Well, 35% of 65%, so 22.75% of total deaths. But still....

Also, as an example of how statistics can be misleading, it says ``65% involve pedestrians'' (emphasis mine). What does that mean? Maybe it includes driver and passenger deaths that occurred while trying to avoid pedestrians and the pedestrian didn't die, or, potentially, even get injured.

Also, what is the percentage of children in total population? If you have a wealthy population where most people die when they get quite old, and not too much before, and you assume that a child is someone less than 18, and average lifespan is 75, then the percentage of children in the population is 24%. But in developing countries, the percentage of children is much higher, as people don't live to be as old, and there's a marked tendency for people to die throughout their lives, so, with a large portion (70%) of the sample being from developing countries, 35% children might match population fairly well.

The most interesting statistic might be the fact that 70% of them are in developing countries. That probably just points to the fact that there's a much greater auto-to-pedestrian ratio there than in developed countries, and there's probably something in the even worse training of drivers there, as well as worse infrastructure (roads, traffic signals, etc.). But then again, what's the percentage of the world's population that live in developing countries? Might it be around 70%? It wouldn't surprise me. (Are rural China and India considered ``developing''?)

Once you look at it, it doesn't seem too outstanding, does it?

Edit: Oops, misread something.