Should cyclists have the same speed restrictions as motor vehicles?

[Rockets]

Malumbu, let's spin this on it's head. Can you tell me why you think cyclists should not observe speed limits? Anyone walking around Dulwich Park will see the vast majority of cyclists going above the 5mph speed limit - why do you think that is acceptable?

Also, do you think you should be able to be charged with causing death by dangerous cycling? A contentious politicised law change proposal pre-election but surely if anyone kills anyone else the individual has to be held accountable. Brian Fitzgerald killed Hilda Griffiths, was travelling way above the speed limit in his peleton, ignored a slow sign and walked away from court. If he was in a car he would have been charged with causing death by dangerous driving. Why not on a different mode of transport. Is that right? 

[malumbu]

You have just accused someone of murder.  I expect that you have transgressed the rules of this forum.  This was a matter for the courts not your opinion.  I'm not aware of anyone being hurt in Dulwich Park, or on Dulwich pavements following a collision with a cyclist. 

[Rockets]

4 minutes ago, malumbu said:

You have just accused someone of murder. 

No i haven't. I have said he killed her. He killed her by hitting her when he was travelling at high speed on his bike around Regent's Park. That's fact not opinion - the coroner recorded the death as an accidental cycling collision.

Come on Malumbu, why are you so afraid to answer the question? I think I know why because you know perfectly well that if it was a driver travelling at around 29mph in a 20mph zone that hit and killed a pedestrian they would be charged with causing death by dangerous driving.

So why not cyclists? Why should cyclists not be held responsible for their actions?

[first mate]

It is such a simple question, all the cycle lobbyists on here are swerving around like crazy.

I still don't understand why 20mph for all road users is not acceptable and such a problem? 

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, first mate said:

It is such a simple question, all the cycle lobbyists on here are swerving around like crazy.

I still don't understand why 20mph for all road users is not acceptable and such a problem? 

It hasn’t been swerved.

Without licensing it would be meaningless / unenforceable, and with licensing you would disincentivise cycling. This would encourage people to shift to more dangerous forms of motorised transport. For those who kept cycling, you would also reduce the well documented effect of ‘safety in numbers’ leading to more casualties. In other words, it would very likely be counterproductive.

But really the onus is on those who want to create new regulations to explain why it would be proportionate in terms of the time, cost, and impact,  and how tackling cyclists pedalling too fast should be a priority over other things. There is very little evidence (is there any), that people are regularly pedalling at speeds in excess of 20, 30, or 40 mph. Are speeding cyclists a big problem? Most people probably travel around on bike at about 12mph.

Also, a 10kg bicycle is not remotely as dangerous as a 2 ton vehicle when both are travelling at the same speed. Bicycles do not cause tens of thousands of deaths and serious injuries, or millions of pounds of property damage each year (no that doesn’t mean they can’t cause any damage Rockets). So it would be a hugely disproportionate thing to do, even without the inevitable, negative, unintended consequences (some of which I’ve pointed out above).

It’s why whenever it’s considered and assessed it’s quickly dismissed. For the cost of setting something like that up, you could actually do loads of other things that would have a far, far greater impact on road safety. The opportunity cost is ridiculous. 

No one has a problem with it in theory. Just in practice.

Edited Friday at 09:43 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

8 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Furthermore, there is very little evidence (is there any), that people are regularly pedalling at speeds in excess of 20, 30, or 40 mph). Is speeding really a problem? Most people probably travel around on bike at about 12mph. Also, a 10kg bicycle is not remotely as dangerous as a motor propelled, 2 ton vehicle when they are travelling at the same speed. Bicycles do not cause tens of thousands of deaths and serious injuries, or millions of pounds of property damage each year (no that doesn’t mean they can’t cause any damage Rockets). So it would be a hugely disproportionate thing to do, even without the inevitable, negative unintended consequences (some of which I’ve pointed out above).

But do you think that if you do hit and injure or kill someone whilst cycling at high speeds then you should be charged with dangerous cycling? The guy who killed Hilda Griffiths was shown, from his own Strava, of AVERAGING 25mph around the park with peak speeds of 29mph and he was ignoring slow signs. The coroner ruled it accidental but clearly his speed was a massive factor - and in the car world, at a minimum, that would be a charge of dangerous driving (and rightly so). Apparently Hilda had been telling her son how dangerous she felt the park had become due to cyclists travelling at high speed when she walked her dog.

32 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Furthermore, there is very little evidence (is there any), that people are regularly pedalling at speeds in excess of 20, 30, or 40 mph). Is speeding really a problem?

You'd be hard pressed to find a cyclist in Dulwich Park observing the 5mph speed limit and I have seen accidents as a result. Just a few weeks ago I saw a Lime bike rider hit a small child on a scooter in Dulwich Park (down towards the DV entrance around the area adjacent to tennis courts and toilets where cyclists have gathered the most speed) - thankfully both suffered no worse than cuts or bruises but still, if the Lime bike rider had been going under 5mph the accident would have been avoided. Granted we don't have pelotons of Stravas full kit wallies in Dulwich Park but there is still an issue.

[Earl Aelfheah]

6 minutes ago, Rockets said:

But do you think that if you do hit and injure or kill someone whilst cycling at high speeds then you should be charged with dangerous cycling?

I don't want to comment on a specific case that I don't know the details of. The judge will have seen all the evidence and I'm not going to assume he got it wrong based on some headlines (that's not to say he couldn't have got it wrong, just that I'm not in a position to second guess it with none of the facts). But in general, it is the case that people have been imprisoned for causing serious injury or even death as the result of cycling into people.

Edited Friday at 09:51 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

That is a swerve,Earl.

City Police have managed to fine cyclists for breaking the law, without licensing, so it is certainly possible.

[Earl Aelfheah]

14 minutes ago, Rockets said:

You'd be hard pressed to find a cyclist in Dulwich Park observing the 5mph speed limit and I have seen accidents as a result. Just a few weeks ago I saw a Lime bike rider hit a small child on a scooter in Dulwich Park (down towards the DV entrance around the area adjacent to tennis courts and toilets where cyclists have gathered the most speed) - thankfully both suffered no worse than cuts or bruises but still, if the Lime bike rider had been going under 5mph the accident would have been avoided. Granted we don't have pelotons of Stravas full kit wallies in Dulwich Park but there is still an issue.

A serious issue, but not really what we're talking about. We're talking about 20mph speed limits and upwards on public roads. If you were asked to prioritise actions to make our roads safer and reduce the number of casualties, are you willing to say that tackling people travelling on bicycle at more than 20mph is the priority? And that a system of bike licensing and enforcement is the right place to invest? I would be amazed if anyone actually believes that.

Edited Friday at 09:58 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

So why not have 20mph for all road users? As discussed, licensing not necessary? 

[Earl Aelfheah]

As you say, police can already fine people where they are behaving dangerously, which would include cycling faster than is safe in a particular context. I question the need for additional regulation. And I strongly suspect that new regulation would lead on to calls for improved enforcement, licensing, etc. 

If it were simply an update to the highway code saying 'cyclists should make every effort to judge their speed and adjust it to the road' or something like that I would have no problem with it. But bear in mind that most people don't have speedometers on their bicycles, and most people don't' cycle at above 20, or 30 mph (I would suggest very, very few people do).

I really question why, when you look at the issues on our roads, (the tens of thousands of deaths and serious injuries, and millions of pounds of property damage each year caused by motor vehicles, the thousands of hit and runs which are rising in number) anyone would consider this to be the priority? As has already been said, people who hurt others when using a bicycle are prosecuted and can be imprisoned. It is rare, because the incidents are rare. I cannot understand how one can look at the data around road safety and think "you know what the most pressing issue is here? People cycling at over 20mph".

Dare I say it, as with much of this section of the forum, the debate feels driven largely by tribalism, rather than any serious engagement in how road safety could be most quickly and effectively improved.

Edited Friday at 10:27 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

41 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I cannot understand how one can look at the data around road safety and think "you know what the most pressing issue is here? People cycling at over 20mph".

Of course you can't and no-one would expect you, of all people, to take the pragmatic approach but according to TFL in their 2023 report, deaths and serious injuries caused by cars in London are at their lowest ever and continuing to decline. Of course, there is still risk and more needs to be done but, I bet if you polled pedestrians in Dulwich they would say they feel an increasing threat from cyclists.

Just wander through Dulwich Park around school drop off or pick-up and look at the number of pedestrians looking over their shoulders as a cargo bike (with the pilot doing that really scary cargo bike lean you see so often) hurtling past them with great velocity or a heavy Lime bike being ridden by a school kid at top speed weaving in between pedestrians.

49 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Dare I say it, as with much of this section of the forum, the debate feels driven largely by tribalism, rather than any serious engagement in how road safety could be most quickly and effectively improved.

Yes and the tribalism seems to come mainly from those who only want to focus on cars and aren't prepared to admit that there is a growing problem with bad and dangerous cycling. Vision Zero will only happen when ALL dangers are acknowledged, understood and actioned.

51 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

As has already been said, people who hurt others when using a bicycle are prosecuted and can be imprisoned.

Only when an offence has taken place. A cyclist was jailed for 18 months for killing a pedestrian because he was riding an illegal single-speed bike with it's front brake removed - that's what made it illegal and why he went to prison. The guy in Regent's Park who killed Hilda Griffiths could not be arrested or charged by police because the speed limit "does not apply to bikes" - yet is was his speed that caused the accident. You see why people are saying the laws need to be amended?

[Earl Aelfheah]

10 minutes ago, Rockets said:

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I cannot understand how one can look at the data around road safety and think "you know what the most pressing issue is here? People cycling at over 20mph".

Of course you can't and no-one would expect you, of all people, to take the pragmatic approach but according to TFL in their 2023 report, deaths and serious injuries caused by cars in London are at their lowest ever and continuing to decline. Of course, there is still risk and more needs to be done but, I bet if you polled pedestrians in Dulwich they would say they feel an increasing threat from cyclists.

So just to be clear, you do think that the most pressing road safety issue is people cycling over 20 mph? Is that correct?

10 minutes ago, Rockets said:

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

As has already been said, people who hurt others when using a bicycle are prosecuted and can be imprisoned.

Only when an offence has taken place.

Well yes. People can't be prosecuted and imprisoned for hurting others if they haven't hurt others.

As pointed out by First Mate, the police do also stop and fine people for cycling dangerously.

10 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Vision Zero will only happen when ALL dangers are acknowledged, understood and actioned.

Have you actually read Vision Zero?: 

"At its heart is a bold aim for 80% of all trips in London to be made on foot, by cycle or using public transport by 2041."

Not sure that moves which are likely to lead to bicycle licencing and disincentives the use of cycles are going to help.

Edited Friday at 11:34 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

No. I can see you are trying to put words into my mouth...again....please stop doing that it does you no favours.

So let me be really clear to you:

• There is a serious risk still posed by vehicles (the data shows that the risk is declining and at it's lowest on record - bar lockdown) but it is still something that needs addressing to reduce it to zero
• There is a growing risk posed by cycles (and there appear to be a lot of people who don't want to acknowledge this or address it). Why? Because they think it might hinder cycle growth.

Is that clear enough for you?

Let me ask you a question to get a direct response: do you think it is ok to cycle over 20mph, hit and kill and pedestrian due to the speed and there be no recourse because "the speed limit does not apply to cycles"?

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I cannot understand how one can look at the data around road safety and think "you know what the most pressing issue is here? People cycling at over 20mph".

Of course you can't and no-one would expect you, of all people, to take the pragmatic approach

No, I am very clearly not putting words in your mouth. In fact I am quoting your words and asking you to clarify what they mean, if not what they appear to mean. As the above does sound very much like a criticism of the idea that people cycling over 20mph might not be the most pressing issue. The clear implication being that you believe it is.

Edited Friday at 12:51 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

And then you ignore the clarification I posted especially for you and refuse to answer my question!!! 😉 #facepalmemoji

I think I prefer you when you pretended to be One Dulwich!!! 😉

[fishboy]

I will admit to not having read every post in this thread, but I felt I had to point out something relevant that I don't think has been mentioned, and is often not addressed in these kinds of exchanges.

I think we can all agree that, in general, cycling is A Good Thing - for exercise, travel, enjoyment, environment. I think we can also agree that most people who use bikes are Good People, who observe the highway code, have lights, indicate etc.

In all areas of life, there are a minority of people who are selfish, inconsiderate, thoughtless and arrogant, who believe that rules don't apply to them and they can do what they want, when they want. This attitude may be cultivated from background, society, media, genetics - who knows?

This attitude & behaviour manifests itself in many ways, depending on the situation. The person who plays loud music on the bus. The person who has a loud conversation on their mobiles. The person who parks in disabled or family spaces without a permit or kids. The person (eg minicabs) who obstruct a busy road by double parking  with their hazard lights on. The person who leaves their Lime bike in the middle of the pavement. The person who doesn't pick up their dog's excrement in the park. The person who rides their bike too fast, or through red lights while pedestrians are crossing.

So I think my point is - it's not a licensing thing, or a regulatory thing, it's a social thing. The issue has nothing to do with what form of transport anyone is using, it's about that individual person and their inconsiderate attitude. Don't penalise everyone just because of the actions of a few, who will always behave in that manner whatever they're doing.

I have no idea what the answer is, how to educate these people that being an antisocial d**k really isn't acceptable...

[Earl Aelfheah]

39 minutes ago, Rockets said:

do you think it is ok to cycle over 20mph, hit and kill and pedestrian

What a ridiculous (and typically insulting) question. Of course I don't think it's OK for a cyclist to hit and kill a pedestrian. The difference is, that I don't think it's OK for anyone to hit and kill a pedestrian. I'm interested in action to reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries. Your proposal could very well take resources away from much more effective action, and might even make cycling more dangerous and see a shift toward more journeys being undertaken by car - again, increasing the number of KSIs. I'm not interested in tribalism, but pragmatic and rational, evidence based actions. On the second part of your question:

39 minutes ago, Rockets said:

due to the speed and there be no recourse because "the speed limit does not apply to cycles"?

This is speculating on a specific case I know nothing about, which I already said I wouldn't do.  It seems unlikely to me that the judge did not take account of all the circumstances, including the speed, and I'm not going to pretend I have the facts based on some newspaper headlines. I suspect there is quite a lot more to the story than the Mail reports. This Guardian article perhaps suggests there may be more nuance to it.

39 minutes ago, Rockets said:

you are trying to put words into my mouth.

Are you saying that despite your previous words, that you do not consider people cycling over 20mph to be the most pressing road safety issue?

I would really like you to clarify this, as it very much did sound from your previous post that you did.

Edited Friday at 12:14 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

10 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

This is speculating on a specific case I know nothing about, which I already said I wouldn't do.  It seems unlikely to me that the judge did not take account of all the circumstances, including the speed, and I'm not going to pretend I have the facts based on some newspaper headlines.

That reads like a cop out from you Earl....;-)

Here's the detail:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/cyclist-avoids-conviction-fatal-crash-dog-walker-regents-park-b1155776.html

have a read, educate yourself and then respond! 😉

16 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Your proposal could very well take resources away from much more effective action, and might even make cycling more dangerous and see a shift toward more journeys being undertaken by car - again, increasing the number of KSIs.

How exactly? Surely if you are raising revenue from bad cycling that can be channelled into making improvements to cycle infrastructure etc. That's how is works with vehicle PCN revenue-generation so why not cycling?

 

19 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I'm not interested in tribalism, but pragmatic and rational, evidence based actions.

Ha ha...no you're not. I am not convinced anything you have said backs this up. You're interested in only one part of the problem and are happy to turn a blind eye to the other.

[Earl Aelfheah]

37 minutes ago, Rockets said:

That reads like a cop out from you Earl....;-)

Here's the detail:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/cyclist-avoids-conviction-fatal-crash-dog-walker-regents-park-b1155776.html

An article in the Standard is not 'having all the facts'. An eyewitness testified it had not been the cyclist’s fault, and the coroner found that the collision had been an accident. I don't' know whether that's correct or not, but I don't think we can assume it isn't.

Edited Friday at 12:52 by Earl Aelfheah

[Sue]

15 hours ago, march46 said:

20mph zones really aren’t self enforcing, as this worrying local example from today illustrates.

 

I saw that, but what most concerned me was that when she immediately reported it to the police, with a description of the driver and the car, plus the reg number, she said they did not show much interest.

That of itself doesn't mean they then did nothing, but it's concerning. Particularly as,  according to other posts on that thread, this man has been involved in a number of very aggressive driving incidents recently. And I think some of those had also been reported to the police.

