[TITLE]
CMV: Driving a car is insanely risky and probably the most dangerous thing you do in your everyday life.
WMN: t3_2rk7my_t1_cnhab3j
Dialogue: t3_2rk7my
[einmaliger]
I find it difficult to understand how so many people enjoy driving a car or can even relax while doing it. I am almost continually tense while on the road thinking about what's at stake (and I've been driving for almost 20 years). While I have never been in an accident, I often find myself thinking how dangerous even small motions of a driver can be. For example, a sudden small jerking movement of an arm on the steering wheel leading the car into oncoming traffic can lead to almost certain instant death. I cannot think of any other action in my daily life where so many small actions (of me or other people) can be lethal. Even leaving accidents and catastrophic scenarios out of consideration, driving a car seems extremely risky to me: For many, maybe most people their car is the most expensive single item that they own. Even small mistakes like a lack of concentration or a tiny miscalculation while parking into a small space, can lead to high damage and expensive repairs. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*
[Godd2]
If driving a car is abhorrently risky, then walking down the street next to traffic is even worse. If walking down the street is more risky than driving in traffic, then driving is not the most risky thing.
[Zncon]
I can't disagree with your main premise, as statistically speaking you're correct and driving is more dangerous then almost any other day-to-day activity in the modern world. With that understood, I still enjoy driving. I've accepted that driving is a required activity in my life, so rather then stress over the danger, I focus on the pieces of it I find enjoyable. This allows me to operate day-to-day without focusing on the fear. I do occasionally drive just as a form of entertainment, but I tend to do so in locations that have few or no other drivers.
[nonowh0]
Cars allow us to get to places that we otherwise wouldn't be able to get to. This is a *big deal*. With the world as interconnected as it is today, we have to be able to get from place to place. Yes, driving is fairly risky. As you say, it is the most dangerous thing you do in your everyday life. But these are risks that we have to take in order to live the way we do. Cars let us live far away (10+ miles) from our workplace/the center of town. This means that we can buy cheaper houses, as land is less valuable the farther you get from the city. Cars also allow cities to grow to very large sizes. If we didn't have cars, cities wouldn't be able to grow farther than walking/horse carriage distance. These are just a few things that cars do for us. Basically, what I'm trying to say is that cars are necessary to the world at large. We have to accept the risk associated with driving.
[einmaliger]
This is in fact the only reason that makes me sometimes use my car. I spend most of my time in large cities with good public transport where subways, trains and trams get you everywhere. My point is that using the car to get anywhere is only justified if the cost of going there by any other means is very high. It seems that many other people disagree and asses the benefits of driving higher than the dangers in almost all cases. I think that even using a cab (which obviously is a car) is less dangerous as the drivers are professionals and probably more experienced than I am.
[Mavericgamer]
[STA-CITE]> My point is that using the car to get anywhere is only justified if the cost of going there by any other means is very high. It seems that many other people disagree and asses the benefits of driving higher than the dangers in almost all cases. [END-CITE]This is something I can work with. My time is worth roughly $30/hour when I'm working, so to make an activity worth my time it stands to reason that it should give me ~$30/hour of enjoyment or utility, plus any associated cost, or else it's a waste of my time (which could, at the very least, be used to work for $30/hour); As a pretty boring individual, I only go out occasionally, so the majority of my time spent driving is spent going to/from work (a familiar route that I know well, which helps mitigate risks from unknown factors); it takes me about an hour a day to commute; a quick googling reveals that the public transport route takes 2-3x as long, assuming I don't miss a bus, or one of 3 trains isn't delayed, or there is no track work... So, if I want to make plans, I need to know bus routes to my destination, or the nearest train stop, plus know when busses leave, and leave some time to walk the last little bit, etc. Versus, if I feel like going out on a whim and it's farther than walking distance, hop in the car. The time-savings in both planning and driving time equate to several thousand dollars even when I factor in maintenance (and yes, I did this math at some point). This is to say nothing of any unforeseen dangers on public transport (muggings and the like spring to mind) or the general unpleasantness of sharing a cramped space with 30+ people, potentially 1 or more crying, smelly baby, or just potentially a smelly person. It's probably either too hot or too cold, and I'd rather not deal with it unless I know I'm going into the heart of the city where the hassles of traffic and finding parking make driving not worth it (IE: more of a hassle than public transit)
[einmaliger]
This is correct unless you can work while using public transport. You can probably do less useful things while driving, which for me is especially relevant when travelling longer distances. I get a lot of things done while travelling five hours in a train, while taking the car the travelling time seems wasted for me, even if I save an hour or so. I don't see how planning time could be a big factor. If most of your time spent driving is spent going to/from work, you would quickly memorize the relevant routes and times. However, if public transport takes that much longer in your case than it is possible that the benefits of driving outweigh the costs (including the risks).
[Mavericgamer]
[STA-CITE]>This is correct unless you can work while using public transport. [END-CITE]That's vaguely important: My work requires a phone and internet connection (remote tier 3 software support) so no matter how I'm moving, transport time is time I'm not working (unless there is a bus with hi-speed internet and reliable cell coverage); I could conceivably take on projects that I could work on during it, or do some of the clerical tasks, but I'd honestly prefer to keep my work at the office, including my commute time. I'm weird like that. Planning is something I over-think, admittedly, and this wasn't well-worded; So, when there are a lot of steps involved in something, the wider your time margins need to be, realistically. If I'm driving, I might run into some traffic, but usually I can rely on my time to the office being ~30-40 minutes. Taking 3 different vehicles to get to work on public transit, means 3x more chance for something to go wrong and delays to happen. I could go early, but that's what I'm trying to avoid... So, yes, it's possible, but I don't believe that there are as many risks as you think, so it doesn't seem desirable.
[Toyan_Dicch]
Driving a car *is* risky, and being tense, on edge and paniky is going to make a worse driver and possibly be the cause of an accident. You need to learn to relax and think about the millions of people that *don't* crash everyday. Being a worked up, stressed driver isn't going to help anyone, especially you.
