20mph - latest thoughts?

[Glenn]

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

 

[Tin Pot]

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]

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]

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.

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!

It's about treating people the same.

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.

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]

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 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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

They have speed limits for pedestrians in Iran.

 

[smutchin]

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]

They have speed limits for pedestrians in Iran.

Ok, North Korea then.

 

[Dan B]

They have speed limits for pedestrians in Iran.

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

 

[Drago]

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

 

[RoubaixCube]

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