I get that the implicated conclusion here is that cars are orders of magnitude more dangerous. This is true, but I wonder how much this data is being skewed because more people drive cars rather than walk.
From the numbers its sort of implied that these are not per population but rather total numbers which is generally meaningless because some areas are metropolitan and others are long country roads.
Its curious ish but not really a reasonable comparison. Who records people vs people collisions? And in how many people vs people collisions is a knife involved?
Anyway absolute numbers are not particularly interesting, per population per area sounds more useful to give real context. However i will also take this opportunity to say “fuck cars” because over this side of the pond those shitty overcompensating shit trucks with their bull bars should be banned and removed from the road. Absolute death traps and don’t fit into our parking spots
I disagree. For example, you might take your car for a trip to a big box store outside of town, but you might take your bike or walk to shop for groceries at your local supermarket. So even if you adjust for number of trips, the car will naturally account for a much larger distance.
In my opinion it is much more interesting to know how likely you are to be injured or killed on any given trip than, say, every 100 km of walking or driving.
Not to say that adjusting for distance can never be useful, but in this case I’m not sure it would add as much meaning.
No they drive and that removes their pedestrian status in traffic. It is very impractical to log all accidents as “technically a pedestrian” because they had the ability to walk. The same rules apply to a tank. When it is knocked off with a drone, we don’t say “oh wow a 6 pedestrian and one tractorgun kill by a toy helicopter” because once we have a term for something it means what it means and that is useful to us
I get that the implicated conclusion here is that cars are orders of magnitude more dangerous. This is true, but I wonder how much this data is being skewed because more people drive cars rather than walk.
Another thing that would be interesting to know is some number about the scenarios in which the deaths happened.
I get that the implicated conclusion here is that cars are orders of magnitude more dangerous. This is true, but I wonder how much this data is being skewed because more people drive cars rather than walk.
From the numbers its sort of implied that these are not per population but rather total numbers which is generally meaningless because some areas are metropolitan and others are long country roads.
Its curious ish but not really a reasonable comparison. Who records people vs people collisions? And in how many people vs people collisions is a knife involved?
Anyway absolute numbers are not particularly interesting, per population per area sounds more useful to give real context. However i will also take this opportunity to say “fuck cars” because over this side of the pond those shitty overcompensating shit trucks with their bull bars should be banned and removed from the road. Absolute death traps and don’t fit into our parking spots
This is in France. Los of people walk rather than drive. It would be interesting to see the numbers adjusted for number of trips, though.
A lot more people than in the US but france is still pretty carbrained outside of big cities
I think adjusting for travelled distance would give more insight.
I disagree. For example, you might take your car for a trip to a big box store outside of town, but you might take your bike or walk to shop for groceries at your local supermarket. So even if you adjust for number of trips, the car will naturally account for a much larger distance.
In my opinion it is much more interesting to know how likely you are to be injured or killed on any given trip than, say, every 100 km of walking or driving.
Not to say that adjusting for distance can never be useful, but in this case I’m not sure it would add as much meaning.
I had to double-read your comment there. There is not a single able-bodied person who is not a pedestrian. However, probably only 50% of them drives.
No they drive and that removes their pedestrian status in traffic. It is very impractical to log all accidents as “technically a pedestrian” because they had the ability to walk. The same rules apply to a tank. When it is knocked off with a drone, we don’t say “oh wow a 6 pedestrian and one tractorgun kill by a toy helicopter” because once we have a term for something it means what it means and that is useful to us
https://www.statistiques.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/transport-de-voyageurs-selon-les-modes
~80% of all travel is made in cars. If you take the moped, trucks and “unknown”, they kill 99.9% of road casualties.
There is clear overrepresentation.
You would be surprised. I would take a bet against you that collectively more distance is completed on foot than in “cars” in france
Another thing that would be interesting to know is some number about the scenarios in which the deaths happened.
How do you think people get to their cars?