Blanket 20mph limit across Wales from 2023
Discussion
Evanivitch said:
Obviously it's too soon to just take the evidence from one quarter, this still needs time to settle in and enforcement.
https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/...
Serious collisions and fatal's up why am I not surprised. https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/...
The speed limits in wales make so sense, Nationals on many straight decent roads dropped to 40 limits, then you get on some really twisty dangerous roads and they are national speed limit!
They seem to want to force you to drive fast in only places were the geography and view doesn't lend itself, that was my experience last year driving round wales on a trip for 14 days.
Responder.First said:
The speed limits in wales make so sense, Nationals on many straight decent roads dropped to 40 limits, then you get on some really twisty dangerous roads and they are national speed limit!
Or the section of M4 past Baglan... Speed limit reduced to 50mph "to reduce pollution", even though you've got the honking great steel works. Then, to really rub salt into the wound, the A48 which runs parallel is a NSL dual carriageway.M
Responder.First said:
Evanivitch said:
Obviously it's too soon to just take the evidence from one quarter, this still needs time to settle in and enforcement.
https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/...
Serious collisions and fatal's up why am I not surprised. https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/...
Classic PR bull, more people died, but its a "positive result". Silly me, how did i not realise that.
monkfish1 said:
And the whole justification was it would save 6-10 deaths a year. Off to a good start then.
Classic PR bull, more people died, but its a "positive result". Silly me, how did i not realise that.
I don't believe its anything to do with road safety, hence they still say its positive, the architect of this blanket idea stood down anyway. Classic PR bull, more people died, but its a "positive result". Silly me, how did i not realise that.
Make sense its still a success in their eyes as they got what they wanted.
Wales has some many other challenges, felt the money could have been better spent.
monkfish1 said:
Responder.First said:
Evanivitch said:
Obviously it's too soon to just take the evidence from one quarter, this still needs time to settle in and enforcement.
https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/...
Serious collisions and fatal's up why am I not surprised. https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/...
Classic PR bull, more people died, but its a "positive result". Silly me, how did i not realise that.
Evanivitch said:
monkfish1 said:
Responder.First said:
Evanivitch said:
Obviously it's too soon to just take the evidence from one quarter, this still needs time to settle in and enforcement.
https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/...
Serious collisions and fatal's up why am I not surprised. https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/...
Classic PR bull, more people died, but its a "positive result". Silly me, how did i not realise that.
The main justification was reduced deaths and serious injuries. They have gone up. The alledged cost savings therefore wont materialise. Exactly as i said.
Evanivitch said:
monkfish1 said:
And?
The main justification was reduced deaths and serious injuries. They have gone up. The alledged cost savings therefore wont materialise. Exactly as i said.
Yes, deaths and serious injuries on restricted roads.The main justification was reduced deaths and serious injuries. They have gone up. The alledged cost savings therefore wont materialise. Exactly as i said.
monkfish1 said:
So how many less deaths were there on these "restricted roads". Care to put some numbers to it?
Article says down 218.The number of people injured on 20 and 30mph roads in Wales fell by almost a third in the final quarter of last year, new data published by the Welsh government shows. The figures show there were 463 casualties on such roads between October and December, down from 681 in the same period a year earlier.
We don't know how many of them were new 20s they have not split the data.
But the number of serious road collisions saw an increase, from 792 in 2022 to 891 in 2023.
Edited by Responder.First on Thursday 6th June 16:11
monkfish1 said:
Evanivitch said:
monkfish1 said:
And?
The main justification was reduced deaths and serious injuries. They have gone up. The alledged cost savings therefore wont materialise. Exactly as i said.
Yes, deaths and serious injuries on restricted roads.The main justification was reduced deaths and serious injuries. They have gone up. The alledged cost savings therefore wont materialise. Exactly as i said.
Evanivitch said:
monkfish1 said:
Evanivitch said:
monkfish1 said:
And?
The main justification was reduced deaths and serious injuries. They have gone up. The alledged cost savings therefore wont materialise. Exactly as i said.
Yes, deaths and serious injuries on restricted roads.The main justification was reduced deaths and serious injuries. They have gone up. The alledged cost savings therefore wont materialise. Exactly as i said.
Surely if it was working, even partly, there would be no need for all the posturing about changing limits back up.
And all the more reason why no one will sign off an increase. As i keep saying.
Responder.First said:
monkfish1 said:
So how many less deaths were there on these "restricted roads". Care to put some numbers to it?
Article says down 218.The number of people injured on 20 and 30mph roads in Wales fell by almost a third in the final quarter of last year, new data published by the Welsh government shows. The figures show there were 463 casualties on such roads between October and December, down from 681 in the same period a year earlier.
We don't know how many of them were new 20s they have not split the data.
But the number of serious road collisions saw an increase, from 792 in 2022 to 891 in 2023.
Edited by Responder.First on Thursday 6th June 16:11
monkfish1 said:
No rush. Im assuming zero. If it was any, surely they would be shouting it from the rooftops to justify the whole escapade. The leaflet said 6-10 lives a year saved.
Surely if it was working, even partly, there would be no need for all the posturing about changing limits back up.
And all the more reason why no one will sign off an increase. As i keep saying.
The period reported is one quarter before any enforcement took place...Surely if it was working, even partly, there would be no need for all the posturing about changing limits back up.
And all the more reason why no one will sign off an increase. As i keep saying.
Evanivitch said:
monkfish1 said:
No rush. Im assuming zero. If it was any, surely they would be shouting it from the rooftops to justify the whole escapade. The leaflet said 6-10 lives a year saved.
Surely if it was working, even partly, there would be no need for all the posturing about changing limits back up.
And all the more reason why no one will sign off an increase. As i keep saying.
The period reported is one quarter before any enforcement took place...Surely if it was working, even partly, there would be no need for all the posturing about changing limits back up.
And all the more reason why no one will sign off an increase. As i keep saying.
Reality will of course catch up with the excuses.
monkfish1 said:
Evanivitch said:
monkfish1 said:
No rush. Im assuming zero. If it was any, surely they would be shouting it from the rooftops to justify the whole escapade. The leaflet said 6-10 lives a year saved.
Surely if it was working, even partly, there would be no need for all the posturing about changing limits back up.
And all the more reason why no one will sign off an increase. As i keep saying.
The period reported is one quarter before any enforcement took place...Surely if it was working, even partly, there would be no need for all the posturing about changing limits back up.
And all the more reason why no one will sign off an increase. As i keep saying.
Reality will of course catch up with the excuses.
I haven't pulled the data yet. But you seem to.be struggling with the concept of 25% of a year, for a policy that wasn't being enforced, isn't representative of the impact. We already know average speeds in those areas only fell by 2-3 mph initially.
Evanivitch said:
monkfish1 said:
Evanivitch said:
monkfish1 said:
No rush. Im assuming zero. If it was any, surely they would be shouting it from the rooftops to justify the whole escapade. The leaflet said 6-10 lives a year saved.
Surely if it was working, even partly, there would be no need for all the posturing about changing limits back up.
And all the more reason why no one will sign off an increase. As i keep saying.
The period reported is one quarter before any enforcement took place...Surely if it was working, even partly, there would be no need for all the posturing about changing limits back up.
And all the more reason why no one will sign off an increase. As i keep saying.
Reality will of course catch up with the excuses.
I haven't pulled the data yet. But you seem to.be struggling with the concept of 25% of a year, for a policy that wasn't being enforced, isn't representative of the impact. We already know average speeds in those areas only fell by 2-3 mph initially.
I look forward to the data. Now and in the future.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff