"There are way too many other factors to say that driving MUST be proportionately safer. You never considered cell-phones (which bring police and ambulance faster)…10-20 times MORE Trauma clinics now then there were 50 years ago…Doctors being certified and trained in Trauma…Drastic increases in medicine and technology…50 years ago it wasn’t uncommon for someone to die from a broken bone. "
You are looking at this too narrowly. All of the things that you list make driving safer. It doesn’t just have to be the cars and the roads. It can be and is better medical care and other things too.
Driving is proportionately safer because cars are better, roads are better, medical care is better, and so on.
We know that it is safer because more people are driving and less are killed. What we don’t know (and what I think that the OP asked) is why. Saying that it is not safer because other factors changed is incorrect. Those other factors are part of it being safer.
You are looking at this too narrowly. All of the things that you list make driving safer.
NO it doesn’t. Everything I mentioned makes DYING from a accident less likely, but it doesn’t make driving safer. Just because an ambulance can get to the scene faster and that you can get to trauma center faster and the doctors have more skill and technology then they did 50 years ago does NOT mean that driving is safer.
Agree; the emergency response to accidents and the quality of care thereafter must be a significant factor as well, although not for those who die on impact.
It’s interesting that no authority has tried to identify these various factors and their possible contribution. The AAA must have a huge data bank with info, has the highway safety administation.
The car companies often take a large part of the credit.
If I am now less likely to die as a consequence of driving (even if it is because of better medical care after the crash) then driving now is safer than driving then. It is as simple as that.
Yes, a lot of other thing are safer now than they were then too, but that doesn’t change the fact that driving is also safer.
If I am now less likely to die as a consequence of driving (even if it is because of better medical care after the crash) then driving now is safer than driving then. It is as simple as that.
That’s an illogical conclusion. Accidents still happen…people still get seriously injured from those accidents…with injuries equal to or greater then those in the 50’s. Just because they don’t die from them doesn’t mean that those accidents didn’t happen…and that driving is safer.
Right Mike; the post is about fatalities; auto accidents still happen at an alrming rate. You are now much less likely to DIE from them. And the frequency of serious injuries has been reduced because of a safer passenger compartment, provided the driver wears his seat belt.
And the frequency of serious injuries has been reduced because of a safer passenger compartment, provided the driver wears his seat belt.
Do you have the raw data on that…Because I’d be very surprised…Yes safer passenger compartment and built in safety features like seat belts and air bags made a huge improvement…HOWEVER…compared to 1950…all those safety features are offset by increased speed, dramatic increase in the number of cars on the road with you.
Let me point out…I don’t necessarily diesagree that driving isn’t safer today then it was 50 years ago…all I’m saying is you CAN’T make that conclusion based on the number of fatalities.
I want to see the stats of fatalities NOW compared to say 20 years ago (when cell-phone use was less then 5% it is now). Not a huge increase in car traffic…cars had many of the safety features in them back then (seat-belts, crumple-zones), and emergency response was about the same then as it is now.
Tardis, thanks for you patience. My wife worked in the operating room and medical emergency for many years. The incedence of these ghastly injuries incurred when car interiors were literally death traps has been greatly reduced; there are far fewer broken bones but still a lot of bruise injuries.
The most dramatic proof was the crash of Pricess Diana in an S Class Mercedes. All the occupants except the body guard did not wear their seat belt, and were killed. He alone survived a 100 mph crash into a solid bridge barrier. I visisted the site shortly afterwards when in Paris, and was astounded that anyone could have survived such an impact.
Mike defines safe driving as driving with no injuries incurred in a accident. The post is basically about fatalities; injuries, although still occurring are far less serious than in the past. Ask any surgeon or paramedic.
Ralph Nader, then a 30 year old non-technical lawyer studied the safety of cars in the early 60s and concluded that people were dying and being injured needlessly becaue of poor car design. I still have a copy of “Unsafe at Any Speed”, and would be good required reading for any aspiring car designer.
Thanks for the insight. Sacrificing the car in an accident is preferable to sacrificing the occupant. Spectacular crashes of racing cars, where the whole machine seems to disintegrate, but the driver…walks away, is living proof.
The only downside is, of course, that auto insurance, the collison part, is not likely to get cheaper.
I think there should be more questioning of the benefit of out-of-hospital Emergency Medical Services on traffic fatalities. I have been unable to find credible data. Some of the most dramatic advances in EMS don’t apply to “trauma codes” (cardiac arrest from injuries). CPR is essentially ineffective and defibrillators can’t be used.
I don’t believe helicopters were ever expected to make a noticeable decline in traffic fatalities. Vermont authorized its first helicopter ambulance in 1996 even though the pilot program showed that it was an expensive way to save lives. That is, if saving lives were the goal, the program would have been scrapped and the money used to save more lives. Of the 14 lives reportedly saved during the test year (out of 104 flights), none of the publicized stories was a traffic accident. The most life-years saved was for a skier, back in the days before common helmet use. That is, the helicopter ambulance may not even be justifiable today.
Helicopters are significant revenue sources and heavily promoted by hospitals, but they may do more to push the cost of health insurance hopelessly out of reach than anything else.
I don’t question the value and the need of first responders, who also secure the scene and prevent further injuries. I am saying that first responders don’t seem to be in a good position to reduce traffic fatalities.
Insurance companies keep enormous amounts of records on car accidents. The last time I consulted to the insurance industry…one company had amassed well over 2 terabytes of car accident data.
I’m also sure that there’s a lot of data on what trauma injuries from the 50’s that caused death…compared to how well those same trauma injuries do today. Apply that knowledge to the comparison chart and see what the numbers say.
That’s another EXCELLENT point…Back in the 50’s the ambulance driver did little to stabilize the patient. Their basic job was to grab and go…not much more. It wasn’t until the 70’s that first response trauma care was given at the scene by trained personal. I’m sure that has a MAJOR impact as to the lower number of deaths today.
I guarantee that if we had the same trauma care today that we did 50 years ago…our death rate would be significantly higher…I wouldn’t be surprised if it was 5-10 times higher then it is now. And again…that doesn’t make driving LESS safe…driving safety didn’t change…but the risk of death did because of the far better medical response.
Mike defines safe driving as driving with no injuries incurred in a accident.
No I didn’t…What I’m saying is that drivers today may occur those same injuries that they did in the 50’s, but with far far far better medical response many of those people are NOT dying.
My wife worked in the operating room and medical emergency for many years. The incedence of these ghastly injuries incurred when car interiors were literally death traps has been greatly reduced; there are far fewer broken bones but still a lot of bruise injuries.
I’m sure it’s probably true…but you can’t make those conclusions without first gathering a lot of data.
There’s a great U.S. Government website that has the statistics to answer some of the fatality-rate questions posed in this forum. Census.gov has posted the “Statistical Abstract of the United States,” both current and past at http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/.
There are no stats there for 2009 yet and you’ll need to click on “earlier editions” to find some information, but it’s quite fun to browse through this amazing resource.
Here are some highlights I found (with my unfounded explanations at no extra charge):
[list]1931 has about as many traffic fatalities as 2009, but a lot were pedestrians. Pedestrians have since learned to distrust “motorists.” (“Driver” back then meant a driver of horses and, if there was a team of horses, you were a “teamster” and if your lonely sister was home spinning wool she was… (oops, I digress).)[/list]
[list]The peak year for fatalities was 1972 (56,300). Between then and 1990, the entire drop can be explained by the reduction in “non-collision accidents” (rollovers, jackknifing, running off road, sudden braking, etc.). Well, that must be from increased seat belt use.[/list]
[list]Recently, all rates of traffic fatalities have dropped except for motorcycles (explainable by millennials encouraging baby boomers to ride in an effort to reduce the Social Security burden). This drop can only be explained by better engineering–both auto and highway. Heck, those new rumble strips alone have made me virtually indistinguishable from a good driver.[/list]
To answer your cell phone and other observations. Just downloaded a report by a respected independent research organization that tracked the USA traffic fatalities since 1923.
In 1923 there were already 17,000 traffic fatalities. By 1940 or so that had increased to 42,000. It had dropped to 27,000 by 1950!, probably because of better cars and better repaired cars. It peaked at 54,000 by 1970 and from there went on an erratic decline.
By 1990, the time before extensive use of cell phones, the figure was around 40,000, increasing to 42,000 by 2000 (heavy cell phone use) and then declining to 33,000 by 2009. So, in spite of vastly increased cell phone use the figure still went down. The economic slowdown had no doubt an effect on the rate since fewer miles were likely and fewer Americans took summer holidays by car.
One peculiar statistic is that more fatalites occur in the summer with better driving weather than in the winter. Traffic experts attrubute this to lower speeds in the winter (but lots of fender benders)and relatively fewer miles driven compared to the summer months.
I personally do not gather a lot of data, but there are many studies done and already underway on this subject.
Good post, Dan. The report I read had a peak at 1970 of around 55,000. I do remember annual predictions by the AAA and others that “this year 50,000 Americans will die in traffic accidents”
The accident rate has kept increasing, but, as you highlight, the fatality rate keeps decreasing. As do severe injuries.
I’m not sure I could attribute the entire decrease to non-collision accidents. Increased seat belt use most certainly had an important affect.
Other studies show that this genaral decline is true in most Western countries; those with auto safety standards, good traffic enforcement and good roads. The stats for Canada and the US run parallel, and those of great Britain closely reflect the same trend as well.
P.S. The report I read was asked by the sponsors to make future predictions, and they modelled all the known factors in and arrived at just over 22,000 traffic deaths for the USA by 2030!
The method used was employing Gompertz S-Curve for miles driven for growth and Exponential Risk Decay with Cyclic Deviations.
I’m sure Sanders and Mike know exactly what these do.
Doc, you’re just being precise, and I’m not sure that’s fair by modern Internet standards. For the fatality drop from the bloodbath of 1972 to 1990, I should not have said “can be explained by.” I should have simply said that the drop in noncollision fatalities (the Statistical Abstract does not hyphenate “non-collision”), from 1972 to 1990 was more than the total drop in traffic fatalities.
Traffic deaths within 1 year in 1972: 56,300 including 15,800 non-collision accidents.
Traffic deaths within 1 year in 1990: 46.800 including 4,900 non-collision accidents.
So, total traffic deaths in 18 years were 9,500 fewer; non-collision accident deaths were 10,900 fewer.
I want to emphasize that this observation does not apply after 1990. The wonderful reduction in gruesome traffic deaths after 1990 is related to something else.