Speeding crackdown in Oxford's 20mph zones

Kevin Wallington was fined

Kevin Wallington was fined

First published in News
Last updated
thisisoxfordshire: Photograph of the Author by , Crime Reporter, also covering Barton and Wood Farm. Call me on (01865) 425427

DRIVERS caught flouting Oxford’s 20mph zones by as little as 4mph will now face a £100 fine and three points on their licence.

Thames Valley Police will start ticketing motorists breaking the limit this month and will offer a new £95 speed awareness course as an alternative to the fine and points.

It comes as figures obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show the force handed out £36,960 in speeding fines since starting to enforce 20mph limits in 2012.

Previously, police only fined motorists doing 32mph or more in a 20mph zone because a course was not available for those breaking the lower limit.

Safety campaigners have welcomed the new enforcement but critics say safe drivers will be penalised and they predict the number of fines handed out will rocket.

Claire Benson, specialist unit manager on the Thames Valley Police roads policing team, said police staff were now being trained to deliver a three-hour course tailored to teaching drivers why it is important to stick to 20mph in the zones. She said it would have been unfair to penalise drivers before the course was available.

She said: “20mph limits are generally put in where there is a higher risk – it might be a school or community residential areas.

“They are put in to reduce the risk, so any breaking of those limits we will look at like any other speed limit.”

But she said she was not expecting a large number of drivers to be caught out and said they wouldn’t be increasing the level of speed reduction enforcement.

She added: “I would imagine it would be about on balance with all the other limits.”

The force are due to notify drivers of the date the change will come in through the media and its community messaging system.

Major Oxford roads and residential streets were made 20mph zones from September 2009 in a £250,000 move by Oxfordshire County Council.

thisisoxfordshire:

Cyclox chairman Simon Hunt, above, said the new enforcement was likely to make the city a safer place.

He added: “Many people, not just cyclists, have felt for quite a long time that the 20mph residential roads in Oxford do need to have more enforcement.

“It has been extremely patchy and not sufficient.

“It is well known that the damage caused to someone struck by a moving vehicle at 30mph is much greater than at 20mph.”

Since enforcements began, police have fined 510 drivers for speeding in the zones.

Last August the fines went up nationwide from £60 to £100.

The Oxford Mail requested information on the number of drivers caught doing more than 24mph during speed checks, but the force would not release the information.

However, an Oxford Mail survey in 2012 found 85 per cent of drivers were breaking the limit in St Giles.

Using a radar gun to test the speed of 100 motorists, we found the average speed for all vehicles was 24mph – enough to get a fine under the new enforcement.

All money from speeding fines is passed to the Treasury.

Plumber Kevin Wallington, who was prosecuted for breaking the limit in East Oxford, said the change would see a huge rise in the number of speeding fines handed out.

The 48-year-old, of Parsons Place, said: “They are going to make a killing. Everyone goes over 24mph.

“The speed of 20mph is ludicrous, it is too slow. You drive to the road conditions.”

Mark McArthur-Christie, a former lobbyist for the Association of British Drivers, said the courses would do drivers good but he added the stricter enforcement risked penalising those driving safely.

He said: “The thing is (police) are tending to enforce the 20mph limit in places where the 20mph should not be – like St Giles.

“It is not the limits that matter – it’s safe driving that matters.”

TICKETS ISSUED OVER PAST TWO YEARS

  • May 2012 to December 2012 – 168 tickets worth £4,980
  • January 2013 to December 2013 – 256 tickets worth £18,240
  • January 2014 to April 2014 – 86 tickets worth £8,600
  • Total tickets = 510. s Total fine potential = £36,960






    Our top stories:

Comments (46)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:35am Mon 2 Jun 14

EMBOX2 says...

TVP must be rubbing their hands with glee, PsychoOx too.

As long as other road users get similarly punished, I am all in favour. Though you know it will be the car driver who gets done, because the others have no chance of being prosecuted.
TVP must be rubbing their hands with glee, PsychoOx too. As long as other road users get similarly punished, I am all in favour. Though you know it will be the car driver who gets done, because the others have no chance of being prosecuted. EMBOX2
  • Score: -15

10:39am Mon 2 Jun 14

John Lamb says...

Going by the speeds they do down St Giles at, I think taxis believe they are exempt from this law.
Going by the speeds they do down St Giles at, I think taxis believe they are exempt from this law. John Lamb
  • Score: 53

10:43am Mon 2 Jun 14

Quentin Walker says...

"...Claire Benson, specialist unit manager on the Thames Valley Police roads policing team, said police staff were now being trained to deliver a three-hour course tailored to teaching drivers why it is important to stick to 20mph in the zones. She said it would have been unfair to penalise drivers before the course was available..."

Unfair? The Law is the Law and training courses have nothing at all to do with it, drivers were trained to adhere to speed limits when they learned to drive. Further 'training' is unfair to those who stick to the limits.

Fines and points are required to concebtrate minds.
"...Claire Benson, specialist unit manager on the Thames Valley Police roads policing team, said police staff were now being trained to deliver a three-hour course tailored to teaching drivers why it is important to stick to 20mph in the zones. She said it would have been unfair to penalise drivers before the course was available..." Unfair? The Law is the Law and training courses have nothing at all to do with it, drivers were trained to adhere to speed limits when they learned to drive. Further 'training' is unfair to those who stick to the limits. Fines and points are required to concebtrate minds. Quentin Walker
  • Score: 9

10:51am Mon 2 Jun 14

oafie says...

It's amazing that Oxon County Council had 250,000 to spend on this- obviously someone has to make up the money in the deficit now.

Reducing the speed limit on some roads will create the same chaotic situation along the Cowley Road where cyclists simply weave in and out of the cars, with no regard, or signalling and cause incidents/accidents that they are usually then oblivious of.
It will put more people off travelling into Oxford by car- they will not choose the bus-they will simply go elsewhere but isn't that what is wanted?
It's amazing that Oxon County Council had 250,000 to spend on this- obviously someone has to make up the money in the deficit now. Reducing the speed limit on some roads will create the same chaotic situation along the Cowley Road where cyclists simply weave in and out of the cars, with no regard, or signalling and cause incidents/accidents that they are usually then oblivious of. It will put more people off travelling into Oxford by car- they will not choose the bus-they will simply go elsewhere but isn't that what is wanted? oafie
  • Score: -10

10:54am Mon 2 Jun 14

Neonlights says...

Does this also apply to police cars too? Whenever I've been behind a plod car in a 20 mph limit, they don't stick to it.

That aside, a lot of residential areas in Swindon still have 40 mph limits, not 20. I don't have any accident statistics, but I bet they don't significantly differ to those of Oxford. If they did then I'm sure 20mph limits would also apply there too.
Does this also apply to police cars too? Whenever I've been behind a plod car in a 20 mph limit, they don't stick to it. That aside, a lot of residential areas in Swindon still have 40 mph limits, not 20. I don't have any accident statistics, but I bet they don't significantly differ to those of Oxford. If they did then I'm sure 20mph limits would also apply there too. Neonlights
  • Score: 1

10:58am Mon 2 Jun 14

oafie says...

Quentin Walker Unfair? The Law is the Law and training courses have nothing at all to do with it, drivers were trained to adhere to speed limits when they learned to drive. Further 'training' is unfair to those who stick to the limits.


Quentin the law is the law, but action is only taken if and when the police feel like doing so............
Quentin Walker Unfair? The Law is the Law and training courses have nothing at all to do with it, drivers were trained to adhere to speed limits when they learned to drive. Further 'training' is unfair to those who stick to the limits. Quentin the law is the law, but action is only taken if and when the police feel like doing so............ oafie
  • Score: -6

11:21am Mon 2 Jun 14

howardl says...

I'm all for it, I would say 90% don't stick to 20mph,
When I drive in a 20 i get tailgaters...this will slow them down , if, it's enforced.
Are bus drivers exempt?, quite often they ignore the rule , especially in Morrell Av
I'm all for it, I would say 90% don't stick to 20mph, When I drive in a 20 i get tailgaters...this will slow them down , if, it's enforced. Are bus drivers exempt?, quite often they ignore the rule , especially in Morrell Av howardl
  • Score: 23

11:24am Mon 2 Jun 14

fat Barry says...

Good, it's about time the police started enforcing the 20mph limits.
Maybe they could start checking speeds on a road near where I live, Crowell Road / Littlemore Road / Cowley Road. This is one road, with a 20mph limit, which I would say 99 or even 100 percent of drivers ignore the 20 limit.
Good, it's about time the police started enforcing the 20mph limits. Maybe they could start checking speeds on a road near where I live, Crowell Road / Littlemore Road / Cowley Road. This is one road, with a 20mph limit, which I would say 99 or even 100 percent of drivers ignore the 20 limit. fat Barry
  • Score: 24

11:42am Mon 2 Jun 14

olafpalme says...

Excellent news. I would not be surprised if there is even a reduction in congestion as cars will have to filter into bottlenecks at a reduced rate (note the reason for variable motorway limits).
Excellent news. I would not be surprised if there is even a reduction in congestion as cars will have to filter into bottlenecks at a reduced rate (note the reason for variable motorway limits). olafpalme
  • Score: 8

11:47am Mon 2 Jun 14

howardl says...

fat Barry wrote:
Good, it's about time the police started enforcing the 20mph limits.
Maybe they could start checking speeds on a road near where I live, Crowell Road / Littlemore Road / Cowley Road. This is one road, with a 20mph limit, which I would say 99 or even 100 percent of drivers ignore the 20 limit.
Not 100% mate..I drive down that rd often.
[quote][p][bold]fat Barry[/bold] wrote: Good, it's about time the police started enforcing the 20mph limits. Maybe they could start checking speeds on a road near where I live, Crowell Road / Littlemore Road / Cowley Road. This is one road, with a 20mph limit, which I would say 99 or even 100 percent of drivers ignore the 20 limit.[/p][/quote]Not 100% mate..I drive down that rd often. howardl
  • Score: -1

12:17pm Mon 2 Jun 14

yabbadabbadoo256 says...

Remind me that the next time I get overtaken by a member of the lycra brigade in St Giles when Im doing 20mph
Remind me that the next time I get overtaken by a member of the lycra brigade in St Giles when Im doing 20mph yabbadabbadoo256
  • Score: -7

12:27pm Mon 2 Jun 14

fat Barry says...

howardl wrote:
fat Barry wrote:
Good, it's about time the police started enforcing the 20mph limits.
Maybe they could start checking speeds on a road near where I live, Crowell Road / Littlemore Road / Cowley Road. This is one road, with a 20mph limit, which I would say 99 or even 100 percent of drivers ignore the 20 limit.
Not 100% mate..I drive down that rd often.
OK howardl, you must be one of the few who obey the limit then.
I'll retract my '99 to 100 percent' remark, and replace it with 'the majority of drivers ignore the 20 limit'.
[quote][p][bold]howardl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fat Barry[/bold] wrote: Good, it's about time the police started enforcing the 20mph limits. Maybe they could start checking speeds on a road near where I live, Crowell Road / Littlemore Road / Cowley Road. This is one road, with a 20mph limit, which I would say 99 or even 100 percent of drivers ignore the 20 limit.[/p][/quote]Not 100% mate..I drive down that rd often.[/p][/quote]OK howardl, you must be one of the few who obey the limit then. I'll retract my '99 to 100 percent' remark, and replace it with 'the majority of drivers ignore the 20 limit'. fat Barry
  • Score: 15

12:36pm Mon 2 Jun 14

Floflo says...

yabbadabbadoo256 wrote:
Remind me that the next time I get overtaken by a member of the lycra brigade in St Giles when Im doing 20mph
That's weird. Why only cyclists in lycra? Don't you get irritated by any other 'brigades' (ie 'people') overtaking you?
[quote][p][bold]yabbadabbadoo256[/bold] wrote: Remind me that the next time I get overtaken by a member of the lycra brigade in St Giles when Im doing 20mph[/p][/quote]That's weird. Why only cyclists in lycra? Don't you get irritated by any other 'brigades' (ie 'people') overtaking you? Floflo
  • Score: 15

2:00pm Mon 2 Jun 14

Cityview says...

Floflo wrote:
yabbadabbadoo256 wrote:
Remind me that the next time I get overtaken by a member of the lycra brigade in St Giles when Im doing 20mph
That's weird. Why only cyclists in lycra? Don't you get irritated by any other 'brigades' (ie 'people') overtaking you?
Before we get any more ill informed comments please note all road speed limits only apply to motorised vehicles required by law to be fitted with a speedometer. So if you wish to cycle, ride your horse or run (Usain Bolt?) at over 20mph in a 20mph limit you can't get done for speeding. You can however get done under other legislation for cycling or riding your horse recklessly if that's the case.

Seems a bit weird when my properly calibrated bike speedometer or my gps is much more accurate than any car speedometer which is required to be at least 3% fast and more likely 10%.
[quote][p][bold]Floflo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yabbadabbadoo256[/bold] wrote: Remind me that the next time I get overtaken by a member of the lycra brigade in St Giles when Im doing 20mph[/p][/quote]That's weird. Why only cyclists in lycra? Don't you get irritated by any other 'brigades' (ie 'people') overtaking you?[/p][/quote]Before we get any more ill informed comments please note all road speed limits only apply to motorised vehicles required by law to be fitted with a speedometer. So if you wish to cycle, ride your horse or run (Usain Bolt?) at over 20mph in a 20mph limit you can't get done for speeding. You can however get done under other legislation for cycling or riding your horse recklessly if that's the case. Seems a bit weird when my properly calibrated bike speedometer or my gps is much more accurate than any car speedometer which is required to be at least 3% fast and more likely 10%. Cityview
  • Score: 0

2:10pm Mon 2 Jun 14

robbo81 says...

Might fit a speedo on my push bike and see how much over 20mph I can cycle. Just for a laugh.

Seriously though is this the most pointless thing in the city? Can anyone give me a concrete reason for the limit? and don't say hitting a child at 20mph has a 30% lower chance of killing them than at 30mph. Because that feeble argument only counts if you actually hit someone. And lets be honest I never have, hopefully I never will. But I'd find little comfort in knowing that rather than kill them then instead be in a state of vegetation or without a leg.

As the chap in the article noted you drive to the conditions. When it's chucking it down with rain I alter my speed on a motorway to cope with the condition. When I drive around East Oxford I drive at a slower pace due to the parked cars. I fail to see why wide roads like London Road or Banbury Road/St Giles should be subjected to this ridiculous limit.

Perhaps the pedestrians and cyclists should be educated about the dangers of roads and cars.

Does the OM have the statistics on accidents on the roads from collision of vehicle with pedestrian/bike prior to and following the 20mph limit? I'd be keen to see how high that figure was/is, how many accidents were the fault of the driver. How many were mainly contributed to by speed of vehicle and how many resulted in a fatality.
Might fit a speedo on my push bike and see how much over 20mph I can cycle. Just for a laugh. Seriously though is this the most pointless thing in the city? Can anyone give me a concrete reason for the limit? and don't say hitting a child at 20mph has a 30% lower chance of killing them than at 30mph. Because that feeble argument only counts if you actually hit someone. And lets be honest I never have, hopefully I never will. But I'd find little comfort in knowing that rather than kill them then instead be in a state of vegetation or without a leg. As the chap in the article noted you drive to the conditions. When it's chucking it down with rain I alter my speed on a motorway to cope with the condition. When I drive around East Oxford I drive at a slower pace due to the parked cars. I fail to see why wide roads like London Road or Banbury Road/St Giles should be subjected to this ridiculous limit. Perhaps the pedestrians and cyclists should be educated about the dangers of roads and cars. Does the OM have the statistics on accidents on the roads from collision of vehicle with pedestrian/bike prior to and following the 20mph limit? I'd be keen to see how high that figure was/is, how many accidents were the fault of the driver. How many were mainly contributed to by speed of vehicle and how many resulted in a fatality. robbo81
  • Score: 7

2:58pm Mon 2 Jun 14

olafpalme says...

robbo81
"and don't say hitting a child at 20mph has a 30% lower chance of killing them than at 30mph. Because that feeble argument only counts if you actually hit someone. And lets be honest I never have, hopefully I never will. But I'd find little comfort in knowing that rather than kill them then instead be in a state of vegetation or without a leg. "
-----
How breathtaking, to see God, a.k.a. robbo81, chipping in here in the OM comments section. Maybe the limit should be increased to 60mph, `if conditions suit' so that no more pesky `injuries' need trouble the NHS.

The stats for 20 vs. 30 are clear. As are stats for who causes accidents (almost always the driver). Hint: there is a thing called The Google.

Interesting your admission that the thing that slows you down is parked cars... not the safety of other road users i.e. human beings. All the more reason to introduce strict 20 mph controls.
robbo81 "and don't say hitting a child at 20mph has a 30% lower chance of killing them than at 30mph. Because that feeble argument only counts if you actually hit someone. And lets be honest I never have, hopefully I never will. But I'd find little comfort in knowing that rather than kill them then instead be in a state of vegetation or without a leg. " ----- How breathtaking, to see God, a.k.a. robbo81, chipping in here in the OM comments section. Maybe the limit should be increased to 60mph, `if conditions suit' so that no more pesky `injuries' need trouble the NHS. The stats for 20 vs. 30 are clear. As are stats for who causes accidents (almost always the driver). Hint: there is a thing called The Google. Interesting your admission that the thing that slows you down is parked cars... not the safety of other road users i.e. human beings. All the more reason to introduce strict 20 mph controls. olafpalme
  • Score: 11

3:14pm Mon 2 Jun 14

Steve Smith 1980 says...

20 limits are horrid as a motorcyclist. In wide roads you get buses and cars going past on both sides and on minor roads you get cyclists undertaking you in the most dangerous ways. They are almost as bad in a car with cyclists undertaking on small roads and buses tale gating you down St Giles. As a cyclist they are no different to any other limit, unless you are fit enough to sustain over 20mph, which few are, but those who can, and think it is sensible to do so in the city center, threaten both cyclists and car drivers as they weave in and out. As a pedestrian they are no help at all as the traffic just bunches up.

In principle they are a good idea, but they have been far to liberally applied in Oxford. I can understand, and encourage, them on housing estates or purely residential areas, but the council went to far.
20 limits are horrid as a motorcyclist. In wide roads you get buses and cars going past on both sides and on minor roads you get cyclists undertaking you in the most dangerous ways. They are almost as bad in a car with cyclists undertaking on small roads and buses tale gating you down St Giles. As a cyclist they are no different to any other limit, unless you are fit enough to sustain over 20mph, which few are, but those who can, and think it is sensible to do so in the city center, threaten both cyclists and car drivers as they weave in and out. As a pedestrian they are no help at all as the traffic just bunches up. In principle they are a good idea, but they have been far to liberally applied in Oxford. I can understand, and encourage, them on housing estates or purely residential areas, but the council went to far. Steve Smith 1980
  • Score: 9

4:06pm Mon 2 Jun 14

deedee444 says...

