File talk:Road-way vs. railway safety.png

= Very much doubt the seriousness and correctness of these figures = These figures are at least very questionable, if not totally wrong and misinterpreted.

Just as an example: Switzerland
Accoding the Swiss Federal Office for Statistics, between 2002 and 2011 there were 1 fatality per 6249 million person-kilometer on railways (in 100 Million pkm: 0.016 - and not something around 0.28).

However, 1 fatality per every 443 million person-kilometer by private cars (in 100 Million pkm: 0.23 - and not something around 0.38).

This means that the relation between "road-way" and "railway" is a factor of 14, and not only a bit smaller than 3! Check out by yourself here under the title "Risikovergleich ausgewählter Verkehrmittel" (in English: risk analysis between different transport means): comparison between railway, cars, bicycles and motor bikes (in German and French only).

By the way: Of the about average 20 fatalities in railway transport are less than 1 passenger per year!

But see also:


 * Transport accidents
 * Passenger transport performance
 * Eisenbahnunfälle und verunfallte Personen (in German, railway accidents and people involved)

So far about Switzerland.

But I also very much doubt that the situation in Austria or Germany are fundamentally different (for railways as well as on roads)!!!!

- ZH8000 (talk) 03:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The following discussion took previously place here: Talk:Rail_transport
 * ZH8000 (talk) 20:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * First of all: did you read this: File_talk:Road-way_vs._railway_safety.png
 * Secondly: Did you understand it? And if yes, what are your conclusions? - I miss your responses to that! - You claim that you did study (did you complete and succeed?), even in engineering, so you should definitely be able to respond accordingly.
 * Thirdly: Your error are manyfold - much too manyfold in my perception. But well, let me point to only a few of the most fundamental ones:
 * First of all, you do not cite anywhere on what years your data are based on, neither in the picture (absolutely necessary), nor on the WP Commons page, actually nowhere. Until now.
 * Secondly, as you show now in your remark above that you base your euphemistically called "statistics" are based only on one SINGLE year (2010). For heaven's sake! Pardon-me, but this is less than serious, and far below what I would expect from an academic, even when he was just a bad one! This is just simply a shameful failure and much worse than a rookie mistake.
 * Thirdly: There are many errors in your data. For example, the number of fatalities on Swiss railways in 2010 was not 53, as you claim in your data, but 18 (see again here).
 * Fourthly: You are are misinterpreting the data (because you do not ask what they are representing and how they are sampled, eventually?!). For example, only one of the 18 fatalities in rail transport in Switzerland in 2010 was a passenger (see again previous link)! Other fatalities may have resulted from suicides on rail tracks, accidents between trains and cars on crosses (eventually with fatalities among the car drivers), workers on trail tracks etc. And according to the common understanding of the industry, some of these fatalities are not taken into account regarding transport means saftey! E.g. in Austria 2010, there were reported 122 fatalities related to rail transport, but of which 92 were suicides, 1 railway worker, among others, but not a single passenger (see here). But you claim, there were 86 fatalities! *strange*
 * And finally (but definitely not last): Please, do keep up with common sense! Always re-consider your own data, especially if you use them as THE basis of fundamental conclusions such as transport safety! - Do you honestly and seriously think that railways in Spain are 700% safer than the ones in Sweden, for example, or even 1260% safer than the Austrian ones?! Really? - Well, if yes, I hope I never ever have to drive on public transport systems where you where involved in planning it!
 * So please, either start producing serious stuff (real statistics!), or then please just give up publicizing them here on WP. Thanks pal!
 * ZH8000 (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your analysis and comments. I'll remake the data and the graph:
 * 1 and 2 - I'll consider 10 years, and I'll find the average, either for the fatalities, either for the km-passengers
 * 3 - you're right, I considered killed and injured, then 53
 * that I must disagree, because I'd like to compare the safety of the two modes. In car fatalities statistics, normally pedestrian hits (whatever the cause) are included. Do you agree with me on this?
 * 4 - I was in Moscow, and there the subway for example has gates between the platform and the rails (like the lifts), to avoid people falling on the rail whatever the cause. If in Sweden or Austria, the rail system allows such things, I might say the mode on this particularity is not safe enough. The safety of the mode, is not only the safety of the mean of transport within it, is the overall safety of the infrastructures.
 * Thank you for your comments. I'll remake the graph and update the file.
 * Kindly do not delete it.
 * Regards. João Pimentel Ferreira 09:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joao.pimentel.ferreira (talk • contribs)


 * Good day, according to Eurostat, CH in the period 2008-2012 had an average of 21.2 fatalities per year in the rail system (total killed by any reason; not included injured). According the Eurostat, in the period 2008-2012 in CH there were an average of 18771.2 million pax-km per year. This gives 0.11. Kindly confirm that this data is made according to scientific criteria, so I can update the figure. I really didn't want to creat a war edition, I'm in wikipedia as you to give truthful and reliable information to the public, so kindly help me with this data :) João Pimentel Ferreira 11:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Good day. I updated the figure. Kindly check it and the respective data sheet, as well all the notes. Thank you. Best regards João Pimentel Ferreira 18:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joao.pimentel.ferreira (talk • contribs)

General Remarks
Well, my dear João, unfortunately I still very much doubt how meaningful your diagram is regarding the discussion about transport safety. I would thoroughly advice you to dive first of all into industries' kind of talk about this issue in order to learn more about the subject. Start for example here: 'ERA's safety performance nowledge

Just four general remarks from my side (I hesitate to comment your diagram further in detail): Regards, -- ZH8000 (talk) 01:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Safety is not just a single figure, but a complex structure of causes and deversified outcomes.
 * For the sake of comparability you can (dramatically) reduce Safety to one single figure, such as "fatalities per x". But if you really want to do this, firstly, you have to make clear to the reader's awareness that you have been applying an operationalisation which is eventually not free of fundamental suspicion regarding its applicability! Secondly, fatalities and significant injuries per passenger-km, or like the European Railway Agency ERA puts it, per occupants-km (see page IV in ) would eventually be the better selection, don't you think so?
 * According to the ERA and European Commission, the factor between fatality risk of passenger using different mode of transport  of a car passenger and a railway passenger is greater than 28 times! Far more than your conclusion and probably much more significant, for us as users of particular transportation modes.
 * Don't reinvent the wheel! ... Because almost for sure it will be worse than done by professionals! ;-)


 * Thank you for your relevant comments and analysis.
 * 1 - I'll put on the figure to the user awareness that the graph does not refer to safety but as it is; fatalities (killed by any reason) per pax-km; i.e.; I'll not mention the word safety for the sake of scientific truthfulness
 * 2 - As I said, I didn't analyse injured, but just killed; then, the overall concept of safety will not be fulfilled; so I'll not refer such word. I will make it clear what is the operationalization method which I'm trying to achieve.
 * 3 - The report, made by ERA, which refers to fatality risk (Fatalities per billion passenger kilometers) gives 0.0156 per 100 million pax-km for railway and 0.44 per 100 million pax-km for car occupant. I provide all the data from Eurostat. Kindly see the tables and the respective links for each table. I really think the differences as I previously mentioned, came from the fact that I define simply fatalities (I suppose that is objectiveness), including everyone and every case, while I realize that you and the numbers from ERA just consider passengers/occupants.
 * 4 - I don't want to reinvent the wheel, I just would like it to put it in WP, but it's getting hard after so much work.
 * Regards. João Pimentel Ferreira 10:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joao.pimentel.ferreira (talk • contribs)


 * João, your third edition looks almost cool to me. I would add that these figures are based on data by the EU-27 member states as an average of the years of 2008-2010. Further, you are referring to the PDF page 7, but it is the document's labeled page 1. I also find the figure 6 on page 7 quite interesting. Perhaps you will sometimes find time to prepare it for WP while also including Switzerland? ;-)
 * And please, do not forget to regularly sign your comments! -- ZH8000 (talk) 12:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the remarks. I'll change the image as you say. João Pimentel Ferreira 10:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joao.pimentel.ferreira (talk • contribs)

updated figure
Hi. According to the report you have given me, I updated the figure. I'm looking forward to receive your comments to add this figure to WP article. Thank you. João Pimentel Ferreira 12:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joao.pimentel.ferreira (talk • contribs)