3 ms·

Pedestrian Safety: Erasing 40 Years of Progress [video]

7 points by botanical 3y ago

thegrim33 3y ago
For a guy that keeps saying he wants to "get into the data" and talk about the statistics, I see: 1) They present multiple "scary looking" graphs with a line going upwards where they set arbitrary scales and present no unit or axis labels so you have no idea what the data they're presenting actually is or what it represents 2) Graphs presented that shows an increasing number of incidents, but fails to correct in any way for increasing population. If an an area goes from, say, 1million to 10million people living there, there will be an increase in accidents, even if the accident rate stays the same. Number getting bigger alone doesn't mean that safety is getting worse. 3) No statistics that provide more context. For example, is the odds you're hit by a car 1 in 100? 1 in a billion? The context matters when deciding how much of an issue something is. Going to stop watching at this point, it's obvious that the point of the video is narrative pushing social propaganda rather than any kind of actual analysis
- seadan83 3y ago
  Point [1] is a good thing to watch for, but if you update the graphs, they do not change much. Point [2], traffic fatalities doubling in under 5 years does not need normalization. The population did not double in that time. Which is a way to say, go ahead and normalize the data, it stays the same. Point [3] is IMO your own bias and immaterial. The video raises the question, why has all of the progress of reducing pedestrian deaths of the last 30 years disappeared in the last 5? If that does not matter to you, it is your perogative. > video is narrative pushing social propaganda And exactly what is that narrative? Given you did not even finish watching the video, this statement seems to be entirely your assumption and bias. Streets are more dangerous for pedestrians, that is fact born out in statistics. Why that is the case is a question. The video does not prescribe too many solutions, and none are that we all should all stop driving. One suggestion is having more than 1 working street light for a row of 20 houses would make _that_ street safer. Wanting the city of LA to fix streetlights does not seem like propaganda. Which assertions did you think are propaganda, or did you stop watching in anticipation of that?

7 points by botanical 3y ago

For a guy that keeps saying he wants to "get into the data" and talk about the statistics, I see: 1) They present multiple "scary looking" graphs with a line going upwards where they set arbitrary scales and present no unit or axis labels so you have no idea what the data they're presenting actually is or what it represents 2) Graphs presented that shows an increasing number of incidents, but fails to correct in any way for increasing population. If an an area goes from, say, 1million to 10million people living there, there will be an increase in accidents, even if the accident rate stays the same. Number getting bigger alone doesn't mean that safety is getting worse. 3) No statistics that provide more context. For example, is the odds you're hit by a car 1 in 100? 1 in a billion? The context matters when deciding how much of an issue something is. Going to stop watching at this point, it's obvious that the point of the video is narrative pushing social propaganda rather than any kind of actual analysis

seadan83 3y ago
Point [1] is a good thing to watch for, but if you update the graphs, they do not change much. Point [2], traffic fatalities doubling in under 5 years does not need normalization. The population did not double in that time. Which is a way to say, go ahead and normalize the data, it stays the same. Point [3] is IMO your own bias and immaterial. The video raises the question, why has all of the progress of reducing pedestrian deaths of the last 30 years disappeared in the last 5? If that does not matter to you, it is your perogative. > video is narrative pushing social propaganda And exactly what is that narrative? Given you did not even finish watching the video, this statement seems to be entirely your assumption and bias. Streets are more dangerous for pedestrians, that is fact born out in statistics. Why that is the case is a question. The video does not prescribe too many solutions, and none are that we all should all stop driving. One suggestion is having more than 1 working street light for a row of 20 houses would make _that_ street safer. Wanting the city of LA to fix streetlights does not seem like propaganda. Which assertions did you think are propaganda, or did you stop watching in anticipation of that?