Re: Best and worst states for auto insurance premiums

"127.0.0.1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> where did you pick up that false info?

Most of the satistics on accident rates I've seen seem to indicate that
less populous states have higher accident rates. For example, this:
http://tinyurl.com/p2ph seems to indicate that in 2002, Montana had the
highest number of fatal accidents per 100,000 miles traveled (2.7 per
100,000), followed closely by Mississippi (2.5), Arkansas (2.2), and
Arizona (2.2). California had 1.3 fatal accidents per 100,000 miles while
New York had 1.2.

This particular site doesn't break it down by population, but if they did,
Montana (pop: 1 million) would've had 27 fatalaties per 100,000 population
while New York (pop: 18 million) would've been at 8 fatalities per 100,000
population.


> the fact is that you cram too many people/cars into one place and bad
> things happen.

But it's also a fact that bad things tend to happen much more often on
poorly lit, narrow, poorly planned roads. My personal experience is that
bad road conditions are more likely than dense traffic conditions to cause
crashes. My guess is that the average rural backroad sees accident rates
far higher than the autobahn.



> The fact is that in more dense places more accidents do
> happen,

Sure, but we are concerned about accidents per driver or accidents per
mile.



> more thefts happen

Theft rates are probably higher in more populated areas. But does this
outweigh the effects of accident rates? I don't know.

    -Mike