Thank you The Argus for revealing that pedestrian and cycle accidents have actually increased in the city centre, since 20mph speed limits were introduced (The Argus, December 17). This counters the impression given by council officers immediately before the 20mph vote that lower speed limits had dramatically reduced accidents.

Opposition councillors should be praised for resisting some 20mph proposals on major bus routes, which were likely to have a significant adverse effect on bus services, although the fact that overall less than half (46%) of respondents wanted the slower speed restriction in their area may have also swayed the decision.

The council has made no attempt to quantify the adverse effects on buses and taxis – two of the groups most affected by the proposals. The extra journey time will cause unreliability problems for buses, then when that becomes severe enough, extra buses will be required, increasing costs, which will be paid for by us through higher bus fares.

Some have suggested Stanford Avenue should be restricted to 20mph, however the western end of the Avenue is part of the main A23 southbound (used by the number 5 bus services), and the other end is used by the 56. While the latter does not appear important, there is insufficient space to suggest why the service is important to the areas it serves.

Even with these changes, the majority of bus routes within the two zones will be restricted to 20mph.

Peter Elvidge, Wish Road, Hove

Here’s an idea to quickly reduce buzzing from the 20mph “hornets’ nest” (The Argus, December 30): if Brighton and Hove City Council wants to let a small minority of people and businesses exclude residential streets from slower speeds, they should charge them for that amenity.

Higher speeds in residential areas are not cheap and, at the moment, we are all paying the price. Potential legal costs are one factor. Other costs include the expense of accidents not avoided, and the trauma of more serious injuries resulting from any accident.

There are also significant indirect costs from higher speeds in residential areas: less active people and more obesity; less independent and more isolated older people; and less adventurous and more sedentary children – especially where speeds are high around parks and on routes to schools.

So it only seems fair, in a democratic society, that where private individuals or businesses secure what they see as a valuable benefit at the expense of society as a whole, compensation is paid to help meet the public costs.

We could increase the element of local democracy by including opponents of 20mph in setting the level of compensation to be paid. Those lobbying for higher speeds could be asked what they would gain by not adopting 20mph on any residential street – the higher the value said to be gained by not slowing down, the higher the fee for retaining 30mph.

I’m sure the communities whose streets will be blighted by exclusion from the 20mph scheme could think of any number of positive ways to use the money raised. But I also suspect that if those who support higher speeds are told they will have to pay for excluding residential streets, they may feel there is not much to be gained, after all, from driving faster than 20mph in any residential area.

Wishing all your readers and all road-users – fellow drivers, cyclists and pedestrians alike – a happy, safe and prosperous new year.

Chris Murgatroyd, York Avenue, Hove

In your article Taking A Look Back At 2013 (The Argus, December 30), there is a lovely photo of what the 20mph limit is all about.

The secret is out: it has been done to accommodate joggers in Lycra to run up the centre of the road. Why didn’t the council come clean in the beginning?

Chris Harvey-Jones, Rose Hill Terrace, Brighton

It’s back to school time but people in the Fiveways and Preston Park area are at risk from motor vehicles going too fast. One false move could lead to dreadful injury. Why are we being exposed to this when it’s perfectly possible for motor vehicles to be driven more slowly?

Preston Drove, Stanford Avenue and Surrenden Road are all routes that children and parents use going to Balfour Primary, Downs Infant and Junior, Dorothy Stringer, Varndean College and the Montessori School. Nearby roads are thronged with children on schooldays.

The extension of Brighton and Hove’s 20mph speed limits was agreed in December, but Preston Drove and Stanford Avenue were excluded. This was due to a proposal by Labour Councillor Gill Mitchell, supported by Conservative councillors, that these roads were “key bus and taxi routes, and a majority of residents in both roads have voted against these roads being included within the 20mph scheme”.

But the roads are not key routes for buses (which only use sections of the roads or are infrequently scheduled), the bus company did not ask for them to be excluded. The resident voting was marginal with only about 20% responding – a low turnout with only a tiny majority (just one or two votes) against.

Further amendments by Conservative and Labour councillors had Surrenden Road and Braybon Avenue denied 20mph speed limits (despite a majority of residents in favour of 20mph) as well as an area west of Ditchling Road.

Our community has been denied a major road safety improvement. We need 1,250 signatures on this petition (with and counting) calling for the council to reconsider their decision. Visit https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/20mph-speed-limit-for-preston-drove-stanford-avenue-and-surrenden-road-in-brighton to sign the petition.

Becky Reynolds, Havelock Road, Brighton