20mph zones "More dangerous."

thirdcrank
Posts: 36740
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

20mph zones "More dangerous."

Post by thirdcrank »

I don't think this has been discussed on the forum but it seems fundamentally important to me.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12 ... il-admits/

Briefly, it's suggested that the introduction of 20mph zones leads to an increase in serious casualties, with the implication that driving more slowly is somehow dangerous. Apart from what I believe still to be the policy that these limits are not routinely enforced, so it does not follow that 20mph limits = traffic at 20 mph max, it's based on the reality that casualties are reduced when roads are manifestly too dangerous for vulnerable users.
User avatar
Heltor Chasca
Posts: 3016
Joined: 30 Aug 2014, 8:18pm
Location: Near Bath & The Mendips in Somerset

Re: 20mph zones "More dangerous."

Post by Heltor Chasca »

I believe the Bath Chronicle was the rag whose invalidated and anecdotal findings somehow managed to get into the Telegraph. The BC is currently taking quite a bit of flack from local activists because of this.

Lazy and irresponsible journalism.
Cyril Haearn
Posts: 15213
Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am

Re: 20mph zones "More dangerous."

Post by Cyril Haearn »

No statistics for *KSI*
K is one thing and SI is quite another :(
Entertainer, juvenile, curmudgeon, PoB, 30120
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott
We love safety cameras, we hate bullies
LollyKat
Posts: 3261
Joined: 28 May 2011, 11:25pm
Location: Scotland

Re: 20mph zones "More dangerous."

Post by LollyKat »

There is an interesting thread over on YACF about this.

This is one of the posts:
http://www.20splenty.org/banes-report takes the lack of statistical rigour apart very nicely.
User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 10801
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: 20mph zones "More dangerous."

Post by Cunobelin »

A frequently claimed, and equally often disproved claim by opponents of these systems
PRL
Posts: 609
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 9:14pm
Location: Richmond upon Thames

Re: 20mph zones "More dangerous."

Post by PRL »

LollyKat wrote:There is an interesting thread over on YACF about this.

This is one of the posts:
http://www.20splenty.org/banes-report takes the lack of statistical rigour apart very nicely.


Lack of statistical rigour is an understatement. The total injuries went down significantly. By breaking the region up into small sections the report found that the injuries went up in more sections than they went down; mostly by random fluctuation given the very small numbers per section.
Annoying Twit
Posts: 962
Joined: 1 Feb 2016, 8:19am
Location: Leicester

Re: 20mph zones "More dangerous."

Post by Annoying Twit »

Isn't there an Independent Press Standards Organisation that a complaint could be sent to if the statistics are dodgy and misleading?
profpointy
Posts: 528
Joined: 9 Jun 2011, 10:34pm

Re: 20mph zones "More dangerous."

Post by profpointy »

Not commented on the article which may well be click bait, or standard cycle hating, or both, or neither...

but on a fairly busy shoppi g road near me where they introduced 20mph a while back it does seem, paradoxically, harder to cross the road now, than it did when the limit was 30. I think the smoother traffic flow of the slower speed means there are fewer gaps, and also you can't quite be sure the traffic is actually doing 20 rather than 30 so you don't gain as much as you'd think by crossing when cars are closer. It's Whiteladies road in Bristol I'm refering to.

That said, I broadly approve of 20mph in many town roads, but even so, it doesn't necessarily solve everything
Bonefishblues
Posts: 11374
Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
Location: Near Bicester Oxon

Re: 20mph zones "More dangerous."

Post by Bonefishblues »

Annoying Twit wrote:Isn't there an Independent Press Standards Organisation that a complaint could be sent to if the statistics are dodgy and misleading?

As opposed to the analysis of a pressure group which lobbies for the measure. I sense their dilemma.
Annoying Twit
Posts: 962
Joined: 1 Feb 2016, 8:19am
Location: Leicester

Re: 20mph zones "More dangerous."

Post by Annoying Twit »

Bonefishblues wrote:
Annoying Twit wrote:Isn't there an Independent Press Standards Organisation that a complaint could be sent to if the statistics are dodgy and misleading?

As opposed to the analysis of a pressure group which lobbies for the measure. I sense their dilemma.


If the total number of injuries and deaths went down, then I don't think there is any need to rely on analysis. The simple figures will speak for themselves.
Cyril Haearn
Posts: 15213
Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am

Re: 20mph zones "More dangerous."

Post by Cyril Haearn »

Annoying Twit wrote:
Bonefishblues wrote:
Annoying Twit wrote:Isn't there an Independent Press Standards Organisation that a complaint could be sent to if the statistics are dodgy and misleading?

As opposed to the analysis of a pressure group which lobbies for the measure. I sense their dilemma.


If the total number of injuries and deaths went down, then I don't think there is any need to rely on analysis. The simple figures will speak for themselves.


Lumping K +SI together is no good, KSI = 10 might mean 10 K or 10 SI
Plenty of SI make a full recovery
Entertainer, juvenile, curmudgeon, PoB, 30120
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott
We love safety cameras, we hate bullies
User avatar
squeaker
Posts: 4144
Joined: 12 Jan 2007, 11:43pm
Location: Sussex

Re: 20mph zones "More dangerous."

Post by squeaker »

Annoying Twit wrote:Isn't there an Independent Press Standards Organisation that a complaint could be sent to if the statistics are dodgy and misleading?

According to 20's Plenty, the original (with devious summary) report was from Bath council, which the local press picked up on, helped by a local politician. AKA more fake news :(
"42"
Cyril Haearn
Posts: 15213
Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am

Re: 20mph zones "More dangerous."

Post by Cyril Haearn »

K:SI
Probably there were no K

Maybe the maximum speed limit could be changed to 30 kmh not 30 mph


BTW one should write about *lower speeds* not *slower speeds* :x
Entertainer, juvenile, curmudgeon, PoB, 30120
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott
We love safety cameras, we hate bullies
Bonefishblues
Posts: 11374
Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
Location: Near Bicester Oxon

Re: 20mph zones "More dangerous."

Post by Bonefishblues »

squeaker wrote:
Annoying Twit wrote:Isn't there an Independent Press Standards Organisation that a complaint could be sent to if the statistics are dodgy and misleading?

According to 20's Plenty, the original (with devious summary) report was from Bath council, which the local press picked up on, helped by a local politician. AKA more fake news :(

Your use of both "fake news" and "devious summary" carries an obvious implication that it was deliberate and deceptive. I can think of no reason why they would want it be so - do you have some insight on this?
LollyKat
Posts: 3261
Joined: 28 May 2011, 11:25pm
Location: Scotland

Re: 20mph zones "More dangerous."

Post by LollyKat »

How many councillors are are cyclists and how many are motorists?
Post Reply