Should cyclists have the same speed restrictions as motor vehicles?

[Earl Aelfheah]

39 minutes ago, first mate said:

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?

Of course it's dangerous. And yes, as you say, cyclists do get fined for this.

40 minutes ago, first mate said:

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

Yes, it sounds very simple doesn't it; Except bicycles don't have speedometers and don't have licence plates. They also don't have and age limit. 

I've already said that I would have no issue with a change to the highway code, but if you're serious about enforcing a change in the law, then it isn't as simplistic as you make out.

More importantly, is there nothing better you could think of, to spend the time, effort and money on, to reduce the thousands of deaths and serious injuries, or millions in property damage each year on our roads? Because I question whether focussing resources on trying to slow down a small number of cyclists exceeding 20 mph is going to do much, if anything, to significantly reduce them.

Out of interest, what do you think would improve road safety more - prioritising slowing down cyclists, or motorcars? Because of course, outside of the silly footballification stuff, we all know the answer to that.

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

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.

But speed was clearly an issue was it not - I mean a newspaper can't spin court testimony can they? Anyway Snowy has all the facts and we eagerly await them to impart the things we missed.....

To be fair Earl, if we were talking about a car you'd be taking a very different position. It seems that a healthy dose of hypocrisy might be being applied here.

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

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.

But I did clarify my position. Let's be honest my position was clear from the beginning and only you seemed to interpret things in a way to suit your, ahem, "debating" style....but that's what you do so no surprises there.

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

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:

Again, only in your mind.

[malumbu]

14 hours ago, Rockets said:

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?

It's so sad that you have to resort to a personal tragedy to support your views.  I only refer to those killed and seriously injured in terms of numbers.  I am not going to trawl the internet looking for individuals names who died after being hit by a motor vehicle.

Step back and see what you have become in your 'mission'

[Earl Aelfheah]

4 minutes ago, Rockets said:

To be fair Earl, if we were talking about a car you'd be taking a very different position. It seems that a healthy dose of hypocrisy might be being applied here.

This is nonsense. I am just not interested in second guessing the outcome of any inquiry where I don't have all the facts. We know enough about the macro picture to have a debate about road safety, without blundering into specific tragedies to try and prove something. It's pretty unpleasant tbh.

[snowy]

2 hours ago, Rockets said:

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.

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

I frankly don't have enough time to continually fact check the inaccuracies in your posts.
 

But given in this instance you're using someone's death as a fallacious debating point i will dig out the legal summaries and share them later so other readers can see what you are doing. 

[Rockets]

7 minutes ago, snowy said:

But given in this instance you're using someone's death as a fallacious debating point i will dig out the legal summaries and share them later so other readers can see what you are doing. 

Excellent - I look forward to it.

I must admit, I am kind of disappointed because your post (which said: You continue to misrepresent the results and conclusions of both the inquest and court case in this death to suit your agenda) kind of suggested you had already done your research and were coming from a position of knowledge so I am kind of surprised you are having to go hunting for your defence.

[snowy]

We've already discussed this before so apologies for not having the two website addresses to hand.

Edited January 17 by snowy

[first mate]

Earl said: "Out of interest, what do you think would improve road safety more - prioritising slowing down cyclists, or motorcars? Because of course, outside of the silly footballification stuff, we all know the answer to that."

Let's do both, however to do that we just need to apply the same speed to all road users. 

I am not a champion of dangerous driving or cycling, I want it all to be addressed and a universal speed limit is a sensible first point of action.

As I have said before, I think that on the cycling front there are too many grey areas and that leads to careless behaviour and the more people see others getting away with it, the more people will follow suit. Surely you do not want this to increase; if not addressed it will. What is the point of increasing risks all round, adding to those already presented by cars, by turning blind eye?

As a seasoned cyclist I am amazed you are not aware of speedometer apps;

 

 

 

 

Edited January 17 by first mate

[malumbu]

On 14/01/2025 at 22:53, Rockets said:

As someone who has spent time running training courses for cycling do you think there needs to be more focus on educating cyclists - is this a lack of road sense issue?

