Should cyclists have the same speed restrictions as motor vehicles?

[first mate]

I'm thinking about how to spend that gigantic Council parking surplus- 20 mph can be done borough by borough.

Sometimes you do sound awfully similar in your messaging to cycle lobby groups like LCC, plus you work in transport and you do not live in the borough.

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Just sad

Yes it is, that even when presented with stats showing just how big the problem is there are those who will try to turn a blind eye because of their cult-like obsession.

There is clearly a problem that needs fixing. Those stats from the DFT show that, in 2021, at least two people a week were being seriously injured in accidents involving cyclists. And the DFT data was derived from police reports so the number could well be a lot higher as these are only the most serious incidents where police attended, not just an ambulance.

Additionally I did read reports that said the NHS were starting to monitor it as it was a growing problem but I could not find any definitive stats to back that up.

Of course, nowhere the number of accidents seriously injuring or killing people involving cars but still something that needs to be acknowledged and actioned, not ignored because "it might impact the growth of cycling".

[Earl Aelfheah]

Absolutely amazing. You’ve gone back and edited a post hours later, to make it look like my response was related to something else. Considering your previous objections to minor edits to correct grammar and spelling, that really is quite special. 

The comment was related to your using a specific tragedy that you know little about, to push your monomaniacal agenda. General stats (like the ones you’ve added in with your edit) are obviously much more appropriate to the debate. Weaponising someone’s specific loss is just sad. Especially when you’re suggesting that the inquiry’s conclusions were wrong, based on nothing more than some newspaper headlines and your prejudice.

Edited Sunday at 18:54 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

??? What?

Edited to add: Ah I have just worked it out. Because I added more detail to make my point in response to Malumbu you think I did that to make you look like a cold-hearteded person to make it look like you were saying "so sad" to the number of serious injuries caused by cycliats..ha ha, don't flatter yourself  and I am not that scheming...my update was to make my point to Malumbu with actual data on injuries after his incorrect claims.

Thanks for reminding me though because Snowy promised us an expose of how they thought I had manipulated the findings from the Hilda Griffiths enquiry...Snowy?

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

General stats (like the ones you’ve added in with your edit) are obviously much more appropriate to the debate.

So what do you think of those stats...two serious injuries a week is a lot and something we need to deal with or perfectly acceptable when comparing with injuries from cars?

Edited Sunday at 20:17 by Rockets

[malumbu]

98 percent of pedestrians injured on pavements and on verges are following motor vehicles mounting the pavement/verge.  Campaign for the maximum speed for every road user to be reduced to 5 mph, and/or with someone walking in front with a red flag.  Good luck.

https://www.cyclinguk.org/briefing/cycling-and-pedestrians

[exdulwicher]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

So what do you think of those stats...two serious injuries a week is a lot and something we need to deal with or perfectly acceptable when comparing with injuries from cars?

No-one is saying injuries / deaths are not bad. They are, of course they are.

The issue is where you look to minimise injuries and deaths. On average, 5 people A DAY are killed on the UK roads:
https://www.brake.org.uk/get-involved/take-action/mybrake/knowledge-centre/uk-road-safety

If that sort of death toll was happening on the railways or in aviation or even at work, entire industries would be shut down. You know the cyclist case (and the names involved) because it is so rare that it inevitably makes headline news, it's a sort of "man bites dog" moment for the press. 
Would you get on the London Underground if you knew that 5 passengers a day would be killed?!

One, maybe two, deaths a year caused by cyclists. Five PER DAY caused by drivers.

So you can understand how Governments / police / road safety organisations are not really looking at cyclists when they try to fix this issue...

Edited Sunday at 20:27 by exdulwicher

[Earl Aelfheah]

There is no evidence that cyclists pedalling faster than 20 mph is a widespread issue, or that bringing in a speed limit for bicycles would make the roads safer.

There is very good reason to believe that it would make the roads less safe.

According to the DfT almost 90% of drivers break the speed limit in 20mph residential areas.

You would be better putting even a fifth of the time, effort and money it would take to set up a scheme to limit the handful of cyclists who manage to pedal faster than the speed limit, on doing more to tackle the epidemic of speeding motorists.

This suggestion is not a serious, thoughtful attempt to focus on road safety. It’s notable that some of those demanding stricter rules for bicycles, also rail against enforcement of existing rules in relation to motorists. 

Edited Monday at 08:02 by Earl Aelfheah

[Spartacus]

"Broken windows"

By allowing cyclists to travel faster than the speed limit, and with modern road bikes weighing less than a fly it's actually easy to go over 20mph, then cyclists feel the speed limit or rules don't apply to them, which leads to the broken window effect where they push the boundaries of what they can get away with, jumping lights because "it takes momentum to stop and start", riding over crossings, cycling on pavements, not having clear lights on at night... 

By simply applying the same rules to all road users, I.e. obey the speed limit, it might start to curb other bad behavior thus making roads safer for all.

I'll ask a question of those who oppose it, and I asked it a few days ago on a different way, why are you so determined not to have the same rules applied to all?  Is it because you consider yourselves rebels who can do what you want or simply because you yourselves know you don't stick to the rules ? 

[Earl Aelfheah]

2 hours ago, Spartacus said:

I'll ask a question of those who oppose it, and I asked it a few days ago on a different way, why are you so determined not to have the same rules applied to all? 

This has been answered multiple times. Are you actually reading the responses?

[march46]

It’s a real shame that Rockets and others here continuously seek to pit two vulnerable groups (pedestrians and cyclists) against each other whilst defending motoring and criticising any challenge of the dominance of the car. 
 

This video is a great watch on research into motonormativity, otherwise known as ‘car-brain’.   

 

[Spartacus]

44 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

This has been answered multiple times. Are you actually reading the responses?

No, it's been said it's unworkable for various reasons, but no one has said why the sane rules shouldn't be applied to them. 

Being unworkable is a practical issue, but objecting to the rules being applied is the question. Therefore if it was workable, would you still not want speed limits applied to cyclistsf? 

Feels like you don't and therein lies the problem. 

It should be one set of rules for all road users, not a case of woolies pick n mix depending on which mode of transport you use. 

Edited Monday at 11:40 by Spartacus

[Earl Aelfheah]

33 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

No, it's been said it's unworkable for various reasons, but no one has said why the sane rules shouldn't be applied to them. 

What’s been said is that whilst no one is against it in principle, in practice it is difficult to implement and would likely be counterproductive. If it encourages people to switch away from cycling to a far more dangerous form of transport (even in small numbers), then it will actually make the roads more dangerous.

Police can already pull over cyclist and warn them about their speed, and can issue penalty notices where they are behaving dangerously. Bringing in a whole new regime of regulation and enforcement for a minority issue (at best) has a massive opportunity cost; it takes that focus away from dealing with much more urgent issues of road safety. 

33 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

It should be one set of rules for all road users

Would you place the same regulations on Trucks, cars, motorbikes, push bikes and horses? This is not what happens and for obvious reasons.

If you are applying one set of rules for all road users, are you also calling for an age limit for bicyclists, licencing, insurance etc? 

The insistence that practicalities, or real world impact are not important, nor considerations of proportionality, is not very convincing.

Edited Monday at 12:13 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

37 minutes ago, march46 said:

It’s a real shame that Rockets and others here continuously seek to pit two vulnerable groups (pedestrians and cyclists) against each other whilst defending motoring and criticising any challenge of the dominance of the car. 
 

This video is a great watch on research into motonormativity, otherwise known as ‘car-brain’.   

No-one is pitting pedestrians and cyclists against each other - don't be so daft. We are highlighting that pedestrians are at risk from cyclists.

Let me introduce you to a new concept "Cycle Brain" - where cycle lobbyists refuse to acknowledge that there is an increasing risk to pedestrians from cyclists.

Let's take a look at a classic example here from our dear friend at the Guardian Peter Walker: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/bike-blog/article/2024/may/21/uk-dangerous-cycling-offence-achieve-nothing

A piece purely designed to throw attention back onto cars - we see it every time anyone dares to suggest to the cycle lobby that can we please, as well as dealing with the issue of damage caused by cars, look at damage caused by cyclists. Immediately there is a pavlovian BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CARS!!! response - seemingly to deflect attention away from cars.

Now, here's another piece featuring someone called Peter Walker (not the Guardian journalist) but someone whose wife was killed by a cyclist and how ludicrous it was that her death was not investigated by the police accident investigation team because..."it wasn't involving a motorised vehicle". The police concluded that no crime had been committed by the cyclist but the bar for cycling offences is very, very high - way too high if you look at the case of Hilda Griffiths.

Given that you can ride at any speed on a bike and cite that as a defence it's clear the laws needed to be reviewed. Allied to that if anyone does get charged for injuring someone on a bike it is more often than not, under a law from 1861 entitled Wanton and Furious driving.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjr7rkgrpldo

So let's all agree that more needs to be done to reduce car accidents and death and injuries from that - and let me be clear for the 1,000th time - no-one is minimsing that or denying that. But can we also agree that the laws in relation to cycling need to be updated and that it is in all of our interests for people who kill or injure pedestrians whilst riding a bike face the full face of the law if they have been found to have cycled irresponsibly or that excessive speed was involved.

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

13 minutes ago, Rockets said:

it is in all of our interests for people who kill or injure pedestrians whilst riding a bike face the full face of the law if they have been found to have cycled irresponsibly or that excessive speed was involved.

This does happen. People are prosecuted and imprisoned where they have caused death or serious injuries when on a bike (which is thankfully rare). Probably in far greater proportions than car drivers ever face consequences frankly (as can be seen on the rapidly rising hit and run stats).

In 2021 there were around 7,708 hit and runs in London - more than 21 a day.

I 100% support anything that makes things safer for pedestrians and cyclists. But on the list of things you could focus efforts on to do this, speed limits for bicycles is not even in the top 10. In fact it could make we’ll make things worse (as discussed already).

Edited Monday at 12:25 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

Thanks Earl, another great example of Cycle Brain.....

The point remains - there are billions of pounds every year spent on making our roads safer in terms of vehicles, there are laws and monitoring in place to ensure compliance or catch those who break the laws and more clearly needs to be done.

If I go out in a car, drive at 25 mph in a 20mph zone hit and kill someone I will face the full face of the law and regardless of whether the pedestrian stepped out in front of me or not I would expect to be charged with dangerous driving.

If I go out on my bike, cycle at 25mph in a 20mph zone hit and kill someone in exactly the same circumstances I can claim the speed limit does not apply to me so speed cannot be used as a factor.

That is wrong and surely even you can acknowledge that?

[malumbu]

I was knocked down on Red Post Hill in the 90s cycling home.  Driver, speeding, tried to get through a gap that wasn't there.  Left me for dead knocking me into a parked  car.  Owner of the parked car said no worries, it's an old car, and drive me home.  Bike was written off, I was almost written off.  As said numerous times the only times I have nearly cycled into a pedestrian is when they walked into the road without looking.  The one that didn't even acknowledge that I had to brake swiftly I told I would run over next time, but other than that I've been stoic.  Cycling in an urban area I'm rarely above 20.  That'll km/h.

[Rockets]

1 minute ago, malumbu said:

The one that didn't even acknowledge that I had to brake swiftly I told I would run over next time, but other than that I've been stoic. 

Ha ha, if you'd been in a car and threatened to run someone over you'd probably have left yourself open to a threatening behaviour charge or using a car as a weapon or maybe ended-up in a Jeremy Vine video. You really should not be threatening to run anyone over even when on a bike.....perhaps you were just doing your bit for cyclist/pedestrian relations....or maybe the red mist descended....

[Earl Aelfheah]

@rockets - does it matter whether stricter regulation of bicycles leads to more dangerous roads, or is it just a matter of high principle?

[Spartacus]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Would you place the same regulations on Trucks, cars, motorbikes, push bikes and horses? This is not what happens and for obvious reasons.

Well that's a new one, somehow you've turned the usual whataboutmotorists bleat into whatabouthorses 

Somehow I can't see Jodpher Jerks, the equivalent slur to Lycra Louts,  riding rampage through the streets of Southwark 😅

[Rockets]

51 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

does it matter whether stricter regulation of bicycles leads to more dangerous roads, or is it just a matter of high principle?

Surely stricter regulation of bicycles leads to safer roads? 

[Earl Aelfheah]

18 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

Well that's a new one, somehow you've turned the usual whataboutmotorists bleat into whatabouthorses 

Somehow I can't see Jodpher Jerks, the equivalent slur to Lycra Louts,  riding rampage through the streets of Southwark 😅

Oh, so you don't think it "should be one set of rules for all road users"? Why is that? 

[Spartacus]

15 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Surely stricter regulation of bicycles leads to safer roads? 

You would have though, but logic doesn't exist on EarlsWorld (its not a new fun theme park by the way) 

2 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Oh, so you don't think it "should be one set of rules for all road users"? Why is that? 

How on earth do you come up with that 

What's in the pipe you are smoking? 

Edited Monday at 14:05 by Spartacus

[Earl Aelfheah]

47 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Surely stricter regulation of bicycles leads to safer roads? 

Every cycle trip that is a switch from car use means fewer injuries and deaths (motor vehicles are more dangerous to others by several orders of magnitude).

There is a well documented 'safety in numbers' effect for cyclists themselves too.

In short, more people cycling leads to safer streets for everyone.

There is strong evidence that stricter regulation of bicycles represents a barrier to cycling and reduces uptake.

So if a whole new regime of regulation and enforcement reduced the popularity of cycling, even by small amounts, it would reduce road safety.

And that's ignoring the time, energy, money and focus that implementing such a scheme would divert from tackling far more impactful interventions (although these are things you would object to as they would invariably involve tackling dangerous driving).

So again, does it matter whether stricter regulation of bicycles leads to more dangerous roads in practice, or is it just a matter of high principle?

33 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

34 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Oh, so you don't think it "should be one set of rules for all road users"? Why is that? 

How on earth do you come up with that 

What's in the pipe you are smoking? 

Edited 1 minute ago by Spartacus

Great. Good to be clear. So if you believe that there should be one set of rules for all road users, does that include applying the same age limits, speed restrictions, requirements for formal training / testing, insurance, tax etc? And should the same rules be applied to HGVs, as cars, vans, motorbikes, bicycles and horse riders?

You're the one wanting to test peoples logic apparently, so it would be good to be clear on yours.

Edited Monday at 14:38 by Earl Aelfheah

[Bicknell]

late to this but i agree with 20 mph for all road users

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, Bicknell said:

late to this but i agree with 20 mph for all road users

 

Is this in principle or practice. How would you enforce it and would it apply to all age groups?

Does it matter if it reduced uptake of cycling and made roads more dangerous?

Or is it just a matter of principle?

Edited Monday at 17:17 by Earl Aelfheah