Report on worst drivers by state

"Ken C. M." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

It's probably been covered here before. But just in case it hasn't:
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Insurance/Insureyourcar/P151501.asp?GT1=8288

Where I live rates 40th. Which doesn't surprise me at all.

Ken
-
New cycling jersey: $49
new cycling shorts: $39
Not being a slave to the petrol pump: priceless.

Illinois only rates 22d? And Arkansas only rates 27th? I'm impressed. I
bet if they did a separate rating for the city, the suburbs and downstate
they'd get 3 different results. . . . .

I'm surprised that Califorina of the 27 different drivers license tests
rated 14th, too.

Charles of Schaumburg.

"Ken C. M." <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

It's probably been covered here before. But just in case it hasn't:
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Insurance/Insureyourcar/P151501.asp?G
T1=8288

Seems to me that report is pretty worthless. Most of the data points are
very tightly bunched between 78 and 88%. Only top 2 and last 2 were
noticably better or worse than average. Interestingly, the best 2 states are
in the northwest: Oregon and Washington. The worst 2 were DC and Rhode
Island in the east. In fact, the bottom 6 were all eastern states, while
most of the top 20 were western or midwestern states.

Ken said:

"Ken C. M." <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

It's probably been covered here before. But just in case it hasn't:
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Insurance/Insureyourcar/P151501.asp?G
T1=8288

Seems to me that report is pretty worthless. Most of the data points are
very tightly bunched between 78 and 88%. Only top 2 and last 2 were
noticably better or worse than average. Interestingly, the best 2 states are
in the northwest: Oregon and Washington. The worst 2 were DC and Rhode
Island in the east. In fact, the bottom 6 were all eastern states, while
most of the top 20 were western or midwestern states.

Well I am sure that there has been other studies done.
Things that should be included:
by age
by city
by previous driving record
by eyesight
by education level
by type of vehicle they usually drive

And there are probably even more variables that I can't even think of
off the top of my head.

Ken
--
New cycling jersey: $49
new cycling shorts: $39
Not being a slave to the petrol pump: priceless.

Dear Ken:
By and large this is not a significant statistic. What I'm more
worried about is how good/bad is that particular driver in that
particular car that's on my left at the intersection.....

Robert Leone [email hidden]

SNIP the OP.

Quoted message said:

Dear Ken:
By and large this is not a significant statistic. What I'm more
worried about is how good/bad is that particular driver in that
particular car that's on my left at the intersection.....

Robert Leone [email hidden]

SNIP the OP.

But if a comprehensive study were to be done it might give you a better
idea of places to avoid living / riding.

Ken
--
New cycling jersey: $49
new cycling shorts: $39
Not being a slave to the petrol pump: priceless.

contact me here: http://www.bikesandmoreonline.com/contact.html

Ken C. M. said:

Ken wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Ken C. M." <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's probably been covered here before. But just in case it hasn't:
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Insurance/Insureyourcar/P151501.asp?G
T1=8288

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Seems to me that report is pretty worthless. Most of the data points
are very tightly bunched between 78 and 88%. Only top 2 and last 2
were noticably better or worse than average. Interestingly, the best 2
states are in the northwest: Oregon and Washington. The worst 2 were
DC and Rhode Island in the east. In fact, the bottom 6 were all
eastern states, while most of the top 20 were western or midwestern
states.

Quoted message said:

Well I am sure that there has been other studies done. Things that
should be included:
by age
by city
by previous driving record
by eyesight
by education level
by type of vehicle they usually drive

Quoted message said:

And there are probably even more variables that I can't even think of
off the top of my head.

Insurance companies have all these statistics, but publish them only
periodically, when it suits them (it's proprietary information).

Note that this article was about scores on a written test of driving
knowledge. It's interesting, but the results don't necessarily correlate
to accident rates. For example, the lowest highway accident rates are
usually cited as being in Virginia and California, respectively, and the
worst, Wyoming and South Carolina. Note that South Carolina has a very
high percentage of unlicensed drivers, which wouldn't have been covered by
this report.

Matt O.

[email hidden] wrote in news:1149433251.769526.204580
@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com:

Quoted message said:

By and large this is not a significant statistic. What I'm more
worried about is how good/bad is that particular driver in that
particular car that's on my left at the intersection.....

How do you figure that out?

Hello Sally:
It's not sure-fire, but I look for the silhouette of a cell phone
antenna, beer bottle outlines, the dreaded flat-top Iced Frappuccino
cup, alternating left-right turn signal activation, lack of turn signal
activation combined with front wheel angles not going straight ahead,
and (promise not to report me to Marvel Comics' intellectual property
defense team) "Spidey Sense." Again, it's not sure-fire.

Robert Leone

Sally said:

[email hidden] wrote in news:1149433251.769526.204580
@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com:

Quoted message said:

By and large this is not a significant statistic. What I'm more
worried about is how good/bad is that particular driver in that
particular car that's on my left at the intersection.....

How do you figure that out?

"Ken C. M." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

It's probably been covered here before. But just in case it hasn't:
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Insurance/Insureyourcar/P151501.asp?GT1=8288

Where I live rates 40th. Which doesn't surprise me at all.

I think the more significant statistic for bikers is the fatality rate.
There are statistics somewhere on the 700 or so bikers killed in an average
year, and less reliable statistics on the estimated number of bike miles.
It seems to me that, when I saw the figures some years ago, Florida ranked
dead last in bicycle safety. Does anyone recall what figures there are on
this and where?

The other thing I'd find of interest is the subjective evaluation of riders
(I am one) who have biked in many states. My own reaction is that the areas
where I've felt least safe are not whole states, but arterials in the
suburbs/exurbs of many major cities.

Ron Wallenfang said:

The other thing I'd find of interest is the subjective evaluation of
riders (I am one) who have biked in many states. My own reaction is
that the areas where I've felt least safe are not whole states, but
arterials in the suburbs/exurbs of many major cities.

I agree, and the problem with these is that they're too narrow,
particularly in the southeast.

I often compare Orange County, CA, with northern VA, which are similar in
many ways -- the style of commercial development and housing, etc. While
Orange County is eminently bikeable, NoVA is one of the most bike-hostile
environments I've ever experienced.

The difference is the standard lane in CA is 14' while in VA it's only
12', plus CA arterials generally have bike lanes too.

Matt O.

Matt O'Toole said:

Ron Wallenfang said:

The other thing I'd find of interest is the subjective evaluation of
riders (I am one) who have biked in many states. My own reaction is
that the areas where I've felt least safe are not whole states, but
arterials in the suburbs/exurbs of many major cities.

I agree, and the problem with these is that they're too narrow,
particularly in the southeast.

I often compare Orange County, CA, with northern VA, which are similar in
many ways -- the style of commercial development and housing, etc. While
Orange County is eminently bikeable, NoVA is one of the most bike-hostile
environments I've ever experienced.

The difference is the standard lane in CA is 14' while in VA it's only
12', plus CA arterials generally have bike lanes too.

Matt O.

Funny, but it seems that from what I have read much of the east coast is
considered to be non-bike-friendly, whereas many of the most bicycle
friendly areas are out on the west coast. For example Seattle and
surrounding areas are considered friendly whereas Boston is considered
by some to be hostile towards bike riders.

Ken
--
New cycling jersey: $49
new cycling shorts: $39
Not being a slave to the petrol pump: priceless.

contact me here: http://www.bikesandmoreonline.com/contact.html

Ken C. M. said:

Funny, but it seems that from what I have read much of the east coast is
considered to be non-bike-friendly, whereas many of the most bicycle
friendly areas are out on the west coast. For example Seattle and
surrounding areas are considered friendly whereas Boston is considered
by some to be hostile towards bike riders.

Older areas on the east coast are some of the best for biking, especially
small to medium sized towns. This is because they took their shape before
the age of the automobile. They're built to a human scale instead of
auto-scale, so traffic is naturally calmed. For example I really like
riding around Northampton/Amherst/Hadley, MA, which is a very bike
friendly area despite lots of traffic. Where I live in Blacksburg, VA is
terrific too. In fact I can't think of a better place to live for a
cyclist.

Even though the West has a lot of sprawl, it's generally better
planned, and the high speed arterial roads are designed to accommodate
bikes (wider, etc.)

Matt O.

"Ken C. M." <[email hidden]> wrote >

Quoted message said:

Funny, but it seems that from what I have read much of the east coast is
considered to be non-bike-friendly, whereas many of the most bicycle
friendly areas are out on the west coast. For example Seattle and
surrounding areas are considered friendly whereas Boston is considered by
some to be hostile towards bike riders.

