A little reflection prompted by I use the news as an excuse to update the blog ...
In the news summary says: "29 people have died in road accidents during the weekend, of which 14 were under 30 years (which is no longer explains how many of those under the 3rd years were drivers the vehicle and how many were mere passengers). " Although data are lacking, we can say that the wording of the news is meaningful only if it is to say which is worse or more severe the death of "under 30" than "over 30".
To better information through the newspaper that says "25 killed in 23 traffic accidents during the weekend (we must assume that either the closure of the issue were missing 2 or 3 accidents to account, or 4 persons subsequently died as a result of injuries).
If each of the accidents there was at least one death, let's say it was either the driver or passenger (who are most likely to die in collision), and a small number of cases both or none (since there will be some cases in which Both are saved and the dead is one of the passengers in the rear), and some cases all.
If we consider that those under 30 years should be about 50% of those who lead, or even a little more, since in the group older than 30 there are many women who do not drive, and above the 60-taking into account the average life expectancy "should not have many drivers, the conclusion is that 14 Strip killed in less than 30 (of which one was not the driver but the passenger in a vehicle driven by another, younger or older than 30 years), is roughly half of the victims, which corresponds with half the number of drivers.
In conclusion, the dead in road accidents are more or less the same regardless of the age group they belong to, especially if we consider that the most likely in cars where the driver was under 30, more people travel in the other (a group of friends to come out for drinks and travel together, which will kill all its inhabitants and the majority also , or in spite of the driver, who is at fault), while over 30 are more likely to travel alone or with one person pr, which would tip the proposed statistic for young people and would say that in fact, are injured less ... but not to incur another fallacy number, consider that the group of children under 30 is limited below by those over 18, because before that age can not have a drivers license ...
Go as one for the other, and say that group of drivers 18-30 (young) is roughly equivalent in number of 30-65 (not young). But maybe, to be statistically balanced, we should disaggregate the group of "young people not in 2 or 3 segments and examine whether the differences are significant or not ...
The traffic accidents is unimportant (for the argument, of course it is very serious people to die anyway!), Only meant to illustrate how using statistical figures is very easy to manipulate people's perception.
As I said long ago, reviewing a book by the mathematician John Paulos, in mathematical terms but that "only 50%" is the same as "nothing less than the 50%", the psychological perception is not the same (remember the glass half full or half empty). So I invite you to read or hear news and statistics to critically review your findings in this regard. Let's hunt statistical fallacies!
