Should cyclists have the same speed restrictions as motor vehicles?

[Rockets]

2 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

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?

No I use cycle lobby because there is a very obvious cycle lobby in at the moment - a group of people who care only for cycling and are utterly blinkered by it - the likes of Will Norman, Peter Walker, Rachel Aldred, Chris Boardman to name but a few.

They speak, push, publish and promote cycle-centric narratives above, and to the detriment of, everything else. Why to I bracket you in that - because you come on here and parrot the things they speak, push, publish and promote - so you, and so many others on here, are an extension of it.

14 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Not all of them. But certainly some of them.

In London I would argue the vast majority of them. I have argued for a long time that the "growth" of Lime bikes has come at the detriment to walking and public transport and given that the average Lime bike journey is still very short it seems to be backed up by data.

 

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

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. 

And by your own measure you must agree then that if these are people moving to cycling from walking or public transport then the risk has been increasing?

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I absolutely guarantee you that mandatory speed limits for push bikes will not be introduced. 

But we could see new legislation or laws for cyclists.....

[Earl Aelfheah]

40 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Why to I bracket you in that - because you come on here and parrot the things they speak, push, publish and promote - so you, and so many others on here, are an extension of it.

This is nonsense. It's just an ad hominem attack. But you do you.

40 minutes ago, Rockets said:

I have argued for a long time that the "growth" of Lime bikes has come at the detriment to walking and public transport and given that the average Lime bike journey is still very short it seems to be backed up by data.

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.

40 minutes ago, Rockets said:

And by your own measure you must agree then that if these are people moving to cycling from walking or public transport then the risk has been increasing?

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.

40 minutes ago, Rockets said:

But we could see new legislation or laws for cyclists.....

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.

Edited January 24 by Earl Aelfheah

[Spartacus]

3 hours ago, snowy said:

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. 

It probably was click bate, however the point I was making is that it's not just in East Dulwich where people are complaining about cyclists.

But of course you want to dismiss it as it reflects what others on here are posting about.  

 

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

This is nonsense. It's just an ad hominem attack. But you do you.

It's not an attack it's the justification on why I see you as a pro-cycle lobbyist. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's not true and, to be fair, you have called me much worse. I am surprised you are not proud that I, and probably many others, see you as a pro-cycle lobbyist! Perhaps LCC might give you an award, like the Dulwich Society sub-comittee....nah I won't go there....;-)

 

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

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.

Quite, so if they wouldn't use bikes (as you suggest) because of regulation they aren't then jumping in a car to make the same journey are they? In central london Lime bikes are replacing walking and bus/tube journeys and Lime bikes are one of the biggest factors in the growth in cycling. Even out here I see neighbours who park Lime bikes outside their house so they can cycle to and from the station to which they used to walk. 

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

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.

So registration and licensing is not that difficult is it - has that curtailed the popularity of Lime bikes?

 

[snowy]

1 hour ago, Spartacus said:

It probably was click bate, however the point I was making is that it's not just in East Dulwich where people are complaining about cyclists.

But of course you want to dismiss it as it reflects what others on here are posting about.  

 

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].

[Rockets]

On 17/01/2025 at 15:00, snowy said:

I frankly don't have enough time to continually fact check the inaccuracies in your posts.
 

But given in this instance you're using someone's death as a fallacious debating point i will dig out the legal summaries and share them later so other readers can see what you are doing. 

Snowy, how's that search going? Have you found anything to back up your claims that I was misrepresenting the facts of the case - you sounded so sure of yourself but your evidence hasn't been quite so forthcoming?

[Earl Aelfheah]

12 hours ago, Rockets said:

I am surprised you are not proud that I, and probably many others, see you as a pro-cycle lobbyist! Perhaps LCC might give you an award

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

12 hours ago, Rockets said:

Lime bikes are replacing walking and bus/tube journeys

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.

12 hours ago, Rockets said:

So registration and licensing is not that difficult is it - has that curtailed the popularity of Lime bikes?

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.

Edited January 25 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

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.

Yes agree but at that same time technology is progressing to the point where it is very easy to assign ownership of a private bike to a single person.

 

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

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.

Agree but also there will be a tipping point where something has to be done. The focus on e-scooters was driven after people being admitted to hospital with injuries after riding them grew exponentially. I suspect it might be something like red light jumpers being injured or injuring themselves where someone says - how do we stop this.

But it does take time. Look at floating bus stops which any rational human being can see are a really bad idea (especially in areas where cyclists are travelling at speed) yet all we hear from the cycle lobby is that they are great and they won't hear a bad word said against them. At some point someone will go (probably on a case by case basis) - this is dangerous madness driven by some blinkered nonsense about not wanting to inconvenience cyclists. 

The Calton entrance to DV is another example - cyclists carry too much speed into the Square - everyone can see the danger but the council ignores it. Why?

[Earl Aelfheah]

15 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Yes agree but at that same time technology is progressing to the point where it is very easy to assign ownership of a private bike to a single person.

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

[first mate]

I think some peer pressure from other road users and pedestrians may be a starting point. I mean for not stopping at red lights, cycling on pavements, speed cycling in local parks.

