Safe Speed Forums

I read the following statement on your front page:
# We promise to present the facts without misleading presentation.
# Any error of fact will be repaired or removed as soon as possible.
# Opinion should always be immediately recognisable as such.

but on your "Why do drivers speed?" page you state the following:

"We undoubtedly have a minority of reckless individuals...But I expect everyone will agree that we're talking about considerably less than 10% of the population."

"If you are a normal responsible motorist who regularly exceeds a speed limit, your chance of causing a speeding related fatal accident is probably 1 such accident in 200,000 years. "

These appear to just be statements of opinion without any supporting factual evidence. Perhaps they should be removed in order to comply with your rigorous standards of objectivity and fact-based argument?

Maybe you would like to produce evidence to prove these statements are false

Look forward to your input

_________________
Steve

Why do I have to produce evidence that the statements are false? My point is that they are simply statements of opinion, with no apparent evidence to support them; this doesn't seem to be a very convincing way to present an argument.

No, That's the wrong answer. It's important that we give people the opportunity to challange facts. We have to stand behind our data, opinions and assertions and it's up to us to prove that they are reasonable.

I also wish to be open and to meet such challenges with data and reasoned argument.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I'm more than happy with those statements. It's difficult or impossible to come up with actual numerical or statistical data to support the claims, yet everyone can observe a small proportion of road users involved in reckless behaviours.

It's likely that more than 50% of roads fatalities are caused by reckless behaviour carried out by a small proportion of reckless road users.

I've used illustrative figures to demonstrate the point that risk is not evenly spread across the population. It's a nice clear way to make the point, but the point itself is more-or-less self evident.

btw, in future, please note that there's no need to post such a query in two places. One is sufficient.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I don't actually see a conflict between the quoted statements and the "rules".

Yes they contain elements of opinion which aren't directly supported by facts, but the statements are clearly presented as such, they aren't masquerading as facts. So as such they seem to fit in with the Paul's self-imposed rules: they aren't "misleading presentation", they aren't erroneous "facts", and they are immediately recognisable as opinion.

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

Very roughly, we have 30 million licensed drivers, and 3,500 fatalities a year. So, on average, a driver would be involved in a fatal accident every 8,570 years.

Accepting the figure from TRL323 and other sources that inappropriate speed above the posted limit is the cause of about 4.5% of fatal accidents, then a driver would be involved in a speeding-related fatal accident every 190,000 years. And this fails to take into account that a large proportion of those speeding-related accidents are likely to involve reckless behaviour by drunk, drugged, unlicensed or disqualified drivers.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Take into account use of Drink and drugs, i believe that figure would be much higher

Certainley Drug use, is becoming more and more acceptable in society

_________________
Steve

If you point at a statement, and say it is wrong, you should say why it is wrong.

At least provide a statement, that explains your position, how you see things, Your opinion.

_________________
Steve

He didn't say the statement was wrong, he said These appear to just be statements of opinion without any supporting factual evidence. . So he was saying that there is no supporting evidence for the claims. He can't demonstrate that there is no supporting evidence, not being able to prove a negative and all.

This is a non argument. As JT has pointed out, the SafeSpeed rules quoted by the original poster cover the point more than adequately...

"We undoubtedly have a minority of reckless individuals.."

This is fact, as the statistics and research back it up, although we can't quantify it precisely without surveying the entire populace, which isn't a reasonable expectation in any such survey.

"But I expect everyone will agree that we're talking about considerably less than 10% of the population."

This is an opinion. How do I know? Because it is "immediately recognisable as such."

Likewise the second example. It's a self defeating argument because for the original poster to be aware that an opinion has been expressed means that the rules have been adhered to. It is then up to the individual to decide if they agree with the opinion or not, based on what evidence is available and their own observation and experience.

If a majority of people agree with an opinion then it becomes the right one - that's called democracy!

Ken

I think it is obvious that the two statements are estimates based on evidence. To discuss topics like this, absolute facts would be impossible. I think therefore that the statements should stand.