Garden Gnomes versus Gatsos
Discussion
Garden Gnomes I hear you say ... is this a vigilante campaign run by midgets? No, its a serious scientific point. Let me explain ....
As I am sure everyone on this forum would agree, there are lies, damn lies, and the statistics trotted out to justify the ever increasing number of Gatsos. Chief among these is the line of reasoning that runs something like this ...
We only put Gatsos at the worst accident black spots
We then measure the number of accidents at the same spot next year.
The number of accidents is less
Therefore the Gatsos have saved lives.
NOT NECESSARILLY SO - let me explain.
Lets say you pick the 100 worst accident black spots for the last 12 months. Now, just by the normal operation of the laws of chance (and most accidents have quite a large random element as anyone ever involved in one will agree), if you measure again next year, it is very unlikely you will get the same 100 black spots as before. It is also much more likely that the deaths and serious injuries at those previous 100 sites will have fallen that risen, BECAUSE PREVIOUSLY THEY WERE THE VERY WORST. They may still be worse than the average bit of road, but it is unlikely they are still the 100 very worst sites. It is much more likely that the number of DSIs will have tended back towards the average.
So, to be able to state that Gatsos have saved lives, you need a control group, just as in any drug testing procedure. This is where the Garden Gnomes come in. You randomly divide the 100 sites into two equal groups and install Gatsos at 50 sites and Garden Gnomes at the other 50 sites. Then measure the results and compare.
What do you think are the chances of that happening? There is a serious point here, that no-one has ever quoted any rigorous research (that I have heard anyway) that really proves that Gatsos save lives, and until someone does the GGVG test, we will never know. Lets stop all those hysterical rubbish and find out for real. If you like the idea, e-mail it around, or comments as to how we can get this idea across.
As I am sure everyone on this forum would agree, there are lies, damn lies, and the statistics trotted out to justify the ever increasing number of Gatsos. Chief among these is the line of reasoning that runs something like this ...
We only put Gatsos at the worst accident black spots
We then measure the number of accidents at the same spot next year.
The number of accidents is less
Therefore the Gatsos have saved lives.
NOT NECESSARILLY SO - let me explain.
Lets say you pick the 100 worst accident black spots for the last 12 months. Now, just by the normal operation of the laws of chance (and most accidents have quite a large random element as anyone ever involved in one will agree), if you measure again next year, it is very unlikely you will get the same 100 black spots as before. It is also much more likely that the deaths and serious injuries at those previous 100 sites will have fallen that risen, BECAUSE PREVIOUSLY THEY WERE THE VERY WORST. They may still be worse than the average bit of road, but it is unlikely they are still the 100 very worst sites. It is much more likely that the number of DSIs will have tended back towards the average.
So, to be able to state that Gatsos have saved lives, you need a control group, just as in any drug testing procedure. This is where the Garden Gnomes come in. You randomly divide the 100 sites into two equal groups and install Gatsos at 50 sites and Garden Gnomes at the other 50 sites. Then measure the results and compare.
What do you think are the chances of that happening? There is a serious point here, that no-one has ever quoted any rigorous research (that I have heard anyway) that really proves that Gatsos save lives, and until someone does the GGVG test, we will never know. Lets stop all those hysterical rubbish and find out for real. If you like the idea, e-mail it around, or comments as to how we can get this idea across.
That nice Moira Stewart from the BBC said:-
"Government research released today called the pistonheads report, revealed latest speed camera perfomance figures. In a new and exciting experiment it was proved that speed cameras actually reduce KSIs by up to 21%. In a controlled and scientific study conducted by the university of Leatherhead, cameras were found to be slightly less effective than erm Garden gnomes at saving lives. The garden gnomes achieved a 26% average reduction overall. In some areas Garden gnomes were found to be almost twice as effective as the Gatso.
Ministers were unavailable for comment, however a spokesbeing for the Liberal democrats described the finding as flawed because it failed to take into account the number of cameras vandalised by motorist fundamentalist terrorists.
A lifeform representative of Greenpeace said "oooohhhh wow, far out dude, way to go, just sooooo waaaay cooool"
Aaaaand finally this years A level results of 98% passes, confirm a complete genetic change in human performance since labour got in to power."
"Government research released today called the pistonheads report, revealed latest speed camera perfomance figures. In a new and exciting experiment it was proved that speed cameras actually reduce KSIs by up to 21%. In a controlled and scientific study conducted by the university of Leatherhead, cameras were found to be slightly less effective than erm Garden gnomes at saving lives. The garden gnomes achieved a 26% average reduction overall. In some areas Garden gnomes were found to be almost twice as effective as the Gatso.
Ministers were unavailable for comment, however a spokesbeing for the Liberal democrats described the finding as flawed because it failed to take into account the number of cameras vandalised by motorist fundamentalist terrorists.
A lifeform representative of Greenpeace said "oooohhhh wow, far out dude, way to go, just sooooo waaaay cooool"
Aaaaand finally this years A level results of 98% passes, confirm a complete genetic change in human performance since labour got in to power."
Of course, Garden Gnomes are not a real control group anyway and would also reduce accidents in there own right. Why?
The more eagle-eyed motorists would spot them and realise that this was an accident blackspot and therefore factor that into their driving plan.
Of course, your real point would far outweigh this effect, but then it does for cameras too.
I'm sure you'd enjoy the SafeSpeed site.
>> Edited by V8 Archie on Thursday 12th August 23:16
Lets go much further - put a gnome at every death site. That way motorists will be warned of the approaching dangerous section of road, and slow down accordingly.
result - no deaths.
Much cheaper than installing cameras, and will clearly work, as every driver has passed a skill level to acertain whats dangerous speed and what isn't havent they?
result - no deaths.
Much cheaper than installing cameras, and will clearly work, as every driver has passed a skill level to acertain whats dangerous speed and what isn't havent they?
This could cause problems with the French positive action group who steal garden gnomes from people's gardens and "liberate" them back to the forest they believe they came from. Parsnips (organic, natch) may be less controversial.
Athough if there are no ksi in the forest with the highest concentration of gnomes, that is conclusive proof they work, of course.
Athough if there are no ksi in the forest with the highest concentration of gnomes, that is conclusive proof they work, of course.
Anyone been to mainland greece?
At every point where there has been a road fatality, they errect a sort of little 'church' type thing at the side of the road. not sure what they are called, but look like one of the nativity type models children build at christmas.
Quite sobering when you see a cluster of these things on a sharp bend.
Hmm.
At every point where there has been a road fatality, they errect a sort of little 'church' type thing at the side of the road. not sure what they are called, but look like one of the nativity type models children build at christmas.
Quite sobering when you see a cluster of these things on a sharp bend.
Hmm.
On the 'Cumbria Silly Camera Pratnership' (CSCP) Forum, the 'Speedfinder-General', one Steve Callaghan, admitted that they have some sites in Cumbria which met the criteria for being camera monitored, but at which no monitoring has yet taken place. So, here we have the control sites we have been looking for.
Now, in the spirit of 'openess and honesty', which the CSCP say their Forum is there to promote, we now have the figure, right? Do we heck as like. The question about these control sites, or un-monitored sites, has been asked, and asked, and asked, all with a deafening silence.
So angry have the contributors been with Speedfinder-General Callaghan that it has all got bit personal of late. (have a look yourselves: www cumbriasafetycameras.org)
The figures clearly do exist, but they won't release them. I wonder why. Proof absolute of the 'regression to the mean'?
Now, in the spirit of 'openess and honesty', which the CSCP say their Forum is there to promote, we now have the figure, right? Do we heck as like. The question about these control sites, or un-monitored sites, has been asked, and asked, and asked, all with a deafening silence.
So angry have the contributors been with Speedfinder-General Callaghan that it has all got bit personal of late. (have a look yourselves: www cumbriasafetycameras.org)
The figures clearly do exist, but they won't release them. I wonder why. Proof absolute of the 'regression to the mean'?
bryan35 said:They have these in parts of Southern France too. It always made me wonder how on earth it happened though. Straight road, good visibility, miles from the nearest town!?!?!
At every point where there has been a road fatality, they errect a sort of little 'church' type thing at the side of the road. not sure what they are called, but look like one of the nativity type models children build at christmas.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff