Safe Speed Forums

In Paul Smith and Safe Speed - the Self-Exposure of a Crank (22/12/2005), George Monbiot wonders about Paul Smith's reluctance to comply with the request by the field's leading journal ("Accident Analysis & Prevention") and submit his analyis to independent academic review.

As Monbiot points out, independent review is carried out by experts which are chosen, not by the researcher whose work is in question, but by the editors of a journal whose reputation depends on the scientific accuracy of its contents. As such, it is the only recognised method available to us for deciding whether claims - such as those advanced by 'safespeed' - can be taken seriously.

In his radio interview of 20th December, Mr Smith attributed his refusal to submit his data for peer review to lack of time. The front page of SafeSpeed is currently asserting an 'open review' policy as being 'far superior' to conventional scientific publication 'peer review' - such as that proposed by Monbiot. It also advises it is working with experts chosen by SafeSpeed to prepare scientific publications.

Clearly, whether or not we believe the case set out by Mr Smith, his actions leave him open to the charge that he fears exposure and - unneccessarily, if his arguments have merit - strengthen the case against him.

Question for general debate: even if 'open review' is superior to scientific peer review, why not do both? If safespeed is under threat of closure, as its appeals page asserts, wouldn't an excellent course of action it could take right now be to secure independent endorsement by the leading journal in this field, irrespective of whether it meets what SafeSpeed believes to be more rigorous tests? Even if such a review were to be critical, isn't SafeSpeed's 'open review' process capable of falsifying those criticisms and further strengthen SafeSpeed's case?

Conversely, if it continues to refuse, how can it best defend the assertion that it has simply started with with the conclusion it wants to reach, and devised statistical methods to support it that it knows won't survive independent scrutiny?

*Edited to add link to Accident Analysis & Prevention
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Added by

After five pages of debate I decided to lay out a detailed reply to this post. You can read it here: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewt ... 9706#59706

I have also changed the thread title from 'self review' to 'open review'.

====================
Added by Richard Lyon - the author of this post. WARNING: I haven't checked whether Paul has tampered with or retitled any of my other postings in service of either conditioning your expectation of what it is about, or guiding your attention safely past the full development of any subsequent points to his punchline of choice.

The reader will note that, in a true "open review" process, a challenger would be allowed to choose his own language, to safeguard the possibility that the challenger is, by definition, bringing a new perspective. In a "self review" process, the challenger's language would be modified by the challenged (i.e. the "self" doing the review) to conform with the existing perspective, thus mitigating the challenge. That this effect is taking place over the title of a thread dedicated to challenging the integrity of SafeSpeed's challenge process is exquisitely recursive.

Paul - while you may delete my postings in their entirety if they are inappropriate, do not EVER modify the contents or title of a posting of mine without my expressed permission. To do otherwise is to illustrate how hopelessly compromised you are in your conflicting roles of advocate, judge, executioner and moderator around here. Thank you.

Let’s be honest, the reasoning behind RTTM is relatively simple to understand - only complete idiots would still question its relevance after giving it the appropriate consideration. This suggests to me that Monbiot either still doesn’t understand the ‘convoluted’ arguments, or his head is in the sand; if the former or latter is true then Monbiot is as much of a crack as he claims Paul Smith to be.

Linda Mountain’s (scamera supporter) three year independent study supports Paul’s work.
The Heydecker (scamera supporter) analysis supports Paul’s work (it was that resulting interview that converted me from pro-scamera).
The recently released fourth year report (compiled my the company charged with the rollout of speed cameras) even admits that the effect exists - an issue conveniently dodged by Monbiot!
(notice a pattern here?)
Paul Smith has been on countless radio and television interviews explaining his reasoning (so much for fearing exposure), so far no-one… NO-ONE has been able to find fault with his analysis.

Richlyon, instead of blindly supporting Monbiot’s stance, why not surf the site and make up your own mind?

So next time you come across someone – and there are plenty in the motoring lobby – who cites Monbiot’s work as “proof” that Paul Smith is a crank, just ask them why they won’t seek to directly answer the arguments put forward by Paul.


edit:

http://www.transport2000.org.uk/celebri ... ticleID=10
please note the word "celebrity" in the link!


Spot the difference?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Why do you think he is blindly supporting Monbiots stance any more than you or I could be accused of blindly supporting Pauls? He appears to be asking a straighforward question.

I'm not blindly supporting anyone's stance, nor interested in extending the debate here over which set of idiot's views should prevail (there are other threads devoted to that task).

I'm asking, since any case is strengthened by independent verification, why the champion of SafeSpeed does not seek it.

