Injury occurance visualized: Filtering vs. Non-filtering

I find this comment confusing. Maybe you can explain to me why your point is valid. You seem to prejudge a question that the data collected should in fact help demonstrate. Do most serious accidents occur in non filtering environments?

As I understand it, you are suggesting that it is a confounding variable to have accident data included that doesn't have a relationship to lane splitting. But in fact, all you are really saying is that you believe it has no relevance for reasons that are not clear. And that is just not so.

While the data may seem less relevant for inclusion to you, at worst much of the data would simply be the same for both filtering and non filtering and cancel each other out. Thus leaving the still statistically relevant data in.

If what you say is true - that the most serious acidents occur in non filtering enviroments, the comparison of those environments will demonstrate that quite nicely. How this is inherently the case is not at all clear until one sees exactly this type of comparison. Don't you agree?

I just don't understand why you insist on calling this a false dichotomy. There is nothing false about breaking data into these groupings. This is a perfectly coherent controlling variable for general data.

Perhaps you are after more illuminating ways to structure data to find a more statically meaningful insight, but that is at best a tangential point.

As for the non sequitur comment, was there a conclusion stated from the data that is false? What does it even mean to say that one is loading the data against the premise. Is there a methodological problem with the study? And what premise are you talking about?

It seems again you want to prejudge the way the data will be interpreted rather than simply acknowledge what is valid about the data if anything.

If I have grossly misunderstood your point, then my apologies.

/r/motorcycles Thread Parent