• jenesaisquoi@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 hours ago

    Incorrect use of whom. Who kills who (accusative case). Who gets killed by whom (dative case).

    • ECB@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 hours ago

      It’s the objective case, i.e. everything that isn’t nominative, so this usage would be correct. We don’t have a real distinction between accusative and dative in modern english.

      That being said, I’m a descriptivist who is strongly of the opinion that ‘who’ is always correct and ‘whom’ is archaic.

  • kromem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    1 day ago

    A great case for why data normalization is so important.

    Looking at the chart like this with non-normalized data you might conclude that riding around on a scooter makes you near invincible compared to walking even if hit by a car.

    Whereas what’s really being shown is more people walk than ride scooters.

    • faythofdragons@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Yeah, I’m really wondering how push scooters cause more pedestrian fatalities than bicycles. Motorized scooters, I understand, but how the hell does a push scooter have enough mass and speed to kill twice as many people?

  • outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    That pedestrian who killed a driver is a badass and ill buy them a bottle of their fav sparkling white; i don’t even care.

  • Tanis Nikana@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    72
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    When a pedestrian collides into another pedestrian and kills them, that’s called “a fist fight.”

    • jlow (he / him)@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      2 days ago

      Mmmh, I would suppose that to be counted in this statistic they’d need to run at each other really fast and somehow manage to kill each other (or at least one person). Like jousting or goats or something?

    • Gladaed@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      Not really. Imagine 2 people walking at a brisk pace walking into each other, eg around a corner. Might kill someone. Usually that’s fine, but sometimes you have bad lick.

  • randomname@scribe.disroot.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    2 days ago

    I posted that in another thread, but it also fits here to provide a broader picture maybe.

    Road traffic death rate (per 100 000 population) according to WHO:

    • Africa: 19
    • Eastern Mediterranean: 16
    • South-East Asia: 16
    • Western Pacific: 15
    • Americas: 14
    • Europe: 7

    According to the WHO, a road traffic injuries report says:

    • Approximately 1.19 million people die each year as a result of road traffic crashes.
    • Road traffic injuries are the leading cause of death for children and young adults aged 5–29 years.
    • 92% of the world’s fatalities on the roads occur in low- and middle-income countries, even though these countries have around 60% of the world’s vehicles.
    • More than half of all road traffic deaths are among vulnerable road users, including pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists.
    • Road traffic crashes cost most countries 3% of their gross domestic product.
    • Kairos@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      Your logic is wrong. There’s less of them total so of course there’s less fatalities total. It says nothing about rate per distance driven.

      • 8uurg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 days ago

        Rate per distance is not that great of a metric either, though. Increasing distance does not necessarily increase risk equally. A car that drives a long stretch on a highway is unlikely to hit a pedestrian, but inside a city, or on a shared country road this becomes much more likely. Distance travelled would be inflated in this case for the car, and the metrics would end up being much lower. Furthermore, because walking is generally done for short distances, any incident would inflate this rate much more for pedestrians.

        You preferably want to have some measure of risk for a single trip. If a trip were to be made by another mode of transport, would it still have occurred? A proxy for this can be the severity: How high is the chance that an incident is fatal there between two modes of transport, given that an incident occurs? You may also wish to account for the likelihood of an interaction. Which also provides another means of improving: what infrastructure was involved? Disentangling two modes of transport makes them less likely to interact.

        Sorry for this long rant, but I really dislike rate / distance as a means of normalizing a metric that is meant to indicate the relative safety.

    • PunnyName@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      Van/lorry kills more cars than they kill other vans/lorries. Top dog in the race to the bottom.

  • MIDItheKID@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    2 days ago

    Very curious about the three “question mark vs question mark” fatalities. UFO collision? Skateboard jousting?

    • Successful_Try543@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      For the last row, it might be people using e.g. inline skates, skateboards or non-electrical scooters.
      For the last column, it could also be unknown vehicle (hit and run).

      Edit: Busses aren’t included in the chart as a separate category either, so they’re also in the “others” category.