Lincoln’s Bad Drivers Aren’t THAT Bad
By: Mr. Wilson on
May 17, 2010
I had the same initial reaction as Tom Casady to the report that Lincoln is the 10th most dangerous city for drivers. What a load of hooey! Chief Casady calls it junk research, and he's right. Its only purpose is to generate headlines. Casady notes that one of the things the "study" actually measures is truthfulness. Since the data are entirely self-reported, the overall truthfulness of a community's population will factor heavily into the results.
We shouldn't automatically assume, however, that Lincoln is any more truthful than any other city. I have an alternate explanation for the results, one which I'm a little surprised Casady missed. After all, he has blogged about it several times. Simply put, LPD responds to non-injury crashes more often than police in most other cities. People will assume that if the police were there, a report was written; if a report was written, the accident "counts"; if the accident "counts", then insurance companies can find out about it; if insurance companies can find out about it, then people will report the accident when asked about it. In other words, I suspect truthfulness is involved, but Lincolnites are only more truthful because we are more likely to think we could be caught in a lie.
For what it's worth, I don't think Lincoln's drivers are particularly bad, on average, despite their reputation to the contrary. We have our oddballs, sure, but that's true of every community. And I don't think our oddballs are all that odd. One complaint I hear often is that a driver was driving under the speed limit. What a maniac! I suspect that "bad" behavior can be explained, in part, by the fact that many of our arterials are still two lanes, whereas in many cities they would have been expanded to four lanes long ago. You are less likely to notice a slow vehicle if you can easily get around it.