6 ms·
Deaths per road mile would be a more interesting statistic.
by 001sky 13y ago
Deaths per road mile would be a more interesting statistic.
- Crito 13y agoI suspect that extremely long but relatively untraveled roads would throw that statistic off. A disused 200 mile long country road across North Dakota would probably easily offset high pedestrian deaths across a few blocks in a city. Sure, you're less likely to die on it.. but you're also less likely to be on it in the first place. Working in road usage could possibly correct this.
- craigvn 13y agoIn Australia we are often told country roads are the most dangerous. Drivers are less likely to concentrate, easily fall asleep at the wheel and speed. And trees are not very forgiving when you drive into one.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- jcampbell1 13y agoFrom: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-re... Deaths per terameter driven. Sweden 3.2 Norway 3.5 UK 3.6 .... USA 8.5 .... UAE 310
- 001sky 13y agoThe data for deaths by US state is non-uniform: State Traffic Deaths (Per 100,000 Population) ________________ Wyoming 27.48 Mississippi 21.58 Arkansas 19.27 Montana 19.07 Alabama 18.01 Oklahoma 17.76 Kentucky 17.49 South Carolina 17.47 Wheras as in highly urbanized states: ___________________________ California 7.27 Illinois 7.22 Washington 6.79 New Jersey 6.32 Rhode Island 6.27 New York 6.19 Massachusetts 4.79 http://vehicle-fatalities.findthedata.org/ http://vehicle-fatalities.findthedata.org/