Should cyclists have the same speed restrictions as motor vehicles?

[Earl Aelfheah]

17 minutes ago, Rockets said:

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

He has argued that illegal mopeds and push bikes should be treated the same.

Earl - you're meandering and losing me again.....what I was arguing about was that push bikes with an electric conversion kit are not identified as mopeds by those pedestrians that they are causing huge problems for

Nope you’re try trying to deflect, by ducking a question long enough that you can pretend it’s related to something else you’ve said since it was asked. You very clearly stated that a moped capable of travelling at 70mph was still a bicycle and strongly implied that they should therefore be regulated in the same way. If you’re saying that they shouldn’t be treated the same, then what exactly are you arguing for? And we’re talking about your comparison between a moped and a bicycle to be clear.

[ab29]

6 minutes ago, ab29 said:

Just to add: if cyclists have nothing to hide, always stop at green light and are law abiding - what is the problem?

As in why would you object to cyclist registering scheme / bike number plate register?

[Earl Aelfheah]

2 hours ago, Rockets said:

4 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Are you're seriously suggesting that a push bike is the same as a electric moped capable of travelling at 70 mph, and that they should be regulated in the same way?

A pushbike with an electric motor that takes it to 70mph is still a pushbike - it's just a pushbike with an electric motor. Do you agree or not?

 

[Rockets]

14 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Oh that old tactic. Repeatedly ducking the question and then pretending you don’t you don’t understand 🙄

Earl, no honestly, you lose me. We start at Point A and you take it around the houses and try to land a punch by making Point Q which has no bearing on Point A at all....

[Earl Aelfheah]

So just to be clear @rockets (let’s pretend you haven’t deliberately ignored a very simple question several times and genuinely struggle with comprehension).. in a discussion about regulating bicycles, after you suggest illegal mopeds that travel at 70mph and push bikes are the same ‘walks like a duck etc’, I asked the question:

“Are you're seriously suggesting that a push bike is the same as an electric moped capable of travelling at 70 mph, and that they should be regulated in the same way?”

You responded:

“A pushbike with an electric motor that takes it to 70mph is still a pushbike - it's just a pushbike with an electric motor. Do you agree or not?” (Great bit of deflection)

Were you suggesting that they are the same, but not that they should be regulated in the same way? Because it doesn’t read like that.

I answered your question btw, and repeated my own several times. And as usual you ran away from it and then feigned incomprehension. We see what you’re doing. The corollary of your argument (that you think the two are in the same category), is that they should be regulated in the same way. You refuse to answer a straightforward question, because if the answer is no, they shouldn’t be treated the same, it exposes the false equivalence you have drawn. If it’s yes, then it implies regulation of push bikes in ways you understand to be ridiculous. 

Edited Friday at 18:29 by Earl Aelfheah

[ab29]

Meaning all cyclists should  be very happy with any regulations tackling dangerous cycling

[Rockets]

8 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

So just to be clear @rockets (let’s pretend you haven’t deliberately ignored a very simple question several times and genuinely struggle with comprehension).. in a discussion about regulating bicycles, after you suggest illegal mopeds that travel at 70mph and push bikes are the same ‘walks like a duck etc’, I asked the question:

This is where you're exposing you flawed argument style because I never mentioned illegal mopeds. You did. You referred to push bikes that have an electric conversion kit added (new rear bike wheel and battery slung from under the frame) that can go up to 70 mph as illegal mopeds. The point I was making was the below and based on my experience of walking through London and seeing the push bikes with electric conversion kits being ridden badly and in a way that endangered pedestrians:

9 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

“A pushbike with an electric motor that takes it to 70mph is still a pushbike - it's just a pushbike with an electric motor. Do you agree or not?”

So the issue here is, again, someone makes Point A, you throw in Point Q and then accuse them of something based on your insertion of Point Q and accuse them of stating Point Q when they did nothing of the sort.

And you've done it again. It's just the your flawed "debating" style.

[Earl Aelfheah]

13 minutes ago, Rockets said:

You referred to push bikes that have an electric conversion kit added (new rear bike wheel and battery slung from under the frame) that can go up to 70 mph as illegal mopeds.

They are illegal mopeds. This is a matter of legal fact, not opinion.

13 minutes ago, Rockets said:

So the issue here is, again, someone makes Point A, you throw in Point Q and then accuse them of something based on your insertion of Point Q and accuse them of stating Point Q when they did nothing of the sort.

Nope, you’re just refusing to answer a straightforward question

[ab29]

24 minutes ago, ab29 said:

.

Edited Friday at 18:35 by ab29

[exdulwicher]

21 hours ago, Rockets said:

All those who think these are bikes click the laughing emoji

All those who think they are mopeds click the confused emoji

They're bicycles - illegally modified via installation of a motor, battery and throttle.Therefore they already fall foul of existing laws and can be seized and destroyed.

