View Single Post
Old 9th Dec 2011, 12:30
  #45 (permalink)  
bnt
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland. (No, I just live here.)
Posts: 713
Well, I was trying to answer the original question, which was about something that "proves conclusively". I just don't think that's possible to do with a controlled study, never mind a historical study (over time) or a longitudinal study (between different airports). So there are no guarantees, and we're left with "playing the odds".

It's a perennial annoyance to me that people say they want to wait for "conclusive proof" before doing anything.I can understand that if they're asked to do something difficult and/or expensive to counter a small risk, but we see it in silly cases too. There are still people arguing over seatbelts in cars, for example, because their life-saving abilities are not perfect or guaranteed to work every time. Considering that they're a minor inconvenience and don't add much to the cost, any statistical improvement means you should wear them.

I think that's true of the Hi-Viz vest argument: they are not a guarantee of safety, nor do they absolve the wearer of the need to act safely - but I've seen the difference they make in conditions of poor visibility. Can we at least agree that "being seen" is better than "not being seen", even if it's only a small difficult-to-measure difference in statistical terms?
bnt is offline