Police object to plans for 49 speed limits in Oxfordshire
Discussion
The absurd nanny-state Oxfordshire County Council is proposing a further 49 speed limits on many of its roads. Many of these are NSL cut to 40 - or even NSL cut to 30 in one case....
But Thames Valley Police are objecting to more than half the proposed limits. They argue that accident rates and vehicle speeds do not justify the reductions.
But when you read comments from these arrogant councillors such as "I'm sorry, police, but I still think it's still important to reduce speeds", you realise that sound logic and clear evidence simply aren't considered by the 'nanny knows best' councillors who are the alleged 'transport bosses' of Oxfordshire.
Yet this was the council which pledged to end its 'War on the Motorist' at the last county council elections.....
A police spokesman said: "The default speed limit for country roads remains 60 mph and the public has an expectation that a lower limit is imposed for well-evidenced safety reasons. Where the criteria can't be evidenced to be met, then the default limit should be maintained".
A council spokesman said that the council was "...aware of the police objections", which, he said, would be 'considered' by councillors.
But Thames Valley Police are objecting to more than half the proposed limits. They argue that accident rates and vehicle speeds do not justify the reductions.
But when you read comments from these arrogant councillors such as "I'm sorry, police, but I still think it's still important to reduce speeds", you realise that sound logic and clear evidence simply aren't considered by the 'nanny knows best' councillors who are the alleged 'transport bosses' of Oxfordshire.
Yet this was the council which pledged to end its 'War on the Motorist' at the last county council elections.....
A police spokesman said: "The default speed limit for country roads remains 60 mph and the public has an expectation that a lower limit is imposed for well-evidenced safety reasons. Where the criteria can't be evidenced to be met, then the default limit should be maintained".
A council spokesman said that the council was "...aware of the police objections", which, he said, would be 'considered' by councillors.
At least the police (sometimes) realise that by diluting adding so many needless speed limits they are diluting the effect the required 30mph speed limits have.
In my opinion it should be NSL out of town and 30 in towns (maybe with 20's near schools and higher limits on town DC's) I think more people would respect the speed limits in towns if they knew that upon reaching the end of the village the speed limit was NSL again. Nothing is more tedious than driving for miles on long straightish A roads a la Oxfordshire and being stuck at 40mph.
In my opinion it should be NSL out of town and 30 in towns (maybe with 20's near schools and higher limits on town DC's) I think more people would respect the speed limits in towns if they knew that upon reaching the end of the village the speed limit was NSL again. Nothing is more tedious than driving for miles on long straightish A roads a la Oxfordshire and being stuck at 40mph.
nickwilcock said:
The absurd nanny-state Oxfordshire County Council is proposing a further 49 speed limits on many of its roads. Many of these are NSL cut to 40 - or even NSL cut to 30 in one case....
But Thames Valley Police are objecting to more than half the proposed limits. They argue that accident rates and vehicle speeds do not justify the reductions.
But when you read comments from these arrogant councillors such as "I'm sorry, police, but I still think it's still important to reduce speeds", you realise that sound logic and clear evidence simply aren't considered by the 'nanny knows best' councillors who are the alleged 'transport bosses' of Oxfordshire.
Yet this was the council which pledged to end its 'War on the Motorist' at the last county council elections.....
A police spokesman said: "The default speed limit for country roads remains 60 mph and the public has an expectation that a lower limit is imposed for well-evidenced safety reasons. Where the criteria can't be evidenced to be met, then the default limit should be maintained".
Are the limit reductions being insisted on by the councillors or are the officers pushing this through .Several other counties had this same farce -with a lot of councillors & police objecting and still the best part of the changes went through .Interesting thing is that the datehas yet to be announced -may I suggest in light of events in other counties ( like Warks) that it'll be AFTER the elections - might be costly in power terms if before .
A council spokesman said that the council was "...aware of the police objections", which, he said, would be 'considered' by councillors.
But Thames Valley Police are objecting to more than half the proposed limits. They argue that accident rates and vehicle speeds do not justify the reductions.
But when you read comments from these arrogant councillors such as "I'm sorry, police, but I still think it's still important to reduce speeds", you realise that sound logic and clear evidence simply aren't considered by the 'nanny knows best' councillors who are the alleged 'transport bosses' of Oxfordshire.
Yet this was the council which pledged to end its 'War on the Motorist' at the last county council elections.....
A police spokesman said: "The default speed limit for country roads remains 60 mph and the public has an expectation that a lower limit is imposed for well-evidenced safety reasons. Where the criteria can't be evidenced to be met, then the default limit should be maintained".
Are the limit reductions being insisted on by the councillors or are the officers pushing this through .Several other counties had this same farce -with a lot of councillors & police objecting and still the best part of the changes went through .Interesting thing is that the datehas yet to be announced -may I suggest in light of events in other counties ( like Warks) that it'll be AFTER the elections - might be costly in power terms if before .
A council spokesman said that the council was "...aware of the police objections", which, he said, would be 'considered' by councillors.
nickwilcock said:
"I'm sorry, police, but I still think it's still important to reduce speeds", you realise that sound logic and clear evidence simply aren't considered by the 'nanny knows best' councillors who are the alleged 'transport bosses' of Oxfordshire.
Here she is, the pious figure of Jean Fooks...http://www.banburycake.co.uk/news/4995710.Police_a...
OCC really yank my chain. Road casualties are at an all-time low and still they continue their seemingly never-ending crusade with religious zeal.
The first I heard of this was on 9 Feb, yet last night on the local TV news it was announced that these stupid limits are going ahead....
What sort of a democracy do we live in? Anyway, I e-mailed Kaiser Mitchell, leader of OCC as follows:
"I note from recent local press articles that Thames Valley Police are objecting to your council's plans for yet more speed limit reductions in Oxfordshire, on the ground that neither accident rates nor vehicle speeds justify any such reductions.
About time too! The police spokesman is quoted as having said "The default speed limit for country roads remains 60 mph and the public has an expectation that a lower limit is imposed for well-evidenced safety reasons. Where the criteria can't be evidenced to be met, then the default limit should be maintained". A very sensible and balanced view, which I sincerely trust your council will heed.
Reading comments such as 'A council spokesman said that the council was "...aware of the police objections", which, he said, would be 'considered' by councillors.' does not fill me with much hope though, particularly when I also read such nanny-knows-best comment from one of your traffic officers as: "I'm sorry, police, but I still think it's still important to reduce speeds".
If your council has so much money to waste on more road signs littering the countryside, most of which will be ignored, surely it would be a far greater contribution to road safety to spend the money instead on repairing pot-holes?
You pledged to end OCC's 'War on the Motorist' - please remind your traffic officers of this and suggest to them that they LISTEN to police opinion for once."
What sort of a democracy do we live in? Anyway, I e-mailed Kaiser Mitchell, leader of OCC as follows:
"I note from recent local press articles that Thames Valley Police are objecting to your council's plans for yet more speed limit reductions in Oxfordshire, on the ground that neither accident rates nor vehicle speeds justify any such reductions.
About time too! The police spokesman is quoted as having said "The default speed limit for country roads remains 60 mph and the public has an expectation that a lower limit is imposed for well-evidenced safety reasons. Where the criteria can't be evidenced to be met, then the default limit should be maintained". A very sensible and balanced view, which I sincerely trust your council will heed.
Reading comments such as 'A council spokesman said that the council was "...aware of the police objections", which, he said, would be 'considered' by councillors.' does not fill me with much hope though, particularly when I also read such nanny-knows-best comment from one of your traffic officers as: "I'm sorry, police, but I still think it's still important to reduce speeds".
If your council has so much money to waste on more road signs littering the countryside, most of which will be ignored, surely it would be a far greater contribution to road safety to spend the money instead on repairing pot-holes?
You pledged to end OCC's 'War on the Motorist' - please remind your traffic officers of this and suggest to them that they LISTEN to police opinion for once."
Edited by nickwilcock on Friday 12th February 14:38
im not in Oxford, but i think it apply's all over and no just to the roads, that these councillors think that we are all mindless robots with zero common sense. im fed up with being treated like that just like everyone here i love driving down a twisty A road, but i only ever drive within my stopping distance only last Sunday on the A32 i came round a blind corner to a farmer pulling out and was able to stop because of that. it is because these guys are all from the older generations no offence to the older generation. i know my granddad is on the commit at the sailing club and wont chance anything because he knows best. we need younger people with more imagination to make these choices not people who want the England from the 60s back
Wow, good on them. This is the kind of thing that maintains respect for the police.
I used to live in Oxford and it is utterly moronic. Big, wide roads at 30mph, when you know where the cameras are you just slow down for them.
But then there are the small side streets when i would drive at 15/20 and have someone tailgating...
I used to live in Oxford and it is utterly moronic. Big, wide roads at 30mph, when you know where the cameras are you just slow down for them.
But then there are the small side streets when i would drive at 15/20 and have someone tailgating...
A response from the 'Cabinet member for transport':
"Thank you for your email of 11 February on the planned changes in speed limits. These were the result of a comprehensive review of the existing limits on the County's A and B road (together with a small number of the busier unnumbered roads) applying the Department for Transport's guidelines on setting speed limits.
We consulted extensively on the possible changes, and those which were approved - including some upward changes - reflected the outcome of this process. The police have been closely involved in the review, and although there were, as reported, a significant number of cases where we have agreed to a change in limit which was not supported by the police, the reason for doing so was that on our interpretation of the Department for Transport guidelines was that a change in limit was needed, and that the change was also supported by local communities.
I should also stress that the main aim of the speed limit review is to improve safety, mindful of the still unacceptably high toll of death and serious injury, especially on our rural roads, where most of the victims are car drivers and passengers. Rather than being part of a 'war on the motorist', we hope the changes in the limits will be a benefit to the motoring public by significantly reducing the risk of their being involved in an accident."
To which I replied:
Dear Cllr Rose,
Thank you for your e-mail.
2 points:
1. "The police have been closely involved in the review, and although there were, as reported, a significant number of cases where we have agreed to a change in limit which was not supported by the police, the reason for doing so was that on our interpretation of the Department for Transport guidelines was that a change in limit was needed, and that the change was also supported by local communities."
So it was 'your interpretation'. Why did you not accept the police viewpoint? 'Local communities' will, of course, always want lower limits but are seldom the best judges of policy.
2. "I should also stress that the main aim of the speed limit review is to improve safety, mindful of the still unacceptably high toll of death and serious injury, especially on our rural roads, where most of the victims are car drivers and passengers."
Road safety is not simply a function of speed. As you well know, the few accidents occurring, for example, on the B4022 in recent times have not been due to speed. This has been widely reported. The accident rate in Oxfordshire before the latest 'nanny knows best' policy was as low as reasonably possible without unreasonable restricting safe traffic movement.
I would far sooner have seen the reported £160000 needed for your new road signs spent on repairing the poor quality of our roads than wasted on a forest of road signs to plague the countryside - most of which will be ignored in any case. When you read such comments as "There are so many limits now that I don't bother with them anymore - I just drive as appropriate for the conditions and keep an up-to-date camera database", you must realise that your speed limit policy is wholly flawed. Motorists will obey sensible, reasonable limits but the plethora of unreasonable limits now inflicted on Oxfordshire's long-suffering motorists are likely to be the subject of increasing frustration and civil disobedience.
Not that my e-mail is going to change anything, but it did at least make me feel better!
"Thank you for your email of 11 February on the planned changes in speed limits. These were the result of a comprehensive review of the existing limits on the County's A and B road (together with a small number of the busier unnumbered roads) applying the Department for Transport's guidelines on setting speed limits.
We consulted extensively on the possible changes, and those which were approved - including some upward changes - reflected the outcome of this process. The police have been closely involved in the review, and although there were, as reported, a significant number of cases where we have agreed to a change in limit which was not supported by the police, the reason for doing so was that on our interpretation of the Department for Transport guidelines was that a change in limit was needed, and that the change was also supported by local communities.
I should also stress that the main aim of the speed limit review is to improve safety, mindful of the still unacceptably high toll of death and serious injury, especially on our rural roads, where most of the victims are car drivers and passengers. Rather than being part of a 'war on the motorist', we hope the changes in the limits will be a benefit to the motoring public by significantly reducing the risk of their being involved in an accident."
To which I replied:
Dear Cllr Rose,
Thank you for your e-mail.
2 points:
1. "The police have been closely involved in the review, and although there were, as reported, a significant number of cases where we have agreed to a change in limit which was not supported by the police, the reason for doing so was that on our interpretation of the Department for Transport guidelines was that a change in limit was needed, and that the change was also supported by local communities."
So it was 'your interpretation'. Why did you not accept the police viewpoint? 'Local communities' will, of course, always want lower limits but are seldom the best judges of policy.
2. "I should also stress that the main aim of the speed limit review is to improve safety, mindful of the still unacceptably high toll of death and serious injury, especially on our rural roads, where most of the victims are car drivers and passengers."
Road safety is not simply a function of speed. As you well know, the few accidents occurring, for example, on the B4022 in recent times have not been due to speed. This has been widely reported. The accident rate in Oxfordshire before the latest 'nanny knows best' policy was as low as reasonably possible without unreasonable restricting safe traffic movement.
I would far sooner have seen the reported £160000 needed for your new road signs spent on repairing the poor quality of our roads than wasted on a forest of road signs to plague the countryside - most of which will be ignored in any case. When you read such comments as "There are so many limits now that I don't bother with them anymore - I just drive as appropriate for the conditions and keep an up-to-date camera database", you must realise that your speed limit policy is wholly flawed. Motorists will obey sensible, reasonable limits but the plethora of unreasonable limits now inflicted on Oxfordshire's long-suffering motorists are likely to be the subject of increasing frustration and civil disobedience.
Not that my e-mail is going to change anything, but it did at least make me feel better!
Gassing Station | Roads | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff