E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
AP Photo / Clyde Mueller, The Santa Fe New Mexican
Motorists make their way along an icy Old Las Vegas Highway in Santa Fe, N.M., on Monday.
The number of people who died in vehicle crashes on U.S. highways hit a 62-year low in 2011, according to government data released Monday.
There were 32,367 highway deaths last year — the lowest level since 1949 and a 26 percent decline since 2005, according to an analysis by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
"The latest numbers show how the tireless work of our safety agencies and partners, coupled with significant advances in technology and continued public education, can really make a difference on our roadways," U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said in a statement.
Connecticut, North Carolina, Tennessee, Ohio and Michigan, respectively, led 36 states with lower overall traffic deaths in 2011.
Related: 'Black boxes' required in new cars by 2014
"The long term trend is that fatality rates are falling, mainly because of safer vehicles," Russ Rader, spokesperson for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, said in a statement. "People are walking away from crashes today that they wouldn't have survived 20 years ago."
The institute gave its "top safety pick" award to a whopping 66 vehicles for 2011. The award recognized automobiles that best protect motorists in front, side, rollover and rear crashes.
Increasingly, car manufacturers offer crash-avoidance features like electronic stability control. However this year, some luxury carmakers were under criticism for faring poorly in new crash tests.
Related: Safety complaints plague many popular auto models
While 2011's overall fatality numbers were the lowest in six decades, NHTSA noted that the number of people killed in distraction-affected crashes went up by nearly 2 percent. Additionally, there was a 20-percent jump in fatalities among large truck occupants and a 2.1 percent increase among motorcycle riders.
Related: Conn. and Mass. using police spotters to catch people who text while driving
Overall, the 2011 figures were positive, but early figures for 2012 aren't as promising. Cathy Chase, senior director for governmental affairs at Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, noted that crash data for the first half of the year showed the largest percentage increase in traffic fatalities since 1975.
"We were startled by the 9 percent increase," she told NBC News.
In a statement, NHTSA Administrator David Strickland stressed vigilance: "Even as we celebrate the progress we've made in recent years, we must remain focused on addressing the safety issues that are continuing to claim more than 30,000 lives each year."
More content from NBCNews.com:
- Fewer homeless vets this year; 'alarming' trend in young
- Cops: 2 University of Colorado students fed pot brownies to classmates, professor
- 3 dead, 4 hurt in Central California shootings, chase
- Cyber-graciousness: Students set up Facebook sites for compliments
- Video: Senator: MTV series ‘Buckwild’ is ‘a travesty’
Leave a Comment:
Here's a news flash for all those who rant about over-regulation from the federal government. Regulation often achieves it's desired result. Vehicles are safer largely because of stricter regulations and drivers are safer because DUI laws are tougher and we do a better job of getting repeat offenders out of the driver's seat.
"55 Stay Alive", what a crock - a fine example of government over-regulation that did diddly squat except boost traffic infraction income for local deputies.
Right, UDunno, faster is safer and regulation is always bad. You truly don't know.
That's quite true.
I would like to know the miles driven compared to other years. Something tells me that the miles driven in 2011 could be less than previous years because the economy sucks and people can't afford the fuel cost. Also a lot of folks are out of work and therefore do not drive everyday to their jobs. So, permiles driven, are there really fewer fatalities or is this another smoke and mirror trick by a government agency trying to justifiy a raise in their budget for next year?
Udunno,
I was with you, until you lost me on the regulation thing. Without regulation, you have anarchy.
Yes, you can over regulate, but you HAVE to have regulations or the system won't work. It's just like the FED, when the consumer protection regulations were in place the system was balanced, the banks were limited in how much interest they could charge/raise within a fixed amount of time. Without regulation, banks charged ridiculous interest rates, mortgages were out of control, and the system failed. Remember 2007.
It follows that education and safety regulations on the road have made a possitive impact.
I agree with you that the 55 mile per hour limit was a joke.
I will give you that some regulations do get the desired results....... but any highschooler can tell you that statistics can be made to tell different stories depending on the desired outcome.
Did the deaths PER MILE driven go down too? Or just the TOTAL number of deaths? If the total went down only as a result of the fact that fewer miles driven, then the arguement about safer cars is wrong and therefore we are wasting our money with regulations, black boxes, airbags and so on.
Don't get me wrong. I believe we have some of the safest and most responsive vehicles on the road. I was involved in a serious accident 2 years ago that I would have died in had it been even in a 2000 model Ford Truck. I walked away with bruises and belt rash... in a 2010 Ford Truck. And the cop pulled the data from the "black box" and confirmed my story, speed and such within an hour after the accident. So we NEED those boxes if only to protect us from liars like the guy that hit me.
But we need to see the statistics in reality. "Deaths from car wrecks were down 100%" doesn't mean a thing if you are talking about 1 hour yesterday on Elm Street while it was shut down for construction.
Except for the dirtbag that hit my son. He is back on the road with a criminal/moving violation record a mile long.
There is a back story to this which was covered comprehensively in the Wall Street Journal a few days ago. Their story was that there are fewer homicides in our cities because of the trauma centers. More people shot, fewer die. We keep the casualties alive that would have died a decade ago.
I think the same thing applies here.
Post-accident response is indeed a major factor that is often overlooked.
Another is that the numbers aren't adjusted to take into account a very large increase in number of driver miles since 1949 - we've had both a massive increase in the number of drivers and an increase in average yearly mileage. Throw in the fact this is being accomplished in much smaller, lighter cars and the numbers are even more impressive.
LOL! 234r, the interiors of those older cars were like instant death chambers.
John Mack
You are spot on. With the realization that most deaths in car accidents came three methods. The first was victims hitting the interior of cars. Second victims going through glass and last victims being crushed.
Manufacturers addressed interior problems by padding surfaces, changing shapes, heights and eventually adding airbags. Huge progress came with the invention of the three point seat belt system. Glass which used to shatter into vicious death shards became lined with a special layer which kept it shattering. But that caused problems at first creating what was called glass necklace and it improved with glass which crumbles into little pieces now. Finally, cars were made to have crumple zones, so that areas around the passenger compartment absorbed the force of impact. Sparing the lives of people.
Add in anti-lock brakes, better headlights,brake lights,better tires, roads, signs, lights and uniform testing of drivers and national access to information about drivers. It all has helped.All these improvements have saved countless lives. But we can't make the perfect safe car unless the person behind it drives it safely.
By enforcing laws against drunk driving and educating the public about its hazards progress has been made and helped people realize this is unacceptable. The mentality, it's okay to go partying, getting pastered then hopping into your car to head home, has changed.With people more aware that they will serve time in jail or prison for breaking the law. With the MADD organization's influence, this country has slowly changed its views.But it still has a way to go. Still, all these factors have helped to save lives.
Windancersong-1494878 said:
Google is working on that. California and Nevada have already passed laws allowing self-driving cars.
There was a thread not too long ago about helmet laws on motorcycles and, to my amazement, there was quite a large number of peoples ranting about how the big bad government was forcing them to wear seat belts.
Human stupidity know no bounds.
This is, 100% all the the credit of the NRA for arming America!
Now, especially since so many more people have purchased guns before Obama can confiscate them, people have so many guns that all drivers are scared to allow themselves road rage! Hence, the deaths have gone down!
All brought to you by those true believers in the second amendment!
/s
wow.
I remember vividly the cars that were on the road in the '50s when I learned to drive. On the whole, they were sleeker and more stylish than today's cars, but that was it. In terms of safety, zilch! Two ton monsters of steel and chrome coming at you head-on at 40-45 mph (which was as fast as you dared drive on a two-lane blacktop like the old Highway 17 between Brunswick and Savannah, GA) could really do a lot of damage. I remember gruesome photos of smash-ups in the newspapers and the little crosses you used to see by the side of the road. My heartfelt thanks goes to the auto industry for designing and building progressively safer cars over the years. If they hadn't, you can just image the carnage we'd have today with so many more cars and trucks on our roads. How many more? Well, the number of vehicles in America has typically doubled every twenty years, so you can easily calculate the 60-year increase since 1952.
Well, phil, you send your heartfelt thanks to the auto industry, but believe me, if it weren't for the government regulations forcing the industry to design and build safer cars, we would not be reading about such a low death rate today.
Homesick,
I'm right there with you, I am not a big proponent of government CONTROL, just regulation. As long as someone is forcing fair play, those who might otherwise choose not to, will have to. Sometimes I don't like the reasons we pay more for stuff here in the US, but for things like this, I can deal with it.
Still there are those who are still trying to get the government to back off (Lobbyists). Though now there are civilian consumer protection companies/non-profits, and watch groups who pick up the slack, like "Consumer reports".
Just more proof that speed wasn't the real problem, but the handling and braking capability of most cars over the years. Seat belts, ABS brakes, air bags and navigation systems all help a little, too, not to mention road conditions.
In most metropolitan areas (like Washington DC), traffic is so horribly gridlocked 24/7/365 that it would be difficult to get up to a speed that might result in a fatality.
There is no morning or evening "Rush Hour" any more, traffic is hosed from 4:30AM until 9:00PM.
And Auto insurance rates UP ... LOL Boy what a trend
Safer automobiles...what a joke...safer drivers...what a joke...
Higher gas prices equals less driving...higher unemployment means less people driving to work...less driving means fewer accidents,,,
That thought crossed my mind, as well. shrugs
But we had many less cars on the road 60 years ago than today, so your theory about unemployment and its resultant less drivers doesn't hold water.
Not to mention more gridlock on the highways, bumper to bumper no ones going anywhere.
So the Government is telling us that Automobiles have killed nearly three times the number of people than Guns have, yet the Government, other wise known as, Obama and his hordes, spend most of their free time trying to disarm America from private ownership of guns instead of paying attention to the real killers out there, Automobiles, oh but those are Union made Automobiles for the most part, so then the Agenda is different depending on who is making the weapon of choice to kill each other with? Mmmm. Actually the number one killer of humans in America is Smoking but I also note they are careful to choose what the person maybe smoking versus the fact that any smoke inhaled into the lungs will cause damage. Funny thing about that isn't it. I mean it is OK to smoke and hold in your lungs that green leafy vegetable matter that it's growers may have sprayed with pesticides and scent disguisers and who knows what else, to keep the dogs away from but it is not OK to smoke a brown leafy processed substance that has been washed and air dried before being wrapped in a sterile wrapper... So it is OK to get stoned and drive a car that kills someone, but it is not OK to smoke a cigarette and shoot someone while protecting yourself, your family, your home, from those who need the money to buy that green leafy vegetable matter...Oh I just love showing what Hippocrites the Government, The President, Mayors, and Police Chiefs and their stoned and drunk hordes of followers are...Don't you!
Eddie,
Aside from a brief mention of the need for added regulation on guns, Obama has made no overt attempt to do anything about the Second Amendment. I'm a strong gun advocate, obviously, because of my career choice, but I don't see anyone in the White House attempting to take away your guns.
Lighten up.
Just wait until early next year.
Cars get their optimum fuel economy between 50 and 55 miles an hour. Anything faster is wasting money because of wind drag.
That is what the imports are for :D
mine dont....period.
Zack,
I don't think there is supporting documentation for your argument.
My car gets the same mileage between 55 and 75. It is also performance rated for speeds averaging the same. Now, larger vehicles, trucks, SUVs and Crossovers hit there premium at about 60-65 due to aerodynamics, larger objects cause more wind resistance. Aerodynamics play a large role, as well as how hard you push your accelerator...as you can see when you are out on the road, many trucks have started adding wind deflectors to the body of the trucks to allow for better dynamics, to increase fuel efficiency. So, where trucks with no added body molding will hit their fuel threshold at 45-55, trucks that have them will be rated for upwards of 65 MPH.
If you were dealing with older technology, your argument would have merit, but with engine technology and body designs of newer vehicles, you really don't. Add to that, the safety designs of newer cars make higher speed collisions survivable.
Yup the people that believe that you always get better gas millage at 50 or 55 have never bother to check it themselves. My car has a display that show the miles per gallon on a continuous basis. It likes about 63 but it is only a tiny fraction more at 50 or 70 so getting there a couple hours earlier on a long trip is much more important than maybe saving $5. And a couple hours less time on the road means less chance for the driver to do something stupid because they are tired.
No problem. That 85 mph highway in Texas should get the numbers back up to normal.
There are states that have no speed limit. I've heard opposing positions, but not that there has been a significant surge in deaths as a result. Of course, those states don't have many obsticles either, like inattentive drivers.
Hmmm....lots of government safety studies resulting in stricter regulations on the manufacturing of cars. Lots of government safety studies on roads resulting in changes at traffic lights, traffic patterns, road construction.....Lots of government regulations restricting teen drivers. Higher drinking ages.....and record low traffic deaths!!!
Gee. Isn't this exactly what the Republicans were running against, all that excessive government regulation and interference in our lives??????
Don't kid yourself folks.....the odds that you will ever again see bad numbers on anything from the "main stream media" are practically non existent , if not totally perverse.......the explanation for these numbers is very simple, more people are riding their unicorns rather then driving. so of course the media,...having a huge amount of their money,business, and what they consider "excellent reputation" ...wrapped up in unicorn chow must forever more play their part.
I'm sure the exhorbitant gas prices and the resultant decrease in the number of vehicles on the road and the decrease in number of miles driven had nothing to do with it. Nor the recession that has reduced the number of trucks. It has to be Obama's national effort to bolster the police "presence".
To davefromdanapointca, good point. According to National Motor Association, the Fatality Rate
(Per 100 MVM) went from 10.9 (1940) to 1.7 (1995). It has a good article on understanding the numbers ().
That's terrible news! Our #s are already too many and now LESS are dying in wrecks? C'mon, we gotta thin our herd somehow.
Why you think there is climate change/global warming? Partly because we are FAR TOO MANY.
Me. You. We're all the excess population, face reality people. Even if we were 1 in a 1,000,000 there are at least 6,999 others just like us (based on a population of 7 billion).
Derek,
We are too many, but unlike the rest of the world, our population has not doubled. Our population is 314 million today, up from 247 million in 1985. That's only a 22% increase in 28 years.
The article does mention that there are upsurges in Motorcycle deaths, large Trucks and inattentive drivers. We all have been hearing about all the texters and two handed phone users. Truthfully, if you can't walk and chew bubblegum at the same time, what makes you think you can drive and talk on the phone, or text.
I am glad deaths are down.
I doubt more "People are walking away from crashes today......." Maybe surviving, but walking away is debatable.
With all the texting and talking on the phone this stat surprises me.
average fatalities per 100,000 inhabitants per year europe ---5.7. perhaps lower than u.s--12.3. same year--because roundabouts used instead of junctions.
And yet our highways and roads are more deadly than TEN Years in a war zone. What is the real issue is not safer cars or roads but better education and enforcement of laws. Driving is a privilege NOT a right.
you think the high price of gas might also have something to do with it?? normal working people can't afford to drive around aimlessly....
32.367 deaths caused by car crashes...out of that number there are thousands and thousands of deaths caused by talking on a cell phone or by texting...These numbers "dwarf" deaths caused by guns,And yet the liberal media dwells on gun violence. The statistics prove that cell phones are far more lethal then guns considering the fact there were 16.808.568 federal back ground checks for firearm purchases. Of all the deaths caused by guns the vast majority is by criminals killing other criminals...like what is happening in the Chicago area even with some of the strictest gun control laws in the land...For once I would like to see the true facts,about these statistics be reported ,without any liberal political agenda.
Test