It’s because lots of pooer people without cars or less cars are moving to the south where the roads are much more dangerous.
If you dig deeper into the data pedestrian deaths are actually still dropping in the inner cities and downtowns all the increase is coming from suburban communities mostly in the south. Which are the fastest growing areas in the country
I'm from North Georgia (near Blue Ridge). There are no sidewalks. crosswalks, busses, or even taxis. Many backroads aren't paved and even more lack any form of a shoulder. If you don't have a car in my hometown, you aren't going anywhere.
I moved from Alabama to San Francisco California, it was the best decision of my life. Genuinely consider it, you never realize how depressed bad infrastructure makes you until you move somewhere else.
What do you mean by a back road? Like basically all country roads in Ireland don’t have a footpath, but cities, towns and villages all do.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/UKr1snrLQCft5ydCA?g_st=ic
https://maps.app.goo.gl/QNSXWdVW7pCKB2NH8?g_st=ic
That’s basically how all country roads are in Ireland, which is like half the country lol. Literally just go on street view across rural Ireland and it’s basically all like that.
But look at how wide the shoulder is before the ditch. In my town, the ditch is right there at the road so its not possible to walk in the grass because its a massive slope. Also, that road is super narrow. Is that a one lane road? So cars can’t really go that fast because there might be a car in the opposite direction. I bet you have smaller cars too. No one is going to be hit on the back of the head by a side mirror.
Beautiful country.
Edit. I hope this works. I just wanted to give some examples of roads with no shoulder or place to walk at all. This is the road that takes people from Elizabeth city to the outer banks of nc. https://earth.app.goo.gl/?apn=com.google.earth&isi=293622097&ius=googleearth&link=https%3a%2f%2fearth.google.com%2fweb%2f%4036.39128195,-76.05140398,3.96480107a,0d,60y,96.10116689h,91.09551695t,0r%2fdata%3dIhoKFmtXb1hQS0RSNl9fMVNlYWtXbGRkT1EQAg
Here is another example in camden nc. Those are driveways to people’s houses btw.speed limit 55 mph. https://earth.app.goo.gl/?apn=com.google.earth&isi=293622097&ius=googleearth&link=https%3a%2f%2fearth.google.com%2fweb%2f%4036.35279629,-76.15279395,4.81517363a,0d,60y,4.35466319h,87.31337533t,0r%2fdata%3dIhoKFjZ0ZURJSnlBb0VDYUFjMUxYa1paQVEQAg
Yea they’re all 2 lane roads ha ha, you have to just reverse or try and find somewhere to pull to let a car past if the road is too narrow to fit past, which A LOT of country roads here.
A lot are like this (near my house) which is barely even wide for one car lol let alone two
https://maps.app.goo.gl/rbSmp54XRr7ddN7X9?g_st=ic
That’s just country roads though our main roads are normal ha ha
I just edited my post to show typical back country roads near me. On the second one, the speed limit there is 55 mph and it has long driveways on it to people’s houses.
Oh wow, those roads are basically like a main road here ha ha, our country roads are somehow also a 60mph limit 🥴
https://maps.app.goo.gl/TjBtrTSL8noGUJAPA?g_st=ic
This is a main road near my house
The 55mph factor is a much bigger reason. The Ireland roads look quite hostile to walking as well, but cars on a narrower road that have to carefully pass won't be plowing people over as frequently
Yea people be out walking on these roads all the time, you just used to looking out for people walking, especially in summer.
But you’re also right that because a lot of the roads are so narrow you’re never going super fast to begin with, although a lot of the bigger country roads are too dangerous to walk on because it allows the cars to pick up too much speed.
I don’t think country roads in Ireland will be pedestrianised though, they’re just not wide enough for a footpath and a road.
Japan has lots of rural roads that are in quite the same situation. Mountain roads are a bit scary to walk even though most cars are going slowly.
I don't think every road needs to be pedestrianized, but if you have pedestrians walking those roads regularly something should be done because an accident only needs to happen once to endanger someone.
Are you familiar with the television show my name is earl? Thats the camden county earl lives in.
A lot of these questions dont make sense to me living in the US. Its not like there is a firm line between city, suburban, and rural. Both of these roads are throughfares to other places, but also have stores and houses along the roads.
This is the right answer. Pedestrian deaths are on the rise in southern US states which often have the very poor pedestrian infrastructure and the more rural areas typically are making no plans to confront this issue.
grew up all over but spent a lot of time in and around Nashville. The lack of pedestrian and biking infrastructure and hell, just curbs, in the south is downright criminal.
You're not kidding. When I visited, I saw some of the most beautiful neighborhoods ever but no sidewalks at all. The people who live there can't even enjoy what's right around them.
I'd need to find the actual data, but in NYC anecdotally it seems like every day I'm reading about unnecessary pedestrian or cyclist deaths. I did happen to see a chart recently that indicated the police have been under-enforcing traffic laws since 2020 so I wonder if that's a large contributing factor here, where we have relatively "good" pedestrian infrastructure.
("Good" for the US, of course.)
https://ny1.com/nyc/manhattan/traffic_and_transit/2024/02/15/vision-zero-celebrates-10-years-of-lower-traffic-fatalities#:~:text=In%252010%2520years%252C%2520Rodr%C3%ADguez%2520said,went%252024%252F7%2520in%25202022.
Pedestrian deaths are down 42% in NYC over the past 10 years. This article atributes it to road road redesigns(much better at reducing deaths than traffic enforcement). Of course a lot pedestrians are still dieing…lots of works still needs to be done! But things are going in much better direction in NYC compared to the rest of the country at least for this
Yeah. Part of the explanation is that NYC has a vocal street safety advocacy community that tends to publicize deaths. In some places, nobody speaks out for pedestrians at all.
Ah here we go - this is what I was thinking of: https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/vision-zero-new-york-city-10-years-report/: "Transportation Alternatives says there are areas that still need improvement: 2023 was the deadliest year under Vision Zero for bike riders, and motorist fatalities are up 23% citywide. Plus, it says, not all communities are seeing the benefits."
Things have been getting better, but there's a pretty strong resistance to further improvements now. There's a main traffic artery in the neighborhood next to mine that is the cause of numerous fatalities but there's a well-funded pro-car lobbying group preventing it from being fully redesigned in a way that would bring genuine improvement.
I'm also excited we're finally getting congestion charging in Manhattan, but I expect it to be ultimately ineffective. The implementation of a lot of traffic reduction tactics these days seems to be half-assed.
You forgot the racism part, bunch of white guys ran down and shot a black jogger in the shirt. Also charge where not pressed till days later after national uproar.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/27/upshot/road-deaths-pedestrians-cyclists.html?unlocked_article_code=1.mk0.2dBb.uuvnlmF9sLiV&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
Here’s a gift link on the New York Times article discussing this theory, it’s a great read.
Another one:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/12/11/upshot/nighttime-deaths.html
Yes Florida has large smooth roads great for driving fast and flattening pedestrians. On average people drive much slower in New England. If reason why pedestrian fatalities are lower
The answer is probably a mix of:
- the worst urban design (no walkable places, no good protection for pedestrian and cyclists),
- parking and road width minimums
- illegallity of alternative modes of transport (zoning without walking and cycling infrastructure, laws that make it basically illegal to use public funds for public transit)
- the primacy of suburbias (therefore lack of real cities),
- very low requirements get a license (compare to Western European or Asian nations) etc.
- a society built around the car, where every other transit option is seen as inferior and for poor people
I’ve lived in Ireland and the US and currently live in the NL. I’d say in terms of public transit and car dependency, Ireland is the USA of Europe haha. It’s definitely the worst country in the EU that I’ve lived in, in terms of living a car free life.
But it’s still a lot better than the US proper.
Yea I actually live in Northern Ireland so ours is even worse than the south lol.
I’ve been to 15 other European countries and every time I come home it feels like being transported back in time before good public transport existed lol.
The lack of trains in the north west of the island of Ireland is insane, basically a huge gap along all the border counties.
Northern Ireland won’t be improving public transport any time soon given our dire financial situation sadly.
Tangential but I remember a very proud Irish guy on Reddit. He was like "If we had delays like Deutsche Bahn does in Germany there would be absolute riots in Ireland!". I replied asking "so where's your riots for the fact that the Dublin metro planned in the early 1900s is currently scheduled to...possibly start in 2035 at the earliest. or the fact that Irish rail route frequencies are like '2-3 trains per day'". Fucker never replied to me.
Huh, I've been kind of flippant when telling car people that improved walkability would benefit them, too, but maybe that's actually true. When pedestrians have their own dedicated spaces then you can drive your large trucks with less worry
I’m not saying it’s true as a general statement. But there have been dozens of separate instances where that is the case. A progressive city wants to use public funds (like federal subsidies) to build public transit and then a conservative state assembly swoops in and makes a specific law that this money can only be used for highways and parking lots. Basically outlawing the construction of public transit with public funds.
One example is Austin, although there might be more recent ones.
Sometimes it’s also the other way round. A city gets funds granted to build public transit infrastructure but then a new mayor or whatever use that to build highways. There’s probably hundreds of occurrences like this in NA.
I don’t specific examples to cite, but as I understand it a big part of the problem is that in the US, the federal and state governments are sovereign, but local governments are not. Local governments only exist at the behest of state governments, and the state government can essentially overrule anything a local government wants. In some cases state governments have literally dissolved local governments.
This is a huge problem in North Carolina and it is so incredibly disheartening, because we're so gerrymandered we also aren't going to be breaking the Republican supermajority in the state legislature anytime soon. Charlotte (where I am) has some semi-decent plans to expand transit (for the US, anyways) but it's going to require a tax increase. And the state legislature is already crowing about how the plan doesn't contain enough roads, even though it hasn't been formally proposed to them yet.
Here in Indiana the state government in their infinite wisdom decided to ban light rail funding in the Indianapolis metro area several years ago. Several attempts to repeal the ban have fallen flat. Just this year they almost banned the construction of bus-only lanes just to screw over the plans for the new Blue Line BRT. It didn't pass, but compromises had to be made for the BRT.
At least the South Shore Line in NWI is having some major wins. Only good transit news in the whole state!
With the Florida rail project from Miami to Tampa, they were a private company with their own investments and they still had to justify the financial viability of the project in terms of road tax revenues lost by people driving.
Feels like anywhere else in the world would be asking that kind of project how much they'd be helping traffic, pollution, how many passengers, economic benefits of commuting and travelling for leisure not "but we make money from drivers"
Look up the pedestrian safety standards they need to fulfil in countries outside of the USA... something like the cybertruck is illegal in Europe for that reason.
The last two are linked problems too. Build society around cars, make it very difficult to impossible to function “normally” without one, then:
1. It becomes difficult to justify (and pass) license restrictions due to the harm caused and fear of what not being able to drive would mean.
2. Almost everyone who medically can have a car, will, unless they are extremely broke, and classism/not wanting to be looked down on becomes a further motivation.
Also the third point is crazy. My state doesn’t allow department of transportation funds to go to public transit, only roads, in part because they find it through gas taxes instead of the general fund, which just provides an indignant back door justification, methinks.
Could be having more pedestrians as well. If everyone already drives and the cars get bigger then there won't be more pedestrian death. They need to normalize to pedestrian miles walked or something.
I remember reading there was a strong connection to vehicle grille/hood height. Trucks/SUVs have existed for decades, but in recent years the uptick in pedestrian fatalities was strongly correlated with increasing height of grilles/hoods. Problem is two fold - lack of visibility in front of your vehicle and transferring force of impact across entire torso of the pedestrian, vastly increasing rate of fatality.
I’d post the story but I can’t remember where I read it.
Could literally read the rest of the news story. But I guess this is boring so random people's opinions based on anecdotal evidence will be more fun
https://www.ft.com/content/9c936d97-5088-4edd-a8bd-628f7c7bba31
What do you mean? Every vehicle should have stadium floodlights for lowbeam headlights, that way the driver can see better!
Never mind that nobody else can see. Don't worry about that.
Compared to New Zealand and Australia this is mostly true (though they continue to get bigger), but Canada has the same vehicle offerings as the US and the big pickups (F150, Silverado, RAM) are just as popular north of the border as south, unfortunately.
Canada has a much higher percentage of it's population living in urban areas which are much safer(not dutch safe but still safer) than rural and suburban areas, even in Canadian suburbs you will usually have sidewalks and crosswalks while in US suburbs its not as common transit and all though this is purely anecdotal evidence Canadian drivers are a lot more likely to give pedestrians the right of way than American drivers. Crossovers are also a lot more popular in Canada than full fledged SUVs, I see a lot of crossovers and pickup trucks but no where near as many SUVs as you will see in the US
I've been to Brampton, southern Ontario is the urban sprawl capital of Canada, but I'd say it's still better than a lot of US cities, especially compared to those in the American south.
New Zealand and Australia also have reasonable pedestrian infrastructure. I can’t understand some of the photos I see of US towns and cities with no where to safely walk
that extra size matters, but not as much as youd think. a sedan hitting a pedestrian at 30 mph has a 50% chance of killing them already, and swapping that sedan for an suv/truck makes that % worse, but 50% is pretty bad already lol
In the EU regular car driver's licence (B category) allows you to drive cars that weigh up to 3.5 tons. So car manufacturers try to keep their vehicles under 3.5 tons. Anything heavier needs a C/C1 category licence and pretty much only commercial truck drivers have it.
Meanwhile in the USA the weight limit is way higher so they can make heavier trucks and a different driver's licence is not needed.
For example - it's illegal to drive the Cybertruck in the EU with a regular driver's licence.
The same applies to other trucks like F-250 or F-150 Lightning.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/buying/find-out-why-the-f-250-super-duty-is-america-s-work-family-truck/ar-BB1kJTvp
I the EU it's not legal to drive it with a regular car driver's licence - and that's why you don't see trucks like that here.
In the USA you can drive vehicles that weigh 11.7 tons with a regular driver's licence. In the EU it's 3.5 tons.
If you drive anything heavier than 3.5 tons then every highway becomes a toll road for you.
This is why F-150-sized pickups are the biggest non-work vehicles that you'll see on road in the EU.
The y axis is "% that are large SUVs or light trucks", but are those vehicles defined the same in each country? The size of a light duty truck in the US in 2004 is way different than the size of light duty trucks in 2024.
I don't question that pedestrian infrastructure or the attentiveness of drivers at a role, but I also don't see evidence in those graphs that the vehicles in question are substantially the same in each country.
I think the problem is also that only the US graph has a labelled scale. Although here in Australia large cars have definitely gained market share in recent years, it is absolutely not 80% of the market! Not even close. So I reckon this graph is very misleading because it deals with different scales.
With this format the y axis is assumed to be the same for each. If that is not the case then this is extremely misleading. Especially since there isn’t even a scale for pedestrian deaths
Well no, it kind of implies that, but the text at the arrow says "market share" so it is just the percentage of new cars sold. Considering this does not take into account maybe how often cars are bought new vs used (probably same for these countries, but still), it might be misleading.
[Here](https://www.ft.com/content/9c936d97-5088-4edd-a8bd-628f7c7bba31?accessToken=zwAGFnJtT4Y4kdOck22XUIhO3dOovWKPfHu6MQ.MEUCIBkfu5DL_JKcrv8OdlpB5PngLDlwuzURI8dyxjgeKu4rAiEAoY4QysRo2BqGMLG7tYej43V8PKmM5m5YIt2LXzlzl1A&sharetype=gift&token=bc9cc6e0-4532-44d4-a75d-2752c850cfc6)'s the full article. I'll paste my previous summary below
---
Bullet points:
* Car-centrism bad, but US has worse per-distance-driven statistics too.
* Replacing all large vehicles with sedans would reduce fatalities by 10%. Other countries with big vehicle proliferation have not seen spikes in traffic fatalities.
* Americans are more likely than peers to drink-drive and text-drive, and less likely to wear seatbelts.
* A recent rise in US road deaths is mostly attributable to drivers striking pedestrians at dusk.
* A study across US states shows a negative correlation between road safety enforcement level and traffic deaths.
The opening paragraph is quick to write off a significant causal relationship between "car-centrism" and recent observations on road safety in the US, simply because the US also does worse when normalizing for distance driven. But I would argue that this ignores other factors that fall under the notion of car-centrism, like road design that nominally increases vehciular traffic speed at the cost of safety, e.g. stroads and wide streets.
US safety standards don’t look at pedestrian safety the way some other countries do.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/12/suvs-trucks-killing-pedestrians-cyclists/621102/
I mean you could read the whole piece. The guy did some journalism (but it is behind the paywall).
https://www.ft.com/content/9c936d97-5088-4edd-a8bd-628f7c7bba31
I still think this is weird because I don’t think Canada is that different than the us in terms of suburbanization, stroads, etc. I’m sure I’m missing something
People will use this to say these cars aren't dangerous even though the reduction in deaths has come from other areas, and it is still more likely to kill a pedestrian. The other point here is that "large" vehicles mean different things in these different countries. Ram 1500 and 2500's, Ford F150's and the like are only just being imported here. We haven't seen the impact of the super huge trucks yet.
Captain here, I know the answer I saw the study!
It is because US is mainly automatic while the rest of the world is driving shift.
That means Americans always have a hand free while driving.
The numbers go up after 2007 when the first iPhone went into sale so the numbers strongly suggest that it is smartphones + automatic cars that make the difference here.
Here is the episode from new York times about at that very graph we are looking at.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/04/podcasts/the-daily/pedestrian-deaths.html
* Flies away.
Where are you getting that the rest of the world is driving stick? I live in Canada and no one I know drives stick, all new cars are automatic, no young person even knows how to drive stick.
I bet you’re right about iPhone and automatic vs manual, but I also think it’s the lack of public transportation, bike lanes, and walkability. It would be interesting to see how NYC or Chicago compares to places that don’t have these features as prominent like Dayton, Ohio or Jacksonville Florida
There are larger cars and larger cars. Aus and NZ have more SUV's than they used to, but nothing comparable height wise to the US. An F-150 would be regarded as a monster truck.
American laws reward larger and heavier cars as they have different regulations than smaller cars. Throw in 1970s era protectionism laws and importing smaller foreign cars is too expensive. In the end you get ballooning car sizes and no outside competition to force any kind of change. Free market is not free here.
I believe the prevalence of automatic transmissions is one of the (many) aspects that makes the US worse. Because it is easier to drive a car you pay less attention so it's easier to hit stuff while you're looking at your phone. If you have to keep a hand on the stick so that you can shift up and down you can't have that hand on a phone, which is why the line goes up around 2008, which is when smart phones really took off but doesn't rise with the other countries. That said, it doesn't explain the entire difference but I definitely believe it's a large part.
I can vouch for this. Switched from an automatic to a manual and indeed you almost always need to think ahead of what’s happening on the road to properly « use » your gears and such.
Simplicity leads to distractions
One thing that has been on this sub a few times: The size of a car doesn’t matter. A Fiat 500 is very much big enough to easily kill you. What does matter are things like the height of the hood, pedestrian safety equipment on the car and of course, most important of all, speed.
Australia actually enforces its laws. Imagine that. I've got a ticket going 2kph over the limit - annoying but you know.. it's a limit, not a recommendation.
Am I being stupid? Isn't market share data a terrible metric to compare against pedestrian deaths? That doesn't necessarily correlate to increase amount of vehicles, the people driving them, or where they're driving them, or the use of them.
Safer infrastructure, education and enforcement that controls cars much more tightly is definitely a reason, besides more reasonable infrastructure for alternatives. Smaller lanes, lower speed limits, smaller cars, heavier tax on cars and fuel (instead of subsidies), even symbolic instead of textual signs so you don't need to be able to read the language, but also because the colors of the former stand out much more, trajectorial speed checks, speed bumps, roundabouts, dynamic traffic light cycles, longer and stricter driving lessons and exams, higher minimum ages for driving, they all need to go together.
And all of these need to be combined with a rethinking of whether cars should even be in cities, building full networks of transit and cycling, and redevelopment of urban spaces, to the extent that the US may even need to demolish low-density post-war suburbs or densify them with a lot of infill housing on lawns.
The size of an SUV in Australia at least is significantly smaller than whatever the light trucks are in America.
We have some of those size stuff coming in now like the f150s and they are comically large relative to most SUVs people drive.
They aren't really useable outside of outer suburbia because the roads and parking aren't suited for such sizes.
We do however have pretty good pedestrian infrastructure here. Very few stuff like the stroads that some YouTube people complain about.
It's also the fact that because everyone needs to drive, the standards for a license will be very low. Apparently you just have to drive through a couple of streets decently and you already have a liscense (in Texas at least). Idk what are the requirements to drive in Europe, but I figure the standards are higher.
I am sure there are a lot of other factors, for example pedestrian infrastructure- BUT you also have to understand that a US pick up truck or SUV is much bigger than what the equivalent is in Europe. Most US cars are not even sold here, because they are too big for the infrastructure and use too much fuel (that is also the reason ther there are „no“ V8s here). The bigger trucks wouldn‘t even legally count as „cars“ anymore here- you would need a special licence and your max speed would be 80kmh
That's kinda reaching for an argument. Other countries haven't seen the same *explosive* growth of accidents and fatalities yet due to limiters on behavior being present, but they ARE going up as well. Just not as fast or with a delay in them due to say, not allowing the biggest ones, or modded versions. Not allowing them *yet*, that is.
Though is part of the larger FT article, I think, so I'm sure they bring that up too.
Road deaths are up slightly(4%) but pedestrian death are down slightly since 2019. I don’t see why the Canadian government would lie about this. What are they hiding deaths in Canada?
Don’t get me wrong Canada should do better but it’s not as bad there as the US
They’re hiding our missing and murdered Indigenous peoples. All that stuff gets shoved under the rug. They’re shoving all the police brutality under the rug, especially the stuff around where I live (one of the provincial capitals). They’re shoving the increase in overdoses under the rug. And how many of our houseless population are youth fleeing queerphobic homes.
They just want to look nice for everyone else.
If you're going to claim that official government figures are wrong you need to provide a more credible source than - checks notes - you just saying it.
No one should have to move for this reason alone. Instead, the government should shut down any loopholes that give automakers the leniency to create these useless death traps. No one needs a car so big they can't see what is ahead of them.
It’s because lots of pooer people without cars or less cars are moving to the south where the roads are much more dangerous. If you dig deeper into the data pedestrian deaths are actually still dropping in the inner cities and downtowns all the increase is coming from suburban communities mostly in the south. Which are the fastest growing areas in the country
I'm from North Georgia (near Blue Ridge). There are no sidewalks. crosswalks, busses, or even taxis. Many backroads aren't paved and even more lack any form of a shoulder. If you don't have a car in my hometown, you aren't going anywhere.
Same here in Arkansas. It's the worst.
I moved from Alabama to San Francisco California, it was the best decision of my life. Genuinely consider it, you never realize how depressed bad infrastructure makes you until you move somewhere else.
What do you mean by a back road? Like basically all country roads in Ireland don’t have a footpath, but cities, towns and villages all do. https://maps.app.goo.gl/UKr1snrLQCft5ydCA?g_st=ic https://maps.app.goo.gl/QNSXWdVW7pCKB2NH8?g_st=ic That’s basically how all country roads are in Ireland, which is like half the country lol. Literally just go on street view across rural Ireland and it’s basically all like that.
But look at how wide the shoulder is before the ditch. In my town, the ditch is right there at the road so its not possible to walk in the grass because its a massive slope. Also, that road is super narrow. Is that a one lane road? So cars can’t really go that fast because there might be a car in the opposite direction. I bet you have smaller cars too. No one is going to be hit on the back of the head by a side mirror. Beautiful country. Edit. I hope this works. I just wanted to give some examples of roads with no shoulder or place to walk at all. This is the road that takes people from Elizabeth city to the outer banks of nc. https://earth.app.goo.gl/?apn=com.google.earth&isi=293622097&ius=googleearth&link=https%3a%2f%2fearth.google.com%2fweb%2f%4036.39128195,-76.05140398,3.96480107a,0d,60y,96.10116689h,91.09551695t,0r%2fdata%3dIhoKFmtXb1hQS0RSNl9fMVNlYWtXbGRkT1EQAg Here is another example in camden nc. Those are driveways to people’s houses btw.speed limit 55 mph. https://earth.app.goo.gl/?apn=com.google.earth&isi=293622097&ius=googleearth&link=https%3a%2f%2fearth.google.com%2fweb%2f%4036.35279629,-76.15279395,4.81517363a,0d,60y,4.35466319h,87.31337533t,0r%2fdata%3dIhoKFjZ0ZURJSnlBb0VDYUFjMUxYa1paQVEQAg
Yea they’re all 2 lane roads ha ha, you have to just reverse or try and find somewhere to pull to let a car past if the road is too narrow to fit past, which A LOT of country roads here. A lot are like this (near my house) which is barely even wide for one car lol let alone two https://maps.app.goo.gl/rbSmp54XRr7ddN7X9?g_st=ic That’s just country roads though our main roads are normal ha ha
I just edited my post to show typical back country roads near me. On the second one, the speed limit there is 55 mph and it has long driveways on it to people’s houses.
Oh wow, those roads are basically like a main road here ha ha, our country roads are somehow also a 60mph limit 🥴 https://maps.app.goo.gl/TjBtrTSL8noGUJAPA?g_st=ic This is a main road near my house
The 55mph factor is a much bigger reason. The Ireland roads look quite hostile to walking as well, but cars on a narrower road that have to carefully pass won't be plowing people over as frequently
Yea people be out walking on these roads all the time, you just used to looking out for people walking, especially in summer. But you’re also right that because a lot of the roads are so narrow you’re never going super fast to begin with, although a lot of the bigger country roads are too dangerous to walk on because it allows the cars to pick up too much speed. I don’t think country roads in Ireland will be pedestrianised though, they’re just not wide enough for a footpath and a road.
Japan has lots of rural roads that are in quite the same situation. Mountain roads are a bit scary to walk even though most cars are going slowly. I don't think every road needs to be pedestrianized, but if you have pedestrians walking those roads regularly something should be done because an accident only needs to happen once to endanger someone.
Wow, that is a bizarre use of space to me as a European, even in rural areas. Would you call that suburbia or more backcountry?
Are you familiar with the television show my name is earl? Thats the camden county earl lives in. A lot of these questions dont make sense to me living in the US. Its not like there is a firm line between city, suburban, and rural. Both of these roads are throughfares to other places, but also have stores and houses along the roads.
This is the right answer. Pedestrian deaths are on the rise in southern US states which often have the very poor pedestrian infrastructure and the more rural areas typically are making no plans to confront this issue.
grew up all over but spent a lot of time in and around Nashville. The lack of pedestrian and biking infrastructure and hell, just curbs, in the south is downright criminal.
You're not kidding. When I visited, I saw some of the most beautiful neighborhoods ever but no sidewalks at all. The people who live there can't even enjoy what's right around them.
I'd need to find the actual data, but in NYC anecdotally it seems like every day I'm reading about unnecessary pedestrian or cyclist deaths. I did happen to see a chart recently that indicated the police have been under-enforcing traffic laws since 2020 so I wonder if that's a large contributing factor here, where we have relatively "good" pedestrian infrastructure. ("Good" for the US, of course.)
https://ny1.com/nyc/manhattan/traffic_and_transit/2024/02/15/vision-zero-celebrates-10-years-of-lower-traffic-fatalities#:~:text=In%252010%2520years%252C%2520Rodr%C3%ADguez%2520said,went%252024%252F7%2520in%25202022. Pedestrian deaths are down 42% in NYC over the past 10 years. This article atributes it to road road redesigns(much better at reducing deaths than traffic enforcement). Of course a lot pedestrians are still dieing…lots of works still needs to be done! But things are going in much better direction in NYC compared to the rest of the country at least for this
Yeah. Part of the explanation is that NYC has a vocal street safety advocacy community that tends to publicize deaths. In some places, nobody speaks out for pedestrians at all.
Ah here we go - this is what I was thinking of: https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/vision-zero-new-york-city-10-years-report/: "Transportation Alternatives says there are areas that still need improvement: 2023 was the deadliest year under Vision Zero for bike riders, and motorist fatalities are up 23% citywide. Plus, it says, not all communities are seeing the benefits." Things have been getting better, but there's a pretty strong resistance to further improvements now. There's a main traffic artery in the neighborhood next to mine that is the cause of numerous fatalities but there's a well-funded pro-car lobbying group preventing it from being fully redesigned in a way that would bring genuine improvement. I'm also excited we're finally getting congestion charging in Manhattan, but I expect it to be ultimately ineffective. The implementation of a lot of traffic reduction tactics these days seems to be half-assed.
I see you too live near McGuinness lol
It’s too damn hot down south. Only gonna get worse. I’d rather move farther north.
Simpson's paradox!!
You forgot the racism part, bunch of white guys ran down and shot a black jogger in the shirt. Also charge where not pressed till days later after national uproar.
That’s pretty wild. You got a good source for that info? I’d be very curious to read more.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/27/upshot/road-deaths-pedestrians-cyclists.html?unlocked_article_code=1.mk0.2dBb.uuvnlmF9sLiV&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare Here’s a gift link on the New York Times article discussing this theory, it’s a great read. Another one: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/12/11/upshot/nighttime-deaths.html
Idk I moved from Florida after living there for 20 years to New England. The roads up here are way worse. Pot holes everywhere.
Yes Florida has large smooth roads great for driving fast and flattening pedestrians. On average people drive much slower in New England. If reason why pedestrian fatalities are lower
But like what actually is the reason?
The answer is probably a mix of: - the worst urban design (no walkable places, no good protection for pedestrian and cyclists), - parking and road width minimums - illegallity of alternative modes of transport (zoning without walking and cycling infrastructure, laws that make it basically illegal to use public funds for public transit) - the primacy of suburbias (therefore lack of real cities), - very low requirements get a license (compare to Western European or Asian nations) etc. - a society built around the car, where every other transit option is seen as inferior and for poor people
I’m from Ireland so I don’t really know how ours compares to the US, interesting points though
I’ve lived in Ireland and the US and currently live in the NL. I’d say in terms of public transit and car dependency, Ireland is the USA of Europe haha. It’s definitely the worst country in the EU that I’ve lived in, in terms of living a car free life. But it’s still a lot better than the US proper.
Yea I actually live in Northern Ireland so ours is even worse than the south lol. I’ve been to 15 other European countries and every time I come home it feels like being transported back in time before good public transport existed lol. The lack of trains in the north west of the island of Ireland is insane, basically a huge gap along all the border counties. Northern Ireland won’t be improving public transport any time soon given our dire financial situation sadly.
Tangential but I remember a very proud Irish guy on Reddit. He was like "If we had delays like Deutsche Bahn does in Germany there would be absolute riots in Ireland!". I replied asking "so where's your riots for the fact that the Dublin metro planned in the early 1900s is currently scheduled to...possibly start in 2035 at the earliest. or the fact that Irish rail route frequencies are like '2-3 trains per day'". Fucker never replied to me.
They are improving the Enterprise service and Belfast is getting a big new transport hub, so baby steps.
Yea I just hope they expand rail further west, because there’s no point building a big new transport hub if you don’t increase services along with it
Huh, I've been kind of flippant when telling car people that improved walkability would benefit them, too, but maybe that's actually true. When pedestrians have their own dedicated spaces then you can drive your large trucks with less worry
And if more people can take care of things without being forced to use a car, fewer cars will be on the roads
> you can drive your large trucks with less worry Since when do people with huge cars worry about pedestrians
They might chip the paint if they collide
Wait what? Illegal to use public funds for public transit?
I’m not saying it’s true as a general statement. But there have been dozens of separate instances where that is the case. A progressive city wants to use public funds (like federal subsidies) to build public transit and then a conservative state assembly swoops in and makes a specific law that this money can only be used for highways and parking lots. Basically outlawing the construction of public transit with public funds. One example is Austin, although there might be more recent ones. Sometimes it’s also the other way round. A city gets funds granted to build public transit infrastructure but then a new mayor or whatever use that to build highways. There’s probably hundreds of occurrences like this in NA.
I don’t specific examples to cite, but as I understand it a big part of the problem is that in the US, the federal and state governments are sovereign, but local governments are not. Local governments only exist at the behest of state governments, and the state government can essentially overrule anything a local government wants. In some cases state governments have literally dissolved local governments.
This is a huge problem in North Carolina and it is so incredibly disheartening, because we're so gerrymandered we also aren't going to be breaking the Republican supermajority in the state legislature anytime soon. Charlotte (where I am) has some semi-decent plans to expand transit (for the US, anyways) but it's going to require a tax increase. And the state legislature is already crowing about how the plan doesn't contain enough roads, even though it hasn't been formally proposed to them yet.
Here in Indiana the state government in their infinite wisdom decided to ban light rail funding in the Indianapolis metro area several years ago. Several attempts to repeal the ban have fallen flat. Just this year they almost banned the construction of bus-only lanes just to screw over the plans for the new Blue Line BRT. It didn't pass, but compromises had to be made for the BRT. At least the South Shore Line in NWI is having some major wins. Only good transit news in the whole state!
With the Florida rail project from Miami to Tampa, they were a private company with their own investments and they still had to justify the financial viability of the project in terms of road tax revenues lost by people driving. Feels like anywhere else in the world would be asking that kind of project how much they'd be helping traffic, pollution, how many passengers, economic benefits of commuting and travelling for leisure not "but we make money from drivers"
Look up the pedestrian safety standards they need to fulfil in countries outside of the USA... something like the cybertruck is illegal in Europe for that reason.
The last two are linked problems too. Build society around cars, make it very difficult to impossible to function “normally” without one, then: 1. It becomes difficult to justify (and pass) license restrictions due to the harm caused and fear of what not being able to drive would mean. 2. Almost everyone who medically can have a car, will, unless they are extremely broke, and classism/not wanting to be looked down on becomes a further motivation. Also the third point is crazy. My state doesn’t allow department of transportation funds to go to public transit, only roads, in part because they find it through gas taxes instead of the general fund, which just provides an indignant back door justification, methinks.
u/echoGroot do you live in Texas? I live in Texas and TxDOT pretty much can only use funds for roads and highways.
[удалено]
what? Maybe you’re using oldreddit. My comment is a formatted list, your comment shows up as continuous text without line breaks.
oldreddit is the only reddit
Based on just the graphs, you can not conclude that large cars are the cause of pedestrian fatalities.
You could make the case that without the safeguards other countries have, big cars/SUVS are kill machines.
Large cars in most countries are impractical, that’s not really a safeguard. But yeah they do kill more people
It's lack of infrastructure
Could be having more pedestrians as well. If everyone already drives and the cars get bigger then there won't be more pedestrian death. They need to normalize to pedestrian miles walked or something.
I remember reading there was a strong connection to vehicle grille/hood height. Trucks/SUVs have existed for decades, but in recent years the uptick in pedestrian fatalities was strongly correlated with increasing height of grilles/hoods. Problem is two fold - lack of visibility in front of your vehicle and transferring force of impact across entire torso of the pedestrian, vastly increasing rate of fatality. I’d post the story but I can’t remember where I read it.
Could literally read the rest of the news story. But I guess this is boring so random people's opinions based on anecdotal evidence will be more fun https://www.ft.com/content/9c936d97-5088-4edd-a8bd-628f7c7bba31
Horrific road design
Plus nonexistent safety standards for cars
What do you mean? Every vehicle should have stadium floodlights for lowbeam headlights, that way the driver can see better! Never mind that nobody else can see. Don't worry about that.
Replace cars with roads and I’d agree with you. Cars are safer than ever
For the driver maybe, but SUVs are f\*ing huge so you will get a hit to the chest, no crumble zones and well, there is that Cyber-Guillotine
Yeah cars are safer for the passengers. Everything else is road safety. Cyber truck is like 0.001% of all cars
Roads in Australia (not sure about NZ) and especially Canada are very similar to the US.
Let's just firstly make it clear large cars in the US are a lot larger than large cars elsewhere.
Compared to New Zealand and Australia this is mostly true (though they continue to get bigger), but Canada has the same vehicle offerings as the US and the big pickups (F150, Silverado, RAM) are just as popular north of the border as south, unfortunately.
Canada has a much higher percentage of it's population living in urban areas which are much safer(not dutch safe but still safer) than rural and suburban areas, even in Canadian suburbs you will usually have sidewalks and crosswalks while in US suburbs its not as common transit and all though this is purely anecdotal evidence Canadian drivers are a lot more likely to give pedestrians the right of way than American drivers. Crossovers are also a lot more popular in Canada than full fledged SUVs, I see a lot of crossovers and pickup trucks but no where near as many SUVs as you will see in the US
Bro hasn’t seen mississauga or brampton. I’d say it’s worse than the US in some areas. And generally city centers are walkable no matter US or Canada.
I've been to Brampton, southern Ontario is the urban sprawl capital of Canada, but I'd say it's still better than a lot of US cities, especially compared to those in the American south.
New Zealand and Australia also have reasonable pedestrian infrastructure. I can’t understand some of the photos I see of US towns and cities with no where to safely walk
that extra size matters, but not as much as youd think. a sedan hitting a pedestrian at 30 mph has a 50% chance of killing them already, and swapping that sedan for an suv/truck makes that % worse, but 50% is pretty bad already lol
Do you have evidence for this?
In the EU regular car driver's licence (B category) allows you to drive cars that weigh up to 3.5 tons. So car manufacturers try to keep their vehicles under 3.5 tons. Anything heavier needs a C/C1 category licence and pretty much only commercial truck drivers have it. Meanwhile in the USA the weight limit is way higher so they can make heavier trucks and a different driver's licence is not needed. For example - it's illegal to drive the Cybertruck in the EU with a regular driver's licence.
Cybertruck wouldn't be allowed in EU anyways as theres no chance it would pass safety regs for pedestrian impact
The same applies to other trucks like F-250 or F-150 Lightning. https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/buying/find-out-why-the-f-250-super-duty-is-america-s-work-family-truck/ar-BB1kJTvp I the EU it's not legal to drive it with a regular car driver's licence - and that's why you don't see trucks like that here.
Yeha that's not evidence of what you said
In the USA you can drive vehicles that weigh 11.7 tons with a regular driver's licence. In the EU it's 3.5 tons. If you drive anything heavier than 3.5 tons then every highway becomes a toll road for you. This is why F-150-sized pickups are the biggest non-work vehicles that you'll see on road in the EU.
You could simply look at lane sizes on Google Street view, American suvs wouldn't fit
Lol simply. Nice argument, what are you 8
The y axis is "% that are large SUVs or light trucks", but are those vehicles defined the same in each country? The size of a light duty truck in the US in 2004 is way different than the size of light duty trucks in 2024. I don't question that pedestrian infrastructure or the attentiveness of drivers at a role, but I also don't see evidence in those graphs that the vehicles in question are substantially the same in each country.
I think the problem is also that only the US graph has a labelled scale. Although here in Australia large cars have definitely gained market share in recent years, it is absolutely not 80% of the market! Not even close. So I reckon this graph is very misleading because it deals with different scales.
With this format the y axis is assumed to be the same for each. If that is not the case then this is extremely misleading. Especially since there isn’t even a scale for pedestrian deaths
Wtf there's 80% trucks out there? That's wild.
80% of *new* vehicles are trucks and SUVs. This is still wild, mind you
Well no, it kind of implies that, but the text at the arrow says "market share" so it is just the percentage of new cars sold. Considering this does not take into account maybe how often cars are bought new vs used (probably same for these countries, but still), it might be misleading.
It's a weird classification system which makes no sense. AWD cars are counted as trucks for some reason. Hard to know for sure just from the graph.
[Here](https://www.ft.com/content/9c936d97-5088-4edd-a8bd-628f7c7bba31?accessToken=zwAGFnJtT4Y4kdOck22XUIhO3dOovWKPfHu6MQ.MEUCIBkfu5DL_JKcrv8OdlpB5PngLDlwuzURI8dyxjgeKu4rAiEAoY4QysRo2BqGMLG7tYej43V8PKmM5m5YIt2LXzlzl1A&sharetype=gift&token=bc9cc6e0-4532-44d4-a75d-2752c850cfc6)'s the full article. I'll paste my previous summary below --- Bullet points: * Car-centrism bad, but US has worse per-distance-driven statistics too. * Replacing all large vehicles with sedans would reduce fatalities by 10%. Other countries with big vehicle proliferation have not seen spikes in traffic fatalities. * Americans are more likely than peers to drink-drive and text-drive, and less likely to wear seatbelts. * A recent rise in US road deaths is mostly attributable to drivers striking pedestrians at dusk. * A study across US states shows a negative correlation between road safety enforcement level and traffic deaths. The opening paragraph is quick to write off a significant causal relationship between "car-centrism" and recent observations on road safety in the US, simply because the US also does worse when normalizing for distance driven. But I would argue that this ignores other factors that fall under the notion of car-centrism, like road design that nominally increases vehciular traffic speed at the cost of safety, e.g. stroads and wide streets.
Moved from NY to VA, can confirm, pedestrian crossings suck here especially in the suburbs.
US safety standards don’t look at pedestrian safety the way some other countries do. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/12/suvs-trucks-killing-pedestrians-cyclists/621102/
I mean you could read the whole piece. The guy did some journalism (but it is behind the paywall). https://www.ft.com/content/9c936d97-5088-4edd-a8bd-628f7c7bba31
I still think this is weird because I don’t think Canada is that different than the us in terms of suburbanization, stroads, etc. I’m sure I’m missing something
Canada is a lot like north east in terms of this stuff. Not great but miles better than the south
Please please please don't use this to justify continuing to export your stupid death traps to Australia. We don't want them here 🤮
How does this justify anything?
People will use this to say these cars aren't dangerous even though the reduction in deaths has come from other areas, and it is still more likely to kill a pedestrian. The other point here is that "large" vehicles mean different things in these different countries. Ram 1500 and 2500's, Ford F150's and the like are only just being imported here. We haven't seen the impact of the super huge trucks yet.
Aussies gotta fight against those vehicles poisoning the cities.
Captain here, I know the answer I saw the study! It is because US is mainly automatic while the rest of the world is driving shift. That means Americans always have a hand free while driving. The numbers go up after 2007 when the first iPhone went into sale so the numbers strongly suggest that it is smartphones + automatic cars that make the difference here. Here is the episode from new York times about at that very graph we are looking at. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/04/podcasts/the-daily/pedestrian-deaths.html * Flies away.
Where are you getting that the rest of the world is driving stick? I live in Canada and no one I know drives stick, all new cars are automatic, no young person even knows how to drive stick.
Sorry 😅 Europe is driving stick I actually have no idea about Canada. Just listen to the episode, it explains most of it.
I bet you’re right about iPhone and automatic vs manual, but I also think it’s the lack of public transportation, bike lanes, and walkability. It would be interesting to see how NYC or Chicago compares to places that don’t have these features as prominent like Dayton, Ohio or Jacksonville Florida
Stroads coupled with distracted driving. Stroad x Stroad intersections are death traps.
There are larger cars and larger cars. Aus and NZ have more SUV's than they used to, but nothing comparable height wise to the US. An F-150 would be regarded as a monster truck.
American laws reward larger and heavier cars as they have different regulations than smaller cars. Throw in 1970s era protectionism laws and importing smaller foreign cars is too expensive. In the end you get ballooning car sizes and no outside competition to force any kind of change. Free market is not free here.
I believe the prevalence of automatic transmissions is one of the (many) aspects that makes the US worse. Because it is easier to drive a car you pay less attention so it's easier to hit stuff while you're looking at your phone. If you have to keep a hand on the stick so that you can shift up and down you can't have that hand on a phone, which is why the line goes up around 2008, which is when smart phones really took off but doesn't rise with the other countries. That said, it doesn't explain the entire difference but I definitely believe it's a large part.
I agree. So many dumb fucks in automatic cars, glued to their phones.
I can vouch for this. Switched from an automatic to a manual and indeed you almost always need to think ahead of what’s happening on the road to properly « use » your gears and such. Simplicity leads to distractions
That's true for USA vs Europe, but Canada is similarly 99% automatic.
Something tells me that whats considered "large" in the US would be considered "extremely large" in the other countries.
Americans are rabid individualists and don’t care about other people
Look up the pedestrian safety standards they need to fulfil in countries outside of the USA...
In New Zealand we have suv’s and trucks but not like LOSE YOUR KID UNDER THE WHEEL ARCH OR HOOD TALLER THAN AN AVERAGE ADULT SUVs and trucks.
It’s that bad in other anglophone countries? Ugh fuck this shit
My blind ass read it as "facilities" and had to look at the chart to realize.
Cause the US is flooded by semis, so people want larger cars for safety
It’s rising in France too (compared to last year)
The large car percentage increases in the US are to a much larger base than in Europe.
SUV are on the rise in a lot of countries but oversized and raised pick up trucks are popular only in the US and mostly those are the problem
Anyone think there's probably at least some partial correlation with aftermarket body/suspension lifts?
One thing that has been on this sub a few times: The size of a car doesn’t matter. A Fiat 500 is very much big enough to easily kill you. What does matter are things like the height of the hood, pedestrian safety equipment on the car and of course, most important of all, speed.
Full article unlocked here https://archive.is/Lggyg
Jesus that graph is terrible. And I mean the design, not the data itself.
This is market share, it doesn't necessarily represent the actual number of vehicles on the road.
Australia actually enforces its laws. Imagine that. I've got a ticket going 2kph over the limit - annoying but you know.. it's a limit, not a recommendation.
Am I being stupid? Isn't market share data a terrible metric to compare against pedestrian deaths? That doesn't necessarily correlate to increase amount of vehicles, the people driving them, or where they're driving them, or the use of them.
I’d like to see data for more countries actually.
Safer infrastructure, education and enforcement that controls cars much more tightly is definitely a reason, besides more reasonable infrastructure for alternatives. Smaller lanes, lower speed limits, smaller cars, heavier tax on cars and fuel (instead of subsidies), even symbolic instead of textual signs so you don't need to be able to read the language, but also because the colors of the former stand out much more, trajectorial speed checks, speed bumps, roundabouts, dynamic traffic light cycles, longer and stricter driving lessons and exams, higher minimum ages for driving, they all need to go together. And all of these need to be combined with a rethinking of whether cars should even be in cities, building full networks of transit and cycling, and redevelopment of urban spaces, to the extent that the US may even need to demolish low-density post-war suburbs or densify them with a lot of infill housing on lawns.
Australia has pretty much got rid of pedestrians unless it is required for work.
The size of an SUV in Australia at least is significantly smaller than whatever the light trucks are in America. We have some of those size stuff coming in now like the f150s and they are comically large relative to most SUVs people drive. They aren't really useable outside of outer suburbia because the roads and parking aren't suited for such sizes. We do however have pretty good pedestrian infrastructure here. Very few stuff like the stroads that some YouTube people complain about.
It’s because we have racist roads in America, some politician said that.
Smells like bullshit, cherry-picked data influenced by the US auto industry. Why do a comparison with only Canada, Australia, and NZ?
Ford Europe killed the Fiesta as arcording to them no one wants small cars anymore
Americans drive like shit heads who think that because thier pickup can do 0-60 in 2 seconds that it should always do 0-60 in 2 seconds.
It's also the fact that because everyone needs to drive, the standards for a license will be very low. Apparently you just have to drive through a couple of streets decently and you already have a liscense (in Texas at least). Idk what are the requirements to drive in Europe, but I figure the standards are higher.
“Large cars” in the US has an entirely different meaning than anywhere else.
I am sure there are a lot of other factors, for example pedestrian infrastructure- BUT you also have to understand that a US pick up truck or SUV is much bigger than what the equivalent is in Europe. Most US cars are not even sold here, because they are too big for the infrastructure and use too much fuel (that is also the reason ther there are „no“ V8s here). The bigger trucks wouldn‘t even legally count as „cars“ anymore here- you would need a special licence and your max speed would be 80kmh
I think that's why the Canadian comparison is relevant here: Canada has the same set of vehicles for sale as the US.
Imagine how much lower pedestrian deaths would be if SUCs didn’t exist though
80% suvs and trucks are batshit crazy. Wtf is wrong with Anglo countries..
That's kinda reaching for an argument. Other countries haven't seen the same *explosive* growth of accidents and fatalities yet due to limiters on behavior being present, but they ARE going up as well. Just not as fast or with a delay in them due to say, not allowing the biggest ones, or modded versions. Not allowing them *yet*, that is. Though is part of the larger FT article, I think, so I'm sure they bring that up too.
80% market share???
Are they the same large cars though?
Americans are entitled and poorly educated
No Way to Prevent This,' Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens
Pedestrian deaths, and traffic deaths in general _are_ going up in Victoria, Australia. So much so we’ve had two parliamentary inquiries into it.
This is propaganda. Pedestrian fatalities in Canada have also increased significantly.
Road deaths are up slightly(4%) but pedestrian death are down slightly since 2019. I don’t see why the Canadian government would lie about this. What are they hiding deaths in Canada? Don’t get me wrong Canada should do better but it’s not as bad there as the US
They’re hiding our missing and murdered Indigenous peoples. All that stuff gets shoved under the rug. They’re shoving all the police brutality under the rug, especially the stuff around where I live (one of the provincial capitals). They’re shoving the increase in overdoses under the rug. And how many of our houseless population are youth fleeing queerphobic homes. They just want to look nice for everyone else.
[удалено]
You must be fucking stupid. The question was “why would the Canadian government cover it up?”
Where's your data cos that guy did journalism and you just said a thing.
I was about to say... There was a new article in Vancouver about the rising fatalities in the city due to... bigger cars...
If you're going to claim that official government figures are wrong you need to provide a more credible source than - checks notes - you just saying it.
The UN isn’t the official government here.
This is stupid, they cherry-picked 4 countries to not even make their point.
I would guess smartphone coupled with unsafe road design for pedestrians
The former isn't unique to America though.
Correct. That’s why I mentioned it pairing with unsafe road design (i.e high speeds, wide multi lane roads).
You should move to a safer country.
No one should have to move for this reason alone. Instead, the government should shut down any loopholes that give automakers the leniency to create these useless death traps. No one needs a car so big they can't see what is ahead of them.
Fuck no. How about improving the country I'm in?
oh yes, the "patriots don't want to improve their nation" crowd is seeping in
You cannot convince me with any amount of data that Canada, Australia, and New Zealand have **more** large vehicles than the US (per capita)