Post evidence of corruption at University Of Reading here.

rothbook

One-sided moderation buggered the other thread so this is the new abuse-free zone to back up the claims that road safety researchers are biased.

All sensible contributions welcome.

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

Why do you think Reading University is corrupt?

I certainly never said they were, did I?
I did suggest evidence of a possible bias in a study completed by one of its professors though, I admit.

BBC Berkshire website wrote:

If you're caught speeding in Berkshire, Thames Valley Police may invite you to attend a speed awareness workshop instead of adding points to your licence. The man behind this successful rehabilitation scheme is Frank McKenna, psychology professor at Reading University.

Now pick up your toys!

rothbook

Any evidence of corruption at all.

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

Who has claimed corruption has occured? :?:

:roll:

rothbook

So, no evidence of corruption then?

No evidence of skewed reporting.

No evidence on bias.

No evidence of bribes, mass collusion, government conspiracy, tin foil hats, zilch. De nada.


Possibly the single most common argument of pro-speeding lobby groups.

All evidence that people don't like to have noisy speeding cars bombing up and down along their streets is made-up. people are not really bothered by boy racers using residential streets as their personal racetrack. It's a conspiracy.

f.p.mckenna@rdg.ac.uk

Dear Professor McKenna

Apologies for the intrusion but the claim has been made that you are biased toward proving the impact of speeding cars on neighbourhoods because you run a speed awareness course for people caught speeding. In other words evidence you have published to highlight the anti-social aspects of speeding may encourage people to speed and hence boost your coffers. Asinine argument, I know.


Are you able to confirm whether this is the case?

Best regards

Rothbook.

Look forward tremendously to the answer, or an explanation as to how decrying speeding and highlighting its anti-social aspect is encouraging speeding!


LOL!! :roll: :twisted: :?: :evil: :x :P :shock: :shock: :roll: :twisted: :P :oops: :oops: 8) :roll: :roll:

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

It's also interesting that when Thames Valley Police wanted someone to analyse their data on crime in respect of anti-social behavoir, rather than asking someone who specializes in anti-social behavoir, they went to someone who specializes in driving.... :idea:

rothbook

rather than asking someone who specializes in anti-social behavoir, they went to someone who specializes in driving....

Erm, no they did not:

The study's authors, Dr Damian Poulter and Professor Frank McKenna from the University of Reading's Psychology department, replicated the findings in a second survey, which also found that 85% of respondents felt travelling immediately above the speed limit on residential roads was unacceptable behaviour.

Professor McKenna said "It would appear that we have greatly underestimated the degree of public concern over speeding.

"In comparison to concerns such as intimidation, vandalism, harassment, disruptive neighbours, drunkenness and drugs, speeding is the number one concern."


http://www.reading.ac.uk/about/newsande ... PR3936.asp


Feel free to continue misrepresenting the report's authors and accuse them of encouraging speeding by, errrr, pointing out how anti-social speeding, bet that'll bring customer streaming through the doors!


LOL!!!!!!!!!


:arrow: :roll: :shock: :shock: :shock: :x :x :oops: :idea: :idea: :roll: :roll: :twisted: :twisted: :P :P :? 8)

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

As far as I am aware, no-one has accused anyone of anything, so the main content of your email is based on a total lie.

"All evidence that people don't like to have noisy speeding cars bombing up and down along their streets is made-up. people are not really bothered by boy racers using residential streets as their personal racetrack. It's a conspiracy. "

Who has said this?
I haven't, and of course I know of no-one that wants boy racers using any street, residential or not.
What are you going on about? :?


And rothers, next time you disagree with something that PS writes, why not email him to confirm whether he's right or not?

:roll:

rothbook

1/

University of Reading have a financial interest in speed cameras!

2/

How?

3/

They publish evidence saying how bad it is and one of the psychologists runs speed awareness courses!

4/

Errr, so explaining how bad speeding is encourages speeding?

5/

:roll:

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

rothbook wrote:

rather than asking someone who specializes in anti-social behavoir, they went to someone who specializes in driving....

Erm, no they did not:

Reading Uni website about Prof McKenna wrote:

Research Interest: Applied cognitive psychology, particularly human error and accident involvement in driving.

Erm, yes they did.

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

rothbook wrote:

a second survey, which also found that 85% of respondents felt travelling immediately above the speed limit on residential roads was unacceptable behaviour.

This is totally different, and I would expect a very high % of respondents to find breaking the law unacceptable.

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

rothbook wrote:

Feel free to continue misrepresenting the report's authors and accuse them of encouraging speeding by, errrr, pointing out how anti-social speeding

When have I acused anyone of encouraging speeding!?! :shock:

You really have lost the plot. :roll:

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

rothbook wrote:

University of Reading have a financial interest in speed cameras!

Who has suggested this? :?
Certainly wasn't me.

rothbook

I did suggest evidence of a possible bias in a study completed by one of its professors though, I admit.

You mean pointing out that speeding is bad may , errr, encourage speeding and boost attendance at the professor's class!!

rothbook

And rothers, next time you disagree with something that PS writes, why not email him to confirm whether he's right or not?

Do you place an awful lot of credence on a man who encourages perverting justice in order to duck speeding fines? Gullible, rather:

Smith is a proven liar and a man who encourages the perversion of
justice by claiming that arranging for one's speeding tickets to be
sent to the home of the families of recently deceased people:


Paul Smith Sep 3 2001, 11:01 am
You don`t even need to know the deceased. Just picking a name for the
local newspaper`s obituary column has been known to work nicely. With a
bit of care in your choice, there`s no one to call you a liar.
(It`s on my web site :-) -- Paul Smith Scotland, UK
http://www.safespeed.org.uk


http://tinyurl.com/cnun3


Smith had a page on his website which recommended this perversion of
justice. He would duck speeding fines by sending the tickets to a grieving family.

And you think this is a sane, rational person from whom to seek elucidation?


How strange, on the one hand you libel University Of Reading Professors by claiming that because their research illustrates the anti-social side of speeding they must therefore be encouraging speeding to boost their class size. (!)


But then immediately afterwards you suggest a good way of seeking clarification is to ask a man with a history of dishonesty and the encouragement of law breaking.


I think it's clear you're trolling, you have no evidence for the bias you claimed exists and the old dictat of pig wrestling holds tru- you just end up dirty and the pig enjoys it.

spen666

Point of order Rothbook, but ~I do not think you can be guilty of a perversion of
justice.

Justice is not perverted, but the course of justice can be

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

rothbook wrote:

You mean pointing out that speeding is bad may , errr, encourage speeding

No one has said that, especially not me. :?

Most of your rantings are trying to disprove or remove the credibility of things that have not been said!
Madness! :!:
:roll:

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

rothbook wrote:

How strange, on the one hand you libel University Of Reading Professors by claiming that because their research illustrates the anti-social side of speeding they must therefore be encouraging speeding to boost their class size.

This is a lie. I have never said this. It is you that has formed this conclusion, not me. :idea:

rothbook wrote:

But then immediately afterwards you suggest a good way of seeking clarification is to ask a man with a history of dishonesty and the encouragement of law breaking.

Yet again, you form the wrong conlusion about what I have suggested. The point was, one would not ask someone to review their own findings, it would be much better to have a study reviewed by its peers, eh rothers.

rothbook wrote:

I think it's clear you're trolling, you have no evidence for the bias you claimed exists

All I wanted to do was highlight the possibility, which I did provide evidence for above.
Calling me a troll, eh? Isn't that what you acuse PS of doing whenever he has lost an argument?

Why do you keep doing this?
You ignore what I post, don't answer any of my questions or points, and argue against things I haven't said! :roll:
You might as well argue with a mirror! :roll: [/i]

rothbook

No one has said that, especially not me.




You implied bias on the part of professor McKenna on the grounds that he:

1/

Highlights the dangers of road safety. As I've said five times now. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

and

2/

Runs speed awareness courses for those people who ignore his findings and carry on speeding. :shock: :shock: :shock:

Now, to suggest that a respected academic is using his own published research to line his own pockets is bad enough.

:oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops:

Claiming that speeding is encouraged by highlighting how bad speeding is is rank idiocy- if anything Professor McKenna is shooting himself in the foot by driving potential attendees away! 8) :? :shock:


So.

Seventh time.

How can someone be biased toward encouraging people to break the law when the same person's evidence is that breaking the law is extremely anti-social! :roll: :roll: :roll: :oops: :oops: :P :x :x :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:


You've got you entire argument arse about face old boy!







Point noted and discarded spen.

rothbook

All I wanted to do was highlight the possibility, which I did provide evidence for above.

Um no.

You said speeding may be encouraged by someone who discourages speeding.

If that's not what you meant then explain the "bias" of someone who discourages speeding when they are also involved in classes to stop people speeding.

Seerms entirely consistent to me, what's your reasoning?

McKenna says speeding is bad, and he runs classes to stop speeding so

for the ninth time, WHERE'S THE BIAS!!???

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

NOW I see your gross misunderstanding.

Really, of all the wrong conclusions to jump to, I amazed you managed that one and couldn't find the obvious link.

It's not encouraging speeding as you wrongly assumed, it's encouraging the enforcement of speeding.
Not only that, but it is encouraging the enforcement of speeding where typical quantities of limit breaking would fall into the threshold of driver education workshops. :idea:

NOW do you understand?

Elements of bias are always one of the first things to eliminate when studying any research, though I'm sure you know this.

spen666

rothbook wrote:

...


Point noted and discarded spen.

Like you do with most facts eh?

Ignore the facts as they get in the way of hysterical rants, is that the approach?

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

spen666 wrote:

Ignore the facts as they get in the way of hysterical rants, is that the approach?

The facts were a little dull, far more interesting to make some up then rant about them.

rothbook

It's not encouraging speeding as you wrongly assumed, it's encouraging the enforcement of speeding.

So your claim is That Professor McKenna has a financial interest in encouraging people to get nicked. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Exactly what you denied a page ago. :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:


Hard to argue when it takes you 9 requests to say what you mean and when you finally cough up it contradicts what you said on the very same day.

So- your evidence that Professor McKenna makes a profit from the speed awareness courses, or that his findings have any impact on road policing is.....

:oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :?

rothbook

More:

Professor McKenna said "It would appear that we have greatly underestimated the degree of public concern over speeding.

"In comparison to concerns such as intimidation, vandalism, harassment, disruptive neighbours, drunkenness and drugs, speeding is the number one concern."

Malcolm Collis, head of the Specialist Units, Thames Valley Police Roads Policing Department, said: "This justifies our tough stance on enforcing the speed limits on the roads in the Thames Valley. The driving force behind this is our determination to reduce the numbers of people who are killed or seriously injured on our roads. We will continue to carry out speed enforcement and promote our driver improvement diversion scheme, to help people through education stay safe on our roads."

Respondents also reported strong support for enforcement, with 80% of respondents agreeing that speed enforcement was acceptable practice on 30mph residential roads. This is in line with previous evidence that the public accept the practice of speed enforcement.

The survey examined a wide range of issues (16 in total) including intimidation, damage to property and vehicles, noisy neighbours, drugs, drunkenness, and litter.

Dr Stephen Ladyman MP, Minister for Transport, said: "This research firmly demonstrates the considerable level of concern about speeding traffic in local communities. We remain committed to reducing speeding and the misery it can cause through a variety of means including engineering, education and enforcement."

Chief Constable Meredydd Hughes, Head of the Association of Chief Police Officers Uniformed Operations Business Area welcomed the study, saying, "For too long we have allowed the so called voices of the motorist to dominate the debate.

"This important research clearly shows that the wider public strongly support speed enforcement and are concerned not only about reducing casualties, but clearly see excessive speed as anti social. This information should inform policy at every level, and police and local authority priorities should be re-examined in the light of this information".

http://www.drivetech.co.uk/press_releases_061211.html


Now the other pro-speeding lie apart from bigblackboy's claim of a government conspiracy, is that enforcing the law with regard to speeding is not a priority for many people.

And the evidence for this is....



There is none, natch.


So we have clear support for enforcing road safety.

The pro-speeding lobby response?

"Rubbish, people aren't bothered about speeding!"- No evidence


"The survey's corrupt and the researchers are biased"- no evidence


"Speeding is harmless"- a mass of evidence to the contrary.

"People oppose enforcing the speed limit"- not outside barking mad websites populated by fake coppers and people who call the police "k unts".


Ho hum.

Regulator

spen666 wrote:

Point of order Rothbook, but ~I do not think you can be guilty of a perversion of
justice.

Justice is not perverted, but the course of justice can be

Just to be picky Spen :twisted: , I think you can 'pervert justice' - just think of what this Government is doing/proposing to do in the cause of the 'war on terror', etc.

However, you are perfectly correct - the criminal offence is 'perverting the course of justice'.

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

rothbook wrote:

So your claim is That Professor McKenna has a financial interest in encouraging people to get nicked

I have never claimed that is the case.

rothbook wrote:

Exactly what you denied a page ago

So that is not true either.

rothbook wrote:

Hard to argue when it takes you 9 requests to say what you mean and when you finally cough up it contradicts what you said on the very same day

I apologise for not pointing out the glaring errors in your assumptions sooner, I had no idea I was dealing with the "hard of thinking", and again, it does not contradict what I said.


Unfortunately, I have no evidence to show that Prof McKenna actually gets paid for doing work, other than it generally being the way that society works.
I take it you also get paid for doing work of some sorts?


Prof McKenna does advise the government, that is apparant from the first page of hits if you google his name.

Again, I will reiterate, I have never stated that Prof McKenna is anything other than perfectly elgitimate and honest in his work, I was merely looking at the possibilities of bias for reasons mentioned above.
It would appear that he has some sensible views on road safety that include other tactics than merely measuring one's speed, views that I share.

It would be interesting to learn of your other views rothbook, if you'd care to share them with us. You have already assured me that you have them..... :idea:

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

rothbook wrote:

Now the other pro-speeding lie apart from bigblackboy's claim of a government conspiracy

I have never claimed a conspiracy, stop telling lies.
I also notice you have resumed your petty name-calling.
Or are you trying to get this thread locked as well, as your arguments are thin and you have shown no desire to counter the points I have raised or answer the questions I have asked?

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

rothbook wrote:

"People oppose enforcing the speed limit"- not outside barking mad websites populated by fake coppers and people who call the police "k unts".

Ah, so now it's not alright to name-call.
Hypocrite.

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

Would you not agree rothers, that:

intimidation
vandalism
harassment
drunkenness
litter
damage to properties
damage to vehicles

are illegal acts all comitted generally by one group of society, shall we call them "scrotes", and often in tandem?

Do you remember my earlier example of statistical grouping? :idea:

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

Your comments about the "pro speeding lobby" aren't really relevent in this discussion rothers, you are arguing with me, and I belong to no such group. :idea: