[brk]

>I imagine it's pretty hard to get seriously injured or die when not on the freeway.

I don't have data handy, but it seems like an awful lot of fatalities occur in and around intersections (which imply not-a-freeway).

Freeways feel like they are safer overall, most of the time you are moving in the same direction as the vehicles immediately surrounding you, which reduces the chances for head-on or side collisions, which seem to be particularly fatal.

However, an actual freeway crash also feels like it has a higher probability of being fatal. Proportionate to miles driven they may be less common, but like a plane crash, they are noteworthy when they do happen and make for "better news".

[standardUser]

From what I'm reading, collisions are far more common on regulars roads/streets, but injuries and fatalities are much more common on freeways. This is relating to motorists/passengers. Pedestrians and bicyclists are obviously at significant risk whenever they are around cars, and they are almost never around cars on freeways.

One exception is motorcycles, which are apparently at less risk on highways than other streets.

[LorenPechtel]

Yup. Miles driven actually have little impact on accidents. Rather, it's interactions that matter. Miles of you all going down the same freeway at about the same speed involve almost no interactions.

(This is also why airplane fatalities bear little relationship to the flight time--because they're mostly takeoff and landing. Accidents when you're peacefully up at cruise altitude are rare.)