The Wondering Mind

I just had the misfortune of reading an article on Car’s website about an apparent proposal for reducing speed limits in the UK. This is one of the sadder examples of a rabid advocate and partisan trying to disguise their writing as “reporting” for unsuspecting readers. Somthing we see far too frequently in what passes for public discourse today. So as a long time reader of the magazine, I’m going to dissect why this piece should have been ripped up by the editor.

First of all, the title: “Growing opposition to UK 50mph speed limit plan.” If you actually read the consultation paper here, it actually recommends an accelerated review of speed limits on British roads, on the premise that the limit on some roads might then be reduced as a result of reclassification of some types of roads. So right at the start, the “reporter” actually gets the facts wrong.

Then he claims that opposition to these (fictional) plans “is gathering momentum.” How can we tell? There is a petition with 34,000 signatures opposing the plans. To put that in perspective, according to the CIA World Factbook, the estimated population for the UK in July 2009 is over 61 million. That means that the people who signed this petition, if all are genuine, represent approximately 0.05% of the population. Or to put it another way, Old Trafford, the stadium for Manchester United, will seat over twice that many people in a sold-out match. Wow! What a momentum!

The reporter then claims these plans are being “steamrollered through” and are really just “a revenue raising scam.” And the basis for these claims? I have no idea, since there is no evidence provided. I guess we’re supposed to just take the reporter’s word for it, what with him having gotten everything else right so far.

But finally, we get some more support for this reporter’s bias.

A recent CAR Online poll showed a similar dissatisfaction among our regulars. An overwhelming 62% of you thought the 60mph limit should remain in force on rural roads, 31% said the limit should be raised and only 7% backed the Government’s plan.

This is, obviously, a voluntary poll among people who read a magazine about fast cars. To expect a different result than the one presented would be like polling the NRA on gun control. Would you expect too many NRA members to say guns should be banned?

In fact, as a voluntary poll, as in one which you volunteer to participate in, it is likely to attract participants who hold particularly extreme views, as they are more likely to be riled up enough to spend time responding to a poll which actually impacts nothing.

Our hapless reporter then appeals to the Association of British Drivers. I refer you to my previous comparison to the NRA. This is clearly a group of sad and crazy fanatics who people avoid at parties. If you want to evaluate the bona fides of this organisation, you can check out their website. There, among other things, they cling to the fiction that global warming is real. Even many American Republican politicians don’t claim to believe this rubbish any more.

And yet, Brian Gregory, the “association’s” chairman appeals to scientific principles.

On higher quality roads, the speed limit should even be raised. They need to use scientific principles. Speed limits should be based on the 85th percentile [between the speeds where 80 to 90% of road users drive]. On the motorway, many people drive at 85 to 90mph, so 85mph would be a safe speed limit.

He even appeals to economic consequences.

Each mph you slow the average speed down by costs the economy £800 million to £1 billion each year.

I haven’t bothered to test this man’s economic claims. I stopped after checking out the association’s webpage on the “scientific principle” of the “85th percentile.” I won’t explain here what’s wrong with this quasi-scientific sounding nonsense, but anyone who has any training in any science (natural or social) or statistics will immediately recognise that Brian Gregory lacks any such training or understanding.

I’m really sick and tired of lazy, stupid, and partisan hacks pretending to journalism and laying on a screed. Either write an editorial or report the news; don’t conflate the two. Which is not to say that there are not bad policy ideas which should be exposed as such. But my experience in such cases has been that laying out an honest, fair, and thorough analysis and reporting of facts will do more to convince an intelligent person than an obviously biased manifesto.

As it stands, all this article does is to convince me that the reporter is a sad fanatic, and not a very bright one at that. And the fact that he is clearly riled up about this position paper is in no way a mark against it. If anything, you can’t help suspecting that it’s got to have something to recommend it if the crazies are against it.