Safe Speed Forums

OK then fair enough. Bear with me here, but can I just ask what you believe the peer review process is supposed to achieve?


[Edit] - Can someone with the power to do so please move theclaud's reply to the above post which is still in the congestion thread into this one so I can respond. Thanks.

_________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

I have mentioned this before I think.

For me part of Paul's work is a 'peer review' of the results generated by the various government agencies and safety campaigns.

Paul pointed out the inconsistencies and erroneous conclusions reached in published papers.

I can't move messages as such but this is what he wrote:

Yes, and that's exactly what Paul was doing to DFT and SCP's statistics. Paul was interested and, he had the expertise to pull apart the selected statistics pushed out by both the DFT and SCP's, trying to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes.

That's what people didn't like about him, one man who could take on the whole establishment and prove them wrong.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

But is this not the same argument you can chuck back at the National Statistics Office and the government? Stats .. especially those used to spin polititics are deliberately manipulated.


We make our returns on all crimes fair and square by the way. We are then "absorbed" into the system and it's only when you break down .. and are bothered to look.. you find we are high scoring in some areas (RPU and ordinary routine crimes which matter to folk) and need to work on how we deal with more serious ones. It was this latter that our former guv supported pooling resources with the neighbours.


The case for the cams has not been "peer reviewed" and all attempts to do so are thwarted by a non-stnadardised collation of the results too - along with skewed stats prompting the erection of a Gatso based on the number of KSI around the proximity of the location. The clearest example was Kev Delaney's example of the single car accident which took out 4 teenage lives .. who tragically were being "teenagers". Teenage hormones and determination to "prove themselves" - and sadly - this has to be in all our genes cos we've all been there really.. - but most of us do recognise that "red signal of danger" and pull back in time. But no so easy to work out how to control young hormonal surges and no peer reviewed document has actually resolved this one either I wish someone could.


But a peer review does not prove anything in reality and academia can be tragically out of touch with the real world as various mis-carriages of justice which relied on "expert opinion" which was later superseded as "wanting" have already proven.

Common sense always prevails - and the common sense of the past always comes back to teach us "young modern pups" a thing or two

My old guv PG was full of common sense. It was reflected in the way he turned around Durham's fortunes from doldrums on his takeover of the reins to a lean, keen and mean force to reckon with and which delivers what people require .. but need still to work and further improve in some areas. OUr current guv has his own ideas and leadership style.. but he's still got the correct common sense attitude .. and this is what people out there want.. tough on the crime which matters to them and yet still working out a strategy to counter the crimes which still affect them .,. but not so "directly". This is the "organised clever fraudster crime". The one which is global and which is more a combined effort by all of us police, other agencies and the public to contain. The other is the "global terrorist drain on resources" We call this a "drain" because it is "shadowy" and more the job of MI5 and Special Branch than routine police work . though our intelligence also helps trace such criminals.


Speed cams.. though.. They do not "free us" to detect these other crimes. It's more likely that a suspicious Trafpol will collar the likes of Peter Sutcliffe, some drugs baron or would be terrorist whatever on a routine.

My ex guv was sceptical - folk manipulate. Steve Callaghan of Cumbria's Safety Pratnership even admitted this. Police presence. suspected to be around do deter this. Speed cams don't. They encourage it. It does not make for safety. No amount of spin or contrived stats change this

Off topic perhaps but maybe on a "whilst I'm at it - roll my car over rant ":lol: But we have to fill in a lot of forms for each arrest. We do need to cut this down or fund admin staff or use PCSOs/Specials better to help with this particular, but still necessary for the courts chore.

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

The problem of course is that the layman has no way of knowing whether Paul's own logic and processes were themselves erroneous or not. Please don't make the error of thinking that just because you choose to believe Paul to be right, that others naturally should as well.



Ok thanks.
The problem with this peer review thing is that, until two years or so ago, nobody had thought of suggesting Paul's work get peer reviewed. Then along comes George Monbiot with the proposition of peer review, and now its become a silver bullet with which to shoot down the SS argument i.e. "you won't get the work reviewed therefore you have something to hide".
Insofar as the individual is concerned you are right, few people have the time and depth of knowledge or insight to be able to fully evaluate the whole issue for themselves. And lets be clear, that goes for SS supporters as well as detractors. Quite a few people come along here to try and attack the SS campaign but their argument usually fizzles out because they are up against a few indviduals (one less now sadly) who do have the time and knowledge, and can lay their hands on information and statistics which the detractor doesn't have the time or wherewithall to find. They then 'lose' the argument and SSers feel all warm and fuzzy because another naysayer has been seen off.
And this is where peer review may help IMHO because if SS work can stand up to scrutiny from a reviewer who does have the time and expertise to analyse it fully then the case against speed cameras gets one heck of a shot in the arm and the detractors arguments get destroyed in one.



Correct. The whole thing needs a critical going over by someone(s) who have nothing to gain or lose one way or the other. Until then the layman is faced with a choice; believe the government or believe SS.

_________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

But he is/was clear and the logic can be followed all the same. If you test his stats/Maths.. you find them to be correct and he was using the same stats as published .. but finding and asking questions .. just as Professor Rose Baker did ,.. and Linda Mountain did accept Paul's logic and even admitted she had only skimmed a surface in her piece .. which did not undermine Paul's work either if you really analyse it. Her work.. like Rose's .. like Paul's .. they all set the scene to probe a lot deeper as to whether cameras work and even whether we are using the technological tools correctly and responsibly. .. or even to most beneficial effect


Paul S did ask hard questions and it needled some. My ex guv Paul G voiced concerns .. couched in a different way . but still not all convinced of total reliance on cams which serious criminals note and do not draw attention if in focus..
My former guv had vision.. recruited and promoted key staff .. was wise.. asked the same questions and under his guidance ..and Paul G's expertise as head of the RPU until retirement and unfortunate decision whilst on a recce .. .. we created a value for money RPU team which is consistent in delivering safety out there .. all the same... and a force which is tough on other crimes which matter to our public as well.







But a peer review is a review by peers. Paul's peers are fellow motorists and ordinary trafpol who see crass stupidity which no speed cam can detect on a daily basis.


A lot of people who read the Grauniad and a lot opf others who only know of him from rants on the Whine prog and "You & Yours" a couple of times . are not impressed with our George anyway when you listen to the comments

He does not argue objectively. True academics do so.



Unfortunately Jeff.. the other side have no "peer review" either. All the data is flawed because there is no actual base standard to compare it to.

Our stats have always been collated in the same way. We know which roads have problems. We know what the problems are. We have reduced these incidents to some extent.. but it can still be seasonal swings and roundabouts all the same


There is no easy formula.

Because human beings are human beings. Silly.. sheep like stupid at times... fallible.. weak.. accident prone..

But still most with decent values .. who want to to what's right and go into shocked denial.. trauma.. disbelief.. guilt .. anger at everyone.. when they make the error which harms another. I have seen all types of men and women truly shocked beyond belief if they had and caused the incident which hurt.. seriously hurt or even killed another person. It's how come I can understand and not condemn them after all. You have to see in the non-sensationalised reality to fully understand this. It's why Mobiot and chums cannot be taken seriously as they really have NO idea as to real human suffering or trauma suffered by both victim and causer. If you see this.. it does alter views and like my ex-guv .. I am objective and do not see a cam as helpful when I just KNOW how folk out there really behave.


I do not need any peer review to tell me what we deal with as constant in crimes and we count ourselves lucky that we had Paul Garvin to lead us and develop an RPU and other divisions which WORK and DELIVER protection from the crimes with matter to the average Joe out there.

I do feel like inviting George to observe just one day in the life of the average rank & file policeman and the areas plagued by yobs for just one day... yobs who kill for fun.. TWOC cars and drive them with total disregard for any safety .. their victims.. and compare the result of arresting said thugs against educating the blippers and tehn peer reviewing the impact on public safety and security. We do much.. we admit we could/should do more here.. and yobs rarely outsmart our officers from rank&file/PCSO/Specials upwards. Our weakeness is how we deal with the gobal and orgnised crime in this patch. It brings us down the charts in comparison with the others. But I'd bet we top the charts on the stuff which really matters to the average member of the public .. just as Manchester GMP delivers. The pop charts show them to be near the bottom. Crime solving wise on the stuff which count and relations with their public.. they are very much a force for a criminal to reckon with.



Exactly. No one really has any weapon to dispute. I have Durham's and North York's stats which seem to suggest RPU presence works. Lancs has stats which support the cam and invites to Speed Aware course


But.. we still have a numbe of mis-carriages of justice due to a reliance on "peer reviewed "expert" criteria and we still have to retain objective scepticism as a result if I am to do my job and the CVPS theirs

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

Peer Review? Oh, yes! That comes in two stages, generally

Stage 1: That's when someone puts a "controversial" view forward and a bunch of malcontents rip it to pieces.

