UK cities should have more 20mph speed zones, as they have cut road injuries by over 40% in London, a study claims.
In particular the number of children killed or seriously injured has been halved over the past 15 years, the British Medical Journal reported.
The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine study estimates 20mph zones have the potential to prevent up to 700 casualties in London alone.
At 20mph, it is estimated only one in 40 pedestrians is killed in a crash.
This compares with a one in five chance for someone hit at 30mph.
It has probably been ten years since I drove in London, and then the average speed was about 12 MPH, in my home town the max speed that can be attained is about 10MPH because of the humps, road width restrictions traffic and buses.
We all know that driving slower is safer for pedestrians, especially those pedestrians that think (or rather don’t think) that they can leap into the road with impunity, is there really a need for “research” into this subject?
No matter how many 20 MPH signs there are you cannot take account of the idiots who would drive at 35 or 40 in those zones, or take account of children that do not know how to cross a road properly.
Shouldn’t the money wasted on this type of investigation be used to educate pedestrians and drivers to the real dangers of driving a two ton weapon, or stepping in front of one?
Angus
Angus Dei on all and sundry
AnglishLit
Angus Dei politico
1 comment:
It's the usual 'con' trick much beloved by scientists, statiticians and the politicians who pay them. As well as liking to state the obvious, (I condemn the bombing of etc, etc - who bloody wouldn't?) Me too, Me too!
Worst they corrupt the science of numbers by failing to tell you that most of the figures are the 'relative risk', not the absolute.
In relative terms, your chance of winning the lottery is increased by 50% by buying another ticket; yes doubled! However, as the absolute risk is now 1.5/14.5 million thats not really very much.
The number of road deaths and injuries has continued to fall for years. But Government needs to 'polish' all figures to justify the draconian rules, especially those relating to speed. Using relative rather than absolute, is the way to do it, as you then get a higher percentage figure in relation to a diminishing total.
I do not approve of speeding, drink driving, or any other form of motorised stupidity but I, like many feel that motorists are being in cast in the role of smokers before, the ban in public places. Of course, when you drive in a Ministerial Car with a Police Escort, usually in excess of the speed limit, it isn't anything that effects you. If you have had a senior cabinet role, that continues for the rest of your life.
Yes it does! I can assure you.
Eg; There were less than 25 pedestrian fatalities in the City of London (The Mayoral Area) in 2008. How could a 700 further casualties be averted by the reduction to 20mph of all traffic? It's all nonsense, you need to know all the stats' the area, the time scale, the comparison data etc, etc. I don't believe anything I'm told anymore since 1987 when the stats were made up by Big Pharma for a healthy lipid level of 4 for overall cholesterol. Why ? Because without a body of people above this they would have no customers to flog Statins to. Before that 5.2 was viewed as the ideal average and still is, by sensible physicians.
Beware of statistics and ask for all the data.
Post a Comment