I would say that democrats do well in more urban areas and republicans better in more rural areas. That said in urban areas the deaths from car accidents make sense to be lower as there is more mass transit available for commuting, people commute less, and in cities speed limits are lower than in rural areas (making accidents less damaging). I doubt voting republican or democrat is going to change this statistic.

To an extent that mystifies safety experts and other observers, federal statistics show that people in red states are more likely to die in road crashes. The least deadly states – those with the fewest crash deaths per 100,000 people -- overwhelmingly are blue.

Driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and the general attitude of "I own the road" seem to occur to a greater degree in the red states. The people who live there also tend to be less educated. In Texas, it was and perhaps still is legal to drive down the road drinking a beer. Different states have different laws that do have a huge impact on the relative rates of traffic fatalities.

Not all that surprising...in many ways the blue states are better places to live.

liberals drink less alcohol

I almost want to ask where you got such a statistic but given you can't form a sentence that's not fraught with punctuation errors, I'm going to hold all questions.

It's safe to say, even liberals can be poorly educated.

THe researchers measured deaths, not total accidents. It could be that the blue states have invested more in developing infrastructure intended to help people survive accidents... more trauma centers (which have been shown to be especially critical in survival rates), more emergency response teams to lower response times, better training of the teams, etc....

There is most likely also a correlation with poverty and education. IOW, if this is correct, the chart will be similarly red at the top for states with high poverty and low education and it will look like the traffic fatality chart pretty much..

We can speculate on bad roads, we can speculate on poor drivers, we can speculate on higher alcohol and/or drug use. OR we could think about the injury difference between crashes that happen at 45 MPH vs. 65 MPH. I suspect that the average rate of speed on Mass. roads is much less than the average rate of speed on say Miss. roads. They barely reference the rural vs. urban aspect in the article, but come on... Most people know that the likelihood of fatality escalates rapidly with the higher the rate of speed at time of collision - it is basic physics - the higher the speed the more energy available to injur the body. So if the average rate of speed is significant higher in the more rural Southern states vs. the more urban Northern states - wow. Amazing. Statistics work. And no freaking surprise (kind of like election night - for those of us with fully installed brains).

It's probably because of all the blue state retirees who retire to the south and increase the population of bad drivers.

kaybeeto

Driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and the general attitude of "I own the road" seem to occur to a greater degree in the red states. The people who live there also tend to be less educated. In Texas, it was and perhaps still is legal to drive down the road drinking a beer. Different states have different laws that do have a huge impact on the relative rates of traffic fatalities.

You are an idiot. Did you know that at one time it was legal to drive in most states while drinking. By the mid-20th century, most major vice activities were being actively targeted by law enforcement in the state. Though alcohol consumption was legalized, in many areas it was still substantially restricted and, even today, some counties in the state remain dry or retain significant restrictions. Most other activities went underground and have remained largely hidden. In 1969, major legislation was enacted directed at alcohol and narcotics. The Implied Consent law was passed requiring that drivers agree to breath tests when arrested for suspicion of driving while intoxicated. Statutes against narcotics were strengthened giving police and prosecutors more ability to target offenders.^[47]

Did you know that at one time it was legal to drive in most states while drinking.

That 'one time' was well before my time. The statistics cited in this article are from today. Having lived in Texas, I do know what I'm talking about. I've lived plenty of other places too so I have a basis for comparison. The Texas cowboy mentality is alive and well. Thanks for sharing.

yee-haw

In Texas, it was and perhaps still is legal to drive down the road drinking a beer.

Drinking while driving has been banned in Texas since 1980something, and the open container for everyone else in the car has been banned since 2001. We have some hard core DWI laws/punishments here.

there are probably a lot of factors that culminate in this divide

but if I had to put money on 3 main factors:

rural v metro - slower response times/less adequate services in rural area's

seat belts - this is purely speculation, but I wouldnt be surprised if people in the south didnt wear seat belts much (despite it being the law) because thats how they grew up driving and damn it the govt wont tell em what to do

alcohol - again, maybe im reaching here...but it seems like an awful lot of country songs talk about drinking and driving, like it's a country boys national pasttime

Wow Joeb your fringe party will be dead soon with that attitude! How is it that red states have more people per capita on welfare than blue states. And that typically a blue state contribute more taxes than they spend, while it is the opposite for red states?

Quite simple... Blue states are more urban with shorter commutes, have fewer drivers per capita, many can't afford a vehicle, and the government gives them everything BUT a car.

Yet the very next article

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/20/15306117-in-california-more-drivers-are-high-than-drunk?lite

too funny

Rural states for the most part went for the losing candidate in the last election while urbanized areas went for the winner. Or perhaps more of the voting population lives in the urbanized areas.

Rural states have larger distances and higher speeds. Speed whether legal or not is one of the biggest determinants as to the chance of dying in a car crash.

Noticed that a certain political party has allowed the press to tag it as "Red". "Red" used to be the old term for Communist or Socialist.

Red-necks try to cause accidents, because they have no life. Making others miserable is what they do. That's why they voted for Romney.

Mark -

Did you ever stop and think about how your ideas sound to us right wingers. I'm a red person living in a blue state, and quite frankly, I think most of the liberal arguments I hear come from stupid people. People just smart enough to be really, really dumb, much like yourself.

It has a lot to do with the urban vs rural part I'm sure, as other people have mentioned, but also population density increases traffic. It's hard to have a fatal accident at 10mph in bumper-to-bumper traffic.

Our county executive, an absolute pillar of conservative politics, just returned to work after several months recovering from a horrific auto accident. He was comatose for several days (which was hidden from the public until recently). He was not driving, nor was he at fault, but he was NOT wearing a seat belt. He WAS the government, and even he was not going to do anything the government told him to do, and he paid for it. I think his attitude will be different regarding the use of seat belts, but I don't think his accident will change anyone else's behavior. We are a "blue" state, but this is a divided county.

Some of the posts regarding personality differences between Republican (red) and Democrat (blue) are funny, but I tend to agree that is is likely more population density than anything. Wyoming is at the top and has lots of wide open spaces. You could drive for 100 miles before you get from one town to the next and have to slow down....

Maybe those pesky government regulations and taxes (which contribute to well-maintained roads) that the blue states tend to not have issues with have something to do with it?

JoeB-460595

Red states take more money from the federal government for entitlement programs than what they pay to the federal government (which consists of all of us citizens), thus they are more of a drain on the country than blue states.

Red states have higher divorce rates.

Red states have higher numbers of single parent housesolds.

Red states have lower numbers of college educated residents.

Red states have higher numbers of residents without a high school education.

Blue states educate their youth, both in high school and college.

Blue states provide sex education and encourage youth to make healthy choices, including the use of birth control if they are sexually active, which not only prevents unwanted pregnancies, but also prevents death from HIV.

Blue states do not force their young people into marraige at an early age to justify becoming sexually active as opposed to just using birth control, thus reducing the divorce rate.

Blue states PAY MORE TAXES THAN THE MONEY THEY RECEIVE from the federal government, thus they are supporting the red states entitlements. Yet you don't find us whining about supporting you.

Blue states have fewer fatalies in road accidents because they are solution-oriented. Through their EDUCATION and HARD WORK they have obviously found ways to lower road fatalities.

No taxes or highway programs = bad roads. Bad roads contribute to, if not cause, many crashes. In TX, the new 85mph tollway is privately owned and run. After the owners and managers suck all the cash out of the state, how long do you think it will be before they go BK. I give it 7 years, tops. They'll suck the money out for 5 years, then do no work on the roads for two years and then blame something and go BK and the people who took the money will be long gone.

Sounds like a lot of assumptions @Brainwashedat Birth Please look at the exit polls for the 2012 presidential election. High school drop outs and those with only high school education overwhelmingly supported Obama while college graduates favored Romney by almost 60-70%. A lot of the uneducated southern rural areas you speak of tend to be predoinately African American, which supported Obama by a 95% margin. If you can find any statistics to support your assumption that uneducated people are republicans, please post it here I will apologize and rescind my comment.

If the safety experts cannot figure this out they must not have a high school education. The blue states are full of urban areas with less drivers and less open highways. The list of states by % of population that live in rural areas is almost a dead match to this list. Where is the surprise in that? Why do all the liberals take any chance they get to try and call the red states morons? And you wonder why some people want to secede!

It's simple. Those in the blue states believe in evolution. The red states believe God has a plan for everything. These statistics prove once again that Darwin was right.

Cause and Effect. Liberalism or Conservatism is not a cause. Perhaps this correlation is more useful, rural conditions require more driving... on crappier roads... with lotsa country taverns... little enforcement. I once lived in rural Wisconsin, Republican territory, nothing to do but drink and hunt and make little Republicans... it was scary so I moved out East where driving is a chore not a sport and liberal policies are perhaps even liked. Thus, rural conditions produce traffic accidents and Republicans while urban living has the opposite effect.

Several of the States near the top of the list are fairly rural, where drivers might have to drive 50 miles to get to Walmart, mostly on 2-lane roads with 65 or even 70 mph speed limits and with a fair number of large game animals crossing highways too. Imagine if Massachusetts or New York State had a large elk population migrating across its major highways twice every year or the constant threat of stray cattle on the highway at night? There are a number of other reasons that some of these States might have higher fatality rates and others might have lower rates too.

#1: The rural Southwest still has a fair problem with drinking and driving, and the distances involved are generally longer than in the more-urbanized Eastern US too.

#2: Many Southwestern US fatal accidents happen on rural dirt roads and at rural intersections, which often are not controlled intersections.

#3: Many Southwestern US States have far more uncontrolled rural rail grade crossings than smaller more heavily urban Eastern States have.

#4: Many Southwestern States have a higher percentage of heavy trucks operating on their rural roads than is common in Eastern States.

#5: Many States in the Great Plains and southwest often have large farm equipment attempting to use rural high-speed truck routes too.

Another factor not mentioned by the data is the fact that most of the best-off States have large populations that ride public transit for a majority of their transportation need too, while the States at the Red-end of the spectrum all have very low public transportation participation too? How many miles of subway or even urban passenger rail serving commuters are there in all of the top ten Red States put together? Zero miles.

By the logic shown in just the sheer numbers, drivers in the State of Colorado, approximately 400 by 275 miles, or almost as large a physical square area as New York State and Pennsylvania put together, is slightly safer than drivers in Connecticut are, and both States are currently Blue States, and have fairly similar demographics between urban and rural makeup, as well as on levels of highway congestion too.

Colorado has a 75 mph rural freeway speed limit, except in the highest part of the mountains on I-70, where it is 65 mph, a 65 mph suburban urban freeway speed limit, and a 65 mph rural 2-lane speed limit, while Connecticut's speed limits are 10 mph less across the board. Furthermore, Colorado also has numerous high-elevation mountain passes that drivers routinely cross, which often have numerous sharp and hairpin curves and often a severe penalty for failing to stay on the road, and Colorado also has 55 million acres of farmland as well as double that worth of mountain wilderness, whereas Connecticut has 1/10th the farmland and virtually no mountain wilderness either. Both States also have gambling casinos that operate 24/7 too.

So, since Colorado drivers routinely drive 80 mph in very heavy traffic on I-25, a freeway which bisects metro-Denver, (2.5 million population), the Colorado Springs urban area, (population 750K), the Pueblo-area, (200K) and in northern Colorado splits Ft. Collins, Greeley, Loveland, and Longmont, all of which are greater than 100K in population, within just 160 miles of Interstate Highway, Colorado's drivers routinely drive 70 mph all over the State on rural 2-lane roads, and Colorado's drivers drive slightly more-safely on an aggregate basis averaging 5 times the average annual mileage that Connecticut drivers do, shouldn't Connecticut raise its speed limits some too?

I could easily see allowing 75 mph on I-84 outside of the Hartford area and on I-91 north of Hartford too, and I could see allowing 65 mph on some of Connecticut's rural 2-lane roads too, as after all, if Colorado's drivers can drive fairly safely at that speed, so should Connecticut's drivers be able to also!

Basically this "study" has holes big-enough to drive a bus through, and should not be relied-on for any reason.

Since driving angry with high blood pressure is as distracting and unsafe as driving while texting or mildly impaired, it makes sense that red states full of drivers listening to Rush or Hannity or whomever getting them all worked up would tend to be involved in more accidents.

I can definitely say that a few of those states near the top of the list *cough* Arkansas, Mississippi *cough* have some terrible roads and highways, in terms of condition, design, and capacity.

Maybe they need their taxes lowered even more. That should give them enough money to fix the infrastructure.

Tony-1788334

Some college Obama 49% Romney 48%

College graduate Obama 47% Romney 51%

Advanced college graduate Obama 55% Romney 42%

I stated statistics by red/blue states in my prior post. These statistics have long held true. It would be helpful to the residents of those states to look at the statistics of their states and solve their problems rather than stating falsehoods about blue states, e.g. blue states live on handouts and don't work. These posters have computers. They can do their own research rather than believe everything Fox news, et al. feeds them. I see a lot of projection onto and deflection toward others rather than problem-solving by realistic information.

Glass17

There may be democrats, liberals, or whatever you want to label them, who refer to republicans and red states as morons. I do not. I believe the residents of red states love their country, but fail to use the information derived from decades of compiled TRUE STATISTICS to determine their course of action.

Only 5% of residents in states with public transportation use public transportation and of the 5%, more than half ALSO DRIVE. Mass transit use does not explain the lower road fatality rate in blue states.

Further, I do not consider Romney to be a moron. I think Romney believes he can come with solutions for running a country based upon his experience running businesses. However, running a country is completely different from running a business. Take a closer look at his record in Massachusetts. Why do you suppose Masachusetts did NOT vote for him as a presidential candidate after we voted for him as a governor? It's because we learned our lesson.

Complicating things further is the possibility that deaths per 100,000 residents isn't the best yardstick for comparisons. Fatalities per total miles traveled, some experts say, is better.

Only complete and utter statistical morons would think that the number of fatal accidents per 100,000 residents has anything to do with anything. Going by mileage at least is a more valid correlation but even that is flawed unless you consider driving conditions. How many DC residents even own a car or drive? They may not die in traffic accidants but they have the highest death from guns rate in the nation BY FAR! In fact you have a much better chance of being shot in DC than you do of being involved in a fatal traffic accident in a red state.

As for the rest of you people's ignorant economic comments, it isn't much of a leap to know you guys know zero about regional economics. My dissertation was based on it so I have just a little knowledge on the topic. I will take a pass on educating the illiterates on this board but let me help you out just a bit. Much is made of the whole who pays taxes and where does the money go but the problem is that is a deeply flawed argument. For example, a mine may be out in a red state but the bulk of the taxes on its production are paid at the company headquaters in a blue state. Meanwhile, government expenditures on roads and other infrastructure to support that mine are made at the red state location. This carries over into virtually all natural resource production throughout the country. For example, New Orleans (in blue Louisiana) lives and dies on the Missisippi but all of the money spent to keep the Mississippi a viable transportation route occurs in the mostly red states bordering the river. Military bases that serve the entire country tend to be out in wide open areas that tend to be red in nature. Same with national parks and other entities that serve the nation as a whole. Not so simple is it?

The reality is that market centers (economic term) that are high tax payers tend to be in blue states whereas the production hinterlands (low tax payers) they serve tend to be in red states. It is an economic fact, however, that the market centers rely on their hinterlands and not the other way around. In short, the blue states need the red states WAY more than the red states need the blue.

PS, I live in a state that has been blue almost forever.....

Blue states are more urban with shorter commutes, have fewer drivers per capita, many can't afford a vehicle, and the government gives them everything BUT a car.

Do some research on where the poor people live. By nearly every measure, people who live in the blue states are healthier, wealthier, and generally better off than people in the red states.

Poorest counties in the US:

No. 15: Wilcox County, Ala.

No. 14: Maverick County, Texas

No. 13: Owsley County, Ky.

No. 12: East Carroll Parish, La.

No. 11: Lake County, Tenn.

No. 10: Allendale County, S.C.

No. 9: Corson County, S.D.

No. 8: Holmes County, Miss.

No. 7: Sioux County, N.D.

No. 5 (tie): Washington County, Miss.

No. 5 (tie): Humphreys County, Miss.

No. 4: Issaquena County, Miss.

No. 3: Shannon County, S.D.

No. 2: Todd County, S.D.

No. 1: Ziebach County, S.D.

People don't generally get in car accidents while on the bus.

The argument that poor counties tend to be Red counties is probably true, though the cost of living has to be considered too. What's the poverty rate in Wayne County, MI?

Consider these facts too: While the Sioux reservation in South Dakota may be the poorest place in America, and occupies a square land area larger than the entire State of New Jersey too, the sale of alcohol is illegal on the reservation too, which means that in-order for reservation residents to average 60% alcoholism, they have to drive off-reservation to buy alcohol legally too!

Imagine how many drunk driving accidents there would be if residents had to drive from central New Jersey over to Pennsylvania just to buy alcohol and average a 60% rate of adult alcoholism too?

The red states Who controls them??? For almost 180 years Mississippi had had a democrat Governor What areas are having the highest trafficaccidents? are they red or blue??? even those??? this is taking only the numbers you want a skewing them to say bull cr@p. This is the same thing Rush and his boys do. Nice to see democrats do the same thing.

Look at Louisiana They have had all Democrat governs from 1880-1984 then it goes from 1988-1992 and 1996-2004 did you know when I was their in New Orleans in 2002 You could get a drive through daiquiri and drive with this alcoholic beverage in the car as long as the straw was not in the cup????

seat belts - this is purely speculation, but I wouldnt be surprised if people in the south didnt wear seat belts much (despite it being the law) because thats how they grew up driving and damn it the govt wont tell em what to do

IN Hawaii you can be in the back seat with out a seat belt you can even put people in the trunk. I see people all the time with 8 people in the bed of a truck

Take a wrong turn in Baltimore one of the neighborhoods that have bars on the 4th story and drive down it at night and tell me which is more safe in the country republican area or the democrat city?

have you looked at the crime rate??? and the accident statistics in any of the "red states"? How about this Hawaii has the highest per capital homeless population in the country they also have the highest teen suicide rate. Is it linked to democrats??? No their are more factor but You people that are party liners are too blind like a mole.

CAN'T FIND A REASON?!?!?!?! Here's one for you.

The top 12 states all have little to no bumper-to-bumper traffic. The bottom 12 states, except for Alaska and Oregon, have an overwhelming portion of their population driving and commuting in areas where there is major bumper-to-bumper traffic. Bumper-to-bumper traffic is the greatest reason for lower traffic fatalities.

That is also the reason why rural have more fatalities. Not because they have more long, winding roads. It's because they have no bumper-to-bumper traffic on those long, winding roads.

What I find sickening is that somebody took these terrible statistics and figured out a way to put a Red vs Blue state spin on them. I think these writers and editors have too much time on their hands.

