R
[email protected] wrote in part:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Frank Krygowski wrote in part:
> > I'm giving data. The fact that you choose not to
> >
> > > believe it is a separate problem!
> >
> > OK. I'm going to give you some data now. 42. 15 trillion.
8-point-1.
> > This clearly shows that cycling is 428.3 times more deadly per hour
> > than driving.
> > What?? You don't believe my data??? Well, that's your problem I
> guess!!
>
> So, I guess we're dealing with someone who _seriously_ believes
> that the numbers he invents, or gives with no explanation or
citation,
> are just as good as numbers from places like the National Safety
> Council, the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System, etc.!
No, you're dealing with someone who knows that the
numbers I give without explanation or citation are
just as good (bad) as the numbers you give without
explanation or citation. You know durn well I am
talking about your car fire chart. As for the NEISS data,
I love the NEISS data and quote it quite often--
crazy how the same numbers can support opposite
conclusions eh? As for your NSC data, which you
use to obtain injury-per-participant numbers, let's
assume they are right on the money: Who
Cares? Perhaps you can explain how this stat
is in any way meaningful for comparing risk across
different activities. This oughta be good.
> > >
> > > I think you'd better give a real citation for that, and make
clear
> > > whether that's John's rough guess, or something that's actually
> > derived
> > > from reliable data!
> >
> > Forester, Bicycle Transportation. pp. 41-46 has this discussion if
I
> > remember correctly. It is "John's rough guess" based on the best
data
> > available, which is not very good...
>
> If it's John's rough guess, then while admittedly better than your
> rough guess, it may not be correct. ...
The effect of experience (Or, the effect of no experience)
on accident rate is one of the few phenomena that is
obvious in statistics--across a multitude of studies--
as well as real life. Do you doubt it?
And five times an infinitesmal is
> _still_ an infinitesmal, after all!
Hell 50 times is still an infinitesmal. 1000 times! But that is very
different from saying one activity carries the same or a greater risk
than another, which is what you have been claiming. Are you no longer
going to claim that? Might be smart since you have no data to support
it.
Why don't you answer some of the specific criticism I have offered
of your "data?" You are always scrambling like a cockroach to the
nearest patch of darkness.
Robert
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Frank Krygowski wrote in part:
> > I'm giving data. The fact that you choose not to
> >
> > > believe it is a separate problem!
> >
> > OK. I'm going to give you some data now. 42. 15 trillion.
8-point-1.
> > This clearly shows that cycling is 428.3 times more deadly per hour
> > than driving.
> > What?? You don't believe my data??? Well, that's your problem I
> guess!!
>
> So, I guess we're dealing with someone who _seriously_ believes
> that the numbers he invents, or gives with no explanation or
citation,
> are just as good as numbers from places like the National Safety
> Council, the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System, etc.!
No, you're dealing with someone who knows that the
numbers I give without explanation or citation are
just as good (bad) as the numbers you give without
explanation or citation. You know durn well I am
talking about your car fire chart. As for the NEISS data,
I love the NEISS data and quote it quite often--
crazy how the same numbers can support opposite
conclusions eh? As for your NSC data, which you
use to obtain injury-per-participant numbers, let's
assume they are right on the money: Who
Cares? Perhaps you can explain how this stat
is in any way meaningful for comparing risk across
different activities. This oughta be good.
> > >
> > > I think you'd better give a real citation for that, and make
clear
> > > whether that's John's rough guess, or something that's actually
> > derived
> > > from reliable data!
> >
> > Forester, Bicycle Transportation. pp. 41-46 has this discussion if
I
> > remember correctly. It is "John's rough guess" based on the best
data
> > available, which is not very good...
>
> If it's John's rough guess, then while admittedly better than your
> rough guess, it may not be correct. ...
The effect of experience (Or, the effect of no experience)
on accident rate is one of the few phenomena that is
obvious in statistics--across a multitude of studies--
as well as real life. Do you doubt it?
And five times an infinitesmal is
> _still_ an infinitesmal, after all!
Hell 50 times is still an infinitesmal. 1000 times! But that is very
different from saying one activity carries the same or a greater risk
than another, which is what you have been claiming. Are you no longer
going to claim that? Might be smart since you have no data to support
it.
Why don't you answer some of the specific criticism I have offered
of your "data?" You are always scrambling like a cockroach to the
nearest patch of darkness.
Robert