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



## Origamist (11 Jul 2014)

*Full article:* http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/7716

Southwark Council is poised to approve a 20 mph speed limit on nearly every road in the borough, despite objections from the Metropolitan Police and the Freight Transport Association.

Borough Road is one of the roads where the speed limit will be cut from 30 mph to 20 mph
Cllr Mark Williams, Southwark's cabinet member for transport, is expected to formally reject the seven objections to the council's published proposals for a 20 mph speed limit on all roads controlled by the authority.

Roads affected by the proposal include Southwark Bridge Road, Borough Road, Harper Road, Grange Road, Mandela Way and Long Lane.

"Introducing speed limits where traffic speeds are too high places an unrealistic
expectation to enforce on the Metropolitan Police," wrote * ... *http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/7716

In a break with the national convention that speed limits only apply to motor vehicles, *the council plans to include horse-drawn carriages and bicycles in the scope of the reduced speed limit by referring simply to 'vehicles' in its proposed traffic management order.
*
Responding to a comment from a member of the public that it was ... http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/7716


----------



## Rooster1 (11 Jul 2014)

Agree that the bikes should not exceed the speed limit either but not only will cyclists have to have an accurate speedo, it will mean cyclists looking at the speedo rather than the road.


----------



## Markymark (11 Jul 2014)

Rooster1 said:


> Agree that the bikes should not exceed the speed limit either but not only will cyclists have to have an accurate speedo, it will mean cyclists looking at the speedo rather than the road.


Why would cyclists need a speedo any more than say a driver needs an alcohol breathalyser to be under the limit?


----------



## Hacienda71 (11 Jul 2014)

Bet you are glad you are up North now or you would be getting speeding tickets everyday!


----------



## Beebo (11 Jul 2014)

I agree, 20mph is fairly fast for London cyclists, you dont want to be overtaking cars when they are doing 20mph anyway.
The speedo thing is a bit tricky, but as @0-markymark-0 says, you should know how fast you are going anyway. I dont have any speedo on my bike and cycle through Greenwich Park every day, which has a 20mph, if I am catching up the cars then I know I am going too fast.


----------



## CopperBrompton (11 Jul 2014)

Rooster1 said:


> Agree that the bikes should not exceed the speed limit either but not only will cyclists have to have an accurate speedo, it will mean cyclists looking at the speedo rather than the road.


Eh? Why would a cyclist need to spend any longer looking at their speedo than a car driver?


----------



## J.Primus (11 Jul 2014)

Trikeman said:


> Eh? Why would a cyclist need to spend any longer looking at their speedo than a car driver?



Lack of a dashboard that is in your eyeline whilst looking at the road?


----------



## CopperBrompton (11 Jul 2014)

A car dashboard isn't in your eyeline whilst looking at the road either - in both cases, you glance briefly down from time to time. If you can't do that safely, you have bigger problems than risking a speeding ticket.


----------



## Shut Up Legs (11 Jul 2014)

So the police object to the proposed speed limit because it's lower than what the motorists currently do? _Geeeez_...


----------



## J.Primus (11 Jul 2014)

Do councils have the power to change how the road traffic act is interperated anyway? Seems like changing who speed limits apply to is the sort of thing parliament does.

There is a council estate near me with a 5mph limit are they going to have police ticketing joggers?


----------



## hoski (11 Jul 2014)

Trikeman said:


> A car dashboard isn't in your eyeline whilst looking at the road either - in both cases, you glance briefly down from time to time. If you can't do that safely, you have bigger problems than risking a speeding ticket.


The dash in my car is much closer to my eyeline than my handlebars. Also, the speedo in the car is much larger and easier to read... I can't envisage an effective way of replicating the same for my bike.


----------



## J.Primus (11 Jul 2014)

Trikeman said:


> A car dashboard isn't in your eyeline whilst looking at the road either - in both cases, you glance briefly down from time to time. If you can't do that safely, you have bigger problems than risking a speeding ticket.



Maybe it varies from car to car but mine is.


----------



## CopperBrompton (11 Jul 2014)

victor said:


> So the police object to the proposed speed limit because it's lower than what the motorists currently do?


No, they're objecting because it's more than 20% lower than the current average speed, and thus falls outside the guidelines for a new speed limit.


----------



## CopperBrompton (11 Jul 2014)

hoski said:


> The dash in my car is much closer to my eyeline than my handlebars.


Mine too, on the Brompton (not on the trike), but I do not find it in any way challenging to safely check my speed on the Brompton.


----------



## w00hoo_kent (11 Jul 2014)

victor said:


> So the police object to the proposed speed limit because it's lower than what the motorists currently do? _Geeeez_...


Not really, no. The police object to lowering the speed limit because it's all a bit arbitrary and they don't have the staff to police it because of cuts. There's little point putting in yet another unpoliced 20mph zone as all it does is teach people that it doesn't matter if they break the speed limit or not. As for whether that area needs to be 20, I'm there often enough and don't see the 30mph limit it has now as being any sort of issue. When traffic is heavy it's not doing that anyway, later at night there isn't much there so it doesn't make much difference and there are plenty of crossing options.


----------



## Alun (11 Jul 2014)

It doesn't sound like the Met will be out in force to catch errant motor vehicles, horse drawn carriages and cycles anyway.


----------



## Maylian (11 Jul 2014)

Not that this affects me in any way at all. But how would they be able to measure the speed the cyclist is doing? If police are claiming that they haven't the resources to enforce this for motor vehicles in what scenario would they be able to go after an unregistered cyclist?

It may be from being down South proper but I frequently overtake cars doing faster than 20mph on some roads although not heavily built up areas and wouldn't filter at that speed.


----------



## TwickenhamCyclist (11 Jul 2014)

victor said:


> So the police object to the proposed speed limit because it's lower than what the motorists currently do? _Geeeez_...


That sums it up well.... Along with the objection that people will expect them to enforce the law....


----------



## J.Primus (11 Jul 2014)

I don't think a speed gun can pick up a cyclist. We're too small. I'd still like to know how a council has the power to tell police to change how a law is enforced. Surely any speed limit will still be governed by the 1984 Road Traffic Act that states speed limits only apply to motorised vehicles.


----------



## Alun (11 Jul 2014)

J.Primus said:


> Lack of a dashboard that is in your eyeline whilst looking at the road?


The same as on a motorbike you mean?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (11 Jul 2014)

J.Primus said:


> I don't think a speed gun can pick up a cyclist. We're too small. I'd still like to know how a council has the power to tell police to change how a law is enforced. Surely any speed limit will still be governed by the 1984 Road Traffic Act that states speed limits only apply to motorised vehicles.


Static speed "guns" capture cyclists without problem. There's one on the outskirts of Brighton people ride all night to set off.


----------



## Alun (11 Jul 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Static speed "guns" capture cyclists without problem. There's one on the outskirts of Brighton people ride all night to set off.


Are these the usual Gatso devices? If so, how do they identify the speeding cyclist?


----------



## ClichéGuevara (11 Jul 2014)

It's an argument offered by the Police over a number of issues/initiatives that they're not resourced to deal with it. For example, they offered it as a reason to oppose new bus lanes.

As they should currently Police the existing limit anyway, surely they'll gather more income Policing the self and same roads with a lower limit?

Am I missing something?


----------



## snorri (11 Jul 2014)

J.Primus said:


> I don't think a speed gun can pick up a cyclist.


I had a speed gun pointed at me about 10 years ago and asked the police officer what speed I had been doing, he quoted precisely the figure indicated on my cycle computer at the time.
i would add all this was done in good nature, with smiles at both ends of the speed gun.


----------



## w00hoo_kent (11 Jul 2014)

snorri said:


> I had a speed gun pointed at me about 10 years ago and asked the police officer what speed I had been doing, he quoted precisely the figure indicated on my cycle computer at the time.
> i would add all this was done in good nature, with smiles from both ends of the speed gun.


Yup, a speed gun would catch a cyclist easily. My paramedic friend spent some time wasting time sat next to a copper on speed gun duty and got to play around with it, they could hit the helmet of a motorcyclist a ridiculous distance away. They'd have no problem hitting the head/body of a cyclist.


----------



## J.Primus (11 Jul 2014)

snorri said:


> I had a speed gun pointed at me about 10 years ago and asked the police officer what speed I had been doing, he quoted precisely the figure indicated on my cycle computer at the time.
> i would add all this was done in good nature, with smiles from both ends of the speed gun.


Fair enough. I stand very much corrected. I'm still not convinced that councils have the authority to change the actual law as well as the speed limit though.


----------



## Origamist (11 Jul 2014)

J.Primus said:


> *I'd still like to know how a council has the power to tell police to change how a law is enforced*. Surely any speed limit will still be governed by the 1984 Road Traffic Act that states speed limits only apply to motorised vehicles.


 
I don't think they do - it would need new legislation AFAIK.


----------



## biking_fox (11 Jul 2014)

There is no requirement for a cyclist to have a speedo, and no documentation to show that it is calibrated correctly. Hence cyclists can't know what speed they are doing. Whether or not that is a valid excuse for going faster than the limit is a different matter. The council could presumably easily bylaw the speed restriction to include all vehicles.


----------



## Alun (11 Jul 2014)

biking_fox said:


> There is no requirement for a cyclist to have a speedo, and no documentation to show that it is calibrated correctly. Hence cyclists can't know what speed they are doing. Whether or not that is a valid excuse for going faster than the limit is a different matter. The council could presumably easily bylaw the speed restriction to include all vehicles.


The lack of speedo is a red herring. A Byelaw or change in the existing legislation would seem to be necessary to include bikes. Speeding byelaws including bikes exist in some London Parks, I don't know what is required to implement these though. The *appropriate* 20mph signage is something which needs some consideration in a complex network of streets as well. I think enforcement of a speed limit on bikes would be the biggest challenge, speed cameras will not work so it would have to be a manual operation requiring at least 2 people, The area looks fairly flat on Google maps so how many 20mph+ cyclists will there be?


----------



## benb (11 Jul 2014)

ClichéGuevara said:


> It's an argument offered by the Police over a number of issues/initiatives that they're not resourced to deal with it. For example, they offered it as a reason to oppose new bus lanes.
> 
> As they should currently Police the existing limit anyway, surely they'll gather more income Policing the self and same roads with a lower limit?
> 
> Am I missing something?



Money from speeding fines don't go to the issuing police force, they go to the treasury.
Resources are stretched, but I don't hold much truck with the argument that you shouldn't introduce a speed limit somewhere where drivers aren't already going that slowly!


----------



## Origamist (11 Jul 2014)

Origamist said:


> I don't think they do - it would need new legislation AFAIK.


 
Mmm, looking at this, possibly not:

"The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 allows for speed limits to be imposed by local acts, but has never been used to impose speed limits on cyclists."

Perhaps Southwark will be the first to try?


----------



## sidevalve (11 Jul 2014)

biking_fox said:


> There is no requirement for a cyclist to have a speedo, and no documentation to show that it is calibrated correctly. Hence cyclists can't know what speed they are doing. Whether or not that is a valid excuse for going faster than the limit is a different matter. The council could presumably easily bylaw the speed restriction to include all vehicles.


 Yet. The problem of fitting a speedo to a bike only really applied when they were large heavy mechanical things - with the advent of electronics the whole ball park has moved. Besides is it really so much to ask anyway that cyclists [who are among the loudest in calling for speed limits] should at least try to obay them ? Just because they can "get away with it" too many riders consider themselves outside ANY road laws. Sorry but sooner or later that will change and we will all suffer.


----------



## Markymark (11 Jul 2014)

sidevalve said:


> Yet. The problem of fitting a speedo to a bike only really applied when they were large heavy mechanical things - with the advent of electronics the whole ball park has moved. Besides is it really so much to ask anyway that cyclists [who are among the loudest in calling for speed limits] should at least try to obay them ? Just because they can "get away with it" too many riders consider themselves outside ANY road laws. Sorry but sooner or later that will change and we will all suffer.


Maybe because the danger posed from cyclists doing >20mph is significantly less than the danger posed by cars?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (11 Jul 2014)

Alun said:


> Are these the usual Gatso devices? If so, how do they identify the speeding cyclist?


As law abiding folk we surrender ourselves to the nearest police officer, once we've caught up with him.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (11 Jul 2014)

What? This country has laws against speeding? And someone enforces them? That's unbelievable!


----------



## Maylian (11 Jul 2014)

sidevalve said:


> Yet. The problem of fitting a speedo to a bike only really applied when they were large heavy mechanical things - with the advent of electronics the whole ball park has moved. Besides is it really so much to ask anyway that cyclists [who are among the loudest in calling for speed limits] should at least try to obay them ? Just because they can "get away with it" too many riders consider themselves outside ANY road laws. Sorry but sooner or later that will change and we will all suffer.



Is it actually getting away with it, when the laws don't normally apply to cyclists in terms of speed limits? Royal parks etc. excluded.


----------



## Markymark (11 Jul 2014)

But he wouldn't have got a fine (or at keast one that he could easily appeal) because the calibration lines would show he wasn't speeding (unless he didn't slow enough and actually was speeding)


----------



## Origamist (11 Jul 2014)

User said:


> *It won't be*. Speed limits have been imposed under various local measures over the years, including in Royal Parks and along certain parts of the Thames Path. They tended not to be enforced as there was no reliable way of determining the cyclists' speeds and speed cameras and speed guns at the time had not been approved for evidencing speeds below 30 mph. Most of the speed restrictions on cycles have been rescinded.
> 
> However, a number of speed guns have now been approved for evidencing speeds of 20 mph+, which may be why Southwark are thinking of introducing a limit. Southwark has something of a schizophrenic relationship with cyclists - on one hand it claims to encourage and with the other it seems to do everything it can to make life difficult (e.g. the proposed ban on cycling on the Thames Path they mooted a few years ago). Hopefully Jenny Jones will get this plan kicked into the long grass, the same as she has done with their other stupid ideas...


 
Thanks. Like you, I think it highly unlikely, but am I right in thinking speed limits for cyclists on Southwark's 20mph limit roads are a possibility (even if they could not be enforced via the RTRA)? I'd always assumed it would need a change in primary legislation (unlike special regs in Royal Parks etc).


----------



## MisterStan (11 Jul 2014)

User said:


> We put our names on our backs.


There do seem to be an awful lot of cyclists named 'Castelli and DHB'


----------



## w00hoo_kent (11 Jul 2014)

Maylian said:


> Is it actually getting away with it, when the laws don't normally apply to cyclists in terms of speed limits? Royal parks etc. excluded.


I think it's fair to presume that the poster was referring to all manner of laws cyclists might break, not just a speed one.


----------



## gaz (11 Jul 2014)

biking_fox said:


> There is no requirement for a cyclist to have a speedo, and no documentation to show that it is calibrated correctly. Hence cyclists can't know what speed they are doing. Whether or not that is a valid excuse for going faster than the limit is a different matter. The council could presumably easily bylaw the speed restriction to include all vehicles.


Can they bylaw something which already has a 'higher' law starting otherwise?


----------



## Markymark (11 Jul 2014)

gaz said:


> Can they bylaw something which already has a 'higher' law starting otherwise?


Which higher law says that no limits can be applied to cyclists?


----------



## J.Primus (11 Jul 2014)

0-markymark-0 said:


> Which higher law says that no limits can be applied to cyclists?


The road traffic act


----------



## Markymark (11 Jul 2014)

I didn't now there was a bit that specifically says that speeding laws cannot be applied to cyclists, I just thought they were excluded which is different?


----------



## J.Primus (11 Jul 2014)

It specifically says who it does apply to. As in it states its a law that only applies to motorised vehicles. It doesn't need to state who it doesn't apply to as it's a given that if you're not a motorised vehicle then you're not affected by it.
I know they can do bylaws for parks and other 'non standard' roads but I'm really not sure they can for normal highways.
Also I've been on Southwark councils website and there isn't a mention of the 20mph limit applying to bicycles anywhere. The only reference I can see if the one in the article in the OP.
If anyone else can find Southwark council saying this in an official capacity on their website please link it as I can't see it anywhere. 
Again I'd be very surprised if it's actually within their power to do so.


----------



## Markymark (11 Jul 2014)

That's not the same thing though is it. A law on handguns probably goes into great detail specifying what a handgun is. Doesn't mean there can't be bye laws for knives.

There is no law saying no limits for cyclists, there is simply an absence of any law. Therefore I cannot see any bye-law in conflict with any higher law.


----------



## J.Primus (11 Jul 2014)

0-markymark-0 said:


> That's not the same thing though is it. A law on handguns probably goes into great detail specifying what a handgun is. Doesn't mean there can't be bye laws for knives.
> 
> There is no law saying no limits for cyclists, there is simply an absence of any law. Therefore I cannot see any bye-law in conflict with any higher law.


 
Absolutely, parliament could bring in speeding laws for bikes and it wouldn't cut across the RTA. What I'm saying is I don't think local government has the legislative power to introduce new laws on public highways where breaking them would be a criminal offence.


----------



## J.Primus (11 Jul 2014)

Also after some further digging the legislation that allows (according to the police but it's shaky at best) cyclists to be fined in the royal parks was not a local govenment bylaw but an interpretation of The Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces Regulations Act which was introduced by parliament and not local government.
If I could find an official source for Southwark Council saying they are going to this I would say they are talking out of their hat and they don't have the power to do it. That said as I've mentioned before I can't see anything other than the article in the OP suggesting that this is the case.


----------



## CopperBrompton (11 Jul 2014)

biking_fox said:


> There is no requirement for a cyclist to have a speedo


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.


----------



## J.Primus (11 Jul 2014)

Trikeman said:


> 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.


 
Do you have a link for that. I can't see anything suggesting that is the case. A car or a motorbike must have a working speedometer to pass an MOT to be considered roadworthy so I can't see how you could drive a road legal vehicle without one.

The speedo thing is moot anyway as there is no current legislation that applies to bikes on public highways.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (11 Jul 2014)

Trikeman said:


> 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.


 
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.


----------



## Amanda P (11 Jul 2014)

Origamist said:


> "Introducing speed limits where traffic speeds are too high places an unrealistic
> expectation to enforce on the Metropolitan Police," wrote Catherine Linney of the Met's traffic management unit.



Eh? So what speed limits DO they enforce? I don't notice much of it anywhere else.



> "We also object to the implementation of the 20 mph limit where it is not obvious to the motorist through the look and feel of the road that the speed limit is 20 mph."



Hmmm. You'd think the brightly-coloured metal signs with numbers on might be enough. Instead it seems we have to interpret 'look and feel'.

So, you can only have a speed limit in a place where the traffic is already doing that speed anyway, so it's not needed? So why bother with any speed limits at all? 

What bizarre logic!


----------



## Mile195 (11 Jul 2014)

Whether or not they can enforce it on cyclists seems irrelevant. 20 limits are never enforced anyway and everybody knows it. I've lived in London 10 years and only once do I ever recall seeing a proper police speed trap on any road within the M25. I've certainly never seen one in a 20 zone. 20 limits just seem like a bit of a gimmick to me. It's just a cheap way to make it look like your council is doing something about road safety.

It's a shame, because when I first encountered one when I first started driving, they were so rare I though there really must be something worth slowing down for - school, bad road, tight bend etc. Now that councils just shove them anywhere to shut complaining residents up, they've lost any importance that they formally implied.

Additionally I doubt they'll make one iota of difference to road safety. Any near misses I've ever had have been with idiots doing stupid things, but doing them well within the speed limit.


----------



## Markymark (11 Jul 2014)

Except if that near miss turned into a collision, the likelihood of serious injury or death is greatly minimised by a lower speed.

Don't blame the councils for putting them everywhere, blame the police for not enforcing them.


----------



## gaz (11 Jul 2014)

0-markymark-0 said:


> Which higher law says that no limits can be applied to cyclists?


None to my knowledge, that isn't what I said though.


----------



## Markymark (11 Jul 2014)

gaz said:


> None to my knowledge, that isn't what I said though.


So which higher law are you refering to?


----------



## Mile195 (11 Jul 2014)

0-markymark-0 said:


> Except if that near miss turned into a collision, the likelihood of serious injury or death is greatly minimised by a lower speed.
> 
> Don't blame the councils for putting them everywhere, blame the police for not enforcing them.


Maybe, but the people doing stupid things don't tend to care too much about speed limits either. But if people are moving faster then it'll at least get them home and off the road quicker. Having half the people dawdling around at 20, means the other half will be attempting dangerous overtaking maneuvers to get past them.


----------



## Markymark (11 Jul 2014)

Mile195 said:


> Maybe, but the people doing stupid things don't tend to care too much about speed limits either. But if people are moving faster then it'll at least get them home and off the road quicker. Having half the people dawdling around at 20, means the other half will be attempting dangerous overtaking maneuvers to get past them.


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


----------



## J.Primus (11 Jul 2014)

0-markymark-0 said:


> So which higher law are you refering to?


I've fairly comprehensively answered your questions about why I think councils don't have the authority to set speed limits for bicycles on the other page!


----------



## Markymark (11 Jul 2014)

J.Primus said:


> I've fairly comprehensively answered your questions about why I think councils don't have the authority to set speed limits for bicycles on the other page!


Sorry but no. There's legislation re laws for motorised vehicles. That simply does not then follow that bye-laws cannot be brought in for non motorised vehicles. 
As I also 'comprehensively answered' on the previous page there are laws banning hand guns that go into great detail what a gun it. Doesn't mean there can't be bye-laws banning knives too.


----------



## J.Primus (11 Jul 2014)

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 (11 Jul 2014)

Ah, ok.


----------



## Mile195 (11 Jul 2014)

0-markymark-0 said:


> 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 (11 Jul 2014)

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 (11 Jul 2014)

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 (11 Jul 2014)

User said:


> 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 (11 Jul 2014)

User said:


> 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 (11 Jul 2014)

glasgowcyclist said:


> 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 (11 Jul 2014)

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 (11 Jul 2014)

User said:


> 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 (11 Jul 2014)

Mile195 said:


> 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 (11 Jul 2014)

PK99 said:


> 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 (11 Jul 2014)

swansonj said:


> 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
> ...


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 (11 Jul 2014)

Trikeman said:


> 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



Trikeman said:


> 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 (11 Jul 2014)

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


----------



## CopperBrompton (11 Jul 2014)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Agreed. I posted the Regs because I read your previous post
> as suggesting that cars generally don't need speedos fitted.


My point was some cars do, some don't, and all are subject to speed limits, so the argument that bikes don't have to have speedos and so should be exempt from speed limits is a poor one.


----------



## w00hoo_kent (12 Jul 2014)

Ignorance has never been a viable excuse in the eyes of the law.


----------



## gaz (12 Jul 2014)

0-markymark-0 said:


> So which higher law are you refering to?


Road traffic regulation act 1984 section 81 states
"It shall not be lawful for a person to drive a motor vehicle on a restricted road at a speed exceeding 30 miles per hour."
A restricted road is described in section 82
"in England and Wales, there is provided on it a system of street lighting furnished by means of lamps placed not more than 200 yards apart"

Might I suggest you read my original comment again. I'm stating nothing as fact but in fact questioning if council bylaws would overpower this?


----------



## CopperBrompton (12 Jul 2014)

I assume they can, as the 20mph limit in Richmond Park applies to bicycles too.


----------



## J.Primus (12 Jul 2014)

That's because of a law passed by parliament (The Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces Regulations Act) not a council bylaw. I've already gone through it once on page 3.


----------



## mick1836 (12 Jul 2014)

I find it hard NOT to exceed the national speed limit (70) when I pedal down the M6.


----------



## Dan B (12 Jul 2014)

mick1836 said:


> I find it hard NOT to exceed the national speed limit (70) when I peddle down the M6.


I bet you don't have a street trading permit either


----------



## benborp (12 Jul 2014)

The law in some areas does treat cyclists differently to motorists. While it might seem that 'cyclists can get away with it' because the limits and constraints that apply to vehicle operators don't apply to them, the truth is that there is legislation that deals with cyclists' speed, behaviour, sobriety and road worthiness, it's just that the criteria on which cyclists are judged is subjective and allows policing and justice to be carried out in a proportionate manner. Sometimes.


----------



## PK99 (12 Jul 2014)

benborp said:


> The law in some areas does treat cyclists differently to motorists. While it might seem that 'cyclists can get away with it' because the limits and constraints that apply to vehicle operators don't apply to them, the truth is that there is legislation that deals with cyclists' speed, behaviour, sobriety and road worthiness, it's just that the criteria on which cyclists are judged is subjective and allows policing and justice to be carried out in a proportionate manner. Sometimes.



The reason why the speed limits apply to cars and not bikes, is that is was inconceivable, when the laws were originally drafted, that cyclists could exceed the speed limits. The point was therefore moot, i very much doubt there was a concious decision, based on the kinetic energy difference, to excuse bikes from the limit. As more and more areas get 20mph limits the point becomes no longer moot as cycles will sometimes be the fastest vehicles and present a significant hazard to more vulnerable road users - it makes little difference to a small child whether they are hit by a bike at 25 miles an hour or a car at 25 miles an hour.


----------



## benborp (12 Jul 2014)

There have been numerous iterations of The Road Traffic Act and these in turn have been updated. At the time of the Motor Car Act of 1903 the menace on the roads was most definitely perceived to be cads on pedal cycles. The legislation has most definitely not been accidentally drafted to consistently recognise the differences inherent in different forms of transport.
And I'm afraid knowing the difference between striking a child with a car or a cycle at 25mph makes me feel physically sick.


----------



## Tim Hall (12 Jul 2014)

Trikeman said:


> I assume they can, as the 20mph limit in Richmond Park applies to bicycles too.


Not any more, AIUI. The latest bylaw switched back to "mechanically proplled vehicles". I can't find a reference right now. @User is the man to ask.


----------



## CopperBrompton (12 Jul 2014)

Really? Damn - I really wanted a speeding ticket for my bicycle to frame and hang in the bathroom.


----------



## MrWill (12 Jul 2014)

Can cyclists speed be measure by the speed guns and set cameras off?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 Jul 2014)

PK99 said:


> The reason why the speed limits apply to cars and not bikes, is that is was inconceivable, when the laws were originally drafted, that cyclists could exceed the speed limits. The point was therefore moot, i very much doubt there was a concious decision, based on the kinetic energy difference, to excuse bikes from the limit. As more and more areas get 20mph limits the point becomes no longer moot as cycles will sometimes be the fastest vehicles and present a significant hazard to more vulnerable road users - it makes little difference to a small child whether they are hit by a bike at 25 miles an hour or a car at 25 miles an hour.



Shoemakers. The blanket "street lights = 30mph" limit was introduced in 1930 at which point cyclists had been capable of exceeding 30 mph for decades.

Car vs Bike vs Child? 

The vehicle would make a tremendous difference to the child's well being

Me in a Fiat 500 at 25mph = 66550 joules of KE
Me on a bike at 25mph = 7260 joules of KE

Nearly 10 times as much KE would be transferred to them if hit by a small car rather than the bike. The laws of physics are merciless and KE makes a harsh mistress.


----------



## J.Primus (12 Jul 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Shoemakers. The blanket "street lights = 30mph" limit was introduced in 1930 at which point cyclists had been capable of exceeding 30 mph for decades.
> 
> Car vs Bike vs Child?
> 
> ...



Very true. For a comparison I play rugby and the difference between hitting a 12st guy and an 18st guy is absolutely massive. One you can barely notice and the other can knock the wind out of you massively. That's only a 50% increase in mass but the difference is huge.
Now compare that with the 900% mark up from bike to car and how anyone could imagine that it wouldn't make any difference is mad. My maths isn't fantastic but wouldn't a bike need to be going at motorway speeds to have the same effect as a car at 25mph


----------



## stowie (12 Jul 2014)

J.Primus said:


> Very true. For a comparison I play rugby and the difference between hitting a 12st guy and an 18st guy is absolutely massive. One you can barely notice and the other can knock the wind out of you massively. That's only a 50% increase in mass but the difference is huge.
> Now compare that with the 900% mark up from bike to car and how anyone could imagine that it wouldn't make any difference is mad. My maths isn't fantastic but wouldn't a bike need to be going at motorway speeds to have the same effect as a car at 25mph



Taking GrumpyGregry's KE result at face value, the bicycle would need to be travelling at around 80mph to generate the same KE (assuming rider + bike = 100kg, but even if the combined weight was 200kg, the speed would need to be around 60mph). Neither speed are ones that I have yet to attain under my own pedal power.


----------



## benb (13 Jul 2014)

Mile195 said:


> 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...



Even if it were true that speed was a factor in only 5% of collisions, which I find utterly implausible, a lower speed would still make a collision less likely, and the outcome less severe.


----------



## marknotgeorge (13 Jul 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Shoemakers. The blanket "street lights = 30mph" limit was introduced in 1930 at which point cyclists had been capable of exceeding 30 mph for decades.
> 
> Car vs Bike vs Child?
> 
> ...


It'd still be a rather unpleasant experience.


----------



## J.Primus (13 Jul 2014)

User said:


> Actually, local government can. Byelaws are still laws... and they're brought in by local authorities through delegated powers.


The scope of what they can do with those bylaws is very limited. To the best of my knowledge they cannot create new criminal offences. They are devolved power to set speed limits under that 2010 signage act I can't remember the name of but it does not give them the authority to redefine the road traffic act. 
If you can find a single instance where a council has enacted a bylaw that has created a new criminal offence that is only an offence in that borough I'd be very interested to see it.


----------



## J.Primus (13 Jul 2014)

User said:


> I'm afraid that the extent of your knowledge is limited. Local authorities can create summary criminal offences through byelaws...


Link?


----------



## J.Primus (13 Jul 2014)

User said:


> I suggest you go to gov.uk and look at the guidance on byelaws issued by the Department for Communities and Local Government. I'm not here to spoonfeed the ignorant...


So no evidence then. Carry on.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (13 Jul 2014)

J.Primus said:


> So no evidence then. Carry on.


I believe this is the source User is referring to:
https://www.gov.uk/local-government-legislation-byelaws

"Since byelaws create criminal offences, they cannot come into effect unless they have been confirmed by a Secretary of State."​
GC


----------



## Cubist (13 Jul 2014)

How about the Birmingham Tripe Boilers Act?


----------



## J.Primus (13 Jul 2014)

From gov.uk
'A byelaw is a local law which is made by a statutory body, such as a local authority, under an enabling power established by an Act of Parliament. *If there is general legislation to cover the subject causing concern, byelaws are not generally considered suitable.'*

Wow. Knocked if out of the park there champ. It's almost like councils can't make laws that cut across existing legislation.


----------



## J.Primus (13 Jul 2014)

glasgowcyclist said:


> I believe this is the source User is referring to:
> https://www.gov.uk/local-government-legislation-byelaws
> 
> "Since byelaws create criminal offences, they cannot come into effect unless they have been confirmed by a Secretary of State."​
> GC


Cheers. Obviously User is still trying to work out how google works.


----------



## Cubist (13 Jul 2014)

J.Primus said:


> From gov.uk
> 'A byelaw is a local law which is made by a statutory body, such as a local authority, under an enabling power established by an Act of Parliament. *If there is general legislation to cover the subject causing concern, byelaws are not generally considered suitable.'*
> 
> Wow. Knocked if out of the park there champ. It's almost like councils can't make laws that cut across existing legislation.


There are very few road traffic offences in terms of signage etc that are covered by the road traffic act itself. Nearly all the restrictions you see in towns and cities are created by byelaw. For example, one way streets, no left or right turn , etc etc. speeding legislation in the RTA starts at 30 mph. In order to create a 20 mph limit, they need a byelaw. In other words, there is no existing rnforceable legislation to provide for anything lower than 30 mph. Then, all speeding under the RTA refers to mechanically propelled vehicles. In order to extend that to pedal cycles the borough must use a byelaw. That will of course be open to challenge, and the police will object simply because of the resources it would take to prove the offence, even if they thought it were necessary.


----------



## Cubist (13 Jul 2014)

User said:


> Can I haz TMN?


You can have one for my post too, but I make no excuses because some folk are too busy being rude to think straight and comprehend........


----------



## J.Primus (13 Jul 2014)

User said:


> I don't have to rely on Google, as I actually know what I'm talking about.
> 
> Shall we just refresh our memories on your claims?
> 
> ...


Hey if spanking random men on the internet is your thing then don't let me stop you.


----------



## J.Primus (13 Jul 2014)

User said:


> You really don;t know when to give up, do you..? Were you dropped on your head as a child?


Why? What do you have against children who've suffered head injuries? Are they not people too.


----------



## PK99 (13 Jul 2014)

Now, now children! Stop that bickering!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (13 Jul 2014)

marknotgeorge said:


> It'd still be a rather unpleasant experience.


I don't doubt it. But I don't doubt that being hit by a car at the same speed would be considerably more than merely unpleasant.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (13 Jul 2014)

J.Primus said:


> Very true. For a comparison I play rugby and the difference between hitting a 12st guy and an 18st guy is absolutely massive. One you can barely notice and the other can knock the wind out of you massively. That's only a 50% increase in mass but the difference is huge.
> Now compare that with the 900% mark up from bike to car and how anyone could imagine that it wouldn't make any difference is mad. My maths isn't fantastic but wouldn't a bike need to be going at motorway speeds to have the same effect as a car at 25mph


115kg bloke running into a tackle at 7 metres a with a stationary tackler = 2793 Joules
76 Kg guy same situation = 1862 Joules

but velocity is more important than mass; counterintuitively. If our twelve stone winger ups a gear and hits 20mph (9 metres per second) as he hits you? 3078 joules. More KE than the big lad. Of course, in the oval ball game big _and_ fast is what you fear!


----------



## J.Primus (13 Jul 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> 115kg bloke running into a tackle at 7 metres a with a stationary tackler = 2793 Joules
> 76 Kg guy same situation = 1862 Joules
> 
> but velocity is more important than mass; counterintuitively. If our twelve stone winger ups a gear and hits 20mph (9 metres per second) as he hits you? 3078 joules. More KE than the big lad. Of course, in the oval ball game big _and_ fast is what you fear!



Big, fast and bony knees is what keeps me up at night


----------



## Kookas (13 Jul 2014)

0-markymark-0 said:


> Why would cyclists need a speedo any more than say a driver needs an alcohol breathalyser to be under the limit?



So you're saying cyclists shouldn't cycle at all? Because surely, the only way to know for certain you're under the limit is to not drink at all before driving.

Also, the speed limit is something people travel at, when they can. People don't usually drink right until they're just below the limit.


----------



## Markymark (13 Jul 2014)

Kookas said:


> So you're saying cyclists shouldn't cycle at all? Because surely, the only way to know for certain you're under the limit is to not drink at all before driving.
> 
> Also, the speed limit is something people travel at, when they can. People don't usually drink right until they're just below the limit.


No I'm saying that a lack of speedo is no reason not to have a limit for cycling. As soon as anyone says there could be a speed limit for cyclist someone pipes up saying it could never happen as bikes don't have speedos. I'm saying that's nonsense as there are many limits in law for which you are not obliged to have a measure, ie drink driving. I'm not saying there aren't other reasons for not having limits but a lack of a speedo is not one of them. 

Quite how you infer the rest of your post from mine is beyond me.


----------



## Tim Hall (14 Jul 2014)

Kookas said:


> Also, the speed limit is something people travel at, when they can.



Sadly this is too true. "It's a limit, not a target" should be emphasised more when learning to drive.


----------



## Mile195 (14 Jul 2014)

[QUOTE 3178179, member: 45"]Speed is a factor in all collisions.[/QUOTE]
Technically yes, you are quite correct! What I meant to say was "excess speed".


----------



## PK99 (14 Jul 2014)

[QUOTE 3178691, member: 45"]I thought so. It's a simple omission, but one that is often intentional.

Inappropriate speed also explains it well.[/QUOTE]

And a cyclist travelling at 20plus in a 20 limit would be inappropriate.


----------



## glenn forger (14 Jul 2014)

Mile195 said:


> That aside, there's the well known statistic that speed is only a factor in 5% of accidents..



That's a well known made up statistic by the ABD, a pro speeding lobby group. It's nonsense and dishonest.


----------



## glenn forger (14 Jul 2014)

http://www.fonant.co.uk/wcc/cuttings/2001-03-19-A1.html

Please to be not posting pro speeding lies.


----------



## Mile195 (14 Jul 2014)

hatler said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



It wasn't really a comparison. Just topical... 

From my point of view though it doesn't make any odds to me whether they stick a 20 or 30 limit down many London roads. They just put one on Camberwell New Road a little while ago, and during rush hour it's nose-to-tail gridlock anyway. Nothing moves faster than walking pace. 

As for the New Cross One Way system, my issue there isn't with speed (again, it moves at a snails pace at peak times), but with 2 major roads joining into 2 narrow lanes. On my journey to work there are so many sets of lights to stop for I never get above 20 for very long anyway, and if I'm on the motorbike I rarely get beyond second gear.

All that aside though, if I was going to get hit by a lorry/car/bicycle/dozy pigeon, I'm sure I would prefer it if I got hit at 20 instead of 30 so I guess that's what the general thinking on it is, and that's fair enough.


----------



## stowie (14 Jul 2014)

Mile195 said:


> Technically yes, you are quite correct! What I meant to say was "excess speed".



This term is a really rather subjective. The 5% study is bandied around by the "safe speed" lobby, but it doesn't really tell the whole story. Firstly, the study has this number as breaking the speed limit as a factor in all accidents. If one looks at fatal accidents, then breaking the speed limit is a factor in 12%. Going too fast for the conditions was a factor in another 10% of all accidents, and 14% of those ending in a fatality. Suddenly the numbers about excess speed causing accidents don't like nearly so rosy.


----------



## glenn forger (14 Jul 2014)

It's a rubbish statistic that, rather than being "well known" has in fact been roundly criticised, it's based on a misinterpretation of TRL323. It's worthless self justification by idiots who like to speed.


----------



## Mile195 (14 Jul 2014)

glenn forger said:


> It's a rubbish statistic that, rather than being "well known" has in fact been roundly criticised, it's based on a misinterpretation of TRL323. It's worthless self justification by idiots who like to speed.


It's also been well used in numerous newspapers, mostly low-quality tabloids, which is probably why it's in my head...

...And I should just like to point out that if it was a low-quality tabloid, I was either buying it for discounted Thorpe Park tickets, or the free DVD... not as an authoratative analysis on causes of road traffic accidents within the United Kingdom!


----------



## glenn forger (14 Jul 2014)

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=sp...&safe=off&start=0&tbs=ctr:countryUK|countryGB

Third link demolishes the myth, one tabloid link is eight years old. What's that saying, a lie goes halfway round the world while the truth is still lacing its boots..


----------



## martinclive (15 Jul 2014)

Anyone got the maths on stopping distances for car and bike at similar speed - this could seem a relevant argument............


----------



## CopperBrompton (15 Jul 2014)

It would be interesting to compare with a bike. The skinnier tyres and much weaker brakes vs the much lighter weight. I'm guessing, though, you wouldn't start to see a significant difference until well above typical cycling speeds.

As an aside, the stopping distances in the Highway Code were measured in 1946 and, aside from being converted to metric, haven't been updated since. A modern car with today's tyres and brakes can stop in around half those distances even allowing for unchanged reaction time. A modest sports car can do 0-60-0 in the HC 60-0 stopping distance.


----------



## glenn forger (15 Jul 2014)

Alas, advances in vehicle design haven't been matched by an increase in driver capability.


----------



## benb (15 Jul 2014)

glenn forger said:


> Alas, advances in vehicle design haven't been matched by an increase in driver capability.



Indeed. Quite the opposite, in my experience.
It seems like the safer we make cars (for the occupants at least) the worse they are driven. Maybe the problem is that they feel so safe. How about fitting a metal spike to the centre of the steering wheel and removing the seatbelts? I bet we'd see everyone driving very carefully then!!


----------



## benb (15 Jul 2014)

User said:


> You wouldn't. Cars used to be very much less safe for the occupants 40, 50,60 years ago. No crumple zones, airbags, seatbelts with pre-tensioners etc. We accepted the death toll as just one of those things.



As we still do. 
But they didn't *feel *unsafe, compared to a big metal spike on the steering wheel!! (that is, a car with or without a crumple zone feels as safe to drive as the other)


----------



## Origamist (25 Jul 2014)

The council have (unsurprisingly) backed down:

_Councillor Mark Williams, cabinet member for transport: "The council sees the establishment of a 20 mph borough as significant step forward in ensuring the safety of all road users not least cyclists and pedestrians. To achieve this we feel that all vehicles should limit their speed to 20 mph._

_"The report published on the 18 July to determine the statutory objections relating to a borough-wide 20mph speed limit makes it clear that orders made under Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 can apply to motor vehicles only and as such any prosecution by the police for breaches of the speed limit under that Act would be limited to motorised vehicles only. Accordingly the traffic order will be amended to make reference to "motorised vehicles" only._

_"The council does not have powers to prosecute cyclists who travel in excess of 20 mph and recognises that dangerous cycling is a matter for the police alone. Nor are we seeking to " target" cyclists for enforcement, rather to reflect the concerns raised by pedestrians about the problems caused by a small minority of cyclists whose speed endangers other road users."_

http://road.cc/content/news/124738-southwark-backs-down-20mph-cycling-limit


----------



## J.Primus (25 Jul 2014)

Origamist said:


> _*"The council does not have powers to prosecute cyclists who travel in excess of 20 mph* and recognises that dangerous cycling is a matter for the police alone. Nor are we seeking to " target" cyclists for enforcement, rather to reflect the concerns raised by pedestrians about the problems caused by a small minority of cyclists whose speed endangers other road users."_
> 
> http://road.cc/content/news/124738-southwark-backs-down-20mph-cycling-limit



Maybe they just need User to pop along and explain to them how they're wrong...


----------



## J.Primus (26 Jul 2014)

User said:


> Oh dear me... you're a sad little man.
> 
> I didn't say that the local authority would prosecute - I pointed out (and pointed you to the evidence) that the local authority could impose a speed limit and create a criminal offence.
> 
> Now, run along...



You must have missed the bolded bit where they explicitly stated they don't have the power to make the speed limit apply to cyclists. It wouldn't be so funny if you weren't being such a helmet whilst being so very very wrong.


----------

