20 mph speed limit on the way?

[BentMikey]

Besides which, from our cycling experience most of us know that there's very little point in going much more than 20 in an urban area anyway. Just think of all those car drivers we go sailing past every day!

 

[Jacomus-rides-Gen]

The argument that drivers will spend more time looking at their speedometers is total bullshit, and I use that word because it really is BULLSHIT.

Why would a driver have to look at their speedo more when travelling at 20mph than 30mph, absolutely no reason AT ALL. I would say that most of us here are drivers, or bikers or both - do you find it harder to travel at 30mph than 40mph?

Does this make driving at 50mph on a motorway, in temproary speed limit zones for example, more dangerous than driving at 70mph?

 

[andy_wrx]

What is this 'will it apply to me on my bike' ?

Legally, yes I'm sure the law does only state motorised vehicles (or does it say mechanically-propelled ? - but not bikes anyway)

But is it morally OK to say 'naah, doesn't apply to me, just to you in cars or motorbikes' and speed along at 25mph ?

I'd say no, not when this forum has such disdain for that lawyer who gets the-rich-and-famous off motoring convictions by finding loopholes in the law.

If we want other road users to comply with the speed limit, we must also comply with it whether technically it applies to us or not.

I can't accept the same argument some propose for RLJ'ing, where they believe that if a car/bus/lorry does it then it's a crime but it's OK to do it on a bike because we're not a danger to anyone else

 

[LordoftheTeapot]

And

 

[Cab]

What is this 'will it apply to me on my bike' ?

Legally, yes I'm sure the law does only state motorised vehicles (or does it say mechanically-propelled ? - but not bikes anyway)

But is it morally OK to say 'naah, doesn't apply to me, just to you in cars or motorbikes' and speed along at 25mph ?

The damage I can do to someone else is much lower if I hit them at 25mph on a bike than if I hit them at 25mph with a car. Yeah, I know, someone did recently die in just such a collision with a cyclist, but that is vanishingly rare.

Is it morally okay for bikes to go over a 20mph speed limit? If they're doing so sensibly, yes. Is it legally okay? Yes, unless there is a specific local bye-law.

Going 30mph through a 20 zone is unlikely to be possible very often, and its probably not a good idea very often either. Nudging above 20mph on a bicycle... I dunno, comparing that with a car, its like apples and oranges.

 

[bonj2]

Ah but you said you agreed with this guys comments and he said Roads are for cars

No mention of vehicles......

http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=4473

 

[magnatom]

http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=4473

Come on Bonj, you are the ultimate pedantic! (When it suits of course )

 

[andy_wrx]

The damage I can do to someone else is much lower if I hit them at 25mph on a bike than if I hit them at 25mph with a car. Yeah, I know, someone did recently die in just such a collision with a cyclist, but that is vanishingly rare.

Is it morally okay for bikes to go over a 20mph speed limit? If they're doing so sensibly, yes. Is it legally okay? Yes, unless there is a specific local bye-law.

Going 30mph through a 20 zone is unlikely to be possible very often, and its probably not a good idea very often either. Nudging above 20mph on a bicycle... I dunno, comparing that with a car, its like apples and oranges.

These sound very like the arguments which S*** Sp**d use - especially the 'doing so sensibly' !!!

 

[domtyler]

These sound very like the arguments which S*** Sp**d use - especially the 'doing so sensibly' !!!

The difference being, and it's a critical one, that the speed limit doesn't actually apply to cyclists. Or pedestrians. Or horses. Or wheelchairs. And so on. It is SPECIFICALLY related to MOTOR VEHICLES. Comprendez?

 

[bonj2]

Come on Bonj, you are the ultimate pedantic! (When it suits of course

But I do at least understand people's arguments from the point they intended to mean, rather than decide that I can't be bothered to answer what they intended to mean, and try to use the literality of words to effectively construct a straw man argument. I don't commit the infinitely frustrating travesty of using pedantry to get out of responding to an argument or assertion that someone's thought about.
A perfect example being mickle's stupid, tiresome thread which only exists to be pedantic.

 

[Tetedelacourse]

that thread served a practical purpose. It got me my doo-daas.

 

[Tetedelacourse]

Yes.



I don't think thats the solid reason in question though.

This is as much about reclaiming the streets such that people feel safer to walk or cycle. We can argue tooth and nail about what the best default road position for a cyclist would be (we wouldn't, but we could!) but it ain't the case that beginner cyclists instinctively take the best position on the roads, we need to encourage them out by making the roads seem less hostile to them. It also ain't the case that we're going to encourage more people to walk by telling them that if there are more pedestrians their school children are safer. This is about changing attitudes, its a statement that cars are less of a priority than bikes and pedestrians.

What are the accident stats? Well, yeah, we've seen quotes here already claiming that 20mph limits make urban roads safer. Maybe they do. I dunno, I'd have to have a close look at those claims. But if you think thats all that this is about, you're missing the point.

No you've missed the point.

The sole purpose of the article was to present the case that some people feel that reducing the speed limit from 30mph to 20mph in built up areas would result in a drop in motoring-related injuries and deaths. And that others contest this view. I wondered if there are any figures that back up this assertion.

You mention that "This is about changing attitudes", and when I said we need to change the culture, you pointed out that this aint gonna happen so let's lower the limit. Make up thon mind Cabula.

 

[Cab]

These sound very like the arguments which S*** Sp**d use - especially the 'doing so sensibly' !!!

Not really. I've got massively less kinetic energy than a car, and I represent a tiny risk to others. I'm less able to exceed the speed limit in any conditions. I'm also not covered by speeding laws when cycling. Apples and oranges.

 

[Cab]

No you've missed the point.

The sole purpose of the article was to present the case that some people feel that reducing the speed limit from 30mph to 20mph in built up areas would result in a drop in motoring-related injuries and deaths. And that others contest this view. I wondered if there are any figures that back up this assertion.

I'm aware of that, and you're aware that people have already quoted studies that back up the claim that 20mph limits improve safety. You seem to be ignoring the point I put forward, that this is as much about perception of safety as it is about safety itself. It is about empowering people to use the roads because they feel safer, and because they feel safer there will be more of them (cyclists and pedestrians), and thus they will actually be safer.

You mention that "This is about changing attitudes", and when I said we need to change the culture, you pointed out that this aint gonna happen so let's lower the limit. Make up thon mind Cabula.

We're not changing the attitudes of problem motorists by changing speed limits. We can change how everyone else uses road space though.

 

[domtyler]

No you've missed the point.

The sole purpose of the article was to present the case that some people feel that reducing the speed limit from 30mph to 20mph in built up areas would result in a drop in motoring-related injuries and deaths. And that others contest this view. I wondered if there are any figures that back up this assertion.

You mention that "This is about changing attitudes", and when I said we need to change the culture, you pointed out that this aint gonna happen so let's lower the limit. Make up thon mind Cabula.

I don't understand, how can you argue against the fact that lower speeds will equal fewer and less severe accidents?