Enforce 20mph limits (From The Oxford Times)

How about enforcing the use of cycle lanes and traffic lights and assorted other laws for the use of roads so that cyclists don't make a dangerous nuisance of themselves on roads in and out of Oxford and while we are at it why don't you pay something towards the upkeep of the roads like motorists have to. On your bike mate

Interesting comments and I can see where you're coming from. "No one would apply this weird logic to any other law." That is mainly true, however you have to recognise that laws are specific to society, it's not just black and white, after all what's acceptable here may not be in another country and so most laws are about what is acceptable here and now. This does mean that if the majority feel that the speed restrictions set are wrong then the law is wrong. History has shown this time and again, the poll tax is a case in point, and if the law was changed to make it a criminal offence to not eat during daylight hours that too would be wrong unless society deems it so.

oxbow - the voice of reason

"Must drivers only comply with laws they believe are fair, then? No one would apply this weird logic to any other law. If a law is flouted, surely lack of enforcement is the problem, not the measure itself."

James is completely wrong. People complying with laws because they agree with them is exactly how British "policing by consent" works. This is how just over 4,000 Thames Valley Police officers can serve and protect more than two million residents spread across three counties.

James demands policing AGAINST common consent, which is very alien to this country. It is used only by dictatorships that like to tell their citizens what to think and do.

20 mph limits on their own do not reduce speeds or casualties. Drivers slow down not because there's a 20 mph sign but because ugly, intrusive, potentially dangerous traffic calming forces them to.

20 mph limits also increase fuel consumption and emissions that harm public health and the World's climate. Oxford's cycling and pedestrian campaigns claim to be eco-friendly. It is therefore illogical for them to support indiscriminate over-use of a speed limit that helps to wreck the Planet.

Why do Oxford's cycling and pedestrian groups support such a dubious speed limit? The only explanation that makes sense is that it gives the pedal-bullies a weapon to try to punish motorists. This is about an ill-informed, self-righteous, illiberal clique trying to tell everyone else - and even our police - what to do.

Now that Oxford's 20 mph limit is a total failure, the 20 lobby will soon demand that ugly traffic calming be dumped on lots of Oxford side roads to make people obey the pointless 20 limit. That would be throwing good money after bad.

20 mph limits in the wrong places risk discredit the right speed limits in the right places. Oxford's 20 mph limits should be reviewed immediately. The silliest ones, such as in St Giles, should be removed as soon as possible.

Hugh, do you think the reduction in accidents on the Cowley Road after the introdction of the 20mph limit has anything to do with the lower speed limit?
.
What about accidents in Kingston upon Hull. They fell by 60% after the introduction of 20 mph limits.
.
You mention that pedestrian and cycle groups welcome the 20 mph limit. Would you care to hazard a guess why people who choose to walk and cycle around the city generally welcome lower speed limits?
.
Do you really think law making should be left to the police, or people affected by the law in question?
.
Do you think it's a coincidnece that the countries with safest roads for pedestrians and cyclists typically have 30kmh urban limits? A child is twice a likely to be killed on British streets than Dutch streets.
.

Floflo, you seem not to address a number of points.
`
About 20 years of evidence accumulated fom throughout Britain proves that 20 mph limits achieve nothing unless they are supported by intrusive traffic calming. You fail to mention how many £millions you want spent on traffic calming in Oxford, and what other public expenditure you want cut to pay for it.
`
DfT guidelines state "To obtain a general reduction in emissions, traffic calmed areas require a road design that encourages smooth driving behaviour". Humps, bumps and chicanes achieve the opposite. The DfT's "New directions in speed management: A review of policy" warns that vehicles emit 30% more carbon monoxide at 20 mph than 30 mph, and diesels emit 30% more PM10 particulates in those conditions. CO poisons the blood and PM10s cause cancer. You offer no evidence that this increase in atmospheric poisons is off-set by a proportionate reduction in traffic volume, or that the increased harm to public health is off-set by a reduction in what was already a low casualty rate.
`
Oxford's road deaths and serious injuries are already low compared with rural Oxfordshire. Reducing traffic speeds from 30 mph to 20 mph increases CO2 emissions, which increases climate change. Climate change is already threatening to increase human mortality, but more in tropical and polar regions than temperate Britain. You offer no evidence that you have quantified how many lives would be harmed in less developed countries for every one that 20 mph supporters claim might be saved in Oxford. Until you come up with credible arithmetic for this, the precautionary principle advises that widespread 20 mph schemes are not proven to be safe.
`
Your pretence that I want "law making left to the police" is a slur. Policing by consent is precisely the opposite of what you impute to me. In Britain everyone is a pedestrian and the majority of adults are also motorists. Their overwhelming rejection of 20 mph limits is clear from the figures Chris Walker and his speed radar have gathered on Morrell Avenue for the "Oxford Mail". Evidently you belong to a minority that wants to tell the majority - and the police - what to do.
`
National and local governments set police objectives and budgets. The budget is always finite so we must set police priorities accordingly. ACPO's advice nationwide on both urban 20 mph limits and rural 50 mph ones is that they must be "self-enforcing" because provincial police forces lack the resources to enforce them. You have yet to enumerate how much enforcement it would take to achieve general compliance with city-wide 20 mph limits, enumerate how much that enforcement would cost, and identify what other policing in the Thames Valley you want reduced to release enough officers and resources for that enforcement. Please work out and publish all that arithmetic before demanding open-ended expenditure to enforce 20 mph all over Oxford.

There are lots of laws which are not enforced and widely flouted. Most people have a fair sense of right and wrong, and want the police to spend their time on "real criminals".

e.g. Unlike most countries, it's illegal to rip your own CDs onto your own iPod here: but does anyone do anything about that?

If a road has a cycle path beside it, does a cyclist have to use it? I suspect not, and on Marston Ferry Road it's quite common to see a cyclist using the road rather than the cycle path behind the hedge. Does the Highway Code have a rule about this?

Headington-Heathclif
f wrote:
If a road has a cycle path beside it, does a cyclist have to use it? I suspect not, and on Marston Ferry Road it's quite common to see a cyclist using the road rather than the cycle path behind the hedge. Does the Highway Code have a rule about this?

like using a park and ride, use of cycle paths is optional. Sometimes they are useful, often using them makes your journey much less convenient, less safe for you and pedestrians and more stressful as you regularly have stop and walk, where if you took the road you'd have a clear run.
.
If you regularly travelled by bike you'd have no problem understanding.
.
Rules that are important, regardless of if there is an adjacent cycle path or not is "When passing motorcyclists and cyclists, give them plenty of room." and also the first sentence "The most vulnerable road users are pedestrians, particularly children, older or disabled people, cyclists, motorcyclists and horse riders. It is important that all road users are aware of the Code and are considerate towards each other. This applies to pedestrians as much as to drivers and riders."
.
If I cycle down Marston Ferry Road I'll typically use this cycle path, it's one of the better ones. However is has it's problems.

1. It's shared with pedestrians, who of course are unlit. At night they can be hard to see and are unpredictable. It also gets very full with children running around the path before and after school.
.
2. When it's frosty it's slippery. Also in Autumn the leaves are not cleared and this makes the path slippery.
.
3. Often people break bottles along this cycle path. The glass gives you punctures. Roads are cleared. Cycle paths are not.
.
4. The dense hedge you mention can be scary at night, people could hide in there. There are more people around on the road and despite the occasional rude motorist honking at your the road feels safer.
.
5. The path's only on one side of the road. It can take as much time to cross it twice as it takes to cycle along it.
.
Many cycle paths are actually footpaths with a line of paint down the middle. Pedestrians often don't realise they are on a cycle path so I'll generally cycle on the road given the option of using these paths.
.
Most of the time vehicles give me space, but daily I get inpatient, inconsiderate and just plain rude drivers who try to force me to use the path by driving aggressively at me. I feel sorry for these people who must regularly feel anger when they get about on the roads. Better if all road users relax a little more and respect each others space.

Hugh - Certain cars may well be less efficient at 20 than 30 WHEN DRIVING AT A CONSTANT SPEED. However it's the acceleration that uses up the fuel. Think about it. Ever been behind a bus as it pulls away and had a cloud of smoke in your face? Ever pushed a car - hard work to get it going but no problem when it's moving. You'll find studies to support this and which state that 20 mph in urban environments uses up much less fuel and makes less pollution than in a 30 limit. You'll also find surveys where the large majority of people support urban 20 mph limits.
.
"Pedal Bullies?" - you sound a little paranoid. I drive a car. Many people who cycle also drive a car. It just helps to get a different perspective.
.
I agree though, 20 mph limits are best with suitable street design and enforcement. If you have ever lived in somewhere like Holland or Germany I'm sure you'd have the experience to know that these urban environments are far more pleasant pleases to live in compared to our polluted and congested city.
.
So because a speed radar clocked lots of people breaking the law means that 20 mph limit is unjust? Does that also mean that because lots of cyclists jump red lights outside the Kings Arms the law should not apply? I think not.

Floflo sinks to abuse in one of its worst forms: mental health prejudice. People with paranoia deserve more respect than to have their condition used as an insult. "Pedal-bullies" is a fair description of the narrow, self-righteous cliques that campaign for road management that is punitive of motorists even though it would harm the environment.
`
Floflo pretends I didn't cover the issue of consttant vehicle speed. Actually I make clear, citing DfT guidelines, that "smooth driving behaviour" is essential. "Traffic calming" achieves the opposite and therefore increases acceleration, deceleration and therefore fuel consumption and emissions. Again, Floflo quotes no actual evidence from any credible source.
`
Broad Street now has so little traffic that the traffic signals at its east end should have been removed long ago. They are a waste of electricity, maintenance, council tax and everyone's vehicle fuel.
`
The report in the "Oxford Mail" on Monday 22nd March that 38% of cyclists disobey red traffic signals in Oxford proves what I have often said: many Oxford cyclists are their own worst enemy. A majority of cyclists in Oxford disobey vehicle lighting regulations. I've counted them time and again and almost every time at least 60% don't light their mahince with a full set of lights after dark. Cyclists in Oxford are far more at risk from their own dangerous behaviour than the actions of any motorist, bus driver or anyone else to whom the cycle lobby would like to pass the blame.

It is to CyclOx' credit that it is supporting a proposal for offender intervention to send offending cyclists on safety awareness courses. Hitherto, CyclOx' has done too little to condemn the majority - yes majority - of Oxford cyclists for whom breaking the law is a way of life.
`
If more must be spent on enforcement, it should concentrate on what proportionately is the greatest problem: the police's failure to get cyclists to ride lawfully and safely.

Hugh, regardless of if there are 'Pedal Bullies' out to get you or not, no abuse was meant to you or anyone else.
.
When things get too much for me I like to get on my bike and head to the country side for some fresh air. If you like I can lend you a bike and we can go on a cycle ride together?

Thankyou, but my own bicycle is already one of my main forms of transport in Oxford. It's because I'm a cyclist that I'm so concerned at the behaviour of so many other cyclists. They not only put themselves in danger but give cycling a bad name, alienate other road users and thereby put me and other innocent folk in more danger.