4 ms·
Per-capita is a bad way of measuring auto-fatalities. The US is very spread out and requires a lot of driving. For example, just driving from SF to LA require
by nostromo 12y ago
Per-capita is a bad way of measuring auto-fatalities.
The US is very spread out and requires a lot of driving. For example, just driving from SF to LA requires more driving than Cologne to Berlin.
Per mile driven is much better, and it narrows the US gap with other countries substantially. (The US is slightly lower than Japan, slightly higher than France.)
- aetherson 12y agoPer mile is much better, but also not that good. There are a lot of variables here. How much of driving is at freeway speeds versus how much at lower speeds (where even worse accidents are less likely to cause fatalities)? How good is trauma care in that country (which can turn what would be a fatality in country A into an injury in country B -- and note that part of how "good" trauma care is has to do with how remote from a hospital traffic accidents are)? How modern are vehicles in that country, and what percentage are what kinds of vehicles (air-bag equipped modern cars are much safer than older cars, which are in turn much safer than motorcycles)? What kind of intersection traffic control is there? How good are the roads?
- apendleton 12y agoIt depends what you're trying to measure, no? I agree that for the point being made it's not ideal, but I think it's separately noteworthy that in the US, poor planning and more car-dependent lifestyles lead to a higher rate of traffic fatalities because of how much more Americans end up having to drive.