Brighton traffic wars: crashes down overall, but more cyclist & pedestrian incidents after 20mph limit comes in

If the 20 limits are doing what they were designed to do - get more people out walking or cycling instead of in their cars - you would expect a slight rise in accidents involving cyclists and pedestrians, notwithstanding the reduced risk due to slower speeds.

The car lobby whinging about these stats is reminiscent of the "Association of British Drivers" which sent out a press release last year - snapped up by gullible and lazy journalists at newspapers like the Sun - stating that the number of accidents in 20 limit areas had risen while those in 30 areas had fallen slightly. Of coursethey failed to mention that the total mileage of 20 limit roads had also increased substantially. The same statistic per mile of road would have shown accidents in 20 areas being significantly lower than those in 30 areas.

The prosecution bit is the problem in the UK, our police forces tend too frequently to tick people off rather than issue a ticket. Australian police for instance take a tougher line of 'commit an offence and get caught then expect a ticket'.

The numbers are completely meaningless by themselves. How many journeys were made? How long were these journeys? Is this an increase or decrease on the previous year/months? What was the severity of these incidents, and how does that compare to the 30mph days?

There's also the question of whether the speed limit was being observed at the time of the collision. You can't blame a 20mph zone if a driver ignores it. Was speed a factor in any of the collisions anyway?

However, statistically accurate (or meaningful) reporting doesn't make headlines.

@ Guyz2010 - I agree that it's too short a time period.

Those that are triumphantly drawing attention to these figures, in a ridiculous move to claim that lower speed limits are in some way more dangerous, are at risk of being ever more marginalised politically once longer term stats show the inevitable benefits of a 20 limit.

At the end of the day, even primary school children would understand that slower speeds mean less severe injuries and, crucially, more opportunity to either avoid a collision, or reduce the impact speed of that collision.

Personally, I'd like to see 20 become the norm on all streets that are currently 30, and 40 max for country lanes; enforced not by fixed cameras but by hidden mobile units, with a day in jail for each mile per hour over the limit, but I appreciate that might be seen as extreme

True but the figures are too short a period as I noted. Still think I'd rather be knocked down by a car doing 20 than 30mph. The reported cycling and pedestrian increases from 44 to 48 and 35 to 40 respectively are hardly significant and like you say could be effected by other factors.
Having re-read the article it seems to have errors "Steve Percy, of the People’s Parking Protest, said: “The argument for these zones was that it would protect people, but these figures show it doesn’t seem to have done that.”"
Above that it stated the crashes had fallen from 168 to 145 then to 129. Am I being stupid.....don't answer that.

Neil753
Not sure (or need to know) where you live, but a am aware of some of the things you state, however I know not one person having been exposed to any of the stuff you refer to. It would be all over the headlines of local press. I live in a city and read the local press but cannot recall anything of this nature. Extreme indeed. Surely if the victims of gangs creating crashes would have said something. I hardly believe this is the case.

To Neil753 "I wouldn't be surprised if it some of those "accidents" were actually deliberate,"
You can't be serious.

Seemingly the vast majority of commentators are reporting the 20mph speed limits are not policed, it doesn't explain the accident statistics which I feel are not particularly accurate given the relative short timescale of reporting.
The increase in pedestrian crashes (novel conception "pedestrians crashing") is possibly a subjective thought by humans that if the speeds are reduced then they may feel safer and take a greater risk. Just a view before aggressive keyboard warriors launch their attack.

Very few commercial vehicles don't have the telemetry required to enforce they adhere to speed limits, either actively whilst there on the road or at the very least retrospectively using the data record.

If they all stuck to limits the maximum speed of traffic would soon reduce to the limits.

I commute through Brighton daily by bike. There are very few cars and motor vehicles that obey the 20 mph speed limit. I've never seen any enforcement either.

@oldRidgeBack

the 20mph limits in London are a bad joke really?

I live in LB Camden, which is one of 2 boroughs in London to have adopted a blanket 20mph speed limit across the entire borough

in recent interviews with the 'Camden New Journal' newspaper, the police commander for the borough admitted he does not have the resources to police this limit in his borough

you will see this on the streets of LB Camden, with numerous drivers speeding whenever possible, using smart phones whilst driving, red light gambling and acting very aggressively towards pedestrians and cyclists

the council have now come under criticism for stupid installation of '20 MPH' paint on dead end roads or very narrow cobbled roads

as if paint would make any reasonable difference to motorists who ignore traffic lights and pedestrian crossings, anyhow...

We have a similar issue with 20mph zones in London.

A lot of drivers simply ignore the limits in 20mph zones anyway. There's a 20mph limit on one section of my route to and from work. If I'm on the motorbike or in the car I'll stick to 20mph as it has speed bumps and going any faster would knock the hell out of the suspension. But I regularly get tailgated along that road by other drivers who are wanting to overtake, presumably as they get some sort of kick out of getting their vehicle airborne? When I cycle along that same road to take my sons to their football training as it's just round the corner, I take the lane and get cars tailgating me as well.

This is supposed to be a cycle-friendly route and is the road Herne Hille velodrome is on (Burbage Road). But you wouldn't think so by the way some numpties drive along it.

Lower speed limits reduce accidents and their severity only if they are enforced. It would be interesting if we were told how many of the accidents involved people driving over the speed limit. The speed limit may have changed, but I know attitudes to speed limits have not.

I've been following the whole 20mph thing in Brighton, over the months and, frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if it some of those "accidents" were actually deliberate, as a reprisal against cyclists by those annoyed by the new speed limits. There are some seriously nasty people out there, whose resentment of cyclists is heightened by these new limits, resentment which manifests itself through punishment passes and other aggressive behaviour.

I must be obvious to anyone who doesn't have a vested interest in keeping speed limits high, that slower vehicles mean more time to avoid accidents. Arguments to the contrary, and particularly ones spouted by many "anti 20" lobbyists in Brighton, provide an illuminating insight into the sort of people we might come up against when out on the road.

A quick look at the People’s Parking Protest Facebook page gives a pretty good indication of their attitudes. Almost everything is flagged as part of an ongoing conspiracy to attack the rights and freedoms of the motorist. Their apparent fixation on their disappearing 'rights' seems to encompass almost everything from greater pedestrianisation of the Laines, cycle paths, bus lanes and parking tickets.

There will always be a petty minority who don't want change and can't or won't accept others' points of view. Sadly, they have probably been given more publicity than the actual number of people they really represent - a whopping 85 Facebook likes at the moment - if that's anything to go by.

Move along - there's nothing to see here.

Surely these numbers are pretty meaningless without knowing how the traffic mix has changed. You could equally argue (with the numbers as reported by the Argus) that cycling and pedestrian numbers have gone up so the rate of accidents is lower.

Or that the number may be higher but the severity lower.

Its all just froth spun whichever way you like. Strange that that should come from such an august journal of record like the Argus