20mph speed limits to be imposed to protect cyclists
Discussion
Yet again a case of what works in London doesn't apply anywhere else, but the same rules do. So I will be forced to do 20mph on the A30/A38 which are both Dual Carriagway because this limit makes sense for the A4 (near that GlaxoKlineSmith building) where the roads are somewhat narrow and traffic is somewhat congested?
OpulentBob said:
In Cambridge, at least, 20mph limits don't apply to cycles, motor vehicles only, as every cyclist gleefully likes to point out on twitter, or in the Cambridge News every time it gets mentioned.
Outside of a few royal Parks, where different rules may apply, speed limits don't apply to cyclists anywhere in the UK.You might also take the time to read the article the OP posted; this proposal isn't particularly about cyclists, in fact the only mention of the word in the article is this:
Mail said:
Transport for London said: ‘Safety cameras across London are being upgraded to new digital cameras which will have the capability to help police enforce 20mph speed limits’, adding that it hoped the new limits will reduce the number of pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists killed or seriously injured by 40 per cent by 2020.
Nice to see the same old boring clichés being banded around as usual but I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, 20mph is here to stay, get used to it.
The people that live in an area generally want them outside their houses, people traveling through don’t. You don’t live there you don’t get a say it’s a simple as that.
The people that live in an area generally want them outside their houses, people traveling through don’t. You don’t live there you don’t get a say it’s a simple as that.
How is it safer for cars to be travelling slower than cyclists and really struggling to see them especially dark and winter no one would expect them to come flying by either side of a car. So dangerous plus say a car suddenly turns in left (let's say his indicator bulb failed at that moment) cyclist flies into side of car
IroningMan said:
OpulentBob said:
In Cambridge, at least, 20mph limits don't apply to cycles, motor vehicles only, as every cyclist gleefully likes to point out on twitter, or in the Cambridge News every time it gets mentioned.
Outside of a few royal Parks, where different rules may apply, speed limits don't apply to cyclists anywhere in the UK.You might also take the time to read the article the OP posted; this proposal isn't particularly about cyclists, in fact the only mention of the word in the article is this:
Mail said:
Transport for London said: ‘Safety cameras across London are being upgraded to new digital cameras which will have the capability to help police enforce 20mph speed limits’, adding that it hoped the new limits will reduce the number of pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists killed or seriously injured by 40 per cent by 2020.
king cyclist, by making use of lights, reflective clothing, and the rules of the road. Even the DDA groups aren't as "victimised" as the poor poor 2 wheeled lot.When I undertook a survey of 74,000 households about 20mph zones, the vast majority of comments that came back were either "I cycle, I'm in support" or "I'm a car user, why pander to the cyclists?". Oh, and "Why are you wasting tax payers money on this s
t". I kind of agree with the last question. My proposed answer to it would probably lose me my job though. Welshbeef said:
roachcoach said:
They have that in Edinburgh. You see this ridiculous crap of bikes whipping past the cars, especially downhill. Or actually just flat out overtaking on the right (which often raises a few eyebrows).
Nobody expects a sneaky left side passing in a city centre! It's a miracle more people don't get hit.
What would protect everyone more is if both riders and drivers alike weren't often such inscrutable fkwits.
Actually if there are 20mph and lower speed limits shouldn't it be a requirement that push bikes (and scooters & some very very fast runners be fitted with speedometers else they might actually not realise they are breaking the law. Nobody expects a sneaky left side passing in a city centre! It's a miracle more people don't get hit.
What would protect everyone more is if both riders and drivers alike weren't often such inscrutable f
kwits.As we don't have police generally with speed guns but instead fixed unmanned cameras we need registration plates on push bikes to ensure they don't break the speed limit. Unless of course undertaking is accepted as safe practice & wing mirror damage is common and just one of those running a car cost.
20 isn't even hard remotely to get to on a bike.
Welshbeef said:
How is it safer for cars to be travelling slower than cyclists and really struggling to see them especially dark and winter no one would expect them to come flying by either side of a car. So dangerous plus say a car suddenly turns in left (let's say his indicator bulb failed at that moment) cyclist flies into side of car
Yeah, 'cos that happens every day, right?OpulentBob said:
It's all about cyclists. The vast majority of 20mph lobby groups are either cycling groups or heavily associated/infiltrated with cycling groups. FFS, the 20's Plenty national conference (yesterday) had Chris sodding Boardman harping on about pro-cycling this and that. Rarely was road safety for pedestrians mentioned. It was nearly all linked to "protect cyclists" etc. Well, the best person to protect a cyclist is the fking cyclist, by making use of lights, reflective clothing, and the rules of the road. Even the DDA groups aren't as "victimised" as the poor poor 2 wheeled lot.
When I undertook a survey of 74,000 households about 20mph zones, the vast majority of comments that came back were either "I cycle, I'm in support" or "I'm a car user, why pander to the cyclists?". Oh, and "Why are you wasting tax payers money on this st". I kind of agree with the last question. My proposed answer to it would probably lose me my job though.
First, cycling groups only speak for the beardy campaigning types that join them. More fool the authorities for listening, perhaps.king cyclist, by making use of lights, reflective clothing, and the rules of the road. Even the DDA groups aren't as "victimised" as the poor poor 2 wheeled lot.When I undertook a survey of 74,000 households about 20mph zones, the vast majority of comments that came back were either "I cycle, I'm in support" or "I'm a car user, why pander to the cyclists?". Oh, and "Why are you wasting tax payers money on this s
t". I kind of agree with the last question. My proposed answer to it would probably lose me my job though. Second, the results of your survey might just reflect the attitudes of the respondents when they're behind the wheel - I'm not sure I'd want to be on the road in front of someone who doesn't want to 'pander to the cyclists', regardless of how many lights I have, how much reflective clothing I'm wearing or how carefully I'm adhering to the Highway Code.
Third, are you sure that all the expensive and wilfully useless 'cycle' infrastructure highlighted by this site is there because cyclists want it to be? Or is it there because people who - presumably - share your profession are being a bit, well, unprofessional?
I don't want cycle lanes, 20mph zones, cycle paths or Sustrans initiatives, I just want to be confident that I'm not going to be killed by some t
t who isn't looking where they're going or who feels that they have some divine right to make preferential use of the bit of road that I'm occupying.OpulentBob said:
It's all about cyclists. The vast majority of 20mph lobby groups are either cycling groups or heavily associated/infiltrated with cycling groups. FFS, the 20's Plenty national conference (yesterday) had Chris sodding Boardman harping on about pro-cycling this and that. Rarely was road safety for pedestrians mentioned. It was nearly all linked to "protect cyclists" etc. Well, the best person to protect a cyclist is the fking cyclist, by making use of lights, reflective clothing, and the rules of the road. Even the DDA groups aren't as "victimised" as the poor poor 2 wheeled lot.
When I undertook a survey of 74,000 households about 20mph zones, the vast majority of comments that came back were either "I cycle, I'm in support" or "I'm a car user, why pander to the cyclists?". Oh, and "Why are you wasting tax payers money on this st". I kind of agree with the last question. My proposed answer to it would probably lose me my job though.
I like Bob king cyclist, by making use of lights, reflective clothing, and the rules of the road. Even the DDA groups aren't as "victimised" as the poor poor 2 wheeled lot.When I undertook a survey of 74,000 households about 20mph zones, the vast majority of comments that came back were either "I cycle, I'm in support" or "I'm a car user, why pander to the cyclists?". Oh, and "Why are you wasting tax payers money on this s
t". I kind of agree with the last question. My proposed answer to it would probably lose me my job though. 
What those in charge seem to be forgetting is that if you want to impove safety the last way of doing it is using a 20 in the wrong place
IroningMan said:
OpulentBob said:
It's all about cyclists. The vast majority of 20mph lobby groups are either cycling groups or heavily associated/infiltrated with cycling groups. FFS, the 20's Plenty national conference (yesterday) had Chris sodding Boardman harping on about pro-cycling this and that. Rarely was road safety for pedestrians mentioned. It was nearly all linked to "protect cyclists" etc. Well, the best person to protect a cyclist is the fking cyclist, by making use of lights, reflective clothing, and the rules of the road. Even the DDA groups aren't as "victimised" as the poor poor 2 wheeled lot.
When I undertook a survey of 74,000 households about 20mph zones, the vast majority of comments that came back were either "I cycle, I'm in support" or "I'm a car user, why pander to the cyclists?". Oh, and "Why are you wasting tax payers money on this st". I kind of agree with the last question. My proposed answer to it would probably lose me my job though.
First, cycling groups only speak for the beardy campaigning types that join them. More fool the authorities for listening, perhaps.king cyclist, by making use of lights, reflective clothing, and the rules of the road. Even the DDA groups aren't as "victimised" as the poor poor 2 wheeled lot.When I undertook a survey of 74,000 households about 20mph zones, the vast majority of comments that came back were either "I cycle, I'm in support" or "I'm a car user, why pander to the cyclists?". Oh, and "Why are you wasting tax payers money on this s
t". I kind of agree with the last question. My proposed answer to it would probably lose me my job though. Second, the results of your survey might just reflect the attitudes of the respondents when they're behind the wheel - I'm not sure I'd want to be on the road in front of someone who doesn't want to 'pander to the cyclists', regardless of how many lights I have, how much reflective clothing I'm wearing or how carefully I'm adhering to the Highway Code.
Third, are you sure that all the expensive and wilfully useless 'cycle' infrastructure highlighted by this site is there because cyclists want it to be? Or is it there because people who - presumably - share your profession are being a bit, well, unprofessional?
I don't want cycle lanes, 20mph zones, cycle paths or Sustrans initiatives, I just want to be confident that I'm not going to be killed by some t
t who isn't looking where they're going or who feels that they have some divine right to make preferential use of the bit of road that I'm occupying.
(Camb is particularly bad for non-compliant cyclists - it's genuinely amazing how there aren't more road deaths when you see Ming Lau, fresh off the boat, cycling the wrong way down an A road at 6am, no lights, in a black rain mac)
And Saaby - thanks
Edited by OpulentBob on Friday 13th March 13:45
IroningMan said:
Welshbeef said:
How is it safer for cars to be travelling slower than cyclists and really struggling to see them especially dark and winter no one would expect them to come flying by either side of a car. So dangerous plus say a car suddenly turns in left (let's say his indicator bulb failed at that moment) cyclist flies into side of car
Yeah, 'cos that happens every day, right?OpulentBob said:
I can't disagree with any of that!
(Camb is particularly bad for non-compliant cyclists - it's genuinely amazing how there aren't more road deaths when you see Ming Lau, fresh off the boat, cycling the wrong way down an A road at 6am, no lights, in a black rain mac)
And Saaby - thanks
Not just Cambridge. Anywhere with a surfeit of smug, self-righteous invincible Oxbridge types is going to be a problem, frankly.(Camb is particularly bad for non-compliant cyclists - it's genuinely amazing how there aren't more road deaths when you see Ming Lau, fresh off the boat, cycling the wrong way down an A road at 6am, no lights, in a black rain mac)
And Saaby - thanks
Edited by OpulentBob on Friday 13th March 13:45
Just look at the BBC...
roachcoach said:
They have that in Edinburgh. You see this ridiculous crap of bikes whipping past the cars, especially downhill. Or actually just flat out overtaking on the right (which often raises a few eyebrows).
Nobody expects a sneaky left side passing in a city centre! It's a miracle more people don't get hit.
What would protect everyone more is if both riders and drivers alike weren't often such inscrutable fkwits.
I frequently overtake cars on the right on part of my commute. Why? Because it's down a hill and it has speed bumps. I can glide down it at 30 with absolutely no problem at all, because I can absorb the bumps with no problem, yet I'll frequently get pillocks in cars determined to try and overtake me between the speed bumps, only to ram the anchors back on when they get to the next speed bump. I'll be a good 100 yards ahead of them (at which point we've reached the queue for the traffic lights at the end of the road) by the time it flattens out, so why do they bother? Nobody expects a sneaky left side passing in a city centre! It's a miracle more people don't get hit.
What would protect everyone more is if both riders and drivers alike weren't often such inscrutable f
kwits.
As for this new speed limit, I'm opposed to it in theory, for all the reasons that other cyclists have already expressed. I say "in theory" though, as I reckon the only vehicles that exceed 20mph on the A24/A3 between Colliers Wood and the Elephant are cyclists, motorbikes and emergency services vehicles anyway!
wolves_wanderer said:
IroningMan said:
Welshbeef said:
How is it safer for cars to be travelling slower than cyclists and really struggling to see them especially dark and winter no one would expect them to come flying by either side of a car. So dangerous plus say a car suddenly turns in left (let's say his indicator bulb failed at that moment) cyclist flies into side of car
Yeah, 'cos that happens every day, right?Still support the cyclist when turning into a 90 degree turning do not decelerate 30mph 90 turn...
that will keep him focused on the road Type R Tom said:
Nice to see the same old boring clichés being banded around as usual but I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, 20mph is here to stay, get used to it.
The people that live in an area generally want them outside their houses, people traveling through don’t. You don’t live there you don’t get a say it’s a simple as that.
i would say people living in an area generally want respectful drivers using their area,it is the muppets driving like idiots in inappropriate places that get the backs of the speeding gestapo up. the authorities respond by changing limits on signs,and the muppets carry on as before,while responsible drivers get pissed off a little bit more.The people that live in an area generally want them outside their houses, people traveling through don’t. You don’t live there you don’t get a say it’s a simple as that.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff