pull down to refresh
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.
Correlation shown. The study says it
"does not imply a causal relationship.”
Causation was asserted, not established.
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.