|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Why the IAM red light survey annoyed me more as a cyclist than as a pollster
QUOTE:
Earlier this week the Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM) issued a press release headlined, "More than half of cyclists jump red lights", claiming 57% of cyclists had jumped a red light at least once. The figure came from a poll on the IAM website to which many cyclists had responded, encouraged by tweets and cycling forums to add their experience. Unusually, BikeBiz.com, an industry newsletter, and the Guardian broke an embargo to publicly criticise the IAM and its statistics in advance of publication by the rest of the media. Reaction across cycling forums and Twitter was quick to condemn the validity of the IAM's figures and to question the organisation's motives and integrity. I'm trying hard to see this debacle as a case of good intentions gone horribly wrong rather than a case of the the IAM deliberately playing fast and loose with statistics and using cyclists as the bait to catch some red top headlines. I'm also struggling to resist schadenfreude because, as a professional pollster, I normally at least allow myself a wry smile when poor research gets outed and usually laugh out loud when this type of home-cooked, half-baked poll falls flat. I'm trying not to gloat because even though I'm both a researcher and a cyclist, I'm finding it difficult to put the IAM in the same sentence as the phrase "fast and loose". In my mind, the IAM are sticklers, an organisation of cardiganed uncles driving within the speed limit, hands at ten to two and able to stop well within the necessary distance. Hardly the type of people to take chances and act with any reckless disregard. I'm struggling because I know from working with him on research projects for Road Safety Scotland and the Scottish government that Neil Greig, the IAM's director of policy and research, is a decent man, committed to improving road safety, who gives good advice. But I'm also pretty angry with the IAM, for this reason: I am one of their 57%. I picked up the tweets, I read about the survey on my local cycling forum, and I filled it in, wanting to add my experiences thinking, as I suspect many others did, that it would add, in some way, to the calls for improvements in cycling provision. I'm not angry because I've only just found out that this type of poll is not a carefully crafted and systematically sampled survey of the cycling and motoring population. I've designed those and I know they don't involve tweeting your mates and sending them to a website where you can complete the survey as many times as you like. I'm not even angry because the IAM used the results for publicity. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Who doesn't these days, especially when newspapers will recycle press releases with barely an amendment? But this one is different. First, because it misrepresents me personally and many people like me. People who ride day in, day out, carefully doing what it takes to get to work on time and home alive. I am one of the 57% although my particular red light is part of Edinburgh's tram works and simply fails to detect a cyclist. You either ride through it or sit there until a car comes along. At 7.15am that could take a long time. Second, I am angry because in spite of all the weaknesses in this type of uncontrolled, self-selecting, online polling, the real dodge was to accumulate the frequent, sometimes, rarely and "once or twice" and include them all in the "over half of cyclists" headline. With this sleight of hand sensible manoeuvres and distant misdemeanours are turned into a current habit and whatever subsequent explanations follow, what sticks is that 57% of cyclists jump red lights. But most importantly, I am angry with IAM because while most of these polls are silly PR fluff, this particular example is potentially dangerous. Many cyclists already feel that they are treated with contempt by drivers and that their safety is compromised on Britain's clogged and poorly designed roads. Distorting the data and giving the impression of cyclists as serial lawbreakers has real potential to bring those wing mirrors a little bit closer, make the abuse a little louder and the cutting up a little more life threatening. The reality is that cyclists are being killed on Britain's roads to an extent that has motivated thousands of cyclists to campaign for better safety. IAM members, who represent the antithesis of the driving that cyclists experience everyday, should be cyclists' allies. The organisation had been making genuine attempts to contribute to improving safety. One can only wonder what happened when the release was written but in what seems like a momentary lapse in concentration, the trust that saw cyclists help IAM's polling efforts has been thrown away. A familiar story: cyclists hurt because someone wasn't paying attention. .. Steven Hope regularly cycles between his home in Fife and his job as managing director of Ipsos Mori's office in Edinburgh. He writes in a personal capacity http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...?newsfeed=true -- Simon Mason |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Numb-nuts Mason changes the subject again.
On 19/05/2012 19:33, Simon Mason wrote:
QUOTE: Earlier this week the Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM) issued a press release headlined, "More than half of cyclists jump red lights", claiming 57% of cyclists had jumped a red light at least once. The figure came from a poll on the IAM website to which many cyclists had responded, encouraged by tweets and cycling forums to add their experience. Unusually, BikeBiz.com, an industry newsletter, and the Guardian broke an embargo to publicly criticise the IAM and its statistics in advance of publication by the rest of the media. Reaction across cycling forums and Twitter was quick to condemn the validity of the IAM's figures and to question the organisation's motives and integrity. I'm trying hard to see this debacle as a case of good intentions gone horribly wrong rather than a case of the the IAM deliberately playing fast and loose with statistics and using cyclists as the bait to catch some red top headlines. I'm also struggling to resist schadenfreude because, as a professional pollster, I normally at least allow myself a wry smile when poor research gets outed and usually laugh out loud when this type of home-cooked, half-baked poll falls flat. I'm trying not to gloat because even though I'm both a researcher and a cyclist, I'm finding it difficult to put the IAM in the same sentence as the phrase "fast and loose". In my mind, the IAM are sticklers, an organisation of cardiganed uncles driving within the speed limit, hands at ten to two and able to stop well within the necessary distance. Hardly the type of people to take chances and act with any reckless disregard. I'm struggling because I know from working with him on research projects for Road Safety Scotland and the Scottish government that Neil Greig, the IAM's director of policy and research, is a decent man, committed to improving road safety, who gives good advice. But I'm also pretty angry with the IAM, for this reason: I am one of their 57%. I picked up the tweets, I read about the survey on my local cycling forum, and I filled it in, wanting to add my experiences thinking, as I suspect many others did, that it would add, in some way, to the calls for improvements in cycling provision. I'm not angry because I've only just found out that this type of poll is not a carefully crafted and systematically sampled survey of the cycling and motoring population. I've designed those and I know they don't involve tweeting your mates and sending them to a website where you can complete the survey as many times as you like. I'm not even angry because the IAM used the results for publicity. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Who doesn't these days, especially when newspapers will recycle press releases with barely an amendment? But this one is different. First, because it misrepresents me personally and many people like me. People who ride day in, day out, carefully doing what it takes to get to work on time and home alive. I am one of the 57% although my particular red light is part of Edinburgh's tram works and simply fails to detect a cyclist. You either ride through it or sit there until a car comes along. At 7.15am that could take a long time. Second, I am angry because in spite of all the weaknesses in this type of uncontrolled, self-selecting, online polling, the real dodge was to accumulate the frequent, sometimes, rarely and "once or twice" and include them all in the "over half of cyclists" headline. With this sleight of hand sensible manoeuvres and distant misdemeanours are turned into a current habit and whatever subsequent explanations follow, what sticks is that 57% of cyclists jump red lights. But most importantly, I am angry with IAM because while most of these polls are silly PR fluff, this particular example is potentially dangerous. Many cyclists already feel that they are treated with contempt by drivers and that their safety is compromised on Britain's clogged and poorly designed roads. Distorting the data and giving the impression of cyclists as serial lawbreakers has real potential to bring those wing mirrors a little bit closer, make the abuse a little louder and the cutting up a little more life threatening. The reality is that cyclists are being killed on Britain's roads to an extent that has motivated thousands of cyclists to campaign for better safety. IAM members, who represent the antithesis of the driving that cyclists experience everyday, should be cyclists' allies. The organisation had been making genuine attempts to contribute to improving safety. One can only wonder what happened when the release was written but in what seems like a momentary lapse in concentration, the trust that saw cyclists help IAM's polling efforts has been thrown away. A familiar story: cyclists hurt because someone wasn't paying attention. . Steven Hope regularly cycles between his home in Fife and his job as managing director of Ipsos Mori's office in Edinburgh. He writes in a personal capacity http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...?newsfeed=true -- Simon Mason -- Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster University |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Why the IAM red light survey annoyed me more as a cyclist than as a pollster
On Sat, 19 May 2012 19:33:36 +0100, "Simon Mason"
wrote: Unusually, BikeBiz.com, an industry newsletter, and the Guardian broke an embargo to publicly criticise the IAM and its statistics in advance of publication by the rest of the media. Reaction across cycling forums and Twitter was quick to condemn the validity of the IAM's figures and to question the organisation's motives and integrity. Funny how they didn't do this on any of the previous polls they had encouraged cyclists to "participate" in, often many times. I'm trying hard to see this debacle as a case of good intentions gone horribly wrong You mean the cyclists took their eye off the ball and forgot to stuff this vote? But I'm also pretty angry with the IAM, for this reason: I am one of their 57%. I picked up the tweets, I read about the survey on my local cycling forum, and I filled it in, wanting to add my experiences thinking, as I suspect many others did, that it would add, in some way, to the calls for improvements in cycling provision. Ah, so the vote stuffing took place - but the result wasn't quite as expected? I've designed those and I know they don't involve tweeting your mates and sending them to a website where you can complete the survey as many times as you like. As push bike riders have been doing for a long time. Where were the objections then? Distorting the data and giving the impression of cyclists as serial lawbreakers All the evidence is they are. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Why the IAM red light survey annoyed me more as a cyclist than as a pollster
"Peter Parry" wrote in message ... On Sat, 19 May 2012 19:33:36 +0100, "Simon Mason" wrote: Unusually, BikeBiz.com, an industry newsletter, and the Guardian broke an embargo to publicly criticise the IAM and its statistics in advance of publication by the rest of the media. Reaction across cycling forums and Twitter was quick to condemn the validity of the IAM's figures and to question the organisation's motives and integrity. Funny how they didn't do this on any of the previous polls they had encouraged cyclists to "participate" in, often many times. I'm trying hard to see this debacle as a case of good intentions gone horribly wrong You mean the cyclists took their eye off the ball and forgot to stuff this vote? But I'm also pretty angry with the IAM, for this reason: I am one of their 57%. I picked up the tweets, I read about the survey on my local cycling forum, and I filled it in, wanting to add my experiences thinking, as I suspect many others did, that it would add, in some way, to the calls for improvements in cycling provision. Ah, so the vote stuffing took place - but the result wasn't quite as expected? I've designed those and I know they don't involve tweeting your mates and sending them to a website where you can complete the survey as many times as you like. As push bike riders have been doing for a long time. Where were the objections then? Distorting the data and giving the impression of cyclists as serial lawbreakers All the evidence is they are. it also shows that cyclists are too dim to NOT self-incriminate |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Why the IAM red light survey annoyed me more as a cyclist than asa pollster
On May 19, 11:13*pm, Peter Parry wrote:
On Sat, 19 May 2012 19:33:36 +0100, "Simon Mason" wrote: Unusually, BikeBiz.com, an industry newsletter, and the Guardian broke an embargo to publicly criticise the IAM and its statistics in advance of publication by the rest of the media. Reaction across cycling forums and Twitter was quick to condemn the validity of the IAM's figures and to question the organisation's motives and integrity. Funny how they didn't do this on any of the previous polls they had encouraged cyclists to "participate" in, often many times. I'm trying hard to see this debacle as a case of good intentions gone horribly wrong You mean the cyclists took their eye off the ball and forgot to stuff this vote? But I'm also pretty angry with the IAM, for this reason: I am one of their 57%. I picked up the tweets, I read about the survey on my local cycling forum, and I filled it in, wanting to add my experiences thinking, as I suspect many others did, that it would add, in some way, to the calls for improvements in cycling provision. Ah, so the vote stuffing took place - but the result wasn't quite as expected? Since when have you been a Mori pollster? When you have had his experience of conducting polls then perhaps you can be qualified enough to dissect his criticism of the flawed survey outcome. Until then ... -- Simon Mason |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Why the IAM red light survey annoyed me more as a cyclist than as a pollster
On Sat, 19 May 2012 23:36:23 -0700 (PDT), Simon Mason
wrote: Since when have you been a Mori pollster? The IAM polls are so completely inept that one does not need to work for a polling company to know that. That is not the issue. When you have had his experience of conducting polls then perhaps you can be qualified enough to dissect his criticism of the flawed survey The surveys have been equally flawed for years, and push bike riders have been taking advantage of that to vote early and vote often to produce results that suited them. On these occasions not a whisper was heard about the flawed methods. Now one poll doesn't produce the result the push bike riders want and they erupt in crocodile tears. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Why the IAM red light survey annoyed me more as a cyclist thanas a pollster
