Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 10:31

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 226 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 12  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2005 17:14 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 16:51
Posts: 1323
Location: Stafford - a short distance past hope
richlyon wrote:
prof beard wrote:
Rich - you fixation with quantitative evidence is dangerous.

Professor, I have no fixation with quantitive evidence. I have a fixation, if that is what you would call it, with logical consistency applied to a high standard. Have you not? Shouldn't Paul? I sense I am trespassing on both your - and my - patience when I repeat, for the third time, that the first stage of review is to check logic. This is a mechanistic stage that requires no subjective knowledge of the subject matter.

Please look again at this example of reasoning employed by SafeSpeed. I've [url=http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=59579#59579]invited
Paul[/url] to explain how he feels it is any different from a 'flu vaccinations kills people' argument.

To be absolutely clear: given the three distinctly different conclusions that can be drawn from any graph of two correlated variables e.g.

(1) that increasing road deaths has prompted the increased use of cameras,
(2) deaths and camera convictions have increased without any causal relationship or
(3) that speed camera convictions have caused the increased deaths,

- what his basis is for selecting option (3), and how whatever reasoning that was employed could not just as easily have been used to select option (1) or option (2), because there simply isn't sufficient data to decide and everything else is just the product of an a priori decision.

Would you accept it from one of your students? My professor would have hanged me if I'd tried to turn something like that in.

My point is not that no information exists that can prove the detrimental impact of speed cameras on road safety - there may or may not be. My point is that this is not it, the fact that this is not it can be trivially clarified by simple mechanical argument checking during the first stage of independent verification process, and until that is done any reasoning derived from it is meaningless.


OK in the interests of open debate I will critique Paul's Fatalities page. This is done with the following provisos:

1 Although I have a degree in maths and studied statistics to first year honours level as an undergraduate, I make no claims to be a statistician, and have not engaged in maths for many years.

2 I am accepting the figures given and tables presented at face value. I have no reason to assume these are "dubious", and have neither the time or energy to test them out.

My first comment to Paul would be that the page should be clearly dated to indicate when it was first written and/or subsequently updated.

My second comment to Paul would be that the page mentions figures not available at the time of writing which must now be available - it would be valuable to update the page to include these to demonstrate whether or not they support the assertions made.

Regarding logic. I am well aware of the concept of the "spurious correalation" - when I was an undergraduate the favourite example used was the rise in teacher's pay correalated to increases in public drunkeness.

Taken in a vacuum, your (Rick's) suggestion that the assertions:

(1) that increasing road deaths has prompted the increased use of cameras,
(2) deaths and camera convictions have increased without any causal relationship or
(3) that speed camera convictions have caused the increased deaths

and indeed I would add:

4) the increased use of cameras has failed to impact on an increase in fatalities

can all be drawn is valid (even allowing for the fact that cameras were introduced prior to the changes in nfatality patterns).

BUT, and here I feel that you (Rick) are being disingenuous to some extent, "spurious correalation" is normally indicated where two sets of figures are ENTIRELY INDEPENDENT. Speed cameras were introduced SPECIFICALLY as a road safety features and were not, ever, intended to have no relationship/impact on road casualties. It is fair, therefore, to postulate on whether a demonstrated correalation may, or may not, be significant. (If on the other hand one insists that cameras were NOT intended to have a relationship to/with casualty figures, that calls into question their function as presented by government)

My criticism of Paul's presentation would be that he has not made clear enough that he is POSTULATING that an indicted correalation is significant and not spurious, and why he is making that assertion.

He has discussed other possible factors, but should have used this discussion to reject other possible explanations of the figures much more overtly.

My main criticism would be that the arguement would have been strengthened (and clearer) if Paul had taken the tack of:

"something is going on here, there are a number of possible explanations - including that speed cameras have no relationship to fatalities, with the serious implications that would imply - I have rejected these ones for these reasons, and would like to postulate that there may well be a causal relationship betweeen cameras and fatalities. Clearly research is required to clarify if this relatioship does actually exist, but I argue that what I have presented is sufficiently worrying as to make such investigations worth funding"

I suspect Paul feels that is what he was trying to say, but with my critical "head" on I would say he has not fully succeeded.

(Apologies for any typos not spotted)
(Edited to put the "dis" in front of ingenuous)


Last edited by prof beard on Sun Jan 01, 2006 17:57, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2005 17:16 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 21:41
Posts: 3608
Location: North West
Quote:
As well as tax payer, citizen, and 250 mile per week commuter who can't help noticing how civilized it gets in speed camera zones. Time. After time. After time.


I haved already posted about the appalling driving I see on daily basis in Lancs, Cumbria - high cam presence areas. Not seen any evidence to support this.

However, today's Headline in "Telegraph" backs Rose Baker's peer reviewed piece on "lotto cam" The figures are also verified by the DfT and widely available for all to look at. Inconsistencies on tolerances abound and in the urban areas - "low prosecution rate is believed to reflect a high number of uninsured vehicles - making tracing them difficult" Moreover the Home Office admitted in all press and BBC that the DVLA records were only 40% accurate and Police Computer records 79% accurate (and wait until we have mega sized forces - if they cannot get bite sized chunks input correctly - how on earth will they cope with more data generation from a wider area?

Does not exactly inspire me with a great deal of faith no matter how many peer reviews of them we have - oh and by the way - not seen any peer reviewed assessements of Partnership figures - in fact getting them on an FOI is difficult to point of impossible - and they have not been forthcoming to past reviews in the past.

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/ ... 0/7487/331

In second paragraph - allusion to difficulty in getting the information. :wink:

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !

But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2005 17:21 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 21:41
Posts: 3608
Location: North West
Good post prof! :clap:

richlyon wrote:
starfin wrote:
the reason he is being attacked is that Safespeed has been allowed to become inextricably associated with petrol-headed libertarian extremists

Quite. If I open a shop selling fags and solvents next to a primary school, and a week later all the kids start smoking fags and sniffing solvents, I take responsibility for that whether I've put a big sign up in my window or not.


Whopping fine and jail if you don;t check proof of age/ID!

Eh? You have a statutory requirement not to sell these items to kids under 16/18. If you as shopkeeper in you example fail to note difference between a a 10 year old and an 18 year old - then I shudder at your apparent observation skills.

You give a daft example - you get a daft and mocking answer! :wink:

In fact if you are implying that this is a site which encourages law breaking - then supply proof. As far as I am aware - someone posted a whiny post about getting done for some daft speeding offence and we leapt all over him for being an irrepsonsible wus at the time :lol: Not to mention what we said to the one nicked without insurance - though again that shows a severe loophole in automated fining. Niether found much sympathy either here or on pepipoo and I forget what happened to the bloke who whined in Nonny and on Pepipoo anout some fail to stop and speed offence - but as I recall - we were just about "gentlemanly" in reply :wink:

In fact - I cannot see the relevance of this example and am pretty sure that even if the material was subjected to a "peer review" - you'd still be unable to understand it - but would probably believe it because some academic somewhere reckons it's OK for you to do so.

Based on your above example alone - mate. :wink:

Quote:
The "data" and arguments that Mr Smith produces is widely circulated amongst groups who's activities and attitudes on the public roads I suspect would frighten most right minded people here, and are directly used to legitimise those activities. Yet that data and those arguments are riddled with elementary faults.


:scratchchin: AA? RAC? IAM? - all coming round to conclusion that speed cameras and focussing only on erecting more of them and paying scant regard to putting cash into training, better testing, road engineering, fatigue/drink/drug/other legality concerns and TRAFFIC COPS is not exactly improving things - by the way - "peer reviewed" byt expert motorists, police drivers and insurance companies :wink: Enough research and surveys appeared - financed by insurance companies/AA/RAC and IAM - regardless of sharp practices on premiums - but many are no longer penalising up to 6 points now...

So - are you saying that these bodies are incorrect? Bear in mind – all traffic data is ephemeral anyway - and subject to change by nature of population movements.

But the government has accepted some of this data in any case - reflected in some policy decisions :wink:


Quote:
While you portray Paul Smith as some sort of Robin Hood figure (with which, to a certain extent, I agree), it is nevertheless not quite good enough a defence of sloppy methods. The British Lawn Tennis association could live with a mistake in which two variables which have changed at the same time is presented as conclusive evidence that one has changed because of the other.


Er – what on earth is this supposed to mean? As far as I am am aware tennis rules have not changed and if the ball is out – the ball is out ! Where’s the two variables – you have one or two players on each side of the court whacking ONE ball at each other.

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !

But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.


Last edited by Mad Moggie on Sat Dec 31, 2005 17:28, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2005 17:27 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 10:47
Posts: 37
prof beard wrote:
Speed cameras were introduced SPECIFICALLY as a road safety features and were not, ever, intended to have no relationship/impact on road casualties. It is fair, therefore, to postulate on whether a demonstrated correalation may, or may not, be significant.

Agreed. Then any proof will also have to account for why the data does not, in fact, show that fatalities have been limited to those indicated by the cameras, and that in the absence of the introduction would have been higher.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2005 17:31 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 10:47
Posts: 37
Mad Moggie wrote:
Er – what on earth is this supposed to mean?

Introducing analogy into a discussion always brings an element of risk and the need to judge the other's capacity to work with it. My apologies - I over-estimated yours.


Last edited by richlyon on Sat Dec 31, 2005 17:34, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2005 17:33 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 13:50
Posts: 2643
richlyon wrote:
As did mobile phones, crashbag induced reckless driving, etc., etc. See above.


So you're asserting, without a shred of supporting evidence, that crash bags lead to an increase in reckless driving?
By the same token, any other developments in car and driver safety over the past few decades, such as seat belts, vast improvements in tyres, brakes, handling etc etc must have produced the same effect. Except that they didn't.

From your standpoint, you appear to take it as a given that cameras must improve road safety, ergo any data which shows the opposite must either be explained by some other means, or viewed with suspicion.
And so you criticise us for not providing sufficient proof that they work, apparently without extending the same criticisms to those who maintain that they do work.

You might as well be criticising us for failure to disprove that Santa Claus delivers presents on Christmas Eve.

So I ask you once again - by what mechanism can cameras possibly reduce road accidents and/or casualties?

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2005 17:35 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 10:47
Posts: 37
Pete317 wrote:
So you're asserting, without a shred of supporting evidence, that crash bags lead to an increase in reckless driving?

No. Perhaps if you re-read the post. I'm suggesting there are hundreds of factors capable of generating that data, and that the presentation of that data, in that form, offers no reason to select speed cameras as the particular factor over any of the others. It is a quite different point.


Last edited by richlyon on Sat Dec 31, 2005 17:40, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2005 17:39 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 16:51
Posts: 1323
Location: Stafford - a short distance past hope
richlyon wrote:
Agreed. Then any proof will also have to account for why the data does not, in fact, show that fatalities have been limited to those indicated by the cameras, and that in the absence of the introduction would have been higher.


You mean I HOPE:

Then any further research should also consider the possibly that the data possibly indicates that fatalities have been limited to the figures recorded by the use of cameras, and that in the absence of their introduction might have been higher.

Use of words like "proof" are inappropriate, all such research can ever show is a likely strong probability (that's what statistics do, after all)

The point you add here would require the identification of some major causal factor overlooked by everyone (including government and published researchers) however.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2005 17:47 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 10:47
Posts: 37
prof beard wrote:
the data possibly indicates that fatalities have been limited to the figures recorded by the use of cameras, and that in the absence of their introduction might have been higher.

Quite so. But then, the number of separate institutions and processes that the theory requires to be defective for it to describe reality, and the extent of the defects each needs to contain, is quite remarkable.

Profound carelessness in the accounting for roadside corpses feels like a relatively small accommodation for this particular theory to have to make.


Last edited by richlyon on Sat Dec 31, 2005 17:51, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2005 17:51 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 21:41
Posts: 3608
Location: North West
OK - so what about this?

Quote:
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/ ... 0/7487/331
Results 14 observational studies met the inclusion criteria; no randomised controlled trials were found. Most studies were before-after studies without controls (n = 8). All but one of the studies showed effectiveness of cameras up to three years or less after their introduction; one study showed sustained longer term effects (4.6 years after introduction). Reductions in outcomes across studies ranged from 5% to 69% for collisions, 12% to 65% for injuries, and 17% to 71% for deaths in the immediate vicinity of camera sites. The reductions over wider geographical areas were of a similar order of magnitude.
Conclusions Existing research consistently shows that speed cameras are an effective intervention in reducing road traffic collisions and related casualties. The level of evidence is relatively poor, however, as most studies did not have satisfactory comparison groups or adequate control for potential confounders. Controlled introduction of speed cameras with careful data collection may offer improved evidence of their effectiveness in the future.


Thus the cams fail a peer review as we have not really proved 100% that they work. The evidence is, in fact, woefully inadequate from start to finish as we have no control criteria to work on and we certainly come up against secrecy from partnerships when asked to justify these figures.

Quote:
Implications of the research
This review has highlighted the limited nature of the evidence base underpinning the large scale introduction of speed cameras and the need for further robust evidence

Snipped


. In such settings, an alternative may be to carry out any planned introduction of speed cameras in a phased manner spread over a few years with careful collection of data on collisions and injuries, hence producing a natural comparison group (wedge shaped study design). In either case, the research needs to be conducted as soon as possible, before the widespread introduction of cameras results in a permanent loss of such opportunities.


