5 ms·

This article seems pretty misleading. Looking at the historical trends [1], there were more pedestrian deaths per year 50 years ago. And that is before taking

by nverno 5y ago

This article seems pretty misleading. Looking at the historical trends [1], there were more pedestrian deaths per year 50 years ago. And that is before taking into account that the population has doubled since then! There is clearly an uptick in recent years, but this nyt article is trying to hard to hype it up. Coming off historical lows, around 10 years ago, the percentage yearly increase can sound more shocking than it is- same thing when crime rates reach new lows and then bounce back a bit. 1. https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/pedestrians https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/pedes...

CalRobert 5y ago
I suspect the number of miles walked has fallen quite a lot in the last 50 years. Like talking about how so few children are killed cycling to school without noting that close to no children cycle to school, compared to decades past.
thaway2839 5y ago
The uptick is real. It's an uptick despite reduced driving. A 45% increase in deaths per mile driven is no joke. Further, you're also ignoring advancements in medicine, emergency services, healthcare systems, rules (e.g., cities in the US have drastically reduced max speeds), safety focused street design changes, etc. that mean that the odds of a pedestrian dying have reduced in general. Comparing broadly to 50 years ago is not very useful.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  Reduction in miles doesn't proportionally reduce exposure to pedestrians. The bulk of the mileage reduction has been people's commutes and your average commute is dominated by limited access pedestrian free roads.
- nverno 5y ago
  Did you look at the pedestrian deaths graph/100,000 at the bottom of that page? It's not just 'broadly to 50 years ago', the number of deaths has been decreasing, or pretty steady that whole time. Anyway, it was more just the way it was written that was annoying, like the author was trying to pull a fast one on the reader, cherry-picking stats to make a point.

by nverno 5y ago

CalRobert 5y ago

I suspect the number of miles walked has fallen quite a lot in the last 50 years. Like talking about how so few children are killed cycling to school without noting that close to no children cycle to school, compared to decades past.

thaway2839 5y ago

The uptick is real. It's an uptick despite reduced driving. A 45% increase in deaths per mile driven is no joke. Further, you're also ignoring advancements in medicine, emergency services, healthcare systems, rules (e.g., cities in the US have drastically reduced max speeds), safety focused street design changes, etc. that mean that the odds of a pedestrian dying have reduced in general. Comparing broadly to 50 years ago is not very useful.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
Reduction in miles doesn't proportionally reduce exposure to pedestrians. The bulk of the mileage reduction has been people's commutes and your average commute is dominated by limited access pedestrian free roads.
nverno 5y ago
Did you look at the pedestrian deaths graph/100,000 at the bottom of that page? It's not just 'broadly to 50 years ago', the number of deaths has been decreasing, or pretty steady that whole time. Anyway, it was more just the way it was written that was annoying, like the author was trying to pull a fast one on the reader, cherry-picking stats to make a point.