digg

Join DiggAbout

5K+ teenagers die in car accidents ever year in the US

rd.com — It's the No. 1 killer of teens. This graphic takes a look at state laws to see which are the toughest. States with the strictest driving laws tend to have lower fatality rates. Where does your state rank?

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Chebsi, on 07/18/2008, -73/+81Natural selection at work.
    • chicken101, on 07/19/2008, -39/+33You're a douchebag.
      • ajv570, on 07/19/2008, -17/+4Well according to your -10 score, it seems that you sir are the douchebag
      • vault, on 07/19/2008, -2/+3^^ According to your -13, poetic justice.
    • Fhwqhgads, on 07/19/2008, -19/+20Exactly.

      The dumb and irresponsible die out.
      • dannyboy3020, on 07/19/2008, -1/+28Sometimes responsibility and being "dumb" has nothing to do with it. They are called "accidents" for a reason; not everyone is necessarily at fault. The ones who die in accidents are not always at fault.
      • thailand1972, on 07/19/2008, -0/+13A lot of totally innocent people just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Could be you or I.
      • thirteenthcor, on 07/19/2008, -2/+1But unless your in the target demographic, I'll be fine, and you will be dead.
      • frontporsche, on 07/19/2008, -4/+2> A lot of totally innocent people just happen

        That's how Natural selection works ... averages, probabilities, tendencies, etc. Even if a dumb driver is only slightly more likely to be killed than a smart driver, that's natural selection in action.
    • danomagnum, on 07/19/2008, -1/+57It's more of just "***** happens" than natural selection.
    • Myonosken, on 07/19/2008, -0/+27In some cases yes. In some cases no.
    • Crynos, on 07/19/2008, -0/+24Except when they kill someone else too. I guess it's dumb to drive at all then?
      • macweirdo42, on 07/19/2008, -4/+3That's why I don't drive. Even then, though, there's always concern that some maniac will run up onto the sidewalk and run you over or something.
      • douggmc, on 07/19/2008, -1/+6Yes ... and we need to ban cars completely. Cars kill people!
    • Jareth86, on 07/19/2008, -0/+22Unless a drunk crashes into you and kills you, but survives. Then isn't it just the opposite?
      • thealec, on 07/19/2008, -1/+15No. It's still your fault for not sitting inside on Digg at all times making ***** comments about how the death of teenagers is just natural selection at work.
    • BonersMilloy, on 07/19/2008, -4/+6I know, the ***** D bags whip around bends at 70 trying to be cool and wonder why they crash.
    • dannyboy3020, on 07/19/2008, -0/+10Every teenager that dies in a car accident has unfavorable traits?
      • thirteenthcor, on 07/19/2008, -3/+2Well, teenagers have unfavorable traits to begin with... Honestly I am a threat to modern society and a danger to those around me, and I'm not even a teenager anymore.


        Teens are where you learn how to treat others like *****, discriminate, and generally learn to become a worthless human being in some capacity or another.
    • franklymister, on 07/19/2008, -3/+18I was in an auto accident when I was 16. I was the back seat passenger.
      We ran off an icy road into a ditch at 70mph. I ended up in a cast for months, and my spine was twisted so that my spinal cord was nearly severed. I was lucky to come out of it alive.

      But I guess that had I died, you would consider that natural selection, huh?

      Idiot.
      • Jforsyth89, on 07/19/2008, -11/+12Why were you driving on an icy road at 70 mph?
      • gradivus, on 07/19/2008, -8/+3Yes. Just because it was YOU, doesnt mean it its not natural selection at work. Although nature favors the strong, the smart, and above all the lucky.
      • franklymister, on 07/19/2008, -1/+12I wasn't driving.

        Reading comprehension FTW.
      • Jforsyth89, on 07/19/2008, -8/+8Fine. Let me rephrase my question: Why were you in a car that was moving at 70 mph on an icy road.

        That doesn't sound smart or safe. There are many examples as to why the "natural selection at work" logic is stupid. This is not one of them.
      • franklymister, on 07/19/2008, -0/+11Were YOU able to control everything your friends did when you were 16?

        By your reasoning, anyone who was friends with someone that might, at some time in their life, potentially exhibit risky behavior, is a weak link in the gene pool.

        That would mean that only very cautious and meek individuals, and the people who hang around with them, would survive to procreate. Eventually, people would get weaker and meeker, until we began to select for Ralph Nader acolytes who wore full-body armor whenever they left the house for an ice cream.

        I think that society could get taken out pretty quickly if they were faced with another culture that had selected for the opposite traits instead.

        Anyhow, careful getting yourself into any potentially risky situations, like on an airplane, in a taxi, or under a crane. I'd hate to see natural selection take you out.
      • thirteenthcor, on 07/19/2008, -4/+2[[anyone who was friends with someone that might, at some time in their life, potentially exhibit risky behavior, is a weak link in the gene pool.]]

        Sounds like you made poor decisions about who to be friends with.

        My life has never been threatened by those around me because I make accurate judgments about the people I spend my time with. That means no drug users or abuses, no speed-freaks or testicle driven power junkies, and bigoted egotists out to prove whose miata is faster than the crown vic next to them.

        Natural selection also helps remove those from the gene pool that exhibit herd-like mentalities where those mentalities aren't a benefit for the species. Like allowing a dumb ass friend to be reckless not just with their life, but yours and possibly others as well.. you must take responsibility for putting yourself in that position unless you were forced into it. In which case, only then are you absolved of any responsibility.

        I was visiting my Fiance in the hospital before an operation, and I overheard the guy next to her talking to his friend that he had seriously injured because he was smoking pot while driving and crashed... He had a few bruises, while his friend had suffered some major *****. They were discussing when he was going to get out of the hospital so they could both get high, again.

        These are people that deserve to be removed from the gene pool.
      • sparsely, on 07/19/2008, -1/+2Whoever was driving 70 on an icy road was an idiot. Not your fault, but idiots often (inadvertently) take out others with them.
      • franklymister, on 07/19/2008, -0/+5Dude.
        Thirteenthcor.

        You're 6'8", 400 pounds, and you're telling ME about genetic fitness?

        http://www.okcupid.com/profile?u=thirteenthcor
      • vault, on 07/19/2008, -0/+2Unless you're extremely mature at 16 (which could mean you're just socially awkward, not necessarily more mature), you probably have been in dangerous situations. Some people get away with it, some don't unfortunately- franklymister was lucky.

        I remember at 16 drinking and smoking on a hill in the woods with my friends, and the cops would shine a flashlight and we'd run away. I think that is just part of growing up, and every parent worries about having a kid who made the same mistakes they did.
      • Jforsyth89, on 07/19/2008, -2/+1@franklymister: I think the whole "natural selection" stuff is dumb. However, that doesn't mean that your injury wasn't caused by bad decisions and stupidity. It is EXACTLY these kinds of actions that lead to motor vehicle death.

        Yes, there are freak accidents. Yes, I could die the next time I walk outside. However, it's a game of chances. If you place yourself in dangerous situations, than you should understand that you are more likely to be injured. It seems from your description of your crash that you view the situation as a "wow, it really sucked being involved in a freak accident and I am lucky to be alive"

        You should look back on it and think "Man, I was really incredibly stupid and almost got myself killed."
    • Disneyisevil50, on 07/19/2008, -3/+30Yeah, a kid died at my school last year who died while the car was stopped at a stop sign and got rammed from behind into traffic. So, you can go ***** yourself.
    • kamikazekeety, on 07/19/2008, -4/+2i would like to see a study of how many of these deaths were due to teenage drinking/drugs. i have a feeling a large percentage would be accounted for in such an investigation.
      • dildoolielly, on 07/19/2008, -1/+1---------"drinking/drugs"------------


        same thing, Alcohol is a drug

        Wake up from the programming would ya'?
      • vault, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1I would like to know that too, but either way it's proof our current drug education/D.A.R.E. program is not working. One of the specific reasons for that is that it's taught by cops, when really it should be recovering addicts who have been clean for a few years that speak to kids. Kids aren't blindly trusting of authority figures at an age where this matters- they're just beginning to test the limits of authority. A kid sees they lied about pot, they'll think they lied about other stuff as well.

        Yet a younger addict who cleaned himself or herself up can relate to them on a level a cop just can't. Of course this isn't very likely to happen anyway, seeing as D.A.R.E. is endorsed at every level of the public education system and designed to bilk taxpayers of as much money as possible for as little results as possible.
    • Tyrghast, on 07/19/2008, -1/+9I can't believe your being dugg for trolling...
    • immolation, on 07/19/2008, -7/+1You whiners are being a bit too literal.

      Minus innocent bystanders and bad luck, the OP is still 90+% right
      • RobotBuddha, on 07/19/2008, -0/+5The innocent bystanders is the point. Cars driven by idiots hit and kill people who are not idiots. The only thing being selected for is an aversion to being near cars at all.
    • bluezinc, on 07/19/2008, -3/+2Notice how this almost exactly matches the states that voted for Bush.

      I'd like to officially rename those states as "the ***** up states".
    • DeskFlyer, on 07/19/2008, -0/+4So this is natural selection? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfPNxJwzK2E
    • alpha88, on 07/19/2008, -4/+263 rednecks have buried you... lolol good thing most of them can't use computers or you'd be buried into oblivion.
      • alpha88, on 07/19/2008, -3/+2Uh oh, looks like a redneck found me too.. I hope he doesn't take out his shotgun, he might break his computer!
      • bluezinc, on 07/22/2008, -0/+2Rednecks exemplify what's wrong in this country.

        ***** Mississippi and Alabama.

        Notice how the obesity rates radiate out from there, drunk driving rates radiate out from there, and those are also some of the most Republican states in the Union. Oh, and let's not forget that nearly every major civil rights conflict happened in Mississippi and Alabama.

        Again, ***** Mississippi and Alabama.
  • geekchic, on 07/18/2008, -18/+80I wonder when Bush is planning a "war on motor car factories" then?
    • flashpointbob, on 07/19/2008, -1/+20he is, its called "high gas prices"
    • vexingmodstwo, on 07/19/2008, -16/+5You're a retard.
      • D14852001neko, on 07/19/2008, -8/+3No, actually, he is NOT a retard; you on the other hand, behave like one. I suppose you don't get the joke.
      • vexingmodstwo, on 07/19/2008, -8/+8Oh, I get the joke, retard. I just think anyone who can't go five minutes without somehow relating anything remotely negative to the Bush administration needs to maybe seek help or just be called a retard.
    • tientruong, on 07/19/2008, -7/+3Bush Sucks!
    • JoeJim, on 07/19/2008, -5/+4What is happening to digg?
    • duggdowncatisad, on 07/19/2008, -2/+2Right after the "war on motor-car fuel sources" is over with.
    • cotl, on 07/19/2008, -3/+4Gee, only 2 comments before the Bush bashing begins.... yawn!
    • KillerFuzzball, on 07/19/2008, -1/+1Psh, I'd say it's already started :p
  • versualize, on 07/18/2008, -11/+4Not particularly interesting data, but dugg for the interface.
    • fajitamelt, on 07/19/2008, -0/+3Yeah, about the interface...

