Posts by kpaul
21 - 40 of 43 Posts
You are skirting the issue Pal.
"Kpaul's original title said, in full: "Helmets are law again in Louisiana (numbers prove benefit)", but we took out the latter part, and shame on AI programmer KPaul for posting it: of the 95,000 registered bikers in the state, a 0.046% difference is not statistically significant over a four year period, especially without comparing accident per mile, deaths per accident resulting from head injuries and deaths per mile ridden. Or, at the base level, even the number of registered bikers then Vs. now. "
"Kpaul's original title said, in full: "Helmets are law again in Louisiana (numbers prove benefit)", but we took out the latter part, and shame on AI programmer KPaul for posting it: of the 95,000 registered bikers in the state, a 0.046% difference is not statistically significant over a four year period, especially without comparing accident per mile, deaths per accident resulting from head injuries and deaths per mile ridden. Or, at the base level, even the number of registered bikers then Vs. now. "
Here you go you lazy ...
Fact 1. The fact there were only a few hundred deaths vs thousands of riders is irrelevant. There are a few cancer deaths per millions of people. Does that mean that if cancer deaths increased 125% in one year because a drug was not used is the statistic not significant. Hell no.
Fact 2. The death rate increased ~125% in this case (from 35 to 79) that is significant. The fact that were only a few deaths vs. the number of riders is not important.
Fact 3. The number of riders could of increased is important but assume that it increased 5% a year. The death rate still would of increased significantly. It's the delta that is important not the population size vs the number of deaths.
Fact 4. Comparing only two years is probably not conclusive but I would not as MO does consider it statistically insignificant.
Fact 1. The fact there were only a few hundred deaths vs thousands of riders is irrelevant. There are a few cancer deaths per millions of people. Does that mean that if cancer deaths increased 125% in one year because a drug was not used is the statistic not significant. Hell no.
Fact 2. The death rate increased ~125% in this case (from 35 to 79) that is significant. The fact that were only a few deaths vs. the number of riders is not important.
Fact 3. The number of riders could of increased is important but assume that it increased 5% a year. The death rate still would of increased significantly. It's the delta that is important not the population size vs the number of deaths.
Fact 4. Comparing only two years is probably not conclusive but I would not as MO does consider it statistically insignificant.
Re: Seatbelts
Fact 1. The fact there were only a few hundred deaths vs thousands of riders is irrelevant. There are a few cancer deaths per millions of people. Does that mean that if cancer deaths increased 125% in one year because a drug was not used is the statistic not significant. Hell no.
Fact 2. The death rate increased ~125% in this case (from 35 to 79) that is significant. The fact that were only a few deaths vs. the number of riders is not important.
Fact 3. The number of riders could of increased is important but assume that it increased 5% a year. The death rate still would of increased significantly. It's the delta that is important not the population size vs the number of deaths.
Fact 4. Comparing only two years is probably not conclusive but I would not as MO does consider it statistically insignificant.
Fact 1. The fact there were only a few hundred deaths vs thousands of riders is irrelevant. There are a few cancer deaths per millions of people. Does that mean that if cancer deaths increased 125% in one year because a drug was not used is the statistic not significant. Hell no.
Fact 2. The death rate increased ~125% in this case (from 35 to 79) that is significant. The fact that were only a few deaths vs. the number of riders is not important.
Fact 3. The number of riders could of increased is important but assume that it increased 5% a year. The death rate still would of increased significantly. It's the delta that is important not the population size vs the number of deaths.
Fact 4. Comparing only two years is probably not conclusive but I would not as MO does consider it statistically insignificant.
0.046% is a number you pulled out of your ass
Come on Racer Boy tell me how you computed this Cause if it is what I think it is, your are the idiot this time pal. Admit and be a man about it. Instead of jumping on the Swift Boat bandwagon lead by longnazi and Buzboy. Whenever I paint those guys in a corner they start saying KPaul is an idiot
Come on Racer Boy tell me how you computed this Cause if it is what I think it is, your are the idiot this time pal. Admit and be a man about it. Instead of jumping on the Swift Boat bandwagon lead by longnazi and Buzboy. Whenever I paint those guys in a corner they start saying KPaul is an idiot
Re: You are skirting the issue Pal.
"next guy. You could have all the skills of a California State roadracing champion, but if your brother pulls a u-turn on a blind turn as you're heading into it, you're gonna want that helmet as you careen down the cliffside" I just assumed it was you. I apology. Well I am calling who made the post out OK. Buell Blasts at sunset.
"next guy. You could have all the skills of a California State roadracing champion, but if your brother pulls a u-turn on a blind turn as you're heading into it, you're gonna want that helmet as you careen down the cliffside" I just assumed it was you. I apology. Well I am calling who made the post out OK. Buell Blasts at sunset.
No problem just pay for it.
As long as you guys are ready to fork out the money for the increased hospital and EMS costs associated with going topless no problem. But the problem is you guys (who go topless) look like idiots to the rest of society and give bikers a bad name. That leads less political clout, etc.
As long as you guys are ready to fork out the money for the increased hospital and EMS costs associated with going topless no problem. But the problem is you guys (who go topless) look like idiots to the rest of society and give bikers a bad name. That leads less political clout, etc.
Re: There you go.....
Fact 1. The fact there were only a few hundred deaths vs thousands of riders is irrelevant. There are a few cancer deaths per millions of people. Does that mean that if cancer deaths increased 125% in one year because a drug was not used is the statistic not significant. Hell no.
Fact 2. The death rate increased ~125% in this case (from 35 to 79) that is significant. The fact that were only a few deaths vs. the number of riders is not important.
Fact 3. The number of riders could of increased is important but assume that it increased 5% a year. The death rate still would of increased significantly. It's the delta that is important not the population size vs the number of deaths.
Fact 4. Comparing only two years is probably not conclusive but I would not as MO does consider it statistically insignificant.
Fact 1. The fact there were only a few hundred deaths vs thousands of riders is irrelevant. There are a few cancer deaths per millions of people. Does that mean that if cancer deaths increased 125% in one year because a drug was not used is the statistic not significant. Hell no.
Fact 2. The death rate increased ~125% in this case (from 35 to 79) that is significant. The fact that were only a few deaths vs. the number of riders is not important.
Fact 3. The number of riders could of increased is important but assume that it increased 5% a year. The death rate still would of increased significantly. It's the delta that is important not the population size vs the number of deaths.
Fact 4. Comparing only two years is probably not conclusive but I would not as MO does consider it statistically insignificant.
21 - 40 of 43 Posts
