Slashdot Mirror


Open Source Mapping Software Shows Every Traffic Death On Earth

cartechboy writes "Traffic deaths are set to outpace AIDS/HIV and malaria in the developing world, so the UN is trying to change that perception. This shocking open source, interactive map of crash data from the Pulitzer Center ought to help. It's grisly, but very informative. The mapping was produced by Pulitzer Center journalists using open source mapping technology from Mapbox. Compare the U.S. fatality rate of 11.4 per 100,000 to that of other nations, like the Dominican Republic, Iran, and Thailand and see how people were traveling when when killed (car, bicycle, etc)."

25 of 322 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Dominican Republic, Iran and Thailand stats by zAPPzAPP · · Score: 4, Funny

    "I would really like to know how the U.S. fatality rate of 11.4 per 100,000 compares to that of other nations, like the Dominican Republic, Iran, and Thailand, but I'm too lazy.
    Ah screw it, I'll just make it a news topic on slashdot and wait until someone else does it for karma."
    - timothy

  2. Disappointing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I was expecting a map pinpointing where every death occurred, instead we have a a funny interface to a list of ~30 countries with the # of death per 100k people.

    1. Re:Disappointing by MBGMorden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, I have to agree. I was expecting something elaborate. This could have been just as useful as a shared Google doc spreadsheet of data.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
  3. Only one thing to do! by Somebody+Is+Using+My · · Score: 5, Insightful

    US Deaths caused by illicit drug overdose - ~5,000 per year
    WAR ON DRUGS!!!!

    US Deaths caused by terrorists - 3000, twelve years ago
    WAR ON TERROR!!!!

    US Deaths caused by hacking - 1 (and that one by "friendly fire", sorry Aaron Schwartz)
    WAR ON HACKING!!!!

    US Deaths caused by automobile accidents - 30,000 per year
    umm...
    We'll get back to you on that.

    (admittedly not a fair or entirely accurate comparison... but it does say something about America's priorities.)

    1. Re:Only one thing to do! by GameboyRMH · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nothing can be done, no more trillions to blow or civil liberties to obliterate.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    2. Re:Only one thing to do! by xevioso · · Score: 3, Insightful

      US deaths cased by guns in 2010: ~30,000.

      And yet not only do idiot gun control opponents not think this is a problem, they make WAR ON GUN CONTROL LEGISLATION!!! Ludicrous.

    3. Re:Only one thing to do! by bws111 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So you're saying that the US has done nothing to improve traffic safety? No cell phone or texting laws, no crackdowns on DWI, no improvements to cars or roads? Traffic fatalitiies (per mile driven) have decreased almost every year for the last 90 years. Your post says absolutely NOTHING about 'America's priorities'.

    4. Re:Only one thing to do! by vux984 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Legal ownership of guns reduces crime.

      Ok. Lets assume that this were true. (There's no proof of this, but I'm not even interested in having that argument. Lets just assume, for the sake of argument that the presence of educated and responsible gun owners reduces crime.)

      That's fine. Lets have those.

      But what about uneducated irresponsible idiots? What about the clinically depressed? What about convicted violent felons? Does giving them guns reduce crime? Gun suicides and gun accidents skyrocket with legal ownership.

      Virtually all the proposed gun legislation out there would not take away legal gun ownership anyway, so spasming over that is a red herring.

      Gun advocates aren't waging a war to be able to own guns. They're figting a war against 'background checks' and paperwork for sales at gun shows and on craigslist. They're fighting so that even the most deranged lunatic or depressed idiot or convicted violent felon can buy a gun legally without so much as any one saying "maybe that guy shouldn't have a gun".

      The whole mockery of the gun-advocate isn't because they have a legitimate argument about crime, or the 2nd amendment -- because they do have a legitimate argument to make. But there's no reason a confirmed idiot who has a history of getting drunk and shooting at passing cars should be able to get a gun as easily as a box of instant noodles.

    5. Re:Only one thing to do! by Ichijo · · Score: 3, Informative

      21654. (a) Notwithstanding the prima facie speed limits, any vehicle proceeding upon a highway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time shall be driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.

      Let us take "the normal speed of traffic" to mean the median speed. If you're among the slower 50% of the drivers on the road, then according to the law I quoted and linked to above, you must drive in the rightmost lane.

      Some enlightened states (CT, MA, NJ, RI, TX) take it even further by prohibiting passing on the right in some cases, thereby giving authority to ticket motorists driving slowly in the left lane because they are obstructing traffic.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
  4. Re:Dominican Republic, Iran and Thailand stats by Alok · · Score: 5, Informative

    They are all there, you can also zoom in the map to make it easier to see the countries. The blue dots are just for specific news stories, hovering over a country gives you its stats.

    Dominican Republic - 41.7
    Iran - 34.1
    Thailand - 38.1

  5. Funny how this comes up... by djupedal · · Score: 4, Informative

    One thing missing, is the criteria used to determine how such deaths are qualified in each country. Japan, as an example, has their own criteria where you need to die in the first 12 hours after a crash to be counted as a highway fatality. This is dissimilar from other countries and allows Japan to appear to have much safer highways, cars, etc. in comparison.

    Skewed data is incorrect data, so it might help to at least publish stats based on identical criteria. Unless I missed it, I don't see that as part of this 'study', where it appears the stats are taken as given by each country - best example may be the two perfect scores :)

  6. Re:Improper name by robot256 · · Score: 5, Funny

    The number of people killed by roads rushing toward them is remarkable given their apparent inertness. It seems like there's hardly anywhere left that a man can enjoy an afternoon stroll off a balcony without falling victim to a bloodthirsty piece of pavement.

  7. Re:100,000? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Is there any good reason that this stat is 11.4 out of 100,000 instead of 1.14 out of 10,000 or say a normal percentage?

    Yes. If they make it "out of 10,000" then for many countries it would be less than one. Who cares if 0.72 person dies? If they make it a million, then it will be dozens to hundreds, and few people have emotional attachments to that many people. But if they use "per 100,000", the number of deaths will be about the same as the number of family members and close friends that a normal person would have.

  8. Re:Dominican Republic, Iran and Thailand stats by xevioso · · Score: 5, Funny

    I once was in Thailand, and took a minivan-taxi from thee airport to my hotel in Phuket, about 20 miles. On the way there it started pouring rain, I mean utterly pouring. As we drove down the road I saw a moped with three people on it, maybe more; I couldn't really tell because of the mass of people clinging to that thing as it was puttering down the road. There was a kid sitting on the front, and the driver was looking around the kid to see ahead. As we passed it, (it was on a side road) I noticed the driver lose control and the whole thing slid over and crashed, sending people flying. It wasn't going very fast, so I hope they were ok, but I told the driver and I don't think he cared to call the Thai version of 911. He did nothing.

    The level of stupidity on display there was mind boggling. It was stupid to drive a moped out like that in the rain. it was stupid to try to put as many people on there as possible. It was stupid not to call 911. The whole thing was surreal, and yet this happens all the time there. I understand if you have to get the whole Surapapangkornipongikongkorn family to Aunties house for dinner, but there has to be a better way.

  9. Re:Dominican Republic, Iran and Thailand stats by csubi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Really?

    First, a 10-fold difference is quite important. Second, I would like to see the average speed of motorized traffic in these countries.

    Fatality rate is 41.7 per 100000 in DR and ~4 in Germany. Now my guess is that should people try to drive in the DR as fast as it is customary in Germany, that 41.7 rate would go much higher...

  10. Re:Let me help you understand those figures by Njovich · · Score: 3, Informative

    obviously you have never driven in Netherlands. It's not that laid back and you'd be surprised by the population (and car) density. Try super high enforcement of traffic law, very strict driving exams, high quality roads, strict safety regulations for cars and separate lanes for bikes.

  11. You can say the same about guns by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You can't say the same about guns.

    Millions upon millions of guns are sold legally each year. Between hunting and range shooting you can in fact say that the OVERWHELMING majority of guns are used as safe, useful, non-criminal tools.

    Only 31k people died from gun injuries in the U.S. in 2011 - of those many were criminals shot, and 19k were suicides! Again, millions of guns sold, a tiny number of deaths, especially if you compare number of deaths per total number of guns to number of deaths per total cars...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  12. Re:How about deaths per mile traveled? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 4, Interesting

    For example, the US rate of 1.1 per 100M miles

    Interestingly, if you hop in your car and drive a mile to buy a Powerball lottery ticket, you are more likely to be killed in a wreck than to win the jackpot.

  13. Re:Doesn't seem nearly as bad as indicated by jkflying · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Yeah, but that makes the assumption that personal vehicles are the only way to get around. In Europe, for instance, people use public transport most of the time. That is much safer, and just as valid a way of reducing driving fatalities, but deaths/mile doesn't take it into account. Deaths/100k people, on the other hand, tells you that if you live as an average person in the country, this is your chance of being killed that way.

    --
    Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
  14. Re:What's wrong with "the perception"? by Valdrax · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's a poorly edited summary. As I posted above in response to a similar comment, the full text shows that they're trying to change the perception that because traffic deaths are accidental that they're unavoidable.

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  15. Re:Dominican Republic, Iran and Thailand stats by timeOday · · Score: 4, Insightful
    You are crazy. If you look at deaths per yer per 100K vehicles, the rate ranges from 14,050 (Togo) down to 4.6 (Malta). Other samples: UK (5.1), US (15), Russia (55), Bangladesh (6,300).

    14,000 vs 5 is not a close call in my book.

  16. Re:UK figure Indication of Traffic Suckage by GreatDrok · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "I've driven in the U.K. before. You don't have as many people dying because it's rare to have a chance to be going fast enough that anyone can die in an accident. Mostly you are sitting still in L.A. quality traffic jams, until you get out into way open areas."

    Bullshit - have you driven all over the UK for an extended period of time? I have. I live in NZ but used to live in the UK and I can tell you that NZ drivers are shockingly bad compared to those in the UK. UK drivers know how to use their mirrors, they don't tend to tailgate and they don't run red lights by and large. Sure, there are some arseholes on the road as there always is but the majority of UK drivers are well trained and observant, plus the cars are kept to a decently high standard due to the strict MOT that they have to undergo each year, Compulsory insurance also helps keep the idiots off the road.

    The driving test in the UK is difficult by comparison with the one in NZ and that is why it isn't surprising to see 3x as many deaths per 100,000 in NZ as in the UK. Cars here are wrecks, insurance is optional so it isn't uncommon to have hit and run incidents as I experienced last year (I now ride my motorcycle with a helmet mounted camera to give me a chance of getting their plate and model of car) and many drivers don't even have full licenses and yet learners are allowed on all roads including motorways (although learners are supposed to do no more than 70Kph.) The highest speed limit anywhere, even motorways, is 100Kph (62Mph) and even that seems too fast for some drivers who don't understand lane discipline, stopping distances or driving to the conditions (speeding in fog and pouring rain? Check. Speeding is endemic) whereas in the UK you can be tooling along at 70Mph on a good quality motorway in very heavy traffic and still the accident rates are low. Here I'm lucky to go a week without seeing a major accident on my daily commute. I've seen more accidents here in 6 years than I saw in 25 years driving in the UK.

    Sure, there are areas in the UK you don't want to drive - the M25 is a parking lot much of the time - but get outside the home counties and there are lots of decent roads and not that many traffic jams. Driving in a city is a mugs game anyway and one of the things that drove me onto a motorcycle was the fact I can get to work 3x quicker by bike (35 mins) than I can by car. The UK has more bikers which is indicated by the higher road accident percentage and it is a sad fact of life that if you aren't car shaped you're largely invisible.

    NZ has a strange mix of drivers from countries that have interesting rules too - we have Indian drivers who subscribe to the might is right rule so a bike better get out of the way of a car which better get out of the way of a truck regardless of who has right of way. Throw in lots of Chinese drivers who haven't enough road experience and then a bunch of holiday makers from the US and it gets pretty interesting.

    --
    "I have the attention span of a strobe lit goldfish, please get to the point quickly!"
  17. I have driven in the netherlands by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Interesting

    obviously you have never driven in Netherlands. It's not that laid back

    I have in fact driven in the netherlands. You may think it's not that laid back - you have plainly not driven in the U.S. or anywhere with aggressive traffic for that matter.

    Try super high enforcement of traffic law

    Not that I saw, apart from some speed cameras. It's that more people follow the rules as they are.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  18. Re:Training does not help that much. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Culturally, Germany simply has fewer self-important assholes and that shows while driving.

    True. Historically speaking, Germany has always been a non-aggressive, kind, and non-hostile country.

  19. Re:Let me help you understand those figures by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you're only able to move at 5MPH on average it's not likely you will die in an accident.

    I'm not sure why you'd think this is the case in the UK - perhaps you've only tried driving around central London. A few factors affect the relatively low rate of road fatalities in the UK:

    The first is the relative difficulty of getting a driving license. You must pass a theory test, which is multiple choice. It's not that difficult, but you can't pass it without having at least read the highway code, even if you can't remember quite all of it. Then you must pass a hazard awareness test, which shows you videos recorded from cars and checks that you are aware of things that may potentially be dangerous and so need your attention. Finally, you need to pass a practical test, which takes 30-60 minutes and involves driving on various kinds of road, where one major fault will result in failure. It's not unusual for people to require 2-3 attempts to pass, with lessons in between

    Perhaps more important, however, is that safety statistics are the primary input into the road signal design system. Speed limits are set and traffic lights are installed in response to accident statistics, not (usually) to raise revenue. Police speed traps are also placed according to these rules. The USA has no equivalent system.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News