Guardian Editorial Chimpanzees
That word. Pah !
Yes – that one. Pah !
Three more times. Pah ! Pah ! Pah !
Good. Blood pressure reduced slightly.
Now, I’d better start with an apology to all chimpanzees everywhere for comparing them to Guardian Editorial Writers.
(Sorry, Cheeta.)
I find that small things slightly wrong can be intensely annoying.
The Guardian. This morning. In the sensible editorial, which is about the benefits of increased cycling in the UK. This:
The 111 cyclists killed on the roads in 2010 was the lowest annual figure for years.
Linked back to the source like this:
figures from the House of Commons show that cycling is not as dangerous as people imagine.
But the source says this in the summary on the web page:
111 cyclists were killed on the roads; the second lowest number in the last 61 years
ie no one had to even bother to read the pdf document to find out.
And someone assumed that “second lowest number in the last 61 years” meant “lowest annual figure for years”.
Unfortunately the last time the figure was lower, was … er … last year.
Here’s the 20-year graph, which I prepared for a piece about last week’s cycling Commons debate (data source) :
- UK Deaths of Cyclists
That may seem to be a small degree of laziness, both on the part of the Parliamentary Scribe and the Guardian, but let’s talk about consistency and editorial reliability.
And the way that exactly the same statistic has been used in different ways.
On October 7th 2011 Frederika Whitehead on the Guardian Bike Blog was using precisely that small increase to tell us that that increase tells us how bad road-layouts are:
- Appalling Road Layouts
In reality the difference is completely irrelevant as anything other than a small annual fluctuation which doesn’t tell anyone anything about anything.
Then on December 27th, Mark King used the figure to tell us about the alleged increase in cycling deaths during recessions:
The number of cyclists killed in the UK has risen during three of the last four recessions, according to figures from the Department for Transport (DfT). The data suggests that, when commuters swap expensive train, tube and car travel for cheaper bicycles during periods of austerity, the death toll rises.
under a headline:
- Cyclist Deaths Rose during Recession
That was part of a silly story carried in several papers in October 2011, and the figures suggest nothing of the kind for the current recession.
And the next day, December 28th, they were using the statistic to stoke up a debate and create a map of “Ghost Bikes”:
Figures from the Department for Transport show that cyclist deaths rose by 7% last year, mirroring the increase in casualties seen during past recessions. The data appears to indicate that belt-tightening – cash-strapped households avoiding expensive public transport fares and motoring – leads to more cyclists on the road, and a higher rate of accidents.
What’s your experience? Is the money saved by getting around under your own steam worth the risk? Should more cash be ploughed into making the roads safer for cyclists, or public transport subsidies increased in order to bring down fares?
- Cycling worth the savings?
If people can’t be bothered to work hard on the easy bits to check detail of the detail, and get it right, then we know that they cannot be trusted with bigger things, such as drawing conclusions.
Which is one reason why anyone who thought about their reading knew that Johann Hari was unreliable years before he was also widely known to be a liar and a fraud, because he was reckless with simple facts.
Given the inconsistency, there would seem to be a number of statistical barmpots at the Guardian.
And not many fact-checkers to protect writers from themselves, or people taking a broader view across the output.
Verily, a dead parakeet.
- Dead Parakeet
And I feel better now. Thank-you.
(*) Yes, I know it’s a former Ring-Necked parakeet, but if I put up a pic of the African Grey I had for supper last night I would get a visit from the Gentleman From The Ministry. Anyway, there are more ring-necked parakeets than parrots in Clapham and Tuscany, and it was originally to be a metaphor for a certain writer’s argumentation.
Photo Credit: Yersinia
-
1
February 27, 2012 at 14:10 -
When you have the Guardian selling books that promote the idea that climate change is the cause of the Iclandic volcano Eyjafjallajökull and the Japanese tsunami and earthquake then you can be sure that the Gurdian is about to jump the shark. In other words they have gone off the edge of respectibility and are taking desperate actions to try and stop the newspaper hemorrhaging money.
Then when you look at their online bookshop and find the top selling book is titled “Clouds That Look Like Things” it pretty much confirms that the Guardian is no longer an intelligent newspaper.
-
2
February 27, 2012 at 16:18 -
Is there any breakdown based on experience?
As new cyclists take to the roads I would expect an elevated death rate initially, then a declining death rate as they gain experience.
And out of the newbies how many took a cycle proficiency test ?
-
4
February 28, 2012 at 20:38 -
“…confirms that the Guardian is no longer an intelligent newspaper…”
My Boy, it’s been an awfully long time since it was.
-
-
5
February 27, 2012 at 14:48 -
I’m curious to know how the source data computes deaths per bike kilometre.
How many bikes are on the road? How far do they travel? I bet most cyclists don’t have a clue and I doubt if traffic monitors pick up bike movements accurately, if at all. Probably all of the figures are based on the price of corn oil in Hong Kong because someones model got a bit of a match 50 years ago.
-
6
February 27, 2012 at 15:01 -
I don’t know how they do it, but I can see that at least the error should be consistent so comparison is possible.
It could now be done simply with a sampling approach and mobile phone/GPS.
-
7
February 28, 2012 at 01:41 -
The Gummunt MUST allocate sufficient resources to a University to undertake a Comprehensive Study. Perhaps even endow a Saddle.
-
8
February 28, 2012 at 18:17 -
“How do they do it?”
Guardian Secret Formula for Calculating Facts
n= Any number you think it should be as a responsbile left leaning journalist who is always on the side of good.
-
-
9
February 27, 2012 at 15:15 -
Until bad health stopped me, I cycled to work – and to many other places – for 25 years. The people who put me most at risk were other cyclists – their incompetence, stupidity, selfishness and self-absorption were perpetually threatening to push me under the wheels of motor vehicles.
-
10
February 27, 2012 at 15:35 -
Only 111 cyclists eliminated in a whole year is simply not enough. Must try harder.
-
11
February 27, 2012 at 16:49 -
Around my way, all the cyclists use the pavements, forcing pedestrians into the roads. So, considering just “impacts with cars”, I’d expect cyclist deaths to reduce whilst pedestrian ones increase. Are there any figures to clarify this?
-
12
February 27, 2012 at 17:05 -
Where I’ve been, there seems to be quite a vociferous movement amongst cyclists (including me as and when) to obey lights and stay off the pavement.
-
13
February 27, 2012 at 20:40 -
Good!
I’m fed up with having to step into the road to avoid being knocked down by a cyclist on the pavement. Two rules I follow – never walk the same way as the road traffic and keep checking behind for approaching cyclists – some warn you (usually with only seconds to spare), some not at all.
-
-
-
15
February 27, 2012 at 19:20 -
No admission of guilt from the Guardianistas then, that their Global-Warming scaremongering has encouraged folk to forsake the safety of their CO2-producing but safer, cars, onto dangerous bicycles.
Another conclusion drawn from those same statistics is that after a long-term trend of improvements, cyclists’ skill & standards have deteriorated since last year.
-
16
February 27, 2012 at 20:32
-
-
17
February 28, 2012 at 00:16 -
Isn’t being dead a bit severe as a test of something.
-
18
February 28, 2012 at 09:14 -
Maybe cyclists should stop ignoring red lights, ride on the correct side of the road, show the right lights at night, stop cutting up the inside of heavy vehicles, etc etc.
Just sayin’
-
19
February 28, 2012 at 10:05
-
{ 19 comments… read them below or add one }