this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2025
124 points (97.0% liked)

Fuck Cars

12437 readers
558 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Only states/provinces over a population of 2,000,000 are shown.

top 20 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] RadioFreeArabia@lemmy.world 6 points 8 hours ago

NY being so low relative to all other states proves mass transit saves lives.

[–] Evil_Shrubbery@lemmy.zip 11 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (2 children)

So Canada and Australia arent the outliers:

(Of which EU countries are at 4.6 for 2023.)

[–] bravesentry@feddit.org 7 points 12 hours ago

Please keep in mind that these numbers are per million inhabitants. The numbers in the post are per 100.000.

So Romania would be at 8.5 traffic fatalities per 100.000 inhabitants.

[–] Honeybee@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Your post is from 2020, I'm not saying they are wrong numbers, but keep in mind: a lot of the year everyone was in lockdown, which might skew the numbers

[–] Evil_Shrubbery@lemmy.zip 4 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

That's why I added the 2023 data, to show that it's not that much dif (4.2 in 2020 vs 4.6 in 2023). But you are completely right.

[–] BotsRuinedEverything@lemmy.world 3 points 13 hours ago

There's my state of Pennsylvania right in the middle. In every statistic I've ever seen we are right in the mathematical middle.

[–] graycube@lemmy.world 22 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Mississippi is raising their speed limit to 75. That should help.

[–] nucleative@lemmy.world 4 points 11 hours ago

Survival of the fittest (or largest)

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 19 points 23 hours ago (4 children)

Taken from this video.

The comparison is not a perfect one. Deaths per capita might not be as useful a metric as deaths per 100,000 km driven could arguably be better. But then you're perhaps not taking into account deaths of pedestrians & cyclists. No stat is perfect, but this is interesting.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 13 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 children)

Deaths per capita might not be as useful a metric as deaths per 100,000 km driven could arguably be better. But then you’re perhaps not taking into account deaths of pedestrians & cyclists.

I would argue that deaths per distance traveled (even if it included modes other than driving) could be worse because it might skew the results in favor of sprawl-y countries with a lot of freeway driving.

The pursuit of "safety" (measured in deaths per distance traveled) has been the excuse for a lot of terrible design decisions in traffic engineering, because keeping the number of deaths the same while increasing the speed and distance traveled looks like a win.

[–] Evil_Shrubbery@lemmy.zip 4 points 16 hours ago

Yes.

If they make you drive a lot it's a systemic/infrastructural problem just like having bad roads & low standards for car safety and maintenance.

[–] bravesentry@feddit.org 1 points 12 hours ago

Valid, but only if you also include the distance travelled by other means than by car.

[–] WiredBrain@lemmy.ca 12 points 22 hours ago

I would usually agree with this kind of normalization, but in this case I actually think it would actually obfuscate the picture. Safer roads are a good thing, but if traffic deaths are reduced because more people bike or take the train, that's still a win. Roads and cars are inherently dangerous, and that danger needs to be minimized using multiple strategies. We need to focus on holistic changes that consider people's behaviour and their interactions with the built environment.

When people feel they absolutely need to drive, that's a failure of infrastructure.

Being compelled to drive more is kind of the problem.

[–] Donjuanme@lemmy.world 7 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

I'd like to propose that many of these states (left leaning ones near the bottom) would be lower if it weren't for visitors from the others. I think our infrastructure is too well marked and clean and it causes people not used to things, like bots spots and street lights, to get distracted while driving,

[–] davidgro@lemmy.world 3 points 22 hours ago (1 children)
[–] sprite0@sh.itjust.works 4 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (2 children)
[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

That article says they're non-reflective.

Which makes me wonder...what exactly is the difference (in purpose or experience) between them and rumble strips?

[–] sprite0@sh.itjust.works 1 points 48 minutes ago

my bad, they are pretty high vis!

[–] davidgro@lemmy.world 3 points 21 hours ago

Oh! I had just been calling those things 'road bumps'.