Matey-boy is saying that any study that compares the stats at the same site before and after camera installation is invalid due to RTM, and that the only way of proving that cameras work would be to pick two blackspots and put the cameras only at one, then tot up the crash stats after 5 years.
Whilst his approach would work (although I'd want both sites to be indentical, which is unlikely), I don't believe that comparing before/after figures is worthless.
That said, I've never really paid attention in mathematics class, as evidenced by my B at GCSE.
Therefore RTM explains all reductions in KSI's?
Matey-boy is saying that any study that compares the stats at the same site before and after camera installation is invalid due to RTM, and that the only way of proving that cameras work would be to pick two blackspots and put the cameras only at one, then tot up the crash stats after 5 years.
Whilst his approach would work (although I'd want both sites to be indentical, which is unlikely), I don't believe that comparing before/after figures is worthless.
That said, I've never really paid attention in mathematics class, as evidenced by my B at GCSE.