Police reject council's call to enforce 20mph limits

7:00pm Thursday 14th July 2011 in News Photograph of the Author By Oliver Evans, covering Banbury. Call me on 01865 425271

A COUNCIL call for police to enforce Oxford’s 20mph speed limits has been rejected.

A senior officer spoke out after Oxford City Council passed a motion urging Thames Valley Police to crack down on speeding drivers.

Ch Insp Gill Wootton, of the roads policing department, said road layout changes such as chicanes should keep speeds down – and enforcement would only be used as a last resort.

A 20mph limit was brought in on almost all residential roads and some main routes in September 2009 but police said from the outset they would not be actively enforced.

The Labour-controlled council’s motion came after the force switched on speed cameras on April 1 after an eight-month hiatus, spurred by funding fears.

The motion – passed unanimously – said: “Council welcomes the fact that speed enforcement by Thames Valley Police using roadside cameras has come back into effect.

“Council believes that enforcement of all speed limits is necessary to ensure that injuries and fatalities on Oxford’s roads continue to reduce. Council therefore calls upon Thames Valley Police to give enforcement of 20mph speed limits in Oxford their urgent attention.”

Related links

But Ch Insp Wootton said: “Speed enforcement will be considered when other options have been exhausted.

This has not been necessary to date. However, we are monitoring the situation in relevant areas.”

Road changes such as chicanes were introduced with the new zones and Chf Insp Wootton said these meant the limits should be “self enforcing”.

“Simply putting a different number at the end of a road and relying on enforcement alone to achieve compliance is not the answer,” she said.

Speeds have been monitored in problem areas, such as Blackbird Leys and Rose Hill.

Liberal Democrat Alan Armitage, who put the motion, said: “It doesn’t say much for the police that they don’t give a damn what the people think.

“It is a high priority for people in Oxford who are worried about protecting themselves and their children.”

Labour leader Bob Price said Beaumont Street and Park End Street were among roads which would benefit from enforcement.

He said: “We don’t expect police to focus all their attention on the enforcement of speed limits but, where you have places where it happens, there is a strong case for them using a short, sharp period of enforcement.”

In April, a police check outside St John Fisher Primary School in Sandy Lane West, found 44 of 110 cars over the limit. But a check in Mill Street, Ferry Hinksey Road and Richmond Road that month found most drivers – 135 out of 137 – stuck to the limits.

Accidents fell from 166 from September 2008 to August 2009 to 159 in the same period the following year.

Comments (33)

7:16pm Thu 14 Jul 11

JanetJ says...

Shame the Council didn't consult with the Police before they decided on the 20mph zones in the first place
Shame the Council didn't consult with the Police before they decided on the 20mph zones in the first place JanetJ

7:16pm Thu 14 Jul 11

Lord Peter Macvay says...

Thank the Lord (him above) that there are still people with common sense in high positions. Well done TVP (i think I need a lie down)
Thank the Lord (him above) that there are still people with common sense in high positions. Well done TVP (i think I need a lie down) Lord Peter Macvay

7:29pm Thu 14 Jul 11

Lord Peter Macvay says...

Maybe when the figures that the Council don't want released show that deaths have increased by a massive percentage since the "safety" camera switch ON, they might realise that SPEED is a minor cause of accidents. But then again probably not, as they have their own agenda, and not one that is logical.
Maybe when the figures that the Council don't want released show that deaths have increased by a massive percentage since the "safety" camera switch ON, they might realise that SPEED is a minor cause of accidents. But then again probably not, as they have their own agenda, and not one that is logical. Lord Peter Macvay

8:29pm Thu 14 Jul 11

Dilligaf2010 says...

Wow a victory for common sense at last, the Council just wanted to get some more money in the coffers!
I agree with Peter, SPEED is a minor cause of accidents, whereas incompetent drivers, is a major cause.
We should implement the German way of teaching people to drive, 6 months in the classroom, learning basic car maintenance, the highway code etc., before somebody gets behind the wheel of a car.
Drivers start off in a small car, and gradually work their way up to a Mercedes, or something similar prior to the test, and Motorway driving is part of the learning process, and is included in the test.
Anyway, I digress, they can stick the 20mph limit where the sun doesn't shine.
Wow a victory for common sense at last, the Council just wanted to get some more money in the coffers! I agree with Peter, SPEED is a minor cause of accidents, whereas incompetent drivers, is a major cause. We should implement the German way of teaching people to drive, 6 months in the classroom, learning basic car maintenance, the highway code etc., before somebody gets behind the wheel of a car. Drivers start off in a small car, and gradually work their way up to a Mercedes, or something similar prior to the test, and Motorway driving is part of the learning process, and is included in the test. Anyway, I digress, they can stick the 20mph limit where the sun doesn't shine. Dilligaf2010

9:03pm Thu 14 Jul 11

Victor Meldrew2 says...

'Liberal Democrat Alan Armitage, who put the motion, said: “It doesn’t say much for the police that they don’t give a **** what the people think.'
I think that comment applies to Councillors more than the Police.
'Liberal Democrat Alan Armitage, who put the motion, said: “It doesn’t say much for the police that they don’t give a **** what the people think.' I think that comment applies to Councillors more than the Police. Victor Meldrew2

9:04pm Thu 14 Jul 11

Philof says...

Wonderful! Finally Common Sense rules OK! At least on this anyway!
Common Sense 1 City Council NIL!!!
Wonderful! Finally Common Sense rules OK! At least on this anyway! Common Sense 1 City Council NIL!!! Philof

11:45pm Thu 14 Jul 11

barford says...

Would the police go easy on bank robbers on the basis that, with all the banks' security measures, the law against robbing them is 'self-enforcing'?

What rubbish. The law's the law. And a 20mph limit is eminently sensible in appropriate places and should be enforced. How much time do you save going at 20 instead of 30. Seconds. But it could save a child's life.

And by the way, isn't there a law against someone calling themselves a 'Lord' when they're not, i.e. 'Lord' Peter Macvay. At least I assume he's not the real thing. There certainly should be a law against the endless rubbish he spouts.
Would the police go easy on bank robbers on the basis that, with all the banks' security measures, the law against robbing them is 'self-enforcing'? What rubbish. The law's the law. And a 20mph limit is eminently sensible in appropriate places and should be enforced. How much time do you save going at 20 instead of 30. Seconds. But it could save a child's life. And by the way, isn't there a law against someone calling themselves a 'Lord' when they're not, i.e. 'Lord' Peter Macvay. At least I assume he's not the real thing. There certainly should be a law against the endless rubbish he spouts. barford

7:42am Fri 15 Jul 11

Pundit says...

Thuis is truly shocking. The police refusing to deal with law breakers? What do they do and why are we paying our taxes? They won't protect people from lawbreaking vehicle drivers or anti-social cyclists who ride on footways. They have already lost a good deal of public confidence and now they are compounding that by doing nothing.
Thuis is truly shocking. The police refusing to deal with law breakers? What do they do and why are we paying our taxes? They won't protect people from lawbreaking vehicle drivers or anti-social cyclists who ride on footways. They have already lost a good deal of public confidence and now they are compounding that by doing nothing. Pundit

11:34am Fri 15 Jul 11

mandate says...

The local council is responsible for setting local speed limits. If the traffic authority decides that a change in the speed limit is required then a legal process begins and a statutory Speed Limit Order has to be made. The council (acting as the traffic authority) will seek a police view on any proposed changes to a speed limit.
But Ch Insp Wootton said: “Speed enforcement will be considered when other options have been exhausted. Simply putting a different number at the end of a road and relying on enforcement alone to achieve compliance is not the answer,” she said.
Reading between the lines, it appears that the police authorities don't have the public's interest at heart, based solely upon the costs of enforcement of the speed limit.
The local council is responsible for setting local speed limits. If the traffic authority decides that a change in the speed limit is required then a legal process begins and a statutory Speed Limit Order has to be made. The council (acting as the traffic authority) will seek a police view on any proposed changes to a speed limit. But Ch Insp Wootton said: “Speed enforcement will be considered when other options have been exhausted. Simply putting a different number at the end of a road and relying on enforcement alone to achieve compliance is not the answer,” she said. Reading between the lines, it appears that the police authorities don't have the public's interest at heart, based solely upon the costs of enforcement of the speed limit. mandate

11:49am Fri 15 Jul 11

Oxford Male says...

“It doesn’t say much for the police that they don’t give a **** what the people think."

But do the council give a **** what people think???? I suspect the majority of people think that the 20mph is ridiculously too low for the majority of road where it has been placed.

Commonsense has prevailed here I think.
“It doesn’t say much for the police that they don’t give a **** what the people think." But do the council give a **** what people think???? I suspect the majority of people think that the 20mph is ridiculously too low for the majority of road where it has been placed. Commonsense has prevailed here I think. Oxford Male

1:48pm Fri 15 Jul 11

icba1957 says...

Perhaps we should put in an FOI request to ask how much it cost to put up the 20mph signs on all the side roads along Botley Road. None of them are longer than 100 yards, nearly all of them have cars parked on one or both sides, and if you were able to reach 20mph you'd probably end up in the park!
Total waste of money, and, I seem to recall, not even a legally enforceable speed?
Perhaps we should put in an FOI request to ask how much it cost to put up the 20mph signs on all the side roads along Botley Road. None of them are longer than 100 yards, nearly all of them have cars parked on one or both sides, and if you were able to reach 20mph you'd probably end up in the park! Total waste of money, and, I seem to recall, not even a legally enforceable speed? icba1957

7:17pm Fri 15 Jul 11

phil-g- says...

Well, the police have to prioritize; they can't do everything.

The Government want us to elect chief constables or police policy makers - so that the electorate can decide whether they want more effort spent on 20mph zones and less on robbery, or vice versa.

What a good idea. Democracy.
Well, the police have to prioritize; they can't do everything. The Government want us to elect chief constables or police policy makers - so that the electorate can decide whether they want more effort spent on 20mph zones and less on robbery, or vice versa. What a good idea. Democracy. phil-g-

12:00am Sat 16 Jul 11

opendemeyes says...

20 mph is ridiculous,who did actually come up with this stupid idea anyhow???
20 mph is ridiculous,who did actually come up with this stupid idea anyhow??? opendemeyes

3:54am Sat 16 Jul 11

Lord Peter Macvay says...

barford wrote:
Would the police go easy on bank robbers on the basis that, with all the banks' security measures, the law against robbing them is 'self-enforcing'?

What rubbish. The law's the law. And a 20mph limit is eminently sensible in appropriate places and should be enforced. How much time do you save going at 20 instead of 30. Seconds. But it could save a child's life.

And by the way, isn't there a law against someone calling themselves a 'Lord' when they're not, i.e. 'Lord' Peter Macvay. At least I assume he's not the real thing. There certainly should be a law against the endless rubbish he spouts.
You talk about me spouting rubbish. Firstly the Police were against the 20 when the council first mooted them, but the council did not listen to the experts (as usual) and pushed them through costing over £300,000. But as we now have 20mph why don't we follow your advice and have a hundred police officers nicking maniacs driving at 25mph, instead of patrolling the streets and available to attend muggings, rapes, stabbings and other trivial things. Over the years unjust laws implemented by people with their own agenda have been ignored and repealed, and the Police realise that this is one of them. P.S. The Simpsons episode. Marge Vs The Mono-Rail. "think of the children" just about sums you up to a tee.
[quote][p][bold]barford[/bold] wrote: Would the police go easy on bank robbers on the basis that, with all the banks' security measures, the law against robbing them is 'self-enforcing'? What rubbish. The law's the law. And a 20mph limit is eminently sensible in appropriate places and should be enforced. How much time do you save going at 20 instead of 30. Seconds. But it could save a child's life. And by the way, isn't there a law against someone calling themselves a 'Lord' when they're not, i.e. 'Lord' Peter Macvay. At least I assume he's not the real thing. There certainly should be a law against the endless rubbish he spouts.[/p][/quote]You talk about me spouting rubbish. Firstly the Police were against the 20 when the council first mooted them, but the council did not listen to the experts (as usual) and pushed them through costing over £300,000. But as we now have 20mph why don't we follow your advice and have a hundred police officers nicking maniacs driving at 25mph, instead of patrolling the streets and available to attend muggings, rapes, stabbings and other trivial things. Over the years unjust laws implemented by people with their own agenda have been ignored and repealed, and the Police realise that this is one of them. P.S. The Simpsons episode. Marge Vs The Mono-Rail. "think of the children" just about sums you up to a tee. Lord Peter Macvay

4:00am Sat 16 Jul 11

Lord Peter Macvay says...

barford wrote:
Would the police go easy on bank robbers on the basis that, with all the banks' security measures, the law against robbing them is 'self-enforcing'?

What rubbish. The law's the law. And a 20mph limit is eminently sensible in appropriate places and should be enforced. How much time do you save going at 20 instead of 30. Seconds. But it could save a child's life.

And by the way, isn't there a law against someone calling themselves a 'Lord' when they're not, i.e. 'Lord' Peter Macvay. At least I assume he's not the real thing. There certainly should be a law against the endless rubbish he spouts.
I forgot to add it costs just a couple of hundred quid to get that piece of paper nowadays, and it is legal. (unless it is a seat you want and I think Davey boy would want far, far more) But I don't think the Lord up above has one, so maybe you should start your crusade there.
[quote][p][bold]barford[/bold] wrote: Would the police go easy on bank robbers on the basis that, with all the banks' security measures, the law against robbing them is 'self-enforcing'? What rubbish. The law's the law. And a 20mph limit is eminently sensible in appropriate places and should be enforced. How much time do you save going at 20 instead of 30. Seconds. But it could save a child's life. And by the way, isn't there a law against someone calling themselves a 'Lord' when they're not, i.e. 'Lord' Peter Macvay. At least I assume he's not the real thing. There certainly should be a law against the endless rubbish he spouts.[/p][/quote]I forgot to add it costs just a couple of hundred quid to get that piece of paper nowadays, and it is legal. (unless it is a seat you want and I think Davey boy would want far, far more) But I don't think the Lord up above has one, so maybe you should start your crusade there. Lord Peter Macvay

6:14am Sat 16 Jul 11

Severian says...

Our police force is hard pressed enough as it is, without some local politicians pushing through their own petty agenda and wasting hundreds of thousands of taxpayers money on a pet party project, then blaming the police because it hasn't delivered the political glory they expected.
This was an ill-conceived scheme from the start, and the police said so.
Time for TVP to get back to real policing.
Our police force is hard pressed enough as it is, without some local politicians pushing through their own petty agenda and wasting hundreds of thousands of taxpayers money on a pet party project, then blaming the police because it hasn't delivered the political glory they expected. This was an ill-conceived scheme from the start, and the police said so. Time for TVP to get back to real policing. Severian

7:05am Sat 16 Jul 11

Alfie Nokes says...

And again, for those at the back (hard of reading?) using "lawbreakers", "the law's the law" etc.

It can't be law:
Parliament does not make laws, they draft Acts and Statutes - so what this actually is I don't know, a 'local government regulation'?

The police are quite right to refuse to 'enforce such a policy', if not for having sworn to 'uphold the law' rather than 'enforce policies', then for right minded thinking.
And again, for those at the back (hard of reading?) using "lawbreakers", "the law's the law" etc. It can't be law: Parliament does not make laws, they draft Acts and Statutes - so what this actually is I don't know, a 'local government regulation'? The police are quite right to refuse to 'enforce such a policy', if not for having sworn to 'uphold the law' rather than 'enforce policies', then for right minded thinking. Alfie Nokes

11:15am Sat 16 Jul 11

mandate says...

It is quite obvious that a 20mph speed limit is put in place for a reason.
I just can't understand the arrogance/stupidity of some drivers who find it neccessary to break the speed limits in built up areas.
What is that makes these individuals knowingly want to put other peoples lives at risk? Saving time should never be more important than saving lives.
It is quite obvious that a 20mph speed limit is put in place for a reason. I just can't understand the arrogance/stupidity of some drivers who find it neccessary to break the speed limits in built up areas. What is that makes these individuals knowingly want to put other peoples lives at risk? Saving time should never be more important than saving lives. mandate

12:23pm Sat 16 Jul 11

Oxford Male says...

icba1957 wrote:
Perhaps we should put in an FOI request to ask how much it cost to put up the 20mph signs on all the side roads along Botley Road. None of them are longer than 100 yards, nearly all of them have cars parked on one or both sides, and if you were able to reach 20mph you'd probably end up in the park!
Total waste of money, and, I seem to recall, not even a legally enforceable speed?
I thought that at the time. Complete joke.
[quote][p][bold]icba1957[/bold] wrote: Perhaps we should put in an FOI request to ask how much it cost to put up the 20mph signs on all the side roads along Botley Road. None of them are longer than 100 yards, nearly all of them have cars parked on one or both sides, and if you were able to reach 20mph you'd probably end up in the park! Total waste of money, and, I seem to recall, not even a legally enforceable speed?[/p][/quote]I thought that at the time. Complete joke. Oxford Male

12:28pm Sat 16 Jul 11

Oxford Male says...

mandate wrote:
It is quite obvious that a 20mph speed limit is put in place for a reason.
I just can't understand the arrogance/stupidity of some drivers who find it neccessary to break the speed limits in built up areas.
What is that makes these individuals knowingly want to put other peoples lives at risk? Saving time should never be more important than saving lives.
Obvious - in what way? If people are not obeying the 20mph limits (& I have no evidence either way) where is all the carnage on these roads???
Just because people think this limit is crazy does not mean they have no regard for the safety of other road users and pedestrians.
[quote][p][bold]mandate[/bold] wrote: It is quite obvious that a 20mph speed limit is put in place for a reason. I just can't understand the arrogance/stupidity of some drivers who find it neccessary to break the speed limits in built up areas. What is that makes these individuals knowingly want to put other peoples lives at risk? Saving time should never be more important than saving lives.[/p][/quote]Obvious - in what way? If people are not obeying the 20mph limits (& I have no evidence either way) where is all the carnage on these roads??? Just because people think this limit is crazy does not mean they have no regard for the safety of other road users and pedestrians. Oxford Male

4:34pm Sat 16 Jul 11

OX26Hound says...

I would love to be able to drive as fast as 20 mph through Bayswater Road, Barton during the morning rush hour, when the schools are in!
I would love to be able to drive as fast as 20 mph through Bayswater Road, Barton during the morning rush hour, when the schools are in! OX26Hound

9:17pm Sat 16 Jul 11

mandate says...

Oxford Male wrote:
mandate wrote:
It is quite obvious that a 20mph speed limit is put in place for a reason.
I just can't understand the arrogance/stupidity of some drivers who find it neccessary to break the speed limits in built up areas.
What is that makes these individuals knowingly want to put other peoples lives at risk? Saving time should never be more important than saving lives.
Obvious - in what way? If people are not obeying the 20mph limits (& I have no evidence either way) where is all the carnage on these roads???
Just because people think this limit is crazy does not mean they have no regard for the safety of other road users and pedestrians.
The obvious reason(s) for speed limits is to enable drivers enough time to react to possible dangers, for example playing children.
Surely no driver would want to hurt anybody on the roads. Are 20 mph limits really such an inconvenience when playing children and other pedestrians could be at risk. Would increased speed limits lessen these risks?
'Better safe than sorry' comes to mind.
[quote][p][bold]Oxford Male[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mandate[/bold] wrote: It is quite obvious that a 20mph speed limit is put in place for a reason. I just can't understand the arrogance/stupidity of some drivers who find it neccessary to break the speed limits in built up areas. What is that makes these individuals knowingly want to put other peoples lives at risk? Saving time should never be more important than saving lives.[/p][/quote]Obvious - in what way? If people are not obeying the 20mph limits (& I have no evidence either way) where is all the carnage on these roads??? Just because people think this limit is crazy does not mean they have no regard for the safety of other road users and pedestrians.[/p][/quote]The obvious reason(s) for speed limits is to enable drivers enough time to react to possible dangers, for example playing children. Surely no driver would want to hurt anybody on the roads. Are 20 mph limits really such an inconvenience when playing children and other pedestrians could be at risk. Would increased speed limits lessen these risks? 'Better safe than sorry' comes to mind. mandate

3:43am Sun 17 Jul 11

Lord Peter Macvay says...

mandate wrote:
Oxford Male wrote:
mandate wrote:
It is quite obvious that a 20mph speed limit is put in place for a reason.
I just can't understand the arrogance/stupidity of some drivers who find it neccessary to break the speed limits in built up areas.
What is that makes these individuals knowingly want to put other peoples lives at risk? Saving time should never be more important than saving lives.
Obvious - in what way? If people are not obeying the 20mph limits (& I have no evidence either way) where is all the carnage on these roads???
Just because people think this limit is crazy does not mean they have no regard for the safety of other road users and pedestrians.
The obvious reason(s) for speed limits is to enable drivers enough time to react to possible dangers, for example playing children.
Surely no driver would want to hurt anybody on the roads. Are 20 mph limits really such an inconvenience when playing children and other pedestrians could be at risk. Would increased speed limits lessen these risks?
'Better safe than sorry' comes to mind.
Sorry Mandate you are wrong on this one. If we want better safe than sorry, as you say, then the limit should be 7mph, which is a speed that even a non-concentrating driver could react to a child running out into the street. P.S. Since the 20mph and the re-activation of the speed cameras, there have been far more deaths and serious injuries on our roads than in the corresponding period. explain that one please.
[quote][p][bold]mandate[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oxford Male[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mandate[/bold] wrote: It is quite obvious that a 20mph speed limit is put in place for a reason. I just can't understand the arrogance/stupidity of some drivers who find it neccessary to break the speed limits in built up areas. What is that makes these individuals knowingly want to put other peoples lives at risk? Saving time should never be more important than saving lives.[/p][/quote]Obvious - in what way? If people are not obeying the 20mph limits (& I have no evidence either way) where is all the carnage on these roads??? Just because people think this limit is crazy does not mean they have no regard for the safety of other road users and pedestrians.[/p][/quote]The obvious reason(s) for speed limits is to enable drivers enough time to react to possible dangers, for example playing children. Surely no driver would want to hurt anybody on the roads. Are 20 mph limits really such an inconvenience when playing children and other pedestrians could be at risk. Would increased speed limits lessen these risks? 'Better safe than sorry' comes to mind.[/p][/quote]Sorry Mandate you are wrong on this one. If we want better safe than sorry, as you say, then the limit should be 7mph, which is a speed that even a non-concentrating driver could react to a child running out into the street. P.S. Since the 20mph and the re-activation of the speed cameras, there have been far more deaths and serious injuries on our roads than in the corresponding period. explain that one please. Lord Peter Macvay

12:03pm Sun 17 Jul 11

Oxford Male says...

Mandate - do you have an answer for the Lord. 20mph is enough time to stop is it? 30mph is not? What about 19mph or 21mph? Hang on a minute - Playing children and other pedestrians could be at risk. Best they stay on the pavement then.
The other day I left my house driving at approx 15 mph in a 30 mph limited area (I am 100% convinced I am a safe and considerate driver). Within about 10 secs an ipod wearing non concentrating youth had stepped out into the road without looking. About 15 secs later a young kid on his bike cycled straight off the pavement across the path of an oncoming car. Car was not breaking the speed limit. Car did not hit the kid, but it was quite close.
About time pedestrians and kids did their bit too. Or should we ban cars altogether.
Mandate - do you have an answer for the Lord. 20mph is enough time to stop is it? 30mph is not? What about 19mph or 21mph? Hang on a minute - Playing children and other pedestrians could be at risk. Best they stay on the pavement then. The other day I left my house driving at approx 15 mph in a 30 mph limited area (I am 100% convinced I am a safe and considerate driver). Within about 10 secs an ipod wearing non concentrating youth had stepped out into the road without looking. About 15 secs later a young kid on his bike cycled straight off the pavement across the path of an oncoming car. Car was not breaking the speed limit. Car did not hit the kid, but it was quite close. About time pedestrians and kids did their bit too. Or should we ban cars altogether. Oxford Male

5:38pm Mon 18 Jul 11

samsquirrel says...

mandate wrote:
It is quite obvious that a 20mph speed limit is put in place for a reason.
I just can't understand the arrogance/stupidity of some drivers who find it neccessary to break the speed limits in built up areas.
What is that makes these individuals knowingly want to put other peoples lives at risk? Saving time should never be more important than saving lives.
I recently drove down Morrell Avenue at 20mph & half a dozen cyclists overtook me. I'm sure they weren't ALL intentionally breaking the limit
Are you suggesting that all cycles need to be fitted with speedometers?
[quote][p][bold]mandate[/bold] wrote: It is quite obvious that a 20mph speed limit is put in place for a reason. I just can't understand the arrogance/stupidity of some drivers who find it neccessary to break the speed limits in built up areas. What is that makes these individuals knowingly want to put other peoples lives at risk? Saving time should never be more important than saving lives.[/p][/quote]I recently drove down Morrell Avenue at 20mph & half a dozen cyclists overtook me. I'm sure they weren't ALL intentionally breaking the limit Are you suggesting that all cycles need to be fitted with speedometers? samsquirrel

6:45pm Mon 18 Jul 11

sparky123456 says...

love this comment: Labour leader Bob Price said Beaumont Street and Park End Street were among roads which would benefit from enforcement. is that park end st which has traffic lights at both ends and is about 400 yards long and congested with buses? how does a driver get from 0-20mph+ before they hit the second lights or a bus first? how ridiculous
love this comment: Labour leader Bob Price said Beaumont Street and Park End Street were among roads which would benefit from enforcement. is that park end st which has traffic lights at both ends and is about 400 yards long and congested with buses? how does a driver get from 0-20mph+ before they hit the second lights or a bus first? how ridiculous sparky123456

6:47pm Mon 18 Jul 11

sparky123456 says...

also if kids are playing in the road then they need to sort their lives out!! perhaps their parents should teach them the dangers it brings. and Mandate please explain why major roads like the london road and headington hill are 20mph zones along with st giles? ridiculous places for this limit. Glad the police aren't enforcing it.
also if kids are playing in the road then they need to sort their lives out!! perhaps their parents should teach them the dangers it brings. and Mandate please explain why major roads like the london road and headington hill are 20mph zones along with st giles? ridiculous places for this limit. Glad the police aren't enforcing it. sparky123456

2:27am Tue 19 Jul 11

Alfie Nokes says...

Not being a driver I don't know why I bother...

The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, sections 81 (84 or 86) and 89 (or 17 if motorway) make it an offence to drive a motor vehicle on a road at a speed exceeding the statutory limit.

The problem is that the limit is not a statute.

Sara Thornton said as much in The Oxford Times, Tuesday 21st April 2009 edition.

And mandate, above said as much.

Unless passed as statute I can see good reason for the police not touching it.
Not being a driver I don't know why I bother... The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, sections 81 (84 or 86) and 89 (or 17 if motorway) make it an offence to drive a motor vehicle on a road at a speed exceeding the statutory limit. The problem is that the limit is not a statute. Sara Thornton said as much in The Oxford Times, Tuesday 21st April 2009 edition. And mandate, above said as much. Unless passed as statute I can see good reason for the police not touching it. Alfie Nokes

10:42pm Tue 19 Jul 11

Severian says...

Oxford Male wrote:
Mandate - do you have an answer for the Lord. 20mph is enough time to stop is it? 30mph is not? What about 19mph or 21mph? Hang on a minute - Playing children and other pedestrians could be at risk. Best they stay on the pavement then. The other day I left my house driving at approx 15 mph in a 30 mph limited area (I am 100% convinced I am a safe and considerate driver). Within about 10 secs an ipod wearing non concentrating youth had stepped out into the road without looking. About 15 secs later a young kid on his bike cycled straight off the pavement across the path of an oncoming car. Car was not breaking the speed limit. Car did not hit the kid, but it was quite close. About time pedestrians and kids did their bit too. Or should we ban cars altogether.
Oxford Male you have completely misunderstood the problem. The issue isn't the cars - it's the pedestrians. We should ban them, then they wouldn't get run over.
[quote][p][bold]Oxford Male[/bold] wrote: Mandate - do you have an answer for the Lord. 20mph is enough time to stop is it? 30mph is not? What about 19mph or 21mph? Hang on a minute - Playing children and other pedestrians could be at risk. Best they stay on the pavement then. The other day I left my house driving at approx 15 mph in a 30 mph limited area (I am 100% convinced I am a safe and considerate driver). Within about 10 secs an ipod wearing non concentrating youth had stepped out into the road without looking. About 15 secs later a young kid on his bike cycled straight off the pavement across the path of an oncoming car. Car was not breaking the speed limit. Car did not hit the kid, but it was quite close. About time pedestrians and kids did their bit too. Or should we ban cars altogether.[/p][/quote]Oxford Male you have completely misunderstood the problem. The issue isn't the cars - it's the pedestrians. We should ban them, then they wouldn't get run over. Severian

11:44pm Tue 19 Jul 11

Oxford Male says...

