ndp wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
ndp wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
ndp wrote:
How does your analysis of the impact of speed cameras in road works take into account variations in the nature of and inflows into road works?
Have you read TRL595? That's the only possible starting point.
We're not talking about TRL595 or the analysis of TRL...
Is that a 'no' then?
A convenient dodge, but your page as I linked contains no references to TRL595 beyond the data posted on that page. It appears therefore all of your analysis, and all evidence on which it is based is on that page - and therefore it doesn't matter either way whether or not I have read TRL595.
And that is a no, before you try and dodge the question again.
The topic is *your* analysis - not that of TRL595 (which you claim to have rubbished anyway). Your page makes no mention of either inflows nor of the nature of works or traffic management within the works - neither does it make any reference to anything specifice within TRL595 (beyond what you have cut-and-pasted into the page). So have you taken these factors into account or not?
Unfortunately TRL595 is only available upon payment of £40. I did that. But it's probably available through your college library.
It's important that you read it to discover that it's the largest study ever of UK motorway road works crash risk, with serious efforts to control confounding variables. There's nothing in the report to suggest that Gatso sites were subject to any sort of selection bias - and everything to suggest that the results should be taken as a best case general estimate pending improved data.
The with and without Gatso cases cover a fairly wide range of circumstances, yet the results are consistent. It's also the best data that's likely to exist for some time...
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Members
