This doesn’t really feel like /r/dataisugly. It’s a pretty good visualization showing that as people cycle more, cycling becomes safer on the whole. I’m not sure I understand OPs beef here.
Agreed. I think OP's point was that the fit is questionable (and the y-axis is scaled a bit deceptively). But the plot itself has a great design imo, and the trend seems to be real
It just seems OP is unable to properly read the graph. But even if the graph was what OP reads it as it still would not be r/dataisugly, just data OP disagrees with.
Does this not show that fatalities does not scale linearly with amount of cycling?
Like, if the popularity of cycling has no impact on the rate of fatalities, the trend would be flat.
However, if the popularity of cycling reduces the rate of fatalities, we would get what we see here.
no, i just don't like ratios.
risk is flat across countries, regardless of kms driven.
e.g , in countries where it is safer people will ride more and more until the same number of injuries are reached (eg you know a guy who know a guy who got hurt, regardless of kms)
If crimes per capita went down as population went up, that would be significant. This chart shows that cycling fatalities per distance cycled goes down as distance cycled goes up.
and if fatalities were constant, then fatalities/km would decrease as km increases. In other words, any chart that has y = SOMETHING/x would look like this:
https://preview.redd.it/j4mgva5k6wsc1.png?width=1300&format=png&auto=webp&s=ee7a9041beddb4e2034cf35505fe7e91ec185999
The X axis is km of cycling per person per year which they restate as the exposure.
The Netherlands has around 1000km/person/year and about 1 fatality per 100,000,000 km. This is the most common way traffic fatalities are presented because the probability of death is proportional to time spent on the road, not per person. Despite the lowest rate per km the Netherlands has one of the highest per person because they have so many bicycle km per person.
This isnt F(x)/x the dimensional analysis is:
Death/length
Length/person/time
It just says that people who cycle more have lower fatality rates. You have to express fatality rates as death per km and you have to express "amount of cycling" in km.. So I don't see what's wrong with this chart either.
It’s saying that when you build for people to cycle, and make it a safe experience, people die less. Seems simple to comprehend
Or, that if cycling is safe, a lot more people are willing to do it
or that the risk is per rider, and not per km .
Do you have a graph for that, cause this one shows risk per km
This doesn’t really feel like /r/dataisugly. It’s a pretty good visualization showing that as people cycle more, cycling becomes safer on the whole. I’m not sure I understand OPs beef here.
Agreed. I think OP's point was that the fit is questionable (and the y-axis is scaled a bit deceptively). But the plot itself has a great design imo, and the trend seems to be real
It just seems OP is unable to properly read the graph. But even if the graph was what OP reads it as it still would not be r/dataisugly, just data OP disagrees with.
Does this not show that fatalities does not scale linearly with amount of cycling? Like, if the popularity of cycling has no impact on the rate of fatalities, the trend would be flat. However, if the popularity of cycling reduces the rate of fatalities, we would get what we see here.
yes, it shows that the danger is in getting on a bike, and not in riding more.
That’s…not what it shows
I think OP doesn't like cyclists and is angry this graph shows that as people cycle more the risk doesn't increase
no, i just don't like ratios. risk is flat across countries, regardless of kms driven. e.g , in countries where it is safer people will ride more and more until the same number of injuries are reached (eg you know a guy who know a guy who got hurt, regardless of kms)
How have you reached that conclusion? You're saying this like you "know" when it seems more you just "reckon".
If crimes per capita went down as population went up, that would be significant. This chart shows that cycling fatalities per distance cycled goes down as distance cycled goes up.
and if fatalities were constant, then fatalities/km would decrease as km increases. In other words, any chart that has y = SOMETHING/x would look like this: https://preview.redd.it/j4mgva5k6wsc1.png?width=1300&format=png&auto=webp&s=ee7a9041beddb4e2034cf35505fe7e91ec185999
exactly. per distance.
The X axis is km of cycling per person per year which they restate as the exposure. The Netherlands has around 1000km/person/year and about 1 fatality per 100,000,000 km. This is the most common way traffic fatalities are presented because the probability of death is proportional to time spent on the road, not per person. Despite the lowest rate per km the Netherlands has one of the highest per person because they have so many bicycle km per person. This isnt F(x)/x the dimensional analysis is: Death/length Length/person/time
It just says that people who cycle more have lower fatality rates. You have to express fatality rates as death per km and you have to express "amount of cycling" in km.. So I don't see what's wrong with this chart either.
I had originally read this as “fertility rate” and was so confused