You are reading a single comment by @moth and its replies. Click here to read the full conversation.
  • No.

    The fact that it is one man and seven woman does not mean that there is any statistical significance. The sample size is too small to draw any meaningful conclusion.

    Rubbish. 7/8 may too small a sample to establish with 'certainty' that women are more at risk, but it is plenty of evidence to conclude that acting on the assumption that they are would be sensible.

    (Statistical certainty is a completely arbitrary and often irrelevant concept. What matters is: does the probability of the hypothesis justify acting on it?)

    Also, there is more data: previous year's statistics provide similar grim evidence. And if women in London do cycle fewer miles than men, that exposure ratio should be combined with the fatality ratio, giving a relative personal risk even worse than 7 to 1


Avatar for moth @moth started