On 20/05/2012 07:36, Simon Mason wrote:
On May 19, 11:13 pm, Peter wrote: On Sat, 19 May 2012 19:33:36 +0100, "Simon Mason" wrote: Unusually, BikeBiz.com, an industry newsletter, and the Guardian broke an embargo to publicly criticise the IAM and its statistics in advance of publication by the rest of the media. Reaction across cycling forums and Twitter was quick to condemn the validity of the IAM's figures and to question the organisation's motives and integrity. Funny how they didn't do this on any of the previous polls they had encouraged cyclists to "participate" in, often many times. I'm trying hard to see this debacle as a case of good intentions gone horribly wrong You mean the cyclists took their eye off the ball and forgot to stuff this vote? But I'm also pretty angry with the IAM, for this reason: I am one of their 57%. I picked up the tweets, I read about the survey on my local cycling forum, and I filled it in, wanting to add my experiences thinking, as I suspect many others did, that it would add, in some way, to the calls for improvements in cycling provision. Ah, so the vote stuffing took place - but the result wasn't quite as expected? Since when have you been a Mori pollster? Was he appointed at about the same time that you got your medical, legal and science degrees? When you have had his experience of conducting polls then perhaps you can be qualified enough to dissect his criticism of the flawed survey outcome. Until then ... .... do as you're told by Simon? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Why the IAM red light survey annoyed me more as a cyclist than as a pollster
"Peter Parry" wrote in message ... On Sat, 19 May 2012 23:36:23 -0700 (PDT), Simon Mason wrote: Since when have you been a Mori pollster? The IAM polls are so completely inept that one does not need to work for a polling company to know that. That is not the issue. When you have had his experience of conducting polls then perhaps you can be qualified enough to dissect his criticism of the flawed survey The surveys have been equally flawed for years, and push bike riders have been taking advantage of that to vote early and vote often to produce results that suited them. On these occasions not a whisper was heard about the flawed methods. Now one poll doesn't produce the result the push bike riders want and they erupt in crocodile tears Ah so, when it does not go "your way" it is because the cyclists have been caught napping but oddly enough when a poll results go against you, it is due to an unfair army of cyclists mobilising and skewing the polls their way. -- Simon Mason |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Why the IAM red light survey annoyed me more as a cyclist than asa pollster
On May 20, 8:58*pm, "Simon Mason"
wrote: "Peter Parry" wrote in message ... On Sat, 19 May 2012 23:36:23 -0700 (PDT), Simon Mason wrote: Since when have you been a Mori pollster? The IAM polls are so completely inept that one does not need to work for a polling company to know that. *That is not the issue. When you have had his experience of conducting polls then perhaps you can be qualified enough to dissect his criticism of the flawed survey The surveys have been equally flawed for years, and push bike riders have been taking advantage of that to vote early and vote often to produce results that suited them. *On these occasions not a whisper was heard about the flawed methods. *Now one poll doesn't produce the result the push bike riders want and they erupt in crocodile tears Ah so, when it does not go "your way" it is because the cyclists have been caught napping but oddly enough when a poll results go against you, it is due to an unfair army of cyclists mobilising and skewing the polls their way. -- Simon Mason Welcome to portrait politics where the camera never lies,the framing defines the picture. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Why the IAM red light survey annoyed me more as a cyclist than as a pollster
On Sun, 20 May 2012 20:58:26 +0100, "Simon Mason"
wrote: Ah so, when it does not go "your way" it is because the cyclists have been caught napping but oddly enough when a poll results go against you, it is due to an unfair army of cyclists mobilising and skewing the polls their way. Do try to keep up, the IAM polls have been deeply flawed for years. It is cyclist groups who for that time have encouraged multile voting and then "announced" results they liked with no hint of criticism of the polling methods. Now they get a result they don't like and are running about criticising the very polls they lauded when they liked the results. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cyclist survey | Mrcheerful[_2_] | UK | 9 | May 14th 11 07:09 PM |
Lorry driver - cyclist survey | Tom Crispin[_2_] | UK | 0 | January 17th 10 11:42 AM |
Perth Bicycle Network Plan Review - Cyclist Survey | Andrew Priest | Australia | 0 | June 27th 07 02:13 PM |
Melb: Cyclist Facility Survey | cfsmtb | Australia | 13 | January 4th 07 12:33 PM |
Getting annoyed | swarbrim | Unicycling | 22 | November 30th 05 05:19 AM |