Wandsworth issuing PCNs to "speeding" cyclists on Tooting Bec Common

[Rockets]

Ha ha, that Opinion piece pulls the Mail article apart like I pulled any number of Peter Walker articles apart for their biased, myopic, one-sided reporting!  But I think some are missing the point and it goes back to the original article not the Mail's follow-up click-bait piece - and perhaps interestingly enough a news story that also ran on Roadcc that the opinion pieces links to: https://road.cc/content/news/speed-gun-deployed-wandsworth-parks-317353

Wandsworth can enforce the speed limit of 12mph because it is enforceable for cycles - many would have you believe cycles are immune to all speed limits - but they are not. It's whether anyone enforces it. The fact that Wandsworth have been suggests attitudes towards reckless cycling are changing. 

Of course, some would have you believe the speed limit of 5mph does not apply to cyclists in Dulwich Park but it does. Again, would Southwark ever enforce it - unlikely - but surely if the argument from some is that any time a motorist breaks the rules then they should be punished is applicable to any cyclist in Dulwich Park doing more than 5mph?

So if Southwark set speed traps and started issuing PCNs for cyclists doing more than 5mph surely everyone would agree that is reasonable?

What we can say is that the opinion piece in Road.cc is full of the usual tropes and name calling and does nothing to suggest the culture-war supposedly being waged on cyclists is one-directional! 😉 

47 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

Quote "so there were more than likely hundreds of cyclists coming through at this time. " 

And I suspect this will depend massively on when it was filmed because the date of publication was Dec 28th so it could well have been very quiet if it was filmed during the Christmas holidays.

Edited Monday at 17:56 by Rockets

[exdulwicher]

13 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Wandsworth can enforce the speed limit of 12mph because it is enforceable for cycles - many would have you believe cycles are immune to all speed limits - but they are not. It's whether anyone enforces it. The fact that Wandsworth have been suggests attitudes towards reckless cycling are changing. 

They issued one fine which they then rescinded.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.

16 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Of course, some would have you believe the speed limit of 5mph does not apply to cyclists in Dulwich Park but it does.

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. 

[Rockets]

29 minutes ago, exdulwicher said:

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. 

It is a shared-use route with the speed limit set at 5mph and the signage for said shared route is very clear about that. It applies to all vehicles using the shared use route which will have it's own TMO set by Southwark as it is "private" as it is not part of the main carriageway. The same is true if you walk up the shared use route in front of Dulwich College - you'll notice big stencils of bikes every so often with a huge 10 underneath them reminding cyclists that the speed limit is 10 mph.

Google AI certainly thinks it is:

Yes, a 5mph speed limit is in place for all vehicles within Dulwich Park, and this is generally considered to apply to cyclists and e-bike users as part of efforts to ensure safety for pedestrians in shared spaces. While legal speed limits often only apply to motor vehicles, local park regulations can enforce a 5mph limit for all users. 

Although some sources state legal, non-motorized speed limits don't apply to cyclists in the same way as cars, within the context of Southwark Council's regulations for Dulwich Park, the 5mph limit is applied to cyclists. 

Certainly the Friends of Dulwich Park think it is as they cited the fact during the consultation for the cycleway through the park back in 2015.

It also came up after a puppy was killed by a cyclist in Dulwich Park a couple of years ago: https://southwarknews.co.uk/featured/exclusive-an-e-bike-killed-our-puppy/

@exdulwicher so maybe you can present any evidence that it doesn't apply - rules are different once you are off the main public highway and on a designated shared use route and I don't think the "speed limits don't apply to us cyclists" argument doesn't work.

[exdulwicher]

27 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Google AI certainly thinks it is:

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.

[Rockets]

@exdulwicher but it is ashared use route isn't it and the TMO will state the speed limit for all vehicles within that won't it? 

I think you may have to agree that 5mph is the speed limit for bikes in Dulwich Park. Interesting that Friends of Dulwich Park states it does apply to cyclists dont you think - you'd expect them to know wouldn't you?

Do you have any evidence 5mph does not apply to bikes in Dulwich Park? 

[ianr]

Just produce the b_y TMO.

[Rockets]

 

Here is what Friends of Dulwich Park said during the cycle spine consultation 10 years ago: https://dulwichparkfriends.org.uk/2015/01/14/proposed-cycle-path-across-dulwich-park/

 

From that they said:

• The 5MPH speed limit in the park applies to cyclists just as much as those vehicles allowed in to the park (a typical cycling speed is 13MPH). At present, that speed limit is often not observed.Increased usage would heighten the need for observance.

Can I ask, why are some getting so vexed that there is a speed limit for cyclists in Dulwich Park - much of it is designated as shared route and fast moving, often heavy bikes,  with free exercising dogs, playing children and pedestrians seems like a bad idea. Does it not?

[malumbu]

New Year, same old complaints.  

But drawing from the CC article:

The [friends of the park] group told White that residents had reported a “particular problem with delivery riders”

However, a council spokesperson has told road.cc that Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) were only being issued "as a last resort for dangerous speeding and unauthorised cycling."  [not sure what they mean by unauthorised cyclng]

A separate but related issue concerns electric motorbikes that are often misidentified as e-bikes. E-bikes are also subject to illegal modification that increases the motor's speed beyond legal limits.

The topic of speeding cyclists has also been the subject of misinformation. Last year, the Daily Telegraph were found to have breached the Editors' Code of the the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) after running a headline titled "52mph in a 20mph zone - Lycra lout cyclists are creating death traps all over Britain"

Just weird that people in this area are so bothered about a park that is not local.

[Rockets]

10 hours ago, malumbu said:

Just weird that people in this area are so bothered about a park that is not local.

I don't know about you @malumbu but for many of us Dulwich Park is our local park.

The whole point of the thread is dispelling the narrative that "the speed limits do not apply to cyclists" which gets rolled out anytime anyone dares mention problems caused by fast moving cyclists - and to be honest it doesn't matter if they are delivery cyclists or those renting e-bikes (as in the case of the cyclist who killed the dog in Dulwich Park) - if they are fast moving in an environment that is a shared route there is likely to be a problem. This is why the speed limits are set on these shared routes (12mph in Tooting Bec, 5mph in Dulwich Park, 10 mph outside Dulwich College) to protect all shared route users.

Surely you can acknowledge that the speed limits on these share routes are set on the basis of their usage?

I am still struggling to understand why some people are so keen to argue that the speed limit on a shared use route would not/should not apply to cyclists? Surely it's commonsense that if you have small children playing, pedestrians or dogs off leads then speed should be managed?

[exdulwicher]

19 minutes ago, Rockets said:

The whole point of the thread is dispelling the narrative that "the speed limits do not apply to cyclists"

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".

[Spartacus]

20 minutes ago, exdulwicher said:

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)

If you are correct, then with the growing number of cyclists, maybe they should. 

20 minutes ago, exdulwicher said:

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".

Funny, this feels similar to the argument that 20.was too slow for cars and drivers would have more accidents as they monitored their speedometers. Proved incorrect in the end and drivers adjusted and it didn't increase accidents. 

If cyclists can't controll their bikes at low speeds, then cycling faster in shared spaces  towards pedestrians  children or animals isn't the answer.  Obviously dismounting and walking through shared space is the correct course of action. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

Not this again. There is already a thread on speed limits for bicycles. Summary: it's never going to happen. 

As for 5mph - if you're setting a proportionate speed limit for bicycles based on the dangers posed to others relative to motor vehicles, then it would be way over 20 mph. So you either make the speed limit for motor vehicles considerably lower, or you set a speed limit for bicycles which they could never actually reach... or you stop being ridiculous.

Edited Tuesday at 10:41 by Earl Aelfheah

[Spartacus]

4 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Not this again. There is already a thread on speed limits for bicycles. Summary: it's never going to happen. 

