Should cyclists have the same speed restrictions as motor vehicles?

[Earl Aelfheah]

13 minutes ago, Rockets said:

There does seem to be a kind of red-light stopper camaraderie building amongst those of us who do stop though with some cyclists I have been waiting with using some very choice words to describe offenders who put both themselves and pedestrians at risk by cycling like idiots.

The vast majority of those travelling on bike do stop and find it very annoying when others don't in my experience. I also see people driving through on red in cars, although much less frequently (due to the increased likelihood of their being fined). I don't think its' anything about a 'tribe' - there is nothing inherently more selfish about 'cyclists', they're just people who travel by other means at other times.

The real issue should be how we make streets safer. This is why I get a bit bored of the wildly disproportionate attention given to what is by almost any objective measure one of the most benign transport choices, besides walking. What we need is more consideration in general, with a particular focus on tackling the most dangerous / destructive forms of road behaviour.

Edited January 10 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

23 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

The real issue should be how we make streets safer. This is why I get a bit bored of the wildly disproportionate attention given to what is by almost any objective measure one of the most benign transport choices, besides walking. What we need is more consideration in general, with a particular focus on tackling the most dangerous / destructive forms of road behaviour.

Earl, you're heading down the WHAT ABOUT THE CARS!! track here.

Vision Zero (https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/safety-and-security/road-safety/vision-zero-for-london) will require ALL modes of transport to be focused on, yes cars and other motorised vehicles need to take the main focus but every mode of transport that causes death and injuries needs to be addressed. We must not lose sight of that and this "well have you seen how many people cars kill and injure" narrative pedalled by the cycle lobby is nothing more than a deflection.

Clearly there is, some suggest, a growing (but it is very difficult to find any definitive published stats) issue of injuries caused by cyclists and they must be put under the same scrutiny as any other road user - not given an out because they are not cars.

[Earl Aelfheah]

To a degree yes. I’m pointing out that people claiming to be desperately concerned about road safety are choosing to focus almost exclusively on the use of bicycles (creating multiple threads), whilst repeatedly minimising any attempt to discuss the major cause of road deaths and injuries. That doesn’t seem to be particularly serious to me.

Edited January 13 by Earl Aelfheah

[Penguin68]

Maybe because this is an East Dulwich Forum site and we are discussing issues of concern in East Dulwich. Of which, thankfully, road deaths are not top of our agenda, whereas poor cycling is. Because of the local incidence levels. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, Penguin68 said:

Maybe because this is an East Dulwich Forum site and we are discussing issues of concern in East Dulwich. Of which, thankfully, road deaths are not top of our agenda, whereas poor cycling is. Because of the local incidence levels. 

We have a large number of collisions involving motor vehicles locally (which pose the most serious danger to other road users by several orders of magnitude). When there have been attempts to discuss the data on this, the same individuals obsessed with the 'menace' of people on bicycles, have sought to minimise or dismiss it.

There is a disproportionate obsession by some with the 'danger' of bicycles which suggests more of a personal axe to grind than any serious engagement with the issue of road safety.

Southwark had 168 KSIs (killed and serious injured) in 2022 (the most recent figures I could find with a quick google). This is not insignificant. 

Edited January 13 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

3 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

To a degree yes. I’m pointing out that people claiming to be desperately concerned about road safety are choosing to focus almost exclusively on the use of bicycles (creating multiple threads), whilst repeatedly minimising any attempt to discuss the major cause of road deaths and injuries. That doesn’t seem to be particularly serious to me.

But to be fair, could some also be accused of maximising the negative impact of cars? The go-to position of many in the cycle lobby is "well the problem with cyclists is not as bad as the problem with cars". It's almost as if they don't want to acknowledge any sort of issue.

I think the challenge is that many pedestrians in the Dulwich area are feeling increasingly put at risk by cyclists and bad cycling and we cannot silence their voice because..well...cars are worse and it doesn't suit our narrative.

The only way we will ever see Vision Zero is if everyone acknowledges where there are problems and does something about it.

[Earl Aelfheah]

4 minutes ago, Rockets said:

The only way we will ever see Vision Zero is if everyone acknowledges where there are problems and does something about it.

