Sun'esque journalism
Discussion
I reponded to this story in the motoring news section but I know you're a busy man so although I'm not supposed to double-post I thought the story was poor enough to warrant comment here...
This regarded the mum's accidents statistics story... Although 25% of mums have crashed with their kids in the car but over what time period, is this over a year or over the entire lives of their kids or all the kids they've had? If this a real road accident or does it include bumps into lamp posts etc? How does this compare with other drivers or drivers in general over the same time period? What was the size of the group?
Come on Ted, we should be doing better than using the same cr*ppy psuedo statistical methods as those pointing their fingers at us just so we can prompt the hard of thinking element of prodominantly male drivers on this site to point their fingers at a group other than themselves.
Regards,
Mark
This regarded the mum's accidents statistics story... Although 25% of mums have crashed with their kids in the car but over what time period, is this over a year or over the entire lives of their kids or all the kids they've had? If this a real road accident or does it include bumps into lamp posts etc? How does this compare with other drivers or drivers in general over the same time period? What was the size of the group?
Come on Ted, we should be doing better than using the same cr*ppy psuedo statistical methods as those pointing their fingers at us just so we can prompt the hard of thinking element of prodominantly male drivers on this site to point their fingers at a group other than themselves.
Regards,
Mark
PetrolTed said:
POint taken. Fair comment to some extent but I still thought the statistic was a significant one, even over a number of years.
Surely statistics are only significant if you understand the context they are presented in?
For example: 100% of cars polute the atmosphere. Therefore do we ban all cars or find out if there are worse culprits or do we find out that although they do polute whether or not it's significant?
I've had a couple of accidents in the last 15 years should I be banned? Surely the fact that one of them involved me driving mistakenly into my garage and another was a bus driving into me should be taken into account? The story doesn't even apportion blame to the mothers in the 1 in 4 statistic let alone suggest that the actual cause of the accident was the distraction caused by the children themselves.
Mark
>> Edited by dern on Saturday 20th March 10:10
Banned? I didn't say anything about banning them 
Others results included:
Incidents which distract mothers on a daily basis (%)
Children arguing 35
Children shouting 30
Children fighting 21
Other driver’s behaviour 20
Children climbing out of car seats 12
Children touching car controls 10
Children injuring themselves 9
Children throwing things 6
Bad weather/dangerous conditions 4
Mistakes mothers admit they’ve made %
Taken eyes off road to deal with kids 79
Gone over the speed limit 69
Gone through an amber light 54
Driven aggressively 47
Used a mobile phone 47
Been too tired to drive 39
Cut up another driver 37
Driven too slowly 36
Forgotten to belt the children in 35
Others results included:
Incidents which distract mothers on a daily basis (%)
Children arguing 35
Children shouting 30
Children fighting 21
Other driver’s behaviour 20
Children climbing out of car seats 12
Children touching car controls 10
Children injuring themselves 9
Children throwing things 6
Bad weather/dangerous conditions 4
Mistakes mothers admit they’ve made %
Taken eyes off road to deal with kids 79
Gone over the speed limit 69
Gone through an amber light 54
Driven aggressively 47
Used a mobile phone 47
Been too tired to drive 39
Cut up another driver 37
Driven too slowly 36
Forgotten to belt the children in 35
PetrolTed said:
Banned? I didn't say anything about banning them
I didn't suggest you did (otherwise I'd have said something like "should I be banned too"), it was an illustration how poor representation of statistics can lead to the wrong conclusions.
In the case of the article under discussion it presents some statistics under the headline "STRESSED MOTHERS POSE REAL DANGER". I'm suggesting that that headline is an unsound conclusion from the statistics presented. I understand you need stuff to fill the news section but this seems a bit beneath the standard I'd associate with Pistonheads judging by the content over the 3 year I've been reading it so I thought I'd comment on it. It always riles me when newspapers present pseudo science or statistics which they know isn't conclusive but is included because the know that it will ring a chord with the majority of the audience and reinforce their prejudices and is unlikely to be questioned. From the thread of comments posted (apart from mine) this is exactly what has happened.
There may well be something in the report to suggest that mothers driving standards are being compromised by carrying children but is it as significant as is suggested and how does that compare with other drivers habits/behaviour?
I'm not suggesting that you are alone in representing this story in this manner as I did a search on t'internet for the source and came up with the same story in the same format with the same lack of detail and no references. This place is somewhere I come frequently and wouldn't like it to succumb to sensationalism to appease the readers (although I do appreciate that this is a commercial concern).
All the best and thanks for taking the time to reply,
Mark
>> Edited by dern on Saturday 20th March 11:48
>> Edited by dern on Saturday 20th March 11:51
Gassing Station | Website Feedback | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff