|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
The University of Aalborg Study on Daytime Flashing Lights for Bicycles.
On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 11:06:06 PM UTC-7, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 14:26:35 -0700, sms wrote: Anytime someone doesn't like the results of a study they try to pick it apart. Actually, common practice is to first blame someone and then pick apart the argument. However, I prefer to undermine the study and let it collapse under its own weight. If "pick it apart" is an unacceptable method of debating the merits of a study, what would you consider to be an acceptable method for this newsgroup? I could use propaganda, various logical fallacies, anecdotal evidence, my personal feelings, or perhaps fabricate a contradictory study. Methinks that "pick it apart" is the same as breaking down the study into individual claims and seeing how each one holds together under stress. Perhaps it would be helpful if I explained how I analyze such studies. I've done it in this newsgroup at least a dozen times, but have never really explained how it's done. First, I find the original study. This is the most difficult part because studies are now hidden behind pay walls, revised continuously, and "edited for publication" in different lengths and forms. Once I have the original study, I try to determine who paid for it. That's because the conclusions and summary of the study are owned by whomever paid for the study, while the actual data and calculations are owned by the academics, scientists, students, and statisticians that ran the study. Often these are different or even in opposition. I then read the study in as much detail as I have time available. That's when the differences between the study and the web page announcing the study become apparent. In medical studies and surveys, I've seen claims that are quite the opposite of what the research shows, usually because the claims support a product or remedy. From this point, my approach varies depending on what I'm trying to demonstrate, prove, denounce, or evaluate. Usually, pointing out inconsistencies, gross omissions, and occasionally math errors is sufficient. In this case, I have been unable to find the study in either the original Danish or an English translation. Therefore, I have not read the original and have had to work with a brief summary from some unknown report or survey that apparently has been quoted and recycled extensively. The best I could do is point out that the percentage cited was meaningless without also disclosing the statistical population (number of participants in the test). This is hardly "pick it apart". So, I'll pick at it some more. One problem with claiming that flashing tail lights reduce accidents is that there just might not be any correlation between tail lights and accidents at all. Just because two things correlate (follow the same trends) does not mean that one causes the other. Some ludicrous examples: http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations So, how does one prove that flashing tail lights actually cause a reduction in accidents and that the 30% drop was not a coincidence? Well, one way is play the record backwards. Instead of giving out tail lights, find a group that has been using flashing tail lights for some time and take away their tail lights. If accidents increase, then there just might be a connection. Perhaps programming the tail lights so that they flash at different rates under the assumption that a faster flashing rate is more visible and therefore safer. I could dream up a few more tests, but basically the idea is to do things that test for a connection between flashing tail lights and accidents. The other part of the problem is that it's very easy to demonstrate that something is unsafe. All that's needed is one accident. However, it's impossible prove that anything is safe because there will always be accidents caused by coincidence or disconnected correlations. Have I "picked apart" your one liner sufficiently? I have never believed that a small barely visible flashing light on the back of a bike could possibly be more visible that a bright red and yellow jersey. How could it compare to a dayglow green or yellow jacket? The very idea that a large bike with a large person on it would be invisible unless protected by an LED the size of a pen-head with a lens on top of it to spread the light to the point where it's visible is pretty rediculous. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
New B&M Lights with Wide Beam and Daytime Mode Available | sms | Techniques | 74 | November 23rd 13 06:46 PM |
Flashing front light in daytime. | Nick[_4_] | UK | 22 | June 18th 08 12:28 PM |
Car daytime running lights | David Hansen | UK | 15 | March 25th 08 11:55 AM |
Daytime running lights | Martin Dann[_2_] | UK | 7 | February 12th 08 11:15 PM |
New University of Illinois Helmet Study ... | Edward Dolan | Recumbent Biking | 1 | May 8th 06 02:04 AM |