I happened across this gem on t’interweb:

One in four people killed or seriously injured in a road crash is a young driver or one of their passengers, yet drivers under age 25 account for only 12 per cent of all driving licence holders, according to the ABI.

So many ways this could be interpreted using so many assumptions that is just goes to show, with a bit of wordplay, statistics can be used to show whatever you want.

14% of drivers under 25 have no licence?
76% of young drivers have 2 or more passengers?
47% of drivers over 25 have no one else in the car?

I think I’d quite like a job creating tenuous statistical connections and ambiguous press releases like this (albeit on slightly lighter-hearted topics) 🙂

everything means something

100% of me concurs.

You can you statistics to prove anything you want, 60% of people know that.

25% of people killed in car crashes are young drivers or their passengers, yet young drivers only make up 12% of the people with driving licenses.

Assuming the majority of people with driving licenses drive, it’s pretty simple what it’s saying. Think you’re just being incredibly pedantic and maybe not quite understanding it.

I’d like the phrase ‘killed or seriously injured’ to be removed from road safety guff. There is a significant and measurable difference between dying and having your tibia snapped in two.

with a bit of wordplay, deliberately taking statistics and choosing to represent assumptions as facts they [/b]can be used to show whatever you want.

oh and do you teach journalism by any chance?

“Young drivers have more accidents.”

Film at 11.

It seems that I might be a bit shit at lateral thinking and statistics. 😳
Can you show me how to derive these from the original statement?

14% of drivers under 25 have no licence?
76% of young drivers have 2 or more passengers?
47% of drivers over 25 have no one else in the car?

it’s pretty simple what it’s saying

Agreed, but it still doesn’t detract from my the opinion in my OP. Pedantic maybe, but that’s what we do here on STW, isn’t it? Have I mis-understood STW for the past umpteen years? 😆

PS Vinney, those figures were completely made up

check this article out:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/09/bad-science-research-error

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/is-a-scientists-face-proof-that-a-pound20-skin-cream-really-gets-rid-of-wrinkles-1675804.html

http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~mb55/talks/septests_talk.pdf

The subject is different but it highlights the ambiguity in statistics provided by scientists!

I’d like the phrase ‘killed or seriously injured’ to be removed from road safety guff. There is a significant and measurable difference between dying and having your tibia snapped in two

At what point do injuries become “serious”?

Have I mis-understood STW for the past umpteen years?

i can feel a survey coming up, statistically accurate of course

At what point do injuries become “serious”?

A hospital visit in an ambulance I’d say.

A hospital visit in an ambulance I’d say.

more than just a visit – go to hospital and stay there as an in patient (for 48 hrs or more IIRC)

(only in relation to roads)
“Serious injury: An injury for which a person is detained in hospital as an “in-patient”, or any of the following injuries whether or not they are detained in hospital: fractures, concussion, internal injuries, crushings, burns (excluding friction burns), severe cuts and lacerations, severe general shock requiring medical treatment and injuries causing death 30 or more days after the accident. An injured casualty is recorded as seriously or slightly injured by the police on the basis of information available within a short time of the accident. This generally will not reflect the results of a medical examination, but may be influenced according to whether the casualty is hospitalised or not. Hospitalisation procedures will vary regionally.”

eh?

There are some real statistics and then some you’ve made up?

You are 150% buffoon.

72% of young people eat eggs.