4 ms·

If you look at some back-of-envelope stats over a lifetime of driving, your probability of getting killed out there is probably bigger than you expect: Let's sa

If you look at some back-of-envelope stats over a lifetime of driving, your probability of getting killed out there is probably bigger than you expect: Let's say 50 years, 80M active drivers in US/ year, 40k fatalities/ year, the probability of going every year without dying on the road --> (1-(40k/80M))^50 --> puts your chance of death close to 3%. Lots of assumptions clearly glossed over, but would you sign up for something where there's, quite possibly, a 3% chance you get killed? Or a 12% chance of a life-altering injury (assuming 5x frequency of fatality)? It would be better if our civilization, one era, designed itself to do away with driving altogether.

benkuykendall 10y ago
Where did you get the 80 million active drivers number?
sbov 10y ago
Note that fatalities can include both drivers and passengers. I'm also not sure where you got 80M active drivers from, I know there are around 200M licensed drivers but couldn't find any stats on active drivers. On a yearly basis, since 2000, in the US, supposedly there have been anywhere from 1.5 to 1.08 fatalities per 100 million miles traveled by vehicle. That seems like a much more solid number to calculate your odds based on, but I don't know how to offhand.
- benkuykendall 10y ago
  Ok, let's use that 1E-8 fatalities per vehicle miles driven. If you commute 50 miles a day 250 days a year for 50 years, we get a total of 1E-8 x 50 x 250 x 50 = 0.006 fatalities, or a 0.6% probability of death.
enjo 10y ago
Where is that 80M number coming from? In 2010 there were 214M people with drivers licenses in the United States[1]. The NHTSA provides stats around this actually, the number of fatalities per 100,000 licensed drives around ~23[2]. So every year out of all the licensed drivers in the United States, .02% die. Or over a 50 year period, about a .9% chance of dying... 1. http://www.statista.com/topics/1197/car-drivers/ http://www.statista.com/topics/1197/car-drivers/ 2. http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx
CalRobert 10y ago
Incidentally, your odds of being killed in a collision with a vehicle are much higher while walking, cycling, or motorcycling than while driving, so it might be worth considering the fact that drivers are displacing risk from themselves and on to other road users.
forgottenpass 10y ago
would you sign up for something where there's, quite possibly, a 3% chance you get killed? Or a 12% chance of a life-altering injury (assuming 5x frequency of fatality)? Yes. Absolutely. Nothing is zero risk. And just because you can quantify the risk doesn't mean I won't still do something. The chance of my death is 100%. While I'm not going to tightrope walk across sky-scrapers, I'm not gonna sit at home eating funyuns in front of the TV forever either. Humans are really really bad at assessing risk. Perceived risk and actual risk are wildly different. And even when risk is assessed, we're doubly bad at dealing with the risk. We react differently based on the source of that risk (terrorism against an industrial system and an accident that takes it offline could have the same impact on operations). And we have less that zero ability to determine acceptable levels of risk. One day a 5% chance of X might seem like a lucky world to live in. Add in two months of media scaremongering and suddenly 5% is unacceptable. Politicians start a "War on X" and PSAs start rolling telling you not to engage in behaviors that might cause X. They'll use the phrase "don't be a statistic" as if you're any less quantified in the 95% than the 5%. It would be silly to suggest there isn't a baseline level of risk we have to be comfortable with as part of life. Take the murder rate for example. We could get it down to near-zero. But the intrusive policing and restrictive policy necessary might mean it's a net negative to society.

benkuykendall 10y ago

Where did you get the 80 million active drivers number?

sbov 10y ago

Note that fatalities can include both drivers and passengers. I'm also not sure where you got 80M active drivers from, I know there are around 200M licensed drivers but couldn't find any stats on active drivers. On a yearly basis, since 2000, in the US, supposedly there have been anywhere from 1.5 to 1.08 fatalities per 100 million miles traveled by vehicle. That seems like a much more solid number to calculate your odds based on, but I don't know how to offhand.

benkuykendall 10y ago
Ok, let's use that 1E-8 fatalities per vehicle miles driven. If you commute 50 miles a day 250 days a year for 50 years, we get a total of 1E-8 x 50 x 250 x 50 = 0.006 fatalities, or a 0.6% probability of death.

enjo 10y ago

Where is that 80M number coming from? In 2010 there were 214M people with drivers licenses in the United States[1]. The NHTSA provides stats around this actually, the number of fatalities per 100,000 licensed drives around ~23[2]. So every year out of all the licensed drivers in the United States, .02% die. Or over a 50 year period, about a .9% chance of dying... 1. http://www.statista.com/topics/1197/car-drivers/ http://www.statista.com/topics/1197/car-drivers/ 2. http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx

CalRobert 10y ago

Incidentally, your odds of being killed in a collision with a vehicle are much higher while walking, cycling, or motorcycling than while driving, so it might be worth considering the fact that drivers are displacing risk from themselves and on to other road users.

forgottenpass 10y ago

would you sign up for something where there's, quite possibly, a 3% chance you get killed? Or a 12% chance of a life-altering injury (assuming 5x frequency of fatality)? Yes. Absolutely. Nothing is zero risk. And just because you can quantify the risk doesn't mean I won't still do something. The chance of my death is 100%. While I'm not going to tightrope walk across sky-scrapers, I'm not gonna sit at home eating funyuns in front of the TV forever either. Humans are really really bad at assessing risk. Perceived risk and actual risk are wildly different. And even when risk is assessed, we're doubly bad at dealing with the risk. We react differently based on the source of that risk (terrorism against an industrial system and an accident that takes it offline could have the same impact on operations). And we have less that zero ability to determine acceptable levels of risk. One day a 5% chance of X might seem like a lucky world to live in. Add in two months of media scaremongering and suddenly 5% is unacceptable. Politicians start a "War on X" and PSAs start rolling telling you not to engage in behaviors that might cause X. They'll use the phrase "don't be a statistic" as if you're any less quantified in the 95% than the 5%. It would be silly to suggest there isn't a baseline level of risk we have to be comfortable with as part of life. Take the murder rate for example. We could get it down to near-zero. But the intrusive policing and restrictive policy necessary might mean it's a net negative to society.