Is the MSF using sample size as a smokescreen to cloud the true reasons for withholding its money?
"People are entitled to their opinions, but they are not entitled to use false information to discredit scientific facts."
This is how Dr. Samir Ahmed, Professor of Transportation Systems & Engineering at Oklahoma State University characterized the Motorcycle Safety Foundation's (MSF) rejection of his statistical analysis that indicates a valid motorcycle crash study can be conducted with fewer than 900 crashes studied. Dr. Ahmed is the head of the study group.
In an email to federal government officials and motorcycle industry representatives, which was subsequently forwarded to us, Dr. Ahmed spoke of his frustration with the MSF's refusal to commit $3 million its members pledged to the study. In the email he did note that MSF President Tim Buche "will make a final request to their Board of Trustees on March 18."
The MSF has previously responded to our queries about their views on Dr. Ahmed's statistical analysis by saying only that "The MSF has not learned anything new that changes its position on this study because it still will not provide sufficient statistical significance of the OECD identified study variables. The study also will not produce results, in our estimation, that can be reliably correlated with studies in other countries, which is important to our multi-national member companies."
Dr. Ahmed's frustration appears to be based at least in part on what he considers to be the MSF's rejection of the validity of his analysis as in fact a smokescreen meant to conceal the real reasons for not committing its money to the study. One such option could be the significantly worse economic situation MSF members find themselves in now, versus their condition at the time they made their pledges.
"I also told him (Tim Buche) that the industry can use reasons other than sample size for not supporting the study. The current economic climate and the decline in motorcycle sales/revenues are examples," said Dr. Ahmed in the email.
The following is the entire text of the email.
Fran -- thanks for the e-mail regarding AMA. Since February 5, AMA has asked me repeatedly to respond to a number of questions including sample size for the motorcycle crash causation study. I have been delaying this because Tim Buche told me that he will make a final request to their Board of Trustees on March 18. Their Board has a new chair, Julie Chichlowski, manufacturing engineer from Harley-Davidson. She succeeded David Edwards from Honda.
I spoke with Tim yesterday specifically about sample size and the need to clarify the errors in the MSF press releases (the abbreviated study). We disagreed on a number of things. I believe that he is getting the wrong advice from the wrong people and it is becoming very much political. People are entitled to their opinions, but they are not entitled to use false information to discredit scientific facts. I invited Tim and all others who support the MSF/industry arguments about sample size to present their analysis in the open with their names next to it. I do not think this will ever happen. I am planning on publishing my analysis on the Web. I will also try to get permission from Professor Hurt's family to publish his e-mail to me one month before he died. He addressed the sample size of 900 used in the USC Study in good detail. Most people do not understand that sample size depends on the ratio between controls and crashes which is different in USC, MAIDS and the ongoing U.S. DOT study.
I also explained to Tim that a sample size of 750 investigations will cost $6.7M and will provide statistically valid conclusions about all the factors that can be addressed by practical countermeasures. The $6.7M figure is within reach if the industry wants to participate. I also told him that the industry can use reasons other than sample size for not supporting the study. The current economic climate and the decline in motorcycle sales/revenues are examples.
Related articles
New motorcycle safety study in pilot stage
New motorcycle safety study: Valid number of crashes to study is unknown
Some particulars clear, others still unclear in new motorcycle safety study
Motorcycle Safety Foundation open to reconsidering safety study funding
Analysis says valid motorcycle crash data achievable with available funding
Rationale of motorcycle crash study statistical analysis explained
MSF funding for crash study still looks like a no-go
MSF's motorcycle crash study reluctance challenged
MSF, VTTI to conduct 'naturalistic' motorcycle safety study
Motorcycle crash study will proceed without MSF money
MSF President Tim Buche discusses motorcycle safety studies
Comments
Great investigative reporting! Very interesting.
I don't get it. How much scientific method and statistical analysis is necessary to understand that cars pull out in front of motorcycles that they don't see because they are not paying attention causing most motorcycle accidents? Please send the MSF grant money to me. Thank you.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!