• djmikeale@feddit.dk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    3 hours ago

    I’d imagine if instead of per 100000 inhabitants, we used per million kilometers driven, we’d see more comparable numbers across countries. US has far more vehicles per capita than Denmark where I’m living. I’d also imagine people spend longer time in traffic in US.

    So I don’t think it’s that driving is more dangerous there, rather it’s that you’re more likely to be in a car at any given time if you’re in USA. If you measured bicycle accidents per 100000 inhabitants probably the stats would be switched for DK/US.

    • BurgerBaron@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      35 minutes ago

      How much we drive and how sprawling is the country in question yeah?

      Like Canada is lower down this chart sure, and we drive a lot. However my experience driving in and around a 1 million population city vs Toronto GTA vs…let’s say New York State and City where the equivilent of my country’s entire population lives.

    • Rimu@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      46 minutes ago

      Yeah the way a question is set up makes a big difference and often has unspoken assumptions. For example your preference might indicate an assumption that cars are the natural and good way to get around, that low rates of car ownership are a sign of poverty and something lacking. In this framing, more people dying in cars is just the cost of progress.

      I’d be interested in “per million kilometers traveled”, including cars, trains, busses and cycling. Even then I’m assuming that we should optimize for the least deaths per km when actually no one likes traveling and less travel is better. Suburban sprawl is not the only way to structure a city, after all.