Originally Posted by
John Forester
OK, ILTB, name a study of car-bike collisions that you think is superior to the Cross study and describe why it is superior to the Cross study. Both accuracy and usefulness are necessary criteria, for an inaccurate study is misleading while an accurate study that provides little useful information is useless.
The standard Forester defense of fabricating conclusions from whole cloth out of "statistics" that are inadequate in every respect to reach the conclusion. i.e "Name a study that is better than my
The Center of the Moon is made up of Green Cheese study. If you can't come up with a superior study, then mine is the best available evidence and the Moon IS made up of Green Cheese until better evidence comes along."