4 ms·

You can’t looks at accidents and deaths per capita, you need to look at accidents and deaths per mile driven. The US is actually pretty good at 1.5 versus UK (

by refurb 3y ago

You can’t looks at accidents and deaths per capita, you need to look at accidents and deaths per mile driven. The US is actually pretty good at 1.5 versus UK (5.3), Denmark (7.2), France (5.8). https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/historical-fatality-trends/deaths-and-rates/ https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/historical-fatalit... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic...

morepork 3y ago
You're comparing numbers in different units. USA is in deaths per 100 million miles. The rest are in deaths per billion km. USA is 9.3 deaths per billion km if you do the conversion.
HarryHirsch 3y ago
The right metric is traffic deaths per capita, because that means so-and-so many families have lost a relative in a car crash. If you use traffic deaths per mile driven you begin to excuse excessive commutes when what you want to do lower fatalities.
- MrOwnPut 3y ago
  If you spend more time driving, of course you're risking more. If no-one left their house, there would be less casualties for many outdoor activities. You have to account for per-mile.
  - vharuck 3y ago
    Reducing the risk per mile driven would reduce deaths, but so would reducing miles driven. More public transportation would achieve that.
    - HarryHirsch 3y ago
      Higher-density housing wouldn't be the worst idea, especially higher-density housing near light railway when combined with public parks. The suburban paradises are plainly incompatible with public transport.
    - refurb 3y ago
      By that same logic we could avoid surgery deaths by not doing surgery. But then you're ignoring the benefit.
      - sagarm 3y ago
        The correct analogy: avoid surgery with preventative healthcare and lifestyle changes.
        HarryHirsch 3y ago
        How do you call this paradox where mortality increases at a hospital because simple cases are diverted to outpatient clinic and only the severe cases are seen at the inpatient facility?
        refurb 3y ago
        Adverse selection.
  - HarryHirsch 3y ago
    By that reasoning, traffic safety is increased by moving the bar from downtown to 30 minutes down the road when in fact it should be at the corner, so people can walk and leave the car at home. Good to have the misconception cleared up.
    - MrOwnPut 3y ago
      Sure, but no-one was arguing that. Let's all start a fund to build bars closer? Congrats on that break-through.
DangitBobby 3y ago
I disagree. Per Capita is the right metric. Per mile doesn't equalize everyone because we have to drive so much than everyone else to get around. When talking about social costs, per Capita makes the most sense.

by refurb 3y ago

morepork 3y ago

You're comparing numbers in different units. USA is in deaths per 100 million miles. The rest are in deaths per billion km. USA is 9.3 deaths per billion km if you do the conversion.

HarryHirsch 3y ago

The right metric is traffic deaths per capita, because that means so-and-so many families have lost a relative in a car crash. If you use traffic deaths per mile driven you begin to excuse excessive commutes when what you want to do lower fatalities.

MrOwnPut 3y ago
If you spend more time driving, of course you're risking more. If no-one left their house, there would be less casualties for many outdoor activities. You have to account for per-mile.
- vharuck 3y ago
  Reducing the risk per mile driven would reduce deaths, but so would reducing miles driven. More public transportation would achieve that.
  - HarryHirsch 3y ago
    Higher-density housing wouldn't be the worst idea, especially higher-density housing near light railway when combined with public parks. The suburban paradises are plainly incompatible with public transport.
  - refurb 3y ago
    By that same logic we could avoid surgery deaths by not doing surgery. But then you're ignoring the benefit.
    - sagarm 3y ago
      The correct analogy: avoid surgery with preventative healthcare and lifestyle changes.
      - HarryHirsch 3y ago
        How do you call this paradox where mortality increases at a hospital because simple cases are diverted to outpatient clinic and only the severe cases are seen at the inpatient facility?
        refurb 3y ago
        Adverse selection.
- HarryHirsch 3y ago
  By that reasoning, traffic safety is increased by moving the bar from downtown to 30 minutes down the road when in fact it should be at the corner, so people can walk and leave the car at home. Good to have the misconception cleared up.
  - MrOwnPut 3y ago
    Sure, but no-one was arguing that. Let's all start a fund to build bars closer? Congrats on that break-through.

DangitBobby 3y ago

I disagree. Per Capita is the right metric. Per mile doesn't equalize everyone because we have to drive so much than everyone else to get around. When talking about social costs, per Capita makes the most sense.