Surprise, surprise: U.S. ranks 42nd out of 48 countries in deaths per capita
When you hear that the US is 42nd out of 48 countries when it comes to number of deaths per capita, it might sound like a good thing. Until you find out that the rankings go from lowest to highest -- which means, yes, that of the measured countries, there are only six places where driving is more deadly than the Land of the Free. (Tip: you might want to avoid driving in Russia and Lithuania for a few more years.)
The posited reasons are varied and numerous, and include the brevity of driver training, lax laws, weak enforcement, no emphasis on public transport, little public awareness, and a lack of Federal legislation. Regardless of the causes, the effect is that it's riskier to get behind the wheel here than it is in the Poland or Estonia. This is despite the fact that cars have gotten exponentially safer, and the US leads the world in the adoption of electronic stability control, said to be "the greatest life-saving technology since the seat belt."
If there's any consolation, it's that the US does considerably better in the number of fatalities per mile driven, where the US comes in at number 11. Before you celebrate, in 1970 the US was number one. Which country has the lowest number of fatalities per capita? Malta.
[Source: New York Times]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Compy386 9:45AM (7/23/2007)
This is an extremely pointless statistic because Americans drive more than everyone else in the world and own more cars per capita then everyone else in the world. Trust me if you've seen driving in Asia, you thank your lucky stars that you live in the US.
Reply
cappuccino 9:55AM (7/23/2007)
I do not agree with this article.
If you are driving in southeastern
Asia, that's like testing your death perception.
They tailgate you like crazy...man, compared to that
the drivers in US are so nice.
Max Merak 3:10PM (7/23/2007)
Don't drive in China.
Barney 3:58PM (7/23/2007)
Canada is the 2nd largest country in the world. The USA is forth. You don't drive more then Russians or Canadians. Canada has also the largest amount cars per capita. There is slightly more Canadians then the population of California.
The problems in the U.S. is due to congestion.
Allan 9:47AM (7/23/2007)
Oh come on... like anyone drives in Malta anyways.
At least the trend is to improve I guess... but no, not really that surprising.
Reply
Michael 9:52AM (7/23/2007)
Actually almost EVERYONE drives in Malta, with a car for every 2 persons. Our problem is not that nobody drives, but that the roads will not cope with the increase in cars.
Handy tip: Next time, check your facts before making a fool of yourself.
Allan 10:03AM (7/23/2007)
Another handy tip: learn to recognize sarcasm and adjust comments accordingly.
Avinash machado 9:48AM (7/23/2007)
The worst driving is probably in India.
Reply
martaamey 9:50AM (7/23/2007)
"Regardless of the causes, the effect is that it's riskier to get behind the wheel here than it is in the Poland or Estonia."
That's total crap! The reason is simple – we drive more.
Consider the source - The New York Times. Yea, right.
Reply
John Miller 9:52AM (7/23/2007)
Yeah, the deaths per capita stat is a really dumb statistic. If the question is: 'Where is it the most dangerous to drive?' the only one that matters is deaths per mile driven. Come on Autoblog, that's just sloppy journalism.
Reply
NT 9:55AM (7/23/2007)
"If there's any consolation, it's that the US does considerably better in the number of fatalities per mile driven, where the US comes in at number 11."
Reading comprehension people, this is the statistic that matters, in which there are more deaths per mile in the US than in 10 other countries.
Reply
XJ 9:56AM (7/23/2007)
While I do agree that the 42nd ranking is pointless -- since so many countries have far fewer cars on their road -- the 11th place ranking in fatalities per mile driven is a pretty good measure of where we stand compared to the rest of the world. Sure we're more congested and probably have a higher SUV/passangercar ratio than most, but if we were the safefst in that category in 1970, there's no reason to think we're not capable of doing it again.
Reply
XJ 9:59AM (7/23/2007)
Mitsubishi 300GT. I'm assuming the driver's dead.
Reply
Ben H. 12:21PM (7/23/2007)
Yes...according to this picture, the stats only apply to people driving this Mitsubishi model car. ;)
beaker 10:31AM (7/23/2007)
What it should be is deaths per capita (vehicles) not deaths per capita (people). Getting in time driven would normalize it much better.
Per miles isn't always good. In the US, many commute large numbers of miles, where in some other countries the commute is a shorter distance, though may be about the same amount of time.
Reply
Julius 10:00AM (7/23/2007)
My entire family lives in Poland (I live in the US) and I wouldn't ever dream of driving on the roads there. Polish people are crazy when they're driving, and many of the roads cannot support much more than 80-100 kph, although Poles routinely push 180 in their 15 year old "cars"
Also, thanks for calling it "the Poland," we deserve a "the" in front of the name.
Reply
Jay Evans 10:12AM (7/23/2007)
This is Malta.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7d/Malta_satellite_NASA.jpg
It's only 121 sq miles with 400,000 people
Even if you have a car, where can you drive to?????
Reply
Ted 10:13AM (7/23/2007)
You can partially blame local governments for this statistic.
I've seen local planning and zoning boards (with their "traffic engineers") try to "control" traffic. Only after the futile efforts of lowering speed limits, installing speed bumps, adding traffic light cameras, putting in radar signs, intentionally narrowing roads, do they realize that they need wider, faster roads to accommodate the traffic flow.
Traffic engineers need to start thinking like network engineers. You either re-route traffic to a better route (build bypass roads), or you speed up the current routes (widen roads to accommodate higher flows and speeds).
Engineers that try to "control" traffic are delusional....you need to evaluate the traffic type and volume and build the road to accommodate those needs.
Reply
Jeremy 10:30AM (7/23/2007)
I completely agree Ted!!
"The posited reasons are varied and numerous, and include the brevity of driver training, lax laws, weak enforcement, no emphasis on public transport, little public awareness, and a lack of Federal legislation."
OR it could be that we have an ever increasing population of drivers in our country and because we are "too nice" to tell old people to get off the road :)
The Other Bob 11:16AM (7/23/2007)
"Traffic engineers need to start thinking like network engineers. You either re-route traffic to a better route (build bypass roads), or you speed up the current routes (widen roads to accommodate higher flows and speeds)."
I totally disagree. Traffic engineers ONLY think like network engineers, to the detriment of our cities. Engineers at the DOTs around the country have one goal: get the maximum numbers of cars through a given area.
This kills local buisness by turning mainstreet into a high speed freeway where nobody stops at local buisnesses, or could if they wanted to. Find me a widened, faster road in a downtown and I will show you a lot of going out of buisness sales. Bypasses are horrible too as they create additional buisness districts and run the old ones out of buisness.
In the end if you widen a road to accomidate traffic, you just get more cars through the same area and end up where you started. You are better off with slow traffic and healthy downtowns.
There are projects in Portland and other cities where freeways were removed and it helped the area grow.