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)
“We still suspect that implementing the 20mph on the basis of saving lives is a smokescreen for the real reason behind the legislation…"
Anyone know what they think the “real reason” is?
Very likely about the war on car, where car and freedom is being “oppressed” because car people think they’re the most oppressed despite the privileges of having city pave way for them to go everywhere they pleased, so they can drive like a drunken goose they are.
But of course cyclist are bad because we don’t follow rule.
If it were the United States it would be to funnel more money to police departments via higher tickets.
A person who speeds in a 30mph zone isn’t going to stop speeding when the limit is lowered to 20; the ticket will just be more expensive.
That would be nice. Of course, the law would have to be made with safety in mind, and not money-grubbing.
OK, so it’ll mean fewer people killed and injured, but thousands of drivers will have literally SECONDS added to their journey time.
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.
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.
“Unfortunately, the data provided is incomplete making it impossible to compare like with like. However, what the data provided does highlight is an increase in deaths and serious injuries across all roads combined for the first six months of available data. In Q4 (Quarter 4) 2022/2023 there was an increase of six deaths and 26 serious injuries and in Q1 2023/24 there was no decrease in deaths and an increase of 10 serious injuries”
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.
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.
The 20 mph thing is happening where I live as well (in parts of Utah), and it’s being widely ignored. I don’t speed in general. I especially avoid it in places where there may be kids or pets around, so I end up with some big penis truck tailgating me when I’m on those 20 mph roads. It’s so frustrating because these people haven’t seen what happens to pedestrians when they get hit.
Content warning, I’m going to describe an accident I saw. When I was 16, I saw a man step out onto the road about ~50-75 feet in front of a car moving at ~40 mph. The pedestrian didn’t look before he stepped out, and he wasn’t anywhere near a crosswalk. He looked like he was coming from a construction site and was probably just tired. Nobody was speeding and the driver had pretty admirable reflexes (I could hear the juddering from his ABS brakes).
Even with that, the guy got hit before the car could come to a stop. I saw him fly back several feet, and the thing I’ll never forget is the way his head fucking bounced as it hit the pavement. The amount a person’s head will bounce is just fucking awful. I’ll never forget what he was like afterwards. He had a heavy concussion and a huge bruise on his head. He could barely speak and he kept pawing at the air, like he was seeing something. He kept trying to get up, to the point where someone had to hover over him to stop him from moving (he might have had spine damage). He got hit so hard that to 16 year old me, he turned from a person into an injured animal. It felt like the spark in his eyes got kicked out when his skull hit the ground. It was terrifying to see someone get their… sapience? Maybe there’s a better word, but see someone get their sapience smashed out of them.
Like, the guy I saw was lucky. The driver wasn’t texting and slowed down considerably, and there were multiple first responders with some degree of training. He wasn’t crushed. He didn’t go under the car. An ambulance was there within 5 minutes of the accident. He probably lived, and he probably didn’t end up with permanent brain damage (according to the EMTs). Every time I drive through a neighborhood, I imagine a kid running out from behind something, right in front of my car. If I’m going 30-40 mph, that kid’s head is gonna be doing the asphalt bounce. If I’m going 20 mph, that kid is going to shit their pants when my 3000 pound death machine stops a foot away from them.
I just wish I could make these people understand how fucking awful it is to be hit by a car. It’s been more than 15 years since I saw that happen and I still feel ill when I try hard to remember it. I can’t imagine how bad it feels for the driver, and how much, much worse it feels for the guy who was hit.
I’m sorry you had to experience that. That is traumatic for everyone involved. I have been hit by a car while walking in a crosswalk because the driver wasn’t paying attention. I had no injuries but it sure is traumatic when it happens.
I also read that Utah just started banning objectionable books statewide. Hang in there.
Remember it’s every driver’s right to cause an “accident” that kills someone so they can save about 15 seconds of travel time.
It says something that you feel the need to be hyperbolic in saying ‘15 seconds’ when in reality, say 35 instead of 20mph to go a few miles would differ by minutes. And it is only a few minutes, but somehow you couldn’t reason with that to make your own self righteous point.
Why are you driving SEVERAL MILES through a 20mph zone?! They are only found in residential areas, on roads that don’t go anywhere except someone’s home or some kid’s school. You spend maybe two minutes on these roads. Pull your head out of your trunk.
Actually, lowering the speed limit decreases the time it takes to get to your destination. Lowering the speed limit reduces the need for traffic control measures like traffic lights and will increase your average travel speed.
There’s a good video from NotJustBikes that explains this very well: https://youtu.be/JRbnBc-97Ps
The problem is that people drive at the speed they feel comfortable at.
It doesn’t make any sense to put a low speed limit if the road is wide and large. They should put a low limit and decrease the road width at the same time, to make it safer for bicycles and pedestrians (it’s called “road diet”, search for it!).
