Hacker News Reader

Comment by avalys | Hacker News Reader

[0] is kind of a useless article because it doesn't provide a graph and it doesn't provide per-capita statistics.

If the US population has doubled since 1980, then it wouldn't be surprising that some population-level statistic (total pedestrian deaths) is at an all-time high! And it could still be at an all-time high while reflecting a substantial increase in safety - if the population doubled (increased 100%) but deaths only rose 25%, for instance.

Similarly, I anecdotally observe that cycling is more popular than it was 20 years ago. So it would not be surprising (to me) to observe that cycling deaths are higher as well.

But without quantifying any of these factors, the significance of these statistics is difficult to evaluate.

View on HN

> If the US population has doubled since 1980, then it wouldn't be surprising that some population-level statistic (total pedestrian deaths) is at an all-time high!

Indeed, it is per capita deaths that have increased since 2013 or so [0].

Why speculate when you can Google?

[0] https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/pedes...

Because its not the readers job to support a writers position.

Criticizing that the article I posted doesn't contain rates is understandable.

Nevertheless, in the same amount of time that it took them to write a shallow dismissal they could have googled the raw data and shared a link. They didn't provide any sources whatsoever for their own claims.

Jumping down the rabbit hole of "find a statistic X via google" takes a lot of motivation, and that's also a limited resource.

Just because that information was easy to find this time, doesn't mean it is every time. Often when I go looking for statistics on various population level things, I have to do a lot of work to find and massage it into the form I was looking for.

For what it’s worth - my comment was more about my frustration over what a useless article it was and how low our journalistic standards and expectations are that no one involved in writing or editing it bothered to ask the very obvious questions I posed - rather than about the actual topic of pedestrian deaths and crash testing.

What part of their claim specifically requires (or would even benefit from) a source?

As far as I am concerned you are conceding the argument by doubling down here. And in spite of potentially being right.

For starters, the question they posed and GP posted a source for benefits from having a concrete answer.

See, the basic presumption needs to be that random statements are false, otherwise you would have to disprove an infinite amount of random statements t arrive at the truth. Hence the asymetric requirements, and why David simply concedes the argument by not sourcing his statements, and why his opponent can simply (until some form of supporting evidence is provided) can reply with a simple 'no'.

Hard disagree. Do these arguments not apply to the conjecture by Avalys? Why is a shallow rebuttal backed by "it wouldn't be surprising" and anecdotes more credible than the sourced response?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42203613#42204292

Reply on news.ycombinator.com