4 ms·
The streets are safer in your opinion in the scenario where 50% of pedestrians were killed?
by Swenrekcah 3y ago
The streets are safer in your opinion in the scenario where 50% of pedestrians were killed?
- kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 3y agoYour sample size is too low to draw meaningful conclusions. A sample size of 2 is susceptible to random chance greatly influencing the outcomes.
- Swenrekcah 3y agoEverybody realises that. This was a thought experiment not a clinical trial.
- kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 3y agoBut it's a useless thought experiment. It neither informs nor enlightens. It's garbage in, garbage out.
- Swenrekcah 3y agoNo it isn't. The purpose was to show the effects that car over-reliance has on public safety and quality of life. In the second scenario, everyone thinks the roads are too dangerous for kids (becuase they are, as evidenced by half of them getting killed) so they all drive their kids to school in oversized heavy vehicles making the roads even more dangerous.
- plutonorm 3y agoDon't bother arguing with them, they obviously are not rational enough to see what is in front of their face. Most people are like this, although they will die saying otherwise.
- refurb 3y agoNot rational to think 1 person dying is preferable to 5 people dying? In what world is that no the better scenario?
- Swenrekcah 3y agoThe reason only 1 person died in the scenario is because almost everyone was to afraid to walk because it is so dangerous. It’s not hard to understand.
- refurb 3y agoNo, the streets are safer when only 1 person dies, not 5? I think you messed up your analysis somewhere. LOL