New 20mph limits 'waste of money' because police won't enforce them

Bicester Advertiser: Rodney Rose Rodney Rose

OXFORDSHIRE’S roads chief has damned 20mph speed limits as a “waste of money” because police are not enforcing them.

Police have not issued a single ticket for breaking the 20mph limit in Oxford since Oxfordshire County Council spent almost £250,000 imposing the scheme in September 2009.

Figures obtained by us show there has not been a reduction in the number of people seriously hurt.

Now Rodney Rose, the county council cabinet member for transport, has ruled out expanding the scheme into other towns.

Campaigners said it would make the streets safer.

In 2008 there were 61 people either killed or seriously injured (KSI) in Oxford.

That rose to 71 KSI in 2009 and 72 in 2010, the latest figures available. The number of accidents also rose.

In the two years before September 2009 there were 64 crashes that resulted in KSIs – considered by transport experts the most reliable statistic to judge road safety upon.

That has risen to 71 in the first two years of the 20mph scheme.

But slight injuries fell during the same period, from 409 to 340.

Police confirmed they have not ticketed anyone and Mr Rose, reacting to a call to impose 20mph limits in Witney, said: “Unless enforced, they are a waste of money.

“It does slow things up a little bit but not as much as an enforced 20mph speed limit would.

“If I got police support for 20mph, I would be much more inclined to put more (20mph limits) in across Oxfordshire. But until it is enforced it is not worth the investment.”

But Anna Semlyen, campaign manager of 20s Plenty for Us, said: “Speeds have reduced by an average of 1.3mph so it is not true that it has not worked. Every mile per hour that is reduced on average reduces casualties by six per cent.”

The KSI figures for 2008 and 2009 included two fatalities each year, while there were none in the first two years of the 20mph scheme. However in October last year cyclist Joanna Braithwaite died in a collision in Woodstock Road, Oxford.

Ms Semlyen also said, despite the increase in serious injuries, the reduction in deaths and slight injuries have resulted in an overall financial saving for Oxfordshire.

She added: “The culprits here are the police. If democracy has decided 20mph is the best limit, why have they not policed it?”

Oxford taxi driver Khalil Ahmed said: “It should be enforced and, if it was, people would not go zooming down there. I have seen people frequently speeding.”

Witney Bicycle User Group (BUG) chairman Kevin Hickman called for a 20mph limit in Witney town centre.

He said: “The county council, to its credit, has introduced it in Oxford and now we just need the police to do their job and actually enforce what most people want.”

Thames Valley Police said that, in line with Department for Transport guidance, traffic calming measures should be used to make 20mph limits “self-enforcing”.

Force spokesman Lucy Billen added: “Simply putting a different number at the end of a road and relying on enforcement alone to achieve compliance is not the answer.”

Portsmouth introduced the first 20mph speed limits in the UK in 2007. Department for Transport figures showed an increase in KSIs from 18.7 per year in the three years before to 19.9 in the following two years.

Comments (59)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:12am Wed 4 Apr 12

BigAlBiker says...

The 20mph limit was not thought out properly before it came into force, its crazy down St Giles but not on some of the small side roads where cars are parked both sides, it has its merits but as usual the saying "bull in a china shop" comes to mind, some of the connecting roads between the Banbury and Woodstock roads are wider than the A34 and there 20mph, crazy. Sort it council and dont waste any more cash.
The 20mph limit was not thought out properly before it came into force, its crazy down St Giles but not on some of the small side roads where cars are parked both sides, it has its merits but as usual the saying "bull in a china shop" comes to mind, some of the connecting roads between the Banbury and Woodstock roads are wider than the A34 and there 20mph, crazy. Sort it council and dont waste any more cash. BigAlBiker

9:18am Wed 4 Apr 12

spam_me_harder says...

20mph on a road like St Giles is nuts, most people can cycle at more than 20mph let alone drive.
20mph on a road like St Giles is nuts, most people can cycle at more than 20mph let alone drive. spam_me_harder

9:20am Wed 4 Apr 12

EMBOX1 says...

You can't police 20mph because the police know that they'd be snowed under.

I generally do 25mph in Oxford now, because that's just how fast you can do in traffic.

Also, the police would have to prosecute cyclists as they (and I, when I am on a bike in Oxford) flout the law. I don't think that is enforcable, so the whole thing collapses.
You can't police 20mph because the police know that they'd be snowed under. I generally do 25mph in Oxford now, because that's just how fast you can do in traffic. Also, the police would have to prosecute cyclists as they (and I, when I am on a bike in Oxford) flout the law. I don't think that is enforcable, so the whole thing collapses. EMBOX1

9:37am Wed 4 Apr 12

Sid Hunt says...

Oxford taxi driver Khalil Ahmed said: “It should be enforced and, if it was, people would not go zooming down there. I have seen people frequently speeding.”

Taxis & PHs are among the worst offenders when it comes to ignoring speed limits.
Oxford taxi driver Khalil Ahmed said: “It should be enforced and, if it was, people would not go zooming down there. I have seen people frequently speeding.” Taxis & PHs are among the worst offenders when it comes to ignoring speed limits. Sid Hunt

9:54am Wed 4 Apr 12

docs says...

Every so often I drive along High Street in the late evening. When I stick to 20mph I'm invariably tailgated by a taxi. One even overtook me when I was doing 20 down St. Aldates.

I don't think that 20 is an inappropriate speed limit for the High Street - but on London Road past Brookes, it's nonsense on stilts.
Every so often I drive along High Street in the late evening. When I stick to 20mph I'm invariably tailgated by a taxi. One even overtook me when I was doing 20 down St. Aldates. I don't think that 20 is an inappropriate speed limit for the High Street - but on London Road past Brookes, it's nonsense on stilts. docs

9:58am Wed 4 Apr 12

Shaun the Faun says...

I'd be happy if they'd stick to 30 past my house... straight road in 20-zone... .
I'd be happy if they'd stick to 30 past my house... straight road in 20-zone... . Shaun the Faun

11:09am Wed 4 Apr 12

A34North says...

Ms Semlyen also said, despite the increase in serious injuries, the reduction in deaths and slight injuries have resulted in an overall financial saving for Oxfordshire.

She added: “The culprits here are the police. If democracy has decided 20mph is the best limit, why have they not policed it?”

Did I miss the vote on this?
Ms Semlyen also said, despite the increase in serious injuries, the reduction in deaths and slight injuries have resulted in an overall financial saving for Oxfordshire. She added: “The culprits here are the police. If democracy has decided 20mph is the best limit, why have they not policed it?” Did I miss the vote on this? A34North

11:50am Wed 4 Apr 12

Geoff Roberts says...

Um... but according to the police the reason why it's not enforced is down to the county council.

Either way - some people seem to be suggesting that because there are no resources to enforce a law that law should be scrapped or not continued elsewhere.

In which case I'd suggest we may as well scrap most laws now since they don't appear to be being enforced.

Meanwhile our communities are being degraded by the behaviour of some drivers.
Um... but according to the police the reason why it's not enforced is down to the county council. Either way - some people seem to be suggesting that because there are no resources to enforce a law that law should be scrapped or not continued elsewhere. In which case I'd suggest we may as well scrap most laws now since they don't appear to be being enforced. Meanwhile our communities are being degraded by the behaviour of some drivers. Geoff Roberts

11:53am Wed 4 Apr 12

CowleyBoy says...

"Every mile per hour that is reduced on average reduces casualties by six per cent"

That is the most stupid statistic I have ever heard.

If someone steps out into the road without looking, no matter whether a car is doing 20 or 30 there is still going to be a casualty.
"Every mile per hour that is reduced on average reduces casualties by six per cent" That is the most stupid statistic I have ever heard. If someone steps out into the road without looking, no matter whether a car is doing 20 or 30 there is still going to be a casualty. CowleyBoy

11:53am Wed 4 Apr 12

Geoff Roberts says...

Just a shame the hand held speed guns cost so much money.
Just a shame the hand held speed guns cost so much money. Geoff Roberts

11:55am Wed 4 Apr 12

Geoff Roberts says...

CowleyBoy wrote:
"Every mile per hour that is reduced on average reduces casualties by six per cent"

That is the most stupid statistic I have ever heard.

If someone steps out into the road without looking, no matter whether a car is doing 20 or 30 there is still going to be a casualty.
You're not taking into consideration breaking distance at different speeds and drivers' ability to react quicker at slower speeds. Which unfortunately invalidates your argument.
[quote][p][bold]CowleyBoy[/bold] wrote: "Every mile per hour that is reduced on average reduces casualties by six per cent" That is the most stupid statistic I have ever heard. If someone steps out into the road without looking, no matter whether a car is doing 20 or 30 there is still going to be a casualty.[/p][/quote]You're not taking into consideration breaking distance at different speeds and drivers' ability to react quicker at slower speeds. Which unfortunately invalidates your argument. Geoff Roberts

11:57am Wed 4 Apr 12

Geoff Roberts says...

It's the county council that are at fault here, not the police, the 20 mph is a good thing but the council that put it in place has failed to make sure it's enforced. Not the police.
It's the county council that are at fault here, not the police, the 20 mph is a good thing but the council that put it in place has failed to make sure it's enforced. Not the police. Geoff Roberts

12:01pm Wed 4 Apr 12

Geoff Roberts says...

There are other things that the police want to enforce but cannot because, for example - the jobs are given to private companies instead. It's the council, not the police. People keep voting for these people and they keep screwing everything up. Then they blame the police. Road issue have to go through the county council, the police's hands are tied and it looks like the County Council are playing a dangerous game with the police and communities here.
There are other things that the police want to enforce but cannot because, for example - the jobs are given to private companies instead. It's the council, not the police. People keep voting for these people and they keep screwing everything up. Then they blame the police. Road issue have to go through the county council, the police's hands are tied and it looks like the County Council are playing a dangerous game with the police and communities here. Geoff Roberts

12:13pm Wed 4 Apr 12

CowleyBoy says...

Geoff Roberts wrote:
CowleyBoy wrote:
"Every mile per hour that is reduced on average reduces casualties by six per cent"

That is the most stupid statistic I have ever heard.

If someone steps out into the road without looking, no matter whether a car is doing 20 or 30 there is still going to be a casualty.
You're not taking into consideration breaking distance at different speeds and drivers' ability to react quicker at slower speeds. Which unfortunately invalidates your argument.
No it doesn't. My point was that there cannot be a direct correlation between average speeds and casualty rates. It does not take into account the number of people who walk into the road without looking, careless cyclists or any other variables that can't be measured.

In other words, if everyone did 50 miles an hour but no-one stepped into the road, we'd have no casualties. But if everyone did 20mph and 500 people stepped into the road each month, we'd have lots.

We can't make the rules purely on statistics like this, ahead of common sense.
[quote][p][bold]Geoff Roberts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CowleyBoy[/bold] wrote: "Every mile per hour that is reduced on average reduces casualties by six per cent" That is the most stupid statistic I have ever heard. If someone steps out into the road without looking, no matter whether a car is doing 20 or 30 there is still going to be a casualty.[/p][/quote]You're not taking into consideration breaking distance at different speeds and drivers' ability to react quicker at slower speeds. Which unfortunately invalidates your argument.[/p][/quote]No it doesn't. My point was that there cannot be a direct correlation between average speeds and casualty rates. It does not take into account the number of people who walk into the road without looking, careless cyclists or any other variables that can't be measured. In other words, if everyone did 50 miles an hour but no-one stepped into the road, we'd have no casualties. But if everyone did 20mph and 500 people stepped into the road each month, we'd have lots. We can't make the rules purely on statistics like this, ahead of common sense. CowleyBoy

12:18pm Wed 4 Apr 12

Geoff Roberts says...

“The culprits here are the police. If democracy has decided 20mph is the best limit, why have they not policed it?”

She does realise that there are 2 members of Oxfordshire County Council on the police authority and that if you actually speak to the police about speeding they well tell you that they need to justify putting resources into enforcing speeding to Oxfordshire County Council - doesn't she?
“The culprits here are the police. If democracy has decided 20mph is the best limit, why have they not policed it?” She does realise that there are 2 members of Oxfordshire County Council on the police authority and that if you actually speak to the police about speeding they well tell you that they need to justify putting resources into enforcing speeding to Oxfordshire County Council - doesn't she? Geoff Roberts

12:18pm Wed 4 Apr 12

Dilligaf2010 says...

Geoff Roberts wrote:
CowleyBoy wrote:
"Every mile per hour that is reduced on average reduces casualties by six per cent"

That is the most stupid statistic I have ever heard.

If someone steps out into the road without looking, no matter whether a car is doing 20 or 30 there is still going to be a casualty.
You're not taking into consideration breaking distance at different speeds and drivers' ability to react quicker at slower speeds. Which unfortunately invalidates your argument.
In truth, you're both correct, dependant on the circumstances.
If there is sufficient distance to slow down, then yes the speed differential would result in vastly differing outcomes, however if the person were to be too close to allow for thinking time, let alone, braking time, then there's certain to be a casualty.
[quote][p][bold]Geoff Roberts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CowleyBoy[/bold] wrote: "Every mile per hour that is reduced on average reduces casualties by six per cent" That is the most stupid statistic I have ever heard. If someone steps out into the road without looking, no matter whether a car is doing 20 or 30 there is still going to be a casualty.[/p][/quote]You're not taking into consideration breaking distance at different speeds and drivers' ability to react quicker at slower speeds. Which unfortunately invalidates your argument.[/p][/quote]In truth, you're both correct, dependant on the circumstances. If there is sufficient distance to slow down, then yes the speed differential would result in vastly differing outcomes, however if the person were to be too close to allow for thinking time, let alone, braking time, then there's certain to be a casualty. Dilligaf2010

12:24pm Wed 4 Apr 12

Geoff Roberts says...

CowleyBoy wrote:
Geoff Roberts wrote:
CowleyBoy wrote:
"Every mile per hour that is reduced on average reduces casualties by six per cent"

That is the most stupid statistic I have ever heard.

If someone steps out into the road without looking, no matter whether a car is doing 20 or 30 there is still going to be a casualty.
You're not taking into consideration breaking distance at different speeds and drivers' ability to react quicker at slower speeds. Which unfortunately invalidates your argument.
No it doesn't. My point was that there cannot be a direct correlation between average speeds and casualty rates. It does not take into account the number of people who walk into the road without looking, careless cyclists or any other variables that can't be measured.

In other words, if everyone did 50 miles an hour but no-one stepped into the road, we'd have no casualties. But if everyone did 20mph and 500 people stepped into the road each month, we'd have lots.

We can't make the rules purely on statistics like this, ahead of common sense.
Now you're worming out of what you wrote!

You made a straightforward statement:

"If someone steps out into the road without looking, no matter whether a car is doing 20 or 30 there is still going to be a casualty."

That's not ambiguous, you are saying that it doesn't matter what the speed of the car is, there WILL be a casualty. It is not as simple as that and it's a perfectly reasonable argument that if a car is traveling at 20 mph when someone steps out in front of it then there is less chance of a casualty than at a higher speed simply because there is less time involved. Of course you'd need to factor in distance from the vehicle when the person steps out and a couple of other variables but people don't normally spontaneously materialise in front of cars!
[quote][p][bold]CowleyBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Geoff Roberts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CowleyBoy[/bold] wrote: "Every mile per hour that is reduced on average reduces casualties by six per cent" That is the most stupid statistic I have ever heard. If someone steps out into the road without looking, no matter whether a car is doing 20 or 30 there is still going to be a casualty.[/p][/quote]You're not taking into consideration breaking distance at different speeds and drivers' ability to react quicker at slower speeds. Which unfortunately invalidates your argument.[/p][/quote]No it doesn't. My point was that there cannot be a direct correlation between average speeds and casualty rates. It does not take into account the number of people who walk into the road without looking, careless cyclists or any other variables that can't be measured. In other words, if everyone did 50 miles an hour but no-one stepped into the road, we'd have no casualties. But if everyone did 20mph and 500 people stepped into the road each month, we'd have lots. We can't make the rules purely on statistics like this, ahead of common sense.[/p][/quote]Now you're worming out of what you wrote! You made a straightforward statement: "If someone steps out into the road without looking, no matter whether a car is doing 20 or 30 there is still going to be a casualty." That's not ambiguous, you are saying that it doesn't matter what the speed of the car is, there WILL be a casualty. It is not as simple as that and it's a perfectly reasonable argument that if a car is traveling at 20 mph when someone steps out in front of it then there is less chance of a casualty than at a higher speed simply because there is less time involved. Of course you'd need to factor in distance from the vehicle when the person steps out and a couple of other variables but people don't normally spontaneously materialise in front of cars! Geoff Roberts

12:26pm Wed 4 Apr 12

Geoff Roberts says...

Also please define what you mean by "lots" and "common sense". Plus it almost looks like you are blaming pedestrians for the situation!
Also please define what you mean by "lots" and "common sense". Plus it almost looks like you are blaming pedestrians for the situation! Geoff Roberts

12:30pm Wed 4 Apr 12

Geoff Roberts says...

The police are responsible for enforcing laws. Where do the police get money from and who decides where resources are provisioned though? If the police aren't given enough money to spend on enforcing an area of the law then how is it the police's fault for not enforcing the laws?
The police are responsible for enforcing laws. Where do the police get money from and who decides where resources are provisioned though? If the police aren't given enough money to spend on enforcing an area of the law then how is it the police's fault for not enforcing the laws? Geoff Roberts

12:32pm Wed 4 Apr 12

Geoff Roberts says...

Bearing in mind that there is a council tax freeze on, that the police aren't in control of their budget and hand held speed guns costs about £5,000 each.
Bearing in mind that there is a council tax freeze on, that the police aren't in control of their budget and hand held speed guns costs about £5,000 each. Geoff Roberts

12:36pm Wed 4 Apr 12

Geoff Roberts says...

...and that there are less than 8,000 police but you're looking at potentially thousands of incidents a week.

Ultimately it's impatient, anti social drivers that are responsible for this problem. When challenged some of these drivers come out with ridiculous excuses such as "do you pay for the petrol for this car?"

Interesting that one of the comments in this article is from a taxi driver. I regularly check the speed of taxis I'm in, I can assure you they regularly do at least twice the speed limit in some areas. It's rare to find a taxi driver that sticks to the speed limit.
...and that there are less than 8,000 police but you're looking at potentially thousands of incidents a week. Ultimately it's impatient, anti social drivers that are responsible for this problem. When challenged some of these drivers come out with ridiculous excuses such as "do you pay for the petrol for this car?" Interesting that one of the comments in this article is from a taxi driver. I regularly check the speed of taxis I'm in, I can assure you they regularly do at least twice the speed limit in some areas. It's rare to find a taxi driver that sticks to the speed limit. Geoff Roberts

12:39pm Wed 4 Apr 12

Geoff Roberts says...

Yesterday on a bus down cowley road a cyclist clearly successfully started cycling faster in order to get in front of the bus so it couldn't pass. The bus couldn't pass but actually once the bus hit the main traffic on Cowley Road the speed of the bus remained the same. So overtaking the cyclist would not have made much difference.
Yesterday on a bus down cowley road a cyclist clearly successfully started cycling faster in order to get in front of the bus so it couldn't pass. The bus couldn't pass but actually once the bus hit the main traffic on Cowley Road the speed of the bus remained the same. So overtaking the cyclist would not have made much difference. Geoff Roberts

1:00pm Wed 4 Apr 12

Geoff Roberts says...

I think what has happened is that the County Council put the 20 mph limit in place after pressure from campaign groups (the police wanted it to be 15mph in some places such as Cowley Road). The County Council took our money and wasted it on digging up some roads, resurfacing them then digging them up again (whilst other roads haven't been touched for about 30 years or more to and are desperately in need) then not enough money was provided to the police for law enforcement. Now the County Council are encouraging people to blame the police for the problem.
I think what has happened is that the County Council put the 20 mph limit in place after pressure from campaign groups (the police wanted it to be 15mph in some places such as Cowley Road). The County Council took our money and wasted it on digging up some roads, resurfacing them then digging them up again (whilst other roads haven't been touched for about 30 years or more to and are desperately in need) then not enough money was provided to the police for law enforcement. Now the County Council are encouraging people to blame the police for the problem. Geoff Roberts

1:10pm Wed 4 Apr 12

Geoff Roberts says...

'Police confirmed they have not ticketed anyone and Mr Rose, reacting to a call to impose 20mph limits in Witney, said: “Unless enforced, they are a waste of money. "'

Yes, how is anyone supposed to enforce such a thing without the tools to do so? Watching a car go past and thinking it's speeding isn't good enough. Speed cameras work but then they aren't invested in, guess why? Because the County Council won't invest in them, even worse - at one point the county council switched them off. The police have no control over that and how are the police supposed to be able to buy the necessarily tools to catch people speeding when they aren't given the money and the tools cost so much? Not only that even if the police had the necessary tools they don't have the people to use them.

The County Council have caused this problem, not the police but they are effectively blaming the police for it and stand to continue to get voted into power with no end to this problem unless the average driver and person in the street changes their behaviour.
'Police confirmed they have not ticketed anyone and Mr Rose, reacting to a call to impose 20mph limits in Witney, said: “Unless enforced, they are a waste of money. "' Yes, how is anyone supposed to enforce such a thing without the tools to do so? Watching a car go past and thinking it's speeding isn't good enough. Speed cameras work but then they aren't invested in, guess why? Because the County Council won't invest in them, even worse - at one point the county council switched them off. The police have no control over that and how are the police supposed to be able to buy the necessarily tools to catch people speeding when they aren't given the money and the tools cost so much? Not only that even if the police had the necessary tools they don't have the people to use them. The County Council have caused this problem, not the police but they are effectively blaming the police for it and stand to continue to get voted into power with no end to this problem unless the average driver and person in the street changes their behaviour. Geoff Roberts

1:13pm Wed 4 Apr 12

Geoff Roberts says...

docs wrote:
Every so often I drive along High Street in the late evening. When I stick to 20mph I'm invariably tailgated by a taxi. One even overtook me when I was doing 20 down St. Aldates.

I don't think that 20 is an inappropriate speed limit for the High Street - but on London Road past Brookes, it's nonsense on stilts.
Right so you're happy with having an increased risk to human life in an area with several schools and housing estates in because that is what you are suggesting in effect. In a way High Street has speed enforcement because of the type of road and amount of traffic, so perhaps London Road is more of a priority.
[quote][p][bold]docs[/bold] wrote: Every so often I drive along High Street in the late evening. When I stick to 20mph I'm invariably tailgated by a taxi. One even overtook me when I was doing 20 down St. Aldates. I don't think that 20 is an inappropriate speed limit for the High Street - but on London Road past Brookes, it's nonsense on stilts.[/p][/quote]Right so you're happy with having an increased risk to human life in an area with several schools and housing estates in because that is what you are suggesting in effect. In a way High Street has speed enforcement because of the type of road and amount of traffic, so perhaps London Road is more of a priority. Geoff Roberts

1:14pm Wed 4 Apr 12

CowleyBoy says...

You're making small & picky attempts to invalidate my argument, yet not actually making a counter-argument against my overall point.

On the 30 or 20 question - yes of course it depends on breaking distance etc. I used it as a quick & simple example to illustrate my point, i.e. that lower average speeds do not automatically mean lower casualties.

Common sense shouldn't need to be defined. That's why it's "common", i.e. nearly everyone has it (or at least nearly everyone). I'll define what isn't common sense - continuing to reduce speed limits to unenforceable levels, with the justification that it will reduce casualties, despite speed being only a single possible factor of many.

Lots - well, that means lots.
You're making small & picky attempts to invalidate my argument, yet not actually making a counter-argument against my overall point. On the 30 or 20 question - yes of course it depends on breaking distance etc. I used it as a quick & simple example to illustrate my point, i.e. that lower average speeds do not automatically mean lower casualties. Common sense shouldn't need to be defined. That's why it's "common", i.e. nearly everyone has it (or at least nearly everyone). I'll define what isn't common sense - continuing to reduce speed limits to unenforceable levels, with the justification that it will reduce casualties, despite speed being only a single possible factor of many. Lots - well, that means lots. CowleyBoy

1:21pm Wed 4 Apr 12

sparky123456 says...

Taxi drivers are the worst in the city. I was overtaken coming down Headington hill recently by a taxi doing about 50mph. But I actually wouldn't say that's unsafe - there isn't a pavement on either side and the chance of a pedestrain being there is minimal. Thing with these statistics... how many of the KSI's were caused by speed and how many were actually due to cyclists not following the highway code, pedestrians stepping out from behind parked cars, drivers on mobiles or not paying attention. So many factors cause accidents, speed generally isn't one. it just determines how bad the aftermath is.
Taxi drivers are the worst in the city. I was overtaken coming down Headington hill recently by a taxi doing about 50mph. But I actually wouldn't say that's unsafe - there isn't a pavement on either side and the chance of a pedestrain being there is minimal. Thing with these statistics... how many of the KSI's were caused by speed and how many were actually due to cyclists not following the highway code, pedestrians stepping out from behind parked cars, drivers on mobiles or not paying attention. So many factors cause accidents, speed generally isn't one. it just determines how bad the aftermath is. sparky123456

1:23pm Wed 4 Apr 12

CowleyBoy says...

sparky123456 wrote:
Taxi drivers are the worst in the city. I was overtaken coming down Headington hill recently by a taxi doing about 50mph. But I actually wouldn't say that's unsafe - there isn't a pavement on either side and the chance of a pedestrain being there is minimal. Thing with these statistics... how many of the KSI's were caused by speed and how many were actually due to cyclists not following the highway code, pedestrians stepping out from behind parked cars, drivers on mobiles or not paying attention. So many factors cause accidents, speed generally isn't one. it just determines how bad the aftermath is.
My point exactly.

If we keep laying the blame purely on speed, they'll be putting the limit down to 10mph before long. Where does it stop?
[quote][p][bold]sparky123456[/bold] wrote: Taxi drivers are the worst in the city. I was overtaken coming down Headington hill recently by a taxi doing about 50mph. But I actually wouldn't say that's unsafe - there isn't a pavement on either side and the chance of a pedestrain being there is minimal. Thing with these statistics... how many of the KSI's were caused by speed and how many were actually due to cyclists not following the highway code, pedestrians stepping out from behind parked cars, drivers on mobiles or not paying attention. So many factors cause accidents, speed generally isn't one. it just determines how bad the aftermath is.[/p][/quote]My point exactly. If we keep laying the blame purely on speed, they'll be putting the limit down to 10mph before long. Where does it stop? CowleyBoy

2:31pm Wed 4 Apr 12

Geoff Roberts says...

CowleyBoy wrote:
You're making small & picky attempts to invalidate my argument, yet not actually making a counter-argument against my overall point.

On the 30 or 20 question - yes of course it depends on breaking distance etc. I used it as a quick & simple example to illustrate my point, i.e. that lower average speeds do not automatically mean lower casualties.

Common sense shouldn't need to be defined. That's why it's "common", i.e. nearly everyone has it (or at least nearly everyone). I'll define what isn't common sense - continuing to reduce speed limits to unenforceable levels, with the justification that it will reduce casualties, despite speed being only a single possible factor of many.

Lots - well, that means lots.
I don't need a counter argument, I'm just pointing out that the assertion you made is wrong. Anyway, not going anywhere with this so...
[quote][p][bold]CowleyBoy[/bold] wrote: You're making small & picky attempts to invalidate my argument, yet not actually making a counter-argument against my overall point. On the 30 or 20 question - yes of course it depends on breaking distance etc. I used it as a quick & simple example to illustrate my point, i.e. that lower average speeds do not automatically mean lower casualties. Common sense shouldn't need to be defined. That's why it's "common", i.e. nearly everyone has it (or at least nearly everyone). I'll define what isn't common sense - continuing to reduce speed limits to unenforceable levels, with the justification that it will reduce casualties, despite speed being only a single possible factor of many. Lots - well, that means lots.[/p][/quote]I don't need a counter argument, I'm just pointing out that the assertion you made is wrong. Anyway, not going anywhere with this so... Geoff Roberts

2:31pm Wed 4 Apr 12

caz1111 says...

SAFEST WAY TO DRIVE IS WITH EYES ON THE ROAD not on your speedo, which is what happens when you think you may get done for speeding! As said before there is no logic in the speed limits, they get changed for no apparent reasons in areas where there have never been accidents. That makes people ante the limits & refusing to keep to them out of principle.
SAFEST WAY TO DRIVE IS WITH EYES ON THE ROAD not on your speedo, which is what happens when you think you may get done for speeding! As said before there is no logic in the speed limits, they get changed for no apparent reasons in areas where there have never been accidents. That makes people ante the limits & refusing to keep to them out of principle. caz1111

2:32pm Wed 4 Apr 12

Geoff Roberts says...

So you break the law and go against the wishes and safety of communities because you don't understand the issue with speed?
So you break the law and go against the wishes and safety of communities because you don't understand the issue with speed? Geoff Roberts

2:33pm Wed 4 Apr 12

Geoff Roberts says...

CowleyBoy wrote:
sparky123456 wrote:
Taxi drivers are the worst in the city. I was overtaken coming down Headington hill recently by a taxi doing about 50mph. But I actually wouldn't say that's unsafe - there isn't a pavement on either side and the chance of a pedestrain being there is minimal. Thing with these statistics... how many of the KSI's were caused by speed and how many were actually due to cyclists not following the highway code, pedestrians stepping out from behind parked cars, drivers on mobiles or not paying attention. So many factors cause accidents, speed generally isn't one. it just determines how bad the aftermath is.
My point exactly.

If we keep laying the blame purely on speed, they'll be putting the limit down to 10mph before long. Where does it stop?
Who is blaming it entirely on speed?
[quote][p][bold]CowleyBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sparky123456[/bold] wrote: Taxi drivers are the worst in the city. I was overtaken coming down Headington hill recently by a taxi doing about 50mph. But I actually wouldn't say that's unsafe - there isn't a pavement on either side and the chance of a pedestrain being there is minimal. Thing with these statistics... how many of the KSI's were caused by speed and how many were actually due to cyclists not following the highway code, pedestrians stepping out from behind parked cars, drivers on mobiles or not paying attention. So many factors cause accidents, speed generally isn't one. it just determines how bad the aftermath is.[/p][/quote]My point exactly. If we keep laying the blame purely on speed, they'll be putting the limit down to 10mph before long. Where does it stop?[/p][/quote]Who is blaming it entirely on speed? Geoff Roberts

3:27pm Wed 4 Apr 12

Dilligaf2010 says...

Geoff Roberts wrote:
So you break the law and go against the wishes and safety of communities because you don't understand the issue with speed?
You go with the flow, if the weather & traffic conditions allow for a few mph over, then that's what most people do, just the same on other roads, you don't drive at the maximum speed on dual carriageways & motorways if conditions aren't right, you go with the flow, over, or under the limit, dependant on ability, experience and the vehicle you're driving.
In many places on the continent, where the speed limit is reduced in residential areas, large concrete "plant pots" (over a metre in diameter),
are positioned to create a chicane effect, reduces speed & enhances the neighbourhood.
[quote][p][bold]Geoff Roberts[/bold] wrote: So you break the law and go against the wishes and safety of communities because you don't understand the issue with speed?[/p][/quote]You go with the flow, if the weather & traffic conditions allow for a few mph over, then that's what most people do, just the same on other roads, you don't drive at the maximum speed on dual carriageways & motorways if conditions aren't right, you go with the flow, over, or under the limit, dependant on ability, experience and the vehicle you're driving. In many places on the continent, where the speed limit is reduced in residential areas, large concrete "plant pots" (over a metre in diameter), are positioned to create a chicane effect, reduces speed & enhances the neighbourhood. Dilligaf2010

3:52pm Wed 4 Apr 12

Nibor the great says...

Sadly it is always the motorist who blamed for an RTA involving a cyclist or pedestrian. Sadly the statistics don't show that the cyclist had no lights on at 9pm at night when struck..... and its now a talking point to see a cyclist actually with lights. Also the statistics won't show that the pedestrian was wearing earphones but didn't hear the horn blowing!!! Neither will they show if the pedestrian was not from the UK and looked the other way instead of both ways. I could go on but all these statistics are meant to show that the driver is always to blame. In the mid 1800's when you drove a car, a man had to walk in front of you with a flag.....in 2012 that looks likely to happen again. We suffer from knee jerk reactions with speed - the ringroad is a classic example. The speed was reduced to 50mph because of a serious accident where there were fatalities involving chidren. It happened because the driver was overloaded with kids and driving like a moron. So now we all have to suffer a reduced speed in what is a pretty good road just because of one moron. Shame the police resources aren't better spent on catching thieves, muggers and burglars.
Sadly it is always the motorist who blamed for an RTA involving a cyclist or pedestrian. Sadly the statistics don't show that the cyclist had no lights on at 9pm at night when struck..... and its now a talking point to see a cyclist actually with lights. Also the statistics won't show that the pedestrian was wearing earphones but didn't hear the horn blowing!!! Neither will they show if the pedestrian was not from the UK and looked the other way instead of both ways. I could go on but all these statistics are meant to show that the driver is always to blame. In the mid 1800's when you drove a car, a man had to walk in front of you with a flag.....in 2012 that looks likely to happen again. We suffer from knee jerk reactions with speed - the ringroad is a classic example. The speed was reduced to 50mph because of a serious accident where there were fatalities involving chidren. It happened because the driver was overloaded with kids and driving like a moron. So now we all have to suffer a reduced speed in what is a pretty good road just because of one moron. Shame the police resources aren't better spent on catching thieves, muggers and burglars. Nibor the great

4:05pm Wed 4 Apr 12

SOE27 says...

A34North wrote:
Ms Semlyen also said, despite the increase in serious injuries, the reduction in deaths and slight injuries have resulted in an overall financial saving for Oxfordshire.

She added: “The culprits here are the police. If democracy has decided 20mph is the best limit, why have they not policed it?”

Did I miss the vote on this?
Looks like I missed out on the vote too, as Rosehill was changed to a 20 overnight, no warnings/notificatio
ns of speed limit changes were advertised, and to be honest all that's needed is common sense, slowdown near schools, shops etc

Also Ms Semlyen have you not realised the only time democracy counts is when you tick the ballot paper, after that it's what the elected want to impose, not those who vote for them!
[quote][p][bold]A34North[/bold] wrote: Ms Semlyen also said, despite the increase in serious injuries, the reduction in deaths and slight injuries have resulted in an overall financial saving for Oxfordshire. She added: “The culprits here are the police. If democracy has decided 20mph is the best limit, why have they not policed it?” Did I miss the vote on this?[/p][/quote]Looks like I missed out on the vote too, as Rosehill was changed to a 20 overnight, no warnings/notificatio ns of speed limit changes were advertised, and to be honest all that's needed is common sense, slowdown near schools, shops etc Also Ms Semlyen have you not realised the only time democracy counts is when you tick the ballot paper, after that it's what the elected want to impose, not those who vote for them! SOE27

4:37pm Wed 4 Apr 12

gettothepoint says...

You can have all the rules, laws and regulations you could ever dream of but if you dont have the resources to enforce them you are just blowing in the wind
You can have all the rules, laws and regulations you could ever dream of but if you dont have the resources to enforce them you are just blowing in the wind gettothepoint

5:14pm Wed 4 Apr 12

LW-wallingford says...

so mr Rose and Anna Semlyen, would rather have police sat down these 20 limits catching drivers and throwing about fixed penelty notices left right and center, as apposed to actually being out catching real criminals? I bet their minds would change if it happened, they got robbed and there was no police about to catch them.
so mr Rose and Anna Semlyen, would rather have police sat down these 20 limits catching drivers and throwing about fixed penelty notices left right and center, as apposed to actually being out catching real criminals? I bet their minds would change if it happened, they got robbed and there was no police about to catch them. LW-wallingford

6:12pm Wed 4 Apr 12

docs says...

Geoff Roberts wrote:
docs wrote:
Every so often I drive along High Street in the late evening. When I stick to 20mph I'm invariably tailgated by a taxi. One even overtook me when I was doing 20 down St. Aldates.

I don't think that 20 is an inappropriate speed limit for the High Street - but on London Road past Brookes, it's nonsense on stilts.
Right so you're happy with having an increased risk to human life in an area with several schools and housing estates in because that is what you are suggesting in effect. In a way High Street has speed enforcement because of the type of road and amount of traffic, so perhaps London Road is more of a priority.
You make me sound like a petrol-head. I sometimes think I'm the only person trying to stick to 20mph on London Road.

But the inconsistency is absurd. What about Headley Way, Marston Road, Banbury Road, Woodstock Road, or the top half of St. Clements? Most through-routes remain 30, and for London Road not to be the same diminishes the whole scheme.

It would have been far cheaper - and no more or less effective over all - to stick to the original scheme of making a blanket speed limit of 20mph everywhere inside the ring road.
[quote][p][bold]Geoff Roberts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]docs[/bold] wrote: Every so often I drive along High Street in the late evening. When I stick to 20mph I'm invariably tailgated by a taxi. One even overtook me when I was doing 20 down St. Aldates. I don't think that 20 is an inappropriate speed limit for the High Street - but on London Road past Brookes, it's nonsense on stilts.[/p][/quote]Right so you're happy with having an increased risk to human life in an area with several schools and housing estates in because that is what you are suggesting in effect. In a way High Street has speed enforcement because of the type of road and amount of traffic, so perhaps London Road is more of a priority.[/p][/quote]You make me sound like a petrol-head. I sometimes think I'm the only person trying to stick to 20mph on London Road. But the inconsistency is absurd. What about Headley Way, Marston Road, Banbury Road, Woodstock Road, or the top half of St. Clements? Most through-routes remain 30, and for London Road not to be the same diminishes the whole scheme. It would have been far cheaper - and no more or less effective over all - to stick to the original scheme of making a blanket speed limit of 20mph everywhere inside the ring road. docs

7:23pm Wed 4 Apr 12

tcneverdone says...

OCC were fully aware that 20mph speed limits do not work unless there are engineering measures or the speeds are low enough to be self enforcing No notice was taken of good advice to them advice issued by the DfT. Now it's blame the police for the refusal of the ones at OCC to take notice of good sound advice.What a waste of good money plus all the extra signage
OCC were fully aware that 20mph speed limits do not work unless there are engineering measures or the speeds are low enough to be self enforcing No notice was taken of good advice to them advice issued by the DfT. Now it's blame the police for the refusal of the ones at OCC to take notice of good sound advice.What a waste of good money plus all the extra signage tcneverdone

7:30pm Wed 4 Apr 12

Oxford Male says...

Thought this was the Geoff Roberts show for a while here.

"In the two years before September 2009 there were 64 crashes that resulted in KSIs – considered by transport experts the most reliable statistic to judge road safety upon.

That has risen to 71 in the first two years of the 20mph scheme."

Now I know it is not being enforced but I believe some people (& I usually do) stick to this limit even if we think it is absurd in many instances & even those that don't mostly have slowed down a bit - so how come the number of crashes has risen to 71?
Thought this was the Geoff Roberts show for a while here. "In the two years before September 2009 there were 64 crashes that resulted in KSIs – considered by transport experts the most reliable statistic to judge road safety upon. That has risen to 71 in the first two years of the 20mph scheme." Now I know it is not being enforced but I believe some people (& I usually do) stick to this limit even if we think it is absurd in many instances & even those that don't mostly have slowed down a bit - so how come the number of crashes has risen to 71? Oxford Male

7:49pm Wed 4 Apr 12

saysme36 says...

Geoff Roberts wrote:
Bearing in mind that there is a council tax freeze on, that the police aren't in control of their budget and hand held speed guns costs about £5,000 each.
The Police are able to offset running costs of enforcement against any fines collected with any surplus going back to the Treasury. Why should our Council Tax therefore be used to fund enforcement rather than it being funded by those who are causing the problem by driving faster than the speed limit.
Given that enforcement would be funded therefore it doesn't seem a question of speeding enforcement OR tackling burglars as the funds would be in place to do both. What it does require is a willingness to engage by both the Council and the Police rather than trying to blame each other.
[quote][p][bold]Geoff Roberts[/bold] wrote: Bearing in mind that there is a council tax freeze on, that the police aren't in control of their budget and hand held speed guns costs about £5,000 each.[/p][/quote]The Police are able to offset running costs of enforcement against any fines collected with any surplus going back to the Treasury. Why should our Council Tax therefore be used to fund enforcement rather than it being funded by those who are causing the problem by driving faster than the speed limit. Given that enforcement would be funded therefore it doesn't seem a question of speeding enforcement OR tackling burglars as the funds would be in place to do both. What it does require is a willingness to engage by both the Council and the Police rather than trying to blame each other. saysme36

9:20pm Wed 4 Apr 12

Major Rhode-Werks says...

In the early days of the 20mph zones I was following a car at 20mph coming out of Oxford and we were both heading for the Woodstock Road. Suddenly a cyclist shot up the inside of me (and yes, I saw him coming), then out through the gap between the car in front and myself and headed for the right-hand fork to Banbury Road. Seemed to me at the time that the 20mph limit could actually increase the possibility of an accident. Personally I think most driver's are probably more alert driving at 30 than creeping along at 20 so, you could say, are more likely to see potential dangers.
Unless I've missed something I haven't seen accident statistics for just the 20mph zones, only overall statistics. Have accidents in these zones increased or decreased can anyone tell me?
In the early days of the 20mph zones I was following a car at 20mph coming out of Oxford and we were both heading for the Woodstock Road. Suddenly a cyclist shot up the inside of me (and yes, I saw him coming), then out through the gap between the car in front and myself and headed for the right-hand fork to Banbury Road. Seemed to me at the time that the 20mph limit could actually increase the possibility of an accident. Personally I think most driver's are probably more alert driving at 30 than creeping along at 20 so, you could say, are more likely to see potential dangers. Unless I've missed something I haven't seen accident statistics for just the 20mph zones, only overall statistics. Have accidents in these zones increased or decreased can anyone tell me? Major Rhode-Werks

1:43am Thu 5 Apr 12

OZZY123 says...

do you speed as well Khalil Ahmed when you get a good job(didcot-abingdon)
you only have ten mins to get to the customer..
do you speed as well Khalil Ahmed when you get a good job(didcot-abingdon) you only have ten mins to get to the customer.. OZZY123

8:44am Thu 5 Apr 12

Sophia says...

The 20 mph limit was introduced by self important idiots who get a buzz out of bossing people about, against the advice of the police who knew it to be unenforceable.

Parrot cries that every 1 mph slower saves lives are a kind of self imposed stupity - that would lead you to impose a 5 mph speed limit because at 6 mph, there'd be slightly more accidents. BUt 4 mph would be even safer...

Reality is, its all a question of a) balancing convenience and safety in a pramgatic way and b) what people will accept

30 mph makes sense because above that, the risk of injury increases rapdily with extra speed. But the relationship between speed and injury rates is poorer as you go below 30 mph which is EXACTLY what the figures now show

It is appalling that when vital services are being cut, money was wasted catering for the personal mania of these pathetic buffoons

Polcie time should be spent on dealing with drunk, drugged, aggressive, untaxed and uninsured drivers
The 20 mph limit was introduced by self important idiots who get a buzz out of bossing people about, against the advice of the police who knew it to be unenforceable. Parrot cries that every 1 mph slower saves lives are a kind of self imposed stupity - that would lead you to impose a 5 mph speed limit because at 6 mph, there'd be slightly more accidents. BUt 4 mph would be even safer... Reality is, its all a question of a) balancing convenience and safety in a pramgatic way and b) what people will accept 30 mph makes sense because above that, the risk of injury increases rapdily with extra speed. But the relationship between speed and injury rates is poorer as you go below 30 mph which is EXACTLY what the figures now show It is appalling that when vital services are being cut, money was wasted catering for the personal mania of these pathetic buffoons Polcie time should be spent on dealing with drunk, drugged, aggressive, untaxed and uninsured drivers Sophia

8:46am Thu 5 Apr 12

Lady Penelopee says...

If the number of minor injuries has gone down, can we correlate that to cars being able to stop in time after daft pedestrians step out infront of them? Which would thus imply that most cars ARE sticking to the limit.

Could the increase in serious injuries thus be due to some people NOT sticking to the limit?

Taxis DO stick to the speed limit, but only when they have a passenger, as they get extra money for going slowly!! When they're driving to pick someone up, they NEVER stick to the limit!
If the number of minor injuries has gone down, can we correlate that to cars being able to stop in time after daft pedestrians step out infront of them? Which would thus imply that most cars ARE sticking to the limit. Could the increase in serious injuries thus be due to some people NOT sticking to the limit? Taxis DO stick to the speed limit, but only when they have a passenger, as they get extra money for going slowly!! When they're driving to pick someone up, they NEVER stick to the limit! Lady Penelopee

9:01am Thu 5 Apr 12

Major Rhode-Werks says...

Lady Penelopee, I've been in many taxis and never known ONE to stick to the speed limit unless they are forced to by traffic etc. I'm assuming the meters run on distance rather than time but am happy to be corrected on that one. Also many of them don't seem to know where they are going these days so passengers have to act as navigators. How they have passed the test to get their badge is sometimes a mystery - but that's a whole new topic
Lady Penelopee, I've been in many taxis and never known ONE to stick to the speed limit unless they are forced to by traffic etc. I'm assuming the meters run on distance rather than time but am happy to be corrected on that one. Also many of them don't seem to know where they are going these days so passengers have to act as navigators. How they have passed the test to get their badge is sometimes a mystery - but that's a whole new topic Major Rhode-Werks

10:39am Thu 5 Apr 12

OxfordResident says...

saysme36 wrote:
Geoff Roberts wrote:
Bearing in mind that there is a council tax freeze on, that the police aren't in control of their budget and hand held speed guns costs about £5,000 each.
The Police are able to offset running costs of enforcement against any fines collected with any surplus going back to the Treasury. Why should our Council Tax therefore be used to fund enforcement rather than it being funded by those who are causing the problem by driving faster than the speed limit.
Given that enforcement would be funded therefore it doesn't seem a question of speeding enforcement OR tackling burglars as the funds would be in place to do both. What it does require is a willingness to engage by both the Council and the Police rather than trying to blame each other.
Because the police cannot spend money they don't have on the premise of the potential for income in the future. So they legally cannot spend the £5k on a device that may bring in more than that in the future, unless they cut the money from somewhere else (and they are already shutting police stations and reducing officers as a result of the current 'efficiency' drive.
[quote][p][bold]saysme36[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Geoff Roberts[/bold] wrote: Bearing in mind that there is a council tax freeze on, that the police aren't in control of their budget and hand held speed guns costs about £5,000 each.[/p][/quote]The Police are able to offset running costs of enforcement against any fines collected with any surplus going back to the Treasury. Why should our Council Tax therefore be used to fund enforcement rather than it being funded by those who are causing the problem by driving faster than the speed limit. Given that enforcement would be funded therefore it doesn't seem a question of speeding enforcement OR tackling burglars as the funds would be in place to do both. What it does require is a willingness to engage by both the Council and the Police rather than trying to blame each other.[/p][/quote]Because the police cannot spend money they don't have on the premise of the potential for income in the future. So they legally cannot spend the £5k on a device that may bring in more than that in the future, unless they cut the money from somewhere else (and they are already shutting police stations and reducing officers as a result of the current 'efficiency' drive. OxfordResident

12:08pm Thu 5 Apr 12

A34North says...

