Source: OECD
this post was submitted on 21 Feb 2026
89 points (94.1% liked)
Data is Beautiful
3604 readers
5 users here now
Be respectful
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'd imagine if instead of per 100000 inhabitants, we used per million kilometers driven, we'd see more comparable numbers across countries. US has far more vehicles per capita than Denmark where I'm living. I'd also imagine people spend longer time in traffic in US.
So I don't think it's that driving is more dangerous there, rather it's that you're more likely to be in a car at any given time if you're in USA. If you measured bicycle accidents per 100000 inhabitants probably the stats would be switched for DK/US.
How much we drive and how sprawling is the country in question yeah?
Like Canada is lower down this chart sure, and we drive a lot. However my experience driving in and around a 1 million population city vs Toronto GTA vs...let's say New York State and City where the equivilent of my country's entire population lives.
Yeah the way a question is set up makes a big difference and often has unspoken assumptions. For example your preference might indicate an assumption that cars are the natural and good way to get around, that low rates of car ownership are a sign of poverty and something lacking. In this framing, more people dying in cars is just the cost of progress.
I'd be interested in "per million kilometers traveled", including cars, trains, busses and cycling. Even then I'm assuming that we should optimize for the least deaths per km when actually no one likes traveling and less travel is better. Suburban sprawl is not the only way to structure a city, after all.
Also still less than ideal, since a more sprawling area will require more travel. Better metric is deaths per destinations reached