Good catch. However, that paragraph goes on to say "However, each of these is incorporated into broader rankable categories, namely, Malignant neoplasms and Accidents (unintentional injuries), respectively." So they are included in accidental deaths -- they're just not broken out.
Being #13 overall definitely doesn't preclude them from being #1 in younger age brackets. Most of the deaths from cancer and heart disease are the older age brackets ("Diseases of the heart" are 23% of overall deaths, but only 2-4% for each age rank among minors; ~6% in the 20s-30s). "Accidents (unintentional injuries)" is the #1 listed cause for every male and female age bracket until the 45–54 bracket (pp 19-22) (this precludes infants under 1). The question is what portion of those were traffic accidents.
If we assume traffic accidents at the same rate among all age groups, then we have 36,000/169,936[0] = ~20%. That drops it to around fifth place for most of the younger brackets. (Personally, I'd guess it's higher for at least the 15-19 age bracket, but that's just a guess at this point.)
So, okay, fine, traffic accidents is roughly sixth most common cause of death for kids in the US, and thirteenth for all ages. The original question was why we'd prefer that if the cost is the same. Even while my numbers were way off, it's still a big benefit.
> Please also keep in mind that 1 out of every 6 traffic fatalities in the United States was a pedestrian.
I'm assuming a significant portion of pedestrians traffic fatalities are drivers killing pedestrian, not pedestrians...I don't even know what to put as the alternative. Stepping in front of a bicycle?
My position is not that human-driven cars kill human drivers -- it's that human-driven cars kill lots of people. If drivers only ended up harming themselves, I'd be slightly less concerned about it.
Being #13 overall definitely doesn't preclude them from being #1 in younger age brackets. Most of the deaths from cancer and heart disease are the older age brackets ("Diseases of the heart" are 23% of overall deaths, but only 2-4% for each age rank among minors; ~6% in the 20s-30s). "Accidents (unintentional injuries)" is the #1 listed cause for every male and female age bracket until the 45–54 bracket (pp 19-22) (this precludes infants under 1). The question is what portion of those were traffic accidents.
If we assume traffic accidents at the same rate among all age groups, then we have 36,000/169,936[0] = ~20%. That drops it to around fifth place for most of the younger brackets. (Personally, I'd guess it's higher for at least the 15-19 age bracket, but that's just a guess at this point.)
So, okay, fine, traffic accidents is roughly sixth most common cause of death for kids in the US, and thirteenth for all ages. The original question was why we'd prefer that if the cost is the same. Even while my numbers were way off, it's still a big benefit.
> Please also keep in mind that 1 out of every 6 traffic fatalities in the United States was a pedestrian.
I'm assuming a significant portion of pedestrians traffic fatalities are drivers killing pedestrian, not pedestrians...I don't even know what to put as the alternative. Stepping in front of a bicycle?
My position is not that human-driven cars kill human drivers -- it's that human-driven cars kill lots of people. If drivers only ended up harming themselves, I'd be slightly less concerned about it.
[0] Just grabbing most recent number from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...