GreenShed wrote:
I don't believe he did dismiss RTTM "out of hand" at all, he said he understood regression artefacts and had taken these into account.
You can't go round saying RTTM this and RTTM that without fully appreciating how the artefacts can be taken into account and benefits shown after these artefacts have been accounted for.
For the most part this hasn't happened. SCPs and various representatives are still claiming reductions at camera sites without accounting for RTTM (even 5 year after the effect is proven). A quick search on this forum will prove that.
If he really did understand this, he would have accepted that current claims from SCPs are wildly and wantonly false.
GreenShed wrote:
You have to admit that on sites that have had long-term implementation that artefacts are accounted for and that the MEAN has been influenced by the deployment of speed enforcement systems.
Not in the slightest!
There are other factors to consider, such as “long-term trends” (safer cars, better post crash care), as well as additional measures applied to the defined camera site (pedestrian crossings/barriers, cycle lanes, junction re-engineering, etc).
These are factors have been repeatedly given to you; how do you keep forgetting these?