Nashville digital death toll signs

[wtl]

I pass these digital signs along Vietnam Vets and i-65 once or twice a week. During rush hour they show traffic conditions, but most of the time they're showing something about highway death statistics.

 

When I lived in Williamson county I didn't get up north much and didn't see them, but since moving to Castalian Springs I see them more frequently.

 

While I was running back and forth prepping for the move in late 2013, the signs were showing total TN fatalities for 2012 and year to date for 2013. I think the first time I noticed them the death toll for 2012 (the prior year) was in the high 800's, like 880+ or somewhere around there. However, one day as I was driving, I actually saw the number jump up to 901 as I was driving by the sign. How in the world can the death toll for 2012 change in late 2013? Is this just inefficient government never having the real numbers timely, or what?

 

Lately I've noticed the signs reporting the percentage of deaths where seatbelts were not worn. On a monday a couple weeks ago, as I passed the sign on Vietnam Veterans' Parkway, it reported 49% of TN high fatalities weren't wearing seatbelts. By the time I got to the next one on I-65 it was 50%. Two days later it was 51%. People must be dropping like flies! 

 

I guess if you really think about it though, if there are somewhere around 900 fatalities/year, then we're over 200 by now, so only ~2 deaths required to swing the percentage by a point.

 

I just wonder about the bureaucracy behind these signs and the data they present. Doing a quick search it would seem the data comes from the department of safety and homeland security.

[GlockSpock]

Two points.

 

Don't these signs show the current number of deaths this year vs. the number of deaths at exactly one year ago? For example, x number of deaths for 3/27/2014, how many deaths were in 2013 at 3/27/2013?

 

Secondly, what happens when someone is in a wreck, placed on a life support, and dies the following year?

[Lowpower]

Sure would be nice if they actually put some useful info on them see'n as how we taxpayers paid a lot for them.

[gregintenn]

I wonder how many accidents can be attributed to people reading the signs rather than paying attention to driving.

[sigmtnman]

I wonder how many accidents can be attributed to people reading the signs rather than paying attention to driving.

 

My thought everytime I see them.  There is no fixing stupid.

[hipower]

Got to have something tangible to show where all the tax money is going.

[Chucktshoes]

We have the same signs here in Memphis. Whenever I see the seatbelt one I think to myself that if 50% of fatalities were not wearing their seatbelt, that means the other 50% were. That encourages me to do what exactly?

[Dustbuster]

The state pays a traffic gnome to keep up with the stats. Gnomes can't read they just travel and watch gardens. Perfect excuse for hiring someone to work from home to save tax dollars. I think the gnome actually gets stats from Fox News traffic daily.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2 of course it ate my spelling.

[mikegideon]

We have the same signs here in Memphis. Whenever I see the seatbelt one I think to myself that if 50% of fatalities were not wearing their seatbelt, that means the other 50% were. That encourages me to do what exactly?

 

I saw that stat. Looks like a wash to me :)

[bersaguy]

We have the same signs here in Memphis. Whenever I see the seatbelt one I think to myself that if 50% of fatalities were not wearing their seatbelt, that means the other 50% were. That encourages me to do what exactly?

 

I was just thinking that same thing Chuck. If 50% were killed  while not wearing the belts that does mean that 50% died while wearing them so what is the real benefit in wearing them. I do wear mine but because it's the law and not because I feel any safer..............jmho

[wtl]

Two points.

 

Don't these signs show the current number of deaths this year vs. the number of deaths at exactly one year ago? For example, x number of deaths for 3/27/2014, how many deaths were in 2013 at 3/27/2013?

 

Secondly, what happens when someone is in a wreck, placed on a life support, and dies the following year?

 

Ah, good point--makes much more sense if it's a rolling YTD comparison for both years as of the current point in the year.

 

And the changing numbers for the previous year made me wonder the same thing about someone in an accident one year but not actually dying until the next.

Edited March 27, 2014 by wtl

[wtl]

We have the same signs here in Memphis. Whenever I see the seatbelt one I think to myself that if 50% of fatalities were not wearing their seatbelt, that means the other 50% were. That encourages me to do what exactly?

 

Imagine if they phrased in the other way around "50% of TN highway fatalities wearing seatbelts". It makes a completely different statement.

