WHO announces world’s deadliest roads


WHO announces world’s deadliest roads

Rhys Blakely


Few who have dared transit India’s hair-raising highways or dodged the cattle that wander its pavement-bereft high streets will be surprised: the country leads the world in terms of the sheer number of road fatalities — around 105,725 a year at the latest count.So says the World Health Organisation in its first comprehensive report on global road safety, a document that covers 98 per cent of the planet’s population and that otherwise appears to confirm many widely held prejudices regarding national attitudes and aptitudes.

In terms of deaths per capita, the deadliest place to travel by road is Eritrea, a beleaguered African state where a fragile peace exists after 30 years of war. There were an estimated 48 deaths per 100,000 people in the former Italian colony in 2007, a world record.

As in most countries, the number of men killed through road accidents vastly outstripped that of women, in Eritrea’s case by three-to-one — the same ratio as in Britain.

The only other country to come close to Eritrea’s record was the Cook Islands, with 45 deaths per 100,000 people. The tiny South Pacific nation has a population of just 13,325, five of whom expired through road accidents in 2007, the year recorded in the study.

Doing their bit to reinforce the prejudice that the Levant’s drivers are among the world’s most erratic, Egypt (41.6) and Libya (40.5), both long notorious for the bedlam that reigns on their roads, were the next deadliest places to travel.

Britain, by contrast, reported only 5.4 deaths per 100,000 people, making it about as safe as the Netherlands and marginally safer than Germany (6) and France (7.5).

The safest country was the Marshall Islands, whose 59,000 inhabitants own just 2,487 vehicles and suffered just one fatal traffic accident last year. The tiny Pacific state’s other claim to fame: it has the highest rate of leprosy in the world.

The case of Afghanistan, however, is probably the most baffling. In the WHO report, the country, which is embroiled in a fierce war and where large areas are under Taleban control, scored a perfect “10” for enforcing the national speed limit of 50km/h in urban areas. It was the only country out of the 178 surveyed to do so.

Likewise — though perhaps less surprisingly given its share of Islamists — Afghanistan was also alone in scoring the top mark for enforcing strict drink driving laws that permit no alcohol to be found consumed by a driver.

Afghanistan’s perfect scores were awarded by a panel of eight experts from the country – three from the Government and five independents. A WHO official admitted that the the rating “was open to interpretation”.

Even so, the country suffered an estimated 39 deaths per 100,000 people — making it one of the most dangerous places to be on a road.

The country with the most cars — the United States, with more than 251 million vehicles between 306 million people — suffered 13.9 fatalities per 100,000 people, about the same as Azerbaijan, Turkey and Sri Lanka.

According to the WHO report, about 1.3 million people die each year on the world’s roads, while between 20 and 50 million sustain non-fatal injuries. Road traffic injuries are the leading cause of death among young people, aged between 15 and 44.

The document also confirmed how much more vulnerable are road users not travelling by car. Almost half of the estimated 1.27 million people who die in road traffic crashes every year are pedestrians, motorcyclists and cyclists.

“While progress has been made towards protecting people in cars, the needs of these vulnerable groups of road users are not being met,” the organisation said.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/article6801595.ece

Highest IQ in Ghana is 106


Forgetting about this ad hominen attack for a moment, let’s ask Paul this question from a different perspective:

2007 TIMSS Math Score http://timss.bc.edu/timss2007/intl_reports.html

In 2007, the highest scoring countries who took TIMSS math were Singapore where the average math score of the 6,018 students who took the test was 610, and Hong Kong where 4,972 students averaged 584. The lowest scoring students were 5,100 students in Ghana who averaged just 261, and Botswana where 5,150 students averages just 377. Seven students in Ghana scored higher than 558, BUT: none of them scored higher than 657. We know that NO Ghanan student scored as high as the AVERAGE for Singapore, whose average IQ is estimated at 106. Seven students in Botswana scored higher than 587, but just like Ghana, NONE of them scored higher than 657.

This is absolute solid statistical evidence that at least in these two countries, which represent a total African population of 27 million, NO Black student has an IQ higher than 106.

Is this MY fault, Paul?

Obama CANNOT be a Natural-born Citizen


Natural-born Citizen

The scion of distinguished U.S. naval officers, McCain was born to two American
parents in the Panama Canal Zone. On April 30, 2008, the U.S. Senate sought to
answer the question by passing a nonbinding resolution, which states, “Whereas
John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military
base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it resolved, that John
Sidney McCain, III, is a ‘natural born citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of
the Constitution of the United States.”

Read more: Authors: Even Hawaii
birth won’t make Obama eligible
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=292205#ixzz1KwE9l4pX

PLUS a FORGED Long Form Certification of Live Birth

“4. No person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the
United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall
be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be
eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of
thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the
United States.”

“Society not being able to subsist and perpetuate itself, but by the children of its citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children, and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.

“A Natural Born Citizen is one who is born of citizen parents. A child born abroad to two US citizen parents is a natural-born citizen: Provided, That at least one citizen parent had a prior residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions.”  U.S. Code: Title 8, 1401.

Natural-born  Citizen

“A Natural Born Citizen is one who is born of citizen parents (Note the “S”,  that means plural). A child born abroad to 2 US citizen parents is a  natural-born citizen: Provided, That at least one citizen parent had a prior  residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions.” – U.S.  Code: Title 8, 1401.

copied fromhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/17485112/The-Conclusive-Definition…

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2308118/posts

American Citizen, Native Born Citizen, Natural Born Citizen, Why these Terms are Important?
His Master’s Voice | 8/4/09 | HMV

Posted on Tuesday, August 04, 2009 12:25:56 PM by Hillary’sMoralVoid

What I find so amazing about the “birther bashers” (or “afterbirthers” as I call them) is that they have so little appreciation for the complexity of Obama’s citizenship dilemma. They also do not appreciate the trap doors that exist at various points in his life regarding adoption and immigration between countries where he resided. Most of all, though, they don’t understand the basic terms that they banter about.

In short, Obama’s life path is fraught with potentially disqualifying conditions for the office he holds. As a constitutional law instructor, perhaps no one understands these conditions like he does, and that explains his intransigence in releasing anything that might expose him to constitutional challenge.

Let me just take a stab at a few terms that the ‘afterbirthers” throw around like they are interchangeable.

American citizen – this only means that at least one of the birth parents was an American and that the indivicual was naturalized, if not born in the US. These alo include immigrants who have been naturalized citizens. You can be considered an American citizen if you have dual citizenship with another country. To scream that Obama is an American citizen, as many afterbirthers do, proves NOTHING avout his right to be president. Even Syrian-born Tony Rezko is an American citizen.

Native Born Citizen – this means that an individual, in addition to having at least one parent who is an American citizen and you were born on US soil (including territories and American bases). Although this term is thrown around by afterbirthers, this still does not meet the definition of a Natural Born Citizen.

Natural Born Citizen – this is an individual born of two American parents, whether the parents were native born or were foreign born and then naturalized. I believe that Bobby Jindal’s parents were not native born, but he would be qualified for president because both parents were American citizens through the naturalization process.

The afterbirthers scream that there were seven presidents born that had at least one foreign parent like Obama. That is true, but in every case, the foreign parent was naturalized, with the exception of Chester Arthur. His father was Irish and became a Canadian citizen, never a naturalized US citizen. He obviously realized he was not qualified for office because he actually burned some of his personal records to keep anyone from finding out. A familiar pattern of behavior?

The fact is, we don’t need to go to Kenya to disprove Obama’s eligibility. It is hidden in plain sight. He is not a Natural Born Citizen due to to his Kenyan father. The Supreme Court simply has to take on this issue to declare that the meaning of the term has never changed. Constitutional scholars have been eerily silent on this issue, but in the research I’ve done, I can find no other interpretation.

As mentioned earlier, there is a plethora of reasons why Obama might otherwise be unqualified should the Supreme Court not decide against his natural born status, but that is the most logical starting point.

http://boards.answers.findlaw.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?msg=5364.1&webtag=fl-immigration

Natural-born Citizen

The Conclusive Definition Of “Natural-Born  Citizen

Natural-born citizens of the United States are those who are citizens of the  United States from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect  their American citizenship. These are those whose parents are citizens of the  United States at the time of their birth.

Natural-born American citizens are those born of American citizen parents,  within or without the American Republic, provided in the latter case that one of  the parents had resided in the United States prior to the birth of the child.

Their American citizenship is natural, the result of parentage, and not  artificial

or acquired by compliance with legislative provisions.

A natural-born citizen is one not made by law or otherwise, but born. And this  class is the large majority, in fact, the mass of our citizens; all others are  exceptions specially provided for by law.

A natural-born citizen is defined as one whose citizenship is established by the  jurisdiction which the United States already has over the parents of the child,  not what is thereafter acquired by choice of residence in this country.

It is not necessary that a man should be born in this country, to be “a natural  born citizen.” It is only requisite he should be a citizen by birth, and that is  the case with all the children of citizens who have ever resided in this  country, though born in a foreign country.

Natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens and naturalized citizens,  are

those born in the United States of parents who are citizens.

Natural-born citizens are also those born outside the United States and its  outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States  and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying  possessions prior to the birth of the child.

Hence, a child born abroad to two US citizen parents is a natural-born citizen:  Provided, That at least one citizen parent had previously resided in the United  States or one of its outlying possessions. U.S. Code: Title 8, 1401.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110317165240AA3Ij3m

John Bingham, architect of  the 14th amendment, defined a natural born citizen, at the same time?

he made clear that former slaves deserved to be citizens so that their descendants like any other citizens’ descendants could also be natural born citizens. Bingham added the 14th amendment to bring former slaves into the fold of America, but he emphasized that the 14th did not change the definition of the natural born citizen.In 1866 the Civil Rights Act reemphasized this, and it was reenacted verbatim in 1872, it is still on the books. It says if a child is born with any other allegiance or citizenship it is not a US citizen.In 1874, Minor v. Happersett held that no 14th amendment citizen is ever a natural born citizen (because the 14th was added 6 years prior).”All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))

Additional  Details

dobberx added that Wong Kim Ark holds that the native born child of an alien is not a natural born citizen, only children of citizens are natural born citizens, thanks!

§ 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a)a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b)a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c)a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d)a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e)a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f)a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g)a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person

(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h)a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.

OED

Oxford  English Dictionary – “One who is a subject of another country than that in which  he resides. A resident foreign in origin and not naturalized, whose allegiance is thus due to a foreign state.”

English Common Law

The Oxford English Dictionary defines “natural born” as “[h]aving a  specified position or character by birth”. They list this definition as going  back to the 16th century.[2]

http://www.espuelas.com/_OBAMA-REWRITE-THE-DEFINITION-OF-NATURAL-BORN-CITIZEN/blog/3304519/163191.html

According to dictionaries dating as far back as Webster’s 1828  Edition, the term natural born citizen has a very simple and specific  common meaning, and according to the framers of the US Constitution, a very  important distinction.

Natural – Pertaining to nature; produced or effected by nature, or by the laws of growth, formation or motion impressed on bodies or beings by divine power.
Born – To be born, is to be produced or brought into life.
Citizen – In the United States, a person, native or naturalized, who has the privilege of exercising the elective franchise, or the qualifications which enable him to vote for rulers, and to purchase and hold real estate.

Based upon the official definition of these words, we know  immediately that the term natural born citizen is not based upon  statute or any form of man-made law. It exists in nature, the result of natural  law, by divine power, only able to be recognized or ignored by legislative  process, but still inalienable via legal processes.

Many self-proclaimed experts insist that the US Constitution  was written in some secret code, which can only be deciphered for the common  folk, by legal scholars of the highest order. Yet on the basis of simple  definitions, we know that if we are discussing any form of man-made law  requiring the analysis of legal scholars, we are NOT discussing natural-born.

The term natural born citizen is of nature, not  man-made law. The Constitution is written in plain and simple English, each word  with a specific definition and meaning easily found in any English dictionary.  Fortunately, not only legal scholars have access to dictionaries, making it  possible for anyone who can read, to understand the Constitution, so long as  they have a dictionary in hand.

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/the-house-of-representatives-definition-of-natural-born-citizen-born-of-citizen-parents-in-the-us/

During adebate (see pg. 2791) regarding a certain Dr. Houard, who had been  incarcerated in Spain, the issue was raised on the floor of the House of  Representatives as to whether the man was a US citizen. Representative Bingham  (of Ohio), stated on the floor:

“As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States. That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth.” (The term “to-day”, as used by Bingham, means “to date”. Obviously, the Constitution had not been amended on April 25, 1872.)

Notice that Bingham declares Houard to be a “natural-born citizen” by citingtwo factors – born of citizen parents in the US.

John Bingham, aka “father of the 14th Amendment”, was an abolitionist congressman from Ohio who  prosecuted Lincoln’s assassins. Ten years earlier, he stated on the House floor:

“All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.(Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))

Then in 1866, Bingham also stated on the House floor:

Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.(Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

No other Representative ever took issue with these words on the floor of the  House. If you read the Congressional Globe to study these debates, you will see  that many of the underlying issues were hotly contested. However, Bingham’s  definition of “natural born citizen” (born of citizen parents in the US) wasnever challenged on the floor of the House.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court’s holding in Wong Kim Ark did not address  Presidential eligibility, nor did it define “natural born citizen”. It simply  clarified who was a “citizen”. Had the framers of the 14th Amendment sought to  define nbc, they would have used the words “natural born” in the Amendment. But  they didn’t.

How many proofs do you need that the putative obama birth certificate is a FORGERY?!:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnckQyT5AmU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KDmenTH818

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeSzXcv3nXk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCMxVbPCPBY&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-srh9AO68xc

Even the OTHER birth certificate released 2 1/2 years ago was a FRAUD:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIsQJNTvlUE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJnE7elQ9wc

From Huffingtonpost:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/27/obama-birth-certificate-r_n_854248.html

I’m not a “birther”, since there was never any evidence that Barak Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii. That said, I can’t get over the fact that the pdf of the birth certificat­e posted on whitehouse­.gov has been manipulate­d in Adobe Illustrato­r.

Why?

The “proof” is making me doubt. I’m a graphic artist. I know how to manipulate­, and I know how to disguise the manipulati­on, but this manipulati­on hasn’t been disguised. The pdf doesn’t contain a bitmap of a photograph­ically copied birth certificat­e. It contains layers of manipulati­on. This disturbs me no end.

DWI vs. DWB


German Study Confirms Grand Rapids Effects

bullet
Who is the safest American driver?

bullet
Join DAMN.

bullet
DAMN Candice Lightner and her Entire Crew of Misfits and Failed Parents

A great deal of manipulation of the data, and even ignoring a HUGE portion of the data which would have made the complete study worthless had the ignored data contained even a small percentage of drinking drivers, the very best science from government produced the following REMARKABLE ADMISSION:

<<< For all BAC classes above 0%, we found 330 drivers in the accident study. Of those accidents, 213 were attributable to the effects of alcohol. By dividing those two numbers, we obtain an AR for exposed persons of 213/330=0.65 or 65%. That means, 65% of all accidents involving an intoxicated driver can be attributed to the effects of alcohol. However, in only 16.8% of all accidents (or 330 accidents) was the driver intoxicated. To determine which proportion of all accidents are attributable to the effects of alcohol, the population AR should be computed. This is done by dividing the excess accidents by the total number of all accidents, that is, 213/1968=0.108. Thus, 10.8% of all accidents may be attributed to the effects of alcohol. >>>

In other words, the most expert government data manipulation proved that 89.2% of the fatal accidents in this study were NOT caused by alcohol, but were caused by OTHER factors. In other words, the average driver in this study was 8.3 TIMES more likely to be killed in an accident where alcohol was NOT a factor than he was to be killed in an accident where alcohol WAS a factor?

WHAT are these other factors? Why is it assumed that these other factors which are responsible for 89.2% of the accidents are not the IDENTICAL factors involved in the fatal accidents which “may be attributed to the effects of alcohol”?

AND THIS IS *AFTER* MAKING THE FOLLOWING EGREGIOUS METHODOLOGICAL ERRORS
  1. While the body of the study reports that 5.5% of German drivers in the Roadside Survey had a bac > 0, their Table 1 used to compare this data against the drivers involved in accidents shows that 605 of 9,043 drivers, or 6.7% of them, had a bac > 0.  Their own Table 1 is in serious conflict with their own conclusions. 
  2. It’s a serious problem that all of the drivers from the Roadside Survey were compared to only 1,968, or 28.2% of the 6,981 drivers involved in these 4,165 accidents.  You MUST compare all of both groups to each other to get a valid representation of the data.  You would never compare the subset of one group against all of another group–unless you had a particular goal in mind [read: unless you wanted to “prove statistically” that the drinking driver needs to be closely regulated]. 
  3. Another bit of evidence that they had such an agenda is that they never even mentioned how many drivers were involved in these 4,615 accidents.  We must estimate it based on the average of 1.51 drivers per accident in the US. 
  4. Where they estimated that 330 drinking drivers represented 16.7% of their subset of 1,968 drivers who were responsible for some subset of the accidents, we now see that drinking drivers were only 4.7% of all the drivers involved in these accidents.
  5. The number of drivers in the roadside study who were found to have a BAC greater than 0.01 (510 of them) was almost equal to the number of drivers who refused the test (501).
  6. While the result of these government efforts to curtail drunk drivers resulted in mostly men being punished, it failed to take into account women drivers who may have been 60-67% of the drivers involved in fatal accidents, both in this study as well as in the US.
  7. It failed to consider that a study in Germany where there are few blacks cannot be directly equated to American drivers where there are many black drivers who might constitute 81% to 99% of American drivers involved in fatal accidents.

