No 20mph plans a blow to schools

Rodney Rose

Rodney Rose

First published in News

ROADS bosses have abandoned a move to make Abingdon town centre a 20mph zone despite approving the scheme two years ago.

And headteachers who want the low-speed zones outside their schools say the news is disappointing.

Oxfordshire County Council had wanted to create the speed limit on 24 roads to make them safer.

It approved plans, that were due to cost £7,000, in February 2010 but put them on hold that August amidst spending reviews.

But the council’s cabinet member for transport Rodney Rose has now confirmed there will be no 20mph zones branding them a “waste of money” because police will not enforcing them.

Schools united to launch a road safety campaign in 2008 after Larkmead pupil Sarah Waterhouse was killed in an accident with a coach while cycling to school.

In response, Larkmead, Fitzharrys, John Mason, and Abingdon and Witney College, all called for new measures including 20mph zones by schools, zebra crossings, and speed humps.

In 2009 another schoolgirl, 11-year-old Ty-Ree Partridge, died after an accident with a van.

And last Wednesday a Year Seven boy from Larkmead suffered minor injuries after he was struck by a car.

Related links

Jonathan Dennett, head at Fitzharrys School in Northcourt Road, said: “We are still asking for the same thing we were asking for a few years ago. A 20mph zone is a low cost option and I think it would make people think when driving outside schools.”

But Mr Rose said no more zones would be created unless police enforced them.

Ch Insp Henry Parsons, from the Joint Roads Policing Unit, said: “Thames Valley Police has always maintained that roads subject to a 20mph limit should be self-enforcing, with the design and road engineering needs in place to help motorists to appreciate that the road is subject to a lower limit, thereby helping motorists to comply with the lower limit.”

Comments (9)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:49pm Wed 2 May 12

Bart Simpsonxxx says...

Some common sense at last. They wasted thousands on the scheme in Oxford after going against all the advice they got from the police.
Some common sense at last. They wasted thousands on the scheme in Oxford after going against all the advice they got from the police. Bart Simpsonxxx
  • Score: 0

3:23pm Wed 2 May 12

online_reader says...

Not often I agree with Bart, but I'm with him on this one. If someone's going to drive irresponsibly, seven grand's worth of signs aren't going to deter them.
Not often I agree with Bart, but I'm with him on this one. If someone's going to drive irresponsibly, seven grand's worth of signs aren't going to deter them. online_reader
  • Score: 0

3:29pm Wed 2 May 12

Inkpot says...

^^Agree with both above - speed limits are useless unless the police agree to enforce them!!!!!!!!!!

Try driving at more than 20mph in Abingdon at most times.
^^Agree with both above - speed limits are useless unless the police agree to enforce them!!!!!!!!!! Try driving at more than 20mph in Abingdon at most times. Inkpot
  • Score: 0

7:23pm Wed 2 May 12

EMBOX1 says...

Rodney didn't mind burning three hundred thousand pounds on the Oxford 20 limit.

I think we should demand a refund..to come from his pension.
Rodney didn't mind burning three hundred thousand pounds on the Oxford 20 limit. I think we should demand a refund..to come from his pension. EMBOX1
  • Score: 0

8:41pm Wed 2 May 12

iklhik says...

EMBOX1 wrote:
Rodney didn't mind burning three hundred thousand pounds on the Oxford 20 limit.

I think we should demand a refund..to come from his pension.
Here here, and an apology for littering our beautiful city with thousands of pieces of red and black plastic. He should remember the 20mph folly wasn't a "waste of money", it was a waste of OUR money!
[quote][p][bold]EMBOX1[/bold] wrote: Rodney didn't mind burning three hundred thousand pounds on the Oxford 20 limit. I think we should demand a refund..to come from his pension.[/p][/quote]Here here, and an apology for littering our beautiful city with thousands of pieces of red and black plastic. He should remember the 20mph folly wasn't a "waste of money", it was a waste of OUR money! iklhik
  • Score: 0

9:42pm Wed 2 May 12

LORD PETER MACVEY 0X2 6EG says...

NO, NO, NO. It is a mistake just look at the lives that have been saved in Oxford since the 20mph was introduced. It should now be 20 in Abingdon and 10 MPH in Oxford that way even more lives will be saved and £billions on clearing up the carnage that car drivers cause. Do it NOW
NO, NO, NO. It is a mistake just look at the lives that have been saved in Oxford since the 20mph was introduced. It should now be 20 in Abingdon and 10 MPH in Oxford that way even more lives will be saved and £billions on clearing up the carnage that car drivers cause. Do it NOW LORD PETER MACVEY 0X2 6EG
  • Score: 0

10:13pm Wed 2 May 12

EMBOX1 says...

Just had a brainwave. Give all the unemployed a job waking in front of cars with a red flag, bingo - unemployment and speeding car problems fixed!

Should keep all the Oxford dahlings happy too..
Just had a brainwave. Give all the unemployed a job waking in front of cars with a red flag, bingo - unemployment and speeding car problems fixed! Should keep all the Oxford dahlings happy too.. EMBOX1
  • Score: 0

10:01am Thu 3 May 12

Abberdon says...

Those who support the continuation of 30 mph as the standard need to show the research that backs it up as being the most appropriate speed.

We all know it has long been in place, but why and how did it get to be the standard?

Perhaps it should be even higher?

That way, those who decry road safety (most of the comments here disregard personal safety as being of any value) will be able to go even faster.

Why should the Police be blamed for nitwits who speed?

These same nitwits would moan loudest at paying higher taxes to employ more police, wouldn't they?

No, it is not the responibility of the Peelers to catch individuals, it is the responsibility of individuals to accept the speed zones they are in and adhere to them, bearing in mind the sign is not a minimum, but a maximum -if it is safe to drive at that speed.

Not a God-given right to drive at that speed everywhere at all times, mind you.

If, as Inkpot suggests, it is hard to drive above 20 mph in Abingdon, then why is it a) an issue to reduce the speed limit to reflect the reality of the road conditions and b) why hasn't the council moved long ago to change the speed?

Finally, as Bart Simpson so frequently shows here, the 'commonsense' he so adores is, all too frequently, neither common, nor sense.
Those who support the continuation of 30 mph as the standard need to show the research that backs it up as being the most appropriate speed. We all know it has long been in place, but why and how did it get to be the standard? Perhaps it should be even higher? That way, those who decry road safety (most of the comments here disregard personal safety as being of any value) will be able to go even faster. Why should the Police be blamed for nitwits who speed? These same nitwits would moan loudest at paying higher taxes to employ more police, wouldn't they? No, it is not the responibility of the Peelers to catch individuals, it is the responsibility of individuals to accept the speed zones they are in and adhere to them, bearing in mind the sign is not a minimum, but a maximum -if it is safe to drive at that speed. Not a God-given right to drive at that speed everywhere at all times, mind you. If, as Inkpot suggests, it is hard to drive above 20 mph in Abingdon, then why is it a) an issue to reduce the speed limit to reflect the reality of the road conditions and b) why hasn't the council moved long ago to change the speed? Finally, as Bart Simpson so frequently shows here, the 'commonsense' he so adores is, all too frequently, neither common, nor sense. Abberdon
  • Score: 0

1:15pm Thu 3 May 12

LORD PETER MACVEY 0X2 6EG says...

Abberdon wrote:
Those who support the continuation of 30 mph as the standard need to show the research that backs it up as being the most appropriate speed.

We all know it has long been in place, but why and how did it get to be the standard?

Perhaps it should be even higher?

That way, those who decry road safety (most of the comments here disregard personal safety as being of any value) will be able to go even faster.

Why should the Police be blamed for nitwits who speed?

These same nitwits would moan loudest at paying higher taxes to employ more police, wouldn't they?

No, it is not the responibility of the Peelers to catch individuals, it is the responsibility of individuals to accept the speed zones they are in and adhere to them, bearing in mind the sign is not a minimum, but a maximum -if it is safe to drive at that speed.

Not a God-given right to drive at that speed everywhere at all times, mind you.

If, as Inkpot suggests, it is hard to drive above 20 mph in Abingdon, then why is it a) an issue to reduce the speed limit to reflect the reality of the road conditions and b) why hasn't the council moved long ago to change the speed?

Finally, as Bart Simpson so frequently shows here, the 'commonsense' he so adores is, all too frequently, neither common, nor sense.
Because in answer to your quaestion, if you can't do more than 20 in Abby during the day, why lower the 30 or 40 limit, to criminalise drivers at 2 am who can drive at these speeds perfectly safely. What is a safe limit outside a school at 3pm is not at 3am.
[quote][p][bold]Abberdon[/bold] wrote: Those who support the continuation of 30 mph as the standard need to show the research that backs it up as being the most appropriate speed. We all know it has long been in place, but why and how did it get to be the standard? Perhaps it should be even higher? That way, those who decry road safety (most of the comments here disregard personal safety as being of any value) will be able to go even faster. Why should the Police be blamed for nitwits who speed? These same nitwits would moan loudest at paying higher taxes to employ more police, wouldn't they? No, it is not the responibility of the Peelers to catch individuals, it is the responsibility of individuals to accept the speed zones they are in and adhere to them, bearing in mind the sign is not a minimum, but a maximum -if it is safe to drive at that speed. Not a God-given right to drive at that speed everywhere at all times, mind you. If, as Inkpot suggests, it is hard to drive above 20 mph in Abingdon, then why is it a) an issue to reduce the speed limit to reflect the reality of the road conditions and b) why hasn't the council moved long ago to change the speed? Finally, as Bart Simpson so frequently shows here, the 'commonsense' he so adores is, all too frequently, neither common, nor sense.[/p][/quote]Because in answer to your quaestion, if you can't do more than 20 in Abby during the day, why lower the 30 or 40 limit, to criminalise drivers at 2 am who can drive at these speeds perfectly safely. What is a safe limit outside a school at 3pm is not at 3am. LORD PETER MACVEY 0X2 6EG
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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