Statistics, bloody statistics

[Hardcore2000]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/3016691.stm


Using a mobile phone while driving may be responsible for 2% of all injury collisions.

"If we have prevented 2% of casualties within the West Midlands by stopping over 3,000 drivers who use mobiles phones while driving, then at least 60 families have been saved the heartache of personal injury."

Whatever! On what basis! Its all If's

Who says its those 3,000 drivers are gonna cause an accident, whats to say they still wont!

So them stopping 3000 people has saved the heartache of personal injury of 60 families.

What utter crap!

How do people get away with spouting this sort of thing? and do they think people will believe them?

[swilly]

...because most people don't stop to question the source of statistics, the vested interest behind the survey/statistic gatherer etc.

Most reports of this type will try to 'fit' a statistic to provide the biggest "WOW" factor for whatever policy/motive they are pushing at the time.

'100% people were born, and a further 100% will die'is about the only reliable statistic out there.

[m-five]

Don't forget that 100% accidents involving cars have cars as a factor in 300% of cases (300% becuase there are multiple factors which include cars, e.g. vehicle speed, vehicle mechanical condition, vehicle age, vehicle colour, etc).

[Le TVR]

Thats statistics for you, prove anything..
In Germany the same statistics show a negative correlation.
But dont get caught with your portable clamped to your ear while driving down to Le Mans, cos here in France its a definite

3 points and a "financial deterrent"

[chrisgr31]

I saw this comment about 60 families and at the time thought "What the fcuk"

Just because using a mobile phone may be responsible for 2% of all injury accidents doesn't mean they saved 60 accidents. For a start the police seem to have no prove about the 2%in the first place.

The data they need to know is how many people drive whilst talking on the phone, and how many of them have accidents.

Bearing in mind how many people I see talking on the phone whilst driving, and how few accidents I actually see, I reckon they may have prevent about 1 accident.

[Teppic]

In the words of the great Homer Simpson:

"Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything. 14% of people know that."

[lv2spd]

Well, you know what they say.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

[james_j]

Slightly OT, but a connected point to be made: Some nimbys not that far from me had their road closed because they didn't like it being used as a cut through. (A local counsellor must live there.)

Anyway, the statistics published were that the decision had been arrived at democratically.

Guess who was asked to contribute to this democratic process?

Yes, the people who lived in the road!

Statistics, "democracy", whatever - it can and is manipulated.

[mwatts_tci]

99% of statistics are made up on the spot

[soulpatch]

mwatts_tci said: 99% of statistics are made up on the spot

No no, its 64.6% isnt it?

[mwatts_tci]

It depends which years you omit from the study!

[cortinaman]

i thought it was 95.8,but then remembered that was the frequency for capital fm!

[hut49]

If 2% of injury accidents are caused by people on the phone then 98% of injury accidents are caused by people not on the phone. The police should therefore insist that those not on the phone should immediately cease not being on the phone, to reduce injury accidents.

QED

[pesty]

So they saved 60 familys during the crack down then?

So does that mean that there were 60 more accidents imediately before and another 60 more imidiately after the crackdown finished?

[jumjum]

What were these familes doing in the road in the first place ?