[kazinator]

> The crash rate for cyclists riding on pedestrian paths was 26.4 per 1000 h

I'm amazed that whoever cooked up this figure is sure it isn't 26.3 or 26.5.

(I suspect that riding on the sidewalk is unsafe, at least serious riding by grownups; not four-year-olds on kid bikes. I just don't believe there is any way to obtain this sort of figure.)

[prvit]

It clearly states that in the dataset they were studying the crash rate on pedestrian paths was 26.4 per 1000 h. That’s just a simple fact, not a “cooked up figure”.

> I just don't believe there is any way to obtain this sort of figure

Pretty sure an elementary school student could figure out how to obtain this sort of figure.

[kazinator]

There is no way to gather such a data set. There is no mass surveillence system which tracks where cyclists are cycling, and how many hours.

Let's look at just the sidewalk versus road issue: if you could surreptitiously place GPS tags on random cyclists, the GPS system does not have the accuracy to tell whether the cyclist is on the sidewalk or road.

[prvit]

Are you ok? If you click the link, you will find out exactly how the dataset was gathered. I have a hard time believing that a person capable of navigating to HN and producing somewhat coherent sentences is too stupid to figure this out.

[michaelmrose]

This is not an acceptable way to speak here. When you find yourself adding emotional content including insults before your statements take a breath and delete everything but the factual statements. For example you could have simply said

"If you click the link, you will find out exactly how the dataset was gathered"

It would have added the same value without degrading the conversation or being rude.

Thank you.

[prvit]

Come on, it’s clear that kazinator is deliberately trolling by pretending to be stupid. Nothing wrong with calling them out on that.

[michaelmrose]

That is not clear at all. They might simply disagree with the methodology and that is a legit topic to discuss. More importantly if you actually think he is trolling the best route to go is to disengage and downvote. This doesn't distract from the discussion or degrade the discussion into name calling.

Also hacker news rules are to respond to the most charitable interpretation of the users point. Assume they are disagreeing in good faith and engage with the topic or disengage and down vote if you feel the users contribution is negative.

[kazinator]

That particular figure is from a referenced paper by a R. G. Poulos (at al), whose data comes from self-reporting.

"This paper examines self-reported prospectively collected data from 2038 adult transport and recreational cyclists from New South Wales (Australia) to determine exposure-based incident crash and injury rates."

That's just silly nonsense.

[prvit]

ok? It’s not like someone tried to mislead you about the source of that figure, it was clearly stated. Why are you pretending to be stupid?

You could just jump straight to criticizing the dataset instead of pretending to not know how they could reach that figure.