4 ms·
Great chart and SF downtown has a denser deep blue color; always suspected that is a more risky place for pedestrian.
by eande 15y ago
Great chart and SF downtown has a denser deep blue color; always suspected that is a more risky place for pedestrian.
- nostromo 15y agoIf you think SF is bad, look at Manhattan. What's with all the 99 year old deaths in NYC? Bad data?
- PLejeck 15y agoI dunno, Manhattan is sloooooooow-moving, I'm not sure how you can fatally injure somebody at 5MPH gridlock!
- smallblacksun 15y agoA car can kill a pedestrian/bicyclist/motorcyclist at surprisingly low speeds. It's almost impossible to kill someone in a car at under 25 MPH or so (unless they drive off a cliff or something), but pedestrians can be killed by cars going as slowly as 10 MPH (they get knocked off their feet and hit their heads, usually). I read a very interesting paper by the NTSB or IIHS about that, but can't find it now.
- warfangle 15y agoYou've never seen third/second avenue with a green light at 14th street. Traffic rockets through there, except during rush hour.
- dripton 15y agoPedestrian and bicycle fatalities outnumber car occupant fatalities in Manhattan for this reason. I saw a billboard last time I drove through NYC, explaining why the speed limit is 35 rather than 45. It basically said that if a car hits a pedestrian going 35, the pedestrian will probably live, but if a car hits a pedestrian going 45, the pedestrian will probably die.
- PLejeck 15y agoMaybe New Yorkers just hate the elderly?
- ghurlman 15y agoYour New York hate is just adorable - and belongs back on Reddit, not here.
- bluekeybox 15y agoIt's only because there are a lot of pedestrians in urban areas, not because urban areas are more dangerous for pedestrians (in fact they are probably less dangerous). Without some way to control for density of cars/pedestrians, this chart is quite useless.