He's stuck for money and these guys are offering him premium quality assurance for free. Anyone confident of his case should jump at the chance.

It is a straightforward question which could be asked by either an opponent or proponent of the ideas championed in this forum.

(Of course, finding no-one, no-one who can find fault with your analysis is fairly easy to contrive - just make sure you don't ask the wrong people, which is kind of the point ...)

I agree that scientific publication is a worthy aim. It's been extensively discussed - especially in the member's area.

However it is far from trivial in its time demands. To take the information from the web site and prepare a paper for scientific publication, with associated literature searches and so on is at least 6 weeks solid work. And there are at least 6 important papers ready for preparation.

I already do 80 hours a week running the Safe Speed campaign. It's also a very 'live' activity. Safe Speed is mainly concerned with news and news management these days. Stopping managing news to prepare papers for publication would have a strong negative effect on day to day activities.

So the solution is to get help with preparation. This has been agreed and work is in progress.

The suggestion that I 'fear publication' is absurd. The web site is publication. The web site's review processes are more 'potent' that scientific review processes because they are immediate, they don't stop and they are open to everyone.

The peer review process dates from a pre-internet age when publication was only possible by printing and when, once published, the article couldn't be revised. The facilities afforded by the Internet advance the game considerably, and greatly reduce the possibilities of long outstanding erroneous work.

[edited to add the last paragraph and to clarify wording]

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

Because I sincerely doubt that would be the question he would be asking if he actually read and understood the arguments put forward.



edit:
Saw following posts after submitting mine:


Paul's response kinda answered that for me

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

This high profile web site serves in excess of 200,000 pages a month to well in excess of 50,000 unique visitors. Last time the web logs were examined in fine detail we discovered that 19% of all access was via government and Police gateways.

There's nothing secretive about web publication. It's wide open to anyone and everyone. I have also made a habit of writing to senior people inviting them to find fault with the Safe Speed information. For example:

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/hgv40.html
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/rules.html
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/heydecker.html
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/heydecker2.html
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/trl.html

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

I see. So, everyone who wants to contest a SS point or question its policy stance must first read and understand the arguments being postulated throughout the site is that right?
In which case they wouldn't be asking the question in the first place ergo nobody would ever need to question SS ever again because they would all be enlightened to the cause. Yes? No?

If one finds reason to disagree (substantiated by their own research or reasoning, not because of the opinion of others) then of course one could (and should) argue against.

Not really wishing to ‘attack the attacker’ (although with hindsight I guess I did, apologies if so) but I didn’t agree with the sentiments held within that post.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

If you want to play in the big game, you need to play the whole game. It isn't really good enough to claim the authority of a scientifically prepared argument, and then hide behind the excuse of amateur resource constraints. If your arguments aren't prepared, then take your site down until they are.

Your website concerns itself with - and seeks to influence public opinion on - a subject that is literally a matter of life or death. Surely you haven't published anything on it that hasn't already been prepared to the same rigourous standards, with the literature searches already complete, as are required for scientific publication? Otherwise, upon what basis are you claiming its authority, and defending the charge of irresponsibility?

According to 'smeggy', your reasoning is so simple that only complete idiots would question its relevance. And these are big boys who will be reviewing your claims - they don't need polished papers, just the argument and references - which some of your supporters and donors might be forgiven for assuming you had already provided in the form of the site itself. Yet, despite presumably having already thoroughly prepared the evidence, you believe it will take you a further 6 weeks to assemble it in a form that will pass external scrutiny. If it takes 6 weeks, it can't be simple. If it is simple, it can't take 6 weeks. Which of you is correct?

[Edited: deleted. Too harsh.]

And your site is constructed in such a way as to present the impression - at least to those not familiar with rigourous analytical analysis and scientific argument - that your arguments are already developed to a rigourous scientific standard. If it has, then why can't you simply submit it in support of your claim. If it has not, then upon what basis - other than wishful thinking - are your supporters claiming to be persuaded by your arguments?

Again, these are questions which your supporters - particularly those who have donated money to your cause - ought to be asking you - not me. I haven't given you any money.

[I should say, that while I have carefully read Mr Smith's thesis and disagree strongly with both the conclusio and methods employed, I do applaud his courage and energy in taking a stand on something that he is passionate about. Society is, generally, stronger when it is well engaged with, which Mr Smith promotes.]

Those academics of which you speak are not really any more intelligent than you or I. Most of them churn out papers at around 3 a year. Some do a lot less, others a lot more. They do it as a full time job and most of them have a couple of research students ie lackies to do the bulk of the work for them. There are a lot of vested interests in academia and they are certainly not the independent thinking body you wish they were. Big business and government sponsorship often distort the truth. Drugs companies pay to have bad results to go away and I am sure this government is no different. Labour get donations from all sorts of people, camera suppliers will probably be one of them. Lots of people are making lots of money off the back off this policy. The ones losing are the great british public who have more of their friends and relatives killed because of the failure to tackle the real causes of accidents - bad driving, tired driving and drug/drink driving. Tackling those requires resources and traffic police neither of which the government want to use.

The concept is there for all to see; the supporting data must be compiled in order for others to determine the measure of the significance.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

That's not really right. The purpose of scientific publication is to fit ideas and research into a pre-existing jigsaw of knowledge. A problem for me is that most of the jigsaw isn't present in the scientific literature, yet there are many pieces that simply don't belong in the puzzle at all.

The work involved in scientific publication is largely the framework one - establishing enough in each paper and dismissing those items of research that just don't belong. It's easily do-able, but significantly time consuming.

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

Forgive me if this is a naive suggestion, but if, as Rich points out, the academia are not too concerned at perfection of paper submission, why can't we simply point the academia to this website and ask them to review it?

Its still a jigsaw. A full paper would lay out the arguments in abstract and then detailed form in a manner that is logical and, importantly, cross-referenceable (not sure if thats a word).

Well, that's one purpose Paul. Another, more elementary, purpose, is simply to scrutinise and verify the logic that has been applied in drawing conclusions from supplied data.

For example, you present this graph:


Fatalities on British Roads

in support of an assertion that the correlation between an increase in speed camera convictions and apparent increase in road deaths is evidence that the increase in road deaths is caused by the the increased speed camera convictions. This simple post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy of reasoning (with which, unfortunately, your site is characteristically littered) will be quickly identified by anyone familiar with errors of reasoning associated with confusing cause and effect, and of affirmations of the consequent.

(For anyone not familiar with this type of failure of reasoning, you should note that it would be possible to employ Paul's reasoning to 'prove' that because death's from Bird Flu will rise after vaccination is generally administered, the vaccinations have caused the deaths and that therefore vaccination should be made as unacceptable as drink driving. In fact, it will be the increase in deaths that prompts the administration of the vaccine, and while vaccination will be unable to prevent all deaths, the overall death rate will be lower than if vaccine is not administered. Same data - entirely different conclusion. It doesn't prove there is no correlation - it simply says the correlation has not been proven).

Once those issues have been straightened out, you enter the more interesting area of establishing peer review in the absence of comparable research. My concern (and, I suspect yours) is that once all the simple errors of reasoning have been stripped out, there will be nothing left to challenge conventional research.

You underestimate me sir. I had identified system-wide risks associated with speed cameras long before the amazing correlation between camera convictions and loss of fatality rate trend emerged. I'm not assuming that correlation indicates causation. rather I'm happy to report correlation as yet more evidence of possible causation.

I'm quite well up on logical fallacies (thanks!) and I'd be amazed if you can find any on the web site.

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

Fair enough. But the crucial difference is, in the case of the vaccine, there is a well-established and plausible mechanism by which vaccines prevent deaths - so it's a straightforward process to separate the 'good' hypothesis from the 'bad' one. In the absence of such a clear-cut mechanism, it would be difficult to establish the truth purely on the strength of the logical argument.

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

The whole game? A book, a film, a series of TV documentaries, scientific publication? Clearly it's going to take time. I'm proud to have set appropriate priorities in the public interest, and I'm proud to have carried out a great deal of original work. In fact I've never worked so hard - nor earned so little - in my entire life.

At present I have some excellent information and analysis and Safe Speed is functioning well as a pressure group. It lives more by highlighting the gaping holes in official research than it does by being an original research organisation.



Ultimately Safe Speed calls for an urgent return to the road safety policies that gave us in the UK the safest roads in the world in the first place. That's not breaking new ground and no special responsibility problems arise.

Along the way some policy opportunities have been discovered that would enable us to do even better than we did before. But opportunities are slim while policy is derailled by the unfulfilled promise speed cameras.



There are at least six papers that need to be written and fitted into the framework of knowledge. It's not six weeks - it's over six months. And publication itself is a long slow process. Actually it's massively urgent that policy is changed - as DfT is finally begining to admit. It would be highly irresponsible to suspend day to day activities in order to prove to a small minority that we have better views of the road safety data.



Little in the way of 'scientific rigour' is required to point out gaping flaws in the government's case. However where scietific rigour is required it has been provided. See for yourself. That is still very far from being able to claim that any particular article is ready for scientific publication.

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