Originally Posted by Helmet Head
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.
But the very issue at hand has to do with being hit from behind. There are clearly at least two very different modes (with some overlap between) of using a bicycle to travel - on the road and on the sidewalk. But the data groups it all together. So the data is meaningless to draw conclusions from. That is my only point and unless there is data that comes from a set of cyclists that more closely match
my cycling methods it would be in error to draw conclusions as to how my lane position affects the rate of me being hit from behind vs. other direction.
For example if you had data that showed death during sleep happens to 20% of people, do you assume if you die there is a 20% of it occuring while sleeping? What if further data found (but was not available at the time, but annectodally was fairly apparent) that of those sleeping deaths 80% had heart disease, and 80% were over 50, but in both cases you are not. Does that mean that you still going about you life thinking you have a 20% that when you die it will be while sleeping, because all you had at the time was only data from the general population? (all numbers made up for example only)
Al