> An analysis of Sweden’s snow clearance practices showed that it disadvantaged women, who were more likely to walk, while employment districts where men predominantly worked were more likely to have streets plowed first.

> Not only was the impact of snow clearance priorities discriminatory, there were negative consequences for society as a whole. Three times as many people are injured while walking in icy conditions in Sweden than while driving. And the cost of those injuries far exceeds the cost of snow clearance.

I fail to see how the analysis somehow found the ostensible gender imbalance of clearing roads before walkways more salient than the fact that icy conditions caused a greater human cost in walking accidents than driving accidents, which is expressed almost as an afterthought.

Surely the data about the number of accidents and their gravity was much more available and actionable than a roundabout assumption about men being more likely to work and therefore to drive to work, and women being more likely to be disadvantaged and therefore more likely to walk?

Wouldn't it make more sense that the gender imbalance was only noticed after having implemented the measure based on more simple data?