Cyclists say 20 zones are 'too long'

Am I missing something here? Media blamed for misleading 20 zone statements But the 24% casualty increase was on roads that were previously 30 or more and the increase is at 20MPH. They are saying that this increase was after they became 20 zones. So how does claiming, the extent of 20 zones is responsible for the figures, help their case then? Surely the longer these routes, the less cycling casualties if 20 zones work? Are they saying there is too much 20 zone and that is the problem? Reduce them and the casualties will go down again then? Seems like some gross lack of logic and sillyness going on here to me. So silly in fact we are now able to say that top cyclists agree with us; the more 20 zones the more accidents! Oh, and the increase of cyclists has nothing to do with it then or that 20 zones are dangerous too? And yes, in BUA 20 zones, pedestrian casualties will go up too for the same reasons. **************** But I predicted publicly that 20 Zones will cause accidents and casualties before 2011. You can see it at 20 limits under speed limits. Here I explained in detail why too. Of course cycling casualties will rise the more that do it. I also predicted that prior to 2011. How can cycling promoters deny that with any credibility? ************** We are talking about mixing, mingling, competing & sharing the same track as loads of heavy fast moving essential machinery operated by any diverse character here. Is that wise on a personal basis? How do we know that all these will safely steer past us? Can anyone seriously and sincerely recommend and advise anyone, they love, to cycle in today's carriagways? Having done so, when they are cabbaged or killed, does the blame game then kick in to mitigate it all and blame everyone but the reality of their insistance to provide the scenario for it then? Seems like it to me.