New 24mph speeding fines begin today

The Oxford Times: New fines for town speeders New fines for town speeders

DRIVERS caught breaking 20mph zones by 4mph in the city will from today face a fine and points on their licence.

Those found to be driving at 24mph through speed restricted areas in Oxford could end up paying a £100 fine and find themselves with three penalty points.

Thames Valley Police will offer a £95 speed awareness course as an alternative.

The 24mph enforcement action has only started now because police staff in the roads policing team have been trained to deliver a three-hour course on the importance of honouring the 20mph limit.

Most of Oxfords roads were made 20mph zones from September 2009 in a £250,000 move by Oxfordshire County Council.

But police initially admitted they would not enforce them.

It was not until three years later, in 2012, that police started to issue fines for speeding in the designated streets.

Those travelling between 26mph and 31mph were given a verbal caution, while those travelling at 32mph and above were given fixed penalty notices of £60, plus three points.

  • Our top stories:

Related links

Comments (44)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:40am Mon 30 Jun 14

Sandy Wimpole-Smythe says...

So long as the Police now practice what they preach there shouldn't be too many problems but somehow I doubt they will.
So long as the Police now practice what they preach there shouldn't be too many problems but somehow I doubt they will. Sandy Wimpole-Smythe
  • Score: 4

6:52am Mon 30 Jun 14

Andrew:Oxford says...

Sandy Wimpole-Smythe wrote:
So long as the Police now practice what they preach there shouldn't be too many problems but somehow I doubt they will.
Well, if you are in danger or distress and dial "999", please be sure to tell the operator that the responding blue-light service should respect the 20mph limits en-route.
[quote][p][bold]Sandy Wimpole-Smythe[/bold] wrote: So long as the Police now practice what they preach there shouldn't be too many problems but somehow I doubt they will.[/p][/quote]Well, if you are in danger or distress and dial "999", please be sure to tell the operator that the responding blue-light service should respect the 20mph limits en-route. Andrew:Oxford
  • Score: 1

7:22am Mon 30 Jun 14

Oflife says...

Sandy Wimpole-Smythe wrote:
So long as the Police now practice what they preach there shouldn't be too many problems but somehow I doubt they will.
Why should they? The 20mph limit is pathetic and ALL about money. Even 30mph is not fast in that part of the town. It is a very safe bit of road, no schools, just a short stretch followed by a right turn past The Randolph - except for buses and taxis who can continue down towards Broad Street.

It is actually quite difficult to maintain 20mph in most vehicles for an extended period of time, yes really. In my own car, an automatic, I have to put the car into 2nd gear manually, overriding the automatic transmission, which is nothing but a nuisance, very bad for the fuel economy as the engine revs must faster and of course, means a distraction as you're constantly monitoring your speedo instead of keeping your eyes on the road. Dangerous!

This is because either the greedy council gets your fine, or if you don't want your insurance premium ruined by 3 points, then the AA (who are owned by greedy investors and not the decent "He's a very nice man" organisation they were in the 1980s) get your £100 because they run the driving courses.

I promise you Oxford Mail Readers, this is about money, NOT safety, Oxfords problems are a) drugs, b) useless shopping, c) bike thefts (related to item a) and d) a considerable amount of other crime, all covered by this paper. But the police are so misused by the council that they focus on fining motorists than going after real criminals, therefore ruining the lives of said motorists.

And there is more, the sorts of motorists who drive down St. Giles are by their demographic, responsible hard working people. Unlike the disrespectful youth who drive their hot hatches around North Oxford at very excessive speeds, but are NOT pulled over because they don't have the money to pay the fine.

It's all pathetic and very dishonest, and why one day, I sincerely pray that the whole council is ripped out and replaced by one that treats retailers, motorists and the good public with respect - their remit, and lets the police focus on dangerous or thieving criminals.

Much more on all this on my blog and a lengthy letter to The Oxford Mail/Times in the coming months.
[quote][p][bold]Sandy Wimpole-Smythe[/bold] wrote: So long as the Police now practice what they preach there shouldn't be too many problems but somehow I doubt they will.[/p][/quote]Why should they? The 20mph limit is pathetic and ALL about money. Even 30mph is not fast in that part of the town. It is a very safe bit of road, no schools, just a short stretch followed by a right turn past The Randolph - except for buses and taxis who can continue down towards Broad Street. It is actually quite difficult to maintain 20mph in most vehicles for an extended period of time, yes really. In my own car, an automatic, I have to put the car into 2nd gear manually, overriding the automatic transmission, which is nothing but a nuisance, very bad for the fuel economy as the engine revs must faster and of course, means a distraction as you're constantly monitoring your speedo instead of keeping your eyes on the road. Dangerous! This is because either the greedy council gets your fine, or if you don't want your insurance premium ruined by 3 points, then the AA (who are owned by greedy investors and not the decent "He's a very nice man" organisation they were in the 1980s) get your £100 because they run the driving courses. I promise you Oxford Mail Readers, this is about money, NOT safety, Oxfords problems are a) drugs, b) useless shopping, c) bike thefts (related to item a) and d) a considerable amount of other crime, all covered by this paper. But the police are so misused by the council that they focus on fining motorists than going after real criminals, therefore ruining the lives of said motorists. And there is more, the sorts of motorists who drive down St. Giles are by their demographic, responsible hard working people. Unlike the disrespectful youth who drive their hot hatches around North Oxford at very excessive speeds, but are NOT pulled over because they don't have the money to pay the fine. It's all pathetic and very dishonest, and why one day, I sincerely pray that the whole council is ripped out and replaced by one that treats retailers, motorists and the good public with respect - their remit, and lets the police focus on dangerous or thieving criminals. Much more on all this on my blog and a lengthy letter to The Oxford Mail/Times in the coming months. Oflife
  • Score: 14

7:32am Mon 30 Jun 14

Oflife says...

I urge everyone to discard that English characteristic of putting head in sand and investigate the links between private businesses (including those that own the speed cameras), the insurance companies (who profit when you get 3 points for doing 24mph and you don't challenge those points and raise your premium) and the AA who profit from the speed awareness course.

As per my other lengthy comment, this is about money, not safety. St. Giles, that myself and others I know have driven up or down for over 25 years simply does not have a speeding / irresponsible motorist problem. It does attract new/visiting drivers to the town who are looking to park to visit nearby attractions, so they are prime fodder for being entrapped by the police or cameras. = £££

I shall be campaigning on this subject forever because it is so important. If no one stands up to a repressive corrupt state (owned by investment corporations), then a few years from now, the whole country is going to be run by automated systems that will squeeze money out of decent people for every innocent mistake or even actions that are harmless. For a light hearted look at where this is all headed, please see "Demolition Man".

There is no three strikes (warnings) and you're out, you are just posted a fine.

In the 1980s, even in genuine situations of speeding (say doing 60 in a 40 zone), a traffic cop would pull you over and give you a polite but stern warning. Just like parents do.

Where's decency and integrity gone, hmm?
I urge everyone to discard that English characteristic of putting head in sand and investigate the links between private businesses (including those that own the speed cameras), the insurance companies (who profit when you get 3 points for doing 24mph and you don't challenge those points and raise your premium) and the AA who profit from the speed awareness course. As per my other lengthy comment, this is about money, not safety. St. Giles, that myself and others I know have driven up or down for over 25 years simply does not have a speeding / irresponsible motorist problem. It does attract new/visiting drivers to the town who are looking to park to visit nearby attractions, so they are prime fodder for being entrapped by the police or cameras. = £££ I shall be campaigning on this subject forever because it is so important. If no one stands up to a repressive corrupt state (owned by investment corporations), then a few years from now, the whole country is going to be run by automated systems that will squeeze money out of decent people for every innocent mistake or even actions that are harmless. For a light hearted look at where this is all headed, please see "Demolition Man". There is no three strikes (warnings) and you're out, you are just posted a fine. In the 1980s, even in genuine situations of speeding (say doing 60 in a 40 zone), a traffic cop would pull you over and give you a polite but stern warning. Just like parents do. Where's decency and integrity gone, hmm? Oflife
  • Score: 5

8:31am Mon 30 Jun 14

jonny1976 says...

Entering St Giles from either Banbury or Woodstock road i have been over taken and under cut whilst doing the 20mph speed limit, as the road widens people take the opportunity to whizz passed to gain a few places. If you cant stick to the laws of the road then you should not drive. And as for no schools, pointless answer.
Entering St Giles from either Banbury or Woodstock road i have been over taken and under cut whilst doing the 20mph speed limit, as the road widens people take the opportunity to whizz passed to gain a few places. If you cant stick to the laws of the road then you should not drive. And as for no schools, pointless answer. jonny1976
  • Score: 9

9:48am Mon 30 Jun 14

Andrew:Oxford says...

If you can't drive at 20mph without staring at the speedo - then you either need more practice at driving at 20mph.

Or you need to buy a modern car with cruise-control. I use mine all the time around Oxford. Hit 20mph and press the button - job done.

St Giles is confusing for weak minded drivers though due to the width - it feels like a dual carriageway. Hopefully if trams ever make their way into the city this will result in a major rethink of the road design.
If you can't drive at 20mph without staring at the speedo - then you either need more practice at driving at 20mph. Or you need to buy a modern car with cruise-control. I use mine all the time around Oxford. Hit 20mph and press the button - job done. St Giles is confusing for weak minded drivers though due to the width - it feels like a dual carriageway. Hopefully if trams ever make their way into the city this will result in a major rethink of the road design. Andrew:Oxford
  • Score: 0

10:12am Mon 30 Jun 14

Quentin Walker says...

Andrew:Oxford wrote:
If you can't drive at 20mph without staring at the speedo - then you either need more practice at driving at 20mph.

Or you need to buy a modern car with cruise-control. I use mine all the time around Oxford. Hit 20mph and press the button - job done.

St Giles is confusing for weak minded drivers though due to the width - it feels like a dual carriageway. Hopefully if trams ever make their way into the city this will result in a major rethink of the road design.
What car do you have? My cruise control will not cut in under 30mph.
[quote][p][bold]Andrew:Oxford[/bold] wrote: If you can't drive at 20mph without staring at the speedo - then you either need more practice at driving at 20mph. Or you need to buy a modern car with cruise-control. I use mine all the time around Oxford. Hit 20mph and press the button - job done. St Giles is confusing for weak minded drivers though due to the width - it feels like a dual carriageway. Hopefully if trams ever make their way into the city this will result in a major rethink of the road design.[/p][/quote]What car do you have? My cruise control will not cut in under 30mph. Quentin Walker
  • Score: 7

10:21am Mon 30 Jun 14

docs says...

The nonsense part of the scheme is the selective choice of roads: St Giles is 20mph, as is London Road past Brookes, but the congested Iffley Road is 30mph, as is Headley Way.

Though the scheme is a nonsense, it would have been better to make the entire area inside the ring Road 20mph and have done with it.
The nonsense part of the scheme is the selective choice of roads: St Giles is 20mph, as is London Road past Brookes, but the congested Iffley Road is 30mph, as is Headley Way. Though the scheme is a nonsense, it would have been better to make the entire area inside the ring Road 20mph and have done with it. docs
  • Score: 3

10:45am Mon 30 Jun 14

Andrew:Oxford says...

Quentin Walker wrote:
Andrew:Oxford wrote:
If you can't drive at 20mph without staring at the speedo - then you either need more practice at driving at 20mph.

Or you need to buy a modern car with cruise-control. I use mine all the time around Oxford. Hit 20mph and press the button - job done.

St Giles is confusing for weak minded drivers though due to the width - it feels like a dual carriageway. Hopefully if trams ever make their way into the city this will result in a major rethink of the road design.
What car do you have? My cruise control will not cut in under 30mph.
VW, my last Ford had a minimum speed of 30mph for cruise control though.
[quote][p][bold]Quentin Walker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andrew:Oxford[/bold] wrote: If you can't drive at 20mph without staring at the speedo - then you either need more practice at driving at 20mph. Or you need to buy a modern car with cruise-control. I use mine all the time around Oxford. Hit 20mph and press the button - job done. St Giles is confusing for weak minded drivers though due to the width - it feels like a dual carriageway. Hopefully if trams ever make their way into the city this will result in a major rethink of the road design.[/p][/quote]What car do you have? My cruise control will not cut in under 30mph.[/p][/quote]VW, my last Ford had a minimum speed of 30mph for cruise control though. Andrew:Oxford
  • Score: 4

11:10am Mon 30 Jun 14

Neonlights says...

Re: using cruise control.

My car (an automatic) is fine on flat roads and going up hils with the cruise control enabled, which can be set at 18mph onwards. However going down hills, even slight inclines it has a habit of increasing speed.

I gather most automatics "run away" down hills unless you manually select a lower gear to use engine braking.
Re: using cruise control. My car (an automatic) is fine on flat roads and going up hils with the cruise control enabled, which can be set at 18mph onwards. However going down hills, even slight inclines it has a habit of increasing speed. I gather most automatics "run away" down hills unless you manually select a lower gear to use engine braking. Neonlights
  • Score: 6

12:38pm Mon 30 Jun 14

King Joke says...

Andrew:Oxford wrote:
Sandy Wimpole-Smythe wrote:
So long as the Police now practice what they preach there shouldn't be too many problems but somehow I doubt they will.
Well, if you are in danger or distress and dial "999", please be sure to tell the operator that the responding blue-light service should respect the 20mph limits en-route.
Don't be ridiculous Andrew. Everybody recognises the need for vehicles attending genuine emergencies to travel fast. In non-emergency situations however I'd expect all drivers to respect the law, even police!
[quote][p][bold]Andrew:Oxford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sandy Wimpole-Smythe[/bold] wrote: So long as the Police now practice what they preach there shouldn't be too many problems but somehow I doubt they will.[/p][/quote]Well, if you are in danger or distress and dial "999", please be sure to tell the operator that the responding blue-light service should respect the 20mph limits en-route.[/p][/quote]Don't be ridiculous Andrew. Everybody recognises the need for vehicles attending genuine emergencies to travel fast. In non-emergency situations however I'd expect all drivers to respect the law, even police! King Joke
  • Score: 9

2:27pm Mon 30 Jun 14

melyn am byth says...

I don't drive around The City very often, can someone tell me where our hard working, courageous, trusted & very much appreciated Police Force will be hanging around to implement this nonsensical 20mph limit?
I don't drive around The City very often, can someone tell me where our hard working, courageous, trusted & very much appreciated Police Force will be hanging around to implement this nonsensical 20mph limit? melyn am byth
  • Score: -4

3:33pm Mon 30 Jun 14

MikeOxon says...

According to official government statistics: https://www.gov.uk/g
overnment/statistica
l-data-sets/ras10-re
ported-road-accident
s accidents in 20mph zones increased by 19% between 2012 and 2013, which should be compared with declines in other zones, such as 30mph.

The evidence is that 20 zones increase accidents but evidence is consistently ignored by the authorities. Why?
According to official government statistics: https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/statistica l-data-sets/ras10-re ported-road-accident s accidents in 20mph zones increased by 19% between 2012 and 2013, which should be compared with declines in other zones, such as 30mph. The evidence is that 20 zones increase accidents but evidence is consistently ignored by the authorities. Why? MikeOxon
  • Score: 0

8:44pm Mon 30 Jun 14

grandconjuration says...

MikeOxon wrote:
According to official government statistics: https://www.gov.uk/g

overnment/statistica

l-data-sets/ras10-re

ported-road-accident

s accidents in 20mph zones increased by 19% between 2012 and 2013, which should be compared with declines in other zones, such as 30mph.

The evidence is that 20 zones increase accidents but evidence is consistently ignored by the authorities. Why?
Because the statistics are often misinterpreted. There was an increase in the number of 20 mph roads during this period, so the number of accidents recorded on them will increase. Overall the number of pedestrian casualties decreased, which is good news.
[quote][p][bold]MikeOxon[/bold] wrote: According to official government statistics: https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/statistica l-data-sets/ras10-re ported-road-accident s accidents in 20mph zones increased by 19% between 2012 and 2013, which should be compared with declines in other zones, such as 30mph. The evidence is that 20 zones increase accidents but evidence is consistently ignored by the authorities. Why?[/p][/quote]Because the statistics are often misinterpreted. There was an increase in the number of 20 mph roads during this period, so the number of accidents recorded on them will increase. Overall the number of pedestrian casualties decreased, which is good news. grandconjuration
  • Score: 12

8:49pm Mon 30 Jun 14

grandconjuration says...

Oflife wrote:
Sandy Wimpole-Smythe wrote:
So long as the Police now practice what they preach there shouldn't be too many problems but somehow I doubt they will.
Why should they? The 20mph limit is pathetic and ALL about money. Even 30mph is not fast in that part of the town. It is a very safe bit of road, no schools, just a short stretch followed by a right turn past The Randolph - except for buses and taxis who can continue down towards Broad Street.

It is actually quite difficult to maintain 20mph in most vehicles for an extended period of time, yes really. In my own car, an automatic, I have to put the car into 2nd gear manually, overriding the automatic transmission, which is nothing but a nuisance, very bad for the fuel economy as the engine revs must faster and of course, means a distraction as you're constantly monitoring your speedo instead of keeping your eyes on the road. Dangerous!

This is because either the greedy council gets your fine, or if you don't want your insurance premium ruined by 3 points, then the AA (who are owned by greedy investors and not the decent "He's a very nice man" organisation they were in the 1980s) get your £100 because they run the driving courses.

I promise you Oxford Mail Readers, this is about money, NOT safety, Oxfords problems are a) drugs, b) useless shopping, c) bike thefts (related to item a) and d) a considerable amount of other crime, all covered by this paper. But the police are so misused by the council that they focus on fining motorists than going after real criminals, therefore ruining the lives of said motorists.

And there is more, the sorts of motorists who drive down St. Giles are by their demographic, responsible hard working people. Unlike the disrespectful youth who drive their hot hatches around North Oxford at very excessive speeds, but are NOT pulled over because they don't have the money to pay the fine.

It's all pathetic and very dishonest, and why one day, I sincerely pray that the whole council is ripped out and replaced by one that treats retailers, motorists and the good public with respect - their remit, and lets the police focus on dangerous or thieving criminals.

Much more on all this on my blog and a lengthy letter to The Oxford Mail/Times in the coming months.
I love it when someone admits in writing that they can't control their car and drive properly. Try taking your driving test without the ability to keep within a speed and see what happens.

I wonder if there will ever be a case when comments like this are used in court?
[quote][p][bold]Oflife[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sandy Wimpole-Smythe[/bold] wrote: So long as the Police now practice what they preach there shouldn't be too many problems but somehow I doubt they will.[/p][/quote]Why should they? The 20mph limit is pathetic and ALL about money. Even 30mph is not fast in that part of the town. It is a very safe bit of road, no schools, just a short stretch followed by a right turn past The Randolph - except for buses and taxis who can continue down towards Broad Street. It is actually quite difficult to maintain 20mph in most vehicles for an extended period of time, yes really. In my own car, an automatic, I have to put the car into 2nd gear manually, overriding the automatic transmission, which is nothing but a nuisance, very bad for the fuel economy as the engine revs must faster and of course, means a distraction as you're constantly monitoring your speedo instead of keeping your eyes on the road. Dangerous! This is because either the greedy council gets your fine, or if you don't want your insurance premium ruined by 3 points, then the AA (who are owned by greedy investors and not the decent "He's a very nice man" organisation they were in the 1980s) get your £100 because they run the driving courses. I promise you Oxford Mail Readers, this is about money, NOT safety, Oxfords problems are a) drugs, b) useless shopping, c) bike thefts (related to item a) and d) a considerable amount of other crime, all covered by this paper. But the police are so misused by the council that they focus on fining motorists than going after real criminals, therefore ruining the lives of said motorists. And there is more, the sorts of motorists who drive down St. Giles are by their demographic, responsible hard working people. Unlike the disrespectful youth who drive their hot hatches around North Oxford at very excessive speeds, but are NOT pulled over because they don't have the money to pay the fine. It's all pathetic and very dishonest, and why one day, I sincerely pray that the whole council is ripped out and replaced by one that treats retailers, motorists and the good public with respect - their remit, and lets the police focus on dangerous or thieving criminals. Much more on all this on my blog and a lengthy letter to The Oxford Mail/Times in the coming months.[/p][/quote]I love it when someone admits in writing that they can't control their car and drive properly. Try taking your driving test without the ability to keep within a speed and see what happens. I wonder if there will ever be a case when comments like this are used in court? grandconjuration
  • Score: 6

9:59pm Mon 30 Jun 14

Jameslouis says...

I think it is disgusting that motorists are told that they can only drive at twenty miles per hour, it's wastes money for the drivers as the cars waste more file in the lower heras, fact not fiction and who gives a **** about the pedestrians or push bikes, pedestrians should look,where there going and stay off the roads except for the allocated places to cross, ie zebra crossings and bikes have no say either as they do not pan road tax or car insurance, this is getting like Russia a communist state what will we be told we cannot do next, because most academics in Oxford have no common sense and are thick and keep,getting knocked over the motorists should not be targeted, stuff the twenty miles per hour speed limit. I'm not be told by corrupts council or corrupt government what speed I can do .
I think it is disgusting that motorists are told that they can only drive at twenty miles per hour, it's wastes money for the drivers as the cars waste more file in the lower heras, fact not fiction and who gives a **** about the pedestrians or push bikes, pedestrians should look,where there going and stay off the roads except for the allocated places to cross, ie zebra crossings and bikes have no say either as they do not pan road tax or car insurance, this is getting like Russia a communist state what will we be told we cannot do next, because most academics in Oxford have no common sense and are thick and keep,getting knocked over the motorists should not be targeted, stuff the twenty miles per hour speed limit. I'm not be told by corrupts council or corrupt government what speed I can do . Jameslouis
  • Score: -12

11:28pm Mon 30 Jun 14

the wizard says...

Well this underlines the councils stance against the motorist. Residents have to have permits, we all pay over the odds for parking, now everyone gets clobbered in another cheap swipe easy revenue builder for the council.

Take, take, take, take and then they wonder why nobody likes to visit Oxford, well, only the first time maybe and after that they realize they were ripped off, heavily penalized for any indiscretion, so as a result they take their custom elsewhere.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the police are all eating ice creams, and when they don't they are issuing silly tickets on St Giles, well you couldn't make it up, and on the other side of the coin the council say they have no money, even for the most basic road repairs, well we the public must be a few pence short of the shilling for voting these people in. You only have yourselves to blame because you vote for idiots and this is what you get. Somebody quick, phone Walt Disney and get him in here to recruit these comic characters so we can get some real people in to run the show.
Well this underlines the councils stance against the motorist. Residents have to have permits, we all pay over the odds for parking, now everyone gets clobbered in another cheap swipe easy revenue builder for the council. Take, take, take, take and then they wonder why nobody likes to visit Oxford, well, only the first time maybe and after that they realize they were ripped off, heavily penalized for any indiscretion, so as a result they take their custom elsewhere. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the police are all eating ice creams, and when they don't they are issuing silly tickets on St Giles, well you couldn't make it up, and on the other side of the coin the council say they have no money, even for the most basic road repairs, well we the public must be a few pence short of the shilling for voting these people in. You only have yourselves to blame because you vote for idiots and this is what you get. Somebody quick, phone Walt Disney and get him in here to recruit these comic characters so we can get some real people in to run the show. the wizard
  • Score: 2

12:47pm Tue 1 Jul 14

Andrew:Oxford says...

the wizard wrote:
Well this underlines the councils stance against the motorist. Residents have to have permits, we all pay over the odds for parking, now everyone gets clobbered in another cheap swipe easy revenue builder for the council.

Take, take, take, take and then they wonder why nobody likes to visit Oxford, well, only the first time maybe and after that they realize they were ripped off, heavily penalized for any indiscretion, so as a result they take their custom elsewhere.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the police are all eating ice creams, and when they don't they are issuing silly tickets on St Giles, well you couldn't make it up, and on the other side of the coin the council say they have no money, even for the most basic road repairs, well we the public must be a few pence short of the shilling for voting these people in. You only have yourselves to blame because you vote for idiots and this is what you get. Somebody quick, phone Walt Disney and get him in here to recruit these comic characters so we can get some real people in to run the show.
*If only!*

Were the residents of Oxford to vote to outsource operations of the city to The Walt Disney Corporation (or Merlin Entertainment) - we'd probably receive a net payment per household instead of paying council tax.
[quote][p][bold]the wizard[/bold] wrote: Well this underlines the councils stance against the motorist. Residents have to have permits, we all pay over the odds for parking, now everyone gets clobbered in another cheap swipe easy revenue builder for the council. Take, take, take, take and then they wonder why nobody likes to visit Oxford, well, only the first time maybe and after that they realize they were ripped off, heavily penalized for any indiscretion, so as a result they take their custom elsewhere. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the police are all eating ice creams, and when they don't they are issuing silly tickets on St Giles, well you couldn't make it up, and on the other side of the coin the council say they have no money, even for the most basic road repairs, well we the public must be a few pence short of the shilling for voting these people in. You only have yourselves to blame because you vote for idiots and this is what you get. Somebody quick, phone Walt Disney and get him in here to recruit these comic characters so we can get some real people in to run the show.[/p][/quote]*If only!* Were the residents of Oxford to vote to outsource operations of the city to The Walt Disney Corporation (or Merlin Entertainment) - we'd probably receive a net payment per household instead of paying council tax. Andrew:Oxford
  • Score: 1

5:12pm Tue 1 Jul 14

jochta says...

Jameslouis wrote:
I think it is disgusting that motorists are told that they can only drive at twenty miles per hour, it's wastes money for the drivers as the cars waste more file in the lower heras, fact not fiction and who gives a **** about the pedestrians or push bikes, pedestrians should look,where there going and stay off the roads except for the allocated places to cross, ie zebra crossings and bikes have no say either as they do not pan road tax or car insurance, this is getting like Russia a communist state what will we be told we cannot do next, because most academics in Oxford have no common sense and are thick and keep,getting knocked over the motorists should not be targeted, stuff the twenty miles per hour speed limit. I'm not be told by corrupts council or corrupt government what speed I can do .
Road tax doesn't exist, it was abolished in the 1930s. Cyclists like motorists pay for the roads via general taxation. They pay the same VED as a low emission car, i.e. £0.

Many cyclists are insured and most also hold a driving licence, own a car and have car insurance.

Good luck keeping your licence to drive by ignoring speed limits, hopefully you'll lose it sooner rather than later so you don't continue to endanger other road users with your reckless behaviour.
[quote][p][bold]Jameslouis[/bold] wrote: I think it is disgusting that motorists are told that they can only drive at twenty miles per hour, it's wastes money for the drivers as the cars waste more file in the lower heras, fact not fiction and who gives a **** about the pedestrians or push bikes, pedestrians should look,where there going and stay off the roads except for the allocated places to cross, ie zebra crossings and bikes have no say either as they do not pan road tax or car insurance, this is getting like Russia a communist state what will we be told we cannot do next, because most academics in Oxford have no common sense and are thick and keep,getting knocked over the motorists should not be targeted, stuff the twenty miles per hour speed limit. I'm not be told by corrupts council or corrupt government what speed I can do .[/p][/quote]Road tax doesn't exist, it was abolished in the 1930s. Cyclists like motorists pay for the roads via general taxation. They pay the same VED as a low emission car, i.e. £0. Many cyclists are insured and most also hold a driving licence, own a car and have car insurance. Good luck keeping your licence to drive by ignoring speed limits, hopefully you'll lose it sooner rather than later so you don't continue to endanger other road users with your reckless behaviour. jochta
  • Score: 11

1:08am Wed 2 Jul 14

the wizard says...

Many cyclists are insured and most also hold a driving licence, own a car and have car insurance.

If that is the case why are so many cyclists poor upholders of road manners, road safety and general standards, or is it that we have a concentration of non motorist cyclists in Oxford who are the born again morons that blight our world and especially Oxford by the day, hour, minute and second. On the path jumping lights, doing the legs crossed balancing act while scraping by your car and couldn't give a monkeys uncle about other people or their property, yes its those that people usually refer to, and don't forget they have poorly maintained bikes and judging by their clothes not two pennies to rub together let alone insurance as that would make them hypocrites in their own right. Not seen any of them ?????? really ?????? ought to go to specs savers then, because eyes wide open they are in abundance, and you would have to be ignorant not to see them, something which you obviously are not, so an eye test is a must. Specsavers it is then, go there, get equipped, and see what really happens all day every day.
Many cyclists are insured and most also hold a driving licence, own a car and have car insurance. If that is the case why are so many cyclists poor upholders of road manners, road safety and general standards, or is it that we have a concentration of non motorist cyclists in Oxford who are the born again morons that blight our world and especially Oxford by the day, hour, minute and second. On the path jumping lights, doing the legs crossed balancing act while scraping by your car and couldn't give a monkeys uncle about other people or their property, yes its those that people usually refer to, and don't forget they have poorly maintained bikes and judging by their clothes not two pennies to rub together let alone insurance as that would make them hypocrites in their own right. Not seen any of them ?????? really ?????? ought to go to specs savers then, because eyes wide open they are in abundance, and you would have to be ignorant not to see them, something which you obviously are not, so an eye test is a must. Specsavers it is then, go there, get equipped, and see what really happens all day every day. the wizard
  • Score: -1

8:02am Wed 2 Jul 14

John Lamb says...

Isn't the £3m the council makes from the bus gate cameras in Oxford enough?
It's almost an obscene amount of money.
Isn't the £3m the council makes from the bus gate cameras in Oxford enough? It's almost an obscene amount of money. John Lamb
  • Score: 0

10:18am Wed 2 Jul 14

Madi50n says...

the wizard wrote:
Many cyclists are insured and most also hold a driving licence, own a car and have car insurance.

If that is the case why are so many cyclists poor upholders of road manners, road safety and general standards, or is it that we have a concentration of non motorist cyclists in Oxford who are the born again morons that blight our world and especially Oxford by the day, hour, minute and second. On the path jumping lights, doing the legs crossed balancing act while scraping by your car and couldn't give a monkeys uncle about other people or their property, yes its those that people usually refer to, and don't forget they have poorly maintained bikes and judging by their clothes not two pennies to rub together let alone insurance as that would make them hypocrites in their own right. Not seen any of them ?????? really ?????? ought to go to specs savers then, because eyes wide open they are in abundance, and you would have to be ignorant not to see them, something which you obviously are not, so an eye test is a must. Specsavers it is then, go there, get equipped, and see what really happens all day every day.
I think you'll find this story is about "Motorists" not cyclists.
[quote][p][bold]the wizard[/bold] wrote: Many cyclists are insured and most also hold a driving licence, own a car and have car insurance. If that is the case why are so many cyclists poor upholders of road manners, road safety and general standards, or is it that we have a concentration of non motorist cyclists in Oxford who are the born again morons that blight our world and especially Oxford by the day, hour, minute and second. On the path jumping lights, doing the legs crossed balancing act while scraping by your car and couldn't give a monkeys uncle about other people or their property, yes its those that people usually refer to, and don't forget they have poorly maintained bikes and judging by their clothes not two pennies to rub together let alone insurance as that would make them hypocrites in their own right. Not seen any of them ?????? really ?????? ought to go to specs savers then, because eyes wide open they are in abundance, and you would have to be ignorant not to see them, something which you obviously are not, so an eye test is a must. Specsavers it is then, go there, get equipped, and see what really happens all day every day.[/p][/quote]I think you'll find this story is about "Motorists" not cyclists. Madi50n
  • Score: 6

10:19am Wed 2 Jul 14

Madi50n says...

Jameslouis wrote:
I think it is disgusting that motorists are told that they can only drive at twenty miles per hour, it's wastes money for the drivers as the cars waste more file in the lower heras, fact not fiction and who gives a **** about the pedestrians or push bikes, pedestrians should look,where there going and stay off the roads except for the allocated places to cross, ie zebra crossings and bikes have no say either as they do not pan road tax or car insurance, this is getting like Russia a communist state what will we be told we cannot do next, because most academics in Oxford have no common sense and are thick and keep,getting knocked over the motorists should not be targeted, stuff the twenty miles per hour speed limit. I'm not be told by corrupts council or corrupt government what speed I can do .
This story is about "Motorists" not "push bikes" or "pedestrians"
[quote][p][bold]Jameslouis[/bold] wrote: I think it is disgusting that motorists are told that they can only drive at twenty miles per hour, it's wastes money for the drivers as the cars waste more file in the lower heras, fact not fiction and who gives a **** about the pedestrians or push bikes, pedestrians should look,where there going and stay off the roads except for the allocated places to cross, ie zebra crossings and bikes have no say either as they do not pan road tax or car insurance, this is getting like Russia a communist state what will we be told we cannot do next, because most academics in Oxford have no common sense and are thick and keep,getting knocked over the motorists should not be targeted, stuff the twenty miles per hour speed limit. I'm not be told by corrupts council or corrupt government what speed I can do .[/p][/quote]This story is about "Motorists" not "push bikes" or "pedestrians" Madi50n
  • Score: 4

10:33am Wed 2 Jul 14

yabbadabbadoo256 says...

Oflife wrote:
I urge everyone to discard that English characteristic of putting head in sand and investigate the links between private businesses (including those that own the speed cameras), the insurance companies (who profit when you get 3 points for doing 24mph and you don't challenge those points and raise your premium) and the AA who profit from the speed awareness course.

As per my other lengthy comment, this is about money, not safety. St. Giles, that myself and others I know have driven up or down for over 25 years simply does not have a speeding / irresponsible motorist problem. It does attract new/visiting drivers to the town who are looking to park to visit nearby attractions, so they are prime fodder for being entrapped by the police or cameras. = £££

I shall be campaigning on this subject forever because it is so important. If no one stands up to a repressive corrupt state (owned by investment corporations), then a few years from now, the whole country is going to be run by automated systems that will squeeze money out of decent people for every innocent mistake or even actions that are harmless. For a light hearted look at where this is all headed, please see "Demolition Man".

There is no three strikes (warnings) and you're out, you are just posted a fine.

In the 1980s, even in genuine situations of speeding (say doing 60 in a 40 zone), a traffic cop would pull you over and give you a polite but stern warning. Just like parents do.

Where's decency and integrity gone, hmm?
With the motorist getting pummelled from all sides by this and other things at each opportunity, anyone up for creating a "Union of concerned motorists" lobby group to protect the motorists corner?
[quote][p][bold]Oflife[/bold] wrote: I urge everyone to discard that English characteristic of putting head in sand and investigate the links between private businesses (including those that own the speed cameras), the insurance companies (who profit when you get 3 points for doing 24mph and you don't challenge those points and raise your premium) and the AA who profit from the speed awareness course. As per my other lengthy comment, this is about money, not safety. St. Giles, that myself and others I know have driven up or down for over 25 years simply does not have a speeding / irresponsible motorist problem. It does attract new/visiting drivers to the town who are looking to park to visit nearby attractions, so they are prime fodder for being entrapped by the police or cameras. = £££ I shall be campaigning on this subject forever because it is so important. If no one stands up to a repressive corrupt state (owned by investment corporations), then a few years from now, the whole country is going to be run by automated systems that will squeeze money out of decent people for every innocent mistake or even actions that are harmless. For a light hearted look at where this is all headed, please see "Demolition Man". There is no three strikes (warnings) and you're out, you are just posted a fine. In the 1980s, even in genuine situations of speeding (say doing 60 in a 40 zone), a traffic cop would pull you over and give you a polite but stern warning. Just like parents do. Where's decency and integrity gone, hmm?[/p][/quote]With the motorist getting pummelled from all sides by this and other things at each opportunity, anyone up for creating a "Union of concerned motorists" lobby group to protect the motorists corner? yabbadabbadoo256
  • Score: -4

10:43am Wed 2 Jul 14

Madi50n says...

jochta wrote:
Jameslouis wrote:
I think it is disgusting that motorists are told that they can only drive at twenty miles per hour, it's wastes money for the drivers as the cars waste more file in the lower heras, fact not fiction and who gives a **** about the pedestrians or push bikes, pedestrians should look,where there going and stay off the roads except for the allocated places to cross, ie zebra crossings and bikes have no say either as they do not pan road tax or car insurance, this is getting like Russia a communist state what will we be told we cannot do next, because most academics in Oxford have no common sense and are thick and keep,getting knocked over the motorists should not be targeted, stuff the twenty miles per hour speed limit. I'm not be told by corrupts council or corrupt government what speed I can do .
Road tax doesn't exist, it was abolished in the 1930s. Cyclists like motorists pay for the roads via general taxation. They pay the same VED as a low emission car, i.e. £0.

Many cyclists are insured and most also hold a driving licence, own a car and have car insurance.

Good luck keeping your licence to drive by ignoring speed limits, hopefully you'll lose it sooner rather than later so you don't continue to endanger other road users with your reckless behaviour.
I wouldn't feed the anti-cyclist trolls on stories about motorists, it's a deflection tactic they use to avoid having to admit that motorists kill and injure thousands every year through dangerous, careless driving.

If you engage them on a "motorist" story they've effectively moved you off topic, which in this case is the law that says they shouldn't exceed the speed limit and the fact that the police are going to enforce that law.

They don't want to obey the law, because they think it doesn't make sense or is too difficult for them to abide by or it means their journey is a few seconds/minutes longer than they would like. Even though that's what they promised to do when they passed their driving test and received their licence.

Fortunately, the world is moving ever closer to the realisation that the love affair with the car will eventually have to come to an end. There are too many on the roads now and planning for more cars is impossible in cities like London, Oxford, Cambridge etc. the roads can't cope right now, so new ways forward need to be found.

Sooner or later the powers that be will have to face up to the fact that thousands are dying or seriously injured in this country because of motorists; and that licenses, insurance and MOTs and VED does nothing to prevent that, motorists still drive distractedly and/or dangerously.

Eventually, personal freedom to use a car will, much like smoking, have to be restricted. Our "right" to use a car, confers on us the responsibility to do so legally and safely, not just for us but for very single other road user. Should the deaths and injuries, the suffering caused, and millions of pounds spent on public services (NHS, Police, courts) to deal with these deaths and injuries be an acceptable part of the freedom to use a car. Right now it is; but I think that one day it will not, and that day can't come soon enough for me.
[quote][p][bold]jochta[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jameslouis[/bold] wrote: I think it is disgusting that motorists are told that they can only drive at twenty miles per hour, it's wastes money for the drivers as the cars waste more file in the lower heras, fact not fiction and who gives a **** about the pedestrians or push bikes, pedestrians should look,where there going and stay off the roads except for the allocated places to cross, ie zebra crossings and bikes have no say either as they do not pan road tax or car insurance, this is getting like Russia a communist state what will we be told we cannot do next, because most academics in Oxford have no common sense and are thick and keep,getting knocked over the motorists should not be targeted, stuff the twenty miles per hour speed limit. I'm not be told by corrupts council or corrupt government what speed I can do .[/p][/quote]Road tax doesn't exist, it was abolished in the 1930s. Cyclists like motorists pay for the roads via general taxation. They pay the same VED as a low emission car, i.e. £0. Many cyclists are insured and most also hold a driving licence, own a car and have car insurance. Good luck keeping your licence to drive by ignoring speed limits, hopefully you'll lose it sooner rather than later so you don't continue to endanger other road users with your reckless behaviour.[/p][/quote]I wouldn't feed the anti-cyclist trolls on stories about motorists, it's a deflection tactic they use to avoid having to admit that motorists kill and injure thousands every year through dangerous, careless driving. If you engage them on a "motorist" story they've effectively moved you off topic, which in this case is the law that says they shouldn't exceed the speed limit and the fact that the police are going to enforce that law. They don't want to obey the law, because they think it doesn't make sense or is too difficult for them to abide by or it means their journey is a few seconds/minutes longer than they would like. Even though that's what they promised to do when they passed their driving test and received their licence. Fortunately, the world is moving ever closer to the realisation that the love affair with the car will eventually have to come to an end. There are too many on the roads now and planning for more cars is impossible in cities like London, Oxford, Cambridge etc. the roads can't cope right now, so new ways forward need to be found. Sooner or later the powers that be will have to face up to the fact that thousands are dying or seriously injured in this country because of motorists; and that licenses, insurance and MOTs and VED does nothing to prevent that, motorists still drive distractedly and/or dangerously. Eventually, personal freedom to use a car will, much like smoking, have to be restricted. Our "right" to use a car, confers on us the responsibility to do so legally and safely, not just for us but for very single other road user. Should the deaths and injuries, the suffering caused, and millions of pounds spent on public services (NHS, Police, courts) to deal with these deaths and injuries be an acceptable part of the freedom to use a car. Right now it is; but I think that one day it will not, and that day can't come soon enough for me. Madi50n
  • Score: 9

2:22pm Wed 2 Jul 14

livid99 says...

Jameslouis wrote:
I think it is disgusting that motorists are told that they can only drive at twenty miles per hour, it's wastes money for the drivers as the cars waste more file in the lower heras, fact not fiction and who gives a **** about the pedestrians or push bikes, pedestrians should look,where there going and stay off the roads except for the allocated places to cross, ie zebra crossings and bikes have no say either as they do not pan road tax or car insurance, this is getting like Russia a communist state what will we be told we cannot do next, because most academics in Oxford have no common sense and are thick and keep,getting knocked over the motorists should not be targeted, stuff the twenty miles per hour speed limit. I'm not be told by corrupts council or corrupt government what speed I can do .
Hahaha ! now THAT is a proper rant !
Can you tell us all what make, model and colour your car is....just for our own personal safety ?
[quote][p][bold]Jameslouis[/bold] wrote: I think it is disgusting that motorists are told that they can only drive at twenty miles per hour, it's wastes money for the drivers as the cars waste more file in the lower heras, fact not fiction and who gives a **** about the pedestrians or push bikes, pedestrians should look,where there going and stay off the roads except for the allocated places to cross, ie zebra crossings and bikes have no say either as they do not pan road tax or car insurance, this is getting like Russia a communist state what will we be told we cannot do next, because most academics in Oxford have no common sense and are thick and keep,getting knocked over the motorists should not be targeted, stuff the twenty miles per hour speed limit. I'm not be told by corrupts council or corrupt government what speed I can do .[/p][/quote]Hahaha ! now THAT is a proper rant ! Can you tell us all what make, model and colour your car is....just for our own personal safety ? livid99
  • Score: -3

2:29pm Wed 2 Jul 14

The New Private Eye says...

grandconjuration wrote:
Oflife wrote:
Sandy Wimpole-Smythe wrote:
So long as the Police now practice what they preach there shouldn't be too many problems but somehow I doubt they will.
Why should they? The 20mph limit is pathetic and ALL about money. Even 30mph is not fast in that part of the town. It is a very safe bit of road, no schools, just a short stretch followed by a right turn past The Randolph - except for buses and taxis who can continue down towards Broad Street.

It is actually quite difficult to maintain 20mph in most vehicles for an extended period of time, yes really. In my own car, an automatic, I have to put the car into 2nd gear manually, overriding the automatic transmission, which is nothing but a nuisance, very bad for the fuel economy as the engine revs must faster and of course, means a distraction as you're constantly monitoring your speedo instead of keeping your eyes on the road. Dangerous!

This is because either the greedy council gets your fine, or if you don't want your insurance premium ruined by 3 points, then the AA (who are owned by greedy investors and not the decent "He's a very nice man" organisation they were in the 1980s) get your £100 because they run the driving courses.

I promise you Oxford Mail Readers, this is about money, NOT safety, Oxfords problems are a) drugs, b) useless shopping, c) bike thefts (related to item a) and d) a considerable amount of other crime, all covered by this paper. But the police are so misused by the council that they focus on fining motorists than going after real criminals, therefore ruining the lives of said motorists.

And there is more, the sorts of motorists who drive down St. Giles are by their demographic, responsible hard working people. Unlike the disrespectful youth who drive their hot hatches around North Oxford at very excessive speeds, but are NOT pulled over because they don't have the money to pay the fine.

It's all pathetic and very dishonest, and why one day, I sincerely pray that the whole council is ripped out and replaced by one that treats retailers, motorists and the good public with respect - their remit, and lets the police focus on dangerous or thieving criminals.

Much more on all this on my blog and a lengthy letter to The Oxford Mail/Times in the coming months.
I love it when someone admits in writing that they can't control their car and drive properly. Try taking your driving test without the ability to keep within a speed and see what happens.

I wonder if there will ever be a case when comments like this are used in court?
As a newbie GC you will probably not remember the quote from the Chief of the roads police when the council first mentioned bringing in a pretty much blanket 20mph limit for our roads. He actually said that he does not support them, that they bring no added safety to our roads without added traffic calming measures, and as such he would not put his much needed recourses into enforcing them. And for three years, until pressure was put onto them from a certain Cllr after a campaign in this rag, they did not enforce them, during this period everybody carried on as normal and we did not have the "death doom and disaster" that the cyclist and pedestrian lobby said would happen. Now we are left in a situation with artificially low speed limits, that the police do not want, but are forced to enforce. But the one silver lining is that if the police are true to their word, they will only be enforcing the new fine/points limit once a month in St Giles for a couple of hours. Personally i would prefer the police to use our money out on the A34 catching dangerous drivers on their phones and catching more D/Ds rather that a pointless money making exersize where no danger is being caused
[quote][p][bold]grandconjuration[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oflife[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sandy Wimpole-Smythe[/bold] wrote: So long as the Police now practice what they preach there shouldn't be too many problems but somehow I doubt they will.[/p][/quote]Why should they? The 20mph limit is pathetic and ALL about money. Even 30mph is not fast in that part of the town. It is a very safe bit of road, no schools, just a short stretch followed by a right turn past The Randolph - except for buses and taxis who can continue down towards Broad Street. It is actually quite difficult to maintain 20mph in most vehicles for an extended period of time, yes really. In my own car, an automatic, I have to put the car into 2nd gear manually, overriding the automatic transmission, which is nothing but a nuisance, very bad for the fuel economy as the engine revs must faster and of course, means a distraction as you're constantly monitoring your speedo instead of keeping your eyes on the road. Dangerous! This is because either the greedy council gets your fine, or if you don't want your insurance premium ruined by 3 points, then the AA (who are owned by greedy investors and not the decent "He's a very nice man" organisation they were in the 1980s) get your £100 because they run the driving courses. I promise you Oxford Mail Readers, this is about money, NOT safety, Oxfords problems are a) drugs, b) useless shopping, c) bike thefts (related to item a) and d) a considerable amount of other crime, all covered by this paper. But the police are so misused by the council that they focus on fining motorists than going after real criminals, therefore ruining the lives of said motorists. And there is more, the sorts of motorists who drive down St. Giles are by their demographic, responsible hard working people. Unlike the disrespectful youth who drive their hot hatches around North Oxford at very excessive speeds, but are NOT pulled over because they don't have the money to pay the fine. It's all pathetic and very dishonest, and why one day, I sincerely pray that the whole council is ripped out and replaced by one that treats retailers, motorists and the good public with respect - their remit, and lets the police focus on dangerous or thieving criminals. Much more on all this on my blog and a lengthy letter to The Oxford Mail/Times in the coming months.[/p][/quote]I love it when someone admits in writing that they can't control their car and drive properly. Try taking your driving test without the ability to keep within a speed and see what happens. I wonder if there will ever be a case when comments like this are used in court?[/p][/quote]As a newbie GC you will probably not remember the quote from the Chief of the roads police when the council first mentioned bringing in a pretty much blanket 20mph limit for our roads. He actually said that he does not support them, that they bring no added safety to our roads without added traffic calming measures, and as such he would not put his much needed recourses into enforcing them. And for three years, until pressure was put onto them from a certain Cllr after a campaign in this rag, they did not enforce them, during this period everybody carried on as normal and we did not have the "death doom and disaster" that the cyclist and pedestrian lobby said would happen. Now we are left in a situation with artificially low speed limits, that the police do not want, but are forced to enforce. But the one silver lining is that if the police are true to their word, they will only be enforcing the new fine/points limit once a month in St Giles for a couple of hours. Personally i would prefer the police to use our money out on the A34 catching dangerous drivers on their phones and catching more D/Ds rather that a pointless money making exersize where no danger is being caused The New Private Eye
  • Score: -2

2:30pm Wed 2 Jul 14

livid99 says...

Madi50n wrote:
the wizard wrote:
Many cyclists are insured and most also hold a driving licence, own a car and have car insurance.

If that is the case why are so many cyclists poor upholders of road manners, road safety and general standards, or is it that we have a concentration of non motorist cyclists in Oxford who are the born again morons that blight our world and especially Oxford by the day, hour, minute and second. On the path jumping lights, doing the legs crossed balancing act while scraping by your car and couldn't give a monkeys uncle about other people or their property, yes its those that people usually refer to, and don't forget they have poorly maintained bikes and judging by their clothes not two pennies to rub together let alone insurance as that would make them hypocrites in their own right. Not seen any of them ?????? really ?????? ought to go to specs savers then, because eyes wide open they are in abundance, and you would have to be ignorant not to see them, something which you obviously are not, so an eye test is a must. Specsavers it is then, go there, get equipped, and see what really happens all day every day.
I think you'll find this story is about "Motorists" not cyclists.
So what if a cyclist is caught doing more than 20mph ? Will they face the same fine a motorist ?
[quote][p][bold]Madi50n[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the wizard[/bold] wrote: Many cyclists are insured and most also hold a driving licence, own a car and have car insurance. If that is the case why are so many cyclists poor upholders of road manners, road safety and general standards, or is it that we have a concentration of non motorist cyclists in Oxford who are the born again morons that blight our world and especially Oxford by the day, hour, minute and second. On the path jumping lights, doing the legs crossed balancing act while scraping by your car and couldn't give a monkeys uncle about other people or their property, yes its those that people usually refer to, and don't forget they have poorly maintained bikes and judging by their clothes not two pennies to rub together let alone insurance as that would make them hypocrites in their own right. Not seen any of them ?????? really ?????? ought to go to specs savers then, because eyes wide open they are in abundance, and you would have to be ignorant not to see them, something which you obviously are not, so an eye test is a must. Specsavers it is then, go there, get equipped, and see what really happens all day every day.[/p][/quote]I think you'll find this story is about "Motorists" not cyclists.[/p][/quote]So what if a cyclist is caught doing more than 20mph ? Will they face the same fine a motorist ? livid99
  • Score: -8

2:30pm Wed 2 Jul 14

The New Private Eye says...

Madi50n wrote:
jochta wrote:
Jameslouis wrote:
I think it is disgusting that motorists are told that they can only drive at twenty miles per hour, it's wastes money for the drivers as the cars waste more file in the lower heras, fact not fiction and who gives a **** about the pedestrians or push bikes, pedestrians should look,where there going and stay off the roads except for the allocated places to cross, ie zebra crossings and bikes have no say either as they do not pan road tax or car insurance, this is getting like Russia a communist state what will we be told we cannot do next, because most academics in Oxford have no common sense and are thick and keep,getting knocked over the motorists should not be targeted, stuff the twenty miles per hour speed limit. I'm not be told by corrupts council or corrupt government what speed I can do .
Road tax doesn't exist, it was abolished in the 1930s. Cyclists like motorists pay for the roads via general taxation. They pay the same VED as a low emission car, i.e. £0.

Many cyclists are insured and most also hold a driving licence, own a car and have car insurance.

Good luck keeping your licence to drive by ignoring speed limits, hopefully you'll lose it sooner rather than later so you don't continue to endanger other road users with your reckless behaviour.
I wouldn't feed the anti-cyclist trolls on stories about motorists, it's a deflection tactic they use to avoid having to admit that motorists kill and injure thousands every year through dangerous, careless driving.

If you engage them on a "motorist" story they've effectively moved you off topic, which in this case is the law that says they shouldn't exceed the speed limit and the fact that the police are going to enforce that law.

They don't want to obey the law, because they think it doesn't make sense or is too difficult for them to abide by or it means their journey is a few seconds/minutes longer than they would like. Even though that's what they promised to do when they passed their driving test and received their licence.

Fortunately, the world is moving ever closer to the realisation that the love affair with the car will eventually have to come to an end. There are too many on the roads now and planning for more cars is impossible in cities like London, Oxford, Cambridge etc. the roads can't cope right now, so new ways forward need to be found.

Sooner or later the powers that be will have to face up to the fact that thousands are dying or seriously injured in this country because of motorists; and that licenses, insurance and MOTs and VED does nothing to prevent that, motorists still drive distractedly and/or dangerously.

Eventually, personal freedom to use a car will, much like smoking, have to be restricted. Our "right" to use a car, confers on us the responsibility to do so legally and safely, not just for us but for very single other road user. Should the deaths and injuries, the suffering caused, and millions of pounds spent on public services (NHS, Police, courts) to deal with these deaths and injuries be an acceptable part of the freedom to use a car. Right now it is; but I think that one day it will not, and that day can't come soon enough for me.
HA HA HA, cheers mate you never fail to cheer me up.
[quote][p][bold]Madi50n[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jochta[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jameslouis[/bold] wrote: I think it is disgusting that motorists are told that they can only drive at twenty miles per hour, it's wastes money for the drivers as the cars waste more file in the lower heras, fact not fiction and who gives a **** about the pedestrians or push bikes, pedestrians should look,where there going and stay off the roads except for the allocated places to cross, ie zebra crossings and bikes have no say either as they do not pan road tax or car insurance, this is getting like Russia a communist state what will we be told we cannot do next, because most academics in Oxford have no common sense and are thick and keep,getting knocked over the motorists should not be targeted, stuff the twenty miles per hour speed limit. I'm not be told by corrupts council or corrupt government what speed I can do .[/p][/quote]Road tax doesn't exist, it was abolished in the 1930s. Cyclists like motorists pay for the roads via general taxation. They pay the same VED as a low emission car, i.e. £0. Many cyclists are insured and most also hold a driving licence, own a car and have car insurance. Good luck keeping your licence to drive by ignoring speed limits, hopefully you'll lose it sooner rather than later so you don't continue to endanger other road users with your reckless behaviour.[/p][/quote]I wouldn't feed the anti-cyclist trolls on stories about motorists, it's a deflection tactic they use to avoid having to admit that motorists kill and injure thousands every year through dangerous, careless driving. If you engage them on a "motorist" story they've effectively moved you off topic, which in this case is the law that says they shouldn't exceed the speed limit and the fact that the police are going to enforce that law. They don't want to obey the law, because they think it doesn't make sense or is too difficult for them to abide by or it means their journey is a few seconds/minutes longer than they would like. Even though that's what they promised to do when they passed their driving test and received their licence. Fortunately, the world is moving ever closer to the realisation that the love affair with the car will eventually have to come to an end. There are too many on the roads now and planning for more cars is impossible in cities like London, Oxford, Cambridge etc. the roads can't cope right now, so new ways forward need to be found. Sooner or later the powers that be will have to face up to the fact that thousands are dying or seriously injured in this country because of motorists; and that licenses, insurance and MOTs and VED does nothing to prevent that, motorists still drive distractedly and/or dangerously. Eventually, personal freedom to use a car will, much like smoking, have to be restricted. Our "right" to use a car, confers on us the responsibility to do so legally and safely, not just for us but for very single other road user. Should the deaths and injuries, the suffering caused, and millions of pounds spent on public services (NHS, Police, courts) to deal with these deaths and injuries be an acceptable part of the freedom to use a car. Right now it is; but I think that one day it will not, and that day can't come soon enough for me.[/p][/quote]HA HA HA, cheers mate you never fail to cheer me up. The New Private Eye
  • Score: -4

2:48pm Wed 2 Jul 14

grandconjuration says...

The New Private Eye wrote:
grandconjuration wrote:
Oflife wrote:
Sandy Wimpole-Smythe wrote:
So long as the Police now practice what they preach there shouldn't be too many problems but somehow I doubt they will.
Why should they? The 20mph limit is pathetic and ALL about money. Even 30mph is not fast in that part of the town. It is a very safe bit of road, no schools, just a short stretch followed by a right turn past The Randolph - except for buses and taxis who can continue down towards Broad Street.

It is actually quite difficult to maintain 20mph in most vehicles for an extended period of time, yes really. In my own car, an automatic, I have to put the car into 2nd gear manually, overriding the automatic transmission, which is nothing but a nuisance, very bad for the fuel economy as the engine revs must faster and of course, means a distraction as you're constantly monitoring your speedo instead of keeping your eyes on the road. Dangerous!

This is because either the greedy council gets your fine, or if you don't want your insurance premium ruined by 3 points, then the AA (who are owned by greedy investors and not the decent "He's a very nice man" organisation they were in the 1980s) get your £100 because they run the driving courses.

I promise you Oxford Mail Readers, this is about money, NOT safety, Oxfords problems are a) drugs, b) useless shopping, c) bike thefts (related to item a) and d) a considerable amount of other crime, all covered by this paper. But the police are so misused by the council that they focus on fining motorists than going after real criminals, therefore ruining the lives of said motorists.

And there is more, the sorts of motorists who drive down St. Giles are by their demographic, responsible hard working people. Unlike the disrespectful youth who drive their hot hatches around North Oxford at very excessive speeds, but are NOT pulled over because they don't have the money to pay the fine.

It's all pathetic and very dishonest, and why one day, I sincerely pray that the whole council is ripped out and replaced by one that treats retailers, motorists and the good public with respect - their remit, and lets the police focus on dangerous or thieving criminals.

Much more on all this on my blog and a lengthy letter to The Oxford Mail/Times in the coming months.
I love it when someone admits in writing that they can't control their car and drive properly. Try taking your driving test without the ability to keep within a speed and see what happens.

I wonder if there will ever be a case when comments like this are used in court?
As a newbie GC you will probably not remember the quote from the Chief of the roads police when the council first mentioned bringing in a pretty much blanket 20mph limit for our roads. He actually said that he does not support them, that they bring no added safety to our roads without added traffic calming measures, and as such he would not put his much needed recourses into enforcing them. And for three years, until pressure was put onto them from a certain Cllr after a campaign in this rag, they did not enforce them, during this period everybody carried on as normal and we did not have the "death doom and disaster" that the cyclist and pedestrian lobby said would happen. Now we are left in a situation with artificially low speed limits, that the police do not want, but are forced to enforce. But the one silver lining is that if the police are true to their word, they will only be enforcing the new fine/points limit once a month in St Giles for a couple of hours. Personally i would prefer the police to use our money out on the A34 catching dangerous drivers on their phones and catching more D/Ds rather that a pointless money making exersize where no danger is being caused
What has any of that got to do with my comment? I simply stated that I find it odd for someone to admit not being able to control the speed of their car.
[quote][p][bold]The New Private Eye[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grandconjuration[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oflife[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sandy Wimpole-Smythe[/bold] wrote: So long as the Police now practice what they preach there shouldn't be too many problems but somehow I doubt they will.[/p][/quote]Why should they? The 20mph limit is pathetic and ALL about money. Even 30mph is not fast in that part of the town. It is a very safe bit of road, no schools, just a short stretch followed by a right turn past The Randolph - except for buses and taxis who can continue down towards Broad Street. It is actually quite difficult to maintain 20mph in most vehicles for an extended period of time, yes really. In my own car, an automatic, I have to put the car into 2nd gear manually, overriding the automatic transmission, which is nothing but a nuisance, very bad for the fuel economy as the engine revs must faster and of course, means a distraction as you're constantly monitoring your speedo instead of keeping your eyes on the road. Dangerous! This is because either the greedy council gets your fine, or if you don't want your insurance premium ruined by 3 points, then the AA (who are owned by greedy investors and not the decent "He's a very nice man" organisation they were in the 1980s) get your £100 because they run the driving courses. I promise you Oxford Mail Readers, this is about money, NOT safety, Oxfords problems are a) drugs, b) useless shopping, c) bike thefts (related to item a) and d) a considerable amount of other crime, all covered by this paper. But the police are so misused by the council that they focus on fining motorists than going after real criminals, therefore ruining the lives of said motorists. And there is more, the sorts of motorists who drive down St. Giles are by their demographic, responsible hard working people. Unlike the disrespectful youth who drive their hot hatches around North Oxford at very excessive speeds, but are NOT pulled over because they don't have the money to pay the fine. It's all pathetic and very dishonest, and why one day, I sincerely pray that the whole council is ripped out and replaced by one that treats retailers, motorists and the good public with respect - their remit, and lets the police focus on dangerous or thieving criminals. Much more on all this on my blog and a lengthy letter to The Oxford Mail/Times in the coming months.[/p][/quote]I love it when someone admits in writing that they can't control their car and drive properly. Try taking your driving test without the ability to keep within a speed and see what happens. I wonder if there will ever be a case when comments like this are used in court?[/p][/quote]As a newbie GC you will probably not remember the quote from the Chief of the roads police when the council first mentioned bringing in a pretty much blanket 20mph limit for our roads. He actually said that he does not support them, that they bring no added safety to our roads without added traffic calming measures, and as such he would not put his much needed recourses into enforcing them. And for three years, until pressure was put onto them from a certain Cllr after a campaign in this rag, they did not enforce them, during this period everybody carried on as normal and we did not have the "death doom and disaster" that the cyclist and pedestrian lobby said would happen. Now we are left in a situation with artificially low speed limits, that the police do not want, but are forced to enforce. But the one silver lining is that if the police are true to their word, they will only be enforcing the new fine/points limit once a month in St Giles for a couple of hours. Personally i would prefer the police to use our money out on the A34 catching dangerous drivers on their phones and catching more D/Ds rather that a pointless money making exersize where no danger is being caused[/p][/quote]What has any of that got to do with my comment? I simply stated that I find it odd for someone to admit not being able to control the speed of their car. grandconjuration
  • Score: 7

3:06pm Wed 2 Jul 14

grandconjuration says...

You need ask yourself why we have speed limits. It's because a proportion of motorists cannot be trusted to drive at a speed that is suitable for the location, conditions and skill.

If all speed limits were removed do you think we would have:

1. The same number of injuries/deaths.
2. More injuries/deaths.
3. Fewer injuries/deaths.

I would bet my house that the answer is number 2.

When we no longer have desperately sad stories such as a 14 year old girls being killed by a driver on the pavement, or of a 5 year old boy being killed by a driver doing over 60 mph in a 30 mph zone (national news last week), then I am sure that the motorist will enjoy the freedom that so many appear to crave.
You need ask yourself why we have speed limits. It's because a proportion of motorists cannot be trusted to drive at a speed that is suitable for the location, conditions and skill. If all speed limits were removed do you think we would have: 1. The same number of injuries/deaths. 2. More injuries/deaths. 3. Fewer injuries/deaths. I would bet my house that the answer is number 2. When we no longer have desperately sad stories such as a 14 year old girls being killed by a driver on the pavement, or of a 5 year old boy being killed by a driver doing over 60 mph in a 30 mph zone (national news last week), then I am sure that the motorist will enjoy the freedom that so many appear to crave. grandconjuration
  • Score: 10

5:56pm Wed 2 Jul 14

The New Private Eye says...

grandconjuration wrote:
You need ask yourself why we have speed limits. It's because a proportion of motorists cannot be trusted to drive at a speed that is suitable for the location, conditions and skill.

If all speed limits were removed do you think we would have:

1. The same number of injuries/deaths.
2. More injuries/deaths.
3. Fewer injuries/deaths.

I would bet my house that the answer is number 2.

When we no longer have desperately sad stories such as a 14 year old girls being killed by a driver on the pavement, or of a 5 year old boy being killed by a driver doing over 60 mph in a 30 mph zone (national news last week), then I am sure that the motorist will enjoy the freedom that so many appear to crave.
Again you miss the whole point. The Chief of our Traffic Police has stated on record that 20mph zones in Oxford are wrong. And by the way GC, had there been a 5mph speed limit in force the poor young girl would still have been tragically killed, as criminals will ignore the law full stop. Can you please for once admit that the council are wrong, and that the police are right on this.
[quote][p][bold]grandconjuration[/bold] wrote: You need ask yourself why we have speed limits. It's because a proportion of motorists cannot be trusted to drive at a speed that is suitable for the location, conditions and skill. If all speed limits were removed do you think we would have: 1. The same number of injuries/deaths. 2. More injuries/deaths. 3. Fewer injuries/deaths. I would bet my house that the answer is number 2. When we no longer have desperately sad stories such as a 14 year old girls being killed by a driver on the pavement, or of a 5 year old boy being killed by a driver doing over 60 mph in a 30 mph zone (national news last week), then I am sure that the motorist will enjoy the freedom that so many appear to crave.[/p][/quote]Again you miss the whole point. The Chief of our Traffic Police has stated on record that 20mph zones in Oxford are wrong. And by the way GC, had there been a 5mph speed limit in force the poor young girl would still have been tragically killed, as criminals will ignore the law full stop. Can you please for once admit that the council are wrong, and that the police are right on this. The New Private Eye
  • Score: -4

7:05pm Wed 2 Jul 14

Madi50n says...

Not arguing that the police are right and the council wrong, that may be true, I don't particularly care.

What I and others are saying is, whether you agree with the speed limit or not, you should stick to it.
Not arguing that the police are right and the council wrong, that may be true, I don't particularly care. What I and others are saying is, whether you agree with the speed limit or not, you should stick to it. Madi50n
  • Score: 5

7:29pm Wed 2 Jul 14

The New Private Eye says...

Madi50n wrote:
Not arguing that the police are right and the council wrong, that may be true, I don't particularly care.

What I and others are saying is, whether you agree with the speed limit or not, you should stick to it.
That is the law Madison you are correct, but the law is wrong. Like the law that made Blacks an underclass in South Africa, and America, are you suggesting that those laws should have been obeyed as well? I will follow all fair laws, but I will rebel against unfair ones.
[quote][p][bold]Madi50n[/bold] wrote: Not arguing that the police are right and the council wrong, that may be true, I don't particularly care. What I and others are saying is, whether you agree with the speed limit or not, you should stick to it.[/p][/quote]That is the law Madison you are correct, but the law is wrong. Like the law that made Blacks an underclass in South Africa, and America, are you suggesting that those laws should have been obeyed as well? I will follow all fair laws, but I will rebel against unfair ones. The New Private Eye
  • Score: -8

7:48pm Wed 2 Jul 14

Madi50n says...

The New Private Eye wrote:
Madi50n wrote:
Not arguing that the police are right and the council wrong, that may be true, I don't particularly care.

What I and others are saying is, whether you agree with the speed limit or not, you should stick to it.
That is the law Madison you are correct, but the law is wrong. Like the law that made Blacks an underclass in South Africa, and America, are you suggesting that those laws should have been obeyed as well? I will follow all fair laws, but I will rebel against unfair ones.
Fair enough, (glossing over you comparing imposing a 20mph speed limit to the evil that was apartheid and is discrimination) you will have no problems with other road users who think laws are unfair ignoring them?

Motorists on phones and amber gambling then running red lights, undertaking on motorways or cyclists RLJing? I assume you won't be commenting on any stories about these and criticising them?

Rebelling against laws is one thing; protesting, campaigning for change, lobbying your council or MP, Raising awareness and pushing to make a difference, those things affect change in a civilised world. Whatever, just ignoring a law because you don't agree with it & doing nothing else except whine about how unfair it is that the Police are going to enforce that law on local newspaper comments sections is? It isn't rebelling.
[quote][p][bold]The New Private Eye[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Madi50n[/bold] wrote: Not arguing that the police are right and the council wrong, that may be true, I don't particularly care. What I and others are saying is, whether you agree with the speed limit or not, you should stick to it.[/p][/quote]That is the law Madison you are correct, but the law is wrong. Like the law that made Blacks an underclass in South Africa, and America, are you suggesting that those laws should have been obeyed as well? I will follow all fair laws, but I will rebel against unfair ones.[/p][/quote]Fair enough, (glossing over you comparing imposing a 20mph speed limit to the evil that was apartheid and is discrimination) you will have no problems with other road users who think laws are unfair ignoring them? Motorists on phones and amber gambling then running red lights, undertaking on motorways or cyclists RLJing? I assume you won't be commenting on any stories about these and criticising them? Rebelling against laws is one thing; protesting, campaigning for change, lobbying your council or MP, Raising awareness and pushing to make a difference, those things affect change in a civilised world. Whatever, just ignoring a law because you don't agree with it & doing nothing else except whine about how unfair it is that the Police are going to enforce that law on local newspaper comments sections is? It isn't rebelling. Madi50n
  • Score: 7

9:02pm Wed 2 Jul 14

grandconjuration says...

The New Private Eye wrote:
Madi50n wrote:
Not arguing that the police are right and the council wrong, that may be true, I don't particularly care.

What I and others are saying is, whether you agree with the speed limit or not, you should stick to it.
That is the law Madison you are correct, but the law is wrong. Like the law that made Blacks an underclass in South Africa, and America, are you suggesting that those laws should have been obeyed as well? I will follow all fair laws, but I will rebel against unfair ones.
Interesting.

On the current 'cyclists riding two abreast are idiots' thread you state...

"the majority of cyclists are a group of law breaking, selfish, and downright dangerous idiots that think that they can do as they wish, and then blame everybody and their dog for their own shortcomings."

"it is about being held up by a selfish, inconsiderate, and downright anti-social group of road users."

Yet riding two abreast is perfectly legal. Indeed, three or four abreast is not illegal.

However, here in writing you admit only following laws that you agree with! Speeding is illegal and responsible for over 400 deaths per year, and you admit it.

Any comments you now make cannot be taken seriously. You have confessed to being a criminal.
[quote][p][bold]The New Private Eye[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Madi50n[/bold] wrote: Not arguing that the police are right and the council wrong, that may be true, I don't particularly care. What I and others are saying is, whether you agree with the speed limit or not, you should stick to it.[/p][/quote]That is the law Madison you are correct, but the law is wrong. Like the law that made Blacks an underclass in South Africa, and America, are you suggesting that those laws should have been obeyed as well? I will follow all fair laws, but I will rebel against unfair ones.[/p][/quote]Interesting. On the current 'cyclists riding two abreast are idiots' thread you state... "the majority of cyclists are a group of law breaking, selfish, and downright dangerous idiots that think that they can do as they wish, and then blame everybody and their dog for their own shortcomings." "it is about being held up by a selfish, inconsiderate, and downright anti-social group of road users." Yet riding two abreast is perfectly legal. Indeed, three or four abreast is not illegal. However, here in writing you admit only following laws that you agree with! Speeding is illegal and responsible for over 400 deaths per year, and you admit it. Any comments you now make cannot be taken seriously. You have confessed to being a criminal. grandconjuration
  • Score: 7

9:44pm Wed 2 Jul 14

jochta says...

livid99 wrote:
Madi50n wrote:
the wizard wrote:
Many cyclists are insured and most also hold a driving licence, own a car and have car insurance.

If that is the case why are so many cyclists poor upholders of road manners, road safety and general standards, or is it that we have a concentration of non motorist cyclists in Oxford who are the born again morons that blight our world and especially Oxford by the day, hour, minute and second. On the path jumping lights, doing the legs crossed balancing act while scraping by your car and couldn't give a monkeys uncle about other people or their property, yes its those that people usually refer to, and don't forget they have poorly maintained bikes and judging by their clothes not two pennies to rub together let alone insurance as that would make them hypocrites in their own right. Not seen any of them ?????? really ?????? ought to go to specs savers then, because eyes wide open they are in abundance, and you would have to be ignorant not to see them, something which you obviously are not, so an eye test is a must. Specsavers it is then, go there, get equipped, and see what really happens all day every day.
I think you'll find this story is about "Motorists" not cyclists.
So what if a cyclist is caught doing more than 20mph ? Will they face the same fine a motorist ?
No, because speed limits only apply to motor vehicles and cyclists can't be punished for breaching the limit.*

*there are only one or two exceptions to this. e.g. a Royal Parks by-law in Richmond Park also means the limit applies to cyclists. But on public roads the limits do not apply to cyclists.
[quote][p][bold]livid99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Madi50n[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the wizard[/bold] wrote: Many cyclists are insured and most also hold a driving licence, own a car and have car insurance. If that is the case why are so many cyclists poor upholders of road manners, road safety and general standards, or is it that we have a concentration of non motorist cyclists in Oxford who are the born again morons that blight our world and especially Oxford by the day, hour, minute and second. On the path jumping lights, doing the legs crossed balancing act while scraping by your car and couldn't give a monkeys uncle about other people or their property, yes its those that people usually refer to, and don't forget they have poorly maintained bikes and judging by their clothes not two pennies to rub together let alone insurance as that would make them hypocrites in their own right. Not seen any of them ?????? really ?????? ought to go to specs savers then, because eyes wide open they are in abundance, and you would have to be ignorant not to see them, something which you obviously are not, so an eye test is a must. Specsavers it is then, go there, get equipped, and see what really happens all day every day.[/p][/quote]I think you'll find this story is about "Motorists" not cyclists.[/p][/quote]So what if a cyclist is caught doing more than 20mph ? Will they face the same fine a motorist ?[/p][/quote]No, because speed limits only apply to motor vehicles and cyclists can't be punished for breaching the limit.* *there are only one or two exceptions to this. e.g. a Royal Parks by-law in Richmond Park also means the limit applies to cyclists. But on public roads the limits do not apply to cyclists. jochta
  • Score: 8

3:22pm Thu 3 Jul 14

livid99 says...

jochta wrote:
livid99 wrote:
Madi50n wrote:
the wizard wrote:
Many cyclists are insured and most also hold a driving licence, own a car and have car insurance.

