Safe Speed Forums

I've been having discussions recently with a friend (mature bloke) who has gained a PhD this year for a critique of "green politics". One side point he picked up is also true of most current politicians - the "it's true because I say so, and if you disagree with me you are obviously dangerous" syndrome. This behaviour is normally backed up by "research" (often from Universities). What distinguishes this research from the more valid kind is that the authors normally appear to have decided what the conclusions they wish to come to are, and then find research evidence and arguments that back them up. Also, conclusions are reached by ignoring the inconvenient.

Here's an example from Mosedale, J. and Purdy, A., (2004) Excessive speed as a contributory factor to personal injury road accidents,Transport Statistics: Road Safety, Department for Transport.

Firstly, no prizes for guessing the conclusions of the paper!

BUT it contains:

"The term excessive speed can be interpreted as meaning either excessive for the conditions/location or exceeding the speed limit. It is not possible to differentiate between these two aspects. (So we'll just treat them as the same thing - my comment!) Furthermore excessive speed is not easy to determine after the event and may be implied (sic - my comment!) by other contributory factors such as driving too close, agressive driving, behaviour - careless, reckless, thoughtless and behaviour - in a hurry. The percentage of accidents in which excessive speed is explicitly cited as being a contributory factor might therefore underestimate its importance. (!! - my comment)"

Having said the figures are almost limitlessly interpretable, they then interpret them to gain the outcome they (or their funders) desire. Apparently this is common in "green" research (and government research judging by this example).

My friend says that there are serious cultural and political aspects that need to be understood here, and that greens will use "science" when it suits their arguments, but are in essence "anti-scientific" in their approach to things.

I'm glad you posted that. It reminded me to reply to a VERY interesting email that I put aside for a detailed reply and then forgot.

YHM!

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