Martin Shipton A campaign group that opposes the introduction of a default 20mph speed limit on roads in Wales has refused to change its position despite official statistics that show significant falls in deaths and injuries at all speeds since the change was made. Most roads with a 30mph speed limit saw it reduced to […]

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)

  • Jerkface (any/all)OPEnglish
    33•5 months ago

    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.

    • EbbyEnglish
      -9•5 months ago

      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.