This piece was misrepresented by the pro-lobby. They claimed it "proved cameras worked to tune of 70%" But it doesn't - because the data used to "prove this is inadequate and thus flawed"

Quote:
This review was limited to studying the effectiveness of the introduction of speed cameras in preventing collisions and injuries. Although some evidence exists to suggest that the effectiveness of speed cameras varies according to type of camera (visible or hidden),14 15 questions remain about how the effectiveness of cameras is affected by location criteria (restricting cameras to collision black spots or not) and use of educational initiatives alongside enforcement. Speed cameras may also change the culture of speeding over a longer period of time. Further research is needed into how these other factors may influence the effectiveness of speed cameras.


and

Quote:



However, as a rise in traffic collisions could be due to chance, any subsequent reduction could merely be indicative of normal variation ("regression to the mean").31 All these factors could result in an underestimate or overestimate of the effectiveness of cameras, and most studies only controlled for a few of these factors, if any.


Thus - we have with Rose Baker and this piece - some items which lend substance.

This, of course does not mean any of this is foolproof or accurate as traffic behaviour is not set in stone and each incident is peculiar to its own set of circumstances. But we have not seen peer reviews of cam stats - and these vary year on year as well - good years and bad years - and this also impacts on how far we can measure these figures and findings- as it is on-going.

By the way - about flu vaccines - they vaccinate against last year's strain. As such they may lessen and reduce symptoms in newer strain - but they do not prevent the illness as such - and in some cases - adverse reaction can indeed kill. But the real reaosn why youu analogy fails to impress me? My vaccination programme protects for longer term and not one half second as one drives past a speed camera. :wink:

Oh - and by the way Rich - Wildy happens to be my wife! Lively? - she wears me out! :lol:


Although it is plausible that findings could have been withheld from publication, we could not test formally for publication bias because of the varied nature of study designs and outcome measures used. Studies (positive or negative) from low income and middle income countries were notably absent. We are unclear whether this represents a lack of research from such countries or their unavailability in published form. We were unable to pool the results and arrive at a summary estimate owing to the multiplicity of interventions, study designs, and outcomes (often lacking explicit case definitions).
Road safety interventions are often multifaceted. Introduction of speed cameras may have been accompanied by other road safety initiatives such as traffic calming and education campaigns against speed and drink driving. Temporal changes such as improvements in car safety, changes in traffic volume, trends in drink driving, and changes in risk taking behaviour can also influence the frequency of road traffic collisions. Speed cameras are generally introduced at sites identified on the basis of high rates of speed related collisions. However, as a rise in traffic collisions could be due to chance, any subsequent reduction could merely be indicative of normal variation ("regression to the mean").31 All these factors could result in an underestimate or overestimate of the effectiveness of cameras, and most studies only controlled for a few of these factors, if any.
Implications of the research
This review has highlighted the limited nature of the evidence base underpinning the large scale introduction of speed cameras and the need for further robust evidence. Two possibilities exist for improving this evidence base. Randomised controlled trials offer the highest form of evidence. In countries where a large scale introduction of speed cameras is planned and the subject is not politicised, speed cameras could be introduced in a controlled fashion, randomising the allocation of cameras within a larger sampling framework of high risk sites (with remaining sites serving as controls). However, this approach may not be feasible in most settings because of political and other local pressures. In such settings, an alternative may be to carry out any planned introduction of speed cameras in a phased manner spread over a few years with careful collection of data on collisions and injuries, hence producing a natural comparison group (wedge shaped study design). In either case, the research needs to be conducted as soon as possible, before the widespread introduction of cameras results in a permanent loss of such opportunities.
This review was limited to studying the effectiveness of the introduction of speed cameras in preventing collisions and injuries. Although some evidence exists to suggest that the effectiveness of speed cameras varies according to type of camera (visible or hidden),14 15 questions remain about how the effectiveness of cameras is affected by location criteria (restricting cameras to collision black spots or not) and use of educational initiatives alongside enforcement. Speed cameras may also change the culture of speeding over a longer period of time. Further research is needed into how these other factors may influence the effectiveness of speed cameras.

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !

But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2005 17:55 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 10:47
Posts: 37
Mad Moggie wrote:
By the way - about flu vaccines - etc

Oh. My. God.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2005 18:00 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 21:41
Posts: 3608
Location: North West
richlyon wrote:
Mad Moggie wrote:
Er – what on earth is this supposed to mean?

Introducing analogy into a discussion always brings an element of risk and the need to judge the other's capacity to work with it. My apologies - I over-estimated yours.


There is no analogy whatsoever with the Lawn Tennis Association and quibbles with McEnroe over whether or not the ball was IN after all and driving a car safely at any speed on our roads.

