All comparisons like this are completely misleading, because they’re based on averages across widely variant situations and people. It’s a BIG hint that you’re talking about transit homicides vs automobile death by collision. The two biggest determinants of safety for this decision are NOT “for the median trip, which mode has fewer deaths?”, but “for you personally right now, are you drunk, and/or are you involved with often-violent people?”.
Sure, there are many car deaths where the traveler is not drunk, and some transit deaths (unclear if you’re counting the walk and wait portions, or only on the transport, but it doesn’t matter) of uninvolved bystanders. But they’re only a fraction of the reported statistics, small enough that the comparison falls apart.
For this decision, like MOST choices in life, variation is so great that you really can’t update on averages.
For this decision, like MOST choices in life, variation is so great that you really can’t update on averages.
I like the way you put that. I think I’ve had some intuition for this but this kind crystalizes it for me. Thanks.
That said, and to steelman a bit, if you want an attempt an analysis, you kinda have to work with what you’ve got, and I suspect that’s the angle that OP is coming at this from. Although I do think that it would be worth caveating more because of the high variance.
All comparisons like this are completely misleading, because they’re based on averages across widely variant situations and people. It’s a BIG hint that you’re talking about transit homicides vs automobile death by collision. The two biggest determinants of safety for this decision are NOT “for the median trip, which mode has fewer deaths?”, but “for you personally right now, are you drunk, and/or are you involved with often-violent people?”.
Sure, there are many car deaths where the traveler is not drunk, and some transit deaths (unclear if you’re counting the walk and wait portions, or only on the transport, but it doesn’t matter) of uninvolved bystanders. But they’re only a fraction of the reported statistics, small enough that the comparison falls apart.
For this decision, like MOST choices in life, variation is so great that you really can’t update on averages.
I like the way you put that. I think I’ve had some intuition for this but this kind crystalizes it for me. Thanks.
That said, and to steelman a bit, if you want an attempt an analysis, you kinda have to work with what you’ve got, and I suspect that’s the angle that OP is coming at this from. Although I do think that it would be worth caveating more because of the high variance.