What happens when a cyclist breaks the speed limit?

[I like Skol]

As usual, topic is being dragged off on a tangent for the sake of arguing.... Thank god I don't actually have to cycle with some of you people in reality!

And we wonder why cyclists are despised by so many motorists?......

It's 20 for a reason, twenty is plenty, it's a limit not a target! But don't worry about it, you just carry on as you are, being an ambassador for our activity and helping to cement driver/cyclist relations.

Collective responsibility is a load of bull s*#£. Do you drive well partly because you want to be an "ambassador" for other drivers? Give me a break. People who see one cyclist behaving in a way they don't appreciate and then tar all of them with the same brush are simpletons and can't be helped anyway.

Collective judgement is not 'a load of bull s*#£'. It always has and always will be an actual issue and subsets of user groups will continue to be singled out as problematic (white van man, 4x4s, boy racers, etc). I fall into one of those categories and have spent decades driving responsibly to try and ensure that as a niche user group 'WE' do not lose many of the access rights that are being threatened by the behaviour of the irresponsible.

The speed limits are set for a number of reasons. Kinetic energy mainly.

In the case of 20 limits there are far more considerations than simply kinetic energy and impact speeds. It's usually far more related to the local environment and conditions such as narrow roads, multiple side entrances and junctions, pedestrianisation and high levels of pedestrians and vulnerable users (the young and the elderly etc), and a high concentration of similar hazards. The risk of a collision is high so a lowered speed has the double pay-off of reducing the likelihood of a collision AND reducing the severity IF there is a collision.
My response above to the poster's comment about (regularly?) overtaking cars with in a 20 zone;

I enjoy passing cars on the 20mph roads round here. They are usually doing 15/18mph, so passing them is easy.

Despite the posters defence that they may/may not have surpassed the 'limit' they entirely missed the reason for such actions being considered stupid behaviour. The act of (regularly?) overtaking other road users who are already travelling at or close to the speed limit in a high risk environment is irresponsible and will be rightly judged so by all spectators. Such behaviour does, rightly or wrongly, enhance group prejudices against many categories of cyclists and as such is bad form.

I know some drivers view cyclists as a homogenous group.

We're not. How much do you think I, a 31 y/o male have in common with this woman cycling on her town bike?

It's more complicated than a single homogenous entity and even the 'All cyclists jump red lights' group appreciate that there are subsets within the collective. Your facile attempt to undermine the 'collective responsibility' argument by posting a picture of 84yr old Doris going to the butchers is rather lame. Like it or not, you and your actions are representative of, and judged as being typical of, the young-middle aged male leisure/enthusiast cyclist group.

 

[Boopop]

It's more complicated than a single homogenous entity and even the 'All cyclists jump red lights' group appreciate that there are subsets within the collective. Your facile attempt to undermine the 'collective responsibility' argument by posting a picture of 84yr old Doris going to the butchers is rather lame.

Have you seen the discourse online about cyclists? Rarely do the haters discern by age or gender. It's usually just "I hate cyclists". When they do, they use awful terms like "lycra louts", implying the only cyclists that exist are those riding road bikes. I'm aware it's more complicated, clearly, that's my whole point if you had not noticed.

Collective responsibility is a load of tosh because it's the same argument that gets bandied around by people who are against safe cycling infrastructure. They'll say "We should only build safe cycling infra. once cyclists behave"...you don't get that kind of rhetoric about building roads, do you? Do we have some sort of cyclist-behaviour-o-meter to determine when we're allowed safe cycle infrastructure, or when we should expect all drivers rather than most to treat us with respect?

Collective judgement is not 'a load of bull s*#£'. It always has and always will be an actual issue and subsets of user groups will continue to be singled out as problematic (white van man, 4x4s, boy racers, etc).

Have you ever seen white van men banned from certain roads like cyclists are from pedestrianised high streets (while it's allowed without issue in Utrecht). A ban on 4x4s? Restrictions to boy racers? Nope.

Clearly some people, such as yourself, believe collective responsibility is a thing and we should all behave in a certain way to not damage the collective reputation. It's the same with stereotypes. I wouldn't for a second claim that no-one believes it. What I am saying is that those that do are thinking in overly simple terms, and I'm not going to change the way I live my life specifically to attempt to appease people who aren't capable of thinking with any nuance*.

*I'm not saying that of you by the way @I like Skol, I just think that you're trying to appease people who don't give a toss what you do anyway.

As for the topic, the answer's pretty simple - speed limits don't apply to cyclists, so nothing is done, however you can get fined for furious riding. What sort of discussion had you been expecting after eleven pages? There's not much else to say.

 

[winjim]

It doesnt take long on social media to see something like this:
- "Flipping idiot ran me off the road this morning! "
- "There was a young girl killed last month, cycling on the High Street. Driver didn't even stop "
- "Well if they didn't always jump lights they might get more respect. And why don't they have number plates? Insurance?"

Show me the equivalent against BMW/Audi drivers; show me a justification of violence against a group by referring to misdeeds by other members of that group.
Show me threats to their lives.
https://road.cc/content/news/3069-what’s-smug-and-deserves-be-decapitated”-matthew-parris-gets-most-press-complaints

I don't know about threats to life, that applies to cyclists because we happen to be vulnerable, but you only need to Google 'BMW drivers' to see a general attitude towards them, and certainly some tales of amusement from times when they have come a cropper.

 

[Dogtrousers]

In Japan, I was unable to find out how speed limits affect cyclists but I did discover ...

You aren’t allowed to hold an umbrella in one hand as you ride. But you can ... save yourself the trouble and danger by getting a handy umbrella clamp for bicycles.

https://en.japantravel.com/guide/cycling-rules/58088

 

[T4tomo]

Have you ever seen white van men banned from certain roads like cyclists are from pedestrianised high streets (while it's allowed without issue in Utrecht). A ban on 4x4s? Restrictions to boy racers? Nope.

why should cyclists be allowed in pedestrianised high streets? We should be banned - along with white van man - to make it safer for pedestrians.
It would be painful to cycle through one anyway, with pedestrians walking a random on their phone and @Darius_Jedburgh attempting to get up to 30mph on his Raleigh Chopper.

 

[Boopop]

why should cyclists be allowed in pedestrianised high streets? We should be banned.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkB8LMtYPec


Utrecht allows it, and they're one of the best cycling cities in the world. Surely we should copy them - or do you think British bike riders are inherently more dangerous than the Dutch? Are you suggesting a cyclist at 5-10mph is as dangerous to the surrounding pedestrians as a 2+ ton van? Also...what about cargo bikes visiting the market? If we discourage them by banning them from town centres (they're difficult to walk with especially when loaded), they're more likely to drive, and thus make the whole urban environment more dangerous, not just the high street, due to increased traffic.

Then there's those that use their tricycles as mobility aids when they're not legally classed as such.

Back to cargo bikes - I've delivered food parcels to the needy on my cargo bike. If I go to a pedestrianised area where someone needs a delivery, do you want me to try and walk with it? I can't with that much cargo. So what's the alternative? Invite a car or a van in to the pedestrianised zone instead? Ah yes, I'm sure that is safer.

 

[I like Skol]

I think there is something being lost in translation here @Boopop
That is clearly a motorised-vehicle free zone, not a pedestrianised area. It would be interesting to see what has been allowed/banned when the area was restricted to it's current status.

 

[I like Skol]

I'm aware it's more complicated, clearly, that's my whole point if you had not noticed.

So you accept that collective responsibility and group stereotyping is a thing and it's complex?

Have you ever seen white van men banned from certain roads like cyclists are from pedestrianised high streets (while it's allowed without issue in Utrecht). A ban on 4x4s? Restrictions to boy racers? Nope.

Many roads are being closed across the country purely to prevent use by 4x4s and while the closure removes the access for all vehicles, it is purely done to prevent illegal and irresponsible 4x4 use.

@Boopop you seem to be suggesting that as long as we are not breaking the 'rules' then we are free to behave as we please, with impunity and there are no consequences to promoting that belief?
Are you saying that Darius should continue repeatedly overtaking cars in that 20mph safety zone, that we should be patting him on the back and congratulating him for his stupidity because 'That shzit is cool man, who cares if it is winding up all the other road users and causing tension between user groups, they are wrong anyway'? That's what it sounds like. And let's not get side tracked by that old red herring about mass/momentum and KE. If you hit someone on your bicycle while acting recklessly or dangerously then you are just as in the wrong as a car driver who does the same. It is the consequences that differ.

 

[Dogtrousers]

And let's not get side tracked by that old red herring about mass/momentum and KE. If you hit someone on your bicycle while acting recklessly or dangerously then you are just as in the wrong as a car driver who does the same. It is the consequences that differ.

And under the wrong circs the victim could be just as dead. It is possible for a collision with a cyclist to be fatal to a pedestrian. Far less likely than with a car, but still possible.

