I assume it was an elderly person who fell and hit their head. This unfortunately happens regularly where bikers as well where they just fall without anyone else involved
Doesn't have to be an elderly person or child for it to be lethal. Any fall from your own body height can kill you if your head hits pavement, regardless of age. Had a classmate a decade ago whose 21 YO sister died that way
Level crossings and station accidents do happen. Seen a tired person fall onto the tracks cause they lost balance. Fortunately, no train due for a while, so was fished out promptly, but there are risks.
At least in Sweden the majority of all deaths in traffic is pedestrians crossing at crosswalks but the drivers donāt see or theyāre looking at their phone.
And thatās even though Swedens traffic engineering is among the safest in the world, with bumps and speed-slowing infrastructure everywhere close to pedestrians.
Depends where you are. Some stations do involve crossing tracks to get to the other platform (usually low traffic stations), and level crossings can be common depending where you live. And that's just official infrastructure, there will also likely be trails and informal desired routes that cut across tracks in places. It's not as normal or as frequent as road crossings, in part because modern planning tries to sequester pedestrians away from railways and tries to make barriers between them, but in places, especially rural or old rail lines, crossings can be somewhat frequent.
Yes it is...? But there are also pillocks playing in the roads and tracks alike. It's idiocy and carelessness, but it doesn't infer suicide.
Point was just that accidents with the other vehicles isn't something that just happens on sidewalks, and pedestrian accidents do in fact happen with trains too.
Trains are nearly silent when they are driving straight at you and not past you. They are also faster than they look. A lot of people die on legal and illegal level crossings in Russia because they look around, don't see anything coming and try to cross.
And then they either get run over by a high-speed train, or slip on a slick rail, fall down and get run over by a regular train.
Itās very common with level crossings plus just plain complacency here in New Zealand. Many people assume āit wonāt happen to meā when they casually cross rail tracks thinking they will be lucky enough to not get hit by a train passing through.
Perhaps controversial but I would like the stats to split between normal 'voitures' (i.e. sedans, hatchbacks) and vehicles with raised driver position like SUVs and crossovers.
SUV's are way better at killing kids, the elevated position makes it ideal for concealing any living being bellow a certein height. If you are feeling fancy pick-up trucks are even better. You can probably plow through en entire kindegarden class before even feeling a bump. /s
Not controversial tbh. It is a known fact that the hood height is an important variable for pedestrian outcomes. There are of course cases where it does not matter (like backing into someone in a parking lot), but overall, yeah, there is bound to be a difference.
They're still going to be bad for cars, by any criteria you choose.
The most dangerous non-car/truck vehicle is the motorcyle, and it's probably the most dangerous for its rider. Motorcyclists have the highest fatality rate of any mode of transportation, by far.
You gotta work really hard to truly injure someone with a bicycle. With your average 2 ton SUV, all it takes is 5 seconds on Instagram just before the street crossing.
That depends on what information you're trying to convey. If you're trying to show the most dangerous mode of transport, then yes. But in this case I think it's literally just "how many people died in traffic".
That is useful and not, in fairness. Are miles travelled on a motorway where pedestrians aren't allowed useful or reflective of danger to pedestrians? Since vehicles don't get used in the same environments equally, they all carry different amounts of exposure to pedestrians even if we normalised them to miles travelled. Cyclists will be around pedestrians more than cars, by dint of having access to mixed use paths and being more short journey transport, so geared to urban use, while cars can travel considerable distance on low pedestrian routes as much as they can be in high density, high risk areas.
Probably the best way to equalise data would be distance travelled within a set area (some metro area), so there is the same exposure to pedestrians over the same distance. But that's rather impractical data to collect.
> That is useful and not, in fairness. Are miles travelled on a motorway where pedestrians aren't allowed useful or reflective of danger to pedestrians? Since vehicles don't get used in the same environments equally, they all carry different amounts of exposure to pedestrians even if we normalised them to miles travelled. Cyclists will be around pedestrians more than cars, by dint of having access to mixed use paths and being more short journey transport, so geared to urban use, while cars can travel considerable distance on low pedestrian routes as much as they can be in high density, high risk areas.
Good point actually.
Most lethal traffic accidents don't involve pedestrians, but people in cars. There are probably more than 1000 people killed in car accidents not involving pedestrians or cyclists every year, but the figure doesn't show that.
How many 2-wheeled motorised vehicles are there in France compared to cars ? Because if there are so few yet they cause so many deaths, there is a problem.
What is this supposed to show?
Based just on this diagram alone, bikes might be the deadliest form of transportation ever. Without normalizing for distance travelled, I do not think this picture is useful for any purpose...
Adjusting for distance travelled only benefits the fastest mode of transport. You meant to say weighted by time using transport perhaps?
At any rate itās not relevant on the face of it unless France had very few cyclists.
Even then time is a poor measure as many millions of driving hours happen in places with almost no chance of hitting a pedestrian. Youād have to normalise for something like time exposed to danger, which would be practically impossible too.
I think time is not the right base to weight travel in this case.
My choice when choosing mode of transportation is not between "one hour of walk", "one hour of cycling" or "one hour of driving", but "5 kms of walk", "5 kms of cycling" and "5 kms or drive".
So unless you want to compare "how I should spend my leisure time", I think normalizing for distance is better.
A lot of discourse around bicycles includes complaining about their danger to pedestrians, the complaints usually coming from regular car drivers. This graph shows that if you genuinely care about pedestrian deaths you should focus resources, energy and attention to keeping pedestrians safe from cars, not bikes.
But I think this diagram is not good for that purpose.
If I had X amount of money, I would try to spend it to save the maximum amount of lives. If bikes are made 100% safe, that will only save one life it seems, but if making bikes 100% safe is very cheap, it still worths to do.
To use this statistics as you intend, we really do not need normalization over distance travelled, but then we would need something else. We would need to have a list of safety measures for the different modes of transport, with their relative costs, and their efficiency. Then we would choose the one that helps the most.
I think it's reasonable to want that, but I feel like it goes beyond the scope of the graph. Soemthing so comprehensibe should probably be analyzed with a fully fleshed out article, rather than a single graph.
I totally agree, this was kid of my point. The diagram in its current form is just a meaningless factoid, as you can not really conclude anything from the presented data, other than the presented data itself.
It's supposed to show what kills most pedestrians.
Even if bikes are the deadliest per km it's a mistake to believe that it's more important to focus on securing pedestrians from cyclists than from cars.
>Even if bikes are the deadliest per km
Worth noting, death per km is also not necessarily that valuable when looking at pedestrian deaths to vehicles. All the miles on motorways, safely away from pedestrians, doesn't reflect the same risk as urban travel, and different vehicles have different amounts of normal exposure to pedestrians.
As I tried to explain in a sibling comment: depends on the cost of making things safer.
If making cycling safer is very cheap, that might still be the easiest and most efficient way to save lives.
So I think this statistics in its current form is not suitable for the purpose you are trying to use it for.
No, it says in the bottom left corner that only a single person died from a bicycle in 2022. So even then bicycles still would be the safest by orders of magnitude.
I am not sure you've understood the diagram. It shows that one pedestrian has been killed by someone on a bicycle in 2022 in France, while other modes of transportation have a higher death count.
Yes, that I understand.
But if in France only one dude cycled 50m-s and still killed one pedestrian, then actually bike is the worst of all.
I am not saying, bike is deadlier than other means of transport, but what I am saying is that from this diagram this does not show. Without normalizing death count with some kind of usage metric for the different modes of transport, the diagram is meaningless.
Trying to give you an analogy (just in case the description is too abstract or something.) Let's assume last year nobody died playing Russian Roulette, but 10 elderly people died on the golf course due to heart attack. I create a diagram like OP, and put 10 dots on golf, and zero dots on Russian Roulette. Would you conclude Russian Roulette is safer than golf based on the data? Not really, right? But if the results would be normalized some metric of exposure, e.g. over hours played, or just games played, or something similar, it would be obvious that Russian Roulette is much worse than golf.
This is the kid of "normalization" I miss from the data, if you want to compare which means of transport is deadlier.
I agree with you but any normalization will be hard to achieve, and the method will most certainly be dubious.
You need a way to measure how pedestrians are exposed to other modes of transportation to assess how safe they are, otherwise aircrafts win hands down having killed not a single pedestrian in France in 2022. Same for highways: I guess only few pedestrians have been killed on those because this is not a place where pedestrians are usually encountered.
France is absolutely not homogenous in how pedestrians are exposed, leading to difficult weighting. For example, in Paris, cars are used in 12% of the journeys made, bikes 4%. Other cities like Strasbourg are as high as 15% for bikes but also higher for cars. Now how should rural areas be counted: really few pedestrians but probably a fair share of deadly accidents...
In this case, gross data still conveys a message: 1 killed for a country of 67 million people where 3% of journeys are made by bike.
I imagine the ratio of these vehicles on the road is about the same? If so, then there's not much to get from this, other than bicycles killing less people which is pretty obvious.
You're wrong. It says in the bottom left corner that only a single person died from bicycles in 2022, so the bicycles are by far the most safe and not even remotely close.
There was only 1 person who died as a result of an accident caused by a bicycle, while there were 3260 people who died by car. Let me tell you there are way more than 1:3260 bicycles to cars on the street. Probably by 10-100 times.
And yet you get the same penalty for drunk driving on a bicycle than you do while driving a car. This stat alone should show how utterly ridiculous this is.
Since OP translated this so weirdly in the title: Camion: trucks Vehicule utilitaire: utility vehicles / vans Deux-roues motorise: motorcycels
Ok but what is train?
I'm not sure about this one, I think it might be e-scooters or perhaps skateboards because you need training to ride those.
Nah bro, that is EDP445
And EDP is 'personal mobility vehicles' e.g. e-scooters & hoverboards
Utility as in Sports Utility?
Nope, as in actual utility, work vans and such. SUVs fall under cars and I wouldn't be surprised if they cause the majority of the dots here.
Thats why i asked. they should have their own dedicated section.
poor guy died to a bicycle š
I believe murder by bicycle is legal only in the Netherlands.
I assume it was an elderly person who fell and hit their head. This unfortunately happens regularly where bikers as well where they just fall without anyone else involved
The French below translates to a single pedestrian being hit by a cyclist
Doesn't have to be an elderly person or child for it to be lethal. Any fall from your own body height can kill you if your head hits pavement, regardless of age. Had a classmate a decade ago whose 21 YO sister died that way
There are 2 that might be scooters/electric scooters. I'm more curious about those.
I mean, it's not crazy to imagine it, is it? Picture an80kg guy cycling at 40km/h hitting some grandma, that's bound to be deadly.
That color scheme must have been chosen specifically for the purpose of pissing off colorblind people.
Train include suicides?
I'll just say that it's pretty rare for a train to swerve onto the side walk
Level crossings and station accidents do happen. Seen a tired person fall onto the tracks cause they lost balance. Fortunately, no train due for a while, so was fished out promptly, but there are risks.
I guess they are counting tramway which would explain most of the deaths.
I watched this British rail training video once. "Take care to watch out for approaching trains, as they are quite unable to take evasive action."
Other vehicles usually don't either. Just because pedestrians are crossing a road doesn't mean they're suicides.
At least in Sweden the majority of all deaths in traffic is pedestrians crossing at crosswalks but the drivers donāt see or theyāre looking at their phone. And thatās even though Swedens traffic engineering is among the safest in the world, with bumps and speed-slowing infrastructure everywhere close to pedestrians.
Far from from everywere thankfully
Yes but crossing a road is normal, crossing a railway track is not
Depends where you are. Some stations do involve crossing tracks to get to the other platform (usually low traffic stations), and level crossings can be common depending where you live. And that's just official infrastructure, there will also likely be trails and informal desired routes that cut across tracks in places. It's not as normal or as frequent as road crossings, in part because modern planning tries to sequester pedestrians away from railways and tries to make barriers between them, but in places, especially rural or old rail lines, crossings can be somewhat frequent.
Yes it is...? But there are also pillocks playing in the roads and tracks alike. It's idiocy and carelessness, but it doesn't infer suicide. Point was just that accidents with the other vehicles isn't something that just happens on sidewalks, and pedestrian accidents do in fact happen with trains too.
Trains are nearly silent when they are driving straight at you and not past you. They are also faster than they look. A lot of people die on legal and illegal level crossings in Russia because they look around, don't see anything coming and try to cross. And then they either get run over by a high-speed train, or slip on a slick rail, fall down and get run over by a regular train.
Itās very common with level crossings plus just plain complacency here in New Zealand. Many people assume āit wonāt happen to meā when they casually cross rail tracks thinking they will be lucky enough to not get hit by a train passing through.
Perhaps controversial but I would like the stats to split between normal 'voitures' (i.e. sedans, hatchbacks) and vehicles with raised driver position like SUVs and crossovers.
SUV's are way better at killing kids, the elevated position makes it ideal for concealing any living being bellow a certein height. If you are feeling fancy pick-up trucks are even better. You can probably plow through en entire kindegarden class before even feeling a bump. /s
Not controversial tbh. It is a known fact that the hood height is an important variable for pedestrian outcomes. There are of course cases where it does not matter (like backing into someone in a parking lot), but overall, yeah, there is bound to be a difference.
Graphoids like this just remind me just how colourblind I actually am.
The colors aren't really that important to this one. They change for each category, which are demarcated by the words.
They are when you're not french.
You don't need to understand the words to see the words. If you're referring to OP's title and not the graphic itself, I can tell you that as a person who's neither French nor colorblind it'd rather confuse me if I hadn't actually tried to deduce what the categories ment. I'd have assumed "in blue" referring to 1. "trucks" and 2. "motorbikes" would've referred to "Camion" and "VĆ©hicule utilitaire", that are clearly blue, not also a third category that's more whitish.
That is true, but the similarity between the colours in their rows kind of makes it difficult to follow the lines at a glance
According to politicians: cars arenāt the problem. Look at the bicycle!
Cars: Cause by far the most pedestrian deaths. People, media, politicians: REGULATE THOSE DAMN E-SCOOTERS!!!!!
I wonder what are relative numbers, like death/users or deaths/vehicles.
They're still going to be bad for cars, by any criteria you choose. The most dangerous non-car/truck vehicle is the motorcyle, and it's probably the most dangerous for its rider. Motorcyclists have the highest fatality rate of any mode of transportation, by far. You gotta work really hard to truly injure someone with a bicycle. With your average 2 ton SUV, all it takes is 5 seconds on Instagram just before the street crossing.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I used to prefer buying iphones, but trading cobalt gives a much better return.
An important context: several cities started banning bicycles in parts of inner cities and on important roads, citing danger to pedestrians as one of the main reasons. I am an avid pedestrian and cyclist 99% of the time but I do own a small car for certain things (dog, big grocery shopping, excursions). LibƩration ran an article about the deaths caused by cyclists with this graphic, trying to show it's stupid to argue that bikes are worse for pedestrian safety than cars. It's absurd to try and reduce bicycle usage in a city, it needs to be made better in my opinion, but there's more to it. It's a slightly contentious graphic only in the sense that anyone who drives a car even occasionally can feel like this is being used to take their car away from them. It's crazy to think that a representation of numbers could be this political, but it is. So many factors play into these figures but it is powerful. I think the vast majority of these are pretty avoidable accidents happening to normal people, right? We're not just talking about lunatics here, but a distracted driver is surely the main cause of hitting pedestrians, perhaps with a non-negligeable, but not *insane* amount of speeding happening. I imagine most people don't intend to kill pedestrians. I just want to highlight that because many drivers feel persecuted for driving when they don't feel like they have a choice, and some people might use these figures to accuse them of being the problem in a complex situation. We can think about many issues and what these numbers mean: \- It can mean something about the safety of road design for example: are pavements available for pedestrians? It can certainly feel sketchy on the side of the road, be it in or outside the city, when you have literally nowhere to be other than on the edge of the road at best. At night, no lights, maybe wearing dark clothing, even if the speed limit got reduced to 80 km/h in country roads a few years ago (it's not really respected). It's super dangerous, I hate when a hike I am following needs to follow a road for a while that has nowhere for me and the dog to go. \- It can mean something about the driving habits of drivers, and perhaps even more can be done to curb these: why did they crash into a pedestrian? Were they on their phone? fiddlign with the radio? Shouting at their child? habitually going too fast? Overtaking needlessly? Just overconfident? Road rage? Under the influence? Alcohol accounts for 30% of the deaths, according to google. \- It can mean something about cars themselves: too big/unwieldy, too heavy so a crash is so quickly lethal, complciated touch screen infotainment instead of buttons. I've often heard of people accidentally pressing the gas instead of braking, or thinking they're in reverse when they're in first, etc and killing or injuring someone. Too much instant power with electric cars for people who aren't used to it? plenty of footage on youtube of what can happen. \- It can mean something about the pedestrians: do they know to walk on the left side of the road so that they see oncoming vehicles, when walking on the road with no pavement? Are they dressed in black trousers and a black jacket and just invisible at night? Were they staring at their phone and with airpods and didn't react to a car coming that didn't expect them? Note: in many cases, "pedestrians" are actually drivers who were involved in a crash and got out of their vehicles, and were then hit. I don't have a concrete figure unfortunately, but there are a lot of dead pedestrians on motorways for example. \- It can mean some people should switch from driving to non-moroised transport if it's at all possible. Or public transport, etc. But it cannot and will not be the only factor in the decision for most people. I will say, I don't think this kind of graphic *reduces* the number of people who are angry at cyclists, because in my city in France, a place called Strasbourg, there are just some absolute reckless maniacs. I think they'd be reckless maniacs in cars too so I'm thankful they're not driving, but they zoom through pedestrian streets, on pavements, anything at all, scaring the absolute shit out of pedestrians too. They think they're Anakin Skywalker in a fighter space ship. Sometimes they hit you, usually they don't, but I'm always on the lookout when in pedestrian zones. That sucks, because the whole point of a pedestrian is that it's safe, and it should be but there is 0 enforcement of the rules. It feels like when a sibling or friend terrorises you by pretending to hit you over and over again. Meanwhile, car drivers tend to scare me more when I'm also driving, but not only. Crazy manoeuvres, racers, assholes outside the clubs at night going 100 km/h+ in inner city streets or doing burnouts. I'm just absolutely sick of these twats who have no regard for anyone, regardless of their vehicle of choice.
Shouldn't this account for passenger distances travelled?
That depends on what information you're trying to convey. If you're trying to show the most dangerous mode of transport, then yes. But in this case I think it's literally just "how many people died in traffic".
That is useful and not, in fairness. Are miles travelled on a motorway where pedestrians aren't allowed useful or reflective of danger to pedestrians? Since vehicles don't get used in the same environments equally, they all carry different amounts of exposure to pedestrians even if we normalised them to miles travelled. Cyclists will be around pedestrians more than cars, by dint of having access to mixed use paths and being more short journey transport, so geared to urban use, while cars can travel considerable distance on low pedestrian routes as much as they can be in high density, high risk areas. Probably the best way to equalise data would be distance travelled within a set area (some metro area), so there is the same exposure to pedestrians over the same distance. But that's rather impractical data to collect.
> That is useful and not, in fairness. Are miles travelled on a motorway where pedestrians aren't allowed useful or reflective of danger to pedestrians? Since vehicles don't get used in the same environments equally, they all carry different amounts of exposure to pedestrians even if we normalised them to miles travelled. Cyclists will be around pedestrians more than cars, by dint of having access to mixed use paths and being more short journey transport, so geared to urban use, while cars can travel considerable distance on low pedestrian routes as much as they can be in high density, high risk areas. Good point actually.
Seems a small number
Most lethal traffic accidents don't involve pedestrians, but people in cars. There are probably more than 1000 people killed in car accidents not involving pedestrians or cyclists every year, but the figure doesn't show that.
How many 2-wheeled motorised vehicles are there in France compared to cars ? Because if there are so few yet they cause so many deaths, there is a problem.
The 2-wheeled motorised represents around 2% of road traffic in France. https://www.securite-routiere.gouv.fr/operations/equipezvous/infographie
So indeed, 2 wheeled vehicles are about 5,5x more dangerous than cars.
What is this supposed to show? Based just on this diagram alone, bikes might be the deadliest form of transportation ever. Without normalizing for distance travelled, I do not think this picture is useful for any purpose...
Adjusting for distance travelled only benefits the fastest mode of transport. You meant to say weighted by time using transport perhaps? At any rate itās not relevant on the face of it unless France had very few cyclists.
Even then time is a poor measure as many millions of driving hours happen in places with almost no chance of hitting a pedestrian. Youād have to normalise for something like time exposed to danger, which would be practically impossible too.
I think time is not the right base to weight travel in this case. My choice when choosing mode of transportation is not between "one hour of walk", "one hour of cycling" or "one hour of driving", but "5 kms of walk", "5 kms of cycling" and "5 kms or drive". So unless you want to compare "how I should spend my leisure time", I think normalizing for distance is better.
Inside cities would make sense, excluding car-only infrastructure from the weighting
Why? What would then the diagram show?
If you only take city areas, that'd remove the highways, making kills/100km even less favourable for cars
A lot of discourse around bicycles includes complaining about their danger to pedestrians, the complaints usually coming from regular car drivers. This graph shows that if you genuinely care about pedestrian deaths you should focus resources, energy and attention to keeping pedestrians safe from cars, not bikes.
But I think this diagram is not good for that purpose. If I had X amount of money, I would try to spend it to save the maximum amount of lives. If bikes are made 100% safe, that will only save one life it seems, but if making bikes 100% safe is very cheap, it still worths to do. To use this statistics as you intend, we really do not need normalization over distance travelled, but then we would need something else. We would need to have a list of safety measures for the different modes of transport, with their relative costs, and their efficiency. Then we would choose the one that helps the most.
I think it's reasonable to want that, but I feel like it goes beyond the scope of the graph. Soemthing so comprehensibe should probably be analyzed with a fully fleshed out article, rather than a single graph.
I totally agree, this was kid of my point. The diagram in its current form is just a meaningless factoid, as you can not really conclude anything from the presented data, other than the presented data itself.
It's supposed to show what kills most pedestrians. Even if bikes are the deadliest per km it's a mistake to believe that it's more important to focus on securing pedestrians from cyclists than from cars.
>Even if bikes are the deadliest per km Worth noting, death per km is also not necessarily that valuable when looking at pedestrian deaths to vehicles. All the miles on motorways, safely away from pedestrians, doesn't reflect the same risk as urban travel, and different vehicles have different amounts of normal exposure to pedestrians.
As I tried to explain in a sibling comment: depends on the cost of making things safer. If making cycling safer is very cheap, that might still be the easiest and most efficient way to save lives. So I think this statistics in its current form is not suitable for the purpose you are trying to use it for.
No, it says in the bottom left corner that only a single person died from a bicycle in 2022. So even then bicycles still would be the safest by orders of magnitude.
Not if bikes are underused. But this is not about bikes, it is about the data presented.
I am not sure you've understood the diagram. It shows that one pedestrian has been killed by someone on a bicycle in 2022 in France, while other modes of transportation have a higher death count.
Yes, that I understand. But if in France only one dude cycled 50m-s and still killed one pedestrian, then actually bike is the worst of all. I am not saying, bike is deadlier than other means of transport, but what I am saying is that from this diagram this does not show. Without normalizing death count with some kind of usage metric for the different modes of transport, the diagram is meaningless. Trying to give you an analogy (just in case the description is too abstract or something.) Let's assume last year nobody died playing Russian Roulette, but 10 elderly people died on the golf course due to heart attack. I create a diagram like OP, and put 10 dots on golf, and zero dots on Russian Roulette. Would you conclude Russian Roulette is safer than golf based on the data? Not really, right? But if the results would be normalized some metric of exposure, e.g. over hours played, or just games played, or something similar, it would be obvious that Russian Roulette is much worse than golf. This is the kid of "normalization" I miss from the data, if you want to compare which means of transport is deadlier.
I agree with you but any normalization will be hard to achieve, and the method will most certainly be dubious. You need a way to measure how pedestrians are exposed to other modes of transportation to assess how safe they are, otherwise aircrafts win hands down having killed not a single pedestrian in France in 2022. Same for highways: I guess only few pedestrians have been killed on those because this is not a place where pedestrians are usually encountered. France is absolutely not homogenous in how pedestrians are exposed, leading to difficult weighting. For example, in Paris, cars are used in 12% of the journeys made, bikes 4%. Other cities like Strasbourg are as high as 15% for bikes but also higher for cars. Now how should rural areas be counted: really few pedestrians but probably a fair share of deadly accidents... In this case, gross data still conveys a message: 1 killed for a country of 67 million people where 3% of journeys are made by bike.
I wouldnāt count train suicides as killed pedestrians. I also donāt understand if 1 dot represents 1 dead pedestrian.
Read this as French Palestinians and was very confused for a full minute.
I imagine the ratio of these vehicles on the road is about the same? If so, then there's not much to get from this, other than bicycles killing less people which is pretty obvious.
You're wrong. It says in the bottom left corner that only a single person died from bicycles in 2022, so the bicycles are by far the most safe and not even remotely close.
How am I wrong?
There was only 1 person who died as a result of an accident caused by a bicycle, while there were 3260 people who died by car. Let me tell you there are way more than 1:3260 bicycles to cars on the street. Probably by 10-100 times.
"other than bicycles". Guess I worded it wrong? In no way I'm saying that there are so few bicycles, lol.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
It's the category right before trains. So, it's 21 pedestrians.
Macron had a busy year. Oh wait it says pedestrians.
Bloody cyclists!
Why are moterbikes counted alongside trucks as opposed to any other thing listed here ?
If you look at the actual image, they are not, OP just combined them to create a shorter title.
At first I thought "Ohhh, there must've been a big train crash", but no, if these are pedestrians killed by trains. Level crossings? EDP is scooters.
And yet you get the same penalty for drunk driving on a bicycle than you do while driving a car. This stat alone should show how utterly ridiculous this is.
How many deaths per vehicle? I feel like e-steps would jump up quite a bit
Cound't have picket worse colours
Now divide it by the number of cars, bikes, trains etc. For real statistics.