Police catch 200 drivers in new speeding crackdown

thisisoxfordshire: Road safety enforcement officer PC Mark Pilling in St Giles' Road safety enforcement officer PC Mark Pilling in St Giles'

A POLICE operation to stop speeding motorists caught three drivers every two minutes breaking a 20mph limit – racking up a potential £20,000 worth of fines.

Police were stationed at St Giles and Morrell Avenue to catch the speeding.

A total of 197 people – 155 in St Giles and 42 in Morrell Avenue – were caught breaking the 20mph limit during a two hour period from 8am yesterday.

Roads policing sergeant Chris Appleby said: “I’m disappointed, this is not something we want to see.”

The operation was launched after new enforcement action began on Monday, where drivers caught speeding by 4mph or more will face a £100 fine and three points on their licence.

Alternatively, some drivers will be able to pay £95 to attend a new three-and-a-half hour awareness course and not have any licence endorsements.

Sgt Appleby said: “Despite regular speed enforcement operations St Giles and Morrell Avenue, Oxford has continued to see motorists exceeding the 20mph limit and as a result of community complaints, they have been selected as the locations to launch the new course.

“It’s not just about fining motorists, but educating them and for the first time we will be offering the opportunity to motorists to attend a national course. I think education always is a good option to try and improve people’s behaviour.

“A lot of our drivers pass their tests when they are young and they never take further training. We want to prevent collisions occurring and people getting injured and killed and not just fining people all the time.”

Councillor Susanna Pressel watched the operation on St Giles. She said: “This street is awful. I get continual complaints from people about St Giles.

“Drivers should get into the habit that these speed limits mean what they say. They can’t simply been ignored.”

Comments (61)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:32am Fri 4 Jul 14

Geoff Roberts says...

Useless.
Useless. Geoff Roberts
  • Score: 1

7:46am Fri 4 Jul 14

Sandy Wimpole-Smythe says...

Geoff Roberts wrote:
Useless.
Who, the Police, the reporting or the drivers ?
[quote][p][bold]Geoff Roberts[/bold] wrote: Useless.[/p][/quote]Who, the Police, the reporting or the drivers ? Sandy Wimpole-Smythe
  • Score: 3

8:09am Fri 4 Jul 14

Chris Henderson says...

While I generally support 20mph zones, St Giles is not a sensible place to have one. It is difficult to think of a road in Oxford where there is less interaction between pedestrians and motorists. The pavements are the other side of parking areas. The only reason ever to cross the road was to go to the public toilets, now closed.
It is the favourite spot for police enforcement because it doesn't feel like a 20mph street so they catch lots of offenders. This can only lose support for 20mph zones where they are really needed, in residential areas and outside schools.
While I generally support 20mph zones, St Giles is not a sensible place to have one. It is difficult to think of a road in Oxford where there is less interaction between pedestrians and motorists. The pavements are the other side of parking areas. The only reason ever to cross the road was to go to the public toilets, now closed. It is the favourite spot for police enforcement because it doesn't feel like a 20mph street so they catch lots of offenders. This can only lose support for 20mph zones where they are really needed, in residential areas and outside schools. Chris Henderson
  • Score: 36

8:27am Fri 4 Jul 14

BigAlBiker says...

20MPH anywhere apart from outside schools is a crap rule.

It's just a money making exercise pure and simple.
20MPH anywhere apart from outside schools is a crap rule. It's just a money making exercise pure and simple. BigAlBiker
  • Score: 9

8:55am Fri 4 Jul 14

tinsel84 says...

200 in two hours? What does that suggest to you OXCC? That a 20 MPH speed limit is ridiculous on a road like St Giles? God forbid you admit you're wrong.
200 in two hours? What does that suggest to you OXCC? That a 20 MPH speed limit is ridiculous on a road like St Giles? God forbid you admit you're wrong. tinsel84
  • Score: 16

8:56am Fri 4 Jul 14

HomerSimpsonDoh says...

Councillor Susanna Pressel watched the operation on St Giles. She said: “This street is awful. I get continual complaints from people about St Giles.
What a load of c r a p she talks. Why is the street awful? Show me proof of what complaints she gets? Pressel what was you doing there in the first place? This is a money making exersise only. I have driven through St Giles for the past 11 years twice a day and have not seen one accident.
Those that say if you didn't break the limit you wouldn't get a ticket, fair enough if it was in a road that warrented 20mph, St Giles is not one of them. This is what happens when you bring in a blanket law to cover a large area.
Councillor Susanna Pressel watched the operation on St Giles. She said: “This street is awful. I get continual complaints from people about St Giles. What a load of c r a p she talks. Why is the street awful? Show me proof of what complaints she gets? Pressel what was you doing there in the first place? This is a money making exersise only. I have driven through St Giles for the past 11 years twice a day and have not seen one accident. Those that say if you didn't break the limit you wouldn't get a ticket, fair enough if it was in a road that warrented 20mph, St Giles is not one of them. This is what happens when you bring in a blanket law to cover a large area. HomerSimpsonDoh
  • Score: 18

8:59am Fri 4 Jul 14

HomerSimpsonDoh says...

Why pick St Giles? Because it is the easist place to catch drivers, pure and simple. Why not Walton Street or Beaumont Street? Why, because they won't catch anyone. Proof that this is a money making issue.
Why pick St Giles? Because it is the easist place to catch drivers, pure and simple. Why not Walton Street or Beaumont Street? Why, because they won't catch anyone. Proof that this is a money making issue. HomerSimpsonDoh
  • Score: -4

9:36am Fri 4 Jul 14

museli says...

St Giles is an obvious case for reducing speed and traffic and well done to the police for enforcing the law.

I cycle along there most days and am constantly checking for pedestrians emerging from between the parked cars to cross, motorists pulling out of the parking without looking properly, cyclists who seem to think it's ok to ride in the opposite direction to the traffic flow, motorists stopping unexpectedly in the cycle lane, motorists blindly altering course to grab a parking space etc - it's a melting pot of different road users and it's not always possible to check properly behind when having to take hasty action to avoid the many cycle lane invaders. Motor vehicle operators need to be aware of all these unpredicables and I'd say 15mph is quite fast enough most of the time. I've twice seen pedestrians lying n the road receiving medical attention after being hit by cars.

Motorists who think this is not an appropriate place for a 20mph limit are probably being seduced by the wide road and presumably have blinkers on regarding the many vulnerable - and sometimes apparently daft - road users that I see being put at risk on a daily basis.
St Giles is an obvious case for reducing speed and traffic and well done to the police for enforcing the law. I cycle along there most days and am constantly checking for pedestrians emerging from between the parked cars to cross, motorists pulling out of the parking without looking properly, cyclists who seem to think it's ok to ride in the opposite direction to the traffic flow, motorists stopping unexpectedly in the cycle lane, motorists blindly altering course to grab a parking space etc - it's a melting pot of different road users and it's not always possible to check properly behind when having to take hasty action to avoid the many cycle lane invaders. Motor vehicle operators need to be aware of all these unpredicables and I'd say 15mph is quite fast enough most of the time. I've twice seen pedestrians lying n the road receiving medical attention after being hit by cars. Motorists who think this is not an appropriate place for a 20mph limit are probably being seduced by the wide road and presumably have blinkers on regarding the many vulnerable - and sometimes apparently daft - road users that I see being put at risk on a daily basis. museli
  • Score: 8

9:45am Fri 4 Jul 14

Lord Palmerstone says...

Chris Henderson wrote:
While I generally support 20mph zones, St Giles is not a sensible place to have one. It is difficult to think of a road in Oxford where there is less interaction between pedestrians and motorists. The pavements are the other side of parking areas. The only reason ever to cross the road was to go to the public toilets, now closed.
It is the favourite spot for police enforcement because it doesn't feel like a 20mph street so they catch lots of offenders. This can only lose support for 20mph zones where they are really needed, in residential areas and outside schools.
Absolutely right. And it matters. In 10 years time, most cars will have tachographs. 4 X 23mph in St Giles and you're off the road for 6 months. Next time it's 12, 18 etc. You may say the State won't be allowed to interrogate your tachograph. You may be right but it won't matter much. Your insurance company will, and when they see you'd have been banned several times, they'll pull the plug on your insurance. Time for a debate about where limits are appropriate. They're scattered currently at the behest of any clerk anxious to pacify a single issue "you cannot know my pain over the death of....on the A...." group.
[quote][p][bold]Chris Henderson[/bold] wrote: While I generally support 20mph zones, St Giles is not a sensible place to have one. It is difficult to think of a road in Oxford where there is less interaction between pedestrians and motorists. The pavements are the other side of parking areas. The only reason ever to cross the road was to go to the public toilets, now closed. It is the favourite spot for police enforcement because it doesn't feel like a 20mph street so they catch lots of offenders. This can only lose support for 20mph zones where they are really needed, in residential areas and outside schools.[/p][/quote]Absolutely right. And it matters. In 10 years time, most cars will have tachographs. 4 X 23mph in St Giles and you're off the road for 6 months. Next time it's 12, 18 etc. You may say the State won't be allowed to interrogate your tachograph. You may be right but it won't matter much. Your insurance company will, and when they see you'd have been banned several times, they'll pull the plug on your insurance. Time for a debate about where limits are appropriate. They're scattered currently at the behest of any clerk anxious to pacify a single issue "you cannot know my pain over the death of....on the A...." group. Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: -12

9:54am Fri 4 Jul 14

Madi50n says...

