# 20mph - latest thoughts?



## mjr (15 Mar 2017)

I'm told Norwich city council is voting on more 20mph and there will be various people on BBC Norfolk (Freeview 719 in the Look East and Look North Hull areas, 95.1 and 104.4FM, 855 and 873 MW, DAB in East Norfolk and North Suffolk) between 7 and 9am tomorrow to talk about it. Are we broadly in favour of more 20mph zones? Am I right in thinking it's mostly to reduce casualties, reduce pollution and be fair to people living in older residential areas (as new ones are now often 20mph from the start)?

Casualty reduction seems obvious - make the largest vehicle bring less kinetic energy to the event. Wasn't it even in official campaigns a while ago, urging people to voluntarily to slow to 20mph to improve the chance of children surviving from 50-50 to 95-5? Damned if I can find the video now, though 

Some studies have suggested a emissions reduction equivalent to taking about a third of the cars off the road: one is linked from http://www.20splenty.org/emission_reductions

Speed limits map (green=20, orange=30, red=40, purple=50, blue=60+): http://product.itoworld.com/map/124?lon=0.50578&lat=52.69312&zoom=11


----------



## martint235 (15 Mar 2017)

Two things:


I believe they should apply to all traffic including cycles. However whilst I'm currently not included in the law, I will continue to go quicker.
They are increasingly ignored on my commute as I can see from cars either keeping up with me or pushing to get past me whilst I'm doing 25mph.

As with anything, only worth doing if you're going to enforce it. Surely a Gatso can pay for itself?


----------



## mjr (15 Mar 2017)

I'm in favour of speed cameras to deal with the fools. Most of the streets that I'm speaking of will be places like terraced streets with cars parked along one or both sides, reducing it to give-and-take single track, or with blind corners, where doing more the 20mph is foolish anyway, so it's only the determinedly anti-social or reckless who still do it.

I'm not keen on changing the law to apply them to cycles because I believe the existing laws banning wanton and furious cycling deals with the rare exceptions of unsafe speed adequately and it's a tiny tiny number of cases. Some streets where motorists should be below 20mph due to it being narrow or restricted visibility would be OK at 25mph on a narrower cycle with a higher eye level... but even that's going to be a tiny rare exceptional group that actually do it. Almost all will keep below the 20mph even then.


----------



## wormo (15 Mar 2017)

In Warrington the police have said that the 20mph speed areas are advisory only as some law needs to be amended but hasn't been. Complete waste of time because everyone ignores them.


----------



## mjr (15 Mar 2017)

wormo said:


> In Warrington the police have said that the 20mph speed areas are advisory only as some law needs to be amended but hasn't been. Complete waste of time because everyone ignores them.


Maybe some Traffic Regulation Order wasn't made or contained a fundamental error. It wouldn't be the first time. I don't feel that occasional local council cockups undermines the concept of 20mph in general, though.


----------



## Drago (15 Mar 2017)

One council, I forget which, was in the news in Monday because they're abolishing theirs. Traffic surveys had shown less than a 1MPH drop in average speed over the previous 30MPH limit.

That being the case I'm all in favour only if they're rigourously enforced.


----------



## wormo (15 Mar 2017)

mjr said:


> Maybe some Traffic Regulation Order wasn't made or contained a fundamental error. It wouldn't be the first time. I don't feel that occasional local council cockups undermines the concept of 20mph in general, though.


Probably didn't explain myself very well, fully in favour of them, and should be strictly enforced. Gets me annoyed that you see parents in cars with kids ignoring speed limit when its been introduced to help their kids.


----------



## Spinney (15 Mar 2017)

wormo said:


> Probably didn't explain myself very well, fully in favour of them, and should be strictly enforced. Gets me annoyed that you see parents in cars with kids ignoring speed limit when its been introduced to help their kids.


Ah, but _their_ kids are in the car, so won't be hit by other morons with the same attitude. But then we end up with the vicious circle that 'I drive my kids because the roads are too dangerous' when it's those same parents that drive like idiots ignoring the danger to other people.


----------



## mjr (15 Mar 2017)

Drago said:


> One council, I forget which, was in the news in Monday because they're abolishing theirs. Traffic surveys had shown less than a 1MPH drop in average speed over the previous 30MPH limit.
> 
> That being the case I'm all in favour only if they're rigourously enforced.


The only thing I found in a quick search was something about Manchester, but that was in the Daily Mail which is not a reliable news source.

Edit: it seems from reports on other sites like http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-39231956 that the Faily Fail has overegged their pudding yet again and it's only that Manchester are pausing expansion of 20mph while they gather more results to evaluate them - they don't seem to be abolishing any yet. 

I don't get the "only if they're rigourously enforced" condition - it's not like any other limits are strictly enforced and surely we've got to introduce the 20mph limits to have something that can be enforced?


----------



## growingvegetables (15 Mar 2017)

In favour.

And I aslo don't get the "only if it's rigourously enforced" bit - a bit of zero-tolerance enforcement would pay for itself many, many times over ...


----------



## martint235 (15 Mar 2017)

I had a thought on the way home about cyclists obeying the rule and it's to do with inclusivity. I think where possible a law should apply to as many as practical and in a 20 zone there is no real need for a cyclist to be going quicker


----------



## Drago (15 Mar 2017)

mjr said:


> The only thing I found in a quick search was something about Manchester, but that was in the Daily Mail which is not a reliable news source.
> 
> Edit: it seems from reports on other sites like http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-39231956 that the Faily Fail has overegged their pudding yet again and it's only that Manchester are pausing expansion of 20mph while they gather more results to evaluate them - they don't seem to be abolishing any yet.
> 
> I don't get the "only if they're rigourously enforced" condition - it's not like any other limits are strictly enforced and surely we've got to introduce the 20mph limits to have something that can be enforced?



All limits should be enforced, 20MPH ones especially so because of their introduction in the first place to protect pedestrians and cyclists. If it were up to me (sadly, it isn't) all motor vehicles would have GPS speed limiters which make compliance 100%.


----------



## Dogtrousers (15 Mar 2017)

The chances of me going at 20mph on a bike are pretty much nil, so it doesn't bother me whether it applies to bikes or not.

It pleases me that councils are introducing them, but only in my most optimistic moments do I think they'll actually make much difference to how people drive. Perhaps it will cause one or two to dip under 30.


----------



## martint235 (15 Mar 2017)

Dogtrousers said:


> The chances of me going at 20mph on a bike are pretty much nil, so it doesn't bother me whether it applies to bikes or not.
> 
> It pleases me that councils are introducing them, but only in my most optimistic moments do I think they'll actually make much difference to how people drive. Perhaps it will cause one or two to dip under 30.


It does have an effect on me. I do try to be helpful and will give motorists space but in a 20 when I'm doing 25 I will block them. Occasionally I get someone right behind me revving, and once I've been beeped (I don't think he'll do that again) but I think they do help cyclists to be more assertive. That said we could be assertive at 20


----------



## smutchin (15 Mar 2017)

martint235 said:


> there is no real need for a cyclist to be going quicker



But is that the same as a need to be going slower? As per the OP, the primary reasons for 20 zones are to reduce casualties and emissions, neither of which cyclists are currently responsible for in any meaningful number.

Given that there is no legal requirement for cyclists to use a speedometer, I suspect it would be unenforceable too.


----------



## ufkacbln (15 Mar 2017)

wormo said:


> In Warrington the police have said that the 20mph speed areas are advisory only as some law needs to be amended but hasn't been. Complete waste of time because everyone ignores them.



This is my issue

There is very little enforcement, that makes it pointless unless there is an engineered design that makes more than 20mph impossible


----------



## Drago (15 Mar 2017)

Build speed cameras into the cats eyes.


----------



## martint235 (15 Mar 2017)

smutchin said:


> But is that the same as a need to be going slower? As per the OP, the primary reasons for 20 zones are to reduce casualties and emissions, neither of which cyclists are currently responsible for in any meaningful number.
> 
> Given that there is no legal requirement for cyclists to use a speedometer, I suspect it would be unenforceable too.


No it isn't. I accept that a cyclist at 20 poses much less of a threat. However we are governed largely by consensus and to widen the law expresses that.

I suppose the principle is "Everyone must.....unless" rather than "Only these people must ......."


----------



## Incontinentia Buttocks (15 Mar 2017)

Drago said:


> All limits should be enforced, 20MPH ones especially so because of their introduction in the first place to protect pedestrians and cyclists. If it were up to me (sadly, it isn't) all motor vehicles would have GPS speed limiters which make compliance 100%.


You should well know speed doesn't kill, inappropriate speed kills. Use of mobile phone, inattentiveness and just shoot driving is the main cause, speed is an aggravating factor.
Most of the rtc's i go to are due to totally shoot driving at the the speed limit or below it, very few except fail to stops are speeding.


----------



## Drago (15 Mar 2017)

I never said speed kills, have never said speed kills, have never even intimated it. It's a nonsensical statement designed as a memorable soundbite for the heavy of right foot and short of intelligence.


----------



## Incontinentia Buttocks (15 Mar 2017)

Drago said:


> I never said speed kills, have never said speed kills, have never even intimated it. It's a nonsensical statement designed as a memorable soundbite for the heavy of right foot and short of intelligence.


You've lost me, you want 100% compliance to speed limits that were set decades ago, yet you say you don't subscribe to the speef kills manta, which is actually used by safety campaigners not the heavy foot brigage. What annoys me is the instance that lowers speeds are safer, hence nsl becoming 50 zones, its utter rubbish. This doesn't make anyone safer its just a sop to make people ferl better.
If we want to make roads safer raise standards or driving, increase the now non existent RPU's and increase punishments, I'm all in favour of bans for mobile phone use and life bans and jail for drink drive and disqual drivers.


----------



## Spinney (15 Mar 2017)

Incontinentia Buttocks said:


> You should well know speed doesn't kill, inappropriate speed kills. Use of mobile phone, *inattentiveness *and just shoot driving is the main cause, speed is an aggravating factor.
> Most of the rtc's i go to are due to totally shoot driving at the the speed limit or below it, very few except fail to stops are speeding.



Yes, but if you are inattentive for, say, 2 seconds, you travel further in that 2 seconds if you are going faster, and so have less time to react if something happens in front of you. And it takes you longer to stop.


----------



## Drago (15 Mar 2017)

Because in the case of our 20MPH zones excessive speed is annoying, inconvenient, off putting, and even frightening to vulnerable road users. If that should continue many would go back to driving the kids to school, taking the car to work, which simply compounds the problem. The car should be subservient to humans, and humans not in cars should take priority in human dominated and oriented environments, such as residential streets, outside schools etc.

The dangers of rising velocity is another discussion for another forum.


----------



## martint235 (15 Mar 2017)

Incontinentia Buttocks said:


> You should well know speed doesn't kill, inappropriate speed kills. Use of mobile phone, inattentiveness and just shoot driving is the main cause, speed is an aggravating factor.
> Most of the rtc's i go to are due to totally shoot driving at the the speed limit or below it, very few except fail to stops are speeding.


20mph limits are usually there for a specific reason: school nearby; small village; parking interfering with lines of sight. In these instances driving above 20 is driving at an inappropriate speed


----------



## Incontinentia Buttocks (15 Mar 2017)

A qualifier to my earlier statement, you are quite correct about the 20mph limits, it's just the total bollocks around speed that grips me. Sorry i didn't mean to derail the thread. Long shitty week at work.


----------



## martint235 (15 Mar 2017)

Incontinentia Buttocks said:


> A qualifier to my earlier statement, you are quite correct about the 20mph limits, it's just the total bollocks around speed that grips me. Sorry i didn't mean to derail the thread. Long shitty week at work.


Fair point and agreed. The best way would be to have fluid, variable limits dependent on conditions as I believe happens in Germany. However you just have to watch British drivers in fog to realise that's not going to work


----------



## smutchin (15 Mar 2017)

Incontinentia Buttocks said:


> You should well know speed doesn't kill...



Oh god, I thought Paul Smith died years ago...


----------



## smutchin (15 Mar 2017)

martint235 said:


> I suppose the principle is "Everyone must.....unless" rather than "Only these people must ......."



Can't agree with that. I don't like to be thought of as an exception to the rules regarding one set of road user rather than a member of a separate category of road user in my own right, with my own rules.


----------



## mjr (15 Mar 2017)

martint235 said:


> 20mph limits are usually there for a specific reason: school nearby; small village; parking interfering with lines of sight. In these instances driving above 20 is driving at an inappropriate speed


However, I'm quite keen to see them even where the reason is only "residential street where non-access traffic probably ought to farking well use the A/B-road through routes instead".

As for the effect of speed as an exacerbating factor: is it still the case that it's 50-50 whether someone survives being hit by a car at 30mph, while it's more like 95-5 at 20mph? 20mph seems like it makes mistakes less likely and also makes it less likely that a mistake will be a death sentence for someone - and often that's not the person who made the mistake.


----------



## mjr (15 Mar 2017)

smutchin said:


> Given that there is no legal requirement for cyclists to use a speedometer, I suspect it would be unenforceable too.


Doesn't seem to stop them in the Royal Parks


----------



## mjr (15 Mar 2017)

martint235 said:


> Fair point and agreed. The best way would be to have fluid, variable limits dependent on conditions as I believe happens in Germany. However you just have to watch British drivers in fog to realise that's not going to work


France has speed limits that are 10-20km/h lower in rain/fog and maybe darkness, but 30km/h limits are always 30km/h.

Surely part of the problem with British drivers in fog is that even tiny country lanes are still 60mph in fog and motorists suffer the same "fear from the rear" as many cyclists in those conditions, so feel they have to go as fast as they dare to reduce the risk of a forceful rear-entry? Drop NSL to 40 in fog and you might free a lot of people from that fear and help them drive more sensibly... but that's a different problem to 20mph zones, where some motorists think they won't be enforced, so an anti-social few flout them if it's physically possible and whine like dogs when/where there is enforcement. I'm with @Drago - speed camera cats eyes can't be far off being technically possible.


----------



## jonny jeez (15 Mar 2017)

martint235 said:


> It does have an effect on me. I do try to be helpful and will give motorists space but in a 20 when I'm doing 25 I will block them. Occasionally I get someone right behind me revving, and once I've been beeped (I don't think he'll do that again) but I think they do help cyclists to be more assertive. That said we could be assertive at 20


I don't believe that we need help to be more assertive. Its a state of mind. Also I wouldn't recommend trying to enforce speed laws by blocking traffic. 

Just ride, if idiots want to break the law its not up to us to stop them, its not our jobs when riding. 


Sorry i don't want to try and tell you how to ride but this just seems invite additional conflict.


----------



## smutchin (15 Mar 2017)

mjr said:


> Doesn't seem to stop them in the Royal Parks



QI question: what is the speed limit for bicycles in the Royal Parks?

I don't think those responsible for upholding the law have any better idea of the true answer than the rest of us.


----------



## growingvegetables (15 Mar 2017)

Incontinentia Buttocks said:


> You should well know speed doesn't kill, .........


... at least, not that often. 

But it sure as hell intimidates, bullies, and terrorises "lesser" road-users --- whether it be kids walking to school, lollipop ladies, pedestrians, cyclists, horses --- and aggressively "asserts" its dominance.

The reason it doesn't kill that often? Because too many "lesser" road-users get the message.


----------



## martint235 (15 Mar 2017)

smutchin said:


> Can't agree with that. I don't like to be thought of as an exception to the rules regarding one set of road user rather than a member of a separate category of road user in my own right, with my own rules.


But my point is you wouldn't be an exception as there's no reason to be. You'd be subject to a rule for all Road users


----------



## smutchin (15 Mar 2017)

martint235 said:


> But my point is you wouldn't be an exception as there's no reason to be. You'd be subject to a rule for all Road users



And how exactly would that be fair, given the reasons already outlined above for speed limits for cars?


----------



## Dan B (15 Mar 2017)

martint235 said:


> But my point is you wouldn't be an exception as there's no reason to be. You'd be subject to a rule for all Road users


But there are already different limits for different categories of road users. Not to mention different required standards of vehicle construction, different licensing requirements for vehicles and their operators, different insurance requirements, and a plethora of other differences which at least _in principle_ reflect the different levels of risk that those types of road-going vehicle bring to the table. 

And TBH the number of cyclists that can comfortably hold a speed in excess of 20mph for any length of time (on the flat, at least) is probably not great enough to be worth the hassle. I expect most car drivers probably think speed limits apply to cyclists already.


----------



## martint235 (15 Mar 2017)

See inclusivity. Is there a reason a bike couldn't be expected to slow to 20?


----------



## martint235 (15 Mar 2017)

Dan B said:


> But there are already different limits for different categories of road users. Not to mention different required standards of vehicle construction, different licensing requirements for vehicles and their operators, different insurance requirements, and a plethora of other differences which at least _in principle_ reflect the different levels of risk that those types of road-going vehicle bring to the table.
> 
> And TBH the number of cyclists that can comfortably hold a speed in excess of 20mph for any length of time (on the flat, at least) is probably not great enough to be worth the hassle. I expect most car drivers probably think speed limits apply to cyclists already.


I'm aware of the disparate laws. That doesn't mean you should add to them. 

It's about treating people the same.


----------



## NorthernDave (15 Mar 2017)

Where i live has had a 20mph speed limit for nearly 17 years, and it's been widely ignored since the day the signs went up. In the early years 5-0 would occasionally send a traffic car to do a bit of enforcement with a radar gun, which would have all the bus and taxi drivers frantically flashing their headlights at each other, but that's all but stopped now.
It was one of the first 20mph zones in the city and was done properly, with relevant traffic calming measures but no speed cameras. No need we were told, it's a residential area but they did give us a couple of speed activated 'slow down' signs.
It's virtually impossible to drive at 20mph without other drivers attempting to overtake - I've even had a bus trying to get past.

The 20mph zones that have spread like wildfire over the last few years elsewhere consist of a few signs being put up - no traffic calming, etc which are apparently a legal requirement, according to some reports. Enforcement is virtually non-existant. 

I've been told, off the record, that the 20mph zones are put in place so that drivers will slow down to 30mph...


----------



## Dan B (15 Mar 2017)

martint235 said:


> It's about treating people the same.


Should we treat people the same when they are carrying guns as we do when they are carrying bananas?


----------



## smutchin (15 Mar 2017)

martint235 said:


> It's about treating people the same.



No, it's not treating people the same, it's treating cars and bikes as if they were the same, which they patently are not.


----------



## smutchin (15 Mar 2017)

Dan B said:


> Should we treat people the same when they are carrying guns as we do when they are carrying bananas?



And what about if they're carrying a pointed stick?</python>


----------



## martint235 (15 Mar 2017)

Dan B said:


> Should we treat people the same when they are carrying guns as we do when they are carrying bananas?


That's hardly worth engaging with. You're asking if people behaving illegally should be treated as those acting legally?


----------



## martint235 (15 Mar 2017)

smutchin said:


> No, it's not treating people the same, it's treating cars and bikes as if they were the same, which they patently are not.


They are both road users. Set the commonality as high as you can.


----------



## smutchin (15 Mar 2017)

martint235 said:


> They are both road users.



So are pedestrians. So are HGVs.



> Set the commonality as high as you can.



You're setting it waaaaay too high.


----------



## martint235 (15 Mar 2017)

smutchin said:


> So are pedestrians. So are HGVs.
> 
> 
> 
> You're setting it waaaaay too high.


And I'm fully expecting pedestrians and HGVs to stick to the 20 limit. Your point?


----------



## Dan B (15 Mar 2017)

martint235 said:


> That's hardly worth engaging with. You're asking if people behaving illegally should be treated as those acting legally?


My understanding is that there are circumstances in which it is legal (for some people, after appropriate licensing/training/whatever) to carry a gun, so no I'm not asking that. I'm totes cool with the idea that people driving cars illegally should be treated differently from other people who are driving legally


----------



## martint235 (15 Mar 2017)

Dan B said:


> My understanding is that there are circumstances in which it is legal (for some people, after appropriate licensing/training/whatever) to carry a gun, so no I'm not asking that. I'm totes cool with the idea that people driving cars illegally should be treated differently from other people who are driving legally


And I'm happy for someone legally carrying a gun to be treated the same as someone legally carrying a banana. Are you suggesting that people legally carrying a gun should be treated differently?


----------



## smutchin (15 Mar 2017)

Cars are lethal weapons and even when they are used legally they kill an awful lot of people.

If you want to take laws that apply to motorists and apply them to cyclists as well, you need damn sight better justification than "they are both road users".


----------



## martint235 (15 Mar 2017)

smutchin said:


> Cars are lethal weapons and even when they are used legally they kill an awful lot of people.
> 
> If you want to take laws that apply to motorists and apply them to cyclists as well, you need damn sight better justification than "they are both road users".


If you draft a law to specifically include groups rather than a law that includes everyone and then specifically excludes groups you will create loopholes. 

What is so contentious about riding at 20 for a few hundred yards?


----------



## smutchin (15 Mar 2017)

martint235 said:


> What is so contentious about riding at 20 for a few hundred yards?



We're going round in circles now. The reasons for speed limits were more than adequately set out in the OP. Your commonality line is specious. There isn't much more to add to that. 

You said yourself upthread that while the speed limits don't apply to cyclists you will continue to go faster, which suggests that you don't really believe there is a good reason to restrict cyclists' speed.


----------



## Dan B (15 Mar 2017)

martint235 said:


> And I'm happy for someone legally carrying a gun to be treated the same as someone legally carrying a banana. Are you suggesting that people legally carrying a gun should be treated differently?


Yes, emphatically. I'm suggesting that they should be licensed and trained, and that having acquired that license that there should be restrictions on when and where and how they may carry the gun, with civil and crimimal penalties (including loss of licence) if they fail to comport themselves in accordance with those restrictions. I don't see any need at all to establish similar restrictions on the use and conveyance of bananas


----------



## growingvegetables (15 Mar 2017)

martint235 said:


> .... Set the commonality as high as you can.


Really? 

Require reflectors to be fitted to the pedals of cars and trucks, and no motorised vehicle to be sold without a bell fitted?


----------



## Pat "5mph" (15 Mar 2017)

Nobody obeys 20mph zones here, they don't even slow down for road humps, I regularly get bullied out of the way in such streets.


----------



## classic33 (16 Mar 2017)

Drago said:


> Build speed cameras into the cats eyes.


Most councils are getting shot of "Cats Eyes" since Percy went.


----------



## martint235 (16 Mar 2017)

Ok one last go. Conor McGregor, Devon Toner, Jimmy Krankie and Stephen Hawking are going down the street. Do the physical violence laws apply differently to these people? Why not? Should all go smoothly, there is no incident. However when the assault law is broken, they bring significantly different levels of risk and danger.

The law should be as black and white as you can make it. The grey area comes between verdict and sentencing.

Did you hit the man? Yes. Guilty. No ifs no buts. Now circumstances:

Me and the lads had had a cracking night out then this geezer looked at ma bird funny so I lamped him then put the boot in for a bit. 5 years in prison.
He's been abusing me for 10 years, on this occasion I thought he was going to kill me so I hit him with a chair and ran. 1 year suspended sentence and get the victim somewhere safe.
Were you doing more than 20mph in a 20 zone? Yes. Guilty. No ifs no buts. Circumstances:

I was watching this funny kitten on my phone, I didn't even look at my speedo until I heard the screaming. Lifetime ban from driving and 7 years in prison.
My wife was in labour, it was 3am and there was no one around. I didn't hit anyone. 2 points on your license, £60 fine and congratulations on your baby daughter.
I was on my pushbike and was trying to maintain 25mph for half a mile and I did it. Well done son, next time practice in a 40 zone, £30 fine.


----------



## martint235 (16 Mar 2017)

growingvegetables said:


> Really?
> 
> Require reflectors to be fitted to the pedals of cars and trucks, and no motorised vehicle to be sold without a bell fitted?


You understand "as high as you can " don't you or do I now have to deal with this level of intelligence?


----------



## velovoice (16 Mar 2017)

The most dangerous part of my 12-mile commute into London is a narrow residential street (parked cars on both sides, too narrow for cars coming from opposing directions to get passed each other). It's a 20mph zone -- painted large all over the road surface at frequent intervals, lots of signage. It's a rat run. Absolutely insane. When the lights at the junction release traffic into the road, the acceleration and jostling for position is incredible. No enforcement whatsoever. 

The rest of my commute is a joy. (Seriously.)


----------



## mjr (16 Mar 2017)

User said:


> As @smutchin is intimating, there is no speed limit for cycles in Royal Parks. A common misconception.


I know. It still hasn't stopped them enforcing a limit.


----------



## Drago (16 Mar 2017)

Do the Parks Police still exist, or did they get absorbed into the Met?


----------



## jonny jeez (16 Mar 2017)

NorthernDave said:


> I've been told, off the record, that the 20mph zones are put in place so that drivers will slow down to 30mph...


I thought that this was commonly accepted knowledge.

The enforcement of 20mph is irrelevant. Its part of a change management process, designed to bring our perception of sensible speed down. If you are doing 30in a 20, then the authorities have probably achieved their objective for the price of a few signs.


----------



## mjr (16 Mar 2017)

jonny jeez said:


> The enforcement of 20mph is irrelevant. Its part of a change management process, designed to bring our perception of sensible speed down. If you are doing 30in a 20, then the authorities have probably achieved their objective for the price of a few signs.


What is that price, though? Does anyone know how it was going to cost Manchester a reported £670ish million?

After experiencing 30km/h zones on mainland Europe, I'd welcome actual enforced 20mph in most residential and shopping areas here.


----------



## smutchin (16 Mar 2017)

I would hope that the real impact of 20 zones will be felt in the long term. It might be unrealistic to expect people to change their behaviour overnight, but reinforcing the message that "20's plenty" might gradually sink in.

It would be nice to have the message backed up with meaningful enforcement but I suspect that's wishful thinking with police budgets already stretched to breaking point.


----------



## jonny jeez (16 Mar 2017)

mjr said:


> What is that price, though? Does anyone know how it was going to cost Manchester a reported £670ish million?
> 
> After experiencing 30km/h zones on mainland Europe, I'd welcome actual enforced 20mph in most residential and shopping areas here.


Probably because Manchester chose to deploy a process of open tendering via OJEC which resulted in all manner of chance your arm builders attempting to win the bid with a wildly underestimated budget, only to vary the contract later to include all manner of professional consultants and specialists.


To lay some tarmac and fit a few curb stones.

Same reason it cost us £700 million to put up a tent at the Blackwall tunnel


----------



## classic33 (16 Mar 2017)

mjr said:


> I'm in favour of speed cameras to deal with the fools. Most of the streets that I'm speaking of will be places like terraced streets with cars parked along one or both sides, reducing it to give-and-take single track, or with blind corners, where doing more the 20mph is foolish anyway, so it's only the determinedly anti-social or reckless who still do it.
> 
> I'm not keen on changing the law to apply them to cycles because I believe the existing laws banning wanton and furious cycling deals with the rare exceptions of unsafe speed adequately and it's a tiny tiny number of cases. Some streets where motorists should be below 20mph due to it being narrow or restricted visibility would be OK at 25mph on a narrower cycle with a higher eye level... but even that's going to be a tiny rare exceptional group that actually do it. Almost all will keep below the 20mph even then.


You want the law enforcing, only not to your chosen form of road vehicle. You want to be able to go as fast as you want/are able.


----------



## Drago (16 Mar 2017)

The flip side of neighbourhood speed enforcement is that its normal for over half of those fingered to be locals or residents, and its not unusual to catch those very people doing the complaining. 

A friend of mine once caught a chap speeding who was the head of the local residents action group against speeding, and I once monitored a group of speed watch volunteers who were leaving their training session and every single one was speeding through the 40 zone as they departed.


----------



## classic33 (16 Mar 2017)

Drago said:


> The flip side of neighbourhood speed enforcement is that its normal for over half of those fingered to be locals or residents, and its not unusual to catch those very people doing the complaining.
> 
> A friend of mine once caught a chap speeding who was the head of the local residents action group against speeding, and I once monitored a group of speed watch volunteers who were leaving their training session and every single one was speeding through the 40 zone as they departed.


Local mp got caught and stopped, having just left a meeting about speeding in the area.


----------



## NorthernDave (16 Mar 2017)

On the subject of applying speed limits to cyclists, how would that work?
As we've already established, there is no legal requirement to have a speedometer so how would the cyclist know how fast they were going?
Or is it to be made mandatory that every bike must be fitted with one, in addition to a bell and reflectors?

There are a couple of hills near here that are subject to a 20mph limit that a seven year old on a ratty old BMX could easily exceed just by freewheeling down them. And that's before we get to the subject of exactly who will enforce any new laws.

It's simply unworkable.


----------



## martint235 (16 Mar 2017)

NorthernDave said:


> On the subject of applying speed limits to cyclists, how would that work?
> As we've already established, there is no legal requirement to have a speedometer so how would the cyclist know how fast they were going?
> Or is it to be made mandatory that every bike must be fitted with one, in addition to a bell and reflectors?
> 
> ...


Various traffic laws are currently unworkable. However first agree the principle then work on the enforcement. If 'how do we enforce it' dictates your decision making I think the cause is lost


----------



## classic33 (16 Mar 2017)

Assuming that the rest of the traffic is keeping to the 20 mph speed limit, should you find yourself travelling faster than them, you're doing more than 20 mph.


----------



## martint235 (16 Mar 2017)

classic33 said:


> Assuming that the rest of the traffic is keeping to the 20 mph speed limit, should you find yourself travelling faster than them, you're doing more than 20 mph.


Careful there. You're starting to introduce common sense and rationality


----------



## hatler (16 Mar 2017)

classic33 said:


> Assuming that the rest of the traffic is keeping to the 20 mph speed limit, should you find yourself travelling faster than them, you're doing more than 20 mph.


I would contend that that is a fairly unsafe assumption.


----------



## mjr (16 Mar 2017)

classic33 said:


> You want the law enforcing, only not to your chosen form of road vehicle. You want to be able to go as fast as you want/are able.


That's not what I wrote, fibber. I want the law enforcing, but not changing in the suggested way. I want to continue with the current reasonable approach, even though it sometimes means I can't go as fast as I want.


----------



## mjr (16 Mar 2017)

martint235 said:


> Careful there. You're starting to introduce common sense and rationality


More like lies and wishful thinking.


----------



## martint235 (16 Mar 2017)

mjr said:


> That's not what I wrote, fibber. I want the law enforcing, but not changing in the suggested way. I want to continue with the current reasonable approach, even though it sometimes means I can't go as fast as I want.


I still can't see any negative effect from bringing cyclists within the speed limit laws. Will people give up cycling en masse? Will potential cyclists think "there are some bits of road where I'm limited to 20" and not start cycling?. Have I missed a key human right: food, water, shelter and the right to go as fast as I want?

What is the issue with this simple thing?

Edit: in fact someone up thread said it's difficult for a cyclist to maintain 20 on a flat road. So this would remove some performance anxiety: I can't go faster because it's not allowed


----------



## mjr (16 Mar 2017)

The issue is that it's fixing something that isn't broken, changing from a law that works to an unproven one.

