ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit

[Bytor]

That's selection bias. How often do the trams go through and not get hot? The times the do get hit is, what, a millionth of a percent of all trips?

I could have a biased sample, yes.

You almost certainly do, given that, whether it's news or social media, it's the extreme things that get shown or go viral and come to your attention.

I don't have the statistics. But you can't deduce that out of thin air, and definitely can't use that as proof that the opposite is true.

Yes, I can, because the same old same old isn't "news". Basically why you never never see news articles about Toronto trams getting hit by cars, or why you never hear about the roughly 15-20 car accidents that the WRPS tell us happen every day in Waterloo Region.

I said disproportionate, meaning in relation to the total number of both tram and car accidents I've seen in Poland.

Yes, I know that said that about about the dashcam videos that you've, but it changes noting. Just because you, personally, have seen a bunch of these dashcam videos from Poland doesn't say that there is a high rate of such incidents. Only that you saw a couple, clicked like, the algorothm fed you a bunch more, you clicked like again, and then the algorithm fed you a lot of them.

And then you said that because you've seen a bunch of these videos therefore this isn't a good idea, with no apparent reflection on whether or not you had seen a representative example of both trams crossing roundabouts in general or about the specific Polish examples in order to make such a judgement call.

A millionth of a percent of all trips seems very hyperbolic on its own,

Yes, it was hyperbolic, and intentionally so, but still you seem to have missed the point.

But at a fundamental level, I'm not sure why you are arguing in favour of adding complexity (and not the traffic calming kind) to our roadways when alternatives likely exist. Unless you think our current incident rate is within the bounds of acceptable.

I wasn't arguing one way or the other in my response to you. I was pointing out that you don't have the data to argue against it because you were making a judgement based on sensationalised videos specifically farmed to you in order to keep you watching more ads.

You are, essentially, making essentially the same type of argument as the person who does not want to fly because they saw a plane crash or three on the news and assume that flying is therefore dangerous and then going "I don't have the statistics. But you can't just assume that driving is safer than flying" and not doing even minimal due diligence and checking something like deaths per passenger mile.