45
submitted 2 months ago by joelthelion@lemmy.world to c/europe@feddit.org
top 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] norimee@lemmy.world 26 points 2 months ago

I heard that Finland fines traffic violations in relation to income.
Maybe it does help, when fines not only hurting poor people...

[-] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 20 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

What are the colours in that chart actually based on?

Based on that you'd think a number of countries are awful that according to the actual stats aren't bad at all.

E.g. UK and Ireland both on 2.9 road-related deaths per 100k, among the lowest in Europe, but red (generally meaning bad) on this (unlabeled) graphic.

Germany and the Netherlands, for example, look far safer based on this graphic, but have a substantially higher death rate.

Finland has the exact same death rate as the UK and Ireland per 100k people, however has a significantly higher death rate per billion km traveled, at 5.1 versus 3.8. This is despite Finland having lower speed limits and a much lower population density.

The stats do not back up this article's assertion at all.

[-] MicrowavedTea@infosec.pub 14 points 2 months ago

It seems to be about decrease in road deaths rather than number of road deaths. The article does eventually lead to a source. The image is in this pdf report

I didn't read the full report and can't tell if it's accurate but it makes more sense seeing countries with generally worse road conditions having more growth in the last years.

[-] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

Ah, this is a much better image, with an explanation that makes sense.

[-] Successful_Try543@feddit.org 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Skimming through their website https://etsc.eu/projects/pin/ I get the impression that it's about awarding progress, i.e. the achievement of a reduction in death rate during the last decade, not about awarding an actually good status quo.

[-] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 2 months ago

which, you know, is kinda sorta extremely misleading

[-] Successful_Try543@feddit.org 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

The title of the post is misleading. The graphic itself needs context, as any graphic does.

[-] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

That makes sense, thank you

[-] trollercoaster@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago

I'd be willing to take bets that the typical fatal traffic accident in Finland looks a bit different than in more densely populated countries. My guess is that it's something like "single car vs. tree on a lonely country road", while in more densely populated countries, the involvement of multiple vehicles is more likely.

[-] Successful_Try543@feddit.org 5 points 2 months ago

Trees don't cross the street, mooses do.

[-] trollercoaster@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago

Almost forgot about the local wildlife up there. But yes, that's likely also a big factor. Also Avoiding to hit a moose can easily line you up for hitting a tree. (not sure what's the lesser evil here, moose are massive and have the bulk of their body weight right at windshield height, at speed such an impact won't end too well, just as impacting a tree) Or make you tip over your car, if it's not built for that sort of thing. (Totally not looking at the early Mercedes A-Class)

[-] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago

These are relative improvement numbers. Red means "less than 12% reduction". They're not total traffic deaths in any way.

It's also really hard to compare absolute traffic death numbers. Deaths per kilometer are influenced by country density, etc. Deaths per vehicle are skewed by multi-vehicle ownership. Deaths per person are skewed by trip length. Deaths per trip are basically unmeasured in most places.

Ideally, you'll want to compare specific details in depth. For example: 91 cyclists died in the UK and 684 died in the Netherlands, but those numbers are meaningless if you don't know the distance travelled and the cause of the accident. The vast majority of Dutch cycling deaths (and a very large fraction of all traffic deaths) are old people in "single-sided accidents", for example, something that almost never happens in the UK. Does that mean the bike paths in the UK are super safe, or does it mean grandma never goes grocery shopping by bike?

Similarly, this article points out that traffic deaths per person didn't decrease much since 2022. I'd say that's a huge win, since the number of kilometers travelled went up hugely since a little something called covid restrictions.

[-] P1nkman@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

In Denmark, it not matter how good the roads are, as it seems like 40% of drivers DNGAF about any rules. I've been driven off the road by a semitrailer because I did not drive above the speed limit. Weekly see people driving way above the speed limit in school sonez.

Unpopular opinion: I am so fucking tired of these assholes risking my life driving like fucking maniacs, that I hope they become stuck in a wheelchair for the rest of their life when they crash and hit a tree. Every fucking one of them.

[-] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 months ago

The article is remarkably short on absolute numbers.

Finland reached 4.7 deaths per billion kilometers. The Netherlands is around 4.3 deaths per billion kilometers

For them to reduce by almost 30% to a level still 10% higher than the most densely populated country is good, but it's shocking that it used to be SO bad.

[-] Evotech@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

I mean, road conditions in Finland is much worse. Harsh winters, mountains etc

this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2024
45 points (86.9% liked)

Europe

1509 readers
330 users here now

News and information from Europe 🇪🇺

(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)

Rules (2024-08-30)

  1. This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
  2. No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
  3. Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
  4. No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism.
  5. Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
  6. If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
  7. Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in !yurop@lemm.ee. (They're cool, you should subscribe there too!)
  8. Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
  9. No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)

(This list may get expanded when necessary.)

We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.

If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.

If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the mods: @federalreverse@feddit.org, @poVoq@slrpnk.net, or @anzo@programming.dev.

founded 4 months ago
MODERATORS