[lvmensch]

Originally Posted by EA

Deaths per 100k are ONE data point of thousands, or as the study claims, 2 million.

They're not looking at per capita though. They're looking at raw numbers without factoring in population.

Bull

They are simply the pro capita number multiplied by 100,000. And exactly as comparable as the pro capita number.

It is simply a numeric convenience to avoid dealing with numbers with a decimal point and multiple zeroes at the front end.

[EA]

2013 nevada had 266 fatalities.
California had 3,000 fatalities same year.

Nevada population 2.78 million
California population 38.5 million


So to make things even let's multiply Vegas numbers by 13 to get them closer to Cali numbers.

(38.5/2.78=13.8)

Vegas at 36,140,000 residents
3,458 fatalities

They had MORE fatalities and less citizens.


See how that changes things?

In 2013 Vegas roads were far more deadly than California roads.



Sources of 2013 data

https://zerofatalitiesnv.com/stats-current-year/

https://tjryanlaw.com/auto-accidents...th-statistics/


That study is dumb and the people that did it are dumb. Nevada drivers are awful and anyone that actually drives these roads will tell you that.

[lvmensch]

In 2017...

Mississippi with a population of 2,984,100 had 690 deaths giving a rate of 23.1 per 100,000 the worst in the US

District of Columbia with a population of 693,972 had 31 deaths giving a rate of 4.5 per 100,000 the best in the US

California with a population of 39,536,653 had 3,602 deaths giving a rate of 9.1 per 100,000 which was 14th from the best in the US

Nevada with a population of 2,998,039 had 309 deaths giving a rate of 10.3 per 100,000 which was 19th from the best in the US

The U.S. with a total population of 325,719,178 had 37,133 deaths giving a rate of 11.4 per 100,000.

So Nevada and California had traffic death rates of less than the US average.

So yet again the statistics make it clear Nevada is not super but a long way from the US bottom.

[OmegaSupreme]

I would think public transport affects the figures. If much of the working population, in a particular city, doesn'tt drive, then that would not represent real population data on drivers. You can't look at per capita data without making adjustments.

Degree of enforcement affects the figures. You can possibly adjust that variable by factoring in the number of police officers per capita.

I think the model used needs a lot of refinement, but you can pretty much prove anything depending on how and what data you use

[EA]

Originally Posted by OmegaSupreme

I would think public transport affects the figures. If much of the working population, in a particular city, doesn'tt drive, then that would not represent real population data on drivers. You can't look at per capita data without making adjustments.

Degree of enforcement affects the figures. You can possibly adjust that variable by factoring in the number of police officers per capita.

I think the model used needs a lot of refinement, but you can pretty much prove anything depending on how and what data you use

Exactly.

Originally Posted by lvmensch

In 2017...



California with a population of 39,536,653 had 3,602 deaths giving a rate of 9.1 per 100,000 which was 14th from the best in the US

Nevada with a population of 2,998,039 had 309 deaths giving a rate of 10.3 per 100,000 which was 19th from the best in the US

Correct me if I am wrong but 10.3 per 100k is WORSE than 9.3 per 100k right?

Yet Nevada is ranked as better drivers than California by this ignorant study. And that is my point.
If the study had used PER CAPITA data instead of raw numbers, Nevada would have been a lot worse than the study suggests.
But because Nevada population is so low and they did not use per capita numbers, we came out a lot better than we should have.

[lvmensch]

Originally Posted by EA

Exactly.






Correct me if I am wrong but 10.3 per 100k is WORSE than 9.3 per 100k right?

Yet Nevada is ranked as better drivers than California by this ignorant study. And that is my point.
If the study had used PER CAPITA data instead of raw numbers, Nevada would have been a lot worse than the study suggests.
But because Nevada population is so low and they did not use per capita numbers, we came out a lot better than we should have.

Some of the statistics involved are clearly per capita. Fatality rate for example.

If you want to find trouble with the RJ reported study just track to the actual data cited. They appear to be very old.

CA and NV are close enough together that they may well invert on various parameters.

The bottom line however is quite clear that neither is in the bottom third. Neither very bad.

The attempt being made here is that Nevada drivers are awful. The available statistics do not support that.

[EA]

If they were per capita then NV wouldn't be 5th best because There's dozens of wrecks every single day.

I run a rideshare page with 2700 Vegas members on it.
They post pics of wrecks constantly. They have videos of near wrecks constantly. Nevada drivers are awful I don't care what some idiotic study says. They are flat out wrong.

Their methodology is all wrong.

[lvmensch]

Originally Posted by EA

If they were per capita then NV wouldn't be 5th best because There's dozens of wrecks every single day.

I run a rideshare page with 2700 Vegas members on it.
They post pics of wrecks constantly. They have videos of near wrecks constantly. Nevada drivers are awful I don't care what some idiotic study says. They are flat out wrong.

Their methodology is all wrong.

The Fed numbers quoted above are absolutely per capita and show clearly that both CA and NV are better than the US average. If you want accident statistics take a look at Allstate. I do not completely trust the Allstate as it is not clear what they are measuring. I presume it is Las Vegas zip codes but it is not clear that is true. They for instance separate Henderson so it is not the metro or Clark County.

The fifth place is from the study quoted by the RJ. Take it up with them.

[EA]

Originally Posted by lvmensch

The Fed numbers quoted above are absolutely per capita and show clearly that both CA and NV are better than the US average. If you want accident statistics take a look at Allstate. I do not completely trust the Allstate as it is not clear what they are measuring. I presume it is Las Vegas zip codes but it is not clear that is true. They for instance separate Henderson so it is not the metro or Clark County.

The fifth place is from the study quoted by the RJ. Take it up with them.

YOU posted the RJ study. It is the RJ study I am taking issue with. Jesus.

[lvmensch]

If you want to get really confused try the Allstate best driver rack up.

Their prime statistic is the time between accidents for an Allstate insured.

Las Vegas is 7.8 years between reportable accidents and ranks 122 out of 200.

Henderson is 9.0 years and ranks 57.

North Las Vegas is 7.5 years and ranks 140.

Los Angeles is 5.5 years and 195.

Same story. Las Vegas is not great but not awful either.