Interesting stats [possible Smith content]

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by Just Zis Guy, Mar 2, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    No mention of cycling, and possible Smith involvement, but interesting (to me as a cyclist) figures
    from the mass available on the DfT website.

    Check <http://www.transtat.dft.gov.uk/tables/tsgb02/4/download/41602.xls>

    It shows fatality rates for all road types. The roads where there has been most speed enforcement
    and speed limit reductions, those in built-up areas, have experienced a fairly dramatic drop in KSI
    since 1991. Raw data suggests a drop of over 30%, but this may be distorted by changes in data
    collection (see below).

    A roads outside built-up areas, also subject to speed enforcement increases but less active traffic
    management, have seen modest but still significant reductions.

    The roads with least speed enforcement, motorways, have seen a slight increase, but frankly given
    the standard of driving on motorways these days I'm hardly surprised, and they remain the safest
    roads (because, of course, speed differentials are low, sight lines long, and there are few
    distractions and no vulnerable road users other than motorbikes).

    The overall drop in KSI per 100 million passenger km since 1991 (on all roads) is over 15% (it looks
    like 27% but the method of collecting stats has changed to improve accuracy), making ours the second
    safest roads in Europe after Sweden; the only group significantly bucking the trend is child
    pedestrians. The DfT has a policy paper out discussing how that will be addressed
    <http://www.roads.dft.gov.uk/roadsafety/strategy/tomorrow/index.htm>.

    Guy
    ===
    ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
    dynamic DNS permitting)
    NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
    work. Apologies.
     
    Tags:


  2. Frank

    Frank Guest

    "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > No mention of cycling, and possible Smith involvement, but interesting (to me as a cyclist)
    > figures from the mass available on the DfT website.
    >
    Smith has been in a maths group asking questions about integration of x^4 and the one I particularly
    liked was his idea of approximating the Normal distrbution with Sin().

    > The overall drop in KSI per 100 million passenger km since 1991 (on all roads) is over 15% (it
    > looks like 27% but the method of collecting stats has changed to improve accuracy), making ours
    > the second safest roads in Europe after Sweden; the only group significantly bucking the trend is
    > child pedestrians. The DfT has a policy paper out discussing how that will be addressed
    > <http://www.roads.dft.gov.uk/roadsafety/strategy/tomorrow/index.htm>.
    >

    Obviously the reason we have such high child casualties is because they are allowed out on their own
    before they are adults, clearly if they were locked indoors the streets would be much safer. After
    all the police don't have the time to monitor drivers as they are far to busy catching pop stars
    downloading kiddie porn.

    Who would your kids be safer with as a neighbour Paul Smith or Gary Glitter?
     
  3. Paul Smith

    Paul Smith Guest

    On Sun, 02 Mar 2003 20:46:07 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >No mention of cycling, and possible Smith involvement, but interesting (to me as a cyclist) figures
    >from the mass available on the DfT website.
    >
    >Check <http://www.transtat.dft.gov.uk/tables/tsgb02/4/download/41602.xls>

    >It shows fatality rates for all road types. The roads where there has been most speed enforcement
    >and speed limit reductions, those in built-up areas, have experienced a fairly dramatic drop in KSI
    >since 1991. Raw data suggests a drop of over 30%, but this may be distorted by changes in data
    >collection (see below).
    >
    >A roads outside built-up areas, also subject to speed enforcement increases but less active traffic
    >management, have seen modest but still significant reductions.
    >
    >The roads with least speed enforcement, motorways, have seen a slight increase, but frankly given
    >the standard of driving on motorways these days I'm hardly surprised, and they remain the safest
    >roads (because, of course, speed differentials are low, sight lines long, and there are few
    >distractions and no vulnerable road users other than motorbikes).
    >
    >The overall drop in KSI per 100 million passenger km since 1991 (on all roads) is over 15% (it
    >looks like 27% but the method of collecting stats has changed to improve accuracy), making ours the
    >second safest roads in Europe after Sweden; the only group significantly bucking the trend is child
    >pedestrians. The DfT has a policy paper out discussing how that will be addressed
    ><http://www.roads.dft.gov.uk/roadsafety/strategy/tomorrow/index.htm>.

