Question of the Day - 29 October 2013

First up, thanks for the compliment -- Question of the Day and Today’s News are definitely the most popular features on our website in terms of daily traffic, and we endeavor to offer wide appeal with both, in terms of catering to niche topics, those of broad concern, and (particularly when it comes to Today’s News), items of immediate local interest, whether you’re a resident or a visitor. That’s not least because we know some 15,000 people, the majority of whom are residents, tend to follow the latter on Twitter and are looking for relevant up-to-the-minute tidbits, be it an unfortunate rush-hour pile up here, or a free beer somewhere over there...

As to your question, it looks as though you will be as surprised at the findings as we are, since our gut feeling was also that our high accident rate likely has a lot to do with unfamiliarity. According to the statistics, however, not so much.

While official reports are only currently available going back to 2010, we’re guessing the pattern remains fairly constant (we checked the results for the previous year, for comparison’s sake). So, here’s the lowdown, according to the official Traffic Crash Reports prepared by the Nevada Dept. of Transportation (in conjunction with the Dept. of Motor Vehicles, Dept. of Public Safety, and local law enforcement agencies):

• While the total annual "vehicle miles" in Nevada is increasing, the fatal and injury-crash rates actually went down over the decade to 2010, by 31.6% and 19.3%, respectively.

• Similarly, from 2001 to 2010, the state’s population increased by 46.2%, while the total number of annual crashes also fell by 13.4%.

• There appears to be an inverse correlation between unemployment and the traffic-accident rate: When one goes up, the other goes down, which is somewhat counter-intuitive.

• By far the highest causal factor cited in traffic accidents is intoxication, whether from alcohol or drugs, with 8,197 people injured or killed during 2010 in a total of 11,527 accidents where one or the other was involved. In that year, 21.7% of fatal accidents in Nevada involved alcohol.

• When we get to the origin of the drivers involved, however, here's where it gets surprising. During 2010, there were 89,879 drivers involved in 51,664 crashes in Nevada. Of those drivers, no less than 92.6% were from Nevada, with California representing the next-highest figure, with 3,801 drivers or 4.35% of those involved. No other single state contributed a whole percentage point of drivers, while the entire Eastern region was responsible for just 1.1% and the Midwest for 1.2%. Foreigners -- some of whom are used to driving on the other side of the road! -- accounted for a mere 0.5%.

  It looks like 2010 was no statistical anomaly, because in 2009 87.26% of crash-involved drivers were from Nevada, too.

So, what are we to conclude from this? One point would be that a lot of visitors tend to rely on public transportation of one form or another, while those who dare to go under their own steam are perhaps extra-cautious. On the other hand, perhaps familiarity breeds contempt among us locals. Although the majority of those involved in accidents have a Nevada drivers license, that does not necessarily connote by any means that they are from this town or state, nor even that they've necessarily been here that long, so the "localness" of these figures is somewhat deceptive.

Still, whichever way you peel this banana, it does seem as though placing any blame for our high vehicle-accident rate on visitors would be most unfair.