Edited March 27, 2014 by wtl

[173rdABN]

I see those signs change numbers all the time. 

 

892 in 2012. then 971 in 2012 a month later. Who knows where they get their numbers but obviously they cant figure out what they really are.

[toby1304]

I think they should post the comparison of deaths on TN roadways and deaths by firearms. Also, I wonder how many people would still be alive if there was'nt a seatbelt law.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Maybe 50% of fatal accidents were such that the people would have been hosed even wearing seatbelts?

 

Furthermore if one can posit that seat belt compliance is higher than 50%, then it would imply that non seatbelt would be the more hazardous case?

 

Then again, perhaps people careless about seatbelt use may be careless drivers as well, implying that those people would be more at risk of bad accident even if they would be convinced to use seatbelts?

[tnguy]

There is a small but pernicious set of people that hate to see people happy. They put those signs out there to make your day just that little bit more miserable.

[tnguy]

Maybe 50% of fatal accidents were such that the people would have been hosed even wearing seatbelts?
 
Furthermore if one can posit that seat belt compliance is higher than 50%, then it would imply that non seatbelt would be the more hazardous case?
 
Then again, perhaps people careless about seatbelt use may be careless drivers as well, implying that those people would be more at risk of bad accident even if they would be convinced to use seatbelts?

Whichever way, there is insufficient data on the sign to make sense of it. Which is typical knee-jerk woolly-mindedness. Just like when people start talking about "gun deaths" and totally ignoring the crime that isn't gun related.

[mikegideon]

Maybe 50% of fatal accidents were such that the people would have been hosed even wearing seatbelts?

 

Furthermore if one can posit that seat belt compliance is higher than 50%, then it would imply that non seatbelt would be the more hazardous case?

 

Then again, perhaps people careless about seatbelt use may be careless drivers as well, implying that those people would be more at risk of bad accident even if they would be convinced to use seatbelts?

 

I wear a seatbelt because I'm scared of airbags

[Dustbuster]

Almost forgot it can take up to 1 year for the stat to go through due to autopsy, coroner report, dep of health and more. This can work for or against that sign being accurate.
This is what happens when gnomes lose their jobs be nice to gnomes .



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2 of course it ate my spelling.

[2.ooohhh]

I can't wait until someone takes them over to put up some useful information. . .

 

 

 

[RichardR]

We have the same signs here in Memphis. Whenever I see the seatbelt one I think to myself that if 50% of fatalities were not wearing their seatbelt, that means the other 50% were. That encourages me to do what exactly?

A tyrant would answer "just do exactly as you're told".

A freeman would answer "just do what ever you'd like".

A republican would answer "just do what ever the popular opinion is".

A democrat would answer "just do exactly as you're told". :) Edited March 27, 2014 by RichardR

[LagerHead]

I was just thinking that same thing Chuck. If 50% were killed  while not wearing the belts that does mean that 50% died while wearing them so what is the real benefit in wearing them. I do wear mine but because it's the law and not because I feel any safer..............jmho

 

Many of them might be alive today if they were wearing their seat belts and the state would be lower.

 

I know for a fact that a seat belt has saved my life, less than two seconds after I put it on. That was when I was twelve. I have not been without one in a passenger vehicle since. 

[gregintenn]

Many of them might be alive today if they were wearing their seat belts and the state would be lower.

 

I know for a fact that a seat belt has saved my life, less than two seconds after I put it on. That was when I was twelve. I have not been without one in a passenger vehicle since. 

I was once in an accident where I would have most likely been gravely injured, if not killed had I been wearing a seatbelt. The ladie's bumper and my driver's side door was wrapped around my steering wheel. I wasn't injured.

 

The sign said it was 50/50. I guess you and I help confirm that?

[10-Ring]

I drive sober and wear my seatbelt, leaving a 0% chance that I will die in a car crash.

[Chucktshoes]

[quote name="LagerHead" post="1130745" timestamp="1395952567"]Many of them might be alive today if they were wearing their seat belts and the state would be lower. I know for a fact that a seat belt has saved my life, less than two seconds after I put it on. That was when I was twelve. I have not been without one in a passenger vehicle since. [/quote] I actually do always wear my seatbelt and require anyone riding in my vehicle wear one as well. I was just pointing out the signs don't actually say what I think they are trying to make them say.