http://test.nepsecure.co.uk/ADMIN/PropMotorsPlatform/newportal/motoringnews/fullstory.asp?siteid=bri&storyid=283

Bristol Evening Post "This is Bristol" 1/11/05

"Motoring News

Speed limit review welcomed
Plans to review speed limits on Britain's roads have received strong public backing according to a survey by motor insurance quote finder www.motorinsurance.co.uk.

Over three-quarters (76%) of the 619 drivers interviewed support the government's plans to increase speed limits on accident-free roads, and lower them in residential areas.

The introduction of a 20 mph speed limit in residential areas found most favour among respondents. Eighty per cent agreed this is a good idea, particularly on roads near schools.

However, despite support for the proposed government review, it is questionable whether drivers will stick to a 20 mph limit. Fifty-six per cent of drivers questioned by admitted to exceeding the 30 mph speed limit every day.

In addition, only eight per cent of drivers felt a 20 mph speed limit is the most effective method of slowing motorists in residential areas. Speed bumps (44%) and speed cameras (28%) are perceived as more successful in slowing drivers down.

Sixty per cent of drivers said the proposed review should also include motorway speed limits, despite motorways not being included at present. This doesn't necessarily mean the public wants higher speed limits on motorways. Fewer than half (44%) of respondents want the current 70 mph to be increased.

Surprisingly, 40% want the review to look at metric road signs, where distances would be given in kilometres rather than miles."

There are a number of problems and issues surrounding the claim that 40% want to 'look at metric road signs'.

First and foremost, unlike the comprehensive ICM survey in 2002, this is not a random selection of people of all ages, social classes, working and non-working, men and woman etc. that were surveyed in that survey.

In this case, it was a self-selecting group of respondents who voluntarily responded to a survey by a motor insurance magazine, itself read by a highly self-selecting group of people.

In addition, the numbers responding to the survey were only 631.

Also, we do not know precisely what question was asked, whereas we do with the 2002 ICM survey.

To put it bluntly, the 2002 survey, give or take a statistical error of plus or minus 2% or so, can be taken as an accurate representation of public opinion.

This survey cannot possibly come into the same category and comes nowhere near to being a true reflection of public opinion on the issue.

As any fair-minded person would be duty bound to agree.

---------------------------------------------------------------

[P.S. I see that 40% of respondents (i.e. about 250 individuals) wanted to 'look at metric road signs'. I have a very simple and inexpensive suggestion for them: Take the P & O ferry from Dover to Calais]

Could you look at my "email" posting?

Do a Daniel - ie ignore the above post - its sorted

Does anyone else believe that Tony's response would have been entirely different if the survey had said "Only 4% want the review to look at metric road signs, where distances would be given in kilometres rather than miles."

:-) :-) :-)

Tony

Can you expand on your assertion that "In this case, it was a self-selecting group of respondents who voluntarily responded to a survey by a motor insurance magazine, itself read by a highly self-selecting group of people."

My reading of the article was that it was a survey of British vehicle drivers, carried out by an internet-based insurance broker. Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't these vehicle drivers the very people that the vast majority of traffic signs are used by?

I would agree that a survey of 631 people will probably have a slightly greater statistical error than a survey of just over 1000 people. However, I doubt that the error increases from 2% to 32%. Please post some mathematical or statistical justification for your claim.

In addition, the survey you continually quote from dates from 2002. Are you suggesting that public opinion is fixed - no-one ever changes their mind? As an example, can you assure us that you have voted for (or been a member of) the same political party since the 2002 ICM poll, and are still a supporter or member of that party today? Even better, can you assure us that you have voted for the same political party for your entire adult life?

I also agree that we do not know precisely which question was asked, but I would point out that you have previously suggested that the 2002 ICM poll shows 92% support for ARM. Was that question asked in that survey?

I'm amazed that you state that the survey "comes nowhere near to being a true reflection of public opinion on the issue" as if it is a fact. That is obviously your own opinion, but (as usual) you produce no evidence (apart from the 3 and a bit year old ICM survey) to back up your assertion.

I simply reported the fact that a survey had been carried out (for the first time in ages!) I made no comment on the survey results. You, however, rushed to condemn the results because they appear to contradict your own views.

You refer to "fair-minded" people in your post. A fair-minded person would respond to every point I make above. I predict that (as usual) you will avoid or ignore many of the questions asked & lead us off onto some side-track.

Take your time to consider your answer - I'm considering taking up your "simple & inexpensive" offer to look at metric signs. I should be back by Sunday.

(For overseas readers - Tony seems to assume that the entire UK is within 45 minutes of the centre of London. In reality, the country is slightly larger. It can take more than a day to reach Dover from many parts of the country. Tony's idea that a trip to Calais is "simple & inexpensive" shows just how out of touch he is with many parts of the UK)

re (Beranger): "For overseas readers - Tony seems to assume that the entire U.K. is within 45 minutes of the centre of London..."

REPLY: A tad unfair, B, given that A.R.M. has succesfully amended footpath signs about 150 miles north of Fort William!

But at least I didn't say that London could be bombed by Saddam Hussain's nuclear weapons, er, 'within 45 minutes'...

"Surprisingly, 40% want the review to look at metric road signs, where distances would be given in kilometres rather than miles."

Be fair - Berenger - that doesn't mean that those people prefer or want metric.

I'd be in favour of reviewing the status of a Welsh Assembly - that doesn't mean I support one.

I said above (to Tony)

"I predict that (as usual) you will avoid or ignore many of the questions asked & lead us off onto some side-track."

Note Tony's reply - no attempt whatsoever to answer any of the questions asked about his attempted rubbishing of the poll, an partial admission that a trip to Dover is not "simple and inexpensive" for people 150 miles north of Fort William, and a total side-track regarding false claims by the leader of a UK party (that neither of us support) & the deposed leader of a foreign country.

Stimpy

A very good analogy - you don't support the Welsh assembly, so you wish to review its status. The 40% that supported a review of metric road signs must be against the "imperial only" status quo - otherwise why support a review?

Please reread my postings above - I have not suggested anywhere that they prefer or want metric - that is an assumption that you & Tony appear to have made.

It is a similar assumption to that made by the imperial side regarding a previous poll. In that poll, 86% said they preferred to see imperial on road signs. ARM read this as meaning "86% demand that no metric signage appears on UK roads" - a statement which does not in any way reflect the result of that poll.

The only assertion that I have made is that a poll states that 40% wish to see a review. Personally, I cannot see why they would want a review if they are happy with the status quo.

These people may wish to see metric-only or a greater mix of metric & imperial than the current situation. They (and I will admit that the following scenario is highly unlikely) might even want to go back to marking weights on road signs in cwts rather than tonnes.

Can we agree that
1) The 40% would appear to want some change to the current situation (otherwise, why ask for a review)?
2) It is likely that the vast majority of the 40% would wish to see more use of metric on the roads?

re (Motor Insurance survey): "Surprisingly, 40% want the review to look at metric road signs..."

REPLY: We still don't know what question was asked. I wonder what the response would be if it was asked in this way:

"The government estimates it would cost hundreds of millions of pounds to convert British road signs to metric. Do you think the review should look at metric road signs?"

<<The only assertion that I have made is that a poll states that 40% wish to see a review. Personally, I cannot see why they would want a review if they are happy with the status quo. >>

This is a psychiatrists nightmare!

Ok - let me rephrase my initial statement.

I was not in favour of a Welsh assembly BEFORE it was created.
But back then I'd still be one of the people to support a review of whether or not a Welsh Assembly was a good thing or not - i.e. I couldn't justify my lack of support as being superior unless a full review of pros and cons and what the people might want be called into question too.

Does that explain it?

Right.
Back to my jet lag.

ZZZzzz

Maybe Tony Bennett is right, maybe it is not 40% of motorists who want metric signs in the UK, maybe it is a whole lot more!

REPLY: We still don't know what question was asked. I wonder what the response would be if it was asked in this way:

"The government estimates it would cost hundreds of millions of pounds to convert British road signs to metric. Do you think the review should look at metric road signs?"
---------------------------------

Or how about:

"The government estimates that our confusing mixture of weights ansd measures costs the economy millions of pounds each year as well as causing generations of children to grow up with no real comprehension of measurement. Do you think there should be a review on whether we should look to complete the metrication of road signs?