Originally Posted by deputyjones
The other factor is that even though these types of collisions might be less frequent they would also tend to be much more disastrous when they do occur.
These rear end collisions
appear to be a smaller relative percentage of "crashes" (a favorite term of the statistical manipulators) when the total of "crashes" is inflated with as many sidewalk "crashes," children's playground "crash" induced boo-boos, off road adventure "crashes", etc., as can be found to minimize the impact of rear end collision on the bogus "crash rate".
As deputy jones points out, and has been pointed out, ad infinitum, the statistical manipulators only address total numbers of crashes while ignoring the importance of considering the varying crash severities. Such bogus risk analysis results in conclusions that are worth less than total ignorance of the subject.