Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Thu Oct 17, 2019 12:14

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2005 21:45 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
g_attrill wrote:
For a start there aren't enough controls (there should really be at least as many controls as camera sites - and 1/5th isn't nearly enough).


I don't believe that the ratio is important. Given an adequate sample size, adequate self similarity and adequate knowledge of the surrounding conditions the results from a group (either group in this case) will be significant.

I'm very interested in the answer this question posed by JT however:

JT wrote:
You mention 11 "control" sites, yet when this issue was first raised all that time ago I could have sworn the statement was that approximately 50% of "qualifying sites" (by which I mean those with sufficient KSI history to qualify for cameras) were rejected due to operational / safety issues. So I would expect there to be around 50 control sites, not 11. Can you explain this discrepancy?

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 06, 2005 01:10 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
JJ wrote:
I notice you have been very quiet about the much saught after control site results. What's wrong, are these figures disproving your regression claims? Come on folk, these are the results in the Cumbria camp. You wanted them and now they don't suit you. Why are you not comparing them to the made up graphs and claims on the safespeed site regarding regression? It's so quiet I think you are running scared. Can that be true at last?

JJ



Yes, JJ. That in itself speaks volumes about the attitude here. I am considering your claims carefully - as, I am sure, are many of my fellow anti-scamera forumites. Some of them have requested additional information which doesn't seem to be forthcoming - in fact when you say:

"Paul we have given you the result from months of hard work, and verification we do not need anyone else to check it. Thanks! What we would prefere is comments. Thanks!

JJ"...

...I for one start getting a bit suspicious. Do you have a problem with scrutiny?

Perhaps you would just prefer us to respond with a bit of good old Steve-style sarcasm, denial and bluster just to remind us of the fun times we used to have on the CSCP forum?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 06, 2005 03:37 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Mole wrote:
...I for one start getting a bit suspicious.

Me too. Aren't they behaving strangely! One would have thought that if they had such amazing data they they would be only too keen to lay it all out for examination. But no - we get:

someone logged on as JJ wrote:
Paul we have given you the result from months of hard work, and verification we do not need anyone else to check it. Thanks! What we would prefere is comments. Thanks!

which speaks for itself...

Mole wrote:
Do you have a problem with scrutiny?

It's curious that when I asked for a simple assurance I got:

SafeSpeed wrote:
In order to properly evaluate these amazing claims we need:
  • [...]
  • a written assurance that we are looking at comprehensive data, not a subset
  • [...]
someone logged on as JJ wrote:
6. I and steve find this offensive and wonder just why you think you can demand this of us. Allude to trickery again and we will withdraw all communication.


What could possibly be the problem with providing a simple and entirely necessary assurance, I wonder?

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 06, 2005 17:18 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 15:52
Posts: 461
What i found interesting was the format the "announcement" came in; Declared on an internet forum with no backup evidence supplied, just some spurious figures that JJ claims is " the proof"...Proof of what?
Proof that the cscp cant add and subtract or proof that they have no proof?

I remain unimpressed. Show us the evidence...your "word" aint good enough.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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 cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.354s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]