Tagged: open data

Analysis of traffic violations in Slovenia between beginning of 2012 and end of 2014

Share Button

This is my first attempt to use open data for data visualization in web presentation and for a mobile app. The idea was to cross-pollinate promotion, but it didn’t go so well – more on this later.

The analysis is published on a separate URL due to heavy use of JavaScript, which complicates things in WordPress. Click link above or the big image with parking ticket to read it.

Parking ticket
Parking ticket

According to data provided by state police, highway authority and local traffic wardens, there occurred a little less than a million traffic violations between start of 2012 and September 2014. Given that there are 1,300,000 registered vehicles and 1,400,000 active driving licenses in the country, this is a lot. A big majority of them are parking and toll tickets.

In the main article, there are a lot of images and charts. For example, I analyzed data for major towns in Slovenia to get the streets with the highest number of issued traffic tickets. Here’s an example for Ljubljana:

Parking tickets in Ljubljana
Streets with parking tickets in Ljubljana – click to read article

I had temporal data for each issued ticket, so I could also show on which streets you are more likely to be ticketed in the morning, midday or evening. On the image below, morning is blue, midday is yellow, and evening is red.

Tickets issued by hour
Tickets issued by hour – click for main article

This is, however, only the beginning. Here are questions I tried to answer:

  • Are traffic wardens and traffic police just another type of tax collectors for the state and counties?
  • Do traffic wardens really issue more tickets now than in the past, or is that just my perception?
  • Which zones in bigger towns are especially risky, should you forget to pay the parking?
  • Are traffic wardens more active in specific time intervals?
  • Does the police lay speed traps in locations with most traffic accidents? What about DUI checking?
  • How does temperature influence the number of issued traffic tickets?
  • Does the moon influence the number of issued traffic tickets? If so, which types?
  • Where and when are drivers most at risk of encountering other drunk drivers?
  • Where does the highway authority check for toll, and when to hit the road if one does not want to pay it?
  • How can we drive safer using open data?

Be sure to read the main article to see all the visualizations and interactive maps. There are also videos, for example this one, showing how the ticketing territory expanded through time in Ljubljana:

Parkirne kazni v Ljubljani 2012 – 2014 from Marko O’Hara on Vimeo.

Some other highlights:

The big finding was a sharp increase of number of parking tickets issued in Ljubljana by the end of 2013, which coincides with publishing of debt that the county has run into:

Increase of parking tickets issued in LJubljana
Increase of parking tickets issued in Ljubljana

There’s an interactive map showing the quadrants with most DUI tickets and their distribution by day of week and month in year:

DUI distribution
DUI distribution

Mobile app for Android

Mobile app for android - start screen
Mobile app for android – map

I also wrote an Android mobile app (get it on Google Play if you are interested) that locates the user and shows locations of violations of selected type on the map, as well as a threat assessment, should she want to break the law. Here’s the description on Google Play:

The app helps the user find out where and when were traffic tickets issued in Slovenia, thus facilitating safer driving. 
Ticket database is limited to territory of Republic of Slovenia.

Choose between these issued citations to show in app:
– parking
– speeding
– driving while using a cellphone
– ignoring safety belt laws
– unpaid toll
and traffic accidents.

The app will locate you, fetch data about traffic citations issued in your vicinity, and show them on map. To see citations, that were issued somewhere else, click on map. Additionally available is summary of threat level, derived from statistical data, collected by government agencies.

Locating the user and showing dots on map wasn’t really a challenge, but I wanted to show a realistic threat assessment, based on location and time. To do that, I wrote an API method that calculates the number of tickets issued on the same day of week in the same hour interval and then draws a simple gauge.

Let’s say, for example, that you find yourself in the center of Ljubljana on Monday at noon, don’t have the money for parking fee, and you really only want to take a box to a friend who lives there. You’ll be gone for ten minutes only, so should you risk not paying the parking fee?

