2 ms·

Yes, this is why any statistics about driving that are meant to be compared across cultures need to have "distance driven" somewhere in the denominator.

pj_mukh 1y ago
Yea, I don't know I disagree. The denominator should always be just be population. I don't want to use sprawl as some sort of justification for more deaths per capita. Sprawl should be reduced and/or mitigated somehow.
- accrual 1y ago
  I agree with the parent that distance driven should be in the equation. If there's a certain risk percentage associated with driving as a whole, then it's almost certainly somehow bound to distance driven. For example, the risk of a car crash should be near zero if the distance driven is also zero. But even in the safest of vehicles, driving 100KM, 1,000KM, or 10,000KM+ each are going to have higher rates of accidents assuming real-life road conditions. In the US, on average, people need to travel further to get to their destinations, and so on average I'd expect car accident and death statistics to likewise be higher. I'm very in favor of reducing urban sprawl, utilizing public transit, etc., but in present state the US has vast quantities of existing road networks which can't be consolidated or mitigated overnight, so the next best way to improve those statistics would be improving traffic controls, vehicles, safety features, etc.
  - pj_mukh 1y ago
    It depends on which level of government we're talking about. The city governments can only really improve traffic controls. But state and federal governments should absolute zero-in on reducing sprawl and travel distances and those actions should've started yesterday and they should stay laser focussed on reducing driving distances (especially for non-leisure reasons)
  - bryanlarsen 1y ago
    Measuring the wrong thing results in the wrong outcome. Many of the most effective and efficient measures to reduce traffic fatalities work by reducing traffic. For example, promoting public transit. However, if you measure fatalities per kilometer these highly effective mechanisms have no effect on the metric.
- variadix 1y ago
  Different metrics measure different things. The right metric depends on what you want to compare and what kinds of claims you want to make, which determines what should be adjusted for in the metric.
- victorbjorklund 1y ago
  No, that does not make sense. By that logic North Koreans have a better system. I bet the number of car accidents are super low.
graemep 1y ago
Distance driven is not a great metric in the case of cars or other road transport (it is for most transport) because conditions vary. If I drive the approx 200 miles to central London I am at a far greater risk of having an accident in the crowded traffic of the last few miles than I am on the motorway on the way there. One big difference between the US most of Europe is that people tend to commute by car a lot less.

pj_mukh 1y ago

Yea, I don't know I disagree. The denominator should always be just be population. I don't want to use sprawl as some sort of justification for more deaths per capita. Sprawl should be reduced and/or mitigated somehow.

accrual 1y ago
I agree with the parent that distance driven should be in the equation. If there's a certain risk percentage associated with driving as a whole, then it's almost certainly somehow bound to distance driven. For example, the risk of a car crash should be near zero if the distance driven is also zero. But even in the safest of vehicles, driving 100KM, 1,000KM, or 10,000KM+ each are going to have higher rates of accidents assuming real-life road conditions. In the US, on average, people need to travel further to get to their destinations, and so on average I'd expect car accident and death statistics to likewise be higher. I'm very in favor of reducing urban sprawl, utilizing public transit, etc., but in present state the US has vast quantities of existing road networks which can't be consolidated or mitigated overnight, so the next best way to improve those statistics would be improving traffic controls, vehicles, safety features, etc.
- pj_mukh 1y ago
  It depends on which level of government we're talking about. The city governments can only really improve traffic controls. But state and federal governments should absolute zero-in on reducing sprawl and travel distances and those actions should've started yesterday and they should stay laser focussed on reducing driving distances (especially for non-leisure reasons)
- bryanlarsen 1y ago
  Measuring the wrong thing results in the wrong outcome. Many of the most effective and efficient measures to reduce traffic fatalities work by reducing traffic. For example, promoting public transit. However, if you measure fatalities per kilometer these highly effective mechanisms have no effect on the metric.
variadix 1y ago
Different metrics measure different things. The right metric depends on what you want to compare and what kinds of claims you want to make, which determines what should be adjusted for in the metric.
victorbjorklund 1y ago
No, that does not make sense. By that logic North Koreans have a better system. I bet the number of car accidents are super low.

graemep 1y ago

Distance driven is not a great metric in the case of cars or other road transport (it is for most transport) because conditions vary. If I drive the approx 200 miles to central London I am at a far greater risk of having an accident in the crowded traffic of the last few miles than I am on the motorway on the way there. One big difference between the US most of Europe is that people tend to commute by car a lot less.