The sky's the limit - Government can get it wrong
Article Index
Government can get it wrong
Government (Department for Transport) can get it wrong, (intentionally or unintentionally depending upon your chosen conspiracy theory). For instance, the roadside speed cameras which are the bane of the speeding motorist. But at the same time they were reported as being a significant factor in reducing by 22% deaths on the road. (Transport Research Laboratory report) This claim was challenged and when the methodology used for analysis of the data was reviewed it was found to have a fundamental mathematical flaw that skewed the results.
Later analysis in some peer reviewed studies found that speed camera could actually cause an increase in the number of accidents. It was viewed by the driving public as a way for local councils to generate extra income rather than reduce deaths and serious injuries. Now that the government has removed the fines from the councils' remits—the councils are starting to abandon the use of roadside cameras.
Freedom of Information request
However, when I asked the Trust through a Freedom of Information request for information on the questions asked during the survey, there was the usual sound of the clatter of the shutters coming down. The creak as the drawbridge was raised. This is of course just another instance of Richard Parry's new era of openness and transparency. This will of course just spawn another round of 'intentional or unintentional obfuscation depending upon your chosen conspiracy theory.' But as happens sometimes when you make a public FoI request—sometimes the information does not come from only the intended source:
Dear Canal and River Trust.
I am researching a further article on visitor numbers to the inland waterways. I understand that the Canal and River Trust has conducted on their behalf, a regular two weekly telephone survey into the number of visitor/visits to the canals under its control. Conducting telephone interviews with around 12,000 people each year. I wish to request a copy of the questions that are asked during the telephone survey.
Top secret
Later I had a reply which gave a refusal. Is this top secret or is this a further display of Richard Parry's publicly given assurances of a policy of 'Openness and Transparency'? As Francis Urquhart said—'I could not possibly comment.'
We have considered your request for a copy of the questions asked during our Inland Waterways Visitor Survey telephone call and I am writing to let you know that we do not consider the information you have requested to be subject to the limited application of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to Canal & River Trust.
Then the pleasant surprise arrives in a comment attached to the refused Freedom of Information Request from the Trust. Which said, here is the information that the Canal & River Trust is refusing to provide:
Click and scroll down to the bottom.
Minuscule in comparison
I am not a survey expert and I would not claim to be one. However, the one thing I know about conducting a survey is that where the representative sample is minuscule in comparison to the total population, even the very tiniest of errors will create huge skewing of the output. With a population of 64.1 million and a survey base of 500 people every two weeks there is scope for massive fluctuations. Each person called would represents 128,200 individuals. The recent UK election polls gave a wayward opinion of the outcome. However, the outcome was also wildly out with the 'professional pollsters' such as Mori predictions.
One of the problems with surveys is that people do not like being disturbed by cold calls. The caller starts to layout his spiel and the recipient starts to think, I'll stuff this one and begins to give spurious replies. How do I know this, its because that is exactly what I do whenever I get cold called.
Generalisation
This then started me to think more about the generalisation over the numbers being possibly concentrated into a number of hotspots. With the exception of (a drink in a pub, sat or stood by the water, visit to a heritage attraction or museum) all the rest (on a boat with an engine, canoeing, rowing boats and sailing boats, cycling, walked a dog, a walk, a ramble, a run or a jog) would require some significant movement along the waterway and towpath. So we should be able to observe the huge rise in the numbers of these visitors along the towpath. Not necessarily congregated around a hotspot like the Bingley Five Rise. Though to be honest it seems that more visit for a cup of tea in the canal side café than turn up to view the flight.
If the current trend in numbers holds up—we should be well in excess of 450,000,000 visitors by Christmas. Now ask yourself are you seeing 35 times as many people on the canal compared to what you were seeing three years ago? In the places where you saw two three people three years ago, do you now see 70 to a 100 now?
As the saying goes—the sky is seemingly the limit for visitor numbers.