3 ms·
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 9000
by 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 agoThats correct.
- mrpopo 4y agoA 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 agoThe 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 agoNo, 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.