20mph speed limits to be imposed to protect cyclists
Discussion
OpulentBob said:
Look at the traffic figures 40 years ago. 1% of people driving like lunatics then, vs 1% of the same now - the numbers would be considerably different.
Gridlock has been a problem in London for much longer than 40 years, as photos show. So average traffic flow may have increased but not the peak. I was resident in central London during the 1970s and it was very busy then (ie similar to today)... 
Edited by bigdog3 on Wednesday 19th August 09:11
OpulentBob said:
Unfortunately the 20mph stuff has been found to be a vote winner, otherwise it wouldn't be anywhere near as prevalent. Combine that with the vocality of the 20's Plenty lot, the cycle lobbies, the PTAs, BRAKE etc and that makes it the Councillors (note, NOT engineers) first port of call.
20mph limits have some credence in narrow backstreets with their rows of parked cars and outside schools when the kids are present. Issue here is 20mph zoning which encompasses major roads in London. Driving legally within the speed limit (<=20mph) enrages fellow road users. They start taking crazy risks in order to overtake or under-cut the legal driver. These blanket 20mph limits have not been accepted (yet): vast majority of road users are still driving disobediently at their old higher speeds.
Yes I'm sure the idiots at BRAKE love it, but how can this policy be a vote winner? I suspect interests of the vocal pressure groups have been allowed to over-ride the quiet majority. So typical of today's soft appeasing culture...
bigdog3 said:
OpulentBob said:
Unfortunately the 20mph stuff has been found to be a vote winner, otherwise it wouldn't be anywhere near as prevalent. Combine that with the vocality of the 20's Plenty lot, the cycle lobbies, the PTAs, BRAKE etc and that makes it the Councillors (note, NOT engineers) first port of call.
20mph limits have some credence in narrow backstreets with their rows of parked cars and outside schools when the kids are present. Issue here is 20mph zoning which encompasses major roads in London. Driving legally within the speed limit (<=20mph) enrages fellow road users. They start taking crazy risks in order to overtake or under-cut the legal driver. These blanket 20mph limits have not been accepted (yet): vast majority of road users are still driving disobediently at their old higher speeds.
Yes I'm sure the idiots at BRAKE love it, but how can this policy be a vote winner? I suspect interests of the vocal pressure groups have been allowed to over-ride the quiet majority. So typical of today's soft appeasing culture...
k what's coming the other way. No comment on London boroughs. Not my patch, I have no idea how they are administered. But I can see both sides of the argument.
And regarding being a vote-winner - it's so that when the next election comes around, they can proudly put on their leaflets that they have reduced accidents by x% etc. If the whingers make the most noise, then they'll get the most attention.
OpulentBob said:
I fully agree about the overtaking risks. I've said elsewhere on here that IMO frustration is the biggest cause of risk-taking, and therefore accidents on the road.
>>>
And regarding being a vote-winner - it's so that when the next election comes around, they can proudly put on their leaflets that they have reduced accidents by x% etc.
We are roughly in accord >>>
And regarding being a vote-winner - it's so that when the next election comes around, they can proudly put on their leaflets that they have reduced accidents by x% etc.
But your statements above seem to conflict 
I contend these blanket 20mph limits increase risk and accidents. Maybe the statistics are being corrupted...
bigdog3 said:
OpulentBob said:
I fully agree about the overtaking risks. I've said elsewhere on here that IMO frustration is the biggest cause of risk-taking, and therefore accidents on the road.
>>>
And regarding being a vote-winner - it's so that when the next election comes around, they can proudly put on their leaflets that they have reduced accidents by x% etc.
We are roughly in accord >>>
And regarding being a vote-winner - it's so that when the next election comes around, they can proudly put on their leaflets that they have reduced accidents by x% etc.
But your statements above seem to conflict I contend these blanket 20mph limits increase risk and accidents. Maybe the statistics are being corrupted...
And the 20mph figures will always be massaged and spun to prove that they're working - by reducing accidents, or reducing the number of complaints by the Police, and therefore the problems are reducing, etc. Have you ever known a politician who wasn't good at data manipulation?
OpulentBob said:
Have you ever known a politician who wasn't good at data manipulation?
You have the cynicism of an older man Yes politicians and corruption are close bed fellows. This 20mph speed limit has everything to do with politics, but nothing to do with road safety. It's seen as the "right thing to do" and will be pursued even if casualties and deaths increase.
All very sobering. Think we've reached end of the road. What a sorry state of affairs...
I was over in the UK recently and noticed that cyclists seem to have got a whole lot more assertive and aggressive (and fvcking annoying) by riding in the middle of the road forcing overtaking cars to slow right down and move into the oncoming lane to get by. They now filter through at lights and sit in front of the first car to prevent it overtaking. They always did the later in London where there are inexplicably specific lanes to allow this but this was up in Northampton; idiotic middle aged blokes in spandex with fvcking go pros on their heads. I never noticed it before so I assume due to the prevalence of this behavior some angry cycling organisation is promoting it. wkers.
kers.fblm said:
I assume due to the prevalence of this behavior some angry cycling organisation is promoting it. wkers.
The Dutch cycle because strict liability made everybody drive safely and play nicekers.“The Netherlands and Denmark have a law of ‘strict liability’ to protect vulnerable road users from more powerful road users. Under this law, in crashes involving vulnerable road users, unless it can be clearly proven that the vulnerable road user was at fault, the more powerful road user is found liable by default. This makes Dutch and Danish drivers more cautious around cyclists and pedestrians and is responsible for their safe roads.”
http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/wiki/dutch-cycle...
bigdog3 said:
fblm said:
I assume due to the prevalence of this behavior some angry cycling organisation is promoting it. wkers.
The Dutch cycle because strict liability made everybody drive safely and play nicekers.“The Netherlands and Denmark have a law of ‘strict liability’ to protect vulnerable road users from more powerful road users. Under this law, in crashes involving vulnerable road users, unless it can be clearly proven that the vulnerable road user was at fault, the more powerful road user is found liable by default. This makes Dutch and Danish drivers more cautious around cyclists and pedestrians and is responsible for their safe roads.”
http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/wiki/dutch-cycle...
fblm said:
Their behavior is inconsiderate and infuriating. Their cirque du soleil outfits are also offensive and laughable but we digress. IMO they are actively seeking conflict hence the go pros. What is bizarre is that it has appeared from nowhere. I even had one idiot do it to me in a NSL 60! He was doing a very commendable 25 mph but seriously, in my youth I'd have been doing 90 down there. No liability law or go pro is going to stop these clowns getting squished like a bug.
No, the go-pros have appeared simply because technology has allowed it. If the tech was around 20 years ago so too would the products.They're used as a defence from exactly the attitude you're displaying.
Youths doing 90 (as indeed did I, when I thought I knew everything but of course knew nothing) have always been a problem, but the tech is also now available and is being used to combat their bad attitudes and give some protection to their potential victims.
heebeegeetee said:
No, the go-pros have appeared simply because technology has allowed it. If the tech was around 20 years ago so too would the products.
The tech was around at least 5 years ago but this kind of 'militant' cycling wasn't, aggressively asserting their 'right' to use the road by deliberately creating a road hazard is a new thing, in the last year or two IME. heebeegeetee said:
They're used as a defence from exactly the attitude you're displaying.
What attitude is that? I find their antics incredibly annoying and dangerous but I'm old enough and ugly enough to not drive like a tw#t or get in a fight just because someone is riding like a muppet, I'll just have a cup of tea and a little moan on the internet. They don't appear to understand how vulnerable they are and when their antics pi55 off someone deranged they are going to lose.heebeegeetee said:
Youths doing 90 (as indeed did I, when I thought I knew everything but of course knew nothing) have always been a problem, but the tech is also now available and is being used to combat their bad attitudes and give some protection to their potential victims.
