5 ms·

This part was disappointing: "Top 10 Dog Bite States" because it is probably driven by population and does not provide unique insight. It would be awesome to, m

This part was disappointing: "Top 10 Dog Bite States" because it is probably driven by population and does not provide unique insight. It would be awesome to, minimally, scale this by state population -- or ideally, scale this table by unique mailing delivery addresses.

rossdavidh 5y ago
Yeah, my thoughts exactly. Also, some states (e.g. NY) may have a higher percentage of mail delivered to "mail hives" than other states (e.g. Ohio). I would think that delivering to a mailbox on the house-owner's property is a lot higher risk for dogbite than delivering to an apartment-renter's mail slot. Does that account for why Ohio is as high as NY? Maybe, but it's hard to say from this data.
- TuringNYC 5y ago
  I'll bet central mailrooms are a big driver for safety. In my NYC building, for example, the mailman does not even see any of the public space -- they enter the delivery room through the mailboxes' rear side and deliver en masse to all 110+ units' mailboxes. I imagine the higher the highrise the more efficient the delivery and the safer the delivery. Now contrast that to crossing lawns individually house by house...
cwt137 5y ago
I was thinking the same thing. It should be something like dog bites per 1,000,000 residents or something like that. Then, the rankings would probably change.
- twobitshifter 5y ago
  Per resident or per number of dogs? City populations are going to have fewer dogs and the dogs in cities are going to be leashed or in doors and less likely to bite.
- jobigoud 5y ago
  This doesn't really matter from the point view of the victims of the bite. It should be normalised by number of man-hours worked.
erulabs 5y ago
Scaled by population, at least for CA/TX: 39.51M / 782 = 72139 29M / 402 = 50524 Surprisingly higher rate, especially considering I'd -guess- more dogs in CA are kept indoors, although obviously the dog-ownership-rate is another important adjustment. This is all fairly meaningless data without loads more controls.
- CameronNemo 5y ago
  Erm aren't these numbers people per dog attack? So the higher number means fewer per capita attacks? Seems like a weird way to calculate a rate. Regardless, label your units people!
- maxerickson 5y ago
  Isn't Texas often hot enough that it would be unfriendly to leave dog outside?
- foo92691 5y ago
  You swapped the results, and should be computing the reciprocal anyway. 782 bites / 39.51 M people = 19.8 bites per million people per year (CA) 402 bites / 29 M people = 13.9 bites per million people per year (TX)
- pwinnski 5y ago
  Why would you guess more dogs are kept indoors in California? Much of Texas gets too hot for dogs to live outdoors during the summer.
dylan604 5y ago
But the fact that Houston is on top with nearly 20% more bites than LA yet LA having a much larger population leans toward it not being directly population related.
- rwcarlsen 5y ago
  You need to normalize to the dog population at least - rather than the human population.
  - TuringNYC 5y ago
    Probably need to normalize both to dog population and people population (perhaps normalize to dogs per capita?)
  - klyrs 5y ago
    If I were a postal employee, I'd want it normalized to bites per hour worked
- justaman 5y ago
  Rockford IL is punching way above its league!
  - ragnese 5y ago
    *biting above its league. I'll see myself out
- dahfizz 5y ago
  Houston has less than half the population density as LA. Bigger properties / houses / yards almost certainly means more dogs per capita in Houston than LA.

rossdavidh 5y ago

Yeah, my thoughts exactly. Also, some states (e.g. NY) may have a higher percentage of mail delivered to "mail hives" than other states (e.g. Ohio). I would think that delivering to a mailbox on the house-owner's property is a lot higher risk for dogbite than delivering to an apartment-renter's mail slot. Does that account for why Ohio is as high as NY? Maybe, but it's hard to say from this data.

TuringNYC 5y ago
I'll bet central mailrooms are a big driver for safety. In my NYC building, for example, the mailman does not even see any of the public space -- they enter the delivery room through the mailboxes' rear side and deliver en masse to all 110+ units' mailboxes. I imagine the higher the highrise the more efficient the delivery and the safer the delivery. Now contrast that to crossing lawns individually house by house...

cwt137 5y ago

I was thinking the same thing. It should be something like dog bites per 1,000,000 residents or something like that. Then, the rankings would probably change.

twobitshifter 5y ago
Per resident or per number of dogs? City populations are going to have fewer dogs and the dogs in cities are going to be leashed or in doors and less likely to bite.
jobigoud 5y ago
This doesn't really matter from the point view of the victims of the bite. It should be normalised by number of man-hours worked.

erulabs 5y ago

Scaled by population, at least for CA/TX: 39.51M / 782 = 72139 29M / 402 = 50524 Surprisingly higher rate, especially considering I'd -guess- more dogs in CA are kept indoors, although obviously the dog-ownership-rate is another important adjustment. This is all fairly meaningless data without loads more controls.

CameronNemo 5y ago
Erm aren't these numbers people per dog attack? So the higher number means fewer per capita attacks? Seems like a weird way to calculate a rate. Regardless, label your units people!
maxerickson 5y ago
Isn't Texas often hot enough that it would be unfriendly to leave dog outside?
foo92691 5y ago
You swapped the results, and should be computing the reciprocal anyway. 782 bites / 39.51 M people = 19.8 bites per million people per year (CA) 402 bites / 29 M people = 13.9 bites per million people per year (TX)
pwinnski 5y ago
Why would you guess more dogs are kept indoors in California? Much of Texas gets too hot for dogs to live outdoors during the summer.

dylan604 5y ago

But the fact that Houston is on top with nearly 20% more bites than LA yet LA having a much larger population leans toward it not being directly population related.

rwcarlsen 5y ago
You need to normalize to the dog population at least - rather than the human population.
- TuringNYC 5y ago
  Probably need to normalize both to dog population and people population (perhaps normalize to dogs per capita?)
- klyrs 5y ago
  If I were a postal employee, I'd want it normalized to bites per hour worked
justaman 5y ago
Rockford IL is punching way above its league!
- ragnese 5y ago
  *biting above its league. I'll see myself out
dahfizz 5y ago
Houston has less than half the population density as LA. Bigger properties / houses / yards almost certainly means more dogs per capita in Houston than LA.