[erikpukinskis]

Raw numbers provide comparisons and measure progress too. Not sure what you mean by context.

I’m of the same mind as your OP: the goal is zero violence, in raw numbers. Shooting for a low seeming percentage seems to be most often just a way to hide the fact that specific small groups are consistently receiving the lions share of violence, which is unacceptable to me.

[tyingq]

Context would mean many things. A percentage, for example, would let you see if there are areas that exceed the average. Or driver demographic slices (age group, for example). Or time of day/week. Or comparisons to other related industries. If it's higher than regular taxi service, that might help you see if they are doing something you aren't.

It's hard to improve things you don't measure with actionable data.

[erikpukinskis]

I just don’t understand how a percentage counts as actionable data but a count does not?

[tyingq]

Because percentages can be compared across, locations, for example. Raw numbers cannot. 10 assualts in city A vs 20 assaults in city B tells you squat, unless you know how many rides in each.

Similar for other comparisons. Like assaults by driver demographic, like age group. Or comparisons to traditional taxi service...if they have lower incident rates, maybe they have a practice you should adopt.

[satyrnein]

Actionable is having a percentage AND the percentage of the most likely alternative, such as a taxi. Then, you can decide which is safer to take home tonight.