Had this subset of 1,968 German drivers who were involved in 4,681 accidents been a randomly selected subset of all 6,981 drivers who were involved in these accidents, this might have been an acceptable statistical analysis.   But to compound the error, they admitted that this subset was not randomly selected. The subset included only the German drivers who the police themselves, not courts, and not the drivers, determined were “responsible” for the accident.   Note the wording “responsible”, and ask yourself how 5,013 or 71.8% of these German drivers could not have been “responsible” for an accident they were in.  To compound the error even further, they made the presumption that all drivers who had a bac > 0 were “responsible” for the accident, while 71.8% of the drivers were not.  This is great advocacy, but it’s terrible science.  It’s worse than “guilty unless you prove your innocence”, because drivers who were never even proven to have been “responsible” for the accident, who never even had a chance to present their case to a court of justice, were used as an excuse to terrorize German drivers all around Germany.

In other words, they started with a faulty premise, and when the data didn’t support that premise, they changed the statistical rules to make the data fit the faulty premise.  If you think drinking drivers are the criminals–then you don’t understand how serious the problems are that scientists like this have caused to societies all around the world.

If you’ve followed this so far, at least you now know why they wanted to compare the Roadside Survey against only a subset of the accident data–it made the drinking driver appear to be involved in 3 1/2 times as accidents as he was.  By comparison, police reports of American accidents show that only 4% are “alcohol involved”.   There are several reasons that this report may have concluded that .7% more German than American accidents are “alcohol involved”:

  1. Germans actually consume 50% more alcohol per capita than Americans.
  2. It could be that there are more drivers per accident in German accidents.
  3. They may have intentionally inflated the data.

The conclusions of this report would have been drastically different had the statistical analysis been done properly.   Where it appears that drinking drivers were only 5.5% of all drivers, but were 7.2% of all drivers involved in accidents (suggesting that alcohol was a factor in those accidents), we now know that drinking drivers are 6.7% of all the drivers, but are involved in only 4.7% of all of the accidents.  Where the odds ratio favored nondrinking drivers as 34.4% less likely than the drinking driver to have an accident, the odds ratio now favors the drinking driver to be 45.7% less likely than nondrinking drivers to have an accident.  Let’s put this another way.  The procedure used by the German statisticians “disclosed” that drinking drivers as a group were 32.7% more likely than nondrinking drivers as a group to have an accident,  whereas the correct procedure would have  shown that nondrinking drivers as a group are 45.7% more likely than the drinking drivers as a group to have an accident.

WHO’s top ten best and worst drivers by country


http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2009/9789241563840_eng.pdf

Thanks for posting that much more accurate list than WHO’s list, arencee.
I had calculated it in deaths per 100,000 cars and gotten exactly the figures you quoted, confirming the accuracy of your calculations.
You might also add Kenya to the list who, with 11,037 deaths amongst only 546,000 cars, most likely ranks as the world’s most dangerous place, at least on their roads where there are 2,021 deaths per 100,000 cars.  In your notation, that works out to 1/50.
Why on Earth would WHO rank the West Bank/Gaza as one of the safest places to drive when a car there is 35 times as dangerous as one in Switzerland, almost three times as dangerous as one in Iraq, and equally as dangerous as one in Afghanistan?
 
 
Posted by: Arencee | 2009-08-21 4:30:13 PM

Ah yes, statistics… Deaths compared to registered vehicles tell a story more sigificant to me. Here are a few:

Deadliest

1 Eritrea 1/751
2 Cook Islands 1/1782
3 Eqypt 1/269
4 Jamahirya 1/854
5 Afghanistan 1/854
6 Iraq 1/1161
7 Niger 1/133
8 Angola 1/285
9 UAE 1/1661
10 Gambia 1/267
Safest

1 Marshall Isl 1/2487
2 San Marino 1/51590
3 Malta 1/25437
4 Uraguay 1/6566
5 Netherlands 1/11205
5 Singapore 1/3978
7 Switzerland 1/14476
7 West Bank 1/418
9 Norway 1/11158
9 Japan 1/13764

Misc

Ethiopia 1/100
Canada 1/6945
China 1/1503
Thailand 1/2051
South Africa 1/573
India 1/688
USA 1/5896
Germany 1/11217