Mmmh, I would suppose that to be counted in this statistic they'd need to run at each other really fast and somehow manage to kill each other (or at least one person). Like jousting or goats or something?
There used to be bicycle polo around a few years ago, I'm not sure if they still play it these days, haven't seen em in a while but it looked pretty fun!
Not really. Imagine 2 people walking at a brisk pace walking into each other, eg around a corner.
Might kill someone. Usually that's fine, but sometimes you have bad lick.
A great case for why data normalization is so important.
Looking at the chart like this with non-normalized data you might conclude that riding around on a scooter makes you near invincible compared to walking even if hit by a car.
Whereas what's really being shown is more people walk than ride scooters.
Yeah, I'm really wondering how push scooters cause more pedestrian fatalities than bicycles. Motorized scooters, I understand, but how the hell does a push scooter have enough mass and speed to kill twice as many people?
Yes and most people don't buy the actual champagne stuff except maybe for special occasions because a nice crémant does the same job for 1/5th the price.
Rate per distance is not that great of a metric either, though. Increasing distance does not necessarily increase risk equally. A car that drives a long stretch on a highway is unlikely to hit a pedestrian, but inside a city, or on a shared country road this becomes much more likely. Distance travelled would be inflated in this case for the car, and the metrics would end up being much lower.
Furthermore, because walking is generally done for short distances, any incident would inflate this rate much more for pedestrians.
You preferably want to have some measure of risk for a single trip. If a trip were to be made by another mode of transport, would it still have occurred? A proxy for this can be the severity: How high is the chance that an incident is fatal there between two modes of transport, given that an incident occurs? You may also wish to account for the likelihood of an interaction. Which also provides another means of improving: what infrastructure was involved? Disentangling two modes of transport makes them less likely to interact.
Sorry for this long rant, but I really dislike rate / distance as a means of normalizing a metric that is meant to indicate the relative safety.
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.
Approximately 1.19 million people die each year as a result of road traffic crashes.
Road traffic injuries are the leading cause of death for children and young adults aged 5–29 years.
92% of the world's fatalities on the roads occur in low- and middle-income countries, even though these countries have around 60% of the world's vehicles.
More than half of all road traffic deaths are among vulnerable road users, including pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists.
Road traffic crashes cost most countries 3% of their gross domestic product.
This is the sort of chart that should be put in front of children. It’s interesting to read and well designed. And it’s funny to imagine two people bumping into each other being fit for such a chart.
And it has just enough complexity to be at least a bit fascinating to most kids, and especially spectrum kids.
I don't think we can assume someone in a traffic accident caused by an Other event was being irresistible. The few instances of Other-calling are probably insignificant in the whole when it comes to traffic accidents. It also maybe just seems impractical to be irresistible while driving? Unless you wanted to maybe make some insurance claim that the crash caused the coma and not the Other.
For the last row, it might be people using e.g. inline skates, skateboards or non-electrical scooters.
For the last column, it could also be unknown vehicle (hit and run).
Edit: Busses aren't included in the chart as a separate category either, so they're also in the "others" category.
It's the objective case, i.e. everything that isn't nominative, so this usage would be correct. We don't have a real distinction between accusative and dative in modern english.
That being said, I'm a descriptivist who is strongly of the opinion that 'who' is always correct and 'whom' is archaic.
The table shows absolute values not relative ones, so this only says that cars kill more people because there are more cars than trucks. The table has about twice as many cars as trucks, so if you multiply everything in the truck column by 2, you can kind of compare danger with cars.
My goal in life is to be that one pedestrian who takes out a car.
Mad props for the cyclist too
Yeah how did that even happen? Like was it a really buff guy or a really flimsy car?
That was Chuck Norris
I would guess a lot of speed and an initial impact that either put the pedestrian through the windshield or resulted in the car losing control.
Car crashed into a building, killed a pedestrian on the way. Any number of scenarios. Doesn't mean the pedestrian survived.
Brock Samson has entered the chat.
Traffic accidents might include the rare "oopsie I killed the guy because I thought he was a demon" or something?
When a pedestrian collides into another pedestrian and kills them, that’s called “a fist fight.”
Mmmh, I would suppose that to be counted in this statistic they'd need to run at each other really fast and somehow manage to kill each other (or at least one person). Like jousting or goats or something?
I'd pay to watch bicycle jousting.
Segways too.
There used to be bicycle polo around a few years ago, I'm not sure if they still play it these days, haven't seen em in a while but it looked pretty fun!
Don't underestimate how easily one can die, if you fall just the wrong way, it can happen. Particularly older folks.
Not really. Imagine 2 people walking at a brisk pace walking into each other, eg around a corner. Might kill someone. Usually that's fine, but sometimes you have bad lick.
A great case for why data normalization is so important.
Looking at the chart like this with non-normalized data you might conclude that riding around on a scooter makes you near invincible compared to walking even if hit by a car.
Whereas what's really being shown is more people walk than ride scooters.
Yes, but the downside is that you only ever get to kill pedestrians /s
Yeah, I'm really wondering how push scooters cause more pedestrian fatalities than bicycles. Motorized scooters, I understand, but how the hell does a push scooter have enough mass and speed to kill twice as many people?
That pedestrian who killed a driver is a badass and ill buy them a bottle of their fav sparkling white; i don't even care.
I guess they died as well.
Buying a french person a bottle of sparkling white would probably kill them
Champaigne is a particular sparkling white.
Other places in france also make it.
Yes and most people don't buy the actual champagne stuff except maybe for special occasions because a nice crémant does the same job for 1/5th the price.
i want more information on the other v other incidents. is this like, clown unicycle vs pogo stick?
could be person flying out of a car unbuckled hitting a car,?
Looks like I need to buy a scooter, a van, or an other
Your logic is wrong. There's less of them total so of course there's less fatalities total. It says nothing about rate per distance driven.
Rate per distance is not that great of a metric either, though. Increasing distance does not necessarily increase risk equally. A car that drives a long stretch on a highway is unlikely to hit a pedestrian, but inside a city, or on a shared country road this becomes much more likely. Distance travelled would be inflated in this case for the car, and the metrics would end up being much lower. Furthermore, because walking is generally done for short distances, any incident would inflate this rate much more for pedestrians.
You preferably want to have some measure of risk for a single trip. If a trip were to be made by another mode of transport, would it still have occurred? A proxy for this can be the severity: How high is the chance that an incident is fatal there between two modes of transport, given that an incident occurs? You may also wish to account for the likelihood of an interaction. Which also provides another means of improving: what infrastructure was involved? Disentangling two modes of transport makes them less likely to interact.
Sorry for this long rant, but I really dislike rate / distance as a means of normalizing a metric that is meant to indicate the relative safety.
Oh no I agree with you
Never trust a chart unless you falsified it yourself.
Van/lorry kills more cars than they kill other vans/lorries. Top dog in the race to the bottom.
Very curious about the three "question mark vs question mark" fatalities. UFO collision? Skateboard jousting?
@MIDItheKID feck. Skateboard jousting. Take your updoot and leave. 🤬😂
But cyclists are the real danger in this society.
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.
A lot more people than in the US but france is still pretty carbrained outside of big cities
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?
I posted that in another thread, but it also fits here to provide a broader picture maybe.
Road traffic death rate (per 100 000 population) according to WHO:
According to the WHO, a road traffic injuries report says:
This is the sort of chart that should be put in front of children. It’s interesting to read and well designed. And it’s funny to imagine two people bumping into each other being fit for such a chart.
And it has just enough complexity to be at least a bit fascinating to most kids, and especially spectrum kids.
Headline tomorrow: "Other Hits Other. Three Dead."
I'm concerned that giant questionmarks are nearly 6x more deadly than electric kickboards to pedestrians. /s
Is the giant questiomark for things that do not fit into any of the other categories or does it mean something different?
It could be "other" or it could be "transportation mode unknown."
Lol, it's literally labeled other. 🤦🏼♂️
Indeed it is on the left side. Why would I ever look lef *gets hit by car*
I don't think we can assume someone in a traffic accident caused by an Other event was being irresistible. The few instances of Other-calling are probably insignificant in the whole when it comes to traffic accidents. It also maybe just seems impractical to be irresistible while driving? Unless you wanted to maybe make some insurance claim that the crash caused the coma and not the Other.
So, a pedestrian collided with a car and the car was the fatality?
I’m sure the pedestrian also didn’t survive that scenario.
But yeah this data is a bit confusing.
Maybe the airbag was unsupportive in this case.
Hashtag fuck cars
Aight, I'm gonna need this in relative/conditional frequencies rather than absolute ones.
Real curious about the three "other" colliding with one another
Skateboard vs pram
That question mark? Wargs.
What's "other"? Alien craft?
For the last row, it might be people using e.g. inline skates, skateboards or non-electrical scooters.
For the last column, it could also be unknown vehicle (hit and run).
Edit: Busses aren't included in the chart as a separate category either, so they're also in the "others" category.
Turtle dropped from sky
airplanes, UFOs, MISSILES?
Need fewer 4+ wheeled death cages, more walking / biking infrastructure, more and better public transit, and more significant barriers between them.
In this chart: kinetic energy is relative to mass.
Incorrect use of whom. Who kills who (accusative case). Who gets killed by whom (dative case).
It's the objective case, i.e. everything that isn't nominative, so this usage would be correct. We don't have a real distinction between accusative and dative in modern english.
That being said, I'm a descriptivist who is strongly of the opinion that 'who' is always correct and 'whom' is archaic.
Remember that one time the dumb lady walked out in front of Tour de France? About the only example I can think of which was particularly morbid.
How the fuck is a van less dangerous than a car in collisions? Ain't
F = maThe table shows absolute values not relative ones, so this only says that cars kill more people because there are more cars than trucks. The table has about twice as many cars as trucks, so if you multiply everything in the truck column by 2, you can kind of compare danger with cars.
Fuck yeah scooters killed 19 cars way to go lil' guys!
Is this per thousand collisions? ...or?
Useless statistics...
Looks like it's total for the previous year