3 ms·
> Is 40,000 deaths every year a lot? No. It's 1.25 per 10,000 per capita. Most people understand the risk ahead of time and yet still choose to drive. They
by timewizard 2y ago
> Is 40,000 deaths every year a lot?
No. It's 1.25 per 10,000 per capita. Most people understand the risk ahead of time and yet still choose to drive. They clearly don't think it is.
> It's 13x as many people as died in 9/11
And 50x 9/11 many people die of accidental self inflicted injury. This is an absurd metric.
- Peanuts99 2y agoThe US car fatalities per mile is double than the UK. It would at least be useful to ask why that might be. That's 40,000 people a year who have their lives cut short.
- Qwertious 2y agoIt's street design. If you prioritize car throughput at any cost, even safety, then your streets will be less safe.
- timewizard 2y agoThe UK is far more serious about impaired and drunk driving than the US is. The majority of those people who had their lives cut short cut it short themselves and didn't take anyone with them. Likewise, that 40k includes 6k pedestrians and 6k motorcyclists. You can't just take the 40,000 figure and do _anything_ with it because there are so many peculiar modes of accidents which /dominate/ that data set.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- consteval 2y ago> yet still choose to drive Obligatory “almost nobody in the US chooses to drive” comment. Driving in the US is a lifeline. It’s closer to food and shelter than a product or action. Remaining economically afloat in the US without a car is extraordinarily difficult. Many people, especially poor people, would much rather lose their job or health insurance than their car.