Should cyclists have the same speed restrictions as motor vehicles?

[first mate]

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. 

[snowy]

48 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Ok so how come Charlie Alliston got charged and found guilty of "wanton or furious driving"? He was on an bike.

 

Ah, you’re doing your thing where you post before you think again.

The Act under which he was charged was passed in 1861. How many car drivers were on the road in 1861 do you think? 
 

[Earl Aelfheah]

@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.

Edited January 23, 2025 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, snowy said:

Ah, you’re doing your thing where you post before you think again.

And you're doing that thing where you post before checking the facts.....

 

1 hour ago, snowy said:

The Act under which he was charged was passed in 1861. How many car drivers were on the road in 1861 do you think? 

That doesn't matter because the act and what he was charged with refers to "wanton and furious driving" and was clearly updated for cars not cycles - and that is what we were debating. After all, that's what Charlie Alliston got 18 months for - "wanton and furious driving", not "wanton and furious cycling".

Earl, your summary is a good one because I think, like many ludicrously lenient sentences for injuring or killing someone with a car, the maximum possible sentences are ludicrously short.

What the Tories were trying to do, whilst kite flying and trying to blindly politicise the issue during their "war on the war on cars" was update and refresh legislation which happens all the time. I don't know any reasonable person who would not agree that there should be a charge of causing death or injury by dangerous cycling because people have to be afforded some protection from the menace posed by a small number of cyclists and if found guilty that a suitable custodial sentences can be applied. And I feel the same way about cars too - kill or injure as you drive or cycle dangerously and you pay the price.

[Earl Aelfheah]

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.

9 hours ago, Rockets said:

I don't know any reasonable person who would not agree that there should be a charge of causing death or injury by dangerous cycling

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.

Edited January 23, 2025 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

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..

Edited January 23, 2025 by first mate

[Earl Aelfheah]

On 20/01/2025 at 21:53, Bicknell said:

 depends on the speed i think

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.

Edited January 23, 2025 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

10 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

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 represents a greater risk to others by many orders of magnitude. 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, has literally zero chance of even getting timetabled, let alone getting through pre-legislative scrutiny.

the problem with simplistic answers to complex issues is that they don’t make good laws. That is why creating new laws isn’t as easy as someone on the ED forum saying ‘it’s common sense’.

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!

 

Edited January 23, 2025 by first mate

[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.

Edited January 23, 2025 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

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.

[Rockets]

7 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

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.

Yes. We know. But as my mum used to tell me: "You only need one inch of water to drown". The impact on pedestrians killed by cyclists is nowhere the impact a car travelling at the same speed would have. Of course not. But it didn't need to be. So please, please, please stop using this as some sort of get-out for cyclists.

 

Which is why it is important to consider the need for changes in legislation and laws when it comes to cyclists.

But I am glad we finally agree on something: that it is not unreasonable to suggest we need injury/death by dangerous cycling legislation.

[ctovey]

As someone who doesn't drive a car or ride a bike, I might be stating the obvious, but, if one of my loved ones was knocked down and killed/badly injured, either by a car OR a bike, they would still be dead/badly injured and I would be heartbroken. It wouldn't matter to me what had killed/injured them, the resultant heartbreak would be the same.

[Earl Aelfheah]

16 hours ago, Rockets said:

Yes. We know. But as my mum used to tell me: "You only need one inch of water to drown". The impact on pedestrians killed by cyclists is nowhere the impact a car travelling at the same speed would have. Of course not. But it didn't need to be. So please, please, please stop using this as some sort of get-out for cyclists.

It's not a 'get out for cyclist'. You understand the point about relative risk, but seem to think it's irrelevant? I know that someone can drown in an inch of water, but you wouldn't put the same regulations / safety measures in place for puddles as swimming pools. It doesn't detract from the tragedy of someone who drowns in an inch of water, but you must understand the relevance of proportionality in in risk mitigation.

