In the same week a new active travel report urged the government to introduce default 20mph speed limits for motor vehicles in all urban areas, cyclists in Oxford have called for the lowered limit to be implemented on every road in the city by 2029, as part of a list of proposed safety measures sent to councillors this week.
However, Cyclox’s desire to see Oxford covered by a blanket 20mph limit has been criticised by the Oxford Bus Company, who argue implementing additional 20mph limits would lead to longer journey times, increase congestion, and make travelling to and from Oxford “less attractive”, without having a positive effect on road safety or environmental targets.
Meanwhile, one local councillor used the road safety proposals to argue that new legislation should be introduced to “protect pedestrians from dangerous cyclists”, despite the city’s latest collision data revealing that no one was seriously injured in a crash with a cyclist in 2023, compared to 45 in incidents involving motorists during the same period.
In a letter sent this week to all Oxfordshire County councillors who were elected earlier this month in the local elections, cycling campaign group Cyclox called for 25 measures to be introduced to make the city’s streets safer for people on bikes, the Oxford Mail reports.
Alongside their four-year plan for 20mph speed limits on every Oxford road, the group told the newly elected councillors that cycling infrastructure should be prioritised in the local authority’s road maintenance and resurfacing programme, with the aim of creating safe, accessible, and direct north to south and east to west cycle routes.
Cyclox also called for the council to spend its discretionary transport funding on active travel, finish the rollout of school street schemes, creating traffic-free roads outside schools at drop-off and pick-up times, and to finance bike parking in residential areas with no or limited existing provision.

Reflecting on the group’s road safety proposals, Green Party councillor Emily Kerr, who is a member of Oxfordshire County Council as a well as the city authority, said: “Cyclox is correct that if we really want to make Oxford safe for everyone from eight to 80 to cycle in, we need to make a number of significant changes.
“Most things they are requesting are already standard in European Cities which see much higher levels of walking and cycling than Oxford – we know what works.
“I’d add a couple of things to their list: first, I think it’s essential that we give Voi scooters and rental bikes parking on the highways rather than obstructing pavements which should be for pedestrians. Many London boroughs do this currently, it works.
“Second, I’d like to see cycling permitted two way on all 20mph one-way streets across the county. This has been incredibly effective in France.”
Meanwhile, Andrew Gant, the county council’s cabinet member for transport management, said: “I am delighted and grateful that the electorate has delivered a resounding mandate for the principles and policies of the Liberal Democrat administration.
“Together with the robust steer from the recent Citizens’ Assembly, our instructions from the people of Oxfordshire are clear: give us a safe, clean, well-managed, sustainable transport system in the county, now, and in the future. We hear them, and we will deliver.”
He continued: “The county council’s established travel and transport policies will bring better conditions for walking and cycling across the county, among other benefits.
“This administration will build on the work of the past four years to make Oxfordshire a greener, fairer and healthier place for all our residents.
“We are listening to and working with our residents, including through the recent citizens’ assembly on travel and transport, whose recommendations we will be responding to.
“We will continue to work with residents, businesses and valued partners such as Cyclox to develop sustainable transport and active travel in all our communities.”
So far, 20mph speed limits, which aim to create quieter, safer roads for cyclists and pedestrians, have been rolled out in other parts of Oxfordshire, including Abingdon, Witney, and Bicester, while the county council has also approved £8 million in funding to lower speed limits to 20mph in most urban areas and village streets, if the parish council and local county councillor back it.
However, the Oxford Bus Company has responded to Cyclox’s latest call for a blanket 20mph limit in Oxford by arguing it will do little to improve road safety or hit climate targets in the city.
“We are entirely supportive of 20mph zones which prioritise road safety and are proven to regulate traffic speeds in busy areas of Oxford,” the company’s managing director Luke Marion said.
“However, implementing additional 20mph limits – including to areas where no present evidence suggests stricter speed restrictions would enhance road safety – would cause substantial increases in journey times to our passengers and other road users.
“Our services must make progress to be a viable and attractive alternative to private cars, and can support the council in achieving its objective to remove one in four car journeys by 2030.
“Additional 20mph zones would make travelling to and from Oxford by bus less attractive to the public, creating more congestion which neither supports road safety nor achieving environmental targets.”
That view was echoed by Independent Oxford Alliance councillor David Henwood, who claimed additional 20mph speed limits would have a “detrimental” impact on bus timings.
“Safer cycling routes for all cyclists is an imperative, the only real way to achieve this in my view is with segregated cycle lanes,” he continued, before turning his attention to the potential for a new ‘dangerous’ cycling law, proposed by the Department for Transport last month, which could lead to cyclists who cause death by dangerous cycling facing life imprisonment.
“With the advent of single gear, no brake bikes, higher cycling speeds achieved using modern materials, and electric powered bikes, there is a need to introduce legislation to protect pedestrians from dangerous cyclists,” Henwood said.
However, Robin Tucker, spokesperson for the Coalition for Healthy Streets and Active Travel (CoHSAT), responded to Henwood’s focus on ‘dangerous’ cyclists by arguing that “to make the roads safer it’s essential to understand the problem”.
“Prejudice and misinformation can be dangerous distractions,” he said.
“In the latest year of data for Oxford (2023), there were no serious injuries in a crash with a cyclist, but motor vehicles seriously injured six pedestrians, 23 people cycling, and 16 other road users – a total of 45 victims, with cars by far the biggest contributor. There were, thankfully, no deaths from any road crash.
“That’s why, in a city where 59 per cent of people cycle, and almost everyone walks or uses a wheeled mobility aid, we support these plans to slow and reduce dangerous traffic, and to create safer places for people.”
Earlier this month, the extent to which prejudice and misinformation have fuelled active travel debates in Oxford was highlighted by the reaction to the news that almost £4m has been spent on low-traffic schemes in Oxford since 2021.
Following a FOI request by the Oxford Mail, Oxfordshire County Council confirmed that it spent more than £3.8m on the installation and maintenance of LTNs and ‘quickways’ cycle routes in Oxford between 2021 and 2024.
Independent councillor Saj Malik, who represents Cowley on the county council, called the spending “completely tone deaf”.
“We expect the county council to provide the services we pay for but then they tell us there’s no money because they waste it on their pet projects like the LTNs,” he said.
“In Cowley we’re at the sharp end of these transport restrictions and they make our lives a misery on a daily basis.”

However, while the headline £3.8m figure attracted the most attention, the cost of installation of the schemes was in fact funded by central government, with the council only covering maintenance costs. Of the £3.8m total, £2.5m was spent in 2022, which was the year the schemes were first implemented.
Now it’s all in place, the annual running cost of the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) camera scheme is estimated at just £55,000 and is “covered by revenue from parking fines”.
Green Party councillor Kerr told road.cc that she believes some of the comments around the spending has missed the point about the “huge public health benefits” that enabling more people to walk and cycle can bring.
“The government says that road traffic collisions cost the UK economy around £34bn per year,” she explained. “This is not only a huge financial number, but also underplays the human and emotional costs of people being maimed and killed.
“Given we know that LTNs can reduce pedestrian injuries by 85 per cent, and that 22,000 people live in Oxford’s LTNs, I think that just £55k per year represents good value for money. Additionally, there are huge public health benefits from cleaner air and more children walking and cycling.”





















23 thoughts on “Cyclists call for 20mph limits on all Oxford roads by 2029 – but bus company says lower speeds would lead to congestion, longer journey times, and “less attractive” travel”
“With the advent of single
“With the advent of single gear, no brake bikes” – who is gonna tell him about penny farthings?
Or ‘higher cycling speeds
Or ‘higher cycling speeds achieved using modern materials’. Like wheels and air filled rubber tyres and cranks turned by legs. So much high tech it’s frightening.
Rome73 wrote:
There have been leaps forward in the cake design departments?
Just to clarify, “Oxford Bus
Just to clarify, “Oxford Bus Company” is a subidiary of the Go-Ahead multinational corporation, whose primary aim is to maximize profits, not make Oxfordshire residents’ lives better.
I for one would welcome a
I for one would welcome a blanket 20 mph speed limit in built up areas, especially where buses are concerned. There’s nothing worse than being on a bus that hard accelerates just to get up to 30mph to then have to hard brake to stop at the next busstop or junction. Most of the the recent bus journeys I’ve been on have had the driver rushing from stop to stop and then having to wait about as they’re ahead of schedule.
What’s actually needed is for
What’s actually needed is for people who drive motor vehicles to drop the attitude – the crappy screw you over and don’t give a clean dam about it! way of acting – accountability! – have some responsibility!
Quote:
Not possible.
Surely if you reduce speeds
Surely if you reduce speeds you increase road capacity, since vehicles need less stopping distance which therefore alleviates congestion
A lot of the time, if you
A lot of the time, if you reduced speeds in and around Oxford you would eliminate stopping distances altogether, due to already being stopped.
karlssberg wrote:
In some cases, slower maximum speeds can increase the traffic flow as it makes it smoother by reducing the amount that drivers accelerate and then brake.
An early stat says that 4
An early stat says that 4 times as many children die with a 30 limit instead of a 20mph limit.
Yes. There are several
Yes. There are several things going on here:
1) Kinetic energy – there are some widely varying numbers in terms of speed / percentages killed and I can’t find a good research source but there seems general agreement (even the antis) that if hit by a motor vehicle at 20mph you are significantly more likely to survive while at somewhere around 30 – 35mph you are more likely to be killed (leaving aside the seriousness of injuries also).
2) Research has measured fewer deaths in specific places with different speed limits. So here there can be all kinds of contributing factors e.g .the actual speed will not be exactly the speed limit, people may be behaving differently also, environment varies etc. There is academic research showing this both for areas with different limits in the same city and also comparing before / after 30 – 20mph speed limit changes in the same locations (for Edinburgh, paper here). No other changes I think, just changing the number on a sign. There was a reduction in deaths.
More of the 2nd kind of studies are available at 20s plenty here.
For completeness (and
For completeness (and hopefully representative, not just real life straw-men / feeble examples) – here is a site which is critical of these interventions (to give some counter-arguments). They don’t dispute the kinetic energy effects…
And here’s an opinion piece which takes a pop at 20mph limits (“not safer or better for the planet”) AFAICS because a) they say some casualty numbers are “slightly misleading” b) because cycling is more dangerous than driving or walking in the UK. (They don’t stop to examine if that perhaps this is evidence we really do need to deal with driving – clearly mass motoring is a given, like weather.) So if people are on bicycles that means more people will die which they suggest will offset the numbers not dying by being hit by cars.
Oh, and what may be the real reason they don’t like ’em:
I do wonder where they’re living – where is it that “the centre-left and Greens are overrepresented in local and national government”? Of course, if you go far enough to the “right” everyone is “left” and if you’re “drill baby drill!” perhaps Labour (?!) or even the Conservatives (??!) look “green”?
chrisonabike wrote:
I feel another t-shirt coming on.
mdavidford wrote:
I put that into what3words and it took me to Turkmenistan…
Be careful when you search
Be careful when you search BTW – I tried to look up a RoSPA document from Google and had this horrible experience.
chrisonabike wrote:
…and so it begins
hawkinspeter wrote:
Can the bus company’s
Can the bus company’s management be taken to task for ignoring the data their own vehicles produce?
Namely that the single biggest cause of delays to their journies will be OTHER MOTOR TRAFFIC?
How long do they sit at 0mph during rush hour?
And given they are buses, on empty/free flowing roads getting over 20mph is pointless as they will likely soon reach the next bus stop.
So by lowering their speed slightly it will improve their fuel efficiency and brake wear thus lowering costs.
Where I live, there has
Where I live, there has recently been a change to 20 mph. It’s only a small village, and there wasn’t much of an issue for cycling, but it will be interesting to see how it works in a larger city like Oxford. Hopefully, it will encourage a few more people to ride their bikes.
In my experience, if it keeps the traffic moving and is safer for cyclists and pedestrians, it’s good for all involved. The only time i have been knocked off my bike is riding in slow moving/almost stationary traffic when a car pulled out into a queue of cars without looking my way. I’ve always preferred riding in moving traffic.
Practically all the villiages
Practically all the villiages in Oxfordshire are now 20mph (and there are discussions to reduce it to 15mph!!) which I dont have too much of a problem with but where they extend between villiages they can cause drivers frustration (someone wont pass and the following cars blame the cyclist) which they often take out on cyclists by close passing. Be careful what you wish for.
bikeman01 wrote:
I believe the idea is for all roads within Oxford to get 20mph limits as a default? (Presumably it would still be possible – *after* having gone through the necessary checks / trial / approval process – to alter speed limits on particular roads again?)
Looking at Oxford the main part has a very dense core, approx. 1km by 1km. There is a ring road – it’s about 6km at its widest axis. Seems sensible to limit speeds – 30mph to 20mph would mean it is 3min 40 seconds longer to cross that at a constant speed (which you won’t get anyway…) – noticable but hardly the end of the world?
And I think what you’re stating there could be read not as “they cause drivers frustration which they often take out on cyclists by close passing” but “some drivers aren’t able to self-regulate or pass cyclists correctly which just indicates the need for sensible speed limits in more congested urban areas where there will be more people outside of motor vehicles”?
chrisonabike wrote:
Well, not quite, since you mostly can’t drive straight through the centre due to traffic restrictions.