Originally Posted by closetbiker
It seems to me that, to you, these numbers mean nothing.
To quote a police spoksperson who was interviewed in a newspaper after a cyclists death in Vancouver a couple of years ago, "We have a problem in Vancouver with pedestrians, but we don't have a particular problem with cyclists... (except) couriers in the downtown area"
I don't think those were raw numbers...
For me, I agree with the police. We have a problem with pedestrians, we don't have a problem with cyclists.
I have no problem believing that, but what I'm saying is that just because more people were killed doing X activity doesn't automatically mean X activity is more dangerous than Y activity, it just means more people were doing X activity than Y activity.
Now if you were to find how many hours of walking vs. biking each person did on average, then divide it up by how many fatalities there were for each, I'd say you'd have some pretty solid proof of your claim.
Until then, it's just numbers.