Some bedtime reading for those "speed freaks".

moonrakerz

michaels wrote: »

Sadly the teaching of maths is so poor in this country that people in senior positions often have no understanding of statistics and are thus happy to listen to 'experts' as long as their opinions match with the perceived problem whilst ignoring others who have done a proper analysis that does not support the 'message'

I don't think it is poor maths that is the problem, it is deliberate "presentation" of the figures by vested interests in the best manner to support their case.

How figures can be "mis" ? represented to suit your case was illustrated to us years ago by a gynaecologist !

When my wife was expecting our first child she was offered an amniocentisis test, when we asked what the risks were he said: The chances of losing the baby by natural causes at that stage of the pregnancy were 1%, having the test done would increase that to 2%.
So the risk was either increased by 1%, OR, as it was increased from 1% to 2%, ie: doubled - the actual increase was 100%.
Both answers were absolutely correct.


You takes your pick....................

manic_saver

Paragraph from telegraph:

"Motorists who are caught going more than 20mph over the speed limit, be that limit 30mph, 50mph or 70mph, will get six points on their licence, "without", as Toad's judge in the Wind in the Willows would have said, "benefit of doubt, because in this case there is none".

I don't think this will teach any one different by increasing the points if you speed. The transport committee needs to look at a better way of handling speeders. The problem being is that the government don't want to be to strict over speeders, and this shouldn't be the case. Less people on the road means less revenue for the government, but at the same time they try to encourage us to go on public transport for a number of reasons. You can't have it both ways unfortunately!

tomstickland

Old, but useful. The 1/3rd of accidents caused by speeding "lie":
http://www.abd.org.uk/one_third.htm

michaels

moonrakerz wrote: »

I don't think it is poor maths that is the problem, it is deliberate "presentation" of the figures by vested interests in the best manner to support their case.

How figures can be "mis" ? represented to suit your case was illustrated to us years ago by a gynaecologist !

When my wife was expecting our first child she was offered an amniocentisis test, when we asked what the risks were he said: The chances of losing the baby by natural causes at that stage of the pregnancy were 1%, having the test done would increase that to 2%.
So the risk was either increased by 1%, OR, as it was increased from 1% to 2%, ie: doubled - the actual increase was 100%.
Both answers were absolutely correct.


You takes your pick....................

I guess that is my point - if you are taught to understand stats you would understand this if presented with either the 1% more or 100% more figure - if you didn't you would take whichever you were given at face value and probably on that basis make opposite decisions depending which stat you were given.