If that is the case why are so many cyclists poor upholders of road manners, road safety and general standards, or is it that we have a concentration of non motorist cyclists in Oxford who are the born again morons that blight our world and especially Oxford by the day, hour, minute and second. On the path jumping lights, doing the legs crossed balancing act while scraping by your car and couldn't give a monkeys uncle about other people or their property, yes its those that people usually refer to, and don't forget they have poorly maintained bikes and judging by their clothes not two pennies to rub together let alone insurance as that would make them hypocrites in their own right. Not seen any of them ?????? really ?????? ought to go to specs savers then, because eyes wide open they are in abundance, and you would have to be ignorant not to see them, something which you obviously are not, so an eye test is a must. Specsavers it is then, go there, get equipped, and see what really happens all day every day.
I think you'll find this story is about "Motorists" not cyclists.
So what if a cyclist is caught doing more than 20mph ? Will they face the same fine a motorist ?
No, because speed limits only apply to motor vehicles and cyclists can't be punished for breaching the limit.*

*there are only one or two exceptions to this. e.g. a Royal Parks by-law in Richmond Park also means the limit applies to cyclists. But on public roads the limits do not apply to cyclists.
So some of the cretins with fast bikes, headphones and a total disregard for other road users can race along these roads like idiots, no doubt weaving in and out of cars sticking to the 20 mph limit, and get away with no punishment ?
[quote][p][bold]jochta[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]livid99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Madi50n[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the wizard[/bold] wrote: Many cyclists are insured and most also hold a driving licence, own a car and have car insurance. If that is the case why are so many cyclists poor upholders of road manners, road safety and general standards, or is it that we have a concentration of non motorist cyclists in Oxford who are the born again morons that blight our world and especially Oxford by the day, hour, minute and second. On the path jumping lights, doing the legs crossed balancing act while scraping by your car and couldn't give a monkeys uncle about other people or their property, yes its those that people usually refer to, and don't forget they have poorly maintained bikes and judging by their clothes not two pennies to rub together let alone insurance as that would make them hypocrites in their own right. Not seen any of them ?????? really ?????? ought to go to specs savers then, because eyes wide open they are in abundance, and you would have to be ignorant not to see them, something which you obviously are not, so an eye test is a must. Specsavers it is then, go there, get equipped, and see what really happens all day every day.[/p][/quote]I think you'll find this story is about "Motorists" not cyclists.[/p][/quote]So what if a cyclist is caught doing more than 20mph ? Will they face the same fine a motorist ?[/p][/quote]No, because speed limits only apply to motor vehicles and cyclists can't be punished for breaching the limit.* *there are only one or two exceptions to this. e.g. a Royal Parks by-law in Richmond Park also means the limit applies to cyclists. But on public roads the limits do not apply to cyclists.[/p][/quote]So some of the cretins with fast bikes, headphones and a total disregard for other road users can race along these roads like idiots, no doubt weaving in and out of cars sticking to the 20 mph limit, and get away with no punishment ? livid99
  • Score: -3

7:45pm Thu 3 Jul 14

melyn am byth says...

Ah, I see,
A police operation caught almost 200 people speeding in the city this morning.

Thames Valley Police were stationed at St Giles and Morrell Avenue to catch drivers exceeding the roads’ 20mph limits.

Well done boys, right proud of you.
Ah, I see, A police operation caught almost 200 people speeding in the city this morning. Thames Valley Police were stationed at St Giles and Morrell Avenue to catch drivers exceeding the roads’ 20mph limits. Well done boys, right proud of you. melyn am byth
  • Score: 5

1:10am Fri 4 Jul 14

jochta says...

livid99 wrote:
jochta wrote:
livid99 wrote:
Madi50n wrote:
the wizard wrote:
Many cyclists are insured and most also hold a driving licence, own a car and have car insurance.

If that is the case why are so many cyclists poor upholders of road manners, road safety and general standards, or is it that we have a concentration of non motorist cyclists in Oxford who are the born again morons that blight our world and especially Oxford by the day, hour, minute and second. On the path jumping lights, doing the legs crossed balancing act while scraping by your car and couldn't give a monkeys uncle about other people or their property, yes its those that people usually refer to, and don't forget they have poorly maintained bikes and judging by their clothes not two pennies to rub together let alone insurance as that would make them hypocrites in their own right. Not seen any of them ?????? really ?????? ought to go to specs savers then, because eyes wide open they are in abundance, and you would have to be ignorant not to see them, something which you obviously are not, so an eye test is a must. Specsavers it is then, go there, get equipped, and see what really happens all day every day.
I think you'll find this story is about "Motorists" not cyclists.
So what if a cyclist is caught doing more than 20mph ? Will they face the same fine a motorist ?
No, because speed limits only apply to motor vehicles and cyclists can't be punished for breaching the limit.*

*there are only one or two exceptions to this. e.g. a Royal Parks by-law in Richmond Park also means the limit applies to cyclists. But on public roads the limits do not apply to cyclists.
So some of the cretins with fast bikes, headphones and a total disregard for other road users can race along these roads like idiots, no doubt weaving in and out of cars sticking to the 20 mph limit, and get away with no punishment ?
Cyclists can be prosecuted for "wanton and furious driving” which applies to all vehicles. But they cannot be prosecuted for breaking the speed limits as they only apply to motor vehicles.
[quote][p][bold]livid99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jochta[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]livid99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Madi50n[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the wizard[/bold] wrote: Many cyclists are insured and most also hold a driving licence, own a car and have car insurance. If that is the case why are so many cyclists poor upholders of road manners, road safety and general standards, or is it that we have a concentration of non motorist cyclists in Oxford who are the born again morons that blight our world and especially Oxford by the day, hour, minute and second. On the path jumping lights, doing the legs crossed balancing act while scraping by your car and couldn't give a monkeys uncle about other people or their property, yes its those that people usually refer to, and don't forget they have poorly maintained bikes and judging by their clothes not two pennies to rub together let alone insurance as that would make them hypocrites in their own right. Not seen any of them ?????? really ?????? ought to go to specs savers then, because eyes wide open they are in abundance, and you would have to be ignorant not to see them, something which you obviously are not, so an eye test is a must. Specsavers it is then, go there, get equipped, and see what really happens all day every day.[/p][/quote]I think you'll find this story is about "Motorists" not cyclists.[/p][/quote]So what if a cyclist is caught doing more than 20mph ? Will they face the same fine a motorist ?[/p][/quote]No, because speed limits only apply to motor vehicles and cyclists can't be punished for breaching the limit.* *there are only one or two exceptions to this. e.g. a Royal Parks by-law in Richmond Park also means the limit applies to cyclists. But on public roads the limits do not apply to cyclists.[/p][/quote]So some of the cretins with fast bikes, headphones and a total disregard for other road users can race along these roads like idiots, no doubt weaving in and out of cars sticking to the 20 mph limit, and get away with no punishment ?[/p][/quote]Cyclists can be prosecuted for "wanton and furious driving” which applies to all vehicles. But they cannot be prosecuted for breaking the speed limits as they only apply to motor vehicles. jochta
  • Score: 2

1:36pm Fri 4 Jul 14

maxgodfrey says...

Personally I don't see what all this fuss is about. If there's a speed limit in place, you stick to it, simple! If you don't want those pesky council or AA people taking your money (I mean, how dare they when you so ignorantly break the limit put in place right?), then how about you be a good driver and play nicely? Also, to the person who said the majority of people who drive down St Giles are responsible and hard working, then there shouldn't be a problem should there?
Personally I don't see what all this fuss is about. If there's a speed limit in place, you stick to it, simple! If you don't want those pesky council or AA people taking your money (I mean, how dare they when you so ignorantly break the limit put in place right?), then how about you be a good driver and play nicely? Also, to the person who said the majority of people who drive down St Giles are responsible and hard working, then there shouldn't be a problem should there? maxgodfrey
  • Score: 1

1:48pm Fri 4 Jul 14

maxgodfrey says...

Personally I don't see what all this fuss is about. If there's a speed limit in place, you stick to it, simple! If you don't want those pesky council or AA people taking your money (I mean, how dare they when you so ignorantly break the limit put in place right?), then how about you be a good driver and play nicely?

Also, to the person who said the majority of people who drive down St Giles are responsible and hard working, then there shouldn't be a problem with them enforcing the limit should there, as I'm sure such people wouldn't speed? Why, if they did, that probably wouldn't put them much further apart from those youths in their 'hot hatches' as you so nicely put it.

I'm so fed up of people complaining over such trivial things. Complaining that a 20mph zone is put in place, but then would also be the first to say people are going too fast if it was put up to a 30. Just keep it at 20 (which by the way isn't hard to do in the slightest), and I'm sure you can survive that extra minute that you so vitally lose when doing so.
Personally I don't see what all this fuss is about. If there's a speed limit in place, you stick to it, simple! If you don't want those pesky council or AA people taking your money (I mean, how dare they when you so ignorantly break the limit put in place right?), then how about you be a good driver and play nicely? Also, to the person who said the majority of people who drive down St Giles are responsible and hard working, then there shouldn't be a problem with them enforcing the limit should there, as I'm sure such people wouldn't speed? Why, if they did, that probably wouldn't put them much further apart from those youths in their 'hot hatches' as you so nicely put it. I'm so fed up of people complaining over such trivial things. Complaining that a 20mph zone is put in place, but then would also be the first to say people are going too fast if it was put up to a 30. Just keep it at 20 (which by the way isn't hard to do in the slightest), and I'm sure you can survive that extra minute that you so vitally lose when doing so. maxgodfrey
  • Score: 5

9:25am Sat 5 Jul 14

the wizard says...

If the Police are going to carry on this stance then I hope the same level of commitment will be given to cyclists without lights when the annual, lets book'em Danno and let 'em off, farce kicks off in just a few months. If car drivers are going to get hammered then why not cyclists as well.
If the Police are going to carry on this stance then I hope the same level of commitment will be given to cyclists without lights when the annual, lets book'em Danno and let 'em off, farce kicks off in just a few months. If car drivers are going to get hammered then why not cyclists as well. the wizard
  • Score: -1

11:13am Sat 5 Jul 14

Madi50n says...

the wizard wrote:
If the Police are going to carry on this stance then I hope the same level of commitment will be given to cyclists without lights when the annual, lets book'em Danno and let 'em off, farce kicks off in just a few months. If car drivers are going to get hammered then why not cyclists as well.
Snore, boring!
[quote][p][bold]the wizard[/bold] wrote: If the Police are going to carry on this stance then I hope the same level of commitment will be given to cyclists without lights when the annual, lets book'em Danno and let 'em off, farce kicks off in just a few months. If car drivers are going to get hammered then why not cyclists as well.[/p][/quote]Snore, boring! Madi50n
  • Score: -1
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