You over-estimate your own abilities - and so far apart from witter on about peer reviews - and I've conducted a number of these reviews and had my own work subjected to them. Not noted much change in my life just because some bloke in the US agreed with my findings

But where is the relevance of your analogy?

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !

But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2005 18:08 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 21:41
Posts: 3608
Location: North West
richlyon wrote:
Mad Moggie wrote:
By the way - about flu vaccines - etc

Oh. My. God.



Your analogy is still way out of relevance. Flu vaccines, tennis rules, and selling hooch to 10 year olds are not even in same category for comparison. The only relvance in the flu vaccine is that the vaccine was trialled and tested before licence and manufacture - and subject to some very specific tests - and reviewed by scientists and lurgymen like me :wink: and even then we cannot agree as to whether they actually work given the strain we designed it for has - er - changed again! :wink:

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !

But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2005 18:12 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 09:59
Posts: 3544
Location: Shropshire
Mad Moggie wrote:
There is no analogy whatsoever with the Lawn Tennis Association and quibbles with McEnroe over whether or not the ball was IN after all and driving a car safely at any speed on our roads.


Er, yes there is - I think. If the LTA made a statistical error it might be embarrasing or inconvenient but not, ultimately, a matter of life or death. To make such an error in road safety analysis might well prove to be.
And if thats not what he meant, I give up :roll:
And if it is, its a bit of a smartassed way of putting it.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2005 18:13 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 13:50
Posts: 2643
richlyon wrote:
No. Perhaps if you re-read the post. I'm suggesting there are hundreds of factors capable of generating that data, and that the presentation of that data, in that form, offers no reason to select speed cameras as the particular factor over any of the others. It is a quite different point.


So why did you make it then?
And why do you apparently studiously avoid answering my other questions?
Far from being off-topic, I contend that they go right to the heart of the matter.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2005 18:14 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 10:47
Posts: 37
Mad Moggie wrote:
There is no analogy whatsoever with the Lawn Tennis Association and quibbles with McEnroe etc.

If the discussion had been about lawn tennis, errors in reasoning would have been relatively inconsequential. As it is about a matter concerning life and death, errors in reasoning are relatively consequential.

I'm sorry I have not made this clearer than it appears it needed to be. Please feel free to substitute any other topic, the successful outcome of which, in your view, isn't critically important, until you feel comfortable with the analogy. Or drop it, whichever you prefer.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2005 18:22 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 10:47
Posts: 37
Pete317 wrote:
So why did you make it then?

Because, in my view, using an a priori decision in determining the relative contribution of a specific factor is a fundamental issue affecting accuracy, which is what this thread is about. What you wanted to discuss was arguments for and against specific factors, which it is not.

Feel free to invite me to that other thread to discuss your point.

I'm sorry, I need to go and make dinner. That is because I have children who are starving, and because it is New Year's Eve and this feels a bit of a sad way to end the year, not because I've lost any appetite for the discussion. See you later.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2005 18:24 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 13:50
Posts: 2643
richlyon wrote:
As it is about a matter concerning life and death, errors in reasoning are relatively consequential.


Which is precisely why one would demand government departments to be far more rigorous in their approach to the matter than they have been.
And precisely why I believe that you have chosen to level your criticisms at the wrong party.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2005 18:25 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 16:51
Posts: 1323
Location: Stafford - a short distance past hope
richlyon wrote:
prof beard wrote:
richlyon wrote:
Agreed. Then any proof will also have to account for why the data does not, in fact, show that fatalities have been limited to those indicated by the cameras, and that in the absence of the introduction would have been higher.


You mean I HOPE:

Then any further research should also consider the possibly that the data possibly indicates that fatalities have been limited to the figures recorded by the use of cameras, and that in the absence of their introduction might have been higher.

Use of words like "proof" are inappropriate, all such research can ever show is a likely strong probability (that's what statistics do, after all)

The point you add here would require the identification of some major causal factor overlooked by everyone (including government and published researchers) however.

Quite so. But then, the number of separate institutions and processes that the theory requires to be defective for it to describe reality, and the extent of the defects each needs to contain, is quite remarkable.

Profound carelessness in the accounting for roadside corpses feels like a relatively small accommodation for this particular theory to have to make.


What on earth are you on about? - these last two paragraphs make no sense whatsoever. If you want a response post something I can understand please, or are you just taking the p*ss?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2005 18:45 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 13:50
Posts: 2643
richlyon wrote:
Feel free to invite me to that other thread to discuss your point.


Done

Quote:
and because it is New Year's Eve and this feels a bit of a sad way to end the year


Happy New Year to you. And to all. :drink:

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 226 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 12  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.058s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]