Something tricksy?
Discussion
The new DfT report about driver sleepiness is here:
www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety/documents/page/dft_rdsafety_032139.pdf
This is from page 33:
Examine the text and the table and try to determine the proportion of "excessive and inappropriate speed" accidents.
What are they up to this time? Exactly?
www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety/documents/page/dft_rdsafety_032139.pdf
This is from page 33:
Examine the text and the table and try to determine the proportion of "excessive and inappropriate speed" accidents.
What are they up to this time? Exactly?
31.9% of motorway crashes...
looks like the old horse chestnut is back - nice of them to group vast amounts of categories together again.. selectively...
Edit: The table is very amateurish - it isn't clear where the "shunts" and where the "other.." category are, and surely speed due to weather conditions is inappropriate speed anyway? Who wrote this report?
>> Edited by kurgis on Tuesday 19th October 15:45
looks like the old horse chestnut is back - nice of them to group vast amounts of categories together again.. selectively...
Edit: The table is very amateurish - it isn't clear where the "shunts" and where the "other.." category are, and surely speed due to weather conditions is inappropriate speed anyway? Who wrote this report?
>> Edited by kurgis on Tuesday 19th October 15:45
kurgis said:
31.9% of motorway crashes...
looks like the old horse chestnut is back - nice of them to group vast amounts of categories together again.. selectively...
Edit: The table is very amateurish - it isn't clear where the "shunts" and where the "other.." category are, and surely speed due to weather conditions is inappropriate speed anyway? Who wrote this report?
If they have grouped excessive speed and shunts together, then I make it 25% of motorway crashes.
But have they? Another study into sleep related accidents reported that 3.3% of crashes were "excessive speed". So is it that excessive and inappropriate speed is that 49 figure? That would be 2.6%
Do you fancy send an email to : J.A.Horne@lboro.ac.uk asking for clarification on the SHUNTS figure? I think there are forces at work and I wouldn't want to make a direct approach. You would probably be the perfect chap to make the request.
and keep you informedHmmmm, very dodgy,
Why dont they just say moving vehicles cause crashes and add 100% to their stats.
That way, if your caught in your car you get fined and they can make loads of £
Why pussy foot around, we all know they want our money more than they actually want to improve road safety.
When is this madness going to end?
Why dont they just say moving vehicles cause crashes and add 100% to their stats.
That way, if your caught in your car you get fined and they can make loads of £
Why pussy foot around, we all know they want our money more than they actually want to improve road safety.
When is this madness going to end?
First rule of Government statistics:-
If the stats don't tell the story you want them to, obfuscate them so at least they don't tell a story you don't want them to.
This has been effectively done in this case by grouping together classes of accident, creative use of gibberish ("too close or fast to the car in front"), and very imaginative "mispositioning" of the text in the table.
You have to give these guys credit.
If the stats don't tell the story you want them to, obfuscate them so at least they don't tell a story you don't want them to.
This has been effectively done in this case by grouping together classes of accident, creative use of gibberish ("too close or fast to the car in front"), and very imaginative "mispositioning" of the text in the table.
You have to give these guys credit.
'king deadly said:
First rule of Government statistics:-
If the stats don't tell the story you want them to, obfuscate them so at least they don't tell a story you don't want them to.
This has been effectively done in this case by grouping together classes of accident, creative use of gibberish ("too close or fast to the car in front"), and very imaginative "mispositioning" of the text in the table.
You have to give these guys credit.
Credit? I'd like to burn them at the stake! (That is not a death threat - it's figurative.)
I also smell late alteration. Seems to me that earlier drafts had the same layout, but proper figures. Someone messed up the table and added "too fast" into the middle of the sentence you quoted.
I'd read it as "too fast for road/weather conditons" = inappropriate speed at 2.6% of total.
In this case does excessive speed mean > posted speed limit - or too fast for the conditions.
Its all muddled because a shunt is clearly a result of "too fast for road/weather conditions" and that comes out at 24%.
confused
In this case does excessive speed mean > posted speed limit - or too fast for the conditions.
Its all muddled because a shunt is clearly a result of "too fast for road/weather conditions" and that comes out at 24%.
confused
What I don't understand is why manoeuvre errors and xs speed etc are sub totalled under "driver impairment." Are they trying to say inability to work out what the limit is and lack of control of right foot is a disease?
To be honest not had time to read the stuff contained in the link but this anomaly just leapt out at me.
Looks as if they are trying to get a "large % of accidents are due to ......" type of statement developed.
To be honest not had time to read the stuff contained in the link but this anomaly just leapt out at me.
Looks as if they are trying to get a "large % of accidents are due to ......" type of statement developed.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff