SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the 'hit-the-road'-but-don't-take-it-literally dept.
ScienceNews reports on a report from the CDC (informative graph):
U.S. drivers love to hit the road. The problem is doing so safely.
In 2013, 32,894 people in the United States died in motor vehicle crashes. Although down since 2000, the overall death rate - 10.3 per 100,000 people - tops 19 other high-income countries, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported July 8. Belgium is a distant second with 6.5 deaths per 100,000. Researchers reviewed World Health Organization and other data on vehicle crash deaths, seat belt use and alcohol-impaired driving in 2000 and 2013.
Canada had the highest percentage of fatal crashes caused by drunk drivers: 33.6 percent. New Zealand and the United States tied for second at 31 percent. But Canada and 16 other countries outperformed the United States on seat belt use - even though, in 2013, 87 percent of people in the United States reported wearing safety belts while riding in the front seat.
Spain saw the biggest drop - 75 percent - in its crash death rate. That country improved nearly all aspects of road safety, including decreasing alcohol-impaired driving and increasing seat belt use, the researchers say.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 23 2016, @11:15PM
> the overall death rate - 10.3 per 100,000 people - tops 19 other high-income countries,
That is not the right metric to use for comparisons. We should be talking about deaths per miles driven. Even better would be to compare deaths per miles driven inside and outside urban areas. That's because the amount of time spent on the road and the amount of time spent in different types of traffic can have a significant effect on the number of crashes.
I don't know what those numbers are for the US, or any other country, I just know that few other countries have so much distance within their own borders as the US does.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 23 2016, @11:37PM
Why would you expect the CDC to use a metric that is relevant to vehicle accidents? They are using the same metric that they use for diseases so they can compare to heart disease, etc., which is ridiculous when you think about it. For just one example, many people live in cities (ie, NY City), use public transit, and have little or no exposure to motor vehicle crashes.
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Saturday July 23 2016, @11:51PM
Even Capitalist Russia's population is mostly clustered around its western portions.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by rigrig on Sunday July 24 2016, @12:11PM
That is not the right metric to use for comparisons.
I suppose that depends on whether you want to somehow compare countries (which is silly, because of the truckload of uncontrolled variables), or historical figures within one country (because decreasing both total deaths and miles driven by e.g. better public transport/straighter roads would be a desirable outcome)
The study compared a bunch of things:
Motor vehicle crash deaths per 100,000 population, per 100 million vehicle miles traveled, and per 10,000 registered vehicles, and percentage decreases from 2000 to 2013
Turns out, the US is at the bottom for % decrease of deaths, both per mile traveled and per population.
(Also, "US somewhere in the middle for deaths per mile traveled" doesn't sell papers/clicks)
No one remembers the singer.
(Score: 2) by choose another one on Monday July 25 2016, @09:44AM
Those numbers are in TFA (or at least the CDC article which is T-actual-FA rather than some dumb summary).
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/65/wr/mm6526e1.htm#T1_down [cdc.gov]
Spoiler: US is still among the worst, and it's improvement over the last decade or so is the worst by a large margin.