| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:LTNs and the definition of a residential road | |
| Posted by: | Tom Pike | |
| Date/Time: | 28/12/22 20:41:00 |
| Paul, yes, both the articles Simon cited are good tests of the bona fides of anyone who claims they have a reasoned contribution to make. Both rely on a mixture of ignorance and bad faith to attempt to make their point. Just to highlight this underlying mix, in the fourth part of the article the author seeks to undermine the Goodman algorithm, which is no more than the standard and very well stablished "p-value" testing for statistical significance. The spurious claim is made that this algorithm justifies as significant an increase in one count in a sample of five counts, when in fact the algorithm would immediately conclude to the contrary that such a change has no statistical significance. Amusingly, the author also dismisses the algorithm because it doesn't show what he wants it to show, that the reduction in injuries outside the LTNs has any statistical significance. As he is certain what the answer has to be, he is insistent that we should reject a standard algorithm as "statistical propoganda". The fact that this is such a rudimentary error in basic statistics strongly suggests a classic case of Dunning-Kruger syndrome where the limited competence of the author has only fed their certainty in being correct. Simon has simply followed suit. |