### Re: More bikes fewer cars.

JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:

> Clive George wrote:

>

> > "JNugent" <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:

> >> Nick Finnigan wrote:

> >>> JNugent wrote:

> >>>> Nick Finnigan wrote:

> >>>>> JNugent wrote:

>

> >>>>>> So it's possible that no-one travels 8.7 miles to work (in the

> >>>>>> same way that the average - that is, the mean - number of legs per

> >>>>>> person in the UK is less than two)?

>

> >>>>> No.

>

> >>>> Sorry.. "no" to what?

>

> >>> "No" is the answer to your question, quoted above.

>

> >> I think we must be at cross purposes.

> >> Taken at face value and applied to the question, your "no" could be

> >> taken as a denial of the fact that a mean commuting distance of (say)

> >> 8.7 miles might mean that no-one actually has a commuting distance of

> >> 8.7 miles. I don't think that can be what you mean.

>

> > You forgot the bit in brackets - it's not in the same way as your

> > example there. Hence 'no'.

>

> The "average number of legs being less than two" quote is a well-known

> example of how the mean can be misleading - even when perfectly calculated.

>

> > Meanwhile, is it important if 8.7 angels can fit on a pin? Are you

> > developing a useful argument, or just messing with definitions?

>

> I was wondering whether the argument that some average commute is 8.7

> miles tells us anything useful.
not that much unless one could look at the number per mile, ie how many

under a mile, and so on, up. some people do have long journeys.

but with out looking at how spread out or not they are the mean of 8.7

miles doesn't tell one much.

when i was in wales my commute was about 8 miles and about 10mins, i was

by far the longest distance traveller a few walked one biked, a most

drove the 2 to 6 miles, these days my distance varies though tends to be

less, but since this is london, i can spend longer waiting at lights

than my orginal coummute.

roger

--

www.rogermerriman.com