Should cyclists have the same speed restrictions as motor vehicles?

[tedfudge]

Admin Note: this topic has been split from the "20mph in Southwark" one.

 

It's not just motorists who speed , buses speed bet they dont get fined , I've seen many many cyclists speed believe me , I've been doing 20 over blackfriars bridge and cyclists have been whizzing past in the cycle lanes , if motorists have to abide by the 20mph on roads then so should cyclists , I've been over taken by cyclists when I've been doing 20 loads of times so annoying that they get away with it where as motorists get flashed by cameras or stopped by the police but cyclists can just carry on with no fear of fines or points on licence 

[Earl Aelfheah]

The speed limits don't apply to bicycles, because cars are exponentially more dangerous than bicycles. This article contains an instructive graph showing the difference in kinetic energy between the two: 

https://georgetownmetropolitan.com/2018/04/26/reminder-cars-are-exponentially-more-dangerous-than-bikes/#:~:text=The unit is Joules.,cyclist comes in with 3%2C996. 

Edited December 6, 2023 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

Earl, do you think speed limits should apply to bikes?

[Earl Aelfheah]

Do you?

[malumbu]

I don't.  Its daft and sadly like cycle licensing is raised by the rabid right every so often.  I've posted too many times about this silliness.  If you want a two wheel cause Rocks here are two that I am very happy for you to pursue concerning two wheels - illegal bikes and lack of delivery rider training.  Be my guest.

[Earl Aelfheah]

And of course, you're correct. As that article I linked to above explains, it is clear that a bicycle poses no where near the same danger as a motor vehicle, because the forces involved are just not comparable.

"There are many complicated ways to calculate the force impact of various collisions, but a simpler calculation is to compare the kinetic energy of a car vs. a bike. That’s a measure of how much energy the road user is bringing into a collision, the more energy, the more likely the pedestrian being struck will be seriously injured or killed."

"..Kinetic energy is calculated as mass x velocity² / 2. The unit is Joules. An average sized car (1814 kg) going 30 mph (13.4 m/s) goes into the collision with 162,860 Joules of kinetic energy. An average sized cyclist (plus the weight of the bike) 100 kg going 20 mph (8.94 m/s), would mean that the cyclist comes in with 3,996 Joules. These aren’t remotely similar. Sure, brakes and engineering can limit the force delivered by the car to the pedestrian, but it enters the equation with 40 times the energy that it has to somehow divert away from the pedestrian’s body."

So if we wanted to apply a speed limit that is remotely relevant to the relative risk posed by a person on a bike, we’d want to set it at tens of times the speed limit for a motor car. Let’s be generous and just call it a single 10 times the limit. That would put the speed limit in a 20mph zone at 200mph for a bicycle. As it’s unlikely that anyone could achieve that speed under their own power, setting aside the not insubstantial question of how you would enforce it without a licencing system, my answer has to be ‘no’.

There are already laws in place to charge people who are cycling in ways that endanger others. 

Edited December 7, 2023 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Do you?

Yes and I don't know why there would be any rational person who could disagree. If the speed limit of a road is 20mph it should be for anything using it - that's just common sense and I don't know why cyclists seem to think that the rules of the road don't/shouldn't apply to them.

 

And this kinetic energy argument is accurate but ever so slightly non-sensical and ludicrous - it's a bit like asking if you would prefer to be hit in the face by a light-weight or heavy-weight boxer - I would prefer not to be hit by either to be honest!

 

Go take a walk around Dulwich Park around school drop off time and, anyone who does it, will know that awful moment when you hear the bone-shaking crash of a wooden-boxed cargo bike hurtling towards you from behind laden with two kids (who always look like they are clinging on for dear-life!) bombing through the park on their way to school - there's a hell a of of pen-up kinetic energy in one of those I can tell you and they aren't observing the dead slow/5 mph speed limit!

 

 

12 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

it is clear that a bicycle poses no where near the same danger

It's statements like this which are just hilarious.......but they still pose danger don't they.....are they danger-free?

[Earl Aelfheah]

So it's nothing to do with the degree of danger posed, that's irrelevant? There is no calculation about impact, or proportionality?

