On average, there’s a traffic accident in Hampton Roads every 19 minutes. Every 2½ days, someone dies from one of those crashes. According to a report released Wednesday, Hampton Roads had the highest crash rate among Virginia metro areas from 2006 to 2008. Yet, the number of accidents has dropped every year since 2004 – an overall decline of 17 percent – and there were fewer crashes in 2008 (27,600) than in any year in the past decade.
Regional fatalities, however, are up. There were 153 traffic deaths in 2008, a 19 percent increase since 2003.
Statewide, the number of fatalities fell 13 percent during the same period.
Nationally, Hampton Roads ranks 17th among 26 similar-size U.S. metro areas in traffic fatality rates, with New Orleans the worst and San Jose the best.
These draft statistics were presented Wednesday to an advisory committee of the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization.
Keith Nichols, senior transportation engineer, said the drop in crashes correlates with a decline in driving in Hampton Roads. In previous reports, the planning agency said the recession and high gas prices suppressed travel by as much as 3.5 percent last year.
In general, Nichols said, the region’s urban areas had higher crash rates than rural areas because of more “traffic conflicts,” including intersections and driveways for businesses.
Other findings:
-- Hampton Roads’ crash rate is 4 percent higher than Richmond's and Roanoke's and 10 percent higher than Northern Virginia's. The crash rate measures accidents per amount of travel.
-- The region’s crash fatality rate is lower than Roanoke’s and Richmond’s but is 68 percent higher than Northern Virginia’s.
-- Nearly 8 percent of all crashes in Hampton Roads involved alcohol. About 41 percent of fatal crashes involved alcohol. The number of crashes involving alcohol has dropped every year since 2004.
-- About 64 percent of people killed in local accidents were not wearing seat belts or sitting in a child safety seat..
-- The leading causes of accidents here include following too closely, distracted driving and failure to yield. The leading causes of fatal accidents were distracted driving and speeding.
-- The number of injuries resulting from traffic accidents in Hampton Roads has decreased every year since 2003, in part because of safer cars and fewer miles driven. Still, the region had the highest injury rate among the state’s metro areas.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
I LOVE.......
You have to love it when 8:00AM or 5:30PM rolls around how cars are more worried about getting into the left lane and into the HOV then actually driving up the road. You also have to love the minimum speed limit drivers who love getting in that HOV lane going 60-65 MPH once it opens. Ignorance at its best....
minimum speed?
you say 60-65 minimum speed? 55 is the speed LIMIT right now. and I think the new 70 speed will only be in the Rural areas outside yorktown where the speed now goes from 55 to 65
You guys are all wrong it's
You guys are all wrong it's because of the 70 mph speed limits around here. But we shouldn't worry though our state legislatures will pass some more seat belt laws to protect us. (mama's laws)
driving?
1. Seat belts, if people don't want to wear them, it's fine by me,. (Think Darwin)
2. People are speeding ALL the time! 35 means 35, it's not a suggestion. Doing 50 in a 35 really doesn't get you there any faster, even if you make it there.
3. Get people off cell pghones while driving, no texting, and turn off the ultra loud pounding stereos, they are so loud that there is no way they can be paying attention to traffic or whatever is happening around them
Yup, this is a difficult problem to figure out.......
I love the comments...
The ones that say The driver in front of me was on his cell phone flipping me the birdie! etc etc etc... Which kinda in a way says Im not paying attention to the road myself if I can look and see that he is flipping me the bird and on his cell phone and did not check for a blind spot! You can sit in someones blind spot and then say well they didnt look to see if anyone was there or not your as much to lame as they are for cruising in the left hand lane and not getting over after you pass!
I say dont drive defensive but yet drive offensive! If you sit back and drive defensivley you will end up being in an accident! but if you speed up a little to get out of someones blind spot so if they do happen to change lanes quick you wont have to make that DEFENSIVE move out of their way.
You apparently don't know
You apparently don't know what driving defensively actually means. Look it up and get back with us. Hint: it is just the sort of proactive strategies to which you refer.
obviousley ...
You havent played many sports in which I drew my example from I think of defense as sitting back and waiting for the action(play) to com to you...but on offense you make the first move and make the big play....
Open HOV to spread out traffic
The article points to "following too closely, distracted driving and failure to yield (i.e. lane changing without looking) as the most common cause of accidents. While these causes are ultimately the fault of bad driving habits, the amount of traffic is contributory. Bumper to bumper, stop and go traffic, especially when HOV lanes are restricted, invites bad drivers to commit these acts. Every notice when the HOV lanes are open during rush hour due to an accident, how well the traffic flows in both HOV and regular lanes? Here's hoping that the feds see fit to allow military in uniform to use the HOV lanes as proposed by the state legislature, thus spreading out the traffic. Maybe one day HOV lanes will be open to everyone.
