5 ms·

> 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 growt

> 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.
sandworm101 4y ago
There are also definition issues. Is a bicycle rider a pedestrian? Is someone waiting for a bus or uber a pedestrian? Is someone walking in a parking lot to thier car a pedestrian? Definitions can range from anyone on foot to only those deliberately going somewhere without a vehicle. Do we include people walking where they are legally not allowed so to do? Without a consistent and stated definition, any stats are just fluff for headlines.
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  > Is a bicycle rider a pedestrian? > Is someone waiting for a bus or uber a pedestrian? > Is someone walking in a parking lot to thier car a pedestrian? I'm quite sure they are are literally not, the article uses the term "pedestrian" in the title but then it uses "walkers" in the text, it looks quite clear that they are referring to people walking on public spaces as a means of travel. pedestrian /pɪˈdɛstrɪən/ noun: pedestrian; plural noun: pedestrians a person walking rather than travelling in a vehicle.
everforward 4y ago
Sure, but it provides some grounds to get money for a study on it. Pedestrian deaths are basically free from the CDC, and population is free from the Census. More detailed data would require studies, unless someone is publishing a nation-wide count of pedestrians that I'm not aware of. There's always better data, and making a study that doesn't have any spurious correlations is extremely expensive. Pedestrian growth is also not necessarily linearly correlated to pedestrian fatalities. If cities become more walkable, it could be that there are more pedestrians walking shorter distances. I would expect that to impact fatalities per pedestrian less than having more pedestrians walking the same amount. This data just says that the growth in population isn't likely the direct cause of the effect. It could be a difference in the demographics of the population (new people walk more/less). It could be a difference in the existing pedestrians (i.e. % of pedestrians is constant, but people are walking at night or with headphones, etc). It could be a difference in the existing drivers (more dangerous cars, more dangerous driving, more DUIs, etc).

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.

sandworm101 4y ago

There are also definition issues. Is a bicycle rider a pedestrian? Is someone waiting for a bus or uber a pedestrian? Is someone walking in a parking lot to thier car a pedestrian? Definitions can range from anyone on foot to only those deliberately going somewhere without a vehicle. Do we include people walking where they are legally not allowed so to do? Without a consistent and stated definition, any stats are just fluff for headlines.

peoplefromibiza 4y ago
> Is a bicycle rider a pedestrian? > Is someone waiting for a bus or uber a pedestrian? > Is someone walking in a parking lot to thier car a pedestrian? I'm quite sure they are are literally not, the article uses the term "pedestrian" in the title but then it uses "walkers" in the text, it looks quite clear that they are referring to people walking on public spaces as a means of travel. pedestrian /pɪˈdɛstrɪən/ noun: pedestrian; plural noun: pedestrians a person walking rather than travelling in a vehicle.

everforward 4y ago

Sure, but it provides some grounds to get money for a study on it. Pedestrian deaths are basically free from the CDC, and population is free from the Census. More detailed data would require studies, unless someone is publishing a nation-wide count of pedestrians that I'm not aware of. There's always better data, and making a study that doesn't have any spurious correlations is extremely expensive. Pedestrian growth is also not necessarily linearly correlated to pedestrian fatalities. If cities become more walkable, it could be that there are more pedestrians walking shorter distances. I would expect that to impact fatalities per pedestrian less than having more pedestrians walking the same amount. This data just says that the growth in population isn't likely the direct cause of the effect. It could be a difference in the demographics of the population (new people walk more/less). It could be a difference in the existing pedestrians (i.e. % of pedestrians is constant, but people are walking at night or with headphones, etc). It could be a difference in the existing drivers (more dangerous cars, more dangerous driving, more DUIs, etc).