The app finds out the total number of tickets issued on Mondays in the three-hour period between noon and 3 PM, then graphically shows the threat level along with some distributions, something like this:

Threat assessment
Threat assessment

It works pretty well, and I use it sometimes, although I admit that its use cases may be marginal for majority of population. It does get ten new installs a day, although I don’t know how long this trend will continue.

I did send out press reviews and mounted a moderate campaign on Twitter (here’s the app’s account), but it amounted to precious little. Maybe the timing was bad – I launched it during Christmas holidays, when Internet usage is low. Or this type of app just isn’t so interesting.

I’m currently working on analysis of parking tickets for New York City, maybe that will be more interesting. There were, after all, more than nine million tickets issued there, and data is much richer.

Stay tuned!

Mobile apps

Share Button


Mobile app screens


Click image to download, or click here.

The app helps the user find out where and when were traffic tickets issued in Slovenia, thus facilitating safer driving.
Ticket database is limited to territory of Republic of Slovenia.

Choose between these issued citations to show in app:
– parking
– speeding
– driving while using a cellphone
– ignoring safety belt laws
– unpaid toll
and traffic accidents.

The app will locate you, fetch data about traffic citations issued in your vicinity, and show them on map. To see citations, that were issued somewhere else, click on map. Additionally available is summary of threat level, derived from statistical data, collected by government agencies. These are:

– overall threat assessment to be issued a citation, should you violate traffic laws
– average interval between citations issued at that location,
– date of most recent citation issued relative to data source update
– number of citations issued in vicinity
– distance to closest issued citation

And several statistical distributions of issued citations, such as:
– by days in week (how many on Monday, Tuesday, …
– by hours in day (how many in intervals between 9-12h, …)
– by months in year (how many on January, February, …)
– by weather conditions (how many in rain, snow, clear weather)
– by temperature (how many in temperature interval between 5-10 Celsius, …)

Same information si also available on address list, ordered by number of citations issued.

Data sources

Many thanks to traffic wardens, police, and other officials, who supplied the raw data, used to build this app:
– traffic wardens of Ljubljana,
– state police,
– Parkings of Ljubljana,
– traffic wardens of Maribor,
– traffic wardens of Kranj,
– traffic wardens of Celje,
– traffic wardens of Novo Mesto,
– traffic wardens of Nova Gorica

Data was acquired for time interval between 2012 and end of 2014.
The database contains is a little less than a million traffic citations.

A project for Transparency International Slovenija – visualization of lobbying contacts between state officials and lobbyists

Share Button

On the basis of previous post, Transparency International Slovenia asked me to collaborate on some projects. This is one of them, and it was launched today on a separate site: kdovpliva.si (English: whoinfluences.si).

It’s an attempt to visualize several networks of lobbyists, their companies, politicians and state institutions. Perhaps the most interesting part is the network of lobbying contacts, which was constructed with data containing around 700 reported contacts between 2011 and late 2014.

As you may imagine, not every lobbying contact is reported. For those who are, records are kept at the Komisija za preprečevanje korupcije (Commission for prevention of corruption, a state institution). Transparency International Slovenia obtained those records as PDF files, since the institution refused to provide them in a machine-readable format. They hired a few volunteers to copy and paste the information in spreadsheets, then handed them to me to visualize them.

You can see the results below. Click here or the image to open the site in a new window. It’s in Slovenian. For methodology, continue reading below the image.

App screenshot - lobbying contacts
App screenshot – lobbying contacts


Network construction

The meaning of every network is determined by the nature of its nodes and connections. Here, we have four node types:

  • lobbyists
  • those who were lobbied – state officials
  • organizations on which behalf lobbying was performed
  • state institutions at which the abovementioned officials work

Lobbying contact is initiated by a company or an organization, which employs a lobbyist to to the work. These people then contact state officials of a sufficient influence, who work at appropriate state institution.

So an organization is connected to the lobbyist with a weight of 2, the lobbyist to a state official with a weight of 1, and state official to her institution with a weight of 2. The weights signify the approximate loyalty between these entities. We presupposed that lobbyists are more loyal to their clients than they are to the state officials, with which they must be in a promiscuous relationship. Furthermore, the state officials are also supposed to be more loyal to their employers than to the lobbyists, although this is a daring supposition. But let’s say they are, or at least that they should be.

After some processing, the network emerged. Immediately apparent are the interest groups, centered around seats of power. Here’s an image of the pharmaceutical lobby. It’s centered on the Public Agency for Pharmaceuticals and Medicine. Main actors of influence are companies such as Merck, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Aventis, etc.

Pharmaceutical lobby
Pharmaceutical lobby

A click on the agency node brings up a panel with some details, such as a list of companies (font size indicates the frequency of contact), lobbying purposes and a timeline of lobbying contacts. Here we can see that Novartis and Krka were most active companies, and that they lobbied for purposes of pricing and to limit potential competition by producers of generic drugs.

You can explore the network by yourself to see the other interest groups.

Who lobbied the drug agency?
Who lobbied the drug agency?


Some advice from Information Commissioner

Unfortunately, we had to omit lobbyists’ names for reasons of supposed privacy. The Information Commissioner strongly advised us not to display them on the basis of some EU ruling. I’m not an expert in EU law, and perhaps there are good reasons for this. On the other hand, there may not be. I fail to see why this information would not be in public interest, since these decisions have an impact on a significant number of taxpayers, if not all of them.

Anyway, we have the names. After all, we had to use them to connect the network. They are present in raw data, just not displayed.

We’re are probably going to continue developing this project, as new information comes to light and new rulings regarding privacy are issued.

Stay tuned!


Voting and attendance in Slovenian Parliament from 2004 to current term

Share Button

In Slovenia, we have a love/hate relationship with our politicians. We hate them, because at almost every single step they make, they let us know they are corrupt and they can easily get away with it. But in each new election new faces appear, promptly get elected and are hailed as saviors, who will finally clean the Augean stables of greed and corruption that has been accumulating for too long.

Most emotions are reserved for those in the front row, mainly government members. Members of parliament are somehow exempted, as they are not so widely known. Somehow, they are not monitored properly, at least in my book. There is a site that contains session records per member and per session, but it’s not widely known. It was an inspiration for this attempt to present members’ activity in an easily understandable and graphic way for current term and a few terms in the past.

See the interactive version:        Slo                             Eng

Interest groups

The main idea was to group the parliamentary members by similarity of their voting record. Most parliamentary members are bound by strict voting discipline, imposed by the parties they belong to. This way the parties can guarantee that some or another act will pass and become a law. But is this really so? I tried to use a simple machine learning technique to answer that question. First I collected all the voting results from parliamentary term and sorted them in chronological order, then applied the technique (k-means clustering, for technologically minded). Number of groups was set to ten, but I could increase it to see smaller groups – maybe fractions inside parties, or cross-party interest groups.

Below you can see an example of two groups from recent term.

Here is the first:

And here another:group1

It’s apparent that groups do not contain representatives from one party only, and the visual representation imparts a feel for the differences in voting. As I mentioned above, I arbitrarily constructed ten groups, but a serious researcher would play and tinker with the number, as every clustering technique is an exploratory process and must be iterated upon for best results. It’s interesting that the results also show other parliamentary tactics. This one below could be interpreted as obstruction, or simply passivity or indifference. So what is it? To ask this question is to answer it, I guess.

To put it in context, this is a group of left-wing opposition representatives during a period when they were in heavy minority.

Indifference or obstruction?
Indifference or obstruction?

In contrast, this is the right-wing voting machine that prevailed:

A disciplined voting machine
A disciplined voting machine

The contrast between these two groups is so dramatic that it would be funny, if these were funny affairs.  While the opposition was idling away, the majority voted into existence law after law that, together, still influence the lives of the Slovenian citizenry. In interactive version (English) you can explore what the votes were about by simply moving the mouse over horizontal stripes.

See the interactive version:        Slo                             Eng

Attendance record

Session attendance is another telling indicator of particular representative’s zeal in upholding democracy and fulfilling the interests of his constituency. It’s already apparent from  charts above, but I still constructed a separate graphics for that. It’s sorted by presence and more easily readable.

It has to be noted that some representatives were excused from voting sessions for various periods of time. Among them are those who became ministers and those who replaced them in the parliamentary seat, not being there before.

Here’s an example from the recent term. At the bottom, you can see two blocks with alternating presence. That’s because there were two governments. When the first one fell, the ministers returned to their seats; those who originally replaced them, returned to the party’s roster; new ministers were sworn in and abandoned their seats; and new replacements came from opposite camp.


See the interactive version:        Slo                             Eng

 Yes-men and rebels

Another interesting statistics is: representatives with most votes for yea or nay. I don’t really know how to interpret this, but I did it nevertheless. One could say that in terms with only one governments, members of ruling majority with most yea votes are those who unquestioningly toe the party line.  Conversely, those with most nay votes are most fervent members of the opposition. In terms with two governments, this is a little less clear-cut: one would have to separate the timelines and run the statistics on subperiods for each government. I didn’t do this, but a serious researcher would. I made this report to let them know that they are being monitored, but it’s a task of an investigative journalist to delve into the data and interpret it in a meaningful way. I don’t have time for this, and I don’t really know the particulars of daily politics here enough to be able to do that.

But I’m offering the database to anyone who would like to do that. Send me a mail for details, I’ll gladly oblige.

Here are a few simple pie charts that illustrate what I just wrote:

Yes men and rebels
Yes men and rebels

See the interactive version:        Slo                             Eng

Unity index

While programming, it struck me that I could calculate a synthetic measure that would show the unity in the parliament. The reasoning goes: if the vote was unanimous, the parliament as a whole was united in cause at hand. But if half of representatives voted yea, and the other half nay, the parliament was divided. So I constructed a timeline of all voting sessions and colored every session according to this measure. Blue for unanimous vote, red for evenly split vote, and violet hues as nuances of disharmony.

Additionally, the bar heights indicate the presence ratio. Lower heights obviously mean lower presence.

In some terms, the presence falls toward the end, and the proportion of red bars increase. This means that the representatives lost heart and abandoned their posts, and those who stayed, quarreled bitterly.

Here are these graphics for various terms. They are stretched to same length. Perhaps a more correct, but less visually appealing approach would be not to stretch them, so the length of particular term would be apparent.

IV (2004 – 2008) – PM Janez Janša
V (2008 – 2011) – PM Borut Pahor – ended prematurely
VI (2011 – 2014) PM Janez Janša, PM Alenka Bratušek – ended prematurely
VII (present) – probable PM Miro Cerar

See the interactive version:        Slo                             Eng

Session timelines and voting networks

The drive behind this section was to find out whether the attendance is falling, as the session progresses into small hours. I found that not to be so, which is encouraging in a way. These charts at least show which sessions were bitterly contested, and which were almost unanimous. You can see examples of both behaviors in the graphic below.


Going one step further, I constructed a separate network for each session in a way that if a representative voted for a proposition, he or she is connected with it, otherwise no.

Networks are a little bit messy, and people tend to not understand them well. This network below shows three groups of representatives (you can zoom in and out in the interactive version). They are grouped close to the propositions they voted for. So this is another opportunity to find out the interest groups on the micro level, for each proposition. Some propositions don’t have a name, just a date. That’s not my fault, but the parliament’s, as they didn’t bother to publish it on the web.network

See the interactive version:        Slo                             Eng

Seating order

Finally, here are some heatmaps for various variables, mapped on to seating orders. The first is partitioned according to representatives’ party. Sorry, no legend here. You can mouse over in the interactive version to show details.

The second is attendance heatmap. Green is full attendance, red is total absence, and there’s a linear color scale between them. This one provides at-a-glance overview of attendance of entire party blocks.

Next two are yea and nay heatmaps, so you can see which party blocks mostly voted yea, and which nay. They are normalized to their local maxima for visual appeal, but a more correct approach would be to not normalize them, so it would be apparent that a nay vote is much less frequent than a yea. Why, I have no Idea, but I imagine there must be a lot of technical votings, for example establishing presence and so on.


These seating orders are approximate, as I couldn’t get them for past terms from the parliament. They asserted that they didn’t have them, and claimed they don’t even have the current one, even if it’s published on their own website. There were more lies, but I won’t go into that here. They are, after all, in power, and I’m just a blogger.

Why they should engage in such behaviour is beyond me. Maybe they think that the information is theirs and should be kept from the public.

Again, if anyone needs the MongoDB database, drop me a note. My email address is on the About page.

See the interactive version:        Slo                             Eng

Interactive visualization of Global Gender Gap Index 2013 report

Share Button

This is a brief visualization of Global Gender Gap 2013 Index report by World Economic Forum. As the report authors say,

The Global Gender Gap Index examines the gap between men and women in four fundamental categories (subindexes): Economic Participation and Opportunity, Educational Attainment, Health and Survival and Political Empowerment. Table 1 displays all four of these subindexes and the 14 different indicators that compose them, along with the sources of data used for each.

I thought it would be nice to try to visualize the data and make it as interactive as I could, and learn d3.js in process. I actually tried to mobilize all the data in the report, which one can see in graphical form by clicking on countries on world map, or selecting the categories in the dropdown.

There are several categories:

  • economy,
  • education,
  • health, and
  • politics

In addition to that, I calculated the differences between 2013 and previous years. These maps are also accessible through dropdown menu, or simply by scrolling up and down.

Launch the viewer here, or click the image below.

Interactive visualization, Global gender gap 2013
Interactive visualization, Global gender gap 2013


Copied straight from the report:

Economic Participation and Opportunity

This subindex is captured through three concepts: the participation gap, the remuneration gap and the advancement gap. The participation gap is captured using the difference in labour force participation rates. The remuneration gap is captured through a hard data indicator (ratio of estimated female-to-male earned income) and a qualitative variable calculated through the World Economic Forum’s Executive Opinion Survey (wage equality for similar work). Finally, the gap between the advancement of women and men is captured through two hard data statistics (the ratio of women to men among legislators, senior officials and managers, and the ratio of women to men among technical and professional workers).

Educational Attainment

In this subindex, the gap between women’s and men’s current access to education is captured through ratios of women to men in primary-, secondary- and tertiary-level education. A longer-term view of the country’s ability to educate women and men in equal numbers is captured through the ratio of the female literacy rate to the male literacy rate.

Health and Survival

This subindex provides an overview of the differences between women’s and men’s health. To do this, we use two indicators. The first is the sex ratio at birth, which aims specifically to capture the phenomenon of “missing women” prevalent in many countries with a strong son preference. Second, we use the gap between women’s and men’s healthy life expectancy, calculated by the World Health Organization. This measure provides an estimate of the number of years that women and men can expect to live in good health by taking into account the years lost to violence, disease, malnutrition or other relevant factors.

Political Empowerment

This subindex measures the gap between men and women at the highest level of political decision-making, through the ratio of women to men in minister-level positions and the ratio of women to men in parliamentary positions. In addition, we include the ratio of women to men in terms of years in executive office (prime minister or president) for the last 50 years. A clear drawback in this category is the absence of any indicators capturing differences between the participation of women and men at local levels of government. Should such data become available at a global level in future years, they will be considered for inclusion in the Global Gender Gap Index.

Score changes

Out of the 110 countries that have been involved every year since 2006, 95 (86%) have improved their performance over the last four years, while 15 (14%) have shown widening gaps. Ten countries have closed the gap on both the Health and Survival and Educational Attainment subindexes. No country has closed the economic participation gap or the political empowerment gap. On the Economic Participation and Opportunity subindex, the highest-ranking country (Norway) has closed over 84% of its gender gap, while the lowest ranking country (Syria) has closed only 25% of its economic gender gap. There is similar variation in the Political Empowerment subindex. The highest-ranking country (Iceland) has closed almost 75% of its gender gap whereas the two lowest-ranking countries (Brunei Darussalam and Qatar) have closed none of the political empowerment gap according to this measure.