Originally Posted by
mr_pedro
I actually know what a confidence interval is and you said the opposite of what you mean, i.e. small confidence intervals imply a very high degree of certainty.
But since we don’t have much US data on cycling exposure, indeed we can’t put exact figures on deaths per mile. The 25% figure I mentioned needs to be more like 20% because there are 850 cycling deaths in the US vs 4000 if you scale up NL deaths. So would you agree with the statement that cycling is more dangerous in the US if people in the US ride less than 20% of the distance they do in NL?
Bad choice of words on my part, because I'm not talking about statistics. Just the multiplying of variables each having a measure of uncertainty.
The statement you ask about is more correct, but not yet one I could agree with. There is yet another factor involved with "exposure": speed. The faster you travel, the fewer interactions you'd have with same-direction travel.