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.
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.
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.
You would be surprised. I would take a bet against you that collectively more distance is completed on foot than in “cars” in france
How do you think people get to their cars?