      There were some problems. Some colors of states on the map did not match up with their respective pop-ups.
    • seefresh, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1yea, and a good solid chunk is missing where Alabama hits the gulf.
  • ironeus, on 08/01/2008, -4/+20Certain 'green' [low] states turn orange in their info/stats layer (i.e. Michigan, Nevada). While other 'red' [highest] states turn back to green like Missouri and Minnesota. Inaccurate interface.
    • dexter411, on 07/19/2008, -0/+4Select the color coding to be done by overall rating on top. The link supplied makes this ambiguous.
    • Lukesed, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1Lol. New Hampshire has low death rates and is thus rated green on the map, but they ranked it "Worst" when you mouse over because they have no seat belt laws whatsoever.
    • yurishoujo, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1Not to mention I'd like to know the criteria they're basing things on. Minnesota has a C rating in seatbelts, but it's required by law that everyone wear them. What the hell do you have to do to get an A, steal a rocket seat from NASA?
  • OfficeSpacing, on 07/18/2008, -20/+10Proof stricter driving laws are needed.
    • deathbychopstix, on 07/18/2008, -3/+3I definitely agree with this. My job entails looking through police reports from the highway patrol and when I'm having a slow day I'll read through some of the fatalities to see how the occurred. Almost every time the person wasn't wearing their seatbelt and a lot of times there are others in the car that were wearing it and they had very minor injuries.
      It's unfortunate. :(
      • Fhwqhgads, on 07/19/2008, -5/+9Sometimes the seatbelt kills a person. The government, forcing everyone to use one, isn't held accountable for the death of these people who were forced to use the device that killed them.

        Something to think about.
    • Fhwqhgads, on 07/19/2008, -5/+21We don't need stricter nanny laws, which is what they are.

      We simply need less morons. So far, this is working, based on this statistic.
      • audaciousgenre, on 07/19/2008, -8/+7These aren't nanny laws, it's just common sense. If the government spends a *****-ton of money building and maintaining roads, they should certainly regulate how people use them, so that we don't end up spending a *****-ton more money on road repairs, hospitals, ambulances, police response, etc.
      • asdfasdfasdfasd, on 07/19/2008, -1/+7They would be nanny laws. I've heard that term "common sense" used in similar contexts used to justify Government's encroaching reach into our lives. And by the way, the Government doesn't spend a ton on road maintenance, we, the taxpayers, do.

        Sometimes I can't tell which someone likes more, getting on their knees and sucking Government's ***** or bending over to get ***** by it.
      • Jareth86, on 07/19/2008, -5/+2"We simply need less morons."
        What a novel Idea! Why didn't I think of that, it was so simple; you digg-bertarians are clever.
        So tell us, how do we get rid of the rest?
      • Logicexe, on 07/20/2008, -1/+2It's not a nanny law when you regulate things that effect others. Your reckless driving or drunk driving puts other people's lives at risk. Doing drugs, smoking, drinking are all things that hurt you. You want to put yourself in an intoxicated state? Go ahead, fine with me. You want to slowly poison yourself with burnt leaves? Couldn't care less, I'll even give you a light.

        The moment your actions start putting innocent bystanders in danger is the moment it no longer becomes a nanny law. If you want to drive like a ***** idiot do it on a private track where you won't put people's lives in danger.
      • Fhwqhgads, on 07/20/2008, -0/+1Well seatbelt laws are nanny laws. So are traffic lights and signs and speed limits. Last time I checked, the only life I put at risk by not wearing a seatbelt is my own.

        As for the lights and signs and speed limits, they wouldn't be necessary if people were responsible drivers. Obviously drivers ed has very mediocre requirements.

        Nobody sane argues against drunk driving laws.

        Perhaps you should run Logic.exe on your brain.
      • Logicexe, on 07/21/2008, -0/+1I can agree with seatbelt laws and if you read my post you'll see I never once mentioned seat belts. I referred to reckless driving and drunk driving so seat belts are nothing but a red herring.

        We wouldn't need laws against murder, rape, child molestation, theft or driving drunk if people behaved responsibly and intelligently. The fact that they don't and often hurt others while engaging in those irresponsible activities is what necessitates the laws.

        If you best argument is that the laws would be unnecessary if people would stop doing the thing that's is outlawed you must really be searching hard to justify yourself.
      • Fhwqhgads, on 07/21/2008, -0/+1I agree with drunk and reckless driving. But since when do traffic lights and signs prevent that? They don't.

        A person can drive fast and ignore signs and lights when they know there's nobody around and many do, myself included. That's what I mean by responsibility. Knowing when to be more careful. But forcing people into it no matter what is just silly. Also a good moneymaker, did i mention that?
      • Logicexe, on 07/21/2008, -0/+1Again, you're still using the "if only everyone" argument. There are always going to be people who will skirt the edges of the rules. If your speed limit is 65 there will be people doing 75, if the limit was raised to 75 those same people would do 85. Irresponsible and reckless drivers are not going to get better if you relax the rules, they're going to get worse.

        If everyone really was a responsible driver, as I'm sure you are, then I would agree with you, there would be no need for these laws, but they aren't. People regularly take risks, or just don't pay attention to what they're doing or just pushes the limits of the law and it puts other people in danger.

        Why does the fact that they make money at all relevant? The government needs to bring in money somehow. I would rather it be from fining people who are breaking the law than straight up taxation.
      • Fhwqhgads, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1You just don't seem to get it.

        If while breaking a "law" you aren't putting others at risk, it's *****.
    • Justice101, on 07/19/2008, -2/+1NO! The only reason this is true is because these laws are so restrictive that no one wants to drive anymore, they killed having fun (fun fun fun until daddy takes the T-Bird away) which is what driving is supposed to be about; a right of passage. If I was making driving laws, instead of making them more restrictive, I'd open a massive complicated race track. 6 days a week there would be races only for people under 18. You'd think this would be dangerous, but they'd be able to get better acquainted with cars, and have more experience driving. Which would be dangerous at high speeds, but there'd be themes such as: no going over 20mph or 5mph etc. You'd have to fulfill a certain number of slow speed races before you could move up to the next speed, and there would be prizes and such for winning, and who didn't go off the track and such, like achievements. Think of it as the Wii of racing to produce better able young drivers. The laws are so ***** that when I turned 16 I said ***** it, I'll wait another year to get my license when most of the restrictions are passed. It's unfair to punish people who can't even elect their representatives. Old people can't drive either but they can vote so nobody's passing any laws to stop them. I don't know how many times I've almost been run over by someone over 70 walking down the sidewalk or riding my bike trying to help the environment. /rant : )
  • nevetssav, on 07/18/2008, -8/+121Am I the only one that things 5,000 deaths in a population of well over 303,824,646 (world factbook), considering we have a death rate of 8.27 / 1,000 people?

    Fact of the matter is that so many US driving problems would be solved if drivers sorted themselves responsibly, like in Europe: Slower cars on the right, faster drivers on the left. If you aren't passing someone, get in the right lane. It's actually forbidden to pass on the right in europe - and enforced.

    Instead, we have a far more arrogant population that takes the attitude of "I'm driving whatever speed I want, why should I slide over?" and so people doing even a mere 10 over get blocked by 80 year olds in the left lane, who cause straight up havoc. And then we get cries for laws that'll impact and detract from the competent drivers, not weaving in and out, but passing only on the left.

    When it comes to driving, the fact of the matter is that you can't legislate out stupid.
    • carlosos, on 07/19/2008, -1/+40I'm amazed that some people bury you. This is exactly the problem that I see. Instead of enforcing the laws like keeping your distance from the car in front of you, turn on lights at night/when it rains, and using turn signals. The only laws that I see being enforced is speeding even though the only times I almost got into accidents was because people can't do the three things I mentioned earlier.
      There are even countries with sections without speed limits (only recommended speed) and there are still less accidents than in the USA.
      • reddog093, on 07/19/2008, -0/+3Agreed. Although a lot of our roads are pretty ***** as well. When comparing to the autobahn in Europe, if a piece of road is deteriorated that section is cut out, removed, and a fresh piece of road is put in place. Here we just patch it. By me I have i95 that I drive to work (New York to Connecticut) and there are some pretty bad spots.
      • H0tKarl, on 07/19/2008, -1/+3True. Aggressive driving is caused by obstructive driving. Of course as with most things, we only worry about the symptom and ignore the cause.
      • RobotBuddha, on 07/19/2008, -0/+2The turn signal thing amazes me. I just moved to a new town, and almost nobody here uses turn signals to mean they're going to turn. They signal a second before, or 'as' they turn.
      • 32bytes, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1You don't seem to get it, speed limits are not about security of the citizens but about collecting money!
    • gavinhudson, on 07/19/2008, -1/+24Not 5,000 deaths. 5,000 teenage deaths. Here are the full statistics:

      In the United States:

      *Car accidents kill 42,000 people each year. (In 2006, 4,784 of these people were pedestrians being run over by cars. 773 were bicyclists.)

      *Another 2.8 million people are injured by cars each year. (That's about 1 in 100... every year.)

      *Another 70,000 people die each year from lung conditions that doctors link to air pollution.

      Total in the world:

      *Car accidents kill 1 million people each year.

      *Another 3 million people die each year from lung conditions that doctors link to air pollution.

      That's a hellofalot of people.

      Sources: http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx, http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update17.htm
    • Jenadae, on 07/19/2008, -2/+11I thing a lot of thinks.
    • DestroyFascism, on 07/19/2008, -0/+3Its actually true and other factors could be included like noise stress = fatigue etc. Having trucks constantly outside your window from 4 AM to 1 AM is downright ridiculous. I would suggest moving the house, Its easier.

      Rubber dust is carcinogenic. Warehouses are full of it.
      Diesel particulates (Mineral diesel) is one of the most cancerous substances known to man. The more cars in a city the higher the cancer and allergy rate, cities in places with a million plus and almost no cars but common appliances have significantly lower rates of both.
    • MizuhoChan, on 07/19/2008, -6/+1You're a bit mistaken. You can only overtake in the right lane over here, as we drive on the proper side of the road. The left side that is.
    • davidjunit, on 07/19/2008, -0/+4I totally agree that in the US people need to drive smarter and not necessarily slower. I see sooo many poor decisions made by slower drivers that it more than makes up for all of the speeding they don't do. The worst slow drivers are the ones that don't even try to match speed when merging onto the interstate; they try to merge into 70-80MPH traffic... DOING 50MPH!@#

      Slow doesn't equal safe if you're doing it wrong!
    • Number23, on 07/19/2008, -0/+2Anyone who think eruos drive better than we do in America should visit Rome.
    • alpha88, on 07/19/2008, -1/+1"Am I the only one that things 5,000 deaths in a population of well over 303,824,646 (world factbook), considering we have a death rate of 8.27 / 1,000 people?"