Look, this is so easy. Cars need to speed up in residential areas that way when people step off the pavement the car will have past the possible point of impact thereby 'no accident and even better statistics'. It has already been stated that accidents have increased with the lower speed lets all reverse the trend. Its all to do with timing you see.
Look, this is so easy. Cars need to speed up in residential areas that way when people step off the pavement the car will have past the possible point of impact thereby 'no accident and even better statistics'. It has already been stated that accidents have increased with the lower speed lets all reverse the trend. Its all to do with timing you see. A34North

4:52pm Thu 5 Apr 12

Lady Penelopee says...

Major Rhode-Werks wrote:
Lady Penelopee, I've been in many taxis and never known ONE to stick to the speed limit unless they are forced to by traffic etc. I'm assuming the meters run on distance rather than time but am happy to be corrected on that one. Also many of them don't seem to know where they are going these days so passengers have to act as navigators. How they have passed the test to get their badge is sometimes a mystery - but that's a whole new topic
Oddly, there's actually an EU standard on how taxis can charge!

It's done on both time and distance:

http://www.aquila-el
ectronics.co.uk/how_
work.html
[quote][p][bold]Major Rhode-Werks[/bold] wrote: Lady Penelopee, I've been in many taxis and never known ONE to stick to the speed limit unless they are forced to by traffic etc. I'm assuming the meters run on distance rather than time but am happy to be corrected on that one. Also many of them don't seem to know where they are going these days so passengers have to act as navigators. How they have passed the test to get their badge is sometimes a mystery - but that's a whole new topic[/p][/quote]Oddly, there's actually an EU standard on how taxis can charge! It's done on both time and distance: http://www.aquila-el ectronics.co.uk/how_ work.html Lady Penelopee

6:17pm Thu 5 Apr 12

bodchris says...

20mph limit is a waste of police time. They have more important things to sort out then policing a 'politically correct' adoption. Better if bikes and horses were banned from roads and that pedestrians read the highway code and were more careful.
20mph limit is a waste of police time. They have more important things to sort out then policing a 'politically correct' adoption. Better if bikes and horses were banned from roads and that pedestrians read the highway code and were more careful. bodchris

7:48am Fri 6 Apr 12

Sophia says...

Thinking outside the box, maybe pedestrians should speed up. Its because they are so ditheringly slow that cars hit them esp those old ladies in north Oxford many of them reading Plato as they cross the road. So, a minimum speed limit of say 7 mph, enforced by police with radar guns.
Thinking outside the box, maybe pedestrians should speed up. Its because they are so ditheringly slow that cars hit them esp those old ladies in north Oxford many of them reading Plato as they cross the road. So, a minimum speed limit of say 7 mph, enforced by police with radar guns. Sophia

9:27am Fri 6 Apr 12

A34North says...

Sophia wrote:
Thinking outside the box, maybe pedestrians should speed up. Its because they are so ditheringly slow that cars hit them esp those old ladies in north Oxford many of them reading Plato as they cross the road. So, a minimum speed limit of say 7 mph, enforced by police with radar guns.
Great alternative to my own contribution however, it has to be one or the other for to adopt both ideas would again lead to accidents.
[quote][p][bold]Sophia[/bold] wrote: Thinking outside the box, maybe pedestrians should speed up. Its because they are so ditheringly slow that cars hit them esp those old ladies in north Oxford many of them reading Plato as they cross the road. So, a minimum speed limit of say 7 mph, enforced by police with radar guns.[/p][/quote]Great alternative to my own contribution however, it has to be one or the other for to adopt both ideas would again lead to accidents. A34North

2:45am Sat 7 Apr 12

L0RD PETER McVEY OX2 6EG says...

Geoff Roberts wrote:
Also please define what you mean by "lots" and "common sense". Plus it almost looks like you are blaming pedestrians for the situation!
If a pedestrian steps into the road then it is their fault full stop. The same as if I drive on the pavement and mow down a pedestrian then it is my fault. We have roads and pavements for a reason, or has that passed you by Jeff
[quote][p][bold]Geoff Roberts[/bold] wrote: Also please define what you mean by "lots" and "common sense". Plus it almost looks like you are blaming pedestrians for the situation![/p][/quote]If a pedestrian steps into the road then it is their fault full stop. The same as if I drive on the pavement and mow down a pedestrian then it is my fault. We have roads and pavements for a reason, or has that passed you by Jeff L0RD PETER McVEY OX2 6EG

2:48am Sat 7 Apr 12

L0RD PETER McVEY OX2 6EG says...

Sophia wrote:
The 20 mph limit was introduced by self important idiots who get a buzz out of bossing people about, against the advice of the police who knew it to be unenforceable.

Parrot cries that every 1 mph slower saves lives are a kind of self imposed stupity - that would lead you to impose a 5 mph speed limit because at 6 mph, there'd be slightly more accidents. BUt 4 mph would be even safer...

Reality is, its all a question of a) balancing convenience and safety in a pramgatic way and b) what people will accept

30 mph makes sense because above that, the risk of injury increases rapdily with extra speed. But the relationship between speed and injury rates is poorer as you go below 30 mph which is EXACTLY what the figures now show

It is appalling that when vital services are being cut, money was wasted catering for the personal mania of these pathetic buffoons

Polcie time should be spent on dealing with drunk, drugged, aggressive, untaxed and uninsured drivers
My god, that comment is perfect, rational, and true.
[quote][p][bold]Sophia[/bold] wrote: The 20 mph limit was introduced by self important idiots who get a buzz out of bossing people about, against the advice of the police who knew it to be unenforceable. Parrot cries that every 1 mph slower saves lives are a kind of self imposed stupity - that would lead you to impose a 5 mph speed limit because at 6 mph, there'd be slightly more accidents. BUt 4 mph would be even safer... Reality is, its all a question of a) balancing convenience and safety in a pramgatic way and b) what people will accept 30 mph makes sense because above that, the risk of injury increases rapdily with extra speed. But the relationship between speed and injury rates is poorer as you go below 30 mph which is EXACTLY what the figures now show It is appalling that when vital services are being cut, money was wasted catering for the personal mania of these pathetic buffoons Polcie time should be spent on dealing with drunk, drugged, aggressive, untaxed and uninsured drivers[/p][/quote]My god, that comment is perfect, rational, and true. L0RD PETER McVEY OX2 6EG

2:57am Sat 7 Apr 12

L0RD PETER McVEY OX2 6EG says...

sparky123456 wrote:
Taxi drivers are the worst in the city. I was overtaken coming down Headington hill recently by a taxi doing about 50mph. But I actually wouldn't say that's unsafe - there isn't a pavement on either side and the chance of a pedestrain being there is minimal. Thing with these statistics... how many of the KSI's were caused by speed and how many were actually due to cyclists not following the highway code, pedestrians stepping out from behind parked cars, drivers on mobiles or not paying attention. So many factors cause accidents, speed generally isn't one. it just determines how bad the aftermath is.
I think the latest figures show that speeding was was the main contributory factor in only 3% of accidents and speed under the speed limit but inappropriate for the conditions for 12% so really we should be looking for the other 75% as that seems to be the real problem. P.S. The 12% could mean doing 10 MPH in icy conditions so your 20 MPH limit really doesnae help does it.
[quote][p][bold]sparky123456[/bold] wrote: Taxi drivers are the worst in the city. I was overtaken coming down Headington hill recently by a taxi doing about 50mph. But I actually wouldn't say that's unsafe - there isn't a pavement on either side and the chance of a pedestrain being there is minimal. Thing with these statistics... how many of the KSI's were caused by speed and how many were actually due to cyclists not following the highway code, pedestrians stepping out from behind parked cars, drivers on mobiles or not paying attention. So many factors cause accidents, speed generally isn't one. it just determines how bad the aftermath is.[/p][/quote]I think the latest figures show that speeding was was the main contributory factor in only 3% of accidents and speed under the speed limit but inappropriate for the conditions for 12% so really we should be looking for the other 75% as that seems to be the real problem. P.S. The 12% could mean doing 10 MPH in icy conditions so your 20 MPH limit really doesnae help does it. L0RD PETER McVEY OX2 6EG

3:09am Sat 7 Apr 12

L0RD PETER McVEY OX2 6EG says...

Lady Penelopee wrote:
If the number of minor injuries has gone down, can we correlate that to cars being able to stop in time after daft pedestrians step out infront of them? Which would thus imply that most cars ARE sticking to the limit.

Could the increase in serious injuries thus be due to some people NOT sticking to the limit?

Taxis DO stick to the speed limit, but only when they have a passenger, as they get extra money for going slowly!! When they're driving to pick someone up, they NEVER stick to the limit!
And lady pen, I asked my cabby and going slow doesnae get them more money, but sitting at traffic lights, and junctions does, best next time you're in a taxi to ask him to go over red lights and pull out of junctions in front of traffic. you may get killed but at least you will save money. P.S. My Cab home tonight the same price as any night I think the driver didnae know it was bank holiday, but I gave him a good tip.
[quote][p][bold]Lady Penelopee[/bold] wrote: If the number of minor injuries has gone down, can we correlate that to cars being able to stop in time after daft pedestrians step out infront of them? Which would thus imply that most cars ARE sticking to the limit. Could the increase in serious injuries thus be due to some people NOT sticking to the limit? Taxis DO stick to the speed limit, but only when they have a passenger, as they get extra money for going slowly!! When they're driving to pick someone up, they NEVER stick to the limit![/p][/quote]And lady pen, I asked my cabby and going slow doesnae get them more money, but sitting at traffic lights, and junctions does, best next time you're in a taxi to ask him to go over red lights and pull out of junctions in front of traffic. you may get killed but at least you will save money. P.S. My Cab home tonight the same price as any night I think the driver didnae know it was bank holiday, but I gave him a good tip. L0RD PETER McVEY OX2 6EG

8:05pm Sat 7 Apr 12

JanetJ says...

saysme36 wrote:
Geoff Roberts wrote:
Bearing in mind that there is a council tax freeze on, that the police aren't in control of their budget and hand held speed guns costs about £5,000 each.
The Police are able to offset running costs of enforcement against any fines collected with any surplus going back to the Treasury. Why should our Council Tax therefore be used to fund enforcement rather than it being funded by those who are causing the problem by driving faster than the speed limit.
Given that enforcement would be funded therefore it doesn't seem a question of speeding enforcement OR tackling burglars as the funds would be in place to do both. What it does require is a willingness to engage by both the Council and the Police rather than trying to blame each other.
BUT - unless my memory is fading - the Police initially said they would not police it when the original idea was suggested. It was the County Council who pressed ahead without any hope of being able to enforce it - oh - and then pulled the funding on the cameras
[quote][p][bold]saysme36[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Geoff Roberts[/bold] wrote: Bearing in mind that there is a council tax freeze on, that the police aren't in control of their budget and hand held speed guns costs about £5,000 each.[/p][/quote]The Police are able to offset running costs of enforcement against any fines collected with any surplus going back to the Treasury. Why should our Council Tax therefore be used to fund enforcement rather than it being funded by those who are causing the problem by driving faster than the speed limit. Given that enforcement would be funded therefore it doesn't seem a question of speeding enforcement OR tackling burglars as the funds would be in place to do both. What it does require is a willingness to engage by both the Council and the Police rather than trying to blame each other.[/p][/quote]BUT - unless my memory is fading - the Police initially said they would not police it when the original idea was suggested. It was the County Council who pressed ahead without any hope of being able to enforce it - oh - and then pulled the funding on the cameras JanetJ

2:09pm Sun 8 Apr 12

Hagbournite says...

EMBOX1 wrote:
You can't police 20mph because the police know that they'd be snowed under.

I generally do 25mph in Oxford now, because that's just how fast you can do in traffic.

Also, the police would have to prosecute cyclists as they (and I, when I am on a bike in Oxford) flout the law. I don't think that is enforcable, so the whole thing collapses.
EMBOX01 wrote:-
"Also, the police would have to prosecute cyclists as they (and I, when I am on a bike in Oxford) flout the law. I don't think that is enforcable, so the whole thing collapses."

Fortunately the majority of speed limits in this country are Motoring Offences, and, as such, do not apply to bicycles.
[quote][p][bold]EMBOX1[/bold] wrote: You can't police 20mph because the police know that they'd be snowed under. I generally do 25mph in Oxford now, because that's just how fast you can do in traffic. Also, the police would have to prosecute cyclists as they (and I, when I am on a bike in Oxford) flout the law. I don't think that is enforcable, so the whole thing collapses.[/p][/quote]EMBOX01 wrote:- "Also, the police would have to prosecute cyclists as they (and I, when I am on a bike in Oxford) flout the law. I don't think that is enforcable, so the whole thing collapses." Fortunately the majority of speed limits in this country are Motoring Offences, and, as such, do not apply to bicycles. Hagbournite

9:05am Tue 10 Apr 12

the wizard says...

A34North wrote:
Ms Semlyen also said, despite the increase in serious injuries, the reduction in deaths and slight injuries have resulted in an overall financial saving for Oxfordshire.

She added: “The culprits here are the police. If democracy has decided 20mph is the best limit, why have they not policed it?”

Did I miss the vote on this?
Quite agree, was there no prior consultation on this, budget increase for the police etc to provide the man power, another case of an ill thought out concept from start to finish.

The whole issue regarding the "the car" has never been prudently tackled or addressed in Oxford yet yearly the overall figures continue to rise.

One approach would be for college students to be enforced to keep their vehicles on college grounds off the highways. A second measure could be to cap the vehicles allowed per household, including work related vehicles.
It is not for me or you to decide but obviously a working group needs to be set up to sort out such measures, and through roads between the likes of say Cowley Rd and Iffley Rd need to have enough calming measures to restrict the speed without a silly non enforceable limit being introduced. Before long all our major cities will have a vehicle permit condition imposed to prevent grid locking and pollution, Oxford for its part should have been looking at this as a workable alternative to un enforceable fiasco such as this, if the council want it policed in the short term then they should employ the people to do it at their cost, not that of an already over burdened police force.
[quote][p][bold]A34North[/bold] wrote: Ms Semlyen also said, despite the increase in serious injuries, the reduction in deaths and slight injuries have resulted in an overall financial saving for Oxfordshire. She added: “The culprits here are the police. If democracy has decided 20mph is the best limit, why have they not policed it?” Did I miss the vote on this?[/p][/quote]Quite agree, was there no prior consultation on this, budget increase for the police etc to provide the man power, another case of an ill thought out concept from start to finish. The whole issue regarding the "the car" has never been prudently tackled or addressed in Oxford yet yearly the overall figures continue to rise. One approach would be for college students to be enforced to keep their vehicles on college grounds off the highways. A second measure could be to cap the vehicles allowed per household, including work related vehicles. It is not for me or you to decide but obviously a working group needs to be set up to sort out such measures, and through roads between the likes of say Cowley Rd and Iffley Rd need to have enough calming measures to restrict the speed without a silly non enforceable limit being introduced. Before long all our major cities will have a vehicle permit condition imposed to prevent grid locking and pollution, Oxford for its part should have been looking at this as a workable alternative to un enforceable fiasco such as this, if the council want it policed in the short term then they should employ the people to do it at their cost, not that of an already over burdened police force. the wizard

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree