I seem to read an article almost exactly like this every year or two. But it is always an interesting exercise to look at the numbers and studies cited in anything like this and draw your own conclusions.
I thought the observation that common and diffuse causes of mortality rarely get the attention they deserve, while singular events of low probability and high shock value invariably capture the headlines, imagination and societal impetus, was a good one. This is the same discussion we were having yesterday over here:
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7487
I don't think its any surprise that we use autos so much given the public support for them in terms of road building, city designs and relatively low taxes on fuel. The more surprising factor is that this car culture appears to be in somewhat of a decline in the past couple decades, at least among younger people and in many urban areas, while a bicycle culture may be ascendant.
Some the statistics cited were poorly done, though. In particular, that MIT study seems to be a complete piece of crap, given it does not appear to have controlled for any other causes of death in the areas identified (confounding statistical factors). So that "53,000 extra deaths meme" tells me this author just has an agenda (which I tend to agree with in part) and is looking for "shocking numbers" to support it. It detracts from the credibility of the author in my view.
The article also omits many other statistical inconvenient truths, including the decline in auto accident deaths that is well documented:
http://www.alertdriving.com/home/fleet- ... l-60-years But I suppose that is also to be expected.
