It would be hard to compare deaths from both different modalities and different eras. For one things, cars are actually much safer than they used to be (ABS, airbags, crash standards yielding things like collapsing steering columns, side crash strengths, pedestrian-vs-hood standards, etc). Secondly, trauma response and medicine have improved greatly (EMS, helicopter transport in far flung rural areas, ER protocols and available tools, trauma designations and training). So if you compare deaths travelled by horse to deaths travelled by automobiles, there are probably too many confounding variables to separate the data into usable comparison.
But these advances have not happened in a vacuum: I think it could be argued that most improvements to automobiles have happened not due to shifts in consumerâs marketplace desires, but in response to imposed regulations that stemmed people who truly cared about the body count. Likewise with decreases in pollution from the same vehicles - the marketplace hasnât been the driver of improvement that regulation has. Sometimes the marketplace needs to be nudged by our collective will toward improving the lives of all.
the originally linked article seems to almost get around to this, without ever really going into depth on any section of the topic, but continually railing against âcar cultureâ as a generality. I was hoping for something a bit more in depth. I still think the book Traffic does a great job of touching on these issues, as well as some great technical looks at environment designâs impact on fatalities.
If you ever get the chance to see Errol Morrisâ Fog of War, it has a great bit with Robert McNamara discussing his thoughts on working for Ford Motor Company and realizing that car designs were killing off Ford customers. And if they could keep them alive with safety equipment it would work in the companyâs interest to allow them to drive again and thus, buy more Fords.
Itâs a fascinating piece on realizing oneâs own foibles as well as trying to justify oneâs actions. Great movie.
Sure, but if youâre going to use a phrase like âmurder machinesâ to describe automobiles then itâs kind of implied that they have a higher risk factor than what preceded them. (Which may very well be true, I have no idea.)
One way you could do a somewhat-controlled study on that topic might be to compare deaths-per-mile-traveled in places like rural Pennsylvania, where some people drive modern automobiles and others live in traditional Amish communities that still use horses and carts to get around.
Its also sticky to use âper mile traveledâ as the development patterns associated with cars tend to increase âmiles traveled per task accomplishedâ significantly. (I think car cities devote like 40% of land surface to transportation vs 25% for transit oriented cities, increasing the distance between any two locations.)
