20mph - latest thoughts?

[martint235]

That's not what I wrote, fibber. I want the law enforcing, but not changing in the suggested way. I want to continue with the current reasonable approach, even though it sometimes means I can't go as fast as I want.

I still can't see any negative effect from bringing cyclists within the speed limit laws. Will people give up cycling en masse? Will potential cyclists think "there are some bits of road where I'm limited to 20" and not start cycling?. Have I missed a key human right: food, water, shelter and the right to go as fast as I want?

What is the issue with this simple thing?

Edit: in fact someone up thread said it's difficult for a cyclist to maintain 20 on a flat road. So this would remove some performance anxiety: I can't go faster because it's not allowed

 

[mjr]

The issue is that it's fixing something that isn't broken, changing from a law that works to an unproven one.

What about horse riders? Would you bring them within it, or leave wanton and furious driving laws on the books just for them? Far simpler to leave horse and bike riders under the existing law IMO.

 

[martint235]

The issue is that it's fixing something that isn't broken, changing from a law that works to an unproven one.

What about horse riders? Would you bring them within it, or leave wanton and furious driving laws on the books just for them? Far simpler to leave horse and bike riders under the existing law IMO.

Yes as already stated within a 20 everyone is limited to 20. Pedestrians, cars, horses, HGVs. Make a simple law, don't go fasthan 20 in a 20. Then you build in the exceptions and I can only think of one, an emergency vehicle under full blues and twos can, with caution, exceed the 20.

As a pedestrian would you object to being subject to a 20? Outside a school do you want a wannabe Usain sprinting head down along the pavement?

Also as stated previously keep the law as simple as you possibly can, black and white if possible, the grey area is for the judiciary to sort out at sentencing

 

[mjr]

Yes as already stated within a 20 everyone is limited to 20. Pedestrians, cars, horses, HGVs. Make a simple law, don't go fasthan 20 in a 20.

And how many lives do you expect it'll save bringing non motorised vehicles and pedestrians under this limit? Enough to be worth all the legislative time that could be spent on other life saving things?

 

[Drago]

For an old coffin dodger like me 20mph is going some, at least on the flat.

 

[martint235]

I don't wish to be forced to have a means of measuring my speed

And it will be difficult to measure your speed . However an acceptance to live within the spirit is good

 

[smutchin]

What is the issue with this simple thing?

It's really not as simple as you imagine.

 

[martint235]

And how many lives do you expect it'll save bringing non motorised vehicles and pedestrians under this limit? Enough to be worth all the legislative time that could be spent on other life saving things?

Again what's the negative of bringing groups in? You're making motorists excuses to do what you want

 

[mjr]

And it will be difficult to measure your speed . However an acceptance to live within the spirit is good

Isn't "within the spirit" a huge grey area?

 

[martint235]

It's really not as simple as you imagine.

Yes it is

 

[martint235]

Isn't "within the spirit" a huge grey area?

It is so if a police car is following you at 25 expect to be in the grey area of sentencing

 

[Drago]

Blimey, its like you lot are rehearsing for panto.

 

[mjr]

Again what's the negative of bringing groups in? You're making motorists excuses to do what you want

The negative is the expense of changing the law and the uncertainty of a new untested law compared to a well tested old law.

Instead of asking "why not" when the reasons not have been stated repeatedly, shouldn't the ones pushing for change have some positive argument?

 

[martint235]

Living within the spirit is a long way from the law being extended to include.

Seriously we know each other outside this bear pit, I accept that there are people on here arguing for the hell of it and there are also some stupid people, but do YOU think I'm that wrong with this? If so CC isn't for me

 

[martint235]

The negative is the expense of changing the law and the uncertainty of a new untested law compared to a well tested old law.

Instead of asking "why not" when the reasons not have been stated repeatedly, shouldn't the ones pushing for change have some positive argument?

No it's not a new law, you are simplifying an existing one. That isn't a negative