Ken

During my years in the Boston area (1966-69), the big problem with motorists
was the "nose job" - "stopped" cars nosing out far forward of the stop
sign, just out of the traffic lane, and right around where bicycles were
going past.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Ron Wallenfang said:

"Ken C. M." <[email hidden]> wrote >

Quoted message said:

Funny, but it seems that from what I have read much of the east coast is
considered to be non-bike-friendly, whereas many of the most bicycle
friendly areas are out on the west coast. For example Seattle and
surrounding areas are considered friendly whereas Boston is considered by
some to be hostile towards bike riders.

Ken

During my years in the Boston area (1966-69), the big problem with motorists
was the "nose job" - "stopped" cars nosing out far forward of the stop
sign, just out of the traffic lane, and right around where bicycles were
going past.

I judiciously do that on my bike sometimes, to cross busy
arterials where there's no traffic light. I confess, it's
playing on the apprehensions of the drivers -- they don't
know if I'm gonna stay put, or bolt out in front of 'em,
so more sooner than later they stop for me. It works best
when the near-side cross-street traffic lanes are busy, but
there's a clear break in the far-side lanes. Besides, if
there are parked cars on the cross street, I pretty well
/have/ to do it to get decent sight-lines of the cross-traffic,
and I ain't gonna go if I can't see what's coming. If drivers
stop for me while I'm just trying to see what's going on, I'll
gladly accept their graciousness.

cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

Ken C. M. said:

It's probably been covered here before. But just in case it hasn't:
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Insurance/Insureyourcar/P151501.asp?GT1=8288

Where I live rates 40th. Which doesn't surprise me at all.

Ken
-
New cycling jersey: $49
new cycling shorts: $39
Not being a slave to the petrol pump: priceless.

RI at bottom of list? Surprising. Being a survivor of seven-years in MA, I was
betting MA would hold that spot. But other N.E. states are down there too.
Except for ME and VT. VT near the top?? That *really* surprised me. Encircled
by some of the worst-driver states - NH, MA, NY - I wonder how does VT does so
well.

--
Michael
in upstate NY

Michael said:

RI at bottom of list? Surprising. Being a survivor of seven-years in MA, I was
betting MA would hold that spot. But other N.E. states are down there too.
Except for ME and VT. VT near the top?? That *really* surprised me. Encircled
by some of the worst-driver states - NH, MA, NY - I wonder how does VT does so
well.

Well being a native of R.I. I can tell you that most of the state has
bad drivers. I think VT and NH probably score a little higher because
they attract a lot of tourists, some of which probably ride bicycles in
and around the states.

Ken
--
New cycling jersey: $49
new cycling shorts: $39
Not being a slave to the petrol pump: priceless.

contact me here: http://www.bikesandmoreonline.com/contact.html

Ron Wallenfang said:

During my years in the Boston area (1966-69), the big problem with motorists
was the "nose job" - "stopped" cars nosing out far forward of the stop
sign, just out of the traffic lane, and right around where bicycles were
going past.

Oh yes. That is epidemic in eastern MA. The height of the art is to then roll
forward, *into* the near lane ever so slightly, looking anywhere *except*
directly at on-coming traffic in said lane, but depending on peripheral vision
to spot on-coming vehicles. The idea behind that seems to be that on-coming
drivers will slow if they think that the nosing driver doesn't see them. If the
noser intends a left turn, then he/she moves to Nose Job, Step 2: pull out fully
into the afore-mentioned lane and STOP, all the while looking to the right -
*never* to the left - for the opportunity to complete the left turn. Again, the
thinking seems to be that approaching cages will not broadside a car.
"Arrogant" springs to mind.

I moved from MA to NY State 26 years ago, and in the mean time have witnessed
only a few fully executed Nose Jobs. There is a lot of Nose Job, Phase 1
transgressing - sitting astride a crosswalk - however.

--
Michael

Quoted message said:

Dear Ken:
By and large this is not a significant statistic. What I'm more
worried about is how good/bad is that particular driver in that
particular car that's on my left at the intersection.....

Robert Leone [email hidden]

While there may or may not be much significance in slight differences
among the different states, this seems a more serious problem:

---
If the test results are any guide, America's pedestrians are in deep,
deep trouble.

* 20% of drivers do not know that a pedestrian has the right of way
at a marked or unmarked crosswalk.
* 1 in 3 drivers don't usually stop for pedestrians - even if
they're in a crosswalk or at a yellow light.
* One-third admit they speed up to make a yellow light even when
pedestrians are in the crosswalk.
---

I'd wager motorists knowledge of laws related to bicycling is equally
low.