
Why Sweden has so few road deaths - mkempe
http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/02/economist-explains-16
======
carsongross
"That’s interesting, because in America, among Scandinavians, we have no
poverty, either" \--Milton Friedman

~~~
matt__rose
Wow, that just goes to show how ignorant Milton Friedman is...

~~~
adventured
The data mostly backs up Friedman's quip. So where's the ignorance exactly?

[http://www.cato.org/blog/swedens-big-welfare-state-
superior-...](http://www.cato.org/blog/swedens-big-welfare-state-superior-
americas-medium-welfare-state-then-why-do-swedes-america)

"The 4.4 million or so Americans with Swedish origins are considerably richer
than average Americans, as are other immigrant groups from Scandinavia. If
Americans with Swedish ancestry were to form their own country, their per
capita GDP would be $56,900, more than $10,000 above the income of the average
American. This is also far above Swedish GDP per capita, at $36,600. Swedes
living in the USA are thus approximately 53 per cent more wealthy than Swedes
(excluding immigrants) in their native country (OECD, 2009; US Census
database). It should be noted that those Swedes who migrated to the USA,
predominately in the nineteenth century, were anything but the elite. Rather,
it was often those escaping poverty and famine. …A Scandinavian economist once
said to Milton Friedman, ‘In Scandinavia, we have no poverty’. Milton Friedman
replied, ‘That’s interesting, because in America, among Scandinavians, we have
no poverty, either’. Indeed, the poverty rate for Americans with Swedish
ancestry is only 6.7 per cent: half the US average (US Census)."

~~~
vacri
6.7% of people in poverty is not "no poverty".

~~~
_delirium
Especially considering the conditions that qualify as "no poverty" by the
U.S.'s rather low standard. If you make $20k and live in a trailer park in
Idaho with no medical coverage, you're not in poverty according to the US, but
your quality of life is lower than that of a rural Swede.

Sweden also has considerable inequality, but the lower bound on basic
infrastructure is better. If you live in a rural area in the far north and
make barely any money, you still generally have solid permanent housing and
access to high-quality medical care (this wasn't always the case, but has
mostly been achieved as a result of concerted effort). You may have nearly no
light in the winter, but there's not much the state can do about the latitude.

~~~
thaumasiotes
> You may have nearly no light in the winter, but there's not much the state
> can do about the latitude

Electricity? This is one of the first places I'd look for technology to
improve things.

~~~
zaroth
Parent meant no sunlight, not no electricity!

------
lifeisstillgood
tl;dr

Sweden has 3 road deaths per 100,000 capita while Eurozone has 5.5 and USA 11.
This is because Sweden build their roads with safety first (Lower speed
limits, better physical seperation of pedestrians and care).

But ... Deaths per capita is a broad statistic. What about broken down by
urban and non urban areas? Pedestrian v cycle v motorised deaths. In the end
what is the null value for deaths per capita comparisons? Is 3/100,000 and 5.5
actually statistically significant?

As for the comments on thread that say "yet another swedes do it all better
than us article" \- well In my view scandanavian and Dutch politics all have a
much less emotional more "strict mother" approach to many political debates -
road safety is just one such. And we know better decisions about hard subjects
are made with emotion safely caged.

~~~
001sky
Deaths per road mile would be a more interesting statistic.

~~~
jcampbell1
From: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-
re...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-
related_death_rate)

Deaths per terameter driven.

    
    
        Sweden 3.2
        Norway 3.5
        UK 3.6
        ....
        USA 8.5
        ....
        UAE 310

~~~
001sky
The data for deaths by US state is non-uniform:

 _State Traffic Deaths (Per 100,000 Population)

________________

Wyoming 27.48

Mississippi 21.58

Arkansas 19.27

Montana 19.07

Alabama 18.01

Oklahoma 17.76

Kentucky 17.49

South Carolina 17.47_

Wheras as in highly urbanized states:

___________________________

 _California 7.27

Illinois 7.22

Washington 6.79

New Jersey 6.32

Rhode Island 6.27

New York 6.19

Massachusetts 4.79_

[http://vehicle-fatalities.findthedata.org/](http://vehicle-
fatalities.findthedata.org/)

------
shazow
There was a Planet Money podcast episode[1] which mentions that Americans are
far less likely to wear a seatbelt, at least compared to Germans but also
probably Scandinavian countries as well.

According to Wikipedia[2], the US is definitely worse than Sweden, Germany,
and Norway in terms of seat belt usage. But at least it's better than Italy,
Greece, and the Czech Republic.

I suspect this is a big factor in road deaths.

[1]
[http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/02/12/171814201/episode-...](http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/02/12/171814201/episode-435-why-
buying-a-car-is-so-awful)

[2]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt_use_rates_by_country](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt_use_rates_by_country)

------
sukuriant
Interesting that the comments on the article make some good points, including
that the UK has about the same / a better deaths per capita than Sweden,
despite it being the exact opposite type of road environment

[edit: clarified wording some]

~~~
gweinberg
I don't think you want to see per capita, you want to see per driver-mile.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> I don't think you want to see per capita, you want to see per driver-mile.

Not necessarily. Having e.g. a functional mass transit system that allows
people to drive less is a perfectly valid way to reduce traffic fatalities.

------
mattvot
Can someone explain how the 2+1 lanes work and how they would reduce road
deaths?

~~~
mkempe
You may (and physically can) only overtake when there are two lanes going in
your direction. The road alternates every couple of km between 1 and 2 lanes
in each direction.

~~~
jack-r-abbit
I had the same question as the parent comment. Perhaps I still don't
understand. Doesn't that just create a bottleneck every couple of km? It seems
to me that around here one of the biggest causes of traffic appears to be when
ever there is a lane reduction.

~~~
donall
I think the theory is that the middle lane is _only_ used for overtaking
slower-moving cars. Perhaps the Swedes, like the Germans, practice good lane
discipline and stick to the right until they need to overtake.

I think this 2+1 wouldn't work in the US because (in my experience) very few
people use the lanes correctly and they just distribute themselves evenly
across all lanes, regardless of speed. That strategy does, indeed, lead to
bottlenecks when the number of lanes reduces.

~~~
vacri
Here in Australia, 2+1 roads aren't very long - they're usually just long
enough for a few cars to overtake a slowpoke, then a few kilometers further on
you'll get another chance. You can't really cruise double-abreast on these
roads, as they're not long enough for that.

Similarly you can't really bottleneck because the only input is a single-lane
road - they're not long enough to add anything more than trivial traffic in
rural areas.

------
lazylizard
minor thing about their speed-bumps..apparently they're trying out things like
[http://www.edeva.se/index.php/actibump/](http://www.edeva.se/index.php/actibump/)

------
sscalia
They make no mention of much better driver training; higher-quality and
routinely inspected automobiles; less traffic; and cultural values that
probably play a huge role.

*Edited Typo

~~~
thenmar
Wikipedia says Swedish drivers can't get a fully-privileged license until
they're 20 or 21. Compare that to the U.S. where in many states a 16 year old
who took a single practical driving test is considered fully qualified. I
wonder how much of a difference that makes.

~~~
sharkweek
I think back to myself at 16 and cringe at the thought of me being allowed to
drive a car...

~~~
toki5
The very first time I drove alone after getting my license, I was backing out
of my parents' driveway and managed to put huge scrapes in _three_ cars
because I didn't have a strong enough understanding of how the world worked in
reverse.

Because all three cars were ours, and it occurred on our property, there were
no tickets, no police activity, no DMV penalties, nothing -- if my parents
hadn't been strict (and thank GOD they were), I could've just kept driving.

I also cringe at the thought of that happening, because I, like a lot of 16
year olds, was really stupid.

