Earl Aelfheah

Thanks, look forward to seeing the new place. Think it’s just called kix now

There is a new 'sauna and arts social club' opened up in Arch 842, next to Bronzewood Metal Works off Consort Road Sauna Social Club | Sauna and Arts | Peckham, London, UK Also, probably not new, but new to me Banook Bagels | South London Bagel - Order Online

Also the houses south of Peckham Rye (Mamora, Therapia etc), have big gardens. SE22 is a lovely area and very safe.

Agree, it's a really nice space and already very popular. Will really come into it's own come the summer.

Nope. I want speed limits to be enforced to the point where 85% of people in high powered vehicles aren’t ignoring them. Amazing that you (appear) to think this unreasonable in relation to cars, but are desperate to tackle it in relation to bicycles. There are far fewer people who cycle, it’s a tiny proportion of them who can maintain more than 20 for any distance, and the average bicycle weighs about 10kg, not 2 tons. So it’s a really weird way to rank your priorities. Yup. Although it’s not really just weight, it’s also bonnet height (almost more important), and power. No. I don’t see the need for ever bigger, heavier, and higher fronted vehicles in town. The car bloat should be discouraged imo for numerous reasons, just one of which is safety (an important one). Yes. And the point stands. I mean E-bikes (which includes most cargo bikes), are clearly different to a standard bicycle. But even at 35 or even 65 kg, it’s quite different to over 2,000kg. So again, to constantly spotlight the former, whilst deflecting from the latter feels at best ‘misguided’. Yet we now have three threads focussed on speed limits for bicycles, including this one, that was meant to be about motor vehicles, but has also been redirected. Again, it’s a quick, whispered acknowledgement there are other (much bigger) issues, followed by more weapons grade deflection. And the ‘our side of the fence’ comment is so, so revealing.

DfT stats suggest 85% of motor vehicles drive faster than the speed limit in 20mph zones. That’s totally unacceptable. If you’re exercised by the tiny number of people on a 10kg pedal powered vehicle travelling at speeds in excess of 20, you should be enraged by the much bigger numbers doing it in a 2 ton, high-powered vehicle. So let’s start there. I would like to see far more enforcement and stiff penalties. I would also like to see some of the technology currently only deployed on electric hire scooters (geo-fencing + speed limiters), applied to cars. I would like strict regulations on the size, bonnet height and weight of non-commercial vehicles and charging regimens which also strongly discourage the arms race for ever bigger, heavier and higher fronted cars (which are so much more dangerous than say a standard saloon. And generally I would question why we need non commercial vehicles upwards of 300 horse power in our cities. I would again use the tax / charging regimes to disincentive use of these dangerous, unnecessary vanity vehicles. …And I would support removing motor vehicles from many more areas. Expanding pedestrian spaces / widening pavements, and creating more segregated cycling spaces to protect people from having to interact with high powered heavy machinery. Lastly, I would encourage greater investment in public transport (although it’s a bit of a cop out to say that, as who wouldn’t)

There is a thread on speed limits for a bicycles. In fact two, because you’re pushing it on the LTN one too. I get it, your focus is on a tiny number of bicycles that pedal too quickly. Could we perhaps have one thread that focuses on the much bigger issue of high powered heavy vehicles, which regularly speed and are killing and injuring thousands of people? Just one? Because it’s really no good saying you care about it, but don’t really want to leave any space to talk about it. The constant deflection is so unhelpful.

If there is evidence that the danger there has increased, I agree something will need to be done so. I personally think the new layout does a lot to slow vehicles. To me it feels a lot safer and pleasant now that motor vehicles have been removed. That said my ‘perception’ shouldn’t be relied on any more than anyone else’s. But the data I’ve seen suggests that recorded collisions around that junction have reduced significantly.

They are registered, licensed, insured and have number plates. Is this what you would like to see for privately owned bicycles too?

You can’t discuss dangerous driving without the usual suspects banging on about bicycles. It’s really, really tedious. Road safety isn’t a football game. You don’t have to constantly cheer for your ‘team’. How can a serious response to someone tearing round a park in a 2 ton vehicle nearly 50 mph be - ‘yeah but forget that, focus on people using a 10 kg vehicle, who I think could be pushing 20, that’s the more pressing issue here’

Yeh sure. This definitely isn’t just an ad hominem attack 🙄. I’m not a ‘lobbyist’, have nothing to do with LCC, and you’re embarrassing yourself Yeh, I already agreed Lime bikes are probably replacing walking and / or bus journeys, but as usual you’re so keen to argue, you haven’t actually read my response. I doubt they’re replacing many tube journeys. As I said, Lime bikes are designed as ‘last mile’ transport, to connect people to train / tube. Privately owned bicycles aren’t generally used in this way. Obviously different. They’re licensed, registered, insured etc as a condition of operation, as a commercial enterprise. The user isn’t the one having to worry about it. They just jump on and go. The convenience / ease of use is exactly what makes them popular. Which kind of proves my point; simplicity has a big impact in people’s transport choices. If you make owning a bike more difficult, expensive or complicated, some people will switch out journeys for something easier, faster or more convenient, including cars.

This is nonsense. It's just an ad hominem attack. But you do you. Lime bikes are intended as 'last mile' transport - to get you to / from the tube or train. Personal bicycles aren't used in the same way generally. It's likely that people switching from walking to using a Lime bike for the same journey increases the risk to others, yes. You'll note that Lime bikes are registered, licensed, insured and have a fixed top speed (at least for pedal assist, and you'd be hard pushed to get it a lot above that speed without it). They're regulated differently to push bikes, because of the above. Sure. Why not. I can think of legislation I might like to see (I've even mentioned some of it on this thread). But you're not going to see mandatory speed limits for push bikes, because the argument for it simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Its not at all uncommon unfortunately. Happened to me today at the zebra crossing at ED Grove / Melbourne grove - Mercedes just went straight through it.

It's to do with the realities of creating new primary legislation. If a bill cannot demonstrate how a proposed new law will be adequately enforced, it simply won't get timetabled for debate, let alone any further along in the process. To have a chance of getting through the pre-scrutiny stages you would need to propose a system of registering and licensing bicycles. You can disagree with this, but I invite you to look into the process and all the layers of legislative scrutiny involved. If you bring in registration and licensing you create a barrier to cycling, and some people will switch. This can be seen in areas where mandatory helmet laws have been introduced and bike use has fallen. Your constant use of 'cycle lobby' to describe anyone with a different view is a perfect example of the polarisation that you claim to be against. How on earth are my arguments anything to do with a cycle lobby? Debate the points, rather than trying to discredit the messenger. Not all of them. But certainly some of them. And even if it's only some of them, that has a negative impact on overall road safety. This is why it's relevant to understand the difference in risk between different transport choices / where comparative analysis is important. Not out of petty tribalism, which I'm not interested in, but because it becomes relevant to understanding impact. The difference in the risks posed to other people by a motor car, versus a bicycle is huge. I absolutely guarantee you that mandatory speed limits for push bikes will not be introduced. Our legislators do scrutinise this stuff carefully, consider proportionality, the ability to enforce changes and whether or not changes to the law are likely to be counterproductive in achieving their stated aims.

This really does get to the route of the problem. If you reduce the risk posed by 'cyclists', by encouraging them to switch out journeys by bike for a car, then you haven't mitigated the risk those people pose to others, you've increased it. Again, because if I cycle a journey, I pose less of a risk to other people, than if I do that same journey in a motor car. This is just a statistical fact. That I'm not a 'cyclists' anymore is irrelevant, unless you think that's the important thing (as you've implied in the quote above and elsewhere), and not the risk people pose to others.

This is a much more rational argument imo. I also worry about the risks people put themselves under.

No, only if you see mitigating the risk posed specifically by cyclists as more important than improving road safety in general. If you reduce the risk posed by cyclists, by encouraging people to switch out journeys by bike for a form of transport that poses greater risk to others, then how have you made things safer for those people? No the debate is polarised, because you're polarising it. As you've indicated above, you're concerned about 'the risk posed by cyclists', not making roads safer for other people overall. You are literally viewing the issue through this false, binary opposition that you always seem to apply - bikes vs cars. It isn't about 'preferring' bikes or cars, or being on 'team bike', or 'team car', it's about the real world impact of travel choices on other peoples safety. Again, if I cycle a journey, I pose less of a risk to other people, than if I do that same journey in a motor car. This is just a statistical fact. I hear you. But your perception of danger is very subjective. The risk posed to you from motor vehicles when you're out on your bike, is greater. I know you'll take offence at this, but it's objectively, demonstrably true.

It's not a 'get out for cyclist'. You understand the point about relative risk, but seem to think it's irrelevant? I know that someone can drown in an inch of water, but you wouldn't put the same regulations / safety measures in place for puddles as swimming pools. It doesn't detract from the tragedy of someone who drowns in an inch of water, but you must understand the relevance of proportionality in in risk mitigation. We would all agree with that. The point is that if you bring in ill thought out legislation which encourages people to switch from a less dangerous form of transport to a more dangerous one, you increase the likelihood of tragedies occurring. It’s not a bike vs cars debate as such (although the relative danger posed by different travel choices is relevant), it’s an issue of how you improve road safety in practice, not principle. You have to consider the incentives that regulations create, their impact on behaviour and what that does to either increase or mitigate the overall risk posed to others. As said above, if you regulate in ways that cause even a small number of people to switch bike journeys to car journeys, the danger posed to others increases (mile-for-mile in urban areas, motor vehicles are about twice as likely as a cycle to kill a pedestrian). Speed limits for pedal bikes sound good in principle, but would be counterproductive in practice.

We’ll have to agree to disagree on this I think. If you look at the numbers of bicycles travelling over 20 or 30 mph it’s tiny. And if you look at the risk posed by bicycles it is also relatively small (relative to other vehicles). Meanwhile the DfT says that in 2022 85% of drivers broke the speed limit in 20mph zones. This is a distraction. Our legislators do scrutinise this stuff and they do consider proportionality, the ability to enforce changes and whether they are likely to be counterproductive in achieving their stated aims. There is zero chance of a law change because it would do little if anything to improve overall road safety. So one has to question the point of threads like these? It just feels like culture war nonsense.

It doesn’t really. Mile-for-mile in urban areas, motor vehicles are about twice as likely as a cycle to kill a pedestrian. The impact forces involved in a collision with a bicycle, even travelling at say 20mph compared to a car at 10, are just not remotely comparable. A car or van simply represents a greater risk to other people than a bicycle. Whilst on a very simplistic level, it may seem ‘obvious’ to apply the same limit to everyone, in reality any measures which encourage people to swap out journeys by bike for journeys by motor vehicles, makes the roads more dangerous. And the idea you could just change the law, without a clear plan for how it would be enforced, misunderstands who our system of lawmaking works. It would almost invariably require mandatory speedometers and licensing. And as snowy points out, a mandatory speed limit for push bikes would require changes to primary legislation to redefine pedal propelled cycles as 'vehicles'. Without a clear plan for enforcement, or a well articulated case for how the law is proportionate and may not be counterproductive, it has literally zero chance of even getting timetabled, let alone through pre-legislative scrutiny and onwards. The problem with simplistic answers to complex issues is that they don’t make good law.

Spartacus incapable of understanding simple concepts or engaging with an argument sneaks off to the lounge to post lame memes 🙄

I really dont get the issue around the exact name of the legislation. The point is that there is legislation that empowers police to tackle careless and dangerous behaviour on a bike, including travelling at speeds which are inappropriate. I am not sure anyone has argued against that. We’ve not been discussing it. They’ve argued against applying a specific, mandatory speed limit for a push bike that has no speedometer or licence plate.

@Rockets Ah, I see. You appeared to be saying that there weren’t laws against careless or dangerous cycling (at least that’s how I read it). So you were actually arguing over the exact name of the legislation? That was not clear at all and seems fairly irrelevant. Although I apologise for accusing you of doubling down - So what is your substantive point? That police can’t address people cycling dangerously, or at inappropriate speeds? I don’t think that’s correct. I found a helpful summary of the legislation with regards cycling offences: Cycle carelessly, meaning without due care and attention or reasonable consideration for other road users (£1,000 max fine) or dangerously (£2,500 max fine) Cause injury by cycling furiously (two year max imprisonment). Cycle furiously (no injury caused). You can’t be prosecuted for speeding while cycling as speeding offences are specific to motor vehicles. Under the 1847 Town and Police Clauses Act you can, however, be fined up to £1,000 for cycling furiously, hence cycling too fast for the conditions can potentially lead to either a furious cycling or careless cycling charge. Crossing the stop line when the traffic lights are red (jumping red lights) is an offence which the police usually deal with via a fixed penalty notice (FPN) fine (typically £50), as is riding across a cycle-only signal crossing if the green cycle symbol isn’t showing. Cycling on the pavement. When FPNs were introduced for pavement cycling in 1999 however, Home Office Minister Paul Boateng issued guidance saying that: “The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so. Fundamentally, there is legislation to deal with careless or dangerous cycling, proportionate to the size of the problem; despite what some people think we are not doing anywhere near enough to tackle dangerous driving (between 2005-14 98.5% of vehicle-related pedestrian injuries on the footway/verge involved a motor vehicle, not a cycle). Focussing effort on new primary legislation (and the associated rules to ensure proper enforcement required by such a change), aimed at a tiny number of cyclists travelling in excess of 20 or 30 mph would be ridiculous and likely counterproductive for reasons previously discussed. For these reasons, I can guarantee it won’t happen.

@Rockets Snowy has linked you to the legislation. Instead of doubling down, perhaps just accept a mistake for once. No one will judge you for an error, but I will judge you for continuing to push things after you know them to be wrong. I’m not, but assume this is what first mate is referring to. You know my views on speculating on a specific tragedy and questioning the verdict of the inquiry.

Because the inquiry found the cyclist not to be at fault. You probably have more of the facts available to you than the judge though