- cross-posted to:
- wales@lemm.ee
- cross-posted to:
- wales@lemm.ee
cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/38852281
Figures published by the Welsh Government show casualty reductions as follows for the period January to March 2024, in comparison with January to March 2023:
All severities at all speeds: 811 (2024); 4348 (2023);
20mph. All severities: 300 (2024); 662 (2023)
Killed or seriously injured: 63 (2024); 144 (2023)
Slightly injured: 237 (2024); 518 (2023)
30mph. All severities: 77 (2024); 1522 (2023)
Killed or seriously injured: 15 (2024); 343 (2023)
Slightly injured: 62 (2024); 1179 (2023)
40mph. All severities: 74 (2024); 397 (2023)
Killed or seriously injured: 20 (2024); 98 (2023)
Slightly injured: 54 (2024); 299 (2023)
50mph. All severities: 94 (2024); 273 (2023)
Killed or seriously injured: 23 (2024); 67 (2023)
Slightly injured: 71(2024); 206 (2023)
60mph. All severities: 214 (2024); 1235 (2023)
Killed or seriously injured: 71 (2024); 401 (2023)
Slightly injured: 143 (2024); 834 (2023)
70mph. All severities: 52 (2024); 259 (2023)
Killed or seriously injured: 12 (2024); 73 (2023)
Slightly injured: 40 (2024); 186 (2023)
That is what the group was arguing. Turns out, if they didn’t cherrypick data, there are no actualized gains.
Basically, they made inconvenient changes promising lower pollution, cost savings, and fewer deaths, but it hasn’t happened.
Now they are calling out the government.
Edit: I know you guys like to downvote to oblivion what you don’t want to hear, but what I said is literally right there in the article OP posted.
Going a little bit slower in residential areas is a tiny inconvenience for drivers and makes a big difference to residents, who absolutely have less noise and pollution. It’s a lot more pleasant for other road users too. The KSI figures are only one reason for the change.
You’d expect this, but my old boomer neighborhood was against it because it inconvenienced them.
You mean the pensioners that barely leave their house don’t want to be inconvenienced? I’m shocked!
This article does NOT say what you claim it does. Rather, it quotes someone making those claims, which are in part subjective interpretations. The quotes come from a biased individual. The validity of those claims is not verified by the article. No other party has the opportunity to respond to the claims in the article and the reporter has not provided their own fact checking.
Yes it quotes someone, perhaps with bias, making claims countering a special interest group, perhaps with bias, also making claims.
The conflict here is in the interpretation of data and the accusation of government sampling data to support a desired outcome.
The group protesting is asking for better explanation and data transparency: without which conclusions will always remain “subjective interpretations”.
As for reporter fact checking and verifying claims, I can only work with what is written. Dismiss the author and article in its entirety if you wish.
It’s been in effect for six months. it’s impossible to extrapolate that across this short of a timeline.
Yes, it’s short. And nowhere near enough data to predict long term trends.
But it’s also the same data (from Jan - March) the Welsh Government is using. We are arriving at 2 different conclusions based on how data is interpreted. That’s a problem. There are 2 very strong biases at play; one is asking for greater transparency.
Insurance companies have also seen a drop in claims with the 20mph speed limits
deleted by creator
Wait, are you saying that the lower injury numbers are cherry picked?
According to the article, there is perhaps an increase in injury numbers.
Even though you are being downvoted, I will come and agree with you here. A lot of the time the lower max speed is a lazy way to try to reduce accidents and mostly harms drivers that were already following the law. Proper enforcement of laws and better roads are the correct way to address these issues.
Btw, I dont even own a car and I always take the subway whenever I can.
There’s no harm involved in going 10mph slower. It adds seconds or a couple of minutes at most to most people’s journey times. You say “lazy” as if an easy way to reduce accidents is a bad thing.
There is. I live in a city with 20million people, everyday a good share of them waste hours stuck in traffic, making it slower only worsened the situation.
Do you not think the problem is the hours wasted stuck in traffic than a slight reduction in the speed when you aren’t? I mean when you are in traffic your speed is 0 and the speed limit could be 1,000 MPH for all the difference it makes.
A faster speed limit means cars before the traffic jam start will spend less time on the roads, the less time cars spend out the longer it takes for a jam to start and the shorter it will be.
Or, to put it another way, a faster speed limit means drivers get to the next traffic jam faster, making it larger more quickly.
Traffic is a flow problem, what you are saying makes no sense. I dont think I will change your mind so we should end this discussion here.
Traffic flows best at 20mph. Here’s a scientific study that proves it (pdf warning)
They are not commuting through 20mph zones. That’s pants-on-head.
Lower speeds have a huge impact on the pedestrian you hit. There’s a big difference between the fatality rates at 30mph Vs 20mph
Enforcement is not a solution. We know that enforcement only works while the intervention is actively being performed. That means that police have to become part of our infrastructure. We cannot afford that, and it is not in our interests, when there are better methods available of modifying driver behaviour.