It's really only going to be relevant in a 20mph zone. So you want a whole system of licencing which puts up barriers to entry on bicycling, in order to enforce an edge case, with very little real world impact on safety? Would you also have age limits on who can use a bike? 

What other activities that are not 'danger free' would you look to regulate?

 

Edited December 7, 2023 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

Where did I mention anything about licensing - you can police cycle speed without the need for licensing - firstly you make it offence and that eliminates a lot of it straight away?

I just want cyclists to follow the rules of the road - is that too much to ask?

[Earl Aelfheah]

There aren't speed limits for bikes using the road. So you don't just want people travelling by bicycle to follow the rules of the road, you want them to follow the rules that apply to motor vehicles. You haven't explained why, beyond the fact that they are not 'danger free'. 

What other activities that are not 'danger free' would you look to regulate? Running?

Edited December 8, 2023 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

But there should be speed limits for bikes using roads. 20 mph is set, primarily, on the basis of reducing the risk of accidents - the same risk of accident applies to cyclists as much as cars and other road vehicles. Granted the outcome is a lot worse with a bigger vehicle but the risk of accident remains the same. In the same way the risk of an accident is higher if you don't stop at a red-light.

 

The higher the speed the more risk of accident and a higher risk of injury - and that applies to bikes as much as it applies to an HGV.

 

I really can't see why you are so opposed to it - few cyclists go over 20 mph and those that do would just need to go a bit slower. Cna you give me one good reason why cyclists should not adhere to the speed limit?

[Earl Aelfheah]

There isn’t a speed limit for people travelling by bicycle. You can’t ’adhere’ to a rule that doesn’t exist.

You’re suggesting that people on bicycles should follow the same rules that apply (and have been designed for) motor vehicles. I’ve explained why that suggest a comparability that does not remotely exist above.

Your argument, if accepted, would equally extend to having a test / licence, and an age restriction on use. But your argument is obviously based on a fatuous false equivalence.

Edited December 7, 2023 by Earl Aelfheah

[Spartacus]

While you can’t normally be charged for speeding on a bicycle you could, in extreme cases, be charged with careless cycling (maximum fine £1,000) or dangerous cycling (max fine £2,500). Furthermore, local bye-laws can impose limits on cyclists. Bournemouth’s promenade, for example, has a speed limit of 10mph (and on some days bikes aren’t allowed there at all).

[Rockets]

Earl, still waiting to hear one good reason from you why cyclists shouldn't comply to road speeds? Seems perfectly reasonable to me and is hardly an infringement of their basic human rights.

Earl, did you draw the short-straw to try and take the argument to us? Keep going it's really good fun and allows us to drag up a lot of historical and data-based facts to counter your arguments 😉

[Earl Aelfheah]

It’s interesting that you claim to want people on bikes to be bound by a 20 mph speed limit, on ‘grounds of safety’, but seem on this thread, quite cool towards a default 20mph limits for motor vehicles.

I’ve explained at length (above) how a bicyclist would have to be travelling at 40x the speed of an average car to have anything close to the same kinetic energy (a measure of how much energy the road user is bringing into a collision). The more energy, the more likely the pedestrian being struck will be seriously injured or killed. A commensurate limit for bicycles would be about 800mph. It’s a nonsense. May as well place a 1600 mph speed limit on pedestrians. 

If your interest was truly about improving safety, you’d be lobbying for restrictions on the continued growth in the size of SUVs with high bonnets and extra weight. Or any number of other causes. Or simply support blanket 20mph limits for cars in London.

But of course that’s not your interest.

1 hour ago, Spartacus said:

While you can’t normally be charged for speeding on a bicycle you could, in extreme cases, be charged with careless cycling (maximum fine £1,000) or dangerous cycling (max fine £2,500). Furthermore, local bye-laws can impose limits on cyclists. Bournemouth’s promenade, for example, has a speed limit of 10mph (and on some days bikes aren’t allowed there at all).

Exactly. If a person travelling by bicycle is behaving recklessly or dangerously, the police already have powers to deal with it. 

Edited December 7, 2023 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

But Earl, again, why do cyclists need to go faster than the speed limit? Why won't you answer that question?

And your argument about kinetic energy is accurate but utterly non-sensical and an absolutely ludicrous position that displays a blinkered ignorance/arrogance/entitlement that people often see from the pro-cycle lobby (and a trait a lot of people really dislike) - a bike still carries kinetic energy and can still harm/kill you. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/sep/18/cyclist-charlie-alliston-jailed-for-18-months-over-death-of-pedestrian

[Earl Aelfheah]

They don’t go faster than the speed limit. There isn’t a speed limit.

I imagine very few cyclists travel faster than the speed limit for motor vehicles either (certainly far fewer than those in cars do)

But whilst you seem to accept that the risk of the two vehicles travelling at the same speed are not remotely comparable, you think they should be treated as if they are exactly the same ‘for safety reasons’. It makes no sense at all.  

What is more likely to seriously injure a pedestrian in a collision: a bicycle travelling at 20 mph, or a car at 10? So if you have a 20 mph speed limit for bikes, why not a 10 mph limit on cars? Because it’s about safety right?

This is such an embarrassing and transparent distraction. Your posts on this thread seem to suggest you don’t even support a default 20 for cars, so why are you calling for it in the case of bikes? 

Edited December 8, 2023 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

2 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

There isn’t a speed limit.

There is a speed limit it just doesn't apply to bikes.

 

3 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I imagine very few cyclists travel faster than the speed limit for motor vehicles either (certainly far fewer than those in cars do)

But you're still not answering why you think it shouldn't apply.

 

7 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

What is more likely to seriously injure a pedestrian in a collision: a bicycle travelling at 20 mph, or a car at 10? 

I don't think that is a good comparison. I don't want to be hit by either but I am really not sure because at 10 mph with a car I actually fancy my chances to cushion the blow on the bonnet but a bike travelling at 20mph - there's an awful lot of pointy bits of metal that can do me a lot of harm at that speed and anything metallic hitting you at 20mph is going to do you harm and cause you to move. The death I highlighted earlier was a bike travelling at 18mph.

I am sorry but the more i think about it your kinetic energy argument is utterly ridiculous and naively simplistic because all you need is for anything to hit you with enough kinetic energy to cause you to fall and that can cause harm. The impact might not kill you but hitting your head on the pavement might (especially if you are old or frail).

10 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Your posts on this thread seem to suggest you don’t even support a default 20 for cars, so why are you calling for it in the case 

 I said it does not make sense to have 20mph everywhere (is that what you mean by default), in certain areas it makes perfect sense but in others less so.  The whole point of speed limits is they are based on the road situation and condition.

Do you agree with the Welsh government's 20mph default on all roads that used to be 30mph?

[Earl Aelfheah]

So you've taken a thread about a 20mph speed limit for motor vehicles (which you don't support) and turned it into a debate about imposing a 20 mph speed limit for people travelling on bicycles. *slow handclap*

I've literally laid out in detail why it's a nonsense to impose the same speed limit to someone who is travelling on a bicycle as in an HGV. The risk posed by someone on a bicycle is not remotely comparable. You're calling for a much stricter safety standard to be applied to someone when they choose to travel by bicycle, for reasons that you don't seem able to explain.

Police have the power to charge anyone acting dangerously whilst travelling by bike. They will already pull over people who are cycling too fast or behaving in a manner that is unsafe. What you are proposing would inevitably lead to calls for licencing, which would cause more people to switch to more dangerous forms of transport, making us all less safe.

Edited December 8, 2023 by Earl Aelfheah

[Penguin68]

Your arguments about kinetic energy are simply stupid. If a bike travelling at 30mph hits an oncoming car travelling legally at 20mph the combined speed will by 50mph. The car and its driver will emerge unscathed, not so the bike rider. Additionally, and here you are quite right, bikes riders tend to damage less than they are damaged. Which would suggest that the careful and wary bike rider would adhere as much as possible to the normally accepted 'rules of the road' - like matching traffic speeds where mandated,  like signalling, like having lights on etc. I am far less at risk of an injury in a modern car, yet I still drive defensively - assuming the other B is out to get me - yet a minority, and on some roads that's still quite a large number, of bike riders ride as if they were invulnerable - perhaps a mindset of 'the rules don't effect me' is partly to blame. 

Edited December 8, 2023 by Penguin68

[Rockets]

3 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

So you've taken a thread about a 20mph speed limit for motor vehicles (which you don't support) and turned it into a debate about imposing a 20 mph speed limit for people travelling on bicycles. *slow handclap*

Wrong again Earl, that wasn't me. Someone else started that element and you were the first to wade in with your defence on why 20mph should not apply to cyclists so your role in creating this discussion point is far, far greater than mine. I just took umbrage with your ludicrous kinetic energy justification and tried to ascertain whether you thought speed limits for roads should apply to cyclists.

By the way you still have not clearly articulated why you think cyclists should not have to observe speed limits.

1 hour ago, Penguin68 said:

perhaps a mindset of 'the rules don't effect me' is partly to blame

Penguin I think you have hit the nail on the head. Spot on.I 

 

3 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

What you are proposing would inevitably lead to calls for licencing, which would cause more people to switch to more dangerous forms of transport, making us all less safe.

The only time licensing comes in is when so many people have switched from cars to bikes that government need to find new ways to prop-up Road Fund tax. And as we have seen in other threads there is absolutely no chance of that for the foreseeable future.

Edited December 8, 2023 by Rockets

[malumbu]

Rocks and the rest could you revert to one of your other anti cycling threads.  I had hoped we could discuss Southwark's arrangements for streets in this area including  Brenchley, just out of ED and Barry Road.  The former hasn't improved it, and made it more hazardous for cyclists, irrespective of whatever speed they are travelling.  What do you reckon, do you care?

Links to Southwark were put in earlier in this thread by me.  Let's have a substantive debate rather than the same old tosh.

[Rockets]

To be fair Malumbu the thread is about 20 mph in Southwark so that is what is being discussed.

 

Maybe have a word with Earl too as they were the one that took us on that kinetic magical detour....;-)

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

2 hours ago, Penguin68 said:

Your arguments about kinetic energy are simply stupid. If a bike travelling at 30mph hits an oncoming car travelling legally at 20mph the combined speed will by 50mph. The car and its driver will emerge unscathed, not so the bike rider. Additionally, and here you are quite right, bikes riders tend to damage less than they are damaged. Which would suggest that the careful and wary bike rider would adhere as much as possible to the normally accepted 'rules of the road' - like matching traffic speeds where mandated,  like signalling, like having lights on etc. I am far less at risk of an injury in a modern car, yet I still drive defensively - assuming the other B is out to get me - yet a minority, and on some roads that's still quite a large number, of bike riders ride as if they were invulnerable - perhaps a mindset of 'the rules don't effect me' is partly to blame. 

You seem to think that I've somewhere argued that people on bicycles should ride without care and should not abide by the rules of the road (as they apply to bicycles). I have absolutely not done that at any point. 

The question is whether laws which are designed for, and apply specifically to motor vehicles, should also apply to cyclists. I have explained why there is (appropriately) greater regulation of say and HGV, than there is a push bike.

The fact that there are people on this thread who don't approve of a default 20mph speed limit for motor vehicles, but are calling for a new 20 mph speed limit for people travelling on bicycles, is quite bizarre.

20 minutes ago, Rockets said:

To be fair Malumbu the thread is about 20 mph in Southwark so that is what is being discussed.

 

Maybe have a word with Earl too as they were the one that took us on that kinetic magical detour....;-)

 

No. You asked if I was in favour of a 20mph speed limit for bicycles. I answered your question, and provided reasoned response. So please don't play that game. People can see the thread.

Edited December 8, 2023 by Earl Aelfheah

[Earl Aelfheah]

You posed a question and I gave an answer, with reasoning. You say you're concerned about safety, but you think that any discussion of relative risk (which must involve thinking about impact forces) is irrelevant? I don't know what question you believe I haven't answered? You seem to be complaining both that I haven't answered questions and that I have. Which is it?

You still haven't explained why, when you don't approve of a 20mph speed limit for motor vehicles in Southwark (the subject of the thread) you are calling for a new 20 mph speed limit for people travelling on a bicycle. 

Edited December 8, 2023 by Earl Aelfheah