CAUGHT IN THE A34 CAMERA TRAP

Zooming along: Traffic on the A34, pictured from the Botley bridge

Zooming along: Traffic on the A34, pictured from the Botley bridge

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

SPEED cameras used to enforce a 50mph limit on the A34 are catching 254 drivers every time they are used.

Police set up a mobile camera on the Botley bridge in Oxford over the road 48 times last year and caught more than 12,000 speeding drivers.

It is now the county’s most prolific speed camera. The 70mph limit was cut to 50mph in 1998 to cut noise caused by traffic and police began enforcing it in 2012 after residents raised concerns the limit was being ignored.

Eric Batts, transport representative on North Hinksey Parish Council, said: “I am concerned so many people are getting caught. It shows people are showing dis-regard for the speed limit.

“The speed limit signs are quite visible.”

He said speeding drivers were a danger to residents trying to join the A34 from the interchange and residential roads.

Figures released by Thames Valley Police revealed in two years a camera caught 22,492 drivers speeding on the stretch – bringing in a potential of £1,349,520 in £60 speeding fines.

Drivers are offered a £95 speed awareness course as an alternative and all fine money is handed over to the Treasury.

Last year the camera was used on the A34’s southbound and northbound carriageways at Botley 48 times – each for about two hours. And more than 12,213 drivers were caught speeding – the equivalent of up to £15,240 in fines generated in each two-hour operation.

Related links

Stanley Road resident Briony Newport, who campaigned to lower the speed limit as vice-chairwoman of Hinksey A34 Action Group, said she was not surprised by the numbers.

The 73-year-old, a former North Hinksey Parish and Vale of White of Horse District Council member, said: “I am grateful the police are monitoring it because that means somebody might think again next time they go through our locality.

“Anything that helps make the road safer must be welcomed.”

As revealed by the Oxford Mail last week the next most prolific speed camera in the county is in Woodstock Road, Oxford, but it caught 7,109 drivers over a five year period compared to more than 22,400 motorists caught on the A34 at Botley in two years.

The Highways Agency said the 50mph speed limit was introduced in September 1998. Spokesman Andrew Broughton said the limit was lowered to meet concerns about noise. He said: “It was done for environmental reasons.”

In the five years before the new limit was piloted in 1997 there were 18 accidents and one death on the A34 through Botley.

Claire Benson, specialist unit manager on the Thames Valley Police roads policing team, said the force started using the cameras after complaints about speeding from residents.

And she defended the enforcements. She said: “There are known road safety and environmental issues on this stretch of road which have been evidenced. Enforcement is justified to reduce actual speeds in this sensitive location.”

The Oxford Times:

But Mark McArthur-Christie, above, a Bampton-based road safety commentator, said the figures showed the dual carriageway should not be a 50mph zone and the enforcement was not working.

He said: “The thing with speed camera enforcement is it is a little bit like trying to repair a watch with a mallet.”

The 50 mph speed limit was extended north of the interchange in 2010/11 by the Highways Agency after concerns over road safety.

Comments (30)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:34am Mon 5 May 14

Milkbutnosugarplease says...

Cutting speed to reduce noise seems like a primitive response, given that the road is a major route with no nearby motorway as an alternative. There are baffles, fences, earthworks and trees in other places where noise is a problem, so why can't they work here? What about the road surface? The other illogical speed restriction is in St Giles, a key route through the city centre but limited to 20mph. Since the Treasury collects the money from fines, national government has no great incentive to stop the penalty racket. I've never had a speeding fine by the way.
Cutting speed to reduce noise seems like a primitive response, given that the road is a major route with no nearby motorway as an alternative. There are baffles, fences, earthworks and trees in other places where noise is a problem, so why can't they work here? What about the road surface? The other illogical speed restriction is in St Giles, a key route through the city centre but limited to 20mph. Since the Treasury collects the money from fines, national government has no great incentive to stop the penalty racket. I've never had a speeding fine by the way. Milkbutnosugarplease
  • Score: 39

10:47am Mon 5 May 14

Squirrel15 says...

How many flipping times do we have to go over this again and again:
Build the A34M proposal linking the A34 south of Didcot with the M40 services interchange at Aylesbury with full non stopping M grade interchanges at each end.

Then the A34 western bypass together with all its less than ideal junction layouts (eg Botley on a curve) could revert back to being a local bypass for Oxford only.
Likewise at Abingdon now with no A34 though traffic means you could open the Abingdon north interchange to create a local Abingdon bypass.

You could even then not need to improve the wedlenbury interchange now that though traffic is not on the old A34

...but all we get every time
is moans about how to fix the A34 round Oxford and suggestions about how we could tinker with this and that.
You can't!
How many flipping times do we have to go over this again and again: Build the A34M proposal linking the A34 south of Didcot with the M40 services interchange at Aylesbury with full non stopping M grade interchanges at each end. Then the A34 western bypass together with all its less than ideal junction layouts (eg Botley on a curve) could revert back to being a local bypass for Oxford only. Likewise at Abingdon now with no A34 though traffic means you could open the Abingdon north interchange to create a local Abingdon bypass. You could even then not need to improve the wedlenbury interchange now that though traffic is not on the old A34 ...but all we get every time is moans about how to fix the A34 round Oxford and suggestions about how we could tinker with this and that. You can't! Squirrel15
  • Score: 56

10:59am Mon 5 May 14

Dilligaf2010 says...

The 50mph speed limit there is pointless, people knew the road was there when they bought the houses, they should accept there's going to be some noise.
The 50mph speed limit there is pointless, people knew the road was there when they bought the houses, they should accept there's going to be some noise. Dilligaf2010
  • Score: 56

11:18am Mon 5 May 14

the wizard says...

During the last 10 to 15 years motorists will have noticed that tyres do not last like they once did, the reason for this was to reduce road noise down to an EU standard . So if this standard is good enough for everybody else and the levels have reduced, then why do we have this nonsensical speed limit on this main route. As suggested above baffles and different road surfaces could also be used to minimize the impact .

The fact remains that OCC have yet again once more failed to look ahead and plan for the future, and have in their now habit formed manner painted themselves into a corner. The truth of the matter that from the M40 interchange down to south of Didcot this road is not fit for purpose. The whole aspect of an interchange on a curve as suggested above is a plain recipe for trouble. Side roads onto housing estates will always bring problems with the shear density of traffic and very limited slip roads onto a main route which should be up to motorway standard anyway because of the number and size of vehicles that use it .

So now it has become a cash cow for government coffers, just how sad is that, and just how sad are OCC for allowing the whole state of matters to fall to this level, and as usual they are afraid to step in and improve matters for the good of all, Botley residents included. If the council are so worried about noise and emission pollution then they should provide a suitable for purpose alternative route to take away the main body of traffic.
During the last 10 to 15 years motorists will have noticed that tyres do not last like they once did, the reason for this was to reduce road noise down to an EU standard . So if this standard is good enough for everybody else and the levels have reduced, then why do we have this nonsensical speed limit on this main route. As suggested above baffles and different road surfaces could also be used to minimize the impact . The fact remains that OCC have yet again once more failed to look ahead and plan for the future, and have in their now habit formed manner painted themselves into a corner. The truth of the matter that from the M40 interchange down to south of Didcot this road is not fit for purpose. The whole aspect of an interchange on a curve as suggested above is a plain recipe for trouble. Side roads onto housing estates will always bring problems with the shear density of traffic and very limited slip roads onto a main route which should be up to motorway standard anyway because of the number and size of vehicles that use it . So now it has become a cash cow for government coffers, just how sad is that, and just how sad are OCC for allowing the whole state of matters to fall to this level, and as usual they are afraid to step in and improve matters for the good of all, Botley residents included. If the council are so worried about noise and emission pollution then they should provide a suitable for purpose alternative route to take away the main body of traffic. the wizard
  • Score: 19

12:49pm Mon 5 May 14

Cityview says...

Sorry this limit was not introduced to reduce road noise.

If my memory is correct it was allegedly introduced just a few months before a general election at the behest of the outgoing Tory MP in a vain attempt to buy some votes.

This is why it was not supported by TVP at the time who publicly stated they were not planning to enforce it and never did for years.

In terms of ease of use of the slip roads I find the limit on the northbound carriageway makes it worse. The traffic bunches up, you get idiots driving exactly at 50mph as indicated by their speedos ( which is probably 10% hopeful so more like 46mph, check it against your sat nav which is reasonably accurate) being overtaken by HGVs who are holding their limiter speed of 56mph. Before the limit you got natural gaps between traffic which made it easier to get out.

The main reason it is difficult to join northbound at the Westminster Way and A420 junctions and southbound from North Hinksey Lane and the residential areas is slip roads which do not meet the design criteria for a dual carriageway and are too short to allow you to accelerate to carriageway speeds before joining the main road. Do some proper road building and you have no need for the limit.

I agree with Squirell15 we have a dual carriageway carrying more traffic than a lot of three lane UK motorways acting as both a trunk road and part of a ring road. A new motorway link would be much better value to the UK economy than the proposed HS2 train line designed to allow people to escape faster from Birmingham.

If the police are keen to do some enforcement they could try enforcing the weight limit restriction on Westminster Way which is being breached daily by deliveries to the local constructions sites. And no they can't come through to get access as its not exempt for local deliveries.
Sorry this limit was not introduced to reduce road noise. If my memory is correct it was allegedly introduced just a few months before a general election at the behest of the outgoing Tory MP in a vain attempt to buy some votes. This is why it was not supported by TVP at the time who publicly stated they were not planning to enforce it and never did for years. In terms of ease of use of the slip roads I find the limit on the northbound carriageway makes it worse. The traffic bunches up, you get idiots driving exactly at 50mph as indicated by their speedos ( which is probably 10% hopeful so more like 46mph, check it against your sat nav which is reasonably accurate) being overtaken by HGVs who are holding their limiter speed of 56mph. Before the limit you got natural gaps between traffic which made it easier to get out. The main reason it is difficult to join northbound at the Westminster Way and A420 junctions and southbound from North Hinksey Lane and the residential areas is slip roads which do not meet the design criteria for a dual carriageway and are too short to allow you to accelerate to carriageway speeds before joining the main road. Do some proper road building and you have no need for the limit. I agree with Squirell15 we have a dual carriageway carrying more traffic than a lot of three lane UK motorways acting as both a trunk road and part of a ring road. A new motorway link would be much better value to the UK economy than the proposed HS2 train line designed to allow people to escape faster from Birmingham. If the police are keen to do some enforcement they could try enforcing the weight limit restriction on Westminster Way which is being breached daily by deliveries to the local constructions sites. And no they can't come through to get access as its not exempt for local deliveries. Cityview
  • Score: 5

12:58pm Mon 5 May 14

Cityview says...

the wizard wrote:
During the last 10 to 15 years motorists will have noticed that tyres do not last like they once did, the reason for this was to reduce road noise down to an EU standard . So if this standard is good enough for everybody else and the levels have reduced, then why do we have this nonsensical speed limit on this main route. As suggested above baffles and different road surfaces could also be used to minimize the impact .

The fact remains that OCC have yet again once more failed to look ahead and plan for the future, and have in their now habit formed manner painted themselves into a corner. The truth of the matter that from the M40 interchange down to south of Didcot this road is not fit for purpose. The whole aspect of an interchange on a curve as suggested above is a plain recipe for trouble. Side roads onto housing estates will always bring problems with the shear density of traffic and very limited slip roads onto a main route which should be up to motorway standard anyway because of the number and size of vehicles that use it .

So now it has become a cash cow for government coffers, just how sad is that, and just how sad are OCC for allowing the whole state of matters to fall to this level, and as usual they are afraid to step in and improve matters for the good of all, Botley residents included. If the council are so worried about noise and emission pollution then they should provide a suitable for purpose alternative route to take away the main body of traffic.
Whilst agreeing with all of the above its a bit harsh blaming the problem on OCC who have very little responsibility, control or influence over trunk routes. The problem lies with central government (DaFT) who have maintained a stance for decades that does not recognise that their wonderful Southern Ports to the Midlands trunk road is also used as a ring road and by local residents to get to and from their homes. Hence the resistance to the proposed south bound junction for north Abingdon.
[quote][p][bold]the wizard[/bold] wrote: During the last 10 to 15 years motorists will have noticed that tyres do not last like they once did, the reason for this was to reduce road noise down to an EU standard . So if this standard is good enough for everybody else and the levels have reduced, then why do we have this nonsensical speed limit on this main route. As suggested above baffles and different road surfaces could also be used to minimize the impact . The fact remains that OCC have yet again once more failed to look ahead and plan for the future, and have in their now habit formed manner painted themselves into a corner. The truth of the matter that from the M40 interchange down to south of Didcot this road is not fit for purpose. The whole aspect of an interchange on a curve as suggested above is a plain recipe for trouble. Side roads onto housing estates will always bring problems with the shear density of traffic and very limited slip roads onto a main route which should be up to motorway standard anyway because of the number and size of vehicles that use it . So now it has become a cash cow for government coffers, just how sad is that, and just how sad are OCC for allowing the whole state of matters to fall to this level, and as usual they are afraid to step in and improve matters for the good of all, Botley residents included. If the council are so worried about noise and emission pollution then they should provide a suitable for purpose alternative route to take away the main body of traffic.[/p][/quote]Whilst agreeing with all of the above its a bit harsh blaming the problem on OCC who have very little responsibility, control or influence over trunk routes. The problem lies with central government (DaFT) who have maintained a stance for decades that does not recognise that their wonderful Southern Ports to the Midlands trunk road is also used as a ring road and by local residents to get to and from their homes. Hence the resistance to the proposed south bound junction for north Abingdon. Cityview
  • Score: 16

1:51pm Mon 5 May 14

West Oxon Webwatcher says...