[richertai]
Bill Burr - F*cked Up Thoughts: http://youtu.be/p1_YFmzPPCQ
[blueeyedconcrete]
I agree that driving a car is dangerous, but riding a bike around/ with cars seems to be much more dangerous to me. My car recently broke down, unrepairable (she had 277xxx miles and the timing belt went, poor old soul) so I decided to spend $200 on a bike instead of $3000+ on a new used car. I am not an experienced cyclist. Something happened to the chain, and now I can't rotate my pedals backwards, which is something one needs to do to get them into position to go again. I often find myself fumbling with the pedals mid intersection and nearly falling over. I live next to a very busy on-ramp that I must cross everyday. The people turning right onto the on-ramp are not looking for me, or even at me, most of the time. They're always looking left and then gunning it when they get their chance. I often ride on the sidewalk, like an asshole, because I don't have the control necessary to keep myself steady on a shoulder with no bike lane. I just wobble about with every bump, practically putting a huge sign that says "hit me, I'm unpredictable!" on my back. So yeah, that went on forever, sorry. TL;DR: riding a bike in traffic is more dangerous that driving a car in traffic. There is no seat belt, air bag, or protective crumple box to save you.
[Azul788]
[STA-CITE]>I have never been in an accident [END-CITE]I've been in a few, and somehow my fear of driving went down afterwards. There's *fatal* accidents then there's just getting in a wreck, and being pissed that your car is fucked.
[HJD8d9d]
It seems to me that what this comes down to is the difference between the chance something goes wrong, and the consequences it has when it goes wrong. The consequences of a small mistake while driving could be catastrophic. However, only 1-2 out of every ten thousand people die from a car accident each year in the U.S. So while the consequences of a mistake while driving are high, the actual chance of anyone dying in a car accident are fairly low. Furthermore, small but stupid mistakes can have severe consequences in many situations. Forget one letter and you can transfer a large amount of money to the wrong person. Make a jerking movement with your arm while eating and you could end up with a fork in your eye. Both of these things can and have happened due to tiny mistakes, but they're not the reasons banking or eating breakfast are insanely risky. You might still be right tough, statistically driving could be the daily activity that's most likely to directly kill you. But I think that the rather low car fatality rate doesn't justify saying that driving a car is insanely risky. But you've probably thought of all of the above, so why do you still think it's that risky?
[einmaliger]
I think that there are more realistic scenarios that make driving mistakes probable (being tired, losing concentration on a long drive, being distracted by something) than scenarios that make you stick your fork in your eye. Also I'm not only thinking about lethality, but about any large losses that have a high probability. [edit: wording]
[Riah-P]
give it 100 years and most people won't drive on their own any more
[einmaliger]
And I think that generally this is a good thing. Although I understand that it *feels* better to be in complete control of a vehicle.
[crepesquiavancent]
I can't wait until cars drive themselves. I think it's incredibly selfish of people to say that they want to keep it because it "feels" better. Cars can already drive themselves better than the average person, and they'll just get better.
[skilliard4]
Yes, but an error in the code or a variable that's not considered could mean death in the stupidest possible way. Self-driving cards still have a ways to go, as shown in [This article](http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/googles-self-driving-car-far-ready-cant-drive-rain-snow-parking-lots/)
[sky4]
Incorrect. I ride a motorcycle, and it is fantastic.
[mbevks]
Perhaps this will add to your ease-- From: Otto Bettmann’s The Good Old Days – They Were Terrible! >But at least roads were safer before the advent of car accidents, right? Wrong. Runaway horses were a serious danger, creating “havoc [that] killed thousands of people,” Bettmann writes. “According to the National Safety Council, the horse-associated fatality rate was 10 times the car-associated rate of modern times.”
[atomicllama1]
[STA-CITE]>I often find myself thinking how dangerous even small motions of a driver can be. For example, a sudden small jerking movement of an arm on the steering wheel leading the car into oncoming traffic can lead to almost certain instant death. [END-CITE]I think about turning into the center divide and ending it. I'm going 80 MPH and my car is not new and safe. I just turn this wheel in front of me and I blink out of existence. I cant do it though. My arms won't let me. It just won't happen on purpose. So for you as long as you are focused you should be fine one the end.
[funchy]
Hospitals are far more dangerous than vehicles. Hospital acquired infections come with a 1 in 38 chance of death in a person's life time ([source]( https://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/sharks/attacks/relarisklifetime.html) ). Compare that to death relating to vehicle accident (1:84) Why would anyone go to the hospital when it's clearly insanely dangerous? How do you feel about hospitals? You might say, "oh that's different, people need medical care". People also need transportation: to earn an income, to buy food, to have social interaction. I suppose you could decide not to leave the house? But that doesn't protect you from death from heart disease (1 in 5), from cancer (1 in 7), stroke (1 in 24), or the flu (1 in 63) -- all of which is more likely than dying in a vehicle accident. The thing about life is that nobody gets out it alive. Our society accepts the risks of driving. Just as our society eats lots of meat despite it contributing to heart disease, cancer, and stroke. Your fear seems irrational and it's preventing you from moving freely. If none of the arguments posted can't use logic to change your view, the feelings you're having may not be based in logic. One thing you may not have considered is you're arguing your side because you're feeling anxious -- the anxiety came first. The anxiety can be treated with therapy and possibly medication. Or you can accept this as a sort of phobia of yours and alter your live so you don't have to get in any motor vehicle. You could work from home, or you could take a job walking distance from your home.
[skilliard4]
People that die from hospital-acquired infections are usually older, with weak immune systems that are vulnerable to such things.
[Mavericgamer]
You have a strange definition of "risky"; while it's true a mistake can cost you your life, they often don't (cars have been getting safer since the 1920s) and the fact is that because so many people spend so much time driving, we are better at it than a lot of other things and so are much more likely to not make those mistakes (though, sadly, they do happen). I define "risky" as a high likelihood that something out of your control can kill you in the given activity, and the things that can kill you and aren't in your control to some degree in a car are very infrequent. Playing Russian Roulette is risky because there is a 1 in 6 chance that a bullet is going through your head. Driving there is a 1 in 1 million chance that you're going to be killed in an accident, maybe a 1 in 10,000 chance that you'll be in an accident at all.
[einmaliger]
By "risky" I mean that the total, accumulated risk is greater than the benefits of driving a car, at least in a large number of scenarios. It seems to me that people generally underestimate the risks and that the percieved benefits are higher than the real ones. I think that you should not use your car in most cases. [edit: wording]
[Mavericgamer]
Why not? I work a good 25 miles from my house. Walking is completely infeasible, motorcycles are *more* risky, and a bike is just as risky if not moreso due to the lack of bike lanes around my area. The amount of time I save by driving means that I can invest my effort into bettering the world. Someone else actually gave the values of riskiness for driving versus other modes of transport; you're less likely (per mile traveled) to die in a car than virtually any other form of transportation. The fact is that home and other inside places protect you from your environment, which is trying to kill you, and travel has always been risky. You are far less likely to die on a road trip or flight from Kansas to Oregon than you were using a wagon to take the Oregon Trail, because there is way less time available for nature to mess with you.
