Originally Posted by genec
Uh, could it be because you have yet to prove that the very use of the numbers supports your original premise, therefore any other logical dancing around is just that... "dancing," while not resolving the initial problem.
Are you just playing dumb, or is this for real?
If I was able to prove that the very use of the numbers supported my original premise, I would be done. So of course I have not proved it yet. Have you ever heard of breaking down a problem into subproblems?
In the process of trying to find out what the source of your disagreement was, we've isolated a more fundamental question. That's what I've been trying to focus on for over 50 posts now, and you refuse.
Are you really incapable of breaking it down in your mind, or are your just refusing to do so?
Originally Posted by noisebeam
No, it is not true by definition because I do not know how the way I ride vs. the majority of cyclist ride (with the vast majority where I live riding on sidewalks) compare as to relative hit rates.
Oh, please. Using that strict interpretation, no statistical statement derived from general group numbers saying anything about "your" probabilities could be true. Everyone knows that individual characteristics are not accounted for in such proclamations. That's implied.