Speed limits cut - despite police objections (From Oxford Mail)
Get involved: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting OXFORD NEWS to 80360 or email us
Speed limits cut - despite police objections
7:33pm Thursday 11th February 2010 in
TRANSPORT chiefs have criticised police for not turning up to explain their objections as the row over speed limit cuts on the county’s roads intensified.
At a meeting yesterday, Oxfordshire County Council agreed to impose lower limits on 49 stretches of 24 of the county’s A and B roads despite the fact Thames Valley Police opposed more than half of them.
The force made written objections to 27 of the cuts.
The council also agreed to impose a new 20mph zone in Abingdon town centre, despite similar protests.
A spokesman for Thames Valley Police said officers were happy to attend the meeting but were told by the council not to attend as it would have a “detrimental effect on the close working relationship between the police and council”.
However, last night county council spokesman Owen Morton denied that claim.
Police had objected to the recommendations in the council’s Government-imposed year-long review of the county’s speed limits, stating accident rates and vehicle speeds did not justify reductions.
They were also concerned the limits could create an enforcement burden.
Ian Hudspeth, cabinet member for growth and implementation said during the meeting: “It’s quite a shame that police have objections on enforcement grounds, but if the speed limits are there it’s for the police to enforce them.
“It’s also disappointing that the police weren’t here to explain why they thought these speed limits weren’t necessary.”
Police opposed a £7,000 plan to introduce 20mph limits on 24 streets in Abingdon without traffic calming measures and objected to reducing speeds on the town’s arterial A415.
The scheme has received a mixed reception from residents.
Mark Kelly, deputy manager at The Nags Head, in Bridge Street, said: “It’s a good decision because there have been times when I’ve seen people racing at 40mph or faster.”
Grieving husband Paul Bennett gave an emotional speech at yesterday’s meeting to request a 40mph speed limit on the B4022, after his wife became the eighth person to die on the road in a decade.
Linda Bennett was killed in a head-on crash on the 60mph road near Charlbury in November, just three days before her 54th birthday.
Although councillors said they were moved by Mr Bennett’s speech they agreed to introduce a 50mph limit between Charlbury and Hailey after council officers said it would take six months to bring forward new proposals for the road.
Comments(27)
Pter mcvey
says...
7:55pm Thu 11 Feb 10
A couple of questions Mark. 1. Do you have a speed gun to measure traffic speeds, or are you just making it up as you go along. 2. What makes you think that a red and white sign will suddenly slow down the "RACERS" especially when they know that there is no enforcement ?
oxman
says...
7:59pm Thu 11 Feb 10
Strange isn't it, that the council will mess around with all these roads, yet the one that really needs something done about it, in Marsten, will have nothing done because there hasn't been an accident there since 1979.
The hypocrisy and ineptitude is outstanding.
PaulSte
says...
8:03pm Thu 11 Feb 10
oxman wrote:Ah right, so the council is supposed to impose speed limits on roads where there have never been any accidents are they???? What a genius you are pal!
No wonder the council tax has gone up, they need to raise money for the new signs. Strange isn't it, that the council will mess around with all these roads, yet the one that really needs something done about it, in Marsten, will have nothing done because there hasn't been an accident there since 1979. The hypocrisy and ineptitude is outstanding.
Quentin Walker
says...
8:50pm Thu 11 Feb 10
However, last night county council spokesman Owen Morton denied that claim.'
Then clearly, someone is lying - is it the council or is it the police - the public need to know.
Hugh Jaeger
says...
9:15pm Thu 11 Feb 10
However, if the B4022 had a 50 mph limit, Mrs. Bennett's head-on collision would have had a combined impact speed of 100 mph instead of 120 mph. This would still have been fatal. The collision was caused not by the 60 mph limit but by one of the vehicles being on the wrong side of the road. Lowering speed limits doesn't raise driving standards.
Mark Kelly's assertion that “I’ve seen people racing at 40mph or faster” in Abingdon suggests that the 30 mph limit is not being enforced. If he is right, then there is no point replacing it with an equally unenforced 20 mph limit and wasting £17,000 of our council tax in the process.
Evidently Thames Valley Police lacks the resources to enforce existing speed limits. Unless the County Council offers to pay for more police resources, Ian Hudspeth's comment “if the speed limits are there it’s for the police to enforce them” seems to be no more than passing the buck.
When will our County Council stop wasting our council tax on political gimmicks and start investing the savings to improve transport?
Chris_SCG
says...
9:26pm Thu 11 Feb 10
Oh, and that's the last time I'm going into the Nags Head.
Pter mcvey
says...
10:20pm Thu 11 Feb 10
Quentin Walker wrote:Wake up Quent, your'e an hour behind the times.
'A spokesman for Thames Valley Police said officers were happy to attend the meeting but were told by the council not to attend as it would have a “detrimental effect on the close working relationship between the police and council”. However, last night county council spokesman Owen Morton denied that claim.' Then clearly, someone is lying - is it the council or is it the police - the public need to know.
Oflife
says...
10:25pm Thu 11 Feb 10
Wedge
says...
10:47pm Thu 11 Feb 10
-30-50-30-50-30-50-3
0-40-M40, you try keeping to those limits and you get vehicles trying to get in your boot. We need sensible limits, more mobile cameras and much harsher sentences, not the pathetic ones doled out by our soft magistrates .
Pter mcvey
says...
11:04pm Thu 11 Feb 10
Oflife wrote:ERR.... offline, this is a county council decision. Labour, Nu or Old only have about 4 seats on the council so have about as much say, as the green party in westminster.
This is NOT about safety, this is about control. Last gasps of Nu Labor as they try to fill the coffers. The country has way more serious problems, yet they leave serious crime alone (theft) and focus on what is generally, accidental 'crime', if going 30 in a NEW 20 zone can be called a crime at all. This is all really pathetic.
Oflife
says...
11:52pm Thu 11 Feb 10
*Actually, typing this in bed. ;)
wiltz
says...
12:18am Fri 12 Feb 10
The police have more firsthand experience and more knowledge of what causes accidents and problems on our roads, they’re the ones that have to deal with it all, and should be listened to. I admit I am no expert in many areas therefore I listen to those who have greater knowledge in many matters, our local councillors are obviously don’t believe this is a sensible path to follow.
I wonder how many of the decision makers actually drive on any of the roads that are being affected by these changes.
Tom Daily
says...
1:07am Fri 12 Feb 10
Ironically this will probably result in an INCREASE in road traffic accidents due to drivers looking around for speed signs at every junction, rather than concentrating on what's happening infront of them!
mechcol
says...
8:44am Fri 12 Feb 10
LadyPenelope
says...
9:01am Fri 12 Feb 10
Whatever the speed limit, you'll still get the idiots who speed.
Danny A
says...
9:24am Fri 12 Feb 10
I believe the police's objections are on the basis of burden of enforcement in the face of cuts. The road safety evidence clearly shows targeted speed reduction reduces accidents and reduces the severity of accidents.
Lord Palmerston
says...
10:27am Fri 12 Feb 10
Martin02
says...
10:54am Fri 12 Feb 10
Does not matter if i drive 20 or 30 mph if other drivers do not use indicators, mirrors and change lines without care. Nowadays in many cases is impossible drive faster then 20mph because heavy traffic. Just think when you drive you are not alone !!!
Bambam29
says...
1:31pm Fri 12 Feb 10
Even the most rudimentary understanding of physical principles allows us to understand that a reduction in the speed at which vehicles travel will reduce the number and severity of accidents. Based on that logic the speed limit should be 0 mph and lorries, vans, cars, motorcycles and bikes should all be banned!! Don’t forget how dangerous electricity and fire are! They can also hurt and kill people, so let’s ban those as well!! In fact, let’s all go home and fester in our beds away from any source of possible danger!!
Everyday, in everything we do, we decide on where the right balance should be between the risks and benefits of a particular course of action. The police, as experts in investigating accidents and determining their cause, have concluded that over half of these proposed speed limits are unnecessary, not simply because of enforcement issues, but on the basis that they place an unnecessary limitation on drivers without actually achieving any significant reduction in risk. As such, it is their opinion that the introduction of these new speed limits is an unnecessary cost, which will only serve to frustrate drivers without good reason.
Whilst you are correct that it is those given the power to govern that make the laws, to simply ignore the opinion of the police in a matter such as this, without justification, is idiotic. If the council could provide counter arguments from other experts based on sound evidence, then why not allow these views to be heard along with those of the police.
lisal
says...
2:08pm Fri 12 Feb 10
abingdonguy
says...
2:39pm Fri 12 Feb 10
so how do prevent them from carrying out this stupid plan? Anyone got any ideas that might work?
Danny A
says...
2:40pm Fri 12 Feb 10
Bambam29 wrote:It's not about ever reducing speeds (to zero) it's about reducing them to save levels give the nature of the road environment and the nature of the road users (eg number of pedestrians)
Same old argument Danny A, you’re just repeating an arbitrary statement like a parrot! Even the most rudimentary understanding of physical principles allows us to understand that a reduction in the speed at which vehicles travel will reduce the number and severity of accidents. Based on that logic the speed limit should be 0 mph and lorries, vans, cars, motorcycles and bikes should all be banned!! Don’t forget how dangerous electricity and fire are! They can also hurt and kill people, so let’s ban those as well!! In fact, let’s all go home and fester in our beds away from any source of possible danger!! Everyday, in everything we do, we decide on where the right balance should be between the risks and benefits of a particular course of action. The police, as experts in investigating accidents and determining their cause, have concluded that over half of these proposed speed limits are unnecessary, not simply because of enforcement issues, but on the basis that they place an unnecessary limitation on drivers without actually achieving any significant reduction in risk. As such, it is their opinion that the introduction of these new speed limits is an unnecessary cost, which will only serve to frustrate drivers without good reason. Whilst you are correct that it is those given the power to govern that make the laws, to simply ignore the opinion of the police in a matter such as this, without justification, is idiotic. If the council could provide counter arguments from other experts based on sound evidence, then why not allow these views to be heard along with those of the police.
There is clear evidence that pedestrian survival in an RTA increases massively as vehicle speed drops from 30 to 20. So the 20 limit in residential areas is not done arbitrarily, it is made on the basis of evidence.
This is how laws should be made and not on the basis of anecdote, opinion or dogma.
Hugh Jaeger
says...
3:45pm Fri 12 Feb 10
Danny A wrote:The key word in Danny's comment is "targetted". DfT research a few years ago found that 20 mph limits achieve about a 7 mph speed reducrion and significant casualty reduction IF they are targetted on localised, real hazards and IF they are supported by traffic calming or other road engineering. Without any engineering they achieve only a 1 mph speed reduction and no significant casualty reduction.
It is the police's role to enforce the law not decide the law. Government makes the rules and if we don't like their laws we can vote them out. This is the difference between a democracy and a police state! I believe the police's objections are on the basis of burden of enforcement in the face of cuts. The road safety evidence clearly shows targeted speed reduction reduces accidents and reduces the severity of accidents.
The indiscriminate 20 mph limit that Portsmouth introduced in 2008 has achieved no real reduction in speed or casualties, because Hampshire police hasn't the officers to enforce it. The indiscriminate 20 mph limit in Oxford risks a similar failure for a similar reason.
Most of the roads in Oxford that the County Council has reduced to 20 mph already had a casualty rate of almost zero, so there cannot be a significant casualty reduction. Most of Oxford's road casualties are on busy main roads, half of which have been left at 30.
The DfT funds county council transport policies according to how much the counties do what the ministry wants. That is one of the reasons why Conservative Oxfordshire dances to New Labour's tune on lower speed limits. It's Conservative gesture politics to please the New Labour government and extremist local anti-speed campaigners.
The other reason is that Oxfordshire road safety officers are very keen on lower speed limits, depite the mixed evidence about them. County councillors of all parties accept their advice almost without exception.
Britain has far too few police to become a police state. The police know that the only way so few officers can keep order amongst 60 million Britons is by winning our consent. That has to include having speed limits that are supported by good sound reasoning. Indiscriminate 50 mph and 20 mph limits lack such rational support.
Politicians cannot be specialists in everything. They have to trust the professionals who advise them on specialist subjects. The police have given Oxfordshire comprehensive professional advice, which the councillors have comprehensively ignored.
It's like a second lieutenant freshly out of Sandhurst receiving his experienced platoon sergeant's advice and then ordering the opposite. All too often the result is a military disaster. The difference in this case is that the Thames Valley platoon might not obey Lieutenant Hudspeth's orders!
Bambam29
says...
4:04pm Fri 12 Feb 10
The point, as you’ve acknowledged, is having speed limits that are appropriate for the ‘nature of the road’.
The police have reached the conclusion that over half of these changes are unnecessary; because EVIDENCE suggests that the proposed changes to the speed limit will not produce a significant risk reduction on THESE roads. Without any evidence to the contrary being available, it would appear that these speed limit changes, which are being imposed by the county council, are indeed arbitrary (as you put it, based purely on anecdote, opinion or dogma)!!
P.S. Very much in agreement with Hugh’s post above.
wiltz
says...
5:55pm Fri 12 Feb 10
It is evident from most of the comments here that very few people agree with the changes therefore in what way is the elected body representing the people.
Pierre My
says...
4:16am Sat 13 Feb 10
More News stories
- Oxford United game is off
- Solar farm scheme shot down
- Ice-laden Cherwell baffles ducks
- £1m bid for estate drive to go green
- Lights out on tennis courts scheme
- Jubilee celebrations need memorabilia
- Oxford students urged to get a head start in their future careers
- Signing their way to beat world record
- Uni row brews on cheap homes levy
- School water bug rap
Mark Kelly, deputy manager of the Nags Head pub in Bridge Street
Most popular
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
Pter mcvey says...
7:43pm Thu 11 Feb 10