3 ms·
Coming from a bio background, I’ve always been confused why auto fatality stats are normalized per miles driven. Epidemiological metrics like incidence or preva
by biophysboy 5mo ago
Coming from a bio background, I’ve always been confused why auto fatality stats are normalized per miles driven. Epidemiological metrics like incidence or prevalence seem like they would work fine? Town A would be “safer” than town B if people’s commutes are 20% shorter, even if accidents occur w same frequency
- _vertigo 5mo agoWhat are some other better ways to normalize?
- cozzyd 5mo agoPer trip?
- biophysboy 5mo agoHonestly, just per 1M person per year. If this normal incidence went up while the exposure incidence rate went down over 20 years, I'd wanna know.
- gsnedders 5mo agoOther common approaches: 1. Per capita 2. Per registered vehicle 3. Per trip All of these have upsides and downsides (as does “per vehicle km”), and all will paint different pictures with different distortions.
- andrepd 5mo agoBecause it yields a simple corollary that to make travelling safer you can reduce the number of miles driven. Mostly by giving people viable alternatives to driving, be it long-distance rail or bike lanes to move around quicker and safer in the city.
- Aloisius 5mo agoPretty sure I've seen exposure-adjusted incidence rates used in clinical trials. Miles is simply a proxy for exposure. Given risk here does vary by exposure time and trip length varies so much, it seems reasonable to use - at least in combination with crude rates.
- biophysboy 5mo agoFair point - a combo might be the best approach.. I understand the idea of accidents correlating w/ miles driven, but it seems to be optimizing for driving safety rather than human life? Does that make sense?