(no title)
Uzza | 2 years ago
There is two cars, car A and car B. Each driven by 1000 drivers each year.
Car A: The drivers drive a total 10000 km each year, and 20 people get into one accident each, averaging one accident every 500 km.
Car B: The drivers drive a total 1000000 km each year, and 40 people get into one accident each, averaging one accident every 25000 km.
Which car is safer? According to this opinion piece it's car A. But anyone that has even surface knowledge about statistics would realize that it's car B.
It would take only 500 km in car A for someone to have gotten into an accident on average, while for Car B it would be 25000 km. Drivers of car A are therefore on average 50 times more likely to get into an accident. Statistically, if car A was driven as far as car B, every single driver would have had two accidents each.
Conclusion: It is impossible to reach the conclusion in the title given only accidents per total number of drivers. More data is needed.
iancmceachern|2 years ago
https://cleantechnica.com/2023/11/13/new-study-finds-electri...
That makes this Dara even more damning
weebull|2 years ago
Drive in a city and you may be merging 5-6 times as you move from road to road.
I'm just saying that assuming a linear relationship to distance is probably incorrect as well.
nuker|2 years ago
pavon|2 years ago
For example RAM only sells trucks, and their drivers may not be any worse than other truck drivers, but they don't sell other vehicles to bring the average down.
Looking at the brands with the lowest crashes, they are one that are stereotypically owned by older drivers who drive significantly less miles.
All in all, enough suspicious correlations for me to take the data with a grain of salt.
[1]https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/mark-phelan/2018/07/2...
jimrandomh|2 years ago
electriclove|2 years ago