers are. So everyone has an opinion, which only further proves that opnions prove nothing in the long run.

            I also assume you’ve never been to Europe – particularly Italy and Germany. Otherwise, you would not consider American drivers to be “aggressive.”

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        @geeber
        I think your data is possibly flawed. Here’s a link.

        http://www.monash.edu.au/miri/research/reports/papers/fatals.html

        • 0 avatar
          geeber

          My data is from the World Health Organization (WHO). It is not flawed.

          Your link measures fatalities per 10,000 vehicles, and per 100,000 population.

          My link measures fatalities by 1 billion kilometers driven, which is the relevant measurement, as it is based on how many miles people in a particular country actually DRIVE. This takes into account that people in some countries drive more miles, and thus more frequently expose themselves to the risk of a fatal traffic accident.

          Based on the most accurate measurement of traffic safety, the United States is right in the ballpark with other advanced nations.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @geeber,
            Cannot see that.8.5 is a LOT More than 5.8 for Australia and the US has a high , not the highest ranking for fatalities.

          • 0 avatar
            geeber

            That wasn’t what Big Al from Oz said. He said that the traffic fatality rate in the United States was “much higher” than the rates in other advanced countries.

            He didn’t limit the comparison only to Australia, and we aren’t going to do that now.

            The 8.5 fatalities per 1 billion kilometers driven in the United States (the most accurate way to measure traffic safety across countries, so that is the one we will be using) is lower than the figure for several other advanced countries. The figure for the United States is therefore not “much higher” than the comparable figure for all other advanced countries. Case closed.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @geeber
            Sorry, here is a WHO link that supports my claim.

            http://gamapserver.who.int/gho/interactive_charts/road_safety/road_traffic_deaths/atlas.html

          • 0 avatar
            geeber

            See my post below. This map does not support your claim. It does not account for differences in population or number of miles driven; therefore, it cannot be used to compare traffic safety in various countries.

            As I’ve explained, raw numbers of traffic fatalities are useless as a comparison tool, as they don’t account for the other variables.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            Sorry, but the WHO hasn’t got a lot of credibility as far as I am concerned and basic logic would say that population density could easily affect fatalities. On the one hand, I suspect Manhattan is rather safe as the density makes it hard to go fast, and easy to avoid driving. OTOH, if you rarely see another vehicle you are unlikely to hit one.

            Overall, I would say the low quality of drivers is the likely cause of the poor showing in the US. We can fix this with more stringent testing, but we don’t. God forbid anyone stupid, old, or otherwise challenged lose their license.

      • 0 avatar
        wmba

        Don’t really care where you or Big Al got your figures from, but the Canadian figures from Transport Canada are nowhere near what’s quoted here.

        Latest compiled stats from Transport Canada for vehicle deaths are for 2010:

        Per 100,000 population: 6.6
        Per billion klicks: 6.5 (not 8.2)

        http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/roadsafety/tp-1317.htm#1

        And we get snow and ice, not candy-ass Oz or Kalifornia conditions. We lose high school basketball and hockey teams by the bald-tired 15 passenger Dodge van loads. Not funny at all.

        Why are you people arguing over dodgy stats in the first place?

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          @wmba
          I think our info and data came from the same source?

          Canada
          Transport Canada

        • 0 avatar
          geeber

          That’s because the figures came from different years.

          For 2008, Canada’s figure was 7.18, while the figure for the United States was 7.91.

          The recession brought a dramatic decrease in traffic fatalities in the United States starting in 2009 (primarily due to a decline in pleasure driving, which is more dangerous than driving to work).

          I wouldn’t be surprised if the same thing happened in Canada within that time frame.

  • avatar
    mx6er2587

    wait wait wait. 11k people died from not having a seatbelt on but what caused the accidents in those cases?

    misleading graphic. Not that I’m a fan of all these distracted driving measures, but lets stop spreading misleading information on both sides of the table here.

    • 0 avatar
      CJinSD

      Provided the people collecting the data only counted otherwise-survivable accidents where a seatbelt wasn’t worn, then lack of seatbelt use can be causal in nature.

    • 0 avatar
      icemilkcoffee

      Good point. Apples and oranges comparison there.

    • 0 avatar
      Landcrusher

      Generally, the NTSB is big on primary and contributing causes. They are also, as you can tell by the text of the report, trying to increase the blame on distracted driving (or at least pay homage to the cause).

      If you had a texting accident with no seatbelt, there would have been big pressure to label the seatbelt as contributing and blame the phone.

      Overall, I have high respect for the NTSB, but they are still part of the Washington machine and have to play along.

  • avatar
    dwford

    So instead of focusing on cellphones we should pass laws about wearing seatbelts and drunk driving…. oh, wait.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    @geeber
    Here is a WHO link that co-relates to my link. Its a map and you will be surprised.

    http://gamapserver.who.int/gho/interactive_charts/road_safety/road_traffic_deaths/atlas.html

    • 0 avatar
      geeber

      That doesn’t prove you correct. It merely lists the number of traffic deaths in a nation, without adjusting for population and number of miles driven, as my figures have done.

      The population of Australia is 22,620,600 – or less than the population of California, which is just one STATE out of 50 in this country (California’s population is 38,041,380).

      It’s the same with Canada. It has 34,782,779 people, or, again, less than California.

      No surprise that Australia (not to mention Canada) has fewer traffic fatalities than the United States. It has a lot fewer people, and I’ll bet they drive less, too, given that Australia is more heavily urbanized than the United States.

      That is why my figure is the relevant one. It adjusts for those variables.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        @geeber
        I can see you will be fun to deal with.

        Some stats.
        The US has approx. 750 vehicles per/1 000 we have 730.

        We probably drive greater distance per year than the average American. I will try and find the data.

        Our vehicle licencing system is much more rigourous than your and road regulations are enforced more than yours.

        Our driving culture in Australia is different. We don’t assume we are entitled to drive, we must earn that right.

        Our cities are ‘North American’ in design and layout. Our cities sprawl more than yours. So most poeple drive to and from work each day.

        There are many countries with similar numbers of vehicles etc and live the same as you guys. The US isn’t unique, I don’t know how many times I have stated this.

        But when all is said and done we have some ridiculous drivers. We are all human.

        • 0 avatar
          geeber

          Again, the number of vehicles per person is irrelevant. What matter is how many fatalities there are miles or kilometers driven. The figures I quoted are the most meaningful measure of traffic safety. That is Traffic Safety 101.

          Your contention that the United States has a “much higher” traffic fatality rate than other countries is simply false.

          If you believe that your cities “sprawl” more than ours, I can only assume you’ve never been to Dallas, Houston, Nashville or Phoenix.

          Eastern cities developed before widespread use of the automobile (Philadelphia, Boston, New York) and San Francisco are not the norm throughout the country.

          Also note that we don’t have a large central section of the country that is basically uninhabitable. Our midsection is sparsely populated, but it is not a desert.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @geeber,
            Does Houston proper extend 90 miles in one direction? and 70 miles in the other. I do not think so.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            @Robert,
            No, i don’t think the city itself does, but neither does Sydney.

            The Metro area does. You would be hard pressed to realize you weren’t still in Houston. A little north of Galveston the strip centers and neighborhoods begin and they don’t stop until midway between Conroe and Huntsville. The ship channel limits the eastern growth, but the western growth goes past Sugarland, Katy, and Cypress.

            DFW is virtually one big urban area as well.

  • avatar
    Mandalorian

    How many accidents/fatalities are caused by some old fart hitting the gas instead of the brake?

  • avatar
    Lorenzo

    When I got my license, it was the first year fatalities topped 50,000, and there were a LOT fewer drivers and cars on the road then. There’s been a lot of progress, but there’s still a lot of low hanging fruit in the form of those 11,000+ no-seatbelt deaths. That’s the point of the graphic. A government running trillion dollar deficits should be looking for the biggest bang for the buck. TTAC’s B&B shouldn’t be um, distracted by slicing and dicing the statistics.

  • avatar
    icemilkcoffee

    These numbers are not that surprising. Pretty much every new car now comes with bluetooth. Even before that we’ve had a lot of public campaigns and state laws discouraing using the cell phone while driving, and the widespred use of bluetooth earpieces.

  • avatar
    BerlinDave

    If anyone recalls, just a mere few years ago it was speeding that caused all of the carnage on the roads!

  • avatar
    RobertRyan

    @geeber,
    You misunderstood me. I think US Drivers are very polite, Australian Drivers are aggressive. I put the fairly high fatality rate in the US down to those other factors . Yes I have been around the bulk of Europe, The US,NZ and Australia.Seen some parts of Canada, and driven in parts of the US/UK/NZ.
    (original Post has disappeared)

  • avatar
    RobertRyan

    @Landcrusher,
    Yes the Metro area extends as far or is greater than Houston , Melbourne seems to extend further than Sydney in one direction, although if you lumped all the tall building together you find in Sydney from the satellite suburbs you would have a CBD almost as big as Chicago.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    All who SMS when driving should read.

    http://www.news.com.au/world-news/final-text-crash-cuts-off-sentence/story-fndir2ev-1226618691883


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India