3 ms·

Shouldn’t they measure in miles driven, not per population? And then cross reference other transit safety? Reduced deaths on roads could simply be due to less

Shouldn’t they measure in miles driven, not per population? And then cross reference other transit safety? Reduced deaths on roads could simply be due to less driving. If everybody moves to a less-safe transit option, that’s not a good thing. (Other transit likely is safer, but we shouldn’t just sssume it is) Failing to do so assumes people aren’t dying using other transit.

cataphract 5y ago
> Reduced deaths on roads could simply be due to less driving. If everybody moves to a less-safe transit option, that’s not a good thing. (Other transit likely is safer, but we shouldn’t just [assume] it is) What is this less-safe transit option? I imagine that "road deaths" includes bus/tram riders, cyclists and pedestrians that died on the road. The number of people who died on trains/train tracks (excluding suicides) and planes is certainly at least an order of magnitude smaller.
eesmith 5y ago
In any statistic, you have to ask what the goal is. Deaths per capita means reducing the mortality rate related to road use (driver, passenger, pedestrian, etc.) Deaths per mile driving may include that, but may also include increasing the amount of driving done. Three times as much driving, with only twice as many deaths, would have a lower ratio, but would that really be an improvement? Not in the Vision Zero goal. The "death on roads" here appears to include car drivers and passengers, pedestrians, cyclists and "drivers of powered two-wheelers", according to the "more detail" link to https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_20_1004 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_... . That is, even if there was no driving there could still be road deaths included in this sort of report. The other modes not covered under "road safety" are "air", "rail", "maritime", and "inland waterways." I don't think many people are switching from road use to one of those other modes, except perhaps rail -- and rail is quite safe.

cataphract 5y ago

> Reduced deaths on roads could simply be due to less driving. If everybody moves to a less-safe transit option, that’s not a good thing. (Other transit likely is safer, but we shouldn’t just [assume] it is) What is this less-safe transit option? I imagine that "road deaths" includes bus/tram riders, cyclists and pedestrians that died on the road. The number of people who died on trains/train tracks (excluding suicides) and planes is certainly at least an order of magnitude smaller.

eesmith 5y ago

In any statistic, you have to ask what the goal is. Deaths per capita means reducing the mortality rate related to road use (driver, passenger, pedestrian, etc.) Deaths per mile driving may include that, but may also include increasing the amount of driving done. Three times as much driving, with only twice as many deaths, would have a lower ratio, but would that really be an improvement? Not in the Vision Zero goal. The "death on roads" here appears to include car drivers and passengers, pedestrians, cyclists and "drivers of powered two-wheelers", according to the "more detail" link to https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_20_1004 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_... . That is, even if there was no driving there could still be road deaths included in this sort of report. The other modes not covered under "road safety" are "air", "rail", "maritime", and "inland waterways." I don't think many people are switching from road use to one of those other modes, except perhaps rail -- and rail is quite safe.