What about horse riders? Would you bring them within it, or leave wanton and furious driving laws on the books just for them? Far simpler to leave horse and bike riders under the existing law IMO.


----------



## martint235 (16 Mar 2017)

mjr said:


> The issue is that it's fixing something that isn't broken, changing from a law that works to an unproven one.
> 
> What about horse riders? Would you bring them within it, or leave wanton and furious driving laws on the books just for them? Far simpler to leave horse and bike riders under the existing law IMO.


Yes as already stated within a 20 everyone is limited to 20. Pedestrians, cars, horses, HGVs. Make a simple law, don't go fasthan 20 in a 20. Then you build in the exceptions and I can only think of one, an emergency vehicle under full blues and twos can, with caution, exceed the 20.

As a pedestrian would you object to being subject to a 20? Outside a school do you want a wannabe Usain sprinting head down along the pavement?

Also as stated previously keep the law as simple as you possibly can, black and white if possible, the grey area is for the judiciary to sort out at sentencing


----------



## mjr (16 Mar 2017)

martint235 said:


> Yes as already stated within a 20 everyone is limited to 20. Pedestrians, cars, horses, HGVs. Make a simple law, don't go fasthan 20 in a 20.


And how many lives do you expect it'll save bringing non motorised vehicles and pedestrians under this limit? Enough to be worth all the legislative time that could be spent on other life saving things?


----------



## Drago (16 Mar 2017)

For an old coffin dodger like me 20mph is going some, at least on the flat.


----------



## martint235 (16 Mar 2017)

User said:


> I don't wish to be forced to have a means of measuring my speed


And it will be difficult to measure your speed . However an acceptance to live within the spirit is good


----------



## smutchin (16 Mar 2017)

martint235 said:


> What is the issue with this simple thing?



It's really not as simple as you imagine.


----------



## martint235 (16 Mar 2017)

mjr said:


> And how many lives do you expect it'll save bringing non motorised vehicles and pedestrians under this limit? Enough to be worth all the legislative time that could be spent on other life saving things?


Again what's the negative of bringing groups in? You're making motorists excuses to do what you want


----------



## mjr (16 Mar 2017)

martint235 said:


> And it will be difficult to measure your speed . However an acceptance to live within the spirit is good


Isn't "within the spirit" a huge grey area?


----------



## martint235 (16 Mar 2017)

smutchin said:


> It's really not as simple as you imagine.


Yes it is


----------



## martint235 (16 Mar 2017)

mjr said:


> Isn't "within the spirit" a huge grey area?


It is so if a police car is following you at 25 expect to be in the grey area of sentencing


----------



## Drago (16 Mar 2017)

Blimey, its like you lot are rehearsing for panto.


----------



## mjr (16 Mar 2017)

martint235 said:


> Again what's the negative of bringing groups in? You're making motorists excuses to do what you want


The negative is the expense of changing the law and the uncertainty of a new untested law compared to a well tested old law.

Instead of asking "why not" when the reasons not have been stated repeatedly, shouldn't the ones pushing for change have some positive argument?


----------



## martint235 (16 Mar 2017)

User said:


> Living within the spirit is a long way from the law being extended to include.


Seriously we know each other outside this bear pit, I accept that there are people on here arguing for the hell of it and there are also some stupid people, but do YOU think I'm that wrong with this? If so CC isn't for me


----------



## martint235 (16 Mar 2017)

mjr said:


> The negative is the expense of changing the law and the uncertainty of a new untested law compared to a well tested old law.
> 
> Instead of asking "why not" when the reasons not have been stated repeatedly, shouldn't the ones pushing for change have some positive argument?


No it's not a new law, you are simplifying an existing one. That isn't a negative


----------



## martint235 (16 Mar 2017)

User said:


> Those two things don't go together.


I had a discussion with other CC members lately where we agreed it's not what it was. There was a time where in P+L you expected this, it now permeates the entire forum.

I will of course submit myself to the jury, I think it's Smeggers, as to whether this would constitute a flounce but I just feel there is a sense of "I'm a cyclist, no sorry I ride a bike therefore I'm special"


----------



## smutchin (16 Mar 2017)

martint235 said:


> I just feel there is a sense of "I'm a cyclist, no sorry I ride a bike therefore I'm special"



You see a cyclist and a motorist as both belonging to the same class of 'road user'. I see a 'bike' and a 'car' as being two separate classes in their own right, and therefore it's right that they should be governed by separate laws. 

That's a fairly fundamental difference of opinion and neither of us is going to change the other's mind, but there's no need to fall out over it or start calling people stupid because they disagree with you.


----------



## martint235 (16 Mar 2017)

smutchin said:


> You see a cyclist and a motorist as both belonging to the same class of 'road user'. I see a 'bike' and a 'car' as being two separate classes in their own right, and therefore it's right that they should be governed by separate laws.
> 
> That's a fairly fundamental difference of opinion and neither of us is going to change the other's mind, but there's no need to fall out over it or start calling people stupid because they disagree with you.


Motorists, cyclists, pedestrians are all road users. I agree that if you are unwilling to accept your place in that group we will never agree


----------



## smutchin (16 Mar 2017)

martint235 said:


> whilst I'm currently not included in the law, I will continue to go quicker.





martint235 said:


> in a 20 zone there is no real need for a cyclist to be going quicker





martint235 said:


> in a 20 when I'm doing 25





martint235 said:


> 20mph limits are usually there for a specific reason: school nearby; small village; parking interfering with lines of sight. In these instances driving above 20 is driving at an inappropriate speed



Is there a sound moral imperative for cyclists to observe motoring speed limits?

If so, your behaviour is immoral.

If not, your proposal is redundant.


----------



## mustang1 (16 Mar 2017)

Drago said:


> One council, I forget which, was in the news in Monday because they're abolishing theirs. Traffic surveys had shown less than a 1MPH drop in average speed over the previous 30MPH limit.
> 
> That being the case I'm all in favour only if they're rigourously enforced.



The thing is with a 20mph limit, the drivers stayed under 30mph. But with the 20mph limit abolished, drivers will have the will to drive closer to 35-40mph. That will be a shame. 

When I'm in a 20 zone and obeying the legal speed range (while in car), i still get drivers tailgating me urging me to speed up. But i get the same in 30mph zones too.

I don't relent though and instead slow down because I'll need more time to stop so they don't plough in to me.


----------



## mustang1 (16 Mar 2017)

I noticed also when a car driver is stuck behind another car (eg drivers looking for parking spaces during the school drop off), they don't seem to mind too much. But when they are stuck behind a cyclist (eg me going up a hill at 15mph with nothing in front of me), the drivers behind me get rather impatient. 

When space permits, i move over. But until then I'm afraid they will remain "stuck".

The ironic thing is that cars stop them, they are at a standstill. But when they are behind me, at least they are moving!


----------



## martint235 (16 Mar 2017)

martint235 said:


> Ok one last go. Conor McGregor, Devon Toner, Jimmy Krankie and Stephen Hawking are going down the street. Do the physical violence laws apply differently to these people? Why not? Should all go smoothly, there is no incident. However when the assault law is broken, they bring significantly different levels of risk and danger.
> 
> The law should be as black and white as you can make it. The grey area comes between verdict and sentencing.
> 
> ...


There was no response to this obvious stupidity


----------



## martint235 (16 Mar 2017)

smutchin said:


> Is there a sound moral imperative for cyclists to observe motoring speed limits?
> 
> If so, your behaviour is immoral.
> 
> If not, your proposal is redundant.


No there's a sound practical one. Let's make it a sound legal one,.

If a cyclist hits a child at 25 mph will the child get hurt? If said cyclist hits at 20 is there a likelihood the pain will be less?

These are the questions. Not if a car hits it will hurt more. So two questions , two yes or no. Simple


----------



## martint235 (16 Mar 2017)

User said:


> I am very far from unwilling to accept my place in that group. If anything, it is motorists who would seek to deny me a place.


