Should cyclists have the same speed restrictions as motor vehicles?

[exdulwicher]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

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.

If the cycle lobby were even a tenth as powerful as you suggest, there'd be a comprehensive network of cycle facilities across the UK that would put the Netherlands to shame. As it is, it took twelve YEARS of back and forth consultation, argument and redesign, a global pandemic and several rounds of council elections to get 100m of Dulwich Village filtered. Hardly the output of some All-Powerful Cyclist Cabal... 

2 hours ago, first mate said:

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. 

That's still not collective responsibility though. Every organisation of that nature does similar including One Dulwich (although they do it with considerably less oversight and publicity of exactly who is funding them or indeed who is even behind them).

I can walk through Dulwich Park without being a member / belonging to Friends of Dulwich Park: https://dulwichparkfriends.org.uk/

I can ride my bike through Dulwich Village without being a member / belonging to LCC, Southwark Cyclists, Sustrans etc.

You can join any organisation you want in order to express your support, that does not mean that you are responsible for any other member within it or that - apart from that one particular aspect - that you share any other common trait.

In fact I could be completely unaware of the existence of LCC, doesn't stop me riding my bike.

Edited February 2 by exdulwicher
hyperlink

[malumbu]

I'm trying not to post on this thread, Ez does such a good job challenging the continued nonsense.

But where there is ignorance I have to correct things.  Chris Boardman is the Chair of Active Travel England.  He is responsible for overseeing the government's active travel plans.  He is appointed by ministers, a Tory one at the time, now reporting to Labour.  Government can change their plans at any time.  If you want to influence this write to your MP.  I expect they don't have time to monitor the EDF.  He is not a lobbyist.  It is his job to talk to Government, and to stakeholders.  

https://www.gov.uk/government/people/chris-boardman

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, malumbu said:

He is not a lobbyist

Nonsense. Absolute nonsense.

[first mate]

2 hours ago, exdulwicher said:

You can join any organisation you want in order to express your support, that does not mean that you are responsible for any other member within it or that - apart from that one particular aspect - that you share any other common trait.

Okay, so perhaps those on here who continually suggest that anyone that so much as entertains some of the views expressed by One Dulwich is a crazed, mail-reading, petrol-head, and probably part of some opaque right wing conspiracy to do goodness knows what (but some even have included vaccine denial) should desist.

It is also the case that some of the very nastiest and lowest personal attacks on posters on here have been made by LCC/LTN supporters, and have included disgusting comments about mental health. 

[snowy]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

Nonsense. Absolute nonsense.

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."

[Rockets]

He is the very best example of a pro-cycle lobbyist elected to a powerful position. Anyone who tries to convince you otherwise is probably also a pro-cycle lobbyist! It's quite telling, and utterly laughable, that you're trying to claim he isn't - but not at all unsurprising. 

Thanks for helping me make my point about the utterly cultish behaviour of many in the cycle lobby! Bravo. 

[snowy]

Again, another post that embarrasses you.

You're now saying that someone who has held Regional Authority or national governmental role in the field since 2017 as an active travel specialist and who has been awarded a CBE for their 'services for active travel', isn't qualified and is in your terms a 'lobbyist'?

Then again, i suspect that his mother being killed whilst cycling by someone subsequently convicted of death by dangerous driving might compel them to advocate for safer walking and cycling.

 

[Rockets]

Snowy, I am not embarrassed pointing out the bleedingly obvious but maybe you will listen to Peter Walker (another pro-cycling lobbyist and someone no doubt you will respect more than me) ...https://www.theguardian.com/news/2024/dec/30/anti-cycling-stories-bad-health-chris-boardman-active-travel

.....Boardman’s current life spent lobbying ministers and officials is one he concedes would have been a surprise to his younger self, but it also echoes the lessons he learned from elite sport.

It is not me who is embarrassing themselves....Boardman is very much a pro-cycling lobbyist....

[Dulwich dweller]

On 21/01/2025 at 11:55, CPR Dave said:

Seeing more and more cyclists in London rampaging down the footpath and stealing phones out of people's hands. It's shameful and something needs to be done.

Licensing cyclists would mean we would be able identify those of them menacing innocent people and robbing their phones.

You think a thief will want to be able to be traced? Also a fair chance that the bike they're using to rob people is stolen.

[Dulwich dweller]

On 14/01/2025 at 15:58, Earl Aelfheah said:

Because it would be entirely disproportionate and would require a system of licencing, which would do more harm than good. Would you also apply the same rules that apply to HGVs to cars and motorbikes?

By ensuring that bicycles had to be registered, licenced and insured (which is what this would mean in practice). you would discourage cycling. That would cost health and the environment and make it more dangerous for those who continued to cycle as they would be fewer in number. 

The only argument for it, is one of false equivalence. It's not remotely based on decreasing actual road danger on improving the environment, health outcomes, congestion, or the economy, or any other objective argument one could (conversely) make for wanting to encourage cycling.

And again, why focus your efforts on reducing the number of cyclists, instead of measures to address the thousands of killed and seriously injured on our streets?

Not sure licencing could be ever enforced. What I do think should be a requisite for all road users is knowing the highway code. The fact that one can jump,on a bike and take to the road with zero understanding of signage, symbols, etc is a danger in itself. I say this as a non car driver and former cyclist who stopped cycling in London because I found it dangerous. In my experience I encountered countless arseholes on the roads, both on two wheels and four. I'd still trust a motorist over a cyclist simply because a motorist is required to know the rules of the road. I'm a regular bus user and favour the top deck up front. You see some awful behaviour and risk taking by cyclists. It doesn't surprise me that there's so many accidents and scrapes involving cyclists. No doubt the sheer volume of bikes makes that more .likely but so does lack of awareness and risk taking. 

[malumbu]

It's not a simple correlation, drivers have past their test therefore they are safer than cyclists.

As has been said numerous times a motorised vehicle colliding into you will do far more harm than a bike.

Many cyclists are also drivers/have past their driving or motorcycle test.

Overall drivers are solely responsible for around half of cyclist fatalities and even more seriously injured. Numbers are skewed as for children and young cyclists, the cyclist is more often at fault. Ditto for pedestrian fatalities, ie the pedestrian is more likely to be at fault the younger they are.

That said driving at 20 mph will reduce pedestrian and cyclist fatalities and seriously injured whatever the primary cause eg crossing into traffic or drivers not paying attention.

Worth a read, using DfT stats.

https://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/chris-peck/whos-to-blame-in-crashes-between-cyclists-and-motorists

As said numerous times road user behaviour (including pedestrians) and reducing collisions is a political matter (obviously notwithstanding that the individual and society has a duty to prevent harm to themselves and others including parent's and carers educating their children).

Government/Politicians can and should do more, but there are numerous good initiatives and programmes at national and local levels including cyclist training cycle routes and 20 mph zones.

I'm sorry that you don't feel safe cycling.  There is someone advertising cycle training on this site.  I recommend advanced training to drivers and motorcyclists.  I think there should also be a test for pedestrians!  But this and cycle/cyclist registration ain't going to happen.

Edited Thursday at 21:00 by malumbu
Make a bit more sense!

[first mate]

29 minutes ago, malumbu said:

I think there should also be a test for pedestrians! 

This is the very essence of cyclist myopia! You are so resistant to any sort of testing or regulation for cyclists but want pedestrians to pass a test. Good grief.

Edited Thursday at 16:03 by first mate

[Rockets]

I do wonder if we will have to head towards a CBT scenario with bikes - that there has to be some sort of basic cycle training before people head out onto the road. Only horses and cyclists can head out onto the road without any sort of training.

Bring back the Cycling Proficiency! Everyone used to do it at school way back when and that meant everyone had a modicum of road sense...which seems to be severely lacking in many of today's cyclists.

[Dulwich dweller]

4 hours ago, malumbu said:

It's not a simple correlation, drivers have last their test therefore they are safer than cyclists.

As has been said numerous times a motorised vehicle colliding into you will do far more harm than a bike.

Many cyclists are also drivers/have past their driving or motorcycle test.

Overall drivers are solely responsible for around half of cyclist fatalities and even more seriously injured. Numbers are skewed as for children and you get cyclists, the cyclist is more often at fault. Ditto for pedestrian fatalities, ie the pedestrian is more likely to be at fault the younger they are.

That said driving at 20 mph will reduce pedestrian and cyclist fatalities and seriously injured whatever the primary cause eg crossing into traffic or drivers not paying attention.

Worth a read, using DfT stats.

https://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/chris-peck/whos-to-blame-in-crashes-between-cyclists-and-motorists

As said numerous times road user behaviour (including pedestrians) and reducing collisions is a political matter (obviously excluding the individual and society has a duty to prevent harm to themselves and others including parent's and carers educating their children).

Government/Politicians can and should do more, but there are numerous good initiatives and programmes at national and local levels including cyclist training cycle routes and 20 mph zones.

I'm sorry that you don't feel safe cycling.  There is someone advertising cycle training on this site.  I recommend advanced training to drivers and motorcyclists.  I think there should also be a test for pedestrians!  But this and cycle/cyclist registration ain't going to happen.

It's just as welll that I didn't say that drivers are safer than cyclists because they've had there test. I never mentioned driving or cycling standards.My point was about the highway code and being able to know what signs and symbols represent. It's quite clear to me that not everybody understands what a red traffic light represents, or a no right turn sign, or one way street. If you're jumping red lights and entering one way streets when you're not supposed to it suggests to me that there's little or zero concern for anyone's safety.

Also. I'm fairly confident that everybody is aware that a moving car will do more damage than a bicycle when there’s impact. You're reading to much into my post. Literally ignoring what I typed about ( highway code) whilst stating the bleeding obvious. I'm also fully aware that many cyclists are indeed motorists. Not my point. There are many many cyclists that don't yet drive and don't know the highway code. That in my opinion isn't ideal for anyone. Certainly not for the cyclist as you keep pointing out. I mean why would you dart through red lights when there's big lumps of moving metal with the right of way? Why would you cycle in the wrong direction down a one way street? 

The highway code exists for the people that use the highways. 5hwt should apply to all users. I know the cycling and motorist issue is divisive just as Brexit is. People on either side of the debate are entrenched just as you are. Your response to my post is standard for this debate. Ignore the point made and just roll out stats that can be found on almost every page of this debate. Do you really need to inform Pele that a car does more da,age than something that you can lift with two fingers. It's hardly breaking news is it!  It's also completely irrelevant and sidestepping the issue. It's almost condescending. Car heavier than bike shocker.

[malumbu]

I still don't agree with your point.  So at a point in time a driver has to show that they are familiar with the Highway Code.  It doesn't stop most exceeding the speed limit.  Do you really think that cyclists are not aware what a red light means?  

By all means discuss the relevance of ignoring red lights but don't suggest that cyclists are unaware.

If you look back at various threads you will see that there is much complaining about cyclists by a few people who post prolifically.  I and others consider this disproportionate to the harm and ignores the wider benefits of cycling.

[Rockets]

22 minutes ago, malumbu said:

I and others consider this disproportionate to the harm and ignores the wider benefits of cycling.

Because you are pro-cycling lobbyists who are blinkered by your own fixation with cycling. You fail to acknowledge the issues caused by bad cycling and if anyone challenges you on it you scream: “BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CARS!”. Something has to change, streets are becoming more dangerous due to bad cycling.

[snowy]

5 hours ago, Rockets said:

I do wonder if we will have to head towards a CBT scenario with bikes - that there has to be some sort of basic cycle training before people head out onto the road. Only horses and cyclists can head out onto the road without any sort of training.

Bring back the Cycling Proficiency! Everyone used to do it at school way back when and that meant everyone had a modicum of road sense...which seems to be severely lacking in many of today's cyclists.

It still exists, just because you are unaware of it, that doesn't mean it doesn't happen:

https://www.bikeability.org.uk

[Dulwich dweller]

5 hours ago, malumbu said:

I still don't agree with your point.  So at a point in time a driver has to show that they are familiar with the Highway Code.  It doesn't stop most exceeding the speed limit.  Do you really think that cyclists are not aware what a red light means?  

By all means discuss the relevance of ignoring red lights but don't suggest that cyclists are unaware.

If you look back at various threads you will see that there is much complaining about cyclists by a few people who post prolifically.  I and others consider this disproportionate to the harm and ignores the wider benefits of cycling.

Way to avoid the issue and churn out the same old cobblers. No I don't think cyclists don't know what a red light is. Again not my point. Why do you think many cyclists willfully ignore red lights? I never mentioned speeding cars. I'll suggest what I know to be true. If one is breaking the highway code then they're unaware. None of the above has anything to do with knowing the highway code. Your repetitive posts stink of either stupidity or trolling. Debate the points raised rather than fart out the same old cobblers.  

[malumbu]

This is getting unpleasant and not encouraging any debate.  Have a safe day.

Edited Friday at 09:47 by malumbu
Amended as I had made a personal comment, which I try to avoid

[Earl Aelfheah]

On 25/01/2025 at 14:18, Rockets said:

I think this is one of the issues, no-one is collating definitive data on cycle induced injuries, plenty of data on cyclists injured.

The data on cycle induced injuries is here: Microsoft Power BI (turns out it is being collated, and you just need to email TfL, who will link you straight to it).

Last year in London there were 303 pedestrians injured by pedal bikes, 4,170 injured by motor vehicles.

Obviously that is only pedestrian casualties. Motor vehicles were also involved in thousands of other collisions with cyclists, motorcyclists, other cars etc. Across London in the last year, there were 26,603 casualties - nearly all the result of collisions that involved a motor vehicle.

Edited Friday at 10:52 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

Isn't it the case that there may be misreporting or under reporting of pedestrians experiencing physical impact or even injury from a cyclist, because incidents occurring in public spaces ( places like Dulwich Sq, pavements) are not included? 
 

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

The other worrying thing, is that Southwark had the highest rates of serious injuries and deaths on our roads of any borough except Westminster.

[first mate]

Given that e-bike TMOs are still being rolled out and use of these likely to increase we should also pay attention to how pedestrian/ cyclist incidents data is being gathered and emerging trends.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Just took a look at the data covering the Calton Road / village road junction. In the 3 years leading up to the introduction of the filter / LTN, there were 6 collisions. In the 3 years following it's introduction, there was 1.

Edited Friday at 10:50 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

Is data collected for pedestrian spaces (pavements; Dulwich sq pedestrianised areas) as well as roads/cycle ways and does all data include impacts from bicycles and all types of  e-bike?

Edited Friday at 14:59 by first mate