11 ms·

In the USA, an order of magnitude more people on foot are killed each year by people driving cars and trucks than are killed in mass shootings. [0][1] It is a

In the USA, an order of magnitude more people on foot are killed each year by people driving cars and trucks than are killed in mass shootings. [0][1] It is a massive problem that receives a disproportionate amount of attention. [0] https://www.cdc.gov/pedestrian-bike-safety/about/pedestrian-safety.html https://www.cdc.gov/pedestrian-bike-safety/about/pedestrian-... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States_in_2022 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_...

0xbadcafebee 3mo ago
We never invest effort in things that provide the most value; we invest in what we're the most emotional about. The number of people killed in 9/11 and every plane hijacking is dwarfed by any single year of deaths due to either vehicle accidents or gun shootings. But we do nothing about either of those things, and instead spend $180B on TSA, to save zero lives. We then roll back things like vaccine mandates, to kill more people (mostly kids).
- coffeemug 3mo ago
  That’s a very uncharitable way to interpret public opinion. A more charitable way is that people have different ethical intuitions. Some of us lean more utilitarian than others, and almost no one is a pure utilitarian. It isn’t merely a matter of being more emotional; people very reasonably have different views on this stuff.
  - N_Lens 3mo ago
    I think it’s rational to lean more utilitarian if you’re administering a city, state or country.
  - deleted 3mo ago
    [deleted]
EA-3167 3mo ago
This is often brought out as though it should engender gasps, but a moment of thought punctures the whole prospect. We need cars and trucks for a variety of purposes, and while I agree that most people don't need a pickup or a Unimog, there are many people and businesses who do. The ability to rapidly travel is a centerpiece of modern life, and has been for quite some time. Mass shootings by contrast are not economic or personal drivers of freedom, they're not an intended output of the system that creates them, they're a relatively modern perversity of it. Of course people are more concerned with seemingly random violence that many other countries seem to live without, or with much less of, compared to inevitable accidents. People also love to present "Vehicle vs Ped" as a de facto accident on the part of the vehicle or the driver, and that can certainly be the case! It's also true that about 30% of pedestrians involved in these accidents have a BAC over the legal limit. There are also issues with poorly designed and maintained lights, safety systems on roads, and so on that play a role. None of this is as simple as, "Just bike to work, dummy." I'd also add that recent stats show a REDUCTION in pedestrian fatalities, it's just that it's been on a rise since 2009, but it's going back down again. Possibly that comes down to addressing some concerns I've mentioned above, some comes down to fewer megamonsterSUV's, and some comes down to smartphone and in-car tech no longer promoting using said phones on the road. https://www.ghsa.org/resource-hub/pedestrian-traffic-fatalities-2024-data https://www.ghsa.org/resource-hub/pedestrian-traffic-fatalit...
- UtopiaPunk 3mo ago
  Nothing in the article is suggesting that we do not need cars and trucks. It does make a compelling case that specifically large trucks and SUVs are causing preventable deaths. And I certainly find no reason that we need very large trucks or SUVs.
  - giantg2 3mo ago
    Having any car or truck is a choice. People lived before the automobile. They do provide benefits, just as SUVs and trucks provide benefits. The Amish live without cars, so too could we if we chose to. In fact, the Amish could make the same claim about all automobiles that you make about preventable deaths attributed to larger vehicles.
throwaway219450 3mo ago
The standard of driving in most places I've lived in the US is very low for a developed country. People blow through pedestrian crossings, get-there-itis, crawling through stops, don't use their turn signals, make illegal U-Turns, ignore overtaking conventions. Compare to most countries in Europe where a driving test is a rigorous 45 minutes and you can fail for all sorts of minor stuff. I live in a place with decent pedestrian infrastructure fortunately. I'm more worried about being involved in a random fatal crash when I'm driving than on foot. Making right-on-red illegal wouldn't be bad either. The number of times I've almost been run over when a car is stopped in the middle/straight lane and blocks line of sight to a right-turning car that doesn't look. DUIs are at least treated seriously. It's one of the few offenses that will get a visa instantly revoked. Same in Canada I think.
- mcntsh 3mo ago
  45 minutes? In Germany getting your license takes most people around a year and costs thousands of euros.
  - eltrain 3mo ago