Severian wrote:
Oxford Male wrote:
Mandate - do you have an answer for the Lord. 20mph is enough time to stop is it? 30mph is not? What about 19mph or 21mph? Hang on a minute - Playing children and other pedestrians could be at risk. Best they stay on the pavement then. The other day I left my house driving at approx 15 mph in a 30 mph limited area (I am 100% convinced I am a safe and considerate driver). Within about 10 secs an ipod wearing non concentrating youth had stepped out into the road without looking. About 15 secs later a young kid on his bike cycled straight off the pavement across the path of an oncoming car. Car was not breaking the speed limit. Car did not hit the kid, but it was quite close. About time pedestrians and kids did their bit too. Or should we ban cars altogether.
Oxford Male you have completely misunderstood the problem. The issue isn't the cars - it's the pedestrians. We should ban them, then they wouldn't get run over.
The issue has never been the cars - it is people. Motorists, cyclists and pedestrians. All need to behave in a sensible and responsible manner. The sooner people realised this then we might get somewhere. Do you understand?
Bring back the Green Cross code and the Tufty club.
[quote][p][bold]Severian[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oxford Male[/bold] wrote: Mandate - do you have an answer for the Lord. 20mph is enough time to stop is it? 30mph is not? What about 19mph or 21mph? Hang on a minute - Playing children and other pedestrians could be at risk. Best they stay on the pavement then. The other day I left my house driving at approx 15 mph in a 30 mph limited area (I am 100% convinced I am a safe and considerate driver). Within about 10 secs an ipod wearing non concentrating youth had stepped out into the road without looking. About 15 secs later a young kid on his bike cycled straight off the pavement across the path of an oncoming car. Car was not breaking the speed limit. Car did not hit the kid, but it was quite close. About time pedestrians and kids did their bit too. Or should we ban cars altogether.[/p][/quote]Oxford Male you have completely misunderstood the problem. The issue isn't the cars - it's the pedestrians. We should ban them, then they wouldn't get run over.[/p][/quote]The issue has never been the cars - it is people. Motorists, cyclists and pedestrians. All need to behave in a sensible and responsible manner. The sooner people realised this then we might get somewhere. Do you understand? Bring back the Green Cross code and the Tufty club. Oxford Male

1:58pm Wed 20 Jul 11

IS says...

The problem on Park End Street is drunken youngsters waiting to get into the clubs or, having had a few drinks the pubs on George Street, are staggering towards the clubs. I understand that in Hull the speed limit in the city has been lowered to 10 m.p.h. to lower the risk of accidents involving drinkers.
The problem on Park End Street is drunken youngsters waiting to get into the clubs or, having had a few drinks the pubs on George Street, are staggering towards the clubs. I understand that in Hull the speed limit in the city has been lowered to 10 m.p.h. to lower the risk of accidents involving drinkers. IS

11:27pm Wed 20 Jul 11

gymrat34 says...

The 20mph limit is ridiculous. 30mph was never an issue for years until a few people who always like to complain about something, suddenly had nothing to complain about and turned their attention to the roads.
All the signage was a cost the council could have done without and at least the police are (like someone above already said) using common sense in not policing it.
The 20mph limit is ridiculous. 30mph was never an issue for years until a few people who always like to complain about something, suddenly had nothing to complain about and turned their attention to the roads. All the signage was a cost the council could have done without and at least the police are (like someone above already said) using common sense in not policing it. gymrat34

10:22am Thu 21 Jul 11

greenmonkey says...

The obvious reason(s) for speed limits is to enable drivers enough time to react to possible dangers, for example playing children.
Surely no driver would want to hurt anybody on the roads. Are 20 mph limits really such an inconvenience when playing children and other pedestrians could be at risk. Would increased speed limits lessen these risks? 'Better safe than sorry' comes to mind.

Quite agree - even without enforcement the limit does make a difference - any driver ignoring it needs to reflect on fact that if there is an accident the blame shifts to them for 'exceeding the speed limit' if anything happens.
The obvious reason(s) for speed limits is to enable drivers enough time to react to possible dangers, for example playing children. Surely no driver would want to hurt anybody on the roads. Are 20 mph limits really such an inconvenience when playing children and other pedestrians could be at risk. Would increased speed limits lessen these risks? 'Better safe than sorry' comes to mind. Quite agree - even without enforcement the limit does make a difference - any driver ignoring it needs to reflect on fact that if there is an accident the blame shifts to them for 'exceeding the speed limit' if anything happens. greenmonkey

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