3 ms·

The only sensible metric on that website is ‘Road fatalities per 1 billion vehicle-km’, and even that doesn’t take into account different degrees of occupancy o

The only sensible metric on that website is ‘Road fatalities per 1 billion vehicle-km’, and even that doesn’t take into account different degrees of occupancy of vehicles in different countries. All countries you named are not ranked by this metric, and of those ranked, underdeveloped countries (Arabian, Brazil, Eastern Europe etc.) rank worse than highly-developed ones. Note furthermore that the US rank relatively high compared to other countries of similar population density and geographical size[0], yet surprisingly worse than most other equally wealthy (and comparable in population density and size) countries. [0] Were the most important difference is between being slightly larger than Switzerland and being about the same size or smaller.

bigiain 14y ago
While I agree with the idea, I suspect even ‘Road fatalities per 1 billion vehicle-km’ isn't a directly comparable figure across different countries. Here in Australia, things are a _long_ way apart. I don't know quite what the relative risks of long distance highway driving compared to inner-city commuting is, but suspect the ratios of, say, sub 100 mile trips compared to over 100 mile trips in Australia vs The UK is startlingly different. Whether that affects the fatality rate or not I don't know.
- claudius 14y ago
  But then again, emergency services probably get to an inner-city accident faster than to an accident in the middle of nowhere, making the latter potentially more fatal. Furthermore, many ‘smallish’ countries in the list are in western Europe, with a relatively high standard of living and – more importantly – functional and widespread public transport. I guess it all boils down to being unable to compare apples and oranges with regards to their banananess.
  - jfim 14y ago
    If having functional and widespread public transport reduces road casualties, couldn't you say that road casualties are indeed preventable by having usable public transport?

bigiain 14y ago

While I agree with the idea, I suspect even ‘Road fatalities per 1 billion vehicle-km’ isn't a directly comparable figure across different countries. Here in Australia, things are a _long_ way apart. I don't know quite what the relative risks of long distance highway driving compared to inner-city commuting is, but suspect the ratios of, say, sub 100 mile trips compared to over 100 mile trips in Australia vs The UK is startlingly different. Whether that affects the fatality rate or not I don't know.

claudius 14y ago
But then again, emergency services probably get to an inner-city accident faster than to an accident in the middle of nowhere, making the latter potentially more fatal. Furthermore, many ‘smallish’ countries in the list are in western Europe, with a relatively high standard of living and – more importantly – functional and widespread public transport. I guess it all boils down to being unable to compare apples and oranges with regards to their banananess.
- jfim 14y ago
  If having functional and widespread public transport reduces road casualties, couldn't you say that road casualties are indeed preventable by having usable public transport?