6 ms·

The error in the title is they're not talking about death rate but number of fatalities. since "2019, the last pre-pandemic year, pedestrian fatalities have su

by mrpopo 4y ago

The error in the title is they're not talking about death rate but number of fatalities. since "2019, the last pre-pandemic year, pedestrian fatalities have surged 18 percent in just three years – nine times faster than U.S. population growth," the report said. Comparing the number of fatalities to population growth makes sense because one would increase naturally with the other.

strken 4y ago
The ratio is meaningless, though. If the US population increased by 0.001% and the pedestrian fatality rate went up 9%, the fatalities would have increased 9000x times faster than US population growth.
- p0pcult 4y ago
  Thats correct.
- mrpopo 4y ago
  A high ratio between the two means that population growth doesn't explain the increased pedestrian facilities and therefore this is something to worry about.
  - strken 4y ago
    The ratio itself does not mean that the rise in pedestrian fatalities is significant. Consider 0.00000000000000001% population growth and a 0.000001% rise in fatalities, or any number of zeroes that you like. The per capita or per 100,000 rise would be meaningful. You don't get the per capita rise by dividing the rise in fatalities by the rise in population growth.
    - mrpopo 4y ago
      No, it doesn't mean that the rise in pedestrian fatalities is significant, it means that there is something that is causing a rise in pedestrian fatalities (and that it isn't simply population growth). I agree the numbers used in the article are not the most explicit, though.
peoplefromibiza 4y ago
> Comparing the number of fatalities to population growth makes sense It only makes sense if we compare the number of fatalities to number of pedestrians growth. More people doesn't necessarily means more pedestrians. For example: a car ban like there are in many European city centres, leads to a growth of the number of pedestrians in the area, not linked to a growth in the general population. EDIT: counting population growth as a proxy for pedestrian growth is a spurious correlation. Population can grow and pedestrian could go down in number and vice-versa, it is been observed in the past 20 years as a result of the fluctuation of urban areas population VS suburb/non-urban areas population.
- juanpicardo 4y ago
  Depends on how you look at the problem. if you look at it as a health problem it makes sense.
  - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
    Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. I'll try anyway to express my though again. As an example: The analysis by the Governors Highway Safety Association, a nonprofit that represents state highway safety offices, found that pedestrian deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic had spiked significantly, as speeding and impaired and distracted driving proliferated Now it would be incorrect to say that COVID-19 is dangerous for pedestrians, even though it happened due to COVID-19, the root cause has been speeding and impaired and distracted driving. In the same way population growth is not directly correlated linearly to an increase of the number of pedestrians fatalities. If, for example, a family of 2 moves into a new city but they never leave the house because they are both old and disabled, the population has grown, but the risks for pedestrians haven't. In the case I used in the previous comment, more people walking doesn't correlate with more fatalities, it's in fact the opposite. There are more people walking, true, but in a much safer space for them. So population growth makes sense as an health problem only if it produces more pedestrians, in particular more pedestrians at risk. For example an higher driver/pedestrian ratio, which in the end is the same thing of more pedestrians. To use a bad analogy, for which I apologize in advance, it doesn't matter if there are more "targets" for cars to hit or more cars are hitting more of the same number of "targets", the result is roughly the same. If we look at it as an health problem the only conclusion that makes sense is that the less pedestrians and other road vehicles cross their paths, the more pedestrians fatalities will go down, regardless of population growth.

by mrpopo 4y ago

strken 4y ago

The ratio is meaningless, though. If the US population increased by 0.001% and the pedestrian fatality rate went up 9%, the fatalities would have increased 9000x times faster than US population growth.

p0pcult 4y ago
Thats correct.
mrpopo 4y ago
A high ratio between the two means that population growth doesn't explain the increased pedestrian facilities and therefore this is something to worry about.
- strken 4y ago
  The ratio itself does not mean that the rise in pedestrian fatalities is significant. Consider 0.00000000000000001% population growth and a 0.000001% rise in fatalities, or any number of zeroes that you like. The per capita or per 100,000 rise would be meaningful. You don't get the per capita rise by dividing the rise in fatalities by the rise in population growth.
  - mrpopo 4y ago
    No, it doesn't mean that the rise in pedestrian fatalities is significant, it means that there is something that is causing a rise in pedestrian fatalities (and that it isn't simply population growth). I agree the numbers used in the article are not the most explicit, though.

peoplefromibiza 4y ago

> Comparing the number of fatalities to population growth makes sense It only makes sense if we compare the number of fatalities to number of pedestrians growth. More people doesn't necessarily means more pedestrians. For example: a car ban like there are in many European city centres, leads to a growth of the number of pedestrians in the area, not linked to a growth in the general population. EDIT: counting population growth as a proxy for pedestrian growth is a spurious correlation. Population can grow and pedestrian could go down in number and vice-versa, it is been observed in the past 20 years as a result of the fluctuation of urban areas population VS suburb/non-urban areas population.

juanpicardo 4y ago
Depends on how you look at the problem. if you look at it as a health problem it makes sense.
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. I'll try anyway to express my though again. As an example: The analysis by the Governors Highway Safety Association, a nonprofit that represents state highway safety offices, found that pedestrian deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic had spiked significantly, as speeding and impaired and distracted driving proliferated Now it would be incorrect to say that COVID-19 is dangerous for pedestrians, even though it happened due to COVID-19, the root cause has been speeding and impaired and distracted driving. In the same way population growth is not directly correlated linearly to an increase of the number of pedestrians fatalities. If, for example, a family of 2 moves into a new city but they never leave the house because they are both old and disabled, the population has grown, but the risks for pedestrians haven't. In the case I used in the previous comment, more people walking doesn't correlate with more fatalities, it's in fact the opposite. There are more people walking, true, but in a much safer space for them. So population growth makes sense as an health problem only if it produces more pedestrians, in particular more pedestrians at risk. For example an higher driver/pedestrian ratio, which in the end is the same thing of more pedestrians. To use a bad analogy, for which I apologize in advance, it doesn't matter if there are more "targets" for cars to hit or more cars are hitting more of the same number of "targets", the result is roughly the same. If we look at it as an health problem the only conclusion that makes sense is that the less pedestrians and other road vehicles cross their paths, the more pedestrians fatalities will go down, regardless of population growth.