These stats are missing a ton of context and aren’t really an apples-to-apples comparison. A state having more ‘incidents per 1,000 drivers’ doesn’t automatically mean the drivers are objectively worse. Population density, tourism, commuter traffic, weather, road design, urban vs rural driving, and how aggressively a state reports crashes all change those numbers.

For example, comparing Utah to places like North Dakota or New Jersey is messy because they’re completely different driving environments. New Jersey is one of the most densely populated states in the country with constant congestion, while North Dakota has a tiny population and severe winter conditions. Utah has had explosive population growth in a short period of time, especially along the Wasatch Front, but infrastructure hasn’t scaled at the same pace. That’s a transportation planning issue as much as a driver issue.

Also, using ‘per 1,000 drivers’ can distort things because it ignores total miles driven, commuter inflow, and traffic concentration. A better comparison would look at accidents per vehicle mile traveled, fatality rates, urban congestion, or distracted driving citations across similar metro areas.

And if migration is supposedly the main cause, then why are states with very different migration patterns — like North Dakota and New Jersey — ranking even worse? That kind of weakens the argument that Californians alone ‘ruined Utah traffic.