Open Source Mapping Software Shows Every Traffic Death On Earth 322
cartechboy writes "Traffic deaths are set to outpace AIDS/HIV and malaria in the developing world, so the UN is trying to change that perception. This shocking open source, interactive map of crash data from the Pulitzer Center ought to help. It's grisly, but very informative. The mapping was produced by Pulitzer Center journalists using open source mapping technology from Mapbox. Compare the U.S. fatality rate of 11.4 per 100,000 to that of other nations, like the Dominican Republic, Iran, and Thailand and see how people were traveling when when killed (car, bicycle, etc)."
Disappointing (Score:5, Interesting)
I was expecting a map pinpointing where every death occurred, instead we have a a funny interface to a list of ~30 countries with the # of death per 100k people.
Re:Disappointing (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, I have to agree. I was expecting something elaborate. This could have been just as useful as a shared Google doc spreadsheet of data.
100,000? (Score:2)
Re:100,000? (Score:4, Insightful)
Is there any good reason that this stat is 11.4 out of 100,000 instead of 1.14 out of 10,000 or say a normal percentage?
Yes. If they make it "out of 10,000" then for many countries it would be less than one. Who cares if 0.72 person dies? If they make it a million, then it will be dozens to hundreds, and few people have emotional attachments to that many people. But if they use "per 100,000", the number of deaths will be about the same as the number of family members and close friends that a normal person would have.
Re: (Score:2)
Well shit... make it out of a million and really scare them!
Only one thing to do! (Score:5, Insightful)
US Deaths caused by illicit drug overdose - ~5,000 per year
WAR ON DRUGS!!!!
US Deaths caused by terrorists - 3000, twelve years ago
WAR ON TERROR!!!!
US Deaths caused by hacking - 1 (and that one by "friendly fire", sorry Aaron Schwartz)
WAR ON HACKING!!!!
US Deaths caused by automobile accidents - 30,000 per year
umm...
We'll get back to you on that.
(admittedly not a fair or entirely accurate comparison... but it does say something about America's priorities.)
Re:Only one thing to do! (Score:4, Insightful)
Nothing can be done, no more trillions to blow or civil liberties to obliterate.
Re: (Score:3)
... but it does say something about America's priorities.
You left out gun deaths .. which are were measured as 10.3 per 100,000 in 2010.
Re: (Score:2)
Any particular reason you chose to report that in equivalent units? If it really is 10.3 per 100,000 then that works out to about 30,000 per year. Which is approximately the traffic rate. That's probably right, at least according to some sources (e.g., http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/09/guns-traffic-deaths-rates/1784595/ [usatoday.com])
So with all the gun regulation legislation going on and it continuing to be a topic you think there should be, but is not, a "WAR ON GUNS!!!"?
Supposedly 2/3 of gun deaths
Re:Only one thing to do! (Score:4, Insightful)
US deaths cased by guns in 2010: ~30,000.
And yet not only do idiot gun control opponents not think this is a problem, they make WAR ON GUN CONTROL LEGISLATION!!! Ludicrous.
Re: (Score:2)
Go ahead, ignore the facts, you'll sweep in the suckers.
Legal ownership of guns reduces crime.
Re: (Score:2)
So what?
Requiring everyone to stay in their homes after dark would also reduce crime (well aside from the "outside after dark offense") should we get on setting that up?
Implanting everyone with some sort of microchip that electrocutes them if they leave their government assigned house, work, or path from home to work would also reduce crime I suspect.
Having the police arbitrarily search everyone's property at whim would likely also reduce crime, so that's a good idea, right?
Re:Only one thing to do! (Score:4, Insightful)
Legal ownership of guns reduces crime.
Ok. Lets assume that this were true. (There's no proof of this, but I'm not even interested in having that argument. Lets just assume, for the sake of argument that the presence of educated and responsible gun owners reduces crime.)
That's fine. Lets have those.
But what about uneducated irresponsible idiots? What about the clinically depressed? What about convicted violent felons? Does giving them guns reduce crime? Gun suicides and gun accidents skyrocket with legal ownership.
Virtually all the proposed gun legislation out there would not take away legal gun ownership anyway, so spasming over that is a red herring.
