U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 11-13-2010, 01:29 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX
16,748 posts, read 41,960,149 times
Reputation: 9277

Advertisements

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration tabulates the number of traffic fatalities by County. FARS Encyclopedia: States - Fatalities and Fatality Rates I had to look up the population for each county and do the math to come up with a fatality rate per 100,000 population in order to be able to compare the numbers. I calculated this only for counties with a total fatality count over 30. and came up with the following list.

Fatality rate/100,000 population, County (City), fatalities, population

23.61 Smith (Tyler) 47 198,705
20.52 Tarrant (Ft. Worth) 134 653,320
16.55 Montgomery (Hus-SL-Baytown) 74 447,718
16.52 McLennan (Waco) 42 230,213
15.63 LUbbock 38 242,628
10.59 Nueces (Corpus) 33 313,645
9.27 El Paso 70 755,085
9.16 Travis (Austin) 94 1,026,158
9.02 Bexar (San Antonio) 149 fatalities 1,651,448
8.53 Williamson (Austin/RR) 35 410,686
8.32 Harris (Hus-SL-Baytown) 339 4,070,989
6.42 Dallas 160 2,492,850

There may be a few counties with a low fatality count and low population that could still have a higher Fatality Rate then some of these, but these are certainly the major players.

It surprised me to see the differences between Dallas and Ft. Worth, given that they are right next to each other. I wonder why such a difference?
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-13-2010, 01:41 PM
 
Location: Metromess
11,798 posts, read 22,330,872 times
Reputation: 5096
Fatality rates don't necessarily indicate where the worst drivers are. There are too many other variables.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2010, 01:45 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX
16,748 posts, read 41,960,149 times
Reputation: 9277
I agree fatality rates are not the only variable, but they are certainly a very important one.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2010, 02:38 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,509 posts, read 28,689,574 times
Reputation: 7631
look at FW go. Yay Fort Worth, show those Dallas people who are the king of the road. Run them off.


lol just kidding. anyway Tarrant County has a lot more people than 650K, it is closer to 2 million. so your numbers for FW are waaaaaay overblown
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2010, 03:13 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX
16,748 posts, read 41,960,149 times
Reputation: 9277
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove View Post
look at FW go. Yay Fort Worth, show those Dallas people who are the king of the road. Run them off.


lol just kidding. anyway Tarrant County has a lot more people than 650K, it is closer to 2 million. so your numbers for FW are waaaaaay overblown
You are right, that explains the discrepancy with Dallas. I grabbed the wrong population number from the Tarrant County webpage. Tarrant County, Texas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I revised the numbers and double checked the other City populations to make sure they were correct. Here is the corrected listing.

Fatality rate/100,000 population, County (City), fatalities, population

23.61 Smith (Tyler) 47 198,705
16.55 Montgomery (Hus-SL-Baytown) 74 447,718
16.52 McLennan (Waco) 42 230,213
15.63 LUbbock 38 242,628
10.59 Nueces (Corpus) 33 313,645
9.27 El Paso 70 755,085
9.16 Travis (Austin) 94 1,026,158
9.02 Bexar (San Antonio) 149 fatalities 1,651,448
8.53 Williamson (Austin/RR) 35 410,686
8.32 Harris (Hus-SL-Baytown) 339 4,070,989
7.8 Tarrant (Ft. Worth) 134 1,717,435
6.42 Dallas 160 2,492,850

Ft. Worth is still ahead of Dallas!
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2010, 03:41 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,509 posts, read 28,689,574 times
Reputation: 7631
Quote:
Originally Posted by CptnRn View Post
You are right, that explains the discrepancy with Dallas. I grabbed the wrong population number from the Tarrant County webpage. Tarrant County, Texas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I revised the numbers and double checked the other City populations to make sure they were correct. Here is the corrected listing.

Fatality rate/100,000 population, County (City), fatalities, population

23.61 Smith (Tyler) 47 198,705
16.55 Montgomery (Hus-SL-Baytown) 74 447,718
16.52 McLennan (Waco) 42 230,213
15.63 LUbbock 38 242,628
10.59 Nueces (Corpus) 33 313,645
9.27 El Paso 70 755,085
9.16 Travis (Austin) 94 1,026,158
9.02 Bexar (San Antonio) 149 fatalities 1,651,448
8.53 Williamson (Austin/RR) 35 410,686
8.32 Harris (Hus-SL-Baytown) 339 4,070,989
7.8 Tarrant (Ft. Worth) 134 1,717,435
6.42 Dallas 160 2,492,850

Ft. Worth is still ahead of Dallas!
well I dunno about that, your estimates for Dallas county is for 2010 and for all other cities are from 2009 or earlier.

But yeah, FW drivers rule the road in the plex, get out of their way or get run over
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2010, 05:12 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX
16,748 posts, read 41,960,149 times
Reputation: 9277
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove View Post
well I dunno about that, your estimates for Dallas county is for 2010 and for all other cities are from 2009 or earlier.

But yeah, FW drivers rule the road in the plex, get out of their way or get run over
I used the most recent population figures available for each County. I noticed that some were estimated for different years, but found no instance where interpolating the population changes resulted in a significant difference in placement on this list. So I decided to stick with the published population numbers. For instance, if I interpolated the Dallas population to match Ft. Worth's estimate for 2007, Dallas still comes out with at fatality rate of 6.66, still the lowest on the list.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-14-2010, 10:07 AM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,509 posts, read 28,689,574 times
Reputation: 7631
Quote:
Originally Posted by CptnRn View Post
I used the most recent population figures available for each County. I noticed that some were estimated for different years, but found no instance where interpolating the population changes resulted in a significant difference in placement on this list. So I decided to stick with the published population numbers. For instance, if I interpolated the Dallas population to match Ft. Worth's estimate for 2007, Dallas still comes out with at fatality rate of 6.66, still the lowest on the list.

so what you are tellng me is that Dallas Drivers have been wossies for years???

lol, kidding.

I think I am most scared in SA. My dad is too. he is is so scared he gets run off the road a lot in SA.

He is fine in Dallas and Houston, but some how he is just flat out scared in SA.

you should be more familiar with Austin than I, do you think the situation will get worse when the population gets larger and more highways are built?

I wonder how many of these fatalities are 35 related?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-14-2010, 11:02 AM
 
Location: Austin, TX
16,748 posts, read 41,960,149 times
Reputation: 9277
Here is another interesting resource: The 2010 “Allstate America’s Best Drivers Report™”
Complete National List
http://www.allstatenewsroom.com/rele...b-e73d904158fd

Quote:
The Allstate Insurance Company (NYSE: ALL) today released its sixth annual "Allstate America's Best Drivers Report™." The report ranks America's 200 largest cities in terms of car collision frequency to identify which cities have the safest drivers, according to Allstate claim data.
Listed in order of Best Driver Rank:

36 Brownsville
46 McAllen
57 Laredo
65 Lubbock
67 Amarillo
77 El Paso
90 Corpus Christi
125 Pasadena
132 Waco
140 Fort Worth
155 Plano
157 Grand Prarie
161 Houston
163 San Antonio
168 Carrollton
170 Austin
172 Mesquite
173 Dallas
175 Arlington
176 Irving
181 Garland

IN this article they also list of Cities over 1 million, how likely they are to be in an accident compared to the national average. Sixth Annual "Allstate America's Best Drivers Reportâ„¢" Reveals New Safest Driving City - Allstate Insurance Digital Newsroom (http://www.allstatenewsroom.com/releases/4654-sixth-annual-allstate-america - broken link)

74. Phoenix, Ariz. 1.9% more likely 9.8 years between accidents

103. San Diego, Calif. 8.3% more likely 9.2

159. New York, N.Y. 28.6% more likely 7.8

161. Houston, Texas 29.5% more likely 7.7

163 San Antonio, Texas 30.2% more likely 7.7

167. Chicago, Ill. 32.3% more likely 7.6

173. Dallas, Texas 35.2% more likely 7.4

183. Los Angeles, Calif. 44.7% more likely 6.9

187. Philadelphia, Pa. 53.5% more likely 6.5
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-14-2010, 11:07 AM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,509 posts, read 28,689,574 times
Reputation: 7631
Quote:
Originally Posted by CptnRn View Post
Here is another interesting resource: The 2010 “Allstate America’s Best Drivers Report™”
Complete National List
http://www.allstatenewsroom.com/rele...b-e73d904158fd



Listed in order of Best Driver Rank:

36 Brownsville
46 McAllen
57 Laredo
65 Lubbock
67 Amarillo
77 El Paso
90 Corpus Christi
125 Pasadena
132 Waco
140 Fort Worth
155 Plano
157 Grand Prarie
161 Houston
163 San Antonio
168 Carrollton
170 Austin
172 Mesquite
173 Dallas
175 Arlington
176 Irving
181 Garland

IN this article they also list of Cities over 1 million, how likely they are to be in an accident compared to the national average. Sixth Annual "Allstate America's Best Drivers Reportâ„¢" Reveals New Safest Driving City - Allstate Insurance Digital Newsroom (http://www.allstatenewsroom.com/releases/4654-sixth-annual-allstate-america - broken link)

74. Phoenix, Ariz. 1.9% more likely 9.8 years between accidents

103. San Diego, Calif. 8.3% more likely 9.2

159. New York, N.Y. 28.6% more likely 7.8

161. Houston, Texas 29.5% more likely 7.7

163 San Antonio, Texas 30.2% more likely 7.7

167. Chicago, Ill. 32.3% more likely 7.6

173. Dallas, Texas 35.2% more likely 7.4

183. Los Angeles, Calif. 44.7% more likely 6.9

187. Philadelphia, Pa. 53.5% more likely 6.5
wait, both those lists contradict your first list, they both have Dallas more likely to be involved in Accidents than the other Texas cities

Last edited by HtownLove; 11-14-2010 at 11:18 AM..
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top