      Read that question again, and tell me it makes sense.

      Although, I know what you were attempting to say, and I still disagree. This is 5,000 TEEN deaths. So you have to consider the population of teens who can actually drive. I don't know that statistic, but it's a much higher death rate.
    • philberttheduck, on 07/19/2008, -1/+1Word..
  • BryanG412, on 07/18/2008, -6/+7Although one cannot claim cause and effect from such data, it is possible to conclude the number of teenage car deaths for a region is inversely proportional to the # of college graduates native to that region multiplied by the # of churches located within the region.
    • thealec, on 07/19/2008, -1/+1Churches?
      After getting out of church the one time I was forced to attend, I wanted to kill as many as possible.
      Otherwise I'll end up in heaven with these horrible people with the dead, dead eyes,,,
      • thirteenthcor, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1thus why this is an important statistic!
    • Clark3934, on 07/19/2008, -1/+2Or simply, the number of teenagers who drive, versus the number of teenagers who take public transportation (such as the case in a lot of the northeast).
    • DangerCollie, on 07/19/2008, -1/+2I think it was interesting that the states with the highest teenage death rates were many of the same supporting Bush. Coincidence?

      Can't get an abortion in those states but they let their teenagers get slaughtered on the highways. Yeah, they got their priorities in order.
  • westhaven, on 07/19/2008, -12/+4it seems US parents are very much careless...they all just keep cheating each other and forget their child's responsibility...
  • JonForTheWin, on 07/19/2008, -16/+48Good , more oxygen for me
  • unpolloloco, on 07/19/2008, -0/+21Tragic, but the fact is that inexperience is more of an issue than anything else in driving fatalities. Inexperience is an issue, no matter when you start driving.
    • Cerebron, on 07/19/2008, -0/+5I wish I could digg you ten times. My younger brothers are learning to drive, and our state has enacted some really annoying laws that they have to deal with since I got my license. I keep telling them, it doesn't matter how old you are, (to a point) new drivers are nervous and more likely to crash, it doesn't matter if you learn at 14, 16 or 18.
    • RobotBuddha, on 07/19/2008, -1/+1It's a great choice. Inexperienced teens who at least know the proper rules of the road. Experienced adults who've forgotten them. Or old people who're effectively driving blind.
    • bryceman111, on 07/19/2008, -0/+3Although, it is an issue for some longer that in it an issue for others. And, to be fair, there are some adults with plenty of experience who simply don't care, such as rich bitches in their SUVs on their cellphones who get mad at you when they, themselves, ***** up.
  • chetanthaker, on 07/19/2008, -3/+23Please dont drink and drive !!
    • dorkino, on 07/19/2008, -5/+3The key drinking THEN driving. I never drink AND drive.
    • reddog093, on 07/19/2008, -1/+13You might spill the drink.
  • tinybubs, on 07/19/2008, -1/+13So this means that 38K+ adults and pre-teens die in car accidents every year in the US. Why is there no outrage over that amount of carnage?
    • Fhwqhgads, on 07/19/2008, -4/+11It's not in Iraq. That's why.
    • fajitamelt, on 07/19/2008, -3/+2'Cause pre-teens don't drive and teens think they know everything.
    • PopcornDave, on 07/19/2008, -1/+2If it's not affecting "the children" it's not as sexy to the mass media.
    • RobotBuddha, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1Primarily because people like to think they're special snowflakes who can't be killed by chance. Admit how often people die by accident, in a situation they do every day, and we have to face up to the fact that we and anyone we love could just die tomorrow for absolutely no reason.
    • glmory, on 07/19/2008, -0/+4Probably because there are around two and a half million deaths per year in America. Most people are more likely to get outraged by something that kills 10 Americans, while ignoring anything that kills more than 1000. At that point it stops being news and starts being a statistic. News stories rarely cover statistics.
  • duckyinc, on 07/19/2008, -6/+11So what, Don't adults die too?
    • thealec, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1Well it's not like adults can be expected to live by example. If teens copy, it's their fault. Same with children.
      *sigh*
  • Theipolicy, on 07/19/2008, -2/+8I didn't even get my licsense until I was 18. Mainly because I know more people I went to school with got into accidents driving to school so early in the morning rather than driving drunk at night. Sleepy driving is worse than drunk driving in some cases.
    • aladrin, on 07/19/2008, -0/+4Long ago, I read that sleepy driving is very similar to drunk driving, actually... The reaction times, etc.

