snowy

You seem to have missed this bit of the post you are replying to: "bike with an electric motor, travelling at speed, without anyone pedalling" Which is normally how the police identify them

It's almost like drivers have a responsibility to know the speed limit on the roads they're sharing with other people. which is why the bit you didn't quote says "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" but that still is irrelevant to the question in hand on cycles. You also might find the beneficial safety and cost impact of 20mph zones interesting: https://advancedmotoring.co.uk/20mph-speed-limits-and-their-impact-on-car-insurance/

Yes, I'm sure. The fundamental reason being all that you have copied and pasted applies to "vehicles" under the Road Traffic Act where a vehicle is 'mechanically propelled'. This doesn't include pedal cycles (or horses - as along with pedestrians they are the original road users before cars came along), but does include e-motorcycles . so we get back to my previous post on changing primary legislation to make pedal propelled cycles defined as 'vehicles' . You may disagree that this would impose disproportionate legal and regulatory burdens, but i imagine legislators would. But then you have also not raised changing the law with the SNT have you?

As has been repeatedly said on the other thread - you can't arbitrarily make up a new law for cyclists & speeding just for Southwark - you need to amend primary legislation on the definition of a 'vehicle' that applies to the whole country. To do that is a multi year process involving stakeholder consultation, definition of enforcement powers, drafting guidelines, developing Technical Standards, running pilots to prove it works, find a technical solution that's inclusive etc, work out how it"s enforced. And find a time to have this debated and agreed by both Houses, justifying why this issue is more important than other legislation for an issue with more minimal risk compared to other road users. or you could raise it with the SNT

Precisely this. No car has ever been used in a crime.

Ok, so you want one handed cyclists at all time? The other hand holding a phone? What do you do if you don't have a phone? do you realise that your law would have to be UK wide and not limited to LB Southwark? It appears not. The rest just appears to rewrite current uk law enforcement powers- traffic wardens have authority over vehicle parking and that's it. Please, please take your suggestions to the next SNT meeting and let us know what they say!

Pondering how you fit a speedometer on a horse.

I didn't have the time as i was too busy laughing at the Liz Truss style policy development...

Lol, we have reached suggesting compulsory gps devices for anyone who ever gets on a bike? All for an issue that doesn't even get raised at the Safer Neighborhood Team monthly local issues list? Thats an authoritarian's dream (or more likely a tech bro's). Aside from pondering where to mount the display on a unicycle, what happens if the battery runs out? Are you walking home? Do children have to have one too? Do you realise that UK laws are applied to all of the UK and not just East Dulwich? With that in mind Can you think of any topological, technical or physical or privacy reasons why it wouldn't work? I guess the plus side is that you can use it in cars and auto fine speed transgressions...

We've already discussed this before so apologies for not having the two website addresses to hand.

I frankly don't have enough time to continually fact check the inaccuracies in your posts. But given in this instance you're using someone's death as a fallacious debating point i will dig out the legal summaries and share them later so other readers can see what you are doing.

You continue to misrepresent the results and conclusions of both the inquest and court case in this death to suit your agenda.

It's interesting that it's cyclists they want identified, whereas for drivers its only the cars...

Australia and their compulsory helmet law had similar effect but now I've opened that pandora's box.

Japan is a theft management tool - it registers the bike not the rider.

Please name a country that has licensing for cyclists. There's what, 194 countries in the world. That means 194 sets of researchers, policy and law makers, health experts and economists. Only 1 country has it. But the EDF is clearly tired of experts and knows better...

This is incorrect. HGVs are limited to 50 on single carriageways, and are restricted access to specific roads in london according to the time of day. The rest of the post is just not really thought through.

Timely that the RAC published research that 81% of drivers say they see people 'excessively speeding' on all types of roads: https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/news/motoring-news/excessive-speeding-now-commonplace-on-uk-roads/

Kirkdale was restricted for the installation of a new really long substation electricity cable. The roadworks were removed yesterday. Up by Kelvin Grove was a water leak that was right above a large gas pipe. I think that's gone now too.

Ebikes are already legally limited to 15.5mph at which point the motor cuts out. If you see someone coasting at 30 then they're riding an illegal e-motorbike. that's not an e-bike its classed as a motorbike and needs the same level of insurance / license/ helmet / adherence with speed limits etc. The ability to limit speed on ebikes is a great thing and i can't see why anyone would disagree with the same technology being applied to motor vehicles so they are forced to follow relevant speed limits too.

Ah you two are sweet.

You are suggesting its stolen! And besides, you can't really contradict that you agree the fountain appears to be careless driving as the driver left the scene...

The owner of a vehicle isn't responsible for the use of the vehicle- otherwise lease hire firms would be financially viable for any costs of a collision. the registered keeper can deny they were driving (and therefore not responsible) and cannot be compelled to say who was. Doing that can result in a £ fine and/or points for the registered keeper, but invariably at a much lower level than would be given to a named driver responsible. its like you're just realising that license plates are for vehicles not individual drivers... Glad on your final point, that you are now agreeing with the OP and Leeming that it was careless driving (leaving the scene of an incident) and dangerous driving (aggravated taking without consent).

A vehicle isn't insured, a driver is. Given the driver ran away we don't know if they were insured, whether the car was theirs etc which is why that blog says that the tax payer will have to bear the costs of the repairs to a memorial thats been there, unharmed, on a pedestrian island since the late 19th century, plus the costs of the emergency services etc Which also answers the question from Rockets as to whether it "was dangerous or careless driving':Leaving a scene of a collision is one of the definitions of careless driving. Regarding dangerous driving, and the report that it was a car, the first post in this thread says "Presumably the vehicle that did this must have been travelling with some force when it mounted the kerb and sent the stone blocks flying: significant weight or speed or both. Supposedly this is a 20mph zone." which i guess is answered too - so counting as dangerous driving. On your second slightly bizarre 'but bikes/scooter' point, that's why a hierarchy of road users exists. I'm not quite sure an escooter would do that amount of damage to a marble statue.

According to this local community website, it was hit by a car. The driver then fled: https://norwoodforum.org/node/3436 "There is some doubt that the costs of repair and reinstatement can be met from any motor insurance policy - the driver of the car concerned is said to have left the scene" "We have also asked for the road safety aspects for southbound traffic from Norwood Road/Robson Road traffic lights be reconsidered. Two lanes merge into one lane here and there are longstanding problems of speeding traffic on Norwood High Street and the rest of the West Norwood gyratory"