I just went back and reread this entire thread. Their comment that contained the 21% was in response to you saying:
Pedestrian and cyclist fatalities are only fraction of that total.
Which I read as you saying, "pedestrian/cyclist fatalities are only a fraction of the complete data".
This entire thread then spawned out of a complaint that 21% of 100% is not "a fraction of". Hence the statistical analysis that you're attempting to do, to try to justify you saying that, is irrelevant.
Homie, "percentage" and "fraction" are analogous representations of the same data. I'm not doing any statistical analysis whatsoever, I am discussing the data.
21% of all those vehicle fatalities are a subset that includes pedestrian or cyclists. Whether those were single or multi-vehicle is inherently a subset of that 21%.
Yes, they are analogous. Nothing I said should have implied otherwise.
The statistical analysis you're doing is about percentages of percentages, when nothing of the sort applies, because your initial comment was about a subset that is 21% of the whole. Not 21% of 53%, not some arbitrary and unknown percentage less than 21%, but 21%.
You keep trying to downplay that 21%, and that's wrong.
1
u/galstaph 10d ago edited 10d ago
I just went back and reread this entire thread. Their comment that contained the 21% was in response to you saying:
Which I read as you saying, "pedestrian/cyclist fatalities are only a fraction of the complete data".
This entire thread then spawned out of a complaint that 21% of 100% is not "a fraction of". Hence the statistical analysis that you're attempting to do, to try to justify you saying that, is irrelevant.