4 ms·
I'm very pleased (from a data insight standpoint) that the map doesn't look like a population heatmap [1]. As a next step, I suggest calculating the actual rat
by niftich 10y ago
I'm very pleased (from a data insight standpoint) that the map doesn't look like a population heatmap [1].
As a next step, I suggest calculating the actual rate of fatalities in a particular location vs. some naive estimate for that area, based on traffic counts, car utilization, or nearby population. This will highlight places that have a higher-than-expected number of fatalities.
Some of these places can already be seen visually. For example, Florida is blotted in red even though the population is concentrated around the coasts and bays and the Orlando area; therefore US 301 and other 'interior' portions are more dangerous than population alone would explain.
The Carolinas are similarly covered, well-outside of the Crescent from Raleigh-Durham through the Triad to the Charlotte suburbs. California's Central Valley looks particularly dangerous too, despite most of the traffic sticking to the far western edge with I-5, or the eastern valley floor where the built-up areas are.
[1] https://xkcd.com/1138/ https://xkcd.com/1138/
- mtippett 10y agoI'd agree that there it would be very nice to correlate with a traffic load graph. For areas like California, where you have pretty much the I-5 or the Highway 1, knowing the fatality per car travelled would be interesting view.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- dandermotj 10y agoIt looks exactly like a population heatmap.
- dx034 10y agoMore like a traffic heatmap. California seems to have a lot of red dots on the I5 between LA and SF. Not a lot of people live there.
- 13of40 10y agoI wonder how much "proximity to a good hospital" changes it, as well. If I could zoom in far enough, and traffic can be assumed to be constant, would there be more fatalities on the remote parts of I-5?
- mirimir 10y agoThis looks interesting: https://i2.wp.com/metrocosm.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/usa-traffic-flow-map-large.png https://i2.wp.com/metrocosm.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/u...
- nmeofthestate 10y ago>Some of these places can already be seen visually. For example, Florida. I think if this is true at all (I'm not sure it is) it's just an artifact of the large blobs used on the traffic fatalities map.
- yaakov34 10y agoI agree with one of the posters below: this is a population heatmap, exactly as identified by XKCD (https://xkcd.com/1138/ https://xkcd.com/1138/). Florida, which you mention, is highlighted in red only because this is a small-scale map with poor density representation. Here is Florida with the exact same data, as plotted by me in R with a little more resolution: https://imgur.com/a/WU3JI https://imgur.com/a/WU3JI A population map, in other words. As a very basic demonstration of the capabilities of R, this is OK, but as a visualization, this is 100% useless. You would need something like "percentage of expected fatalities for a given stretch of road, given the type of road" to actually have something interesting. And that takes a lot more work.