Earl Aelfheah

A lot of strawman stuff here. Regardless of the circumstances, it would have taken a lot of force to move that concrete post. This kind of regular damage to property and the public realm isn't great. For one thing, it costs taxpayers a lot of money. But also, a high powered vehicle, applying massive force to a concrete block that's located on a pavement, is dangerous under almost any circumstances. On a different (but related) topic... This report, published last year, makes fairly grim reading. Year on year increases in hit and runs in London. Over 300 in Southwark alone. Driving off after hitting someone is (as the title suggests) an escalating crisis Hit and run the escalating crisis on London roads - January 2024 Caroline Russell Report.pdf

It doesn't 'walk like a duck' though does it. A push bike doesn't have a throttle and cannot travel at 70mph powered by a motor.

It's you that is trying to conflate a 70mph e-moped with a push bike. You'd be much better off calling for regulation of those mod kits (as I already did above), and stricter enforcement of existing laws to ensure vehicles are road legal. I'm not sure how bringing in additional laws for push bikes has any impact on illegal e-mopeds (in fact I do, it has none). But clearly not working....which leads us back to my point on the need for tighter legislation, increased policing or limitations of cycle use. This is so weird. I've pointed out that the laws you are calling for already exist in the scenario you describe, they're just not enforced, and you agree, then call for tighter legislation. It's a problem of enforcement, extra laws on top of ones which are already unenforced achieves nothing. And then you call for 'limitations of cycle use'... Which I think really gets to the nub of what you want.

Push bikes, e-bikes and e-mopeds are categorised and regulated differently yes. Lime bikes are licensed, insured, have a number plates, and in the scenarios you describe, are breaking existing laws. So I'm not sure whether extra laws would really make a difference. Seems to be an issue of enforcement. It is an anecdote. Lime bikes are different from push bikes in the scenarios that you describe, because your proposed fix - the additional regulations you're calling for - already apply to them. Which is kind of relevant and more than a little ironic. I find it strange (although not really, fully understanding your agenda) how you think that an illegal electric moped (the type used extensively by delivery companies) is the same as a push bike?

I am not a 'highly motivated self starter' as people like to say in job interviews. I need the office to ensure I actually focus / get some work done. Otherwise I spend too much time arguing with Rockets on the forum 😉

We do need better enforcement. Especially around commercial e-bikes and illegal e scooters / mopeds. …and regularly speeding and distracted motorists for that matter.

Your anecdote above seems to involve primarily Lime bikes, and delivery scooters. The former are licensed and insured, have a number plate, and in the scenarios your describe are breaking existing laws. The latter are probably illegal - most of the electric scooters used for deliveries are, and yet companies like Uber Eats etc, seem to turn a blind eye. So how are calls for new laws relevant, or helpful? What you're describing is an issue of enforcement. In both cases, the police are already empowered to do something about the situations you describe, they just fail to do so very effectively.

Thames water digging up the same bit of road near junction of Lordship Lane and Heber for (I think) the third time?! I don’t get why they can’t fix it once.

People often speed on this road and often fail to stop at the zebra crossing. Better enforcement needed

Thanks, look forward to seeing the new place. Think it’s just called kix now

There is a new 'sauna and arts social club' opened up in Arch 842, next to Bronzewood Metal Works off Consort Road Sauna Social Club | Sauna and Arts | Peckham, London, UK Also, probably not new, but new to me Banook Bagels | South London Bagel - Order Online

Also the houses south of Peckham Rye (Mamora, Therapia etc), have big gardens. SE22 is a lovely area and very safe.

Agree, it's a really nice space and already very popular. Will really come into it's own come the summer.

Nope. I want speed limits to be enforced to the point where 85% of people in high powered vehicles aren’t ignoring them. Amazing that you (appear) to think this unreasonable in relation to cars, but are desperate to tackle it in relation to bicycles. There are far fewer people who cycle, it’s a tiny proportion of them who can maintain more than 20 for any distance, and the average bicycle weighs about 10kg, not 2 tons. So it’s a really weird way to rank your priorities. Yup. Although it’s not really just weight, it’s also bonnet height (almost more important), and power. No. I don’t see the need for ever bigger, heavier, and higher fronted vehicles in town. The car bloat should be discouraged imo for numerous reasons, just one of which is safety (an important one). Yes. And the point stands. I mean E-bikes (which includes most cargo bikes), are clearly different to a standard bicycle. But even at 35 or even 65 kg, it’s quite different to over 2,000kg. So again, to constantly spotlight the former, whilst deflecting from the latter feels at best ‘misguided’. Yet we now have three threads focussed on speed limits for bicycles, including this one, that was meant to be about motor vehicles, but has also been redirected. Again, it’s a quick, whispered acknowledgement there are other (much bigger) issues, followed by more weapons grade deflection. And the ‘our side of the fence’ comment is so, so revealing.

DfT stats suggest 85% of motor vehicles drive faster than the speed limit in 20mph zones. That’s totally unacceptable. If you’re exercised by the tiny number of people on a 10kg pedal powered vehicle travelling at speeds in excess of 20, you should be enraged by the much bigger numbers doing it in a 2 ton, high-powered vehicle. So let’s start there. I would like to see far more enforcement and stiff penalties. I would also like to see some of the technology currently only deployed on electric hire scooters (geo-fencing + speed limiters), applied to cars. I would like strict regulations on the size, bonnet height and weight of non-commercial vehicles and charging regimens which also strongly discourage the arms race for ever bigger, heavier and higher fronted cars (which are so much more dangerous than say a standard saloon. And generally I would question why we need non commercial vehicles upwards of 300 horse power in our cities. I would again use the tax / charging regimes to disincentive use of these dangerous, unnecessary vanity vehicles. …And I would support removing motor vehicles from many more areas. Expanding pedestrian spaces / widening pavements, and creating more segregated cycling spaces to protect people from having to interact with high powered heavy machinery. Lastly, I would encourage greater investment in public transport (although it’s a bit of a cop out to say that, as who wouldn’t)

There is a thread on speed limits for a bicycles. In fact two, because you’re pushing it on the LTN one too. I get it, your focus is on a tiny number of bicycles that pedal too quickly. Could we perhaps have one thread that focuses on the much bigger issue of high powered heavy vehicles, which regularly speed and are killing and injuring thousands of people? Just one? Because it’s really no good saying you care about it, but don’t really want to leave any space to talk about it. The constant deflection is so unhelpful.

If there is evidence that the danger there has increased, I agree something will need to be done so. I personally think the new layout does a lot to slow vehicles. To me it feels a lot safer and pleasant now that motor vehicles have been removed. That said my ‘perception’ shouldn’t be relied on any more than anyone else’s. But the data I’ve seen suggests that recorded collisions around that junction have reduced significantly.

They are registered, licensed, insured and have number plates. Is this what you would like to see for privately owned bicycles too?

You can’t discuss dangerous driving without the usual suspects banging on about bicycles. It’s really, really tedious. Road safety isn’t a football game. You don’t have to constantly cheer for your ‘team’. How can a serious response to someone tearing round a park in a 2 ton vehicle nearly 50 mph be - ‘yeah but forget that, focus on people using a 10 kg vehicle, who I think could be pushing 20, that’s the more pressing issue here’

Yeh sure. This definitely isn’t just an ad hominem attack 🙄. I’m not a ‘lobbyist’, have nothing to do with LCC, and you’re embarrassing yourself Yeh, I already agreed Lime bikes are probably replacing walking and / or bus journeys, but as usual you’re so keen to argue, you haven’t actually read my response. I doubt they’re replacing many tube journeys. As I said, Lime bikes are designed as ‘last mile’ transport, to connect people to train / tube. Privately owned bicycles aren’t generally used in this way. Obviously different. They’re licensed, registered, insured etc as a condition of operation, as a commercial enterprise. The user isn’t the one having to worry about it. They just jump on and go. The convenience / ease of use is exactly what makes them popular. Which kind of proves my point; simplicity has a big impact in people’s transport choices. If you make owning a bike more difficult, expensive or complicated, some people will switch out journeys for something easier, faster or more convenient, including cars.

This is nonsense. It's just an ad hominem attack. But you do you. Lime bikes are intended as 'last mile' transport - to get you to / from the tube or train. Personal bicycles aren't used in the same way generally. It's likely that people switching from walking to using a Lime bike for the same journey increases the risk to others, yes. You'll note that Lime bikes are registered, licensed, insured and have a fixed top speed (at least for pedal assist, and you'd be hard pushed to get it a lot above that speed without it). They're regulated differently to push bikes, because of the above. Sure. Why not. I can think of legislation I might like to see (I've even mentioned some of it on this thread). But you're not going to see mandatory speed limits for push bikes, because the argument for it simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Its not at all uncommon unfortunately. Happened to me today at the zebra crossing at ED Grove / Melbourne grove - Mercedes just went straight through it.

It's to do with the realities of creating new primary legislation. If a bill cannot demonstrate how a proposed new law will be adequately enforced, it simply won't get timetabled for debate, let alone any further along in the process. To have a chance of getting through the pre-scrutiny stages you would need to propose a system of registering and licensing bicycles. You can disagree with this, but I invite you to look into the process and all the layers of legislative scrutiny involved. If you bring in registration and licensing you create a barrier to cycling, and some people will switch. This can be seen in areas where mandatory helmet laws have been introduced and bike use has fallen. Your constant use of 'cycle lobby' to describe anyone with a different view is a perfect example of the polarisation that you claim to be against. How on earth are my arguments anything to do with a cycle lobby? Debate the points, rather than trying to discredit the messenger. Not all of them. But certainly some of them. And even if it's only some of them, that has a negative impact on overall road safety. This is why it's relevant to understand the difference in risk between different transport choices / where comparative analysis is important. Not out of petty tribalism, which I'm not interested in, but because it becomes relevant to understanding impact. The difference in the risks posed to other people by a motor car, versus a bicycle is huge. I absolutely guarantee you that mandatory speed limits for push bikes will not be introduced. Our legislators do scrutinise this stuff carefully, consider proportionality, the ability to enforce changes and whether or not changes to the law are likely to be counterproductive in achieving their stated aims.

This really does get to the route of the problem. If you reduce the risk posed by 'cyclists', by encouraging them to switch out journeys by bike for a car, then you haven't mitigated the risk those people pose to others, you've increased it. Again, because if I cycle a journey, I pose less of a risk to other people, than if I do that same journey in a motor car. This is just a statistical fact. That I'm not a 'cyclists' anymore is irrelevant, unless you think that's the important thing (as you've implied in the quote above and elsewhere), and not the risk people pose to others.

This is a much more rational argument imo. I also worry about the risks people put themselves under.