Forum menu
In that situation the ability to accelerate out of trouble would be so rare if it ever existed that it would cause very few if any crashes to remove the ability to do so, whereas removing the ability to accelerate in excess of the speed limit would reduce accidents considerably and minimise the consequences of these accidents
... in your opinion.
[quote=TJ]neal - or on the other hand you can pedatically pick holes in something whan you have no counter to the point made - which you have not.
It's not "Pedantic" to say that you made your statistics up in the attempt to prove your point 😯
Why do I have to "counter" your point ? I'm simply pointing out that your statistics were made up.
Something you don't appear to be able to defend, without deflecting onto me by accusing me of being pedantic 🙄
🙄
In that situation the ability to accelerate out of trouble would be so rare if it ever existed
Provide you conveniently ignore the situations where it does exist 🙄
I can see how that works on an individual site, but when the stats are aggregated over a number of sites the gains are greater than regression to mean would allow
Why would aggregrating the stats make a significant difference when the effect is likely to happen at most if not all camera sites? How much gain would regression to the mean allow? Not (particularly) arguing - just interested in the thoughts of somebody who might know more about stats than me.
[quote=TJ] 🙄
Don't see how that backs up your made up statistics ?
Or maybe it was your way of admitting you were wrong ?
Either way, good comeback.
.
By the way, according to the advert you couldn't quite remember, but were happy to "quote" anyway...
the projected survival chances when being hit by a car at 30mph Are[b] 45% [/b]
Rather than[b] 0% [/b]as you "Guessed" and passed off as fact.
Also, technically, it's not [i]hit at[/i] 30mph, or 25mph. It's hit by a car that was originally travelling at those speeds, assuming the same reaction times and braking distances for both examples, hence an actual collision speed of far less. Hence my original assertion, better to be paying attention and a little above the limit, than be below the limit but in your own little world. But that was a 'bullshit argument' apparently.
Well, if the accident site was just a statistical artifact. I.e. Somewhere has to be in the top 10% and putting the camera in place had no effect then the data from those spots, over time should give a result which is the same as the population mean. if the hotspots are real hotspots and the cameras were completely effective then we would still see the same 'mean' result. Of course if cameras were completely ineffective then the stats would remain high. So that, the stats drop a bit would seem to indicate that hotspots are real and cameras are doing something.
I think
Neal- however I said 35 🙄
Still think that if you use your car as the reference point, then saying you cannot accelerate, just limits your degrees of freedom
[Double post]
Nudge?
Are you ignoring the issue that cameras are typically put in place immediately after an anomalous high in local accident stats? The point is that the stats before are skewed not after.
If not, I don't think I understand your argument. Could you break it down a bit better - I think you're suggesting 3 scenarios, one where it's a statistical blip, one where the camera is effective, one where it's ineffective, but it's a bit blurred and I don't quite get what effect on the change in accident stats you're suggesting for each scenario. I'm suggesting that the statistical blip alone is plenty enough to drive the reduction in the stats, given that most locations are a statistical blip at the point the camera is sited.
Statistical blips will go to the mean, real sites will not.
TandemJeremy - Member
Neal- however I said 35
Yup, I made a typo sorry.
It was meant to say ...... :
.
The projected survival chances when being hit by a car at 35mph Are 45%Rather than 0% as you "Guessed" and passed off as fact.
Mine was a typo (well spotted)
Yours were made up (and incorrect)
So, in Bullshit Top Trumps, you win by a mile.
You'll have to define a "real" site for me. How do you tell the difference between one of those and a statistical blip?
A real site would just be one where accidents anre consistently higher than the mean
And telling the difference would only be froml long term dats
Ah - long term stats. Strangely they don't normally present those. Meanwhile a site where accidents are consistently higher than the mean is still most likely to get a camera following a statistical blip.
What are you on about neal? 🙄
TJ, you're going to wear those rolling eyes right out, at this rate! Is that a sign that you are feeling a little bit wrong?
TandemJeremy - Member
What are you on about neal?
Now you don't know what I'm talking about.
That's convenient eh ?
Maybe have a read back through your own posts, if your having trouble keeping up.
Or better still. Don't make things up. The truth is easier to remember.
Nope - I am just amused at neals ranting
john_drummer
I think he may have been taking the p1ss. Happened to me recently on a long road with little overtaking possibilities, white van man behind started flashing me and indicating to pull over, I don't drive slow, but there were a few cars infront. I got the feeling it was a total rouse and ignored him. Nothing wrong with my car, he was just trying to either, entertain and impress his female passenger with his hilarious antics, take the piss and/or overtake by deception.
In the rear view, his female passenger appeared uninterested, so I assumed he just felt a bit better in himself when he fooled someone and got to his destination 1 second sooner.
I've got a great set of jammers installed on my RS4 - got me out of a dodgy situation yesterday. I know, it could have been a childs eyes or a dolphin or a swan or something but round here the rural roads are fair game for a bit of high speed fun in my opinion - didn;t expect the local rural policeman to have a speed gun handy. He did wonder why he couldn;t get a fix on me when he eventually caught up and as they are completely hidden I said nowt. All he did was suggest that i be careful if i am "proceeding with haste" for loose stock and aforementioned dolphins, childrens faces and swans.
