Mathematics shows that mindfulness is more important than slowness

In 2024, there were about 12,200 accidents on Italian motorways. An important number, which leads us to reflect on how we drive and on what habits may increase risks.

Surprisingly, mathematics can help us to better understand some of the dynamics of the road. A concrete example? Overtaking heavy vehicles.

The Poisson distribution: when the case becomes calculable

Traffic accidents are random and relatively rare when compared to the enormous number of vehicles and kilometers traveled every day. For this reason, they can be described by a statistical model known as the Poisson distribution.

In simple words, the Poisson distribution is used to estimate the probability that a rare event will occur in a certain interval of time (or space), if we know the average frequency with which it occurs. It is used in very different fields: from earthquakes, to calls received from a call center, to accidents on the highway.

The formula that describes it allows us, for example, to calculate the probability that at least one accident will occur in the few seconds that we are left next to a truck during an overtaking.

Hypothesis 1: slow overtaking

A car moving at 85 km/h and overtaking a truck traveling at 80 km/h takes more than 14 seconds to complete the maneuver.

In this case, the probability that an accident will occur during that time is approximately 0.56%.

Hypothesis 2: rapid overtaking

If, on the other hand, the same car were traveling at 130 km/h, the overtaking would end in just 1.4 seconds. The probability of an accident, in the same time interval, would drop dramatically to 0.056%.

The message we get out of it

The numbers are clear: a slow overtaking increases exposure to risk by up to ten times. This does not mean that you have to run indiscriminately, but that the maneuver must be done decisively, safely and consciously, to reduce the time spent alongside the truck.

True safe driving

The problem is not the speed itself, but the lack of attention and the lack of compliance with the rules. The most serious mistakes on the highway are:
 - starting an overtaking without checking who is arriving, forcing others to brake;
 - not returning to their lane after overtaking, blocking the flow of traffic;
 - maintaining an uncertain side with a heavy vehicle for a long time.

If everyone respected the highway code, kept their vehicles in perfect condition and regulated their speed not on personal selfishness but on real traffic conditions, highways would be smoother and safer, even at relatively high speeds.

Security, after all, does not coincide with slowness, but is best achieved through awareness, attention and mutual respect.

The analysis of homicide data in Italy from 2019 to 2024 allows for a rigorous and mathematical assessment of gender dynamics, clearing the field of ideological narratives and focusing exclusively on the numbers.

The Cold Numbers

Distribution of Homicides by Perpetrator Gender

Over the six years considered, the average percentage of homicides committed by men relative to the total is 93.4%. This value is extremely stable over time, fluctuating by only a few percentage points year to year. Consequently, only 6.6% of homicides are committed by women.

Application of the Percentage to Homicides with Female Victims

When examining the subset of homicides where the victim is female, the percentage of male perpetrators remains approximately the same. This means that out of an average of 111 female victims per year, about 104 are killed by men. This proportion exactly reflects the general distribution of homicides by perpetrator gender.

Statistical Implications and Occam’s Razor

The simplest and most rational explanation (according to Occam’s razor) for this phenomenon is that the predominance of men among perpetrators of homicides against women does not stem from widespread misogyny, but rather from the fact that men, in general, commit the vast majority of homicides regardless of the victim’s gender. Applying the same percentage to both the entire set and the subset of female victims yields a consistent result, without the need to invoke additional motivations or unsupported hypotheses.

Scale of the Phenomenon Relative to the Male Population

To assess the actual extent of the phenomenon, it is useful to relate the average annual number of homicides committed by men (approximately 286 cases) to the male population residing in Italy aged 17 to 85, estimated at about 20 million individuals. The result is that the percentage of men who commit a homicide in a given year is 0.0013% (about 1.3 per 100,000). This extremely low value indicates that homicides committed by men are statistically insignificant relative to the entire male population. The case of homicides of women by men is even more negligible in strictly statistical terms.

Conclusions

• The vast majority of homicides in Italy are committed by men (93.4%), and this same percentage is reflected in homicides with female victims.
• There is no statistical need to invoke widespread misogyny to explain this data: the simplest and most coherent explanation is that men, in general, commit far more homicides than women, regardless of the victim’s gender.
• The percentage of men who commit homicides relative to the male population is extremely low (0.0013% annually), making the phenomenon marginal on a national scale.
• The current narrative of an emergency situation is not supported by objective data, which instead suggest the need for a rational and proportionate interpretation of the phenomenon.

Closing Note

It is essential to highlight that the data on female victims includes all homicide cases regardless of motive: this encompasses not only crimes occurring in family or relational contexts but also those related to failed robberies, disputes, common crime, and other circumstances. This means the number of female victims does not exclusively reflect gender-based violence but represents a heterogeneous set of situations, further confirming the need for a cautious and non-ideological reading of the data.

This analysis demonstrates how a mathematical and statistical approach can provide a more accurate and coherent view of reality, avoiding distorted or alarmist interpretations unsupported by numerical evidence.

Note: The tilde (~) indicates data derived from averages across multiple sources.

Sources used for this article:
ISTAT website
Ministry of the Interior website
Public Security Department website
Center against Violence (Italy)
Many others...

DISCLAIMER: this article was NOT written by doctors. Therefore, everything reported therein IS NOT A MEDICAL COUNCIL. However, these are data verified by various public sources.

The attack mechanism of the SARS-CoV-2 virus has been analyzed, and it mainly consists in exploiting defects of the immune system, in particular the low levels of ImmunoGlobulin A and high levels of INTERLEUCHINA-6 and in general an insufficient level of B lymphocytes and T and dopamine (neuro transmitter). Coronavirus disease was also considered to cause the lowering of alpha and beta interferons. For these reasons, it is useful, to treat the disease, to restore the functions of the immune system to medium effective levels, instead of bombarding experimental drugs, which, with their serious side effects, cause serious damage to patients and in too many cases they reveal themselves ineffective. On the other hand, without a double-blind test on these drugs, it appears difficult to determine whether a patient's recovery can be attributed to the drug or to the natural reaction of the immune system.

Recently, I get involved with Wolfram Physics Project. I did some research, and I wen down with it (oh, well, let's say I've just understood what's at the base of it). Since it's quite intresting I thought to write down two rows, as we could say...

Well, Stephen Wolfram is a reference figure in the programming and maths. He started Wolfram Alpha, a website that ties to give an answer to "every" question, using algorithms to scan an enormous database of informations. He's also responsible of Mathematica, an informatic system, used by scientist in all the world.

This theory was exposed in two stages, in 2010 and 2014 by the Italian blogger known under the pseudonym of Uriel Fanelli, who I followed with interest in the narrative style.

I hope it won't hurt if I bring it back here because, in addition to finding it interesting and quite spot on, it came back to my mind when I took care of dismantling some hoaxes / fake news / inaccuracies on the alleged damage from exposure to electromagnetic waves, article that you find here.

This theory has been expressed in a similar and certainly more concise way, by the Italian programmer Alberto Brandolini, under the name of "Bullshit asymmetric principle", and whose statement is more or less this: The amount of energy necessary to refute a bullshit is at least an order of magnitude higher than that needed to produce it.

These days the world is grappling with the problem of the Covid-19 pandemic, but I am noticing an uncontrolled increase in another problem: the decidedly false news.

Someone came up with the idea of ​​linking this pandemic with the antenna installations for the 5G network, a topic on which I am quite expert, and this led me to face a colossal mountain of bullshit, in the sense that I was immediately angered, every time I read an imaginative theory on how such antennas were actually harmful, bla ... bla ..., the plot, bla .. bla ..

I have seen photos of dead birds, for example, due to a tree blown down by the wind, used to "prove" that they had actually been killed by 5G antennas.

Analyzing the amount of data existing on this topic I realized, and it must be said to be honest, that there are two studies conducted by accredited institutes, which would demonstrate the existence of a correlation between the emission of electromagnetic waves (EM) and some effect on living beings.