- Mobile site
- E-Newsletters
-
- News feed
- Find us on Twitter
@yorkpress
Follow us on Twitter
- Find us on Facebook
The Press, York
Like us on Facebook
Disputing validity of zone statistics (From York Press)
Get in touch: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting YORK to 80360 or send an email»
Disputing validity of zone statistics
1:20pm Friday 17th August 2012 in Letters
I DOUBT if many people would be surprised if they were told that five times as many people were killed in plane crashes in 2010 than in 1920. But not many of them would draw the asinine conclusion that plane travel has become five times more dangerous over the period.
They would instead ask, “How many deaths are there per air mile travelled?” And, of course, this shows that air travel safety has improved vastly over the past 90 years.
Why didn’t you ask the same question about accidents in 20mph zones, before headlining the increase? As a well-respected local paper, I would ask you to return to your source and request the figures for accidents per mile traveled in the 20mph zones. And I’d like you to give as much prominence to the response.
David Williams, Newton Terrace, York.
• I DO wish more people were trained in understanding scientific data. The headline “Accidents ‘may be more likely’ in York’s 20mph zones” (The Press, August 15) may be grammatically correct, but the report it’s drawn from only has half the information needed to make that conclusion.
The Department for Transport raw data shows the numbers of deaths and injuries in 2011 compared to 2010, split between different sorts of roads. What it doesn’t show is the very large number of previously 30mph roads which have been turned into 20mph roads in that time.
For instance, Newcastle finished making 2,758 streets into 20mph zones at the end of 2011: so any accidents in 2010 would have been reported in 30mph roads, but in 2011 they would be in 20mph areas.
What is needed is an analysis of the numbers and type of casualties per mile, which would be far more useful. Previous data has indicated that slower roads have fewer accidents, injuries are less severe, and air pollution is reduced.
I hope the York 20mph zones are monitored before and after implementation, so we can see if they are safer, cleaner and quieter.
And if they aren’t, and there are problems, when that data is verified the speed limits could be changed back.
John Cossham, Hull Road, York.
• NEW research published by the Department of Transport featuring Portsmouth City Council, one of the first to introduce 20 mph speed limits in this country in 2007, casts doubt on 20mph speed limits as a means of cutting road collisions/casualties.
In fact, the research indicates road collisions have gone up rather than down because motorists get frustrated by restricted speed.
And the number of pedestrians and cyclists injured has increased because they are lulled into a false sense of security and take unnecessary risks when crossing busy roads.
Now will our local politicians listen and abandon any misguided thoughts that reducing the speed of traffic city-wide will make our streets safer? The message is clear: road danger merely a fickle perception.
So targeted action will be more effective than a shotgun approach of trying to hit everything that moves.
Allan Charlesworth, Old Earswick, York.
Comments(7)
nowthen
says...
4:17pm Fri 17 Aug 12
NoNewsIsGoodNews wrote:I agree , 20 mph or 30 mph isn't going to make any difference whatsoever to the reckless road user. This idea should be ditched ; the Union Terrace kid AKA James Alexander can always blame " Government cuts " as a reason , the same as he does for all the other c0ck ups he makes.
I hope the York 20mph zones are monitored before and after implementation, so we can see if they are safer, cleaner and quieter.
And if they aren’t, and there are problems, when that data is verified the speed limits could be changed back.
John Cossham, Hull Road, York.
That has to be the most stupid idea I have read on here in months.
Not only will it be a complete waste of time and money implementing a blanket 20 mph limit, that will be completely unenforceable, but then where is the money going to come from to change it all back when it doesn't work?
The best and cheapest idea is to leave things as they are until it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that it could actually work by looking at other towns and cities that have implemented the scheme for at least 5 years.
Matt_S
says...
6:26pm Fri 17 Aug 12
nowthen wrote:But what about normal/non-reckless road users, who simply can't react in time to kids running out in the street etc? In these cases, 20mph could make all the difference.
NoNewsIsGoodNews wrote:I agree , 20 mph or 30 mph isn't going to make any difference whatsoever to the reckless road user. This idea should be ditched ; the Union Terrace kid AKA James Alexander can always blame " Government cuts " as a reason , the same as he does for all the other c0ck ups he makes.
I hope the York 20mph zones are monitored before and after implementation, so we can see if they are safer, cleaner and quieter.
And if they aren’t, and there are problems, when that data is verified the speed limits could be changed back.
John Cossham, Hull Road, York.
That has to be the most stupid idea I have read on here in months.
Not only will it be a complete waste of time and money implementing a blanket 20 mph limit, that will be completely unenforceable, but then where is the money going to come from to change it all back when it doesn't work?
The best and cheapest idea is to leave things as they are until it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that it could actually work by looking at other towns and cities that have implemented the scheme for at least 5 years.
NoNewsIsGoodNews
says...
6:31pm Fri 17 Aug 12
Matt_S wrote:You cannot legislate against if's and buts.
nowthen wrote:But what about normal/non-reckless road users, who simply can't react in time to kids running out in the street etc? In these cases, 20mph could make all the difference.
NoNewsIsGoodNews wrote:I agree , 20 mph or 30 mph isn't going to make any difference whatsoever to the reckless road user. This idea should be ditched ; the Union Terrace kid AKA James Alexander can always blame " Government cuts " as a reason , the same as he does for all the other c0ck ups he makes.
I hope the York 20mph zones are monitored before and after implementation, so we can see if they are safer, cleaner and quieter.
And if they aren’t, and there are problems, when that data is verified the speed limits could be changed back.
John Cossham, Hull Road, York.
That has to be the most stupid idea I have read on here in months.
Not only will it be a complete waste of time and money implementing a blanket 20 mph limit, that will be completely unenforceable, but then where is the money going to come from to change it all back when it doesn't work?
The best and cheapest idea is to leave things as they are until it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that it could actually work by looking at other towns and cities that have implemented the scheme for at least 5 years.
Matt_S
says...
2:11am Sat 18 Aug 12
NoNewsIsGoodNews wrote:I'm not sure what that's even supposed to mean.
Matt_S wrote:You cannot legislate against if's and buts.
nowthen wrote:But what about normal/non-reckless road users, who simply can't react in time to kids running out in the street etc? In these cases, 20mph could make all the difference.
NoNewsIsGoodNews wrote:I agree , 20 mph or 30 mph isn't going to make any difference whatsoever to the reckless road user. This idea should be ditched ; the Union Terrace kid AKA James Alexander can always blame " Government cuts " as a reason , the same as he does for all the other c0ck ups he makes.
I hope the York 20mph zones are monitored before and after implementation, so we can see if they are safer, cleaner and quieter.
And if they aren’t, and there are problems, when that data is verified the speed limits could be changed back.
John Cossham, Hull Road, York.
That has to be the most stupid idea I have read on here in months.
Not only will it be a complete waste of time and money implementing a blanket 20 mph limit, that will be completely unenforceable, but then where is the money going to come from to change it all back when it doesn't work?
The best and cheapest idea is to leave things as they are until it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that it could actually work by looking at other towns and cities that have implemented the scheme for at least 5 years.
Mr Happy
says...
12:58pm Sat 18 Aug 12
NoNewsIsGoodNews wrote:You can't legislate against a small kid running out, but you can legislate about the injury that could be caused to that child. That's exactly why there should be 20mph limits in built up areas.
Matt_S wrote:You cannot legislate against if's and buts.
nowthen wrote:But what about normal/non-reckless road users, who simply can't react in time to kids running out in the street etc? In these cases, 20mph could make all the difference.
NoNewsIsGoodNews wrote:I agree , 20 mph or 30 mph isn't going to make any difference whatsoever to the reckless road user. This idea should be ditched ; the Union Terrace kid AKA James Alexander can always blame " Government cuts " as a reason , the same as he does for all the other c0ck ups he makes.
I hope the York 20mph zones are monitored before and after implementation, so we can see if they are safer, cleaner and quieter.
And if they aren’t, and there are problems, when that data is verified the speed limits could be changed back.
John Cossham, Hull Road, York.
That has to be the most stupid idea I have read on here in months.
Not only will it be a complete waste of time and money implementing a blanket 20 mph limit, that will be completely unenforceable, but then where is the money going to come from to change it all back when it doesn't work?
The best and cheapest idea is to leave things as they are until it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that it could actually work by looking at other towns and cities that have implemented the scheme for at least 5 years.
John Cossham
says...
4:08pm Mon 20 Aug 12
But of course I don't want them revoked. And nor will they. Lower speeds DO mean reduced likelihood of accidents, because of increased reaction time, and the laws of physics which say that if you hit something at 30mph it does more damage than at 20.
I suggest you read the article on page two of the Press on 20th August. Read it VERY carefully and get back to me.
NoNewsIsGoodNews says...
2:51pm Fri 17 Aug 12
That has to be the most stupid idea I have read on here in months.
Not only will it be a complete waste of time and money implementing a blanket 20 mph limit, that will be completely unenforceable, but then where is the money going to come from to change it all back when it doesn't work?
The best and cheapest idea is to leave things as they are until it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that it could actually work by looking at other towns and cities that have implemented the scheme for at least 5 years.