16 hours ago, ctovey said:

As someone who doesn't drive a car or ride a bike, I might be stating the obvious, but, if one of my loved ones was knocked down and killed/badly injured, either by a car OR a bike, they would still be dead/badly injured and I would be heartbroken. It wouldn't matter to me what had killed/injured them, the resultant heartbreak would be the same.

We would all agree with that. The point is that if you bring in ill thought out legislation which encourages people to switch from a less dangerous form of transport to a more dangerous one, you increase the likelihood of tragedies occurring. It’s not a bike vs cars debate as such (although the relative danger posed by different travel choices is relevant), it’s an issue of how you improve road safety in practice, not principle. 

You have to consider the incentives that regulations create, their impact on behaviour and what that does to either increase or mitigate the overall risk posed to others. As said above, if you regulate in ways that cause even a small number of people to switch bike journeys to car journeys, the danger posed to others increases (mile-for-mile in urban areas, motor vehicles are about twice as likely as a cycle to kill a pedestrian).

Speed limits for pedal bikes sound good in principle, but would be counterproductive in practice.

Edited January 24, 2025 by Earl Aelfheah

[Spartacus]

Looks like ED isn't the only place where bad cycling is drawing the wrong sort of attention to cycling

https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/24878645.can-cycling-oxford-made-safer-ban-cycling/

Similar comments to this thread by some, maybe it's not just an East Dulwich rant after all. 

Edited January 24, 2025 by Spartacus

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

It's not a 'get out for cyclist'.

But this is exactly how you are using it.

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

You have to consider the incentives that regulations create, their impact on behaviour and what that does to either increase or mitigate the overall risk posed to others. As said above, if you regulate in ways that cause even a small number of people to switch bike journeys to car journeys, the danger posed to others increases (mile-for-mile in urban areas, motor vehicles are about twice as likely as a cycle to kill a pedestrian).

Only if you're starting point is that you are concerned more for cycling growth than mitigating the risk posed by cyclists. Legislation and laws are set on the basis of the latter not the former. This is why the debate has become so polarised because, on one side you have groups who care only for cycle growth and on the other those concerned about the risk posed by cyclists to other road users.

[Penguin68]

7 minutes ago, Rockets said:

on the other those concerned about the risk posed by cyclists to other road users.

Actually, I'm also worried about the risk to cyclists to themselves caused by their own very poor road habits - jumping traffic lights, not signalling, not using lights or reflective clothing at dusk or after dark, not apparently looking where they are going, lack of hazard awareness through no training, using phones on bikes, wearing headphones so they are insulated from normal traffic noise, all of these habits reduce their own safety (let alone speeding above the legal speeds for other users on the roads they are on) - and setting bad examples for other cyclists- and  will lead to accidents, and, has been rightly pointed out, in accidents cyclists are more likely to come out worse, unless they are accidents against other cyclists or pedestrians.

[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'. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

3 hours ago, Rockets said:

Only if you're starting point is that you are concerned more for cycling growth than mitigating the risk posed by cyclists.

No, only if you see mitigating the risk posed specifically by cyclists as more important than improving road safety in general. If you reduce the risk posed by cyclists, by encouraging people to switch out journeys by bike for a form of transport that poses greater risk to others, then how have you made things safer for those people?  

3 hours ago, Rockets said:

This is why the debate has become so polarised because, on one side you have groups who care only for cycle growth and on the other those concerned about the risk posed by cyclists to other road users.

No the debate is polarised, because you're polarising it. As you've indicated above, you're concerned about 'the risk posed by cyclists', not making roads safer for other people overall. You are literally viewing the issue through this false, binary opposition that you always seem to apply - bikes vs cars. It isn't about 'preferring' bikes or cars, or being on 'team bike', or 'team car', it's about the real world impact of travel choices on other peoples safety. Again, 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.

1 hour ago, first mate said:

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 hear you. But your perception of danger is very subjective. The risk posed to you from motor vehicles when you're out on your bike, is greater. I know you'll take offence at this, but it's objectively, demonstrably true.

Edited January 24, 2025 by Earl Aelfheah

[snowy]

3 hours ago, Spartacus said:

Looks like ED isn't the only place where bad cycling is drawing the wrong sort of attention to cycling

https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/24878645.can-cycling-oxford-made-safer-ban-cycling/

Similar comments to this thread by some, maybe it's not just an East Dulwich rant after all. 

Using a facebook sourced post as reliable evidence of anything is a bit embarrassing. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

3 hours ago, Penguin68 said:

Actually, I'm also worried about the risk to cyclists to themselves caused by their own very poor road habits - jumping traffic lights, not signalling, not using lights or reflective clothing at dusk or after dark, not apparently looking where they are going, lack of hazard awareness through no training, using phones on bikes, wearing headphones so they are insulated from normal traffic noise, all of these habits reduce their own safety (let alone speeding above the legal speeds for other users on the roads they are on) - and setting bad examples for other cyclists- and  will lead to accidents, and, has been rightly pointed out, in accidents cyclists are more likely to come out worse, unless they are accidents against other cyclists or pedestrians.

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

[Penguin68]

7 minutes ago, snowy said:

Using a facebook sourced post as reliable evidence of anything is a bit embarrassing

In this case the Oxford Mail carried out it's own research via Facebook, which of course is an unfiltered and unrepresentative sample, and not an ideal research medium but is different from just repeating something pasted on Facebook. I imagine, for instance, that it is mainly sampling people who have opted to see their posts, so probably people interested in Oxford and its surrounds. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

3 hours ago, Rockets said:

Only if you're starting point is that you are concerned more for cycling growth than mitigating the risk posed by cyclists.

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.

Edited January 24, 2025 by Earl Aelfheah

[snowy]

15 minutes ago, Penguin68 said:

In this case the Oxford Mail carried out it's own research via Facebook, which of course is an unfiltered and unrepresentative sample, and not an ideal research medium but is different from just repeating something pasted on Facebook. I imagine, for instance, that it is mainly sampling people who have opted to see their posts, so probably people interested in Oxford and its surrounds. 

Isn't that what they did - post a clickbait fb post and then harvest the rage post responses to form an article? 

I looked so you don't have to - as expected its full of 'pay road tax' 'fines for not using cycle lanes', cycling side by side' impotent rants. 
 

It's pretty cynical engagement farming. 

[Rockets]

9 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

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.

Firstly, I do not think that legislating against bad cycling will deter anyone from getting on a bike - it's a very weak excuse constructed by the cycle lobby - in fact it might encourage more cyclists as I know a lot of people are put off due to other aggressive cyclists - I have been chastised a hell of a lot for stopping at red lights by other cyclists.

Secondly, you are making a huge presumption that if people don't cycle then they drive. In a city like London that is hugely misleading as a lot of cycle journeys have replaced travelling by foot or public transport - especially Lime bikes (which are very often some of the very worst offenders).

I think you are trying desperately to create a reason for changes in legislation not to be considered but I suspect you're fighting against an incoming tide as authorities will be forced to do something (and as they also see the potential revenue stream). Some local authorities are starting to do so already on a localised basis and this will gather pace.

[Earl Aelfheah]

2 hours ago, Rockets said:

Firstly, I do not think that legislating against bad cycling will deter anyone from getting on a bike - it's a very weak excuse constructed by the cycle lobby

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.

2 hours ago, Rockets said:

Secondly, you are making a huge presumption that if people don't cycle then they drive. In a city like London that is hugely misleading as a lot of cycle journeys have replaced travelling by foot or public transport - especially Lime bikes

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. 

2 hours ago, Rockets said:

I think you are trying desperately to create a reason for changes in legislation not to be considered but I suspect you're fighting against an incoming tide as authorities will be forced to do something

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. 

Edited January 24, 2025 by Earl Aelfheah