They don’t understand probability

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 54 points 10 months ago (7 children)

Does "dangerous" necessarily default to meaning murder? A breakdown for assault and robbery would be helpful since I suspect that's the direction a conversation would go.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    @setsneedtofeed @Vaya Your chances of getting punched, groped, or pickpocketed on public transit are still far lower than your chances of suffering bodily injury or property damage from a non-fatal traffic crash.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 10 months ago (10 children)

    What's with the random comparisons? Sometimes it's the whole US, sometimes specific parts. What does 500 rides mean? Annual deaths per 100'000 population per 500 rides?

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 10 months ago* (3 children)

    The per 100,000 is pretty standard for per capita

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Yeah but I don't understand how it would combine with the 500 rides. Were they counting only people who rode 500 times a year? Or is the implication that for this line they didn't go by 100000 people, but instead by 500 rides? That would make it incomparable. I just don't get it

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

    Although saying per capita here would be misleading, because it's not like those people ride the subway 500 times AND drives a car everywhere. The ones who take the subway are the only ones at risk of subway homocide, the ones who drive are actually less likely to die in a traffic accident than people outside of their car like pedestrians and bikers, and the two groups probably are much different in size.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (4 children)
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    So they only counted those who did 500 rides a year? Or they counted 50'000'000 rides as a proxy for 100'000 subway users?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    I am guessing they took the average homicide rate per ride in the metro, and used those rates to create the per capita rate assuming they take 500 rides a year.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago*

    Oh yeah I can see it, that would make sense! Thanks!

    Since a lot of tickets will be bought anonymously you can't easily count unique users of the subway system, so the raw data probably consisted of numbers of homicides, and number of rides taken by all customers combined.

    But the rate between those wouldn't fit the per person risk they want to be comparing. So to calculate a risk to a person they must have assumed a realistic case towards the higher end of ridership, that is, a commuter commuting 5 days a week for 50 weeks a year, to work and back, that would give the 500 rides number.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

    So you need to double it at the absolute minimum?

    There are 52 weeks in a year. 2 trips per day, 5 days/week and you're at 520 rides already.

    That is with absolutely zero rides to the grocery store, literally anywhere but work and home. And that's assuming it only takes 1 ride to get to work - which we'll... Good luck with that anywhere in America even in NYC.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 21 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Is there a graph that breaks it down by rider? As in, deaths per 100K riders on public transit? I think this graph would be including people that don't ride public transit at all (I fully believe it's still safer, just not sure if this particular graph is the most accurate).

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 14 points 10 months ago

    One way I've seen it normalized for cars vs flying is by hours of transit time. That way, it demonstrates you're in more or less danger per hour in the vehicle during transit.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 18 points 10 months ago

    I’ve taken public transit a lot, haven’t owned a car for around 20 years. I can count on one hand the amount of times I’ve felt threatened, and none of them resulted in me or anyone else getting hurt. I will admit part of that is probably that I’m a man, but as a trans man it puts me in a weird space where that doesn’t always protect me.

    Sometimes people yell and act aggressive, and it puts me on edge. But far more often I have seen strangers band together to help people who are lost or disabled and need assistance. But nobody really makes news stories about that, so if you’re not taking public transit regularly, all you hear about is the crazy shit that happens.

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    Kathy Hochul sent in the national guard to swarm the subways, in response to some supposed crime wave. She was eventually forced to admit the data showed she was lying, and violent crime was way down.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    IMO statistics should always be a requisite factor in any deliberation or executive order that would mobilize law enforcement or military, and lying about those statics in that capacity should be a serious crime.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (2 children)

    The small problem with statistics is that you need the story of how the statistic was created to have it say anything sensible. Without the story a graph is just a pretty picture with which you can make people believe anything. What you need as an addition is a written in law way of how the statics are calculated.

    Just making statistics a prerequisite for making a decision will prompt those in power to make the numbers look in their favour.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 10 months ago* (9 children)

    No data but this is common concern among my social circle too (Toronto). More with people who don't use transit but also with those who use it to a lesser extent. The economic conditions produced a drastic increase in homelessness over the last decade. It spills over into the public transit system as people seek warmth during the deadly winter cold. While people tend to ignore the problem, as the unhoused population grows, random attacks become a thing. That goes on the news, people see it on their daily commutes, and here we are. It's not a transit problem.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    You hit the nail on the head. The ultimate cause is homelessness due to profit being necessary to live in a home -- when shelter is a basic right at all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    It isn't just that; most of the developed world refuses to build the kind of housing that poor people need to put a roof over their heads. Studios and dorms used to be far more common units of housing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    Having lived in a studio, I think it's not exactly a solution - it does solve the housing crisis to an extent, but not to the extent of comfort. Adequate housing can and should be affordable. Here the left-wing parties have been pretty active in building more of those, eg by building apartments, modal construction, and the like.

    They also have worked on reducing energy bills. Something the right wing parties haven't.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    I do think part of the issue is that you might not see actual violence on a train, but you might see some behaviour which makes you feel uncomfortable. Because you're in a carriage with maybe 100 other people, then the likelihood is less that you're in any actual danger, and far more that you've witnessed an incident which makes you wary. Meanwhile, there are several car accidents daily, but it's witnessed by maybe 20 odd people, and most people only see a slowdown of the road.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

    In TO there's definitely violence that's been seen on trains and street cars, but it's rare. As you said, uncomfortable situations are the common case.

    You're 100% right about the exposure to such inicdents vs car accidents. And that's amplified by how it's covered. One's still rare, the other has been commonplace for decades in the news. So yeah. The material conditions produce these results without much intervention.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    There was a parent who didn't correctly park her pram on a train platform, and sadly the pram went onto the train line, and one of the children and her husband died. This was a major news story, harrowing CCTV footage, a community in mourning. There was discussion on changing platforms to be safer, etc.

    Similar story with an SUV which reversed over a pram. No CCTV, the story was barely reported, largely local news. Similar scale of tragedy, and sadly the SUV story is probably more common, but the fact that it's common also makes it an invisible story.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 13 points 10 months ago

    What's with the Sawyer County call out? Do they just have the highest death rate for traffic accidents or something?

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 10 months ago

    I don't really know anyone afraid of transit crime here in LA, but the main deterrent is mostly how long it takes to get to places -- which is ironic, given cars are the main reason our trains and busses are delayed (our trains cross busy intersections, which is insane).

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago

    A lot of people aren't used to being in crowded public spaces like they were used to, with COVID making it worse. The presence of homeless makes the perception worse.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago (7 children)

    Statistics do not help, when you have a feeling. The honest solution is to make the experience feel safer. So clean open friendly light stations help a lot and the trains should also be clean and friendly.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago*

    The honest solution is to make the experience feel safer. So clean open friendly light stations help a lot and the trains should also be clean and friendly.


    No, no, the solution is to remove the benches, setup hostile architecture, put bars on every piece of glass, and...

    • The MTA
  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (5 replies)
    [–] 4 points 10 months ago

    @Vaya So if we're going to deploy the military domestically in the name of public safety, the best use of their resources would be to park their tanks on highways and stroads to block off excess lanes and prevent the extreme speeding that's so rampant on US roads.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›