    If you examine the figures from 1994 or 1995 to date you get a seriously different picture. We had
    some of the best gains ever in the early 90s before the cameras came in. You're falsely spreading
    those across the whole decade.
    --
    Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
    cameras cost lives
     
  4. James Annan

    James Annan Guest

    "Frank" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

    > Smith has been in a maths group asking questions about integration of x^4 and the one I
    > particularly liked was his idea of approximating the Normal distrbution with Sin().

    Thanks for the tip, it certainly gave me some amusement!

    Others who wish to debate with Mr Smith might benefit from checking out google, at least you'll know
    what sort of intellectual giant you are dealing with.

    James
     
  5. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    On Mon, 03 Mar 2003 00:06:41 +0000, Paul Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

    >If you examine the figures from 1994 or 1995 to date you get a seriously different picture.

    Ah, always so important to pick years which give the best chance of proving your assertion, silly of
    me to forget.

    Comparing KSI improvements for 91-95 with 96-01:

    Urban A roads: 16%/16% Urban roads: 14%/17% Extra-urban A roads: 10%/11% Other extra-urban roads
    (exc. motorways): 8%/16%

    Motorways: 3%/-12% (i.e. 12% increase in KSI on motorways).

    Looking at this it would appear that the roads with the best record are those where there has been
    /most/ speed enforcement, and the roads with the worst record (albeit on a low base) are thoise
    where there has been /least/.

    Which is consistent with the obvious fact that it is easier to avert a crash if one is driving
    slower, and the substantial body of evidence that the consequences of a crash reduce significantly
    with reducing speed.

    The increase in crashes on motorways looks to be consistent with the increase in congestion implied
    by the 23% increase in traffic since 1996
    (<http://www.transtat.dft.gov.uk/tables/tsgb02/4/download/41002.xls>). Clearly urgent consideration
    should be given to extending variable speed limits and other flow regulation strategies.
     
  6. Paul Smith

    Paul Smith Guest

    On Mon, 03 Mar 2003 15:23:04 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >>If you examine the figures from 1994 or 1995 to date you get a seriously different picture.

    >Ah, always so important to pick years which give the best chance of proving your assertion, silly
    >of me to forget.

    >Comparing KSI improvements for 91-95 with 96-01:

    >Urban A roads: 16%/16% Urban roads: 14%/17% Extra-urban A roads: 10%/11% Other extra-urban roads
    >(exc. motorways): 8%/16%

    >Motorways: 3%/-12% (i.e. 12% increase in KSI on motorways).

    >Looking at this it would appear that the roads with the best record are those where there has been
    >/most/ speed enforcement, and the roads with the worst record (albeit on a low base) are thoise
    >where there has been /least/.

    >Which is consistent with the obvious fact that it is easier to avert a crash if one is driving
    >slower, and the substantial body of evidence that the consequences of a crash reduce significantly
    >with reducing speed.

    >The increase in crashes on motorways looks to be consistent with the increase in congestion implied
    >by the 23% increase in traffic since 1996

    KSI is the worst and most misleading stat to quote. That's why the government use it, seemingly.

    And "moving the casualties around" is evidence of a useless road safety policy.

    Comparing improvements 91-95 with improvements 96-01

    All roads: killed: 21%/3% All road serious (NOT KSI): 12%/15%

    But 1991 was an anomalous change in the serious accident figures. You can see it in graph 1.6 at the
    url below.

    But there's an underlying loss of trend in the serious accidents too. It's lagging the loss of trend
    in fatals, but it's there.

    You can see it here:

    http://www.safespeed.org.uk/stats/graphs.html

    Graphs 3.4 and 3.5.

    With Graph 3.4, if you can bring yourself to ignore the big peaks in 1991 and 1994 I think the
    upwards trend is clearly visible.
    --
    Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
    cameras cost lives
     
  7. In article <[email protected]>,
    [email protected] says... [...]

    > With Graph 3.4, if you can bring yourself to ignore the big peaks in 1991 and 1994 I think the
    > upwards trend is clearly visible.

    Although it undoubtedly helps that you have mistakenly drawn an erroneous black trend line on it.

    Colin
     
  8. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    On Mon, 03 Mar 2003 16:28:50 +0000, Paul Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

    >"moving the casualties around" is evidence of a useless road safety policy.

    It's not "moving the casualties around" it's reducing casualties in all but a small subset of roads,
    and those roads have seen a massive change in usage - up around 25% - which could well account for
    the problem. As anyone who's driven round the M42, M6, M1, A1(M) or M90 recently will readily agree.

    >Comparing improvements 91-95 with improvements 96-01 All roads: killed: 21%/3% All road serious
    >(NOT KSI): 12%/15%

    But "all roads" is an invalid measure if you want to prove your point, since not all roads have had
    the same level of increased speed management, and the bulk of the change is accounted for by a
    significant increase in the rates on motorways.

    >http://www.safespeed.org.uk/stats/graphs.html

    >With Graph 3.4, if you can bring yourself to ignore the big peaks in 1991 and 1994 I think the
    >upwards trend is clearly visible.

    What I can see is fatal accidents still dropping, serious injury accidents still dropping, and no
    account made of the notes on the TSGB site that you cannot compare figures from 99 on with earlier
    figures due to a change in data collection methods.

    You still have not addressed the substantive point: there is a significant increase in rates on
    the roads with the lowest levels of camera enforcement, the motorway network. The largest single
    change in the motorway network over the period in question is undoubtedly the massive increase in
    traffic volumes.

    Just one more factor you have neglected to weigh up against your religious conviction that speed
    cameras are the root cause of all evil.

    Strange - in a relatively short period I've now come up with two significant and, apparently, widely
    published factors against which you've neglected to test your hypothesis. I wonder how many more
    there are? I must get some figures for hours of Clarkson on TV year-on-year.
     
  9. Paul Smith

    Paul Smith Guest

    On Mon, 03 Mar 2003 17:41:48 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >>"moving the casualties around" is evidence of a useless road safety policy.

    >It's not "moving the casualties around" it's reducing casualties in all but a small subset of
    >roads, and those roads have seen a massive change in usage - up around 25% - which could well
    >account for the problem. As anyone who's driven round the M42, M6, M1, A1(M) or M90 recently will
    >readily agree.

    So we look at overall figures to see overall trends. If we can find areas that are improving faster
    or slower, then so much the better.

    >>Comparing improvements 91-95 with improvements 96-01 All roads: killed: 21%/3% All road serious
    >>(NOT KSI): 12%/15%

    >But "all roads" is an invalid measure if you want to prove your point, since not all roads have had
    >the same level of increased speed management, and the bulk of the change is accounted for by a
    >significant increase in the rates on motorways.

    The tiger says all roads are similarly affected.

    >>http://www.safespeed.org.uk/stats/graphs.html
    >
    >>With Graph 3.4, if you can bring yourself to ignore the big peaks in 1991 and 1994 I think the
    >>upwards trend is clearly visible.

    >What I can see is fatal accidents still dropping, serious injury accidents still dropping, and no
    >account made of the notes on the TSGB site that you cannot compare figures from 99 on with earlier
    >figures due to a change in data collection methods.

    But the rates of fall are ever smaller. How long do we have to wait to see a rise? WE've already had
    some in 2002 fatals and 2002 fatals rate (not yet published).

    The change in figures from 1999 has an overall effect of about 0.2% (from memory). I didn't finish
    the work because I was ill in January an haven't returned to it for one reason or another. I do have
    notes about the change in figures. (which only affects billion vehicle km btw)

    >You still have not addressed the substantive point: there is a significant increase in rates on
    >the roads with the lowest levels of camera enforcement, the motorway network. The largest single
    >change in the motorway network over the period in question is undoubtedly the massive increase in
    >traffic volumes.

    That's right. Motorway traffic volumes have grown faster. Since they are included in the rates
    figures, but only make a small contribution, the "real" trend is worse.

    >Just one more factor you have neglected to weigh up against your religious conviction that speed
    >cameras are the root cause of all evil.

    Nope. Nothing here I've not carefully considered.

    >Strange - in a relatively short period I've now come up with two significant and, apparently,
    >widely published factors against which you've neglected to test your hypothesis. I wonder how many
    >more there are? I must get some figures for hours of Clarkson on TV year-on-year.

    You haven't. How the hell would you know what I've considered?
    --
    Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
    cameras cost lives
     
  10. Simon Proven

    Simon Proven Guest

    Paul Smith wrote:

    > So we look at overall figures to see overall trends.

    Another pearl of wisdom. I hope you aren't in charge of drug trials.
     
  11. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    On Mon, 03 Mar 2003 17:55:10 +0000, Paul Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

    >So we look at overall figures to see overall trends. If we can find areas that are improving faster
    >or slower, then so much the better.

    Yes, and the road swith improving trends appear to be the ones with the greatest incidence of
    enforcement and speed management. The ones which are getting worse (actually worse, not a declkining
    trend in reductions) are the ones where speed cameras are least widely used, but where traffic has
    grown by a quarter in five years. Some significance there, I think.

    >The tiger says all roads are similarly affected.

    The tiger disagrees with RSGB, and I know which I'd rather believe.

    >>What I can see is fatal accidents still dropping, serious injury accidents still dropping, and no
    >>account made of the notes on the TSGB site that you cannot compare figures from 99 on with earlier
    >>figures due to a change in data collection methods.

    >But the rates of fall are ever smaller.

    The rates of fall are all over the place - even if one could conclude anything from them in such a
    short timescale, the method of calculating the figures changed in 1999 so the graph is worthless.

    >How long do we have to wait to see a rise? WE've already had some in 2002 fatals and 2002 fatals
    >rate (not yet published).

    No time - just look at the motorways. Time to work on flow management (and train people to leave
    more room).

    >Motorway traffic volumes have grown faster. Since they are included in the rates figures, but only
    >make a small contribution, the "real" trend is worse.

    The "real" trend is downward on all roads, and motorway travel makes up over 20% of all car mileage
    so the effect of the substantial increase on the motorways will account for a fairly sizeable chunk
    of the overall figures.

    >>Just one more factor you have neglected to weigh up against your religious conviction that speed
    >>cameras are the root cause of all evil.

    >Nope. Nothing here I've not carefully considered.

    I wonder why there is no evidence of that consideration on the website, then? You have not even
    plotted the number of cameras year-on-year, which would surely be the bare irreducible minimum
    required to even consider proving your assertion.

    >>Strange - in a relatively short period I've now come up with two significant and, apparently,
    >>widely published factors against which you've neglected to test your hypothesis. I wonder how many
    >>more there are? I must get some figures for hours of Clarkson on TV year-on-year.

    >You haven't. How the hell would you know what I've considered?

    Never heard of scientific method? You state the hypothesis, then measure it against the
    alternatives. No evidence that any of these things have been considered looking at your website. No
    evidence of anything much, other than a fervent zeal against cameras. Anyone would think you'd been
    clocked by one or something.

    >speed cameras cost lives

    But only when combined with drivers so dangerous that they are prepared to put speed ahead of
    safety, and never at all if people obey the law. Obviously.
     
  12. Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
    > Strange - in a relatively short period I've now come up with two significant and, apparently,
    > widely published factors against which you've neglected to test your hypothesis. I wonder how many
    > more there are? I must get some figures for hours of Clarkson on TV year-on-year.

    I was going to do the figures for the other factor you proposed. Interestingly I first read Clarkson
    in early 1988 and first used a mobile in (late) 1996 so that's almost a 9 year gap between factors.
     
  13. John B

    John B Guest

    "Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:

    > On Mon, 03 Mar 2003 17:55:10 +0000, Paul Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > >You haven't. How the hell would you know what I've considered?
    >
    > Never heard of scientific method? You state the hypothesis, then measure it against the
    > alternatives. No evidence that any of these things have been considered looking at your website.
    > No evidence of anything much, other than a fervent zeal against cameras. Anyone would think you'd
    > been clocked by one or something.

    Well he's been done for speeding - and putting together his obsession with proving that speed is
    irrelevant to road safety, and that he is _always_ right, has led me to the conclusion that he is
    simply trying to prove to himself and everyone else that he was unfairly caught.

    IMO, from the nature of his postings, he is obsessed to the extent that he is suffering from a
    mental illness.

    Let him be. I don't think he's far from the brink.

    John B
     
  14. Lardy Ninja

    Lardy Ninja Guest

    John B <[email protected]> wrote
    >
    > Let him be. I don't think he's far from the brink.
    >

    Really? Now where did I put my Airzounds? One good parp should do it :)

    LN
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...