It's not though. That's also what I thought at first. It compares one year of traffic deaths vs. the single deadliest event of each other disaster. So the single worst plane crash, or single worst flood. It's a confusing comparison.

[deleted]

That’s true but the title of the chart is most successful programs. Success is measured easily each game regardless of who the team plays. You either win, lose or tie. The team at the end of the year with the most wins is the most successful. The NCAA does sponsor a national championship award for football. Prior to the BCS, the only championships awarded were conference titles. The AP is just one of many polls and is not official. That’s why there are multiple national championship claims for the same year. Not every team is given the opportunity to play in the best conferences and some were independent for years. I think conference title should be excluded now. The most fair way to measure success is win percentage and trend that over time. It removes the recency bias of the chart, prevents the same with win totals, and shows who has had the most success historically on the field regardless of conference.

Seconding this. The land is beautiful but ruggedly unforgiving while the people are charming.

Tornados are sometimes referred to as cyclones, but that is an incorrect usage. True cyclones are similar to Hurricanes, except they form in a different region, and rotate a different direction.

According to other comment by op, they counted Banqiao dams accident as structural collapse.

Still no where near the 4 million in the graph. The largest estimate, made by the Discovery channel, was 240,000. Including subsequent deaths by famine and disease. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure#Casualties
I don't think the Discovery channel's the ultimate 10 show is the most credible of sources.

I think this is the flood OP's chart is referring to: The 1931 Yangtze-Huang river floods. With an official death toll of 422,420 people. It has nothing to do with the 1975 Banqiao dam break.

>Some Western sources allege that the death toll was between 3.7 and 4 million people based on their own claims of famine and disease.[15][6]

Source [15] is a website with a tiny article. In that article it says:

>in 1931 the death toll was almost four million,

With absolutely nothing to back it up. No sources, nothing. They're just spouting out a number. I don't find this credible at all.

Source [6] refers to a book. This book is about climate. I can't find out which number it claims without buying it. I doubt a 2003 book about climate contains first hand research into a 1931 disaster. It likely quotes another source.

I'm inclined to believe the official death toll over the 70+ year after the fact 'estimates' without any substantial research behind their claims.

Agreed. This is the "vending machines kill more than sharks" version of road deaths.

It's true, sure, but the critical aspect of the whole thing is the number of people being exposed to the threat.

Doesn't tornado = cyclone ?

OP, I am curious to know which tools you used for the infographic.

Data and story aside, the visuals are really nice.

It's a good graphic visually, but the data comparison had too much cherry picking for it to be a good infographic overall.

And the fact that it's about a very hot topic debate (at least within Reddit, where users typically have a very hostile aggressive stance towards car ownership) just makes me think it's pushing an agenda at the cost of accuracy.

Would be more interesting if it was all time accumulated like the rest of the stats

This would mean a single fit is innappropriate to describe the data.

...no?

Think of it this way: Would you compare all tornado deaths in 2022 to the worst hurricane of all time? Probably not, because that's a bad way to compare two things.

Also, a car is much, much, MUCH less dangerous than any of these. Would you rather spend five minutes in a flood or five minutes in a car? The only reason cars are so high is because we spend 100,000x more time in a car than we do in an active natural disaster. Not to mention cars benefit us by transporting us, while there aren't a whole lot of upsides to natural disasters.

Also, you are awfully rude.

For the Nuclear accident, is it Chernobyl? If yes, could you provide the source you used ? (because there are many different sources for Chernobyl deaths)

What about dam failures? That's different from a natural flood, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_failure (240 000 deaths for the 1975 Banqiao dams accident)

[deleted]

I understand the point, and using an apples to oranges comparison is disingenuous.

Gotta watch out for those psychopaths on the road

I think you're missing the point.

It compares one year of traffic deaths vs. all time of any other disaster to put in real perspective how many people die in traffic.

[deleted]

[removed]

[removed]

Insane. Self driving cars can't come soon enough.

Well, ok. Should’ve taken the extra seconds for reading. Anyway I’m proud of my memory, as I hadn’t to google that accident.

OP is the total production in Germany, extremely windy conditions in Hamburg will usually come with less extreme winds elsewhere.