On what grounds? I have fewer negative situations with motorists these days, what's your commute like?


----------



## martint235 (16 Mar 2017)

User said:


> Last Friday night i saw a bus driver use his vehicle to push one of out friends off the road. This is a direct consequence of building cyclist facilities, we are then viewed as not belonging on the road.


I wasn't there. But I've always been against segregation for this reason. We are road users. We have the same rights, we obey the same laws

Other nations, and I'm not talking Dutch, seem to be able to occupy the same road space without issue. France, where an HGV driver will push himself down the narrowest street to avoid la peage, still give cyclists way more space. Is it narrow roads, no. Is it attitude, probably. Are we going to change that attitude by being "special"?


----------



## classic33 (16 Mar 2017)

User said:


> Last Friday night i saw a *bus driver use his vehicle* to push one of our friends off the road. This is a direct consequence of building cyclist facilities, we are then viewed as not belonging on the road.


Which is one reason for staying on the roads.
Arriva?


----------



## classic33 (16 Mar 2017)

Going off topic


User said:


> I don't recall, sorry.


Their drivers seem to be doing similar, a lot of late round here.


----------



## mjr (16 Mar 2017)

martint235 said:


> If a cyclist hits a child at 25 mph will the child get hurt? If said cyclist hits at 20 is there a likelihood the pain will be less?


Nobody knows if the child will get hurt - we don't even have enough examples in the statistics for a good estimate of injury IIRC and even then, it's almost always slight.

Likelihood doesn't make sense in that context. I suspect you meant to ask if there's a probability and there always is, but we can't estimate what it is because of the same rarity as in the previous question.

So, again, what's the positive argument for this law change that would probably save no lives and could cost a few by tying up legislators?


----------



## classic33 (16 Mar 2017)

mjr said:


> *Nobody knows if the child will get hurt* - we don't even have enough examples in the statistics for a good estimate of injury IIRC and even then, it's almost always slight.
> 
> Likelihood doesn't make sense in that context. I suspect you meant to ask if there's a probability and there always is, but we can't estimate what it is because of the same rarity as in the previous question.
> 
> So, again, what's the positive argument for this law change that would probably save no lives and could cost a few by tying up legislators?


Try this one.
Get a 14lb sledge hammer lift until the head is level with your waist, then let it drop onto your unprotected foot. Will there be any injury? Hammer head won't be moving that fast from such a low height.. 

We don't have enough examples of this being done.


----------



## mjr (17 Mar 2017)

classic33 said:


> Try this one.
> Get a 14lb sledge hammer lift until the head is level with your waist, then let it drop onto your unprotected foot. Will there be any injury? Hammer head won't be moving that fast from such a low height..
> 
> We don't have enough examples of this being done.


There are plenty more examples of similar incidents to that in the Hospital Episode Statistics than of people cycling at speed into children, plus you've constrained the variables far more. Why argue that a speed limit on cycling should only happen once we've put a speed limit on the more reliably injurious hammers?


----------



## classic33 (17 Mar 2017)

mjr said:


> There are plenty more examples of similar incidents to that in the Hospital Episode Statistics than of people cycling at speed into children, plus you've constrained the variables far more. Why argue that a speed limit on cycling should only happen once we've put a speed limit on the more reliably injurious hammers?


Not arguing for a hammer speed limit, never been overtaken by one, just giving you a simple test to try that you can then repeat on the other foot.


----------



## Tin Pot (17 Mar 2017)

I really hate 20mph zones.

They need to up speed limits to 130mph on motorways for modern vehicles that are capable.

That would make it an acceptable trade off.


----------



## Drago (17 Mar 2017)

Its reckoned that if everyone in America abided by then speed limit, fuel usage would drop sufficiently that they would no longer need to import oil for road fuel purposes. Think I read that on MMM.


----------



## smutchin (17 Mar 2017)

User said:


> This is a direct consequence of building cyclist facilities



No it isn't. Don't be silly.


----------



## Dogtrousers (17 Mar 2017)

OK, I'll join in. Isn't this just utterly pointless? 

Given that most 20 limits are not on long smooth downhills with good visibility, the percentage of cyclists actually capable of regularly breaking a 20 limit, without making a special effort, is very small.

For 30 limits I'd guess it's a tiny bit more likely as there are a few villages on long downhill sections where simply not braking is enough. But it's still a relatively trivial edge case.

Personally I think we _should _avoid breaking the speed limit, just out of politeness. But that's just my idiotic opinion based on nothing whatsoever. I don't expect others to share it.


----------



## smutchin (17 Mar 2017)

User said:


> You don't get told to get on the cycle path where there isn't one.



I have been told exactly that on several occasions. Or been told to get on the footpath.


----------



## mjr (17 Mar 2017)

smutchin said:


> I have been told exactly that on several occasions. Or been told to get on the footpath.


Me too. Motorists don't pay attention to whether a cycle track exists in a specific place or not before hurling abuse - cycle tracks exist and have done for 80+ years, so they know they exist in general. As some of you may know, I also comment on development plans - many of those also seem to think there are cycle tracks where there aren't any and they really ought to know... if they don't, what chance is there that Jack and Jill driving along the road will?


----------



## classic33 (17 Mar 2017)

What's the maximum speed acceptable on a cycle track?


----------



## mjr (17 Mar 2017)

classic33 said:


> What's the maximum speed acceptable on a cycle track?


It depends on the cycle track. The mainstream guidance says "8.2.2 - A design speed of 20 mph is preferred for offroad routes intended predominantly for utility cycling. This provides a margin of safety for most cyclists. [...] Routes with design speeds significantly below 20 mph are unlikely to be attractive to regular commuter cyclists, and it may be necessary to ensure there is an alternative oncarriageway route for this user category."

The latest HEe-hee guidance (mainly for A roads, IAN 195/16) says (Table 2.2.3) "On down gradients of 3% or greater - Design speed 40kph; All other off-carriageway cycle route provision - Design Speed 30 kph, Absolute Minimum Design Speed 20kph [...] The Absolute Minimum design speed shown in Table 2.2.3 is only permitted in the circumstances described in Section 1.3 and for distances up to 100 metres if combined with the use of ‘SLOW’ markings, although this is not permitted on downhill gradients of 3% or greater."

Of course, much of what's been built in the dark days fails to comply with the guidance and it may be considered careless, reckless or wanton to ride that fast on some of it.


----------



## smutchin (17 Mar 2017)

smutchin said:


> I have been told exactly that on several occasions. Or been told to get on the footpath.



I should add that I've also on many occasions ridden on the road alongside a cycle path and had absolutely no comment whatsoever from motorists.


----------



## classic33 (17 Mar 2017)

mjr said:


> It depends on the cycle track. The mainstream guidance says "8.2.2 - A design speed of 20 mph is preferred for offroad routes intended predominantly for utility cycling. This provides a margin of safety for most cyclists. [...] Routes with design speeds significantly below 20 mph are unlikely to be attractive to regular commuter cyclists, and it may be necessary to ensure there is an alternative oncarriageway route for this user category."
> 
> The latest HEe-hee guidance (mainly for A roads, IAN 195/16) says (Table 2.2.3) "On down gradients of 3% or greater - Design speed 40kph; All other off-carriageway cycle route provision - Design Speed 30 kph, Absolute Minimum Design Speed 20kph [...] The Absolute Minimum design speed shown in Table 2.2.3 is only permitted in the circumstances described in Section 1.3 and for distances up to 100 metres if combined with the use of ‘SLOW’ markings, although this is not permitted on downhill gradients of 3% or greater."
> 
> Of course, much of what's been built in the dark days fails to comply with the guidance and it may be considered careless, reckless or wanton to ride that fast on some of it.


But what's considered an acceptable speed is missing. Design limits only.

There's a few roads, locally, built to take traffic in excess of 100 mph, design wise. And they're not motorways.

