Government lying to us again

[Twincam16]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/8007080/G...

Turns out that godawful 'hit me at 30 and I'll be fine' advert was based on data collected in 1970, when Britain's bestselling car had non-ABS drums, a front end like a razor blade and the ambulance would take ages to reach you. At least the new government are honest enough to look at the blatant lies being told by the previous administration and tell the general public about it.

And the promoters of the original 'information'? None other than our old, unquestionable friends Brake, of course...

[Petrolhead_Rich]

The Telegraph said:

However the latest research has shown that the probability of death was now seven per cent at 30mph and 31 per cent at 40mph.

[Twincam16]

Petrolhead_Rich said:

The Telegraph said:

However the latest research has shown that the probability of death was now seven per cent at 30mph and 31 per cent at 40mph.

Yep, 31 per cent, which is a lot and no reason to go tearing around at 40 in residential areas, true, but it's nowhere near the 80 per cent they were claiming.

[Risotto]

http://asa.org.uk/

[Petrolhead_Rich]

Twincam16 said:

Petrolhead_Rich said:

The Telegraph said:

However the latest research has shown that the probability of death was now seven per cent at 30mph and 31 per cent at 40mph.

Yep, 31 per cent, which is a lot and no reason to go tearing around at 40 in residential areas, true, but it's nowhere near the 80 per cent they were claiming.

I wasn't suggesting at all that we all speed up because two out of every three children we hit will survive, merely laughing at how massively out of proportion the statistics were.

I still think it would be terrible to merely collide with a child (or adult) at any speed, let alone injure or kill them!

[Twincam16]

Petrolhead_Rich said:

Twincam16 said:

Petrolhead_Rich said:

The Telegraph said:

However the latest research has shown that the probability of death was now seven per cent at 30mph and 31 per cent at 40mph.

Yep, 31 per cent, which is a lot and no reason to go tearing around at 40 in residential areas, true, but it's nowhere near the 80 per cent they were claiming.

I wasn't suggesting at all that we all speed up because two out of every three children we hit will survive, merely laughing at how massively out of proportion the statistics were.

I still think it would be terrible to merely collide with a child (or adult) at any speed, let alone injure or kill them!

Does make you wonder whether every slash in speed limit is totally necessary though doesn't it? Recently all the roads around my house have been festooned with speed humps, then dropped to 20 on 'safety grounds'.

I lived there for sixteen years, then returned after five years away. No-one was so much as brushed by a moving door mirror over all those years (in fact the only death was round the corner, on a 30mph A-road, when a drunk-driver ran a red light and killed another drunk stumbling out of a pub), but with the 'clampdown on speeding motorists' you'd think they had an attrition rate comparable to the plague.

The most annoying thing is that the roads are so badly surfaced they look unadopted, with huge cracks, potholes and uneven joins in low-quality, slabby concrete, and all the havoc wreaked by the cable TV people in the '90s. They could've spent the money resurfacing them to make them smooth and safe. Instead they spent the money making them even worse with speed humps based on mad stats like these.

Edited by Twincam16 on Friday 17th September 11:13

[Ephraim]

Twincam16 said:

At least the new government are honest enough to look at the blatant lies being told by the previous administration and tell the general public about it.

Ahahahahahahaha!

[TuxRacer]

inkiboo said:

Brake said:

Brake, a charity, cited a survey carried out with an insurance company, which showed that 92 per cent of drivers backed a 20mph limit around schools, while 60 per cent wanted the limit applied in all residential areas.

See what Brake have done there is not shown that the case is as strong as ever, they have shown that some people in a survey wanted lower speed limits. As cases go, that's quite weak.

Brilliant.

People talking to an insurance company at that.

None of this is a surprise, just painful that it's gone unchecked for so long and that they got away with it.

[Twincam16]

inkiboo said:

Brake said:

Road safety campaigners, however insisted that the case for lower speed limits was as strong as ever."

OK ...

Brake said:

Brake, a charity, cited a survey carried out with an insurance company, which showed that 92 per cent of drivers backed a 20mph limit around schools, while 60 per cent wanted the limit applied in all residential areas.

See what Brake have done there is not shown that the case is as strong as ever, they have shown that some people in a survey wanted lower speed limits. As cases go, that's quite weak.

Brilliant.

And applying Ben 'Bad Science' Goldacre's approach to spotting shoddy statistics, the first questions that should be asked would be 'which insurance company?' 'What was the survey question?' 'What was the sample size?' and 'When and where were the statistics compiled?'

That survey could have easily been carried out by some specialist women's insurer (the sort frequented by self-righteous types), who could offer incentives (money off etc) for completing the survey, they could have compiled it outside a couple of leafy middle-class schools just before closing time (or even through a questionnaire sent home with the kids or attached to a completely unrelated newsletter).

They could have asked something like 'given that children are 120% likely to be killed if a driver passes them at 30mph, would you support a reduction to 20mph in your area?'

And more to the point, (and I know I'm stretching this but bear with me here), the fact that both percentages given are even numbers suggests a sample size of less than 100, quite possibly 50, which also points to a tiny sample all taken from a particular targeted place designed deliberately according to demographics to produce the desired result. If they asked 50 school-gate mothers, then the '60 per cent in favour' could be as little as 30 people.

Goldacre has called for all surveys sent to the press to feature compilation data like this, and for journalists to be more vigilant and willing to question the source when it comes to the use of statistics. As the last government showed to a tee, you can make statistics 'prove' just about anything.

[Twincam16]

Ephraim said:

Twincam16 said:

At least the new government are honest enough to look at the blatant lies being told by the previous administration and tell the general public about it.

Ahahahahahahaha!

You may laugh, but why else would they choose to highlight it in the national press if it wasn't their policy to do so?

[Steameh]

TuxRacer said:

inkiboo said:

Brake said:

Brake, a charity, cited a survey carried out with an insurance company, which showed that 92 per cent of drivers backed a 20mph limit around schools, while 60 per cent wanted the limit applied in all residential areas.

See what Brake have done there is not shown that the case is as strong as ever, they have shown that some people in a survey wanted lower speed limits. As cases go, that's quite weak.

Brilliant.

People talking to an insurance company at that.

None of this is a surprise, just painful that it's gone unchecked for so long and that they got away with it.

I can imagine the conversation now;

Hello is that Mr X.

Yes.

Hi Mr X It's Bob from your insurance company just doing a follow up call.

Ok, what do you want.

Well Mr X, Killing babies is bad, would you like to stop people killing babies near schools?

Yes I would.

Also people can kill babies in residential areas. Would you like to stop that too?

Yes.

Ok thanks for your time Mr X.

[Hitch78]

Insurance agent: "Now then Mr Smith, I'm just about to process your quote. This is my last question, it was supplied to us by those helpful chaps at Brake and apparently it helps us to understand whether you are a safe driver who we can give a low price to.....so, would you be in support of a 20mph speed limit outside all schools, for the children you see - please think of the children"

PistonHeader: "Grrrrnnnnmmmph"

[Ephraim]

Twincam16 said:

Ephraim said:

Twincam16 said:

At least the new government are honest enough to look at the blatant lies being told by the previous administration and tell the general public about it.

Ahahahahahahaha!

You may laugh, but why else would they choose to highlight it in the national press if it wasn't their policy to do so?

Oh, I don't doubt for a second that it is their policy to highlight the errors made by the previous administration. After all, as we all know, all ills are down to the previous government - it's their legacy.

I'm no apologist for Bliar or Gordo, they and their cronies were sh*tbags of the highest order; but if you think that this lot are "honest" then you are in for a nasty shock sometime down the line.

I have to deal with ministers in my work, and honesty is usually only appropriate when it suits their agenda (which in this case it does)

[edo]

Is it too much to ask for education of kids/people to stop running into traffic?

[Jasandjules]

Petrolhead_Rich said:

I still think it would be terrible to merely collide with a child (or adult) at any speed, let alone injure or kill them!

AGreed. Far better that people concentrated on avoiding running into pedestrians rather than simply mowing them down at 30mph ;-)

[Bigel]

edo said:

Is it too much to ask for education of kids/people to stop running into traffic?

Come on, this is modern britain, we can't have any sort of darwinism taking place, if you are stupid enough to put yourself into danger then you deserve to be protected!!

(Toddlers who couldn't know any better aside...)

Edited by Bigel on Friday 17th September 12:05

[Bigel]

well they escape every so often don't they...

[Desiato]

Bigel said:

Come on, this is modern britain, we can't have any sort of darwinism taking place,

One of the main reasons this country is going down the toilet

[Twincam16]

Bigel said:

edo said:

Is it too much to ask for education of kids/people to stop running into traffic?

Come on, this is modern britain, we can't have any sort of darwinism taking place, if you are stupid enough to put yourself into danger then you deserve to be protected!!

(Toddlers who couldn't know any better aside...)

Edited by Bigel on Friday 17th September 12:05

It's not Darwinism per se, it's more connected to Blair's deregulation of legal services, which means everything now has legal disclaimers to compensate for truly herculanean acts of stupidity.

Problem is, it's become a 'safety net' that's promoted a notion of 'why should I learn to be careful, it's someone else's job to allow me to drift through life without having to learn anything'. Because of the mass abrogation of responsibility, you then get a mass disengage-brain switch-off.

It's happened before, funnily enough. After the Vikings invaded, Alfred the Great feared that his people had lost the appetite for learning when the monasteries were being plundered, so he did something about it with his book Pastoral Care (thanks David Dimbleby ), encouraging people to learn by getting priests to read it out to their congregations. The situation was clear - be a pillaging knucklehead, or learn something about your world and become a better person for it.

Only now we don't expect people to even listen, let alone read, and the ambulance-chasers are all too willing to use their stupidity as a source of revenue.

[Dr_Rick]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newsvideo/weirdnew...

Dr Rick

Edited by Dr_Rick on Friday 17th September 14:17