Any death or injury on our roads is a tragedy and little comfort can be found for those who suffer injury or the loss of a loved one, but in response to Councillor Pete West’s defence of the 20mph scheme for Brighton and Hove (Letters, September 27), I’d like to mention the following.

Statistics are a fine thing, so maybe he and other Green councillors would like to think about the following before going ahead with more of the 20mph scheme.

On UK roads traffic has seen an increase of 15% over the past 15 years, but there has been a year on year drop in deaths or serious injuries over the same period, including a 61% decrease for children and 38% in all age groups.

Children and cyclists represent the lowest number of fatalities out of all age groups, with, perhaps as no surprise, motorcyclists still representing the highest mortality rate of all user groups.

Portsmouth bucked this trend since the introduction of its 20mph policy with an 8% increase.

Another vulnerable group is our foreign tourist, where a study revealed that, not only were they far more likely to be involved in a traffic accident than a regular resident, but that they were far more likely to be struck by a bus than by a car (47% of all accidents, compared with 27% by a car).

When the scheme was first introduced there was to be an 18-month period to assess its impact.

As I understand it, no impact assessment on the local economy for phase 1 was conducted, so pushing through additional phases with no firm data is plain economic madness.

So why are the Greens forcing it through ahead of time? Many people believe they will not be voted in again so they are going all-out to leave their legacy on Brighton and Hove before they leave office.

I believe that, instead of forcing through phases, the Greens should invest the money in road safety education.

Wait until proper impact assessments have been carried out so we can see what effect 20mph is having on both safety and the economy.

Ann Townsend, Co-Chair, London Road Area Traders’ Association