Obviously you have completely missed the point.<p>&gt; Here&#x27;s a gedankenexperiment for you: I instantaneously and permanently disable every car and car manufactory, thereby reducing all traffic fatalities to zero. Did I make driving safer?<p>You certainly would have done an effective job of executing a &#x27;war on car fatalities&#x27; which is what the harryh was claiming was demonstrated by the chart he posted.<p>While I agree that driving is safer than it used to be, the chart harryh posted doesn&#x27;t actually show that. it just shows that driving is safer per mile.<p>Analogous to the point that cbr made: Without changing any of the risks of driving, I could make driving safer per mile by hiring a million drivers to drive 10MPH on a closed track year round.<p>While the above point is rather tongue-in-cheek, I do suspect that a significant part of the drop indicated in harryh&#x27;s chart is due to changing driving patterns, particularly the increase in freeway driving.<p>I don&#x27;t think eliminating all driving would be a good way to reduce traffic deaths (because it all of the other consequences that would have). However, if we had spent more effort in trying to reduce unnecessary and high-risk driving we would see a larger reduction in traffic deaths. This includes solutions like walkable cities, adequate public transit, and higher penalties for drivers engaged in risky behavior that cause fatalities. Focusing purely on deaths per mile excludes those types of interventions. Thus you can&#x27;t use that measure to claim a &#x27;war on car fatalities&#x27;.