Pic taken from roadway.report, an interactive map of all known roadway deaths in the USA.

Fatalities resulting from motor vehicle crashes are the third largest cause of accidental deaths in the United States. On average for 2024 there were over 100 deaths per day on US roads.

all 37 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 95 points 3 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 47 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    This graph would be identical for nearly any cause of death. Yes, we should drive less, and if we must drive then it should be safer, but this is just a graph of population, which itself is highly correlated with people dieing.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 17 points 3 months ago* (3 children)

    https://roadway.report/population

    They have a per capita adjusted map too. Cities are much lower than rural areas generally.

    They even provide access to the underlying data.

    https://roadway.report/accidents/

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 3 months ago

    I wasn't really surprised by that. My county is corrupt to the core, and intentional hit and runs are written up and reported as accidental, unless you aren't paying or related to people.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    that's crazy to think about, you think of cities being way worse, but I guess it does make sense.

    Rural people drive faster, and there are very few pedestrians.

    Smaller cities are light on pedestrians and very car focused, meaning those few pedestrians have drivers who are less used to pedestirans, and drivers still drive like they're on highways.

    I was in Albuquerque recently, and I have never felt less safe as a pedestrian. You have people swerving through intersections, being surprised we were walking on the walk signal, upset with us, we had to walk around parked cars, into traffic, it was horrible.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Rural areas also have less well-maintained roads, poorer lighting, and more wildlife that may run into the road, in addition to requiring more driving because everything is further apart.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    more likely to have larger cars as well, whereas in cities there's probably some sort of incentive to having a slightly smaller car for at least some people

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    Rural areas tend to require 4-wheel drive more often, which tends to be offered more often on SUVs and the like (the added clearance doesn't hurt). But cars across the board in the US have been getting larger for the last 30 years, to the point it's even causing problems with road maintenance. The more compact vehicles common in Asian and European cities are often not even sold in the US anymore.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago*

    I remember reading an article a while back on how the vast majority of pedestrian deaths - even before accounting for population density - are on rural arterials during the evening and night. Something like 75% or thereabouts.

    And to be clear, "rural arterial" doesn't necessarily mean it's outside of city limits, it's a category of road that has no sidewalks, often no streetlights, high throughput, but still has auto-oriented businesses or homes fronting it. A road that was never meant for pedestrians but sometimes people need to walk alongside regardless.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 3 points 3 months ago* (1 child)
  • [–] [S] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)
  • [+] 1 point 3 months ago* (1 child)
  • [–] [S] -1 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    I don't care either. Disengage.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 3 months ago

    Other causes of death would likely look less like spiderwebs since it's just a population density map by counties, but this one is specifically along roadways. The interesting difference between a population density map and this map specifically is you can see the long stretches of roads in the middle of nowhere and how dangerous they can be.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 24 points 3 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 child)

    We should standardize on printing statistics like this in magenta superimposed on the population density printed in yellow—then per capita differences would show up as different hues (pinkish for high per-capita rates or orangish for low).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    I think for this map to be salvaged you need to fix the denominator and not use political boundaries for aggregation. Hexagons or raster because the entire point is to make it arbitrary. The formula would need to be something like (Auto Deaths per capita)/(Road Miles Traveled Per capita), or maybe (Auto Deaths per capita)/(Sum of length of roads per cell).

    Regardless, its still a population map because the denominator gets really small in rural areas, and the map still doesn't tell us anything about how safe or dangerous roads are.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 3 points 3 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago* (1 child)

    #EvenThatMapEndsUpBeingAMapOfPopulation,ButMoreOfABoolean,BecausePeopleDon'tDieWhereThereAren'tPeopleAndItTakesTwoToTango

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 5 points 3 months ago* (1 child)

    The red is higher rate of death per capita. You can die in a car by yourself in the middle of no where.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    #IThoughtWeWereHavingThisConversationInHastagsButTheIssueIsTheDenominator,andThatThereIsPracticallyNoOneInRuralAreas,SoAnyNumberOfDeathsOverAMuchSmallerNumBerAppearsBig.ItsStillAMapOfPopulation

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 4 points 3 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    #TheyShouldProbablyBeUsingAMoreStandardRasterGridAndThenDividingBySomeNumberThatAccountsForTheDistanceTravelledPerUnitRoadInAGivenCell

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 3 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    #ItsNotLikeWeDon'tKNowTheseAreCensusTracks,ItsThatCensusTractsAreNotAgreatWayToAggregateThisParticualarSpatialDataBecauseAgain,YouJustEndUpWithSomeVariantOfPopulationMap

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    The most granular population density data in the USA can be found at the census tract level, which provides detailed demographic information for small geographic areas.

    Data is not magical, however much you wish it to be.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    Data is not magical, however much you wish it to be.

    I've built maps estimating how much of your lawn you are watering at at 15cm pixel resolution. Techniques to count how many cars per driveway are parked at evening hours. How much water, per hour, being used by every address in a county.

    I have seen dashboards developed by collaborators who have access to near real time data regarding the physical positions of hundreds of millions of devices.

    Just because its the highest resolution data that you know about, doesn't mean its the highest resolution data which exists.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (1 child)