The other day an odd headline made its way up and down the Massachusetts Information Superhighway - driving down, but accidents up. This article blames speeding and distracted driving, possibly the official causes of those twenty-seven fatal crashes. But here at TOA we point out that those causes are ticketed offenses, and wonder if we could draw more meaningful conclusions by looking at infractions rather than fatalities.
I'm even less impressed with CNBC, allegedly a news site that covers 'Wall Street' to 'Main Street'. Well, perhaps their HQ is on Easy Street, paved by this indirectly related article, where USAA CEO Wayne Peacock presents 'spring fever' or 'cabin fever' as possible explanations for recent upticks in car accidents. And of course, anecdotally, "there are more cars on the road". OK, so more driving always equals more accidents? The only data I saw in the article suggests driving is down 44% compared to a February average - are accidents also down 44%? This is the only relevant detail, but at CNBC I guess when data calls out sick, anecdote is the substitute teacher.
I say if you are going to identify causes, give us the relevant evidence. And if you must use anecdotes, at least give us a real anecdote, where YOU tell us what YOU saw, and link it to a relevant conclusion. My post from April 2 is what I would tolerate from anyone else - I make it clear that it's a theory, and explain it with my experience. When I see three drivers in one week going the wrong direction on one-way streets, I try to think about why, but I don't call it an explanation. If I ever want to extend my observation to fact, I'll find data correlating tickets to accidents, then see if one-way driving tickets went up during the lockdown.
