The data is combined so the data isn't clean, it's pointless and tells us nowt.There’s nothing dishonest about it, it says exactly what it is. Might help if you actually read it like. Just a thought.
It would suggest the introduction of the 20mph speed limit has made very little difference hence a report with the combined data.
To be fair, suggesting it's made very little difference without actually looking at the data in detail is as intellectually dishonest as you are accusing the WG of being in this report. It's an assumption at best.
Glad we sorted that one out
You can't drill down to separate, the report has combined them. It's pointless
Like I said, I feel straight data for roads reduced from 30 to 20 would be better, I dont see why it would be so difficult to produce those figures in graph form, so even us plebs can see it at a glance. I wouldn't outright say it hasn't made any difference, even one life saved is a win win.
It's because the introduction of 20mph on our roads hasn't had the success they thought it would and with it being so unpopular they'd rather fudge the data than hold their hands up.
I didn't click on the report, from what others have said I thought it did have all the roads listed and someone with too much time on their hands could separate them. Apologies if I got that wrong and that would make the report less useful.
That may be true, but as of right now it's a complete assumption.
They'd be shouting from the roof tops if it had the desired impact.
Why would it be less useful to separate 20mph and 30mph?
I've made it known on here that I wasnt a massive fan of the scheme as a whole, and I know it's hard to argue with a perceived reduction in casualties. I totally agree with your assessment on the way the data has been presented. Like I said I would have preferred straight numbers, for instance........
Totally agree, it's not a lot to ask for. Just a bit of honesty.