@Rockets what courses did you run?  As someone who appears to have championed cycling what turned you against the fraternity?  It may explain why you are so active on this issue.

I've said numerous times that training, and education, is important.  Government is nowhere near meeting earlier Johnson commitment that every child will have the opportunity to receive training - https://www.gov.uk/government/news/every-child-in-england-to-be-offered-cycle-training Neither the Tories or Labour had anything specific in their manisfestos

I'll keep asking the above questions until I get an answer!

[Rockets]

Malumbu, I was asking you as didn’t you teach cycling to school children? I didn’t say I had run courses…..

[snowy]

Lol, we have reached suggesting compulsory gps devices for anyone who ever gets on a bike?

All for an issue that doesn't even get raised at the Safer Neighborhood Team monthly local issues list?

Thats an authoritarian's dream (or more likely a tech bro's).

Aside from pondering where to mount the display on a unicycle, what happens if the battery runs out? Are you walking home? Do children have to have one too? 
 

Do you realise that UK laws are applied to all of the UK and not just East Dulwich? With that in mind Can you think of any topological, technical or physical or privacy reasons why it wouldn't work?

I guess the plus side is that you can use it in cars and auto fine speed transgressions...

[malumbu]

All of us who received the COVID vaccination have a microchip so very easy to track us. 

[first mate]

Given all the concerns raised here about motorists, I 'd guess young children are not going to be cycling alone, so the majority will have an adult with them. Older children will almost certainly have a mobile phone and the ability to download a GPS app.

I thought 20mph could be set and controlled by local bye laws?

Snowy, not sure what the relevance of batteries running out or unicycles is?

I'm also waiting for you to dig out that information you say you have, but don't have time to find, on the case discussed by Rockets?

Edited January 18 by first mate

[snowy]

I didn't have the time as i was too busy laughing at the Liz Truss style policy development...

[Spartacus]

13 hours ago, snowy said:

Lol, we have reached suggesting compulsory gps devices for anyone who ever gets on a bike?

.....

Aside from pondering where to mount the display on a unicycle, what happens if the battery runs out? Are you walking home? Do children have to have one too? 

If you have a mobile phone then you are already capable of being tracked using your relative location to phone masts or your WiFi usage. 

On top of that a lot of cyclists use gps apps to track their route and speeds. 

Most people make sure their phone battery lasts the day so technically it's not a radical shift, privacy laws not withstanding, for your movement and speed to be tracked by your phone, be it on foot, car or bike. 

Big brother is already here 😅

 

Edited January 18 by Spartacus

[Penguin68]

23 hours ago, malumbu said:

  I am not going to trawl the internet looking for individuals names who died after being hit by a motor vehicle.

But the point being constantly made by your side is that cycling is virtually risk free and poses no dangers, you've argued if I recall about relative weights of vehicles. Nobody suggests that cars can't kill. Numbers of posters do seem to suggest that bikes can't. Clearly combine fast speeds with the weight of bike and rider and they can kill. 

[Rockets]

Penguin - spot on.

They tell us there isn't an issue. They tell us it doesn't happen. They tell us bikes do not pose danger to pedestrians and that a bike can't do the same damage as a car and so there is no need for a change in regulations or laws because "it might hinder the growth in cycling". They tell us there are far greater risks so we should not try to remedy or mitigate the risk. We show them it happens. We show them that cyclists can pose a threat to pedestrians. We show them a very real example where speed of the cyclist was a key factor and where a pedestrian was killed by a cyclist. We show them how the law offers no protection to pedestrians when this happens and how there is no way for tje law to hold cyclists to account in such circumstances.

They tell us we have manipulated the facts of the case and they promise proof. They chastise us for talking about the case. They try to force everyone to refer to any accident involving a car as a crash yet refer to bike crashes as tragic incidents.

