×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Open Source Mapping Software Shows Every Traffic Death On Earth

timothy posted about 8 months ago | from the dashed-line-shows-leaper's-path dept.

Open Source 322

cartechboy writes "Traffic deaths are set to outpace AIDS/HIV and malaria in the developing world, so the UN is trying to change that perception. This shocking open source, interactive map of crash data from the Pulitzer Center ought to help. It's grisly, but very informative. The mapping was produced by Pulitzer Center journalists using open source mapping technology from Mapbox. Compare the U.S. fatality rate of 11.4 per 100,000 to that of other nations, like the Dominican Republic, Iran, and Thailand and see how people were traveling when when killed (car, bicycle, etc)."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

322 comments

Dominican Republic, Iran and Thailand stats (0)

loufoque (1400831) | about 8 months ago | (#44645533)

Where are they?
What's the point of saying the US is 11.4 per 100,000 if you don't give the stats for the other countries?

Re:Dominican Republic, Iran and Thailand stats (4, Funny)

zAPPzAPP (1207370) | about 8 months ago | (#44645587)

"I would really like to know how the U.S. fatality rate of 11.4 per 100,000 compares to that of other nations, like the Dominican Republic, Iran, and Thailand, but I'm too lazy.
Ah screw it, I'll just make it a news topic on slashdot and wait until someone else does it for karma."
- timothy

Re:Dominican Republic, Iran and Thailand stats (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44645605)

Let 'em die. Whether it's from AIDS, or traffic violations. We don't need anybody that stupid in the real world anyway.

-- Ethanol-fueled

Re:Dominican Republic, Iran and Thailand stats (5, Informative)

Alok (37687) | about 8 months ago | (#44645701)

They are all there, you can also zoom in the map to make it easier to see the countries. The blue dots are just for specific news stories, hovering over a country gives you its stats.

Dominican Republic - 41.7
Iran - 34.1
Thailand - 38.1

Re:Dominican Republic, Iran and Thailand stats (2)

hackula (2596247) | about 8 months ago | (#44645815)

I just got back from the DR... wholly shit driving is insane there. Having a motorcycle driving towards you on the wrong side of the highway median at night with no lights on the bike was a regular occurrence. Also, basically every driver on the road after 7pm is 100% hammered drunk. Driving in Santo Domingo feels like real life Frogger.

Re:Dominican Republic, Iran and Thailand stats (1)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 8 months ago | (#44645885)

I just got back from the DR... wholly shit driving is insane there.

As a general rule of thumb, and contrary to common sense, a driver's recklessness is inversely proportional to his ability to afford to repair or replace the car.

Re:Dominican Republic, Iran and Thailand stats (0)

loufoque (1400831) | about 8 months ago | (#44645905)

I find it impressive how countries where driving is not well regulated and where it is dangerous still have a fairly low fatality rate.
It is apparent that all those strict rules the government is forcing on drivers have a very limited use.

Whatever you do, fatality rates are about 0.1% - 0.5%.

Re:Dominican Republic, Iran and Thailand stats (4, Insightful)

csubi (950112) | about 8 months ago | (#44646101)

Really?

First, a 10-fold difference is quite important. Second, I would like to see the average speed of motorized traffic in these countries.

Fatality rate is 41.7 per 100000 in DR and ~4 in Germany. Now my guess is that should people try to drive in the DR as fast as it is customary in Germany, that 41.7 rate would go much higher...

Re:Dominican Republic, Iran and Thailand stats (1)

Riddles (2787) | about 8 months ago | (#44645911)

Even the US is quite high, compared to some other countries:
Iceland - 2.8
Sweden - 3
UK - 3.7
Netherlands - 3.9

Let me help you understand those figures (0)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 8 months ago | (#44646061)

Iceland - 2.8

Every single driver is super laid back and spaced really well with other cars. After all, there are only 300k of you and most everything where anyone lives is just a few hours away from each other.


Sweden - 3
Netherlands - 3.9

Similar to Iceland except they go somewhat faster, but people are used to driving in crappy conditions so they have excellent skills in on dry roads.

UK - 3.7

If you're only able to move at 5MPH on average it's not likely you will die in an accident.

Re:Let me help you understand those figures (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44646149)

UK - 3.7

If you're only able to move at 5MPH on average it's not likely you will die in an accident.

What happened to KPH?

Have you ever been hit by a rolling dumpster going downhill at 8KPH? It ain't pretty.

Re:Let me help you understand those figures (3, Informative)

Njovich (553857) | about 8 months ago | (#44646177)

obviously you have never driven in Netherlands. It's not that laid back and you'd be surprised by the population (and car) density. Try super high enforcement of traffic law, very strict driving exams, high quality roads, strict safety regulations for cars and separate lanes for bikes.

Re:Dominican Republic, Iran and Thailand stats (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44646371)

It would be interesting to see what the accident rate is too, not just the fatality rate. The more people can afford to be surrounded by sophisticated airbags and crumple zones, the lower the fatality rate will be. Also interesting would be accident and fatality rates normalized per 100,000 drivers per 10,000 miles. Countries in Europe are likely to have lower accident and fatality rates based solely on the fact that they drive shorter distances and have reasonable public transportation options.

The US is likely still higher in all those statistics, but I'd imagine it would be quite a bit closer.

Re:Dominican Republic, Iran and Thailand stats (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44645715)

Why don't you click the nice fancy link thats right there... point to the countries on the map... and See for yourself! it's really not that hard...

since your VERY OBVIOUSLY lazy Posting anonymously since I don't want to be considered a Karma Whore...

Iran 34.1
DR 41.7
Thailand 38.1

Re:Dominican Republic, Iran and Thailand stats (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44645825)

Or you could compare it to a country that has a proper driving test, like the UK with 2.86 per 100,000.

Yup, one quarter the US toll.

Maybe those better US roads are more than compensated for by:
easier driving tests,
a more lax attitude to drunk driving,
more younger drivers,
more people driving vs public transport...

Re:Dominican Republic, Iran and Thailand stats (1)

mi (197448) | about 8 months ago | (#44645897)

more people driving vs public transport...

Indeed, the per-capita numbers are useless and misleading — the safest country is where there are no cars at all. Much more interesting would be the number of deaths per mile (or kilometer) driven.

UK figure Indication of Traffic Suckage (0)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 8 months ago | (#44646007)

Or you could compare it to a country that has a proper driving test, like the UK with 2.86 per 100,000.

That's not a result of your driving test, it's a result of your traffic sucking.

I've driven in the U.K. before. You don't have as many people dying because it's rare to have a chance to be going fast enough that anyone can die in an accident. Mostly you are sitting still in L.A. quality traffic jams, until you get out into way open areas.

I'd love to see the figures broken out be region of the U.K. since northern U.K. has fairly narrow roads where people can, and do, drive fast...

Re:Dominican Republic, Iran and Thailand stats (1)

csubi (950112) | about 8 months ago | (#44646119)

Better US roads? You must be kidding... I have been living in Montgomery county, Maryland, for the last 4 years and I have regularly seen potholes deep enough to drown in after a thunderstorm...

Re:Dominican Republic, Iran and Thailand stats (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44646003)

Because Alcohol is the number one vehicle killer in Iran

Re:Dominican Republic, Iran and Thailand stats (5, Funny)

xevioso (598654) | about 8 months ago | (#44646055)

I once was in Thailand, and took a minivan-taxi from thee airport to my hotel in Phuket, about 20 miles. On the way there it started pouring rain, I mean utterly pouring. As we drove down the road I saw a moped with three people on it, maybe more; I couldn't really tell because of the mass of people clinging to that thing as it was puttering down the road. There was a kid sitting on the front, and the driver was looking around the kid to see ahead. As we passed it, (it was on a side road) I noticed the driver lose control and the whole thing slid over and crashed, sending people flying. It wasn't going very fast, so I hope they were ok, but I told the driver and I don't think he cared to call the Thai version of 911. He did nothing.

The level of stupidity on display there was mind boggling. It was stupid to drive a moped out like that in the rain. it was stupid to try to put as many people on there as possible. It was stupid not to call 911. The whole thing was surreal, and yet this happens all the time there. I understand if you have to get the whole Surapapangkornipongikongkorn family to Aunties house for dinner, but there has to be a better way.

Re:Dominican Republic, Iran and Thailand stats (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44646259)

If you'd bothered to click on the first link, you'd notice that the DR has a 41.7/100,000 rate, Iran has a 34.1/100,000 and Thailand has a 38.1/100,000. The guided infographic presentation has a ton of other "fun fact" pieces of information (like the new law in the Philippines that fails to set an explicit limit for drunk driving, which means the police officer's judgment will often be influenced by bribes).

Disappointing (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44645607)

I was expecting a map pinpointing where every death occurred, instead we have a a funny interface to a list of ~30 countries with the # of death per 100k people.

Re:Disappointing (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44645727)

Exactly what I thought. I want my wasted time back. Where was the blood, severed limbs? Grisly, my ass.

All it shows is that niggers in Africa can't drive any than they can in the US, and that there is finally something to potentially hamper HIV's progress in the continent: African drivers.

But that seems like semi-good news to me. It just wasn't the deaths plotted on a map like the fucking deceiving summary made it out to be.

Re:Disappointing (4, Insightful)

MBGMorden (803437) | about 8 months ago | (#44646303)

Yeah, I have to agree. I was expecting something elaborate. This could have been just as useful as a shared Google doc spreadsheet of data.

What Is The Logic? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44645613)

Traffic deaths are set to outpace AIDS/HIV and malaria in the developing world, so the UN is trying to change that perception.

Huh? So the UN is saying there are some facts, and they want to whitewash them so we have a different "perception" of the facts? Or, perhaps they are saying there should be more AIDS/HIV deaths?

Re:What Is The Logic? (1)

robot256 (1635039) | about 8 months ago | (#44645805)

They want to change the perception that if only we fixed AIDS and malaria, nobody would in Africa would die anymore. And probably guilt-trip the West for selling them so many used cars without decent safety features, or for inventing cars at all.

Re:What Is The Logic? (2)

i kan reed (749298) | about 8 months ago | (#44645855)

Let's completely ignore any utility that can be extracted from data on the grounds that it might be used by strawmen for guilt trips.

Terrible summary cut. (1)

Valdrax (32670) | about 8 months ago | (#44646359)

Here's the full paragraph it mangled:

Death by car is random and suddenâ"which, unfortunately, means it tends to fall into the category of "accidental," and hence, unpreventable. But with traffic deaths set to outpace AIDS/HIV and malaria in the developing world, the UN is trying to change that perceptionâ"and this shocking interactive map ought to help.

The U.N. is trying to change perception that traffic deaths are unpreventable.

A credo (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44645633)

I was a good person, but I stopped being good in order to bring you this message.

The world is mean, but you can get the better of it by denying it your services. Here's how.

Now look, the way it works is, if you remember your early childhood, you become like your early childhood. And once that happens, your confidence will grow that your good days are behind you. Your brain will become your tormentor, because your thoughts don't belong to you.

Our patron saint is a man named "Electrified mocha chinchilla." You can't catch him on any point. He answers with airy sarcasm and practices his wit on superficial elements of your argument, destroying it in the eyes of the audience.

You don't want to pull any punches when making an argument. Remember the rule of social savoir-faire: as cruel as you can be, isn't cruel enough.

Dinner is good food plus good company. Our dinners are just good food.

Take it from me, it's easier to live without a brain. I grew this brain, but I lost it because it wasn't helping me much. The pain of thinking is unbelievable.

And our final credo: shit is tasty.

100,000? (1)

schneidafunk (795759) | about 8 months ago | (#44645665)

Is there any good reason that this stat is 11.4 out of 100,000 instead of 1.14 out of 10,000 or say a normal percentage?

Re:100,000? (3, Insightful)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 8 months ago | (#44645969)

Is there any good reason that this stat is 11.4 out of 100,000 instead of 1.14 out of 10,000 or say a normal percentage?

