The bogus stat used by the DfT to fool politicians & press into 20 zones.
'An evaluation of 20 mph zones in theUKdemonstrated that the zones were
effective both in reducing traffic speed and in reducing RTIs. In particular
child pedestrian injuries were reduced by 70 per cent from 1.24 per year in
each area before to 0.37 per year after the zones were introduced.'
© Road Safety Observatory 2013
The points to notice & understand:
1) RTI means incidents and not with injury.
2) Injury is of any kind including slight.
3) 70% is of a mere 1.24 in 'each' area but that is false. It's only an average taken from including busy high streets and dangerous roads and then suggesting it as all roads. On that , area zones of limiting are being applied on a blanket basis for roads where no such accidents are happening. But why use percentages to sound as if kiddies are being saved in large numbers when the original figure was so low in the first place? Why not just give us the numbers of children in the incidents and just deal with those accident spots? Because 1.24 a year in an area really cannot justify wholesale block limiting at all so percentages are used to fool press & politicians that's why.
But it seems the word accident has now been replaced by the word 'injury' See TrL's response to us below. Who is correct?
