Speeding

Tue 13 May 2008, 10:10

I agree that this schoolyard tit for tat between drivers vs riders is infantile and trivializes the topic of discussion, which is:

Speeding and dangerous drivers in and around Charlbury.

The latest incident on the Woodstock road underlines the topics relevance.

The numerous deaths and crippling injuries caused by cyclists on pavements in Charlbury belongs on an entirely different thread.

Tue 13 May 2008, 10:02

Oh, don't be so boring.

Tue 13 May 2008, 09:02

Speaking of speeding, does anyone know if the occupants of the car that was on its roof on the Woodstock road last night were OK?

Sun 11 May 2008, 19:18

i think car drivers and cyclest are all as bad as one another.
we all go fast at one time and we all get in each others way.
this is boring now.

Sun 11 May 2008, 12:56

This whole thread seems pretty pointless to me!

As a motorist and a cyclist...

Isn't it common sense, that neither motorists or cyclists should speed, cross red lights, drive or cycle on pavements, go the wrong way up one streets,etc,etc!?!

I'm with John, isn't what is happening to the poor people of Burma of more concern?

Sun 11 May 2008, 11:22

Richard, isn't it time to split off the Burmese thread from this more trivial speeding drivers one?

To which I would want to mention the essential military support given the Burmese junta by British munitions firms over the years!

Geoff, MY problem are the aggressive and usually speeding drivers I encounter on almost a daily basis in and around this area. It's the number one crime problem in Charlbury (according to the police) and an issue that is subject of discussion for any resident concerned with their or their children's safety.

Pretending the problem doesn't exist doesn't make it go away.

Sat 10 May 2008, 15:35

Hi John I agree with you, but your email might be better sent to the military junta in Burma and get them to open their borders for all the aid that is waiting to do some kind of relief

Sat 10 May 2008, 15:30

Igor you seem to have a problem! I am not iresponsible and so far in 40 years of driving have i caused an accident. i am trying to establish that it is not just motorist that have accidents but you seem to have established that motorist are the bad guys.If cyclists had number plates to identify them the police would hve their job cut out keeping up with prosecuting them.By the way it is not just KIDS on the pavements, the one that hit me was certainly older than 21! but perhaps cyclists are kids at heart.

Sat 10 May 2008, 12:38

Ah, dear old parochial Charlbury! Twenty thousand dead (and rising) in Burma and all we seem to be interested in are speeding cars and less speedy trains.

Sat 10 May 2008, 09:07

Again, the defensiveness of those who seem intent on establishing an absurd equivalence between dangerous driving and some kid riding their bike on a pavement is highly suspect and underlines the root of the problem, which is one of attitude.

And in my opinion, a highly irresponsible one.

As long as speeding and dangerous driving are dismissed as no worse than riding a bike on a pavement, then the life threatening problem will persist. If you drive cautiously and are conscientious of other road users, then this is not your issue. But trying to assert that speeding motorists are no worse than cyclists on pavements or that they somehow cause a high percentage of motoring accidents reflects ignorance as well as an absurd justification of driving at all costs.

It's dangerous drivers that cause road fatalities, not cyclists or pedestrians.

Fortunately, the police do not trivialize this issue. And I for one, will continue to support their efforts to clamp down on speeding drivers coming through Charlbury. Bring on more speed nets!

Fri 9 May 2008, 19:07

With regards to dangerous cyclists in charlbury ,maybe you ought to consider this igor .This morning whilst coming out of my mother in laws cottage in browns lane ,i was almost knocked over by one of these so called safe cyclists riding up the path no less and having to swerve to miss me . My point is that my mother in law is 93 years young and had it been her coming out instead of me i hate to think what may have happened ,so i think igor if you spent more time educating the cyclists of charlbury on how to ride a cycle with your sensible attitude instead of complaining about motorists i would be more than grateful to you and happy to take your critisism for doing wrong in my car .

Fri 9 May 2008, 12:02

Get sorted Ivor,I have no problem with anti speeding,just the way you seem to be at war with motorist,of course motorised vehicles cause more damgage,it would be great if you can supply from your vast database, what percentage of accidents involving cyclist are actually caused by them.

Fri 9 May 2008, 11:25

For the benefit of others who are concerned with doing something about dangerous and speeding drivers there's now an online resource for reporting registration numbers of dangerous drivers: www.betterdrivingplease.com

Vehicles with repeated reports can then receive special attention from the authorities.

Thu 8 May 2008, 11:37

If you reread any of my posts, you'll fail to find any reference to cyclists being perfect. Although on the streets of Oxford, I've noticed cyclists tend to police each other, dissuading riders that jump red lights or pavements etc.

My point has been and still is that drivers do more damage when they drive speed recklessly than cyclists and that there's a higher number of reported incidents of them doing so, particularly in and around Charlbury and other rural areas where drivers of often larger vehicles seem to believe their horsepower entitles them to exemption from the traffic laws.

Why this particular point of view causes such irritation amongst some posters may point towards a possible source of the problem.

Wed 7 May 2008, 08:26

Perhaps stiffer penalties allround, drivers, cyclists, pedestrians, nobody will admit they are in the wrong.drivers do wrong, cyclists do wrong i think they should take some sort of test like motorists,you know oneway street means oneway for all, lights at night means light for all, pavements are for pedestrians etc.Nobody is perfect,lets all try and get on together and stop this bickering about motorist being the bad guy and cyclist are perfect.

Wed 7 May 2008, 07:19

All of which doesn't answer the fact that a significantly greater of drivers hit pedestrians (and each other) than cyclists do and that the consequences of two tons of speeding steel making an impact are almost always fatal or crippling.

The answer has to be stiffer penalties for speeding motorists.
Also reducing the speed limit to 20 mph in residential areas; that way when motorists speed ten miles above the speed limit, it will still be the safer 30 mph, rather than a lethal 40 mph.

Mon 5 May 2008, 12:17

It never was my intention to make this a motorist vs cycle issue . the issue is that the people who use these supposed inate objects be they cars or bikes are the problem and as such need to be taught how to behave properly. As i am surely aware i know that cars can do far more damage to pedestrians than bikes ,but it still remains that anything hitting a pedestrian is going to mean that they come off second best. It is peoples attitudes that really need to change to stop these things from happening in the first placed ,but then we would have nothing to talk about on the forum except all the other issues that concern many of us.

Mon 5 May 2008, 10:31

You make a valid point: my frustration with many of the opinions expressed on this forum is that some are inclined to make this a cyclist vs motorist issue, which is ridiculous. Bikes and cars are just inanimate vehicles they have no innate character and are only animated by their drivers/riders, who can be equally cautious or reckless regardless of the vehicle they're using. My point is that the consequences are dramatically different when a reckless driver speeds or makes a mistake than when a cyclist does.

Which is why dangerous drivers are much more of a life threatening hazard and social problem than reckless cyclists, particularly in and around Charlbury---just ask the police.

Sat 3 May 2008, 10:23

THIS DIDNT HAPPEN IN CHARLBURY AND IT WAS ALONG TIME AGO BUT WHEN MY SON WAS A BABY WE WERE IN OXFORD WALKING ON THE PATH BY THE ARGOS IN THE CITY CENTRE WHEN A MAN RIDING A BIKE ON THE PATH CRASHED INTO MY SONS PRAM MY SON WAS IN IT. MY SON WASNT HURT AS HE WAS IN HIS PARM BUT I WAS AND SO WAS THE CHAP ON THE BIKE.I THINK WERE ALL AS BAD AS ONE ANOTHER I DO DRIVE A CAR NOT FAST CANT SEE THE POINT.ITS JUST THE SAME IN FINSTOCK PEOPLE DRIVE THROUGH LIKE IT A RACING TRACK.

Sat 3 May 2008, 10:11

Seriously, this is once again a matter of proportion.

I don't know of any incidents in Oxfordshire of anyone being seriously injured by a speeding cyclist. Do I really need to tally the deaths and serious injuries caused by speeding and dangerous drivers in Oxfordshire for any given month?

Sat 3 May 2008, 10:06

Oh yes, the number of people killed, maimed and crippled by cyclists each year continues to pose a mounting crisis to the highway police.

Sat 3 May 2008, 06:52

I find in charlbury that cyclists are just as dangerous to pedestrians as vehicle drivers . The number of times i have been met by a cyclist going the wrong way along the one way system is to numerous to mention. When the time comes, if ever that we all respect each others roadspace it will be a nice place to live again . Lets ALL try and slow down where we ought to ,consider pedestrians at all times if in vehicle or on bikes . As for the reminder signs coming into charlbury that you are in fact in a 30mph limit seem a little pointless to me ,seeing that you have just passed the sign telling you so, i feel that, like the one in the Slade it would be far better in Nineacres Lane where motorists (many of them local)think that it is the starting grid for a formula one race albeit on motorcycle or car.

Fri 2 May 2008, 08:22

Good point Geoff, regarding hazard lights. Just slowing right down however frustrates the tailgaters even more in my experience. I used to do a lot of driving around the country with my career. After recently been crashed into from behind I'm bound get flustered. Tail gating is intimidating, frightening and can cause serious accidents.

Thu 1 May 2008, 22:34

Perhaps he thought you were signaling that you were stopping, hazard lights are not for use while in motion,what did you think he would do when he saw your lights suddenly come on, he would pass you.
There is no excuse for tail gating,best way to stop it is to slow right down,let them go,try not to get flustered by them.

Thu 1 May 2008, 15:56

I have just been aggressively tail gated; I put my hazards lights on, which made no difference. This aggressive middle aged male, then proceeded to over take me, on a brow of a hill, and then sped off over 70 plus mph. I pulled off the road and rang 999 and gave the police all the details and directions. They said that they will be having a word with him and will track him down.

I’m still shaking.

I have just had news that my insurance and solicitor will be taking this young women to court for crashing into the back of me last November, when I was turning right. That was on the A361. From the damage to the back left of my car, it proves that she too was speeding and not paying attention or care.

Thu 1 May 2008, 08:00

I think you're being a little unfair to the police who can only enforce the limits imposed by the county and who have a large area to cover with limited resources. The stats show that the majority of speeders are not young delinquent ravers doing their best James Dean impression; in fact a large proportion of speeding motorists consider themselves law abiding citizens and although predominantly male, are often middle aged adults. A majority of motorists consider speeding a minor offence and (as reflected in the postings on this thread that were separated off), unworthy of serious law enforcement. This is in spite of the statistics that show the annual casualties caused by exceeding the limit, the impact on a pedestrian being hit by a car going 50 mph vs 30 or the fact that you are more likely to suffer a serious automobile accident on a rural road than an urban one.

Much like ancient attitudes to drunk driving, the prevailing attitude of a majority of motorists is that it's safe to speed when THEY speed and that it somehow curtails ones individual freedom to restrict the speed of ones vehicle. The myth is that dangerous and speeding drivers are always someone else who can't handle speed as well as I do.

This is not only a stupid attitude but a deadly one.

The police can't police everyone (or there wouldn't be any accidents caused by speeding drivers in the first place), and until there's an awareness and recognition of the very real risks caused by dangerous driving (not by the kids going to the rave on a Friday night) but by your neighbors, your friends and possibly yourself pushing the limit 'just once in a while' going to work, doing your shopping or errands, I'm grateful for the police presence reminding 'good citizens' that law abiding means abiding by ALL the laws not just the ones you find convenient.

Wed 30 Apr 2008, 22:09

(Separated out from the noise thread -- Richard)

Wed 30 Apr 2008, 18:38

Igor, my comment about speeding was from the point of view of someone who knows people who go to raves, it's several years since I went to one myself which is why I can no longer cope with being kept awake all night! Since the police are known to be soft on everything apart from speeding, the ravers know they can get away with coming to this area. Therefore you can expect the noise to occur more often.

It had nothing to do with speeding in Charlbury as such, which I am quite aware the police do nothing about. I cross the Enstone Road just down from the allotments where Hundley Way comes out - there's a blind corner just by the Barn inside the 30MPH limit, around which cars regularly come at 60MPH, some of them are Charlbury residents. There is an old lady who walks down that road daily to get to and from her house, despite having contacted Wesley Smith abut the situation multiple times nothing has been done, although he has been out to look. It seems the police are only interested in The Slade where they can stand outside the fire station and everybody can see they have been there.

Wed 30 Apr 2008, 17:12

Thank you, Igor, for your extended response. It clarifies everything.

Wed 30 Apr 2008, 16:10

Fair enough, but don't overlook the fact that the reference to speeding was introduced by other posters early in the thread, albeit as a suggestion that the police are somehow overly concerned with speeding motorists at the detriment of protecting us from much more heinous offences . . . like playing loud music while having a good time.

Wed 30 Apr 2008, 14:55

"I'm told police won't do anything as they're known to be soft on everything apart from speeding motorists."
"We do need to help them to help us. This is now more important than speeding motorists!"

These were the comments that prompted my comment. Blimey! I never realised I had an anti-speeding agenda. Thames police report that the highest incidence of crime in Charlbury are speeding and dangerous driving. Hence the highway management's designation of a Charlbury road as 'blue packet' meaning subject to frequent speeding infractions requiring increased police vigilance.

Since when is the number one crime in any community reduced to one person's agenda?

Well I suppose some people have an anti-larceny or anti-arson agenda and some other nuts have anti-assault and anti-murder agendas. I wonder what absurd, minority agenda people will come up with next?

Although according to Harryd, apparently dangerous driving has nothing to do with the perpetrators who think it's safe to speed when THEY speed and all to do with the sleep deprivation caused by the numerous all night raves occuring around Charlbury.

Tue 29 Apr 2008, 19:20

Igor. Just following through on your trivialisation – do you go out of your way to be irritating? Several things for you to think about in your single-issue fanatic’s world.

1. A responsible and sensible woman, in a caring profession, returned to Charlbury after a late shift. She went to…

Long post - click to read full text

Tue 29 Apr 2008, 16:16

Igor, is there any thread on this forum that you cannot twist to your anti speeding agenda?

Tue 29 Apr 2008, 12:36

| agree with you Ivor on police's priroties. And, believe that the 'good people of Charlbury' are not the ones that speed. However, if number plates are not reported to the police of speeders and tail gaters, then they will know you these crime breakers are and then they can get on with their other work. These loud noise types, that are attracted to our area - are the ones that speed. Just a suggestion?

Tue 29 Apr 2008, 09:16

If the 'good people of Charlbury' spent as much of their time and effort stopping speeding motorists from causing accidents as they do complaining about people listening to a little loud music, the police might actually have the time to respond to their gripes.

I guess it's a matter of priorities: life and death vs a nuisance.