    I assume he meant the actual final practical test.
    - mcntsh 3mo ago
      my point is, in germany it takes longer than a test to get your license, unlike the US.
      - Helloworldboy 3mo ago
        [dead]
      - carefulfungi 3mo ago
        Is it common in other states that you only need a test for a license. Where I live (in the US) if you are a new driver (under 18) you need 30 hours of classroom instruction, 18 hours of trainer-driving time, a 6 month learner permit period with many restrictions and then a finally test, iirc.
NoImmatureAdHom 3mo ago
Mass shootings kill almost no one. They're a red herring. Even with a really stupid, inclusive "3 or more people injured" criterion. If you use that criterion for defining what a mass shooting is, the modal number of people killed is...one.
sieabahlpark 3mo ago
[dead]
groundzeros2015 3mo ago
[flagged]
tzs 3mo ago
Wait...is the massive problem that it should be more than an order of magnitude more people killed than those killed in mass shootings, or is it that it should be less than an order of magnitude more? They are such completely different categories of ways to die I'm having trouble understand how to compare them in any sensible way.
- uberex 3mo ago
  That I guess is the problem they are highlighting. It is more complicated still when comparing to ill health, war, poverty, terrorism. But OTOH we should strive to make transport safer like we do with commercial flight.
- decimalenough 3mo ago
  Neither. The OP's point is that shootings consistently make headlines and occasion a lot of passionate debate, while grandma or toddler getting mowed over by a SUV or monster truck doesn't and as a consequence nobody really cares.
  - ryandrake 3mo ago
    Hence the saying: If you want to kill someone and get the lightest possible punishment, kill them with your car!
    - hackingonempty 3mo ago
      Best time to get them is when they are riding a bicycle.
  - analog31 3mo ago
    But to be fair, mass shootings get no policy changes.
    - scottyah 3mo ago
      What state are you in? Mine banned anything that "looks scary", limited the number of rounds (and made anyone who didn't read the memo and discard the standard one s a felon), prevented any ear-protection from being mounted to the gun, and found a few new ways to make buying ammo more expensive and difficult. It's hard and expensive to buy a gun just to keep the 2A alive even if you never fire it, and you're put on who knows how many government watchlists.
IshKebab 3mo ago
8000 pedestrians killed by cars and 762 in mass shootings. Obviously in raw numbers 8000 is bigger than 762, but think how many people drive in America, and how useful it is! 762 is an absolutely astoundingly crazy number and it definitely deserves the most attention.
- avianlyric 3mo ago
  > but think how many people drive in America, and how useful it is You should tell that to the families of the 8000 that are killed each year. I’m sure it’ll help them accept the accept the loss of their loved ones. The US is the only developed country that has seen a steady increase in the number of pedestrian deaths per 1000km driven over the past 10-15 years. And 10-15 years ago it was one of the worst performing developed countries for pedestrian deaths. Every other developed country has seen decreases in pedestrian deaths over the same time period, which means the US is an extreme outlier when it comes to pedestrian safety, or lack there of.
  - IshKebab 3mo ago
    > You should tell that to the families of the 8000 that are killed each year. I’m sure it’ll help them accept the accept the loss of their loved ones. I mean, yes? Society has decided that cars are worth the convenience because of all their advantages. Now is America too obsessed with cars, and totally ignorant of pedestrian safety? Yes of course. But other countries aren't so bad on that front and they still accept some deaths. It's easy to see the utility of cars. Less so for guns. > it was one of the worst performing developed countries for pedestrian deaths How's it performing on the mass shooting front?
    - llbeansandrice 3mo ago
      Actually many cities aren’t accepting traffic deaths at all and are adopting Vision Zero. I believe it’s Norway that adopted it for the entire country and was able to go over a year with exactly zero traffic related deaths. This problem is solvable and people in this thread saying that it’s not are absurd.
allarm 3mo ago
This comparison seems bizarre to me, but what do I know about the US?
like_any_other 3mo ago
Not that I object to the findings, but the Center for Disease Control getting involved in traffic safety is massive scope creep. Especially since we already have the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the National Transportation Safety Board.
srustagi 3mo ago
more europeans are killed from not having AC/heat-related deaths than both of those. I don't think any of these are apples to apples comparisons tbh your point still stands without the extreme analogy.

0xbadcafebee 3mo ago

We never invest effort in things that provide the most value; we invest in what we're the most emotional about. The number of people killed in 9/11 and every plane hijacking is dwarfed by any single year of deaths due to either vehicle accidents or gun shootings. But we do nothing about either of those things, and instead spend $180B on TSA, to save zero lives. We then roll back things like vaccine mandates, to kill more people (mostly kids).

coffeemug 3mo ago
That’s a very uncharitable way to interpret public opinion. A more charitable way is that people have different ethical intuitions. Some of us lean more utilitarian than others, and almost no one is a pure utilitarian. It isn’t merely a matter of being more emotional; people very reasonably have different views on this stuff.
- N_Lens 3mo ago
  I think it’s rational to lean more utilitarian if you’re administering a city, state or country.
- deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]

EA-3167 3mo ago

This is often brought out as though it should engender gasps, but a moment of thought punctures the whole prospect. We need cars and trucks for a variety of purposes, and while I agree that most people don't need a pickup or a Unimog, there are many people and businesses who do. The ability to rapidly travel is a centerpiece of modern life, and has been for quite some time. Mass shootings by contrast are not economic or personal drivers of freedom, they're not an intended output of the system that creates them, they're a relatively modern perversity of it. Of course people are more concerned with seemingly random violence that many other countries seem to live without, or with much less of, compared to inevitable accidents. People also love to present "Vehicle vs Ped" as a de facto accident on the part of the vehicle or the driver, and that can certainly be the case! It's also true that about 30% of pedestrians involved in these accidents have a BAC over the legal limit. There are also issues with poorly designed and maintained lights, safety systems on roads, and so on that play a role. None of this is as simple as, "Just bike to work, dummy." I'd also add that recent stats show a REDUCTION in pedestrian fatalities, it's just that it's been on a rise since 2009, but it's going back down again. Possibly that comes down to addressing some concerns I've mentioned above, some comes down to fewer megamonsterSUV's, and some comes down to smartphone and in-car tech no longer promoting using said phones on the road. https://www.ghsa.org/resource-hub/pedestrian-traffic-fatalities-2024-data https://www.ghsa.org/resource-hub/pedestrian-traffic-fatalit...

UtopiaPunk 3mo ago
Nothing in the article is suggesting that we do not need cars and trucks. It does make a compelling case that specifically large trucks and SUVs are causing preventable deaths. And I certainly find no reason that we need very large trucks or SUVs.
- giantg2 3mo ago
  Having any car or truck is a choice. People lived before the automobile. They do provide benefits, just as SUVs and trucks provide benefits. The Amish live without cars, so too could we if we chose to. In fact, the Amish could make the same claim about all automobiles that you make about preventable deaths attributed to larger vehicles.

throwaway219450 3mo ago

The standard of driving in most places I've lived in the US is very low for a developed country. People blow through pedestrian crossings, get-there-itis, crawling through stops, don't use their turn signals, make illegal U-Turns, ignore overtaking conventions. Compare to most countries in Europe where a driving test is a rigorous 45 minutes and you can fail for all sorts of minor stuff. I live in a place with decent pedestrian infrastructure fortunately. I'm more worried about being involved in a random fatal crash when I'm driving than on foot. Making right-on-red illegal wouldn't be bad either. The number of times I've almost been run over when a car is stopped in the middle/straight lane and blocks line of sight to a right-turning car that doesn't look. DUIs are at least treated seriously. It's one of the few offenses that will get a visa instantly revoked. Same in Canada I think.

mcntsh 3mo ago
45 minutes? In Germany getting your license takes most people around a year and costs thousands of euros.
- eltrain 3mo ago
  I assume he meant the actual final practical test.
  - mcntsh 3mo ago
    my point is, in germany it takes longer than a test to get your license, unlike the US.
    - Helloworldboy 3mo ago
      [dead]
    - carefulfungi 3mo ago
      Is it common in other states that you only need a test for a license. Where I live (in the US) if you are a new driver (under 18) you need 30 hours of classroom instruction, 18 hours of trainer-driving time, a 6 month learner permit period with many restrictions and then a finally test, iirc.

NoImmatureAdHom 3mo ago

Mass shootings kill almost no one. They're a red herring. Even with a really stupid, inclusive "3 or more people injured" criterion. If you use that criterion for defining what a mass shooting is, the modal number of people killed is...one.

sieabahlpark 3mo ago

[dead]

groundzeros2015 3mo ago

[flagged]

tzs 3mo ago

Wait...is the massive problem that it should be more than an order of magnitude more people killed than those killed in mass shootings, or is it that it should be less than an order of magnitude more? They are such completely different categories of ways to die I'm having trouble understand how to compare them in any sensible way.

uberex 3mo ago
That I guess is the problem they are highlighting. It is more complicated still when comparing to ill health, war, poverty, terrorism. But OTOH we should strive to make transport safer like we do with commercial flight.
decimalenough 3mo ago
Neither. The OP's point is that shootings consistently make headlines and occasion a lot of passionate debate, while grandma or toddler getting mowed over by a SUV or monster truck doesn't and as a consequence nobody really cares.
- ryandrake 3mo ago
  Hence the saying: If you want to kill someone and get the lightest possible punishment, kill them with your car!
  - hackingonempty 3mo ago
    Best time to get them is when they are riding a bicycle.
- analog31 3mo ago
  But to be fair, mass shootings get no policy changes.
  - scottyah 3mo ago
    What state are you in? Mine banned anything that "looks scary", limited the number of rounds (and made anyone who didn't read the memo and discard the standard one s a felon), prevented any ear-protection from being mounted to the gun, and found a few new ways to make buying ammo more expensive and difficult. It's hard and expensive to buy a gun just to keep the 2A alive even if you never fire it, and you're put on who knows how many government watchlists.

IshKebab 3mo ago

8000 pedestrians killed by cars and 762 in mass shootings. Obviously in raw numbers 8000 is bigger than 762, but think how many people drive in America, and how useful it is! 762 is an absolutely astoundingly crazy number and it definitely deserves the most attention.

avianlyric 3mo ago
> but think how many people drive in America, and how useful it is You should tell that to the families of the 8000 that are killed each year. I’m sure it’ll help them accept the accept the loss of their loved ones. The US is the only developed country that has seen a steady increase in the number of pedestrian deaths per 1000km driven over the past 10-15 years. And 10-15 years ago it was one of the worst performing developed countries for pedestrian deaths. Every other developed country has seen decreases in pedestrian deaths over the same time period, which means the US is an extreme outlier when it comes to pedestrian safety, or lack there of.
- IshKebab 3mo ago
  > You should tell that to the families of the 8000 that are killed each year. I’m sure it’ll help them accept the accept the loss of their loved ones. I mean, yes? Society has decided that cars are worth the convenience because of all their advantages. Now is America too obsessed with cars, and totally ignorant of pedestrian safety? Yes of course. But other countries aren't so bad on that front and they still accept some deaths. It's easy to see the utility of cars. Less so for guns. > it was one of the worst performing developed countries for pedestrian deaths How's it performing on the mass shooting front?
  - llbeansandrice 3mo ago
    Actually many cities aren’t accepting traffic deaths at all and are adopting Vision Zero. I believe it’s Norway that adopted it for the entire country and was able to go over a year with exactly zero traffic related deaths. This problem is solvable and people in this thread saying that it’s not are absurd.

allarm 3mo ago

This comparison seems bizarre to me, but what do I know about the US?

like_any_other 3mo ago

Not that I object to the findings, but the Center for Disease Control getting involved in traffic safety is massive scope creep. Especially since we already have the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the National Transportation Safety Board.

srustagi 3mo ago

more europeans are killed from not having AC/heat-related deaths than both of those. I don't think any of these are apples to apples comparisons tbh your point still stands without the extreme analogy.