Whether or not the limit is daft or not, it's the limit. Drivers are legally obliged to stay below it. Suck it up, stick to the limits, add a few seconds to you journey and stop whining. Can't or won't do it? Your fault, no-one else's, you deserve the fine and the points and the increased insurance premiums.
Whether or not the limit is daft or not, it's the limit. Drivers are legally obliged to stay below it. Suck it up, stick to the limits, add a few seconds to you journey and stop whining. Can't or won't do it? Your fault, no-one else's, you deserve the fine and the points and the increased insurance premiums. Madi50n
  • Score: 9

9:57am Fri 4 Jul 14

Madi50n says...

Cor! My grammar today, all over the place.
Cor! My grammar today, all over the place. Madi50n
  • Score: 6

9:59am Fri 4 Jul 14

Oxonian says...

To be effective, laws really need to have the general agreement of the people. If lots of people break a law (three people every two minutes!), it suggests that the 20mph speed limit is widely regarded as ridiculous, which - in St Giles - it is.
To be effective, laws really need to have the general agreement of the people. If lots of people break a law (three people every two minutes!), it suggests that the 20mph speed limit is widely regarded as ridiculous, which - in St Giles - it is. Oxonian
  • Score: 2

10:24am Fri 4 Jul 14

train passenger says...

Length of St.Giles until it splits about 200m. Do it at 20mph in 22.37 seconds, at 30mph (if you achieve that) in 14.92 seconds. It takes some guts to come and complain here about a 7.45 second 'time loss' I think.
Length of St.Giles until it splits about 200m. Do it at 20mph in 22.37 seconds, at 30mph (if you achieve that) in 14.92 seconds. It takes some guts to come and complain here about a 7.45 second 'time loss' I think. train passenger
  • Score: 9

10:45am Fri 4 Jul 14

natox78 says...

I must admit, I do support driving within the limit and I do, even in a 20. But as a cyclist, I find the 20mph limit doesn't help me much. I cycle at about 15mph most transport trips, which allows drivers only 5mph to get past me. It means they are in the middle of the road longer and I don't think that is a good thing. I'd rather risk a car hitting me at 30mph than have the difficult situation of them trying to get past me at 5mph.
I must admit, I do support driving within the limit and I do, even in a 20. But as a cyclist, I find the 20mph limit doesn't help me much. I cycle at about 15mph most transport trips, which allows drivers only 5mph to get past me. It means they are in the middle of the road longer and I don't think that is a good thing. I'd rather risk a car hitting me at 30mph than have the difficult situation of them trying to get past me at 5mph. natox78
  • Score: 15

11:03am Fri 4 Jul 14

Quentin Walker says...

"...Councillor Susanna Pressel watched the operation on St Giles. She said: “This street is awful. I get continual complaints from people about St Giles..."

I think the councillor is mistaken, or confused...
"...Councillor Susanna Pressel watched the operation on St Giles. She said: “This street is awful. I get continual complaints from people about St Giles..." I think the councillor is mistaken, or confused... Quentin Walker
  • Score: 18

11:27am Fri 4 Jul 14

docs says...

Madi50n wrote:
Whether or not the limit is daft or not, it's the limit. Drivers are legally obliged to stay below it. Suck it up, stick to the limits, add a few seconds to you journey and stop whining. Can't or won't do it? Your fault, no-one else's, you deserve the fine and the points and the increased insurance premiums.
You miss the point: yes we should obey the law. But the law - the speed limit - isn't automatically right. We live in a democracy: it's legitimate for people to argue that the limit is wrong and needs to be changed.
[quote][p][bold]Madi50n[/bold] wrote: Whether or not the limit is daft or not, it's the limit. Drivers are legally obliged to stay below it. Suck it up, stick to the limits, add a few seconds to you journey and stop whining. Can't or won't do it? Your fault, no-one else's, you deserve the fine and the points and the increased insurance premiums.[/p][/quote]You miss the point: yes we should obey the law. But the law - the speed limit - isn't automatically right. We live in a democracy: it's legitimate for people to argue that the limit is wrong and needs to be changed. docs
  • Score: 17

11:30am Fri 4 Jul 14

docs says...

Lord Palmerstone wrote:
Chris Henderson wrote:
While I generally support 20mph zones, St Giles is not a sensible place to have one. It is difficult to think of a road in Oxford where there is less interaction between pedestrians and motorists. The pavements are the other side of parking areas. The only reason ever to cross the road was to go to the public toilets, now closed.
It is the favourite spot for police enforcement because it doesn't feel like a 20mph street so they catch lots of offenders. This can only lose support for 20mph zones where they are really needed, in residential areas and outside schools.
Absolutely right. And it matters. In 10 years time, most cars will have tachographs. 4 X 23mph in St Giles and you're off the road for 6 months. Next time it's 12, 18 etc. You may say the State won't be allowed to interrogate your tachograph. You may be right but it won't matter much. Your insurance company will, and when they see you'd have been banned several times, they'll pull the plug on your insurance. Time for a debate about where limits are appropriate. They're scattered currently at the behest of any clerk anxious to pacify a single issue "you cannot know my pain over the death of....on the A...." group.
In 10 years time, most cars will drive themselves - and if they don't, they will at very least refuse to break the speed limit.

Driving won't be much fun, but it will improve fuel economy and general safety.
[quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chris Henderson[/bold] wrote: While I generally support 20mph zones, St Giles is not a sensible place to have one. It is difficult to think of a road in Oxford where there is less interaction between pedestrians and motorists. The pavements are the other side of parking areas. The only reason ever to cross the road was to go to the public toilets, now closed. It is the favourite spot for police enforcement because it doesn't feel like a 20mph street so they catch lots of offenders. This can only lose support for 20mph zones where they are really needed, in residential areas and outside schools.[/p][/quote]Absolutely right. And it matters. In 10 years time, most cars will have tachographs. 4 X 23mph in St Giles and you're off the road for 6 months. Next time it's 12, 18 etc. You may say the State won't be allowed to interrogate your tachograph. You may be right but it won't matter much. Your insurance company will, and when they see you'd have been banned several times, they'll pull the plug on your insurance. Time for a debate about where limits are appropriate. They're scattered currently at the behest of any clerk anxious to pacify a single issue "you cannot know my pain over the death of....on the A...." group.[/p][/quote]In 10 years time, most cars will drive themselves - and if they don't, they will at very least refuse to break the speed limit. Driving won't be much fun, but it will improve fuel economy and general safety. docs
  • Score: 5

11:40am Fri 4 Jul 14

Madi50n says...

docs wrote:
Madi50n wrote:
Whether or not the limit is daft or not, it's the limit. Drivers are legally obliged to stay below it. Suck it up, stick to the limits, add a few seconds to you journey and stop whining. Can't or won't do it? Your fault, no-one else's, you deserve the fine and the points and the increased insurance premiums.
You miss the point: yes we should obey the law. But the law - the speed limit - isn't automatically right. We live in a democracy: it's legitimate for people to argue that the limit is wrong and needs to be changed.
I get the point, people think the law is wrong, that's pretty obvious. And I completely agree that the people who think that it's wrong have every right to argue for it to be changed.

That doesn't give them the right to break the law.

Want to drive at 30? As you said, this is a democracy, argue for change, lobby your Councillors and MPs, protest, raise a petition on 38 degrees or Change.org, if you got 1000s of signatures that would have some effect, and I would applaud your work.

