Richard wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:


Even if it were attributed, this statistic is meaningless unless you can
show that there is a causal connection between pedestrians being drunk
and being involved in an accident with a vehicle. And don't appeal to
"common sense", please - "common sense" tells us that the introduction
of compulsory front seat belts saved lives, when in fact it increased
the death rate: see eg Adams, "Risk", UCL Press; and Harvey and Durbin,
RSSJ 149(3), 1986.


Hmm. I find that very hard to believe. However, 'scientific' studies
produced by lobby groups can always find some statsitical data to show
why smoking makes you healthy etc etc.


Yes, that well-known lobby group the peer-reviewed Royal Statistical
Society Journal. Why not actually read the references before jumping to
conclusions? In fact they show that UK death rates increased by ~8% for
pedestrians and ~13% for cyclists with the introduction of seatbelts in
cars, far outweighing the net reduction in DR for drivers & front seat
passengers.



Ah. Don't have time to read EVERY reference sadly.

That seems not inconsistent with common sense. However it still does not
prove. let alone imply, a causal connection.

It could be that it coincided with an unusually hot summer, and a world
cup victory, with more drink pedestrians and cyclists staggering around
(than usual).


I always like the old question 'how can the incidence of drawn test
matches affect the size of tree ring growth' It turns out they are both
likely due to unusually wet summers.

An interesting statistic, that sadly,proves nothing. What, for example,
is the standard deviation on pedestrian and cyclist death in the years
prior to and subsequent of this survey?

If anything, it might show that motorists who feel secure (i.e. by
adhering slavishly to speed limits) are more likley to mow down pedestrians.

There. I can spin it as well as any BBC reporter or government
communications officer.

I DID NOT HAVE SEX WITH THAT DOSSIER!!!



R.