The front page of the Oxford Mail on Saturday epitomised the lazy thinking of the all-powerful motoring lobby whenever there is a challenge to its freedom to do whatever it chooses – in this case, to drive faster than the speed limit.

“Waste of money,” exclaimed the headline, next to a 20mph roundel, “17 months after reduction of speed limits, vehicles are travelling just 0.9mph slower”.

It’s quick and easy to jump to the conclusion that because the 20mph zones are not bulletproof, they are a waste of money.

The figures make it sound like average speeds have dropped from 30mph to 29.1mph. They haven’t.

Although speeds were already fairly low, people lobbied for an official 20mph limit because the odd boy racer or taxi driver still thought he could get through at higher speeds, and that upset locals.

Speeds have fallen about five per cent, from an average of 22mph to 21.1mph. The reason for this is that the vast majority of roads included in the 20mph scheme are quiet residential roads where speeds were already much lower than 20mph. Speeds on faster roads will continue to fall as time goes on.

This scheme was partly about measurable accident reduction, and the number of accidents has fallen over 17 months. But the scheme was more about the unmeasurable benefits of creating calmer streets for everyone to enjoy, and the county council should be congratulated for listening to what the vast majority of the city wanted.

The demand for 20mph zones was a grassroots clamour. You would be hard pushed to find a single residents’ association, parent with a child, or OAP who did not want slower speeds on the roads where they live and shop. It was always going to be a minor inconvenience to motorists, but a price worth paying given the huge dividend of living streets for all.

The claim that the council was at fault for spending £300,000 on the scheme doesn’t add up.

There have been significant decreases in speed and a few increases, plus fewer accidents. There are bound to be places where speeds haven’t fallen as much as they could have, but I can see, as a cyclist and a driver in Oxford, that the majority of vehicles are going more slowly. The council did the right thing, the silent majority agrees, and it is only to be expected that the motoring lobby will snipe.

Snipe they do, but what poor shots. The suggestion seems to be that if a motorist speeds, it doesn’t matter so long as he or she is driving safely.

Does this mean cyclists should be allowed to jump red lights if no cars or pedestrians are passing, or that cyclists should be allowed to cycle on pavements if there aren’t many pedestrians around? I presume not.

There are regulations for a good reason. These can be changed, but regulations should be obeyed.

Some motorists will dislike the 20mph zones just as a few cyclists don’t like stopping at red lights when there’s no-one to stop for. But, harmless as some transgressions feel, the rules were not put in to please motorists or cyclists, but to please the community at large. Motorists should stop being selfish, and adhere to the legal limits.

The council was happy that the police agreed to support the 20mph zones when they were introduced. I bet they’d be even happier if the police could do the odd bit of random enforcement in 20mph zones such as Morrell Avenue, which still has quite high accident rates.