weepej wrote:
In other news, ROAD TRAFFIC INCIDENTS RISE FROM FIVE TO SIX AFTER SPEED CAMERAS AXED.
Would you prefer a 'fatality' to an 'incident'?
The point you have conveniently missed is that there was no carnage when the cameras were disabled - cameras do nothing (nothing significant anyway).
weepej wrote:
And let me guess, it's RTTM if the argument's for the cameras , but it's the camera's fault if the argument is against them?
The speed camera placement policy
inherently forced the RTTM effect; the cameras were placed only after reaching a certain KSI baseline, which was in effect a (temporary) increase of KSIs.
This does not apply to the Swindon example because there was
no policy (not one reported to the public anyway) of implementing their scheme only when a certain baseline/change was achieved.
Hence unlike the speed camera placement policy which
must have positive RTTM (and hugely significant at that), any RTTM effect (regarding the Swindon switch off) may be positive,
or negative, or non existent.
Do you accept this relatively simple response weepej? If not then can you explain why not?