Originally Posted by
SchnauzerHerder
There are SO many factors involved that you couldn't accurately determine which is safer with statistics.
I basically agree. That was my point in complaining about the "40,000" number being used to establish that cycling is safer.
Originally Posted by
The Human Car
I mean that you are just as likely to roll a six on your first roll as you are on your 1,000 the roll. If you rolled a 6 3 times in a row you still have the same chance of rolling a six on your next roll as you did on the previous rolls.
That's obvious. (I'm not arguing otherwise.)
Originally Posted by
The Human Car
I don't dispute that (and I wasn't making any comments about that).
Originally Posted by
The Human Car
So no mater what I do on a bike, my odds of dying in any given year is 1:120,337 which is better then if I drove and if I drove I stand a chance of increasing the total fatalities which makes the chance of someone dying even easier then before.
Your odds aren't 1:120,337.
It's probably much, much higher! The 7 cycling deaths is (probably) a reliable number but the 842,359
isn't (is it counting the number bicycles? the number of bicycles that are used? bicycle commuters?). (Keep in mind that most drivers use their cars regularly and most bicyclists use their bikes for infrequent recreation.)
=======================
I wasn't arguing that cycling was less safe than driving. I was
only saying that the "40,000 car deaths"
very-clearly isn't evidence that it's safer.
Anyway, I ride a bicycle too!