Should cyclists have the same speed restrictions as motor vehicles?

[first mate]

But you do not have to consistently maintain a speed over 20mph for it to be a risk factor, do you? Being hit by a fast moving vehicle may cause significant damage. Presumably speed limits are applied to try to reduce risk.

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, first mate said:

But you do not have to consistently maintain a speed over 20mph for it to be a risk factor, do you? Being hit by a fast moving vehicle may cause significant damage. Presumably speed limits are applied to try to reduce risk.

The point is that there are far fewer people travelling by bicycle than motor vehicle. And even fewer of those who are travelling by bicycle over the speed limit (as it applies to cars).

And at the same time, a far greater proportion, of the far greater number of people travelling by car, regularly speed. And they speed not just at 20mph, but up to and beyond 70mph. And of course they seriously injure and kill many many more people.

[tedfudge]

 

[Penguin68]

4 hours ago, malumbu said:

it is difficult to maintain a speed over 20mph.  Why are you more of an expert that an experienced cyclist?

It is actually, Mal, very difficult, particularly in hilly Dulwich, for cyclists to maintain any speed - which makes driving behind them that much more tricky, as compared to powered road users. As a long-term driver (passed my test in 1967) I look for consistency in road users to allow me to predict their actions - cyclists can neither maintain constant speeds in anything other than flat conditions - nor frequently, where road or weather (wind) conditions are poor, a constant line (and inexperienced cyclists particularly so). This is not to blame cyclists - they rely on person, not mechanical, power - but it does make their progress that much more risky for them, and sharing roads with them that much more tricky. Which is why, where there are significant volumes of cyclists, I don't resent giving up road space to them, although I do resent some cyclists then insisting on using the shared road space 'because they can'.

And of course no one has suggested that cyclists should maintain a speed over 20 (in a 20 mile zone). We actually don't want them going over that speed, as (particularly for pedestrians) prediction of road user behaviour is again compromised when some believe that speed restrictions don't apply to them. And especially when these move from road to pavement users - where in general a 4mph usage speed is anticipated.

I'm intrigued that you should be inventing here a refutation of an argument hitherto un-made. Why? Or is it simply (another) diversionary tactic?

[snowy]

Please look at rule 213 of the highway code which reminds drivers that cyclists may need to move unpredictably.

And Rule 61 on cycle lanes.

[malumbu]

Penguin:  "which makes driving behind them that much more tricky"

If you are not able to do this then you are not meeting minimum driving standards.  You would fail your driving test,

The Highway Code is generally not road user specific, a bike in front of you has priority whatever the speed, noting that slower road users may choose to move into a safe space to allow you to overtake, but are not compelled to.  Like in the Scottish Highlands when those towing caravans would let you overtake, not so common nowadays and no doubt many of us have been on a single carriage A road with a massive queue behind a tractor, nervous car driver or car towing a caravan.

You should only overtake the bike if there is enough room, which includes giving the bike around a couple of metres.  Significantly less than this you could be stopped by a police officer and given a ticket.

 

[first mate]

No comment, I see, on the video posted above, showing cyclists breaking the law and cycling recklessly.

[ab29]

On 18/02/2025 at 15:11, tedfudge said:

How can this be ok - and in front of the hospital?

Edited February 20 by ab29

[Penguin68]

On 18/02/2025 at 16:11, malumbu said:

Penguin:  "which makes driving behind them that much more tricky"

If you are not able to do this then you are not meeting minimum driving standards.  You would fail your driving test,

The Highway Code is generally not road user specific, a bike in front of you has priority whatever the speed, noting that slower road users may choose to move into a safe space to allow you to overtake, but are not compelled to.  Like in the Scottish Highlands when those towing caravans would let you overtake, not so common nowadays and no doubt many of us have been on a single carriage A road with a massive queue behind a tractor, nervous car driver or car towing a caravan.

You should only overtake the bike if there is enough room, which includes giving the bike around a couple of metres.  Significantly less than this you could be stopped by a police officer and given a ticket.

Mal

The fact that it is more difficult to drive where other road users actions are less predictable is, well, a fact. Of course that means that other road users have to take that into consideration when they drive, but being themselves 'good' and predictable drivers doesn't mean that cyclists aren't less unpredictable.  I was making the point that of course cyclists, particularly in hilly conditions, as we have, find it more difficult to 'maintain' a constant speed - I'm not blaming them for that, just stating it as a fact (as you had yourself mentioned that difficulty). Cyclists, by the very fact that they are unpowered, pose more technical problems to those sharing roads with them - of course we cope with those, but it doesn't stop it being a fact. All driving is about attention and anticipation - when you have fellow road users who don't obey (sometimes) rules others are obliged to obey (traffic lights, zebra crossings, signalling etc. etc.) - and at times vary their speed because of topology in a way that powered users can more readily overcome,  then sharing roads with them is more tricky than sharing roads with users who do 'follow the rules' and do drive more predictably. That should be a self evident fact. That you challenge that and imply that I don't meet minimum driving standards... well!

Oh, and if cyclists had tests that they could fail ... but of course they don't, and you argue against that as a requirement.

[malumbu]

What is difficult about being aware of other road users?  It should be second nature. You've just argued for more cycling infrastructure if you think it is better segregating cyclists and motor vehicles.

I could say that it is difficult cycling when you don't know what a driver is likely to do.  Fortunately I can usually anticipate when they don't check their mirror, blind spot, signal and or are on their phone

I could say that it is difficult cycling when you don't know what a driver is likely to do.  Fortunately I can usually anticipate when they don't check their mirror, blind spot, signal and or are on their phone

[Dulwich dweller]

On 18/02/2025 at 10:24, malumbu said:

am a highly experienced cyclist.  I know many cyclists.  I know the local roads.  Why do you find it so difficult to comprehend that due to human physiology, the mechanics of bicycles and simple physics, the condition of the roads, traffic lights and junctions, and the number of other road users, it is difficult to maintain a speed over 20mph. 

Not with an ebike it isn't. Still condescending I see. 

 

[march46]

With a legal e-bike it is.

[malumbu]

8 hours ago, Dulwich dweller said:

Not with an ebike it isn't. Still condescending I see. 

 

Please avoid personal attacks.  As March says with legal electrical assisted pedal bikes, the power cuts out before the bike hits 20 mph.  There are numerous posts about illegal e bikes, a separate subject.  You shouldn't confuse legal with illegal.

https://www.bikeradar.com/advice/buyers-guides/electric-bike-laws

Useful reading, road legal e bikes electric assistance cuts out at 25 mph

[first mate]

The problem is, you never offer solutions, but simply get picky on legal terms or other deflections, rather than admitting an issue.

It is a fact, that pedalled and powered two wheeled vehicles are between them, daily exceeding 20 mph speed limits, jumping red lights,  cycling on pavements and pedestrianised areas, not stopping at pedestrian crossing.

In the eyes of the public, anything on two wheels that looks like a bicycle is a bicycle. For the vehicle users, many also view themselves as outside the law and that confusion is down to an unhelpfully grey area where bicycles that look very similar to the eye are treated differently in law. This is why a blanket speed limit would be helpful and we might get a bit more enforcement on the other areas.

Edited February 22 by first mate

[Penguin68]

19 minutes ago, malumbu said:

You shouldn't confuse legal with illegal.

As a pedestrian, or indeed any other road user, that's quite difficult. Which means judging what might, or might not, be safe is also quite difficult. Of course the ones that are clearly badged as being e.g. Lime bikes are theoretically identifiable, although when they are heading towards you I'm guessing less so. 

Also I note that you write "the power cuts out before the bike hits 20 mph." and then "road legal e bikes electric assistance cuts out at 25 mph" in adjacent paragraphs. 

[malumbu]

If they are going fast without pedaling it's illegal.  Most of the delivery bikes are illegal.  Usually it's a hub drive on the rear wheel.  Most legal e bikes have the drive in the crank.  Illegal bikes are not difficult to spot, enforcement bodies could do more but making the delivery companies have greater responsibility would be a better way, but would put the cost of your takeaway up.

Stopping the illegal kits and modifications is difficult as bikes that are not road legal can be used off road with the land owners permission.  Not sure how this affects bridal ways, pathways where bikes are allowed and the like.

[first mate]

39 minutes ago, malumbu said:

Illegal bikes are not difficult to spot,

I beg to differ. To those in the know, they may be easy to spot, but to the general public, as well as types of enforcement personnel, I do not think they are easy to spot. The whole area is a muddle and In think, in part, we are not seeing much enforcement, because it is not clear.

[Dulwich dweller]

On 22/02/2025 at 10:08, malumbu said:

Please avoid personal attacks. 

Same old tricks. It's an opinion and not an attack You do nothing but attack anybody or thing that isn't on two wheels whilst willfully ignoring the streams of arseholes willfully ignoring even the most basic of highway code rules.

Again last week I had lovely time with my grandson who was on half term. Up top and up the front of countless buses. We keep hearing figures on how many cyclists are being injured and framed to attack motorists. Well given the risks and lunacy that we witnessed last week daytime I'm quite shocked those figures aren't higher.

 

The risk taking alone that we witnessed from cyclists was astounding. Hardly any on bikes adhered to red lights. Flying across junctions more in hope than knowledge that they wouldn't be hit. Bikes going between cars and buses Kerb side whilst being brushed by vehicles.

I'm not talking about your average arsehole that's pulling wheelies whilst trying to negotiate traffic. I'm talking about people that are probably full of good intentions and conscious about the environment but they are a danger to themselves and their immediate surroundings. 

 

You don't tailgate buses and Lorry's who's driver aren't aware of there presence. Climate caring or not common sense and caution needs to be applied but I see little of it. I saw little of it when I cycled myself. I do not drive and haven't done in decades. I was keen cyclists until I moved back to London. In my experience for all the good conscious cyclists there is you get far to many bad/ lazy ones. There was some bonkers stuff witnessed last week alone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[march46]

When I travel on the bus with my children we count the number of cyclists and frame it positively. So many people are travelling whilst doing exercise, freeing up road space for those who perhaps can’t. All without causing pollution.

 

Saying that, it is hard when you’re travelling by bus not to notice the high level of drivers distracted by their mobile phones. I always think it would be a good way for the police to do some targeted enforcement.

[Dulwich dweller]

On 22/02/2025 at 10:08, malumbu said:

Please avoid personal attacks.  As March says with legal electrical assisted pedal bikes, the power cuts out before the bike hits 20 mph.  There are numerous posts about illegal e bikes, a separate subject.  You shouldn't confuse legal with illegal.

https://www.bikeradar.com/advice/buyers-guides/electric-bike-laws

Useful reading, road legal e bikes electric assistance cuts out at 25 mph

I'm not confusing anything. You are borderline trolling against and making huge assumption. I’ve read this thread back three times. My view is that you'd make a good mp but a terrible liar. I've spent enough time on this thread now to conclude that you are a troll. You ignore paragraphs only to respond with irrelevant and repetitive tripe.

 

Feel offended and virtuous as you want but you won't be getting another response from me. You're not dim, you're on a wind up and trolling.

10 minutes ago, march46 said:

When I travel on the bus with my children we count the number of cyclists and frame it positively. So many people are travelling whilst doing exercise, freeing up road space for those who perhaps can’t. All without causing pollution.

 

Saying that, it is hard when you’re travelling by bus not to notice the high level of drivers distracted by their mobile phones. I always think it would be a good way for the police to do some targeted enforcement.

With modern tech there should be a way to render a mobile useless once inside a car. No hands free just no signal.

 

Years ago we had a geezer pasS us on the M4 whilst having an electric shave.

 

[Sue]

17 minutes ago, Dulwich dweller said:

 

With modern tech there should be a way to render a mobile useless once inside a car. No hands free just no signal

 

There are safety issues relating to that.

For example, what if you were trapped inside a car for some reason eg in a ditch after an accident, and nobody could see the car or knew where you were?

[Earl Aelfheah]

If you're concerned about speeding in the local area, you can email [email protected] and get involved in helping to do some community monitoring.

You will quickly sese the problems of commonplace / normalised speeding and get a sense of the types of vehicles involved (it's not push bikes). 

[Dulwich dweller]

On 26/02/2025 at 09:30, Sue said:

There are safety issues relating to that.

For example, what if you were trapped inside a car for some reason eg in a ditch after an accident, and nobody could see the car or knew where you were?

There are safety issues because of mobile phones being used in cars. They are a distraction. I have no answer to your to your scenario but I don't think ending up in a ditch is as common as motorists using their phones for one reason or another. How often to you see ditches in London / big cities? 

 

 

[first mate]

We have established that to those in the know, distinguishing legal and illegal e-bikes may be possible but most don't know the difference. A simple solution is to apply 20mph to all and anything that looks like a bike and that might make enforcement a bit easier all round. Getting hit by one of those things will hurt.

On the subject of driving and mobile phones, can I just point out the increase in younger cyclists who like to cycle with both hands off the handlebars holding and looking at their mobile phone. That has to be risky.

[Earl Aelfheah]

On 08/03/2025 at 07:20, first mate said:

A simple solution is to apply 20mph to all and anything that looks like a bike and that might make enforcement a bit easier all round.

We've already established that is not a simple solution, because bicycles don't have speedometers, don't have number plates, and generally aren't registered. To make this change would require primary legislation and without the aforementioned mechanisms to effectively enforce the new law, it would be very unlikely to pass even the early stages of parliamentary scrutiny; Neither would it with them, as they would be disproportionate and counter productive. In short, it is definitely isn't going to happen.

Despite the perception of some that push bikes travelling over 20mph is a significant issue, in reality it is not and our law-making processes assess evidence, and consider the unintended consequences, costs vs benefits and proportionality of imposing new regulations.

....and just a reminder that (according to the DfT) 85% of car drivers drive faster than the speed limit in 20mph zones. A much, much bigger problem. Tackling this would be a far better use of resources.

Edited Monday at 14:04 by Earl Aelfheah