London SE1 community website

20 mph speed limit not for Bikes

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Current: 6 of 9
Monday 28 July 2014 1.43pm
eDWaRD WooDWaRD wrote:
Sandgrown Dave wrote:
Clever misrepresentation, this. In 2013 motorways, rural "A" roads and rural minor roads accounted for more than 60% of all vehicle miles travelled, and such roads have little to no pedestrian presence. If there are no pedestrians around, it's not possible to injure them.

Does it say that rural "A" roads and rural minor roads are included in this. or how do you know that is the case?

The article just talks about "distance travelled"; using this unqualified term suggests to me that they are factoring all miles driven into the calculation. Typically, they don't provide the detailed data that they used, or even a link to it.
Monday 28 July 2014 1.44pm
jon9521 wrote:
I can't believe the Council not only applied a 20mph limit for cars but left the cyclists with no speed limit. My wife would of appreciated a 20mph limit for cyclists on Southwark Bridge Rd when she was knocked over by a speeding cyclist who jumped the lights. It will just add to this ridiculous air of superiority that some cyclists have. Its enough for me to jump to voting for the Conservative or UYKIP parties as they appear to be the only parties that want to control the behaviour of bad cyclists

The cyclist was travelling at more than 20mph, or more than 30mph?

It seems from your example that better enforcement of traffic signals, not speed limits, would have helped your wife more. Luckily this is also more clear cut - a person can't use 'I didn't see the red/amber light' as a legitimate defense.

I hope your wife is ok and no serious damage was done.
Monday 28 July 2014 1.46pm
boroughonian wrote:
johnnytee wrote:
Gavin Smith wrote:
Johnnytee, I've been to all three of the countries you cite with approval. In the case of the Netherlands, yes, they have much better infrastructure but their cycling "style" is aggressive and with no regard to other road users. I've been there many, many times and have cycled - and driven - extensively throughout the country, not just Amsterdam. We need to be careful.
"How could it be?" Well, how about a cyclist hurtling towards you - on a pavement - and blindly ringing their bell and just continuing in your direction, ignorantly believing that you must move just because they have rung their bell.



I do think Netherlands is a paradise transport wise compared to London. People in their 70's cycling in safety -OAPS dying of old age on their bikes is now not uncommon I hear. Less obesity. Far safer roads than here. Friends riding to hospital while heavily pregnant for check ups. 80% of primary school kids going by bike unaccompanied...of course your experience may differ to mine but again, I'd rather be hit by a bike than a car (e.g. london) if an accident does happen.

On the 2nd point why would a bike in the N's be on the pavement? I'm not doubting it happened if you say so, but a bike would be on a heavily traffic calmed road or a seperate cycle route - there is almost no need for them to be on the paths.

Back to the main thread point, it is illegal/ unenforceable to have a 20mph limit apply to cycles, discriminatory when only 1%? of cyclists can maintain that speed, and is unnecessary - if a cyclist hits a pedestrian injuring them then prosecute them for dangerous behaviour (what they *have* done, not what they *might* do).

There are many "shared spaces" in the Netherlands (it does appear to be an EU directive of sorts) and I have to agree with everything Gavin said about the cyclists over there, if anyone thinks we have militant cyclists over here, they should spend a weekend in the Netherlands. The abuse you get, and your on a shopping precinct!

Your arguments -just prosecute if a cyclist does harm is ridiculous. My wife was knocked over by a speeding red light jumping cyclist. When another pedestrian shouted for him to stop he gave the one figured salute and sped off. If he was a car there would be a license plate. That is why we should have id for cyclists
Monday 28 July 2014 2.17pm
Sandgrown Dave wrote:
Ivanhoe wrote:
Cars and lorries tend to stay on the carriageway...
As do the overwhelming majority of cyclists, of course.

Ivanhoe wrote:
...They also tend to stop behind the white lines at junctions, and not place themselves in the pedestrian crossing space.
Actually where there is an ASL many motor vehicle drivers do not stop behind the correct white line, but rather place their vehicle so as to occupy the cycle reservoir.

Yes, I would agree that the majority of the cyclists I come across do stay on the road. I'd go even further in praise of most cyclists...I think that many more of them stop where they should do nowadays than they did a few years ago, when the first big increase of cycling came about. And all credit to them for following the rules of the road.

And, yes, quite a few motorists do stop in the ASL, which they obviously shouldn't do. However, a lot of cyclists aren't content with stopping in the ASL even when it's clear. They prefer to stop in/partly in the space reserved for pedestrians to cross. Which makes it difficult for pedestrians to cross. Especially those with wheelchairs or those pushing buggies. That's all I'm saying.

