I decided to look and found that this metric is almost always measured by vehicle distance travelled rather than by population. Basically the graph OP shared is useless and meant to support a narrative, as you stated.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Does that mean that Canadians in Alberta, Quebec, and Ontario simply don't drive long distances inside their provinces? That doesn't track with what I've seen when visiting all three provinces.

[–] SreudianFlip@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Calgary relatives: "oh I'm just going to zip up to Edmonton for the day" or go for a coffee 40km to the other side of town or just do the daily 130km commute etc.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

For AB I'm thinking its more "I can't afford to live in Banff, but that's where work is so a place in Canmore is where I call home with a 30 min commute each way."

Or "Yeah I like living in Red Deer, but it means a 1.5 hour drive one way if I want to see the Flames beat the skates off the Leafs when they're in town."

[–] SreudianFlip@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago

Yep, all of that too: Okotoks and Airdrie are basically suburbs now.

[–] Artisian@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I think it's kinda interesting still, in that it shows people are (must?) drive so much. But yes, agree that per cap seems like the wrong statistic for any kind of safety.

Maybe more fair would be transit fatalities per mile traveled (any method)?

[–] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 days ago

Yes. The preferred method is per distance travelled.