On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 14:26:35 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 3/20/2017 1:40 PM, wrote:

No worries, I do not think you are a paid shill - just deluded..............

Gee, thanks.


Jeff showed himself to be extremely knowledgeable of statistics and noted the chief problem with the study. They did NOT show actual numbers because Reelights could not afford to shell out hundreds of thousands of free lights.

So this study was probably confined to perhaps a thousand and the change in accidents was in fact statistically irrelevant. So taken in pure percentages and presented as if it had meaning it makes for a good sales pitch and gives some undergraduate a paper to write.

Anytime someone doesn't like the results of a study they try to pick it
apart.

Actually not. The picking is aimed at those who seize on a study and
twist its meaning into something that suits themselves... or even tell
lies about the basis of the test, i.e., "bicycle lights versus no
bicycle lights" to justify their own arguments.

(guerilla ~ a member of an irregular armed force that fights by
sabotage and harassment).
--
Cheers,

John B.