But on topic, speed cameras are hidden here and there are no notices.
Col (no points)
TJ.
You really do struggle to admit your wrong don't you.
You can pretend to be "amused" all you like. It's a bit weak.
(btw. It's not a "rant" and I'm not being "pedantic" as you have tried to imply.
I'm just pointing out that you made stuff up. And you don't seem to like it)
D'you know. I was reading this thread and I suddenly had this startlingly vivid vision of what Hell must be like.
Ah - long term stats. Strangely they don't normally present those. Meanwhile a site where accidents are consistently higher than the mean is still most likely to get a camera following a statistical blip.
I've no doubt this occurs but we don't really know if it is a statistical blip or a hot spot. However, the evidence can be seen if we look at lets say national data and see if accidents / fatalities are reduced, nationally by the introduction of cameras. The statistics which claim reductions, if analysed simplistically will overestimate the effect of speed cameras. But in understood that the detailed analysis, which uses a control group, still shows a reduction beyond that predicted by regression to the mean.
TJ.You really do struggle to admit your wrong don't you.
You can pretend to be "amused" all you like. It's a bit weak
I'm getting a bit lost with this now. As i understand it TJ was making the point that at lower speeds, fatalities are less likely. Some hyperbole was involved but nevertheless the point was made. I don't think he was being literal (were you TJ?). So I'm struggling to see what the argument is about. Neal do you think fatalities are less likely at lower speeds? (all other things being equal of course, which they probably are unless you have good reason for why they shouldn't be.)
You have it charlie.
TJ
You seem perfectly comfortable nit picking tiny holes in the numerous examples people have given when Acceleration may be the best way out of trouble.
But when you say this ...
[quote=TJ]...
at 25 mph a person who is hit by a car survives
at 35 mph[b] they do not[/b]
.
And I call bullshit (because it's totally made up)
You don't seem to like it ? And suddenly I'm being "Pedantic", and then you said I was "Ranting"
.
Simple question.
Did you make that up to prove your point ??
YES/NO
(one word answer please ?)
Regression to the mean rather than any effect of the camera.
You may find this study interesting. [url= http://www.cts.cv.ic.ac.uk/html/ResearchSeminars/seminarDetails.asp?seminarID=30 ]imperial college study[/url]
The other thing to be careful of is to assume that accident frequency is random. Frequency could increase through (for example) increased traffic volume, increased speed and poorer driver behaviour as well as through chance.
I'm getting a bit lost with this now.
The beef Neal has, as I understand it, was that TJ presented figures as "fact" to support his argument. Neal called him on this and presented corrected figures; TJ's response was to call him pedantic and 🙄 🙄 a lot.
Which, frankly, is a storm in a teacup in the grand scheme of things, but I'm a bit surprised in a bright bloke like TJ having to resort to passive-aggressive emoticons in lieu of actual discussion.
I can't be arsed arguing with him. Charlie clearly understands the point taht is was illustrative not literal as I would have thought anyone can and it has rather amused me watching Neal work himself up into such a lather over such an inconsequential point.
[quote=TJ]... over such an inconsequential point.
It wasn't inconsequential when you were using it to prove your point though was it ?
But, now it's been shown to be made up bollx, it is ? What a shock.
I'm not in any kind of "lather" TJ.
I'm just calling Bullshit on made up "Facts" that you don't seem able to defend.
(or willing to admit were wrong)
Poor show.
🙄
This shit is getting so boring now.
[quote=TJ] 🙄
.
No defence ?
I'll take that as you admitting you were talking bollx then.
TandemJeremy - Member
🙄
🙄
TandemJeremy - Member
🙄
aracer - Member
🙄
🙄
aracer - MemberTandemJeremy - Member
🙄
🙄
🙄
🙄
🙄
🙄
Ok, Here's a solution. TJ, you will have to admit that not [i][b]everyone[/b] [/i]survives an accident at 25 and not everyone dies at 35. However neal, you have to accept that whilst TJ's statement, whilst not true was not meant to be literal and was illustrative rather than made up. Then we get the the main argument back on track. can't we?
Charlie. TJ made something up to bolster his view. Simple as that.
Made it up, and passed it off as fact.
.
I never disagreed with the point that, in a collision with a pedestrian, increased vehicle speed increases the risk of serious injury/death for the pedestrian.
You'd have to be a muppet to disagree with that.
.
You would also have to be a Muppet to back up such an obvious point using made up and incorrect statements of fact.
still wittering on? How many times have you made that point now? you must be exceeding my record
🙄
"still withering on"
lmfao !
Pot_ kettle _ black.
Not close to your standard by a long way, from what people tell me.
Charlie. TJ made something up to bolster his view. Simple as that.Made it up, and passed it off as fact.
It was illustrative, I don't think anyone else on here thought it was meant literally. You'd have to be a muppet to think that.