Earl Aelfheah

I don't think there is any disagreement on what the signs say. The killer point, was just that the sign says there is a 5 mph speed limit. It's not the revelation Rocks thinks. 🤣 This is a fair point. It's possible I am easily distracted from what I should be doing on occasion 😉.

And your 'big reveal' is that the sign says that the speed limit is 5 mph? 🤣. You also just demonstrated that you've never looked at the sign by the main entrance to the park that does actually have some detail on it, but let's gloss over that. Without a bye-law or other specific statutory regulation applying to the parkland, any speed-limit sign in a park is not legally enforceable. It might act as a guidance or policy notice but not a legal obligation enforceable in court. And as speed limits do not generally apply to bicycles, scooters or 'hover boards' (not sure what that means), they would have to be specifically referenced. What's the byelaw here? I have no problem in principle with a speed limit in a park, as I've already said. I do think 5 mph for a bicycle is far too low though. Even children will generally cycle faster than that, as at less than 5 mph an inexperienced cyclist will actually be unstable. Effectively you may as well call for a ban on people riding their bike, which I think would be a really sad move. It would also be strange to apply the same 5 mph limit placed on people taking vans and cars through the park, to people on their bicycles - it demonstrates a complete lack of any sort of proportionality, or risk based assessment. It's irrational (or perhaps 'ideological' is more accurate). It's very strange that you would argue otherwise, whilst also describing a 20 mph speed limit on a road that sees significant numbers of serious accidents as 'ridiculous'.

And? Does it mention bicycles specifically? Because again, without a byelaw or traffic management order clearly stating that it applies to bicycles, it is not legally enforceable. You've said that you think the 20 mph limit on the A205 is 'ridiculous'. Presumably you consider it disproportionate, or inappropriate in some way, relative to the number of serious collisions that take place on that road? Why do you think that it's proportionate for the 5 mph speed limit in the park to be extended to bicycles? Do you think they pose the same risk to other park users as a car, or that it's a particularly dangerous environment, unlike the A205? No, you repeatedly asked me to 'describe the sign', with no explanation as to why. That is weird. If you have a point to make, do so, rather than playing silly games. As it happens you didn't have a point, which is doubly strange imo, but fair enough, I'm sure there was a killer point in there somewhere 🤔.

The signs at the main entrance, by the barriers says this. Definitely did anyway, unless there has been a recent change. I don't know what the your point is here? What is it you think the signs say in relation to bicycles, or are you just being weird? What is it you're trying to say without actually saying it?

Why don't you? You obviously think there is something relevant in the signage that 'proves' your point - so what is it you want to say? From memory, I only recall something along the lines of 'Vehicle entry for permit holders only' and then something asking people to 'please observe 5 mph' and 'give way to pedestrians'. It’s clearly aimed at those driving into the park. I don't believe there is any specific reference to bicycles or any signage referencing a relevant byelaw. Because national speed limits don't autonomically apply to cyclists, enforcement of a speed limit in the park that did relate to bicycles would require a specific byelaw or traffic management order clearly stating that it applies. Southwark's published byelaws don't contain such a clause.

The 5mph limit is for motor vehicles in the park. The limit isn't to slow bikes. It doesn't apply to bikes.

You made the comparison with a 20 mph speed limit on the South Circular. You have said that limit is 'ridiculous', but are implying that 5 mph for bicycles is not. That 5 mph speed limit doesn't actually apply to bicycles, so would require changes to byelaws. If that's what you're calling for then make the case for why it's appropriate and proportionate in a way that presumably 20 mph on the A205 isn't in your opinion.

Your words not mine - clearly that was not what I said. You're adding elements and making things up again. New Year, same old tactics!!! 😉 Hmm: New year yes. But your words are still recorded. It doesn't apply to cyclists. I'm not remotely angry.

Because national speed limits don't autonomically apply to cyclists, enforcement of a speed limit in the park would require a specific byelaw or traffic management order clearly stating that it applies to bicycles. Southwark's published byelaws don't contain such a clause. Neither is there signage pointing to the inclusion of bicycles and referencing a relevant byelaw. So to be clear - a 20 mph speed limit on A205 is 'ridiculous', despite a number of serious injuries and deaths having occurred on that road as the result of collisions. But you do support extending a 5 mph speed limit that currently applies to cars travelling through the park to bicycles? Despite there being (as far as I know) little history of any serious accidents? This is nothing to do with safety. It's just another example of your massively disproportionate focus on (and exaggeration of) the 'danger' people pose others when travelling by bicycle, whilst at the same time minimising the significant havoc they can (and do) wreak when using high powered motor vehicle. It's a weirdly myopic obsession.

Yep, you're quite right about this. The only cycling-related restriction written into Southwark's set of byelaws for 'pleasure grounds, public walks and open spaces', under the section 'horses and cycles', refers to a restriction on a particular path in bankside. The 5 mph limit doesn't apply to people traveling on a bicycle.

But you have taken a position on the speed limit for the A205 - despite it being a road with a history of regular, serious collisions, 20 mph there is 'ridiculous'. So it's just the 5 mph for someone riding their bicycle in a park with (as far as i am aware) no history of deaths of serious injuries that there is 'little point' having a view on? Interesting that. I suggest that if you flooded Dulwich park with police and strongly enforced a 5 mph limit for anyone riding their bike, the reduction in the number of people exercising would cause a lot more harm than it would do good. It's a solution desperately looking for a problem.

This makes no sense. I would guess (there is not data obviously) that at least as many people are knocked over in the park by people bumping into other people on foot, as on bike - probably more. We know at least one person is recorded as having died in the UK last year as the result of another person running into them - only two less than were killed by bicycles on the road. So you're not taking any position on whether a 5 mph limit is appropriate - just on the 20mph limit applied to the A205 (which you describe as 'ridiculous')?

So the risk is not the force of the impact, but of being bumped into and knocked over? The risk of runners in this scenario is at least as high, and there are more of them in our parks. Do they therefore require the same speed limit because that's the corollary of your logic? At under 5 mph many people are likely to be less in control of their bike than at say 8-10 mph. Which makes me question what one wants to achieve. Is it actually about safety? At 5 mph, you may as well just ban bicycles (and running for that matter). I stand by what I said earlier in the thread: The difference being that there are regular, very serious collisions, injuries and deaths on the A205. I'm not aware of the same scale of destruction in Dulwich Park.

If you're suggesting that they should have the same speed limits applied to them as motor vehicles, then you are arguing that they be treated as special cases - in a way that is wildly different and disproportionate to the risk they pose to others. Last year motor vehicles led to the death of around 1,600 other road users, bicycles 3, and pedestrians (running into someone else who was on foot) 1. To suggest that you should treat someone travelling by bicycle as if they were in a motor car is obviously ridiculous. If you can't see that, then it's you who has blinkers on.

I haven't asked Google to produce a summary of opinions expressed across the internet, or relied on editorialising from the Mail. I've not asked for an opinion, I've used a very specific prompt to answer a specific question based on data, and shown you the calculations. A bicycle would have to be travelling at around 77 mph in order to pose a remotely comparable risk to the average car travelling at 20 mph. From a harm-to-others perspective, bicycles do not need a numerical speed limit analogous to 20 mph for cars. Treating bicycles as needing similar limits to cars is not evidence-based. I have no problem with a speed limit for people travelling through a park, or shared space, in principle. Yes, I think it's ridiculous. Try and cycle at under 5 mph and tell me you disagree. We don't make new laws, restrict peoples freedoms, and create expensive systems of regulation and enforcement on the basis of 'why not?'. You need to make your case for why it's appropriate and proportionate.

Nope. If you're proposing a major change to the law, it's for you to explain why that change is appropriate and proportionate. That said, I asked ChatGPT: Taking the standard speed limit for motor vehicles as 20 mph in the UK, what would be a proportionate speed limit for bicycles based on the comparative risk they pose to others. Here's it's assessment: Key factors that drive risk to others Mass (dominant factor) Typical car: ~1,500 kg Typical cyclist + bike: ~100 kg → Car ≈ 15× heavier Kinetic energy (∝ mass × speed²). At the same speed, a car carries ~15× the kinetic energy of a bicycle. Braking distance & control Bikes stop faster at low speeds and cause less secondary harm. Bikes have much lower “plough-through” risk. Injury severity data (real-world) Collisions caused by cyclists very rarely kill others. Cars are responsible for the overwhelming majority of pedestrian fatalities. Proportionate speed calculation (risk-equivalent) If we scale speed so that kinetic energy (and thus injury potential) is comparable: Using: Car speed = 20 mph Mass ratio ≈ 15 That’s clearly physically and practically impossible, which already tells you something important: A bicycle at any achievable speed does not pose comparable risk to others as a car at 20 mph. Practical, policy-relevant answer If the goal is proportionate risk to others (not comfort, not shared-space etiquette): On roads: A risk-equivalent bicycle speed would be well above 40 mph, i.e. beyond normal cycling capability. In pedestrian-heavy areas: Limits should be set by interaction risk, not vehicle class. Typical safe cycling speeds: Shared space: 8–12 mph Busy high street: 10–15 mph Clear cycleway: 20–25 mph (already common) Bottom line From a harm-to-others perspective, bicycles do not need a numerical speed limit analogous to 20 mph for cars. Any cycling speed limit below ~25 mph is being justified by comfort, perception, or congestion, not proportional danger. Treating bicycles as needing similar limits to cars is not evidence-based. I have no problem with a 'speed limit' in a park - but realistically, it's going to be based largely on etiquette, as bicycles don't have speedometers. As I already said, people should be careful and considerate of one another in shared areas. 5 mph is ridiculous - as noted, you'd have park runners being fined.

Not this again. There is already a thread on speed limits for bicycles. Summary: it's never going to happen. As for 5mph - if you're setting a proportionate speed limit for bicycles based on the dangers posed to others relative to motor vehicles, then it would be way over 20 mph. So you either make the speed limit for motor vehicles considerably lower, or you set a speed limit for bicycles which they could never actually reach... or you stop being ridiculous.

Read the whole article by all means. The fact that they've posed most of the headlines as questions tells you a lot. No one actually fined (one fine was issued and quickly rescinded). Of perhaps hundreds of cyclists, 20 were clocked over the 'speed limit', but several of those were probably within the 2mph margin of error. It sounds like absolute rage bait nonsense on the whole. They literally say the opposite.

A critique of the Tooting story; https://road.cc/content/blog/new-year-same-old-anti-cycling-raigebait-317501 “The Daily Mail has found that some cyclists are exceeding an unenforceable speed limit by as much as a light jog. A cyclist has already shown that this is unenforceable when, as the only person to have received a fine, it was almost instantly rescinded by Wandsworth Council. While the Daily Mail was at the park for two hours with a speed gun, we recorded only 20 cyclists breaking the limit out of the hundreds we saw, with the fastest going 19mph - a full 1mph lower than the lowest speed limit on a public road.”

.

There did use to be 6 trains an hour, but services were cut.

Is there any reason people want raw milk? Is it just a taste thing?

Clearly people should cycle carefully in parks. Dogs shouldn’t be out of control and off the lead either ideally (often they are). A bit of courtesy and care is probably what’s called for rather than unenforceable laws. Never heard of this 5mph limit.

And one just off lordship lane next to chilli and garlic …and loads all over London. It’s a bland chain.