20mph - latest thoughts?

[mjr]

Fair point and agreed. The best way would be to have fluid, variable limits dependent on conditions as I believe happens in Germany. However you just have to watch British drivers in fog to realise that's not going to work

France has speed limits that are 10-20km/h lower in rain/fog and maybe darkness, but 30km/h limits are always 30km/h.

Surely part of the problem with British drivers in fog is that even tiny country lanes are still 60mph in fog and motorists suffer the same "fear from the rear" as many cyclists in those conditions, so feel they have to go as fast as they dare to reduce the risk of a forceful rear-entry? Drop NSL to 40 in fog and you might free a lot of people from that fear and help them drive more sensibly... but that's a different problem to 20mph zones, where some motorists think they won't be enforced, so an anti-social few flout them if it's physically possible and whine like dogs when/where there is enforcement. I'm with @Drago - speed camera cats eyes can't be far off being technically possible.

 

[jonny jeez]

It does have an effect on me. I do try to be helpful and will give motorists space but in a 20 when I'm doing 25 I will block them. Occasionally I get someone right behind me revving, and once I've been beeped (I don't think he'll do that again) but I think they do help cyclists to be more assertive. That said we could be assertive at 20

I don't believe that we need help to be more assertive. Its a state of mind. Also I wouldn't recommend trying to enforce speed laws by blocking traffic.

Just ride, if idiots want to break the law its not up to us to stop them, its not our jobs when riding.


Sorry i don't want to try and tell you how to ride but this just seems invite additional conflict.

 

[smutchin]

Doesn't seem to stop them in the Royal Parks

QI question: what is the speed limit for bicycles in the Royal Parks?

I don't think those responsible for upholding the law have any better idea of the true answer than the rest of us.

 

[growingvegetables]

You should well know speed doesn't kill, .........

... at least, not that often.

But it sure as hell intimidates, bullies, and terrorises "lesser" road-users --- whether it be kids walking to school, lollipop ladies, pedestrians, cyclists, horses --- and aggressively "asserts" its dominance.

The reason it doesn't kill that often? Because too many "lesser" road-users get the message.

 

[martint235]

Can't agree with that. I don't like to be thought of as an exception to the rules regarding one set of road user rather than a member of a separate category of road user in my own right, with my own rules.

But my point is you wouldn't be an exception as there's no reason to be. You'd be subject to a rule for all Road users

 

[smutchin]

But my point is you wouldn't be an exception as there's no reason to be. You'd be subject to a rule for all Road users

And how exactly would that be fair, given the reasons already outlined above for speed limits for cars?

 

[Dan B]

But my point is you wouldn't be an exception as there's no reason to be. You'd be subject to a rule for all Road users

But there are already different limits for different categories of road users. Not to mention different required standards of vehicle construction, different licensing requirements for vehicles and their operators, different insurance requirements, and a plethora of other differences which at least in principle reflect the different levels of risk that those types of road-going vehicle bring to the table.

And TBH the number of cyclists that can comfortably hold a speed in excess of 20mph for any length of time (on the flat, at least) is probably not great enough to be worth the hassle. I expect most car drivers probably think speed limits apply to cyclists already.

 

[martint235]

See inclusivity. Is there a reason a bike couldn't be expected to slow to 20?

 

[martint235]

But there are already different limits for different categories of road users. Not to mention different required standards of vehicle construction, different licensing requirements for vehicles and their operators, different insurance requirements, and a plethora of other differences which at least in principle reflect the different levels of risk that those types of road-going vehicle bring to the table.

And TBH the number of cyclists that can comfortably hold a speed in excess of 20mph for any length of time (on the flat, at least) is probably not great enough to be worth the hassle. I expect most car drivers probably think speed limits apply to cyclists already.

I'm aware of the disparate laws. That doesn't mean you should add to them.

It's about treating people the same.

 

[NorthernDave]

Where i live has had a 20mph speed limit for nearly 17 years, and it's been widely ignored since the day the signs went up. In the early years 5-0 would occasionally send a traffic car to do a bit of enforcement with a radar gun, which would have all the bus and taxi drivers frantically flashing their headlights at each other, but that's all but stopped now.
It was one of the first 20mph zones in the city and was done properly, with relevant traffic calming measures but no speed cameras. No need we were told, it's a residential area but they did give us a couple of speed activated 'slow down' signs.
It's virtually impossible to drive at 20mph without other drivers attempting to overtake - I've even had a bus trying to get past.

The 20mph zones that have spread like wildfire over the last few years elsewhere consist of a few signs being put up - no traffic calming, etc which are apparently a legal requirement, according to some reports. Enforcement is virtually non-existant.

I've been told, off the record, that the 20mph zones are put in place so that drivers will slow down to 30mph...

 

[Dan B]

It's about treating people the same.

Should we treat people the same when they are carrying guns as we do when they are carrying bananas?

 

[smutchin]

It's about treating people the same.

No, it's not treating people the same, it's treating cars and bikes as if they were the same, which they patently are not.

 

[smutchin]

Should we treat people the same when they are carrying guns as we do when they are carrying bananas?

And what about if they're carrying a pointed stick?</python>

 

[martint235]

Should we treat people the same when they are carrying guns as we do when they are carrying bananas?

That's hardly worth engaging with. You're asking if people behaving illegally should be treated as those acting legally?

 

[martint235]

No, it's not treating people the same, it's treating cars and bikes as if they were the same, which they patently are not.

They are both road users. Set the commonality as high as you can.