If my maths is any good that makes female cyclists almost 30 times more at risk that males.......
Not sure of the maths you've used - I'm sure what you've done is correct.
But if I were trying to decide whether I could say if women were more at risk of HGVs, I'd have to first see whether I thought 7/8 was a useful stat (I don't think it is - though 70/80 or 700/800 would be), and then I'd have to see what the proportion of women cyclists was in the same area as that stat.
If the proportion of London female cyclists was 90% for example, then that 7/8 stat doesn't look wrong. I know it's not 90%, but we don't know what it is, and I wouldn't be surprised if there are more female cyclists in London as compared to some hilly part of Yorkshire for example.
Anyway, I've no idea whether the actual sentiment of the article is correct (it probably is), I'm just being anal and saying that the reporting was a bit off kilter :)
Anyway, no more, as I'm at risk of being shown to be totally wrong by some stats guru :)
Not sure of the maths you've used - I'm sure what you've done is correct.
But if I were trying to decide whether I could say if women were more at risk of HGVs, I'd have to first see whether I thought 7/8 was a useful stat (I don't think it is - though 70/80 or 700/800 would be), and then I'd have to see what the proportion of women cyclists was in the same area as that stat.
If the proportion of London female cyclists was 90% for example, then that 7/8 stat doesn't look wrong. I know it's not 90%, but we don't know what it is, and I wouldn't be surprised if there are more female cyclists in London as compared to some hilly part of Yorkshire for example.
Anyway, I've no idea whether the actual sentiment of the article is correct (it probably is), I'm just being anal and saying that the reporting was a bit off kilter :)
Anyway, no more, as I'm at risk of being shown to be totally wrong by some stats guru :)