Rockets

We were but I used to unicycle around the main living room area and some people didn't like my, what they considered, inconsiderate cycling and @Earl Aelfheah and I got into a row because they tried to claim I wasn't on a bike but a single-wheeled traction engine and so shouldn't be claiming I was a cyclist. I got moved to another home where people are more embracing of all forms of cycling! 😉

The council were out gritting the bad bits on Court Lane yesterday but parts of it were like an ice-rink again this morning.

But it is because it is a shared-use route on private land and the signage itself makes it very clear what the speed limit is. What you or I think is irrelevant as the speed limit is 5mph. And it applies to bicycles too. If you have an issue with that you need to contact the council and ask them to increase the speed limit - I doubt they will as they are trying to protect the other shared-use users. No because as someone who does know what the sign says and shows it was clear to me you didn't have the foggiest clue as to what you were talking about. That's not weird.

@first mate I do wonder whether the warning of trolling the lady in the video was told sbout when she decided to go public may actually be from cycle lobbyists accusing her of betraying the oath of cyclists - that they're own recklessness can never be acknowledged. If people like @malumbu, who I believe has claimed to have taught cycling, cannot acknowledge the need for greater education within the cycle community and wants people to "move on" what hope is there?

The signs which are at all the entrances to the park (which are comprised of one round blue one and one round red one - can you remember from the Highway Code what that means.....;-)) show that it is a shared-use route to be used by certain groups only, that users must give-way and priority to pedestrians and unleashed dogs and that the speed limit on the shared-use route is 5mph. I am not sure it's right you suggest I am being "weird" I was merely asking if you had any knowledge of the sign you were talking about. Per the forum rules are you allowed to accuse someone of being weird?

@Earl Aelfheah I was just interested whether you actually knew what the signage said or whether you were arm-chair quarterbacking without actually having seen anything of the game! Needless to say your memory fails you. The signs, which are all over the park at entry points long since used for any car access don't say anything about "vehicle entry for permit holders only" nor do they say anything about "please observe 5mph". It might be worth you refreshing your memory next time you're there - take a look and let me know what you find! And this is exactly part of the issue and was one of the reasons Friends of Dulwich Park implored locals to review the consultation on the cycle spine through Dulwich Park back in 2015 and said in their correspondence to residents: The 5MPH speed limit in the park applies to cyclists just as much as those vehicles allowed in to the park (a typical cycling speed is 13MPH). At present, that speed limit is often not observed.Increased usage would heighten the need for observance. It's interesting because the whole subject of problematic cyclists in the park was discussed on here way back in 2011 too:

@Earl Aelfheah would you be so good as to describe the signage to us?

@exdulwicher of course it is. So now the havoc is being caused by other vehicles isn't it? Do you know what the signage says in Dulwich Park - perhaps you can help @Earl Aelfheah? Puppies are allowed off lead on the shared-use route - it's one of the reasons why the speed limit is set at 5mph to slow bikes down as it is a shared-use route.

@malumbu probably for cyclists to stop injuring themselves on bikes by jumping red lights - do you not want that?

@Earl Aelfheah come on - describe the signs to us in Dulwich Park. What do they show and say...?

It would require a TMO or specific site rules to be able to put the signage up in the park would it not that alerts users of the park to the fact that it was a shared-use route with a speed limit of 5mph? And if that stated all vehicles then it would apply to all vehicles wouldn't it (unless of course it called out an exception for bicycles)? Your words not mine - clearly that was not what I said. You're adding elements and making things up again. New Year, same old tactics!!! 😉 Tell that to the puppy that was killed by the cyclist...... I don't need to support extending it as it already does apply to cyclists - the council have done the work for me. I still don't know why you feel the need to get so angry when you find out a speed limit does apply to cyclists. Again, speak to the owner of the puppy....any havoc in the park is not being caused by high powered motor vehicles is it.....? When the discussion moves to something on the public highway you're more than welcome to play the "WHAT ABOUT THE CARS" hand but in a park you're on a bit of a dodgy wicket with that one..... What signage is there @Earl Aelfheah - perhaps you would like to describe it to us and tell us what it includes and what it doesn't......?

@exdulwicher we know that is the case on public roads but it is not the case on private land where the speed limit is set by the local authority. Dulwich Park is not part of the public highway. The route through the park is a shared-use route and Southwark have set the speed limit for all vehicles as 5mph. This is fact. You are wrong - the speed limit does apply to bicycles - whether it will ever be enforced is another matter. It does. You are wrong. It is a shared-use route with a speed limit of 5mph. Do you argue then that the 10mph limit on the shared-use path in front of Dulwich College does not apply to cyclists too? Again, why are you getting so vexed that a rule may actually apply to cyclists - I don't know how, as a cyclist, I managed to avoid this oppositional defiant disorder many cyclists, and their cheerleaders, seem to have? Honestly, why does it upset you so - this is a prime example of why so many people are fed-up with the blinkered approach many in the cycle lobby take? Who and what are you trying to protect - the divine right of cyclists to do what they want without hindrance? You seem to be prioritising the needs and wants of cyclists over every other shared-use route users in the park....is that not a little selfish? Nonsense. Firstly, the police would not enforce it as it is private land and not the public highway - it would be enforced by the council as they set the speed limit of 5mph. Secondly, the biggest groups this would likely impact are the e-bike and cargo bike riders who rattle through the parks at a hell of a rate without a care in the world for the other users and they are not doing a lot of exercise and if they were walking would do more! Now that's not very nice is it? Anyway, it wouldn't happen as I am a very considerate cyclist.... You seem to be trying cast doubts over my cycling credentials - is this because I dare question some of the more cultish elements of being part of the cycling community? BTW @exdulwicher and @Earl Aelfheah do you both cycle much? Funny isn't it....you love it when the rules get applied to drivers to the letter...less so cyclists....C'est La vie!

So you agree a bike is a vehicle - so if then the speed limit applies to ALL vehicles on a shared-use route then it does apply to bicycles too then? Or are you trying to assert that they are given a special "tho shalt go at whatever speed you want as you are a cyclist". I am afraid the rules on non-public carriageway are different and clearly there nears to be better education about this - Dulwich Estates are clearly trying to make that point on the shared-use path in front of Dulwich College!!! No I think you're the one being ridiculous now. I think you're missing the point @exdulwicher. This is about applying commonsense to the situation you find yourself in when on a bike - and unfortunately a lot of cyclists seem to leave commonsense at home when they jump on their bikes and default to a "I will because I can/am allowed to" mentality. And every time someone utters the "the speed limit does not apply to bikes" it is often as they try to defend stupid, inconsiderate or downright dangerous cycling and this is usually followed by the next most-used phrase in the lexicon on cycling excuses - "ah, that's not actually a bike". I dunno. I only tend to see people shouting at fast moving cyclists - I have never seen an issue with runners. Granted Park Run is a bit of a pain to navigate but it all seems to work harmoniously. And I don't see surgeons talking about rising admissions from runner-caused injuries: Jaison Patel, an orthopaedic knee surgeon at the Royal London, the national trauma centre that treated Stonkute, said he and his colleagues had seen a big rise in accidents involving riders or pedestrians as more commuters cycle to work since the pandemic, in part thanks to a proliferation of e-bikes. No just highlighting that there is little point taking a position on it because that is the speed limit - the same with the A205. We can think it is ridiculous but that doesn't change the fact that it is the speed limit.

No. Firstly because the speed limit is for vehicles only and secondly humans have an inbuilt mechanism to avoid one another - the problems tend to occur when you put them on or in devices to make them go faster. But regardless that is the speed limit for vehicles in the park isn't it so surely if you cannot cycle within it you should dismount? It was interesting because the cycle route through the park that was proposed back in 2015 got rejected and I do wonder if that was on the basis of the mixed-use nature of the park. It is clearly being used as a cut-through for many.

@Earl Aelfheah I would treat this with some caution as I think it is a slippery path doing a like-for-like comparison on comparable kinetic energy as being hit by anything at any speed comes with risk and could injure/kill people especially on shared use routes where more vulnerable users. Often it is not the collision of cycle vs pedestrian that causes the problems but the fall that takes place as a direct result and the kinetic energy values for that are much much less. The lady killed in Regent's Park died not from the injuries sustained during the impact with the cyclist but the fall that happened after the impact with the cyclist. And per the above it is exactly why the speed limit has been set at 5mph - shared use dictates the need for a difference approach. I am one of those annoying cyclists who tries to balance when I stop so slow speed cycling is not an issue for me!!! 😉 But if the speed limit is 5mph it is 5mph whether people agree or not - I think it is ridiculous that the A205 is 20mph but I still have to adhere to that limit. But we do when trends emerge that show that harm is being done because of a lack of regulation and whilst I don't think we are heading down a route of speedos for bikes I do think there will have to be more stringent policing of cyclists in future. On this thread and the red-light thread you will read a constant narrative of the need for better education for cyclists and much of what the police and authorities are doing are invoking what powers they have to stop cyclists and educate them - be that the speeding on Tooting Bec or showing red-light jumpers the video of the lady being hit by a bus (interesting that it seems the police in that instance seem to feel frustrated by what they can do). Of course, if the problems keep getting worse then more draconian measures will be required - if for nothing else to stop cyclists injuring themselves - the testimony from the surgeon in the FT red-light jumping article is an eye-opener.