I just have an issue with misuse of statistics. "1 in 3000 people died in car accidents each year" is a useless number that gives you no information you can base a decision on, though granted, it's at least more info than before. But still, what do we get from it? Assuming it's correct, is it saying that for every 3000 deaths 1 was in a car crash? If so, seeing as that figure was around 2.2% in 2017, with much better traffic laws, infinitely safer cars, better road design, construction, and materials... You can draw exactly zero conclusions from that stat. Were a lot more people dying in the 30s from other preventable causes? Are people now a dying much less? No idea. There's so much noise, how do you even factor in seat belts?

If you want to draw conclusions from statistics you need to use the right ones. If we're comparing traffic safety then at least start here: how do injuries+deaths/km travelled compare from the 30s to now?

If not, then why?

I didn't downvote, but I already mentioned my objection that ‘dead or alive’ aren't the only two possible outcomes of a car trip. So the calculation should be different.

The person who put her legs up on the dashboard and ended up with said legs way in her pelvis, has lived iirc.

Also, this is a prime example of a ‘black swan’ event: happens rarely, but when it does, you really fucking wish it didn't.

You typed words onto a public forum. Then you told the people reading them you didn't say that, when they can just scroll up and see you say that.

Are you?