I agree with most of the comments above and in particular the need to build a motorway standard link between the M40 east of Oxford and the A34 south of Didcot. However the volume of traffic on the A34 is such that accidents are far to frequent due to the volume and limited dual carriageway width on the existing A34. Lower speeds could reduce the number of collisions.
I travel occasionall down the A34 and keep to the 50 mph limit. However the vast majority of motorists, including many HGV drivers pass me at speeds well in excess of 50 so I am not at all surprised at the number of catches. What is needed whilst the road is as it is is a continual enforcemnt of the limit but the solution is the new link.
I agree with most of the comments above and in particular the need to build a motorway standard link between the M40 east of Oxford and the A34 south of Didcot. However the volume of traffic on the A34 is such that accidents are far to frequent due to the volume and limited dual carriageway width on the existing A34. Lower speeds could reduce the number of collisions. I travel occasionall down the A34 and keep to the 50 mph limit. However the vast majority of motorists, including many HGV drivers pass me at speeds well in excess of 50 so I am not at all surprised at the number of catches. What is needed whilst the road is as it is is a continual enforcemnt of the limit but the solution is the new link. West Oxon Webwatcher
  • Score: -11

3:30pm Mon 5 May 14

olafpalme says...

I see all the Clarksonite speed apologists are out `commenting' here. Ironic given that there are three stories of major highway accidents up at the same time, two of which involve overturned vehicles. No doubt these are the same commentators who whine about how dangerous cyclists are to their precious tin boxe's paint jobs. In 20 years the speed limits really will be limits when all cars will be under remote control.#lastlaugh
I see all the Clarksonite speed apologists are out `commenting' here. Ironic given that there are three stories of major highway accidents up at the same time, two of which involve overturned vehicles. No doubt these are the same commentators who whine about how dangerous cyclists are to their precious tin boxe's paint jobs. In 20 years the speed limits really will be limits when all cars will be under remote control.#lastlaugh olafpalme
  • Score: -22

3:55pm Mon 5 May 14

oxforddom says...

Once upon a time if large numbers of people were breaking a speed limit there would be a proper review of the road and the speed limit would either be reviewed or, if it was needed, engineering would take place to bring the average speed down.

Now it seems the police are more than happy to enforce stupid limits - they may not get money from fine, but they get a cut out of the thousands of people taking £95 "speed awareness" courses. It's clearly stupid to have a one mile section of 50mph limit on a 65 mile 70mph high speed dual carriageway, they either need to divert the road or raise the limit and use engineering to reduce road noise. TVP will just milk the situation in the meantime.
Once upon a time if large numbers of people were breaking a speed limit there would be a proper review of the road and the speed limit would either be reviewed or, if it was needed, engineering would take place to bring the average speed down. Now it seems the police are more than happy to enforce stupid limits - they may not get money from fine, but they get a cut out of the thousands of people taking £95 "speed awareness" courses. It's clearly stupid to have a one mile section of 50mph limit on a 65 mile 70mph high speed dual carriageway, they either need to divert the road or raise the limit and use engineering to reduce road noise. TVP will just milk the situation in the meantime. oxforddom
  • Score: 27

5:21pm Mon 5 May 14

Councillor mark cherry says...

I have no problem with police you speed camera enforcement on accident black spots or near schools were speeding poses a danger to parents and children. But on a major duel carriage way like the A34 50 MPH is too slow anyway in my personal opinion .Some members of the public see all this as a cash cow for the government to generate extra cash that's hidden behind the safety banner. This kind of enforcement is also replicated on the M6 with average speed camera. which catch drivers going over 30 MPH this a joke and the motorist are easy targets shame the roads are not fixed quicker.I have read some comments I'm no fan of Jeremy Clarkson but in my view it's bad driving rather than speed in a percentage of accidents in road crashes .tiredness also plays a part in accidents.
I have no problem with police you speed camera enforcement on accident black spots or near schools were speeding poses a danger to parents and children. But on a major duel carriage way like the A34 50 MPH is too slow anyway in my personal opinion .Some members of the public see all this as a cash cow for the government to generate extra cash that's hidden behind the safety banner. This kind of enforcement is also replicated on the M6 with average speed camera. which catch drivers going over 30 MPH this a joke and the motorist are easy targets shame the roads are not fixed quicker.I have read some comments I'm no fan of Jeremy Clarkson but in my view it's bad driving rather than speed in a percentage of accidents in road crashes .tiredness also plays a part in accidents. Councillor mark cherry
  • Score: 5

9:11pm Mon 5 May 14

museli says...

The difference in journey time between 70 mph and 50 mph for a half mile stretch is about 30 seconds - what a sorry load of apologists for the mad motor god you all are! Real people live near the A34 along here and no they shouldn't have to put up with the racket and nuisance caused by a load of selfish idiots who are unable to obey the law.
The difference in journey time between 70 mph and 50 mph for a half mile stretch is about 30 seconds - what a sorry load of apologists for the mad motor god you all are! Real people live near the A34 along here and no they shouldn't have to put up with the racket and nuisance caused by a load of selfish idiots who are unable to obey the law. museli
  • Score: -14

12:12am Tue 6 May 14

fishstew says...

If a car is going slower, wouldn't the noise be longer?
If a car is going slower, wouldn't the noise be longer? fishstew
  • Score: 22

1:00am Tue 6 May 14

Neonlights says...

museli wrote:
The difference in journey time between 70 mph and 50 mph for a half mile stretch is about 30 seconds - what a sorry load of apologists for the mad motor god you all are! Real people live near the A34 along here and no they shouldn't have to put up with the racket and nuisance caused by a load of selfish idiots who are unable to obey the law.
But that particular stretch of road is more than ½ mile.

btw, the only selfish idiots are the people who chose to live near that particular road. Chances are the road was already there before you lived there. If you'd have done your homework then you would have realised there was a noise problem.

IF you lived near a railway line or church would you insist the trains go slower past your house and the church bells be silenced between the hours of 9pm and 8am?
[quote][p][bold]museli[/bold] wrote: The difference in journey time between 70 mph and 50 mph for a half mile stretch is about 30 seconds - what a sorry load of apologists for the mad motor god you all are! Real people live near the A34 along here and no they shouldn't have to put up with the racket and nuisance caused by a load of selfish idiots who are unable to obey the law.[/p][/quote]But that particular stretch of road is more than ½ mile. btw, the only selfish idiots are the people who chose to live near that particular road. Chances are the road was already there before you lived there. If you'd have done your homework then you would have realised there was a noise problem. IF you lived near a railway line or church would you insist the trains go slower past your house and the church bells be silenced between the hours of 9pm and 8am? Neonlights
  • Score: 21

8:50am Tue 6 May 14

Squirrel15 says...

Well actually the houses WERE there before the originally single carriageway road became the major north south route up though central England.
So you are wrong.

Furthermore unlike the noise from church bells the traffic noise for the long suffering residents has substantially increased over years as the road carried more and more traffic.
So you are wrong again.
Well actually the houses WERE there before the originally single carriageway road became the major north south route up though central England. So you are wrong. Furthermore unlike the noise from church bells the traffic noise for the long suffering residents has substantially increased over years as the road carried more and more traffic. So you are wrong again. Squirrel15
  • Score: -7

2:02pm Tue 6 May 14

Vocman says...

I remember the 50mph limit being introduced as an "experiment" for a one-year period so the council could monitor the noise reduction and decide if the limit should become permanent.
Half-way through this period, they resurfaced the road with a quieter topping, and then when the year was up pronounced that the reduction in speed had resulted in a drop in noise levels! Chicanery, you could call that, but the speed limit remains at 50.
My major beef is that it continues for far too long on the southbound carriageway past North Hinksey, despite there being no turns or crossings.
I remember the 50mph limit being introduced as an "experiment" for a one-year period so the council could monitor the noise reduction and decide if the limit should become permanent. Half-way through this period, they resurfaced the road with a quieter topping, and then when the year was up pronounced that the reduction in speed had resulted in a drop in noise levels! Chicanery, you could call that, but the speed limit remains at 50. My major beef is that it continues for far too long on the southbound carriageway past North Hinksey, despite there being no turns or crossings. Vocman
  • Score: 27

6:48pm Tue 6 May 14

xenarthra says...

museli wrote:
The difference in journey time between 70 mph and 50 mph for a half mile stretch is about 30 seconds - what a sorry load of apologists for the mad motor god you all are! Real people live near the A34 along here and no they shouldn't have to put up with the racket and nuisance caused by a load of selfish idiots who are unable to obey the law.
in fact, it's only 10.3 seconds
[quote][p][bold]museli[/bold] wrote: The difference in journey time between 70 mph and 50 mph for a half mile stretch is about 30 seconds - what a sorry load of apologists for the mad motor god you all are! Real people live near the A34 along here and no they shouldn't have to put up with the racket and nuisance caused by a load of selfish idiots who are unable to obey the law.[/p][/quote]in fact, it's only 10.3 seconds xenarthra
  • Score: 1

9:35pm Tue 6 May 14

faatmaan says...

why is Oxford so anti car, if they don't like cars why are they so desperate to keep onside with BMW and its obvious financial value. Oxford is the only car producing area that actively discourages its use of the automobile beyond the realms of credibility, how long before BMW ups and goes, of course that would be the green light to build lots of houses to house the unemployed of Oxford, Oxford cannot rely totally on the Education sector to produce income that will sustain its forward development, or is that the game plan ?
why is Oxford so anti car, if they don't like cars why are they so desperate to keep onside with BMW and its obvious financial value. Oxford is the only car producing area that actively discourages its use of the automobile beyond the realms of credibility, how long before BMW ups and goes, of course that would be the green light to build lots of houses to house the unemployed of Oxford, Oxford cannot rely totally on the Education sector to produce income that will sustain its forward development, or is that the game plan ? faatmaan
  • Score: 16

11:01pm Tue 6 May 14

grandconjuration says...

faatmaan wrote:
why is Oxford so anti car, if they don't like cars why are they so desperate to keep onside with BMW and its obvious financial value. Oxford is the only car producing area that actively discourages its use of the automobile beyond the realms of credibility, how long before BMW ups and goes, of course that would be the green light to build lots of houses to house the unemployed of Oxford, Oxford cannot rely totally on the Education sector to produce income that will sustain its forward development, or is that the game plan ?
Get a grip. This is about the enforcement of the speed limit on a 1 mile stretch of dual carriageway. It has no influence on BMW's business strategy.

What a load of whinging cry babies we have on here, like spoilt children. Waaaah, I want to go fast, waaaah, I don't care about anybody but myself, waaaaa, I bought a car and should be able to do what I want.

You have 3 choices:

1. Exceed the speed limit and (hopefully) receive a ban from driving.

2. Give your driving licence back. You have the privilege of using public roads under licence. If you don't agree with the rules then give it back.

3. Adhere to the rules that you accepted when you received your driving licence.
[quote][p][bold]faatmaan[/bold] wrote: why is Oxford so anti car, if they don't like cars why are they so desperate to keep onside with BMW and its obvious financial value. Oxford is the only car producing area that actively discourages its use of the automobile beyond the realms of credibility, how long before BMW ups and goes, of course that would be the green light to build lots of houses to house the unemployed of Oxford, Oxford cannot rely totally on the Education sector to produce income that will sustain its forward development, or is that the game plan ?[/p][/quote]Get a grip. This is about the enforcement of the speed limit on a 1 mile stretch of dual carriageway. It has no influence on BMW's business strategy. What a load of whinging cry babies we have on here, like spoilt children. Waaaah, I want to go fast, waaaah, I don't care about anybody but myself, waaaaa, I bought a car and should be able to do what I want. You have 3 choices: 1. Exceed the speed limit and (hopefully) receive a ban from driving. 2. Give your driving licence back. You have the privilege of using public roads under licence. If you don't agree with the rules then give it back. 3. Adhere to the rules that you accepted when you received your driving licence. grandconjuration
  • Score: -4

10:01am Thu 8 May 14

Adrian1 says...

I think everyone posting here would agree the A34 M40 - M4 is not fit for purpose, so what are the local MP's going to do about it to get votes?
I think everyone posting here would agree the A34 M40 - M4 is not fit for purpose, so what are the local MP's going to do about it to get votes? Adrian1
  • Score: 16

10:24am Thu 8 May 14

museli says...

Adrian1 wrote:
I think everyone posting here would agree the A34 M40 - M4 is not fit for purpose, so what are the local MP's going to do about it to get votes?
I don't agree - we need to be reducing excess reliance on and use of motor vehicles not increasing capacity.
[quote][p][bold]Adrian1[/bold] wrote: I think everyone posting here would agree the A34 M40 - M4 is not fit for purpose, so what are the local MP's going to do about it to get votes?[/p][/quote]I don't agree - we need to be reducing excess reliance on and use of motor vehicles not increasing capacity. museli
  • Score: -28

7:55pm Thu 8 May 14

deedee444 says...

Waaaah waaaaaah waaaaahhhhh those nasty cars are making a noise again,i cant sleep in the house I paid plenty £££ for RIGHT NEXT TO A BUSY ROAD................
...........idiots!!!
!!!
Waaaah waaaaaah waaaaahhhhh those nasty cars are making a noise again,i cant sleep in the house I paid plenty £££ for RIGHT NEXT TO A BUSY ROAD................ ...........idiots!!! !!! deedee444
  • Score: 14

5:14pm Fri 9 May 14

semi-detached layby says...

50mph for one mile takes 72 seconds
60 mph for one mile takes 60 seconds
70 mph for one mile takes 51.4 seconds.

So for every mile at 50 mph instead of 70 mph you lose 20.6 seconds. Even that is an overestimate because you rarely achieve 70 mph average in a 70 mph zone, probably averaging 65 mph.

Thus realistically a mile driven at a restricted speed of 50 mph loses you maybe 16 or 17 seconds. The actual restricted zone is more like 1 1/2 miles (estimated) so a loss of maybe 25 seconds.

So the howls of rage in the above posts are about a loss of 25 seconds.

1. What would you do with the 25 seconds if you got it back?
2. Do you know how much fuel you would save during the speed restriction?
3. Do you understand that the fuel saved represents pollutants not emitted, so benefitting the locals?
4. Do you know that the noise of your vehicle increases at least as the square of the speed, so by 96% at 70 compared to 50 mph?
5. Have you ever thought that a brief spell of a minute or two at a steady 50 mph can get you into a relaxed state so allowing you to drive safely for longer? if not, try some Yoga to learn of the benefits.

Driving on today's roads requires consideration. Lots of motorists show consideration: many do not. My suspicion is that quite a few of the inconsiderate ones have posted here.
50mph for one mile takes 72 seconds 60 mph for one mile takes 60 seconds 70 mph for one mile takes 51.4 seconds. So for every mile at 50 mph instead of 70 mph you lose 20.6 seconds. Even that is an overestimate because you rarely achieve 70 mph average in a 70 mph zone, probably averaging 65 mph. Thus realistically a mile driven at a restricted speed of 50 mph loses you maybe 16 or 17 seconds. The actual restricted zone is more like 1 1/2 miles (estimated) so a loss of maybe 25 seconds. So the howls of rage in the above posts are about a loss of 25 seconds. 1. What would you do with the 25 seconds if you got it back? 2. Do you know how much fuel you would save during the speed restriction? 3. Do you understand that the fuel saved represents pollutants not emitted, so benefitting the locals? 4. Do you know that the noise of your vehicle increases at least as the square of the speed, so by 96% at 70 compared to 50 mph? 5. Have you ever thought that a brief spell of a minute or two at a steady 50 mph can get you into a relaxed state so allowing you to drive safely for longer? if not, try some Yoga to learn of the benefits. Driving on today's roads requires consideration. Lots of motorists show consideration: many do not. My suspicion is that quite a few of the inconsiderate ones have posted here. semi-detached layby
  • Score: 5

5:59am Sat 10 May 14

The New Private Eye says...

semi-detached layby wrote:
50mph for one mile takes 72 seconds
60 mph for one mile takes 60 seconds
70 mph for one mile takes 51.4 seconds.

So for every mile at 50 mph instead of 70 mph you lose 20.6 seconds. Even that is an overestimate because you rarely achieve 70 mph average in a 70 mph zone, probably averaging 65 mph.

Thus realistically a mile driven at a restricted speed of 50 mph loses you maybe 16 or 17 seconds. The actual restricted zone is more like 1 1/2 miles (estimated) so a loss of maybe 25 seconds.

So the howls of rage in the above posts are about a loss of 25 seconds.

1. What would you do with the 25 seconds if you got it back?
2. Do you know how much fuel you would save during the speed restriction?
3. Do you understand that the fuel saved represents pollutants not emitted, so benefitting the locals?
4. Do you know that the noise of your vehicle increases at least as the square of the speed, so by 96% at 70 compared to 50 mph?
5. Have you ever thought that a brief spell of a minute or two at a steady 50 mph can get you into a relaxed state so allowing you to drive safely for longer? if not, try some Yoga to learn of the benefits.

Driving on today's roads requires consideration. Lots of motorists show consideration: many do not. My suspicion is that quite a few of the inconsiderate ones have posted here.
Brilliant bit of copy and pasting. 100% and a gold star. Go and see teacher after class
[quote][p][bold]semi-detached layby[/bold] wrote: 50mph for one mile takes 72 seconds 60 mph for one mile takes 60 seconds 70 mph for one mile takes 51.4 seconds. So for every mile at 50 mph instead of 70 mph you lose 20.6 seconds. Even that is an overestimate because you rarely achieve 70 mph average in a 70 mph zone, probably averaging 65 mph. Thus realistically a mile driven at a restricted speed of 50 mph loses you maybe 16 or 17 seconds. The actual restricted zone is more like 1 1/2 miles (estimated) so a loss of maybe 25 seconds. So the howls of rage in the above posts are about a loss of 25 seconds. 1. What would you do with the 25 seconds if you got it back? 2. Do you know how much fuel you would save during the speed restriction? 3. Do you understand that the fuel saved represents pollutants not emitted, so benefitting the locals? 4. Do you know that the noise of your vehicle increases at least as the square of the speed, so by 96% at 70 compared to 50 mph? 5. Have you ever thought that a brief spell of a minute or two at a steady 50 mph can get you into a relaxed state so allowing you to drive safely for longer? if not, try some Yoga to learn of the benefits. Driving on today's roads requires consideration. Lots of motorists show consideration: many do not. My suspicion is that quite a few of the inconsiderate ones have posted here.[/p][/quote]Brilliant bit of copy and pasting. 100% and a gold star. Go and see teacher after class The New Private Eye
  • Score: 0

3:55pm Sat 10 May 14

Spitefuel says...

If someone is caught speeding over a huge red sign like that needs banning from driving as their eyesight is clearly not up to the job.

1 month ban for every mile over the speed limit they were. A compulsory eye test once the ban is up.

They either have poor eyesight or are too stupid to be allowed on the roads.

Either way they need banning.
If someone is caught speeding over a huge red sign like that needs banning from driving as their eyesight is clearly not up to the job. 1 month ban for every mile over the speed limit they were. A compulsory eye test once the ban is up. They either have poor eyesight or are too stupid to be allowed on the roads. Either way they need banning. Spitefuel
  • Score: -7

1:12am Sun 11 May 14

OxonResident says...

Problem is if you do slow down to the 50mph limit many of the HGVs will drive right up to your bumper and then swing out in front of someone else to re-overtake you shortly after you've just passed them in the 70 zone. I think a 60mph limit would be much more efficient at managing the flow of traffic through the area and would still take the edge off the traffic noise for nearby residents.

There's a huge number of houses being built in Didcot and Bicester right now and over the next few years, so I would imagine the local A34 traffic will get busier. An upgrade to a three lane green A road or a separate new motorway route will need to be seriously considered sooner or later.
Problem is if you do slow down to the 50mph limit many of the HGVs will drive right up to your bumper and then swing out in front of someone else to re-overtake you shortly after you've just passed them in the 70 zone. I think a 60mph limit would be much more efficient at managing the flow of traffic through the area and would still take the edge off the traffic noise for nearby residents. There's a huge number of houses being built in Didcot and Bicester right now and over the next few years, so I would imagine the local A34 traffic will get busier. An upgrade to a three lane green A road or a separate new motorway route will need to be seriously considered sooner or later. OxonResident
  • Score: 12

9:37pm Sun 11 May 14

deedee444 says...

From my own memory the speed limit was introduced after an accident where a person/persons was/were killed while going for a test drive in a car from the garage under botley tower.....speed was said to be the main reason for the crash.......was quite a while ago.
From my own memory the speed limit was introduced after an accident where a person/persons was/were killed while going for a test drive in a car from the garage under botley tower.....speed was said to be the main reason for the crash.......was quite a while ago. deedee444
  • Score: 1

9:06am Mon 12 May 14

old sponger says...

As a commuter who uses the A34 everyday to commute from Woodstock to Chilton I would be very unlucky to be fined for speeding through the Botley interchange as at 7.30 am its stationary every weekday morning from Pear tree to Hinksey and as for travelling on the A34 northbound on a Friday Afternoon its a joke my longest journey home in 8 years of commuting is just over 2and a half hours..
As a commuter who uses the A34 everyday to commute from Woodstock to Chilton I would be very unlucky to be fined for speeding through the Botley interchange as at 7.30 am its stationary every weekday morning from Pear tree to Hinksey and as for travelling on the A34 northbound on a Friday Afternoon its a joke my longest journey home in 8 years of commuting is just over 2and a half hours.. old sponger
  • Score: 8

2:49pm Thu 15 May 14

DKR1987 says...

isn't most of that housing council owned anyway?
isn't most of that housing council owned anyway? DKR1987
  • Score: 2

7:20pm Sat 24 May 14

Chriso123 says...

I would normally say the 50mph is ridiculous, but there is a fair few residential estates that have to join the A34 to get out. So 50 is actually reasonable here. Most people who don't live there wouldn't even notice the junctions.

Not to intelligent planning initially to be honest. Not sensible putting residential estate exits/entrances directly on to dual carriage ways with no or little slip road.
I would normally say the 50mph is ridiculous, but there is a fair few residential estates that have to join the A34 to get out. So 50 is actually reasonable here. Most people who don't live there wouldn't even notice the junctions. Not to intelligent planning initially to be honest. Not sensible putting residential estate exits/entrances directly on to dual carriage ways with no or little slip road. Chriso123
  • Score: 0

12:51pm Wed 28 May 14

Adrian1 says...

Whether a motor vehicle is powered by internal combustion, steam, electric, compressed air, rockets or pixie dust, the society which we have grown to be demands them. They serve great purpose economically and perhaps more importantly make a statement regards personal freedom, non reliance on state, etc. Like them or loath them (own them or not I guess), they are here to stay baring apocalypse or police state. I stand by the statement the A34 between M40 and M4 is not fit for purpose and will degrade from that position, and yes, fully support constructing cycle ways, better trains etc. Still looking forwards to the national elections.
Whether a motor vehicle is powered by internal combustion, steam, electric, compressed air, rockets or pixie dust, the society which we have grown to be demands them. They serve great purpose economically and perhaps more importantly make a statement regards personal freedom, non reliance on state, etc. Like them or loath them (own them or not I guess), they are here to stay baring apocalypse or police state. I stand by the statement the A34 between M40 and M4 is not fit for purpose and will degrade from that position, and yes, fully support constructing cycle ways, better trains etc. Still looking forwards to the national elections. Adrian1
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

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

I agree