Comment by smitherfield | Hacker News Reader

Comment by smitherfield | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Wow. As a Massachusetts driver, I would not have expected that. I've traveled pretty extensively within the US and Europe and I (and many, many others) consider Massachusetts, or at least the Boston metro area, to have the worst drivers.

Three possible explanations for the low fatality rate:

- Bars, nightclubs and stores that sell alcohol must close by 2 AM, plus our other state and local alcohol sales regulations (particularly on hard liquor) are among the most restrictive of any state.

- The additional fatalities caused by the relatively high number of bad drivers are more than offset by forcing the silent majority of good drivers (and pedestrians) to maintain concentration and alertness.

- Many elderly drivers move to warmer states, and the ones who stay tend to be in better health than the ones who leave.

Edit: A fourth possible factor is that we're one of the most affluent states and cars succumb to corrosion faster than average due to the long, harsh winters (off the top of my head, I can't think of any state that's both more affluent and has longer winters), so cars are newer (therefore, safer) than average.

It's more likely due to Massachusetts' high degree of urbanization. Urban areas have slower traffic. Slower traffic is less deadly.

See Jeff Speck's "AMERICAN CAR-NAGE" passage in Walkable City: https://books.google.com/books?id=kbfeAQAAQBAJ&lpg=PA37&ots=...

I'd assume it's just that Boston traffic is so slow that it's impossible to get up to speed enough to kill anybody - all the fast traffic is on expressways like the Mass Pike, which are far safer because of controlled access.

Slow traffic just plain doesn't kill people.

Sprawl and exurb farming country is where fatalities happen. That's where people are driving fast but without the protection that expressways provide. Massachusetts is one of the most urbanized states, and has less of that fatality-prone terrain.

I'm not sure I really buy that; Massachusetts is bigger than just Boston (which has plenty of "fast" roads, e.g. Storrow Drive) and has roads of all shapes, speeds and sizes, including a great deal of "sprawl" in the suburbs (~6X the population of urban Boston/Somerville/Cambridge) and half the state by land area worth of "exurb farming country."

IME, driving in Boston seems to involve the most potentially-deadly situations given the number of pedestrians and cyclists. Twice in the past year driving on Comm Ave I've had to swerve into the left lane to avoid hitting one, first a cyclist who blasted through a red light at an intersection, then a woman who, on her phone, dressed all in black at night, stepped directly in front of me in 30mph traffic, half a double-length block from the nearest crosswalk or stoplight.

If I had glanced at my phone, adjusted the radio, talked to a passenger or otherwise had less-than-instant reflexes in either of those moments those people might well be dead, or else severely injured. (Also, I and others could've been injured or worse if I'd swerved into another car).

Another explanation:

- You are demonstrating the difference between anecdotes and data. Massachusetts' drivers aren't worse than than those elsewhere.

No, people from out of state complain about MA drivers too (who are known as "Massholes" in the rest of New England). If you want data, take the interstate through MA and some other states and count the number of lane changes with and without turn signals.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com