Originally Posted by FotoTomas
This has caused an argument that I as a new member to the "serious cycling community" do not understand. one side refuses to examine the study for flaws and admit there might be some discrepancies as to how risk is determined while the other does not seem to consider that risk is still risk even if undefined.
I consider "risk is risk", in the same sense that injuries are injuries; i.e. a skinned knee and a smashed body are both injuries; competent evaluation of injuries AND risk require defining severity. Dogmatists often do not make such distinctions as it might call into question the basis of their rigid beliefs.