3 ms·

> True, but there were also 250 billion more miles traveled than 16 years ago and a population of roughly 40 million more people. So though the raw number is hi

> True, but there were also 250 billion more miles traveled than 16 years ago and a population of roughly 40 million more people. So though the raw number is higher, the traffic fatalities per mile traveled and per capita is actually lower than it was back then. OK, but it's the greatest number of fatalities per mile traveled in 14 years, and the highest number per capita in 13 years, though. The recent trend upwards is pretty alarming and it's not worth pretending otherwise, even if you're dead set against this solution. Both statistics are up over 20% from the lows of a decade ago, 30% in absolute numbers. Personally I'm pretty convinced by the case of rising phone use and vehicle size in the same period and would like to see those addressed.

pcaharrier 4y ago
All of those would be great things to point out for context, but this article chose only one number to use. The same goes for talking about causes, as you point out by mentioning phone use and vehicle construction. I can add one more to that list: cars equipped with all the latest gadgets that do everything except help the driver focus on other vehicles and road conditions (vividly illustrated by one of those "Mayhem" commercials for Allstate).
- magicalist 4y ago
  > All of those would be great things to point out for context, but this article chose only one number to use 13 or 14 vs 16 years isn't all that different, and most people understand absolute numbers better, so if you have to use one it seems like a good choice and isn't misleading with statistics, as the OP implies.
petre 4y ago
It's also probably because of all the SUVs that everyone wants nowadays. The greatest pressure against mandates alcohol test devices on cars should come from the auto industry itself. In my country, the most drivers caught under the influence this year were using drugs rather than booze. Alcohol testers do not detect drugs. Also good luck driving a car with such a device to flee a fire or having the kid eat oranges while you're driving.
landemva 4y ago
Assuming your numbers are correct, is alcohol or phone use a larger contributor?

pcaharrier 4y ago

All of those would be great things to point out for context, but this article chose only one number to use. The same goes for talking about causes, as you point out by mentioning phone use and vehicle construction. I can add one more to that list: cars equipped with all the latest gadgets that do everything except help the driver focus on other vehicles and road conditions (vividly illustrated by one of those "Mayhem" commercials for Allstate).

magicalist 4y ago
> All of those would be great things to point out for context, but this article chose only one number to use 13 or 14 vs 16 years isn't all that different, and most people understand absolute numbers better, so if you have to use one it seems like a good choice and isn't misleading with statistics, as the OP implies.

petre 4y ago

It's also probably because of all the SUVs that everyone wants nowadays. The greatest pressure against mandates alcohol test devices on cars should come from the auto industry itself. In my country, the most drivers caught under the influence this year were using drugs rather than booze. Alcohol testers do not detect drugs. Also good luck driving a car with such a device to flee a fire or having the kid eat oranges while you're driving.

landemva 4y ago

Assuming your numbers are correct, is alcohol or phone use a larger contributor?