- cross-posted to:
- wales@lemm.ee
- cross-posted to:
- wales@lemm.ee
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)
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.
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.
It’s been in effect for six months. it’s impossible to extrapolate that across this short of a timeline.
Yes, it’s short. And nowhere near enough data to predict long term trends.
But it’s also the same data (from Jan - March) the Welsh Government is using. We are arriving at 2 different conclusions based on how data is interpreted. That’s a problem. There are 2 very strong biases at play; one is asking for greater transparency.
Insurance companies have also seen a drop in claims with the 20mph speed limits
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.
You mean the pensioners that barely leave their house don’t want to be inconvenienced? I’m shocked!
Wait, are you saying that the lower injury numbers are cherry picked?
According to the article, there is perhaps an increase in injury numbers.