6 ms·

>> "if you compare US driving fatalities to French ones, there's not much of a difference" Source for this? There's someone a few comments down claiming that f

>> "if you compare US driving fatalities to French ones, there's not much of a difference" Source for this? There's someone a few comments down claiming that fatalities are much lower than the US.

smm2000 12y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-re... 7.6 per 1 billion km in US against 6.3 per 1 billion km in France. I would say very comparable especially if you consider that more older/younger people drive in US than in France.
- bosie 12y ago
  regarding your second sentence... 11.6 (US) against 4.9 (France) per 100 000 inhabitants, from the same link.
  - learc83 12y ago
    Yes per 100,000 inhabitants, but to determine driver safety the correct metric is fatalities per x unit of distance driven, which is what the GP was using. People in the US drive far more often than those in France, you'd expect for driving fatalities.
- petercooper 12y ago
  Meanwhile, 4.3 in the UK, a country demographically similar to France and where it's trivial to get a car and license. This makes me think the process of getting a license plays a big role in fatality rates, but more road quality, layout, better street furniture, signage, etc (which are all notably better in the UK than France).
  - pyb 12y ago
    Not really, The difficulty of getting a license is similar in France and the UK (source : I did both)
    - petercooper 12y ago
      Since you've done both, are the parent article and other comments in this thread overemphasizing how difficult it is in France or did I just have a great experience here? I've done the test twice in the UK (auto + manual) - it wasn't arduous, nor did it take long to schedule (I think it was about 3 weeks out) and the computerised test was a case of picking the least stupid answer, unlike the riddles the parent article implies the French have to navigate.
      - pyb 12y ago
        The actual driving test is pretty much the same length and difficulty. (although I did the car test in France and the motorbike test in the UK) The French theory test needs a bit more preparation as more trick questions are asked. Also, the difference is perhaps, as far as I can remember, that French driving school offer more preparation to the theory test than is really required. In other words, they can keep you coming to the classroom until they are sure you will pass the theory...
seszett 12y ago
According to Wikipedia[0] France has lower figures in every method of counting: * 4.9/11.6 fatalities per 100k inhabitants per year * 8.5/13.6 fatalities per 100k vehicles per year * 6.3/7.6 fatalities per 1B vehicle-km The two countries get closer for the last figure because the French usually drive shorter distances. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...
- magicalist 12y ago
  The last figure is how safety comparisons are usually done. The first two don't really make any sense to compare for exactly the reason you cite: they spend less time in their cars, so they have less time for their driving skill to be reflected in the fatality rate. Ideally you'd control for the length of the trip, types of roads they're traveling on, etc, but that data is nearly impossible to come by.
  - seszett 12y ago
    Well yes, but 17% less looks pretty significant to me. That means about 6000 less dead Americans per year.
    - fcbrooklyn 12y ago
      I think you'd really also need to normalize by age of the driver. I suspect that younger (under 21, say) drivers are more dangerous in both countries, but that in places where it's expensive and time consuming the licensed drivers will tend to be older.
      - mikeash 12y ago
        I don't see why you'd normalize for that. I don't doubt that age is a factor, but surely the effect due to age should actually be counted. For example, different safety standards in cars will result in different fatality rates. That doesn't mean you try to eliminate that from the picture by normalizing for it, that means that the country with better safety standards is actually safer. If a country's roads are safer because they discourage or prevent younger drivers from driving, should not that additional safety count? Taken to an extreme: if a country allows 8-year-olds to drive cars and has a massive road fatality rate because of it, that shouldn't be normalized away when comparing with a country where you can't get a license until 18, right?

>> "if you compare US driving fatalities to French ones, there's not much of a difference" Source for this? There's someone a few comments down claiming that fatalities are much lower than the US.

smm2000 12y ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-re... 7.6 per 1 billion km in US against 6.3 per 1 billion km in France. I would say very comparable especially if you consider that more older/younger people drive in US than in France.

bosie 12y ago
regarding your second sentence... 11.6 (US) against 4.9 (France) per 100 000 inhabitants, from the same link.
- learc83 12y ago
  Yes per 100,000 inhabitants, but to determine driver safety the correct metric is fatalities per x unit of distance driven, which is what the GP was using. People in the US drive far more often than those in France, you'd expect for driving fatalities.
petercooper 12y ago
Meanwhile, 4.3 in the UK, a country demographically similar to France and where it's trivial to get a car and license. This makes me think the process of getting a license plays a big role in fatality rates, but more road quality, layout, better street furniture, signage, etc (which are all notably better in the UK than France).
- pyb 12y ago
  Not really, The difficulty of getting a license is similar in France and the UK (source : I did both)
  - petercooper 12y ago
    Since you've done both, are the parent article and other comments in this thread overemphasizing how difficult it is in France or did I just have a great experience here? I've done the test twice in the UK (auto + manual) - it wasn't arduous, nor did it take long to schedule (I think it was about 3 weeks out) and the computerised test was a case of picking the least stupid answer, unlike the riddles the parent article implies the French have to navigate.
    - pyb 12y ago
      The actual driving test is pretty much the same length and difficulty. (although I did the car test in France and the motorbike test in the UK) The French theory test needs a bit more preparation as more trick questions are asked. Also, the difference is perhaps, as far as I can remember, that French driving school offer more preparation to the theory test than is really required. In other words, they can keep you coming to the classroom until they are sure you will pass the theory...

seszett 12y ago

According to Wikipedia[0] France has lower figures in every method of counting: * 4.9/11.6 fatalities per 100k inhabitants per year * 8.5/13.6 fatalities per 100k vehicles per year * 6.3/7.6 fatalities per 1B vehicle-km The two countries get closer for the last figure because the French usually drive shorter distances. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...

magicalist 12y ago
The last figure is how safety comparisons are usually done. The first two don't really make any sense to compare for exactly the reason you cite: they spend less time in their cars, so they have less time for their driving skill to be reflected in the fatality rate. Ideally you'd control for the length of the trip, types of roads they're traveling on, etc, but that data is nearly impossible to come by.
- seszett 12y ago
  Well yes, but 17% less looks pretty significant to me. That means about 6000 less dead Americans per year.
  - fcbrooklyn 12y ago
    I think you'd really also need to normalize by age of the driver. I suspect that younger (under 21, say) drivers are more dangerous in both countries, but that in places where it's expensive and time consuming the licensed drivers will tend to be older.
    - mikeash 12y ago
      I don't see why you'd normalize for that. I don't doubt that age is a factor, but surely the effect due to age should actually be counted. For example, different safety standards in cars will result in different fatality rates. That doesn't mean you try to eliminate that from the picture by normalizing for it, that means that the country with better safety standards is actually safer. If a country's roads are safer because they discourage or prevent younger drivers from driving, should not that additional safety count? Taken to an extreme: if a country allows 8-year-olds to drive cars and has a massive road fatality rate because of it, that shouldn't be normalized away when comparing with a country where you can't get a license until 18, right?