snowy

And thereby completely missing the joke that was in the original photo...

Those famously emotive people - insurers - use 'collision' to include incidents involving objects: https://www.nationwide.com/lc/resources/auto-insurance/articles/what-is-collision-insurance#:~:text=Collision covers incidents involving objects,all covered by comprehensive insurance. As do the Met: https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/rs/road-safety/collisions/#:~:text=The law defines a reportable,the driver of that vehicle The car is missing its front skirts and the bonnet is lifted up and forced back. You might not know the three letter acronym, but the writer was suggesting that the car might not have been driving to the full standards as outlined in the Highway Code.

A post intentionally ignoring what you have previously been told. He's employed by a government organisation, sponsored by the department for transport; https://www.activetravelengland.gov.uk/about to implement government plans and strategies, not to influence them existing. Here's the government definition of a lobbyist: https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/lobbying/#:~:text=To lobby is to make,Contact an MP or Lord "To lobby is to make the case for a particular policy, cause or group directly to a government minister or a member of either House with the aim of influencing their decisions."

The forum rules: https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/guidelines Seem to be in two general types; a) don't break the rules / the law b) don't be a dick Your post was moderated (under point 4 and / or 7) by an administrator. Which of those two reasons are you saying applied to the editing of your post?

It's still up here: https://x.com/DulwichRoads/status/1884160510628872211 but most likely the sacking of most of the staff at twitter has affected how links get embedded on other sites occasionally. An administrator edited your posts most likely as they broke forum rules. It's their forum so 'policing' as you put it, their own rules you signed up to.

So you haven't contacted anyone about it? Despite seeing it so often? And of course I believe that road users should be considerate and follow speed limits, its a park without public roads so not the place to be cycling at 20 if that ever happens - i pass through it regularly and haven't seen it myself. i wouldn't know what LCC say as I'm not a member. Does the AA or the Association of British Drivers do the same?

If people are cycling without being considerate of others they should be stopped. Have you asked the SNT or the friends of group to help?

^^and this is the reason why the person who hosts the Regents Park inquest on their website, asked me not to post it here. I believe they mentioned something along the lines of 'doxxing Ricks', whatever that means.

Your posts have this incredible ability to be constantly pompous and constantly wrong! It's an incredible evidently intentional approach designed to distract from the fact that the police found someone doing 47mph in a park full of people and animals. What's the thread title? And what were Admin's notes on this subforum: This forum board is for any topic related to transport or roads, so this can be related to East Dulwich, Southwark, London-wide etc. so perhaps wind back your forum bullying / policing and leave the boomer hashtags alone for a bit?

Topical: https://x.com/MPSRoyal_Parks/status/1882853755340849540 Officers have been conducting speed checks in #RichmondPark this evening, one driver was clocked at 35mph and another clocked at 47mph. Both drivers reported #20isplenty #20mphzone #naturereserve

They're standard incorrect cycling tropes though aren't they - pretty generic to the UK and the States where, thanks to years of motor industry advertising, cycles are seen as the leas aspirational poorer second cousin to cars, have less right to be on the road and are of a lesser priority. Much the same as pedestrians. A Tory London Assembly Member called pedestrian crossings 'woke' yesterday! Just think of the last tv car advert you saw - i'd guess the car promised unlimited enjoyment and going fast in a city setting without any other traffic, before easily pulling into a capacious parking space. Then think about how that compares to driving along Lordship Lane on a Saturday. You're sold the idea that a car is freedom and independence. The problem is everyone else bought a car too. So when you see a cyclist swanning by whilst you are sat in a queue of car traffic... Breaking the law in cars is conversely normalised - 80 on the motorway, 30 in a 20, using a mobile, amber gambling traffic lights, careless driving etc. That makes people think that walking and cycling are dangerous, so they drive. [and before anyone jumps in, cars can be great and serve a valid (and for some an essential) purpose, but are less good when we all want to use them for short urban trips].

Isn't that what they did - post a clickbait fb post and then harvest the rage post responses to form an article? I looked so you don't have to - as expected its full of 'pay road tax' 'fines for not using cycle lanes', cycling side by side' impotent rants. It's pretty cynical engagement farming.

Using a facebook sourced post as reliable evidence of anything is a bit embarrassing.

Well yes, that's what i said. The Royal Parks flip flop between stating that speed restrictions don't apply to cyclists and then lobby government to make them apply. But on your last paragraph: there wasn't - there was a proposal by the Sunak government around a new Death by Dangerous Cycling law, as it panicked towards an election that they knew they were going to lose. It was one of a series of policy statements latching onto current events intended to create clickbait headlines for electioneering. Mark Harper calling his own department's policy on 15 minute cities 'sinister' as part of his 'plan for drivers' being one particular highlight. They knew they had no time to legislate, or even to get it through the Green Paper process. And at the same time the conservatives in April 2024 in the House of Commons were still saying: "The Department [DfT] considered the potential advantages and disadvantages of a mandatory registration and licensing system for cycle ownership as part of a comprehensive cycling and walking safety review in 2018. This found that the cost and complexity of such a system would outweigh the benefits, and that restricting people’s ability to cycle in this way would mean that many would be likely to choose other modes of transport instead, with negative impacts for congestion, pollution, and health." but nothing on speed limits - they do share the graph on decreasing convictions for dangerous cycling As for Labour, well i suspect that they are quite busy. There's a proposed paper on manufacturing safety for e-bike batteries to reduce the risk of unregulated devices, but cycling or increased legislation didn't appear in its manifesto. Royal Parks are owned by Charlie, so they're not technically private either as he owns everything under the Crown Eatate But implement what measures? Ban the use of roads in them for trade vehicles as it currently says? Ban flying kites as it currently says? To graze animals? Or a personal favourite - prohibit you to "play any game or engage in any form of sport or exercise". They haven't implemented anything recently as far as i'm aware - as the Royal Parks Act hasn't changed since 2000. Perhaps you know of something different.

But neither of your examples are public roads - one is a heath (a park with its own police force) and the other a royal park. The laws that apply to roads in them is different.

Ah, you’re doing your thing where you post before you think again. The Act under which he was charged was passed in 1861. How many car drivers were on the road in 1861 do you think?

The first, Hansard and the DfT from 2024. And yes national figures cos you know that's how national statistics work. If you want granular, the Met say in 2022 there were 64 reported collisions involving e-bikes, 10 serious, 0 fatalities. The data is for all of London. Before you leap on that as a justification, the data reported says only 5 pedestrians were injured, across the whole of london in one year, the rest were the riders being injured. DVLA calls them 'plug in motorcycles' (PiMs) or non EPACs which is frankly worse. Here's a large retailer calling them emotorbikes but you carry on being you: https://www.moveelectric.com/category/e-motorbikes Your relentless belief that young people always cycle with their parents, that your proposed solution of an audio app is actually workable, that a law can apply to southwark but not a neighouring borough is getting a bit laughable. It inherently requires national legislation as i've pointed out before and you ignored - cycles remain cycles. So please tell me which byelaw under the Local Government Act Southwark would apply under to create it? Given that the relevant Secretary of State has to approve all new byelaws, why do you think the Minister for Transport would approve one that would contravene an existing Act of Parliament and not apply to neighbouring boroughs? Have you emailed the SNT yet?

You are really dreadfully uninformed in this aren't you? "Wanton or furious cycling’ is a criminal offence under section 35 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861 (as amended by the Criminal Justice Act 1948 s1(2)) Careless cycling is defined in existing uk legislation https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/part/I/crossheading/cycling-offences-and-cycle-racing Both apply to cyclists where the police deem their speed to be irresponsible. Both can be applied today and have been available to the police for a long time.

^^^This is just word salad The current model is working. KSIs between cycles and pedestrians are incredibly low. 95% of pedestrians hit by red light jumping road users are hit by cars. Government has recently repeated it does not intend to license cyclists as its not cost effective or beneficial Police forces apply fatal five principles and target motorists as they significantly cause the most harm - 29,643 casualties in 2023-24 with approximately 1-2% related to cyclists. You can't yet come up with a way to add speedometers to every cycle (from a child's to every £50 bike that gets someone to work in a different part of the country) that can't be shredded as unworkable in seconds and stands no chance of being made legislation the legal framework for e-motorbikes exists (hint, its almost identical to a petrol motor bike) - the historic parallel is delimited 50cc scooterS Your parochial Southwark only approach shows no sense of how policy and law are actually created if this was more than an internet talking point / culture war post, you would have fired off that email to the SNT by now asking whether it was a priority for them and for their presence in the square

You seem to have missed this bit of the post you are replying to: "bike with an electric motor, travelling at speed, without anyone pedalling" Which is normally how the police identify them

It's almost like drivers have a responsibility to know the speed limit on the roads they're sharing with other people. which is why the bit you didn't quote says "These national limits are not, however, appropriate for all roads. The speed limit regime enables traffic authorities to set local speed limits in situations where local needs and conditions suggest a speed limit that is different from the respective national speed limit" but that still is irrelevant to the question in hand on cycles. You also might find the beneficial safety and cost impact of 20mph zones interesting: https://advancedmotoring.co.uk/20mph-speed-limits-and-their-impact-on-car-insurance/

Yes, I'm sure. The fundamental reason being all that you have copied and pasted applies to "vehicles" under the Road Traffic Act where a vehicle is 'mechanically propelled'. This doesn't include pedal cycles (or horses - as along with pedestrians they are the original road users before cars came along), but does include e-motorcycles . so we get back to my previous post on changing primary legislation to make pedal propelled cycles defined as 'vehicles' . You may disagree that this would impose disproportionate legal and regulatory burdens, but i imagine legislators would. But then you have also not raised changing the law with the SNT have you?

As has been repeatedly said on the other thread - you can't arbitrarily make up a new law for cyclists & speeding just for Southwark - you need to amend primary legislation on the definition of a 'vehicle' that applies to the whole country. To do that is a multi year process involving stakeholder consultation, definition of enforcement powers, drafting guidelines, developing Technical Standards, running pilots to prove it works, find a technical solution that's inclusive etc, work out how it"s enforced. And find a time to have this debated and agreed by both Houses, justifying why this issue is more important than other legislation for an issue with more minimal risk compared to other road users. or you could raise it with the SNT

Precisely this. No car has ever been used in a crime.