I do not accept that 20mph limits are proven to reduce casualties by dramatic amounts. The same claims are made for speed cameras, traffic calming measures and speed limit reductions as well as road engineering improvements, probationary driver schemes and passive safety enhancements. And yet, the overall road casualty figures have not significantly improved since 1993. Figures claiming great improvements for certain measures must be viewed in the context of the overall figures, and when this is done they simply do not add up. There are several obvious factors which do not appear to have been taken into account: There are large fluctuations in fatality statistics at a county level which do not fit in to standard statistical distributions. This is because accidents are complex events with multiple causes.

Many 20mph limits have been implemented in specific locations in response to resident pressure for action following a blip in accidents. It is therefore inevitable that the measures will "succeed" — that success was built in at the start by effectively choosing a few locations with a bad "before" period. This is why local "success" from "safety" measures rarely translate into overall improvements.

20mph outside school, yes.

On housing estates yes.

Not on every residential road!

Lastly why is the road safety issue of cyclists without lights at night ignored by all? The Council should be addressing this highly dangerous issue.

Based on information supplied by Tony Trinkwon.