&gt; You are being a pedantic jerk<p>&quot;DH0. Name-calling. This is the lowest form of disagreement&quot;<p>&gt; Are you against hospitals too? Deaths in hospitals have skyrocketed since they were invented.<p>&quot;DH1. Ad Hominem.&quot;<p>Good job, you&#x27;ve hit the bottom of the disagreement heirarchy. In my mind my responses are all on the level of DH4 and DH5. If I have failed to do that, please provide specific examples because I strive to disagree well and wish to improve.<p>&gt; Here are some more reasonable discussions of the issue:<p>Neither of those are discussions of the issue at hand, which is the number of deaths due to cars. Nowhere, except in replies that attack a strawman argument, was the safety of driving a point of debate. I have even stated elsewhere that I agree that driving has gotten safer (though I do dispute that fatalities per distance is an ideal metric for measuring that since it is also affected by usage patterns in addition to safety).<p>I have made solid, non-pedantic points about the effect of using different metrics and what types of interventions will show up in those metrics.<p>If you are talking about traffic safety (say vs air travel or between countries), fatalities per distance is one of several applicable metrics (fatalities per trip being another).<p>If you are talking about traffic deaths, as a overall source of risk (say vs terrorism) then fatalities per capita is a more correct metric.<p>This is not a pedantic point, this is a very important point that is key to the discussion that you seem to be avoiding.