There were just an impedance to him anyway.

A man lost his life; these comments are re. volt. ing.

Thanks for the invite. I've made it to lunch, however. Don't obliterate bicycles while I'm gone.

Not bored; procrastinating. Your assistance is appreciated.

Yes, that's the effect I am going for because that is what you were talking about. The stats listed are per 100,000 population; they are not percentages. When you start talking about a percentage increase, you are comparing those two rates per 100,000 population as expressed as percentages of one another. Had you…

1.47 times x equals 2.7

1.23 percentage points higher than average = approximately an 84 percent higher rate of gun-related homicides per capita.

The advantage of this method appears to be that you can tell whether a particular good or service is expensive for the area that you're visiting, NOT as a method of calculating the cost of the good or service in USD. This would be most useful in the abstract when dealing with a relatively unique good (entry into a…

As a matter of public policy debate, your position is not worth exploration. Bikes aren't causing appreciable harm and there is no basis for eliminating them from the roads, which they have occupied for longer than automobiles.

I didn't try to discredit her. I took the position that age is positively correlated to wisdom. Unless you are arguing that people generally, in the aggregate, lose wisdom as they age, nothing you've said addresses my modest position.

Right. You hate cyclists regardless of what the statistics say. That's fine. Don't pretend the statistics support your opinion, and I won't pretend that you aren't entitled to ignore them.

The particular information I was referencing was the entire point of the article: that people draw irrational conclusions about cyclists that aren't supported in fact. This is less about my advocating cycling and more about my advocating looking at data and drawing rational conclusions.

It appears that the correct answer to my original question is "somehow both."

Statistics don't lie. If you believe that your ability to protect yourself from cars tips the scales in favor of cars being less dangerous to you thank bikes, you are incorrect.

If you ever drive, or even cross the street a few times while walking, you are in far more danger from cars than from bicycles. I don't mean to imply there's anything abnormal about irrational worries.

Did you not read the article, or did you read the article and then decide to comment by reinterpreting the article as a monologue demonstrating the issue on which the article comments?

You greatly underestimate your risk of being injured by a car.

That must be why they cause more fatalities. It's all coming together...

Your worries are highly irrational.

So... you didn't understand the article then?