You must log in or # to comment.
Aight, I’m gonna need this in relative/conditional frequencies rather than absolute ones.
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.
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.
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.
Never trust a chart unless you falsified it yourself.
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.
sorry
Oh no I agree with you
Van/lorry kills more cars than they kill other vans/lorries. Top dog in the race to the bottom.
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.
What’s “other”? Alien craft?
airplanes, UFOs, MISSILES?
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).
That question mark? Wargs.
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,?
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.
Real curious about the three “other” colliding with one another
Skateboard vs pram
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*
Is this per thousand collisions? …or?
Useless statistics…
Looks like it’s total for the previous year
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
You would be surprised. I would take a bet against you that collectively more distance is completed on foot than in “cars” in france
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.
That pedestrian who killed a driver is a badass and ill hiy them a bottle of their fav sparkling white; i don’t even care.
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 guess they died as well.
