Arrive Alive claims credit for 68% reduction in KSI
Discussion
] 
Cooperman said:
Did they use the phrase 'a 68% reduction at camera sites'? The they vcan use regression to the mean as a positive result for themselves and not have to count accidents, which, of course, are random events, at any other locations. If they didn't use the phrase, I bet they meant to, or, alternatively, the media failed to put that phrase in.
It would be interesting to know, wouldn't it.
They just said" we have reduced deaths and serious injuries by 68%"
I have a scan of the article if anyone can put it on here for me.
justinp1 said:
That's nothing! There was an accident on my road last year. First one I've ever heard of there, so straight away I tied a little brown piece of string to a gatepost right near where it happened.
This year... nothing!
I've singlehandedly reduced accidents on my road by a whopping 100% using the (soon to be patented) brown string method.
Surely I deserve some sort of award?
SM
You are right! I suggest we start the 'Brown String Partnership'! We will also employ regional people to be in charge of placing of the brown strings as the more brown strings we place the more brown strings we can afford to place in the future!
From now on we will call you Mr Brownstringstrom and put you in charge of North Wales Police...
I found chanting some sort of rhyme works just as well, but perhaps why not suggest "Arrive Alive" plant a tree nearby instead? It would do the environment good and save lives at the same time.
Tafia said:
Did they use the phrase 'a 68% reduction at camera sites'? The they vcan use regression to the mean as a positive result for themselves and not have to count accidents, which, of course, are random events, at any other locations. If they didn't use the phrase, I bet they meant to, or, alternatively, the media failed to put that phrase in.
It would be interesting to know, wouldn't it.
They just said" we have reduced deaths and serious injuries by 68%"
I have a scan of the article if anyone can put it on here for me.
I like the way they said "we have", how on earth can they justify statistically that any outcome is wholly down to the camera's.
Cars becoming safer, more people owning safer cars, perhaps even better weather conditions during heavier use of the roads in question.
People being more observant, re-engineered sections of road.
Thousands, no, billions of influences year on year change the potential for accidents, but it's ALL down to their camera's.
Wonder if the accident rate had risen dramatically at camera site's they'd be claiming it was ALL down to them
Dave
If the accident rate at camera sites had risen dramatically they would want to do 2 things:
1. Reduce the speed limits at those locations.
2. Use a greater number of cameras.
That way they can still appear to be doing something to justify continuing to draw their salaries for their 'non-jobs'.
1. Reduce the speed limits at those locations.
2. Use a greater number of cameras.
That way they can still appear to be doing something to justify continuing to draw their salaries for their 'non-jobs'.
Don't know about the statistics but If Scameras save lives and there are about 3,500 people killed on the roads (both before Scams and now), given that we have 6,000ish Scameras, just how many lives has each one saved?
Because I don't see any improvement? and if each Scamera saved just one life.......
Because I don't see any improvement? and if each Scamera saved just one life.......
Peter Ward said:
Out of curiosity I calcuated the mean and standard deviation for the figures provided. I have plotted the mean in black, and then +/-2 SDs in green and yellow. 2 SDs is usually reckoned to include 68% (or thereabouts) of all points if the points are random. In this series we find that ALL points are within +/- 2 SDs. To me, this indicates that there is no statistical reason to believe that the figures are anything other than random.
Disclaimer -- I only studied stats at an elementary level. I would value other opinions.
You are correct. There is no statistical evidence of a reduction BASED ON THE DEATHS. Just for info, +/- 2 standard eviations is expected to cover between 90 and 98% of the distribution (dont' get lulled into arguments about the Normal distribution...it's not required). 1 sd covers between 60 and 75%. If you analyse the data on a process behaviour chart, it demonstrates that there is NO CHANGE in the number of deaths. Statistically you can demonstrate no change, either up or down.
The answer is in the clever wording he used. He said he had reduced those killed or seriously injured by 68%. So, you can't look at deaths alone. You need to look at the total data, but he's managed to make it ambiguous. Death is Death, Seriously Ill is subjective. Where is the data, who's collected it and how was it collected.
Not only that, he cannot claim cause and effect without analysis and evidence. He cannot just say "I've introduced cameras, the deaths have gone down, therefore cameras reduce deaths". There is no casual link between 2 facts until proven. In fact the null hypothesis is that there is NO link.
So, you need all the data, it needs to be factual not ambiguous, there needs to be cause and effect, and you'll probably find that the guy that said it knows
all about statistics. Other than that everything he said is true.
Thats it, "seriously injured" staus just needs to be increased in severity by maybe 20% on the "severity" scale, and voila, deaths aside you've made it look like less people are seriously injured.
Statistics eh.
Why don't they just say how many people crashed? Surely a camera that prevents injury and death is a bit crap if it doesn't stop crashes.
Infact, how can it do a good job if it still allows crashes at all?
Clearly they don't use the "crashes" statistic as it isn't as favourable or malleable!
Dave
Statistics eh.
Why don't they just say how many people crashed? Surely a camera that prevents injury and death is a bit crap if it doesn't stop crashes.
Infact, how can it do a good job if it still allows crashes at all?
Clearly they don't use the "crashes" statistic as it isn't as favourable or malleable!
Dave
streaky said:
I have followed the interesting posts on brown and blue strings. Clearly some readers do not understand how the strings work. The process used to be known as String Theory, but is now known as M-Theory.
In M-Theory, the myriad of particle types is replaced by a single fundamental building block, a `string'. These strings can be closed, like loops, or open, like a hair. As the string moves through time it traces out a tube or a sheet, according to whether it is closed or open. Furthermore, the string is free to vibrate, and different vibrational modes of the string represent the different particle types, since different modes are seen as different masses or spins.
The particles known in nature are classified according to their spin into bosons (integer spin) or fermions (odd half integer spin). The former are the ones that carry forces, for example, the photon, which carries electromagnetic force, the gluon, which carries the strong nuclear force, and the graviton, which carries gravitational force. The latter make up the matter we are made of, like the electron or the quark. The original String Theory only described particles that were bosons, hence Bosonic String Theory. It did not describe Fermions. So quarks and electrons, for instance, were not included in Bosonic String Theory.
By introducing Supersymmetry to Bosonic String Theory, we can obtain a new theory that describes both the forces and the matter which make up the Universe. This is the theory of superstrings. There are three different superstring theories which make sense, i.e. display no mathematical inconsistencies. In two of them the fundamental object is a closed string, while in the third, open strings are the building blocks. Furthermore, mixing the best features of the bosonic string and the superstring, we can create two other consistent theories of strings, Heterotic String Theories.
One of the most remarkable predictions of String Theory is that space-time has ten dimensions! At first sight, this may be seen as a reason to dismiss the theory altogether, as we obviously have only three dimensions of space and one of time. However, if we assume that six of these dimensions are curled up very tightly, then we may never be aware of their existence. Furthermore, having these so-called compact dimensions is very beneficial if String Theory is to describe a Theory of Everything. The idea is that degrees of freedom like the electric charge of an electron will then arise simply as motion in the extra compact directions! The principle that compact dimensions may lead to unifying theories is not new, but dates from the 1920's, since the theory of Kaluza and Klein. In a sense, String Theory is the ultimate Kaluza-Klein theory.
For simplicity, it is usually assumed that the extra dimensions are wrapped up on six circles. For realistic results they are treated as being wrapped up on mathematical elaborations known as Calabi-Yau Manifolds and Orbifolds.
I hope this makes it clear. BTW - the colour of the string is immaterial [scientific pun intended].
Streaky
Interesting stuff streaky. I was under the impression that string theory had difficulties because it is possible to have multiple models that "work" ie 6 dimensions, 10 dimensions, 23 dimensions etc (BTW, after watching Horizon last week, it would appear that Schrodinger's cat can be both dead and alive
) Maybe we could manufacture many different varieties of string and see which is most effective? What about mobile strings? I think brown strings would be best as these could be tied to trees and be "stealth strings" which are obviously most effective.
While you've all spent time on here waffling on, I've gone out and actually done something about it. Less talk, more action. I pinned a piece of string to the gate, and it made no difference to the traffic outside.
HOWEVER...it makes a brilliant weather guide. I have a look at it every morning and:
If its wet, then it's raining.
If it's horizontal, it's windy.
If it's stiff, it's freezing.
These are now for sale at £1 each (£2 if you're a Tory or an Undergraduate).
HOWEVER...it makes a brilliant weather guide. I have a look at it every morning and:
If its wet, then it's raining.
If it's horizontal, it's windy.
If it's stiff, it's freezing.
These are now for sale at £1 each (£2 if you're a Tory or an Undergraduate).
As Chairperson of the Thrimbling-in-the-Marsh Parish Council I am pleased to announce that we have diverted funds to buy a safety device that will instantly stop all those naughty car drivers with real things to do with their lives from scaring us retired old codgers when driving through the village at speeds in double figures without a man with a flag in front of them.
Mr Battersthrope will draw up a roster for volunteers to stand by the road wearing lovely bright green bibs and point this at cars as they pass by. Mrs Battersthrope has asked to be excused this duty on account of her legs.
>> Edited by Flintstone on Thursday 22 September 20:51
Mr Battersthrope will draw up a roster for volunteers to stand by the road wearing lovely bright green bibs and point this at cars as they pass by. Mrs Battersthrope has asked to be excused this duty on account of her legs.
>> Edited by Flintstone on Thursday 22 September 20:51
Flintstone said:
What about silly string? You know, that stuff in a can?
Good idea. Bad name though. We need to make a name what abstracts from the concept and detracts from what we are actually going. My spin merchants say we should rebrand the strings under the umbrella name 'Drive and Survive' what do you think?
I also thought of
EXTRA FUN...
ding for stealth taxes.
Of course the second half will be the small print at the bottom of the poster so we can hide it.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff