MHB Solving the Probability of Crash for SUV Drivers

  • Thread starter Thread starter snowslider
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Crash Probability
Click For Summary
SUV drivers are statistically more likely to have accidents due to their higher frequency of cellphone use while driving. While it may seem that this leads to a conclusion of being 16 times more likely to crash, the actual comparison shows they are only four times more likely than other drivers. Misinterpretations of statistics in media can lead to confusion about the true risks associated with SUV driving and cellphone use. A new solution suggests a different probability ratio of 16/7, prompting further discussion on the accuracy of these calculations. Clarifying these statistics is essential to understanding the real dangers of distracted driving among SUV operators.
snowslider
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
I am trying to solve this task: The SUV drivers use their telephone four times as often as the drivers of other vehicles. At the same time, using your telephone while driving increases risk of an accident fourfold. Does that mean that the SUV drivers are 16 times more likely to have an accident than other drivers? I would say yes, because 4x4 = 16, but I am still hesitating. Thanks for help.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
What it actually means is that SUV drivers in general are 16 times as likely to have an accident as drivers who do not use a cell phone at all while driving. If we simply compare SUV drivers to other drivers, with SUV drivers using cellphones 4 times as frequently as other drivers, then we would only conclude that SUV drivers are 4 times as likely as other drivers to have an accident.
 
Thank you! I am getting really confused because I proceeded from 4WD drivers really as bad as we thought - World - smh.com.au and this sentence "That means drivers of four-wheel-drives are 16 times more likely to have an accident than other drivers because they are four times more likely to use a mobile while driving, she said." just made it even worse... :-/
 
It's kind of hard to tell in the article what the author really means, but I think the average reader will take that statement to mean 4WD drivers are 16 times as likely to be in an accident than other drivers period while what is really implied from the data is what I said in my first post. It's pretty commonplace for statistics to be misused in the media, either deliberately to strengthen weak arguments, or unintentionally because of a lack of understanding on the part of the journalist.
 
Thank you very much for your effort.
 
I am sorry to reopen this thread again... But I found another solution, which tells me that the result is 16/7... I took a picture of the solution, sorry for bad English, just please if you could check it, thank youView attachment 4992
 

Attachments

  • DSC_0674.JPG
    DSC_0674.JPG
    155.6 KB · Views: 90
Thread 'erroneously  finding discrepancy in transpose rule'
Obviously, there is something elementary I am missing here. To form the transpose of a matrix, one exchanges rows and columns, so the transpose of a scalar, considered as (or isomorphic to) a one-entry matrix, should stay the same, including if the scalar is a complex number. On the other hand, in the isomorphism between the complex plane and the real plane, a complex number a+bi corresponds to a matrix in the real plane; taking the transpose we get which then corresponds to a-bi...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K