Once you are over a certain threshold of Kinetic Energy sufficient to cause serious harm or to kill, the extra joules that the car has are just overkill.

 

[Boopop]

So you accept that collective responsibility and group stereotyping is a thing and it's complex?

I accept that some people believe that collective responsibility is legitimate and it should be respected, and that stereotypes are somehow accurate. That much is as plain as day, otherwise we'd both be in agreement. Where we differ is just because I recognise that some people think collective responsibility is useful, that does not mean I have to agree with them, to my mind it is not. What useful actions are going to be taken based on anedote based collective responsibility? I don't deal in anecdotes, I deal in hard evidence. Collective responsibility tends to be all about anecdotes and whataboutery.

@Boopop you seem to be suggesting that as long as we are not breaking the 'rules' then we are free to behave as we please, with impunity and there are no consequences to promoting that belief?

I'm saying that my individual behaviour should not be used to make judgements about all members of a certain group of people who share that characteristic. To do so is simplistic and quite honestly is offensive. If there's an uptick in crimes comitted on a bicycle, is that supposed to reflect badly on everyone on this forum? Trying my very best to not draw parallels to more destructive forms of stereotyping and discrimination.

 

[I like Skol]

I'm saying that my individual behaviour should not be used to make judgements about all members of a certain group of people who share that characteristic.

Yes it should. I wouldn't think twice about stepping onto a pedestrian crossing when 84yr old Doris was approaching as I know she is unlikely to intentionally maintain her speed and sweep through regardless of the requirement for her to stop. If you on your fancy carbon bike and a group of cycling friends were approaching then I would rightly think there was a much higher chance that you would not stop. That is not about stereotyping or anecdotes, that is reality and you can't argue with that. You are part of a group that shares that characteristic.

 

[mjr]

If you on your fancy carbon bike and a group of cycling friends were approaching then I would rightly think there was a much higher chance that you would not stop. That is not about stereotyping or anecdotes, that is reality and you can't argue with that. You are part of a group that shares that characteristic.

Materials profiling?

 

[Boopop]

That is not about stereotyping or anecdotes, that is reality and you can't argue with that. You are part of a group that shares that characteristic.

What a load of nonsense, that's absolutely stereotyping and anecdotes, and I'd gladly argue with that. Where's your evidence? I don't mean "one time I saw" whataboutery, I mean bona fide hard empircial evidence. Honestly feels like I'm talking to someone from the Daily Mail.

 

[matticus]

And under the wrong circs the victim could be just as dead. It is possible for a collision with a cyclist to be fatal to a pedestrian. Far less likely than with a car, but still possible.

Once you are over a certain threshold of Kinetic Energy sufficient to cause serious harm or to kill, the extra joules that the car has are just overkill.

That's not the case until you reach a pretty massive amount of KE. Remember the adverts about cars doing 30mph hitting kids, -vs- hitting them at 20mph?

It's ENORMOUSLY difficult to kill people with bikes, and we know that cyclists come off pretty badly in collisions too, so unlike drivers they try very hard to avoid such impacts.

 

[mjr]

Collective judgement is not 'a load of bull s*#£'. It always has and always will be an actual issue [...]

Those are not opposites. It can be both. It's an actual bull shoot issue. We should point it out as such, not pander to it.

Many roads are being closed across the country purely to prevent use by 4x4s and while the closure removes the access for all vehicles, it is purely done to prevent illegal and irresponsible 4x4 use.

Is that true? How many roads? The ones I know locally on the fens and around the Norfolk coast are being closed to prevent legal but irresponsible use by all sorts of motor vehicles. Some of the closures are temporary to let the surface recover and the grass grow back.

If irresponsible 4x4 use was already illegal, what use is the closure? That sounds the same sort of bull shoot as not allowing bikes into suitably quiet/wide pedestrian zones because illegal riders were crashing into people or things: the irresponsible ones are doing it anyway and the vast majority of riders fined made a mistake (didn't spot the signs, didn't know the area, whatever) and wouldn't have harmed a fly, but they're the only ones who stop for police and they take up all police time so no-one ever catches the dangerous ones!

Are you saying that Darius should continue repeatedly overtaking cars in that 20mph safety zone,

Yes as long as the overtake is safe. The speed limit is almost irrelevant to bikes and how do you know it is a "safety zone" rather than the limit having been introduced for one of the other six legal reasons?

If you hit someone on your bicycle while acting recklessly or dangerously then you are just as in the wrong as a car driver who does the same. It is the consequences that differ.

Not exactly "just as in the wrong" IMO (this is not binary) but still wrong.