DUNCAN Kay seems to be suggesting that the Twenty is Plenty campaign would eliminate accidents. The proof he gives in his talks is the successful experiment in Portsmouth. There is luck involved in the number of accidents rather like throwing a dice.
Two years was far too short to prove the claims.
He writes glowingly of a pedestrianised Worthing with cycles and buses as the main means of transport. That would be fine for people on holiday, but a nightmare for anyone who values their time. I also cycle into town as it is quicker than by car, but it shouldn’t be like that. I much prefer the New Zealand system where the supermarkets have well lit and ventilated car parks beneath them. That brings in the motorists from outside of the town. Cycles are fine for exercise but quite impractical for carrying goods of any size. They are also dangerous and unpleasant in wet weather. People carrying large items on buses are not popular. The car is more suitable for shopping and so should be encouraged to bring in more trade.
It should also be born in mind that Worthing has an elderly population. A lot of them can drive but not all of them are capable of cycling. People who live outside Worthing, people with children and those who value their time also need to use cars.
I think Duncan Kay has given the game away. We now know that the aim of the Twenty is Plenty for Worthing campaign is to make short car journeys so inconvenient that we will walk or cycle instead. This is done under the name of safety. If we allow this to happen the next thing will be a “Stay Alive, stay under five” campaign. The estimated £250,000 would be much better spent on bringing the roads up to standard. There are still lots of potholes to be filled.
Those who don’t wish to have the usefulness of their cars limited yet further, should write to their local councillors and ask them to vote against Twenty is Plenty.