Talk:Transportation safety in the United States

In response to this edit, saying, " commercial aviation is the safest mode of travel in the United States", this statement is overly simplistic, and uses the data too crudely. While this approach is common, part of the point of this article is to discuss transportation risk in a more nuanced way.

It's pretty muddled, but parts of this article are attempting to discuss the different ways of framing a risk question, which lead to different answers. You could ask what is the risk given a fixed distance that needs to be traveled, such as a daily commute, or a single trip of a given distance. Or you could ask the risk for a given amount of time using that mode of transport. Or, it could be framed as the risk per trip. Such as:

• Is it safer to spend two hours of leisure time walking, bicycling, motorcycling, driving, flying, or riding a train?
• Is it safer to make a daily commute by walking, cycling, motorcycling, driving, flying or train?
• Is it safer to make X trips in each of the above?

For things like bicycling or motorcycling, the first question may be relevant: a person might only be deciding how to spend their recreation time, and the distance traveled during that time, determined by the speed, is of little importance. While for the commuter, the distance is fixed. The third question is unlikely to to affect a person's choice of mode, but it informs the answers to the first two questions. Billionaires who commute very short distances, say 5 miles, by plane or helicopter, are not enjoying the safety benefits of air travel. The large risk during takeoff and landing is not amortized over a long trip, as it would be for a cross-country air trip, and so it is likely that driving a car that 5 miles would be much safer.

Other statistics are collected as well. Often fatality rates for pedestrians, cyclist, and even motorcyclists and drivers are expressed in per capita fatalities, only comparing the number of deaths to the population, ignoring how many people use that mode, how far they travel, or how many trips they make. This crude measure is common because data is easy to collect. Developing countries often change modes over time, going from a pedestrian society, to a cyclist, to motorcyclist, to a car culture. When cars are rare in a country, and drivers are only the very rich, pedestrian fatalities can be a problem due to the public not expecting do see a car on a road, and drivers having little experience. Yet the numbers might look low per capita, since there are so few cars. The pedestrian fatality rate in Manhattan can look much different if you consider the deaths per capita (higher than other US cities) or the rate per pedestrian mile (much lower than other cities).

MY source for the above is Why We Drive the Way We Do (and What It Says About Us) by Tom Vanderbilt. There's lots of other discussion and research: . Etc. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

If the modal choice had to be made based on safety, yes. But people do not chose their transportation based on a safety criteria. Safety comes after: once you have chosen your transportation mode, you wonder how to reduce the fatalities risk.

The question you raise is how can such statistics be computed? Fatalities is easy: counting is enough. The ration by population can be computed based on census data. Fatalities by vehicles km can be computed based on an estimate of km traveled by vehicles. But nobody know how many people are in vehicles, so you can easily know the risk by vehicle but not by people... The same difficulty should exist for travel time.

At the opposite, there are statistics which show when traffic is more risky:

For aircraft statistic by km and by hours do exist by aircraft, but not by travelers:

/html/table_02_10.html]

For train, it exist Fatalities per 100 million passenger train-miles

If you consider there is more than one passenger by aircraft this might make commercial aviation safer than the train, at least in the USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.104.227 (talk) 00:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Here it is:

Traffic safety by mode by traveled distance

This graph was using the legacy Graph extension, which is no longer supported. It needs to be converted to the new Chart extension.

Source: caranddriver, US Department Of Transport [1]

Traffic safety2: Fatalities per billion passenger kilometres for different mode of transport (EU-28 in 2010-2014)

This graph was using the legacy Graph extension, which is no longer supported. It needs to be converted to the new Chart extension.

Source: ERA [2] Note: source gives a comparative ratio based on train fatalities ratio known to be 0.12. No accurate number is available for vessel passenger

1. [1]

   http://www.caranddriver.com/features/safety-in-numbers-charting-traffic-safety-and-fatality-data
2. [2]

   http://www.era.europa.eu/Document-Register/Documents/Railway%20Safety%20Performance%202016%20final%20E.pdf

It looks like Road Traffic safety in the United States might be an article independent of Transportation safety in the United States.

So, I wonder if it possible to create such an Road traffic safety in the United States article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.104.227 (talk) 08:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

IMO, this article in its current state is just a disaster. OTOH, the article we should have "Road Traffic safety in the United States" doesn't exist. I suggest renaming the existing article as indicated, consisting of the existing content of the "Road safety" section. Then we don't find ourselves tangled up in the question of how to compare the safety of air travel vs. road travel, allowing the article to focus on a more narrow range of modes of transportation. Fabrickator (talk) 23:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Surely, this is a significant factor worthy of exploration and recording.

.

What was rail safety like in the Good Old Days (c.1950, 1900 or 1850)? While stats would be rough, do we have a general feel?''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 07:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I do not know for the good old days, but there is Category:Railway accidents in the United States.

For instance 1887 Great Chatsworth train wreck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.96.193 (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

For instance Ashtabula River railroad disaster (in 1876) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.96.193 (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I did not searched specifically for years 1950, 1900 or 1850, but if you are interested by some piece of statistics:

• 6766 fatalities in 1925, and 7090 in 1926, that is twice french statistics in killed by train hundred million kilometers «Aux États-Unis, le nombre total des tués est passé de 6.766, en 1925, à 7.090, en 1926, soit, par cent millions de trains kilométriques, de 732,3 à 768,1 ; la proportion atteint presque le double de celle de la France.» source: Annales des mines ou Recueil de mémoires sur l'exploitation des mines et sur les sciences qui s'y rapportent Éditeur : Treuttel et Wurtz (Paris) ; Carillan-Goeury (Paris); Dunod (Paris); Date d'édition : 1928 http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k9618419h/f131.item
• You also have statistics in killed by train hundred million kilometers from 1923 to 1926 (accidents e train, accidents de pasages à niveaux, ensemble) See: Annales des mines ou Recueil de mémoires sur l'exploitation des mines et sur les sciences qui s'y rapportent Éditeur : Treuttel et Wurtz (Paris) ; Carillan-Goeury (Paris) ; Dunod (Paris) ;Date d'édition : 1928 http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k9618419h/f128.item
• You have various statistics regarding employee accidents with (or without) attelage automatique, in various years and in various countries from continental Europe and north America; see L'attelage automatique et la sécurité des travailleurs des chemins de fer, Par M. EM. UYTBORCK, INGENIEUR HONORAIRE DES CHEMINS DE FER DE L'ÉTAT BELGE. from page 1113 Source: Bulletin de l'Association internationale des chemins de fer ["puis" du Congrès des chemins de fer] Auteur : Association internationale du congrès des chemins de fer; Éditeur : (Bruxelles) Date d'édition : 1924-12 Link: http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k5818862j/f40.item
• In 1912 and in 1913, there was 318 travelers fatalities killed by railways in the USA, and 302 people killed in the streets of New York by automobiles. See Le Journal des transports : revue internationale des chemins de fer et de la navigation Éditeur : (Paris) Date d'édition : 1914-05-23 Link: http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k5763279b/f9.item
• In 1882 there was a train bridge collapse between Boston and Maine. The text says that such accidents are not rare but can sometime be avoided with piece of wood, even if in the case of a bridge collapse it is more difficult. See Revue industrielle : revue mensuelle technique et économique Éditeur : (Paris) Date d'édition : 1882-01-04 http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k97701580/f82.item
• You have statistics for number, million dollar damage, killed and hurt people, and also killed by traveller million kilometer during year 1926 and 1927 in the USA. See Revue générale des chemins de fer Éditeur : Dunod-Gauthier-Villars (Paris) Éditeur : Elsevier (Paris) Date d'édition : 1930-05 Source: http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k64752826/f62.item

Hope this might help you to improve wikipedia article. regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.96.193 (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Just wondering wht NTSB source is named oecd in

NTSB <ref name="oecd">  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.104.162 (talk) 07:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

The article writes:

but when the federal government provides some guidances for safety measure which would reduce death by 37%, such as alcohol in 1998 or motorcycle helmet in 1967, around ten years are necessary for such measures be implemented by a number of local governments.

This is an incorrect reading of the citation — the cited paper writes:

The U.S. government in 1998 imposed financial penalties on states that did not have a prohibition on open containers that met federal standards. As of February 2007, only 39 (out of 50) states and the District of Columbia had such laws. Yet drunk driving was responsible for between 32 and 37% of motor vehicle fatalities in the U.S. in 2008.

The fact that drunk driving caused perhaps up to 37% of motor vehicle fatalities does not imply that prohibiting open containers will eliminate all of those deaths.

I agree with the sentiment of this sentence, but it's factually incorrect as written.

Wesleyac (talk) 20:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

In this diff, the titles which specify "archived copy" are actually linked to live urls. I realize this is because "url-status=live", but the result is a little bit strange. OTOH, it seems contrary to IABot documentation that it even operates on live links. What am I fundamentally missing here? Fabrickator (talk) 05:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

" fatalities increased to nearly 38,680 due to fewer people driving on the road (13% less distance) and more risky behavior" Why would fewer people driving (actually fewer miles traveled, which is not the same) INcrease fatalities? On the surface of it, I would think we would expect a DEcrease (fewer miles-->less opportunity for accidents-->fewer accidents--> fewer deaths). Is the sense behind the statement that with less mileage there is more behavior that is risky? What would support this idea? 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:BCDB:9B54:6232:A0C0 (talk) 14:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• It clearly explains it in the article and the source why. You intentionally did not copy and paste the whole sentence as it occurs in situ in order to grandstand for some reason. Let's discuss the article and not attempt to meme the page "with facts and logic" to pursue an agenda. JesseRafe (talk) 19:52, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  Here is the full sentence: "In 2020, fatalities increased to nearly 38,680 due to fewer people driving on the road (13% less distance) and more risky behavior, including speeding, failing to wear seat belts, and driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol." I still don't see a clear explanation. The sentence says "and," not "causing." Why does less mileage increase fatalities? 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:9967:3817:9EC9:184 (talk) 20:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

It specifically says it is "due to" that means "causing", that's the answer to your question. JesseRafe (talk) 15:04, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Several way to interpret it may exist. Less people remove traffic jams and ease speeding. Less people might be a selection of those people taking more risks such as not wearing seat belt and taking drugs. For instance. However, it is more a question of fact than a question of logic: less people, more deaths. But for Wikipedia we should remain on contents with source.

In the section "Train safety compared to other nations by traveled distance," the word 'intrus' is used. Searching various online dictionaries, I could not find this word in English. What does it mean? 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:BCDB:9B54:6232:A0C0 (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Looks like a French word for intruder(s): https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/intrus

If the word is no more here, this discussion may be closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.120.88.229 (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

There should be some supporting evidence for the highways being safer than non-highway road claim... 104.172.234.209 (talk) 04:33, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

In Europe dual carriage ways (known as motorways, autoroute, autobahn or autopista according to the language) are usually considered safer. The reason is the lack of intersection and the lack of incoming traffic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.120.88.229 (talk) 22:44, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

In current state, there is yet a source for "Comparing motorways (controlled-access, divided highways) in Europe and the United States, according to 2012 data, Denmark had the safest motorways with a rate of 0.72 road fatalities per 1 billion vehicle-km, while the United States had 3.38 road fatalities per 1 billion vehicle-km on its Interstate-type highways, often called freeways." Source = www.bast.de IRTAD

However, can we compare Interstate-type highways and Denmark motorways? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.120.88.229 (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

The US ranks 41 out of 52 high-income nations based on road traffic deaths. US safety results are better than Russia, Saudi Arabia or Qatar. Nonetheless the fatality rate in the United States is high relative to most other high-income nations

Whilst including Saudi Arabia sets a high bar, this does not accord with List of countries by traffic-related death rate :

Per 100,000 inhabitants: Russia = 12 ; Saudi = 35.9 ; Qatar = 7.3 / USA = 12.9

Claverhouse (talk) 16:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi,

Saudi Arabia has comparable revenue according to List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita, thats makes it part of the said "52 high-income nations".

Would you want to add a sentence (or a section) to compare the US to non-high-income nations?

For Qatar, it looks like there was kind of recent changes in the numbers (see for instance: https://thepeninsulaqatar.com/article/03/09/2024/road-accident-fatalities-down-by-more-than-57 and https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/Qatar/mortality_traffic_accidents/)

Also, differences between high income and low income countries are detailed in page 8. This deals with the panamerican region (region of the Americas) but not specifically with the US. See page 8 in iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/375016/9789240086517-eng.pdf?sequence=1 Spoilers: the number is 16 for region of the Americas. The number is 8 and 16 for worwide high and middle income countries, respectively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.120.88.229 (talk) 08:37, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

To have a source to compare the US to Colombia, please see pages 23, 46 or 74 in "ITF (2022), Road Safety Annual Report 2022, OECD Publishing, Paris." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.120.88.229 (talk) 16:11, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

To compare to the panamerican region, see page 19, FIGURA 15 Número de muertes y tasa de mortalidad (por 100 000 habitantes) causados por el tránsito, estimados por país, Región de las Américas, 2021 and page 25 figure 17; cuadro 19, page 99. ISBN 9 789275 329191. "Salvar vidas promoviendo un enfoque de sistemas de tránsito seguros en las Américas"

Source: Organización Panamericana de la Salud. Salvar vidas promoviendo un enfoque de sistemas de tránsito seguros en las Américas. Washington, D.C.: OPS; 2024. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.37774/9789275329191. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.120.88.229 (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2025 (UTC)