Yes. If they make it "out of 10,000" then for many countries it would be less than one. Who cares if 0.72 person dies? If they make it a million, then it will be dozens to hundreds, and few people have emotional attachments to that many people. But if they use "per 100,000", the number of deaths will be about the same as the number of family members and close friends that a normal person would have.

Re:100,000? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44646025)

I believe calculating occurrences per 100,000 is fairly common for populations.

A few random examples:
These crime stats are all per 100,000: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate
The occurrences of lung cancer are per 100,000: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lung_cancer#Classification
This random page about crime stats of Albany has a bunch of graphs that are per 100,000 people: http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Albany-New-York.html

Re:100,000? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44646039)

Rates out of 100,000 are fairly common for e.g. crime stats

Only semi-informative (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44645673)

This only shows the number of deaths per 100,000 inhabitants. There is a very different number that in many ways are more important: Number of deaths per million km (or miles) driven.

Re:Only semi-informative (1)

Russ1642 (1087959) | about 8 months ago | (#44646113)

In the Dominican it looks like they'd have to calculate number of deaths per metre driven.

Open source? (1)

Alok (37687) | about 8 months ago | (#44645675)

Reading MapBox's site, they stress open source a lot - their Javascript API, iOS SDK & design studio are all 'open source', and they're using OSM for the backend data. Other than a list of plans which seem very similar to other commercial offerings, I don't see any indication of which open source licenses apply here - is it one of the popular ones like GPL or BSD, or some custom version?

Guns version (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44645677)

They need to make a guns version of this.......would be nice to compare! Would bet there are more people killed with traffic deaths for the most part.

Re:Guns version (0)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 8 months ago | (#44645789)

Yeah, but in the overwhelming majority of instances where they are used for non-recreational purposes, cars act as safe, useful, non-criminal tools. You can't say the same about guns.

Re:Guns version (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44645869)

In the overwhelming majority of instances where they are used for non-recreational purposes, guns act as safe, useful, non-criminal tools.

Ta-da!

You can say the same about guns (4, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 8 months ago | (#44646197)

You can't say the same about guns.

Millions upon millions of guns are sold legally each year. Between hunting and range shooting you can in fact say that the OVERWHELMING majority of guns are used as safe, useful, non-criminal tools.

Only 31k people died from gun injuries in the U.S. in 2011 - of those many were criminals shot, and 19k were suicides! Again, millions of guns sold, a tiny number of deaths, especially if you compare number of deaths per total number of guns to number of deaths per total cars...

Only one thing to do! (5, Insightful)

Somebody Is Using My (985418) | about 8 months ago | (#44645687)

US Deaths caused by illicit drug overdose - ~5,000 per year
WAR ON DRUGS!!!!

US Deaths caused by terrorists - 3000, twelve years ago
WAR ON TERROR!!!!

US Deaths caused by hacking - 1 (and that one by "friendly fire", sorry Aaron Schwartz)
WAR ON HACKING!!!!

US Deaths caused by automobile accidents - 30,000 per year
umm...
We'll get back to you on that.

(admittedly not a fair or entirely accurate comparison... but it does say something about America's priorities.)

Re:Only one thing to do! (3, Insightful)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 8 months ago | (#44645811)

Nothing can be done, no more trillions to blow or civil liberties to obliterate.

Re:Only one thing to do! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44646189)

Sure there is. This is a job for self-driving cars, loaded with cameras, sonar, gps, etc... all recorded in a black box that backs up to the cloud for 'evidence storage'. It'll also check blood alcohol so it can know whether to disable the manual override, and have a microphone inside to, uh... listen for breaking glass, that's it.

Re:Only one thing to do! (2)

OzPeter (195038) | about 8 months ago | (#44645899)

... but it does say something about America's priorities.

You left out gun deaths .. which are were measured as 10.3 per 100,000 in 2010.

Re:Only one thing to do! (1)

thoromyr (673646) | about 8 months ago | (#44646159)

Any particular reason you chose to report that in equivalent units? If it really is 10.3 per 100,000 then that works out to about 30,000 per year. Which is approximately the traffic rate. That's probably right, at least according to some sources (e.g., http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/09/guns-traffic-deaths-rates/1784595/ [usatoday.com])

So with all the gun regulation legislation going on and it continuing to be a topic you think there should be, but is not, a "WAR ON GUNS!!!"?

Supposedly 2/3 of gun deaths are suicides (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States) which is not how traffic deaths play out. Even if it were relatively self inflicted (refusal to wear a seat belt) it isn't the same thing.

Basically I'm just curious what your point was.

Re:Only one thing to do! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44646209)

so also in the 3000 per year range (to compare with parent's figures)

Re:Only one thing to do! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44646261)

30,000. My decimal point tripped while shifting. Of course, 19,000 of those were suicide (http://www.factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/), and while you can certainly say that's still not a good thing, I personally have to conclude that a death deliberately embraced by the deceased is not equivalent to a death not so embraced.

Re:Only one thing to do! (3, Insightful)

xevioso (598654) | about 8 months ago | (#44645955)

US deaths cased by guns in 2010: ~30,000.

And yet not only do idiot gun control opponents not think this is a problem, they make WAR ON GUN CONTROL LEGISLATION!!! Ludicrous.

Re:Only one thing to do! (1)

ChrisMaple (607946) | about 8 months ago | (#44646147)

Go ahead, ignore the facts, you'll sweep in the suckers.

Legal ownership of guns reduces crime.

Re:Only one thing to do! (3, Insightful)

bws111 (1216812) | about 8 months ago | (#44645957)

So you're saying that the US has done nothing to improve traffic safety? No cell phone or texting laws, no crackdowns on DWI, no improvements to cars or roads? Traffic fatalitiies (per mile driven) have decreased almost every year for the last 90 years. Your post says absolutely NOTHING about 'America's priorities'.

Re:Only one thing to do! (2)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 8 months ago | (#44646107)

So you're saying that the US has done nothing to improve traffic safety? No cell phone or texting laws

Since those do not actually improve safety - no, the U.S. has done nothing to improve traffic safety. Instead they impose unreasonably low speed limits that ensure there will be a greater discrepancy in vehicle speed on the highway.

Re:Only one thing to do! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44646135)

Please explain why you believe "Traffic fatalities per mile driven" is the most informative statistic -- and, in particular, why it is more informative than "Traffic fatalities per ".

capcha: spinster

Re:Only one thing to do! (1)

bws111 (1216812) | about 8 months ago | (#44646267)

Because per mile driven tells you how safe (or dangerous) it is to be on the road, while per capita just tells you how likely it is for someone to be killed in an accident. The per capita rate fluctuates with population and driving habits (number of miles driven), so it is not a good indicator of road safety and/or improvements.

Re:Only one thing to do! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44646297)

US driving and vehicle laws are basically identical to Canadian laws, at least at their core, yet look at the driver safety between our countries. Enforcement is similar as well. The one thing I notice as a Canadian traveling in the US is your speed limits are so low I spend a lot of time looking at my spedometer. The speed limits in Canada also tend to be low, but enforcement is a joke (Most people will travel at 120 km/h on the 401 past a police officer without worrying--the limit is 100 km/h). 55 mph on closed access highways is unsafe as I see only two types of driver. Those doing 55-60 mph, and those doing 80 mph. The only time I felt unsafe on Canadian highways was when my province had photo radar. EVERY driver literally STOOD on their brakes as soon as there was a white van stopped with the doors open.

Accidents are ALWAYS caused by a difference in speed. Period! They are not caused by speeding, but can be caused by too high of a speed differential. That doesn't mean letting someone travel at 200 mph on a road where most people are traveling at 70 mph, but rather, attempting to harmonize the speed on the road to what traffic will safely bear--or at least providing different speed limits per lane.

Driver education plays a part as well, although I don't feel some of the methods used in Canada have it right, the methods are better than some US states where you write a test, do a joke of a driving exam, and here you go, Driver's License!

And don't tell me how none of that can ever work, that you live in California and the highways are insane. The 401 is the busiest highway in all of the US, Canada, and Mexico. I know it can work.

Re:Only one thing to do! (2)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 8 months ago | (#44646081)

US Deaths caused by automobile accidents - 30,000 per year ... it does say something about America's priorities.)

It says even more about our priorities when you realize that the most important progress in reducing these deaths is being done as a side hobby [wikipedia.org] by two guys that work at an advertising company.

Re:Only one thing to do! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44646315)

US Deaths caused by automobile accidents - 30,000 per year

According to ntsb.gov, it is 41,000 deaths per year over the past several years. So it is even worse, because in the 11 full years since 9/11, that works out to be 541,000 dead to your 3k.

It gets better: google the number of American deaths per year of heart disease, then do cancer.

If America was serious about protecting citizens' lives, they'd scrap the NSA and TSA and funnel all that cash to develop self-driving cars and bio-nanites (to clear blocked arteries and zap cancer cells). Even if 9/11 happened the same every year, it still wouldn't come close to the lives saved by reducing deaths due to cancer, heart disease and auto accidents.

Improper name (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 8 months ago | (#44645707)

When I saw the link, I thought it meant "road skill", but the page makes it clear that they mean "roads kill". Which is, frankly, nonsense. Roads are completely harmless. Now if they had written "cars kill" then they would at least have an argument (although not a sound one, IMHO, because it is bad driving or other stupid behaviour on the road that kills). But I'm pretty sure that the number of people killed by roads is negligible.

Re:Improper name (5, Funny)

robot256 (1635039) | about 8 months ago | (#44645873)

The number of people killed by roads rushing toward them is remarkable given their apparent inertness. It seems like there's hardly anywhere left that a man can enjoy an afternoon stroll off a balcony without falling victim to a bloodthirsty piece of pavement.

Re:Improper name (1)

Alok (37687) | about 8 months ago | (#44645907)

> it is bad driving or other stupid behaviour on the road that kills

You mean, a lack of road skills? ;-)

Re:Improper name (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about 8 months ago | (#44645937)

When I saw the link, I thought it meant "road skill", but the page makes it clear that they mean "roads kill". Which is, frankly, nonsense. Roads are completely harmless. Now if they had written "cars kill" then they would at least have an argument (although not a sound one, IMHO, because it is bad driving or other stupid behaviour on the road that kills). But I'm pretty sure that the number of people killed by roads is negligible.

Indeed -- I bet there have been more people killed by a sudden lack of road than there have been killed by roads.

The map does tell you what the best method of transportation is in various parts of the world though.

Re:Improper name (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44646099)

I don't agree. If you fall off of a tall enough buildings the road can kill you.

They must have missed the memo... (1)

Kalendraf (830012) | about 8 months ago | (#44645751)

...that it's not newsworthy unless it involves some form of mass transportation, especially ones that fly.

stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44645753)

Dumbest article I have seen here. I could care less if people die because they are not being careful enough driving, walking etc. is money supposed to come out of my pocket to help them? Tell them to stop driving then!

Terrible UI (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44645765)

Can't navigate it at all. Try the "back" button, it creates a backreference every time the mouse is moved? wtf.

Funny how this comes up... (4, Informative)

djupedal (584558) | about 8 months ago | (#44645779)

One thing missing, is the criteria used to determine how such deaths are qualified in each country. Japan, as an example, has their own criteria where you need to die in the first 12 hours after a crash to be counted as a highway fatality. This is dissimilar from other countries and allows Japan to appear to have much safer highways, cars, etc. in comparison.

Skewed data is incorrect data, so it might help to at least publish stats based on identical criteria. Unless I missed it, I don't see that as part of this 'study', where it appears the stats are taken as given by each country - best example may be the two perfect scores :)

What's wrong with "the perception"? (1)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | about 8 months ago | (#44645785)

>> Traffic deaths are set to outpace AIDS/HIV and malaria in the developing world, so the UN is trying to change that perception.

What's wrong with "the perception"? This actually looks like good news to me. Is the problem that when people find out about all these traffic deaths (e.g., caused by a convenience) that they quit funding for disease control?

Change what perception? (1)

chispito (1870390) | about 8 months ago | (#44645809)

Traffic deaths are set to outpace AIDS/HIV and malaria in the developing world, so the UN is trying to change that perception.

I don't see what perception the UN is trying to change. That traffic accidents are a lesser cause of deaths than AIDS and malaria in developing countries? Does this even qualify as a "perception," much less one that needs rectifying?

how many deaths due to terrorism? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44645841)

i want to see that, along with how much money is spent to combat each type of death

Indian stats (1)

Alok (37687) | about 8 months ago | (#44645861)

Even with very low enforcement, India has stats slightly lower than China and also comparatively lower to many countries with far higher enforcement. Which made me happy, till I realize we probably have potholes to thank for this - hard to have traffic fatalities when everyone is inching along slowly on bad roads in high traffic!

I'm guessing they are trying to show correlation before traffic enforcement and deaths per capita - wish there was also a version that showed obedience of road rules & deaths per capita, i.e. when traffic stays in its own lane and doesn't cut signals, does that significantly reduce the fatality rate? I know, its a more subjective area so there can't be any good statistics for it - but imho just staying in lane properly would greatly reduce the 'speed' related deaths atleast, and maybe for some other categories too.

How about deaths per mile traveled? (1)

jcam2 (248062) | about 8 months ago | (#44645879)

This chart is nearly useless, as it doesn't account for the average distance traveled per country. You'd be better off reading the wikipedia page that has those stats : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate [wikipedia.org]

Or looking at trend in deaths / mile over time. For example, the US rate of 1.1 per 100M miles in 2011 is an all-time low : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year [wikipedia.org]

Re:How about deaths per mile traveled? (1)

TroubleMagnet (529417) | about 8 months ago | (#44646023)

Looks like you REALLY don't want to be on the roads in the United Arab Emirates, 310 vs. the USA 8.5 in the deaths per 1B km driven.

Bad suggestion (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44646157)

Normalizing for distance traveled doesn't make any sense at all. It would automatically reduce the accident numbers in proportion to country size, since very large countries tend to have empty roads whereas small countries often have densely packed roads. By far the majority of accidents involve more than one vehicle, so that would skew the statistics badly. You would have to add population density into the calculation as well to make it fair.

There is no clear and strong skewing factor when deaths are normalized for population, so the mapping in TFA is quite reasonable.

Re:How about deaths per mile traveled? (1)

erice (13380) | about 8 months ago | (#44646179)

This chart is nearly useless, as it doesn't account for the average distance traveled per country.

Not necessarily useless, just the answer to a different question. You are focused on "how safe are the roads?" but this chart is about "how safe are the people?".
Driving less is as valid a means of reducing risk of road fatality as making safer roads. Maybe if the US had better public transportation and less urban sprawl there would be fewer traffic fatalities.

Do you see the flaw...... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44645927)

Do you see the flaw in this statistical method?

If you do it based on raw population, then places with very few cars and a lot of people are going to register unusually low.

For instance if there are a million people and ten cars, the number of accidents per capita will be extremely low, even if all the cars crash.

Shocking? Grisly? (1)

wcrowe (94389) | about 8 months ago | (#44645931)

"Shocking"? No.
"Grisly"? No.
"Informative"? Yes.

Hyperbole aside, it's pretty interesting, but the summary implied it would show the location of every traffic death, not just the results of a global poll.

Doesn't seem nearly as bad as indicated (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 8 months ago | (#44645951)

Even the high of around 40 deaths per 100k (Dominican Republic) is not THAT much more than the U.S.. Only 4x as much? I would have guessed it to be much, much worse based on experiencing driving in other countries.

Far from raising the issue to crisis level I'm more including to say that is not an issue worth paying any attention to whatsoever, it's a matter for local solutions, not the U.N. What are they going to do, put crossing guards at every intersection in Bangladesh? Hope they ship out coffins along with the guards!

I wonder... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44645963)

How did they manage to get data from North Korea?

And yet... (2)

FuzzNugget (2840687) | about 8 months ago | (#44645973)

We'll continue to spend a metric assload of money on anti-terrrererserm instead of improving driver safety and training because "us vs. them" makes a much sexier political selling point than "us vs. some-not-easily-definable-abstract-thing" that's astronomically more likely to be a fatal danger to us.

And, really, that says as much about us as it does about the maligned policy makers we elect.

GIGO (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44646013)

Nice map, but some of the numbers are ridiculous. Sudan a "10" on seatbelt enforcement? Do they include women sentenced to 100 lashes for wearing make-up?

Garbage In, Garbage Out, regardless of the presentation.

Dominican Republic highest (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44646029)

Not surprised. Over 50% by motorcycle.
They get 5 people and the family dog on one scooter, and that is not one bit of sarcasm.

Shows every traffic death on earth? Really? (1)

gus goose (306978) | about 8 months ago | (#44646043)

It would have been really cool (and morbid) if it did show every road death on earth, but all it does is provide aggregate numbers for most countries and presumably for just some recent period of time (in the past few years or so). This is a completely misleading slashdot subject line.... damn moderators.

gus

Clobbers Browser History (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44646087)

Using Firefox 32.0.1:
1. Open new tab: http://www.thecarconnection.com/news/1086431_grisly-tech-interactive-map-displays-traffic-fatality-rates-around-the-world
2. Examine tab history (should be empty)
3. Click and drag in the Roads Kill box to pan the map
4. Examine tab history. Profit!

Re:Clobbers Browser History (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44646105)

Using Firefox 32.0.1:!

Actually Firefox 23.0.1

With all these cars killing people... (1)

pappastech (1891440) | about 8 months ago | (#44646091)

...we need to pass new laws that prohibit people from buying cars. This is outrageous!

Wow, opposite of what I thought (1)

kannibal_klown (531544) | about 8 months ago | (#44646103)

Honestly, in many cases the rankings / ranges are the opposite what I assumed. Considering the US is recognized as having a high number of car-drivers (perhaps too many) and low number of public-transportation-users (perhaps too few)... I assumed we'd be way up there just due to us constantly driving into eachother.

Not that we're particularly low, but we're a lot less than some countries I would assume would have less than us (per capita)

plays into the agenda (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44646117)

Agenda 21 demands that private ownership of automobiles be outlawed. I notice the post above me already embracing this idea.

Neither have seen the effect on someone's life that losing easy accessibility to shopping and health services via their own car can have.

If you survive at all then it doesn't count (2)

Russ1642 (1087959) | about 8 months ago | (#44646145)

Nevermind that you lost your legs. For example, the number of serious injuries that don't result in death would be extremely high for countries where everyone drives a scooter. Why do we only count death for these statistics?

Re:If you survive at all then it doesn't count (2)

kannibal_klown (531544) | about 8 months ago | (#44646269)

Nevermind that you lost your legs. For example, the number of serious injuries that don't result in death would be extremely high for countries where everyone drives a scooter. Why do we only count death for these statistics?

I'm not saying I agree with their logic, but I would IMAGINE it's because then the results get a little fuzzy.

What constitutes as a serious injury vs a a non-serious injury? Where do you draw the line?
Loss of limb? Paralysis? Coma / Vegetative state? Concussion? Cracked skull? Broken wrist? Chipped tooth? Stitches?

How non-serious do we count?
If we say non-serious accidents = X, then we're missing all of the really really minor accidents

With death... at least there's a somewhat common accepted standard.

I'd like to see statistics on txting and talking (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44646221)

I drive about 40 miles a day, give or take 10 miles, slightly more on weekends. I continually see people paying little to no attention to their driving while they text or talk on the phone. Why do we have to live with this? Why can't "peace officers" for once do something that could actually make difference in everyone's safety?

Holy Hyperbole, Batman! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44646365)

This "shocking" and "grisly" map that shows "every traffic death on earth" is neither shocking nor grisly and it doesn't even come close to showing every traffic fatality in any one country, let alone the entire world. It's just a low res map with a small few statistics on it.

Hyperbole of this epic proportion is truly fantastic in every way. It's the best hyperbole I've ever seen and is likely the best in the entire world. But, this level of hyperbole totally doesn't help your point/cause. Perhaps you should imply or just outright state that the traffic fatalities are caused by terrorists, that would probably help.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...