More bikes fewer cars.



"JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:D[email protected]...
> Nick Finnigan wrote:
>
>> JNugent wrote:
>>> Nick Finnigan wrote:
>>>> JNugent wrote:
>
>>>>> So it's possible that no-one travels 8.7 miles to work (in the same
>>>>> way that the average - that is, the mean - number of legs per person
>>>>> in the UK is less than two)?
>
>>>> No.
>
>>> Sorry.. "no" to what?
>
>> "No" is the answer to your question, quoted above.
>
> I think we must be at cross purposes.
>
> Taken at face value and applied to the question, your "no" could be taken
> as a denial of the fact that a mean commuting distance of (say) 8.7 miles
> might mean that no-one actually has a commuting distance of 8.7 miles. I
> don't think that can be what you mean.

You forgot the bit in brackets - it's not in the same way as your example
there. Hence 'no'.

Meanwhile, is it important if 8.7 angels can fit on a pin? Are you
developing a useful argument, or just messing with definitions?
 
Clive George wrote:

> "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Nick Finnigan wrote:
>>> JNugent wrote:
>>>> Nick Finnigan wrote:
>>>>> JNugent wrote:

>>>>>> So it's possible that no-one travels 8.7 miles to work (in the
>>>>>> same way that the average - that is, the mean - number of legs per
>>>>>> person in the UK is less than two)?

>>>>> No.

>>>> Sorry.. "no" to what?

>>> "No" is the answer to your question, quoted above.

>> I think we must be at cross purposes.
>> Taken at face value and applied to the question, your "no" could be
>> taken as a denial of the fact that a mean commuting distance of (say)
>> 8.7 miles might mean that no-one actually has a commuting distance of
>> 8.7 miles. I don't think that can be what you mean.

> You forgot the bit in brackets - it's not in the same way as your
> example there. Hence 'no'.

The "average number of legs being less than two" quote is a well-known
example of how the mean can be misleading - even when perfectly calculated.

> Meanwhile, is it important if 8.7 angels can fit on a pin? Are you
> developing a useful argument, or just messing with definitions?

I was wondering whether the argument that some average commute is 8.7
miles tells us anything useful.
 
On Fri, 16 May 2008 06:36:48 -0700 (PDT), TimB <[email protected]>
wrote:


>> Still doesn't get me to work 28 miles away in a decent amount of time..
>>
>> --
>> Conor
>>
>> I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
>> looking good either. - Scott Adams
>
>That's because you either live or work in the wrong place.

That's not always the answer. I do short term contract work in
different places. My last contract was about 35 miles east of my home.
My current contract is for 5 weeks, and is about 15 miles SW. Should I
move house for each contract? (Replies saying "Yes" and signed "Gordon
Brown" or "Alistair Darling" will be ignored :) ).

pete
 
JNugent wrote:
> Nick Finnigan wrote:
>
>> JNugent wrote:
>>
>>> Nick Finnigan wrote:
>>>
>>>> JNugent wrote:
>
>
>>>>> So it's possible that no-one travels 8.7 miles to work (in the same
>>>>> way that the average - that is, the mean - number of legs per
>>>>> person in the UK is less than two)?
>
>
>>>> No.
>
>
>>> Sorry.. "no" to what?
>
>
>> "No" is the answer to your question, quoted above.
>
>
> I think we must be at cross purposes.
>
> Taken at face value and applied to the question, your "no" could be
> taken as a denial of the fact that a mean commuting distance of (say)
> 8.7 miles might mean that no-one actually has a commuting distance of
> 8.7 miles. I don't think that can be what you mean.

No, I did not deny any fact.
 
"JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Clive George wrote:
>
>> "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Nick Finnigan wrote:
>>>> JNugent wrote:
>>>>> Nick Finnigan wrote:
>>>>>> JNugent wrote:
>
>>>>>>> So it's possible that no-one travels 8.7 miles to work (in the same
>>>>>>> way that the average - that is, the mean - number of legs per person
>>>>>>> in the UK is less than two)?
>
>>>>>> No.
>
>>>>> Sorry.. "no" to what?
>
>>>> "No" is the answer to your question, quoted above.
>
>>> I think we must be at cross purposes.
>>> Taken at face value and applied to the question, your "no" could be
>>> taken as a denial of the fact that a mean commuting distance of (say)
>>> 8.7 miles might mean that no-one actually has a commuting distance of
>>> 8.7 miles. I don't think that can be what you mean.
>
>> You forgot the bit in brackets - it's not in the same way as your example
>> there. Hence 'no'.
>
> The "average number of legs being less than two" quote is a well-known
> example of how the mean can be misleading - even when perfectly
> calculated.
>

What you need to know is what distribution does the data best fit.
 
Adam Lea wrote:
> "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Clive George wrote:
>>
>>> "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Nick Finnigan wrote:
>>>>> JNugent wrote:
>>>>>> Nick Finnigan wrote:
>>>>>>> JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>>> So it's possible that no-one travels 8.7 miles to work (in the same
>>>>>>>> way that the average - that is, the mean - number of legs per person
>>>>>>>> in the UK is less than two)?
>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>> Sorry.. "no" to what?
>>>>> "No" is the answer to your question, quoted above.
>>>> I think we must be at cross purposes.
>>>> Taken at face value and applied to the question, your "no" could be
>>>> taken as a denial of the fact that a mean commuting distance of (say)
>>>> 8.7 miles might mean that no-one actually has a commuting distance of
>>>> 8.7 miles. I don't think that can be what you mean.
>>> You forgot the bit in brackets - it's not in the same way as your example
>>> there. Hence 'no'.
>> The "average number of legs being less than two" quote is a well-known
>> example of how the mean can be misleading - even when perfectly
>> calculated.
>>
>
> What you need to know is what distribution does the data best fit.

Ideally, of course.

Not that there is any choice here - the statement was that the mean was
used.
 
Nick Finnigan wrote:
> JNugent wrote:
>> Nick Finnigan wrote:
>>
>>> JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nick Finnigan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> JNugent wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>> So it's possible that no-one travels 8.7 miles to work (in the
>>>>>> same way that the average - that is, the mean - number of legs per
>>>>>> person in the UK is less than two)?
>>
>>
>>>>> No.
>>
>>
>>>> Sorry.. "no" to what?
>>
>>
>>> "No" is the answer to your question, quoted above.
>>
>>
>> I think we must be at cross purposes.
>>
>> Taken at face value and applied to the question, your "no" could be
>> taken as a denial of the fact that a mean commuting distance of (say)
>> 8.7 miles might mean that no-one actually has a commuting distance of
>> 8.7 miles. I don't think that can be what you mean.
>
> No, I did not deny any fact.

So what were you saying "no" to?
 
JNugent <[email protected]> writes:

> The "average number of legs being less than two" quote is a well-known
> example of how the mean can be misleading - even when perfectly
> calculated.

Misleading to morons, perhaps. Anyone with GCSE maths should have no
trouble with it.


-dan
 
JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

> Clive George wrote:
>
> > "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Nick Finnigan wrote:
> >>> JNugent wrote:
> >>>> Nick Finnigan wrote:
> >>>>> JNugent wrote:
>
> >>>>>> So it's possible that no-one travels 8.7 miles to work (in the
> >>>>>> same way that the average - that is, the mean - number of legs per
> >>>>>> person in the UK is less than two)?
>
> >>>>> No.
>
> >>>> Sorry.. "no" to what?
>
> >>> "No" is the answer to your question, quoted above.
>
> >> I think we must be at cross purposes.
> >> Taken at face value and applied to the question, your "no" could be
> >> taken as a denial of the fact that a mean commuting distance of (say)
> >> 8.7 miles might mean that no-one actually has a commuting distance of
> >> 8.7 miles. I don't think that can be what you mean.
>
> > You forgot the bit in brackets - it's not in the same way as your
> > example there. Hence 'no'.
>
> The "average number of legs being less than two" quote is a well-known
> example of how the mean can be misleading - even when perfectly calculated.
>
> > Meanwhile, is it important if 8.7 angels can fit on a pin? Are you
> > developing a useful argument, or just messing with definitions?
>
> I was wondering whether the argument that some average commute is 8.7
> miles tells us anything useful.

