Restrictions on cyclists now being discussed at Ministerial level.

[Captain Sensible]

Gammon / click bait for the Daily Heil readers

 

[Ming the Merciless]

The bike (including rider) also weighs less than 1/10th of a car

It’s a lot less than that, how many cars weigh less than a tonne?

 

[Alex321]

It has happened in the past.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.standard.co.uk/news/london/london-cyclist-fined-for-speeding-in-richmond-park-after-he-is-clocked-at-38mph-a3102191.html?amp

Yes, Richmond Park was one of the few places in the country where speed limits do apply to cyclists. The limits in Richmond Park are not limits imposed by the Road Traffic Regulation Act, as it is not supposedly "public highways".

But having said that, some time after the above case, it appears that the Park authorities have stated now that speed limits do not apply to cyclists even there.
https://www.swlondoner.co.uk/news/08102021-speed-limits-dont-apply-to-cyclists-in-richmond-park

 

[Alex321]

It’s a lot less than that, how many cars weigh less than a tonne?

A few. And I did say "less than 1/10".

 

[ren531]

It's just a bit of red meat for the gammonati.

Totally just this.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

A few. And I did say "less than 1/10".

It’s nearer a 1/20th to give it a truer comparison

 

[matticus]

It’s nearer a 1/20th to give it a truer comparison

Yup. That's less than a 10th. I reckon you'll ace your fractions test 👍 ;-)

 

[nickyboy]

But all road users aren't the same in terms of risk.

A car is about 6 feet wide, a bike including handlebars is 3. So that much narrower an area which can hit a pedestrian. The bike (including rider) also weighs less than 1/10th of a car, so the momentum if it does hit somebody is so much less. And it is more maneuverable and so has a better chance of dodging a pedestrian who has stepped out without looking at all.

I still wouldn't be doing 20+ past a school at the start or end of the school day though.

Correct. But HGV, coach, SUV, small car, motorbike, moped all are subject to the same 20mph limit though, regardless of the kinetic energy, manoeuvrability argument. The only road users capable of doing more than 20mph that aren't subject to this are bicycles. I'm not convinced that cyclists should be a special case

There are, undoubtedly, more pressing matters regarding road safety than this. However, the tortuous arguments as regards why cyclists should never be subject to speed limits, under any circumstances, are interesting

 

[Ian H]

Opposition to the idea is fairly widespread:-
Edmund King, the AA president, said: “It is in the interests of all road users, and indeed our environment, that as a society we encourage more use of active travel, such as walking and cycling, and also the transition to zero emission vehicles.

“Introducing more barriers to slow the take-up of safe cycling would be a retrograde step. What we really need is better infrastructure for cycling so that some of the present-day issues on the roads are removed.”

 

[Solocle]

Correct. But HGV, coach, SUV, small car, motorbike, moped all are subject to the same 20mph limit though, regardless of the kinetic energy, manoeuvrability argument. The only road users capable of doing more than 20mph that aren't subject to this are bicycles. I'm not convinced that cyclists should be a special case

There are, undoubtedly, more pressing matters regarding road safety than this. However, the tortuous arguments as regards why cyclists should never be subject to speed limits, under any circumstances, are interesting

The only road users...

Since the chap in front can run 27 mph, I suspect quite a reasonable number of people can manage 21.

 

[Rooster1]

Did somebody say e-scooters?

 

[Rooster1]

So @al78 - are you with the cats or the pigeons?

The parrot

 

[presta]

It's just a bit of red meat for the gammonati.

Cameron thought he could get some peace and quiet by humouring UKIP with a referendum. That didn't end well.

 

[matticus]

Opposition to the idea is fairly widespread:-
Edmund King, the AA president, said: “It is in the interests of all road users, and indeed our environment, that as a society we encourage more use of active travel, such as walking and cycling, and also the transition to zero emission vehicles.

“Introducing more barriers to slow the take-up of safe cycling would be a retrograde step. What we really need is better infrastructure for cycling so that some of the present-day issues on the roads are removed.”

So cyclists are against it, the AA are too. Every government commitee to date has been against it ...

... does this mark out Shapps as a maverick free-thinker??

 

[youngoldbloke]

I can think of another word ending in 'nker'