Rockets

Firstly, I do not think that legislating against bad cycling will deter anyone from getting on a bike - it's a very weak excuse constructed by the cycle lobby - in fact it might encourage more cyclists as I know a lot of people are put off due to other aggressive cyclists - I have been chastised a hell of a lot for stopping at red lights by other cyclists. Secondly, you are making a huge presumption that if people don't cycle then they drive. In a city like London that is hugely misleading as a lot of cycle journeys have replaced travelling by foot or public transport - especially Lime bikes (which are very often some of the very worst offenders). I think you are trying desperately to create a reason for changes in legislation not to be considered but I suspect you're fighting against an incoming tide as authorities will be forced to do something (and as they also see the potential revenue stream). Some local authorities are starting to do so already on a localised basis and this will gather pace.

But this is exactly how you are using it. Only if you're starting point is that you are concerned more for cycling growth than mitigating the risk posed by cyclists. Legislation and laws are set on the basis of the latter not the former. This is why the debate has become so polarised because, on one side you have groups who care only for cycle growth and on the other those concerned about the risk posed by cyclists to other road users.

The controls are also to push parking onto other local roads to help the council push for CPZs as they take Dulwich one street at a time!!! 😉

Yes. We know. But as my mum used to tell me: "You only need one inch of water to drown". The impact on pedestrians killed by cyclists is nowhere the impact a car travelling at the same speed would have. Of course not. But it didn't need to be. So please, please, please stop using this as some sort of get-out for cyclists. Which is why it is important to consider the need for changes in legislation and laws when it comes to cyclists. But I am glad we finally agree on something: that it is not unreasonable to suggest we need injury/death by dangerous cycling legislation.

https://www.royalparks.org.uk/get-in-touch/media-centre/news-press-releases/regents-park-statement-royal-parks https://www.timeout.com/london/news/could-these-major-london-parks-soon-get-strict-speed-limits-for-cyclists-102124 https://www.royalparks.org.uk/sites/default/files/2023-11/Cycling-in-the-Royal-Parks-policy-statement-May-2023.pdf It looks like Royal Parks are lobbying the government to set a speed limit for cyclists in it's parks. None of the above happens because of any culture-war on cyclists but because cyclists are posing an increasing problem and risk to pedestrians. I presume Dulwich Park is the same as the Royal Parks in that they can only ask for cyclists to respect the speed limit - which hardly any do. Clearly it's only a matter of time before the change happens - no matter how much shouting the cycle lobby do about harming the expansion of cycling. We have to put pedestrian safety ahead of everything else - I still really don't understand how increasing rules and regulations would hinder cycle growth - it certainly didn't do anything to hinder car growth all those years ago!

But do you not think that, because these private roads have felt it necessary to implement these measures, that it is only a matter of time before non-private roads adopt it? Does the 5mph in Dulwich Park apply to bikes?

And you're doing that thing where you post before checking the facts..... That doesn't matter because the act and what he was charged with refers to "wanton and furious driving" and was clearly updated for cars not cycles - and that is what we were debating. After all, that's what Charlie Alliston got 18 months for - "wanton and furious driving", not "wanton and furious cycling". Earl, your summary is a good one because I think, like many ludicrously lenient sentences for injuring or killing someone with a car, the maximum possible sentences are ludicrously short. What the Tories were trying to do, whilst kite flying and trying to blindly politicise the issue during their "war on the war on cars" was update and refresh legislation which happens all the time. I don't know any reasonable person who would not agree that there should be a charge of causing death or injury by dangerous cycling because people have to be afforded some protection from the menace posed by a small number of cyclists and if found guilty that a suitable custodial sentences can be applied. And I feel the same way about cars too - kill or injure as you drive or cycle dangerously and you pay the price.

Ok so how come Charlie Alliston got charged and found guilty of "wanton or furious driving"? He was on an bike.

You're back! Hurrah!

Earl if you are referring to the Hilda Griffiths case then I am sure Snowy will put us all to rights but speed was a factor - the cyclist could not be prosecuted by police because, as the cyclist said themselves in the coroner's court (as well as the police), the speed limit does not apply to cycles. If he had been driving a car though and breaking the speed limit surely he would have been charged whether it was his fault or not because he would have been breaking the law with his speed.

Are you absolutely sure Snowy.....? BTW I never saw your evidence regarding the Hilda Griffiths case you promised after you made your accusations against me. Did you find anything?

Only a few hours old March....

But it has pedals....when I cycle there are periods when I don't pedal.....there are some that look like motorbikes (are they Surron bikes?) but they have no pedals. It's careless and wanton driving not cycling and I do not think that can be used for speed as speeds do not apply to cycles. And it is very difficult for police to determine what is legal or not as the kits are sold to disguise the ability to go faster than 15.5mph and most are designed to be added to standard pedal cycles.

BBC News - Thousands of London drivers paying invalid fines, AA says - BBC News https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cr7e8x510j9o

You're correct, which is why you can go from one borough to another and the implementation of 20mph varies massively and is often implemented in areas that the Highway Code classes as 30mph roads.

To be fair Earl you can't see if it has a throttle from that picture and if it is only 250w it is considered an e-bike. This is the problem - you can buy kits that propel bikes at 60/70mph which are very difficult to tell apart from legal ones - some even come with a keyfob to derate them to within the legal limits. The law has, as usual, not kept up with technological developments and, as car drivers have to with bad drivers, all cyclists may have to be policed on the basis of the few who ruin it for everyone else.

Which you were saying pedestrians being killed by cyclists were....we know what you were saying. If you're going to say it, as you try to outdo Earl with barbs aimed at anyone who dares challenge your ideology, at least own it if you get called out for it. Everyone knows what you were saying....

Or maybe take a leaf from Malumbu and shout "s**t happens", they won't know if you're shouting at them or pre-empting the accident they are about to cause - but I bet it will get their attention! 😉

Clearly you no longer have any sensible contribution to make to this forum...we shall refer to this phase as Earl's Teenage Troll Phase...;-)

Earl, can you expand on your accusation on the Highway Code? Regardless of criminal activity on any mode of transport is it not the case that laws and regulations are set for the very worst behaviour of people - we have speed limit enforcement because some people speed - we police everything not because of the behaviour of the many but because of the behaviour of the few? Except seemingly cycling and that ultimately endangers other roads users and pedestrians, especially at a time where active travel planners seem to think it is a good idea to mix cyclists and pedestrians. It's a recipe for disaster and some that many in the pro-cycle lobby steadfastly refuse to acknowledge - as this thread highlights oh so powerfully.

Per Sue the sushi is good at Monkatsu on North Cross Road. A bit further afield Sushi Shimai on Milkwood Road is good too.

Can you explain how exactly? The new hierarchy of users within the Highway Code is very clear with pedestrians (rightly) afforded the most protection from everyone else on the road. They are at the top of the hierarchy and every other road user comes after them - including cyclists.

Signage had not changed as of this morning.

Here you go everyone...transport guru Malumbu has spoken and if you get hit by a bike put it in the "s### happens" category and it was probably your own fault anyway......serves you right for not being on a bike hey Malumbu! #culturewar!

Yes i get the point what you're trying to do but do you not think you should have selected an article that doesn't show how Soithwark Cyclists were trying to manipulate the Dulwich LTN consultation.....that looks like a massive own goal.....