MEPs bid to ban 102mph

[henk4]

OK guys, so figure for Holland. Population 17 million. So the only thing what I want to know is the share of the population that dies each year as a consequence of traffic accidents...Latest figures available are for 2005, because 2006 figures may still include victims that ultimately will perish during 2007.


Total 2004: 991
Total 2005: 817
In cars:2004 414, 2005 350 (decreasing)
Pedestrians 2004:77, 2005: 89 (Increasing...)
Cyclists: 2004: 180, 2005: 181..

(Other categories include lorry drivers, bikers etc..)

So we get about 5 casualties per 100,000 people.

Furthermore in comparison to the USA we should also take into account population density.....(we live with 17 million people on an area of 35000 sqkm). so the chances to "meet" each other on the road are much higher....

[henk4]

http://fhwainter.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs02/in6.htm

It's around 4 years back. I notice a peculiar thing, they have this fatality rate by 100 million vehicle kilometers and i was wondering, why the heck they want to relate it to vehicle mileage? Then only i noticed it's by the US Department of Transportation, the using of mileage to relate deaths is absurd IMO, it would only pull the ratio way downwards since there are so damn lot of americans travelling around their country every minute.... building up the required mileage by Department of Transportation for good news sake in the following year.

what is the vehicle mileage of a pedestrian?

[Fleet 500]

He mentioned the casualty/fatality rate of accidents in US compared to Netherlands. That means, for every road accident, one that was in US is around 3-4 times more likely to die and go heaven as oppose to holland.

With well over 3-4 times the cars and the population, it's no big surprise.

[henk4]

With well over 3-4 times the cars and the population, it's no big surprise.

know the difference between absolute and relative figures?????

[Fleet 500]

know the difference between absolute and relative figures?????

I do.
I also noticed from the link that Ingolstadt provided shows that the figures for the fatality rate per 100 million vehicle kilometers for the U.S. and Canada are very close (1.62 U.S and 1.60 Canada).

The auto fatalities for 2005 for the U.S. is 38.1/100,000. I believe it is higher than that in Great Britain.

[henk4]

I do.
I also noticed from the link that Ingolstadt provided shows that the figures for the fatality rate per 100 million vehicle kilometers for the U.S. and Canada are very close (1.62 U.S and 1.60 Canada).

The auto fatalities for 2005 for the U.S. is 38.1/100,000. I believe it is higher than that in Great Britain.

possibly, and you may have also noted the figure FOR ALL CASUALTIES I gave for Holland which was 5 per 100.000 so my estimate of the USA being 3-4 times more unsafe was wrong...

[Ferrer]

possibly, and you may have also noted the figure FOR ALL CASUALTIES I gave for Holland which was 5 per 100.000 so my estimate of the USA being 3-4 times more unsafe was wrong...

Yes apparently, it's 7,6 times higher in the US...

[Ingolstadt]

No matter how, China and India ftw on this subject.

[henk4]

No matter how, China and India ftw on this subject.

can you produce reliable figures to prove that?

[Ingolstadt]

can you produce reliable figures to prove that?

http://www.driveandstayalive.com/inf...apita-2004.htm

It must be remembered that there are three primary measures for comparing multi-national crash and fatality data: the deaths per 100,000 population or per capita rate, deaths in relation to overall distance travelled (known in the USA as the VMT rate), and deaths in relation to the number of registered motor vehicles in the country (the latter of which is not shown at all in the above table). All three measures should be considered when comparing disparate countries but using just one of these methods is generally acceptable when comparing countries of similar status (e.g. "highly motorised countries" [HMCs], developed nations, third world countries, etc.).

As a result, some countries in the above table may appear to present bizarre results, either because -- like China, for example -- they have a very high death toll but this is offset by a huge population, or they simply have, say, a very low proportion of motor vehicles per head of population -- such as Brunei, that was at the head of the DSA per capita table for 2003.

There is also the question of how, exactly, a traffic fatality is defined in any particular country. Some may only include deaths at the scene, whereas others will stipulate deaths within 24 hours or one week but the growing norm would now appear to be deaths within 30 days of the crash.

In some cases, above, the data for the number of deaths simply cannot be relied upon as being accurate. In Turkey, for example, the national press state that over 9,000 people are killed in road crashes each year, and yet each year data is published by that country giving a much lower body count.

I'll take info from a source that calculate death rates simply by Death per capita. (Note, this does not take into consideration of number of vehicles in that country, of which China would be much lower consider their population over vehicle ratio, USA would be higher if vehicle over population ratio is put into consideration) Malaysia, had the highest number of vehicle ownership in middle income families in Asia, an average of more than 2 vehicles per household for middle income families (due our almost useless public transport system)

Year 2003

China = 18.37 deaths per 100,000 population
USA = 14.75 deaths per 100,000 population
Malaysia = 26.75 per 100,000 population

No info on India thou.

Another quote from DSA to support my analogy on the wrong approach by USA authorities taking mileage into consideration.

It is worth mention that many individuals in the USA dismiss the per capita rate as unimportant and claim that as America is a huge country and journeys can be extremely long, only the VMT rate (or VKmT equivalent) is important. Yet only a little thought would suggest that this is a fallacious approach. The vast distances that allegedly support this argument are primarily undertaken on the very type of roads that are known to be the safest -- divided highways (known elsewhere as dual carriageways). Over half of all people killed on America's roads die in crashes on rural roads, and this would seem to suggest that the argument favoring the VMT rate to the exclusion of all others is not valid.

Hence although there are times i weren't being able to give supportive facts and figures to support my claims, it can be safe to assume i have the correct, logic thinking path of experts. (k, that doesn't grant me to give false claims... but i generally don't)

[henk4]

http://www.driveandstayalive.com/inf...apita-2004.htm

India is there, well below the USA