Originally Posted by
wphamilton
It's a standard type of classification in the various statistical studies. Usually related to the type and degree of trauma. I'd have to show you the specific studies and how it's phrased in each, but that would be kind of pointless to satisfy a snipe, no?
You may consider any skepticism about your "understanding" as unwelcome but the objection to your understanding about the relative risk factor to bicyclists from hit from behind accidents is long standing and dates back to John Forester's imaginative interpretations of cherry picked accident studies to reach the same conclusion, i.e. that hit from the rear bicycle accidents are not that significant when evaluating comparative cycling risk. He usually ignored accident severity as well as exposure to the specific hazard data when it was convenient for reaching conclusions that supported his Vehicular Cycling agenda. Is your "understanding" any more reality based than his?