[EagleThirdEye]
If you drive very little, because you feel its too dangerous on the road, you deprive yourself of experience behind the wheel. The more a person drives and becomes accustomed to different road conditions, the more easier it becomes. A seasoned driver can anticipate danger, do whats needed to avoid it and remain calm and cool.
[KPLauritzen]
Skydiving a lot will also make you an experienced skydiver, and you might be able to anticipate dangerous wind changes or whatever. That does not mean that it is not dangerous!
[EagleThirdEye]
Its all about a game called risk and reward. Skydiving and driving are both many times more dangerous then just staying home all your life. Life always becomes more interesting the farther a person moves away from their comfort zone, and life is finite so taking risks to take part in the abundant possibilities of whats going on right now on earth can yield some rewards. I like driving and seeing new things and I know its risky and no doubt there will be accidents but Its OK. I've driven over half a million miles with hardly any trouble. I know that being a safe, seasoned and patient driver mitigates some of my risk.
[KPLauritzen]
Yes, I completely agree with you. The point I was trying to make (or maybe trying to make you clarify) is that just because being an experienced driver makes it safer for you to drive, it does not follow that you should be driving more for its own sake. If you enjoy driving, if you get some reward for going where you need to go with the freedom a car affords you, then it might be a good trade-off.
[a_guile]
Third leading cause of death after cancer and heart disease in the US. So overeating and smoking regularly are probably more dangerous. But driving is still stupidly dangerous because most drivers are idiots.
[riconoir28]
Mortality for drivers in the US is roughly 50 per millions. Death while working in construction in 2006 was 108 per millions. Driving is not the most dangerous thing these workers do in their everyday life. (edit. The more i'm looking into it the more I find that stats regarding this subject varies a lot.)
[sousuke]
Where are you getting these metrics from? [This report from the CDC](http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/11/7/pdfs/04-1038.pdf) states that the fatality rate in construction is 1,000-1,500 per million (compared to 5 per million as a waiter). Given that most people in the US work at a white collar or service job (which would have hazard rates similar to a waiter), the mortality rate for drivers is *substantially* higher than from occupational risks.
[riconoir28]
I realized after i posted (by researching it further) that they are wild differences in stats depending on where I was looking. Also I read the OP statement as ; Well, driving is so dangerous they can't possibly be an other occupation as morbid. So I looked for one. I now think that because of the nature of work and labor relations that the stats will always differ depending on the point of view of the interlocutors. I still think that some activities are more dangerous than driving.
[sousuke]
Or, you can just use the most reliable source available on the matter (i.e. government reports) and take that as fact. What's more, OP's point was: [STA-CITE]>[Driving is] **probably** the most dangerous thing you do in your everyday life. [END-CITE]Just because some people have jobs that are way more dangerous than driving doesn't refute that statement. In fact, if your job is to drive all day, your death rate is 3-4x as high as the average fatality rate for driving (see truck driver in the table which is one of the most dangerous jobs commonly held by Americans). In short, driving is substantially more dangerous than work for the vast majority of Americans.
[einmaliger]
∆ There are certainly dangerous jobs where litte mistakes can easily mean death. I was thinking about the average office worker who has no particularly dangerous hobbies (like mountain climbing or extreme sports). So yes, the second part of the title is a bit too generic.
[DeltaBot]
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/riconoir28. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/riconoir28)] ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][[Subreddit](http://www.reddit.com/r/DeltaBot/)]
[jamin_brook]
No delta! I agree with your orginal post. You used "you" in the generic/average sense and also included probably. This means certain cases, like construction workers, may be slightly more dangerous in day to day. Furthermore, that statistic may change drastically if you look at the injury rate and not just the death rate.
[anonoman925]
By the death rate, eating unhealthy is the most dangerous thing that you can do. Cellular reproduction is up there are well. Then there's realizing your worthless and life is futile, then taking your own life. Looking at the CDC, suicide isn't on there. But breathing shit other than oxygen and nitrogen is up there. So is, the fatty food thing again.
[Ds14]
Eating healthily is a tricky one, though. There's the obese couch potato who lives off twinkies, the muscular bro who eats a lot of protein but doesn't care about nutrition, the vegan Yoga nut, the marathon runner, etc. I wonder where the cutoff for "not healthy" is. I think watching calorie intake so you don't get fat and watching your blood cholesterol levels are probably most important.
[anonoman925]
You're right. But it's still the number 1 cause of death.
[Ds14]
What I'm getting at is that "it" doesn't functionally mean much when talking about not eating healthily. We have to define what we're talking about when saying not eating healthily. Obesity and Heart Disease are those causes of death. You can eat unhealthily and not get those things. A poorly informed vegan is just as unhealthy, imo, but in different ways, as a meathead at the gym who lives off protein shakes and chicken, but neither will likely have obesity related disease or, barring steroid use, heart disease.
[anonoman925]
It's statistics yo. Could doesn't enter into it. An obese smoker has a higher likelihood of dying from those conditions than a vegan health nut. Why would obesity be such a ubiquitously bad thing? I feel like you're dissenting on the idea that water is wet.
[Ds14]
Nah, I don't think I'm disagreeing with you, more like suggesting more specificity to be accurate, not just to nitpick. To be more succinct- eating healthily is very ambiguous and can be done in different ways with various results. The end goal of eating healthily is to avoid disease and to feel good. Heart disease and Obesity are two major conditions that can result from particular diets. *Some ways of* eating "unhealthily" can result in these things, but those are leading causes of death and they are the actual things we are trying to avoid. That's why I used the example of the really muscular guy and the vegan who do not make well rounded health choices. Neither will likely die from malnutrition, obesity, or heart disease, but their diets have an non-negligible effect on their health. However, you said: [STA-CITE]>By the death rate, eating unhealthy is the most dangerous thing that you can do. [END-CITE]I think *becoming obese* or *letting your cholesterol* go up are the most dangerous things you can do, and they take a particular kind of unhealthy eating. Anyway, I understood what you were trying to say and I agree with it, I just thought I'd clarify as a response and now I'm clarifying that clarification. Not trying to be a dick at all, haha.
[anonoman925]
I was a bit confused and thought you thought the jury was out on obesity. Sorry.
[Ds14]
No worries.
[anestesiarte]
You can prevent those by making healthy choices, like eating well, not smoking, going for regular checkups, etc. But with driving, even if you make the best possible choice in every single situation, you can still die from a bad decision someone else makes. Someone swerving into you can kill you in seconds, and even the best driver in the world couldn't prevent it. That's what is scariest to me. You don't die when other people eat like crap or get cancer. But you can die when you are surrounded by other drivers on a road, most of whom are probably not very good at driving.
[anonoman925]
You can't totally prevent heart disease and cancer. But you can exit life without dying in a car wreck.
[ghotier]
[STA-CITE]> You don't die when other people eat like crap or get cancer. [END-CITE]1/3 of humanity gets cancer. It's not avoidable simply through lifestyle choices.
[skilliard4]
An error in driving means instant death with little warning. Unhealthy eating means a slowly developed death via heart attack or diabetes, which you can likely see the unhealthy effects coming.
[Ds14]
I think most car accidents result in little to no injury. I think deadly car accidents are more like choking on food or an allergic reaction than getting fat, if you want to make an analogy.
[anonoman925]
So? It's still the number one killer. You can throw strokes and cancer in there too.
[MageZero]
There is a way to measure risk, called a micromort. It's a unit of risk representing a one in a million chance to die. To accumulate a micromort in a car, you have to travel 230 miles. To accumulate a micromort on a motorcycle, you have to travel 6 miles. On a bicycle, you would have to travel 20 miles, and just walking, you would have to travel 17 miles. In a car, I average about 32 mph, so for me, it would take 7 hours of driving to get a micromort. On a motorcycle, it would take about 10 minutes. It would take me 3-4 hours on a bicycle, and about 6 hours walking. So, for me, riding a motorcycle, bicycle, or walking would be more dangerous than driving (or being a passenger) in a car.
[mcSibiss]
But if there were no cars on the road, the numbers for walking would be much better, so it kind of shows how cars are dangerous. Other than being hit by a car, I don't see what is dangerous about walking.
[MageZero]
And if we were invulnerable, we'd be even safer.
[Mavericgamer]
Muggings, heat exhaustion, hypothermia, random psychopaths, gangs... This is just off the top of my head, but I agree that it would be interesting to get the data on where the micromorts from walking come from.
[laddergoat89]
How is walking more dangerous? What are the risks?
[MageZero]
Got me. I'm just using the data, or perhaps completely making it up.
[lazygraduatestudent]
It is probably not more dangerous - the info is probably wrong. It's based on a wiki article which is based on a weird animation which is not based on anything as far as I can tell.
[Stevey854]
Being hit by a car, muggings etc
[laddergoat89]
Neither of these are a danger of walking though, it's a danger of being near cars, or in dangerous locations. A person in a wheelchair could have both of those things happen to them just as likely.
[mcSibiss]
Proving OPs point that cars are dangerous as fuck. The primary reason why all the others are worst than cars is because you die more when you get hit by a car. Without cars, walking would be the safest way by far.
[ghotier]
We live in a world with cars, though. OP is discussing personal risk.
[johrich72]
the micromort does only calculate the risk for the people inside the car. If killing someone with a car is also considered a risk, then driving a car might actually be the most risky thing of these alternatives. Seeing your risk measures for passengers and bicyclers makes you wonder how they die (mostly in car accidents, I presume). So driving a car is probably the most dangerous thing you do in your everyday life for you and your fellow human beings.
[MageZero]
You should know full well driving a car is not the most risky thing I do. Riding a motorcycle is the most risky thing I do. "Probably" doesn't enter into it, as I've already stated I ride a motorcycle.
[SwedishChef727]
Do you have sources for those numbers? I feel everything I've read suggested you're safer on a bicycle per mile vs a car.
[MageZero]
The numbers are completely made up. I invented micromorts as a ruse. Or not.
[SwedishChef727]
Here's some data that suggests riding in a car is significantly more dangerous than you estimated (and affirms OP that it's a dangerous endeavor relative to other transport): [STA-CITE]>Lifetime Odds of Accidental Death (Source National Safety Council) [END-CITE]- Bicyclist 1 in 4,838 - Car Occupant 1 in 242 [STA-CITE]>Leading Causes of Accidental Death in the US (As compiled from data reported by the National Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 50, No. 15, September 16, 2002) [END-CITE]- #1 Motor Vehicle - #6 Drowning - #9 Other Land Transport Accidents (including bicycling, walking, etc.) [STA-CITE]>Fatalities per Million Exposure Hours (Data compiled by Failure Analysis Associates, Inc.) [END-CITE]- Motor vehicle travel: .47 - Bicycle travel: .26 [Source](http://overthebarsinmilwaukee.wordpress.com/2011/08/03/fear-mongers-be-gone-riding-a-bike-is-safe/)
[MageZero]
The article also indicates that eating and having a beating heart are more risky than riding a bicycle, which contradicts the OP's assessment that driving is an "insane risk".
[SwedishChef727]
No, those don't have an effect on the risks of driving or riding in a car. I think OP is right, it's incredibly more dangerous than people think it is. There were [33,561 vehicular deaths in 2012 in the US alone](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year). We're a first world country and have that kind of death toll on the roads. We overhauled our entire security/privacy/transportation sectors to protect against terrorists who killed 10% of that number one time in 2001. We have an equivalent death toll to 9/11 every 4-6 weeks on the roads in the US and nobody says a word about it. I think OP is absolutely right that it's an under-feared danger.
[MageZero]
We're also a country that has over 300,000,000 people in it. More than 2.5 million Americans die every year. Those that die in car accidents are 0.001% of the population. 30k plus looks like a lot, but not compared to the population. 600,000 people a year die from heart disease. That's a 9/11 every day and a half.
[SwedishChef727]
That's true, but disease is a different animal than accidents involving machinery. I feel like it's better to compare vehicle deaths to dangerous industries like oil digging, or coal mining. They're the result of our transportation industry/policies and so are more solvable than heart disease or cancer, say.
[Hyper1on]
But surely, if you travel 230 miles at 20 mph, that's less risky than traveling 230 miles at 100 mph.
[MageZero]
You're right.
[ghotier]
The statistics, presumable, are based on total number of miles driven, which would average properly over all speeds, or on hours driven, where a driving speed is assumed.
[Conotor]
You have not mentioned microhomicides associated with each mode of transport though. I would think most of the deaths while walking or biking are caused by cars, so individually you might be safer driving, but as a society if people avoided driving we would all be much safer.
[MageZero]
Then feel free to give your data on microhomicides.
[Conotor]
Sure, but as an assessment of what style of transportation we should strive for, its not really relevant, since pretty much all of the walking an biking deaths are fairly obviously caused by vehicles. This makes their base death rate, attained when they are the privileged method of transportation, very hard to measure. US: 116 deaths per 1,000,000 people per year and 13,500 miles per year for average drivers --[STA-CITE]> 0.0086 is microhomicides/mile + micromorts/mile, so microhomicides per mile = 0.0042, roughly the same as micromorts. [END-CITE]https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate
[Dementati]
I assume these statistics are mostly based on US-oriented studies.
[MageZero]
Or maybe I just made up micromorts and am just screwing with you. There's really no way to be sure.
[Dementati]
Unlikely, given all the articles and blog posts.
[MageZero]
Oh, *now* you're aware of all the sources. Interesting.
[Dementati]
Well, I'm aware that Wikipedia has a bunch of references at the bottom of the micromort artlcle and that googling "micromort" gives a lot of hits. But I can't be arsed to trawl through them.
[MageZero]
I didn't ask you to do anything. You're doing this by your own choice.
[Dementati]
Just explaining since you were interested. I'm nice like that.
[thouliha]
Air travel?
[Khaur]
I don't know about you, but air travelling is not part of my everyday life.
[squashedorangedragon]
I don't have the figures off the top of my head, but it's vastly safer than any of the others, as are trains.
[nn123654]
Air travel makes for good missing airliner 24 hour news coverage but 2014 actually had fewer air fatalities than most other years in the last 2 decades. The most dangerous part of any flight is your drive to and from the airport. http://journalistsresource.org/studies/environment/transportation/comparing-fatality-risks-united-states-transportation-across-modes-time > Excluding acts of suicide and terrorism, commercial aviation was the safest mode of travel in the United States, with 0.07 fatalities per billion passenger miles: “A person who took a 500-mile flight every single day for a year, would have a fatality risk of 1 in 85,000.” (One variable to note: Takeoffs and landings are where the risk is, not in the number of miles flown, so risk-per-flight calculations are higher.)
[deRoussier]
Shouldn't acts of terrorism definitely be counted?
[nn123654]
Well they are kind of fluke events and don't happen very often. It also isn't the fault of the transportation mode as a whole that they happen. Even if you add them in it's still much safer than any other transportation method. Specifically the one of the most dangerous maneuvers that can be performed is what is known as a Rejected Takeoff (abbreviated as RTO) at V1 speed. This is due to the extreme heat generated on the brakes and the risk of a fire. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mr4V680UQ-k
[AsterJ]
All fatal accidents are fluke events. Airlines are responsible for security.
[nn123654]
No they really aren't. The airlines don't screen passengers for security, they just issue the tickets. It is the TSA and government that performs security screening and it is the FAA that sets the regulations on what security measures must be followed. The only thing that an airline has a responsibility to is for the security from the crew members themselves. But I think they do a good job of this. I can't remember the last time an airline crewmember brought down a plane.
[AsterJ]
Well airlines still have their own security policies. El Al for example is said to have 3 plain clothes armed air marshalls on every flight and is one of the safest airlines in the world.
[nn123654]
El Al is/was a state owned airline, that's a bit different. They fly in an area of the world that is much more prone to hijackings than in western countries. Air Marshals are also federal employees and US airlines would be prohibited from putting their own armed security by the FAA on flights even if they wanted to.
[AsterJ]
In any case someone should be responsible for airline security. My original point was that I don't see a reason to omit terrorism related airplane deaths if it represents an actual risk of flying. Calling it a 'fluke' doesn't make the victims less dead.
[Mavericgamer]
The difference is that acts of terror are acts of homicide; an engine depressurizing because of a faulty valve and resulting in a crash is a tragic mistake.
[deRoussier]
Thank you, this answers my critique perfectly.
[ShantaramMarley]
It would be awesome if you just made all that up.
[MageZero]
Hell, yeah it would.
[NeverQuiteEnough]
I wish I'd had these numbers when I was discussing safe driving practice and the pedestrian's right of way with some jackass on this sub. pedestrian killed every 17 million miles, atrocious.
[MageZero]
It can be pretty handy.
[marian1]
The micromorts are calculated assuming that fatal incidents happen evenly distributed along all drivers. If you take into account that OP is driving sober and without an accident for 20 years, the risk is probably lower.
[MageZero]
Then feel free to give me an accurate number of the OP's micromorts for driving.
[yamchagoku]
It doesn't lower the risk of death by other drivers though.
[skilliard4]
[STA-CITE]> It's a unit of risk representing a one in a million chance to die. To accumulate a micromort in a car, you have to travel 230 miles. [END-CITE]Can I get a source on this?
[ghotier]
We're on the internet. Use it.
[MageZero]
Yes.
[loonybean]
What is the source?
[MageZero]
What would be more fun for me? To say I made it all up if I didn't, or to let someone use Google and think of two key words? I made the whole thing up. There's no such measure as a micromort. But if there was, feeding rabbits would top the list of dangerous activities. Look at the bones!
[AsterJ]
Wikipedia
[flouride]
As for the bicycle, it would be 1-2 hours, 10 to 20mph is much more average that 5-7 mph
[MageZero]
And how, exactly do you know how fast **I** ride a bicycle? I find it interesting that *you* think *your* data on me is better than my own.
[Stevey854]
He's talking big about your average cyclist, as opposed to you specifically
[MageZero]
That's great. Read my post and tell me where I used a micromort to make a claim about an average user.
[Ds14]
Relax, yo.
[MageZero]
My blood pressure is currently 117 over 76. I don't really don't know what else you want from me.
[Ds14]
That's excellent. But I was more referring to the unnecessary sass and hostility. Feel free to do whatever, though, I guess.
[MageZero]
Replies are also unnecessary, and I see you're feeling free to do whatever.
[Ds14]
Do as you will. I enjoyed your post about risk assessment, but I looked through your post history and you seem like a massive dick. It's possible that you don't care what people on the internet who you will never meet think about you- in that case, do your thing. If that was not your intention, I thought I'd let you know you know. If that is your intention, then I replied because you are playing a part in turning a sub that I enjoy for its discussion style into a hostile environment. I would like to prevent that if possible, but it's not like I can stop you from doing anything. So replies are unnecessary in the "air, water, food" sense, but necessary in the "I don't want this sub to suck" sense. [STA-CITE]>My blood pressure is currently 117 over 76. I don't really don't know what else you want from me. [END-CITE]Was funny sarcasm to me. [STA-CITE]>Replies are also unnecessary, and I see you're feeling free to do whatever. [END-CITE]Was in response/defense to how I replied to you. [STA-CITE]>That's great. Read my post and tell me where I used a micromort to make a claim about an average user. [END-CITE]Was just pretty dickish to a presumably well intentioned poster. That is my reasoning, but like I said before. Do as you will.
[flouride]
In Copenhagen, the average bike speed is 9.6 mph on a normal bicycle. I was referring to average bicycle speed, a better measurement rather than being based off of one particular person. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_performance
[MageZero]
So what? I was using myself as an example. You may have noticed I didn't make the claim that *my* micromorts were universal.
[Mattpilf]
Unless I'm on a long, non traffic light place, and on flat land, 5-7 is pretty reasonable.
[lazygraduatestudent]
Your numbers are way off from the numbers I usually see, and I would like a source please.
[MageZero]
Your username is quite fitting. It should be well within your skill set to get that data using Google and two words.
[lazygraduatestudent]
I think you're relying on that one misleading wikipedia article. A bunch of the information there is wrong/misleading. Please don't perpetuate wrong information and then refuse to provide sources. Here's a source that says there are about 0.6 fatalities per million hours driven, most of which are occupants of the car: http://www.meretrix.com/~harry/flying/notes/safetyvsdriving.html This suggests a micromort every 2 hours of driving, not 7.
[MageZero]
I'm not your monkey. I have no problem if *you* make a correction, but don't for a second think that I have the same citation standards for a CMV as I would for a peer reviewed journal.
[ghotier]
How do you know it's wrong/misleading. It seems like you're just choosing to rely on different statistics that have, as far as I can tell, the same level of veracity. Also, very basic math here, 33134 fatalities/(2.9x10^12 miles driven)x32 miles/hourx1,000,000 micromorts/fatality = 0.37 per million hours driven.
[lazygraduatestudent]
I don't understand the source the wikipedia article relies on - as far as I can tell those numbers are made up. On the other hand, the source I linked to explicitly derives its numbers. [STA-CITE]>33134 fatalities/(2.9x1012 miles driven)x32 miles/hourx1,000,000 micromorts/fatality = 0.37 per million hours driven. [END-CITE]Where did you get 32 miles/hour from?
[MageZero]
From the computer in my car that tells me my average speed. You may have noticed I used myself as a reference point. I have in no way spoken for anybody else's experience.
[ghotier]
/u/MageZero provided it. The page you cited used 40 mph, but that just means you're comparing apples to 0.8 apples.
[KPLauritzen]
[From a wikipedia source](http://understandinguncertainty.org/micromorts)
[Cosmologicon]
Hmmm, for the USA there were [33,561 traffic deaths](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year) for [4,274 billion passenger miles traveled](http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_40.html) in 2012. That's 127 million miles per fatality, not 230 million. However, I think this is counting pedestrian and motorcycle deaths, and also truck and bus travel, each of which would shift the number in different directions. It does seem hard to get an accurate number, but 230 seems a bit high to me too. Unfortunately, when I click through for your source's source, it's 404. I wonder if the difference is just UK vs USA.
[used_bathwater]
As a motorcycle rider... Shiiiiit
[MageZero]
I'm right there with you. Keep two *on* the road, sister or brother.
[used_bathwater]
You too pal
[mathiasj94]
This is why your personal insurances go up when you register a bike to your name (well, for me at least)
[used_bathwater]
What do you mean personal insurances? Like home insurance?
[mathiasj94]
I should have been more specific. I meant life and accident insurance (not sure what you'd call that in English)
[used_bathwater]
I didn't actually know that! How much did it go up by if you don't mind me asking?
[mathiasj94]
I'm not sure, but it wasn't too much. Like 5% maybe?
[special-measures]
Yeah statistically we are a risk group. From: http://think.direct.gov.uk/motorcycles.html - Motorcyclists are just 1% of total road traffic, but account for 19% of all road user deaths. - Motorcyclists are roughly 38 times more likely to be killed in a road traffic accident than car occupants, per mile ridden - 30 motorcyclists are killed or injured every day at junctions - In 2013, 331 motorcyclists died and 4,866 were seriously injured in road collisions in Great Britain. This is the UK - we are pretty good drivers on the world scale. You can improve your statistics by wearing proper gear and practicing defensive riding.
[used_bathwater]
I'm from the UK too, them statistics are scary man. But fuck it, life's short anyway!
[special-measures]
Yeah I think I'd rather have fun and do the things I love than live in a bubble and be bored eh!
[Dementati]
Sure, but those aren't the only two options. You could find things you love to do that don't expose you to vastly increased risk of lethal injury.
[special-measures]
I agree my previous statement about living in a bubble was hyperbolic, I could still have fun without the motorbike. It would just be less fun :)
[Dementati]
As far as you know. Look around, maybe there's tons of safe fun you're missing out on.
[special-measures]
Safe fun is a different kind of fun though. I get safe fun from reading books and listening to music. I get something a bit more active with basketball and hiking. Then I get some adrenaline with rock climbing and motorbiking. Its all good, but its a balance really.
[Dementati]
Some adrenaline-inducing activities may be statistically safer than others, even if you can't perceive the difference subjectively in the heat of the moment.
[einmaliger]
∆ TBH, the fact that by this metric walking is more dangerous than driving blows my mind. I guess that it depends on where you walk? (Then again, the same is certainly true for driving.) Maybe I feel more in control when walking, so I underestimate its dangers? It seems that you have made an excellent point here.
[thisisntmymainacc]
To be clear, *per mile* driving is much safer than walking, but *per minute* walking is safer. It still makes sense, ceteris paribus, to drive to where you're going if you want to stay safe. Edited for my dumbness.
[tedzeppelin93]
Driving being safer, *but* walking being more dangerous? Those are the same thing...
[thisisntmymainacc]
I fixed it.
[too_many_bats]
Heads, I win; tails, you lose.
[PbCuSurgeon]
To add, think of bing hit by a car while in another car vs being hit by a car while walking. Cars have safety systems in place to protect the people inside...where as being hit from the outside provides no protection. Mind you, not all car accidents kill or even injure severely for that matter.
[Mattpilf]
On the micromort bandwagon. 1.4 cigarettes and a .5 liter of wine is actually equal risk to that my 230 mile car ride or 17 miles walking. Anyone who consistently smokes even a little is at way way higher risk than driving.
[sas318]
[STA-CITE]>Maybe I feel more in control when walking, so I underestimate its dangers? [END-CITE]Don't think it's a control thing because you can easily control a car, and modern cars are much easier to control with better steering, handling, braking. Based on your original post, I think you dislike all the responsibility involved in driving. There is a lot of judgment involved - when to change lanes, when to turn, how to turn to park without hitting the cars in between the space, knowing you can kill someone. A misjudgment can cause an accident. You were turning right, you didn't see the person crossing the street, you hit them, they're dead. There's also the matter of what a car CAN DO. We all know it's a weapon that kills. I think that's stuck in the back of your mind, but you can't kill someone with your body when walking. Technically yes, if you're a murderer, but the regular person can't kill someone walking, but they sure can do that by driving. But walking, you're just chilling. What responsibility is there? You're just walking. You can't exactly kill someone by walking, even if you run full speed at them. If you look both ways, cross the street, and still get hit, it wasn't your fault. You aren't responsible for anything, at least none that I can think of. So I'm guessing you don't like all the responsibility that comes with driving, especially when you say so many small actions can lead to disaster.
[DeltaBot]
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/MageZero. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/MageZero)] ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][[Subreddit](http://www.reddit.com/r/DeltaBot/)]
[thatwentwell]
Before you change your mind because of a fact, it is good/required for a source of the fact. How can I change my outlook on life if its a lie?
[sousuke]
More dangerous to who though? You may face less risk of fatality in a vehicle (cars have very strong safety measures in place nowadays), but by driving on the road, you pose a massive risk to cyclists and pedestrians. By getting rid of automobiles, you'd substantially reduce the per-mile risk of all other travel.
[ghotier]
OP's position is about the world we live in, not some hypothetical world. "There exists a hypothetical scenario where non-driving is less risky" is not a good rebuttal to "non-driving is risky."
[sousuke]
I'm not talking about hypotheticals; I'm talking about point of reference. If you want to define risky as "fatal for the driver," then sure the point stands. However, if you consider the sentiment of the argument rather than the semantics -- i.e. driving is risky because there's a lot at stake both in terms of your life as well as that of others -- then it becomes a more subjective point of debate.
[ghotier]
That's a separate point. There are two arguments here: 1) The risk of hitting someone is still a risk - I agree with this, although I fear that the statistics will be misused in measuring this risk, as they are being misused all over this thread. 2) Walking is only risky because of driving. If nobody drove then it would be less risky - This might be true, but it is irrelevant. We live in a world where people drive. The only thing OP can control is whether s/he drives or relies on another mode of transport. The latter is what I'm talking about.
[sousuke]
That's fair. The primary point I was pushing was 1) so feel free to disregard the last sentence in my original comment if that makes things more coherent.
[ghotier]
Ok, well in the case on 1 you need to determine how much you value the risk of hurting someone else compared to the risk of hurting yourself and add the risks together. Then you can compare that combined risk to the risk of walking. I don't know that anyone in this thread has done that properly.
[kingpatzer]
The actor who is the CAUSE of realized risk is at issue. Very few pedestrians cause the death of themselves of someone else. Quite a few drivers of cars do. Moreover, death is not the only risk associated with driving. There is also potential costs involving incarceration, civil suits, lost wages, injury, and so forth. To presume rate of death is the one true measure of risk is taking a rather narrow definition of how most people use the term.
[ghotier]
I already addressed this exact criticism [here](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2rk7my/cmv_driving_a_car_is_insanely_risky_and_probably/cnhg2bs).
[MontiBurns]
The possibilities of a fender bender or small accident involving a car are relatively high. However, it's almost never fatal for drivers in cars. Small accidents involving cars and pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists are much, much more deadly for the latter groups.
[CalmQuit]
I'd assume being hit by a car is one of the bigger risks when you're traveling with one of the other options so it kinda shows the argument of OP to be true.
[ghotier]
That doesn't follow. The riskiness of anything is derived from the risk associated with the actor. In this case, the fact that one of the risks of walking is being hit by a car has no bearing on the risks of driving.
[CalmQuit]
Although it's not that big of a risk for your own life when you hit someone I'd still say it counts towards the risks of driving. If you only compare the risk of dying for yourself while traveling driving is safer than walking. But since the title says "Driving a car is insanely risky and probably the most dangerous thing you do in your everyday life." and the biggest danger for people traveling with other means is being hit by a car that makes driving pretty dangerous.
[ghotier]
Yes, I understand. The risk (as in percentage chance) of hitting a pedestrian while driving is not the same risk (as in percentage chance) of being hit by a driver while walking.
[CalmQuit]
Ok let me rephrase it: Although the risk of dying while driving is lower than the risk of dying while walking, the overall risk of dying involving someone (yourself or someone else) driving a car is higher than the risk of dying while walking/riding your bike... without any car involved. This makes me say driving a car really is very dangerous (just maybe not only for yourself).
[ghotier]
[STA-CITE]> the overall risk of dying involving someone (yourself or someone else) driving a car [END-CITE]This is a real world situation. [STA-CITE]>the risk of dying while walking/riding your bike... without any car involved. [END-CITE]This isn't a real world situation. And that's where you are comparing the real world with a hypothetical one. We live in a world where people drive cars. The risk of dying while walking in a world without cars is an irrelevant comparison. Everything you can do has some level of risk associated with it. For driving to be "insanely risky" it would need to be riskier than the real world alternatives, which it isn't.
[CalmQuit]
[STA-CITE]> the risk of dying while walking/riding your bike... without any car involved. This isn't a real world situation. [END-CITE]How? Just how? Are you saying you can't die without any car involved? Trying to make an analogy imagine this answer in a discussion on the question if having a gun is dangerous: [STA-CITE]> the overall risk of dying involving someone (yourself or someone else) *using a gun* [END-CITE]This is a real world situation. [STA-CITE]> the risk of dying while walking/riding your bike... without any *gun* involved. [END-CITE]This isn't a real world situation. And that's where you are comparing the real world with a hypothetical one. We live in a world where people *have guns*. The risk of dying while walking in a world without *guns* is an irrelevant comparison. Everything you can do has some level of risk associated with it. For *having a gun* to be "insanely risky" it would need to be riskier than the real world alternatives, which it isn't.
[ghotier]
I'm saying that comparing the risk of walking to the risk of driving isn't valid if you discount the risk that cars pose to pedestrians. This is especially true because walking, as a complete alternative to driving, would be even more risky than walking normally, which is already "riskier" than driving. Discounting cars in a risk assessment, even if you are choosing to forgo cars, makes your assessment divorced from reality. The analogy presented is completely irrelevant to the situation, not to mention being a straw man. The main threat to pedestrians is cars. The main threat to bikes is cars.
[Mavericgamer]
That depends on where you are; if you're walking in the woods I'd assume that your likelihood of being hit by a car is near-zero but your likelihood to die VIA grizzly bear is way escalated, versus walking in NYC. If you simplify the system, being outside is a more dangerous environment than being inside (as a general rule; and when being inside is more dangerous, it is usually because being outside has become so dangerous that not even the buildings keeping you safe can keep up), and the more time you spend in a dangerous environment increases your overall chances of an incident. Also while we may disagree that being hit by a car is one of the bigger risks, I assume we agree that it isn't the only risk; however, when driving typically the only danger you face is losing control, or another driver losing control and hitting you before you can react. The fact that there are less dangers helps contribute to an overall safer environment.
[CalmQuit]
Since the whole micromort thing is based on statistics i meant the average risk of being hit by a car as one of the biggest risks when traveling with motorcycle, bike or walking. Most people who are walking do that in cities and not in some forrest so the average risk of being hit by a car is way higher than being attacked by a bear. OP said that "Driving a car is insanely risky and probably the most dangerous thing you do in your everyday life." and I'd say that even the other means of transport presented here as more dangerous only are that dangerous because there are people driving cars. Therefore this doesn't really contradict OP's argument but in a way supports it. What do the dangers of being outside have to do with any of this? [STA-CITE]> Also while we may disagree that being hit by a car is one of the bigger risks, I assume we agree that it isn't the only risk. [END-CITE]Obviously when I say that it's "one of the bigger risks" that implies that there are others.
[Mavericgamer]
My contention is that even without cars, walking would be risky, because the outdoors is a risky place.
[Toyan_Dicch]
If you're going that far - being alive is a risky thing. Think of all those bacteria on your skin, in your skin, travelling through body. Think about how many of those bacteria are dangerous, and how you'd be suffering if you didn't have an immune system. Think about (before medical tech) how many babies died from just *being born*. This is why families had 13 siblings, cause half of them would die before they hit a couple of years old. Just being alive is more dangerous to you than driving a bloody car.
[Mavericgamer]
Life *does* have a death rate of something like 99.3%
[alzger]
He could be a risk analyst for insurance. Those guys are paid to take it that far.
[CalmQuit]
The point was that walking is more deadly on average than driving a car. I'd say walking in a world without cars would score lower on the micromort scale than driving a car in this world does. My conclusion from that chain of thought is that the argument of other types of transport being even more risky in this world loses its weight if you think about it. I agree that walking still would have risks but the risk to harm yourself and others (like the people walking) when driving a car is far higher.
[Mavericgamer]
To be completely fair, I can't really conceive a world where driving isn't a thing. It isn't in my experience-space, so I am not exactly in a place to disprove it. All I can say is that when I've walked, I've run into more wild animals (like 6 that were bigger than a raccoon) than I have almost been hit by cars (0). Admittedly, I also haven't died, so there's that.
[CalmQuit]
Personal experience isn't relevant for a statistical issue though. I thought it was common sense that car crashes are a major cause of death for pedestrians but of course common sense is just as irrelevant for a discussion as personal experience so I did some googling and found [this](http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6215a1.htm). I think this supports that while walking may have a higher micromort per mile rate than driving it would actually be safer than driving if you don't count in deaths caused by drivers.
[Waylander0719]
What is the risk of being killed by a bear driving a car? How many micromorts!?!
[CalmQuit]
The risk is very low since most bears are great drivers. Except [this one](http://cdn1.sbnation.com/imported_assets/1620933/y3C5t.gif).
[Waylander0719]
I disagree. He is keeping that on the road and more or less under control while the whole vehicle is on fire. While he is no Jason Statham, that's damn impressive!
[the-incredible-ape]
Let's not get too hasty with those deltas. Most pedestrians (and cyclists) are killed by cars, after all. So if you consider killing someone else by accident a "risk" of driving, then... basically add those values together if you want to understand how dangerous driving really is. Unless you only care if you die, and everyone else can suck it...
[kingpatzer]
This point, combined with the fact that the risk is not only to death but injury and incarceration. In most states, if you run over a pedestrian, even if they don't die, if you're at fault you can face significant costs which are risk though they are not risks of death.
[ghotier]
You wouldn't add those values together. The risk of a walker being hit by a car is not equal to the risk of a driver hitting a pedestrian.
[the-incredible-ape]
[STA-CITE]> The risk of a walker being hit by a car is not equal to the risk of a driver hitting a pedestrian [END-CITE]Hmm, well, it must be in one sense... but I see what you mean since there are fewer walkers than drivers.
[ghotier]
A lot of driving also takes place in scenarios where pedestrians aren't even present, whereas very little pedestrian walking takes place in locations that cars don't access. I'll be honest though, that particular complication might not matter depending on how the statistics are gathered.
[lendro709]
Yeah but the driver most probably wont die. Not saying it's a good thing, but we're talking micromorts here, so you're still safer while driving.
[the-incredible-ape]
Yes, but when you consider an activity "dangerous", it's valid (essential, maybe) to also consider the danger to other people.
[kingpatzer]
That's true if you don't consider other risks to the driver. Prosecution and legal costs are costs, so from a perspective of economic risk they are considerably higher than for a pedestrian who is not likely to kill anyone if they bump into them.
[lendro709]
I understand what you mean but it's still micromorts, a chance to die, not financial problems.
[ghostmcspiritwolf]
that's clear, but his point was that micromorts might simply not be a good way to measure in this case. risk assessment could include your risk of causing harm in general, not exclusively harm to yourself.
[Cosmologicon]
I'd also like to see an analysis that takes into account the fact that exercise is good for you. It seems like it would be really trivial at first, but given how bad heart disease is in the USA, a little physical activity would extend the life of the average American. I wouldn't be surprised if walking was a net negative mortality risk.