I&#x27;m pretty sure I understand your argument fine. Allow me to attempt a summary:<p>The original graphic shows that driving is less dangerous now than ever before. However, it does not take into account the <i>prevalence</i> of driving, which is also higher. Therefore, the original graphic is &quot;misleading&quot;, because &quot;traffic fatalities&quot; is the combination of the danger of driving and its prevalence.<p>Given this current understanding of your point, my only argument now is that I believe that is an uncharitable view of the original post. I argue this because the view is entirely based on that singular interpretation of &quot;war on traffic fatalities&quot;. A charitable approach is entirely based on attempting to view an argument with suspension of your own beliefs and interpretations in order to understand the other party&#x27;s. Through such, common understanding can be worked towards.<p>I&#x27;m also sorry that you feel that I have been uncharitable to you. I honestly do believe your argument is entirely centered around the semantics of &quot;war on traffic fatalities&quot;. The information you provided in your graphic is very good, and the point you are making is not wrong. I didn&#x27;t have any issues at all until your response to cbr&#x27;s original post, which is where I feel you began arguing semantics over content. I feel this way because cbr was also not wrong, and if anything was an equally good summary as what I stated above. And yet you still seemed to take an issue with it.