Originally Posted by chasssmash
I definitely accept that these raw statistics do not tell the whole story and are definitely generalized.
In a way it's like smoking.Statistically it shortens your life but you can ameliorate it by being in great shape for example.
However I also don't think it makes sense just to say they are completely invalidated if you wear the proper gear or don't drink and ride.
For example I never drink and ride but I do ride in the Winter on ice and snow just to get to work. So while I decrease one risk I increase another.
Personally I like looking at statistics.The one that told me there is a 30 times greater chance of getting shot if you have a gun in your house influenced me to get rid of my guns. Despite the fact that I was careful with them I could clearly see that they posed a substantial risk to me and my kids, one way or another. Also the statistics on the dangers of swimming pools has changed the way I treat my pool. I almost had 2 kids drown in my pool over the years so for me at least the statistics had validity on their surface.
Another example is that I just bought a convertible to do chores with.Things I did exclusively on my bike.My main justification for this expense was that it would reduce my risk going everywhere on the bike. Basically I did cost/benefit analysis and if made sense to reduce my risk. Everyone has a free choice but I think it's good to know the odds either way
One thing the statistics for all of these won't show is how the number of people who are Darwin Award candidates to begin with skew the numbers. I find it sad that people would be willing to remove things they enjoy in their lives based on statistics.
Remember: There are lies, there are damn lies, and there are statistics.
The numbers can be made to show almost anything, it does not mean they are accurate or correct..