
Originally Posted by
James Deuce
This is just the usual massaging numbers to fit the expected outcome.
Perhaps not. Most such data presented for general consumption is pretty obviously spun to suit the source, and that's usually pretty obvious due to fucking huge holes in the data set. But this:

Originally Posted by
thepom
Stroombergen's report — thought to be the first to analyse the combined role of vehicles, roads and drivers on the road toll
Suggests the data may just possibly have come from a wide enough range of sources to actually come close to be worth believing.
Which, let's face it is a fucking huge problem. Why is it that this is the first such analysis? Why should the usual suspects get to present corrupt, insultingly obviously tweeked data as impartial, scientifically valid reports without the detailed, equally reported rebuttal they deserve?
Rhetorical question is rhetorical.
Go soothingly on the grease mud, as there lurks the skid demon
Bookmarks