Earl Aelfheah

We’ll have to agree to disagree on this I think. If you look at the numbers of bicycles travelling over 20 or 30 mph it’s tiny. And if you look at the risk posed by bicycles it is also relatively small (relative to other vehicles). Meanwhile the DfT says that in 2022 85% of drivers broke the speed limit in 20mph zones. This is a distraction. Our legislators do scrutinise this stuff and they do consider proportionality, the ability to enforce changes and whether they are likely to be counterproductive in achieving their stated aims. There is zero chance of a law change because it would do little if anything to improve overall road safety. So one has to question the point of threads like these? It just feels like culture war nonsense.

It doesn’t really. Mile-for-mile in urban areas, motor vehicles are about twice as likely as a cycle to kill a pedestrian. The impact forces involved in a collision with a bicycle, even travelling at say 20mph compared to a car at 10, are just not remotely comparable. A car or van simply represents a greater risk to other people than a bicycle. Whilst on a very simplistic level, it may seem ‘obvious’ to apply the same limit to everyone, in reality any measures which encourage people to swap out journeys by bike for journeys by motor vehicles, makes the roads more dangerous. And the idea you could just change the law, without a clear plan for how it would be enforced, misunderstands who our system of lawmaking works. It would almost invariably require mandatory speedometers and licensing. And as snowy points out, a mandatory speed limit for push bikes would require changes to primary legislation to redefine pedal propelled cycles as 'vehicles'. Without a clear plan for enforcement, or a well articulated case for how the law is proportionate and may not be counterproductive, it has literally zero chance of even getting timetabled, let alone through pre-legislative scrutiny and onwards. The problem with simplistic answers to complex issues is that they don’t make good law.

Spartacus incapable of understanding simple concepts or engaging with an argument sneaks off to the lounge to post lame memes 🙄

I really dont get the issue around the exact name of the legislation. The point is that there is legislation that empowers police to tackle careless and dangerous behaviour on a bike, including travelling at speeds which are inappropriate. I am not sure anyone has argued against that. We’ve not been discussing it. They’ve argued against applying a specific, mandatory speed limit for a push bike that has no speedometer or licence plate.

@Rockets Ah, I see. You appeared to be saying that there weren’t laws against careless or dangerous cycling (at least that’s how I read it). So you were actually arguing over the exact name of the legislation? That was not clear at all and seems fairly irrelevant. Although I apologise for accusing you of doubling down - So what is your substantive point? That police can’t address people cycling dangerously, or at inappropriate speeds? I don’t think that’s correct. I found a helpful summary of the legislation with regards cycling offences: Cycle carelessly, meaning without due care and attention or reasonable consideration for other road users (£1,000 max fine) or dangerously (£2,500 max fine) Cause injury by cycling furiously (two year max imprisonment). Cycle furiously (no injury caused). You can’t be prosecuted for speeding while cycling as speeding offences are specific to motor vehicles. Under the 1847 Town and Police Clauses Act you can, however, be fined up to £1,000 for cycling furiously, hence cycling too fast for the conditions can potentially lead to either a furious cycling or careless cycling charge. Crossing the stop line when the traffic lights are red (jumping red lights) is an offence which the police usually deal with via a fixed penalty notice (FPN) fine (typically £50), as is riding across a cycle-only signal crossing if the green cycle symbol isn’t showing. Cycling on the pavement. When FPNs were introduced for pavement cycling in 1999 however, Home Office Minister Paul Boateng issued guidance saying that: “The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so. Fundamentally, there is legislation to deal with careless or dangerous cycling, proportionate to the size of the problem; despite what some people think we are not doing anywhere near enough to tackle dangerous driving (between 2005-14 98.5% of vehicle-related pedestrian injuries on the footway/verge involved a motor vehicle, not a cycle). Focussing effort on new primary legislation (and the associated rules to ensure proper enforcement required by such a change), aimed at a tiny number of cyclists travelling in excess of 20 or 30 mph would be ridiculous and likely counterproductive for reasons previously discussed. For these reasons, I can guarantee it won’t happen.

@Rockets Snowy has linked you to the legislation. Instead of doubling down, perhaps just accept a mistake for once. No one will judge you for an error, but I will judge you for continuing to push things after you know them to be wrong. I’m not, but assume this is what first mate is referring to. You know my views on speculating on a specific tragedy and questioning the verdict of the inquiry.

Because the inquiry found the cyclist not to be at fault. You probably have more of the facts available to you than the judge though

If they can be propelled by the throttle over 4mph without pedalling then legally they’re classified as a “low powered moped” I think it’s fair to say that most people would refer to a moped as a type of motorbike.

@Rockets If your bus lane fine was issued incorrectly, why not appeal it? This really is embarrassing.

I'm arguing that it's possible to pull someone over who is clearly using a vehicle that is not road legal (around a 1,000 illegal electric bikes and motorbikes confiscated last year) It is also well within current powers for police to pull over and charge people who are behaving dangerously on a bicycle, or a horse for that matter; the issues around applying a specific speed limit to either have already been explained.

Police can and do pull over cyclists that are behaving dangerously and can charge people with careless or furious cycling if they are judged to be riding too fast for the conditions.

Where there is reasonable suspicion that an e-bike has been modified / is illegal, one should attempt to enforce the law (I don't think this is a controversial view). Really? I think it's pretty easy to spot a throttle operated bike with an electric motor, travelling at speed, without anyone pedalling. It's very easy to distinguish between these e-powered motorbikes and a push bike. For example. If I were a police officer and saw this, travelling at high speed, I might reasonably pull it over, and would likely impound it: I don't believe I would think - "that might be a push bike, or a legal pedal assist bike, I am powerless to make any enquiries" This is born out by the fact that nearly a thousand illegal e-bikes and e-motorcycles were confiscated by police last year. So it clearly is possible. I would, however, question how easy it is to buy them unregistered. If you want to call for all vehicles sold o the UK which are not road legal to require registration, I would 100% support it.

Tbf this may not be the answer specifically. I just don’t think it’s that difficult to pull over electric motorbikes which are clearly being driven using a throttle and which are already illegal. They should be confiscated and those riding them fined. Same goes for pedal assist where they’re clearly travelling at speeds in excess of 15.5 mph / have been modified. Police can pull people over and confiscate them. I don’t see how it’s a case of additional laws helping, when we’re not remotely using the powers that already exist / enforcing current regulations.

But it is not helpful to conflate legal, pedal assist e-bikes and illegal, unregistered electric motorbikes. They are different issues. It is definitely nit helpful to bundle them in with push bikes.

Yes, The Netherlands have of pursued radical policies over decades to increase cycling and to remove motor traffic from many areas (not without opposition). The types of interventions which we are only seriously starting to implement here now, like segregated bike lanes, pedestrianisation, road filters etc. A bike which is has a throttle and is powered by a motor is a motorbike. It is not the same as a pedal assist e-bike.

We shouldn’t be allowing the sale of mod kits. And electric motorbikes, sold with a throttle, should be registered and licenced at point of sale. This is a whole other topic, which probably merits its own thread, but I don’t think it’s helpful to conflate motorbikes and push bikes.

I do live in ED, yes. I don’t know where you’ve got the impression I live further a field. Like I said, I would personally rather effort be put into stopping what I see as much more dangerous behaviour (based on the actual data), but accept that it’s important to reassure those who perceive risk differently and so would support some spot checks if it achieved this. I don’t support 20mph speed limits for push bikes, for reasons I’ve explained at length, but briefly, because I believe it would be disproportionate, and ultimately counterproductive (this is not just my conclusion, it’s been looked at many times before and universally dismissed as impractical and unhelpful). There is another thread for ‘debating’ the idea of speed limits for pedal bikes.

This makes no sense. Why would regulation of e-bikes have to include push bikes? I don’t agree that you can’t separate control of illegal electric motorbikes from pedal assist e-bikes either. There has been almost no effort to stop the sale of illegal electric motorbikes in the UK, or to force registration / licensing at point of sale.

E-bikes are already regulated. Those bikes tagt go over 15.5 mph are illegal. Most have throttles and are actually motorbikes. Enforcement is way too lax, although the police do occasionally have targeted operations to stop and confiscate / impound them. We don’t need to muddy the debate by conflate electric motorbikes and push bikes. They are two entirely different categories of vehicle 100%. This is because cycling is a seen as something everyone does. It’s actually part of the reason that the more people who cycle, the more it is seen as a normal, everyday activity, the safer the roads are for everyone. The Netherlands shave of course pursued radical policies over decades to increase cycling and to remove motor traffic from many areas (not without opposition).

I am sorry if you read it this way Eh? I agree. I think I just suggested it, no?

Firstly I would reassure you that the junction has seen far fewer collisions since motor vehicles have been removed (according to the data at least). With regards the remaining risk posed by the bicycles that still pass through, perhaps the police could do some targeted stops and issue fines for anyone caught jumping lights? You do seem to report a lot of very regular, angry interactions and near misses with people on bicycles. This is certainly not everyone’s experience of walking around Dulwich. Are these happening in a particular place at a particular time? If so, it may be worth giving this info to the police so they can monitor it. Honestly, I personally worry more about the number of motor vehicle collisions locally, high rates of speeding and drink / drug driving and would rather see resources targeted there; but if it helps reassure people who do see road safety through this bike vs car lens, then perhaps it’s worth diverting some effort.

I can’t comment on everyone of your weekly anecdotes. I’ve said numerous tImes (not that it should need stating, but you seem determined to ascribe views to me that exist only in your imagination), that people should obey road rules, give way to pedestrians (and in the case of cars, to bicycles too), and act in ways that don’t endanger others. What I will add is that the sheer number of near misses you have been reporting are extremely worrying and do seem incredibly high. I’m sorry, but why do you insist on labelling me as a ‘born again cyclist’? Because I think the square is an improvement on how the junction was before? I drive, I walk, I use public transport and occasionally ride a bicycle. This binary opposition you’ve set up in your head (bike vs cars), is your issue not mine.

I am not a cycling activist. Not in the slightest. Just because you keep saying it doesn’t make it the case.

“ …we know why you were saying”. We don’t. Why but be brave enough to spell out your accusation? And what’s the reference to me apropos of nothing? You come across as a little obsessed. Don’t get me wrong, I’m flattered, but I suspect you’re not my type.

I am following your lead and quoting your own response to a simple question. Here is a little reflection on ‘being grown up’. When I stated that: ”Every cycle trip that is a switch from car use means fewer injuries and deaths (motorvehicles are more dangerous to others by several orders of magnitude).” You mocked me, pretending it was a claim that: Quite obviously you can see the difference between the actual statement and the straw man one you invented and attacked, entirely in bad faith. I then asked a very straight forward question seeking to clarify your genuine view on this: “Do you not believe that the same trip, made by bike and by car, pose different risks to others? “ You responded: And then: This is some of the most blatant examples of gaslighting I think I’ve seen on the forum. When you’re willing to have a grown up conversation, and debate in good faith, let us know. If you don’t like people using your own ‘tactics’ against you, to illustrate how unhelpful they are, maybe reflect on that, instead of getting all indignant and resorting to insults.