first mate

I have said this before, but when I am out cycling I find the behaviour of some other cyclists just as, if not more, worrying than car drivers, in terms of predictability. I am looking at suitable mirrors for my bike as I have been silently overtaken at speed by another cyclist, too many times of late. It felt like were I to shift over to avoid a pothole or similar, I would have taken a knock/ come off. It feels similar to the type of reckless car driver that likes to 'go for the gap'.

I do hope this driver is identified and dealt with. It is dangerous and unforgivable not to stop at a pedestrian crossing, when people are waiting to cross.

You can't have it both ways. If cycling is not going up why are we spending so much on cycling infrastructure? If, as is hoped, it does increase, then I think my points apply. Parks are not now including cyclists in 20mph as part of a 'culture war'- what nonsense. It is because some cyclists like to go to parks and cycle as fast as they can- time trials. Numbers of cyclists doing this at 20mph and over poses a risk to pedestrians. If cycling increases on our local roads then I think there is a reasonable case for applying that 20mph as well.

I think you may be wrong about alleged technical blocks to getting 20mph for bicycles, see my post on another thread, the mechanisms are probably already there. Plus, 20mph zones are meant to be largely self-enforcing. Plus, if as some of you envisage, the populace migrates to cycling en masse, then 20mph would have to apply for reasons of safety, rather like it is being mooted for cycling time trials, where it is considered unsafe for numbers of cyclists to exceed 20mph in a 20mph zone, and that is a stipulation that has come from within the cycling community!

What could be more inappropriate than exceeding 20mph in a 20mph zone? Speedometers very simple to crack with modern, mobile phone technology and audio beeps. Not convinced a licence plate necessary, it is the rider not the bike that would be at fault. Realistically, enforcement would be very intermittent and random and would have to involve spot checks and fines, as City of London police carried out. Better than nothing. There is something almost distasteful in having a cycle lobby loudly insisting that for reasons of safety swathes of the country should have a 20mph speed limit imposed, except it won't apply to them. Reading cycling forums it seems a large part of this is to do with a number of highly active cyclists wanting the option to cycle as fast as they possibly can, besting personal times on Strava etc..

Some time back, it seems Southwark seriously considered applying 20mph to cyclists and the mechanism to do this was simply to remove the word 'motor' in the proposed traffic management order (based on the Road Traffic Act) leaving only the word 'vehicles', which would by definition have to include bicycles. I think the obstacle was the Met saying they would not enforce 20mph for anything, including cars. It was not the impossibility of actually installing a limit for all road users at local level. I also believe that, technically, the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2022, allows for speed limits to be imposed by local acts. Apparently, the idea that 'vehicles' includes bicycles of any description is the rationale use by the Met to prosecute cyclists for exceeding the speed limit in Richmond Park.

Richmond Park byelaws are made by the Royal Parks, Hampstead Heath byelaws are made by the City of London. The relevant police forces are tasked with enforcement but do not make the byelaws. I believe the latter case may point to precedent. Within London, speed limits in some larger parks are not dissimilar to those on surrounding streets, hence 20 MPH in Richmond Park, both for cars and bicycles; Regent's Park is asking the same of cyclists. Hyde Park has reduced 30 mph to 20mph. As we know, there was serious intent to have cyclists adhere to 20mph in the commons, but that folded with the election. My guess is it will get resurrected. Just as a little aside, I do wonder if this is the real reason so many cycling activists are averse to adherence to 20mph? https://road.cc/content/news/time-trial-riders-adhere-20mph-limits-guidance-says-306625 Note outraged comments at the end by time trial riders complaining that 20mph is sickeningly slow.

I love how Malumbu always has to announce he is not posting anymore but then keeps popping up. It is amazing the time and energy some put into what they claim are non-existent issues.

I have seen this referred to a Wanton and Furious Driving, Riding or Cycling. More important is that the legislation does not really help us in the way you have suggested as it has to involve/ turns on proof of bodily harm caused by the cyclist.

Well, I understand there is precedent, under local byelaws I understand there is an 8mph limit on cycling speeds on Hampstead Heath, and in Richmond Park one of 20mph, that also applies to cyclists. I believe you are incorrect about Wanton and Furious Cycling, but rather than adopt your patronising tone, I will just point out that for that to apply at all an injury/ bodily harm must have occurred, it is part of the Offences Against Persons Act 1861. It would not be used for speeding, running red lights or cycling on the pavement, unless you injured someone in the process. I believe what you and Earl may be referring to is 'Careless and Inconsiderate Riding or Reckless Cycling? Police are open to prosecute on those grounds, but wonder how many have even heard of these. We see different speed limits in boroughs, that is an oft quoted issue with driving in London. My understanding is that it is illegal for any child under 14 years old to use an e-bike. So I rather doubt younger kids will regularly exceed 20mph on a push bike. As I said before, I honestly do not see many youngsters on pushbikes. I do see much younger kids cycling with an adult, or I see older kids on e-bikes-, probably illegally as it happens.

Except existing legislation was not sufficient and, allegedly, too vague, to deliver a sentence for manslaughter where a cyclist ran into someone crossing the road, and where they later died.

What is your source for your first assertion. E-bikes used in numbers are new, so I'd want to see exactly how data is collected and over what period of time. On both points citing percentages, I guess you are citing national figures rather than figures for DV/ED? As already stated, young children will most likely be accompanied and are unlikely to exceed 20 mph. Older children can use speedometer phone apps with audio on to signal speed breaches. Haha, absolutely no-one other than cycling activists calls them e-motorbikes. It is not always that easy to distinguish modified e-bikes from unmodified, when on the move, oh other than by speed. My parochial interest is because 20mph zones can be created and monitored under local by-laws. It may not require national legislation. In case you hadn't noticed, this is a forum to discuss local issues ;

Fine so applying 20 mph should not be a problem.

If we work on the assumption that speed limits are there to protect all road users, but pedestrians first and foremost, then it makes sense to apply 20mph to all road users. Modified e-bikes may be indistinguishable from those that are not, meaning the only time they are likely to be identified as such is by speed. Therefore, if we want to tackle what some perceive as a growing problem, especially with e-bikes, we should apply 20mph. Because there will be the additional issue of modified e-bike users trying to 'pass' as other types of legal bicycle, it is surely easier to apply 20mph than try to cherry pick? Doing the latter could end up more costly than the first. I guess it depends which end of the telescope you are looking at. You can try to tackle illegal/ modified bikes at source but you'll still need a legal framework to do that in. The current model is obviously not working. Or, you can take a much simpler and clearer route where the same local speed limit applies to all road users. Either way, it will require funding and resources. But not a problem locally as Southwark have millions to spend in parking surplus, which can be used on just this sort of change.

So some of you now seem to be arguing that it is possible for police to pull over someone cycling at speed, if they can simultaneously note they are not pedalling at that moment and can see they are using a throttle, but if they are just exceeding a speed limit ( say 20mph) it would be difficult, if not impossible, for them to do the same?

Are you sure. I had thought 20mph zones can be placed and enforced using by-laws, which are effected locally by the LA and enforced by them? FYI 20mph is not a National speed limit, is is discretionary and set at local level, according to need see: 4. The overall speed limit framework, including the setting of national limits for different road types, and which exceptions to these general limits can be applied, is the responsibility of the government. The 3 national speed limits in England are: the 30mph speed limit on roads with street lighting (sometimes referred to as restricted roads) the national speed limit of 60mph on single carriageway roads the national speed limit of 70mph on dual carriageways and motorways These national limits are not, however, appropriate for all roads. The speed limit regime enables traffic authorities to set local speed limits in situations where local needs and conditions suggest a speed limit that is different from the respective national speed limit.

Think it is about clarity. I disagree it is really easy to distinguish between all the types of bike. The only way to do that would be to run stops on different e-bikes to check them out. Surely, if you are going to run stops it makes sense to do them for cycling behaviour that presents a risk, rather than checking technology? Moreover, if you are prepared to have cyclists pulled over for travelling in excess of 15.5mph, why not 20mph, surely all the same caveats apply?

Alice, you may have nailed one of the issues, which is presumably a key holder who needs to find time to change flyers and so on. I take on board the issue about free advertising for businesses, but would not put small, very local businesses into the same category as all other businesses. That said, I can see rationale for voluntary and NFP taking precedence, are these organisations actually making use of the boards?

Just to make the point that the water is very muddied read this review on the range of e-bikes on offer https://e-bikereview.uk/how-fast/ Seems even pedal assist can be tweaked up. Nowhere are any of these described as electric scooters or motorbikes. Perception is all.

Unfortunately, time is not on our side. The e-bike has landed and is creating all sorts of issues that might not have occurred if we only had push bikes heading the UK cycling revolution.

Love that you call them electric motorbikes. Come on Earl, some look like legal e-bikes, that is the point isn't it? It is a very slippery slope. A whole can of worms is being opened up by the advent of the e-bike and we need to wake up and address growing issues before it is too late. Legislating against mod kits is super tricky and it may be easier to adopt my route. I am open to persuasion though.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the push bike element, not least because as technology progresses it may become increasingly difficult to distinguish between some push bikes and some e-bikes and, I suspect, dual or hybrid use will become the majority choice, especially round here, where local geography is an obstacle to broader uptake of the push bike. Must admit, I see more school kids on scooters and Lime bikes, not that many on pushbikes. Not sure the health benefits that clear cut, but there we go.

I think we are discussing two different things; the first is enforcing legislation for dangerous/ careless cycling behaviour (already agreed and discussed); the second to apply 20mph locally (bye laws) to all bicycles whether e-bike or not, with much stiffer penalties for anything pulled over for exceeding 20mph in a spot check, and subsequently found to be an illegally souped up e-bike. You are also talking about halting sale of illegal e-bikes at source? I believe the issue is that when sold they come with limiters and are therefore legal, only afterwards are they altered/retro-fitted. I think this was all addressed in a Panorama on e-bikes.

Sorry Earl, if you live in ED or DV then I apologise, I thought you lived further afield. I had suggested spot checks ages ago, to much resistance by some, glad we can now agree this would be useful. Do you also agree to the local 20 mph as well? Of course, this would apply to all road users and I am more than happy for any cars breaking speed limits, running red lights, or god forbid, driving on the pavement, to be penalised.

The issue is already muddied because regulated e-bikes look like non-regulated e-bikes and may behave in the same way, by mounting pavements and running red lights. Because they look very similar legislation has to apply to all or none. I prefer the former and, obviously, this would include push cycles. Glad you agree there is a difference in cycling culture over here. I think we all know the reasons why that may be, but we are where we are and the more 'unhealthy' speed obsessed aspect needs to change.