Nuxx:Dho9f4d93fkb2nqrrh9trjh88h9tpop2t8@4ax.com

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!news2.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local02.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.pipex.net!news.pipex.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Old Bleary-Eyes  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Lower IQ People "More Likely To Support Speed Cameras" Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 19:32:39 +0100 References:  <20081014164835.398b7690@bluemoon> Lines: 32 NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 13:34:35 -0500 X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 4.2/32.1118 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.105.146.155 X-Trace: sv3-kNIzBZeDBePIcEeZ37Tj8WGN4Y+qj3ehLIE7K/xVmcw3qlH+4o6nZJOctOuhSDGjW6iB7CA1lyMbYTj!yn/BG9AG4ttJPs7lgl6HkJTKIE7+vCZNKoydz9njVJEN1v9Geh/5T3xLoKWrfkGUXmMsTd9BPsfo!QmEI1Z82W97mNcl0UCsh+J0= X-Complaints-To: abuse@dsl.pipex.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@dsl.pipex.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.39 Bytes: 2896 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:672057

On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 16:48:35 +0100, Rob Morley  wrote:

>On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 16:17:47 +0100 >Steve Tadley  wrote: > >> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/labour/1571469/Lower-IQ-people-more-likely-to-support-speed-cameras.html >> >ITYM > >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/labour/1571469/42_percent_reduction_in_KSI_at_camera_sites.html

Oh look! One of the camera-loving URC regulars in neglects to mention RTTM shocker. Ties in pretty well with "camera supporters are either thick, uninformed or dishonest", doesn't it?

So, which is it? Are you too thick to understand RTTM? Did you not know about it? Or did you know about and understand it, but deliberately ignore it because it doesn't say what you want it to? I know which one my money's on.

Ditto with "falls" in SIs not being mirrored by falls in hospital admissions, as the "falls" are wholly due to changes in what constitutes an "SI". There's a fairly short list of standard fallacies at least one of which is in almost every statistical statement praising cameras, and RTTM and the SI lie feature prominently in that list. Camera partnerships, Crapman and the rest know all about them, but "forget" about them time and time again when saying how "well" cameras have done. Now do you see why I have such a hard time believing that Crapman's intentions are good? If he the need to do that kind of thing?
 * really* thought that cameras were doing so well, why would he feel