      Of course, if you're sleepy, you can wake up with a near miss or if someone honks their horn. If you're drunk, you'll still be drunk afterwards.
    • zspeed78, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1Its either being sleepy or in a hurry not to be late.. I had only a 7 minute drive to school everyday, so if I was behind schedule, I drove like an idiot to makeup the 3 minutes I was going to be late.. its not exactly easy to make up 3 minutes out of 7 total.. I remember almost taking out an entire car once because I tried to make a turn on yellow.. so ya.. my vote goes to making it a sin to be 3 minutes late.
      • quakken, on 07/19/2008, -0/+180 mph in a forty zone?
      • zspeed78, on 07/20/2008, -0/+1Sure, I suppose you could say that.. but really the part of in town driving that is slow isnt the speed limit but the stops. And either way, doing 80 in a 40 for several minutes in morning school traffic is impossible and ridiculous. But yes, I sped up too many times simply to not get my school stupid tardy points.
  • welliwonder, on 07/19/2008, -12/+16Thinning out the herd. ;-)
    • sladek, on 07/19/2008, -8/+3you idiot, the first post made exactly the same point, you don't need to do it again.
    • DestroyFascism, on 07/19/2008, -0/+3Is this a Linus comment?
  • DeadBabySoup, on 07/19/2008, -6/+11This isn't an outrage to a lot of people because we allow our children, yes children, get behind the wheel early on and do whatever the ***** they want. I learned to drive at an early age but I was never allowed the freedom we give kids these days on the road. Remember when your parents didn't let you play with sharp objects? It was because they knew you were too irresponsible to use it at that age.
    • MalDON, on 07/19/2008, -0/+2I get scared when I see how young these new drivers are. Just go around any highschool around the time school gets out. It's really bad.
    • elmetald00d, on 07/19/2008, -5/+5conservative prick. kids drive at 12 in brazil (laws are more like guidelines there) and the death rates are much higher here.

      the US enforces the dumbest laws.
      • H0tKarl, on 07/19/2008, -1/+3"Remember when your parents didn't let you play with sharp objects?"
        Actually my parents were strong advocates of 'learning things the hard way'. It was less effort for them, and I learned more quickly. It must have worked well enough because I'm still alive.
      • PepeGSay, on 07/20/2008, -0/+0lol, if your parents let you play with knives at 3 or 4 years old then it's not because they are enlightened educators, trust me on that one.
  • DestroyFascism, on 07/19/2008, -4/+23Bring in laws Like Australia. Drive a car like an idiot and the cops can seize it for a week, you have to pay a fine + $380 to get your car back, leave it longer and they charge parking fees. If you do it 3 times, the car is taken from you and sold. Honestly the young turds these days drive like total lunatics, cars are just too light and powerful now. An average V6 has more power than a V8 of 20 years ago. Doing burnouts and sending cars "sideways" around corners means "you have not a clue on what you are really doing and what you could do if you miss and ***** up". A life cannot be replaced and someone has worked hard to keep that life in existence. Be responsible!
    • H0tKarl, on 07/19/2008, -4/+1Plus the cars are all front wheel drive now, so they handle equally poor regardless of your driving skill.
      • zspeed78, on 07/19/2008, -1/+1Front wheel drive is easier for most people.. and better in wet. FWD cars 'push' or understeer when you give them too much gas, and that is easy to correct. When a RWD car gets loose and begins to rotate, its much harder to stop.
      • alpha88, on 07/19/2008, -1/+1RWD cars are used for drifting for a reason. FWD cars are much easier to handle.
    • cnot3, on 07/19/2008, -0/+3I think if we were to adopt any other country's automotive regulations, it should be Germany's. I want an Autobahn!
      • thirteenthcor, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1Das Autobahn vur mein Porsche Machine!!!!
  • kagebutsu, on 07/19/2008, -8/+21What a surprise that the worst states are almost all redneck states.
  • crazzy88ss, on 07/19/2008, -7/+17Man, the south just sucks at everything...
  • KingHumanity, on 07/19/2008, -9/+8Honestly, 5000 out of the total US population.....it's a problem, but it's not the most terrifying. Stop using scare tactics, and start using logic and sample size.

    I am 17, and have been driving for over a year, without any accidents. Don't know much about the US, but here in Toronto the streets are pretty good, and drivers are pretty decent and mannered.
    • jparkinson, on 07/19/2008, -1/+5Driving for a year without any accidents is not an accomplishment, it is what SHOULD happen and for many more years ahead of that. While I do agree with you that Canadian drivers are some of the most polite and well mannered drivers i've encountered... we still have a very large amount of idiots. All you have to do is commute to Toronto from Burlington every day and you'll see there is at least one serious accident on the QEW every day...
      • thirteenthcor, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1driving for ONE year IS an accomplishment if your total driving time equals ONE year.

        Driving time: 1 year
        Accidents in that time: 0
        Percentage Total of safe driving time: 100%
      • remccain, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1been there, done that. If you want to meet a Canadian *****, get on the 403 and wait for it.
    • ExRe, on 07/19/2008, -0/+5Just give driving in the US a try.

      I can't tell you how much stupid ***** I've seen, like some dumb woman trying to cross the divided highway in a car and she stops in the middle of two lanes of traffic instead of in the median.

      Or another one, where we were driving up a very busy road in a larger city and some woman tries to pull out of her driveway very fast without even looking for other cars. We had to slam on the horn for her to notice the pack of cars coming directly at her and swerve out of the way.
    • alpha88, on 07/19/2008, -0/+15,000 out of the total US population of teenagers who have their license is a much higher death rate than 5,000 out of the total US population, as you stated.

      The death rate is higher than it seems, and it's directly related to stupidity, hence the map.
  • zephyear, on 07/19/2008, -10/+4listen, i'm not trying to be a dick but

    more idiot teenagers in GOP states then in dem states?
    • Bkaufman, on 07/19/2008, -2/+12Please stop breathing. I grew up in the most democratic state per capita in the country (Rhode Island) and my high school was filled with morons who drove too fast/drove drunk/ drove like idiots.
    • Inohavehalos, on 07/19/2008, -1/+12I'm not trying to sound like dick but...

      Hitler had a mustache... Stalin had a mustache... See the connection?
    • CaptainJapan, on 07/19/2008, -1/+2...dickbutt.
  • ohmysac, on 07/19/2008, -3/+6Ban cars! It's for the children.
    • asdfasdfasdfasd, on 07/19/2008, -0/+2I agree! We need "common sense" laws that simply aim to stop the killing!
  • Jareth86, on 07/19/2008, -0/+3Rhode Island's DUI laws are rated a D, yet its in the green...
    • reddog093, on 07/19/2008, -0/+4Because of it's relatively low death rate.
    • H0tKarl, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1Those teens can hold their liquor.
    • thirteenthcor, on 07/19/2008, -1/+1Theres only like 5 people in Rhode Island.... Its like saying Carl's Corner, Texas pop 32, has a perfect driving record. OF course they do, you can WALK everywhere.
      • Jareth86, on 07/20/2008, -0/+1I'm guessing you've never been to Rhode Island. It's the most densely populated state in the country.
        And trust me when I say, Rhode Islanders drive *everywhere*, even if its in walking distance.
      • thirteenthcor, on 07/21/2008, -1/+1You can still walk everywhere ::pouts::
  • crowbar77, on 07/19/2008, -2/+9I blame The Fast and the Furious, that movie inspired a whole generation to take ***** cars and race them. Seriously, if i see one more neon with chrome rims...
    • quakken, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1Yeah, neons suck. Why would you want to drive one of those pieces o' junk anyway?
  • Projektorboy, on 07/19/2008, -4/+4Ban teenagers! They're driving up insurance rates with their irresponsible driving!
  • digglet08, on 07/19/2008, -5/+4Those are some pretty shocking stats. 14 and a half is way to young to drive.
    • ExRe, on 07/19/2008, -1/+4No, it isn't. AGE != COMPETENCY.

      I've seen 10 year olds smarter than 30 year olds.
      • digglet08, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1I'm barely old enough to drive myself, and I agree with you, competency should be more important than age. But you can't argue the statistics. The MAJORITY of young people are less equipped for driving than those older than them. Would you be okay letting a "really smart ten year old" drive? I don't think its really a question of intelligence.
    • vault, on 07/19/2008, -1/+114 and a half is definitely too young to drive unless you need to for operating family farm equipment or something. It's not even a competency thing, it's a maturity thing.
  • nick2, on 07/19/2008, -3/+3Two teens I know died in two separate car crashes in the past week and a half. :(
  • Munceenuts, on 07/19/2008, -3/+4California is green in every category and they have the strictest laws, hmm..
    • JoeJim, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1And San Francisco was recently rated the "most walkable city" and a huge percentage of LA's population uses mass transportation. Please don't credit the laws too quickly. I wish this article would have addressed this.

      What about a third data set ranking deaths per 100,000 against users of mass transport per 100,000. It would have shown a strong negative correlation, imo.
  • fuckingusername, on 07/19/2008, -7/+1Dugg for a non Apple-Ipod-PS3-Obama -McCain-Wii-Face Book-My space
    article
  • Inohavehalos, on 07/19/2008, -2/+4The more square a state is... the more die by car accident...?
  • deeflo23, on 07/19/2008, -1/+8seriously i want to know. why are southern sates and mid-western states the highest??
    • immolation, on 07/19/2008, -2/+1The south has high rates of alcoholism, the worst education in the country, a heritage of racing, and has lax drunk driving laws...
    • JoeJim, on 07/19/2008, -0/+4Less concentrated population centers. This hurts twice - More drivers per 100,000 AND more driving per driver.
    • Puisapres, on 07/19/2008, -0/+4Actually, the South typically has lower binge drinking/alcoholism rates than the rest of the country. Most of these fatalities happened on rural roads, which are A) not kept up very well, B) harder to navigate, and C) easy to speed on if there isn't a lot of traffic and you know that cops aren't around.
  • Tippx, on 07/19/2008, -1/+8how many elderly people die in car accidents every year? im sure alot of the time the elderly are worse drivers than the teenagers, but that statistic isnt looked at.
    • immolation, on 07/19/2008, -1/+0Elderly people vote... Fatcats don't wanna rock that boat... These are the people that say "From my cold, dead hands..."
    • wonderchemist, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1Sorry, but stats (from the DOT) show the worst drivers are inexperienced young drivers (16-17), followed by age 75+ drivers.

      Of course the types of accidents they get into are different. Half of the accidents cited for the 16-17 group are "single vehicle" accidents. While the oldest drivers are most involved in failure to yield accidents.
  • jparkinson, on 07/19/2008, -3/+8Here's an interesting comparison...

    How many teens are killed due to car accidents every year vs how many teens are killed from smoking pot...

    Yep, the states have their laws in order for sure...
  • Devotia, on 07/19/2008, -1/+19New Hampshire, despite having one of the lowest deaths per capita, is in the worst group solely because of their lack of a fine for not wearing a seatbelt.

    I call shenanigans.
    • Jforsyth89, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1Doesn't New Hampshire have seatbelt laws for children under 18? I'm pretty sure I saw a sign for it today when I was driving through.
      • Devotia, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1Yes, under 18 you have to wear one, although if you're not I BELIEVE the driver pays your fine anyway.
      • snowshoeless, on 07/19/2008, -0/+5Devotia, you're right -- it is interesting to note that even though NH got lumped into the WORST category, they still had the 11th lowest fatality rate/100k.

        Are we the only state in the country w/out a mandatory seat belt law? No helmets, no seatbelts -- we take LIVE FREE OR DIE very seriously here.
      • thirteenthcor, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1I dated a girl from NH, man you guys are jacked up on something, always wound up (her ENTIRE family is from NH 5th generation italian and wound up) never calm down, never relax, everything is always so serious.

        You guys keep me from ever wanting to travel above the mason-dixon line to the northeast.

        I do have to say one thing, You for damn sure will protect my 2nd amendment with your lives, and for that, I salute you.
    • cnot3, on 07/19/2008, -0/+4Your charge of shenanigans is just.
    • alpha88, on 07/19/2008, -3/+1So you're saying having no seatbelt laws is GOOD? You're a retard.
  • reddog093, on 07/19/2008, -1/+5Weird to see California having stricter laws, yet a higher average death rate than New York.
    • duggdowncatisad, on 07/19/2008, -0/+2Those death rates are per 100,000 population, and doesn't account for how much people drive. If you haven't already, visit both LA and NYC, and see which city you think is easier to live in without a car.
  • Pake, on 07/19/2008, -2/+5North Carolina should never be given a best rating. The courts are so lax on the drunk driving laws it's ridiculous. I've known quite a few people who have been charged with DUI's for blowing well past 0.08 only to watch the courts drop the case and they drive off freely.
    • Jforsyth89, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1My friend went to high school in North Carolina. He said that a kid in his class got 3 DUI's while still in high school. My first reaction was: How in the HELL did he still have his license?
  • paulmer2003, on 07/19/2008, -2/+5Blame cellphones and other distractions.

    Also, it should be harder to get a license (by more thorough testing) and people who get a DUI shouldn't just get a slap on the wrist.
    • ncat135, on 07/19/2008, -1/+2I'm a teenager who has been driving for a few months now.
      You're absolutely right when it comes to cellphones/distractions. It's impossible to drive when you're distracted and it's nighttime...

      Oh, and there's this kid who goes to my school.. he's pretty slow. Well, okay, he's really slow. The police officer who ran the driver's ed class passed him even though he failed, because he felt sorry for him and thought he was "trying his best"

      Since then, he's gotten into about 3-4 accidents, one of them where he backed up into someone's parked car twice and then drove away without even getting out of the car. He wasn't trying to escape, he's not an *****... he just didn't even realize what was going on.

      The cop was trying to do him a favor, but instead created another hazard. Giving huge privileges like driving due to pity is just a bad idea. This kid still has his license.
      • quakken, on 07/19/2008, -0/+2that's just... sad. Driving is completely a privilege. Anybody who comes close to not being able shouldn't be. Why are people digging you down?
  • lorductape, on 07/19/2008, -0/+4My friend was hit head on by a drunk driver just a week ago; thank god for modern car technology, she was ok except for a concussion.

    It had nothing to do with the driving laws

    Someone else felt like driving drunk.
    • sat0shi, on 07/20/2008, -0/+1Actually, it does have something to do with the driving laws. Since America allows a legal limit of alcohol, people feel that they can drive drunk or that they will "be ok." In Japan there is ZERO TOLERANCE for drinking with alcohol in your system. If you blow a 0.00001 then you're getting slapped with a DUI. This has cut down on drunk driving immensely. Not to mention that restaurants, bars, or anywhere else where alcohol is served can also be charged (as happened recently in a DUI case) if they allow someone to drive after they've had drinks. As a result, we have nearly no drunk driving accidents now. I would say probably only a handful a year (at least where I live, in Nagoya).
  • CaptainJapan, on 07/19/2008, -0/+7We don't need more driving laws, we need to pay more attention when we drive. Seriously you guys, you drive like *****.
  • fuzzlog, on 07/19/2008, -0/+8How many of them learned how to drive from racing video games?
  • whiteguysamurai, on 07/19/2008, -4/+2Won't some one please think of the children?!?!?!
    Sorry, it needed to be done/
  • JFallon126, on 07/19/2008, -1/+5I'm sorry but almost every teenage auto related death (where the teen is at fault) is preventable by common sense. You drive distracted/drunk you risk getting killed. If you want to ignore that risk then you're an idiot.
  • dPsm, on 07/19/2008, -5/+2OK. There are 6.6+ kkk people in the world so 5k teens isn't such a big deal..
  • itsthemechanic, on 07/19/2008, -0/+2Well, that's what happens when you give any idiot with a pulse a driving licence. Make the test actually hard, and expensive, like in Europe. For those who can't hack it, run some buses. Works over here.
  • DiggGeek24, on 07/19/2008, -2/+3Think of the children lets ban cars.
  • franklymister, on 07/19/2008, -3/+538,588 auto fatalities last year.
    5,000 teens killed by cars.

    29,569 gun deaths.
    1,460 teens killed by guns.

    Looks like it's time to ban cars.
    • igyigyigy, on 07/19/2008, -2/+4You seem to be missing the 'ease of access' and 'frequency of use' factors that make your stats totally meaningless
    • ncat135, on 07/19/2008, -1/+3Way to put stuff into context, genius.

      Considering cars provide needed transportation, and guns only work to murder others more quickly...

      Two whole different things here. They both are dangerous, but only one of them exists solely for that purpose.



  • prompel, on 07/19/2008, -0/+4Testosterone. It's the No. 1 killer of teens.
  • manfatallyslain, on 07/19/2008, -1/+3Well on the bright side, getting into college is easier for the rest of us
  • itsme92, on 07/19/2008, -0/+2I don't know about the GDL laws here in California. On one hand, nobody follows them. 1 year before you can drive others? Give me a break. But when you are driving your friends around, you do everything else right because if you get pulled for speeding or something you're looking at two tickets instead of one.
  • Typhoon2009, on 07/19/2008, -1/+3It's good to see DC on top of a list that isn't about crime.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 87 of 87 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.