I am perturbed by how many parents with kids on a bike I have seen ride through red lights of late. What are they teaching their children?

Before you say it, of course this is my experience and subjective. Just as you consistently not seeing this stuff is also subjective.

[Earl Aelfheah]

30 minutes ago, Rockets said:

The Calton entrance to DV is another example - cyclists carry too much speed into the Square - everyone can see the danger but the council ignores it. Why?

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.

[first mate]

What period does that data cover and who is monitoring/collecting?

In regard to cyclists on pavements, there is the additional issue, that is hard if not impossible, to quantify, where vulnerable pedestrians just feel less comfortable and relaxed. This may impact their wellbeing. I am sure you will reply by citing data and saying the perception of risk does not tally with the reality. However, in other areas of the law, perception counts for a lot. i do seriously think this aspect must be considered, along with everything else. Unpredictable environments do not feel safe.

[Rockets]

4 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

But the data I’ve seen suggests that recorded collisions around that junction have reduced significantly.

Well yes because the data is suspect you have was for cars only. I think this is one of the issues, no-one is collating definitive data on cycle induced injuries, plenty of data on cyclists injured. Even the DFT admitted when they put out the stats for 2022 that two people were being seriously injured every week by cyclists that the data was probably conservative because there was no formal method of data capture. 

Am I right in thinking that bikes and horses are the only two modes of transport allowed to use roads with no need for any formal training? Was the law changed to force CBT training on motorcycle drivers, am I right in thinking that for a long time you could just jump on a moped or motorbike without any training?

[Rockets]

So CBT was introduced in 1990 as a way to reduce accidents caused by inexperienced motorcycle riders.

I do wonder if we are heading towards something like that with cyclists.

I headed into Soho on Saturday for dinner and here is why I think something has to be done as bad cycling is becoming a big issue.

 

We got the train to Blackfriars as London Bridge and Victoria lines were closed for engineering.

As we came out from our house someone cycled a Lime bike up the pavement (our road is very quiet so no need for them to be on the pavement)

Walked to West Dulwich and went head-to-head with another Lime bike on the pavement towards BelAir park.

When we left Blackfriars, to walk to Soho, we started crossing the pedestrian controlled cycle lane on the far side of the bridge. Five bikes were approaching, three from Blackfriars Bridge and two from the opposite direction - it was two Lime bikes and three delivery cyclists. Not one of them stopped for the red light and the pedestrians had to pause their crossing even though they were under green.

The walk to Soho was uneventful but Cambridge Circus was a nightmare. Lots of pedestrians trying to cross under the green light and Lime and delivery bikes trying to weave their way around them even though lights for them were red.

Soho was full of the sound of ring/ring as delivery bikes barrelled down Old Compton Street. Now, I think it is ludicrous that the pedestrianisation of Old Compton Street was removed as now the pavements are over flowing and people are stepping into the road and the speed of the delivery bikes is causing an issue.

Dinner was lovely and then walked to Haymarket to get an Uber - felt like every time you crossed the road at a pedestrian crossing or traffic lights you were running the gauntlet of delivery cyclists in a hurry and rowdy groups of (probably drunken) Lime bike riders. As we waited for our cab we saw a lot of cyclists weave through pedestrians crossing at the Piccadilly towards Leicester Square junction some moving at real speed (looked like groups of kids on wheelie bikes) and a number of very near misses - one involving a parent pushing a buggy.

In the Uber on the way home saw a cyclist on a racing bike ignore a red light and nearly collect another cyclist who was actually pushing their bike across the crossing.

Finally as we headed down Brixton Road there was  a weaving Lime bike rider swinging wildly from the bus lane into the main lane. The reason: he was typing away on his phone with one hand - whilst wearing full ear headphones so chances are he had no idea anyone was behind him.

And this is why something will be done about poor cycling on our roads because it is becoming a real issue that not only endangers the cyclist but also other road users and especially pedestrians.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Your anecdote above seems to involve primarily Lime bikes, and delivery scooters. The former are licensed and insured, have a number plate, and in the scenarios your describe are breaking existing laws. The latter are probably illegal - most of the electric scooters used for deliveries are, and yet companies like Uber Eats etc, seem to turn a blind eye. So how are calls for new laws relevant, or helpful? What you're describing is an issue of enforcement. In both cases, the police are already empowered to do something about the situations you describe, they just fail to do so very effectively.

Edited Wednesday at 11:53 by Earl Aelfheah

[Earl Aelfheah]

We do need better enforcement. Especially around commercial e-bikes and illegal e scooters / mopeds.

…and regularly speeding and distracted motorists for that matter.

[march46]

If only there were technology for mandatory speed limiters on cars, like those required for e-bikes.

[Rockets]

6 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Your anecdote above seems to involve primarily Lime bikes, and delivery scooters.

They're still bikes though aren't they? Or do you categorise these differently? My trip to London was in the evening so far fewer social or commuter cyclists around but the problems posed by those cyclists are very different.

I love how you position this as an "anecdote" trying to diminish the experience. Unfortunately, and the very point I was trying to make, this is the growing experience of most pedestrians and this is why there are likely to be increased calls for something to be done - and that leads down one path and that is tighter legislation, increased policing or limitations of cycle use (as has already happened in some city centres). And then that becomes a problem for ALL cyclists - myself included. 

In the desperate attempt to try to accelerate growth in cycling the powers that be have turned a blind-eye to pedestrian safety - I do laugh that you somehow think Lime bikes and delivery bikes are different to other forms of cycling yet the growth in cycling London, in the main, has been driven by Lime bikes and delivery bikes.

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

They're still bikes though aren't they? Or do you categorise these differently?

Push bikes, e-bikes and e-mopeds are categorised and regulated differently yes.

Lime bikes are licensed, insured, have a number plates, and in the scenarios you describe, are breaking existing laws. So I'm not sure whether extra laws would really make a difference. Seems to be an issue of enforcement.

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

I love how you position this as an "anecdote"

It is an anecdote. 

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

I do laugh that you somehow think Lime bikes and delivery bikes are different to other forms of cycling

Lime bikes are different from push bikes in the scenarios that you describe, because your proposed fix - the additional regulations you're calling for - already apply to them. Which is kind of relevant and more than a little ironic.

I find it strange (although not really, fully understanding your agenda) how you think that an illegal electric moped (the type used extensively by delivery companies) is the same as a push bike? 

Edited Wednesday at 18:17 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

4 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I find it strange (although not really, fully understanding your agenda) how you think that an illegal electric moped (the type used extensively by delivery companies) is the same as a push bike? 

Because the majority are push bikes with an electric motor fitted to the rear wheel (they just replace the rear wheel) and a battery pack hanging off the frame - they are not electric mopeds - some are 250W and perfectly legal but I suspect many are over 250W and not legal (but can easily be bought online - take a look at places like this: https://myperfectebike.com/ where you can buy a kit that will take your push bike to 70mph!!). And like Lime bikes are doing harm to the reputation of cyclists because everyone sees them as bikes and many of them are being ridden inconsiderately and dangerously - the term bl**dy cyclists tends to apply to anyone on two wheels with pedals whether they are a push bike, push bike with an electric motor, Lime bike or cargo bike ;-)!!!

5 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Lime bikes are different from push bikes in the scenarios that you describe, because your proposed fixed - the additional regulations you're calling for, already apply. Which is kind of relevant and just a little ironic.

But clearly not working....which leads us back to my point on the need for tighter legislation, increased policing or limitations of cycle use.

[Earl Aelfheah]

20 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Because the majority are push bikes with an electric motor fitted to the rear wheel (they just replace the rear wheel) and a battery pack hanging off the frame - they are not electric mopeds - some are 250W and perfectly legal but I suspect many are over 250W and not legal (but can easily be bought online - take a look at places like this: https://myperfectebike.com/ where you can buy a kit that will take your push bike to 70mph!!). 

It's you that is trying to conflate a 70mph e-moped with a push bike. You'd be much better off calling for regulation of those mod kits (as I already did above), and stricter enforcement of existing laws to ensure vehicles are road legal. I'm not sure how bringing in additional laws for push bikes has any impact on illegal e-mopeds (in fact I do, it has none).

20 minutes ago, Rockets said:

33 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Lime bikes are different from push bikes in the scenarios that you describe, because your proposed fix - the additional regulations you're calling for, already apply. Which is kind of relevant and just a little ironic.

But clearly not working....which leads us back to my point on the need for tighter legislation, increased policing or limitations of cycle use.

This is so weird. I've pointed out that the laws you are calling for already exist in the scenario you describe, they're just not enforced, and you agree, then call for tighter legislation. It's a problem of enforcement, extra laws on top of ones which are already unenforced achieves nothing.

And then you call for 'limitations of cycle use'... Which I think really gets to the nub of what you want. 

Edited Wednesday at 18:45 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

19 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

It's you that is trying to conflate a 70mph e-moped with a push bike.

No because it is, in fact, a standard pushbike converted to go 70mph....the kits are sold to go on a bog standard bike.....

What's that saying that it if looks like a duck, walks like a duck....;-) 

[Earl Aelfheah]

14 hours ago, Rockets said:

No because it is, in fact, a standard pushbike converted to go 70mph....the kits are sold to go on a bog standard bike.....

What's that saying that it if looks like a duck, walks like a duck....;-) 

It doesn't 'walk like a duck' though does it. A push bike doesn't have a throttle and cannot travel at 70mph powered by a motor.

[Rockets]

But it is still a bike isn't it - a bike with a motor? You're not trying to suggest that these aren't bikes are you and that these delivery drivers aren't cyclists?

[Kurt_Lane]

8 hours ago, Rockets said:

But it is still a bike isn't it - a bike with a motor? You're not trying to suggest that these aren't bikes are you and that these delivery drivers aren't cyclists?

This thread has descended into an absolute farce. And in answer, no. Is a moped a bike? No. If my grandmother had wheels, she also wouldn’t have been a bike. 15 pages of drivel, so far. 

Edited Thursday at 20:10 by Kurt_Lane