On Tuesday, March 21, 2017 at 8:25:43 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 3/21/2017 7:24 AM, wrote:
On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 2:29:18 PM UTC-7, 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.

If they did not want it picked apart they only had to provide the actual numbers. And they didn't. Why do you suppose that was?

The numbers are almost certainly there--if you pay for the full study. A
lot of studies are like that. They publish a summary for free, but you
have to pay for the full study. I guess that the thought is that it
would be organizations with a budget for which a few hundred dollars (or
in this case about $40) would not be a big deal.

But in countries where flashing lights are already legal and widely
used, and the benefits well-established, why would anyone pay anything
just to get the raw data?

Yesterday it was cloudy here. I was driving in the morning. Gray cars in
gray conditions don't stand out. But you see cyclists with DRLs coming a
mile away (literally), long before you see any bright clothing. I doubt
if anyone here really believes that on bicycles DRLs (flashing or
steady) are not effective. Just look at motorcycles which have been
required to have a DRL for decades (at least in most states). But an
Australian study stated that using a low beam headlight as a DRL was not
optimal, "Headlights waste energy when used as DRLs because, on low
beam, they are designed to direct most light below the horizontal and
away from the eyes of other road users." In the U.S. the effectiveness
of motorcycle DRLs is estimated at only a 13% reduction in crashes.
However this was before modulated DRLs started to be used.

https://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/esv/esv19/05-0178-w.pdf

The only hard numbers I can find for bicyclist deaths is 117 in Norway in 2015. So in Sweden with Zero Vision is couldn't be more than half of that.

One other number that I discovered was Norway had 2.2 fatalities per 100,000 inhabitants.

This would have a test group of .044 deaths. For a ten year test that would STILL give you a death rate of only a half person for the test group.

So can you explain to me how you could get ANY serious statistics from that?