pull down to refresh
“do not imply a causal relationship”
doesn’t establish language as the cause
burden of proof is on the null hypothesis now, imo.
Correlation → not causation → burden stays on the causal claim.
I've shown:
- Statistical evidence of positive correlation between limited English proficiency and higher accident rates, in which there is a clear hypothesized causal channel.
- Statistical evidence that if the 8,000ish LEP drivers in the analysis sample had been prohibited from driving, accident rates would have been lower in the remaining population of drivers -- regardless of causal channel.
Ball is in your court to deliver an alternative hypothesis and evidence supporting the alternative hypothesis.
Road signs are largely standardized symbols → language matters more in real-time instructions (law enforcement, detours, emergencies) → that’s a different claim than “causes accidents.”
The study explicitly says the results “do not imply a causal relationship.” It shows correlation, not that English proficiency is the cause. The “if LEP drivers were removed, crashes would fall” step is a counterfactual the study doesn’t establish (no isolation of variables / no control for confounders). In causal inference, the burden is on the person claiming causation.
Just admit that your ethical aesthetics don't permit you to entertain the possibility that language proficiency matters for road safety.
There are all sorts of causal channels that could be posited and honestly you have the bigger evidentiary lift. If you can't see that then it's because you have an aesthetic moral filter and can't be intellectually honest with yourself or others.
Set the motive talk aside. Your claim is causal. The study says results “do not imply a causal relationship.” Show evidence that isolates language itself, not correlation.
Alright, bro, I don't think it's productive to speak any longer. I provided evidence and a clear causal channel, you provided no alternative hypothesis and merely resorted to hyperskepticism. I may not be able to convince you to admit to even the possibility of a causal relationship, but at least anyone who reads this thread can see the evidence now.
The article even notes drivers may
“know what the road signs mean, but… get nervous when questioned by officials.” 
That’s not the same as proving a causal safety effect.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-TD2_300-PURL-gpo13971/pdf/GOVPUB-TD2_300-PURL-gpo13971.pdf