Fatal accidents by the numbers

Posted at 1:47 PM on April 26, 2010 by Bob Collins (11 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

The weekend's tragedies involving young drivers is, deservedly, getting plenty of attention from the news media. Over the next few days, we can expect to hear more discussion about whether age 16 is too young to be driving a car. It's a good question, but where fatal accidents are concerned in Minnesota in 2010, it's not an entirely significant one.

Today I went over accident reports for fatal accidents investigated by the State Patrol so far in 2010. Keep in mind, there are many, many more serious accidents -- several involving young drivers -- than fatal accidents.

But here are some of the significant points that the fatal accidents reveal to us:

· Forty-five people have died in these accidents in 2010. Other than the weekend deaths, only one was under 18.

· The average age of a driver involved in a fatal accident is 41.

· The average age of a person killed in a car crash (excluding pedestrians) is 41.

· Other than the weekend accidents, a driver under 18 has been involved in a fatal accident only twice in 2010.

· Alcohol is was found in the system of at least one driver in only six accidents. In 13 other accidents, the question of whether alcohol was found in a driver's system is unresolved. Alcohol was not involved in the other two accidents involving teenage drivers.

· In one-third of the accidents, the victim was not wearing a seat belt. But in crashes involving victims age 30 or younger, a seat belt was being used only half of the time.

Meanwhile, colleague Bill Wareham has been going over nationwide statistics of traffic fatalities, finding that fatal accidents involving 16-20 year olds make up 13% of all traffic fatalities, the lowest figure since at least 1994. That's a lower percentage than 25-34 year olds (17.9%), 35-44 year olds (14.5%), and 45-54 year olds (14.6%).

While the rate of 16-20 year old deaths has been declining, the 25-to-34-year-old age group rate has been increasing for several years. The biggest increases in the last 14 years, however, are the number of fatal accidents involving 45-64 year olds.

---

Comments (11)

Bob, I thingk the prefered (by safety experts and cops) term is "crash" rather than "accident."

Accident suggests the crash was unavoidable, or that human error/choices was not a factor, or that is should be instantly forgiven (accidents will happen).

Also, color me surprised that I am in the group (45-64 year olds) with the increasing risk of fatal crashes.

Posted by Bob Moffitt | April 26, 2010 2:09 PM

---

Reviewing the last paragraph on nationwide statistics, the age breakdown skews the numbers. The youngest age group spans only 5 years while the other span 10 years (thus would include approximately half the population of the others). Normalizing for population, the youngest age group has the highest per capita risk.

Posted by kennedy | April 26, 2010 2:13 PM

---

Actually, I combined the age span for the last paragraph. The rate of increase (from '94) is roughly the same for both 5 year groups.

Posted by Bob Collins | April 26, 2010 2:16 PM

---

"..fatal accidents involving.." - What about caused by?

Posted by bj | April 26, 2010 4:01 PM

---

The better discussion is whether or not anyone should be driving a car anymore. Forty-five traffic fatalities in four months, in one state? That's outrageous.

Wouldn't it be awesome if we had a safe, cheap alternative to automobiles that relied on clean, renewable energy and simultaneously bolstered the health of anyone who used it?

Posted by Joey | April 26, 2010 4:15 PM

---

I remain stupified that people don't wear seat belts. I'm old enough to say "since my parents bought a car with belts in the back".

Since then: only once in my life have I not worn a seat belt. Sure, the first time in over 30 years...? car crash.

Posted by Elizabeth T | April 26, 2010 4:26 PM

---

If you're suggesting bikes, Joey, I would guess that since most of the fatalities are in greater Minnesota, your odds of being in an accident on highway at night on a bike might not be that advantageous.

Posted by Bob Collins | April 26, 2010 4:51 PM

---

The numbers in the last paragraph should be compared to the percentage of all drivers in those age groups. Might demographic changes explain the increase/decrease in rates?

Or maybe they should be compared to how many hours each age group spends on the road? They're statistics, so there are several ways to present them depending on the point one wants to make.

Either way, let's not punish any age group because of the actions of a few of its members.

Posted by Patrick | April 26, 2010 5:02 PM

---

For fear of an automobile, Bob? That's the point. If more people rode bikes, we'd all be a lot safer.

I'd actually be interested to see a comparison of rural vs. city bike safety. Most accidents happen when somebody does something sudden and unexpected. A bike on a remote highway might be better off than one in Roseville.

Posted by Joey | April 26, 2010 7:32 PM

---

According to statistics gathered by Bicycle Universe you are 3-10x more likely to die in a traffic accident when riding a bicycle as opposed to automobile.

Probably not as likely to kill someone else, though.

Posted by kennedy | April 27, 2010 9:09 AM

---

For the forseeable future, many of us are going to be driving cars for transportation. A lucky few have convenient public transport, and housing along public transit lines commands a price premium. Perhaps we *shouldn't* drive cars, but it is simply not plausible for me to do otherwise, unless I drove a motorcycle. That said, there is a cottage "industry" mostly involving non-for-profit volunteers who teach mortals how to control cars when given an opportunity to crash. Such physics and cognitive training has outcome benefits: 90% reduction in crash rates & 80% reduction in moving violations [speeding tickets, mostly.] This idea is contentious, and not popular with the Sierra Club nor the insurance industry. Both oppose, based upon distaste. [not data] My guess is that 3000 kids and adults receive such training yearly in MN. This is an inconsequential number, unless it is your child who avoids the crash & injury. See Cathy Wurzer's story fro 2007. Bruce Parker

Posted by Bruce Parker | April 27, 2010 4:48 PM

---

Post a comment

The following HTML tags are allowed in your comments:
+ Bold: <b>Text</b>
+ Italic: <i>Text</i>
+ Link: <a href="http://url" target="_blank">Link</a>
Fields marked with * are required.

Name*:

E-mail Address*:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments*:

Comment Preview appears above this form upon pressing the "preview" button. Edit your comment and press "preview" again, until you are satisfied with your comment.

Your comment may not appear on the blog until several minutes after it was submitted.

• E-mail this page
• Print this page
• Tweet this page
• Share this

Services

• Hourly Newscast
• HD Radio
• iPhone App / Mobile
• E-mail newsletters
• RSS feeds
• Podcasts
• Submit your photos
• Videos
• Weather
• Most e-mailed stories