glenn forger
Guest
The IAM have just issued a press release that concludes from these statistics that “20mph roads are not delivering
fewer casualties”. A similar conclusion was made by the Sun in August 2012 from the 2011 DfT casualty report. The
BBC “More or Less” program then felt that this was such a blatant misrepresentation that they featured the story in
a programme. Their conclusion was that the claims were “phonus ballonus” and without a consideration of how the
number and length of 20/30mph roads had changed then no conclusions could be made as to whether setting a
20mph limit made the roads more dangerous.
One valid statistic that can be gleaned from the 2013 casualty figures is the risk of death for casualties in 20mph and
30mph roads. On 20mph roads in 2013 there were 6 deaths out of 3,164 casualties (0.2%) whilst on 30mph roads
there were 538 deaths out of 111,186 casualties (0.5%). Hence on a 30mph road any casualty is 2.5 times more likely
to result in a fatality than on a 20mph road.
http://www.20splentyforus.org.uk/PRel/bogusIAMrep.pdf
What sort of lying cretin would repeat that lie?
Rod King MBE, Founder and Campaign Director of 20’s Plenty for Us commented:-
“We are amazed and disappointed that the Institute of Advanced Motorists should make such a woeful mistake in
their conclusions from the DfT statistics. In fact, wherever 20mph limits have been piloted, on looking at the
casualties in detail, councils have concluded that there was a positive effect on road safety and subsequently widened
the implementation across most areas. Now 20% of the UK population live in towns, cities or villages where the
Traffic Authority is convinced that 20 is plenty for most streets. The IAM conclusion is bogus and reflects a poor
understanding of either the changing numbers and success of 20mph limits or basic statistics”
fewer casualties”. A similar conclusion was made by the Sun in August 2012 from the 2011 DfT casualty report. The
BBC “More or Less” program then felt that this was such a blatant misrepresentation that they featured the story in
a programme. Their conclusion was that the claims were “phonus ballonus” and without a consideration of how the
number and length of 20/30mph roads had changed then no conclusions could be made as to whether setting a
20mph limit made the roads more dangerous.
One valid statistic that can be gleaned from the 2013 casualty figures is the risk of death for casualties in 20mph and
30mph roads. On 20mph roads in 2013 there were 6 deaths out of 3,164 casualties (0.2%) whilst on 30mph roads
there were 538 deaths out of 111,186 casualties (0.5%). Hence on a 30mph road any casualty is 2.5 times more likely
to result in a fatality than on a 20mph road.
http://www.20splentyforus.org.uk/PRel/bogusIAMrep.pdf
What sort of lying cretin would repeat that lie?
Rod King MBE, Founder and Campaign Director of 20’s Plenty for Us commented:-
“We are amazed and disappointed that the Institute of Advanced Motorists should make such a woeful mistake in
their conclusions from the DfT statistics. In fact, wherever 20mph limits have been piloted, on looking at the
casualties in detail, councils have concluded that there was a positive effect on road safety and subsequently widened
the implementation across most areas. Now 20% of the UK population live in towns, cities or villages where the
Traffic Authority is convinced that 20 is plenty for most streets. The IAM conclusion is bogus and reflects a poor
understanding of either the changing numbers and success of 20mph limits or basic statistics”