I'm sure the video evidence will be nice at their inquest, once the coroner has dislodged the gopro from their smaller than average frontal lobe, but it won't stop them getting killed in the first place or ruining the life of some unsuspecting motorist they get knocked infront of. fblm said:
1. The tech was around at least 5 years ago but this kind of 'militant' cycling wasn't, aggressively asserting their 'right' to use the road by deliberately creating a road hazard is a new thing, in the last year or two IME.
2. What attitude is that? I find their antics incredibly annoying and dangerous but I'm old enough and ugly enough to not drive like a tw#t or get in a fight just because someone is riding like a muppet, I'll just have a cup of tea and a little moan on the internet. They don't appear to understand how vulnerable they are and when their antics pi55 off someone deranged they are going to lose.
3. I'm sure the video evidence will be nice at their inquest, once the coroner has dislodged the gopro from their smaller than average frontal lobe, but it won't stop them getting killed in the first place or ruining the life of some unsuspecting motorist they get knocked infront of.
1. The videos of spiteful, dangerous, thick motorists that we're all familiar with have definitely been around for 5 years or more.2. What attitude is that? I find their antics incredibly annoying and dangerous but I'm old enough and ugly enough to not drive like a tw#t or get in a fight just because someone is riding like a muppet, I'll just have a cup of tea and a little moan on the internet. They don't appear to understand how vulnerable they are and when their antics pi55 off someone deranged they are going to lose.
3. I'm sure the video evidence will be nice at their inquest, once the coroner has dislodged the gopro from their smaller than average frontal lobe, but it won't stop them getting killed in the first place or ruining the life of some unsuspecting motorist they get knocked infront of.
2. That attitude.
3. In the 38 years I've been driving, it's always been the case that you can kill a cyclist or motorcyclist with near impunity. Nothing has changed about that in my time, and there's certainly nothing changed in recent times. Whether cyclists know their place and ride in the gutter or whether they try to make some space for themselves, they'll always be victim to motorists with bad attitude. It's been discussed on threads here this month, how the cyclist is to blame if he gets doored or he's to blame because he's antagonised a motorist because he didn't want to be doored.
Fact is, the biggest cause of cyclists demise is vehicles pulling out on them, and the second biggest cause is vehicles running into the back of them, and that's how it's always been, nothing has changed.
It sounds to me that the cyclists you're berating are following professional advice, and as ever, the amateur car driver knows better.
PS I'm not a cyclist, in case you thought otherwise.
heebeegeetee said:
It sounds to me that the cyclists you're berating are following professional advice, and as ever, the amateur car driver knows better.
PS I'm not a cyclist, in case you thought otherwise.
Ignoring your numbered points because they don't appear to be in any way relevant to what I actually wrote but it's professional advice to ride a bicylce at 25mph in the middle of the A508 is it? It's professional advice to filter to the front of traffic lights and block the front car whilst turning round and eyeballing the driver? Really? Thats funny because I am a cyclist and a motorcyclist and I think thats fvcking idiotic behavior but then I am not generally trying to film myself getting in fights. Whatever, I only have to put up with it a few weeks a year, if sharing the road with this new breed of cyclist is so great you're welcome to it. PS I'm not a cyclist, in case you thought otherwise.
fblm said:
Ignoring your numbered points because they don't appear to be in any way relevant to what I actually wrote but it's professional advice to ride a bicylce at 25mph in the middle of the A508 is it? It's professional advice to filter to the front of traffic lights and block the front car whilst turning round and eyeballing the driver? Really? Thats funny because I am a cyclist and a motorcyclist and I think thats fvcking idiotic behavior but then I am not generally trying to film myself getting in fights. Whatever, I only have to put up with it a few weeks a year, if sharing the road with this new breed of cyclist is so great you're welcome to it.
I've not had a problem so far. 
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff