I am concerned that the academics, politicians and the Lancashire Telegraph is pushing down a path of wasting public funds which will not be realised by a tangible and real reduction in child casualties.

There are already quite extensive 20mph zones in the Bastwell area which have been in place for over five years, which also has a disturbingly high child casualty rate.

Audley also has extensive 20mph zones, recently extended. Look at St Clements Street – a 20mph zone yet it has had four child casualties, two in 2008, one in 2009 and one serious in 2010 on a stretch about 200 yards long.

The existing 20mph zones are not playing out as reducing child casualties; why then this obsession with extending them further? Is it just political appeasement?

There is something clearly wrong with the level of child injuries – I don't think anyone would disagree with this.

But is wasting scarce public money on a fanciful idea which clearly isn’t working, where such schemes have already been installed in the borough, really offering value for money? Or is it just a face- saving exercise?

And what happens when the borough is carpeted with 20mph limits and child casualty rates haven't fallen? What then?

Perhaps it might be worth considering that notion now and working on those ideas, because it will only be those ideas which have a hope of bringing about the results the LT, the academics, the council officers and the politicians want.

The 20mph bandwagon, however, will just waste precious resources on a fool’s errand.

s_smith (via website).