Ahhhhhhhhhh the coffers must be a bit empty......I KNOW....lets fleece the motorists again....easy peasy...........20mp
h is **** ridiculous
Ahhhhhhhhhh the coffers must be a bit empty......I KNOW....lets fleece the motorists again....easy peasy...........20mp h is **** ridiculous deedee444
  • Score: -8

4:46pm Mon 2 Jun 14

melyn am byth says...

Why are motorists totally responsible for road safety in this city?
Other road users appear to get away scot free. Roads are dangerous places, to use them in any way requires a degree of responsibility.
The 20mph limit is lamentable.
I totally agree with Kevin Wallington, 20mph is ludicrous.
Why are motorists totally responsible for road safety in this city? Other road users appear to get away scot free. Roads are dangerous places, to use them in any way requires a degree of responsibility. The 20mph limit is lamentable. I totally agree with Kevin Wallington, 20mph is ludicrous. melyn am byth
  • Score: -7

5:13pm Mon 2 Jun 14

The New Private Eye says...

20 mph on most main roads in our city. The police said that they would not enforce them because they contribute to road safety not one bit. Then Rodney Rose got onto the OM and pressurised TVP to enforce them, TVP then did this but at a sensible level of 32mph, Rodney Rose then admitted that he had made a mistake and that the 20mph in some streets was a mistake, but that he would not correct his mistake. So we now have a situation where all of the authorities admit that the 20mph IS a mistake. But we will now be persecuted, and lose our licences and jobs because of a fu(k up in the council. Well done to all involved, especially RODNEY ROSE, you big banker
20 mph on most main roads in our city. The police said that they would not enforce them because they contribute to road safety not one bit. Then Rodney Rose got onto the OM and pressurised TVP to enforce them, TVP then did this but at a sensible level of 32mph, Rodney Rose then admitted that he had made a mistake and that the 20mph in some streets was a mistake, but that he would not correct his mistake. So we now have a situation where all of the authorities admit that the 20mph IS a mistake. But we will now be persecuted, and lose our licences and jobs because of a fu(k up in the council. Well done to all involved, especially RODNEY ROSE, you big banker The New Private Eye
  • Score: 2

6:12pm Mon 2 Jun 14

Floflo says...

Regardless of if you understand why speed limits are in place or not it's quite simple - sick to the speed limits and you will not loose your license or get fined.

If you are not capable of driving within the law, for instance you struggle to drive and check your speed at the same time, then you really shouldn't be driving.
Regardless of if you understand why speed limits are in place or not it's quite simple - sick to the speed limits and you will not loose your license or get fined. If you are not capable of driving within the law, for instance you struggle to drive and check your speed at the same time, then you really shouldn't be driving. Floflo
  • Score: 12

6:19pm Mon 2 Jun 14

howardl says...

deedee444 wrote:
Ahhhhhhhhhh the coffers must be a bit empty......I KNOW....lets fleece the motorists again....easy peasy...........20mp

h is **** ridiculous
Don't give them money...don't speed!
[quote][p][bold]deedee444[/bold] wrote: Ahhhhhhhhhh the coffers must be a bit empty......I KNOW....lets fleece the motorists again....easy peasy...........20mp h is **** ridiculous[/p][/quote]Don't give them money...don't speed! howardl
  • Score: 13

6:30pm Mon 2 Jun 14

John Lamb says...

Don't speed, buy speed.
Drug offences carry much smaller penalties, judging by the Scales of 'Justice' page.
Don't speed, buy speed. Drug offences carry much smaller penalties, judging by the Scales of 'Justice' page. John Lamb
  • Score: 9

7:19pm Mon 2 Jun 14

faatmaan says...

is this measure for safety or tax collection ? whist there are streets in Oxford that need this limit, it should not be seen as panacea for all of Oxfords transport problems and the councils inability to organise the proverbial **** up in a brewery yet sort out the real traffic problems this city has, the blinkered approach needs to be ditched. Why would any car manufacturer see any reason to have major production facilities in a city that is so anti car, this is now the 21st century, the vested interests would rather have the car user either walking or using horse and cart, with motorised transport set aside for the well to do. Now get back to work you filthy peasants and let the rest of them enjoy their prosperity without interference of the lower life forms !
is this measure for safety or tax collection ? whist there are streets in Oxford that need this limit, it should not be seen as panacea for all of Oxfords transport problems and the councils inability to organise the proverbial **** up in a brewery yet sort out the real traffic problems this city has, the blinkered approach needs to be ditched. Why would any car manufacturer see any reason to have major production facilities in a city that is so anti car, this is now the 21st century, the vested interests would rather have the car user either walking or using horse and cart, with motorised transport set aside for the well to do. Now get back to work you filthy peasants and let the rest of them enjoy their prosperity without interference of the lower life forms ! faatmaan
  • Score: -1

11:55pm Mon 2 Jun 14

Oflife says...

oafie wrote:
Quentin Walker Unfair? The Law is the Law and training courses have nothing at all to do with it, drivers were trained to adhere to speed limits when they learned to drive. Further 'training' is unfair to those who stick to the limits.


Quentin the law is the law, but action is only taken if and when the police feel like doing so............
Well done capitulating to the repressive dystopian hell hole that is Oxford, a pretty but ultra left wing money making machine with the ethics of the regimes it supports abroad. As others have pointed out, speed needs to depend on conditions, NOT the speed limit, which used to be a guide only until the authorities realised how much money they could make.

I frequent Swindon where they have done the reverse, and see no accidents.

Oxford will make a killing from visitors who will NOT spot the tiny 20mph signs and assume the limit is the more normal and common sense 30 or even 40 mph in other cities.

Cyclists are not killed by speeding motorists (you won't find one incidence of this in Oxford), they are killed because they don't ride safely. I have been riding around Oxford for a decade without incident. Young people no longer do the cycling proficiency test, so have no idea how to ride.

This country is making money off decent people whilst allowing criminals and repressive groups (such as those in Tower Hamlets London and Birmingham) get away with it. I wonder why? Power!
[quote][p][bold]oafie[/bold] wrote: Quentin Walker Unfair? The Law is the Law and training courses have nothing at all to do with it, drivers were trained to adhere to speed limits when they learned to drive. Further 'training' is unfair to those who stick to the limits. Quentin the law is the law, but action is only taken if and when the police feel like doing so............[/p][/quote]Well done capitulating to the repressive dystopian hell hole that is Oxford, a pretty but ultra left wing money making machine with the ethics of the regimes it supports abroad. As others have pointed out, speed needs to depend on conditions, NOT the speed limit, which used to be a guide only until the authorities realised how much money they could make. I frequent Swindon where they have done the reverse, and see no accidents. Oxford will make a killing from visitors who will NOT spot the tiny 20mph signs and assume the limit is the more normal and common sense 30 or even 40 mph in other cities. Cyclists are not killed by speeding motorists (you won't find one incidence of this in Oxford), they are killed because they don't ride safely. I have been riding around Oxford for a decade without incident. Young people no longer do the cycling proficiency test, so have no idea how to ride. This country is making money off decent people whilst allowing criminals and repressive groups (such as those in Tower Hamlets London and Birmingham) get away with it. I wonder why? Power! Oflife
  • Score: -4

11:56pm Mon 2 Jun 14

Oflife says...

robbo81 wrote:
Might fit a speedo on my push bike and see how much over 20mph I can cycle. Just for a laugh.

Seriously though is this the most pointless thing in the city? Can anyone give me a concrete reason for the limit? and don't say hitting a child at 20mph has a 30% lower chance of killing them than at 30mph. Because that feeble argument only counts if you actually hit someone. And lets be honest I never have, hopefully I never will. But I'd find little comfort in knowing that rather than kill them then instead be in a state of vegetation or without a leg.

As the chap in the article noted you drive to the conditions. When it's chucking it down with rain I alter my speed on a motorway to cope with the condition. When I drive around East Oxford I drive at a slower pace due to the parked cars. I fail to see why wide roads like London Road or Banbury Road/St Giles should be subjected to this ridiculous limit.

Perhaps the pedestrians and cyclists should be educated about the dangers of roads and cars.

Does the OM have the statistics on accidents on the roads from collision of vehicle with pedestrian/bike prior to and following the 20mph limit? I'd be keen to see how high that figure was/is, how many accidents were the fault of the driver. How many were mainly contributed to by speed of vehicle and how many resulted in a fatality.
Spot on!
[quote][p][bold]robbo81[/bold] wrote: Might fit a speedo on my push bike and see how much over 20mph I can cycle. Just for a laugh. Seriously though is this the most pointless thing in the city? Can anyone give me a concrete reason for the limit? and don't say hitting a child at 20mph has a 30% lower chance of killing them than at 30mph. Because that feeble argument only counts if you actually hit someone. And lets be honest I never have, hopefully I never will. But I'd find little comfort in knowing that rather than kill them then instead be in a state of vegetation or without a leg. As the chap in the article noted you drive to the conditions. When it's chucking it down with rain I alter my speed on a motorway to cope with the condition. When I drive around East Oxford I drive at a slower pace due to the parked cars. I fail to see why wide roads like London Road or Banbury Road/St Giles should be subjected to this ridiculous limit. Perhaps the pedestrians and cyclists should be educated about the dangers of roads and cars. Does the OM have the statistics on accidents on the roads from collision of vehicle with pedestrian/bike prior to and following the 20mph limit? I'd be keen to see how high that figure was/is, how many accidents were the fault of the driver. How many were mainly contributed to by speed of vehicle and how many resulted in a fatality.[/p][/quote]Spot on! Oflife
  • Score: 4

8:32am Tue 3 Jun 14

the wizard says...

20mph limit on St Giles is a farce, in a residential street fair enough, I've no problem with that. The main problem is Rodney Rose as others have pointed out. What a wick ! doesn't even correct his own mistakes, complete Banker.
20mph limit on St Giles is a farce, in a residential street fair enough, I've no problem with that. The main problem is Rodney Rose as others have pointed out. What a wick ! doesn't even correct his own mistakes, complete Banker. the wizard
  • Score: 2

10:15am Tue 3 Jun 14

shippondame says...

It not just the 20 mph zones that need a crackdown on speeding drivers. The A34 has a 50mph limit where it runs through Botley. Flashing signs are not making any difference to drivers speeding in excess of the 50mph limit in this area.
Last Thursday I was overtaken in this 50mph limit area of the A34 by 40-foot trucks and all and sundry. Drivers ignore the speed limit, introduced to protect the health of residents living alongside the A34 in Botley, because they know the police will do nothing.
If you have a deterrent against breaking a rule and fail to use it when people transgress, those transgressions will multiply. The Thames Valley Police have failed the people of Botley in this matter. Installing speed cameras and having draconian fines will solve the problem. Wake up Traffic Police managers, you are as bad as our mainstream politicians, you do not listen to ordinary people's genuine, profound concerns.
It not just the 20 mph zones that need a crackdown on speeding drivers. The A34 has a 50mph limit where it runs through Botley. Flashing signs are not making any difference to drivers speeding in excess of the 50mph limit in this area. Last Thursday I was overtaken in this 50mph limit area of the A34 by 40-foot trucks and all and sundry. Drivers ignore the speed limit, introduced to protect the health of residents living alongside the A34 in Botley, because they know the police will do nothing. If you have a deterrent against breaking a rule and fail to use it when people transgress, those transgressions will multiply. The Thames Valley Police have failed the people of Botley in this matter. Installing speed cameras and having draconian fines will solve the problem. Wake up Traffic Police managers, you are as bad as our mainstream politicians, you do not listen to ordinary people's genuine, profound concerns. shippondame
  • Score: 2

1:24pm Tue 3 Jun 14

yabbadabbadoo256 says...

Steve Smith 1980 wrote:
20 limits are horrid as a motorcyclist. In wide roads you get buses and cars going past on both sides and on minor roads you get cyclists undertaking you in the most dangerous ways. They are almost as bad in a car with cyclists undertaking on small roads and buses tale gating you down St Giles. As a cyclist they are no different to any other limit, unless you are fit enough to sustain over 20mph, which few are, but those who can, and think it is sensible to do so in the city center, threaten both cyclists and car drivers as they weave in and out. As a pedestrian they are no help at all as the traffic just bunches up.

In principle they are a good idea, but they have been far to liberally applied in Oxford. I can understand, and encourage, them on housing estates or purely residential areas, but the council went to far.
exactly my point that the lycra brigade have choosen to ignore sir.

there is nothing more dangerous than sticking to 20 in a straight line while having to grow extra eyes in all sides of your head to ensure cyclists are not undertaking, overtaking or god knows what.

At least if your doing 30, you can approach cyclists from behind, give them a wide berth when you overtake and move on having them passing you from random sides and directions while you try and overtake the slower ones at 20 makes it twice as dangerous
[quote][p][bold]Steve Smith 1980[/bold] wrote: 20 limits are horrid as a motorcyclist. In wide roads you get buses and cars going past on both sides and on minor roads you get cyclists undertaking you in the most dangerous ways. They are almost as bad in a car with cyclists undertaking on small roads and buses tale gating you down St Giles. As a cyclist they are no different to any other limit, unless you are fit enough to sustain over 20mph, which few are, but those who can, and think it is sensible to do so in the city center, threaten both cyclists and car drivers as they weave in and out. As a pedestrian they are no help at all as the traffic just bunches up. In principle they are a good idea, but they have been far to liberally applied in Oxford. I can understand, and encourage, them on housing estates or purely residential areas, but the council went to far.[/p][/quote]exactly my point that the lycra brigade have choosen to ignore sir. there is nothing more dangerous than sticking to 20 in a straight line while having to grow extra eyes in all sides of your head to ensure cyclists are not undertaking, overtaking or god knows what. At least if your doing 30, you can approach cyclists from behind, give them a wide berth when you overtake and move on having them passing you from random sides and directions while you try and overtake the slower ones at 20 makes it twice as dangerous yabbadabbadoo256
  • Score: -1

3:26pm Tue 3 Jun 14

EMBOX2 says...

"The main problem is Rodney Rose as others have pointed out."

I once argued with him on Radio Oxford, over parking charges. I pointed out that it was (and still is) cheaper to NOT pay and display, and pay the fine within 14 days than it is to park for 10 hrs or more in the Westgate car park.

But anyway, Rodney won't correct his mistake as there would be an inquiry, committees formed and numerous jobs for pen-pushers. That all costs money. So we'll just have to live with it.

Coming soon to a street near you: a man with a red flag walking in front of traffic.
"The main problem is Rodney Rose as others have pointed out." I once argued with him on Radio Oxford, over parking charges. I pointed out that it was (and still is) cheaper to NOT pay and display, and pay the fine within 14 days than it is to park for 10 hrs or more in the Westgate car park. But anyway, Rodney won't correct his mistake as there would be an inquiry, committees formed and numerous jobs for pen-pushers. That all costs money. So we'll just have to live with it. Coming soon to a street near you: a man with a red flag walking in front of traffic. EMBOX2
  • Score: 2

6:02pm Tue 3 Jun 14

Madi50n says...

Aaaaw, the poor ickle motorists having to stick to a speed limit just like they promised to do when they passed their test and signed for their driving licence, my heart bleeds.

I was walking along st Giles today when a toolmaster van was pulled over for zooming away from the lights, laugh? I nearly fell over, the guy
looked like he was sucking a lemon.

It's pretty straight forward, regardless of why the speed limit is there, (and see that word "limit", it's the maximum speed, not a target), as a motorist you are obliged not to exceed it.

Don't like it? Tough!

Can't do that? Hand your licence in, because you don't belong on the road.
Aaaaw, the poor ickle motorists having to stick to a speed limit just like they promised to do when they passed their test and signed for their driving licence, my heart bleeds. I was walking along st Giles today when a toolmaster van was pulled over for zooming away from the lights, laugh? I nearly fell over, the guy looked like he was sucking a lemon. It's pretty straight forward, regardless of why the speed limit is there, (and see that word "limit", it's the maximum speed, not a target), as a motorist you are obliged not to exceed it. Don't like it? Tough! Can't do that? Hand your licence in, because you don't belong on the road. Madi50n
  • Score: 16

1:41pm Wed 4 Jun 14

Norbert66 says...

yabbadabbadoo256 wrote:
Steve Smith 1980 wrote:
20 limits are horrid as a motorcyclist. In wide roads you get buses and cars going past on both sides and on minor roads you get cyclists undertaking you in the most dangerous ways. They are almost as bad in a car with cyclists undertaking on small roads and buses tale gating you down St Giles. As a cyclist they are no different to any other limit, unless you are fit enough to sustain over 20mph, which few are, but those who can, and think it is sensible to do so in the city center, threaten both cyclists and car drivers as they weave in and out. As a pedestrian they are no help at all as the traffic just bunches up.

In principle they are a good idea, but they have been far to liberally applied in Oxford. I can understand, and encourage, them on housing estates or purely residential areas, but the council went to far.
exactly my point that the lycra brigade have choosen to ignore sir.

there is nothing more dangerous than sticking to 20 in a straight line while having to grow extra eyes in all sides of your head to ensure cyclists are not undertaking, overtaking or god knows what.

At least if your doing 30, you can approach cyclists from behind, give them a wide berth when you overtake and move on having them passing you from random sides and directions while you try and overtake the slower ones at 20 makes it twice as dangerous
Could not agree more!

Add the fact that your eyes are now forced to spend more time 'in the cockpit' checking you speed.
End result = mowing down pedestrians/cyclists etc. But at least you are not committing the heinous act of speeding (which has also been pointed out, carries a heftier penalty than drug possession or 'taking a vehicle without the owners permission')
I find myself spending all day, constantly on the brake (sorry I own a vehicle that is capable of maintaining motorway speeds)
Am bound to get the nonsensical retort of "hand your licence back" However, after 25 yrs of accident-free., violation-free motoring, this speed limit is rapidly increasing my chances of ruining that (and someone else's life)
[quote][p][bold]yabbadabbadoo256[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Steve Smith 1980[/bold] wrote: 20 limits are horrid as a motorcyclist. In wide roads you get buses and cars going past on both sides and on minor roads you get cyclists undertaking you in the most dangerous ways. They are almost as bad in a car with cyclists undertaking on small roads and buses tale gating you down St Giles. As a cyclist they are no different to any other limit, unless you are fit enough to sustain over 20mph, which few are, but those who can, and think it is sensible to do so in the city center, threaten both cyclists and car drivers as they weave in and out. As a pedestrian they are no help at all as the traffic just bunches up. In principle they are a good idea, but they have been far to liberally applied in Oxford. I can understand, and encourage, them on housing estates or purely residential areas, but the council went to far.[/p][/quote]exactly my point that the lycra brigade have choosen to ignore sir. there is nothing more dangerous than sticking to 20 in a straight line while having to grow extra eyes in all sides of your head to ensure cyclists are not undertaking, overtaking or god knows what. At least if your doing 30, you can approach cyclists from behind, give them a wide berth when you overtake and move on having them passing you from random sides and directions while you try and overtake the slower ones at 20 makes it twice as dangerous[/p][/quote]Could not agree more! Add the fact that your eyes are now forced to spend more time 'in the cockpit' checking you speed. End result = mowing down pedestrians/cyclists etc. But at least you are not committing the heinous act of speeding (which has also been pointed out, carries a heftier penalty than drug possession or 'taking a vehicle without the owners permission') I find myself spending all day, constantly on the brake (sorry I own a vehicle that is capable of maintaining motorway speeds) Am bound to get the nonsensical retort of "hand your licence back" However, after 25 yrs of accident-free., violation-free motoring, this speed limit is rapidly increasing my chances of ruining that (and someone else's life) Norbert66
  • Score: -9

12:53pm Thu 5 Jun 14

The New Private Eye says...

Madi50n wrote:
Aaaaw, the poor ickle motorists having to stick to a speed limit just like they promised to do when they passed their test and signed for their driving licence, my heart bleeds.

I was walking along st Giles today when a toolmaster van was pulled over for zooming away from the lights, laugh? I nearly fell over, the guy
looked like he was sucking a lemon.

It's pretty straight forward, regardless of why the speed limit is there, (and see that word "limit", it's the maximum speed, not a target), as a motorist you are obliged not to exceed it.

Don't like it? Tough!

Can't do that? Hand your licence in, because you don't belong on the road.
Yours is a classic typical quote from a cyclist. You tell motorists to stick to the law, even as in this case when it is wrong, yet all we hear from cyclists when on the rare occasions the police do a zero tolerance ticketing exersize at traffic lights is that I didn't think I had to stop on red or it was safe for me to go through the red light officer. And then we have Cyclox saying among other things that cyclists should not be made to stop at red lights when turning left. So madison, do you think that the laws of the road are for all, or just the motor vehicle drivers, who I assume from your numerous posts on the subject, that you detest so much?
[quote][p][bold]Madi50n[/bold] wrote: Aaaaw, the poor ickle motorists having to stick to a speed limit just like they promised to do when they passed their test and signed for their driving licence, my heart bleeds. I was walking along st Giles today when a toolmaster van was pulled over for zooming away from the lights, laugh? I nearly fell over, the guy looked like he was sucking a lemon. It's pretty straight forward, regardless of why the speed limit is there, (and see that word "limit", it's the maximum speed, not a target), as a motorist you are obliged not to exceed it. Don't like it? Tough! Can't do that? Hand your licence in, because you don't belong on the road.[/p][/quote]Yours is a classic typical quote from a cyclist. You tell motorists to stick to the law, even as in this case when it is wrong, yet all we hear from cyclists when on the rare occasions the police do a zero tolerance ticketing exersize at traffic lights is that I didn't think I had to stop on red or it was safe for me to go through the red light officer. And then we have Cyclox saying among other things that cyclists should not be made to stop at red lights when turning left. So madison, do you think that the laws of the road are for all, or just the motor vehicle drivers, who I assume from your numerous posts on the subject, that you detest so much? The New Private Eye
  • Score: -7

1:02pm Thu 5 Jun 14

Eraser says...

olafpalme wrote:
robbo81
"and don't say hitting a child at 20mph has a 30% lower chance of killing them than at 30mph. Because that feeble argument only counts if you actually hit someone. And lets be honest I never have, hopefully I never will. But I'd find little comfort in knowing that rather than kill them then instead be in a state of vegetation or without a leg. "
-----
How breathtaking, to see God, a.k.a. robbo81, chipping in here in the OM comments section. Maybe the limit should be increased to 60mph, `if conditions suit' so that no more pesky `injuries' need trouble the NHS.

The stats for 20 vs. 30 are clear. As are stats for who causes accidents (almost always the driver). Hint: there is a thing called The Google.

Interesting your admission that the thing that slows you down is parked cars... not the safety of other road users i.e. human beings. All the more reason to introduce strict 20 mph controls.
Don't see how the stats can be clear. You're claiming hardly anyone does 20 therefore you are comparing 30mph in a 20 zone against 30mph in a 30 zone. It's all psychological - people see 30 signs and push it to 40, on motorways they invariably push to 80 so when they see 20 they push it to 30. 30 is a relatively safe speed. Keep the signs - bin the enforcement for speeds under 30.
[quote][p][bold]olafpalme[/bold] wrote: robbo81 "and don't say hitting a child at 20mph has a 30% lower chance of killing them than at 30mph. Because that feeble argument only counts if you actually hit someone. And lets be honest I never have, hopefully I never will. But I'd find little comfort in knowing that rather than kill them then instead be in a state of vegetation or without a leg. " ----- How breathtaking, to see God, a.k.a. robbo81, chipping in here in the OM comments section. Maybe the limit should be increased to 60mph, `if conditions suit' so that no more pesky `injuries' need trouble the NHS. The stats for 20 vs. 30 are clear. As are stats for who causes accidents (almost always the driver). Hint: there is a thing called The Google. Interesting your admission that the thing that slows you down is parked cars... not the safety of other road users i.e. human beings. All the more reason to introduce strict 20 mph controls.[/p][/quote]Don't see how the stats can be clear. You're claiming hardly anyone does 20 therefore you are comparing 30mph in a 20 zone against 30mph in a 30 zone. It's all psychological - people see 30 signs and push it to 40, on motorways they invariably push to 80 so when they see 20 they push it to 30. 30 is a relatively safe speed. Keep the signs - bin the enforcement for speeds under 30. Eraser
  • Score: -4

1:32pm Thu 5 Jun 14

Madi50n says...

The New Private Eye wrote:
Madi50n wrote:
Aaaaw, the poor ickle motorists having to stick to a speed limit just like they promised to do when they passed their test and signed for their driving licence, my heart bleeds.

I was walking along st Giles today when a toolmaster van was pulled over for zooming away from the lights, laugh? I nearly fell over, the guy
looked like he was sucking a lemon.

It's pretty straight forward, regardless of why the speed limit is there, (and see that word "limit", it's the maximum speed, not a target), as a motorist you are obliged not to exceed it.

Don't like it? Tough!

Can't do that? Hand your licence in, because you don't belong on the road.
Yours is a classic typical quote from a cyclist. You tell motorists to stick to the law, even as in this case when it is wrong, yet all we hear from cyclists when on the rare occasions the police do a zero tolerance ticketing exersize at traffic lights is that I didn't think I had to stop on red or it was safe for me to go through the red light officer. And then we have Cyclox saying among other things that cyclists should not be made to stop at red lights when turning left. So madison, do you think that the laws of the road are for all, or just the motor vehicle drivers, who I assume from your numerous posts on the subject, that you detest so much?
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

I quit cycling in Oxford because of the idiots that drive cars, taxis and buses. Far too dangerous.

I drive my car, and stick to the law, like I promised to do when I passed my test 22 years ago. Never had a point on my licence and hate drivers who think that they have no responsibility to other road users

I care little if cyclists break the law because, guess what? it has no effect on my life whatsoever when they do.

Fact 1: If they hit me, worst thing that'll happen to me is a bit of scratched paint.

Fact 2: I break the law and hit a cyclist or pedestrian worst thing that happens to them is serious injury or death.

Those are both facts. Hard to believe I know, but facts none the less.

So, do I think the laws of the road are for all? Yes, I do.

Do I care whether someone breaking the law and hitting me on their cycle will scratch a bit of paint? No.

Do I care whether someone breaking the law and hitting me with their car can cause serious injury or death? Yes.

And you are correct in my assumption that I detest motorists, I'll just add that it's most motorists I hate, the ones who think cars have more rights on the road that others and that they have no responsibility to everybody else. I really hate them, because they are the one keeping me in my car.
[quote][p][bold]The New Private Eye[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Madi50n[/bold] wrote: Aaaaw, the poor ickle motorists having to stick to a speed limit just like they promised to do when they passed their test and signed for their driving licence, my heart bleeds. I was walking along st Giles today when a toolmaster van was pulled over for zooming away from the lights, laugh? I nearly fell over, the guy looked like he was sucking a lemon. It's pretty straight forward, regardless of why the speed limit is there, (and see that word "limit", it's the maximum speed, not a target), as a motorist you are obliged not to exceed it. Don't like it? Tough! Can't do that? Hand your licence in, because you don't belong on the road.[/p][/quote]Yours is a classic typical quote from a cyclist. You tell motorists to stick to the law, even as in this case when it is wrong, yet all we hear from cyclists when on the rare occasions the police do a zero tolerance ticketing exersize at traffic lights is that I didn't think I had to stop on red or it was safe for me to go through the red light officer. And then we have Cyclox saying among other things that cyclists should not be made to stop at red lights when turning left. So madison, do you think that the laws of the road are for all, or just the motor vehicle drivers, who I assume from your numerous posts on the subject, that you detest so much?[/p][/quote]Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. I quit cycling in Oxford because of the idiots that drive cars, taxis and buses. Far too dangerous. I drive my car, and stick to the law, like I promised to do when I passed my test 22 years ago. Never had a point on my licence and hate drivers who think that they have no responsibility to other road users I care little if cyclists break the law because, guess what? it has no effect on my life whatsoever when they do. Fact 1: If they hit me, worst thing that'll happen to me is a bit of scratched paint. Fact 2: I break the law and hit a cyclist or pedestrian worst thing that happens to them is serious injury or death. Those are both facts. Hard to believe I know, but facts none the less. So, do I think the laws of the road are for all? Yes, I do. Do I care whether someone breaking the law and hitting me on their cycle will scratch a bit of paint? No. Do I care whether someone breaking the law and hitting me with their car can cause serious injury or death? Yes. And you are correct in my assumption that I detest motorists, I'll just add that it's most motorists I hate, the ones who think cars have more rights on the road that others and that they have no responsibility to everybody else. I really hate them, because they are the one keeping me in my car. Madi50n
  • Score: 11

2:18pm Thu 5 Jun 14

The New Private Eye says...

Madi50n wrote:
The New Private Eye wrote:
Madi50n wrote:
Aaaaw, the poor ickle motorists having to stick to a speed limit just like they promised to do when they passed their test and signed for their driving licence, my heart bleeds.

I was walking along st Giles today when a toolmaster van was pulled over for zooming away from the lights, laugh? I nearly fell over, the guy
looked like he was sucking a lemon.

It's pretty straight forward, regardless of why the speed limit is there, (and see that word "limit", it's the maximum speed, not a target), as a motorist you are obliged not to exceed it.

Don't like it? Tough!

Can't do that? Hand your licence in, because you don't belong on the road.
Yours is a classic typical quote from a cyclist. You tell motorists to stick to the law, even as in this case when it is wrong, yet all we hear from cyclists when on the rare occasions the police do a zero tolerance ticketing exersize at traffic lights is that I didn't think I had to stop on red or it was safe for me to go through the red light officer. And then we have Cyclox saying among other things that cyclists should not be made to stop at red lights when turning left. So madison, do you think that the laws of the road are for all, or just the motor vehicle drivers, who I assume from your numerous posts on the subject, that you detest so much?
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

I quit cycling in Oxford because of the idiots that drive cars, taxis and buses. Far too dangerous.

I drive my car, and stick to the law, like I promised to do when I passed my test 22 years ago. Never had a point on my licence and hate drivers who think that they have no responsibility to other road users

I care little if cyclists break the law because, guess what? it has no effect on my life whatsoever when they do.

Fact 1: If they hit me, worst thing that'll happen to me is a bit of scratched paint.

Fact 2: I break the law and hit a cyclist or pedestrian worst thing that happens to them is serious injury or death.

Those are both facts. Hard to believe I know, but facts none the less.

So, do I think the laws of the road are for all? Yes, I do.

Do I care whether someone breaking the law and hitting me on their cycle will scratch a bit of paint? No.

Do I care whether someone breaking the law and hitting me with their car can cause serious injury or death? Yes.

And you are correct in my assumption that I detest motorists, I'll just add that it's most motorists I hate, the ones who think cars have more rights on the road that others and that they have no responsibility to everybody else. I really hate them, because they are the one keeping me in my car.
Sorry but I have to leave it there. You obviously have no comprehension of the real world and sadly you are in a majority in Oxford. It is just a waste of time trying to put relevant points across when the lunatics have not only taken over the asylum, but the streets, our pubs, our newspaper comments section, and most disturbingly our council offices.
[quote][p][bold]Madi50n[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The New Private Eye[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Madi50n[/bold] wrote: Aaaaw, the poor ickle motorists having to stick to a speed limit just like they promised to do when they passed their test and signed for their driving licence, my heart bleeds. I was walking along st Giles today when a toolmaster van was pulled over for zooming away from the lights, laugh? I nearly fell over, the guy looked like he was sucking a lemon. It's pretty straight forward, regardless of why the speed limit is there, (and see that word "limit", it's the maximum speed, not a target), as a motorist you are obliged not to exceed it. Don't like it? Tough! Can't do that? Hand your licence in, because you don't belong on the road.[/p][/quote]Yours is a classic typical quote from a cyclist. You tell motorists to stick to the law, even as in this case when it is wrong, yet all we hear from cyclists when on the rare occasions the police do a zero tolerance ticketing exersize at traffic lights is that I didn't think I had to stop on red or it was safe for me to go through the red light officer. And then we have Cyclox saying among other things that cyclists should not be made to stop at red lights when turning left. So madison, do you think that the laws of the road are for all, or just the motor vehicle drivers, who I assume from your numerous posts on the subject, that you detest so much?[/p][/quote]Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. I quit cycling in Oxford because of the idiots that drive cars, taxis and buses. Far too dangerous. I drive my car, and stick to the law, like I promised to do when I passed my test 22 years ago. Never had a point on my licence and hate drivers who think that they have no responsibility to other road users I care little if cyclists break the law because, guess what? it has no effect on my life whatsoever when they do. Fact 1: If they hit me, worst thing that'll happen to me is a bit of scratched paint. Fact 2: I break the law and hit a cyclist or pedestrian worst thing that happens to them is serious injury or death. Those are both facts. Hard to believe I know, but facts none the less. So, do I think the laws of the road are for all? Yes, I do. Do I care whether someone breaking the law and hitting me on their cycle will scratch a bit of paint? No. Do I care whether someone breaking the law and hitting me with their car can cause serious injury or death? Yes. And you are correct in my assumption that I detest motorists, I'll just add that it's most motorists I hate, the ones who think cars have more rights on the road that others and that they have no responsibility to everybody else. I really hate them, because they are the one keeping me in my car.[/p][/quote]Sorry but I have to leave it there. You obviously have no comprehension of the real world and sadly you are in a majority in Oxford. It is just a waste of time trying to put relevant points across when the lunatics have not only taken over the asylum, but the streets, our pubs, our newspaper comments section, and most disturbingly our council offices. The New Private Eye
  • Score: -11

4:42pm Thu 5 Jun 14

grandconjuration says...

Come on Madi50n, you should have learnt by now. An article about speeding drivers will always attract the speeding-apologists and the usual uneducated anti-cycling loons.

Cyclists are seen as a minority group in the UK, while driving is the norm. They are an easy target to pick on despite the undeniable facts that the vast majority of harm on our roads and pavements are caused by those with four (or more) wheels and not two.

According to DfT statistics, 46% of cars exceed the speed limit on 30 mph roads. These are the roads where our children walk and cycle. According to ROSPA, 241 people are killed per year (2010 stats) in 'accidents' where a motor vehicle is exceeding the speed limit.

Speeding is endemic and a danger yet accepted. However, a cyclist is spotted on the pavement or running a red light (resulting in around 0 deaths per year) and the very fabric of our society is threatened! Indeed, reading comments on another recent OM article, it seems riding a bicycle on a pavement warrants a child to be attacked with a blade!

Have you still not picked up a copy of the Highway Code yet New Private Eye? Speed limits are compulsory.
Come on Madi50n, you should have learnt by now. An article about speeding drivers will always attract the speeding-apologists and the usual uneducated anti-cycling loons. Cyclists are seen as a minority group in the UK, while driving is the norm. They are an easy target to pick on despite the undeniable facts that the vast majority of harm on our roads and pavements are caused by those with four (or more) wheels and not two. According to DfT statistics, 46% of cars exceed the speed limit on 30 mph roads. These are the roads where our children walk and cycle. According to ROSPA, 241 people are killed per year (2010 stats) in 'accidents' where a motor vehicle is exceeding the speed limit. Speeding is endemic and a danger yet accepted. However, a cyclist is spotted on the pavement or running a red light (resulting in around 0 deaths per year) and the very fabric of our society is threatened! Indeed, reading comments on another recent OM article, it seems riding a bicycle on a pavement warrants a child to be attacked with a blade! Have you still not picked up a copy of the Highway Code yet New Private Eye? Speed limits are compulsory. grandconjuration
  • Score: 13

6:02pm Thu 5 Jun 14

Madi50n says...

I know GrandC, I got sucked in to the "Arguing with the ignorant" trap again.

I know that these drivers want to take as little responsibility as possible and ignore laws that they believe, rightly or wrongly, are put in place just to fleece them

I have to say speed limits are easy for me, I have a limiter on my car so can just hit the 20/30/40/50 setting and don't have to think about it. What's disconcerting is the drivers who sit on your tail because you're not speeding. A quick look in the rear view mirror and you can see them losing their minds because you are not breaking the law for them.

It's worse if you're giving space to a cyclist. I always wait til there's space to pass safely, but sometimes the driver behind is going ballistic. I've found myself not overtaking when I have the chance because I know it leaves the cyclist in the direct fire of that idiot.

I saw that article, really stupid some of the comments and, unfortunately, not surprising given the level of hatred towards what is, effectively, a pedestrian on a bit of metal with 2 wheels attached.
I know GrandC, I got sucked in to the "Arguing with the ignorant" trap again. I know that these drivers want to take as little responsibility as possible and ignore laws that they believe, rightly or wrongly, are put in place just to fleece them I have to say speed limits are easy for me, I have a limiter on my car so can just hit the 20/30/40/50 setting and don't have to think about it. What's disconcerting is the drivers who sit on your tail because you're not speeding. A quick look in the rear view mirror and you can see them losing their minds because you are not breaking the law for them. It's worse if you're giving space to a cyclist. I always wait til there's space to pass safely, but sometimes the driver behind is going ballistic. I've found myself not overtaking when I have the chance because I know it leaves the cyclist in the direct fire of that idiot. I saw that article, really stupid some of the comments and, unfortunately, not surprising given the level of hatred towards what is, effectively, a pedestrian on a bit of metal with 2 wheels attached. Madi50n
  • Score: 13

2:32pm Fri 6 Jun 14

livid99 says...

Perhaps if you and grandconjuration realised how far up your own a*se you appear to be, you might also realise that your supercillious and patronising posts are part of the reason why people make these comments.
Because that is the way of things here on the Oxford Mail - someone makes a VALID criticism of the inability of SOME cyclists to ride their bikes in a safe way - this is a fact, by the way, so don't try to deny it or turn the blame on motorists - and all the negative votes start appearing, then along comes either you or grandconjuration with your supercillious and verbose replies, usually containing insults or references to people's lack of intelligence or lack of education because they have dared to make a valid criticism of the untouchable cyclist.
You are so predictable. Its quite funny the level of denial you lot have. You are so quick to lay the blame on motorists, and yet cyclists can do no wrong.
Perhaps if you and grandconjuration realised how far up your own a*se you appear to be, you might also realise that your supercillious and patronising posts are part of the reason why people make these comments. Because that is the way of things here on the Oxford Mail - someone makes a VALID criticism of the inability of SOME cyclists to ride their bikes in a safe way - this is a fact, by the way, so don't try to deny it or turn the blame on motorists - and all the negative votes start appearing, then along comes either you or grandconjuration with your supercillious and verbose replies, usually containing insults or references to people's lack of intelligence or lack of education because they have dared to make a valid criticism of the untouchable cyclist. You are so predictable. Its quite funny the level of denial you lot have. You are so quick to lay the blame on motorists, and yet cyclists can do no wrong. livid99
  • Score: -6

3:30pm Fri 6 Jun 14

Madi50n says...

Okay Livid, here are some easy questions which I dare you to answer.

1. Is this article about cyclists?
2. Is it about cyclists breaking the law?
3. Did I say in any of my comments that cyclists don't break the law?

If you can answer Yes, so any of my questions, you might have a valid point.

However, as the answers are, No, No and No. Your comments that we:

"...don't try to deny it or turn the blame on motorists..."

is patently ridiculous.

This is an article about motorist that are breaking the law that the anti-cyclist brigade started criticising cyclists; basically, 'denying motorists break the law and turning the blame on cyclists.'

Cyclists can do wrong, that much is true, I have never, not once, in any comment I have ever posted, ever said the opposite. I challenge to find one where I do.

What I have said is that I don't gives a rat's a*** if a cyclist breaks the law because it has zero effect on my life, none, not a jot. Even if one ran me over on the pavement it wouldn't kill me, It'd probably do more damage to the cyclist. They put their own lives at risk going through red lights, they shouldn't, agreed, but does it have a single effect on my life? Nope.

What I care more about is the idiots in big metal machines that injure and kill on a daily basis, that's every single day livid, a fact you conveniently gloss over in your "Cyclists are the biggest danger in Oxford rants"

This article is about those idiots in cars breaking the law. How is it that it ended up with the usual "Cyclists break the law too." comments?

Could it be your "turning the blame" or could it be that people accept that some motorists break the law and that doesn't mean all of them do?

Something they are not willing to do with cyclists.

Please, answer the questions above, then see if you can find a time I have ever said cyclists can do no wrong. I dare you to post the answers on here, I also dare you to point out where I've said cyclists don't break the law.

I'll bet you don't, I'll bet good money you just ignore what I've actually said and go on another "you think all cyclists are angels" rant.
Okay Livid, here are some easy questions which I dare you to answer. 1. Is this article about cyclists? 2. Is it about cyclists breaking the law? 3. Did I say in any of my comments that cyclists don't break the law? If you can answer Yes, so any of my questions, you might have a valid point. However, as the answers are, No, No and No. Your comments that we: "...don't try to deny it or turn the blame on motorists..." is patently ridiculous. This is an article about motorist that are breaking the law that the anti-cyclist brigade started criticising cyclists; basically, 'denying motorists break the law and turning the blame on cyclists.' Cyclists can do wrong, that much is true, I have never, not once, in any comment I have ever posted, ever said the opposite. I challenge to find one where I do. What I have said is that I don't gives a rat's a*** if a cyclist breaks the law because it has zero effect on my life, none, not a jot. Even if one ran me over on the pavement it wouldn't kill me, It'd probably do more damage to the cyclist. They put their own lives at risk going through red lights, they shouldn't, agreed, but does it have a single effect on my life? Nope. What I care more about is the idiots in big metal machines that injure and kill on a daily basis, that's every single day livid, a fact you conveniently gloss over in your "Cyclists are the biggest danger in Oxford rants" This article is about those idiots in cars breaking the law. How is it that it ended up with the usual "Cyclists break the law too." comments? Could it be your "turning the blame" or could it be that people accept that some motorists break the law and that doesn't mean all of them do? Something they are not willing to do with cyclists. Please, answer the questions above, then see if you can find a time I have ever said cyclists can do no wrong. I dare you to post the answers on here, I also dare you to point out where I've said cyclists don't break the law. I'll bet you don't, I'll bet good money you just ignore what I've actually said and go on another "you think all cyclists are angels" rant. Madi50n
  • Score: 8

3:52pm Fri 6 Jun 14

Madi50n says...

Just to add, none of the "all cyclists are bad" brigade have ever given me an argument that has made me think I may be wrong.

I will continue to drive my car with the care, attention, and responsibility that having the privilege of a driving licence requires.

I shall do everything in my power to make sure I can avoid an accident, even if it that means making allowances for other peoples actions.

If that means taking care at green lights because somebody on a cycle may be coming through against the red, I'll happily do it, because that means I get home safely and so does the cyclist, who doesn't deserve to die because they went through a red light.

If that means if I have to check behind me turning left in case a cyclist comes up that side, I will.

That if I have to go a bit slowly on a town or country road to pass them safely, no matter.

That if I have wait a bit longer to pull away at the lights because they are in the advanced space, so what?

If I have to give way coming out of side roads to cyclists crossing, that's life.

If I have to make sure that when anyone, be they pedestrian, cyclist or motorist, does anything remotely stupid, I will be able to say I did everything I could to prevent the accident.

That's what I think my responsibility to other road users is. If that means I have my head up my ar*e. then yes, I really do have it rammed right up there.

But there is literally nothing, not a single d*mn thing, anyone, anywhere is ever going to be able to say that will make me change my behaviour behind the wheel.

Because, frankly, if you don't drive that way, and think there's any excuse for not doing so, you are a bad driver and don't deserve the privilege you have.
Just to add, none of the "all cyclists are bad" brigade have ever given me an argument that has made me think I may be wrong. I will continue to drive my car with the care, attention, and responsibility that having the privilege of a driving licence requires. I shall do everything in my power to make sure I can avoid an accident, even if it that means making allowances for other peoples actions. If that means taking care at green lights because somebody on a cycle may be coming through against the red, I'll happily do it, because that means I get home safely and so does the cyclist, who doesn't deserve to die because they went through a red light. If that means if I have to check behind me turning left in case a cyclist comes up that side, I will. That if I have to go a bit slowly on a town or country road to pass them safely, no matter. That if I have wait a bit longer to pull away at the lights because they are in the advanced space, so what? If I have to give way coming out of side roads to cyclists crossing, that's life. If I have to make sure that when anyone, be they pedestrian, cyclist or motorist, does anything remotely stupid, I will be able to say I did everything I could to prevent the accident. That's what I think my responsibility to other road users is. If that means I have my head up my ar*e. then yes, I really do have it rammed right up there. But there is literally nothing, not a single d*mn thing, anyone, anywhere is ever going to be able to say that will make me change my behaviour behind the wheel. Because, frankly, if you don't drive that way, and think there's any excuse for not doing so, you are a bad driver and don't deserve the privilege you have. Madi50n
  • Score: 3

8:27pm Fri 6 Jun 14

John Lamb says...

Christ on a bike!
Who made this about cyclists?
Christ on a bike! Who made this about cyclists? John Lamb
  • Score: 5

1:56am Sat 7 Jun 14

The New Private Eye says...

livid99 wrote:
Perhaps if you and grandconjuration realised how far up your own a*se you appear to be, you might also realise that your supercillious and patronising posts are part of the reason why people make these comments.
Because that is the way of things here on the Oxford Mail - someone makes a VALID criticism of the inability of SOME cyclists to ride their bikes in a safe way - this is a fact, by the way, so don't try to deny it or turn the blame on motorists - and all the negative votes start appearing, then along comes either you or grandconjuration with your supercillious and verbose replies, usually containing insults or references to people's lack of intelligence or lack of education because they have dared to make a valid criticism of the untouchable cyclist.
You are so predictable. Its quite funny the level of denial you lot have. You are so quick to lay the blame on motorists, and yet cyclists can do no wrong.
Very Well put Livid. Hammer, nail and head come to mind.
[quote][p][bold]livid99[/bold] wrote: Perhaps if you and grandconjuration realised how far up your own a*se you appear to be, you might also realise that your supercillious and patronising posts are part of the reason why people make these comments. Because that is the way of things here on the Oxford Mail - someone makes a VALID criticism of the inability of SOME cyclists to ride their bikes in a safe way - this is a fact, by the way, so don't try to deny it or turn the blame on motorists - and all the negative votes start appearing, then along comes either you or grandconjuration with your supercillious and verbose replies, usually containing insults or references to people's lack of intelligence or lack of education because they have dared to make a valid criticism of the untouchable cyclist. You are so predictable. Its quite funny the level of denial you lot have. You are so quick to lay the blame on motorists, and yet cyclists can do no wrong.[/p][/quote]Very Well put Livid. Hammer, nail and head come to mind. The New Private Eye
  • Score: -6

10:26am Sun 8 Jun 14

grandconjuration says...

The New Private Eye wrote:
livid99 wrote:
Perhaps if you and grandconjuration realised how far up your own a*se you appear to be, you might also realise that your supercillious and patronising posts are part of the reason why people make these comments.
Because that is the way of things here on the Oxford Mail - someone makes a VALID criticism of the inability of SOME cyclists to ride their bikes in a safe way - this is a fact, by the way, so don't try to deny it or turn the blame on motorists - and all the negative votes start appearing, then along comes either you or grandconjuration with your supercillious and verbose replies, usually containing insults or references to people's lack of intelligence or lack of education because they have dared to make a valid criticism of the untouchable cyclist.
You are so predictable. Its quite funny the level of denial you lot have. You are so quick to lay the blame on motorists, and yet cyclists can do no wrong.
Very Well put Livid. Hammer, nail and head come to mind.
Wow, it must have taken you ages to put together such a well-written and researched rebuttal to my earlier post.

Your predictable and rather tired comments suggest that you have not read the article. The article is about motorists who break speed limits. This article has absolutely nothing to do with cycling. You say, "you are so quick to lay the blame on motorists"; well when it comes to breaking speed limits I am, for it is the right foot of the motorist that presses the accelerator pedal and nobody else.

In another comments thread relating to a 15-year old boy being attacked, I note that you refer to the 'anti-car lot' and 'car-haters'. Why does the criticism of speeding drivers and those that attempt to normalise the breaking of speed limits make someone a car hater? Madi50n here makes frequent references to the fact that they are a motorist. I own two cars, and one of them is quite fast and even gets taken onto a track occasionally. Indeed, I spend much more time behind the wheel than I do behind handlebars.

Supporting the better enforcement of speed limits and the introduction of 20 mph zones in towns and cities does not mean make someone 'anti-car'. Our towns and cities have become far too car-centric and this needs to change. Public roads are not just for cars, they are for people.
[quote][p][bold]The New Private Eye[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]livid99[/bold] wrote: Perhaps if you and grandconjuration realised how far up your own a*se you appear to be, you might also realise that your supercillious and patronising posts are part of the reason why people make these comments. Because that is the way of things here on the Oxford Mail - someone makes a VALID criticism of the inability of SOME cyclists to ride their bikes in a safe way - this is a fact, by the way, so don't try to deny it or turn the blame on motorists - and all the negative votes start appearing, then along comes either you or grandconjuration with your supercillious and verbose replies, usually containing insults or references to people's lack of intelligence or lack of education because they have dared to make a valid criticism of the untouchable cyclist. You are so predictable. Its quite funny the level of denial you lot have. You are so quick to lay the blame on motorists, and yet cyclists can do no wrong.[/p][/quote]Very Well put Livid. Hammer, nail and head come to mind.[/p][/quote]Wow, it must have taken you ages to put together such a well-written and researched rebuttal to my earlier post. Your predictable and rather tired comments suggest that you have not read the article. The article is about motorists who break speed limits. This article has absolutely nothing to do with cycling. You say, "you are so quick to lay the blame on motorists"; well when it comes to breaking speed limits I am, for it is the right foot of the motorist that presses the accelerator pedal and nobody else. In another comments thread relating to a 15-year old boy being attacked, I note that you refer to the 'anti-car lot' and 'car-haters'. Why does the criticism of speeding drivers and those that attempt to normalise the breaking of speed limits make someone a car hater? Madi50n here makes frequent references to the fact that they are a motorist. I own two cars, and one of them is quite fast and even gets taken onto a track occasionally. Indeed, I spend much more time behind the wheel than I do behind handlebars. Supporting the better enforcement of speed limits and the introduction of 20 mph zones in towns and cities does not mean make someone 'anti-car'. Our towns and cities have become far too car-centric and this needs to change. Public roads are not just for cars, they are for people. grandconjuration
  • Score: 6

7:07pm Sun 8 Jun 14

The New Private Eye says...

grandconjuration wrote:
The New Private Eye wrote:
livid99 wrote:
Perhaps if you and grandconjuration realised how far up your own a*se you appear to be, you might also realise that your supercillious and patronising posts are part of the reason why people make these comments.
Because that is the way of things here on the Oxford Mail - someone makes a VALID criticism of the inability of SOME cyclists to ride their bikes in a safe way - this is a fact, by the way, so don't try to deny it or turn the blame on motorists - and all the negative votes start appearing, then along comes either you or grandconjuration with your supercillious and verbose replies, usually containing insults or references to people's lack of intelligence or lack of education because they have dared to make a valid criticism of the untouchable cyclist.
You are so predictable. Its quite funny the level of denial you lot have. You are so quick to lay the blame on motorists, and yet cyclists can do no wrong.
Very Well put Livid. Hammer, nail and head come to mind.
Wow, it must have taken you ages to put together such a well-written and researched rebuttal to my earlier post.

Your predictable and rather tired comments suggest that you have not read the article. The article is about motorists who break speed limits. This article has absolutely nothing to do with cycling. You say, "you are so quick to lay the blame on motorists"; well when it comes to breaking speed limits I am, for it is the right foot of the motorist that presses the accelerator pedal and nobody else.

In another comments thread relating to a 15-year old boy being attacked, I note that you refer to the 'anti-car lot' and 'car-haters'. Why does the criticism of speeding drivers and those that attempt to normalise the breaking of speed limits make someone a car hater? Madi50n here makes frequent references to the fact that they are a motorist. I own two cars, and one of them is quite fast and even gets taken onto a track occasionally. Indeed, I spend much more time behind the wheel than I do behind handlebars.

Supporting the better enforcement of speed limits and the introduction of 20 mph zones in towns and cities does not mean make someone 'anti-car'. Our towns and cities have become far too car-centric and this needs to change. Public roads are not just for cars, they are for people.
ERR OK. Well done, I still do not get your point though. But then being a rational person excludes me from your thought process. I am looking forward to the day when your vision of utopia comes to bear, and you will be paying 100% tax due to the mass unemployment and lack of tax revenue from motorists. Do you get it, Petrol stations, Garages, Parts suppliers, Factories, Shops.....well just about everything really. But all is not bad, we can go back to living in our little inbred villages, and cycling to the next one to find a wife if we don't have enough sisters to marry, etc, etc, etc. Hey but we can all cycle in to visit St Giles fair to barter out wares, But I have a beautiful sister, so maybe your way will be the best for all of us that have.
[quote][p][bold]grandconjuration[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The New Private Eye[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]livid99[/bold] wrote: Perhaps if you and grandconjuration realised how far up your own a*se you appear to be, you might also realise that your supercillious and patronising posts are part of the reason why people make these comments. Because that is the way of things here on the Oxford Mail - someone makes a VALID criticism of the inability of SOME cyclists to ride their bikes in a safe way - this is a fact, by the way, so don't try to deny it or turn the blame on motorists - and all the negative votes start appearing, then along comes either you or grandconjuration with your supercillious and verbose replies, usually containing insults or references to people's lack of intelligence or lack of education because they have dared to make a valid criticism of the untouchable cyclist. You are so predictable. Its quite funny the level of denial you lot have. You are so quick to lay the blame on motorists, and yet cyclists can do no wrong.[/p][/quote]Very Well put Livid. Hammer, nail and head come to mind.[/p][/quote]Wow, it must have taken you ages to put together such a well-written and researched rebuttal to my earlier post. Your predictable and rather tired comments suggest that you have not read the article. The article is about motorists who break speed limits. This article has absolutely nothing to do with cycling. You say, "you are so quick to lay the blame on motorists"; well when it comes to breaking speed limits I am, for it is the right foot of the motorist that presses the accelerator pedal and nobody else. In another comments thread relating to a 15-year old boy being attacked, I note that you refer to the 'anti-car lot' and 'car-haters'. Why does the criticism of speeding drivers and those that attempt to normalise the breaking of speed limits make someone a car hater? Madi50n here makes frequent references to the fact that they are a motorist. I own two cars, and one of them is quite fast and even gets taken onto a track occasionally. Indeed, I spend much more time behind the wheel than I do behind handlebars. Supporting the better enforcement of speed limits and the introduction of 20 mph zones in towns and cities does not mean make someone 'anti-car'. Our towns and cities have become far too car-centric and this needs to change. Public roads are not just for cars, they are for people.[/p][/quote]ERR OK. Well done, I still do not get your point though. But then being a rational person excludes me from your thought process. I am looking forward to the day when your vision of utopia comes to bear, and you will be paying 100% tax due to the mass unemployment and lack of tax revenue from motorists. Do you get it, Petrol stations, Garages, Parts suppliers, Factories, Shops.....well just about everything really. But all is not bad, we can go back to living in our little inbred villages, and cycling to the next one to find a wife if we don't have enough sisters to marry, etc, etc, etc. Hey but we can all cycle in to visit St Giles fair to barter out wares, But I have a beautiful sister, so maybe your way will be the best for all of us that have. The New Private Eye
  • Score: -2

11:53am Fri 13 Jun 14

ID3586 says...

This is very timely after my experience yesterday when I was harassed by someone (a man) in a Porsche 4 wheel drive vehicle when driving towards the city centre on Old Road at around 5pm.

The driver came so close that all I could see in my mirror was the make of his car. When I braked to show him my brake lights he appeared to go beserk, his mouth being very animated and he tapped his head with one of his fingers. When this happens I think it is reasonable to assume that either the driver behind does not know about the 20 mph limit or does not agree with it and wants me to go faster.

This man actually got his phone out and took a picture. Why, I wonder. To report me or did he just add to the number of offences he was committing?

My first post here. Why are UK spelling conventions highlighted as of they were error?>
This is very timely after my experience yesterday when I was harassed by someone (a man) in a Porsche 4 wheel drive vehicle when driving towards the city centre on Old Road at around 5pm. The driver came so close that all I could see in my mirror was the make of his car. When I braked to show him my brake lights he appeared to go beserk, his mouth being very animated and he tapped his head with one of his fingers. When this happens I think it is reasonable to assume that either the driver behind does not know about the 20 mph limit or does not agree with it and wants me to go faster. This man actually got his phone out and took a picture. Why, I wonder. To report me or did he just add to the number of offences he was committing? My first post here. Why are UK spelling conventions highlighted as of they were error?> ID3586
  • 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