Uber's casualty tally reveals reduced rates yet excludes crucial numbers
Uber's just-released U.S. Safety Record sets forth in some information its variety of casualties, as well as the bright side is that the total rate per mile is about half the national average. However the report makes some confusing selections regarding what is included and excluded.
To develop the report, Uber took its inner records of accidents, generated by motorists, individuals or insurance provider, and also compared it to the nationwide Fatality Analysis Reporting System, or FARS, a database that tracks all automotive deaths. By doing this Uber had the ability to confirm 97 deadly collisions with 107 total fatalities in 2017 as well as 2018 integrated.
As the firm takes care to explain, more than 36,000 individuals passed away in car crashes in the U.S. in 2018 alone, so the total doesn't actually imply much by itself. So they (as others carry out in this field) put those mishaps in context of miles traveled. Besides, one collision in 100,000 miles doesn't appear poor since it's only one, yet 10 accidents in a billion miles, which is closer to what Uber saw, is in fact far better regardless of the first number being greater. To some this is blindingly noticeable, yet maybe not to others.
The actual numbers are that in 2017, there were 49 "Uber-related" casualties over 8.2 billion miles, or roughly 0.59 per 100 million miles traveled; in 2018, there were 58 over 1.3 billion, or concerning 0.57 per 100 million miles. The national standard is more than 1.1 per 100 million, so Uber sees about half as many casualties per mile generally.
These collisions normally occurred at reduced speeds than the nationwide average, and were more likely without a doubt to take place during the night, in lighted locations of cities. That makes sense, because rideshare solutions are greatly heavy toward city environments and also shorter, lower-speed journeys.
That's excellent, however there are a number of flies in the ointment.
First, clearly, there is no reference whatsoever of non-fatal mishaps. These are more difficult to track and also classify, but it seems strange not to include them in all. If the prices of Ubers getting into fender benders or severe crashes where somebody damages an arm are less than the national standard, as one might anticipate from the fatality prices, why not say so?
When I asked about this, an Uber speaker said that non-fatal accidents are simply uber crash insurance not also defined or tracked, certainly not to the level deadly collisions are, which makes reporting them continually challenging. That makes good sense, but it still feels like we're missing out on an important piece below. Fatal accidents are relatively uncommon as well as the data corpus on non-fatal crashes may provide other insights.