This is my point. If you are interested in achieving vision zero, then you need to address the major cause of death and serious injury (motor vehicles). 

We have numerous threads discussing inconsiderate behaviour by people travelling on bicycle (often whilst also minimising the very real (objectively measurable) danger posed by motor vehicles). That doesn't seem proportionate, or serious.

So those saying "yeah, that mouse is a nuisance, but shouldn't we talk about that massive elephant standing behind you?", are not being unreasonable.

[CPR Dave]

A different way to resolve these issues would be to decriminalise pre-emptive action taken against law breaking cyclists. 

If it was entirely legal to knock a cyclist off their bike when they run a red light, using whatever you have to hand, they might start to think twice about going through a green man when families are crossing with their children. 

I'm thinking particularly of the repeat offenders going through the EDR / CPR crossroads when people are trying to get to and from school.

[malumbu]

I assume that this is a joke.  Not a funny one.  Or if you mean this I'd be worried.

[Earl Aelfheah]

11 hours ago, CPR Dave said:

A different way to resolve these issues would be to decriminalise pre-emptive action taken against law breaking cyclists. 

If it was entirely legal to knock a cyclist off their bike when they run a red light, using whatever you have to hand, they might start to think twice about going through a green man when families are crossing with their children. 

I'm thinking particularly of the repeat offenders going through the EDR / CPR crossroads when people are trying to get to and from school.

And what 'pre-emptive action' would you propose for speeding motorists jumping the lights, those on their phones, or who drive under the influence of drink or drugs. Why this vitriol against road users only when they're behaving badly on a self propelled, 10 kg bicycle, but not when they're in a 2 ton, fast moving motor vehicle? It's the latter causing tens of thousands of serious injuries and deaths. Again, the focus of your outrage is completely disproportionate / misplaced. 

These pages - obsessed as they are with low level nuisance behaviour, whilst shutting down any examination of the main cause of road deaths and injuries, are depressing. The discussion feels like classic culture war nonsense; A really obvious form of deflection that loudly points the finger / vilifies a minority of relatively vulnerable road users, to stop any serious examination of the where the real danger is.

Edited January 14 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

3 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

obsessed as they are with low level nuisance behaviour

Low level nuisance behaviour...at what point does it not considered low level nuisance behaviour...when they hit someone? You're minimising this as much as those you accuse of doing so with cars (which I hasten to add no-one is doing). 

You seem determined not to admit there is a problem, which is very much part of the problem and why so many people get frustrated with the pro-cycle lobby - a selfish blinkerdness that does the cause no good at all.

[malumbu]

How many people have been hurt in the area because of unsociable cycling.  I expect a big fat zero.  Have you any evidence to the contrary?

[Earl Aelfheah]

3 hours ago, Rockets said:

Low level nuisance behaviour...at what point does it not considered low level nuisance behaviour...when they hit someone? You're minimising this as much as those you accuse of doing so with cars (which I hasten to add no-one is doing). 

You seem determined not to admit there is a problem, which is very much part of the problem and why so many people get frustrated with the pro-cycle lobby - a selfish blinkerdness that does the cause no good at all.

But we aren't talking about all the people on our streets getting hit. We've got people minimising thousands of actual road collisions, and KSIs, and instead, endlessly relaying anecdotes about how someone saw a cyclist on a pavement and they had the gall to say thanks as they wheeled past etc. 

If we flipped the focus, so that we had as many threads complaining about all the actual collisions, the property damage, the injuries and deaths which are a feature of our roads as we do the 'I saw a cyclist do something they shouldn't' ones, no one would complain about also having one dedicated to 'bicycle anecdotes'.

We're endlessly moaning about what a nuisance the mouse is, whilst ignoring the massive angry elephant.

Edited January 14 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

But this thread is about the problems posed by cyclists is it not?

Maybe set up a thread about cars as you seem to have a pavlovian response where anytime anyone talks about cyclists you scream BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CARS!! - maybe use that as the title of your car thread on the forum! 😉

[Earl Aelfheah]

15 minutes ago, Rockets said:

But this thread is about the problems posed by cyclists is it not?

Maybe set up a thread about cars as you seem to have a pavlovian response where anytime anyone talks about cyclists you scream BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CARS!! - maybe use that as the title of your car thread on the forum! 😉

It's not actually. It is a thread making a specific comparison between cars and bicycles.

... some would say drawing an entirely false equivalence. That's the point.

Edited January 14 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

But, on that very specific point, why would you object to it? What exactly is the issue with limiting cyclists (including e-bikes and scooters) to the same speed limit as cars. Or, to put it another way, why not have the same speed limit for all road users?

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

2 minutes ago, first mate said:

But, on that very specific point, why would you object to it? What exactly is the issue with limiting cyclists (including e-bikes and scooters) to the same speed limit as cars. Or, to put it another way, why not have the same speed limit for all road users?

 

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?

[Penguin68]

13 minutes ago, 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?

As regards speeds on urban roads, and indeed all other highway code etc. restrictions on urban roads, we do. It is only on motorways and dual carriage ways where HGVs have differing speed restrictions. 

And you are quite wrong to suggest that you would need licensing specifically  to restrict cyclist speeds. Only identification. Licensing is just one route to that. 

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

22 minutes ago, Penguin68 said:

As regards speeds on urban roads, and indeed all other highway code etc. restrictions on urban roads, we do. It is only on motorways and dual carriage ways where HGVs have differing speed restrictions. 

And you are quite wrong to suggest that you would need licensing specifically  to restrict cyclist speeds. Only identification. Licensing is just one route to that. 

 

This still ignores basic physics. A bicycle travelling at 10 mph doesn't remotely pose the same threat as a motor vehicle travelling at the same speed. And without licencing, there is no way I can see of enforcing speed limits.

But my biggest objection (as with these threads generally) is that it's displacement activity. It's focussing on a minor issue, whilst ignoring the really serious issue of people killed and seriously injured on our streets and the increasing incidence of hit and runs.

Edited January 14 by Earl Aelfheah

[snowy]

11 minutes ago, Penguin68 said:

As regards speeds on urban roads, and indeed all other highway code etc. restrictions on urban roads, we do. It is only on motorways and dual carriage ways where HGVs have differing speed restrictions. 

And you are quite wrong to suggest that you would need licensing specifically  to restrict cyclist speeds. Only identification. Licensing is just one route to that. 

 

This is incorrect. HGVs are limited to 50 on single carriageways, and are restricted access to specific roads in london according to the time of day. The rest of the post is just not really thought through.

[CPR Dave]

Licencing cyclists is a good idea so they can be fined for running red lights in the same way other road users are.

[Moovart]

4 hours ago, malumbu said:

How many people have been hurt in the area because of unsociable cycling.  I expect a big fat zero.  Have you any evidence to the contrary?

It's not a big fat zero....my neighbour couldn't work for a year following injuries from being knocked down by a bike riding at speed on the pavement....broken bones etc.  And no insurance company to make a claim against for loss of earnings.  The cyclist didn't stop.  So not zero, just saying.

[Earl Aelfheah]

5 minutes ago, CPR Dave said:

Licencing cyclists is a good idea so they can be fined for running red lights in the same way other road users are.

Even if it led to an decrease in the number of cyclists, an increase in all cause mortality, pollution and road injuries?

[first mate]

11 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

This still ignores basic physics. a bicycle travelling at 10 mph doesn't remotely pose the same threat as a motor vehicle. And without licencing, there is no way I can see of enforcing speed limits.

But my biggest objection (as with these threads generally) is that it's displacement activity. It's focussing on a minor issue, whilst ignoring the really serious issue of people killed and seriously injured on our streets and the increasing incidence of hit and runs.

 Prior to the significant influx of e-bikes you may have had a point. E-bikes muddy the waters and it is not always clear when an e-bike is souped up or not. Having the same speed limit for all road users would make things clearer, simpler and in the long term probably safer too. See no reason why e-bikes cannot be licensed. 

[Moovart]

Another thing is that we know where the motor vehicles are (most of the time) so most of us know what to do to avoid them.  But the unexpectedness of a bicycle coming at you on a pavement is what makes it hazardous and upsetting as you're just not expecting to see a vehicle at speed on the pavement.