20mph limit makes Oxford's roads safer

Oxford Mail: Sushila Dhall, of Oxford Pedestrians Association Buy this photo Sushila Dhall, of Oxford Pedestrians Association

OXFORD’S streets have seen a sharp drop in the number of accidents since 20mph zones were brought in.

Comparing the 46 months before and since the controversial zones were rolled out to all but the main arterial city routes, there has been a fall of 18 per cent in the total number of accidents.

St Clement's, Botley Road, St Giles, High Street and The Plain have all seen accidents fall from between 22 and 66 per cent.

St Giles has seen the largest decline, with 33 accidents between 2005 and 2009 dropping to 11 between 2009 and 2013.

Oxford Pedestrians’ Association chairwoman Sushila Dhall said she found the statistic “encouraging”.

She said: “That is a wide road with a very small 20mph sign. So it is with minimal input that’s working.”

She also said Oxford “felt safer”, adding: “ People are more confident walking about and crossing roads.”

But she said traffic calming measures – such as speed humps – were also needed to force drivers slow down.

Sections of major city centre roads and residential streets across Oxford were made 20mph zones in a £250,000 move by Oxfordshire County Council to make roads safer. on September 1, 2009.

Overall accidents from the 46 months before and after fell from 662 to 543, according to figures obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

However, only the least serious accidents have seen a reduction the number of killed or serious injury accidents stayed the same.

There was one fatal accident, 89 serious accidents, and 572 slight accidents leading up to September 1, 2009. Over the same length of time afterwards And in the same period afterwards there was one fatal, 89 serious, and 453 slight accidents.

Figures were available up until June 31, 2013 so the Oxford Mail has compared 46 months before and after the September 1, 2009 date.

There has been criticism though, with police accused of failing to fine enough drivers flouting the limit.

A speed check carried out in St Giles last September found 82 drivers going above 20mph in a two-hour period, with one driver hitting 41mph. While 18 were fined, 64 were let off with a warning.

Speed campaigner Ted Dewan, of Beech Croft Road, North Oxford, said the speed restrictions had been a good start but to cut accidents roads have to be redesigned.

He said: “It’s not enough to stick the signs up but its a good start.”

The 52-year-old said accidents may have risen in Banbury Road – from 32 to 33 – as the road was not designed as a shared space for all vehicles. He said: “What they (the council) didn’t unfortunately do is make it a genuine shared space. It is still a traffic conduit.”

Taxi driver Colin Dobson said most drivers had ignored the speed limits. He added: ‘I have always felt they are pretty much a waste of time, because I don’t detect the other drivers on the road slowing down until there’s really heavy traffic. In my view, most people appear to be ignoring it.”

In 2009, Oxfordshire County Council’s then cabinet member for transport implementation, Rodney Rose, said: “If we can slow traffic down, it will prevent accidents and will protect lives.”

Four years later Mr Rose’s successor, David Nimmo Smith, agreed Oxford was now becoming a safer place.

He said: “I ‘m pleased the amount of accidents overall has come down but we need to get to the bottom of why the serious accidents haven’t come down.”

Timeline

  • October 2004 – More than 60 city centre streets made 20mph zones.
  • November 2004 – Some 69 streets in Jericho, including Walton Street, become 20mph.
  • January 2005 – Some 76 roads in the Greater Leys area become 20mph zones.
  • October 2005 – Cowley Road from Stockmore Street to Leopold Street made a 20mph zone.
  • July 2008 – Eight streets west of Abingdon Road subjected to the speed limit.
  • November 2008 – Summertown sees 11 roads become 20mph zones including part of Banbury Road.
  • September 2009 – Almost all residential roads and some main routes in the city are restricted to 20mph.

Street-by-street

ACCIDENTS in roads made 20mph zones in September 2009:

1. London Road: Before – 53; After – 55. 3.7 per cent rise

2. Banbury Road: Before – 32; After – 33. 3.1 per cent rise 

3. The Plain: Before – 36; After – 19. 47 per cent fall 

4. High Street: Before – 35; After – 27. 22 per cent fall 

5. St Giles: Before – 33; After – 11. 66 per cent fall 

6. Botley Road: Before – 22; After – 16. 27 per cent fall 

7. St Clement's: Before - 21; After - 14. 33 per cent fall 

8. Woodstock Road: Before – 15; After – 13. 13 per cent fall

9. Cowley Road: Before – 10; After – 16. 60 per cent rise 

10. Warneford Lane: Before - 11; After - 12. Nine per cent rise 

According to the Department for Transport, a person hit at 30mph is seven times more likely to die than a person hit at 20mph.

Comments (18)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:28am Mon 26 Aug 13

Geoff Roberts says...

Which is odd because there are many roads where most of the traffic goes above that speed limit.
Which is odd because there are many roads where most of the traffic goes above that speed limit. Geoff Roberts
  • Score: 89

11:48am Mon 26 Aug 13

Milkbutnosugarplease says...

How many drivers have the police fined for speeding in the 20mph zones? I understood from past reports that the limit is unenforceable, so the police have not enforced it. We can't know the meaning of these figures without comparing the past four years in Oxford to the same years nationally. Perhaps there is a long-term decline in minor accidents due to the cost of petrol reducing car-use or the MOT test becoming stricter or the driving test becoming more stringent. On what we have here in this report, nobody can say.
How many drivers have the police fined for speeding in the 20mph zones? I understood from past reports that the limit is unenforceable, so the police have not enforced it. We can't know the meaning of these figures without comparing the past four years in Oxford to the same years nationally. Perhaps there is a long-term decline in minor accidents due to the cost of petrol reducing car-use or the MOT test becoming stricter or the driving test becoming more stringent. On what we have here in this report, nobody can say. Milkbutnosugarplease
  • Score: -71

2:52pm Mon 26 Aug 13

docs says...

Very selective use of statistics!

Why wasn't the headline to say that the traffic calming on Cowley Road has clearly INCREASED the number of accidents.

What does the speed limit have to do with accidents at the Plain?

Are there really many people sticking to 20mph on St. Giles?


Having said that, I'm a bit of a convert to the 20mph idea. I thought it was pointless, but now I wish it had extended to the whole city. The present arrangement - with a 20mph limit on London Road but not on Iffley Road and Abingdon Road - is daft.
Very selective use of statistics! Why wasn't the headline to say that the traffic calming on Cowley Road has clearly INCREASED the number of accidents. What does the speed limit have to do with accidents at the Plain? Are there really many people sticking to 20mph on St. Giles? Having said that, I'm a bit of a convert to the 20mph idea. I thought it was pointless, but now I wish it had extended to the whole city. The present arrangement - with a 20mph limit on London Road but not on Iffley Road and Abingdon Road - is daft. docs
  • Score: -73

3:39pm Mon 26 Aug 13

Geoff Roberts says...

The law is, on a day-to-day basis, unenforceable. This is because it's difficult to prove that a driver is in excess of the speed limit and the equipment needed costs thousands of pounds. At one point there was only 1 speed gun in Oxford. So instead what the police do, as ever, is a few high profile operations in places like St. Giles. The idea, as with the operations to catch mobile phone drivers, is to scare drivers into obeying the law. It doesn't work. You can have an operation to catch speeding drivers on one day, the next day it's back to normal. The only thing that will work is the police being able (and willing) to enforce the law, every day. That's the same with many crimes and the high profile sweeps aren't working. What they do is help the police figures and allow the police to claim they are dealing with issues but they aren't really.

At one point, I don't know if it still does, the police's web page for Cowley stated that "Speeding is a perception". Clearly an attempt to play down the issue and make people think that speeding isn't happening, that it's just in people's minds. I agree that it can be difficult to judge the difference between 20 mph and 25 for example but there are plenty of clear examples on a daily basis, on some roads such as Hollow Way (when it's not congested both ways). I have even seen cars literally leave the ground.
The law is, on a day-to-day basis, unenforceable. This is because it's difficult to prove that a driver is in excess of the speed limit and the equipment needed costs thousands of pounds. At one point there was only 1 speed gun in Oxford. So instead what the police do, as ever, is a few high profile operations in places like St. Giles. The idea, as with the operations to catch mobile phone drivers, is to scare drivers into obeying the law. It doesn't work. You can have an operation to catch speeding drivers on one day, the next day it's back to normal. The only thing that will work is the police being able (and willing) to enforce the law, every day. That's the same with many crimes and the high profile sweeps aren't working. What they do is help the police figures and allow the police to claim they are dealing with issues but they aren't really. At one point, I don't know if it still does, the police's web page for Cowley stated that "Speeding is a perception". Clearly an attempt to play down the issue and make people think that speeding isn't happening, that it's just in people's minds. I agree that it can be difficult to judge the difference between 20 mph and 25 for example but there are plenty of clear examples on a daily basis, on some roads such as Hollow Way (when it's not congested both ways). I have even seen cars literally leave the ground. Geoff Roberts
  • Score: 38

3:44pm Mon 26 Aug 13

Geoff Roberts says...

These statistics and this story could be very misleading too. As with when this newspaper, the police and other sections of the media, report that crime has fallen, when in fact, reported crime has fallen, it could be that pedestrians and others have changed their behaviour and in doing so the reported incidents have fallen (or risen in some areas I see). Using averages and comparing different times of the year, or not making good comparisons can also change the picture. I think the only thing that can work is trusting the perception of residents and road users. If there is a perception that something is wrong, then something is wrong. We need to feel safe in our communities.
These statistics and this story could be very misleading too. As with when this newspaper, the police and other sections of the media, report that crime has fallen, when in fact, reported crime has fallen, it could be that pedestrians and others have changed their behaviour and in doing so the reported incidents have fallen (or risen in some areas I see). Using averages and comparing different times of the year, or not making good comparisons can also change the picture. I think the only thing that can work is trusting the perception of residents and road users. If there is a perception that something is wrong, then something is wrong. We need to feel safe in our communities. Geoff Roberts
  • Score: 37

3:54pm Mon 26 Aug 13

Oflife says...

Speed bumps in Kennington destroyed my car (damaged underside/exhaust and suspension), and I know many people whose backs have been harmed (or made worse if they already had back trouble) by the awful thump they put the body through.

Way better to do what they have done in London in some areas and put large flower pots in the road that force the driver to slow down to negotiate them. They call them chicanes in motor racing and they work because any attempt to go too fast leads to a collision, big scratch on car etc.
Speed bumps in Kennington destroyed my car (damaged underside/exhaust and suspension), and I know many people whose backs have been harmed (or made worse if they already had back trouble) by the awful thump they put the body through. Way better to do what they have done in London in some areas and put large flower pots in the road that force the driver to slow down to negotiate them. They call them chicanes in motor racing and they work because any attempt to go too fast leads to a collision, big scratch on car etc. Oflife
  • Score: -38

1:18pm Tue 27 Aug 13

Neonlights says...

Rather than targetting the motorist time and time again by lowering speed limits, what about re-introducing things like the Green Cross Code and educate pedestrians into looking before crossing the road instead of living in a dreamworld while listening to their Ipods/MP3 players and the like.
Also, do we really need 20 mph speed limits on a 24/7 basis on some roads? e.g. Schools close mid afternoon, so do we really need to have the 20mph limit during the evening and through the night when any hazzard of children being around is severly reduced.
Rather than targetting the motorist time and time again by lowering speed limits, what about re-introducing things like the Green Cross Code and educate pedestrians into looking before crossing the road instead of living in a dreamworld while listening to their Ipods/MP3 players and the like. Also, do we really need 20 mph speed limits on a 24/7 basis on some roads? e.g. Schools close mid afternoon, so do we really need to have the 20mph limit during the evening and through the night when any hazzard of children being around is severly reduced. Neonlights
  • Score: -107

3:19pm Tue 27 Aug 13

Geoff Roberts says...

Yeah, it's clearly the pedestrian's fault if they get hit and severely injured or killed by a car doing 30 MPH in a 20 MPH zone. Just like the idiots whose fault it is that they get mugged because they are too busy staring at their phones eh. Victims should take responsibilty for the criminals actions! I dunno, I blame the new Labour government for their political correctness gawn mad ways!!!

!!!!!!!!
Yeah, it's clearly the pedestrian's fault if they get hit and severely injured or killed by a car doing 30 MPH in a 20 MPH zone. Just like the idiots whose fault it is that they get mugged because they are too busy staring at their phones eh. Victims should take responsibilty for the criminals actions! I dunno, I blame the new Labour government for their political correctness gawn mad ways!!! !!!!!!!! Geoff Roberts
  • Score: 110

1:47pm Fri 30 Aug 13

Return Of The Mac says...

Geoff Roberts wrote:
Yeah, it's clearly the pedestrian's fault if they get hit and severely injured or killed by a car doing 30 MPH in a 20 MPH zone. Just like the idiots whose fault it is that they get mugged because they are too busy staring at their phones eh. Victims should take responsibilty for the criminals actions! I dunno, I blame the new Labour government for their political correctness gawn mad ways!!!

!!!!!!!!
Yes Jeff it is the pedestrians fault if they walk out into the middle of the road without looking. Motorists do not whizz along a pavement just for fun, so why do pedestrians think that a main road is their playground? Whilst driving my car I take every care to stay between the two kerbs, and obey The Highway Code, that little book (The Highway Code) also applies to pedestrians as well. 20MPH zones make nothing safer for pedestrians because a car passing you on the road at 20 is no more of a danger than if it was doing 40MPH as long as you are on the pavement. But cars at that speed ARE a danger if you decide to jump out in front of them, and that being your argument, 20MPH is still too fast, and it should be a 5MPH limit. That way nobody would ever get injured.
[quote][p][bold]Geoff Roberts[/bold] wrote: Yeah, it's clearly the pedestrian's fault if they get hit and severely injured or killed by a car doing 30 MPH in a 20 MPH zone. Just like the idiots whose fault it is that they get mugged because they are too busy staring at their phones eh. Victims should take responsibilty for the criminals actions! I dunno, I blame the new Labour government for their political correctness gawn mad ways!!! !!!!!!!![/p][/quote]Yes Jeff it is the pedestrians fault if they walk out into the middle of the road without looking. Motorists do not whizz along a pavement just for fun, so why do pedestrians think that a main road is their playground? Whilst driving my car I take every care to stay between the two kerbs, and obey The Highway Code, that little book (The Highway Code) also applies to pedestrians as well. 20MPH zones make nothing safer for pedestrians because a car passing you on the road at 20 is no more of a danger than if it was doing 40MPH as long as you are on the pavement. But cars at that speed ARE a danger if you decide to jump out in front of them, and that being your argument, 20MPH is still too fast, and it should be a 5MPH limit. That way nobody would ever get injured. Return Of The Mac
  • Score: -163

2:38pm Fri 30 Aug 13

grandconjuration says...

What a ridiculous comment.

Pedestrians have every right to use the road. Roads are not the 'playground' of motorists. Pedestrians have to cross the road.

Children have every right to use the road. Children (like most motorists) might not be fully conversant with the Highway Code. Children also have a poor judgment of speed.

Tell me which is easier to cross, a 40 mph road or a 20 mph road. Tell me which of those speeds has the shortest braking distance in case a pedestrian makes a mistake.

Your utopian vision of residential roads might be cars travelling at 40 mph with pedestrians being second class citizens, it certainly isn't mine.

Also, if pavements are so safe for pedestrians, how is it that over 60 pedestrians per year are killed by motor vehicles on the pavement?
What a ridiculous comment. Pedestrians have every right to use the road. Roads are not the 'playground' of motorists. Pedestrians have to cross the road. Children have every right to use the road. Children (like most motorists) might not be fully conversant with the Highway Code. Children also have a poor judgment of speed. Tell me which is easier to cross, a 40 mph road or a 20 mph road. Tell me which of those speeds has the shortest braking distance in case a pedestrian makes a mistake. Your utopian vision of residential roads might be cars travelling at 40 mph with pedestrians being second class citizens, it certainly isn't mine. Also, if pavements are so safe for pedestrians, how is it that over 60 pedestrians per year are killed by motor vehicles on the pavement? grandconjuration
  • Score: 68

8:18pm Fri 30 Aug 13

Citizen Sunday says...

grandconjuration wrote:
What a ridiculous comment.

Pedestrians have every right to use the road. Roads are not the 'playground' of motorists. Pedestrians have to cross the road.

Children have every right to use the road. Children (like most motorists) might not be fully conversant with the Highway Code. Children also have a poor judgment of speed.

Tell me which is easier to cross, a 40 mph road or a 20 mph road. Tell me which of those speeds has the shortest braking distance in case a pedestrian makes a mistake.

Your utopian vision of residential roads might be cars travelling at 40 mph with pedestrians being second class citizens, it certainly isn't mine.

Also, if pavements are so safe for pedestrians, how is it that over 60 pedestrians per year are killed by motor vehicles on the pavement?
Are you saying it's ok for pedestrians (especially children?) to walk out into the middle of the road without looking if drivers keep to the 20 mph speed limit?
[quote][p][bold]grandconjuration[/bold] wrote: What a ridiculous comment. Pedestrians have every right to use the road. Roads are not the 'playground' of motorists. Pedestrians have to cross the road. Children have every right to use the road. Children (like most motorists) might not be fully conversant with the Highway Code. Children also have a poor judgment of speed. Tell me which is easier to cross, a 40 mph road or a 20 mph road. Tell me which of those speeds has the shortest braking distance in case a pedestrian makes a mistake. Your utopian vision of residential roads might be cars travelling at 40 mph with pedestrians being second class citizens, it certainly isn't mine. Also, if pavements are so safe for pedestrians, how is it that over 60 pedestrians per year are killed by motor vehicles on the pavement?[/p][/quote]Are you saying it's ok for pedestrians (especially children?) to walk out into the middle of the road without looking if drivers keep to the 20 mph speed limit? Citizen Sunday
  • Score: -76

9:53pm Fri 30 Aug 13

grandconjuration says...

I'm saying that roads are for everyone to use, they are not the sole property of those who own an internal combustion engine (with, of course, the exception of motorways, which is probably why they are called motor ways).

When doing 20 mph, rather than 40 mph, a driver will have more time to observe, predict and react. Braking distances are significantly shorter. If an impact occurs, injuries will be less severe. So, if a pedestrian does walk out in front of a car the driver would be more likely to see them, predict the hazard and stop. If an impact does occur, the pedestrian is more likely to live. It is rather simple; drive a car in a manner that reduces the probability that you will hurt someone.
I'm saying that roads are for everyone to use, they are not the sole property of those who own an internal combustion engine (with, of course, the exception of motorways, which is probably why they are called motor ways). When doing 20 mph, rather than 40 mph, a driver will have more time to observe, predict and react. Braking distances are significantly shorter. If an impact occurs, injuries will be less severe. So, if a pedestrian does walk out in front of a car the driver would be more likely to see them, predict the hazard and stop. If an impact does occur, the pedestrian is more likely to live. It is rather simple; drive a car in a manner that reduces the probability that you will hurt someone. grandconjuration
  • Score: 46

11:35pm Fri 30 Aug 13

Neonlights says...

Why not just have someone with a red flag walking in front of the car and be done with it.
Alternately educate all pedestrians (and especially children) to pay more attention when having to cross the road.
It's not always the motorists fault when someone gets injured but they're the first to be blamed.
Regardless the speed a vehicle is travelling at, pedestrians need to be aware of the dangers of crossing a road and realise that the road is primarily for use by the motorist and the pavement is the pedestrians domain.
If pedestrians weren't so engrossed in updating their Facebook status or tweeting what they had for breakfast on their mobile then they might be more aware of their surroundings and not walk into the nearest lamp post or into the path of an oncoming car.
Why not just have someone with a red flag walking in front of the car and be done with it. Alternately educate all pedestrians (and especially children) to pay more attention when having to cross the road. It's not always the motorists fault when someone gets injured but they're the first to be blamed. Regardless the speed a vehicle is travelling at, pedestrians need to be aware of the dangers of crossing a road and realise that the road is primarily for use by the motorist and the pavement is the pedestrians domain. If pedestrians weren't so engrossed in updating their Facebook status or tweeting what they had for breakfast on their mobile then they might be more aware of their surroundings and not walk into the nearest lamp post or into the path of an oncoming car. Neonlights
  • Score: -100

11:44pm Fri 30 Aug 13

grandconjuration says...

Neonlights wrote:
Why not just have someone with a red flag walking in front of the car and be done with it.
Alternately educate all pedestrians (and especially children) to pay more attention when having to cross the road.
It's not always the motorists fault when someone gets injured but they're the first to be blamed.
Regardless the speed a vehicle is travelling at, pedestrians need to be aware of the dangers of crossing a road and realise that the road is primarily for use by the motorist and the pavement is the pedestrians domain.
If pedestrians weren't so engrossed in updating their Facebook status or tweeting what they had for breakfast on their mobile then they might be more aware of their surroundings and not walk into the nearest lamp post or into the path of an oncoming car.
The road is NOT primarily for use by the motorist.

If drivers weren't so engrossed in updating their Facebook status or tweeting blah blah blah they might not kill so many people.

It's not always the motorist's fault, true. But it more often is.
[quote][p][bold]Neonlights[/bold] wrote: Why not just have someone with a red flag walking in front of the car and be done with it. Alternately educate all pedestrians (and especially children) to pay more attention when having to cross the road. It's not always the motorists fault when someone gets injured but they're the first to be blamed. Regardless the speed a vehicle is travelling at, pedestrians need to be aware of the dangers of crossing a road and realise that the road is primarily for use by the motorist and the pavement is the pedestrians domain. If pedestrians weren't so engrossed in updating their Facebook status or tweeting what they had for breakfast on their mobile then they might be more aware of their surroundings and not walk into the nearest lamp post or into the path of an oncoming car.[/p][/quote]The road is NOT primarily for use by the motorist. If drivers weren't so engrossed in updating their Facebook status or tweeting blah blah blah they might not kill so many people. It's not always the motorist's fault, true. But it more often is. grandconjuration
  • Score: 45

1:45am Sat 31 Aug 13

Neonlights says...

If a road isn't primarily for the motorist then what is it for then?

http://en.m.wikipedi
a.org/wiki/Road

"A road is a thoroughfare, route, or way on land between two places, which has been paved or otherwise improved to allow travel by some conveyance, including a horse, cart, or MOTOR VEHICLE."

Pavements are for pedestrians. Roads are for vehicles. Ultimately at some point a pedestrian will need to venture onto a road but that doesn't mean they have right of way unless its a zebra or pelican crossing, and even then it shouldn't be taken for granted that the motorist will stop and give way.
In one of my earlier posts I mentioned about the Green Cross Code. I suspect 99% of today's children haven't the foggiest idea what that is.
If a road isn't primarily for the motorist then what is it for then? http://en.m.wikipedi a.org/wiki/Road "A road is a thoroughfare, route, or way on land between two places, which has been paved or otherwise improved to allow travel by some conveyance, including a horse, cart, or MOTOR VEHICLE." Pavements are for pedestrians. Roads are for vehicles. Ultimately at some point a pedestrian will need to venture onto a road but that doesn't mean they have right of way unless its a zebra or pelican crossing, and even then it shouldn't be taken for granted that the motorist will stop and give way. In one of my earlier posts I mentioned about the Green Cross Code. I suspect 99% of today's children haven't the foggiest idea what that is. Neonlights
  • Score: -116

8:36am Sat 31 Aug 13

Citizen Sunday says...

grandconjuration wrote:
I'm saying that roads are for everyone to use, they are not the sole property of those who own an internal combustion engine (with, of course, the exception of motorways, which is probably why they are called motor ways).

When doing 20 mph, rather than 40 mph, a driver will have more time to observe, predict and react. Braking distances are significantly shorter. If an impact occurs, injuries will be less severe. So, if a pedestrian does walk out in front of a car the driver would be more likely to see them, predict the hazard and stop. If an impact does occur, the pedestrian is more likely to live. It is rather simple; drive a car in a manner that reduces the probability that you will hurt someone.
I think anger and resentment surrounding this issue has consumed you beyond your ability to think clearly.

I'll put my question another way:
Regardless to how fast/slow a vehicle is travelling, are pedestrians at all required, in any way, to take any responsibility, as a road user, for sharing road space with other modes of travel?
[quote][p][bold]grandconjuration[/bold] wrote: I'm saying that roads are for everyone to use, they are not the sole property of those who own an internal combustion engine (with, of course, the exception of motorways, which is probably why they are called motor ways). When doing 20 mph, rather than 40 mph, a driver will have more time to observe, predict and react. Braking distances are significantly shorter. If an impact occurs, injuries will be less severe. So, if a pedestrian does walk out in front of a car the driver would be more likely to see them, predict the hazard and stop. If an impact does occur, the pedestrian is more likely to live. It is rather simple; drive a car in a manner that reduces the probability that you will hurt someone.[/p][/quote]I think anger and resentment surrounding this issue has consumed you beyond your ability to think clearly. I'll put my question another way: Regardless to how fast/slow a vehicle is travelling, are pedestrians at all required, in any way, to take any responsibility, as a road user, for sharing road space with other modes of travel? Citizen Sunday
  • Score: -77

10:16am Sat 31 Aug 13

grandconjuration says...

The response by “Neonlights”, “You Call It...” and “Citizen Sunday” just about sum up the poor level of understanding that that a proportion of motorists have regarding use of the road and their low level of respect towards other road users.

The definition of a road in England and Wales is ‘any highway and any other road to which the public has access and includes bridges over which a road passes’ (RTA 1988 sect 192(1)). In Scotland, there is a similar definition which is extended to include any way over which the public have a right of passage (R(S)A 1984 sect 151(1)).

Your wikipedia definition states that a road “has been been paved or otherwise improved to allow travel by some conveyance, including a horse, cart, or motor vehicle.". Firstly, this is from wikipedia. Secondly, a road might be improved to allow passage of a motor vehicle, yet this does not make it off-limits to pedestrians. Learn to find information, read and interpret.

So, according to “You Call It...”, vehicles for not need to stop at pedestrian crossings such as a zebra crossing. I hope you don’t drive a car. If you do, then please surrender your license.

Highway Code Rule 195: Zebra crossings. As you approach a zebra crossing (i) look out for pedestrians waiting to cross and be ready to slow down or stop to let them cross (ii) you MUST give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing (iii) allow more time for stopping on wet or icy roads (iv) do not wave or use your horn to invite pedestrians across; this could be dangerous if another vehicle is approaching (v) be aware of pedestrians approaching from the side of the crossing. Law ZPPPCRGD reg 25

As for the accusation of being a “think of the children” type. If this means I’m accused of driving my car in a way that I will do everything in my power to avoid hitting a child, potentially killing them and causing lifelong misery for their family, then yes, I’m guilty as charged.

If your ‘real world’ is speeding through residential streets without a care for another human being, happy that your quest of getting from A to B as quickly as possible without any concern for the damage that it might cause, then I don’t want to be part of it.

“Citizen Sunday”. You have misinterpreted my argument. Of course pedestrians have to take responsibility for their safety. However, pedestrians can be children, old people, disabled people, blind, deaf... They might make mistakes and exercise poor judgement. If a vehicle is being driven with care and within the speed limit then they are less likely to pay for their mistake with their life. As for the 'beyond your ability to think clearly' comment; you don't agree that a driver has more time to observe and react at slower speeds? You don't think that braking distances are shorter at slower speeds?
The response by “Neonlights”, “You Call It...” and “Citizen Sunday” just about sum up the poor level of understanding that that a proportion of motorists have regarding use of the road and their low level of respect towards other road users. The definition of a road in England and Wales is ‘any highway and any other road to which the public has access and includes bridges over which a road passes’ (RTA 1988 sect 192(1)). In Scotland, there is a similar definition which is extended to include any way over which the public have a right of passage (R(S)A 1984 sect 151(1)). Your wikipedia definition states that a road “has been been paved or otherwise improved to allow travel by some conveyance, including a horse, cart, or motor vehicle.". Firstly, this is from wikipedia. Secondly, a road might be improved to allow passage of a motor vehicle, yet this does not make it off-limits to pedestrians. Learn to find information, read and interpret. So, according to “You Call It...”, vehicles for not need to stop at pedestrian crossings such as a zebra crossing. I hope you don’t drive a car. If you do, then please surrender your license. Highway Code Rule 195: Zebra crossings. As you approach a zebra crossing (i) look out for pedestrians waiting to cross and be ready to slow down or stop to let them cross (ii) you MUST give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing (iii) allow more time for stopping on wet or icy roads (iv) do not wave or use your horn to invite pedestrians across; this could be dangerous if another vehicle is approaching (v) be aware of pedestrians approaching from the side of the crossing. Law ZPPPCRGD reg 25 As for the accusation of being a “think of the children” type. If this means I’m accused of driving my car in a way that I will do everything in my power to avoid hitting a child, potentially killing them and causing lifelong misery for their family, then yes, I’m guilty as charged. If your ‘real world’ is speeding through residential streets without a care for another human being, happy that your quest of getting from A to B as quickly as possible without any concern for the damage that it might cause, then I don’t want to be part of it. “Citizen Sunday”. You have misinterpreted my argument. Of course pedestrians have to take responsibility for their safety. However, pedestrians can be children, old people, disabled people, blind, deaf... They might make mistakes and exercise poor judgement. If a vehicle is being driven with care and within the speed limit then they are less likely to pay for their mistake with their life. As for the 'beyond your ability to think clearly' comment; you don't agree that a driver has more time to observe and react at slower speeds? You don't think that braking distances are shorter at slower speeds? grandconjuration
  • Score: 54

2:35pm Sat 31 Aug 13

Citizen Sunday says...

Grandconjuration, you were avoiding answering a question (derived from previous 'posts') that- on the face of it at least- seemed to be implying pedestrians should be absolved of any responsibility relating to any potential incidents with a motorist.
Instead, you continued with further statements about speed and safety one would put to a 7 year old (yes, I'm sure if motorists didn't drive like 7 year old's, you wouldn't have to... Even so, no need.)
You seem, to me at least, to be someone who can write in a reasonably clear and concise manner when one wants to. Yet your answers quickly devolve into a bit of a one-track mind 'anti-motorist' rant. This to me suggests an emotional subjectiveness.

Your last paragraph, however, has now answered my question. Thank you.

Not sure about your statement for not wanting to have "any part of it" if people are driving recklessly from A to B without a care for others. If you, or a loved one, gets seriously hurt- or worse- by such a driver, then that would make you very much "part of it".

"...you don't agree that a driver has more time to observe and react at slower speeds? You don't think that braking distances are shorter at slower speeds?"
Must I answer that?
Grandconjuration, you were avoiding answering a question (derived from previous 'posts') that- on the face of it at least- seemed to be implying pedestrians should be absolved of any responsibility relating to any potential incidents with a motorist. Instead, you continued with further statements about speed and safety one would put to a 7 year old (yes, I'm sure if motorists didn't drive like 7 year old's, you wouldn't have to... Even so, no need.) You seem, to me at least, to be someone who can write in a reasonably clear and concise manner when one wants to. Yet your answers quickly devolve into a bit of a one-track mind 'anti-motorist' rant. This to me suggests an emotional subjectiveness. Your last paragraph, however, has now answered my question. Thank you. Not sure about your statement for not wanting to have "any part of it" if people are driving recklessly from A to B without a care for others. If you, or a loved one, gets seriously hurt- or worse- by such a driver, then that would make you very much "part of it". "...you don't agree that a driver has more time to observe and react at slower speeds? You don't think that braking distances are shorter at slower speeds?" Must I answer that? Citizen Sunday
  • Score: -60

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