5 ms·
It can be if you compare it to: 1. Total US population, and total deaths per year 2. Amount of miles traveled yearly.
by 988747 4y ago
It can be if you compare it to:
1. Total US population, and total deaths per year
2. Amount of miles traveled yearly.
- scoofy 4y agoExcept that they are dramatically higher than in comparable countries. It's very obvious that the US is overwhelmingly worse off in traffic deaths.
- sicp-enjoyer 4y agoDo americans travel more miles than is typical in those countries?
- Moru 4y agoVery mixed ages and completeness of the data in this list [1] but it seems USA is pretty high on death per kilometer (fifth) of those countries that has data on kilometer traveled. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...
- scoofy 4y agoMeasure in “trips” not miles. Measuring in miles rewards suburban culture. Highway driving isn’t where deaths happen. They happen most on urban roads.
- throwaway0a5e 4y agoScrew you both. Measure butt-in-seat hours.
- scoofy 4y agoThat doesn’t count people who don’t get in a car wreck, simply because they walked to buy groceries
- throwaway0a5e 4y agoAren't we comparing drivers vs drivers here? If we aren't then you're just measuring the fraction of the population that drives (which is largely a reflection of wealth and demographics) which isn't really a measurement of the safeness of the roads and driving.
- scoofy 4y agoWe’re talking about people killed trying to move around the place they live. Butt-in-seat hours is a fine way to measure automobile vs automobile stats, but when we’re talking about deaths from transportation, counting only automobile hours is silly. There are various ways to get around a city, and the way you do that hardly matters if it suits the purposes of that trip.