as 20mph starts to roll out beyond quiet residential streets onto busier high streets), or of the far higher number (and, more importantly, rate ) of injuries and death on either equivalent 30mph streets or on the same 20mph streets before and after the speed was lowered -- should be obvious. Needless to say, reducing speeds on a street from 30mph to 20mph cuts injuries, regardless of the entirely banal fact that those few injuries which remain will thenceforth be added to the tally for 20mph streets instead of that for 30mph. So, mockery over,  there's a more important point: should an increase in injuries, if there really had been one, automatically kill off further roll out of 20mph zones? It beggars belief that the council intend reducing the 30mph speed limit. A limit introduced when there was no such thing as MoT's, ABS brakes, crash zones on the front of cars and good street lighting. I can see no justification in spending this money and would dearly love to know who Bristol City Council think it will benefit? It certainly won't be the youth, disabled or elderly. James R Sawyer clearly thinks that the 20 zones must be all about safety, as he argues that his ABS brakes and crash zones are already plenty enough to keep him safe as he drives through Bristol at 30. But Bristol have always been clear about why they're moving towards a 20mph city: Councillor Jon Rogers, Cabinet Member for Care and Health,