For example: 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yvxl037m9o
https://news.sky.com/video/police-seize-illegal-e-bikes-and-e-scooters-on-streets-of-london-13271669
https://ebiketips.road.cc/content/advice/features/vast-majority-of-seized-e-bikes-are-being-used-by-delivery-riders-but-what

The latter link is quite interesting. Society has essentially created this issue - app-based food delivery firms have taken over the high street takeaway industry. If your takeaway business is not on Deliveroo / Just Eat etc, it's going nowhere (same as hotels being "forced" to be on booking.com). 

The apps pay the rider by delivery while also promising the consumer that their food will be with them in <30 minutes. From the moment you press the "order" button on the app, the takeaway has 15-20 minutes to receive that order, prepare it, pack it, give it to the rider and the rider then has 10-15 minutes to deliver it. It is basically essential that the rider breaks any and all road laws, rides like a dickhead and has some form of transport that permits this. Mopeds are expensive, you need to do CBT etc plus they have number plates. Modified bikes = WIN! They get shared around too, legitimate riders sub-let their accounts to people who really don't have the right to work or can't get employment (often migrants). 

The police know all this and it's not exactly difficult to find these people, they're outside every bloody takeaway on LL! The problem is that doing anything about it results in people not getting their food order (and therefore getting irate) and a whole world of complexity involving HMRC, DWP, and whatever layers of Government need to deal with immigrants who don't technically have the right to work. You arrest a dozen delivery riders and confiscate the bikes, there's then a week of paperwork to deal with the people you've detained, half of whom won't even be on record and in the meantime the gap has been filled by another dozen riders on borrowed bikes.

On the other hand, Mrs Miggins on EDG got her order of dumplings and fried rice in 5 minutes so she's happy, even if she'll moan about "bloody delivery cyclists" the next day.

The problem is allowed to exist in plain sight because these people are scraping a living on a few pence per drop, providing a service and - other than being a bit of a nuisance - are otherwise not out there begging / stealing / turning to crime.

If you want to solve it, the answer is not speed limits or registration plates or fining the riders, it's dealing with the app companies that have created this issue in the first place (and to a lesser extent, dealing with the lazy public who can't even be arsed walking to the takeaway 5 minutes down the road).

[ab29]

1 hour ago, ab29 said:

As in why would you object to cyclist registering scheme / bike number plate register?

Not sure if anyone answered

[Rockets]

19 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

They are illegal mopeds. This is a matter of legal fact, not opinion.

Well, it appears the Oracle of all Such Things disagrees with you....see below..thanks Ex-!!! 😉 Earl, I am sure you'll be about to launch an argumentative attack on Ex- anytime now....

 

59 minutes ago, exdulwicher said:

They're bicycles - illegally modified via installation of a motor, battery and throttle.Therefore they already fall foul of existing laws and can be seized and destroyed.

And that was exactly the point I was making.  Earl, you may think it is a matter of legal fact but the court of public opinion sees them as bad cyclists and it is this type of behaviour that leads to calls for more regulation. This whole debate was stimulated by my experience of such bad cyclists in Soho.

Also, a point to remember as well, is that these delivery drivers have been propping up cycling counts for a long time and whilst it might be good for Will Norman's "cycling growth" numbers in London it's really, really bad for the perception of cycling and cyclists.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Still avoiding answering the question.

You say a push bike and a 70mph electric motor driven bike are the same, so do you think they should be regulated in the same way?

Because if not, and if you don’t agree with my calls for mod kits to be banned and existing rules to be more strictly enforced, I’ve no idea what your point is. 

Edited Friday at 20:16 by Earl Aelfheah

[exdulwicher]

22 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Well, it appears the Oracle of all Such Things disagrees with you....see below..thanks Ex-!!! 😉 Earl, I am sure you'll be about to launch an argumentative attack on Ex- anytime now....

Ah bless, I love your selective quoting.

Illegal bikes / illegal mopeds / illegal motorbikes. Irrelevant, they're illegal.

[Rockets]

16 minutes ago, exdulwicher said:

Ah bless, I love your selective quoting.

Not sure selective quoting applies here as you did say they were bicycles didn't you...modified bicycles granted but not mopeds? That was exactly my point but Earl seemed to want to pick a fight over it...I wonder if they will turn on you now in the same way they turned on me when i suggested that...let's see.....

[exdulwicher]

6 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Not sure selective quoting applies here as you did say they were bicycles didn't you...modified bicycles granted but not mopeds? That was exactly my point but Earl seemed to want to pick a fight over it...I wonder if they will turn on you now in the same way they turned on me when i suggested that...let's see.....

It's like trying to argue whether the murderer used a 6" knife or an 8" knife or a footlong knife. Largely irrelevant to the outcome. 

Illegally modified bicycle, illegal electric moped. All illegal, all can be confiscated. We return to the fact that, other than a few occasional crackdowns, they are largely not dealt with which is nothing to do with the fine detail of the bike in question and everything to do with the lack of enforcement.

The existing laws spell out very clearly what is a legal Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycle (EAPC) and what is an illegally modified bicycle or an electric moped / motorcycle being used without registration, insurance etc on public roads.

[Rockets]

I am not disagreeing with anything you say. The whole point of this part of the thread was to highlight the damage these cyclists are doing to cycling and if something isn't done soon to clamp down on this then cycling as a whole suffers.

Whilst both Lime bikes and delivery bikes have been responsible for the majority of post Covid cycle "growth" it is actually creating a much bigger cycling perception problem. Pro-cycle lobby groups seem unwilling to address it because they fear scrutiny of their own ilk. Maybe this is why Earl claims that stronger regulation and enforcement will hinder cycle "growth" because people might realise how much of it is delivery drivers on modified pushbikes and drunk Lime bikes users...neither of which is a good look!

[Earl Aelfheah]

So what’s your point? Are you suggesting that bicycles should be regulated as if they are electric mopeds / illegal e-bikes? 

[Rockets]

What i am saying is that something has to be done to regulate and enforce bad cycling. Your approach of trying to deflect by saying they're not bikes they're mopeds is not helping anyone and is typical of the "well don't have a problem" narrative displayed by many in the cycle lobby.

There is a growing problem around the perception of cycling. It's not a culture war as many in the pro-lobby will tell you, it is something being perpetrated by the action of cyclists and unless our cycling community starts to address it it will hinder the growth of cycling because public perception will begin to dictate policy.

[exdulwicher]

14 hours ago, Rockets said:

The whole point of this part of the thread was to highlight the damage these cyclists are doing to cycling and if something isn't done soon to clamp down on this then cycling as a whole suffers.

Funny how no-one ever uses this argument on driving standards...

2 hours ago, Rockets said:

and unless our cycling community starts to address it 

There it is again, this idea that cyclists are somehow a coherent community and share collective responsibility. Suggesting that one person’s behaviour reflects on all other people with whom they share some attribute is just wrong. People who cycle are connected only by the fact that they sometimes use the same mode of transport.

See how ridiculous it sounds if I say "the driving community really needs to get its act together and address mobile phone use and speeding" ?

There is no "driving community" - there's a collection of many many individual people, none of whom are responsible for the behaviour of any other, using a similar mode of transport. Same with walking, or using a wheelchair...

Likewise, it would be ridiculous to claim that everyone using public transport is a fare-dodger, simply because some people use public transport without paying.

It is also a fallacy to believe that prejudiced views would disappear if the subjects of prejudice were to behave in a certain ‘approved’ way.

In other respects I agree with you. I would love to see more roads policing. You're not going to find me complaining if a cyclist gets pulled over and fined for jumping a red light, same as I'd be very happy for people parking on the pavement / double yellows to be ticketed. Bring it on.

Edited 22 hours ago by exdulwicher

[SE22_2020er]

Gosh - good post ‘exdulwicher’.  Finally, the voice of reason in and amongst all of the drivel!

[Penguin68]

1 hour ago, exdulwicher said:

Funny how no-one ever uses this argument on driving standards...

Maybe because driving standards are already covered by things like adherence to the Highway code, speed limits etc. Clearly people who drive do breach these, but for them there are remedies, some quite stringent. There are very limited remedies on transgressing cyclists, indeed so much that cyclists do is not acted on by anyone in authority, nor even treated as a transgression.

Nobody says 'something should be done about drivers who speed, or who jump lights', because on many occasions something is done - there are cameras on many traffic lights to do that for instance, as well as speed cameras. It's just a matter of installing more, or moving them where transgressions more frequently occur.

Maybe someone should be reminding Southwark that they're missing out on another revenue stream?

 

[malumbu]

Sorry but this is typical of a lot of ignorance - the police are responsible for enforcing speed limits not local authorities.

The Highway code does not specify different road users, apart from a few additional paragraphs for groups like cyclists, pedestrians and for transport on horses.

It's therefore road user standards not driver standards.  Then it is up to the authorities to enforce as they deem fit. 

[first mate]

LCC and its various off shoots does present as a sort of community, working to shared aims, with lots of advisories/scripts for its members to use to achieve those aims. 

[Rockets]

The cycle lobby is one of the most developed, well-funded, well organised and successful lobby groups in the country and have seats at the most powerful tables - Will Norman and Chris Boardman are prime examples.

The point i have also been making is that there are many in the cycling lobby (and we see so many of them who post on here) who refuse to acknowledge that there might be a problem. Who blindly try to throw shade on any perceived issues with cyclists by trying to scream BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CARS!

And when they come on here and try to claim, as some sort of bizarre defence, that bikes that are causing many of the perceptual problems for pedestrians are not in fact bikes but mopeds just shows how completely myopic some are - desperately trying to argue a ludicrous point when what they should be doing is saying yes, there is a problem.

Cycling blinkerdness seems to affect a lot of people who want to see cycling grow and I get it but the cultish head in the sand approach isn't doing the cause they purport to love any good at all.

Cycling and cyclists have a perception problem and it's not a culture war organised by car drivers it's based on cyclist behaviours and the lack of focus from authorities to do anything about it.