Originally Posted by LittleBigMan
I-Like-To-Bike, your position is cleary understood from the majority of your posts.
I doubt it. Given your question I also doubt if you understood anything about measurement and evaluation of risk you would not ask such a question.
Originally Posted by LittleBigMan
What is not clear is what scientific studies you are basing your points on.
Please post the scientific studies that justify your position.
My position is that by definition a credible analysis of risk REQUIRES evaluation of the probability of mishap/exposure to the mishap(s) AND the severity level of the various mishaps. WITHOUT SEVERITY EVALUATION, you might as well be quoting random numbers; such incomplete raw numbers do NOT provide a basis for evaluating risk, PERIOD.
This basic fact about risk analysis techniques requires no scientific or counter proof to discredit a study, that for its creators' own purposes, redefines risk as any accident with no regard to severity.
The Wachtel and Lewiston so-called "risk" study makes no distinction between a skinned knee accident and a crippling permanent disability accident -i.e. it is worthless for comparative risk purposes. In fact there may not be any personal injury at all in some of these accidents, a dented car door qualifies as an accident for this study; no accident data is provided, only total numbers of undefined "accidents". Just like found in some other notoriously sloppy "risk analysis" oft quoted by VC gurus, a bent rim is equivalent in risk/danger value to a cyclist's crushed pelvis, or worse. And this kind of "stuff" doesn't get any more credible because someone who should know better (and discredits himself in the process) posts it on his web site or uses made-up phraseology like "crash rates" to cover up the insignificance of such meaningless numbers.