Talk:Transportation safety in the United States

Untitled

The original for "Transportation safety" is a short article focused on the United States and providing detail only for automobile accident rates. It would be helpful to expand the article with historical data on other modes of transportation and with information for other countries.

Craig Bolon 22:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• I renamed the article to better reflect on its content. Johntex\^talk 22:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• The statistics compare apples to oranges. Since not everybody on the plane dies in every plane crash, the correct aviation statistic to compare to fatalities per million road miles would be fatalities per million passenger departures. Numbers of passenger departures can be found here for 1996-present; when I run the numbers I get .129 fatalities per million scheduled aviation passenger departures for 1996-2009.

Unless there is disagreement here, I will figure out how to edit the wiki and make the correction.

Using scheduled commercial aviation fatalities per million passenger miles would complicate things interestingly, since shorter flights are likely more dangerous per mile (takeoff and landing being the most dangerous segments of a flight) than longer flights and people are more likely to choose driving over flying for the distances covered by shorter flights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.20.202.126 (talk) 02:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The title of this page is still lacking. The entire article is on traffic fatalities. That's a narrower topic than the titled 'Traffic Safety'. Nrjank (talk) 13:06, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

abosulute crap :) BackAtItAgain (talk) 00:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Rail safety

Linking to here from another article in the hopes of there soon being statistics on rail safety in terms of passenger-miles travelled. -- Beland 16:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Stats should also be reconciled with air safety. -- Beland 16:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The chart at the top right of this page has a spelling error. The Y-axis label says "vechcle-miles" instead of "vehicle-miles" -- Etwilson 21:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Private motor car vs public transport per capita

with a large connotation of danger surrounding public transportation, it would be nice to crunch the numbers of the source I added to see how they really compare at least according to the study. Just from a five minute look I deduce that counting only cars and light trucks the number is about 300 times higher than the number of deaths on subways and light rail. I did not include the bus deaths because they also include school buses and intercity buses although I'm quite certain most of the deaths are on public buses public transport that is. I'm not sure how much that would skew the numbers anyways since the majority of public transit buses in many cities across the country, but obviously would tip the scales a little bit in the favor of the private automobile. the question is are there three hundred times as many car trips per day month year as subway and light rail trips? http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_02_04.html B137 (talk) 05:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Comparison of risk using different types of rates

In response to this edit, saying, " commercial aviation is the safest mode of travel in the United States", this statement is overly simplistic, and uses the data too crudely. While this approach is common, part of the point of this article is to discuss transportation risk in a more nuanced way.

It's pretty muddled, but parts of this article are attempting to discuss the different ways of framing a risk question, which lead to different answers. You could ask what is the risk given a fixed distance that needs to be traveled, such as a daily commute, or a single trip of a given distance. Or you could ask the risk for a given amount of time using that mode of transport. Or, it could be framed as the risk per trip. Such as:

• Is it safer to spend two hours of leisure time walking, bicycling, motorcycling, driving, flying, or riding a train?
• Is it safer to make a daily commute by walking, cycling, motorcycling, driving, flying or train?
• Is it safer to make X trips in each of the above?

For things like bicycling or motorcycling, the first question may be relevant: a person might only be deciding how to spend their recreation time, and the distance traveled during that time, determined by the speed, is of little importance. While for the commuter, the distance is fixed. The third question is unlikely to to affect a person's choice of mode, but it informs the answers to the first two questions. Billionaires who commute very short distances, say 5 miles, by plane or helicopter, are not enjoying the safety benefits of air travel. The large risk during takeoff and landing is not amortized over a long trip, as it would be for a cross-country air trip, and so it is likely that driving a car that 5 miles would be much safer. Other statistics are collected as well. Often fatality rates for pedestrians, cyclist, and even motorcyclists and drivers are expressed in per capita fatalities, only comparing the number of deaths to the population, ignoring how many people use that mode, how far they travel, or how many trips they make. This crude measure is common because data is easy to collect. Developing countries often change modes over time, going from a pedestrian society, to a cyclist, to motorcyclist, to a car culture. When cars are rare in a country, and drivers are only the very rich, pedestrian fatalities can be a problem due to the public not expecting do see a car on a road, and drivers having little experience. Yet the numbers might look low per capita, since there are so few cars. The pedestrian fatality rate in Manhattan can look much different if you consider the deaths per capita (higher than other US cities) or the rate per pedestrian mile (much lower than other cities). MY source for the above is Why We Drive the Way We Do (and What It Says About Us) by Tom Vanderbilt. There's lots of other discussion and research: [1][2][3][4]. Etc. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

If the modal choice had to be made based on safety, yes. But people do not chose their transportation based on a safety criteria. Safety comes after: once you have chosen your transportation mode, you wonder how to reduce the fatalities risk.

