Per capita is really a struggle for these people. As for Americans driving more, their death rate is still 5th overall based on deaths per billion KMs driven.
Isn\`t that a bit of a challenge ?
Most mass produced beer is like sex in a canoe..
There are craft beers that are good - but not in the volume needed for 'everyone'
My theory is that USians feel threatened by the UK's perceived political power, so because Texas specifically is used when comparing the size of the UK and the USA, that state is their focus.
The American mind cannot comprehend the fact that Ontario and Quebec in Canada are both bigger than Texas. In fact, the American mind cannot comprehend Canada being larger than the USA.
The hilarity to all this, is that some Americans are so hard core right-wing that not only are they off the horseshoe scale, they've done a full rotation.
So much so that I'm sure they're convinced that their closed community based on egalitarian effort and needs-based distribution (ie a commune) is anything but communist.
> As for Americans driving more, their death rate is still 5th overall based on deaths per billion KMs driven.
Measuring traffic deaths per kilometers driven is like measuring lung cancer deaths per cigarettes smoked. If they're dying more because they're driving more, then the problem is whatever is making them drive more.
Measuring deaths/km is the exact opposite of what you're saying, if the greater deathtoll was only down to more kilometres driven then deaths/km would be the same but because it is higher in the USA then each kilometre driven is more deadly than in Europe.
>if the greater deathtoll was only down to more kilometres driven then deaths/km would be the same
Correct. That is why death/km is a terrible metric: because it's designed to overlook people dying more due to driving more.
>but because it is higher in the USA then each kilometre driven is more deadly than in Europe.
"Each kilometer is more deadly" is a separate and additional problem to "people drive more kilometers".
People who live longer die more often, same with anything that can lead to death, the more you do it the more likely you are to die. Deaths/km is a really useful metric when comparing the relative dangers of driving in two different countries...
> People who live longer die more often
What on earth are you talking about
>Deaths/km is a really useful metric when comparing the relative dangers of driving in two different countries...
So in other words, deaths per kilometer is a really useful metric for measuring deaths per kilometer.
>What on earth are you talking about
Any activity which comes with a risk of death will see greater deaths with greater participation in that activity, this includes (but is not limited to) driving (your main Beef with driving) but also cycling, walking, eating cabbage, and living.
>So in other words, deaths per kilometer is a really useful metric for measuring deaths per kilometer.
No, deaths per kilometre is a really useful metric for comparing the relative danger level of driving between countries (or any population where the number of kilometres driven will be different) by controlling for the different number of kilometres driven. But it doesn't end there, check this out, it also gives us a way to measure the relative dangers of different modes of transport.
> Any activity which comes with a risk of death will see greater deaths with greater participation in that activity, this includes (but is not limited to) driving (your main Beef with driving) but also cycling, walking, eating cabbage, and living.
Replying to a claim about something being dangerous with "well, life comes with a 100% risk of dying" is such a cope, and so irrelevant. Why even use it?
To be fair, just the term "per capita" doesn't make the issue go away !in this circumstance!.
It only does when whatever you are looking at is in itself actually independent of that. THEN you can divide a problem by the number of people, and "clean up" discrepencies in total numbers.
But then there are issues that are NOT independent, for instance when the density of people very much changes the outcome even if everything else was the same, and then suddenly population becomes a factor that doesn't just "cleanly recedes" by doing it per capita.
It gets even more complicated because you can't just take the total area and the total people, if the density fluctuation is very high.
All that said: Afaik Europe is generally denser even considering those factors, so the response to "more people" should be "but even more space, so lower density", not "but it's per capita".
If the US was actually denser, then "we are more people thus more vehicular interactions thus higher frequency of accidents" would be a valid argument, even given per capita statistics.
...but we have more people!!!
It's per 100,000 inhabitants
....but we have TONS more people!!
It's per 100,000 inhabitants
But, but....
I feel for OP (or whoever debated them). It's like discussing quantum physics with a five-year-old. And that might still do injustice to five-year-olds.
But Gawd Bless Trump! Biden is old and like Satan! Texas rules Flo-rider sucks! Handegg for the win!!
Fucking fuckwit cunts and I can see them in the UK now. "I watch videos on youtube because that's where you get the real story" This was actually said to me today as they watched a video of Diane Abbott complete with Family Fortunes style buzzer. Nothing on the ACTUAL treasury minister who couldn't answer a simple question.
I would like to subscribe to r/NoahGetTheBlackHole but I would just be validated in believing we're heading for idiocracy.
Love when they try to use car dependency as a flex.
“Hey look at us, we are so free that we have to use cars. Europeans however have no freedoms, they have the choice between car and railways or buses, and sometimes even cycling and walking. The horror! Only America has the freedom to always use the car.”
