Predicted response to Oxfordshire 50 limits 'consultation'

[MMC]

Hey, call me a cynic, but I was re-reading the Council's notes from the last 'consultation' on 50 limits. Anyone fancy a little bet that something like this will appear YET AGAIN?

"Consultation Responses

There have been 19 objections, most were to proposals for the A415 except for 2 who objected to all the proposals. It is likely that all except 3 of these objections have been prompted by a driver’s national lobby group as at least 8 respondees, and probably several more, are from outside Oxfordshire with many of the comments following an identical or very similar pattern. The content and pattern of objections are comparable to those received to the original proposals which resulted in the number of new 50 mph limits being restricted to 4 or 5 per year."

A few points:

- If we'd all been saying "YES YES YES - CONTROL ME PLEASE - WE WANNA NEW LIMIT", would the implied dismissal of the responses have been the same?

- So we managed to get the initial batch of almost global countywide limits overturned. Presumably it was thought we had good reason for our objections. Why, then, does the Council then go ahead and do what they want anyway, just introducing the limits over a longer timeframe? Fewer objections to something less controversial perhaps? That's hardly democratic is it?

Sorry OCC (presumably you are reading this?) it stinks. 67 deaths this year. 67. That's 27 up on last year. That's not a blip that's a road safety disaster. You've GOT to move away from a 'one size fits all' response to road safety. I know you don't think training works, you've said so. If that's the case, why does your County Council bother spending money on education? Why do you run cycling proficiency classes? Why do you go on training courses?

Training works. External controls can only affect such a tiny part of the overall driving or riding process - you CANNOT achieve casualty reduction with them. You need to change the way people drive. But it's gone too far - we're not talking about improving driving standards, we're talking about a system of limits and controls so complex, arcane and unrelated to the real world that I believe is now starting to CAUSE crashes.

Please, OCC - take your fingers out of your ears, stop singing "LA LA LA LA - CAN'T HEAR YOU" every time someone disagrees with your single-policy casualty reduction process and:

1. Investigate the causes of the crashes that have littered the county's roads this year. DON'T re-classify every contributory factor as 'it must have been speed'. Look at what really happened. Then let's work out what we can do to prevent them.

2. Stop believing that most riders and drivers care about or observe the limits you've put in. The only reason there isn't complete chaos on the county's roads is that people now ignore limits on a wholesale basis. The problem is, some of us are reasonably law abiding, and this is now causing problems. It's insanity when legal behaviour ends up being dangerous, but it's happening (see next point)

3. Accept that frustration overtakes caused by your ultra-low limits happen - and are lethal. I know because I stick to your limits and I see them and the near misses they cause every single day. It doesn't take too many near misses to cause a crash.

4. Start talking to the County's drivers and riders. More's to the point. please start listening. The road network is not a series of isolated, discreet sections - it's an organic whole. What you do at one point will affect something elsewhere. It's now got to the point that these limits are dangerous, they've destroyed respect for more reasonably set ones, and the county is littered with more signs and road furniture which is increidibly distracting. 48 new signs for one's village's traffic calming?

External controls CAN'T prevent crashes unless they are so prevalent that their side effects start CAUSING the crashes they're designed to prevent. The driving process is a predominantly mental one. It's not a simple case of 'stick to the law and you'll be safe." In fact, in Oxfordshire sticking to the law precipiates aggressive behaviour from other drivers and increidible levels of frustration.

Driving by numbers - the policy you are now promoting - it like painting by numbers. It's a poor, deceptive facsimile of the real thing.

Please, OCC - think again.

[7db]

50 limit roads are *much* cheaper to maintain than NSL roads -- don't need nearly so much surveying and mending.

[spokey]

Gosh, you guys are so cynical. Everyone knows that speed kills.

[flemke]

So four complaints (from an audience of millions) about Jeremy Clarkson's use of a word that has a centuries-old benign meaning are sufficient for him to be condemned, but nineteen objections from a much smaller audience can be blithely ignored?

[DeMolay]

7db said:

50 limit roads are *much* cheaper to maintain than NSL roads -- don't need nearly so much surveying and mending.

Where did you read that?

[odyssey2200]

So the council went ahead and did what they wanted anyway?

What a bloody supprise!

Where did they publicise the proposed new limits?

How many people were aware of the changes until the signs appeard or the NIP landed on the mat?

19 responses from the small number who found out in advance is a sizealne response.

Why even bother having a hearing if your gonna do it anyway?

I would,t call that democracy!