Should cyclists have the same speed restrictions as motor vehicles?

[snowy]

Pondering how you fit a speedometer on a horse.

[Rockets]

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

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.

Sorry what a load of utter claptrap....you seem to be suggesting the moment someone gets on a bike they suddenly becoming impervious to causing accidents....and if every car journey was replaced by a journey on a bike then there would be zero accidents or injuries.....goodness me...

Here we have Cycle Brain of the Year!!!

[first mate]

20mph is largely self-enforcing; intermittent/ random enforcement works in other scenarios, so can work in regard to cycling too.

Small children are likely to have an adult to guide them, though is toddlers can cycle over 20mph then that is impressive!

Older children can make use of a mobile phone with speedometer app but training by some of your fave organisations might also help here. 

No reason why parking wardens could not be trained up to ticket traffic offences like jumping red lights as well as speeding 20mph zones, cycling on non cycle pavements. I think 20mph zones can be controlled via bye laws?

Just don't see how applying the same speed limit to all road users would makes roads more dangerous, nor can I see how it would deter people from cycling? 
 
One of the most risky aspects of cycling I have encountered while cycling is having another cyclist zoom past, at close quarters, with no warning at all- these are generally, but not always, e-bike users. You already know about my experiences as a pedestrian on the receiving end of careless/ reckless cycling behaviour.

 

[malumbu]

It's been explained many times, but you are very closed mind.  Force of impact depends on mass and velocity.  As bikes with rider weigh around 5 percent of a car then a collision with a human will do a lot less damage.  This will not eliminate collisions, and ultimately would increase bike on bike, but the severity would be less.

So there is a limited debate on speed control and bikes where the argument can be summed up as a speed limit would be disproportionate to the harm, impractical, unlikely to have a significant impact and expensive.  It would not get through the tests on new legislation.  Frankly it would be an embarrassment.

But this whole thread is polarised as a small number of you are angry about LTNs, ULEZ extension, CPZs, school streets and even bus lane and want to put the blame, in part, on cyclists as whole, cycling groups, road safety campaigners, health benefits of active travel and those wanting to address climate change and poor air quality. 

And use a tiny number of cases when very few riders will regularly exceed 20 mph let alone 20 kmh on our roads.

Surreal.

Edited to add, that was responding to Rockets post

[Earl Aelfheah]

26 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Sorry what a load of utter claptrap....you seem to be suggesting the moment someone gets on a bike they suddenly becoming impervious to causing accidents....and if every car journey was replaced by a journey on a bike then there would be zero accidents or injuries.....goodness me...

I have not suggested that at all. I have stated a fact; That bicycles pose a far lower risk to others than a motor vehicle. So the more you incentivise people to swap a journey by bicycle for one in a car, you increase the risk to others. If you think that's 'claptrap', then I can't really help you. Perhaps look at the data, or think about the physics.

26 minutes ago, first mate said:

20mph is largely self-enforcing; intermittent/ random enforcement works in other scenarios, so can work in regard to cycling too.

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

[snowy]

Ok, so you want one handed cyclists at all time? The other hand holding a phone? What do you do if you don't have a phone?

do you realise that your law would have to be UK wide and not limited to LB Southwark? It appears not. 
 

The rest just appears to rewrite current uk law enforcement powers- traffic wardens have authority over vehicle parking and that's it. 
 

Please, please take your suggestions to the next SNT meeting and let us know what they say!

22 minutes ago, first mate said:

20mph is largely self-enforcing; intermittent/ random enforcement works in other scenarios, so can work in regard to cycling too.

Small children are likely to have an adult to guide them, though is toddlers can cycle over 20mph then that is impressive!

Older children can make use of a mobile phone with speedometer app but training by some of your fave organisations might also help here. 

No reason why parking wardens could not be trained up to ticket traffic offences like jumping red lights as well as speeding 20mph zones, cycling on non cycle pavements. I think 20mph zones can be controlled via bye laws?

Just don't see how applying the same speed limit to all road users would makes roads more dangerous, nor can I see how it would deter people from cycling? 
 
One of the most risky aspects of cycling I have encountered while cycling is having another cyclist zoom past, at close quarters, with no warning at all- these are generally, but not always, e-bike users. You already know about my experiences as a pedestrian on the receiving end of careless/ reckless cycling behaviour.

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

There is absolutely no point in changing the law unless you can enforce it effectively, and that really means fitting all bicycles with speedometers and having a system of licencing. Ultimately, both of these things would disincentive cycling and if it leads to even a small fall in uptake / some journeys being swapped out for cars, would be entirely counterproductive.

And again, it's the same people demanding more regulation for (objectively) one of the most benign forms of transport, whilst raging against enforcement of current traffic laws for one of the most dangerous. All feels very, very cynical.

Edited Monday at 17:16 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

30 minutes ago, snowy said:

Ok, so you want one handed cyclists at all time? The other hand holding a phone?

Well, given that is not an offence to cycle whilst using a phone it's probably a good idea....I see plenty, on Lime bikes in particular, doing so concentrating more on their phone than what is ahead of them....

On a serious note do you think that is something that doesn't need to be changed?

[first mate]

I feel sure it would be easy to get an app that provides a beep, when a speed limit is exceeded. So you do not have to carry the phone in one hand at all, you just need to be able to hear a beep. That aside, many cyclists mount their phone onto the handle bars. As we know, hire e-bikes already have speed limiters. That said, if cycling speed is not an issue, I wonder why that is?

On the contrary, far from disincentivising cycling, a bit more structure and regulation might make it feel a bit less like the wild west, where anything goes.

This evening, counted 5 cyclists, two of them younger teenagers by the look of it, running red lights at dusk.

 

Edited Monday at 17:44 by first mate

[Earl Aelfheah]

@Rockets 

I am fascinated by your belief that if people swap out journeys by bicycle for journeys by car, that it doesn’t increase the overall risk to others.

Do you really not accept that every trip which is cycled rather than undertaken in a motor vehicle reduces the danger to other people? 

Edited Monday at 17:39 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

Hang on, given current trends in cycling behaviour locally the risk to pedestrians might increase if more people cycle as they are doing. For the most part, cars do not routinely drive on local pavements, nor have I seen a cars running red lights with the same frequency, locally; granted that is just what I have seen.

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, malumbu said:

It's been explained many times, but you are very closed mind.  Force of impact depends on mass and velocity.  As bikes with rider weigh around 5 percent of a car then a collision with a human will do a lot less damage. 

But Malumbu - maybe you should open your mind a little. Consider this: do you need the mass or velocity of a car to knock someone over, or to make them stumble and fall? No. Of course not. With many of the deaths caused to pedestrians by cyclists it is not the collision but the fall that does the damage. You may have noticed that many of those who have been killed are elderly and as First Mate rightly points out you often don't know there is a bike approaching you at speed until it goes past you. 

[malumbu]

Of course I did.  There are always freak deaths, a scuffle outside a pub and someone falls awkwardly.

On the whole ......

Young children find it difficult to judge speed, hence one case for 20mph zones.  As I keep saying, but it falls on deaf ears, you would struggle to find many cyclists going over 20mph in the area.  Perhaps you should invest in a speed gun and do your own sample.  You could then report back something new. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

@Rockets 

I am fascinated by your belief that if people swap out journeys by bicycle for journeys by car, that it doesn’t increase the overall risk to others.

Do you really not accept that every trip which is cycled rather than undertaken in a motor vehicle reduces the danger to other people? 

Any answer to this Rocks? I feel like we be close to a breakthrough 🤣

[Rockets]

41 minutes ago, malumbu said:

There are always freak deaths, a scuffle outside a pub and someone falls awkwardly.

And what happens if you have a scuffle outside a pub, someone falls awkwardly and they then die?

The more you post the more blinkered it appears you are.

 

16 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Any answer to this Rocks? I feel like we be close to a breakthrough 🤣

Earl, I have completely lost track of the point you are trying to make and, I suspect, you have to now. You're tying yourself in knots in the vain hope of continuing an argument - it's all getting a little surreal now.

[Earl Aelfheah]

51 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Earl, I have completely lost track of the point you are trying to make

Oh I see. So you’re ducking the question? 

I can repeat it: You described the idea that if people swap out journeys made by bicycle for journeys made by car, that it increases the overall risk to others, as ‘claptrap’.

So the clarification I have: do you really not believe that the same trip made by bike and by car pose different risks to others?  That the motor vehicle carries more risk?

Edited Monday at 20:29 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

Earl, you're going round and round in ever decreasing circles. You're not making any sense anymore.

[Earl Aelfheah]

It’s a question. You don’t understand it, or you don’t want to answer it?

Do you not believe that the same trip, made by bike and by car, pose different risks to others? 

[Rockets]

You're not making any sense any more and rambling. Even I have lost the will to argue with you right now.

[Earl Aelfheah]

You don’t want to answer, because you fully understand the question.

Do you not believe that the same trip, made by bike and by car, pose different risks to others? 

[Bicknell]

 depends on the speed i think

[Rockets]

46 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

You don’t want to answer, because you fully understand the question.

Nah, just tired of your silly troll games.

[Earl Aelfheah]

It’s so obvious why you won’t answer. Because you understand the implications for measures which might encourage people to swap out journeys by bicycle for journeys by car on road safety.  

Edited Monday at 23:09 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

I won't answer because I can no longer decipher the riddles you set. I actually think you might need some time off from the forum. Honestly - your posts have become particularly strange the last few weeks and today with your repeated starting of new threads things are starting to get very odd.

[Earl Aelfheah]

It is an incredibly complex riddle to decipher. 🤣😂

…or perhaps a very simple question you’re ducking 🤔 

Edited Monday at 23:06 by Earl Aelfheah