Should cyclists have the same speed restrictions as motor vehicles?

[exdulwicher]

4 minutes ago, snowy said:

It's interesting that it's cyclists they want identified, whereas for drivers its only the cars... 

So they can be publicly vilified in advance of being hung, drawn and quartered.
Dulwich Square is going to have a gibbet and gallows installed next month.

Southwark Council will be selling tickets to raise revenue. The miscreants' bikes will be auctioned off, also to raise council funds.

The conspiracy continues.

Edited January 14 by exdulwicher

[Spartacus]

8 minutes ago, snowy said:

It's interesting that it's cyclists they want identified, whereas for drivers its only the cars... 

Let's debunk that snowy 

To drive a vehicle you need a licence that shows you have pased a test to drive. Cars carry registration plates and the owner is deemed responsible unless they can prove someone else was driving it. 

Same principle should apply to bikes so it's not cyclists that need identification plates but the bike and like a car driver cyclists should be licenced. 

[Rockets]

54 minutes ago, exdulwicher said:

Yes!

Same as the police deal with the million or so unlicenced / uninsured / untaxed drivers. Same way the police catch dangerous vehicles, burglars, shoplifters... 

So then can we presume that there is a growing problem which is why the City of London Police regularly deploy officers to enforce the rule? Some on here would try to convince you there is no problem and that this is all part of a culture war, maybe the police are part of it too....

[Penguin68]

56 minutes ago, snowy said:

It's interesting that it's cyclists they want identified, whereas for drivers its only the cars

Because cars are registered to indiduals who are prosecuted for offences unless they can show it was someone else at the wheel. It's the drivers they are after, not the vehicles. They are just a handy shortcut as they are immediately identifiable. 

[exdulwicher]

8 minutes ago, Rockets said:

So then can we presume that there is a growing problem which is why the City of London Police regularly deploy officers to enforce the rule? Some on here would try to convince you there is no problem and that this is all part of a culture war, maybe the police are part of it too....

I would hope that wherever there is an issue with lawbreaking, be that shoplifting, robbery, vandalism, the police would raise their game and have a crackdown. Obviously there comes an issue of resourcing, cost-effectiveness etc and it's notable that whenever the police start pulling over motorists for the same offences like red light jumping, speeding etc, there's a whole raft of comments like "why don't you go and catch some real criminals" and "oh so you go after the easy targets like a motorist inadvertently doing 5mph over the speed limit but can't be bothered to turn up to a burglary"...

Which again is an interesting insight into how some road crime gets a free pass...

[malumbu]

Here's some homework.  Write a submission to the Transport Secretary on what there should be a licensing scheme for bikes, how this would be delivered, costs, enforcement and the benefits.  Government policy, analysts, lawyers and enforcers can't.  But what do they know?  Every time this is suggested as red meat to the Mail etc the poor souls in active travel have a wtf moment before having to give ministers a reality check.  And meanwhile the usual tosh on drivers standards come out in this website.  Passing the test does not make you a good and responsible driver.

[Rockets]

10 minutes ago, malumbu said:

Passing the test does not make you a good and responsible driver.

As someone who has spent time running training courses for cycling do you think there needs to be more focus on educating cyclists - is this a lack of road sense issue?

[Earl Aelfheah]

11 hours ago, Rockets said:

I merely challenged you on your assertion that these accidents were frequent

You spent pages trying to present different cuts of local collision data all designed to minimise the number of accidents recorded locally. You provided a screen shot centred on an area covering a 1.1km stretch of lordship lane, stretching roughly from the junction of East Dulwich Grove down to the junction with Landells road (missing all the major junctions) and 2.8km across (approximately 1.5 km to either side of it. You pointed out that there were ‘only’ 46 recorded crashes over the course of the year.This is minimising the seriousness of real world collisions.

i pointed out that bicycles and motor vehicles do not pose the same risk. Which is a matter of fact, and you accused me of minimising a specific collision involving Moovarts neighbour which I had made no reference to. People can make there own judgments about you and your behaviour 

Here is a petition that has been started following just the latest local collision in which a van destroyed a traffic island and rolled itself last week, should anyone wish to sign it:

https://www.change.org/p/implement-a-zebra-crossing-on-dulwich-common-for-pedestrian-safety

Edited January 15 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

8 hours ago, Rockets said:

As someone who has spent time running training courses for cycling do you think there needs to be more focus on educating cyclists - is this a lack of road sense issue?

Agree with this. 

If not licensing then how do we enforce? if we can enforce then why can't we have speed limits that apply to all? Is it the view that it is simply impossible to enforce any kind of legislation around push and e-bikes?

 

[Spartacus]

I am assumimg that those most vocal about not licencing cyclists are all perfectly well behaved cyclists who never bend the rules, so why the uproar as these measures wouldn't be aimed at you? 

Or do you all have habits that it would expose?

[first mate]

I accept that licensing may not be possible, but since City Police are already enforcing certain aspects of law breaking by cyclists and issuing penalties without any licensing, why can we not have random enforcement elsewhere? If enforcement is possible for some aspects of the law, why not for breaking a speed limit?

It is also the case that most 20mph zones are meant to be self-enforcing, so why not just apply to all road users, with intermittent monitoring and the possibility of a fine?  Not perfect but not impossible.

 

Edited January 15 by first mate

[Rockets]

4 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

You pointed out that there were ‘only’ 46 recorded crashes over the course of the year.This is minimising the seriousness of real world collisions.

Earl, I am not going to rehash that argument with you but my position was very clear on why I challenged you on how "frequent" these collisions were given the number of vehicular journeys made over a course of the year. That's not minimising anything - it's trying to establish some facts instead of opinion.

 

2 hours ago, first mate said:

I accept that licensing may not be possible, but since City Police are already enforcing certain aspects of law breaking by cyclists and issuing penalties without any licensing, why can we not have random enforcement elsewhere?

Probably because the council haven't yet realised what a revenue-generating opportunity this is....I am sure they will realise it soon! Put a few PCN teams at a few strategic points and the cyclist cash registers would soon start ringing!! 😉

[Earl Aelfheah]

19 hours ago, exdulwicher said:

I would hope that wherever there is an issue with lawbreaking, be that shoplifting, robbery, vandalism, the police would raise their game and have a crackdown. Obviously there comes an issue of resourcing, cost-effectiveness etc and it's notable that whenever the police start pulling over motorists for the same offences like red light jumping, speeding etc, there's a whole raft of comments like "why don't you go and catch some real criminals" and "oh so you go after the easy targets like a motorist inadvertently doing 5mph over the speed limit but can't be bothered to turn up to a burglary"...

Which again is an interesting insight into how some road crime gets a free pass...

It’s the same people creating multiple threads to moan about the enforcement of existing road rules, calling for the implementation of new ones. 🤷‍♂️ 

5 hours ago, Rockets said:

I challenged you on how "frequent" these collisions were given the number of vehicular journeys made over a course of the year. That's not minimising anything - it's trying to establish some facts instead of opinion.

This isn’t true. I linked you to a map showing the number of recorded collisions. You weren’t establishing any facts, you were presented with them. You kept suggesting it didn’t amount to that many / they weren’t that frequent considering how many journeys there are. That is minimising. Nothing else.

Because they involved cars

Edited January 15 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

3 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

You weren’t establishing any facts, you were presented with them.

No what you presented was your opinion and interpretation of the accident stats and you referred to them as "frequent" or something similar. I challenged you on the use of "frequent". But I am not going get into a debate with you for fear you'll call me a nasty name......;-)

[Earl Aelfheah]

14 hours ago, Rockets said:

No what you presented was your opinion and interpretation of the accident stats and you referred to them as "frequent" or something similar. I challenged you on the use of "frequent". But I am not going get into a debate with you for fear you'll call me a nasty name......;-)

This isn't true. I highlighted the number of recorded collisions in a very specific area and linked to the data. You spent pages trying to minimise them.

A quick tip. If you're going criticise someone pointing out that a bicycle is not as dangerous as a car, and imply that it minimises an accident which is described later (clearly nonsense), it's best not to have a history of arguing that hundreds of recorded crashes aren't that big a deal in light of the number of car journeys that take place locally. Especially when it's recorded for everyone to go back and see.

Edited January 16 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

I have a very straightforward question. 20 mph zones are meant to be self enforcing. This means there is intermittent or random enforcement, possibly once in a blue moon. On that basis, why can't we have 20mph for all road users. As with City Police, we might have a rare blitz to catch speeders and issue penalties. It won't work for all but it may get others to check their behaviour. What could be the harm?

[march46]

The police can barely manage to do any enforcement or tackling of dangerous drivers - I see dangerous speeding and mobile phone use every day. Last week I cycled past a driver watching a movie on his phone whilst turning out of a junction!
 

It seems road danger is sadly no longer a priority, not sure how that is consistent with the Vision Zero strategy.

[first mate]

But that is not a sound rationale to therefore having no universal speed limit. Again, 20mph is meant to be largely self enforcing.

I also believe that in the City they were looking to get wardens involved in ticketing for various traffic offences, including bicycles running red lights. I would have to check this to be sure, but if it is the case, then we already know the council has invested in wardens to 'police' CPZs. So we could add another string to that role.

Edited January 16 by first mate

[malumbu]

20 mph is not self enforcing.  Where on earth have we got this idea.  The average speed where traffic is  free flowing 20mph roads is barely different to when they were 30 mph (DfT metastudy a few years ago https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c86500f40f0b63699927982/technical-appendix-4-20mph-rapid-evidence-review.pdf). 

I challenged people to

(a) come up with data that passengers were being physically harmed by cyclists on pavements in East Dulwich.  Nobody has

(b) I challenged you to come up with a good case for licensing bicycles - you haven't

This surely is an indication that we all agree that licensing of cycles is a daft idea.

[Moovart]

1 hour ago, malumbu said:

 

I challenged people to

(a) come up with data that passengers were being physically harmed by cyclists on pavements in East Dulwich.  Nobody has

 

Er....excuse me 👋

I came up with one.  That's still data!!

[Spartacus]

3 hours ago, malumbu said:

 

This surely is an indication that we all agree that licensing of cycles is a daft idea.

I think from the discussion here alone that your statement is poppycock and fantasy 

A good case for licencing is simply to stop antisocial behaviour but I guess when cars are less prevalent on thw roads, government and councils will look to make up financial shortfalls from ved, ltns, traffic fines and tax on fuel / ipt and purchase price, so that alone may force them into licencing. 

Getting rid of cars is not a zero sum game 

 

[first mate]

3 hours ago, malumbu said:

20 mph is not self enforcing.  Where on earth have we got this idea.  The average speed where traffic is  free flowing 20mph roads is barely different to when they were 30 mph (DfT metastudy a few years ago https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c86500f40f0b63699927982/technical-appendix-4-20mph-rapid-evidence-review.pdf). 

I challenged people to

(a) come up with data that passengers were being physically harmed by cyclists on pavements in East Dulwich.  Nobody has

(b) I challenged you to come up with a good case for licensing bicycles - you haven't

This surely is an indication that we all agree that licensing of cycles is a daft idea.

From gov.uk 17 Mar 2024Successful 20mph zones and 20mph speed limits are generally self-enforcing

Again, why is it such a huge problem to have a 20mph speed limit for ALL road users? Licensing not necessary.

[march46]

20mph zones really aren’t self enforcing, as this worrying local example from today illustrates.

 

[first mate]

According to the govt 20 mph zones are meant to be self-enforcing.

The above described by you is appalling behaviour, but it sounds as though this guy has issues with women aside from anything else, probably a menace even if not in a car. Hope he is charged. Good they got the reg.

I witnessed really bad behaviour towards a cyclist on Lordship Lane the other day. The rider stopped  in front of a huge amount of water (another Thames Water issue) and the driver was honking away and being aggressive. No excuse. I was totally on the cyclists side and ready to support him if it escalated.

The issue is angry humans and bad behaviour, but this is not limited only to car drivers. Cyclists can also cycle carelessly and take risks that might cause harm; I saw yet another run a pedestrian green light at Dulwich Square this evening, just as someone was crossing - a couple of other cyclists waited at the lights.

But why avoid answering my very straightforward question. We don't need to licence cyclists, we just need to have 20mph speed limit that applies to them, as well as other road users.  Not everyone will adhere, but some will, it is better than nothing and it just makes it clearer. We can also include random checks, so maybe the odd person gets a fine. Easier if this can be done by wardens. 

Edited January 16 by first mate

[malumbu]

5 hours ago, Moovart said:

Er....excuse me 👋

I came up with one.  That's still data!!

Remind me of this one person that was hurt by a cyclist in East Dulwich.  Many more people are killed each year following collisions with deer.  https://www.rspca.org.uk/documents/1494939/7712578/Road+traffic+accidents+and+deer+-+2022+update.pdf 

Don't see people up in arms asking for extermination of these and other wildlife.

A minority of people angry with cyclists doesn't make a persuasive case for legislating against riders.