Usually when there are fatal automobile accidents the authorities determine a cause for the accident, we also need to look at that data.

Old Timer 88224 and Chris 335678 are solution oriented. Their posts include thought-provoking information.

Old Timer's posts include suggestions that might originate viable solutions to the problem. If Chris' post addressed the road fatality problem, my guess is that it, too, might provide causes that could be addressed in such a way as to reduce fatalities.

I don't understand why the residents of these states choose name-calling and insulting others, especially Obama and other democratic politicians as their favorites targets, over taking a serious look at the causes of the problems so as to resolve them. Thus, in this case, saving lives in their communities.

I wince at the name-calling and insulting I see in the posts of "liberals", but I ignore it. It reflects more badly on the poster than on the target of the insults.

All this reminds me of a joke I heard (which anticipated this study...). Note, this is a joke....

The DOT did a pilot study of installing voice/data recorders in cars to gather accident data. After the study was complete, the DOT released preliminary findings. The most common recorded voice statement made just prior to an accident was "Oh Sh!t!!" unless you were in the southern US, where the common phrase was "Hey Bubba, hold my beer"....

Basically this "study" has holes big-enough to drive a bus through, and should not be relied-on for any reason.

There's nothing wrong with the study. It is noting a correlation, not theorizing a causation. And, the correlation, whatever the cause, is definitely there. That's beyond argument.

The reason is simple. The anti-government folks don't believe in regulations such as speed limits, blood alcohol limits and stop signs.

Kaybee
I don't care if you 'have lived' in Texas or not. I do live here (born, raised and 61 years old) and I have lived plenty of other places too, including overseas. Most drivers here are pretty polite. The ones I see having the attitude you describe seen to have out-of-state plates.

The fact that one has to drive to get anywhere (and unless you live in a city it's usually a pretty good distance to get anywhere) has something to do with it. We simply spend more time in cars than people who live in largely urban areas with mass transit. Case in point, I used to drive to see my parents every 3-day holiday. It was 543 miles from my door to theirs. One way. The nearest large town from here (where it is necessary to go if you want a good restaurant or shopping) is 59 miles. When you live in a very large state with a lot of open spaces it is just a fact of life.

And no, open containers haven't been allowed here in decades.

I've got no problem with thinning the herd in the red states. :P

The problem with this report is that it focuses on FATALITIES. You can have major wrecks (they are not "accidents") in which people are near death and "survive" and not included here. A better statistic might be total health care costs related to traffic incidents and/or simply count ALL injuries in which medical care was sought (yeah that includes chiropractic visits). THEN let's see where the colors fall.

George

What an absolutely absurd argument! Do you have some reason to believe that somehow serious accidents are more likely to result in fatalities in red states and that the rate of serious accidents is about the same? If you are correct that would mean that blue states offer superior emergency response and health care ...... on second though, maybe you are on to something.

Quite simple... Blue states are more urban with shorter commutes, have fewer drivers per capita, many can't afford a vehicle, and the government gives them everything BUT a car.

You sir, have never been on the Long Island Expressway at any hour. Cars lined up bumper to bumper like lemmings going to the sea. There is very little difference driving an Interstate in any state. The roads are equally bad, the speed limit is about the same, and the driving the same. It does surprise me to see this statistic. I would have thought it to be the other way around.

Wow, they can't even drive a car.

And they think we ought to let them drive the country?

George - are you saying blue states have better healthcare?

Well, there you have it.

Auto 101 - The red states Who controls them??? For almost 180 years Mississippi had had a democrat Governor

Erm, I think Haley Barbour (R) has been Governor of Mississippi for the last 8 years.

And Kirk Fordice (R) was Governor from 1992 to 2000.

So actually they've had a Republican for 16 out of the last 20 years.

Research much?

Yet another bull@!$%# study trying to prove liberal superiority. If it's on the internet, it must be true. Bon jour!

Prison stats? Really? Care to back any of that up with a single reliable reference, or are you just making it up as you go...don't bother answering, there is no need. No one in prison votes, and felons NEVER will again, if they ever did (I would guess that a pretty small percentage of prison inmates ever voted even once, much less claim any sort of lasting political allegiance).

Blue states are typically better educated. That is an established fact. If you are a red state you generally don't like government spending on infrastructure, like road maintenance, for example. If you live out in the red country somewhere, you may well feel less inclined to buckle up, fix that headlight or mind the speed limit (85????). Add it all up. It's no mystery. It isn't just one thing that causes the statistical discrepancy, it's the whole "red" lifestyle.

So actually they've had a Republican for 16 out of the last 20 years.

Research much?

And they are democrat from 1870-1980.

and felons NEVER will again, if they ever did (I would guess that a pretty small percentage of prison inmates ever voted even once, much less claim any sort of lasting political allegiance).

Check out these websites.

http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=286

http://www.ehow.com/way_5317110_can-felon-voting-rights-again.html

Well we have the driving BS report now how about fatalities by guns report and see how the blues states do.

wtf? turning traffic data into a political football... LOL...

Stupid article for stupid people from the stupid media...

oh my bad this IS the ISSUE right here - By Stuart Silverstein, FairWarning - crappy sensationalized tabloid news...

Funny you think people are going to work in the red states - there are more people on gubmint support in those, the less educated and less regulated parts of our country....

Bull@!$%#!...typically people who live in Red states are dumber then sticks!

I don't think you can qualify for assistance/welfare if you own a car...

Hey Taintted: While you do bring up accurate information, you really need to be careful who you are calling a Jackass:

sta·tis·tic/stəˈtistik/

Noun:

1. A fact or piece of data

The unemployment rate in NJ and New York is lower then most red states. and as u can see, has the lowest death rate. so you bs comment about not working is just that, BS. let me put this in simple terms that even a republicans can understand. Republicans do not use their heads. I know more then one republican who resents the seat belt laws and think it's a liberal conspiracy instead of a law that insurance companies fought for and paid for. seat belts do save lives. So when you get into that pick up truck with the confederate flag hanging next to your gun rack, put down the beer and use your fkn seat belt @$$ hole. lol

Further proof that voting for Romney is bad for you.

poverty, lack of education, depression .... in the red states

One has to wonder why NBC needs to run an article like this. All it does is to fan the flames of social divide. The comments made here on Newsvine and other public forums make my point. I respect honest public opinion and discourse that does not resort to insults and hate.

I am proud to live in Nebraska, a "red" state, and equally proud of my heritage which is rooted in the plains of Kansas and Nebraska, and the hills of Missouri. And yes, I do have a Redneck side and cowboy attitude when the occassion calls for it.

Was it mentioned how many of these fatalities may be children rather than adults? Children who possibly died because a parent didn't secure them properly in a car seat or make them wear a seatbelt. This could also be a sad part of the equation not considered.

State unemployment rates can be easilly researched.

For the benefit of "george paul john", the Bureau of Labor Statistics for September 2012 has NJ at 9.8% and NY at 8.9%. Those are "blue" states, right? My sort of all 50 states + DC does not match your assumptions.

NV is highest at 11.8%. North Dakota is lowest at 3.0%. My state, Nebraska is 3.9%.

Ken - it's a choice one makes to participate in the division.

though, i dont see anything wrong in pointing out statistical truths and how that might correlate with peoples notions.

For instance, the 13 of the top 20 states with the highest portion of their population on food stamps are red states, with Mississippi leading the pack @ 20 % of their population on food stamps.

Compared with 12 of the bottom 20 states with the lowest portion of their population on food stamps being Blue states.

Given the theme that republicans like to tell about Obama only winning the election because he promised the blue states handouts, it seems that narrative just doesnt match reality. You'd think the top 20 states with the highest portion of their population on welfare would have been all blue...but that just isnt the case.

california isnt even in the top 40. they are #43 with 9.7% of their population on food stamps.

ultimately, I think if we are ever going to heal the divide, we have to start talking REAL NUMBERS - and shattering the falsehoods that both sides are peddaling.

There are too many people on govt assistance, but thats a symptom of too few jobs...and if we are being honest here, we have to look at how all these jobs are disappearing...whether we go back a few decades to when the first manufacturing jobs were shipped to mexico, then china...or whether we are talking about todays business model of cutting 1/2 your workforce, squeezing more production out of your current workers are a lower wage, and the owner/ceo's/shareholders reaping record profits.

it's great for those at the top, they keep getting richer...but everyone else, keeps getting poorer.

we cant fix that by giving rich people more tax cuts. we can only fix it by putting people back to work.

and as we are often reminded - business owners arent in business to create jobs, only to create personal wealth.

when that reality changes, so too will americans job prospects. it's gotta be a little of both...or we'll end up a 3 rd world nation with a handful of haves, and mostly a bunch of have nots.

Ken - unemployment statistics are intersting, because a lot of red states have made it harder for people to be counted "unemployed" - kicking them off the doles without them actually finding jobs.

Which might explain why many red states with low unemployment numbers, have the highest food stamp #'s

@ Jessica I find the opposite to be true. In the blue states many people drop out of the workforce and live off assistance. Look at Michigan and New York. I do agree their are a ton of people in the south in poverty, but statistics show these are not the individuals voting at the polls. Voter turnout in the south is horrid, if they could get some of the urban, lower income areas in the south to vote I think they would all become blue states as well.

I was pointing to published unemployment stats. I've also seen the numbers on states with populations receiving the largest percentage of government welfare. Still does not line up.

However, I will concede there are ways for the numbers to be sliced and diced to allow one to reach most any conclusion, be you D or R. My source is government data which my any measure then can be subjective if not manipulated.

