Originally Posted by
cyccommute
It's time to put up or shut up. If you have other information that support your contention that the statistics of the study quoted by Mass Bike are wrong, post them! If your agenda is to correct them, then do so. So far you have presented no information to support your contention that the number of cyclist hit from behind is a high percentage of bicycle/automobile accidents than those reported...makes no sense
Ah, Ye Olde
Argumentum ad Ignorantiam ploy, i.e. Shifting The Burden Of Proof !
It is apparent that logical argument makes no sense to you either.
You are the one making an unsupported claim about relative risk of various cycling scenarios without sufficient data to support it. You don't support your claim by redefining the English language to meet your need to prove that adequate data is not necessary to determine relative risk. Nor do you support your claims by conjuring the missing data to fill in the fatal (to intelligent risk analysis) inadequacies of the skimpy data provided in your references.
I made NO claim that any specific scenario is low or high risk. I am saying that NO credible determination of relative risk for any type of scenario can be determined from the skimpy and inadequate data that you have referenced.
Sidenote:
I have never read a more single silly statement about defining risk than your obtuse argument about how merging collisions don't "count" because of your speculation about the involved motorists' intent.