I disagree. For example, you might take your car for a trip to a big box store outside of town, but you might take your bike or walk to shop for groceries at your local supermarket. So even if you adjust for number of trips, the car will naturally account for a much larger distance.
In my opinion it is much more interesting to know how likely you are to be injured or killed on any given trip than, say, every 100 km of walking or driving.
Not to say that adjusting for distance can never be useful, but in this case I’m not sure it would add as much meaning.
This is in France. Los of people walk rather than drive. It would be interesting to see the numbers adjusted for number of trips, though.
A lot more people than in the US but france is still pretty carbrained outside of big cities
I think adjusting for travelled distance would give more insight.
I disagree. For example, you might take your car for a trip to a big box store outside of town, but you might take your bike or walk to shop for groceries at your local supermarket. So even if you adjust for number of trips, the car will naturally account for a much larger distance.
In my opinion it is much more interesting to know how likely you are to be injured or killed on any given trip than, say, every 100 km of walking or driving.
Not to say that adjusting for distance can never be useful, but in this case I’m not sure it would add as much meaning.