From the Herald, ignoring the background data and so clearly underwhelmed by the good news, judging by the headline and the use of ‘only’:
Some 1666 people were either killed or seriously injured on Scotland’s roads last year – despite the Covid lockdown curbing people’s movement.
It amounts to a 38% drop from 2019 when there were 2692 serious casualties.
According to Department for Transport data, the numbers who were killed on Scottish roads only fell by 13% from 165 in 2019 to 143 last year.
In its latest publication the Scottish Government states there was an original ambition for a 40 per cent reduction in the number of people killed by 2020 but the actual figure was 52 per cent.
Similarly, the 2020 target of a 55 per cent reduction in those seriously injured was exceeded, with an actual figure of 68 per cent.
Originally it was hoped 2020 would deliver a 50 per cent reduction in the number of children killed below the age of 16. Instead the figure was 76 per cent down on the 2009 figure.https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19716113.transport-1500-killed-injured-scotlands-roads/
A 38% fall in one year and that’s not the headline?
Deaths fall by 13% and that’s ‘only?’
And those larger, longer-term drops?
The pandemic-related drop in traffic percentage would be useful context here but we only read that it was ‘huge’ and ‘significant.’ Why no figures for only this when it’s in the second paragraph of the Transport Scotland source – 23%?
So traffic falls by 23% but casualties fall 38% Not good headline news?
What does this mean?
When you reduce traffic, you reduce casualties by more – exponential or geometric as opposed to mere arithmetic decay?
If so why? Because of less shared cars, because of behaviour change in those who continue to drive, because…
Why a lesser fall in deaths? Because the ‘boy-racers’ keep driving and use the space to go even faster?