not that much unless one could look at the number per mile, ie how many
under a mile, and so on, up. some people do have long journeys.

but with out looking at how spread out or not they are the mean of 8.7
miles doesn't tell one much.

when i was in wales my commute was about 8 miles and about 10mins, i was
by far the longest distance traveller a few walked one biked, a most
drove the 2 to 6 miles, these days my distance varies though tends to be
less, but since this is london, i can spend longer waiting at lights
than my orginal coummute.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com
 
Daniel Barlow wrote:
> JNugent <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> The "average number of legs being less than two" quote is a well-known
>> example of how the mean can be misleading - even when perfectly
>> calculated.
>
> Misleading to morons, perhaps. Anyone with GCSE maths should have no
> trouble with it.

So why is the example (and the question to which it relates) misleading you?
 
Roger Merriman wrote:
> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Clive George wrote:
>>
>>> "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Nick Finnigan wrote:
>>>>> JNugent wrote:
>>>>>> Nick Finnigan wrote:
>>>>>>> JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>>> So it's possible that no-one travels 8.7 miles to work (in the
>>>>>>>> same way that the average - that is, the mean - number of legs per
>>>>>>>> person in the UK is less than two)?
>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>> Sorry.. "no" to what?
>>>>> "No" is the answer to your question, quoted above.
>>>> I think we must be at cross purposes.
>>>> Taken at face value and applied to the question, your "no" could be
>>>> taken as a denial of the fact that a mean commuting distance of (say)
>>>> 8.7 miles might mean that no-one actually has a commuting distance of
>>>> 8.7 miles. I don't think that can be what you mean.
>>> You forgot the bit in brackets - it's not in the same way as your
>>> example there. Hence 'no'.
>> The "average number of legs being less than two" quote is a well-known
>> example of how the mean can be misleading - even when perfectly calculated.
>>
>>> Meanwhile, is it important if 8.7 angels can fit on a pin? Are you
>>> developing a useful argument, or just messing with definitions?

>> I was wondering whether the argument that some average commute is 8.7
>> miles tells us anything useful.

> not that much unless one could look at the number per mile, ie how many
> under a mile, and so on, up. some people do have long journeys.

Exactly.

Calculating the average (the mean average) in this sort of matter is of
very little direct use. I suppose it's helpful for calculating fuel
consumption, etc, though why anyone would be interested in doing that
for a fleet of privately-owned vehicles isn't obvious.

> but with out looking at how spread out or not they are the mean of 8.7
> miles doesn't tell one much.

Exactly.

> when i was in wales my commute was about 8 miles and about 10mins, i was
> by far the longest distance traveller a few walked one biked, a most
> drove the 2 to 6 miles, these days my distance varies though tends to be
> less, but since this is london, i can spend longer waiting at lights
> than my orginal coummute.

Sympathies.
 
JNugent wrote:
> I suppose it's helpful for calculating fuel
> consumption, etc, though why anyone would be interested in doing that
> for a fleet of privately-owned vehicles isn't obvious.

Changing fuel consumption is a guide to changing efficiency in the engine's
operation, i.e. if fuel consumption rises without a change in driving style
then there's a good chnace that the engine isn't working correctly.
 
Brimstone wrote:

> JNugent wrote:

>> I suppose it's helpful for calculating fuel
>> consumption, etc, though why anyone would be interested in doing that
>> for a fleet of privately-owned vehicles isn't obvious.

> Changing fuel consumption is a guide to changing efficiency in the engine's
> operation, i.e. if fuel consumption rises without a change in driving style
> then there's a good chnace that the engine isn't working correctly.

That's true.

I think it unlikely that a group of car-owners would organise a "get
more mileage to the gallon" club on a workplace basis - but perhaps it
would be a good idea.
 
JNugent wrote:
> Brimstone wrote:
>
>> JNugent wrote:
>
>>> I suppose it's helpful for calculating fuel
>>> consumption, etc, though why anyone would be interested in doing
>>> that for a fleet of privately-owned vehicles isn't obvious.
>
>> Changing fuel consumption is a guide to changing efficiency in the
>> engine's operation, i.e. if fuel consumption rises without a change
>> in driving style then there's a good chnace that the engine isn't
>> working correctly.
>
> That's true.
>
> I think it unlikely that a group of car-owners would organise a "get
> more mileage to the gallon" club on a workplace basis - but perhaps it
> would be a good idea.

Agreed, on both points. A little bit of friendly rivalry does much to raise
standards.
 
JNugent <[email protected]> writes:

> Daniel Barlow wrote:
>> JNugent <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> The "average number of legs being less than two" quote is a well-known
>>> example of how the mean can be misleading - even when perfectly
>>> calculated.
>>
>> Misleading to morons, perhaps. Anyone with GCSE maths should have no
>> trouble with it.
>
> So why is the example (and the question to which it relates) misleading you?

As the post you quote is to my memory (and google groups seems to
agree) the first I've made on this thread, I am curious as to the
basis on which you think I have been misled.


-dan
 
In article <[email protected]>, Brimstone says...

> > I think it unlikely that a group of car-owners would organise a "get
> > more mileage to the gallon" club on a workplace basis - but perhaps it
> > would be a good idea.
>
> Agreed, on both points. A little bit of friendly rivalry does much to raise
> standards.
>
At the haulage firm my mate works at, they put up a list of who has got
what fuel economy in a month and they also pay a "fuel bonus" which is
also put on this list. My mate got £166 last month.

I've seen similar things at some TNT places in past years as well.


--
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
looking good either. - Scott Adams
 
Conor wrote:

> Brimstone says...

>>> I think it unlikely that a group of car-owners would organise a "get
>>> more mileage to the gallon" club on a workplace basis - but perhaps it
>>> would be a good idea.

>> Agreed, on both points. A little bit of friendly rivalry does much to raise
>> standards.

> At the haulage firm my mate works at, they put up a list of who has got
> what fuel economy in a month and they also pay a "fuel bonus" which is
> also put on this list. My mate got £166 last month.

> I've seen similar things at some TNT places in past years as well.

I think we were thinking of private car (commuting) mpg, but what you
describe sounds like an absolutely wonderful idea.
 
In article <[email protected]>, JNugent says...

> I think we were thinking of private car (commuting) mpg, but what you
> describe sounds like an absolutely wonderful idea.
>
Could work. Get everyone to shove a quid in a pot and he who has the
best, wins the pot.


--
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
looking good either. - Scott Adams
 
Conor <[email protected]> gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

>> I think we were thinking of private car (commuting) mpg, but what you
>> describe sounds like an absolutely wonderful idea.

> Could work. Get everyone to shove a quid in a pot and he who has the
> best, wins the pot.

Not really. Even where vehicles are identical, economy is very route
dependent.
 
Adrian wrote:
> Conor <[email protected]> gurgled happily, sounding much like
> they were saying:
>
>>> I think we were thinking of private car (commuting) mpg, but what
>>> you describe sounds like an absolutely wonderful idea.
>
>> Could work. Get everyone to shove a quid in a pot and he who has the
>> best, wins the pot.
>
> Not really. Even where vehicles are identical, economy is very route
> dependent.

I expect a handicapping system could be worked out (just don't ask me to do
it).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
More Bikes Than Cars Sold in Australia in 2007
Replies
6
Views
408
UK and Europe
Martin Dann
M
J
More Strange Bikes
Replies
5
Views
284
UK and Europe
Marowyn
M
J
3 More Very Strange Bikes
Replies
8
Views
308
UK and Europe
[email protected]
M
C
More on tax-free bikes
Replies
11
Views
732
UK and Europe
iakobski
I
M
Two more bikes
Replies
0
Views
387
UK and Europe
MSeries
M
Top Bottom Back