Police object to Southwark’s 20 mph speed limit plans - Includes Pedal Cycles!

[J.Primus]

Did you read my reply?
I never said laws can't be brought in. I said local govenment can't bring those laws in.

 

[Markymark]

Ah, ok.

 

[Mile195]

Make it properly enforced and it will stop all of the above.

It's impossible to do though. Or at least at the moment, though average speed cameras will ultimately change that. That aside, there's the well known statistic that speed is only a factor in 5% of accidents, although it's also quoted that it's the only 5% they can easily do anything about.
I suppose we should be grateful really that we already have such a low death rate on our roads - I was reading about Brazil recently. They had over 33'000 there last year.
Of course it would always be good if the accident rate was lower, but I'm not sure that more 20 limits will necessarily achieve that, even if they are the signs with nice children's snail drawings underneath...

 

[PK99]

As cyclists we complain about many things that motorists do that are not illegal but might be termed inconsiderate.

I find it disappointing, whenever speed limits are discussed, to see wriggle room and weasel words in abundance to justify or excuse cyclists choosing to ride at more that 20mph in 20mph limits.

It is not the letter of the law that matters, it is the spirit. I've not checked, but I'm pretty sure some of the "It's not against the law so it ok" voices are the same as rail against Tax Avoidance.

 

[Markymark]

I think its more that the danger from speeding cyclists is negligible and not worth worrying about as any cost to enforce would be better spent on further slowing those that pose the greatest danger - cars.

 

[PK99]

You are assuming that the spirit of the law applies to cyclists.

My apologies, i forgot. We cyclists occupy a higher moral plain and need take no heed of laws that apply to lower plains! (;-)

 

[PK99]

No need for sarcasm, it is a practical point relating to the kinetic energy involved. We are simply not as dangerous as motor vehicles at the same speed, so it is not a like for like issue.

Yes there is a difference in Kinetic Energy but I doubt a child hit by a 25mph cyclist in a 20 mph residential area is going to be over bothered about that scientific nuance given that the threshold for death or serious injury has been reached.

 

[CopperBrompton]

The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 stipulate that (with certain exemptions for age and max speed of vehicle) motor vehicles must be fitted with a speedometer.GC.

Exactly - (a) through (h) lists all the exemptions. Those vehicles remain subject to speed limits.

 

[swansonj]

I may be about to part company with my usual allies here. I tend to think cyclists should obey motor-vehicle speed limits. I completely accept that
(A) statistically, accidents caused by cyclists are very rare and
(B) the kinetic energy of a cyclist is a few percent of that of a motorist at the same speed
But
(C) the gap that a pedestrian needs to leave to cross a road in front of an oncoming vehicle is the same for a given speed regardless of the kinetic energy

Does not part of the sense of reclaiming public spaces from motor domination come from pedestrians being able to assume that no-one will be going at more than the stated speed, regardless of how much or little damage an impact would actually cause?

 

[Tim Hall]

C is a valid point.
In a shared space, I would just prefer it if no one behaved like an arse. I am not sure quite how to draft the legislation.

Be excellent to one another?

 

[hatler]

It's impossible to do though. Or at least at the moment, though average speed cameras will ultimately change that. That aside, there's the well known statistic that speed is only a factor in 5% of accidents, although it's also quoted that it's the only 5% they can easily do anything about.
I suppose we should be grateful really that we already have such a low death rate on our roads - I was reading about Brazil recently. They had over 33'000 there last year.
Of course it would always be good if the accident rate was lower, but I'm not sure that more 20 limits will necessarily achieve that, even if they are the signs with nice children's snail drawings underneath...

Hang on. Brazil has 200 million inhabitants (or is it 300 million ?) The road infrastructure is completely different. It's not possible to draw any valid comparisons.

Yes the death rate is low on the UK roads. But we're still killing over 1500 people a year. That is not acceptable, especially the proportion of that figure which is pedestrians and cyclists. Let's try another ridiculous comparison. Did I hear that 8 pedestrians were killed in vehicle incidents on Dutch roads one year. That puts us to shame, even allowing for the lower population over there.

Another point. Studies have shown that reducing speed limits to 20mph reduces KSI stats by a statistically significant amount.

Why wouldn't we want to do that ?

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Yes there is a difference in Kinetic Energy but I doubt a child hit by a 25mph cyclist in a 20 mph residential area is going to be over bothered about that scientific nuance given that the threshold for death or serious injury has been reached.

Me in a Fiat 500 at 20mph = 44550 joules of KE
Me on a bike at 25mph = 7260 joules of KE

I know which I'd prefer my children hit by.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

I may be about to part company with my usual allies here. I tend to think cyclists should obey motor-vehicle speed limits. I completely accept that
(A) statistically, accidents caused by cyclists are very rare and
(B) the kinetic energy of a cyclist is a few percent of that of a motorist at the same speed
But
(C) the gap that a pedestrian needs to leave to cross a road in front of an oncoming vehicle is the same for a given speed regardless of the kinetic energy

Does not part of the sense of reclaiming public spaces from motor domination come from pedestrians being able to assume that no-one will be going at more than the stated speed, regardless of how much or little damage an impact would actually cause?

I wouldn't have a problem with it myself; but would consider attempts at enforcement of said limits against cyclists a complete and utter waste of police time and energy because of (A) and (B)

And strictly speaking a bike is narrower than a car therefore the required gap will be different.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Exactly - (a) through (h) lists all the exemptions. Those vehicles remain subject to speed limits.

Agreed. I posted the Regs because I read your previous post

There is no requirement for a car to have a speedo either (only that it must be within the permitted accuracy range if fitted). That does not make cars without speedos exempt from speeding laws.

as suggesting that cars generally don't need speedos fitted.


GC

 

[wiggydiggy]

Build me an accurate speedometer into my bike, like my car has as a legal requirement, and I'll use it.

Or another way:

Would anyone trust a car speedo bought down at Aldi for £5.99 and fitted by a hamfisted oik*?

*Oik being me as I havent fitted a speedo to a bike yet thats worked properly or lasted longer than 18 months ish