Maybe it's time for speed limits on them.


----------



## mjr (17 Mar 2017)

classic33 said:


> But what's considered an acceptable speed is missing.


You seem to have missed the very first sentence: "It depends...". It's no more possible to say 25mph is acceptable on all cycle tracks than it is to say 50mph is acceptable on all A roads. Some of our borough's cycle tracks were designed for 60+mph because they're former A roads and haven't been degraded much by a lack of maintenance since conversion because they no longer carry much heavy traffic. It would be pretty much fine to go as fast as for what you can see is clear on them, up to the limits of your bike.


----------



## Drago (17 Mar 2017)

Its a 20 limit. Break that in a motor vehicle and you can have your car crushed in front of you.

Fly through like an idiot on a bicycle and you can get a cricket bat in the teeth for furious cycling.

Now, let's all go home.


----------



## classic33 (17 Mar 2017)

Drago said:


> Its a 20 limit. Break that in a motor vehicle and you can have your car crushed in front of you.
> 
> Fly through like an idiot on a bicycle and you can get a cricket bat in the teeth for* furious cycling.*
> 
> Now, let's all go home.


And get banned from driving at the same time.


----------



## Tail End Charlie (20 Mar 2017)

My sister lives at number 20. The council have put up a huge sign outside her house displaying her number, which is kind of them.


----------



## Glenn (20 Mar 2017)

I wonder how many 20mph zones have been legally approved with an affirmative order from a highway's minster?


----------



## Tin Pot (20 Mar 2017)

Tail End Charlie said:


> My sister lives at number 20. The council have put up a huge sign outside her house displaying her number, which is kind of them.



Similarly, "Tin Pot Hall" has been helpfully renamed "No Parking Between 08:00 And 10:00", which is catchy but would've been nice to have been informed beforehand.


----------



## swansonj (20 Mar 2017)

User said:


> As @smutchin is intimating, there is no speed limit for cycles in Royal Parks. A common misconception.


If it is a misconception, it is one I have come to share. This is why:

The starting point is The Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces Regulations 1997, which, in its definition of the things you aren't allowed to do in a Royal park, uses the term "vehicle" (as opposed e.g. to "mechanically propelled vehicle") and thereby includes bicycles:






This was then amended by The Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces (Amendment) etc. Regulations 2010:




This amendement changed the definition to "mechanically propelled vehicle", which excludes bicycles. So, assuming this did actually also change the applicable definition in the original 1997 Regulations, at this point, the speed limits did not apply to bicyles.

I think this is the point at which many cyclists who feel the speed limits do not apply to bicycles (including until recently myself) stop. But there were then The Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces (Amendment) (No.2) etc. Regulations 2010, which say:





So that apparently, to my non-lawyer's reading at least, revoked the change in definition from "vehicle" to "mechanically propelled vehicle", leaving, it seems to me, the relevant definition as the original definition from the 1997 Regulations as "vehicle", and thereby including bicycles within the speed limits.

If there's a misconception in there, I would be genuinely interested to hear it. I would actually marginally rather the limits didn't apply to cyclists than that they did. Do the 2010 No2 Regulations not actually apply in the way they appear to? Have there been subsequent Regulations making a further reversal?

(the 2010 No2 Regulations are described as being about changing the arrangements for car parking, but it seems to me the words stand regardless of what their stated purpose is.)


----------



## crazyjoe101 (25 Mar 2017)

martint235 said:


> However you just have to watch British drivers in fog to realise that's not going to work


I can't be the only one on here who was watching that episode of one of the police programs where the motorists were flying along at 70 and aquaplaning because there was about 30m visibility and water was flowing across the motorway due to the storms and the rozzers were trying to slow them down with no effect.


velovoice said:


> The most dangerous part of my 12-mile commute into London is a narrow residential street...


This is the same for me, on the way in it's downhill and I could easily do 40 save for the kamikaze oncoming traffic which don't care which lane they drive in. I stick to the 20 limit and I nearly always have someone hovering just behind me who will try a desperate overtake manoeuvre towards the end of the hill and then slam on the anchors at the traffic calming barriers!


martint235 said:


> It's about treating people the same.





martint235 said:


> Motorists, cyclists, pedestrians are all road users. I agree that if you are unwilling to accept your place in that group we will never agree


Pedestrians, cyclists & motorists are all road users. Should they all require one 'road user' license with the same testing requirements in order to use the road?

I understand the principle of your statements but I don't see the practicality, there should be a reason to alter a law to include new vehicles other than 'why not others have to'. Different vehicles require different rules and regulations because of varied risk. The less vehicles and road users you need to apply regulation to the less money you have to spend on costs surrounding them, I would have thought - therefore it is better to only apply rules to vehicles which require them.
It is in fact much fairer to treat people differently rather than have one rule for everyone, this way I don't pay the same vehicle excise duty as a cyclist as someone who operates a more polluting vehicle.



Dogtrousers said:


> Personally I think we _should _avoid breaking the speed limit, just out of politeness. But that's just my idiotic opinion based on nothing whatsoever. I don't expect others to share it.


I do it because regardless of what damage I am likely to cause as a cyclists, I don't want to leave myself open to accusations of liability should I be in a collision.
Regardless of whether the speed limit applies to me or not, it would reflect badly on me if I was to be riding over it and had a collision.


----------



## classic33 (25 Mar 2017)

crazyjoe101 said:


> *Pedestrians,* cyclists & motorists are all road users. Should they all require one 'road user' license with the same testing requirements in order to use the road?
> 
> I understand the principle of your statements but I don't see the practicality, there should be a reason to alter a law to include new vehicles other than 'why not others have to'. Different vehicles require different rules and regulations because of varied risk. The less vehicles and road users you need to apply regulation to the less money you have to spend on costs surrounding them, I would have thought - therefore it is better to only apply rules to vehicles which require them.
> It is in fact much fairer to treat people differently rather than have one rule for everyone,* this way I don't pay the same vehicle excise duty as a cyclist as someone who operates a more polluting vehicle.*
> ...


I've cut your post down and highlighted two points.
Can you say when you last saw a pedestrian doing 20mph on the road, and sustaining that speed?
How and where do you pay the VED(on your bike)? I drove the local DVLA office crazy with one, going sofar as turning up at seperate VOSA test stations twice only to be turned away. 
How is using a pedal cycle polluting? Production and end of life I can understand, just the same as a pair of trainers/shoes for a pedestrian.


----------



## crazyjoe101 (26 Mar 2017)

classic33 said:


> I've cut your post down and highlighted two points.
> Can you say when you last saw a pedestrian doing 20mph on the road, and sustaining that speed?
> How and where do you pay the VED(on your bike)? I drove the local DVLA office crazy with one, going sofar as turning up at seperate VOSA test stations twice only to be turned away.
> How is using a pedal cycle polluting? Production and end of life I can understand, just the same as a pair of trainers/shoes for a pedestrian.


I think you have the wrong end of the stick with my post.
I am stating that there is no speed limit on peds and cyclists etc because there is no need for one, and stating that I don't pay VED because my bicycle does not pollute, which makes sense.
I am attempting to make the point that different vehicles should be treated differently rather than with one blanket policy - we are all road users but with very distinct differences depending on the vehicle we use.


----------



## classic33 (26 Mar 2017)

crazyjoe101 said:


> I think you have the wrong end of the stick with my post.
> I am stating that there is no speed limit on peds and cyclists etc because there is no need for one, and stating that I don't pay VED because my bicycle does not pollute, which makes sense.
> I am attempting to make the point that different vehicles should be treated differently rather than with one blanket policy - we are all road users but with very distinct differences depending on the vehicle we use.


You didn't want to pay the same rate of VED as a bicycle owner as you did as a motor vehicle owner, on the grounds that a bicycle is "less polluting". None of mine are polluting in use.

We can't pick and chose which laws/rules we want to have to obey. That's probably why things, such as speed limits apply to all motor vehicles. Regardless of size. 

Working the other way, we have minimum speed limits. You can't maintain it, find another way round it/through it.


----------



## Dan B (26 Mar 2017)

classic33 said:


> That's probably why things, such as speed limits apply to all motor vehicles. Regardless of size.


Last time I checked, this is in fact not the case.



> You must not drive faster than the speed limit for the type of road and your type of vehicle.


https://www.gov.uk/speed-limits


----------



## smutchin (26 Mar 2017)

crazyjoe101 said:


> I understand the principle of your statements but I don't see the practicality, there should be a reason to alter a law to include new vehicles other than 'why not others have to'... it is better to only apply rules to vehicles which require them.



Sums it up for me. 

The day they introduce speed limits for pedestrians is the day I move somewhere sensible and liberal minded like Iran.


----------



## Drago (26 Mar 2017)

They have speed limits for pedestrians in Iran.


----------



## smutchin (26 Mar 2017)

classic33 said:


> That's probably why things, such as speed limits apply to all motor vehicles. Regardless of size.



I presume you don't mean _the same_ speed limits apply to all motor vehicles.

(IIRC vehicles over 7.5 tonnes are limited to 50 on dual carriageways, for example.)


----------



## smutchin (26 Mar 2017)

Drago said:


> They have speed limits for pedestrians in Iran.



Ok, North Korea then.


----------



## Dan B (26 Mar 2017)

Drago said:


> They have speed limits for pedestrians in Iran.


No bad thing. More than one line at a time and I get terribly jittery


----------



## Drago (26 Mar 2017)

North Korea has a minimum speed limit for pedestrians. Drop below of and you become Pedigree Chum.


----------



## RoubaixCube (26 Mar 2017)

Drago said:


> North Korea has a minimum speed limit for pedestrians. Drop below of and you become Pedigree Chum.



For some reason when you said this it reminded me of the movie 'Dogs Of War' or the phrase 'Dog of war'

North Korea being North Korea of course


----------



## growingvegetables (26 Mar 2017)

Drago said:


> They have speed limits for pedestrians in Iran.





Drago said:


> North Korea has a minimum speed limit for pedestrians. Drop below of and you become Pedigree Chum.


Evidence for either?

By contrast, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/28/spain-proposal-to-breathalyse-pedestrians. And just priceless, "the Council of State is also against moves to dramatically cut driving speed limits."

For those who can't be arsed to click links, those are not references to "bogeyman states", but Spain.


----------



## smutchin (26 Mar 2017)

growingvegetables said:


> Evidence for either?



It's on the internet, it must be true.


----------



## crazyjoe101 (26 Mar 2017)

classic33 said:


> You didn't want to pay the same rate of VED as a bicycle owner as you did as a motor vehicle owner, on the grounds that a bicycle is "less polluting". None of mine are polluting in use.
> 
> We can't pick and chose which laws/rules we want to have to obey. That's probably why things, such as speed limits apply to all motor vehicles. Regardless of size.
> 
> Working the other way, we have minimum speed limits. You can't maintain it, find another way round it/through it.


I don't understand what you're trying to tell me, all I did was provide examples as to why different vehicles are treated differently.
I was stating it would be silly to treat everyone the same as road users because then, for example, I _would_ pay the same VED as a HGV, and I_ would _require the same licensing to use the road.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (27 Mar 2017)

I look at it from the pedestrians' perspective. In a 20mph zone, they are entitled to expect that the limit is there to prioritise their safety and that it should be respected by all vehicle operators. The elderly, and others who are less mobile, should be able to cross streets in these zones without the worry and apprehension that comes with doing the same in a 30mph, or higher, area. Crossing those roads is stressful, worrying and tiring, as they hurry as best they can to get to the other side.

And I don't expect the average pedestrian to know that speed limits can't be enforced against cyclists.

As infrequent as the opportunity to exceed it may be, I will always comply with the posted speed limit while cycling. While it might not be my legal obligation, I feel it is my moral/societal obligation.


----------



## mjr (27 Mar 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> I look at it from the pedestrians' perspective. In a 20mph zone, they are entitled to expect that the limit is there to prioritise their safety and that it should be respected by all vehicle operators.


If you were looking at it from the pedestrians' perspective, you'd give way as needed to any you see, regardless of the posted motor speed limit! The limits are there because motorists are no longer trusted not to take the mickey and blast along at 50 or whatever the limit allows even if a corner is blind. Don't ride like a daffodil and give reason for speed limits to apply to cycling too.

Despite the limits, any pedestrian expecting motorists to respect a speed limit is taking a big risk these days. We can't even trust that the nobbers will stop for long-changed red lights at crossings any more - the motto seems to be "no conflicting motor traffic? Then no stopping!". There should be more enforcement cameras and the motoring lobby should be roundly condemned if they dare oppose them.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (27 Mar 2017)

mjr said:


> If you were looking at it from the pedestrians' perspective, you'd give way as needed to any you see, regardless of the posted motor speed limit!



Don't quite get what you're saying there.



mjr said:


> Don't ride like a daffodil and give reason for speed limits to apply to cycling too.



Are you telling me not ride like a daffodil?


----------



## mjr (27 Mar 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Don't quite get what you're saying there.


I'm saying that people should treat pedestrians kindly even if a road doesn't have a 20mph limit. The speed limit is largely irrelevant to that.


----------



## classic33 (27 Mar 2017)

mjr said:


> I'm saying that people should treat pedestrians kindly even if a road doesn't have a 20mph limit. The speed limit is largely irrelevant to that.


Not always. We've large areas where pedestrians have priority, but vehicle traffic doesn't let this little matter get in the way.

Often using it as a shortcut, going faster than the signed limit(5 & 10mph). Sometimes the wrong way.

Why shouldn't speed limits apply t cyclists though? One rule for them, another for us. Or one we don't want to have to follow!


----------



## mjr (27 Mar 2017)

classic33 said:


> Not always. We've large areas where pedestrians have priority, but vehicle traffic doesn't let this little matter get in the way.


So how does that make the speed limit relevant?!?



classic33 said:


> Why shouldn't speed limits apply t cyclists though? One rule for them, another for us. Or one we don't want to have to follow!


I've given my reasons why not, which IIRC you didn't like, but there's still no reasons why they should - someone else pointed out that it's not true that the same speed limits apply to all motor vehicles. Speed limits for cycling still seems about as sensible as speed limits for dropped hammers.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (27 Mar 2017)

mjr said:


> I'm saying that people should treat pedestrians kindly even if a road doesn't have a 20mph limit.



Well, yes, I do that and haven't suggested differently. For me the pedestrian is top of the road user hierarchy and I won't hassle or bully them for errors or misjudgements.

My point is that 20mph zones should be areas where pedestrians can be more relaxed about their environment; 30mph zones are more about keeping motor traffic moving at the expense of pedestrian interruptions. Treating pedestrians kindly should also include cyclists not exceeding posted limits.


----------



## classic33 (27 Mar 2017)

mjr said:


> *So how does that make the speed limit relevant?!?*
> 
> I've given my reasons why not, which IIRC you didn't like, but there's still no reasons why they should - someone else pointed out that it's not true that the same speed limits apply to all motor vehicles. Speed limits for cycling still seems about as sensible as speed limits for dropped hammers.


You missed the bit about signed speed limits out.

And you correct me if this bit is wrong, but whatever the motor vehicle, if you're in a speed restricted area be it 30, 40 or 50, and signed and marked as such. Then you're breaking the speed limit


----------



## mjr (28 Mar 2017)

classic33 said:


> And you correct me if this bit is wrong, but whatever the motor vehicle, if you're in a speed restricted area be it 30, 40 or 50, and signed and marked as such. Then you're breaking the speed limit


That's wrong: some goods vehicles can find themselves in a signed 50 or 60 but only allowed to do 40 (single carriageway) or 50 (dual) by the Road Traffic Regulation Act.


----------

