Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Sun Jun 21, 2026 10:40

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Apr 01, 2006 15:25 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 20:17
Posts: 244
Location: Thetford, Norfolk
Link to EDP24

I dont understand how the claimed 69pc is right given that only 100 people a year nationawide are saved by speed cameras!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 02, 2006 11:26 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 23:17
Posts: 499
I can't believe there is not more of a public outcry about their dubious figures these SCPs publish.

How did they achieve the impressive figure of 69%?

I wonder what they have used as their baseline?

Do their statistics allow for regression to the mean? Are they statistically significant? I very much doubt it.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 02, 2006 11:55 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 09:16
Posts: 3655
100......is that all :o

Hardly even a statistic

Thats 2 per police authority

How can you tell how many people have not been killed :?

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 00:04 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 23:42
Posts: 620
Location: Colchester, Essex
Just some more Ladyboy Cobblers.

These statistics rely on the fact that people are so poorly-educated in maths that all they see is 'rise' or 'reduction' and a big or small number.

Over a third of adults in this country have difficulty understanding percentages, let alone analytical statistics.

The 68% probably refers to the drop in KSI's where speed was shown to be in excess of the prescribed limit and the major cause of injury (about 15% of all KSI's), so the simple, non-regressed drop was actually 68% of 15%, about 10.2% and, if regressed correctly (can't be arsed to do the maths) probably less than 9%.

A 68% reduction or a 9% reduction - which would you present if you were trying to justify racketeering the motorist?

_________________
Aquila



Licat volare si super tergum aquila volat...


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 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 : 0.015s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]