Beware of statistics - the quote I gave above re: Australia is 100% true - but Australia is overwhelmingly an urban nation clinging to the fringes of the continent.
There are absolutely (in raw numbers) more urban automotive fatalities than rural in Australia but proportionally more (per 100,000 drivers) rural deaths from driving.
ie. Country driving is riskier.
Interestingly your link appears (to my eye) to be confusing - the first graph is described as proportional but it's not "proportional" in the sense of being "normalised", it's proportional in the sense of showing a percent division of the total absolute number; as more and more people live in urban areas, more and more people die in urban areas (thus obfuscating the relative dangers).
The second graph gets closer, showing the rural US areas still 'winning' the death stakes in terms of risk per miles travelled.
There are absolutely (in raw numbers) more urban automotive fatalities than rural in Australia but proportionally more (per 100,000 drivers) rural deaths from driving.
ie. Country driving is riskier.
Interestingly your link appears (to my eye) to be confusing - the first graph is described as proportional but it's not "proportional" in the sense of being "normalised", it's proportional in the sense of showing a percent division of the total absolute number; as more and more people live in urban areas, more and more people die in urban areas (thus obfuscating the relative dangers).
The second graph gets closer, showing the rural US areas still 'winning' the death stakes in terms of risk per miles travelled.