Gun advocates aren't waging a war to be able to own guns. They're figting a war against 'background checks' and paperwork for sales at gun shows and on craigslist. They're fighting so that even the most deranged lunatic or depressed idiot or convicted violent felon can buy a gun legally without so much as any one saying "maybe that guy shouldn't have a gun".
The whole mockery of the gun-advocate isn't because they have a legitimate argument about crime, or the 2nd amendment -- because they do have a legitimate argument to make. But there's no reason a confirmed idiot who has a history of getting drunk and shooting at passing cars should be able to get a gun as easily as a box of instant noodles.
Re: (Score:3)
You say there were 30,000 gun deaths in 2010 but provide no reference. Okay fine I'll give a source [cdc.gov]. As it turns out the number is 31,672 firearm deaths in 2010 in the United States. If you open the PDF you'll find that 61.2% of these (19,383) were suicides. 35% (11,085) were homicides. I haven't looked at exactly where justifiable homicide is included but according to the FBI statistics [fbi.gov] it's only a few hund
Re:Only one thing to do! (Score:4, Insightful)
So you're saying that the US has done nothing to improve traffic safety? No cell phone or texting laws, no crackdowns on DWI, no improvements to cars or roads? Traffic fatalitiies (per mile driven) have decreased almost every year for the last 90 years. Your post says absolutely NOTHING about 'America's priorities'.
Re: (Score:3)
So you're saying that the US has done nothing to improve traffic safety? No cell phone or texting laws
Since those do not actually improve safety - no, the U.S. has done nothing to improve traffic safety. Instead they impose unreasonably low speed limits that ensure there will be a greater discrepancy in vehicle speed on the highway.
Re: (Score:2)
That wouldn't be a safety problem if they were to start enforcing "keep right except to pass" laws. This is one reason why the Autobahn is safe despite the lack of speed limits.
Re:Only one thing to do! (Score:4, Informative)
Let us take "the normal speed of traffic" to mean the median speed. If you're among the slower 50% of the drivers on the road, then according to the law I quoted and linked to above, you must drive in the rightmost lane.
Some enlightened states (CT, MA, NJ, RI, TX) take it even further by prohibiting passing on the right in some cases, thereby giving authority to ticket motorists driving slowly in the left lane because they are obstructing traffic.
Re: (Score:2)
And how exactly do those greater discrepancies in vehicle speed lead to fatal accidents? They don't (unless of course the person who considers himself the superior driver, ie the speeder, has to take some action when he encounters the slower traffic and causes an accident).
Re: (Score:3)
Discrepancies definitely are a risk factor. The safest road is one where nobody is driving at all. The second safest road is where everybody is moving at approximately the same speed with adequate spacing in between them.
The main reason for that being is that the relative speed of the vehicles with respect to each other is approximately zero, which makes for safer maneuvering of the vehicles with respect to each other. It also makes it easier for people getting on and off the street to judge the time they'
Re: (Score:2)
Because per mile driven tells you how safe (or dangerous) it is to be on the road, while per capita just tells you how likely it is for someone to be killed in an accident. The per capita rate fluctuates with population and driving habits (number of miles driven), so it is not a good indicator of road safety and/or improvements.
Re: (Score:2)
Deaths per billion vehicle miles: Canada 8.2, US 8.5. Not exactly a large difference there. There is more of a difference in per capita deaths, but that could be because the average Canadian drives less than the average American. If you're not on the road, you're not likely to be killed in a car accident.
Re: (Score:2)
More specifically, they are caused by traveling at speeds wherein the driver of one or more of the vehicles involved cannot react sufficiently quickly to prevent the accident. It doesn't take a degree in physics or math to realize that excessive speed is the real problem, not merely a difference in speed between you and other cars, since other cars which are going exactly the same direction as you in smoothly flowing traffic are not the only thing that yo
Re: (Score:3)
US Deaths caused by automobile accidents - 30,000 per year ... it does say something about America's priorities.)
It says even more about our priorities when you realize that the most important progress in reducing these deaths is being done as a side hobby [wikipedia.org] by two guys that work at an advertising company.
Re: (Score:2)
We do a lot to make the roads safer, but the bottom line is that when you operate a large metal contraption at speeds often in the 50-80 mph range there will always be a chance that SOMETHING will go wrong.
One of the main problems we have today is assuming that every problem has a complete solution, when most do not. You do the best you can with what you have.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Without getting into whether the war on drugs is justified, it's worth pointing out that a fraction of those 34,677 automobile accident deaths are due to illicit drug use. How much is difficult to say since the stats I was able to find last time I looked simply classified those accidents as caused by "driving under the influence" wit
Funny how this comes up... (Score:5, Informative)
Skewed data is incorrect data, so it might help to at least publish stats based on identical criteria. Unless I missed it, I don't see that as part of this 'study', where it appears the stats are taken as given by each country - best example may be the two perfect scores
Re: (Score:2)
What's wrong with "the perception"? (Score:2)
>> Traffic deaths are set to outpace AIDS/HIV and malaria in the developing world, so the UN is trying to change that perception.
What's wrong with "the perception"? This actually looks like good news to me. Is the problem that when people find out about all these traffic deaths (e.g., caused by a convenience) that they quit funding for disease control?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a poorly edited summary. As I posted above in response to a similar comment, the full text shows that they're trying to change the perception that because traffic deaths are accidental that they're unavoidable.
Which is it? (Score:2)
RoadSkill or RoadsKill? PetSmart or PetsMart? ExpertSexchange or ExpertsExchange?
Re: (Score:2)
Change what perception? (Score:2)
Traffic deaths are set to outpace AIDS/HIV and malaria in the developing world, so the UN is trying to change that perception.
I don't see what perception the UN is trying to change. That traffic accidents are a lesser cause of deaths than AIDS and malaria in developing countries? Does this even qualify as a "perception," much less one that needs rectifying?
Road Skill (Score:2)
How about deaths per mile traveled? (Score:2)
This chart is nearly useless, as it doesn't account for the average distance traveled per country. You'd be better off reading the wikipedia page that has those stats : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate [wikipedia.org]
Or looking at trend in deaths / mile over time. For example, the US rate of 1.1 per 100M miles in 2011 is an all-time low : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
This chart is nearly useless, as it doesn't account for the average distance traveled per country.
Not necessarily useless, just the answer to a different question. You are focused on "how safe are the roads?" but this chart is about "how safe are the people?".
Driving less is as valid a means of reducing risk of road fatality as making safer roads. Maybe if the US had better public transportation and less urban sprawl there would be fewer traffic fatalities.
Re:How about deaths per mile traveled? (Score:5, Interesting)
For example, the US rate of 1.1 per 100M miles
Interestingly, if you hop in your car and drive a mile to buy a Powerball lottery ticket, you are more likely to be killed in a wreck than to win the jackpot.
Re: (Score:2)
To put it another way, if you had a fictional country with 1 billion people and only 10 of those people were allowed to d
Shocking? Grisly? (Score:2)
"Shocking"? No.
"Grisly"? No.
"Informative"? Yes.
Hyperbole aside, it's pretty interesting, but the summary implied it would show the location of every traffic death, not just the results of a global poll.
Doesn't seem nearly as bad as indicated (Score:2)
Even the high of around 40 deaths per 100k (Dominican Republic) is not THAT much more than the U.S.. Only 4x as much? I would have guessed it to be much, much worse based on experiencing driving in other countries.
Far from raising the issue to crisis level I'm more including to say that is not an issue worth paying any attention to whatsoever, it's a matter for local solutions, not the U.N. What are they going to do, put crossing guards at every intersection in Bangladesh? Hope they ship out coffins al
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Doesn't seem nearly as bad as indicated (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah, but that makes the assumption that personal vehicles are the only way to get around. In Europe, for instance, people use public transport most of the time. That is much safer, and just as valid a way of reducing driving fatalities, but deaths/mile doesn't take it into account. Deaths/100k people, on the other hand, tells you that if you live as an average person in the country, this is your chance of being killed that way.
And yet... (Score:3)
We'll continue to spend a metric assload of money on anti-terrrererserm instead of improving driver safety and training because "us vs. them" makes a much sexier political selling point than "us vs. some-not-easily-definable-abstract-thing" that's astronomically more likely to be a fatal danger to us.
And, really, that says as much about us as it does about the maligned policy makers we elect.
Shows every traffic death on earth? Really? (Score:2)
It would have been really cool (and morbid) if it did show every road death on earth, but all it does is provide aggregate numbers for most countries and presumably for just some recent period of time (in the past few years or so). This is a completely misleading slashdot subject line.... damn moderators.
gus
Wow, opposite of what I thought (Score:2)
Honestly, in many cases the rankings / ranges are the opposite what I assumed. Considering the US is recognized as having a high number of car-drivers (perhaps too many) and low number of public-transportation-users (perhaps too few)... I assumed we'd be way up there just due to us constantly driving into eachother.
Not that we're particularly low, but we're a lot less than some countries I would assume would have less than us (per capita)
Re: (Score:2)
Did you miss something? Europe has only 1/2 to 1/3 of accidents per 100000 compared to the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you miss my last sentence? I said we're not particularly low but we're less than some countries that I would assume we'd have more than
Middle East
Most of South America
Russia
Most of Eastern Europe (Poland and such)
Places where I'd imagine they have fewer cars per capita, or at least spend fewer hours per day in a car.
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, in many cases the rankings / ranges are the opposite what I assumed. Considering the US is recognized as having a high number of car-drivers (perhaps too many) and low number of public-transportation-users (perhaps too few)... I assumed we'd be way up there just due to us constantly driving into eachother.
Not that we're particularly low, but we're a lot less than some countries I would assume would have less than us (per capita)
Well, substandard driver training and reasonably enforced rules is still safer than no driver training and no rules.
If you survive at all then it doesn't count (Score:3)
Nevermind that you lost your legs. For example, the number of serious injuries that don't result in death would be extremely high for countries where everyone drives a scooter. Why do we only count death for these statistics?
Re: (Score:3)
Nevermind that you lost your legs. For example, the number of serious injuries that don't result in death would be extremely high for countries where everyone drives a scooter. Why do we only count death for these statistics?
I'm not saying I agree with their logic, but I would IMAGINE it's because then the results get a little fuzzy.
What constitutes as a serious injury vs a a non-serious injury? Where do you draw the line?
Loss of limb? Paralysis? Coma / Vegetative state? Concussion? Cracked skull? Broken wrist? Chipped tooth? Stitches?
How non-serious do we count?
If we say non-serious accidents = X, then we're missing all of the really really minor accidents
With death... at least there's a somewhat common accepted standard
Re: (Score:2)
Well, in countries with poor healthcare the number of deaths can be far greater even if the number and severity of the crashes is the same. So counting only deaths doesn't make it a common standard at all.
Re: (Score:2)
But deaths would be easy to count and lookup.
Some countries might not even both recording car-accidents-involving-coma, others would. Some might not even mention loss-of-limb. So comparing country A (which counts both of those) with country B (that counts neither) throws things off.
Others might just say "minor injury" or "major injury" but have greatly differing definitions of minor vs major.
Meanwhile, I'd imagine it's a LOT more common that everyone records and reports "death" So at least you're compar
Re: (Score:2)
But you're comparing the quality of healthcare, not the severity of car accidents.
Nigeria: 33.7 deaths / 100k (Score:3)
From TFA:
In a surprising number of countries, not knowing how to drive is no hindrance to obtaining a driver’s license or getting behind the wheel. In Nigeria, the Federal Road Safety Commission only recently made it compulsory for new drivers to take driving lessons and pass a test before obtaining a license; in the past you could simply buy a license.
The free market at work!
awful delay (Score:2)
A better map (Score:3)
Map is disappointing. Whomever decided that color scheme should be slapped.
I was expecting something like this: http://map.itoworld.com/road-casualties-usa [itoworld.com] but for all countries.
The map linked has every traffic fatality in the United States, and the age, sex, and classification of each death.
Map is disappointing (Score:3)
They could have just listed the fatality rates of the different countries; or provided a color-coded list.
For it to be useful as a map; it should be more granular, than merely painting every country the same color..... it should show fatality rates for states, provinces, counties, cities, and individual streets. Now that would make sense as a map.
Re:Dominican Republic, Iran and Thailand stats (Score:5, Funny)
"I would really like to know how the U.S. fatality rate of 11.4 per 100,000 compares to that of other nations, like the Dominican Republic, Iran, and Thailand, but I'm too lazy.
Ah screw it, I'll just make it a news topic on slashdot and wait until someone else does it for karma."
- timothy
Re:Dominican Republic, Iran and Thailand stats (Score:5, Informative)
They are all there, you can also zoom in the map to make it easier to see the countries. The blue dots are just for specific news stories, hovering over a country gives you its stats.
Dominican Republic - 41.7
Iran - 34.1
Thailand - 38.1
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I just got back from the DR... wholly shit driving is insane there.
As a general rule of thumb, and contrary to common sense, a driver's recklessness is inversely proportional to his ability to afford to repair or replace the car.
Re: (Score:3)
There was a study last year I read, although a quick Google search does not find it. I think it was "New Scientist". The gist was that the more expensive a car was the more likely the driver was to violate a studied subset of traffic laws including giving right of way to pedestrian in crosswalks. The study stuck in my mind because of the studied cars there was one exception that really stood out in the data, the Nissan Leaf for some reason had drivers that were much less likely to violate those laws, compa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Just because they're driving a BMW or Escalde does not always mean they have the "ability to afford to repair or replace the car". I would hazard to guess that a lot of them can't afford the car (evidenced by borrowing money to "buy" it, or by le
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
If you eliminate the 4-5 days of Songkram from Thailand though you are likely closer to US rates. (Not really, but possibly cut to 20.)
If you eliminate the Buddhist driving technique (turn into a busy road without looking, because if you were meant to die you will... it's all fate), limited mopeds to (2) children, (2) adults, (1) chicken, and (1) dog, and required Song Thaew drivers to be sober you would beat the US for sure.
Re:Dominican Republic, Iran and Thailand stats (Score:5, Insightful)
Really?
First, a 10-fold difference is quite important. Second, I would like to see the average speed of motorized traffic in these countries.
Fatality rate is 41.7 per 100000 in DR and ~4 in Germany. Now my guess is that should people try to drive in the DR as fast as it is customary in Germany, that 41.7 rate would go much higher...
Re:Dominican Republic, Iran and Thailand stats (Score:5, Insightful)
14,000 vs 5 is not a close call in my book.
Re: (Score:3)
Wait, 14% of the population dies every year in Togo due to automobile accidents? That's just not possible. There must be a mistake somewhere.
Re:Let me help you understand those figures (Score:4, Informative)
obviously you have never driven in Netherlands. It's not that laid back and you'd be surprised by the population (and car) density. Try super high enforcement of traffic law, very strict driving exams, high quality roads, strict safety regulations for cars and separate lanes for bikes.
Re: (Score:2)
very strict driving exams
Yeah, this. Where I am, you can not know 20% of the driving rules and still get a license. In the next state south of here, you can not know 40% of the driving rules and still get a license. I heard there was some talk of decreasing that to 35%.
I think 5% might be more reasonable, as a measure of mis-marked questions on a test.
Re: (Score:2)
Around here you have to score a minimum of 80% on the written test in order to pass and that's been like that for years. Just out of curiosity, how many questions are there on the test where you are? The main criticism I have about our written test is that it's only 25 questions and probably should be more like 50 minimum.
Re: (Score:3)
Setting the standard higher doesn't help when the test is stupid to begin with.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Culturally, Germany simply has fewer self-important assholes and that shows while driving.
True. Historically speaking, Germany has always been a non-aggressive, kind, and non-hostile country.
I have driven in the netherlands (Score:4, Interesting)
obviously you have never driven in Netherlands. It's not that laid back
I have in fact driven in the netherlands. You may think it's not that laid back - you have plainly not driven in the U.S. or anywhere with aggressive traffic for that matter.
Try super high enforcement of traffic law
Not that I saw, apart from some speed cameras. It's that more people follow the rules as they are.
Re:Let me help you understand those figures (Score:5, Informative)
If you're only able to move at 5MPH on average it's not likely you will die in an accident.
I'm not sure why you'd think this is the case in the UK - perhaps you've only tried driving around central London. A few factors affect the relatively low rate of road fatalities in the UK:
The first is the relative difficulty of getting a driving license. You must pass a theory test, which is multiple choice. It's not that difficult, but you can't pass it without having at least read the highway code, even if you can't remember quite all of it. Then you must pass a hazard awareness test, which shows you videos recorded from cars and checks that you are aware of things that may potentially be dangerous and so need your attention. Finally, you need to pass a practical test, which takes 30-60 minutes and involves driving on various kinds of road, where one major fault will result in failure. It's not unusual for people to require 2-3 attempts to pass, with lessons in between
Perhaps more important, however, is that safety statistics are the primary input into the road signal design system. Speed limits are set and traffic lights are installed in response to accident statistics, not (usually) to raise revenue. Police speed traps are also placed according to these rules. The USA has no equivalent system.
Re: (Score:3)
What happened to KPH?
Have you ever been hit by a rolling dumpster going downhill at 8KPH? It ain't pretty.
I believe the technical term here is "minivan".
Re:Dominican Republic, Iran and Thailand stats (Score:5, Funny)
I once was in Thailand, and took a minivan-taxi from thee airport to my hotel in Phuket, about 20 miles. On the way there it started pouring rain, I mean utterly pouring. As we drove down the road I saw a moped with three people on it, maybe more; I couldn't really tell because of the mass of people clinging to that thing as it was puttering down the road. There was a kid sitting on the front, and the driver was looking around the kid to see ahead. As we passed it, (it was on a side road) I noticed the driver lose control and the whole thing slid over and crashed, sending people flying. It wasn't going very fast, so I hope they were ok, but I told the driver and I don't think he cared to call the Thai version of 911. He did nothing.
The level of stupidity on display there was mind boggling. It was stupid to drive a moped out like that in the rain. it was stupid to try to put as many people on there as possible. It was stupid not to call 911. The whole thing was surreal, and yet this happens all the time there. I understand if you have to get the whole Surapapangkornipongikongkorn family to Aunties house for dinner, but there has to be a better way.
Re: (Score:2)
That happens a lot outside of the developed world. In China I would regularly see 3 or more people on motorcycles and scooters. I even once saw a guy pedaling a bike that had him and 3 kids balanced on it.
Re: (Score:3)
Where are they?
Let me guess, "No child left behind", right?
The Dominican Republic is on an island southeast of Florida. Three out of four Major League Baseball players come from there.
Iran is right between Iraq and Afghanistan. That's in the Middle East, which is nowhere near Chicago, but is really the part of western Asia which connects Europe, Africa and Asia together.
Thailand is a country in south-east Asia just a bit west of Vietnam. It is a popular destination for chess players and expatriot Americans who don't
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, the per-capita numbers are useless and misleading — the safest country is where there are no cars at all. Much more interesting would be the number of deaths per mile (or kilometer) driven.
Re: (Score:2)
Better US roads? You must be kidding... I have been living in Montgomery county, Maryland, for the last 4 years and I have regularly seen potholes deep enough to drown in after a thunderstorm...
Re: (Score:2)
It is true that in the United States most public transport deaths were due to boredom or old age rather than a traffic accident. Where I live, I would not be physically able to leave my house in the morning and get to work at the time I am supposed to be there (8:30).
I used to live in Chicago, which has a much better public transportation system. There, I was able to get up at 5:30 in the morning and make it to work on time via a 10 minute walk, a 50 minute bus r
Re:UK figure Indication of Traffic Suckage (Score:4, Interesting)
"I've driven in the U.K. before. You don't have as many people dying because it's rare to have a chance to be going fast enough that anyone can die in an accident. Mostly you are sitting still in L.A. quality traffic jams, until you get out into way open areas."
Bullshit - have you driven all over the UK for an extended period of time? I have. I live in NZ but used to live in the UK and I can tell you that NZ drivers are shockingly bad compared to those in the UK. UK drivers know how to use their mirrors, they don't tend to tailgate and they don't run red lights by and large. Sure, there are some arseholes on the road as there always is but the majority of UK drivers are well trained and observant, plus the cars are kept to a decently high standard due to the strict MOT that they have to undergo each year, Compulsory insurance also helps keep the idiots off the road.
The driving test in the UK is difficult by comparison with the one in NZ and that is why it isn't surprising to see 3x as many deaths per 100,000 in NZ as in the UK. Cars here are wrecks, insurance is optional so it isn't uncommon to have hit and run incidents as I experienced last year (I now ride my motorcycle with a helmet mounted camera to give me a chance of getting their plate and model of car) and many drivers don't even have full licenses and yet learners are allowed on all roads including motorways (although learners are supposed to do no more than 70Kph.) The highest speed limit anywhere, even motorways, is 100Kph (62Mph) and even that seems too fast for some drivers who don't understand lane discipline, stopping distances or driving to the conditions (speeding in fog and pouring rain? Check. Speeding is endemic) whereas in the UK you can be tooling along at 70Mph on a good quality motorway in very heavy traffic and still the accident rates are low. Here I'm lucky to go a week without seeing a major accident on my daily commute. I've seen more accidents here in 6 years than I saw in 25 years driving in the UK.
Sure, there are areas in the UK you don't want to drive - the M25 is a parking lot much of the time - but get outside the home counties and there are lots of decent roads and not that many traffic jams. Driving in a city is a mugs game anyway and one of the things that drove me onto a motorcycle was the fact I can get to work 3x quicker by bike (35 mins) than I can by car. The UK has more bikers which is indicated by the higher road accident percentage and it is a sad fact of life that if you aren't car shaped you're largely invisible.
NZ has a strange mix of drivers from countries that have interesting rules too - we have Indian drivers who subscribe to the might is right rule so a bike better get out of the way of a car which better get out of the way of a truck regardless of who has right of way. Throw in lots of Chinese drivers who haven't enough road experience and then a bunch of holiday makers from the US and it gets pretty interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure it's large caliber bullets coming from Apache attack helicopters.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Let's completely ignore any utility that can be extracted from data on the grounds that it might be used by strawmen for guilt trips.
Terrible summary cut. (Score:2)
Here's the full paragraph it mangled:
Death by car is random and suddenâ"which, unfortunately, means it tends to fall into the category of "accidental," and hence, unpreventable. But with traffic deaths set to outpace AIDS/HIV and malaria in the developing world, the UN is trying to change that perceptionâ"and this shocking interactive map ought to help.
The U.N. is trying to change perception that traffic deaths are unpreventable.
Re:Improper name (Score:5, Funny)
Nitpickception (Score:2)
When I saw the link, I thought it meant "road skill", but the page makes it clear that they mean "roads kill". Which is, frankly, nonsense. Roads are completely harmless. Now if they had written "cars kill" then they would at least have an argument (although not a sound one, IMHO, because it is bad driving or other stupid behaviour on the road that kills). But I'm pretty sure that the number of people killed by roads is negligible.
Well, if you're going to nitpick, then I'm afraid we have to go deeper. After all, it should be pointed out that the worst death rates are in developing countries where motorbikes and motorscooters are a dominant form of transportation. No cars involved, so "cars kill" is incomplete.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In the Dominican it looks like they'd have to calculate number of deaths per metre driven.
Re: (Score:3)
You may want to upgrade from Netscape 4.
You can say the same about guns (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't say the same about guns.
Millions upon millions of guns are sold legally each year. Between hunting and range shooting you can in fact say that the OVERWHELMING majority of guns are used as safe, useful, non-criminal tools.
Only 31k people died from gun injuries in the U.S. in 2011 - of those many were criminals shot, and 19k were suicides! Again, millions of guns sold, a tiny number of deaths, especially if you compare number of deaths per total number of guns to number of deaths per total cars...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, I have to think that mileage is an estimate as well. At least in the U.S., we have traffic sensors in a lot of the highways, but secondary roads is just a guess. They haven't started tapping our
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't, really. If you click through the "next" links in the lower-left, you'll eventually see that North Korea claimed that they had zero fatalities, just like Uzbekistan, another tyrannical state, claimed (i.e. take both with a grain of salt).
Another panel notes that underreporting is a major issue in the developing world and that Pakistan's claimed rate is significantly under what experts estimate. The reason we don't have anything to contradict North Korea is the lack of free data you allude to.
Re: (Score:2)
How did they manage to get data from North Korea?
Good question. The one guy that drives there hasn't died in an accident yet. But on the other hand they probably have three guys following him around recording his mileage, where he goes, who he talks to, etc.