Any yet, despite all of the above, they have the audacity to accuse us of manipulating things to wage a culture war. This is the cult of cycling.

[malumbu]

1 hour ago, Penguin68 said:

But the point being constantly made by your side is that cycling is virtually risk free and poses no dangers, you've argued if I recall about relative weights of vehicles. Nobody suggests that cars can't kill. Numbers of posters do seem to suggest that bikes can't. Clearly combine fast speeds with the weight of bike and rider and they can kill. 

The point is I don't name people who are killed.  That crossed lines.  Still no admission that this was taking a debate on social media, ie for the world to see, too far.

[Rockets]

Malumbu. What on earth are you babbling on about? 

51 minutes ago, malumbu said:

Still no admission that this was taking a debate on social media, ie for the world to see, too far.

For the world to see....what?....you do realise don't you that both Hilda and Brian were named in every newspaper article that followed the case....even the Guardian wrote about it and them..so not sure what your issue is - their names are hardly a secret. This seems to be a clumsy deflection technique on your part...again. 

Clearly the issues raised are something you would rather not acknowledge.

 

23 hours ago, first mate said:

As a seasoned cyclist I am amazed you are not aware of speedometer apps;

 

And at the end of the day it was the cyclist's Strava app that showed how fast he was going before he hit Hilda. It was that data that was used in the coroners hearing and why Strava removed that circuit around the Park because it was encouraging cyclists to cycle fast and beat their own and the course personal best - and this was putting pedestrians at risk. The park had basically become a cycling drag race track.

Edited January 18 by Rockets

[Spartacus]

Looks like the "cost" of licencing cyclists could no longer be a factor as this goverent is about to introduce digital driving licences. 

BBC News - UK set to introduce digital driving licences
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgkjjkjy4p8o

They could simply add a category for cyclists and bobs your auntie, digital cycling licence...  although I can see the argument now about this becoming our digital id card.... 

Edited January 18 by Spartacus

[malumbu]

It's bad taste to use someone's death in your argument.  We can talk about killed and seriously injured in terms of the data.  And the data is two people being killed due to cycling that went to court  in the last decade.  Step back and consider my views in the first sentence.  

[Rockets]

4 hours ago, malumbu said:

It's bad taste to use someone's death in your argument. 

Says who - Malumbu? Honestly....you're getting ridiculous now.

4 hours ago, malumbu said:

And the data is two people being killed due to cycling that went to court  in the last decade

What data is that? Are you sure because a quick Internet search I just did suggested that is not at all correct. If you are correct do you not fear that you may actually be illustrating my point because, of course, the case of Hilda Griffiths did not go to court. Why? Because the police said there was little chance of conviction.  Why? Because speed limits do not apply to cycles.

Your stats are wrong Malumbu as my very quick search found at least three people jailed for killing pedestrians whilst riding bikes in the last few years.

In fact the stats are quite shocking. Apparently the DFT released data in 2022 that showed:

Statistics from the Department for Transport (Dft) showed that 531 people were involved in incidents with cyclists last year – 15 per cent up on 2016 and the highest since recording collisions involving bike riders was introduced in 2013. Of those involved in collisions, three were killed and 120 seriously injured.

 

Edited January 18 by Rockets

[Earl Aelfheah]

Just sad

[first mate]

14 hours ago, Spartacus said:

Looks like the "cost" of licencing cyclists could no longer be a factor as this goverent is about to introduce digital driving licences. 

BBC News - UK set to introduce digital driving licences
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgkjjkjy4p8o

They could simply add a category for cyclists and bobs your auntie, digital cycling licence...  although I can see the argument now about this becoming our digital id card.... 

Interesting. The cycle lobby on here are desperate ( for reasons I do not understand) to avoid having 20mph speed limits apply to all road users. 

[malumbu]

It's irrelevant.  They are not achievable.  Costs would be enormous and disproportionate.  They would be rarely enforced.  It's a joke.  I am not a lobby and I am certainly not desperate.