Vehicle Cost, Reckless Driving, and Crash Fatalities in Missouri and Nationwide
The report, based on 2023 data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Missouri State Highway Patrol, reveals that car price and crash risk are closely linked. The findings underscore a national safety concern: more expensive vehicles may carry more than financial weight; they may also carry greater risk.
According to NHTSA, 40,990 people died in motor vehicle crashes in the U.S. in 2023, an average of over 112 deaths every day. Missouri's roads reflect this disturbing trend, with 991 crash-related fatalities last year, including 102 deaths in Kansas City alone.
Shockingly, 53% of Missouri's fatal crashes involved pickup trucks or SUVs, vehicles that are not only the state's most popular but also among its most expensive. According to the report, the Ford F-150, Chevrolet Silverado, and Toyota RAV4 are the most commonly driven vehicles in Missouri, with median price tags ranging from $33,000 to nearly $59,000.
While Missouri is saturated with powerful trucks and SUVs, the national data adds another layer: luxury brands are consistently among the most crash-involved vehicles. Of the top 10 accident-prone brands in the U.S., 40% are considered luxury or high-end.
The study found the following luxury vehicles had the highest accident rates per 1,000 drivers: Tesla – 36.94 Audi – 32.23 BMW – 30.43 Infiniti – 29.37 Lexus – 28.67 Acura – 28.44 Mercedes-Benz – 26.39 Volvo – 26.35 Land Rover – 25.97 Lincoln – 21.59
'Many of these vehicles come with five-star crash ratings,' said a spokesperson for Kevin McManus Law. 'But even the best safety tech can't prevent crashes caused by human behavior especially speeding, distraction, and aggression.'
The study draws on behavioral psychology to explain the trend. One particularly eye-opening finding: for every $1,000 increase in a vehicle's value, the odds of its driver yielding to a pedestrian drop by 3%.
'Drivers in more expensive vehicles often feel more entitled or less accountable,' said the spokesperson. 'They may drive faster, take more risks, or pay less attention. And the data is backing that up.'
Even though the median household income in the U.S. is $80,610, many Americans are driving vehicles well above recommended affordability thresholds. In Missouri, where the median household income is $68,920 (and $67,449 in Kansas City), popular vehicles like the Ford F-150 can cost nearly $60,000—almost an entire year's salary.
The report also breaks down crash causes in Missouri: 53% of fatal crashes involved speeding
of fatal crashes involved 17% involved alcohol
involved 10% were attributed to distracted driving
In many of these cases, the driver was behind the wheel of a pickup, SUV, or luxury vehicle, suggesting a strong link between vehicle type, cost, and aggressive driving behavior.
The data also reveals where these crashes are happening. Kansas City's top 10 high-fatality roadways in 2023 include: I-435 – 26 fatalities Truman Road – 12 U.S. 71 – 11 I-70 – 11 Prospect Avenue – 9 Ward Parkway – 8 Troost Avenue – 7 Independence Avenue – 6 Emanuel Cleaver II Blvd. – 4 31st Street – 4
'These numbers don't lie,' said the spokesperson. 'We're seeing the same roads, the same behaviors, and the same high-risk vehicles involved again and again.'
In response to the findings, Kevin McManus Law is calling for a multi-pronged approach to reduce crash risk and increase accountability: Strengthened seatbelt enforcement, especially for pickup and SUV occupants, where unbelted fatalities are disproportionately high. Statewide safety campaigns targeted at high-risk drivers and vehicle types. Better road infrastructure and signage on Missouri's most dangerous roads. Incentivizing safer vehicles, including subsidies or insurance discounts for cars with built-in driver-assist tech. Behavioral education, especially for young or high-income drivers, focuses on speeding, distraction, and pedestrian safety.
'This isn't just a Missouri problem, it's a national problem with local consequences,' said Kevin McManus. 'Every time a driver gets behind the wheel of a $70,000 SUV or a high-performance sedan, they're taking on a responsibility far beyond their safety. And the numbers show that far too often, that responsibility is being ignored.'
The bottom line: more expensive cars are consistently linked to higher accident rates—and changing that will require more than better seatbelts or airbags. It will take accountability, infrastructure, and education.
TIME BUSINESS NEWS
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
31 minutes ago
- NBC News
EPA moves to repeal finding that underpins current limits on greenhouse gas pollution from cars, factories, power plants
President Donald Trump's administration on Tuesday proposed revoking a scientific finding that has long been the central basis for U.S. action to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and fight climate change. The proposed Environmental Protection Agency rule rescinds a 2009 declaration that determined that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. The 'endangerment finding' is the legal underpinning of a host of climate regulations under the Clean Air Act for motor vehicles, power plants and other pollution sources that are heating the planet. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the proposed rule change on a podcast ahead of an official announcement set for Tuesday in Indiana. Repealing the endangerment finding 'will be the largest deregulatory action in the history of America,' Zeldin said on the Ruthless podcast. Zeldin called for a rewrite of the endangerment finding in March as part of a series of environmental rollbacks announced at the same time in what Zeldin said was 'the greatest day of deregulation in American history.'' A total of 31 key environmental rules on topics from clean air to clean water and climate change would be rolled back or repealed under Zeldin's plan. He singled out the endangerment finding as 'the Holy Grail of the climate change religion' and said he was thrilled to end it 'as the EPA does its part to usher in the Golden Age of American success.'' Tailpipe emission limits also targeted The EPA also called for rescinding limits on tailpipe emissions that were designed to encourage automakers to build and sell more electric vehicles. The transportation sector is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. Three former EPA leaders have criticized Zeldin, saying his March proposal would endanger the lives of millions of Americans and abandon the agency's dual mission to protect the environment and human health. 'If there's an endangerment finding to be found anywhere, it should be found on this administration because what they're doing is so contrary to what the Environmental Protection Agency is about,' Christine Todd Whitman, who led EPA under Republican President George W. Bush, said after Zeldin's plan was made public. The EPA proposal follows an executive order from Trump that directed the agency to submit a report 'on the legality and continuing applicability' of the endangerment finding. Conservatives and some congressional Republicans hailed the initial plan, calling it a way to undo economically damaging rules to regulate greenhouse gases. But environmental groups, legal experts and Democrats said any attempt to repeal or roll back the endangerment finding would be an uphill task with slim chance of success. The finding came two years after a 2007 Supreme Court ruling holding that the EPA has authority to regulate greenhouse gases as air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. A 'kill shot' to invalidate all climate regulations David Doniger, a climate expert at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, said it was virtually 'impossible to think that the EPA could develop a contradictory finding (to the 2009 standard) that would stand up in court.' Doniger and other critics accused Trump's Republican administration of using potential repeal of the endangerment finding as a 'kill shot'' that would allow him to make all climate regulations invalid. If finalized, repeal of the endangerment finding would erase current limits on greenhouse gas pollution from cars, factories, power plants and other sources and could prevent future administrations from proposing rules to tackle climate change. 'The Endangerment Finding is the legal foundation that underpins vital protections for millions of people from the severe threats of climate change, and the Clean Car and Truck Standards are among the most important and effective protections to address the largest U.S. source of climate-causing pollution,'' said Peter Zalzal, associate vice president of the Environmental Defense Fund. 'Attacking these safeguards is manifestly inconsistent with EPA's responsibility to protect Americans' health and well-being,'' he said. 'It is callous, dangerous and a breach of our government's responsibility to protect the American people from this devastating pollution.'
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
Do People Even Want Robotaxis? Polls Suggest Not — And Tesla Isn't Helping
A vehicle Tesla is using for robotaxi testing purposes on Oltorf Street in Austin, Texas, US, on ... More Sunday, June 22, 2025. The launch of Tesla Inc.'s driverless taxi service began modestly, with a handful of vehicles in limited areas of the city. Photographer: Tim Goessman/Bloomberg Nearly half of Americans say they would never ride in a robotaxi — and we can't even blame Tesla's messy robotaxi launch in Austin, as most of them hadn't even heard about it. That's according to a survey focused on Tesla by the Electric Vehicle Intelligence Report (EVIR), which found that 65% of 8,000 people polled had heard nothing at all about the Tesla robotaxi launch, despite reports of cars driving down the wrong side of the road and speeding. After reading one such story, half of those surveyed by EVIR said they would now be less interested in using a Tesla robotaxi. Tesla aside, 46% of those surveyed said they would never consider riding in any robotaxi, with a further 31% saying they're not currently up for it, but never say never. A further 1% said they had been for a robotaxi ride, and wouldn't do it again. People over 65 were more likely to say no to driverless taxis (58%) versus younger cohorts (47% for the 45-64 crowd and 35% for 18-44 year olds) and people living in rural regions (53%) were more likely to refuse a robotaxi ride than suburban or urban counterparts (46% and 37% respectively). Forget taking a ride: more than half (53%) said robotaxis they strongly or somewhat believe they should be outright illegal. "Public skepticism is understandable," Elad Hofstetter, chief business officer for Innoviz Technologies, told me over email. 'The early promises around autonomous vehicles in the late 2010s set sky-high expectations, but the industry hasn't always delivered consistent, real-world performance to match."Previous riders are more positive about robotaxis Those EVIR poll results fit with previous studies: a survey of Brits in July by Startline suggests just 11% would hop in a driverless car now, with only 4% saying the vehicles are currently safe enough for public roads. For what it's worth, Kathy Winter, the COO of driverless firm May Mobility, told Wired that she thinks such survey results are "simply an artifact of low exposure to a new technology". And that may be correct: other studies have shown that people do feel more positive about driverless cars once they've gone for a ride. Belgian academics revealed that people developed more positive feelings about driverless technologies after going for a ride in one, saying that their study "indicates that large scale survey studies that do not require prior experience with automated driving capture an underestimation of the acceptance of autonomous vehicles." That said, the study also found a "decrease in perceived usefulness" after going for a ride, too. Passengers ride in an electric Jaguar I-Pace car outfitted with Waymo full self-driving technology ... More in Santa Monica in 2023. (Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images) Additionally, a report last year by JD Power suggested that consumer confidence is 56 percentage points higher among those who have ridden in a robotaxi, at a whopping 76% versus 20% for those who have never been in a Waymo or other car. "We believe that public opinion will shift when people experience the benefits for themselves," said Hofstetter. "Once people experience that firsthand, the feeling of handing over control and seeing the car respond safely and intelligently, they will begin to understand the value." Of course, you're going to have to convince them to get in the car first. And given those polled by JD Power rated safety, reliability and trust as key attributes to their ideal robotaxi service, the negative headlines sparked by Tesla's bumpy Austin rollout may not be helping the industry's image, sources told Reuters. "Unfortunately, there's been a lot of confusion in the market," added Hofstetter. "Features like Tesla's 'Full Self Driving' have promised far more than they deliver, leading to public misunderstanding and misplaced expectations. That erodes confidence and some places have already banned the activation of this function on vehicles." Robotaxi rollout ramps up These polls come as Waymo, Tesla and other driverless companies continue to slowly expand to more and more cities, with Tesla adding San Francisco to its list — though with safety drivers in the front seat — and Waymo testing its cars in a wider range of cities, most recently announcing Dallas." Beyond the US, robotaxi services are expected to start being allowed on British roads in 2027, a year delayed from previous plans. But that Startline survey suggested that 49% of UK respondents agreed with government plans to push back driverless car trials by a year until 2027, with 29% of those polled said that timeline might even be too soon. The UK government is currently running a public consultation to help inform that rollout — however, most of the questions are clearly directed at industry rather than individuals. Perhaps instead of asking about application processes and data sharing systems, the government would be better to also ask if individuals felt safe sharing a road with robotaxis or hailing a ride in one — because right now, surveys such as the one from EVIR suggest that might not be the case. A Waymo robotaxi Jaguar I-PACEs driverless car drives in downtown Los Angeles in 2024. (Allen J. ... More Schaben / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images) Indeed, a study published in May by Partners for Automated Vehicle Education (PAVE) suggests that driverless cars "need the help of the public", but that industry "often misunderstand what matters to the public". What matters to the public? According to the report, individuals want to know how it will benefit them and how they will use the technology — but they also want to trust the technology. "What's it good for," and "will it hurt me" are fair questions, after all. And if the driverless industry can't answer them sufficiently, would-be customers may balk at taking a robotaxi ride.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Trump Environmental Protection Agency moves to repeal finding that allows climate regulation
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump's administration on Tuesday proposed revoking a scientific finding that has long been the central basis for U.S. action to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and fight climate change. The proposed Environmental Protection Agency rule would rescind a 2009 declaration that determined that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. The 'endangerment finding' is the legal underpinning of a host of climate regulations under the Clean Air Act for motor vehicles, power plants and other pollution sources that are heating the planet. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the proposed rule change on a podcast ahead of an official announcement set for Tuesday in Indiana. Repealing the endangerment finding 'will be the largest deregulatory action in the history of America,' Zeldin said on the Ruthless podcast. 'There are people who, in the name of climate change, are willing to bankrupt the country,' Zeldin said. 'They created this endangerment finding and then they are able to put all these regulations on vehicles, on airplanes, on stationary sources, to basically regulate out of existence, in many cases, a lot of segments of our economy. And it cost Americans a lot of money.' The EPA proposal must go though a lengthy review process, including public comment, before it is finalized, likely next year. Environmental groups are likely to challenge the rule change in court. Zeldin called for a rewrite of the endangerment finding in March as part of a series of environmental rollbacks announced at the same time in what he said was 'the greatest day of deregulation in American history.' A total of 31 key environmental rules on topics from clean air to clean water and climate change would be rolled back or repealed under Zeldin's plan. He singled out the endangerment finding as 'the Holy Grail of the climate change religion' and said he was thrilled to end it 'as the EPA does its part to usher in the Golden Age of American success.' Tailpipe emission limits also targeted The EPA also is expected to call for rescinding limits on tailpipe emissions that were designed to encourage automakers to build and sell more electric vehicles. The transportation sector is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. Environmental groups said Zeldin's action denies reality as weather disasters exacerbated by climate change continue in the U.S. and around the world. 'As Americans reel from deadly floods and heat waves, the Trump administration is trying to argue that the emissions turbocharging these disasters are not a threat,' said Christy Goldfuss, executive director of the Natural Resources Defense Council. 'It boggles the mind and endangers the nation's safety and welfare.' Under Zeldin and Trump, 'the EPA wants to shirk its responsibility to protect us from climate pollution, but science and the law say otherwise,' she added. 'If EPA finalizes this illegal and cynical approach, we will see them in court.' Three former EPA leaders have also criticized Zeldin, saying his March announcement targeting the endangerment finding and other rules imperiled the lives of millions of Americans and abandoned the agency's dual mission to protect the environment and human health. 'If there's an endangerment finding to be found anywhere, it should be found on this administration because what they're doing is so contrary to what the Environmental Protection Agency is about,' Christine Todd Whitman, who led EPA under Republican President George W. Bush, said after Zeldin's plan was made public. The EPA proposal follows an executive order from Trump that directed the agency to submit a report 'on the legality and continuing applicability' of the endangerment finding. Conservatives and some congressional Republicans hailed the initial plan, calling it a way to undo economically damaging rules to regulate greenhouse gases. But environmental groups, legal experts and Democrats said any attempt to repeal or roll back the endangerment finding would be an uphill task with slim chance of success. The finding came two years after a 2007 Supreme Court ruling holding that the EPA has authority to regulate greenhouse gases as air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. Passing court muster could be an issue David Doniger, a climate expert at the NRDC, accused Trump's Republican administration of using potential repeal of the endangerment finding as a 'kill shot'' that would allow him to make all climate regulations invalid. If finalized, repeal of the endangerment finding would erase current limits on greenhouse gas pollution from cars, factories, power plants and other sources and could prevent future administrations from proposing rules to tackle climate change. 'The Endangerment Finding is the legal foundation that underpins vital protections for millions of people from the severe threats of climate change, and the Clean Car and Truck Standards are among the most important and effective protections to address the largest U.S. source of climate-causing pollution,' said Peter Zalzal, associate vice president of the Environmental Defense Fund. 'Attacking these safeguards is manifestly inconsistent with EPA's responsibility to protect Americans' health and well-being,' he said. 'It is callous, dangerous and a breach of our government's responsibility to protect the American people from this devastating pollution.' Conrad Schneider, a senior director at the Clean Air Task Force, said the Trump administration 'is using pollution regulations as a scapegoat in its flawed approach to energy affordability' and reliability. He and other advocates 'are dismayed that an administration that claims it cares about cleaner, healthier and safer air is seeking to dismantle the very protections that are required for those conditions,' Schneider said. ___
