3 ms·
I don't glean the same meaning you do. To be clear, you seem to be interpreting that statement as: number of pedestrians injured = 1.4 × number of cyclists in
by colanderman 12y ago
I don't glean the same meaning you do. To be clear, you seem to be interpreting that statement as:
number of pedestrians injured = 1.4 × number of cyclists injured
while it reads to me as:
chance of injury while walking = 1.4 × chance of injury while cycling
which invalidates your point.
- Arelius 12y agoIt's hard to tell from the abstract alone... 9.2 (95% CI = 7.5–11.3) for pedestrians, 6.4 (95% CI = 4.7–8.8) for un-helmeted cyclists but to me, it looks like the number is chance of traumatic brain injury as a pedestrian in an accident = 1.4 x the change of traumatic brain injury as a un-helmeted cyclist in an accident. This seems to not at all take into account the probability of getting into the accident in the first place, which really makes the argument pretty moot.