this post was submitted on 21 Feb 2026
89 points (94.1% liked)

Data is Beautiful

3604 readers
7 users here now

Be respectful

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Source: OECD

all 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] djmikeale@feddit.dk 10 points 3 days ago (2 children)

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.

[–] BurgerBaron@piefed.social 4 points 3 days ago

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.

[–] rimu@piefed.social 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] blarghly@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

per million kilometers traveled

Also still less than ideal, since a more sprawling area will require more travel. Better metric is deaths per destinations reached

[–] CanadaPlus 6 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

I'm a bit confused about how they chose which countries to graph. Obviously this isn't even all the regions.

[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago

Fun fact, Nicaragua put a national maximum limit at 30 mph (50 kph) on all their roads, even highways, as a response to road fatalities a few months back. It's Costa Ricas neighbor and has similar amounts of deaths.

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

And again, the US ends up with third world countries. Makes you think...

[–] SendMePhotos@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

Nice job USA. Special shout-out to Puerto Rico!

[–] ChicoSuave@lemmy.world -2 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Ah, time for the regular "USA bad" stuff

[–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 2 days ago

are you saying the USA isn't bad?

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 11 points 3 days ago

Well, yes, it is. It is amazing how Americans overrate their own country because of unfounded assumptions that break down once confronted with facts.