Crashing
I remember first crashing in Hampton roads back in 1966 when I was stationed at Oceana. I crashed at both friends and girlfriends houses on sofas and various other pieces of furniture, once I even crashed on.....................................Never mind.
Radar detectors becoming useless
More and more police departments are moving away from radar in favor of LIDAR. LIDAR uses a laser beam to measure speed. The operator aims it at a specific car and it instantaneously reports the speed of that specific car. You can buy a LIDAR detector, but they are useless, because unlike radar detectors which tell you there's microwave energy in the area, LIDAR detectors just tell you that you're currently being "lit up". Too late at that point. So, in the end, if this law gets passed, it's not doing anybody any favors. Technology still favors Big Brother.
Go Faster and Why?
So, way back when, the speed limit was 65 and 70 mph. Some of you were too young to remember that, some of you are old enough to remember because you lost love ones who died because 65 and 70 mph. really means 75 and 85 mph. So the brains in Richmond decided to lower the speed limit to 55 mph. and 60 mph. not only did this save lives, but it also saved gas. WOW! fantastic, now, the old brainers forgot what happened when the speed limit was that high and the new brainers didn't know, so now you have to remind the old brainers and teach the new brainers to just leave the speed limit where it is so we can save lives and gas at the same time. One MVA ever 19 mins. I know the insurance companies love Hampton Roads!
Her we go again
Once again this "old timer" is wrong. There is no proof or study that shows a reduction in accidents with a reduction in speed limits. As a matter of fact most accidents happen in 25 - 35 and 45 zones. Loved ones are lost to drunk drivers, wreckless drivers and uncontrolable situations not speed.
well, at least we're #1
in something other than welfare recipients in this area.
it's called freedom
I disagree with seatbelt laws on principle, though I never drive without one. The government has no business mandating I do what it thinks is best for me - such decisions should be mine alone. The fact that the majority of people were killed without restraints only proves that they made poor decisions, but that's part of life (and death). For people who bemoan the high cost of traffic fatalities as a reason for infringing on others' freedoms I have a solution: civilian law should match Army regulations on the matter. If you are in an accident and get injured or killed because you weren't wearing a seatbelt then your insurance company doesn’t have to pay a nickel related to your injuries (or demise). Granted, the cost of scraping your stupid backside off the pavement falls on us, but perhaps it’s ultimately a small price to pay to remove someone from the gene pool who will only weaken it.
OK, on your own road
CS, you can ride all you want without a seatbelt on your own private road, but once you start using the public highways you are required to follow the laws that are in place for both your protection and everyone else that you may come in contact with. I don't see where this is any infringement on your rights if you choose to drive on highways that are funded with taxpayer dollars.
completely missing the point
If you'd bother to read my posts you'd see that I do follow the laws. My point is that there should not be any laws in place for my own protection, at least not if they are to protect me from myself. I think driving or riding in a car without a seatbelt is incredibly stupid, but I don't believe it's the government's role to decide that. It's just a fundamental difference of opinion of the role of government.
The government is not
The government is not mandating what's best for you, cs. The government is acting to protect the best interest of society. If you and others in your vehicle are not wearing a seat belt, the chances of serious injury are greater. It doesn't matter whether you caused the accident. Society too often ends up bearing the burden this puts on the system in the form of higher auto insurance, medical costs, welfare or other support for you or your family while you are unable to work because of your injuries or death, and more. This is not a small price, and it has nothing to do with your personnel freedoms. Do you disagree in principle with the laws banning smoking in restaurants, or drinking alcohol while driving too?
Olddog i have a bridge to
Olddog i have a bridge to sell you.
oh, but I think it is
The best interest of society is a steep slope strewn with banana peels. Seatbelt laws have everything to do with personal freedom. I wear seatbelts every time I get into a vehicle but that's my choice. Since you asked, I do not agree with laws banning smoking in restaurants (even though I don't smoke) because the government has reduced the choices private citizens and business owners may make based on “the best interest of society.” Drinking and driving is a bad comparison. It should be illegal not because you may kill yourself but because you are more likely to kill others.
Since you asked me a question, let me ask you. Should the government outlaw fast food and processed sugar and mandate exercise in the name of “the best interest of society”? Because society too often ends up bearing the burden obesity puts on the system in the form of higher medical costs
Do they let olddog drive?
Do they let olddog drive?