The 80:20 “rule” is interesting because it’s not a rule, it’s an observation. The Pareto Principle isn’t a law for a reason, because it’s observing the natural

The 80:20 “rule” is interesting because it’s not a rule, it’s an observation. The Pareto Principle isn’t a law for a reason, because it’s observing the natural result of categorizing data. This medium article was surprisingly good[0] and makes a good point: even if you eliminate those 20% of drivers you won’t see an 80% decrease in accidents because the system as a whole fluctuates daily. I don’t think anyone came forward with any data in the replies because this distribution is impossible to come up with. Like another commenter pointed out, we all account for those distracted drivers, or tired drivers, or “accident prone” drivers at some point in our lives (possibly many points in our lives). Because of this it’s impossible to remove the 20% of the poorest drivers and have a dramatic increase in road safety. The only way to fix this system would be to remove all the factors that you listed completely. The easiest way to remove those would be to stop having people drive cars. We won’t know if it’s safer or not until we get there, and it will still have its own 80:20 distributions, just based on different factors (and hopefully to a smaller degree). [0]: https://medium.com/pinstriped/when-the-pareto-principle-goes-wrong-the-80-20-rule-fail-81fd93abc4ab https://medium.com/pinstriped/when-the-pareto-principle-goes...