Originally Posted by njkayaker;17482812...
If your risks are known to be different (mostly related to taking action to increase or reduce the likely risk), the average risk doesn't apply to you.
The average is a poor predictor of indivdual risk (given the wide variation that would seem to be reasonable to expect). If the individual is a member of a subpopulation that is significantly different, then the average of the entire population is a even worse predictor. This is basic statistics (though it's something that many people don't get).
You need to prove that, or at least support it. If you want to be consistent with basic statistics.
Originally Posted by njkayaker;17482812...
We don't really have any indication that the "3-5 fold" risk is even accurate. (It might not be that difficult to produce rather different "averages" with small changes in assumptions or what is being measured.)
You have the sources, I've stated my assumptions. You have the calculations, though I agree very basic ones. State your objections, beyond simply your conclusion.
Originally Posted by njkayaker;17482812...
It's also misleading to quote a single number rather than a range because it suggests that the magic number is more accurate than it ever could be..
I assume that anyone reading it either knows what the number means, or at least asks. Incidentally, you are arguing about the
range, 3-5 times the risk riding as driving, aren't you?
If you really believed that, it seems odd that you would still keep riding.
The risk in a motor vehicle - the per mile risk against which I compare - isn't particularly frightening. In addition, since I've looked into the risks and know enough not to dismiss these kinds of risk calculations, I am able to adapt my behavior to lessen my risks in particular situations.