Talk:Smeed's law

message: *Smeed and beyond, sceptical of the Smeed Law
This appears to be a monograph by somoene with no recognised expertise in the field of statistical analysis or road safety policy.  Please name the reputable sources which have presented this argument. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 14:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reviewed the link.  While the authorship is not clear, and the link has a barrow to push, there seems no reason not to include the link.  Why should safespeed.org.uk not be reputable?  I have reincluded it.--A  Y  Arktos 21:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because they have made many claims which are clearly bunk, none of which have eben peer-reviewed, they also assert that many reliable sources (e.g. the Transport Research Laboratory) are "flawed" or "fraduluent". The site has no academic credibility, and a history of writing "research" from the conclusions backwards, with proof by assertion being their major tool. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I have removed the POV discrediting of the source, and left the fact, I hope. Rich   Farmbrough. 12:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link removed 26 Dec 2005 

message: ISTM the formula is cube root, not inverse square.  Please revrt if I'm going mad. Rich   Farmbrough. 12:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Formula

message: I have to say that in trying to avoid pushing a point of view, editors have made Sneed's point of view incomprehensible. Can we state clearly what Sneed or people who cite his law are getting at, and then point out that other people challenge the validity of his statistics? Nareek 21:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confused 

message: I've gone through and tied in the facts to various referenced documents in-line with the text. However can someone tie in this statement which sounds a rather simplistic paraphasing of Smeed: humans would take advantage of any improvements in automobiles or infrastructure to drive ever more recklessly in the interests of speed and safety until deaths rose to an unacceptable level, at which point they would cease to become more reckless. Ephebi (talk) 12:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Smeed's law as stated is obviously wrong. Fatalities per person have dropped dramatically in most developed countries, after increasing in the initial period of expanding car use
http://www.rff.org/Publications/WPC/Pages/09-07-27-Declining-Traffic-Fatalities.aspx
Obviously, it would be WP:OR to make this point directly, but the article currently suffers from massive violations of WP:WEIGHT. The studies directly refuting Smeed get a couple of sentence while there is a lenghty discussion of the implications of the idea, which would be fascinating if it were correct, but is not very useful as it is.JQ (talk) 23:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Weight problems

message: What the writer of the article in Wikipedia has failed to understand was that Smeed 1 - fell into the trap of Spurius correlation with his regression analysis.  2 - He then manipulated the regression equation as if it was an algebraic equation and that is invalid. What appears in the article as Smeeds law is the manipulated equation. 
D C Andreassen  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.12.110.189 (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  regression equation vs algebraic equation