🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <6d1akj$h7q@mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA>,
  riehm@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA (Carl Riehm) wrote:
>
> In article <MPG.f5cd9cf442541539896a8@news.ea.com>,
> Darren Stone <dstone@ea.removethis.com> wrote:
> >
> >2.  If you suffer a head injury on a bicycle, statistically, you have a
> >25% chance of dying from it.  (Robinson, D.  An Assessment of the
> >Mandatory Bicycle Helmet Law in Australia.)  Motorists have fully a 19%
>
> Every time this topic is discussed, this study is trotted out. As someone
> who teaches statistics, and who knows how many such studies are seriously
> flawed (usually by bad statistical analysis  induced by preconceptions or
> desired conclusions on the part of the writer), I just don't believe it.
> The conclusions in this report defy common sense. And the reasoning is
> questionable at best.

I'd be intersted in knowing why you say that Carl. While I think that
what was meant was "serious" head injuries (and I expect serious to mean
that hospital admitance was necessary) I would think that simply looking
at hospital admitances for head injuries in a bicycle accident and
the number of those leading to death would pretty much be a cut and
dried statistic. What would methodology have to do with that?

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/   Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading