[emn13]

Right, but the linked articles actually state that the main cause in reduced mortality was reduced traffic accidents. Almost all of the things in the NYT article would not have qualified as traffic accidents. On the face of it, this doesn't really surprise me: many things are "dangerous" yet it's not that easy to kill someone (or yourself) in an accident. Heavy machinery changes that equation, and virtually all heavy machinery we come in contact with are motor vehicles.

In other words: the data doesn't immediately suggest that increased caution has lead to reduced mortality outside of traffic. The NYT article is still plausible from this perspective.