3 ms·

The article says "safest roads," but the statistic used to demonstrate that is deaths per 100K people rather than deaths per kilometer driven. Seems to me the

The article says "safest roads," but the statistic used to demonstrate that is deaths per 100K people rather than deaths per kilometer driven. Seems to me the latter would be a much better metric for the safety of the physical roads.

jamesblonde 1y ago
Montana would be amazingly safe based on your metric.
- cjensen 1y ago
  Nope. It's top-10 for most dangerous [1]. [1] https://www.iihs.org/research-areas/fatality-statistics/detail/state-by-state https://www.iihs.org/research-areas/fatality-statistics/deta...
- voxic11 1y ago
  No actually on that metric Montana is one of the most dangerous and Massachusetts is one of the safest.
  - throwaway2037 1y ago
    > Massachusetts is one of the safest For those unaware, Boston (largest city in Massachusetts) has a reputation for incredibly aggressive drivers (so does New York City). Is Massachusetts relatively safer because it has so few freeways? I find it hard to believe this can be explained by "quality of drivers". Another idea: Maybe local police are very, very strict about drink/driving, thus reducing the number of deaths.
    - potato3732842 1y ago
      >Maybe local police are very, very strict about drink/driving, thus reducing the number of deaths. The Karen Read trial was illustrative about how seriously Massachusetts law enforcement takes DUI.
      - hollerith 1y ago
        How is the Read trial relevant here? Karen Read was accused of intentionally running John O'Keefe over because she was angry at him.
        potato3732842 1y ago
        >How is the Read trial relevant here? The conduct of the law enforcement professionals and people they associate with leading up to the events relevant to the trail is relevant to a discussion of how seriously they take DUI.
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
        hollerith 1y ago
        OK, how about this: how would someone who knows nothing about you other than your 2 comments here determine whether you think MA police take DUI seriously enough or whether you think they go too easy on DUI? Read did drive under the influence and police and prosecutors laid harsh charges against her, but they could've laid those harsh charges (first- and second-degree murder IIRC) against her even if she had been stone sober that night, so it seems to me that the Read case says nothing about how harshly police and prosecutors treat ordinary DUIs.
        potato3732842 1y ago
        Clearly the cops themselves have no problem with themselves and people in their social circles casually drinking and driving.
- iiovemiku 1y ago
  Rural roads are far more dangerous than urban roads per mile. Higher speeds (whether by limit or driver disregard), worse infrastructure, and less police and hospitals means that the crashes that do happen are far more likely to kill.
- dboreham 1y ago
  We put white crosses on the verge, one for every dead person in an accident. I drive past many crosses every time I run to the grocery store. So...not very safe in MT.
prof-dr-ir 1y ago
Yes, and the footnote also says that "this metric is age-standardized". I did not easily find an explanation of what that means, which made me distrustful of the data. Fortunately, good old Wikipedia has what we are both looking for: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r... For me the upshot is that UK still comes out quite good amongst its European peers, but the difference appears to be smaller.
fps-hero 1y ago
This would introduce a bias towards countries that are large and have extensive motorway networks. They would appear safer than countries that have a smaller portion of motorway miles. > If we look at the number of deaths per billion miles driven, we see that motorways are roughly four times safer than urban roads, and more than five times safer than rural roads. This is not specific to the UK: among 24 OECD countries, approximately 5% of road deaths occurred on motorways.5 In almost all countries, it was less than 10%.
IneffablePigeon 1y ago
Not sure I completely agree (if the definition of vehicles is cars). That disregards miles travelled by cyclists and pedestrians etc. If 10% of the population switched from driving to cycling to work but the death numbers stayed the same, that metric would go up but really nothing would have changed, either mortality wise or in terms of number of people using the roads.
Vinnl 1y ago
Possibly even per trip? I'm confident my bicycle trips to the supermarket in the Netherlands is safer than a trip to Walmart in the US by car, but I spend way fewer kilometres doing the same job. That only makes it even safer, but I think is discounted in per-KM statistics?
GuB-42 1y ago
I prefer the death per people metric as I am more interested in how likely I am to receive some bad news than some metric based on distance. Both measures have bias, the "per people" metric doesn't take into account when people are actually driving while the "per kilometer" metric puts too much emphasis on long distance driving, which is usually done on motorways where it is the safest. Maybe the best metric would be "per time spent on the road, including as a pedestrian on the sidewalk", but I guess it is harder to estimate. Anyways the UK is doing well on both metrics.

jamesblonde 1y ago

Montana would be amazingly safe based on your metric.

cjensen 1y ago
Nope. It's top-10 for most dangerous [1]. [1] https://www.iihs.org/research-areas/fatality-statistics/detail/state-by-state https://www.iihs.org/research-areas/fatality-statistics/deta...
voxic11 1y ago
No actually on that metric Montana is one of the most dangerous and Massachusetts is one of the safest.
- throwaway2037 1y ago
  > Massachusetts is one of the safest For those unaware, Boston (largest city in Massachusetts) has a reputation for incredibly aggressive drivers (so does New York City). Is Massachusetts relatively safer because it has so few freeways? I find it hard to believe this can be explained by "quality of drivers". Another idea: Maybe local police are very, very strict about drink/driving, thus reducing the number of deaths.
  - potato3732842 1y ago
    >Maybe local police are very, very strict about drink/driving, thus reducing the number of deaths. The Karen Read trial was illustrative about how seriously Massachusetts law enforcement takes DUI.
    - hollerith 1y ago
      How is the Read trial relevant here? Karen Read was accused of intentionally running John O'Keefe over because she was angry at him.
      - potato3732842 1y ago
        >How is the Read trial relevant here? The conduct of the law enforcement professionals and people they associate with leading up to the events relevant to the trail is relevant to a discussion of how seriously they take DUI.
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
        hollerith 1y ago
        OK, how about this: how would someone who knows nothing about you other than your 2 comments here determine whether you think MA police take DUI seriously enough or whether you think they go too easy on DUI? Read did drive under the influence and police and prosecutors laid harsh charges against her, but they could've laid those harsh charges (first- and second-degree murder IIRC) against her even if she had been stone sober that night, so it seems to me that the Read case says nothing about how harshly police and prosecutors treat ordinary DUIs.
        potato3732842 1y ago
        Clearly the cops themselves have no problem with themselves and people in their social circles casually drinking and driving.
iiovemiku 1y ago
Rural roads are far more dangerous than urban roads per mile. Higher speeds (whether by limit or driver disregard), worse infrastructure, and less police and hospitals means that the crashes that do happen are far more likely to kill.
dboreham 1y ago
We put white crosses on the verge, one for every dead person in an accident. I drive past many crosses every time I run to the grocery store. So...not very safe in MT.

prof-dr-ir 1y ago

Yes, and the footnote also says that "this metric is age-standardized". I did not easily find an explanation of what that means, which made me distrustful of the data. Fortunately, good old Wikipedia has what we are both looking for: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r... For me the upshot is that UK still comes out quite good amongst its European peers, but the difference appears to be smaller.

fps-hero 1y ago

This would introduce a bias towards countries that are large and have extensive motorway networks. They would appear safer than countries that have a smaller portion of motorway miles. > If we look at the number of deaths per billion miles driven, we see that motorways are roughly four times safer than urban roads, and more than five times safer than rural roads. This is not specific to the UK: among 24 OECD countries, approximately 5% of road deaths occurred on motorways.5 In almost all countries, it was less than 10%.

IneffablePigeon 1y ago

Not sure I completely agree (if the definition of vehicles is cars). That disregards miles travelled by cyclists and pedestrians etc. If 10% of the population switched from driving to cycling to work but the death numbers stayed the same, that metric would go up but really nothing would have changed, either mortality wise or in terms of number of people using the roads.

Vinnl 1y ago

Possibly even per trip? I'm confident my bicycle trips to the supermarket in the Netherlands is safer than a trip to Walmart in the US by car, but I spend way fewer kilometres doing the same job. That only makes it even safer, but I think is discounted in per-KM statistics?

GuB-42 1y ago

I prefer the death per people metric as I am more interested in how likely I am to receive some bad news than some metric based on distance. Both measures have bias, the "per people" metric doesn't take into account when people are actually driving while the "per kilometer" metric puts too much emphasis on long distance driving, which is usually done on motorways where it is the safest. Maybe the best metric would be "per time spent on the road, including as a pedestrian on the sidewalk", but I guess it is harder to estimate. Anyways the UK is doing well on both metrics.