lee wrote on Apr 24^th, 2017 at 4:24pm:



Glad you put the edit. I think this summarises the problem here. Its usually not the science thats the issue, its the reporting. This only confirms what we already know, there is a right homeostatic level of these components.

Science is only as good as.
The scientists
The data
The way the data is collected.
The hypotheses and the goal
And finally, some might consider more importantly.

WHO PAYS FOR THE RESEARCH.

This is patiently obvious in ANY studies from the prostitute of universities the Macquarie Uni.
Govco pays for a road safety research, citing that speed kills
Suprise suprise, Mac Uni finds that SPEED KILLS

Other contributing factors are discarded, just as long as they find that speed kills.

GOVCO PAYS TO GET THE ANSWERS THEY WANT.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 25^th, 2017 at 5:29pm:


Why bother?

They will simply point out some reason or other why its not flawed.

Thats the trick, make it all look so legitimate, while at the same time bowing to their masters will.

But I will tell you one you already know.

They carefully word a question on a survey so that no matter how you answer, it still feeds their data.

Ie
Instead of asking someones unsolicited opinion, they give the person an opinion znd then simply quantify it.

How much of a contributing factor does speed contribute to road death?
20%
50%
75%
100%

By answering the question you have already agreed to the statement, which you may not agree with.

All their surveys, which are from where much of the data is collected, are the same.
Its a science of making people say what you want.

The actual science itself can be used to prove things.
Such as that fraudlent add where the car that is 5klm hr over the speed limit hits the truck, but the other does not.

Many many factors are not taken into account.
Factors that make the whole premis ludicrous.

No two cars are the same, nor are the drivers, the road surface or the weather.
There are so many other more important factors that are simply ignored, simply to prove what their masters want.

Two of tge most important.
A driver driving at the speed limit is generally less aware of his surroundings ghan one speeding, because the speeder is paranoid about being caught so he is watching more carefully.
He would not only see the truck sooner, he would apply the brakes far earlier.

The road surface has the greatest influence on a cars stopping ability.
Most of the goat tracks we laughingly refer to as roads in Australia are so poor that your tyres only make actual contact 70% of the time.
That makes stopping a game of chance at best.

The grubberment want proof that its draconian speed revenue program is effective, this is why Mac Uni get paid to "adjust" the data.

But the truth is in the facts.
Even with more speed detection and the most draconian rules in the world.
Our road toll is riding.

Stupidiiiitty is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result
Unless tge result required is revenue collection.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 26^th, 2017 at 6:00am:


And you know all about things not being science.