More accidents?

0
Have your say

THE 20’s Plenty campaigners can’t seem to think beyond “you are more likely to be killed if you were to be hit at 30 mph rather than 20mph” but this is very simplistic.

A major problem with the scheme is as follows. It leads to a reduction in traffic as vehicles avoid the area. This gives a reduction in accidents between vehicles where the occupants are well protected. Due to a false sense of security, misjudgement and people with the “They can stop, let them wait” attitude there will be an increase in the number of the much more serious vehicle and pedestrian accidents.

My theory is born out by the same Portsmouth experiment that Duncan Kay quotes. The results were traffic reduced 12 per cent, casualties reduced by 22 per cent. Killed or seriously injured casualties (KSI) rose by 8 per cent.

Nationally, casualties dropped 14 per cent and KSI casualties by 12 per cent during the same period. So casualties were 8 per cent lower in Portsmouth than nationally, but KSI casualties were a massive 18 per cent worse.

The aim of the campaign is said to be about saving lives more than reducing accidents. Duncan accuses others of being misleading, but he cherry picked the reduction in accidents and called it a success. It was an absolute failure in saving lives.

If this expensive scheme is introduced in Worthing I predict that there will be even more cyclists and pedestrians killed or seriously injured.

Chris Gould

Georgia Avenue

Worthing