...if you press it, they will come.
Monday 28 July 2014 9.39pm
"Your arguments -just prosecute if a cyclist does harm is ridiculous. My wife was knocked over by a speeding red light jumping cyclist. When another pedestrian shouted for him to stop he gave the one figured salute and sped off. If he was a car there would be a license plate. That is why we should have id for cyclists"

Im sorry to hear your wife had an accident and hope she recovered. But don't quite understand your point. Would a 20mph speed limit have stopped the scumbag cyclist from cycling off? nope, and that is what we are discussing.

if he had been a car then you would have a license plate to read but your wife might not have walked away at all - this is why cars are licensed and bikes are not.

the legal principle remains, you prosecute wrong doers. the police should have caught the cyclist in your case ( they almost certainly could have if they wanted with cctv etc). it would take resources. but so would monitoring the speed of thousands of people who are causing no harm and mostly not going over 20 anyway!
Tuesday 29 July 2014 12.30pm
johnnytee wrote:
the police should have caught the cyclist in your case ( they almost certainly could have if they wanted with cctv etc).

So, the police didn't want to catch the cyclist? Is that what's being insinuated here? Anyway, again no constructive suggestions in terms of how to prevent accidents.
Tuesday 29 July 2014 1.08pm
johnnytee wrote:
...it would take resources. but so would monitoring the speed of thousands of people who are causing no harm and mostly not going over 20 anyway!

Erm, applying a speed limit to all vehicles rather than a subset of vehicles doesn't have cost implications.

Most roads have no speed monitoring apparatus in place (i.e. there's no resource implications).

Where fixed speed cameras or temporary speed "traps" are set up, it doesn't cost extra to monitor all vehicles. In fact, I suspect it would cost more to only monitor a subset of vehicles than it would to monitor all vehicles.

Exempting a subset of vehicles from the law does have all sorts of other implications and consequences, though.

If some bikes go over 20mph (as you appear to accept), why should they be exempted?

Most road users behave within reasonable bounds, whatever the vehicle. The ones who don't are the ones who need to be dealt with, whatever the vehicle, imho. I just don't get this argument that cyclists deserve special treatment.

...if you press it, they will come.
Tuesday 29 July 2014 2.19pm
Ivanhoe wrote:
...I just don't get this argument that cyclists deserve special treatment.
There's no special treatment, Ivanhoe. It's just this: the legal framework which enables speed limits on the roads applies only to motor vehicles. So speed limits per se don't apply to bikes, nor to skateboards or horses for that matter. (Of course there's other legislation which can be used to prosecute non-motor vehicle road users for dangerous behaviour.) That's just the legal status quo.

One could argue that the RTA should be amended to bring cyclists (and skateboarders, horse riders, ...?) within its scope. In principle this is fair. In practice it would mean
- the legislature spending time and money on amending the Act and
- a consequent extension of the police service's enforcement duties.

As a taxpayer I'd only be happy with that if there was evidence of
(a) a non-trivial public safety issue due to cyclists exceeding speed limits and
(b) a reasonable probability that the change would mitigate that safety issue.

It seems to me that there's no evidence to support either proposition, and so I'd object vehemently on the basis that the legislature and the police have much more important things to address their attention to. Not because cyclists should have special treatment, just because public resources should be directed so as to yield benefits.
Tuesday 29 July 2014 2.57pm
Very clearly put, Dave, thanks. I think I sort of see where you're coming from.

Just to make sure I understand the logic at work here: if I've been alive for decades and have a clean criminal record, can I therefore petition to have myself exempted from the law (or, which is little different in reality, petition to prevent any existing laws being extended to cover me and my activities)?

If so, the selfish part of me is all in favour, although the part of me which strives to be a responsible citizen might find it a bit harder to come to terms with.

...if you press it, they will come.
Tuesday 29 July 2014 3.25pm
It just occurred to me how absurd it is that we are discussing speed limits for cyclists while the problem of a small but very dominant and oppressive minority of cyclists endanger other road users' safety by flouting several basic rules concerning jumping red lights or ignoring street signs (including cycling up one way streets etc.) If we can't even get them to commit to those basic rules, for which other road users get penalised, why are we talking about speed limits? If the afore mentioned minority of cyclists stuck to the highway code, they probably wouldn't be able to cycle too fast any way. Some seem to think they are a gift to humankind because they slow down before jumping a red light (I think indirectly I may be at fault if they don't bother slowing down any more, as I make very clear what I think of them, so they may prefer to speed past and extend a cowardly two-fingered salute). Others just put their head down and go for it. This happened to me at the hands of a scooterist the other day as well by the way, who came shooting past a truck whilst I was crossing the road, so it's not just cyclists of course.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Current: 6 of 9

To post a message, please log in or register..
Keep up with SE1 news

We have three email newsletters for you to choose from:

We are part of
Independent Community News Network
Email newsletter

For the latest local news and events direct to your inbox every Monday, you need our weekly email newsletter SE1 Direct.

7,000+ locals read it every week. Can you afford to miss out?

Read the latest issue before signing up

Also on the forum
Views expressed in this discussion forum are those of the contributors and may not reflect the editorial policy of this website. Please read our terms and conditions