The newly landscaped Dulwich Square

[snowy]

Yes, I'm sure. 

The fundamental reason being all that you have copied and pasted applies to "vehicles" under the Road Traffic Act where a vehicle is 'mechanically propelled'.

This doesn't include pedal cycles (or horses - as along with pedestrians they are the original road users before cars came along), but does include e-motorcycles .

so we get back to my previous post on changing primary legislation to make pedal propelled cycles defined as 'vehicles' . 
 

You may disagree that this would impose disproportionate legal and regulatory burdens, but i imagine legislators would.

But then you have also not raised changing the law with the SNT have you? 

[Rockets]

2 hours ago, first mate said:

. I had thought 20mph zones can be placed and enforced using by-laws, which are effected locally by the LA and enforced by them?

You're correct, which is why you can go from one borough to another and the implementation of 20mph varies massively and is often implemented in areas that the Highway Code classes as 30mph roads.

[snowy]

It's almost like drivers have a responsibility to know the speed limit on the roads they're sharing with other people. 
 

which is why the bit you didn't quote says

"These national limits are not, however, appropriate for all roads. The speed limit regime enables traffic authorities to set local speed limits in situations where local needs and conditions suggest a speed limit that is different from the respective national speed limit"

but that still is irrelevant to the question in hand on cycles.

You also might find the beneficial safety and cost impact of 20mph zones interesting: https://advancedmotoring.co.uk/20mph-speed-limits-and-their-impact-on-car-insurance/

[first mate]

If we work on the assumption that speed limits are there to protect all road users, but pedestrians first and foremost, then it makes sense to apply 20mph to all road users. Modified e-bikes may be indistinguishable from those that are not, meaning the only time they are likely to be identified as such is by speed. Therefore, if we want to tackle what some perceive as a growing problem, especially with e-bikes, we should apply 20mph. Because there will be the additional issue of modified e-bike users trying to 'pass' as other types of legal bicycle, it is surely easier to apply 20mph than try to cherry pick? Doing the latter could end up more costly than the first.

I guess it depends which end of the telescope you are looking at. You can try to tackle illegal/ modified bikes at source but you'll still need a legal framework to do that in. The current model is obviously not working. Or, you can take a much simpler and clearer route where the same local speed limit applies to all road users. Either way, it will require funding and resources. But not a problem locally as Southwark have millions to spend in parking surplus, which can be used on just this sort of change.

Edited January 22 by first mate

[snowy]

^^^This is just word salad 
 

The current model is working. KSIs between cycles and pedestrians are incredibly low. 95% of pedestrians hit by red light jumping road users are hit by cars.

Government has recently repeated it does not intend to license cyclists as its not cost effective or beneficial 

Police forces apply fatal five principles and target motorists as they significantly cause the most harm - 29,643 casualties in 2023-24 with approximately 1-2% related to cyclists.

You can't yet come up with a way to add speedometers to every cycle (from a child's to every £50 bike that gets someone to work in a different part of the country)  that can't be shredded as unworkable in seconds and stands no chance of being made legislation 

the legal framework for e-motorbikes exists (hint, its almost identical to a petrol motor bike) - the historic parallel is delimited 50cc scooterS

Your parochial Southwark only approach shows no sense of how policy and law are actually created 

if this was more than an internet talking point / culture war post, you would have fired off that email to the SNT by now asking whether it was a priority for them and for their presence in the square 

[first mate]

What is your source for your first assertion. E-bikes used in numbers are new, so I'd want to see exactly how data is collected and over what period of time.

On both points citing percentages, I guess you are citing national figures rather than figures for DV/ED? 

As already stated, young children will most likely be accompanied and are unlikely to exceed 20 mph. Older children can use speedometer phone apps with audio on to signal speed breaches.

Haha, absolutely no-one other than cycling activists calls them e-motorbikes. It is not always that easy to distinguish modified e-bikes from unmodified, when on the move, oh other than by speed.

My parochial interest is because 20mph zones can be created and monitored under local by-laws. It may not require national legislation. In case you hadn't noticed, this is a forum to discuss local issues ;

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, first mate said:

Haha, absolutely no-one other than cycling activists calls them e-motorbikes

If they can be propelled by the throttle over 4mph without pedalling then legally they’re classified as a “low powered moped”

I think it’s fair to say that most people would refer to a moped as a type of motorbike.

Edited January 22 by Earl Aelfheah

[snowy]

The first, Hansard and the DfT from 2024. And yes national figures cos you know that's how national statistics work.
 

If you want granular, the Met say in 2022 there were 64 reported collisions involving e-bikes, 10 serious, 0 fatalities. The data is for all of London. Before you leap on that as a justification, the data reported says only 5 pedestrians were injured, across the whole of london in one year,  the rest were the riders being injured. 

