M
Matt B
Guest
"David Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Matt B wrote:
>> >> >> But can only be attributed as the prime cause in 4.3%.
>> >> >
>> >> > Wrong. Was only attributed as the prime cause in a small proportion
>> >> > ,
>> >>
>> >> 4.3%, as I correctly stated.
>> >>
>> >> > was attributed as a major factor in over a third,
>> >>
>> >> Was "assumed" (by the DfT IIRC) not attributed in the report.
>> >
>> > No, attributed. The form was filled in. It was extrapolated, based on
>> > detailed investigation, that this figure should really have been much
>> > higher, probably as high as 2/3 but there were deficiencies in teh
>> > reporting system (which is what the study was set up to examine).
>>
>> So not based on data, based on guesswork then.
>
> 1/3 were attributed. Based on teh mechanism and accuracy of attribution
> (where factors that could/should have been attributed wern't) this
> scales to around 50-60%. Have you read the report?
I don't have it to hand, but IIRC 4% had speed attributed as the prime
cause, and 15% included it as the prime or a contributory cause (i.e.
something else was the actual _prime_ cause). Apparently the DfT then tried
to scrape together another 18% or so by adding in all those which were
attributed to anything that could conceivably have involved moving traffic.
With much imagination, it seems, they then arrived at the "one third"
assertion - which was what they had claimed before - how convenient.
>> > Where is your evidence that there is no link between speed and accident
>> > rate?
>>
>> There _is_ a link, as there is between sneezing and having the flu.
>
> Yup. If you have the flu, you sneeze. If you have speed, you have
> accidents.
> That is clear.
I thought you were going to say if you sneeze you have accidents ;-)
You cannot, however, cure the flu by suppressing the sneezing. Do you think
you can prevent bad driving by suppressing the speeding?
--
Matt B
news:[email protected]...
>
> Matt B wrote:
>> >> >> But can only be attributed as the prime cause in 4.3%.
>> >> >
>> >> > Wrong. Was only attributed as the prime cause in a small proportion
>> >> > ,
>> >>
>> >> 4.3%, as I correctly stated.
>> >>
>> >> > was attributed as a major factor in over a third,
>> >>
>> >> Was "assumed" (by the DfT IIRC) not attributed in the report.
>> >
>> > No, attributed. The form was filled in. It was extrapolated, based on
>> > detailed investigation, that this figure should really have been much
>> > higher, probably as high as 2/3 but there were deficiencies in teh
>> > reporting system (which is what the study was set up to examine).
>>
>> So not based on data, based on guesswork then.
>
> 1/3 were attributed. Based on teh mechanism and accuracy of attribution
> (where factors that could/should have been attributed wern't) this
> scales to around 50-60%. Have you read the report?
I don't have it to hand, but IIRC 4% had speed attributed as the prime
cause, and 15% included it as the prime or a contributory cause (i.e.
something else was the actual _prime_ cause). Apparently the DfT then tried
to scrape together another 18% or so by adding in all those which were
attributed to anything that could conceivably have involved moving traffic.
With much imagination, it seems, they then arrived at the "one third"
assertion - which was what they had claimed before - how convenient.
>> > Where is your evidence that there is no link between speed and accident
>> > rate?
>>
>> There _is_ a link, as there is between sneezing and having the flu.
>
> Yup. If you have the flu, you sneeze. If you have speed, you have
> accidents.
> That is clear.
I thought you were going to say if you sneeze you have accidents ;-)
You cannot, however, cure the flu by suppressing the sneezing. Do you think
you can prevent bad driving by suppressing the speeding?
--
Matt B