Talk:Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety

Criticism

This section is marked as unreferenced as it does not state who is making the criticism. Without a who it becomes POV. Please have a look at the corectly cited source in Speed_bump#Criticisms for an example. Softgrow 10:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Offending Section moved to here so edits not lost:

Criticism

A recent press release from PACTS about the UK Government's four-year-report on Safety Camera Partnerships contained misleading or out-of-context statements to bolster the message it wished to convey. The PACTS press release may leave the reader with the impression that speed cameras were responsible for an annual reduction of 42% in the number of people killed or seriously injured at camera sites. Whereas the study itself considers the contribution to the observed reduction in casualties, of trend and regression-to-mean (RTM) effects. Table H7 summarises that for urban situations the cameras themselves are only likely to be resposible for 10.4% of the observed reduction of 54.5%, with RTM responsible for 34.8% and trend responsible for 9.3%. The report also suggests in secton H1 that, although it did not calculate RTM effects for rural roads they were likely to be higher (therefore the camera contribution lower) than for urban roads.

It's actually not a 'criticism', but a statement of fact. Their press release about the report says one thing, the report says another. Any reasonable reader of both would arrive at the same conclusion. I've put the fact back, but with a more appropriate section title. De Facto 12:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

RCGB

RCGB is a public document, produced by the DfT and available for download from dft.gov.uk in formats including PDF and spreadsheet. Figures are itemised out by road type and severity, and can be simply plotted. The fact of the reduction on urban roads is stated in the Which? report on speed cameras, referenced from the same source, and I have verified it from the same source. Just zis Guy you know? 15:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be 'good practice', for ease of cross-referencing, and for avoidance of disputes, to cite the source(s) in the article - like the citations already there for the press release and Government report? - De Facto 15:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

It does cite the source: RCGB. Just zis Guy you know? 22:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

See WP:CITE/ES, although now I see you have created a new article to link to :-) - De Facto 11:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

RCGB is an important source, so yes I created an article, with a link, which can be changed as new data sets are made available. Just zis Guy you know? 16:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute

The addition of the "Example of their work" section is NPOV as it states an intention by PACTS to mislead however:

• • The press release does not claim that speed cameras are responsible for injury/fatality reduction
  • The press release takes material from the executive summary of the report and does not misquote it (this is hardly out of context)

Furthermore:

• The technical discussion on regression to the mean appears to be Original Research.

The section should be removed as it maligns PACTS. Softgrow 22:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The new section never states any intention to mislead, it states facts from the press release and contrasts them with the report. Whether the intention is to mislead can be judged by the reader.

• The new section does not say that the press release claims that the cameras are resposible for casualty reduction, although, in fact, the press realease actually does - "The research results announced today are comprehensive proof that safety cameras save lives.". The cameras may well save lives, but likely not as many as the press release may (deliberately or otherwise) lead the reader to believe.

• Yes, the point is that the selective quotes from the executive summary may give a false impression of the contribution cameras make to the casualty reduction figures. For example: The report executive summary states - "after allowing for the long-term trend, but without allowing for selection effects (such as regression-to-mean) ... Overall 42% fewer people were killed or seriously injured." The press release states - "there was a 42% reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured at sites where safety cameras were introduced". There is no mention in the press release, anywhere, that RTM is not allowed for in their headline figures.

RTM is not 'Original Research', it is a long standing and well documented phenomenon - read the article Regression to the mean.

The new section mereley states the facts as they are, if you think there is an implied POV in the choice of words (they're not all mine) please point them out - or amend them. Otherwise remove your objection. - De Facto 11:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The section does mislead. All PACTS have done is to cut and paste a press release from an executive summary of a report. But you write "includes an overly simplistic interpretation of the data, giving greater then justified support to use of cameras; a reader might be left with the impression". This gives a reader of Wikipedia that PACTS twists the truth and selectively quotes. Anyone who quotes only from the executive summary can hardly be accussed of misquoting. Misquoting is where you burrow down to page 97 of Appendix Z and argue that subpoint 2.3 (not in the executive summary) should have been the first point in any press release.

The headling "An example of their work" gives the impression that this is representative of all of PACTS work. This aims to create an impression that PACTS is unbalanced and should not be trusted. RTM has nothing to do with it. I state again this maligns PACTS as an untrustworthy group and should be removed as per policy.

This whole section does not belong in an article about PACTS but in speed cameras if anywhere. Softgrow 23:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It does belong because it is a press release from PACTS that is being discussed. The contents do not reflect the spirit of the report, but appear to be edited to convey an exagerated message about the benefits of safety cameras. The original report is laced with provisos about RTM, yet the press release never mentions it. The wording "overly simplistic" etc. is not mine, but another editor's attempt to make it more neutral. The facts can speak for themselves - the reader may well conclude that "PACTS twists the truth" or "selectively quotes", that is their prerogative. Our job is not to disguise the truth, but to present it. The quotes from the executive summary were selective and seemed to be presented to avoid mentions of RTM. -De Facto 10:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

How does quoting only from the executive summary not reflect the spirit of the report? An executive summary is supposed to reflect the spirit of the report. To quote selectively from appendices does not reflect the spirit of the report. Softgrow 22:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not that it was from the executive summary that meant it was lacking the essence, it's that it was suspiciously selective within the executive summary - apparently carefully missing out the RTM references which the executive summary did contain. -De Facto 23:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I've just printed out the press release and the executive summary. The press release is one and a half pages. You are focussing on four lines within this press release. This is nitpicking. These four lines are direct quotes from the paragraph "Both casualties and deaths were down" in the executive summary. Here are the missing lines that were not quoted in the press release.

Both casulaties and deaths were down - after allowing for the long-term trend, but without allowing for selection effects (such as regression-to-mean) there was a 22% reduction in personal injury collisions (PICs) at sites after cameras were introduced. Overall ... (bit in press release) ... and 4,230 fewer personal injury collisions per annum in 2004. There was an association between reductions in speed and reductions in PICs.

The criticism in the article as written goes on and on about regression to the mean but omits

• There were 4,230 fewer personal injury collisions per annum in 2004.
• There was an association between reductions in speed and reductions in PICs.

To remove the bias in the article as written these points must be included. Otherwise due to the overly simplistic interpretation of the data a reader might be left with the impression that speed cameras did not reduce the number of personal injury collisions and that there was no association between reductions in speed and reductions in PICS. Softgrow 00:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the four lines are the only quotes from the study, the rest is commentry on that selection, which of course, doesn't acknowledge that over stated numbers are being commented upon. The reason three of the points aren't discussed is because they don't appear to have been obviously mis-quoted. - De Facto 08:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

You make the assertion that this is typical of PACTS. Can you give any more examples or was this a one off? Softgrow 10:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Now am I correct in assuming if the PACTS press release had stated that deaths/serious injury were reduced by 10.4% due to speed cameras (ie 400 deaths/serious injury) a year you would be happy with that statement? Your calculations support this. In this case their only sin was to overstate the lives saved. A 10.4% drop is pretty impressive don't you think? Softgrow 10:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Exagerations lead to suspicions of the motive, whereas the truth leaves no room for such suspicions. - De Facto 11:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

To remove the bias I have quoted the paragraph of the press release followed by "whereas the report said...". Readers can then draw their own conclusions. The section as a whole still needs other examples of their output. This would enable the section to be NPOV. The section is still though not-notable and should be retitled "PACTS output" and include mention of their research and other press output. Softgrow 01:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Original research

I've removed a section, "An example of their output", because it seems to be synthesis. --TS 06:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)