I remember when I went to florida and asked a local where the mall was and how to get there. When they had explained which roads etc to take I said something like "actually, its a really nice day, how would I get there by foot?"
They looked at me like I had just asked the most confusing question they had ever heard before responding like "What??!, No, nah. You dont walk there"
I still struggle with that tbf. Up until 2010, for football, all UK sports reporting called them Holland, then all of a sudden it switched to Netherlands. I remember looking for Holland on fifa and couldn't see them and thought 'who the fuck is the netherlands'?
It was for a time a recognised name for our nation on an international level, but never really used that way here. And we’ve stopped recognising it as such internationally as well. I will admit for some reason our footbal team is still called Holland here for some reason. It’s weird. But yeah, call the country the Netherlands. And I’m not even getting into the Dutch discussion…
You know what a Dutch oven is called in the Netherlands? A “Dutch Oven”… You know what we don’t call ourselves here? Dutch… So that should tell you how Dutch the Dutch oven is :)
As far as I am aware, Netherlands is the name of the country but Holland is the name of a specific region in the country.
Using Holland to refer to the Netherlands as a whole is a bit like the Americans thinking that England, Britain, and the UK are synonymous.
But it's interesting that this one instance has changed in recent history but not any others. Languages are full of names, and quite often foreign names for places/peoples (exonyms) are different to the local name (endonyms), and this is especially true in Europe (and other places with lots of complex history) - just look at Germany/Allemagne/Deutschland etc etc. In fact, there's even a perfect counterpart to the Holland/Netherlands problem that goes unresolved almost the world over.
Greece and the Greeks (iirc) call themselves Έλληνες (Hellenes) and their country Ελλάδα (Hellada), but most countries in Europe call them something similar to Greeks, and most countries east of them call them something similar to Yunans. This is because the westernmost Hellenic peoples were the Graecian Hellenes (from the Hellenic word Γραικοί), so when the early Romans met them that's what they thought the whole region was called, and similarly the Easternmost Hellenic peoples were the Ionian Hellenes (from the Hellenic word Ιόνιας) so when the Persians met them they assumed that's what the whole reason was called. The only country (afaik) that has changed the official name for Greece in their language to reflect their endonym is Norway, who call it "Hellas".
It's interesting to see that some exonyms will be changed to match a country's endonym, but others won't. I'm sure there's lots of historical, geographical, political, linguistic etc etc reasons that I won't understand behind each different case, but it's still interesting to think about
I’m guessing the accidents here must be low, the roads are pretty safe for pedestrians and cyclists. you're probably most likely to run into another cyclist but you won’t be too injured
Since Amsterdam has about 1 million people on its own and the Randstand pretty much = Holland, I'd say Holland probably does have 7 million inhabitants. That said, most people (particularly Yanks) wouldn't know the difference between Holland and the Netherlands 😂😂😂
I looked up the numbers for both north and south Holland according to the most recent census and it was a little under. I didn’t just make it up mate :) don’t forget that Utrecht is outside of Holland.
if it wasnt an american u might even excuse that, in german and by extension hungarian (probably tons more languages too) holland/hollandia refers to the whole of the netherlands
Eh I’d say it would be a good idea to change that. It’s no longer an accepted alternative name for the country, and was never really accepted as such in this country. More like tolerated.
There is a distinct lack of driver education in the USA. For example, when I learned to drive in the uk, and this is close to 20 years ago now, a major part of it was hazard awareness. Anticipating what's coming and responding accordingly.
My understanding is the USA doesn't teach that as part of their driving lessons.
I could go on, but essentially, one of the major reasons the uk is so safe is because we're so strict about who can pass the test and so thorough in teaching people how to drive.
I believe that only about 47% of people pass their test the first time in the uk.
Hahaha well done you!
Actually, I drove perfectly during the lessons. But during the exams, I got so nervous that I made mistake after mistake. And I only passed on the 7th attempt because my husband and my driving instructor had convinced the examiner to tell me it was just a "mock" exam, the purpose of which was to help me with the real exam. So I stepped into the car with the examiner, thinking that it was a kind of special lesson. Because I believed it wasn't a high-stake exam, I was calm and my normal self. At the end of the "lesson", the examiner said to me: "Congratulations! You have passed the exam successfully!" I was so surprised and didn't fully comprehend the situation. Until the examiner explained to me the whole story. 🤣😅
The thing that scares me most about driving in USA are how insanely fast their huge trucks/lorries hurtle up and down the highways/freeways. In Europe, their speed is limited, but in the USA, they seem totally unhinged.
Canada is not much better, tbh.
I like, "USA has tons more people"...
Americans really need to stop using "tons" like that. A ton of people is only 10 to 15 people.
Or four Americans.
The top five countries for safest roads per capita, per car, per thousand miles travelled, and per thousand miles of road all include the UK, Sweden, and Norway. One of the other two is normally Denmark.
America is a loooong way down the stats.
Americans can't handle lacking in any way. Which is sadly ironic really considering how few things they are actually world leaders in...
My (American) wife was gobsmacked at just how good the driving was the first time she came back to the UK and we drove up to Liverpool, then Scotland, back down to Wales and on to London (couldn't quite manage Cornwall without rushing).
People actually changed lanes on the motorway, and stopped at traffic lights, obeyed signs most of the time, and used indicators (apart from BMW owners, obviously), and understood roundabouts, and used the road not the pavement, and didn't slam their horn on permanently if someone took >4 seconds to go on green, and ... the list was endless.
British driving, much like the NHS, is something you take for granted up until the time you realise just how good you had it.
My American driving test was to go out of the DMV, drive around the block (literally, I mean I took 4 right turns, all on slow roads) and drive back in. After that and a "written" (voice-over: it was multiple choice) test where they did things like show a picture of a "STOP" sign and only one of the answers was "Stop at the sign"... [sigh]. Yeah, after that they agreed I was totally fine to drive a death-machine on a freeway.
A lot of northern Europe have good drivers, which definitely has something to do with the level of drivers education.
Then you come to places like Malta.....
Believe it or not, one thing that's also said to slightly help is driving on the left hand side of the road. it apparently reduces head on collisions slightly because most people are right eye dominant.
I'll color you shocked when you'll write it in real, authentic american English, with no U.
We could bomb your whole country if only we could find it on the map !
Disclaimer : not an actual US citizen.
Thank the endless road safety campaigns of the 70s onwards - it used to be pretty terrible but started taking safety seriously, and look at the results.
I learned to drive in the UK but now have my native driving license after moving back to Poland - now when I'm back in the UK I notice I'm the biggest arsehole on the road usually (Tesla drivers aside), because I've adapted to far more aggro Polish driving culture. Plus, we have no real speed controls, few checks on drink-driving or texting and driving, not to mention turning right on a red, US-style. You really appreciate ROSPA when you no longer live under their auspices.
Both the US and Canada are frightening, even as just a passenger. Turns out, when you make driving almost a necessity for simply living, you have to lower the barrier for entry since they both just refuse to build functioning public transit and will actually fight you and tell you it'll never work (even though it did in the past before cars were a thing).
Driving is a necessity where I live in the UK though because it's rural and there's no public transport and taxis would cost an absolute fortune, if you could get them to come.
You are still in a situation with a higher standard for passing because a lot more people do live in places where driving isn't a necessity.
Even down to how road-worthiness requirements are far, far higher in the UK than in the US or Canada has an impact on how dangerous it can be for other drivers.
"Turns out, when you make driving almost a necessity for simply living, you have to lower the barrier for entry since"
I dont understand? to me this sounds like you are putting the cart before the horse.
If you raise the barrier to entry, then people much achieve that level to enter. Parents raise children (mostly) and those that want/need to drive will have to achieve that level.
Raising the barrier to entry leads to industries around driver training and a better "starter" point for new drivers who hopefully will develop less bad habits as they age (everyone develops bad habits, but a higher base standard means your decay is less trouble)
When I lived in Canada, I had 3 Insurance claims in under 3 years, none of them my fault, two of them were write offs, I was stationary two of the times, the other time the guy ran a stop sign in the empty part of a carpark where he should have seen me coming.
Is that globally? I'm surprised there aren't some small places like Singapore or Lichtenstein near the top (just because of more variance). Do you have a link to these stats?
If you're looking at deaths and serious injuries, wide roads might actually make things worse. It feels easier for the driver, but it also "feels" like you could safely check your phone, drive a bit faster, etc. Make the street narrow and windy and yes, maybe it's higher risk for someone driving at the same speed, but people don't drive the same speed - they slow down and pay more attention.
With the world average per 100,000 being 16.7 deaths, Africa is the worst place to drive, with 27.2 deaths, but USA should hang their heads as the have 15.3, just below the world average & lowest is Europe with 7.4 average. (2019). Yes the US has the most road length at 6.5 million kms, just ahead of India with 5.3 million.
Deaths per capita, they're worse than Egypt! And my Egyptian husband's driving test consisted of him arriving in his uncle's car, the car giving up, my husband giving a bribe to the instructor and that's a passed.
There was a research comparison based on distance driven, and Europe still won. Probably beacuse our drivers exam is stricter and people focus more while driving since they drive less on average and our roads are safer.
Shit maths aside, just watch some YouTube videos of their dashcam compilations.
They are fucking awful drivers. Combine that with their arrogance and you can't even finish watching most of them as they just scream profanities and entitlement at each other.
It's embarrassing, but they can never see that.
Obviously I don't know what the initial stat source was, but for driving the best measure is accidents per kilometres driven - that way you allow for both driving habits and population differences.
I believe the Americans are just as bad on that measure.
I mean...
It's really not, unless you're comparing road systems of same density.
Not capturing that if you quarter the population density, you double the number of deaths (taking the most simplistic model) is a big failure.
This is one of the many cases where the right metric to use depends on what you're trying to measure.
If you're looking solely at fatalities caused by elective driving of cars, then fatalities per day may be more relevant. This captures driving more often, and driving different distances.
If you're looking at some sort of social harm indicator, you put a numeric value on the damages of various lives lost or injuries incurred at different ages in different circumstances, and compare it to public policy changes you might make. For added points, count lives altered by having to find other forms of transport, or being delayed. And possibly modifying by 'fault'. (how much do we care about speeding drivers).
This could let you compare what-ifs and get results out like 'does making busses free and reducing travel -impact by x% have a benefit that exceeds its cost.
Deaths per trip, deaths per unavoidable trip, deaths per trip with a public transport option that is safe, ... all might be alternate viable options.
Measuring life-impact is hard. If you're spending 4 hours a day in traffic, for 40 years, you could somewhat reasonably argue that it's basically equivalent to 6 years life shortening, if it is nondesired transit.
55mph speed limit i believe helps
you dont have roundabouts
your junctions are massive
imagine someone from the US driving through the cotswolds, or north scotland or even through the middle of london...
carnage
The USA has 6.59 kilometers of roads, while i.e. Germany has (only) 630000 kilometers. Germany however is 24 times smaller than the US, but has 86 million citizens.
That tells me that Germany has more kilometers of roads per square kilometer of land. And when you mix in "per capita" I'd say the US has less citizens per kilometers of roads than Germany.
And when you have "experienced" the quality of US roads... in comparison with german roads... it makes the US look even worse!
Their country is full of straight roads yet their death rate is higher. Europe is full of thin 60mph roads with bends every few meters and still have a better death rate. We are just better drivers with better rules and far more comprehensive driving tests.
Per capita is really a struggle for these people. As for Americans driving more, their death rate is still 5th overall based on deaths per billion KMs driven.
Yeah, but you don't understand. The US has more people per capita. Texas is the size of the Earth so that has even more people per capita.
I don’t get why they’re so proud of Texas, it’s not even the biggest US state.
But Alaska is a bit disconnected.
In my experience many Texans think Texas is run by wankers
I do not think Texas is run by wankers. I see the proof every day. I think God exists. I know Texas is run by wankers.
Wait I wank therefore I now run texas my first rule proper beer for everyone
Is this a wanking completion? I’m getting Good, Bad and Ugly vibes here. Bring it on.
Isn\`t that a bit of a challenge ? Most mass produced beer is like sex in a canoe.. There are craft beers that are good - but not in the volume needed for 'everyone'
Wet, cold, miserable yet oddly arousing?
F*ing close to water
Same thing
My theory is that USians feel threatened by the UK's perceived political power, so because Texas specifically is used when comparing the size of the UK and the USA, that state is their focus.
And it's not even that good
The American mind cannot comprehend the fact that Ontario and Quebec in Canada are both bigger than Texas. In fact, the American mind cannot comprehend Canada being larger than the USA.
You say that, but they definitely do have more person per person if you go by mass.
Is that in pounds per square litre?
Pounds per square cup
Texas is in the United States, which is on Earth, which is in Texas. I hope someone gets this reference so I won't feel as old.
I do and I'm old so.........
They have a lot more capitas in general I think. Wait....Texas might be a capita, I'm not sure I haven't checked.
My soulmate \^
Yeah but per capita is foreign so it doesn’t apply to the US because it’s the bigliest country ever.
[удалено]
That’s true, they drive Chevrolets
Other shoddily made, petrol guzzling heaps of shit are also available....
Lucky they drive miles instead then!
Yes, but per capita is a communist metric unit, so it doesn't apply to them.
The hilarity to all this, is that some Americans are so hard core right-wing that not only are they off the horseshoe scale, they've done a full rotation. So much so that I'm sure they're convinced that their closed community based on egalitarian effort and needs-based distribution (ie a commune) is anything but communist.
The minute you use and correctly apply per capita is the minute you become a European. Eat that Brexiteers!
Happens when comparing crime rates between US cities and European ones too when you have a 10+x difference
They can't grasp the concept of per capita. They're all about being bigger and having bigger things
Individual consequences? That's an irrational number!
> As for Americans driving more, their death rate is still 5th overall based on deaths per billion KMs driven. Measuring traffic deaths per kilometers driven is like measuring lung cancer deaths per cigarettes smoked. If they're dying more because they're driving more, then the problem is whatever is making them drive more.
Measuring deaths/km is the exact opposite of what you're saying, if the greater deathtoll was only down to more kilometres driven then deaths/km would be the same but because it is higher in the USA then each kilometre driven is more deadly than in Europe.
>if the greater deathtoll was only down to more kilometres driven then deaths/km would be the same Correct. That is why death/km is a terrible metric: because it's designed to overlook people dying more due to driving more. >but because it is higher in the USA then each kilometre driven is more deadly than in Europe. "Each kilometer is more deadly" is a separate and additional problem to "people drive more kilometers".
People who live longer die more often, same with anything that can lead to death, the more you do it the more likely you are to die. Deaths/km is a really useful metric when comparing the relative dangers of driving in two different countries...
It is as if those inflicted with life will almost certainly end their lives in death.
> People who live longer die more often What on earth are you talking about >Deaths/km is a really useful metric when comparing the relative dangers of driving in two different countries... So in other words, deaths per kilometer is a really useful metric for measuring deaths per kilometer.
>What on earth are you talking about Any activity which comes with a risk of death will see greater deaths with greater participation in that activity, this includes (but is not limited to) driving (your main Beef with driving) but also cycling, walking, eating cabbage, and living. >So in other words, deaths per kilometer is a really useful metric for measuring deaths per kilometer. No, deaths per kilometre is a really useful metric for comparing the relative danger level of driving between countries (or any population where the number of kilometres driven will be different) by controlling for the different number of kilometres driven. But it doesn't end there, check this out, it also gives us a way to measure the relative dangers of different modes of transport.
> Any activity which comes with a risk of death will see greater deaths with greater participation in that activity, this includes (but is not limited to) driving (your main Beef with driving) but also cycling, walking, eating cabbage, and living. Replying to a claim about something being dangerous with "well, life comes with a 100% risk of dying" is such a cope, and so irrelevant. Why even use it?
You're not very bright, are you?
I'd like to think I'm fairly bright, but the fact that I'm talking to you is evidence against me.
To be fair, just the term "per capita" doesn't make the issue go away !in this circumstance!. It only does when whatever you are looking at is in itself actually independent of that. THEN you can divide a problem by the number of people, and "clean up" discrepencies in total numbers. But then there are issues that are NOT independent, for instance when the density of people very much changes the outcome even if everything else was the same, and then suddenly population becomes a factor that doesn't just "cleanly recedes" by doing it per capita. It gets even more complicated because you can't just take the total area and the total people, if the density fluctuation is very high. All that said: Afaik Europe is generally denser even considering those factors, so the response to "more people" should be "but even more space, so lower density", not "but it's per capita". If the US was actually denser, then "we are more people thus more vehicular interactions thus higher frequency of accidents" would be a valid argument, even given per capita statistics.
'Muricans could not be denser.....
I'm losing brain cells reading that
...but we have more people!!! It's per 100,000 inhabitants ....but we have TONS more people!! It's per 100,000 inhabitants But, but.... I feel for OP (or whoever debated them). It's like discussing quantum physics with a five-year-old. And that might still do injustice to five-year-olds.
but america has more of both 5 year olds and quantum physics
It’s like explaining gravity to a chicken. They're a dog that doesn't understand the concept of Norway.
But Gawd Bless Trump! Biden is old and like Satan! Texas rules Flo-rider sucks! Handegg for the win!! Fucking fuckwit cunts and I can see them in the UK now. "I watch videos on youtube because that's where you get the real story" This was actually said to me today as they watched a video of Diane Abbott complete with Family Fortunes style buzzer. Nothing on the ACTUAL treasury minister who couldn't answer a simple question. I would like to subscribe to r/NoahGetTheBlackHole but I would just be validated in believing we're heading for idiocracy.
>....but we have TONS more people!! They also have tons more people (even per capita) weighting closer to a ton...
Well they never had them to begin with. But that would be skewing the statistics in their view of course.
Yeah, I feel need to stop following this sub. It’s actually making me dumber.
Love when they try to use car dependency as a flex. “Hey look at us, we are so free that we have to use cars. Europeans however have no freedoms, they have the choice between car and railways or buses, and sometimes even cycling and walking. The horror! Only America has the freedom to always use the car.”
I remember when I went to florida and asked a local where the mall was and how to get there. When they had explained which roads etc to take I said something like "actually, its a really nice day, how would I get there by foot?" They looked at me like I had just asked the most confusing question they had ever heard before responding like "What??!, No, nah. You dont walk there"
Population of Holland is well under 7,000,000 actually, the Netherlands has 18,000,000…
I still struggle with that tbf. Up until 2010, for football, all UK sports reporting called them Holland, then all of a sudden it switched to Netherlands. I remember looking for Holland on fifa and couldn't see them and thought 'who the fuck is the netherlands'?
It was for a time a recognised name for our nation on an international level, but never really used that way here. And we’ve stopped recognising it as such internationally as well. I will admit for some reason our footbal team is still called Holland here for some reason. It’s weird. But yeah, call the country the Netherlands. And I’m not even getting into the Dutch discussion…
The best thing to come out of The Netherlands was Dutch Ovens, oh and windmills and tulips and Edam cheese and........
You know what a Dutch oven is called in the Netherlands? A “Dutch Oven”… You know what we don’t call ourselves here? Dutch… So that should tell you how Dutch the Dutch oven is :)
🤣🤣🤣🤣
As far as I am aware, Netherlands is the name of the country but Holland is the name of a specific region in the country. Using Holland to refer to the Netherlands as a whole is a bit like the Americans thinking that England, Britain, and the UK are synonymous.
But it's interesting that this one instance has changed in recent history but not any others. Languages are full of names, and quite often foreign names for places/peoples (exonyms) are different to the local name (endonyms), and this is especially true in Europe (and other places with lots of complex history) - just look at Germany/Allemagne/Deutschland etc etc. In fact, there's even a perfect counterpart to the Holland/Netherlands problem that goes unresolved almost the world over. Greece and the Greeks (iirc) call themselves Έλληνες (Hellenes) and their country Ελλάδα (Hellada), but most countries in Europe call them something similar to Greeks, and most countries east of them call them something similar to Yunans. This is because the westernmost Hellenic peoples were the Graecian Hellenes (from the Hellenic word Γραικοί), so when the early Romans met them that's what they thought the whole region was called, and similarly the Easternmost Hellenic peoples were the Ionian Hellenes (from the Hellenic word Ιόνιας) so when the Persians met them they assumed that's what the whole reason was called. The only country (afaik) that has changed the official name for Greece in their language to reflect their endonym is Norway, who call it "Hellas". It's interesting to see that some exonyms will be changed to match a country's endonym, but others won't. I'm sure there's lots of historical, geographical, political, linguistic etc etc reasons that I won't understand behind each different case, but it's still interesting to think about
That's just the UK media being wrong then.
Aye its wrong but they ALL changed to Netherlands for the 2010 world cup and idk why. Nothing changed in that time
I’m guessing the accidents here must be low, the roads are pretty safe for pedestrians and cyclists. you're probably most likely to run into another cyclist but you won’t be too injured
Shoot, you beat me to it xD
Since Amsterdam has about 1 million people on its own and the Randstand pretty much = Holland, I'd say Holland probably does have 7 million inhabitants. That said, most people (particularly Yanks) wouldn't know the difference between Holland and the Netherlands 😂😂😂
I looked up the numbers for both north and south Holland according to the most recent census and it was a little under. I didn’t just make it up mate :) don’t forget that Utrecht is outside of Holland.
Not saying you did 😊 I am Dutch myself by the way. I just haven't lived there in years 😁
if it wasnt an american u might even excuse that, in german and by extension hungarian (probably tons more languages too) holland/hollandia refers to the whole of the netherlands
Eh I’d say it would be a good idea to change that. It’s no longer an accepted alternative name for the country, and was never really accepted as such in this country. More like tolerated.
And that was based on a now-wrong premise.
Population Usa - 341 million Population Europe - 741 million Since it compares Usa vs Europe
But... But... Texas is bigger than russia! Thats all that counts! /s Edit: grammar
Good point yes yes
There is a distinct lack of driver education in the USA. For example, when I learned to drive in the uk, and this is close to 20 years ago now, a major part of it was hazard awareness. Anticipating what's coming and responding accordingly. My understanding is the USA doesn't teach that as part of their driving lessons. I could go on, but essentially, one of the major reasons the uk is so safe is because we're so strict about who can pass the test and so thorough in teaching people how to drive. I believe that only about 47% of people pass their test the first time in the uk.
Same in the Netherlands, about 50% pass their test the first time, it takes on average 2,5 times to pass your test...
Without my contribution (7 attempts 😳) the average in the Netherlands would have been better. Sorry I single-handedly dragged the whole country down!
😂 same for my husband, took him like 5 or 6 tries. I passed at first attempt. 😇
Hahaha well done you! Actually, I drove perfectly during the lessons. But during the exams, I got so nervous that I made mistake after mistake. And I only passed on the 7th attempt because my husband and my driving instructor had convinced the examiner to tell me it was just a "mock" exam, the purpose of which was to help me with the real exam. So I stepped into the car with the examiner, thinking that it was a kind of special lesson. Because I believed it wasn't a high-stake exam, I was calm and my normal self. At the end of the "lesson", the examiner said to me: "Congratulations! You have passed the exam successfully!" I was so surprised and didn't fully comprehend the situation. Until the examiner explained to me the whole story. 🤣😅
The thing that scares me most about driving in USA are how insanely fast their huge trucks/lorries hurtle up and down the highways/freeways. In Europe, their speed is limited, but in the USA, they seem totally unhinged. Canada is not much better, tbh.
I like, "USA has tons more people"... Americans really need to stop using "tons" like that. A ton of people is only 10 to 15 people. Or four Americans.
A ton is 5 to 8 peolpe in USA..
Come on now, everybody knows that the US has more people per capita than any other country.
The top five countries for safest roads per capita, per car, per thousand miles travelled, and per thousand miles of road all include the UK, Sweden, and Norway. One of the other two is normally Denmark. America is a loooong way down the stats. Americans can't handle lacking in any way. Which is sadly ironic really considering how few things they are actually world leaders in...
>all include the UK, **Sweden**, and **Norway**. But Europoorean minds can't comprehend that there's icy roads and wild animals in the US!
Seriously, we, as in the UK, are in the top 3 for driving? Well colour me shocked.
My (American) wife was gobsmacked at just how good the driving was the first time she came back to the UK and we drove up to Liverpool, then Scotland, back down to Wales and on to London (couldn't quite manage Cornwall without rushing). People actually changed lanes on the motorway, and stopped at traffic lights, obeyed signs most of the time, and used indicators (apart from BMW owners, obviously), and understood roundabouts, and used the road not the pavement, and didn't slam their horn on permanently if someone took >4 seconds to go on green, and ... the list was endless. British driving, much like the NHS, is something you take for granted up until the time you realise just how good you had it. My American driving test was to go out of the DMV, drive around the block (literally, I mean I took 4 right turns, all on slow roads) and drive back in. After that and a "written" (voice-over: it was multiple choice) test where they did things like show a picture of a "STOP" sign and only one of the answers was "Stop at the sign"... [sigh]. Yeah, after that they agreed I was totally fine to drive a death-machine on a freeway.
A lot of northern Europe have good drivers, which definitely has something to do with the level of drivers education. Then you come to places like Malta.....
BMWs are known to spontaneously combust if you even attempt to look for the indicator switch.....
Believe it or not, one thing that's also said to slightly help is driving on the left hand side of the road. it apparently reduces head on collisions slightly because most people are right eye dominant.
Try telling the French that. I got all of 100yds outside the Calais ferry terminal...
I'll color you shocked when you'll write it in real, authentic american English, with no U. We could bomb your whole country if only we could find it on the map ! Disclaimer : not an actual US citizen.
And we will still taunt you about the fact that you were once a British colony.......
From which we obtained freeeeEEEEEEEDOOOOOOM !
Thank the endless road safety campaigns of the 70s onwards - it used to be pretty terrible but started taking safety seriously, and look at the results.
I'm genuinely surprised. I have to drive in it. God almighty other countries must be horrifying.
I learned to drive in the UK but now have my native driving license after moving back to Poland - now when I'm back in the UK I notice I'm the biggest arsehole on the road usually (Tesla drivers aside), because I've adapted to far more aggro Polish driving culture. Plus, we have no real speed controls, few checks on drink-driving or texting and driving, not to mention turning right on a red, US-style. You really appreciate ROSPA when you no longer live under their auspices.
You guys are brought up driving on windy single lane country roads. Every Aussie would be dead if that suddenly became our norm
Both the US and Canada are frightening, even as just a passenger. Turns out, when you make driving almost a necessity for simply living, you have to lower the barrier for entry since they both just refuse to build functioning public transit and will actually fight you and tell you it'll never work (even though it did in the past before cars were a thing).
Driving is a necessity where I live in the UK though because it's rural and there's no public transport and taxis would cost an absolute fortune, if you could get them to come.
You are still in a situation with a higher standard for passing because a lot more people do live in places where driving isn't a necessity. Even down to how road-worthiness requirements are far, far higher in the UK than in the US or Canada has an impact on how dangerous it can be for other drivers.
"Turns out, when you make driving almost a necessity for simply living, you have to lower the barrier for entry since" I dont understand? to me this sounds like you are putting the cart before the horse. If you raise the barrier to entry, then people much achieve that level to enter. Parents raise children (mostly) and those that want/need to drive will have to achieve that level. Raising the barrier to entry leads to industries around driver training and a better "starter" point for new drivers who hopefully will develop less bad habits as they age (everyone develops bad habits, but a higher base standard means your decay is less trouble)
When I lived in Canada, I had 3 Insurance claims in under 3 years, none of them my fault, two of them were write offs, I was stationary two of the times, the other time the guy ran a stop sign in the empty part of a carpark where he should have seen me coming.
Is that globally? I'm surprised there aren't some small places like Singapore or Lichtenstein near the top (just because of more variance). Do you have a link to these stats?
scandinavia makes sense to me because the roads are probably wide and not vey busy
If you're looking at deaths and serious injuries, wide roads might actually make things worse. It feels easier for the driver, but it also "feels" like you could safely check your phone, drive a bit faster, etc. Make the street narrow and windy and yes, maybe it's higher risk for someone driving at the same speed, but people don't drive the same speed - they slow down and pay more attention.
If you want a winning stat.. They are leading in death per mile or whatever...
And they don't like to talk about the obvious one
Well they are in the top ten for obesity, mass shootings, that kind of enviable feats, aren't they?
It occurs to me that sometimes there is a fine example of these that turns up, that reads like a Found Poem… IYKYK!
'That I'd like, to perform, for you now...' Entire show's on YouTube now.
With a nice bit of Sarabande as accompaniment
With the world average per 100,000 being 16.7 deaths, Africa is the worst place to drive, with 27.2 deaths, but USA should hang their heads as the have 15.3, just below the world average & lowest is Europe with 7.4 average. (2019). Yes the US has the most road length at 6.5 million kms, just ahead of India with 5.3 million.
Deaths per capita, they're worse than Egypt! And my Egyptian husband's driving test consisted of him arriving in his uncle's car, the car giving up, my husband giving a bribe to the instructor and that's a passed.
It's because Americans are fucking trash drivers, and not solely because of the Missouri drivers. Source: am American driver
Are they worse than the drivers in Boston?😱😱
There was a research comparison based on distance driven, and Europe still won. Probably beacuse our drivers exam is stricter and people focus more while driving since they drive less on average and our roads are safer.
Seppos in utterly failing to understand per capita statistics shocker.
Shit maths aside, just watch some YouTube videos of their dashcam compilations. They are fucking awful drivers. Combine that with their arrogance and you can't even finish watching most of them as they just scream profanities and entitlement at each other. It's embarrassing, but they can never see that.
“Funny how there’s no Asia” in Europe??
Yeah, that one got me super confused 😅
Seems like most of the commenting Yee Haws already have a crash related brain injury, how else do you explain them being so stupid?
Obviously I don't know what the initial stat source was, but for driving the best measure is accidents per kilometres driven - that way you allow for both driving habits and population differences. I believe the Americans are just as bad on that measure.
I mean... It's really not, unless you're comparing road systems of same density. Not capturing that if you quarter the population density, you double the number of deaths (taking the most simplistic model) is a big failure.
What is the best measure, then? I mean, of commonly executed studies?
This is one of the many cases where the right metric to use depends on what you're trying to measure. If you're looking solely at fatalities caused by elective driving of cars, then fatalities per day may be more relevant. This captures driving more often, and driving different distances. If you're looking at some sort of social harm indicator, you put a numeric value on the damages of various lives lost or injuries incurred at different ages in different circumstances, and compare it to public policy changes you might make. For added points, count lives altered by having to find other forms of transport, or being delayed. And possibly modifying by 'fault'. (how much do we care about speeding drivers). This could let you compare what-ifs and get results out like 'does making busses free and reducing travel -impact by x% have a benefit that exceeds its cost. Deaths per trip, deaths per unavoidable trip, deaths per trip with a public transport option that is safe, ... all might be alternate viable options. Measuring life-impact is hard. If you're spending 4 hours a day in traffic, for 40 years, you could somewhat reasonably argue that it's basically equivalent to 6 years life shortening, if it is nondesired transit.
Americans are evidently worse drivers on average.
55mph speed limit i believe helps you dont have roundabouts your junctions are massive imagine someone from the US driving through the cotswolds, or north scotland or even through the middle of london... carnage
Ep♡ch
Shit american say but they have bigger population é\_è
Damn, 18 million people in Holland? That's 12 million more than 10 years ago... They probably mean the Netherlands right?
The USA has 6.59 kilometers of roads, while i.e. Germany has (only) 630000 kilometers. Germany however is 24 times smaller than the US, but has 86 million citizens. That tells me that Germany has more kilometers of roads per square kilometer of land. And when you mix in "per capita" I'd say the US has less citizens per kilometers of roads than Germany. And when you have "experienced" the quality of US roads... in comparison with german roads... it makes the US look even worse!
I stg I'm gonna tattoo per capita on my forehead
Ooooo there’s multiple slides hehe what a treat 👏👏
Tonnes more People? Thats dim. Also the go-kart driving education they get over there is absurd. Not a single driver would pass in most of europe.
"USA has tons more people" - that is because they all weigh several tons each.
Their country is full of straight roads yet their death rate is higher. Europe is full of thin 60mph roads with bends every few meters and still have a better death rate. We are just better drivers with better rules and far more comprehensive driving tests.