[snowy]

29 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Of course you can't and no-one would expect you, of all people, to take the pragmatic approach but according to TFL in their 2023 report, deaths and serious injuries caused by cars in London are at their lowest ever and continuing to decline. Of course, there is still risk and more needs to be done but, I bet if you polled pedestrians in Dulwich they would say they feel an increasing threat from cyclists.

Just wander through Dulwich Park around school drop off or pick-up and look at the number of pedestrians looking over their shoulders as a cargo bike (with the pilot doing that really scary cargo bike lean you see so often) hurtling past them with great velocity or a heavy Lime bike being ridden by a school kid at top speed weaving in between pedestrians.

Yes and the tribalism seems to come mainly from those who only want to focus on cars and aren't prepared to admit that there is a growing problem with bad and dangerous cycling. Vision Zero will only happen when ALL dangers are acknowledged, understood and actioned.

Only when an offence has taken place. A cyclist was jailed for 18 months for killing a pedestrian because he was riding an illegal single-speed bike with it's front brake removed - that's what made it illegal and why he went to prison. The guy in Regent's Park who killed Hilda Griffiths could not be arrested or charged by police because the speed limit "does not apply to bikes" - yet is was his speed that caused the accident. You see why people are saying the laws need to be amended?

You continue to misrepresent the results and conclusions of both the inquest and court case in this death to suit your agenda. 

[Rockets]

Earl - but speed was clearly a factor in the accident wasn't it? And if this is a car driver that's a charge of careless/dangerous driving is it not....?

 

Mr Fitzgerald told Inner West London Coroners Court this week that he had “zero reaction time” when he reached the traffic island where Ms Griffiths stepped out. 

He said: “I believe legally the speed limit doesn’t apply to cyclists [the same] as motorists.”

He added: “I’ve never seen any police in the park having any objections to the speed cyclists travel at.”

Mr Fitzgerald expressed his “sympathies” to the family of Ms Griffiths. 

He additionally said he was “unsure” if there were any road markings warning cyclists to slow down. A photo shown to the court showed there had been one on the approach.

However, Mr Fitzgerald said she had not looked when stepping out from the traffic island and this left only 2m for him to break to a halt from a speed of 25-29mph. A jogger who witnessed the incident backed up his account, saying it was not his fault.

1 minute ago, snowy said:

You continue to misrepresent the results and conclusions of both the inquest and court case in this death to suit your agenda. 

Do feel free to redress the balance then....

[Earl Aelfheah]

Rockets. You don't have all the facts of this tragic case. Both the coroner and an eye witness said the incident wasn't the cyclists fault. A partial account from a newspaper article does not put you in a position to second guess the judgement.

Again, I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the judgement that was reached, (I am not close to the detail of this case anymore than you are), but I don't think we can assume it is wrong.

58 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Are you saying that despite your previous words, that you do not consider people cycling over 20mph to be the most pressing road safety issue?

I would really like you to clarify this, as it very much did sound from your previous post that you did.

Any chance that you might answer this? When challenged on things you've said, you always jump up and down and say you're being misrepresented, but then decline to clarify or correct their apparent meaning.

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

Vision Zero will only happen when ALL dangers are acknowledged, understood and actioned.

I'm really glad that you now support Vision Zero, as you have, across many threads, opposed nearly all of the actions linked to it: Vision Zero action plan

This bit from the Vision Zero plan is quite interesting, considering your mockery of the idea that some vehicle pose a greater danger than others:

Quote

Some vehicles pose a greater danger than others

The majority of pedestrian casualties (of all severities) involve a car, but those involving HGVs and buses are disproportionately likely to result in fatality. Of the 69 pedestrians and cyclists killed in London in 2016, 27 were involved in a collision with an HGV or a bus.5 For motorcyclists, it was five out of a total of 33 fatalities. The severity of these collisions increases significantly the faster the vehicle is moving

 

Edited Friday at 12:53 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

3 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

As you say, police can already fine people where they are behaving dangerously, which would include cycling faster than is safe in a particular context. I question the need for additional regulation

But they cannot be fined for exceeding 20mph in 20mph zone if the speed limit does not apply to cyclists?

Again, no licensing required, just apply the same speed limit to all road users. 

Can we also conclude from what you say that cyclists going through a red light is cycling dangerously? This is what City Police were fining cyclists for?

Edited Friday at 13:26 by first mate