exdulwicher

Official advice is NEVER to do this. It almost invariably results in a human fatality as well. Also you have no idea of the age / health etc of the owner. What if it was an 80yr old person using a mobility scooter, you still going to suggest that they vault the fence and dive in? Even if it was a healthy and able person, unless you are an experienced open water swimmer, cold shock will kill most people in minutes (often less). And while that lake isn't especially deep, there could be all manner of detritus on the bottom of it, obstacles that could snag a person, puncture through a shoe etc. Sorry but while I hate to see a dog get into trouble like that, your suggestion that the owner should "just" have leapt in to help is utterly wrong. They'd have been fishing a human body out as well as the dog. Edit: also if you jump in after the dog and start trying to catch it, it may think it's all a big game and get excited. What you actually need to do is to stand on the bank and call it back.

Have you ever watched a beginner ride? Or even someone with less confidence, the very type of person who would go to a traffic-free area like Dulwich Park and potter around? 5mph is the sort of speed where there is considerably less balance to assist. People start getting worried, the front wheel begins flailing left and right as they try to keep their balance, they're not looking where they are going, they start trying to put a foot down which unbalances them further... On the other hand get them up to 10mph and the bike starts balancing, starts behaving as a bike and they can concentrate on looking where they're going. Any parent will have seen this with their kids learning to ride. And the lack of a speed limit never permits carte blanche behaviour anyway. It's not like people are tearing around that park at 25mph, it's simply not the environment for anything like that.

You have still provided no evidence to demonstrate this. I know how much you love evidence. You're forever asking for it. Well now it's your turn.

+1. The only other possible "vehicle" to which it could apply is e-scooters and even there I reckon it's a very grey area. The easiest option would simply be to ask Lime (and any other local providers) to speed-restrict their e-scooters via a geofence through the park rather than to try and enforce a 5mph speed limit in the traditional manner. Either way, it still doesn't apply to bicycles.

Because the park is closed to vehicles. Now I actually remember the days when you could drive through the park. Then (because of the increasing number of incidents, speeding, etc) they began having timed closures, then eventually a full closure. The outcry back then was relatively muted because the internet didn't exist (at least not in this form) but there was very definitely havoc being caused. The source of that havoc was removed and since then you've managed to find ONE incident (3.5 years ago) - an off-lead puppy hit by a bike. Tragic, of course but nothing like what was happening when cars were allowed to drive in/out at Court Lane and at College Road.

I'd like to hope that one of the first people caught in this mythical situation would be Rockets (who does apparently ride a bike in spite of appearing to detest everything about cycling, cyclists and cycle lanes). The reams of forum pages decrying this injustice would melt the servers for the next year, it'd make the "I was only in the bus lane for less than 20m!" comments appear insignificant in comparison!

I've already explained to you that we treat different categories of vehicle differently. The speed limit on a motorway is 70 (for cars). But if you're towing a trailer behind your car, you are subject to a lower speed limit of 60. And we return to the previous point. Speed limits do not apply to bicycles. This doesn't mean you can do 30 in a 20 because most cyclists can't go that fast anyway unless greatly aided by gravity. It doesn't mean you can charge round the park like Chris Hoy around a velodrome but again, no-one is actually doing that because even the most pig-ignorant person on a bike can see that there are far too many pedestrians (and horses, and dogs) to behave like that. In fact if anyone did try and ride like that, they'd hit someone (or something), fall off and hurt themselves (and then probably get a good kicking from a couple of pedestrians into the bargain. And you're the one unable or unwilling to understand the concept of "analogy". Maybe it doesn't apply to you?

Please stop with your "vehicle" nonsense. I alluded to this earlier when talking (with a degree of sarcasm) about runners, dogs etc and 5mph and although sarcasm is supposedly the lowest form of wit, it still went way over your head. "Vehicles" is a generic catch all category - covers everything from tractors to buses, cars, bicycles, tanks, quad bikes.... We already treat "vehicles" differently depending on their sub-category. Some have lower speed limits than others (HGVs on motorways for example). Some can go on roads that others can't. Some are exempt from VED. Some require additional training and licencing to drive them. Your ridiculous assertion that bikes = vehicles and vehicles = speed limit is kind of like saying that birds = animals therefore all animals should obey the rules of flight. We treat bicycles differently because they don't routinely or easily do more than 15-20mph anyway. Everywhere else on this forum, you're complaining that cyclists are too bloody slow and holding everyone up. Just confirms my theory that no cyclist in the entire history of bicycles has ever proceeded anywhere at a Goldilocks speed of just right, not too slow and not too fast. Cyclists are already considerably more aware of how fast they're going because they're right there in the wind, they have greatly increased sensory perception vs drivers. 20mph on a bike feels pretty quick, you need to be fairly on-it to manage a bike at that sort of speed. 20mph in a car feels very slow because you're in a machine capable of vastly higher speeds, cocooned in a nice warm seat with soundproofing and a radio and most modern cars will more or less drive themselves at that sort of speed so there's not a lot to do. So it feels very different. Which is why we treat different classes of vehicle differently because the laws of physics don't really care about your opinions.

Because, as with the occasional call for cyclists to pay road tax or have number plates, it falls apart at the first bit of critical thinking. You'd have to mandate that all cycles were fitted with speedometers. And that all the existing 20+ million bikes in the UK (including kids bikes??) were retrofitted. You'd have to introduce a certifiable test that they were calibrated. You'd have to fund and resource all that. To solve...what? An occasional cyclist doing 15mph instead of 12? If you want better / safer cycling (and likewise, safe conditions for pedestrians), campaign for proper segregated infrastructure built to a high standard.

Thy don't. You can argue this one as much as you like but the LAW (that thing that you're so keen on) says that SPEED. LIMITS. DO. NOT. APPLY. TO. BICYCLES. (or horses for that matter) The well-meaning but ultimately self-defeating act of writing a byelaw doesn't actually change that, much as many people believe it could / should / might. Hence why every time some park tries to "enforce" whatever they think they've applied, it fails miserably and they have to rescind the fine. None of that gives cyclists carte blanche to scream through the park like they're training for the Tour de France. None of it absolves cyclists (or horse riders) from exercising some restraint, riding with care etc. But it would be far better to remove any mention of 5mph speed limits (since the perimeter road is closed to everything except parks vehicles anyway) and just say something like: Share With Care Give Way to Pedestrians Ride Responsibly (and probably with some accompanying words advising pedestrians to look where they're going, keep dogs / children under control, not walk along blasting music out of their crappy phone speaker...) Also, 5mph is so slow for a cyclist that if you actually strictly enforced it, people would be wobbling all over the place and falling sideways, it'd be considerably more dangerous than the current state of affairs which is generally just "everyone muddles along fine".

Oh well, that settles it then... 🙄 A source nearly as reliable as the Daily Mail... Oh and the link that it takes you to is the regulations for putting on events (ie it's applicable to people organising festivals etc), not general rules.

They issued one fine which they then rescinded. Because it's actually not enforceable. This happens every single time some park or local authority tries this. A few fines are issued, there's a storm of complaints and eventually said park / authority will back down because much as they may try to have you believe that it applies to bicycles, it invariably doesn't. However it does not overrule the need to cycle with consideration for others and most cyclists, no matter how inconsiderate they may appear to be actually don't want to crash into anyone or anything because they'll fall off and it'll hurt. So in many respects it's kind of self-policing and in fact the worse that pedestrians behave (ie walking all over the place with off-lead dogs and random children running around) the more that cyclists have to rein in their speed anyway. Prove it. You've presented no evidence whatsoever that it does apply, you've simply stated your belief that it does and then bleated something about "vehicles". Let's see some correspondence from you to Dulwich Estates / Southwark Council and a reply from them.

4-5mph is about the speed that the motor will cut in and give you a boost. However Dulwich Park is geofenced. If you try and use a Lime bike or scooter in it, it won't give full power and I think it cuts out entirely if you try and ride them in the centre of the park rather than just around the edge. I've not tried it but maybe I should give it a go in the name of research... There is of course the final, rather significant, point which is that speed limits do not apply to pedal cycles...

Clearly you missed the irony and play on words with Re-leash the Hounds... Also "me and my cohort"?! I have a cohort? Wow. Can anyone who is in my cohort raise their hand? It's just that I didn't know I had a cohort and I should probably do something about it. Some kind of induction day for starters.. Do I need to do anything else? I can supply some left over mince pies.

I'm going to set up a campaign advising people to put their dogs back on leads. I'll call it Re-leash The Hounds.

It hasn't established that at all. You've provided no actual link to any official sources, you've just stated your belief. And you didn't answer the question as to what you'd do if Southwark started issuing PCNs for drivers exceeding this 5mph, just tried to turn it around and avoid it.

They can't run faster than 5mph...?

It was 1968 and it still didn't set a speed limit for bicycles. Seriously Rockets, this has been done to death and I mentioned it in one of the first replies on here. Speed limits do not apply to bicycles. You can be done for the wonderfully named Careless and Wanton Cycling but not for speeding. And literally every time someone tries doing it (even in the headline you linked to in the opening post) whatever fines are issued are almost invariably rescinded after being argued about for a while. I do wonder though, what would you say if a driver was issued a PCN for driving at (say) 9mph? Would you be on here saying they were caught bang to rights, should pay the fine immediately and never set foot in the park again? Or would you come up with the usual stuff about "war on motorists", the council treating the hard-working motorist as an easy target / cash cow, couldn't they go and find some real criminals, what a ridiculously stringent speed limit... ? Also, you try riding a bike at a steady 5mph. Not easy is it, especially a laden e-cargo bike. You need a bit of speed to keep them stable.

Doesn't apply to bikes either but that doesn't seem to stop you wanting every last one of them fined!

Yep. Most joggers, a fair few kids, and pretty much every driver and cyclist! Parkrun would be fascinating. Ooh, just under 30 minutes for 5km, yep, that's 10kph, 6.2mph, you're in breach too, just pay the nice chap from Southwark over there. See you next week!

The 12mph speed is generally regarded as a sort of tipping point. Helmets for example are tested to withstand a fall at 12mph. Shared use foot / cycle paths generally have a guidance for designers of 12mph, the idea being that if you're faster than that you should be on the road. Also 12mph is 20kph so it's kind of a logical number. It's all a bit archaic and disorganised and of course byelaws from the GLC days did not predict e-bikes (and to be clear, I'm talking about the legal ones that cut off at 15.5mph, you have to pedal to make them work, blah blah. Not the illegal souped up e-motorbikes which are already illegal for multiple other reasons!)

We've been through this before. Speed limits don't apply to cyclists. 5mph on a bike is the sort of speed that has most people falling off. None of that is to say that people shouldn't behave sensibly but the whole speed limit thing is ridiculous. Also, how many drivers adhere to that. I think you'll find it's vanishingly few...

The fact that they are completely different areas with totally different population density, land use and traffic volumes etc has seemingly passed you by?

It's not cycle *lanes* as such. What has happened a fair bit going back to the introduction of cycle superhighways was the use of bus lanes to connect things up very easily and cheaply. Back then of course there weren't as many cyclists and generally it all worked fairly well but asking a small squashy cyclist who wants to travel at a relatively constant speed and a very large heavy bus that wants to go fast - stop - fast - stop - fast etc to share the same space is a stupid idea. Yes, it kind of works when there aren't many cyclists but you get to a crunch point where there are so many cyclists now (there's another thread about that!) that every time the bus stops, a flow of cyclists passes and keeps passing which makes it difficult for the bus to pull out again. Once it's out and going, it's trying to pass all the cyclists before then trying to pull in again, right in front of them. And so it repeats. It slows the bus down, it's very dangerous for cyclists, especially if they're caught in a blind spot and it's frustrating for the driver who is then tempted into taking more risks. There are various answers and options: 1) Bus stop bypasses. In spite of the wails of protest from some people, far and away the best (in fact almost the only) solution if you're going to ask bikes and buses to share the same space is to give the bikes a bypass at the back of the stop and the bus can then pull in and out without ever having to negotiate a constant flow of bikes. 2) 24/7 bus lane enforcement. This works for both bikes and buses because it means they're not constantly having to pull out into traffic and back in again to avoid a single parked car. Also bus priority junctions. There's a few of these up the Walworth Road and also at the bottom of DKH heading south; traffic lights with a lane for buses to nip in up the side and get in front while the cars are stopped. Saves the bus having to wait forever until a driver finally lets them out and also largely negates the bike overtaking issue - either the bikes wait behind the bus and follow it through or they move right which puts them in the main traffic lane stopped at the light. 3) Completely segregated cycle lanes. Stop the bikes and buses mixing in the first place. 4) And related to that, reallocation of road space to both buses and bikes. A lane for bikes here. A lane for buses there. Remove the cars. Not going to work everywhere of course but there are some roads where cars could be sent a longer way around. Tottenham Court Road is a good example.

It's standard for Rockets to just drop in a headline with no other text, no opinion (at this stage anyway!) and no wider discussion points. Also (from reading the article) it was one fine which was subsequently rescinded. They usually are - even when there are allegedly local byelaws to "enforce" some sort of action against speeding cyclists, no-one is aware of it and most don't have a speedo and most of the very occasional enforcement is so embarrassingly over the top that the council will eventually just sigh and let it go. The Royal Parks (notably Richmond) have occasional "crackdowns" on speeding cyclists which then ends up in an interminable back-and-forth as to whether or not speed limits apply to bikes (they don't) and whether or not Richmond Park has a byelaw to cover it (it does / it doesn't / it does again / it doesn't / oh no it really doesn't...). What do we reckon for this one? 8 pages? Can we run a sweepstake on how many times someone suggests number plates and road tax for cyclists? Or can we just pick one of the eighteen older threads where this sort of nonsense has been done to death by the same people and reference that?