On Mar 4, 2016, at 12:51 PM, Teal <te...@internode.on.net> wrote: >> That gives you around one crash per 1600 hours or so for motorcycles. I >> guess this is crashes not fatals? If so sounds about right for gliders too. > > Yep, that's crashes, not fatals. Finding papers that have exposure data *and* > fatality data for motorcycles would take a bit more time (I didn't see any > during my quickish search earlier); and the nature of the beast is that just > copypasting the exposure data into someone else's fatality rate calculation > is prone to give you wildly inaccurate results, due to differences in sample > characteristics, methodology, etc, etc. (These things are never easy.)
It’s close enough for a rough-order-of-magnitude estimation. If they differ by a factor of two, most practical purposes they’re equivalent to each other. If they differ by a factor of ten, they’re meaningfully distinguishable. For the purpose of evaluating your own personal risk management, flying small planes and riding motorcycles are “close enough." - mark
_______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
