Comments on: Third Open Letter to Executive Director of PACTS http://www.john-adams.co.uk/2009/10/06/third-open-letter-to-executive-director-of-pacts/ Risk in a Hypermobile World Sat, 14 Jan 2012 22:24:20 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: NCPLH http://www.john-adams.co.uk/2009/10/06/third-open-letter-to-executive-director-of-pacts/comment-page-1/#comment-24197 NCPLH Mon, 02 Nov 2009 07:31:23 +0000 http://john-adams.co.uk/?p=477#comment-24197 Europe is moving towards integration of alcohol licences. This will be like a dream come true for responsible drinking! Europe is moving towards integration of alcohol licences. This will be like a dream come true for responsible drinking!

]]> By: Guy Chapman http://www.john-adams.co.uk/2009/10/06/third-open-letter-to-executive-director-of-pacts/comment-page-1/#comment-23549 Guy Chapman Wed, 07 Oct 2009 20:55:19 +0000 http://john-adams.co.uk/?p=477#comment-23549 Jim, you make a good point about the measurement of success. We see this in cycle helmet laws. The law is proposed based on the erroneous claim of 85% injury reductions, then when the injury reduction turns out to be 0% they claim success on the basis that more cyclists are wearing helmets, therefore they *must* be safer even if the figures show they aren't. Jim, you make a good point about the measurement of success. We see this in cycle helmet laws. The law is proposed based on the erroneous claim of 85% injury reductions, then when the injury reduction turns out to be 0% they claim success on the basis that more cyclists are wearing helmets, therefore they *must* be safer even if the figures show they aren’t.

]]> By: Jim Tubman http://www.john-adams.co.uk/2009/10/06/third-open-letter-to-executive-director-of-pacts/comment-page-1/#comment-23545 Jim Tubman Wed, 07 Oct 2009 17:32:44 +0000 http://john-adams.co.uk/?p=477#comment-23545 Guy Chapman's point about cognitive dissonance is well made. The mental process (I hesitate to call it "thinking") seems to be, "This measure ought to work, therefore it does work, so there is no need to compare data from before and after, or to consider other possible explanations." Another thing to keep in mind is that the safety establishment tends to measure its success on the basis of compliance, not actual demonstrable reductions in deaths and injuries. This may follow from the point made in the previous paragraph, or, more cynically, it may be from a desire to avoid accountability for results. I think that the best one could hope for, assuming that PACTS has sufficient intellectual integrity to examine the data and accept what it says, would be for them to quietly drop the 60,000 figure. To have them declare loudly that they were grossly in error on this matter, and have been for years, is too much to expect. Guy Chapman’s point about cognitive dissonance is well made. The mental process (I hesitate to call it “thinking”) seems to be, “This measure ought to work, therefore it does work, so there is no need to compare data from before and after, or to consider other possible explanations.”

Another thing to keep in mind is that the safety establishment tends to measure its success on the basis of compliance, not actual demonstrable reductions in deaths and injuries. This may follow from the point made in the previous paragraph, or, more cynically, it may be from a desire to avoid accountability for results.

I think that the best one could hope for, assuming that PACTS has sufficient intellectual integrity to examine the data and accept what it says, would be for them to quietly drop the 60,000 figure. To have them declare loudly that they were grossly in error on this matter, and have been for years, is too much to expect.

]]> By: Guy Chapman http://www.john-adams.co.uk/2009/10/06/third-open-letter-to-executive-director-of-pacts/comment-page-1/#comment-23544 Guy Chapman Wed, 07 Oct 2009 16:35:57 +0000 http://john-adams.co.uk/?p=477#comment-23544 The facts, I think, speak for themselves, so why will the "road safety" establishment not acknowledge this? I believe they've already acknowledged that the effect ascribed to seat belts at the time was more likely to be a result of the contemporaneous introduction of stiffer drink-drive laws, so why is it hard to admit that the claims of lives saved are unsupportable? I believe much of the answer lies in cognitive dissonance. The road safety lobby worked hard to get the seat belt law passed, it was a major cultural shift, probably the first time since the debates over the speed limit in the first half of the 20th Century when the pendulum swung decisively in their favour. Now we have the Tories shaping up to remove fixed speed cameras, the pendulum is swinging back towards the motorist and against the road safety establishment (in truth the pendulum has rarely reached even the midpoint, libertarian motorists have always been on the winning side in any debate around road danger reduction). To come along right now and publicly slaughter one of their sacred cows is going to be unpopular; to ask them to display the carcass in their shop window is perhaps asking too much. The facts, I think, speak for themselves, so why will the “road safety” establishment not acknowledge this? I believe they’ve already acknowledged that the effect ascribed to seat belts at the time was more likely to be a result of the contemporaneous introduction of stiffer drink-drive laws, so why is it hard to admit that the claims of lives saved are unsupportable?

I believe much of the answer lies in cognitive dissonance. The road safety lobby worked hard to get the seat belt law passed, it was a major cultural shift, probably the first time since the debates over the speed limit in the first half of the 20th Century when the pendulum swung decisively in their favour. Now we have the Tories shaping up to remove fixed speed cameras, the pendulum is swinging back towards the motorist and against the road safety establishment (in truth the pendulum has rarely reached even the midpoint, libertarian motorists have always been on the winning side in any debate around road danger reduction).

To come along right now and publicly slaughter one of their sacred cows is going to be unpopular; to ask them to display the carcass in their shop window is perhaps asking too much.

]]>