DVLA calls them 'plug in motorcycles' (PiMs) or non EPACs which is frankly worse. Here's a large retailer calling them emotorbikes but you carry on being you: 

https://www.moveelectric.com/category/e-motorbikes 
 

Your relentless belief that young people always cycle with their parents, that your proposed solution of an audio app is actually workable, that a law can apply to southwark but not a neighouring borough is getting a bit laughable. 
 

It inherently requires national legislation as i've pointed out before and you ignored - cycles remain cycles. 

So please tell me which byelaw under the Local Government Act Southwark would apply under to create it?
 

Given that the relevant Secretary of State has to approve all new byelaws, why do you think the Minister for Transport would approve one that would contravene an existing Act of Parliament and not apply to neighbouring boroughs?

Have you emailed the SNT yet?

 

 

[first mate]

Well, I understand there is precedent, under local byelaws I understand there is an 8mph limit on cycling speeds on Hampstead Heath, and in Richmond Park one of 20mph, that also applies to cyclists.

I believe you are incorrect about Wanton and Furious Cycling, but rather than adopt your patronising tone, I will just point out that for that to apply at all an injury/ bodily harm must have occurred, it is part of the Offences Against Persons Act 1861. It would not be used for speeding, running red lights or cycling on the pavement, unless you injured someone in the process.

I believe what you and Earl may be referring to is 'Careless and Inconsiderate Riding or Reckless Cycling? Police are open to prosecute on those grounds, but wonder how many have even heard of these.

 

57 minutes ago, snowy said:

Your relentless belief that young people always cycle with their parents, that your proposed solution of an audio app is actually workable, that a law can apply to southwark but not a neighouring borough is getting a bit laughable. 

We see different speed limits in boroughs, that is an oft quoted issue with driving in London. 

My understanding is that it is illegal for any child under 14 years old to use an e-bike. So I rather doubt younger kids will regularly exceed 20mph on a push bike. As I said before, I honestly do not see many youngsters on pushbikes. I do see much younger kids cycling with an adult, or I see older kids on e-bikes-, probably illegally as it happens.

Edited January 22 by first mate

[snowy]

But neither of your examples are public roads - one is a heath (a park with its own police force) and the other a royal park.  The laws that apply to roads in them is different. 

Edited January 22 by snowy

[first mate]

Richmond Park byelaws are made by the Royal Parks, Hampstead Heath byelaws are made by the City of London. The relevant police forces are tasked with enforcement but do not make the byelaws. I believe the latter case may point to precedent. 

Within London, speed limits in some larger parks are not dissimilar to those on surrounding streets, hence 20 MPH in Richmond Park, both for cars and bicycles; Regent's Park is asking the same of cyclists. Hyde Park has reduced 30 mph to 20mph.

As we know, there was serious intent to have cyclists adhere to 20mph in the commons,  but that folded with the election. My guess is it will get resurrected.

Just as a little aside, I do wonder if this is the real reason so many cycling activists are averse to adherence to 20mph? https://road.cc/content/news/time-trial-riders-adhere-20mph-limits-guidance-says-306625
Note outraged comments at the end by time trial riders complaining that 20mph is sickeningly slow.

Edited January 22 by first mate

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, snowy said:

But neither of your examples are public roads - one is a heath (a park with its own police force) and the other a royal park.  The laws that apply to roads in them is different. 

But do you not think that, because these private roads have felt it necessary to implement these measures, that it is only a matter of time before non-private roads adopt it?

Does the 5mph in Dulwich Park apply to bikes?

[snowy]

47 minutes ago, first mate said:

Richmond Park byelaws are made by the Royal Parks, Hampstead Heath byelaws are made by the City of London. The relevant police forces are tasked with enforcement but do not make the byelaws. I believe the latter case may point to precedent. 

As we know, there was serious intent to have cyclists adhere to 20mph,  but it folded with the election. My guess is it will get resurrected.

Well yes, that's what i said.
 

The Royal Parks flip flop between stating that speed restrictions don't apply to cyclists and then lobby government to make them apply. 

But on your last paragraph: there wasn't - there was a proposal by the Sunak government around a new Death by Dangerous Cycling law, as it panicked towards an election that they knew they were going to lose.

It was one of a series of  policy statements latching onto current events intended to create clickbait headlines for electioneering.
 

Mark Harper calling his own department's policy on 15 minute cities 'sinister' as part of his 'plan for drivers' being one particular highlight.
 

They knew they had no time to legislate, or even to get it through the Green Paper process. 

And at the same time the conservatives in April 2024 in the House of Commons were still saying:

"The Department [DfT] considered the potential advantages and disadvantages of a mandatory registration and licensing system for cycle ownership as part of a comprehensive cycling and walking safety review in 2018. This found that the cost and complexity of such a system would outweigh the benefits, and that restricting people’s ability to cycle in this way would mean that many would be likely to choose other modes of transport instead, with negative impacts for congestion, pollution, and health."

but nothing on speed limits - they do share the graph on decreasing convictions for dangerous cycling 

As for Labour, well i suspect that they are quite busy. There's a proposed paper on manufacturing safety for e-bike batteries to reduce the risk of unregulated devices, but cycling or increased legislation didn't appear in its manifesto.

42 minutes ago, Rockets said:

But do you not think that, because these private roads have felt it necessary to implement these measures, that it is only a matter of time before non-private roads adopt it?

Does the 5mph in Dulwich Park apply to bikes?

Royal Parks are owned by Charlie, so they're not technically private either as he owns everything under the Crown Eatate

But implement what measures? Ban the use of roads in them for trade vehicles as it currently says?
Ban flying kites as it currently says? To graze animals?

Or a personal favourite - prohibit you to "play any game or engage in any form of sport or exercise".

They haven't implemented anything recently as far as i'm aware - as the Royal Parks Act hasn't changed since 2000. Perhaps you know of something different. 

[Rockets]

https://www.royalparks.org.uk/get-in-touch/media-centre/news-press-releases/regents-park-statement-royal-parks

https://www.timeout.com/london/news/could-these-major-london-parks-soon-get-strict-speed-limits-for-cyclists-102124

https://www.royalparks.org.uk/sites/default/files/2023-11/Cycling-in-the-Royal-Parks-policy-statement-May-2023.pdf

 

It looks like Royal Parks are lobbying the government to set a speed limit for cyclists in it's parks.

None of the above happens because of any culture-war on cyclists but because cyclists are posing an increasing problem and risk to pedestrians.

I presume Dulwich Park is the same as the Royal Parks in that they can only ask for cyclists to respect the speed limit - which hardly any do.

Clearly it's only a matter of time before the change happens - no matter how much shouting the cycle lobby do about harming the expansion of cycling. We have to put pedestrian safety ahead of everything else - I still really don't understand how increasing rules and regulations would hinder cycle growth - it certainly didn't do anything to hinder car growth all those years ago!

[first mate]

Some time back, it seems Southwark seriously considered applying 20mph to cyclists and the mechanism to do this was simply to remove the word 'motor' in the proposed traffic management order (based on the Road Traffic Act) leaving only the word 'vehicles', which would by definition have to include bicycles. I think the obstacle was the Met saying they would not enforce 20mph for anything, including cars. It was not the impossibility of actually installing a limit for all road users at local level.

I also believe that, technically, the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2022, allows for speed limits to be imposed by local acts.

Apparently, the idea that 'vehicles' includes bicycles of any description is the rationale use by the Met to prosecute cyclists for exceeding the speed limit in Richmond Park.
 

 

 

 

[march46]

Off topic much?

Back to the topic of this thread, the new permanent version of Dulwich Square was looking lovely in the sun today. Lots of people seemed to be enjoying spending time there, nice to see! 

[first mate]

Ah,  not really, since Vanity Square has become something of a badly behaved cyclist hotspot, where jumping the red lights is de rigeur, even with your kids on a cargo bike and some cyclists zip through at quite a crack, whizzing across the pedestrian square as a shortcut.

I was simply pointing out that getting 20mph set to include all road users does not seem to be the huge, complex and impossible task some of you have painted it. Enforcement, a bit trickier but not impossible either. 
 

 

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

On 25/01/2025 at 16:21, march46 said:

Off topic much?

Back to the topic of this thread, the new permanent version of Dulwich Square was looking lovely in the sun today. Lots of people seemed to be enjoying spending time there, nice to see! 

Agree, it's a really nice space and already very popular. Will really come into it's own come the summer.

[first mate]

Including all the fair weather cyclists, so it will be interesting to see if careless cycling increases or people start to be more careful. There will also be more pedestrians as the weather improves, so let's hope cyclists stick to the cycling areas.

[Kurt_Lane]

4 hours ago, first mate said:

Including all the fair weather cyclists, so it will be interesting to see if careless cycling increases or people start to be more careful. There will also be more pedestrians as the weather improves, so let's hope cyclists stick to the cycling areas.

Agreed - it really looks lovely there in wet and dry weather but I also can’t wait to see people out in nice weather, mingling in the shared space. Real community asset. 

[first mate]

2 hours ago, Kurt_Lane said:

Agreed - it really looks lovely there in wet and dry weather but I also can’t wait to see people out in nice weather, mingling in the shared space. Real community asset. 

Yes, so long as pedestrians are mingling and mounted cyclists are, well, staying in their lane.

Saw a female cyclist pelt across the pedstrianised area on her bike. I caught her eye and she looked sheepish, just for a moment.