Footnote 2: Trucks include minivans, sport-utility vehicles, light and heavy trucks, vans and buses.
Footnote 3:Light trucks: include minivans, sport-utility vehicles, light trucks and vans.
So now we're counting SUVs and minivans in the same category on two different levels. Each footnote does not designate why we should use these two separate types exclusively in two categories. If we can't define a difference, then both need to be used, partner! You're going to have to Venn me hard on how we don't include both.
You also do realize that there is no definition of what constitutes a personal vehicle and what constitutes a commercial vehicle according to the data presented, right?
Footnotes 3, 4 and 5 (buses) add up to the total in Footnote 2.
This is pathetic and is almost entirely because people have gone mad for SUVs. Worse is some auto makers are purchasing fuel efficiency credits from the likes of Tesla, why are they allowed to do this? Either meet regulations or don't sell cars.
Footnotes 3, 4 and 5 (buses) add up to the total in Footnote 2.
Footnotes 4 and Buses ("5") are distinct enough to be considered specific vehicles. Footnote 2 does no such discerning, and double-dips it's numbers, especially when you consider how Footnote 2 is defined.
Footnote 2: Trucks include minivans, sport-utility vehicles, light and heavy trucks, vans and buses.
Footnote 3:Light trucks: include minivans, sport-utility vehicles, light trucks and vans.
So now we're counting SUVs and minivans in the same category on two different levels. Each footnote does not designate why we should use these two separate types exclusively in two categories. If we can't define a difference, then both need to be used, partner! You're going to have to Venn me hard on how we don't include both.
You also do realize that there is no definition of what constitutes a personal vehicle and what constitutes a commercial vehicle according to the data presented, right?
No ####. That's why you don't count them twice. If you add up "trucks" and "light trucks" you have just counted most vehicles twice. That would be wrong. Now, if you want to use the "trucks" category to somehow prove that people in Alberta drive more buses than people in Ontario, well, go ahead and make that point, I guess. it's useless, but you seem intent on that today.
Anyway, I'm out. You are either trolling, or haven't taken 2 minutes to understand what the data is.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
No ####. That's why you don't count them twice. If you add up "trucks" and "light trucks" you have just counted most vehicles twice. That would be wrong. Now, if you want to use the "trucks" category to somehow prove that people in Alberta drive more buses than people in Ontario, well, go ahead and make that point, I guess. it's useless, but you seem intent on that today.
Anyway, I'm out. You are either trolling, or haven't taken 2 minutes to understand what the data is.
Partner, you might want to differ between Footnote 2 and 3, and then tell me how it's not double dipping. SUV's, for example are lumped into all Light Trucks, but are called out separately from Light Trucks in Footnote 3.
Maybe we should join super powers and call Statistics Canada to verify the footnotes, qu'est-ce que tu penses?
I'm good. If we have to look at large personal vehicles, we have to include Footnotes 2 and 3. Maybe Statistics Canada should define their categories without double dipping
Try combining the two footnotes:
Trucks include minivans, sport-utility vehicles, light (minivans, sport-utility vehicles, light trucks and vans) and heavy trucks, vans and buses.
I'm good. If we have to look at large personal vehicles, we have to include Footnotes 2 and 3. Maybe Statistics Canada should define their categories without double dipping
They do define their categories without double dipping, you just haven't figure out how to read the table yet. You owe me a beer for this headache.
The Following User Says Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
I'm good. If we have to look at large personal vehicles, we have to include Footnotes 2 and 3. Maybe Statistics Canada should define their categories without double dipping
Try combining the two footnotes:
Trucks include minivans, sport-utility vehicles, light (minivans, sport-utility vehicles, light trucks and vans) and heavy trucks, vans and buses.
Footnote 2 already includes footnote 3.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by calgaryblood
Looks like you'll need one long before I will. May I suggest deflection king?
Again, this is what Footnote 2 is saying by definition:
Trucks include minivans, sport-utility vehicles, light trucks (minivans, sport-utility vehicles, light trucks and vans) and heavy trucks, vans and buses.
SUVs should not be allowed to be classified as light trucks since almost all are in fact cars. The body on frame models like the 4Runner are likely not going to be around much longer.
It's not double dipping. Ugh. You can't be that thick. It's a category. All the ones below are sub categories. If you look at the numbers, you can add them up to see the total of "trucks" is just a sum of light trucks, heavy trucks and buses. As per my diagram.
I'm pretty happy I never had to be your teacher in school.
The Following User Says Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
SUVs should not be allowed to be classified as light trucks since almost all are in fact cars. The body on frame models like the 4Runner are likely not going to be around much longer.
Ya, that's a relic of how even minivans used to be built on truck chasis. But now the old "truck" category has also got blown out, I think it used to be under a certain weight, but they kept bumping that up. By calling all these things "trucks" they avoid certain emmisions standards and I think safety ones as well.
It's not double dipping. Ugh. You can't be that thick. It's a category. All the ones below are sub categories. If you look at the numbers, you can add them up to see the total of "trucks" is just a sum of light trucks, heavy trucks and buses. As per my diagram.
I'm pretty happy I never had to be your teacher in school.
By Stats Canada's own definitions, you have to include both numbers. SUV's and minivans (even just "vans"), are cross-referenced as two distinct categories by definition in this data.
Let's meet in the middle - use "Light Trucks" as our singular category even though the definitions don't allow for it. What do you say, friend?
I'd love to get taught by you as well, your curriculum should heavily focus on geometric shapes. Spelling is not your strong suit.