The question you raise is how can such statistics be computed? Fatalities is easy: counting is enough. The ration by population can be computed based on census data. Fatalities by vehicles km can be computed based on an estimate of km traveled by vehicles. But nobody know how many people are in vehicles, so you can easily know the risk by vehicle but not by people... The same difficulty should exist for travel time.

At the opposite, there are statistics which show when traffic is more risky: [5]

For aircraft statistic by km and by hours do exist by aircraft, but not by travelers: [6]

/html/table_02_10.html]

For train, it exist Fatalities per 100 million passenger train-miles [7]

If you consider there is more than one passenger by aircraft this might make commercial aviation safer than the train, at least in the USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.104.227 (talk) 00:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Here it is:

Traffic safety by mode by traveled distance

Source: caranddriver, US Department Of Transport

Traffic safety2: Fatalities per billion passenger kilometres for different mode of transport (EU-28 in 2010-2014)

Source: ERA Note: source gives a comparative ratio based on train fatalities ratio known to be 0.12. No accurate number is available for vessel passenger

Road Traffic safety in the United States vs Transportation safety in the United States

It looks like Road Traffic safety in the United States might be an article independent of Transportation safety in the United States.

So, I wonder if it possible to create such an Road traffic safety in the United States article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.104.227 (talk) 08:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

IMO, this article in its current state is just a disaster. OTOH, the article we should have "Road Traffic safety in the United States" doesn't exist. I suggest renaming the existing article as indicated, consisting of the existing content of the "Road safety" section. Then we don't find ourselves tangled up in the question of how to compare the safety of air travel vs. road travel, allowing the article to focus on a more narrow range of modes of transportation. Fabrickator (talk) 23:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

We Don't Have a Comparison of Road Fatalities and Very Low Driver Qualification and Training

Surely, this is a significant factor worthy of exploration and recording.

.

Rail Safety in the Good Old Days?

What was rail safety like in the Good Old Days (c.1950, 1900 or 1850)? While stats would be rough, do we have a general feel?''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 07:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I do not know for the good old days, but there is Category:Railway accidents in the United States.

For instance 1887 Great Chatsworth train wreck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.96.193 (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

For instance Ashtabula River railroad disaster (in 1876) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.96.193 (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I did not searched specifically for years 1950, 1900 or 1850, but if you are interested by some piece of statistics:

• 6766 fatalities in 1925, and 7090 in 1926, that is twice french statistics in killed by train hundred million kilometers «Aux États-Unis, le nombre total des tués est passé de 6.766, en 1925, à 7.090, en 1926, soit, par cent millions de trains kilométriques, de 732,3 à 768,1 ; la proportion atteint presque le double de celle de la France.» source: Annales des mines ou Recueil de mémoires sur l'exploitation des mines et sur les sciences qui s'y rapportent Éditeur : Treuttel et Wurtz (Paris) ; Carillan-Goeury (Paris); Dunod (Paris); Date d'édition : 1928 http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k9618419h/f131.item
• You also have statistics in killed by train hundred million kilometers from 1923 to 1926 (accidents e train, accidents de pasages à niveaux, ensemble) See: Annales des mines ou Recueil de mémoires sur l'exploitation des mines et sur les sciences qui s'y rapportent Éditeur : Treuttel et Wurtz (Paris) ; Carillan-Goeury (Paris) ; Dunod (Paris) ;Date d'édition : 1928 http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k9618419h/f128.item
• You have various statistics regarding employee accidents with (or without) attelage automatique, in various years and in various countries from continental Europe and north America; see L'attelage automatique et la sécurité des travailleurs des chemins de fer, Par M. EM. UYTBORCK, INGENIEUR HONORAIRE DES CHEMINS DE FER DE L'ÉTAT BELGE. from page 1113 Source: Bulletin de l'Association internationale des chemins de fer ["puis" du Congrès des chemins de fer] Auteur : Association internationale du congrès des chemins de fer; Éditeur : (Bruxelles) Date d'édition : 1924-12 Link: http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k5818862j/f40.item
• In 1912 and in 1913, there was 318 travelers fatalities killed by railways in the USA, and 302 people killed in the streets of New York by automobiles. See Le Journal des transports : revue internationale des chemins de fer et de la navigation Éditeur : (Paris) Date d'édition : 1914-05-23 Link: http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k5763279b/f9.item
• In 1882 there was a train bridge collapse between Boston and Maine. The text says that such accidents are not rare but can sometime be avoided with piece of wood, even if in the case of a bridge collapse it is more difficult. See Revue industrielle : revue mensuelle technique et économique Éditeur : (Paris) Date d'édition : 1882-01-04 http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k97701580/f82.item
• You have statistics for number, million dollar damage, killed and hurt people, and also killed by traveller million kilometer during year 1926 and 1927 in the USA. See Revue générale des chemins de fer Éditeur : Dunod-Gauthier-Villars (Paris) Éditeur : Elsevier (Paris) Date d'édition : 1930-05 Source: http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k64752826/f62.item

Hope this might help you to improve wikipedia article. regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.96.193 (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

NTSB named oecd ?

Just wondering wht NTSB source is named oecd in

NTSB <ref name="oecd">  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.104.162 (talk) 07:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC) 

37% figure

The article writes:

but when the federal government provides some guidances for safety measure which would reduce death by 37%, such as alcohol in 1998 or motorcycle helmet in 1967, around ten years are necessary for such measures be implemented by a number of local governments.

This is an incorrect reading of the citation — the cited paper writes:

The U.S. government in 1998 imposed financial penalties on states that did not have a prohibition on open containers that met federal standards. As of February 2007, only 39 (out of 50) states and the District of Columbia had such laws. Yet drunk driving was responsible for between 32 and 37% of motor vehicle fatalities in the U.S. in 2008.

The fact that drunk driving caused perhaps up to 37% of motor vehicle fatalities does not imply that prohibiting open containers will eliminate all of those deaths.

I agree with the sentiment of this sentence, but it's factually incorrect as written.

Wesleyac (talk) 20:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

confused about "archived copy" titles

In this diff, the titles which specify "archived copy" are actually linked to live urls. I realize this is because "url-status=live", but the result is a little bit strange. OTOH, it seems contrary to IABot documentation that it even operates on live links. What am I fundamentally missing here? Fabrickator (talk) 05:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Does this make sense?

" fatalities increased to nearly 38,680 due to fewer people driving on the road (13% less distance) and more risky behavior" Why would fewer people driving (actually fewer miles traveled, which is not the same) INcrease fatalities? On the surface of it, I would think we would expect a DEcrease (fewer miles-->less opportunity for accidents-->fewer accidents--> fewer deaths). Is the sense behind the statement that with less mileage there is more behavior that is risky? What would support this idea? 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:BCDB:9B54:6232:A0C0 (talk) 14:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• It clearly explains it in the article and the source why. You intentionally did not copy and paste the whole sentence as it occurs in situ in order to grandstand for some reason. Let's discuss the article and not attempt to meme the page "with facts and logic" to pursue an agenda. JesseRafe (talk) 19:52, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  Here is the full sentence: "In 2020, fatalities increased to nearly 38,680 due to fewer people driving on the road (13% less distance) and more risky behavior, including speeding, failing to wear seat belts, and driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol." I still don't see a clear explanation. The sentence says "and," not "causing." Why does less mileage increase fatalities? 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:9967:3817:9EC9:184 (talk) 20:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

It specifically says it is "due to" that means "causing", that's the answer to your question. JesseRafe (talk) 15:04, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Intrus

In the section "Train safety compared to other nations by traveled distance," the word 'intrus' is used. Searching various online dictionaries, I could not find this word in English. What does it mean? 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:BCDB:9B54:6232:A0C0 (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

No citation for the statement that driving on highways is safer

There should be some supporting evidence for the highways being safer than non-highway road claim... 104.172.234.209 (talk) 04:33, 8 April 2023 (UTC)