It means that the median age in most of these states is higher than the national average. Drivers are safer as they get older until they reach a certain age and usually when they reach the age when they are no longer safe drivers they aren't driving as much due to retirement.
Ironically, of those blue states (Minnesota, for example) the most traffic crashes and traffic deaths occurred in Hennepin County, which leans Democrat. And the county in Minnesota with the fewest traffic crashes and fatalities was a Republican leaning county.
I don't think it's the speed limits. Germany has unlimited autobahns but a much lower death rate than the US. The main differences are that most of these states are the most heavily urbanised, meaning traffic is just moving slower regardless of the speed limits. They also are wealthy states which would have newer cars with better safety features.
Interesting to note New Hampshire is here, as it is the only US state with no seatbelt law for adults and thus the lowest rate of seatbelt usage.
Most of the people live in the southeast corner which is a couple of traffic clogged freeways and local roads that have become choked with patchwork suburbia. It's not as quaint as they like to project.
I thought about congestion too. I grew up and went to school in the northeast, and there is just much less opportunity to go fast. There's a lot more traffic and there is so much population density that it affects both road construction and how long you can drive without passing an exit (and a state trooper). I've gotten three speeding tickets -- in rural areas in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Indiana respectively -- since I moved to Chicago. In each case, I didn't even realize I was speeding. But when you're on a straightaway for 45 minutes without passing a town or another car, it's easy to accelerate up past 85 mph without even realizing it. By contrast, it's really hard for people in the New York metro area to find a highway empty enough and straight enough to even make that possible.
Usually rural driving is 2 to 4 times more dangerous (fatality wise) than urban driving depending on the study. Outside of New Hampshire most of the states on this list are some of the most urbanized areas of the country.
Maybe it's.. weather, lighting/lane marking? alcohol?, fatigue/boredom?, road hazards? Like deer/livestock? Or types of vehicles, like more trucks.
Google suggests it's speed. Just physics; fast speed = more energy. And speeding is a factor in 27% of rural deaths.
43% of the drunk fatalities were on rural roads.
46% of distracted fatalities were on rural roads.
Or maybe people get drunk and drive in the middle of the night for fun? ...only 58% of crashes record BAC. "Rhode Island highest estimated percentage of fatally injured drivers with BACs of 0.08 percent or higher (50 percent), Utah lowest (18 percent)". That seems nuts, that 50% of fatal crashes were caused by drunk drivers.
https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/ots/reports-statistics/Pages/crash-facts.aspx
Interesting to note New Hampshire is here, as it is the only US state with no seatbelt law for adults and thus the lowest rate of seatbelt usage.
Maybe it's.. weather, lighting/lane marking? alcohol?, fatigue/boredom?, road hazards? Like deer/livestock? Or types of vehicles, like more trucks.
Google suggests it's speed. Just physics; fast speed = more energy. And speeding is a factor in 27% of rural deaths.
43% of the drunk fatalities were on rural roads.
46% of distracted fatalities were on rural roads.
Or maybe people get drunk and drive in the middle of the night for fun? ...only 58% of crashes record BAC. "Rhode Island highest estimated percentage of fatally injured drivers with BACs of 0.08 percent or higher (50 percent), Utah lowest (18 percent)". That seems nuts, that 50% of fatal crashes were caused by drunk drivers.