#211
|
|||
|
|||
FAO Simon Mason
|
Ads |
#212
|
|||
|
|||
FAO Simon Mason
On Wed, 20 May 2009 19:41:46 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote: On Wed, 20 May 2009 10:11:57 +0100, "Dave Larrington" wrote: AFAIK, however, the claim that this incident was responsible for the introduction of the 70 mph limit is an urban legend. Probably is, as I heard the same UL about Astons being tested on the M1 around Northampton. Guy You're "joining in " a lot "Lou" - trying to ingratiate yourself. Tell us how the microsoft nym-shift kill file avoider works. -- Passenger casualty rates by mode Per billion passenger kilometers: Killed or seriously injured: Pedal Cyclists : 533 Pedestrians : 384 All casualties: Pedal Cyclists : 3739 Pedestrians : 1795 Which do you think is the most dangerous? |
#213
|
|||
|
|||
FAO Simon Mason
spindrift wrote:
http://www.neath-porttalbot.gov.uk/d...482&pr_id=3229 The 20 mph zones introduced in Sandfields by Neath Port Talbot Council continue to make the streets safer. How do they know that the zones make a difference? Recent figures published show the number of personal injury accidents continues to drop since the zone and street calming measures were brought in more than six years ago. So are they saying that the same zones are becoming more effective every year (in which case how come?) or admitting that actually other factors are coming into play, or even using the police STATS19 injury data which no longer correlates with hospital data (i.e. the number of accidents are not actually dropping). Before the zone was introduced, there were up to 30 personal injury accidents each year in Sandfields. "up to 30"? The same trick that the big furniture stores use when announcing sales reductions - "up to 50% off"! Last year, that number was down to just 13. What was it the year before that? 30? 20? 10? End quote. The reductions in accidents were measured entirely within the zone. Were they compared to the reductions outside the zones? Were the reductions outside the zones better or worse? Perhaps the zone resulted in worse improvements than would have happened without them. You didn't bother to read the links, did you? The links don't give the information necessary to draw the conclusions that have been presented. -- Matt B |
#214
|
|||
|
|||
FAO Simon Mason
In article ,
Nick wrote: I won't hazard a guess as to what science you have in mind but in every day life we are in the business of making decisions based upon limited information. That is PRECISELY the domain of statistics, don't you know? Furthermore, there is a major difference between making a crude guess in a hurry (which is often justifiable) and arranging that a particular conclusion is drawn. And it is the LATTER I am accusing them of. That is an ivory tower idealisation, factors always differ, scientists make value judgements as to what is acceptable. Drug trials (even with their multi million dollar budgets) generally have a lot of different factors but scientist still draw conclusions about drug efficacy. As I said, I am a rusty statistician, and I have been closely linked to medical reserahc all my life. I can assure you that I know how such things are analysed, and it is supposed to be as I say. When they do it the way you do, and are found out, there is an outcry (very reasonably) and often people lose their jobs. Lastly, the way that that conclusion was drawn was precisely the converse of what all statisticians are taught is acceptable analysis. It is vanishingly unlikely to be a mistake, given its extreme nature. I don't understand what you mean by this comment. Clearly not. Anyway AIUI the report was by a traffic engineer not a statistician. Then you don't understand much about how such data are collected and presented. Hull will have had a statistician involved in the whole process. Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
#215
|
|||
|
|||
FAO Simon Mason
|
#216
|
|||
|
|||
FAO Simon Mason
Nick wrote:
wrote: [ ... ] ... you don't understand much about how such data are collected and presented. Hull will have had a statistician involved in the whole process. And it was presented by a Traffic engineer are you claiming that executive report writers always gain approval from statisticians? Before any political action* is taken, it is important that the politicians are sure that the conclusions are valid. Taking the bland reassurance of the traffic engineers (a profession currently passing through a very anti-motorist phase) that the conclusions are valid is not the way to be sure of it. [* "political action", well you know what I mean, even if those two words don't sit together easily.] |
#217
|
|||
|
|||
FAO Simon Mason
In article ,
JNugent wrote: Before any political action* is taken, it is important that the politicians are sure that the conclusions are valid. Taking the bland reassurance of the traffic engineers (a profession currently passing through a very anti-motorist phase) that the conclusions are valid is not the way to be sure of it. That is correct, except for one aspect. The failure to do that is why we now have this dogma that cycle helmets save lives, that the best way of encouraging people to cycle rather than drive is lines around the gutter and the right to use the pavement, and so on. The aspect that is wrong is that traffic engineers are currently passing through a very anti-motorist phase. They aren't, at least not like that. They are very anti-PRIVATE-motorist in cities, but that seems to be about all. Even there, they favour buses and taxis over bicycles and often over pedestrians. There is no sign that they want to encourage anything except motorised road transport outside cities or between outside and inside cities. The ridiculous thing is that this even applies to commuting into the smaller cities (like Cambridge), where the proposed solution is mainly park-and-ride (even for 3-5 mile trips!) and bus routes along certain profitable highways. That's generally true elsewhere, too. Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
#218
|
|||
|
|||
FAO Simon Mason
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Sun, 17 May 2009 17:24:34 +0100, "Simon Mason" wrote: In my experience that it not true. My wife has 9 points and now sticks to the limit all the time as she will lose her licence if she continues to be caught by cameras. The cameras have forced her to stick to the limit and so are doing their job. Those with multiple speeding convictions are more likely, mileage adjusted, to be involved in collisions. Is that assertion based upon research using recent data which takes into account the millions of technical camera "convictions" of "normal" drivers, or is it based on old data (if it is indeed based upon any data) which is more likely to mainly contain drivers who police officers actually thought were driving dangerously when they were stopped? So it does appear that cameras are indeed targeting the dangerous drivers, albeit in a rather crude way. That would depend upon those other factors. -- Matt B |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
PING: Mr Mason | wafflycat | UK | 7 | February 28th 08 08:24 AM |
PING: Simon Mason | wafflycat | UK | 1 | November 18th 05 11:41 AM |
Oscar Mason | Bob Martin | Racing | 1 | September 1st 05 05:25 AM |
it was a pleasue to meet you Mr Mason | MSeries | UK | 2 | March 13th 05 09:15 PM |
Ping Simon Mason | [email protected] | UK | 0 | January 22nd 05 07:57 AM |