GreenShed wrote:
"I think evidence that speed cameras reduce accidents is actually highly questionable."
he really should be doing better than this. No evidence to back up the "questionability"of the efficacy of the camera treatment; it's a blatant attempt at attempting to gain popularity; what a shyster!
Aren't what the SCPs doing exactly '
a blatant attempt at attempting to gain popularity' by making claims without accounting for RTTM, long-term trends and 'bias on selection'?
What Michael Clarke stated is actually technically and morally accurate: the evidence that speed cameras reduce accidents truly is highly questionable. That was already the case with
RTTM and another significant is yet to be quantified.
The confounding factor of '
bias on selection' applied to speed camera sites (and remember, the RTTM evaluation was done for urban sites):
The installation of additional safety measures within the defined reach of camera sites (extremely likely at urban sites), which indeed does lead to a reduction of KSI at the camera site, but that reduction is absolutely nothing to do with presence of the camera at that site.
if A can result with Y and B can result with Y, must Y have been caused by B ?
Do you agree the 'bias on selection' argument is logically sound and cannot be dismissed as entirely reasonable?