On 3/21/2017 7:31 AM, wrote:
On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 7:42:32 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:

Unfortunately it does not conceal the fact that what you stated, "a
comparison of bike lights versus no bike lights", was not what the
Odense study tested, nor was it the results of the study.

But John, the whole point is that you have NO IDEA what they accomplished with a study that so obviously had such a small study group that they wouldn't even publish the size of it.

You know that in statistical analysis concerning small percentages of injuries and fatalities as bicycle accidents that the study size has to be gigantic to reveal any pertinent information. So why would you pretend differently?

You do realize how statistical sampling works don't you?

The study had 4000 participants, 2000 with the lights, 2000 without the
lights https://books.google.com.au/books?id=LvthAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA168.

This is an _enormous_ sample for a country of that size.

Denmark has about 4 million residents of cycling age. About 55%, or 2.2
million, cycle. The study had 4000 participants, 2000 with lights and
2000 without lights.

This would produce a result with a 2% margin of error and a 99%
confidence level. Even if 100% of those of cycling age cycled, the
sample size needed barely goes up.

Whatever criticism you may have of that particular study, sample size
cannot be one of them!