And Jess, what is wrong with a business wanting to generate personal wealth for it's owners providing that business pays a fair wage and provides a needed/wanted product or service? Many businesses also give back to their communities to help them survive and thrive. I have witnessed in small towns everywhere. I myself am not rich in the sense of income, but I would like to be. Nonetheless, I don't begrudge anyone or anybusiness their right to earn and reinvest a profit.

Now off to work.

Why make or follow rules? According to conservatives, roads, like businesses, will regulate themselves!

This report does not take into consideration how many red drivers are driving in blue states and how many blue drivers are driving in red states. Explain that to me.

I don't think you can qualify for assistance/welfare if you own a car...

Anybody can own a car and collect. The car may be a junker but it is still a car.

Jinsofla actually you're wrong. massachusetts is not a heavily urban area, and neither is connecticut, vermont, new hampshire, and maine. to tell ya the truth most of the states listed as blue are not heavily urban areas. there are more urban areas in the red states that also have mass transit. maybe you should do some research before posting your opinion.

Taintted,

JinSoFla said they "tend" to be, not that they actually are, and of the 5 states that you cited in New England, Massachusetts and Connecticut have pretty high population densities, especially around Boston, though I'm sure the western half of Massachusetts isn't as densely populated as the rest of the state. I think the I-95 corridor from Washington, D.C., north to Boston is heavily urban.

Just my 2¢

The survey is deaths per miles driven. Not total miles traveled. So mass transit miles traveled doesn't even figure in on this equation. I wish people would actually read the entire article and think before they post.

I really don't think this is a useful study at all. There are simply too many variables not considered. I think it has more to do with the health network in place, the size of the state, and the miles driven than a per captia measure. State laws are probably the only political measure one can use, and it is probably very limited to things like seat belt laws. Massachusetts, number two on the list, is a small state that you can cross the long way in about 3 hours and the short way in about an hour and a half. Miles driven will be low. It's a small state, there isn't an isolated deep woods far from civilization. You crash you can get help quickly. And it has among the best health networks in the country.

So in MA you're less likely to get into a car accident (less likely to be driving), more likely to get help (small/populous), and more likely to survive (good health care.) Makes sense for DC too.

um New York City doesnt equal the entire northeast corridor. They are pretty much the only area with well developed mass transit. a little research goes a long to way in not making you look like a fool.

You are wrong, the suburbs of New York City, which includes Northern Jersey and Southwest corner of Connecticut and Westchester County, also have good transit systems. Philadelphia, Boston, Baltimore, Washington D.C. and their suburbs also have good transit systems. Smaller communities have bus or commuter train lines that connect into those larger systems. The Northeast, by far, has a more public transit mindset than any other part of the country.

Again The survey is deaths per miles driven. Not total miles traveled. So mass transit miles traveled doesn't even figure in on this equation. I wish people would actually read the entire article and think before they post.

For example, why didn't you use the total number of deaths which puts "blue" California and Florida right at the top which is no surprise if you have ever spent any time on the highways in CA or FL.

Total number of deaths is a meaningless statistic because larger, more populated states (i.e. California and Florida) will naturally have more deaths when measured on an absolute basis. What is important is the rate of deaths. You sound like the one who is trying to manipulate the data to support a biased viewpoint.

A more complete article would be very appreciated - it mentions that many experts think that "fatalities per mile driven" would be a better measure. That sounds reasonable. Then why not include a chart of fatalities per miles driven within the state?

Minnesota is a 'very Blue' state that doesn't require helmets on adult motorcycle drivers or passengers.

So what's your point?

I still don't understand why ignorant Tea Baggers spend so much time reading news on a site they hate. Could you explain? I never ever watch Faux--why would anyone watch a station so blatantly biased towards a Fascist future?

"I still don't understand why ignorant Tea Baggers spend so much time reading news on a site they hate."

Comic relief.

Either someone stole this from you or you have more than one account on newsvine, interesting.

either way he's still an idiot.

They think we're just about as stupid as many of us are. Look, MSNBC got us all talking about politics as it relates to traffic deaths. We get the government we deserve.

I tend to agree. Folks in the blue states are just by and large smarter. They make sounder decisions all around, including on the road. There are probably other correlations as well, in health conditions for instance. This story isn't at all surprising.

Until you cite evidence to support your contentions the two of you are simply geographical bigots.

Look at the percentage of people that actually graduated from collage and you will see a heavy preference to vote Democrat. Even within red states themselves were you have a greater percentage of collage graduates they tend to vote Democrat. In areas with higher percentages of high school drop outs Guess What? That's right they tend to vote Republican. Look it up if you don't believe me.

so what the evidence suggests is that the indoctrination becomes complete in college? that narcissitic idiots who constantly have shoulder pain from patting themselves on the back emerge from colllege believing they are smart. bring it. i work in high technology and didn't bother with 'the' paper until 14 years into my job.

Hmmm, I'm a redneck and a southerner. No, my parents aren't related. I have a MENSA card in my wallet that proves that I'm part of the top 2% of the most intelligent people in the world. Yet I'm a conservative. I think your "logic" is seriously flawed. Traffic deaths have nothing to do with politics, education, geography, or I.Q.. They have everything to do with bad driving and, occasionally, unfortunate circumstance. Anyone who tries to make this into something else is an idiot.

Mike, it might be useful to some of the people here if you explain what MENSA is. Most have never heard of this elite club.

huskergal, I would be happy to. MENSA is a global organization that requires it's membership to take an I.Q. test and score over 98% on that test. Actually, that is a very simple way of explaining it; it is slightly more flexible than that. The bottom line is: if you are in MENSA you aren't unintelligent. I only bring it up because I am sick of being told that I am obviously an uneducated, inbred idiot because I don't agree with these self-entitled, indoctrinated products of modern society. And yes, it is an elite club; there are Nobel prize winners that can't join. I believe Al Gore is one of them and Obama, another.

Thank you, Mike. You are not the only MENSA member on this vine, but many have not heard of it. Happy Thanksgiving and please be safe. Enjoy all the good food provided today for it was a blessing to our forefathers on that first Thanksgiving and for the prosperity of this nations as we learned much about planting seed for food.

That and how can you base a proper assumption off of 2010 stats against a 2012 election? Not all states stayed the same, and as you mentioned, many states were neck and neck on the votes.

My wife had a very Liberal uncle who was killed in a traffic accident (in a 'blue' state). I don't know if alcohol was a factor, but driving under the influence wasn't exactly foreign to him.

I, on the other hand, have leaned toward the Conservative side all my adult life and have yet to be killed on the road. This in spite of the fact that most of my driving is done in a 'red' area of a 'blue' state.

This, according to MSNBC logic, is proof positive that Liberals are more likely to be involved in fatal accidents than Conservatives!

Actually, all that is, is anecdote, and does not disprove the statiscal analysis reported at all. Don't understand much about the process, do you?

However, you have managed to support the other correlations that have been noted in the red states that no doubt affect driver fatalities.

and you rely on statistics?

when i was in class i heard "lies, damned lies and statistics". in that order.

Speed in and of itself cannot kill. It can ONLY be a contributory factor.

Don't you love how they used 2010 stats but based their argument off of 2012 elections? Not every state stayed the same color in the 2012 election than in the 2008 election. It's skewed.

Does the deaths on the highway really relate to your political opinion?

Actually, yes. Political opinions are directly tied to attitudes that determine other areas of information processing and personal behaviors and choices. This has actually been supported through research for many years.

stupid statement. you leapfrogged that much based on this data? i think there might be tens and hundreds of steps in between to be meaningful. about as useful as me saying that DOCJT means you can't spell.

What makes this article totally pointless is they used stats from 2010 but weighed them against 2012 elections. I know that NC was blue the last time around and red this time around so the correlation isn't always connected properly.

Actually, the red states could learn something if they paid attention to statistics like these. For example, many states have increased the penalties on drunk drivers and repeat speeders. Some states have strict auto inspection standards. Speed limits vary greatly, and some hospitals have ER's that do a great job with trauma care.

Bury your heads in the sand if you like. I'm staying in my blue state.

This is just an idiotic article written by an idiot. I'm done wasting time on this rubbish.

And there it is. The conservative attitude that allows these statistics to manifest.

@gaybeetoys, stay in your state.

@DOCJT, i have no idea what you are talking about.

Ryderwriter, you just unintentionally provided support for the implied message of this article. Anybody with any education or intelligence at all would realize that your statement below reflects badly on your own intelligence. People like YOU are the reason for the statistics quoted in the article.

"Red States are on the road more, working, being responsible while blue states are living off the dole and don't have any place to go except to receive government support paid for by the drivers in red states who are working to support themselves -- and others."

And, yet is the red states that are, on average, net TAKERS from the federal government while blue states are net CONTRIBUTORS. Pretty much gives lie to your argument that the blue states are living off the dole, since they're the ones supporting the red staters.

yes, because the completion of public allotment runs high in blue. it doesn't always happen in red. and if you want to make the arguement that we (in red) are on the greater government teat--then start mining in new england. lets see how many of you get out a shovel

Political affliation is not a race, lol.

"Political affliation is not a race, lol."

Isn't it, though? I am told repeatedly on here that I'm a racist because I am conservative and white. Or could it be just because I disagree, hmmmm........

So you probably make low wages and don't fall in the top two percent of income earners...

So you arrived at a statistical figure that is solely based on large populated cities. Go back and review farm animal deaths on main highway systems.