Every time you get into a car, there is a non-zero chance that you might get injured, or worse, die. The probability of this happening depends largely on where you're driving and, of course, how much you drive. However, there are a few different ways to measure this statistical risk. A recent Bloomberg article by David Zipper highlights one ongoing debate.
The three most common methods are:
Road deaths per capita
Road deaths per registered vehicle
Road deaths per distance traveled
In my opinion, options 1 and 3 seem the most relevant. Option 1 is useful because it measures a citizen's overall risk and allows driving risk to be easily compared to other causes of death (which tend to be measured on a per capita basis). The limitation is that it is harder to compare a country where everybody drives to a country where few people drive.
That's where option 3 comes in. In theory, it provides the best indicator of road risk by accounting for distance traveled, which is the primary argument for why it's commonly used in the US where the car is king. But it does "dilute" the fatality count the more people drive, and it hides overall car dependency. In his article, Zipper likens this approach to measuring cancer deaths per cigarette smoked.
In any event, here is how both methods appear in the International Transport Forum's 2025 Annual Road Safety Report (which is cited in the article):
On a per vehicle-kilometre basis, the data appears much more gradual. But on a per capita basis, the countries with the highest road fatalities appear much more as outliers. Here, you can more easily see that, broadly speaking, a person in Colombia is nearly ten times more likely to die in a road-related incident than a person in Norway (pretty much the gold standard when it comes to road safety).
Perhaps the answer is to just look at both figures to make sure you're not lying to yourself.
Cover photo by Tom Barrett on Unsplash
Charts from Road Safety Annual Report 2025
Engaging in physical activity is unequivocally associated with improved health outcomes. But are certain physical activities better than others? And what might the implications be for how we design our cities?
Here is a brand new study that examined the relationship between specific types of physical activity and the risk of death, using two large cohort studies with more than 30 years of self-reported data.
The study included information on walking, jogging, running, cycling (including stationary machines), lap swimming, tennis, climbing flights of stairs, rowing, and weight training.
It's important to note that this is an observational study using self-reported data. There are limitations to this. One question mark is around intensity. When someone reports swimming for an hour, it could be vigorous or casual. And the researchers note that long, low-intensity physical activities could bias the observed associations toward the null.
With this caveat out of the way, here's what they found:
Most of us have heard of the so-called "Blue Zones." These are the parts of the world where there is an exceptionally high number of centenarians — people over the age of 100. We've talked about this topic before, covering the importance of things like diet, community, and constant moderate physical activity. But I would like to reiterate just how impactful our physical environments can be on our overall well-being.
The island of Sardinia is one of the world's Blue Zones. But it's not actually the entire island of Sardinia; it's a specific inner mountain region that is the Blue Zone. And in this region, at least two things are fascinating: First, the men have some of the longest average life expectancies in the world and second, the men live just as long as the women do. This is unique. Ordinarily, women outlive men. But not here.
The data overwhelmingly suggests that this outcome is the result of topography and employment. Because it is a mountainous region, the built environment is filled with steep inclines and staircases everywhere you go. The result is that even walking down the street to go to church or the grocery store results in organic moderate physical activity.
At the same time, the men in this region have historically worked as shepherds. This meant that work also involved walking up and down hills all day. Again, more organic moderate physical activity. Because of this, research has found very significant correlations between longevity and pastoralism, the average slope of the territory, and the average daily distance required to reach work. The steeper the better.
There's little mystery here. We know that more activity is better for us than less. The challenge is that we can't all live in bucolic mountain towns and chase sheep around all day. Modern society demands a lot of sitting and typing and vibe coding. We also have a market economy that is constantly looking for ways to make our lives more convenient so that we're able to do even more sitting around.
We try to compensate for this with gyms and other fixes (“
Every time you get into a car, there is a non-zero chance that you might get injured, or worse, die. The probability of this happening depends largely on where you're driving and, of course, how much you drive. However, there are a few different ways to measure this statistical risk. A recent Bloomberg article by David Zipper highlights one ongoing debate.
The three most common methods are:
Road deaths per capita
Road deaths per registered vehicle
Road deaths per distance traveled
In my opinion, options 1 and 3 seem the most relevant. Option 1 is useful because it measures a citizen's overall risk and allows driving risk to be easily compared to other causes of death (which tend to be measured on a per capita basis). The limitation is that it is harder to compare a country where everybody drives to a country where few people drive.
That's where option 3 comes in. In theory, it provides the best indicator of road risk by accounting for distance traveled, which is the primary argument for why it's commonly used in the US where the car is king. But it does "dilute" the fatality count the more people drive, and it hides overall car dependency. In his article, Zipper likens this approach to measuring cancer deaths per cigarette smoked.
In any event, here is how both methods appear in the International Transport Forum's 2025 Annual Road Safety Report (which is cited in the article):
On a per vehicle-kilometre basis, the data appears much more gradual. But on a per capita basis, the countries with the highest road fatalities appear much more as outliers. Here, you can more easily see that, broadly speaking, a person in Colombia is nearly ten times more likely to die in a road-related incident than a person in Norway (pretty much the gold standard when it comes to road safety).
Perhaps the answer is to just look at both figures to make sure you're not lying to yourself.
Cover photo by Tom Barrett on Unsplash
Charts from Road Safety Annual Report 2025
Engaging in physical activity is unequivocally associated with improved health outcomes. But are certain physical activities better than others? And what might the implications be for how we design our cities?
Here is a brand new study that examined the relationship between specific types of physical activity and the risk of death, using two large cohort studies with more than 30 years of self-reported data.
The study included information on walking, jogging, running, cycling (including stationary machines), lap swimming, tennis, climbing flights of stairs, rowing, and weight training.
It's important to note that this is an observational study using self-reported data. There are limitations to this. One question mark is around intensity. When someone reports swimming for an hour, it could be vigorous or casual. And the researchers note that long, low-intensity physical activities could bias the observed associations toward the null.
With this caveat out of the way, here's what they found:
Most of us have heard of the so-called "Blue Zones." These are the parts of the world where there is an exceptionally high number of centenarians — people over the age of 100. We've talked about this topic before, covering the importance of things like diet, community, and constant moderate physical activity. But I would like to reiterate just how impactful our physical environments can be on our overall well-being.
The island of Sardinia is one of the world's Blue Zones. But it's not actually the entire island of Sardinia; it's a specific inner mountain region that is the Blue Zone. And in this region, at least two things are fascinating: First, the men have some of the longest average life expectancies in the world and second, the men live just as long as the women do. This is unique. Ordinarily, women outlive men. But not here.
The data overwhelmingly suggests that this outcome is the result of topography and employment. Because it is a mountainous region, the built environment is filled with steep inclines and staircases everywhere you go. The result is that even walking down the street to go to church or the grocery store results in organic moderate physical activity.
At the same time, the men in this region have historically worked as shepherds. This meant that work also involved walking up and down hills all day. Again, more organic moderate physical activity. Because of this, research has found very significant correlations between longevity and pastoralism, the average slope of the territory, and the average daily distance required to reach work. The steeper the better.
There's little mystery here. We know that more activity is better for us than less. The challenge is that we can't all live in bucolic mountain towns and chase sheep around all day. Modern society demands a lot of sitting and typing and vibe coding. We also have a market economy that is constantly looking for ways to make our lives more convenient so that we're able to do even more sitting around.
We try to compensate for this with gyms and other fixes (“
Their two key findings were that (1) most physical activities lower mortality rates in a non-linear way when you do more of them, and (2) mixing different physical activities is associated with lower mortality, independent of total activity levels. Variety is good.
Interestingly enough, the most effective activity at lowering overall mortality is the simplest one: walking. It was found to reduce all-cause mortality by about 17%. This is the difference, or maximum observed benefit, between the highest walking group and a sedentary baseline.
Once again, the data clearly shows that walkable cities can help produce meaningfully better health outcomes. So, if, like me, you subscribe to the philosophy that there's no greater luxury in life than our health, well, then there's perhaps no greater luxury than living in a walkable city.
Cover photo by Alain ROUILLER on Unsplash
But the better and more fundamental solution is organic moderate physical activity. Meaning, moderate physical activity that we don't have to actively seek out, and that is organically embedded throughout our everyday lives. It's best when it's a lifestyle. And this is one of the reasons why I view cities where walking and cycling are ingrained as a great luxury. All else being equal, these places are destined for better health outcomes.
If I look up my Apple Health data for 2025, there are very clear spikes in steps whenever I'm traveling. This makes sense. It's because I like going to places where I can walk around all day and be physically active. I can only sit on a beach for so long. But it's also ironic that modern life dictates that I have to go on vacation in order to be more active. That's not how Blue Zones work.
There is no greater luxury than our health. Without it, nothing else matters. And so I think it behooves us to make it a fundamental component of city building.
Cover photo by Valentina Uribe Posada on Unsplash
Their two key findings were that (1) most physical activities lower mortality rates in a non-linear way when you do more of them, and (2) mixing different physical activities is associated with lower mortality, independent of total activity levels. Variety is good.
Interestingly enough, the most effective activity at lowering overall mortality is the simplest one: walking. It was found to reduce all-cause mortality by about 17%. This is the difference, or maximum observed benefit, between the highest walking group and a sedentary baseline.
Once again, the data clearly shows that walkable cities can help produce meaningfully better health outcomes. So, if, like me, you subscribe to the philosophy that there's no greater luxury in life than our health, well, then there's perhaps no greater luxury than living in a walkable city.
Cover photo by Alain ROUILLER on Unsplash
But the better and more fundamental solution is organic moderate physical activity. Meaning, moderate physical activity that we don't have to actively seek out, and that is organically embedded throughout our everyday lives. It's best when it's a lifestyle. And this is one of the reasons why I view cities where walking and cycling are ingrained as a great luxury. All else being equal, these places are destined for better health outcomes.
If I look up my Apple Health data for 2025, there are very clear spikes in steps whenever I'm traveling. This makes sense. It's because I like going to places where I can walk around all day and be physically active. I can only sit on a beach for so long. But it's also ironic that modern life dictates that I have to go on vacation in order to be more active. That's not how Blue Zones work.
There is no greater luxury than our health. Without it, nothing else matters. And so I think it behooves us to make it a fundamental component of city building.
Cover photo by Valentina Uribe Posada on Unsplash
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
