There was some other thread a while back about cyclists exceeding the speed limit. There is a 20mph maximum zone near to me with traffic calming. It is 20mph because there is a primary school in the zone. The zone is on a hill and cyclists can easily exceed the speed limit. If you look at the Strava data (admittedly this is a subset of all cyclists), most exceed the speed limit. Practically all of these will have a gps device which displays speed
My position was that (a) doing more than 20mph past a primary school on a bike isn't sensible (b) all road users should be subject to broadly the same basic regulations re speed, intoxication etc
Surely the severity / strictness of regulations should reflect the risk of harm to others shouldn't it? I'd expect the rules for owning hamsters to be minimal, but I'd not object to some kind of rules for owning Siberian tigers. Likewise the alcohol limits for airline pilots are extremely strict, zero essentially, for car driving it's set at so many mg per whatever, for cycling you have to be actually drunk, but as a pedestrian being drunk is OK, providing you are not disorderly as well. This seems pretty reasonable to me,
And whilst 20mph is a fair enough limit around schools or whatver, unless it's downhill it takes someone pretty fit to exceed that for any distance cycling. I'm regularly overtaken doing 30mph on my 1000cc motorbike, so fussing about cyclists exceeding 20mph is clearly a distraction. More worryingly whipping up cyclist hatred gets people killed as a minority of motorists already drive at cyclists. Whilst I don't really want to do a Godwin, it has to be said picking on an "out" group, be that cyclists, or transexuals, moslems or whatever is straight out of the Fascist play book.