>> These percentages are a simple calculation from the TRL data - for example the Analogue
>> speed cameras at road works is:
>>
>> 0.138 / 0.089 = 1.5506 = 55% increase.
>>
>> TRL report is TRL-595
>>
>> www.safespeed.org.uk/trl595001.gif this is the table. The report itself costs money still I think.
What I don't get about these figures, and Teabelly maybe you could help shed some light, is that the total number of vehicle miles stated to be under camera surveillance (1.6 billion) seems to be over 10 times higher than the number of miles driven without surveillance (140.83 million).
This suggests that the non-camera figures only account for about 8% of miles driven.
Now, I may be interpreting those figures incorrectly but how do they determine which vehicle miles are and aren't covered by camera, and what do those 8% of vehicle miles cover? If they aren't comparable to the other 92%, then this is not comparing like for like.
Have I completely misunderstood these figures?
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Fri 12 Mar 10 at 16:39
|