But breaking the law simply because you don't agree with it? Most of these 200 will have known it was a 20 zone, but they were either too lazy to obey it, or deliberately ignored it. Nobody was rebelling or protesting. As a result they ot caught and fined. their fault, no-one else's.
[quote][p][bold]docs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Madi50n[/bold] wrote: Whether or not the limit is daft or not, it's the limit. Drivers are legally obliged to stay below it. Suck it up, stick to the limits, add a few seconds to you journey and stop whining. Can't or won't do it? Your fault, no-one else's, you deserve the fine and the points and the increased insurance premiums.[/p][/quote]You miss the point: yes we should obey the law. But the law - the speed limit - isn't automatically right. We live in a democracy: it's legitimate for people to argue that the limit is wrong and needs to be changed.[/p][/quote]I get the point, people think the law is wrong, that's pretty obvious. And I completely agree that the people who think that it's wrong have every right to argue for it to be changed. That doesn't give them the right to break the law. Want to drive at 30? As you said, this is a democracy, argue for change, lobby your Councillors and MPs, protest, raise a petition on 38 degrees or Change.org, if you got 1000s of signatures that would have some effect, and I would applaud your work. But breaking the law simply because you don't agree with it? Most of these 200 will have known it was a 20 zone, but they were either too lazy to obey it, or deliberately ignored it. Nobody was rebelling or protesting. As a result they ot caught and fined. their fault, no-one else's. Madi50n
  • Score: 14

11:46am Fri 4 Jul 14

EMBOX2 says...

Can someone please release the air quality figures from St. Giles before and after the 20 limit was brought in please?

I'd put good money on the air being worse now, thanks to everyone now in 2nd gear pulling a few hundred revs more.

Coming to Oxford soon...a man with a red flag. Anyone care to join in a protest with me?
Can someone please release the air quality figures from St. Giles before and after the 20 limit was brought in please? I'd put good money on the air being worse now, thanks to everyone now in 2nd gear pulling a few hundred revs more. Coming to Oxford soon...a man with a red flag. Anyone care to join in a protest with me? EMBOX2
  • Score: 1

11:55am Fri 4 Jul 14

olafpalme says...

Oxonian wrote:
To be effective, laws really need to have the general agreement of the people. If lots of people break a law (three people every two minutes!), it suggests that the 20mph speed limit is widely regarded as ridiculous, which - in St Giles - it is.
Ah so because `all cyclists go through red lights and ride on pavements' I guess the rule that says they shouldn't, should be scrapped.
[quote][p][bold]Oxonian[/bold] wrote: To be effective, laws really need to have the general agreement of the people. If lots of people break a law (three people every two minutes!), it suggests that the 20mph speed limit is widely regarded as ridiculous, which - in St Giles - it is.[/p][/quote]Ah so because `all cyclists go through red lights and ride on pavements' [/sarc] I guess the rule that says they shouldn't, should be scrapped. olafpalme
  • Score: 7

12:08pm Fri 4 Jul 14

melyn am byth says...

HomerSimpsonDoh says...

Why pick St Giles? Because it is the easist place to catch drivers, pure and simple. Why not Walton Street or Beaumont Street? Why, because they won't catch anyone. Proof that this is a money making issue.

Steady on son, let's keep 'em where we can see 'em.
Don't give them any ideas, heaven forbid, they might start catching real criminals.
HomerSimpsonDoh says... Why pick St Giles? Because it is the easist place to catch drivers, pure and simple. Why not Walton Street or Beaumont Street? Why, because they won't catch anyone. Proof that this is a money making issue. Steady on son, let's keep 'em where we can see 'em. Don't give them any ideas, heaven forbid, they might start catching real criminals. melyn am byth
  • Score: 6

12:30pm Fri 4 Jul 14

cps says...

If you do 20 in St Giles chances are you'll be under/overtaken by a moron :(
If you do 20 in St Giles chances are you'll be under/overtaken by a moron :( cps
  • Score: -6

12:30pm Fri 4 Jul 14

PCL says...

I followed a police car doing 32 mph down Morrell Avenue a couple of weeks ago. There were no 'blues and twos' and he was following traffic all doing the same speed! Stupid speed limit or not? I guess the driver of the police car would probably agree!!
I followed a police car doing 32 mph down Morrell Avenue a couple of weeks ago. There were no 'blues and twos' and he was following traffic all doing the same speed! Stupid speed limit or not? I guess the driver of the police car would probably agree!! PCL
  • Score: 10

12:32pm Fri 4 Jul 14

PCL says...

cps wrote:
If you do 20 in St Giles chances are you'll be under/overtaken by a moron :(
Yes probably by a Lycra Lout on a bike!
[quote][p][bold]cps[/bold] wrote: If you do 20 in St Giles chances are you'll be under/overtaken by a moron :([/p][/quote]Yes probably by a Lycra Lout on a bike! PCL
  • Score: -3

12:32pm Fri 4 Jul 14

osney terrier says...

A money making exercise, pure and simple.
If this road is so bad, what hapens tomorrow and the days after?
A money making exercise, pure and simple. If this road is so bad, what hapens tomorrow and the days after? osney terrier
  • Score: 3

12:59pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Neonlights says...

The following article makes for interesting reading

"Number of serious accidents in 20mph zones rises"

The number of serious accidents on 20mph roads increased by around a quarter (26%) last year, according to analysis of Government data by the Institute of Advanced Motorists.

Slight accidents on 20mph roads increased by 17%.

Casualties in 20mph zones also saw a rise. Serious casualties increased by 29% while slight casualties went up by 19%.

However, there was a decrease in the number of serious and slight accidents on 30mph and 40 mph roads.

http://www.fleetnews
.co.uk/news/2014/7/4
/number-of-serious-a
ccidents-in-20mph-zo
nes-rises/52887/
The following article makes for interesting reading "Number of serious accidents in 20mph zones rises" The number of serious accidents on 20mph roads increased by around a quarter (26%) last year, according to analysis of Government data by the Institute of Advanced Motorists. Slight accidents on 20mph roads increased by 17%. Casualties in 20mph zones also saw a rise. Serious casualties increased by 29% while slight casualties went up by 19%. However, there was a decrease in the number of serious and slight accidents on 30mph and 40 mph roads. http://www.fleetnews .co.uk/news/2014/7/4 /number-of-serious-a ccidents-in-20mph-zo nes-rises/52887/ Neonlights
  • Score: 5

1:31pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Oxonian says...

olafpalme wrote:
Oxonian wrote:
To be effective, laws really need to have the general agreement of the people. If lots of people break a law (three people every two minutes!), it suggests that the 20mph speed limit is widely regarded as ridiculous, which - in St Giles - it is.
Ah so because `all cyclists go through red lights and ride on pavements' I guess the rule that says they shouldn't, should be scrapped.
The difference (I believe) is that the 20mph speed limit in St Giles is unnecessary and probably doesn't increase safety. Cyclists going through red lights and riding on pavements are (I believe) examples of dangerous behaviour.
[quote][p][bold]olafpalme[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oxonian[/bold] wrote: To be effective, laws really need to have the general agreement of the people. If lots of people break a law (three people every two minutes!), it suggests that the 20mph speed limit is widely regarded as ridiculous, which - in St Giles - it is.[/p][/quote]Ah so because `all cyclists go through red lights and ride on pavements' [/sarc] I guess the rule that says they shouldn't, should be scrapped.[/p][/quote]The difference (I believe) is that the 20mph speed limit in St Giles is unnecessary and probably doesn't increase safety. Cyclists going through red lights and riding on pavements are (I believe) examples of dangerous behaviour. Oxonian
  • Score: -1

2:05pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Quentin Walker says...

If St Giles is so dangerous, one would think the policeman in the pic would have donned a hi-viz jacket...
If St Giles is so dangerous, one would think the policeman in the pic would have donned a hi-viz jacket... Quentin Walker
  • Score: 6

2:56pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Danny3 says...

St Giles is an area where cars should definitely be doing 20mph or less. It's crossed by pedestrians at all points, it has cyclists entering from side roads, it has motorists doing u-turns, it has coaches pulling up, and it has people parking.

It is true that it *looks* like it's safe to go faster than 20mph in St Giles. The proper fix for this is redesigning the layout so drivers slow down without thinking about and 20mph seems natural, not a one-off enforcement of the speed limit that won't have a long-term effect on speeds.
St Giles is an area where cars should definitely be doing 20mph or less. It's crossed by pedestrians at all points, it has cyclists entering from side roads, it has motorists doing u-turns, it has coaches pulling up, and it has people parking. It is true that it *looks* like it's safe to go faster than 20mph in St Giles. The proper fix for this is redesigning the layout so drivers slow down without thinking about and 20mph seems natural, not a one-off enforcement of the speed limit that won't have a long-term effect on speeds. Danny3
  • Score: 7

3:10pm Fri 4 Jul 14

train passenger says...

Neonlights wrote:
The following article makes for interesting reading

"Number of serious accidents in 20mph zones rises"

The number of serious accidents on 20mph roads increased by around a quarter (26%) last year, according to analysis of Government data by the Institute of Advanced Motorists.

Slight accidents on 20mph roads increased by 17%.

Casualties in 20mph zones also saw a rise. Serious casualties increased by 29% while slight casualties went up by 19%.

However, there was a decrease in the number of serious and slight accidents on 30mph and 40 mph roads.

http://www.fleetnews

.co.uk/news/2014/7/4

/number-of-serious-a

ccidents-in-20mph-zo

nes-rises/52887/
That's a nonsensical comparison. First, the number of 20 mph streets is rising rapidly, while there are ever fewer 30 mph streets, so it would be strange if we did not see these increases / decreases. Second, this does not tell us anything about the absolute level of such accidents. On 20mph streets the base level is likely to be very low compared to 30 mph streets. If you can show me statistics that a 20mph street is actually more dangerous than a 30 mph street I will happily start opposing them.
[quote][p][bold]Neonlights[/bold] wrote: The following article makes for interesting reading "Number of serious accidents in 20mph zones rises" The number of serious accidents on 20mph roads increased by around a quarter (26%) last year, according to analysis of Government data by the Institute of Advanced Motorists. Slight accidents on 20mph roads increased by 17%. Casualties in 20mph zones also saw a rise. Serious casualties increased by 29% while slight casualties went up by 19%. However, there was a decrease in the number of serious and slight accidents on 30mph and 40 mph roads. http://www.fleetnews .co.uk/news/2014/7/4 /number-of-serious-a ccidents-in-20mph-zo nes-rises/52887/[/p][/quote]That's a nonsensical comparison. First, the number of 20 mph streets is rising rapidly, while there are ever fewer 30 mph streets, so it would be strange if we did not see these increases / decreases. Second, this does not tell us anything about the absolute level of such accidents. On 20mph streets the base level is likely to be very low compared to 30 mph streets. If you can show me statistics that a 20mph street is actually more dangerous than a 30 mph street I will happily start opposing them. train passenger
  • Score: 10

3:14pm Fri 4 Jul 14

HomerSimpsonDoh says...

Danny3......'St Giles is an area where cars should definitely be doing 20mph or less. It's crossed by pedestrians at all points, it has cyclists entering from side roads, it has motorists doing u-turns, it has coaches pulling up, and it has people parking'
Have you actually ever been in St Giles? Where are these side roads that cyclists enter, there is only one, and it is No entry from St Giles, no that it makes much difference to cyclists. Doh
Danny3......'St Giles is an area where cars should definitely be doing 20mph or less. It's crossed by pedestrians at all points, it has cyclists entering from side roads, it has motorists doing u-turns, it has coaches pulling up, and it has people parking' Have you actually ever been in St Giles? Where are these side roads that cyclists enter, there is only one, and it is No entry from St Giles, no that it makes much difference to cyclists. Doh HomerSimpsonDoh
  • Score: -10

3:22pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Lord Palmerstone says...

Madi50n wrote:
docs wrote:
Madi50n wrote:
Whether or not the limit is daft or not, it's the limit. Drivers are legally obliged to stay below it. Suck it up, stick to the limits, add a few seconds to you journey and stop whining. Can't or won't do it? Your fault, no-one else's, you deserve the fine and the points and the increased insurance premiums.
You miss the point: yes we should obey the law. But the law - the speed limit - isn't automatically right. We live in a democracy: it's legitimate for people to argue that the limit is wrong and needs to be changed.
I get the point, people think the law is wrong, that's pretty obvious. And I completely agree that the people who think that it's wrong have every right to argue for it to be changed.

That doesn't give them the right to break the law.

Want to drive at 30? As you said, this is a democracy, argue for change, lobby your Councillors and MPs, protest, raise a petition on 38 degrees or Change.org, if you got 1000s of signatures that would have some effect, and I would applaud your work.

But breaking the law simply because you don't agree with it? Most of these 200 will have known it was a 20 zone, but they were either too lazy to obey it, or deliberately ignored it. Nobody was rebelling or protesting. As a result they ot caught and fined. their fault, no-one else's.
You won't get a change. The field is controlled by those who will say that if just one person comes to grief after a limit is rationalised that "proves" that rationalisation was wrong. Yes it's a purely emotive argument-after all if everything was static there'd be no collisions, so let's make it static-but it's impossible to beat the emotion, I think. Though the same view does not work in respect of letting people out of insane asylums to kill again, sadly.
[quote][p][bold]Madi50n[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]docs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Madi50n[/bold] wrote: Whether or not the limit is daft or not, it's the limit. Drivers are legally obliged to stay below it. Suck it up, stick to the limits, add a few seconds to you journey and stop whining. Can't or won't do it? Your fault, no-one else's, you deserve the fine and the points and the increased insurance premiums.[/p][/quote]You miss the point: yes we should obey the law. But the law - the speed limit - isn't automatically right. We live in a democracy: it's legitimate for people to argue that the limit is wrong and needs to be changed.[/p][/quote]I get the point, people think the law is wrong, that's pretty obvious. And I completely agree that the people who think that it's wrong have every right to argue for it to be changed. That doesn't give them the right to break the law. Want to drive at 30? As you said, this is a democracy, argue for change, lobby your Councillors and MPs, protest, raise a petition on 38 degrees or Change.org, if you got 1000s of signatures that would have some effect, and I would applaud your work. But breaking the law simply because you don't agree with it? Most of these 200 will have known it was a 20 zone, but they were either too lazy to obey it, or deliberately ignored it. Nobody was rebelling or protesting. As a result they ot caught and fined. their fault, no-one else's.[/p][/quote]You won't get a change. The field is controlled by those who will say that if just one person comes to grief after a limit is rationalised that "proves" that rationalisation was wrong. Yes it's a purely emotive argument-after all if everything was static there'd be no collisions, so let's make it static-but it's impossible to beat the emotion, I think. Though the same view does not work in respect of letting people out of insane asylums to kill again, sadly. Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: -9

3:31pm Fri 4 Jul 14

yabbadabbadoo256 says...

HomerSimpsonDoh wrote:
Danny3......'St Giles is an area where cars should definitely be doing 20mph or less. It's crossed by pedestrians at all points, it has cyclists entering from side roads, it has motorists doing u-turns, it has coaches pulling up, and it has people parking'
Have you actually ever been in St Giles? Where are these side roads that cyclists enter, there is only one, and it is No entry from St Giles, no that it makes much difference to cyclists. Doh
since when do cyclist obey any form of road signage, traffic light, no entry signs or crossings?

As for pedestrians randomly wandering out into the road with iPod's plugged in, texting as they walk, faces down on screens.. That's why Jaywalking laws exist in the states. It just goes to show that the motorist can be blamed and the pedestrian that does not take care of themselves gets away blameless.

Perhaps an offence of "Crossing a road without due car and attention" or "cycling without due care and attention" with a hefty fine is due?
[quote][p][bold]HomerSimpsonDoh[/bold] wrote: Danny3......'St Giles is an area where cars should definitely be doing 20mph or less. It's crossed by pedestrians at all points, it has cyclists entering from side roads, it has motorists doing u-turns, it has coaches pulling up, and it has people parking' Have you actually ever been in St Giles? Where are these side roads that cyclists enter, there is only one, and it is No entry from St Giles, no that it makes much difference to cyclists. Doh[/p][/quote]since when do cyclist obey any form of road signage, traffic light, no entry signs or crossings? As for pedestrians randomly wandering out into the road with iPod's plugged in, texting as they walk, faces down on screens.. That's why Jaywalking laws exist in the states. It just goes to show that the motorist can be blamed and the pedestrian that does not take care of themselves gets away blameless. Perhaps an offence of "Crossing a road without due car and attention" or "cycling without due care and attention" with a hefty fine is due? yabbadabbadoo256
  • Score: -4

3:40pm Fri 4 Jul 14

reallynotpc says...

What shocks me is the blatant way that policeman is hiding.

Grow up, people! If you can't spot the police enforcement teams in time to adjust your speed then you are not paying enough attention to what is going on around you.
What shocks me is the blatant way that policeman is hiding. Grow up, people! If you can't spot the police enforcement teams in time to adjust your speed then you are not paying enough attention to what is going on around you. reallynotpc
  • Score: 6

4:12pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Madi50n says...

Oxonian wrote:
olafpalme wrote:
Oxonian wrote:
To be effective, laws really need to have the general agreement of the people. If lots of people break a law (three people every two minutes!), it suggests that the 20mph speed limit is widely regarded as ridiculous, which - in St Giles - it is.
Ah so because `all cyclists go through red lights and ride on pavements' I guess the rule that says they shouldn't, should be scrapped.
The difference (I believe) is that the 20mph speed limit in St Giles is unnecessary and probably doesn't increase safety. Cyclists going through red lights and riding on pavements are (I believe) examples of dangerous behaviour.
But that's not what you said, you said

"To be effective, laws really need to have the general agreement of the people. If lots of people break a law (three people every two minutes!), it suggests that the 20mph speed limit is widely regarded as ridiculous."

So if, as so many on here seem to say, lots of cyclists run red lights or use pavements,that suggests that the law is widely regarded as ridiculous.

You really are quite funny, you can't see the level of hypocrisy, can you?

You: Lots of motorists break a speed limit, the speed limit is ridiculous and should be scrapped. No criticism of the motorists breaking the law.

you: Lots of cyclists jump red lights, allegedly, the cyclists are criticised for not sticking to the law..

I can't take you seriously at all!
[quote][p][bold]Oxonian[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]olafpalme[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oxonian[/bold] wrote: To be effective, laws really need to have the general agreement of the people. If lots of people break a law (three people every two minutes!), it suggests that the 20mph speed limit is widely regarded as ridiculous, which - in St Giles - it is.[/p][/quote]Ah so because `all cyclists go through red lights and ride on pavements' [/sarc] I guess the rule that says they shouldn't, should be scrapped.[/p][/quote]The difference (I believe) is that the 20mph speed limit in St Giles is unnecessary and probably doesn't increase safety. Cyclists going through red lights and riding on pavements are (I believe) examples of dangerous behaviour.[/p][/quote]But that's not what you said, you said "To be effective, laws really need to have the general agreement of the people. If lots of people break a law (three people every two minutes!), it suggests that the 20mph speed limit is widely regarded as ridiculous." So if, as so many on here seem to say, lots of cyclists run red lights or use pavements,that suggests that the law is widely regarded as ridiculous. You really are quite funny, you can't see the level of hypocrisy, can you? You: Lots of motorists break a speed limit, the speed limit is ridiculous and should be scrapped. No criticism of the motorists breaking the law. you: Lots of cyclists jump red lights, allegedly, the cyclists are criticised for not sticking to the law.. I can't take you seriously at all! Madi50n
  • Score: 6

4:14pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Madi50n says...

Once again a story about motorists bad behaviour has managed to attract anti-cyclist comments.
Once again a story about motorists bad behaviour has managed to attract anti-cyclist comments. Madi50n
  • Score: 12

5:26pm Fri 4 Jul 14

JanetJ says...

It would be good if the police moved their attention to cyclists in Queen street - I have had narrow misses with no less than 4 cyclists today - am I the only one who has noticed the "no cycling between 10 6pm"? notice it felt like that today. Maybe they can't fine cyclist so much.
It would be good if the police moved their attention to cyclists in Queen street - I have had narrow misses with no less than 4 cyclists today - am I the only one who has noticed the "no cycling between 10 6pm"? notice it felt like that today. Maybe they can't fine cyclist so much. JanetJ
  • Score: 6

5:40pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Madi50n says...

JanetJ wrote:
It would be good if the police moved their attention to cyclists in Queen street - I have had narrow misses with no less than 4 cyclists today - am I the only one who has noticed the "no cycling between 10 6pm"? notice it felt like that today. Maybe they can't fine cyclist so much.
What have cyclists got to do with a story about drivers breaking the speed limit?
[quote][p][bold]JanetJ[/bold] wrote: It would be good if the police moved their attention to cyclists in Queen street - I have had narrow misses with no less than 4 cyclists today - am I the only one who has noticed the "no cycling between 10 6pm"? notice it felt like that today. Maybe they can't fine cyclist so much.[/p][/quote]What have cyclists got to do with a story about drivers breaking the speed limit? Madi50n
  • Score: 5

5:52pm Fri 4 Jul 14

HomerSimpsonDoh says...

Why are the motorists not just given a verbal warning like cyclists do when they get caught with no lights? Once again one rule for motorist and one for cyclists.
Why are the motorists not just given a verbal warning like cyclists do when they get caught with no lights? Once again one rule for motorist and one for cyclists. HomerSimpsonDoh
  • Score: -13

6:39pm Fri 4 Jul 14

The New Private Eye says...

train passenger wrote:
Length of St.Giles until it splits about 200m. Do it at 20mph in 22.37 seconds, at 30mph (if you achieve that) in 14.92 seconds. It takes some guts to come and complain here about a 7.45 second 'time loss' I think.
It is not about the loss of time, but the artificially low limit on a wide road that any modern car with more than a sewing machine for an engine will exceed on tickover. For years since the 20mph limit was introduced enforcement was at a sensible 32mph and there were no major accidents, so ask yourself why all of a sudden the enforcement has reduced the speed limit by 25%. Also the choice of the 2 roads is questionable, there are no schools there, and no fatal accidents since the introduction of 20mph limits. Why not enforce the limit in Bartholomew Road, and Cuddeson Way where there are schools? Could it be money, it seems like parking tickets, that speeding has become a business with nothing to do with road safety. And why are Headly Way, Marston Road and Marston Ferry Roads all 30mph when they have 5 schools on them?
[quote][p][bold]train passenger[/bold] wrote: Length of St.Giles until it splits about 200m. Do it at 20mph in 22.37 seconds, at 30mph (if you achieve that) in 14.92 seconds. It takes some guts to come and complain here about a 7.45 second 'time loss' I think.[/p][/quote]It is not about the loss of time, but the artificially low limit on a wide road that any modern car with more than a sewing machine for an engine will exceed on tickover. For years since the 20mph limit was introduced enforcement was at a sensible 32mph and there were no major accidents, so ask yourself why all of a sudden the enforcement has reduced the speed limit by 25%. Also the choice of the 2 roads is questionable, there are no schools there, and no fatal accidents since the introduction of 20mph limits. Why not enforce the limit in Bartholomew Road, and Cuddeson Way where there are schools? Could it be money, it seems like parking tickets, that speeding has become a business with nothing to do with road safety. And why are Headly Way, Marston Road and Marston Ferry Roads all 30mph when they have 5 schools on them? The New Private Eye
  • Score: -8

6:47pm Fri 4 Jul 14

The New Private Eye says...

Madi50n wrote:
JanetJ wrote:
It would be good if the police moved their attention to cyclists in Queen street - I have had narrow misses with no less than 4 cyclists today - am I the only one who has noticed the "no cycling between 10 6pm"? notice it felt like that today. Maybe they can't fine cyclist so much.
What have cyclists got to do with a story about drivers breaking the speed limit?
Because it was the terrified cyclists leader MR Styring who through this paper led an anti-motorist campaign that led to the blanket 20mph limits. This is the same man that advocated through the pages of the same said paper that cyclists should be allowed to break certain laws. That is why the anti comments. One law for all is a democracy.
[quote][p][bold]Madi50n[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JanetJ[/bold] wrote: It would be good if the police moved their attention to cyclists in Queen street - I have had narrow misses with no less than 4 cyclists today - am I the only one who has noticed the "no cycling between 10 6pm"? notice it felt like that today. Maybe they can't fine cyclist so much.[/p][/quote]What have cyclists got to do with a story about drivers breaking the speed limit?[/p][/quote]Because it was the terrified cyclists leader MR Styring who through this paper led an anti-motorist campaign that led to the blanket 20mph limits. This is the same man that advocated through the pages of the same said paper that cyclists should be allowed to break certain laws. That is why the anti comments. One law for all is a democracy. The New Private Eye
  • Score: -1

7:13pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Madi50n says...

The New Private Eye wrote:
Madi50n wrote:
JanetJ wrote:
It would be good if the police moved their attention to cyclists in Queen street - I have had narrow misses with no less than 4 cyclists today - am I the only one who has noticed the "no cycling between 10 6pm"? notice it felt like that today. Maybe they can't fine cyclist so much.
What have cyclists got to do with a story about drivers breaking the speed limit?
Because it was the terrified cyclists leader MR Styring who through this paper led an anti-motorist campaign that led to the blanket 20mph limits. This is the same man that advocated through the pages of the same said paper that cyclists should be allowed to break certain laws. That is why the anti comments. One law for all is a democracy.
Agreed, one law for all, but this story is about motorists breaking the law, what have you got to say about that problem?
[quote][p][bold]The New Private Eye[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Madi50n[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JanetJ[/bold] wrote: It would be good if the police moved their attention to cyclists in Queen street - I have had narrow misses with no less than 4 cyclists today - am I the only one who has noticed the "no cycling between 10 6pm"? notice it felt like that today. Maybe they can't fine cyclist so much.[/p][/quote]What have cyclists got to do with a story about drivers breaking the speed limit?[/p][/quote]Because it was the terrified cyclists leader MR Styring who through this paper led an anti-motorist campaign that led to the blanket 20mph limits. This is the same man that advocated through the pages of the same said paper that cyclists should be allowed to break certain laws. That is why the anti comments. One law for all is a democracy.[/p][/quote]Agreed, one law for all, but this story is about motorists breaking the law, what have you got to say about that problem? Madi50n
  • Score: 5

7:16pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Madi50n says...

Sorry New, hadn't realised it was you, forget I asked.
Sorry New, hadn't realised it was you, forget I asked. Madi50n
  • Score: -12

10:07pm Fri 4 Jul 14

clampit says...

why should the police be above the law themselves, driving along the a34 a couple of nights ago, doing 70mph a police car with no flashing lights went cruising past me at around 90-100mph, how can they get away with it, they should have trackers fitted in their cars
why should the police be above the law themselves, driving along the a34 a couple of nights ago, doing 70mph a police car with no flashing lights went cruising past me at around 90-100mph, how can they get away with it, they should have trackers fitted in their cars clampit
  • Score: 11

8:21am Sat 5 Jul 14

JanetJ says...

Madi50n wrote:
The New Private Eye wrote:
Madi50n wrote:
JanetJ wrote:
It would be good if the police moved their attention to cyclists in Queen street - I have had narrow misses with no less than 4 cyclists today - am I the only one who has noticed the "no cycling between 10 6pm"? notice it felt like that today. Maybe they can't fine cyclist so much.
What have cyclists got to do with a story about drivers breaking the speed limit?
Because it was the terrified cyclists leader MR Styring who through this paper led an anti-motorist campaign that led to the blanket 20mph limits. This is the same man that advocated through the pages of the same said paper that cyclists should be allowed to break certain laws. That is why the anti comments. One law for all is a democracy.
Agreed, one law for all, but this story is about motorists breaking the law, what have you got to say about that problem?
I thought the story was also about the choice of area by Police as it is an "easy target" to fine road users. I was simply suggesting another "easy" area that is never policed - presumably because it isn't so lucrative?
[quote][p][bold]Madi50n[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The New Private Eye[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Madi50n[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JanetJ[/bold] wrote: It would be good if the police moved their attention to cyclists in Queen street - I have had narrow misses with no less than 4 cyclists today - am I the only one who has noticed the "no cycling between 10 6pm"? notice it felt like that today. Maybe they can't fine cyclist so much.[/p][/quote]What have cyclists got to do with a story about drivers breaking the speed limit?[/p][/quote]Because it was the terrified cyclists leader MR Styring who through this paper led an anti-motorist campaign that led to the blanket 20mph limits. This is the same man that advocated through the pages of the same said paper that cyclists should be allowed to break certain laws. That is why the anti comments. One law for all is a democracy.[/p][/quote]Agreed, one law for all, but this story is about motorists breaking the law, what have you got to say about that problem?[/p][/quote]I thought the story was also about the choice of area by Police as it is an "easy target" to fine road users. I was simply suggesting another "easy" area that is never policed - presumably because it isn't so lucrative? JanetJ
  • Score: -2

11:11am Sat 5 Jul 14

Madi50n says...

JanetJ wrote:
Madi50n wrote:
The New Private Eye wrote:
Madi50n wrote:
JanetJ wrote:
It would be good if the police moved their attention to cyclists in Queen street - I have had narrow misses with no less than 4 cyclists today - am I the only one who has noticed the "no cycling between 10 6pm"? notice it felt like that today. Maybe they can't fine cyclist so much.
What have cyclists got to do with a story about drivers breaking the speed limit?
Because it was the terrified cyclists leader MR Styring who through this paper led an anti-motorist campaign that led to the blanket 20mph limits. This is the same man that advocated through the pages of the same said paper that cyclists should be allowed to break certain laws. That is why the anti comments. One law for all is a democracy.
Agreed, one law for all, but this story is about motorists breaking the law, what have you got to say about that problem?
I thought the story was also about the choice of area by Police as it is an "easy target" to fine road users. I was simply suggesting another "easy" area that is never policed - presumably because it isn't so lucrative?
ERM, no? The story is about 200 motorists caught for speeding in a couple of 20mph zones. Absolutely not,hing to do with cyclists, not one mention of cyclists in the article.

So again, the question, which you still haven't answered, what have you gat to say about the problem of so many motorists breaking the law?

And if it "...isn't so lucrative?" to police the area you suggest for the reasons you suggest, surely is it isn't lucrative because there isn't as big a problem as you seem to think?
[quote][p][bold]JanetJ[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Madi50n[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The New Private Eye[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Madi50n[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JanetJ[/bold] wrote: It would be good if the police moved their attention to cyclists in Queen street - I have had narrow misses with no less than 4 cyclists today - am I the only one who has noticed the "no cycling between 10 6pm"? notice it felt like that today. Maybe they can't fine cyclist so much.[/p][/quote]What have cyclists got to do with a story about drivers breaking the speed limit?[/p][/quote]Because it was the terrified cyclists leader MR Styring who through this paper led an anti-motorist campaign that led to the blanket 20mph limits. This is the same man that advocated through the pages of the same said paper that cyclists should be allowed to break certain laws. That is why the anti comments. One law for all is a democracy.[/p][/quote]Agreed, one law for all, but this story is about motorists breaking the law, what have you got to say about that problem?[/p][/quote]I thought the story was also about the choice of area by Police as it is an "easy target" to fine road users. I was simply suggesting another "easy" area that is never policed - presumably because it isn't so lucrative?[/p][/quote]ERM, no? The story is about 200 motorists caught for speeding in a couple of 20mph zones. Absolutely not,hing to do with cyclists, not one mention of cyclists in the article. So again, the question, which you still haven't answered, what have you gat to say about the problem of so many motorists breaking the law? And if it "...isn't so lucrative?" to police the area you suggest for the reasons you suggest, surely is it isn't lucrative because there isn't as big a problem as you seem to think? Madi50n
  • Score: -11

9:08pm Sat 5 Jul 14

JacobS says...

EMBOX2 wrote:
Can someone please release the air quality figures from St. Giles before and after the 20 limit was brought in please?

I'd put good money on the air being worse now, thanks to everyone now in 2nd gear pulling a few hundred revs more.

Coming to Oxford soon...a man with a red flag. Anyone care to join in a protest with me?
No. The car is king on motorways which in this country are properly separated from non-driving activities. In places where people are walking, shopping, cycling, working or attending school, the car should defer to more vulnerable road users.
[quote][p][bold]EMBOX2[/bold] wrote: Can someone please release the air quality figures from St. Giles before and after the 20 limit was brought in please? I'd put good money on the air being worse now, thanks to everyone now in 2nd gear pulling a few hundred revs more. Coming to Oxford soon...a man with a red flag. Anyone care to join in a protest with me?[/p][/quote]No. The car is king on motorways which in this country are properly separated from non-driving activities. In places where people are walking, shopping, cycling, working or attending school, the car should defer to more vulnerable road users. JacobS
  • Score: -1

9:29pm Sat 5 Jul 14

The New Private Eye says...

Madi50n wrote:
JanetJ wrote:
Madi50n wrote:
The New Private Eye wrote:
Madi50n wrote:
JanetJ wrote:
It would be good if the police moved their attention to cyclists in Queen street - I have had narrow misses with no less than 4 cyclists today - am I the only one who has noticed the "no cycling between 10 6pm"? notice it felt like that today. Maybe they can't fine cyclist so much.
What have cyclists got to do with a story about drivers breaking the speed limit?
Because it was the terrified cyclists leader MR Styring who through this paper led an anti-motorist campaign that led to the blanket 20mph limits. This is the same man that advocated through the pages of the same said paper that cyclists should be allowed to break certain laws. That is why the anti comments. One law for all is a democracy.
Agreed, one law for all, but this story is about motorists breaking the law, what have you got to say about that problem?
I thought the story was also about the choice of area by Police as it is an "easy target" to fine road users. I was simply suggesting another "easy" area that is never policed - presumably because it isn't so lucrative?
ERM, no? The story is about 200 motorists caught for speeding in a couple of 20mph zones. Absolutely not,hing to do with cyclists, not one mention of cyclists in the article.

So again, the question, which you still haven't answered, what have you gat to say about the problem of so many motorists breaking the law?

And if it "...isn't so lucrative?" to police the area you suggest for the reasons you suggest, surely is it isn't lucrative because there isn't as big a problem as you seem to think?
Madison, when you think about it rationally Janet is right. The position of the police speed traps and not only the roads selected are optimised for the greatest capture rate not for safety. On Morrell Ave they are positioned around the bend by Stone Street hidden by trees and will have the driver in their sights before a driver could see them (no more his vis jackets, they were dressed in black from head to toe, isn't policing primarily about stopping offences) Stone St is the safest part of Morrell Ave, the dangerous part being near the bottom, where we have 3 junctions in close proximity, one with a school, and he entrance to The Park where peds cross, surely that is the place to do the check? Also in St Giles the speed cop was also dressed all in black, yet when the enforcement was 32mph he was wearing Hi Vis, why the sudden change? This being the first day of the enforcement of the new limit, the positions were chosen to catch as many drivers as possible, so to make the headlines. So to your next point about breaking the law. When laws are unjust and the powers to be will not listen to reason then laws must be broken to change them, such as throwing yourself under The Kings horse, or chaining yourself to railings, those criminal acts led to a change in the law, as did the "poll tax" riots much more recently. And lastly The Police have NEVER enforced a 20mph limit outside any school in Oxford, WHY? I think I have put some relevant points to you Madison in a reasonable way, and hope you will read them and answer as to what you think the reasons are for the police to act in this way. After many recent failings, including the killing of an innocent man (Ian Tomlinson) in London, the last thing the police need to be seen as, are Tax Collectors for the treasury.
[quote][p][bold]Madi50n[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JanetJ[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Madi50n[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The New Private Eye[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Madi50n[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JanetJ[/bold] wrote: It would be good if the police moved their attention to cyclists in Queen street - I have had narrow misses with no less than 4 cyclists today - am I the only one who has noticed the "no cycling between 10 6pm"? notice it felt like that today. Maybe they can't fine cyclist so much.[/p][/quote]What have cyclists got to do with a story about drivers breaking the speed limit?[/p][/quote]Because it was the terrified cyclists leader MR Styring who through this paper led an anti-motorist campaign that led to the blanket 20mph limits. This is the same man that advocated through the pages of the same said paper that cyclists should be allowed to break certain laws. That is why the anti comments. One law for all is a democracy.[/p][/quote]Agreed, one law for all, but this story is about motorists breaking the law, what have you got to say about that problem?[/p][/quote]I thought the story was also about the choice of area by Police as it is an "easy target" to fine road users. I was simply suggesting another "easy" area that is never policed - presumably because it isn't so lucrative?[/p][/quote]ERM, no? The story is about 200 motorists caught for speeding in a couple of 20mph zones. Absolutely not,hing to do with cyclists, not one mention of cyclists in the article. So again, the question, which you still haven't answered, what have you gat to say about the problem of so many motorists breaking the law? And if it "...isn't so lucrative?" to police the area you suggest for the reasons you suggest, surely is it isn't lucrative because there isn't as big a problem as you seem to think?[/p][/quote]Madison, when you think about it rationally Janet is right. The position of the police speed traps and not only the roads selected are optimised for the greatest capture rate not for safety. On Morrell Ave they are positioned around the bend by Stone Street hidden by trees and will have the driver in their sights before a driver could see them (no more his vis jackets, they were dressed in black from head to toe, isn't policing primarily about stopping offences) Stone St is the safest part of Morrell Ave, the dangerous part being near the bottom, where we have 3 junctions in close proximity, one with a school, and he entrance to The Park where peds cross, surely that is the place to do the check? Also in St Giles the speed cop was also dressed all in black, yet when the enforcement was 32mph he was wearing Hi Vis, why the sudden change? This being the first day of the enforcement of the new limit, the positions were chosen to catch as many drivers as possible, so to make the headlines. So to your next point about breaking the law. When laws are unjust and the powers to be will not listen to reason then laws must be broken to change them, such as throwing yourself under The Kings horse, or chaining yourself to railings, those criminal acts led to a change in the law, as did the "poll tax" riots much more recently. And lastly The Police have NEVER enforced a 20mph limit outside any school in Oxford, WHY? I think I have put some relevant points to you Madison in a reasonable way, and hope you will read them and answer as to what you think the reasons are for the police to act in this way. After many recent failings, including the killing of an innocent man (Ian Tomlinson) in London, the last thing the police need to be seen as, are Tax Collectors for the treasury. The New Private Eye
  • Score: 11

10:27pm Sat 5 Jul 14

Oly Shipp says...

Good! - hopefully word will get round that if anyone disobeys the 20mph limits they now not only risk the lives of others, but also risk being fined themselves. Not before time, but well done to the police.
Good! - hopefully word will get round that if anyone disobeys the 20mph limits they now not only risk the lives of others, but also risk being fined themselves. Not before time, but well done to the police. Oly Shipp
  • Score: -5

2:39pm Tue 8 Jul 14

JoeyJack says...

Police have NEVER enforced a 20mph limit outside any school in Oxford, WHY?

Because there are not many drivers who go too fast outside schools. The serious injury or fatality rates for these areas are low because drivers are aware of the risks.

Drivers are seemingly not aware of the dangers in speeding around the st giles area or in other 20mph zones. If you do 30+ and a child steps out in front of you, they have a much greater chance of being seriously injured than if you were doing 20. The impact speed for an incident where you have a couple of seconds to stop could be below 10mph coming from 20, but still above 20 if you were doing 30+
Police have NEVER enforced a 20mph limit outside any school in Oxford, WHY? Because there are not many drivers who go too fast outside schools. The serious injury or fatality rates for these areas are low because drivers are aware of the risks. Drivers are seemingly not aware of the dangers in speeding around the st giles area or in other 20mph zones. If you do 30+ and a child steps out in front of you, they have a much greater chance of being seriously injured than if you were doing 20. The impact speed for an incident where you have a couple of seconds to stop could be below 10mph coming from 20, but still above 20 if you were doing 30+ JoeyJack
  • Score: -2

2:49pm Tue 8 Jul 14

The New Private Eye says...

JoeyJack wrote:
Police have NEVER enforced a 20mph limit outside any school in Oxford, WHY?

Because there are not many drivers who go too fast outside schools. The serious injury or fatality rates for these areas are low because drivers are aware of the risks.

Drivers are seemingly not aware of the dangers in speeding around the st giles area or in other 20mph zones. If you do 30+ and a child steps out in front of you, they have a much greater chance of being seriously injured than if you were doing 20. The impact speed for an incident where you have a couple of seconds to stop could be below 10mph coming from 20, but still above 20 if you were doing 30+
So how come for the last 100 years it has not been a problem in St Giles? And was no a problem two weeks ago? You are either deluded, or just a car hater come on here for the wind up. Either way, you have never commented before, so can you sit back and take a sane view on the story before commenting again please. P.S. If the limit was 5mph then nobody would be hurt, your 20mph limit is 4 times too high.
[quote][p][bold]JoeyJack[/bold] wrote: Police have NEVER enforced a 20mph limit outside any school in Oxford, WHY? Because there are not many drivers who go too fast outside schools. The serious injury or fatality rates for these areas are low because drivers are aware of the risks. Drivers are seemingly not aware of the dangers in speeding around the st giles area or in other 20mph zones. If you do 30+ and a child steps out in front of you, they have a much greater chance of being seriously injured than if you were doing 20. The impact speed for an incident where you have a couple of seconds to stop could be below 10mph coming from 20, but still above 20 if you were doing 30+[/p][/quote]So how come for the last 100 years it has not been a problem in St Giles? And was no a problem two weeks ago? You are either deluded, or just a car hater come on here for the wind up. Either way, you have never commented before, so can you sit back and take a sane view on the story before commenting again please. P.S. If the limit was 5mph then nobody would be hurt, your 20mph limit is 4 times too high. The New Private Eye
  • Score: 0

4:00pm Tue 8 Jul 14

r_bedding says...

Zero mph zones coming soon, that way anyone moving can be fined. Like everything nowadays it's a race to the bottom and idiots seem to think it is a good thing.
Zero mph zones coming soon, that way anyone moving can be fined. Like everything nowadays it's a race to the bottom and idiots seem to think it is a good thing. r_bedding
  • Score: 0

4:28pm Tue 8 Jul 14

The New Private Eye says...

r_bedding wrote:
Zero mph zones coming soon, that way anyone moving can be fined. Like everything nowadays it's a race to the bottom and idiots seem to think it is a good thing.
The voice of reason my son. Sadly we are a sane minority.
[quote][p][bold]r_bedding[/bold] wrote: Zero mph zones coming soon, that way anyone moving can be fined. Like everything nowadays it's a race to the bottom and idiots seem to think it is a good thing.[/p][/quote]The voice of reason my son. Sadly we are a sane minority. The New Private Eye
  • Score: -3

4:35pm Tue 8 Jul 14

JoeyJack says...

The New Private Eye wrote:
JoeyJack wrote:
Police have NEVER enforced a 20mph limit outside any school in Oxford, WHY?

Because there are not many drivers who go too fast outside schools. The serious injury or fatality rates for these areas are low because drivers are aware of the risks.

Drivers are seemingly not aware of the dangers in speeding around the st giles area or in other 20mph zones. If you do 30+ and a child steps out in front of you, they have a much greater chance of being seriously injured than if you were doing 20. The impact speed for an incident where you have a couple of seconds to stop could be below 10mph coming from 20, but still above 20 if you were doing 30+
So how come for the last 100 years it has not been a problem in St Giles? And was no a problem two weeks ago? You are either deluded, or just a car hater come on here for the wind up. Either way, you have never commented before, so can you sit back and take a sane view on the story before commenting again please. P.S. If the limit was 5mph then nobody would be hurt, your 20mph limit is 4 times too high.
Personally I think you and I are perfectly capable of walking, cycling or driving safely in a 30 zone on St Giles. I don't think 100% of people are. If you lower the limit, the results of the 40+ accidents that have occurred in the last 5 years on St Giles (opposed to your no problem for 100 years tosh) will be no serious injuries - unless someone is breaking the law as it stands.
[quote][p][bold]The New Private Eye[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JoeyJack[/bold] wrote: Police have NEVER enforced a 20mph limit outside any school in Oxford, WHY? Because there are not many drivers who go too fast outside schools. The serious injury or fatality rates for these areas are low because drivers are aware of the risks. Drivers are seemingly not aware of the dangers in speeding around the st giles area or in other 20mph zones. If you do 30+ and a child steps out in front of you, they have a much greater chance of being seriously injured than if you were doing 20. The impact speed for an incident where you have a couple of seconds to stop could be below 10mph coming from 20, but still above 20 if you were doing 30+[/p][/quote]So how come for the last 100 years it has not been a problem in St Giles? And was no a problem two weeks ago? You are either deluded, or just a car hater come on here for the wind up. Either way, you have never commented before, so can you sit back and take a sane view on the story before commenting again please. P.S. If the limit was 5mph then nobody would be hurt, your 20mph limit is 4 times too high.[/p][/quote]Personally I think you and I are perfectly capable of walking, cycling or driving safely in a 30 zone on St Giles. I don't think 100% of people are. If you lower the limit, the results of the 40+ accidents that have occurred in the last 5 years on St Giles (opposed to your no problem for 100 years tosh) will be no serious injuries - unless someone is breaking the law as it stands. JoeyJack
  • Score: 0

2:36am Wed 9 Jul 14

Lord Palmerstone says...

"Personally I think you and I are perfectly capable of walking, cycling or driving safely in a 30 zone on St Giles. I don't think 100% of people are. If you lower the limit, the results of the 40+ accidents that have occurred in the last 5 years on St Giles (opposed to your no problem for 100 years tosh) will be no serious injuries - unless someone is breaking the law as it stands"
Do you want to look again at the statistic as to what percentage of collisions arise through speed and think again? Most of them happen because most people are stupid at least some f the time. Would you care to offer a legislative solution to that one?
"Personally I think you and I are perfectly capable of walking, cycling or driving safely in a 30 zone on St Giles. I don't think 100% of people are. If you lower the limit, the results of the 40+ accidents that have occurred in the last 5 years on St Giles (opposed to your no problem for 100 years tosh) will be no serious injuries - unless someone is breaking the law as it stands" Do you want to look again at the statistic as to what percentage of collisions arise through speed and think again? Most of them happen because most people are stupid at least some f the time. Would you care to offer a legislative solution to that one? Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: -4

11:12am Wed 9 Jul 14

JoeyJack says...

Lord Palmerstone wrote:
"Personally I think you and I are perfectly capable of walking, cycling or driving safely in a 30 zone on St Giles. I don't think 100% of people are. If you lower the limit, the results of the 40+ accidents that have occurred in the last 5 years on St Giles (opposed to your no problem for 100 years tosh) will be no serious injuries - unless someone is breaking the law as it stands"
Do you want to look again at the statistic as to what percentage of collisions arise through speed and think again? Most of them happen because most people are stupid at least some f the time. Would you care to offer a legislative solution to that one?
You're quite right, speed is rarely the singular factor that causes accidents. Peoples stupidity on a cycle, as a pedestrian or within the car generally is what causes them. What speed of the motor vehicle does is result in those moments of stupidity equaling serious injury. 20mph has been proven to dramatically reduce the numbers of serious injuries occurring. The legislative solution, whether you like it or not is to make the speed limit 20mph
[quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote: "Personally I think you and I are perfectly capable of walking, cycling or driving safely in a 30 zone on St Giles. I don't think 100% of people are. If you lower the limit, the results of the 40+ accidents that have occurred in the last 5 years on St Giles (opposed to your no problem for 100 years tosh) will be no serious injuries - unless someone is breaking the law as it stands" Do you want to look again at the statistic as to what percentage of collisions arise through speed and think again? Most of them happen because most people are stupid at least some f the time. Would you care to offer a legislative solution to that one?[/p][/quote]You're quite right, speed is rarely the singular factor that causes accidents. Peoples stupidity on a cycle, as a pedestrian or within the car generally is what causes them. What speed of the motor vehicle does is result in those moments of stupidity equaling serious injury. 20mph has been proven to dramatically reduce the numbers of serious injuries occurring. The legislative solution, whether you like it or not is to make the speed limit 20mph JoeyJack
  • Score: 0

2:11pm Wed 9 Jul 14

Major Rhode-Werks says...

Well, this is interesting:
http://www.iam.org.u
k/media-and-research
/media-centre/news-a
rchive/20505-casualt
ies-increase-in-20mp
h-zones
Well, this is interesting: http://www.iam.org.u k/media-and-research /media-centre/news-a rchive/20505-casualt ies-increase-in-20mp h-zones Major Rhode-Werks
  • Score: -2

5:24pm Wed 9 Jul 14

r_bedding says...

If it was all about money, they would put temporary speed cameras just inside 30mph zones (down from 50mph) on down slopes (not on the upward side EVER) or they would put temporary speed cameras (i am sure i should be using the word safety camera forgive me if I am wrong) just inside a 50mph zone on a dual carriageway which is only for reducing sound and not for safety reasons. This is proof that it is not about money as these others would never happen.
If it was all about money, they would put temporary speed cameras just inside 30mph zones (down from 50mph) on down slopes (not on the upward side EVER) or they would put temporary speed cameras (i am sure i should be using the word safety camera forgive me if I am wrong) just inside a 50mph zone on a dual carriageway which is only for reducing sound and not for safety reasons. This is proof that it is not about money as these others would never happen. r_bedding
  • Score: 0

2:26pm Thu 10 Jul 14

oafie says...

If it is not just a money making exercise why do they spend so much time and resources on it?
TVP's only focus on any crime...is when they are 'sitting ducks' or speeding. They tell me they cannot help with crime occurring near me...as they say they need to catch people in the act and another independent witness is really required! And they have to consult with everyone involved before they take any action! Dear God how do they manage to catch anybody!
If it is not just a money making exercise why do they spend so much time and resources on it? TVP's only focus on any crime...is when they are 'sitting ducks' or speeding. They tell me they cannot help with crime occurring near me...as they say they need to catch people in the act and another independent witness is really required! And they have to consult with everyone involved before they take any action! Dear God how do they manage to catch anybody! oafie
  • Score: 0

6:35pm Thu 10 Jul 14

grapevine31 says...

I am surprised that no one has commented on the fact that ten thousand extra visitors were expected in Oxford on the Monday and Tuesday due The University open days.
Not all in cars obviously,but you can't help thinking it may have played a part in the numbers caught.
Welcome to Oxford.
I am surprised that no one has commented on the fact that ten thousand extra visitors were expected in Oxford on the Monday and Tuesday due The University open days. Not all in cars obviously,but you can't help thinking it may have played a part in the numbers caught. Welcome to Oxford. grapevine31
  • Score: 1

3:01am Fri 11 Jul 14

Lord Palmerstone says...

oafie wrote:
If it is not just a money making exercise why do they spend so much time and resources on it?
TVP's only focus on any crime...is when they are 'sitting ducks' or speeding. They tell me they cannot help with crime occurring near me...as they say they need to catch people in the act and another independent witness is really required! And they have to consult with everyone involved before they take any action! Dear God how do they manage to catch anybody!
They like doing motorists because they don't kick off when stopped , like criminals do. We'd mostly prefer the easy life, but maybe those who do should not have opted to join the police force
[quote][p][bold]oafie[/bold] wrote: If it is not just a money making exercise why do they spend so much time and resources on it? TVP's only focus on any crime...is when they are 'sitting ducks' or speeding. They tell me they cannot help with crime occurring near me...as they say they need to catch people in the act and another independent witness is really required! And they have to consult with everyone involved before they take any action! Dear God how do they manage to catch anybody![/p][/quote]They like doing motorists because they don't kick off when stopped , like criminals do. We'd mostly prefer the easy life, but maybe those who do should not have opted to join the police force Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: 0
Post a comment

Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious. If you wish to complain, please use the ‘report this post’ link.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree