Originally Posted by
SCROUDS
I'm not comparing absolute quantities, I'm comparing # of deaths per population. My chances of dying from a car crash increases when the average person drives more miles. The less people drive, the safer the roads become. Vehicle Miles traveled muddies the water by assuming people have a fixed amount of miles they need to drive. America is less safe not because people drive more dangerous, but because people drive more often and for longer distances.
The suburban model is not a foregone conclusion, but a state we reached due to massive incentives and zoning laws restricting urban development. sggoodri said it better then I can.
You referenced table 1-2 which is simple absolute numbers and not adjusted for population. If you'd care to actually do the calculations or show the table in the report where those calculations were done, then please do so. You haven't yet.
VMT is the only way to account for both population differences as well as geographical differences, among the nations studied, VMT accounts not just for the length of trips, but also (and more importantly) the percentage of the population who drive. It would be interesting to adjust the numbers in Table 1-2 to account for population of licensed drivers; however, that information was included in the report. It would be the only way to determine if VMT was skewing the numbers the way you'll claim.
You'll need to read the report cited. It says nothing about controlling urban sprawl as a means of "fixing" the straw man problem it proposes. One of the first items listed is the creation of a new federal bureaucracy... It discusses the advantages of the other nations centralized control of the safety issue--which since the numbers don't support their conclusions is strongly suspect. About the only measure that it discusses that is feasible in the US is the increase of enforcement of existing laws.