Stage 2: That's when, after the original idea has been buried for a long time, the malcontents dig it up, dust it off and pretend it was their idea all along.

Just see what happened to the original proponent that fish oil was good for you. Ripped to shreds by the establishment, hounded out of his post, etc. Sadly I can't recall him name.

All THAT peer review did was to put doctors off from giving their patients fish oil. So peer review is not always the good thing some people think...

_________________
www.thatsnews.org.uk / www.thatsnews.blogspot.com / http://thatsmotoring.blogspot.com/

Be careful now.

http://www.badscience.net/?p=538

I think fish oil is just the result of somebody looking at the giant heap of fish guts left over after processing and thinking to themselves, "Now who can we sell that to"?

Prof Beard gave a very good working description of what "peer review" is - and more importantly, isn't. I think it's worth quoting his post in full... I've emboldened a statement that, in my opinion, answers much of the criticism that was aimed at Paul's work...

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev

Peer review by who ?
People who agree with SS viewpoint, or review by others who disagree ?
Like the man-made climate change has been peer reviewed ?
Or the not-man-made climate change peer review ?
Peer reviewed by univs who depend on the gov for their grants and funding ?
Where, in this sad little politically polarised country, can you find neutral reviewers ?

Ben Goldacre? Oh! THIS Ben Goldare!
http://wordpress.com/tag/ben-goldacre/

http://community.wddty.com/blogs/advers ... thing.aspx

And it would seem Dr Goldacre is not quite what he claims to be.

http://www.slingshotpublications.com/dwarfs.html



Hmm.

_________________
www.thatsnews.org.uk / www.thatsnews.blogspot.com / http://thatsmotoring.blogspot.com/

You can't, that's the whole point of peer review.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review

Brilliant, attacking Goldacre from a position that he's some sort of industry stooge, where many articels he writes are extremley critical of big pharma.



Hmm, indeed.

Below is a slight update of a post I made just over two tears ago on this issue:

A focus on peer-review doesn't take into account the full reality faced by those wanting to influence public policy.

I'm all in favour of the academic peer review process (as a Professor I would have to be!) and have done a fair amount of both reviewing and authoring academic papers in my own field (which is technical and educational in focus, but nothing to do with road safety, so I claim no specialist expertise there). BUT as has been said in another thread, there are weaknesses in the peer-review process as well.

Peer-review can only help establish "fact" in "hard science" disciplines, the more a field involves cultural, political, behavioural, social, psychological (etc) factors, the more different interpretations can be placed on on the same evidence AND the more open to critcism becomes the process of gathering the evidence itself. Road safety is such a field surely?

Also in these more "diverse" fields, the peer review process starts to reflect the culture/dominant views of the journals in question, and reviewers are rarely selected (in my experience) from those from opposing theoretical "camps".

Nevertheless I WOULD like to see some more formal outputs from SafeSpeed.

BUT winning academic arguments and gaining peer-reviewed recognition for one's assertions DOES NOT guarantee that society and government either hear or act on them.

The thing that matters is PUBLIC DEBATE (academic backup can help in winning public debate, but far from ensures it, Governments and vested interests frequently take note only of the evidence that suits them).

If Safe Speed's ideas don't hold water, real public debate would expose them. Attacking them for lack of formal publication is, whilst "true", a cop-out from engaging in debate of the actual points the campaign makes.

By PUBLIC DEBATE, I DON'T mean things like these fora (I agree they tend to be inhabited by the converted), I mean the media - because that is where policy battles are won and lost.

_________________
I won't slave for beggar's pay,
likewise gold and jewels,
but I would slave to learn the way
to sink your ship of fools

And the governments’ with their “lets rip off the people” quests will cherry pick the so called peer reviewed papers that fit in with their agenda and, denounce any that don’t.

There’s too much money in it for these governments nowadays, they’d rather accept bad science if it fits with their agenda and makes them money, than to accept good science that would help the people and cost them money. So what good is peer review?

Edit: I hadn’t looked at the prof's statement above, well put prof

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

Its 99,999,999% better than no peer review.

In effect that’s what Paul was doing, proving the statistics coughed up by government departments were flawed, however because it goes against the governments money collecting exercise, he was denounced as a crank. Not much to say for peer reviewing is it?

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

How could you imply Paul's work had no peer review? It was not formal peer review but it was there. His work was available for every tom dick and Harriot to pull apart from every bit of government , university, brake and the safety camera partnerships.

Quite often the best they could muster is to sling mud or try to bury his press releases with dozens of recycled news releases.

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

Has that figure been peer-reviewed?