3 ms·
You are assuming that the total miles driving is linear correlated with number of accidents, which is probably not a valid assumption. I don't have the data, bu
by boomzilla 12y ago
You are assuming that the total miles driving is linear correlated with number of accidents, which is probably not a valid assumption. I don't have the data, but intuitively there would be more accident later on in a long trip. I know for sure that I am a much better driver in the morning commute to work than in the one back home after a long day.
- ars 12y agoIt is actually correlated. But not miles, but rather hours. To the point that people joke that the best way to reduce traffic deaths is to increase the speed limit, since that means people will be on the road for less time.
- akgerber 12y agoThis is of course only remotely possible on limited access highways, because there are squishy human beings that are easily killed by large speed differentials on urban and suburban streets.
- pash 12y agoThe link [1] cited in my post above includes a chart showing fatalities per mile driven plotted against fatalities per capita for a dozen countries. The relationship looks pretty linear.
- vacri 12y agoIt's an indicator of road use. Contrary to what the article says, Sweden doesn't have the safest roads per capita - the Vatican City has fewer road deaths. It has a few streets that get driven on, so it gets to play as well. Of course, claiming the Vatican-as-best in this kind of analysis is silly, because barely any driving is done there; the roads aren't really used heavily. Road-miles driven per capita shows up this kind of light or heavy use.