Maybe it is time for cyclists to be brought into the current regulations, if not why not ?

4 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

As for 5mph - if you're setting a proportionate speed limit for bicycles based on the dangers posed to others relative to motor vehicles, then it would be way over 20 mph. So you either make the speed limit for motor vehicles considerably lower, or you set a speed limit for bicycles which they could never actually reach... or you stop being ridiculous.

The 5mph is being applied to shared space in a park, not applicable to normal motor vehicles, with the exception of council ones who should abide by the rules. So now who's being ridiculous with their answer (pointing at you Earl) 

[Earl Aelfheah]

34 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

Maybe it is time for cyclists to be brought into the current regulations, if not why not ?

Nope. If you're proposing a major change to the law, it's for you to explain why that change is appropriate and proportionate.

That said, I asked ChatGPT: Taking the standard speed limit for motor vehicles as 20 mph in the UK, what would be a proportionate speed limit for bicycles based on the comparative risk they pose to others.

Here's it's assessment: 

Key factors that drive risk to others

1. Mass (dominant factor)
   • Typical car: ~1,500 kg
   • Typical cyclist + bike: ~100 kg
     → Car ≈ 15× heavier
2. Kinetic energy (∝ mass × speed²). At the same speed, a car carries ~15× the kinetic energy of a bicycle.
3. Braking distance & control
   • Bikes stop faster at low speeds and cause less secondary harm.
   • Bikes have much lower “plough-through” risk.
4. Injury severity data (real-world)
   • Collisions caused by cyclists very rarely kill others.
   • Cars are responsible for the overwhelming majority of pedestrian fatalities.

Proportionate speed calculation (risk-equivalent)

If we scale speed so that kinetic energy (and thus injury potential) is comparable:

Using:

• Car speed = 20 mph
• Mass ratio ≈ 15

That’s clearly physically and practically impossible, which already tells you something important:

A bicycle at any achievable speed does not pose comparable risk to others as a car at 20 mph.

Practical, policy-relevant answer

If the goal is proportionate risk to others (not comfort, not shared-space etiquette):

• On roads:
  A risk-equivalent bicycle speed would be well above 40 mph, i.e. beyond normal cycling capability.
• In pedestrian-heavy areas:
  Limits should be set by interaction risk, not vehicle class. Typical safe cycling speeds:
  • Shared space: 8–12 mph
  • Busy high street: 10–15 mph
  • Clear cycleway: 20–25 mph (already common)

Bottom line

• From a harm-to-others perspective, bicycles do not need a numerical speed limit analogous to 20 mph for cars.
• Any cycling speed limit below ~25 mph is being justified by comfort, perception, or congestion, not proportional danger.
• Treating bicycles as needing similar limits to cars is not evidence-based.

34 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

The 5mph is being applied to shared space in a park

I have no problem with a 'speed limit' in a park - but realistically, it's going to be based largely on etiquette, as bicycles don't have speedometers. As I already said, people should be careful and considerate of one another in shared areas. 5 mph is ridiculous - as noted, you'd have park runners being fined. 

Edited Tuesday at 11:24 by Earl Aelfheah

[exdulwicher]

2 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

Maybe it is time for cyclists to be brought into the current regulations, if not why not ?

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. 

[Rockets]

5 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

5 mph is ridiculous - as noted, you'd have park runners being fined. 

But, as pointed out previously, runners are not classified as a vehicle are they so the speed limit on a shared use route does not apply to them does it? 

13 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

A bicycle at any achievable speed does not pose comparable risk to others as a car at 20 mph.

@Earl Aelfheah you seem to be missing the point here - on a shared use path the risk comes not from cars but bikes.

Honestly, it is laughable, and quite telling, how vexed some get when they realise that a speed limit does apply to cyclists. I am sorry but on a shared route off the public highway then a speed limit can and often does apply to cyclists as well. You may not like it but it is correct.

Now you can argue that 5mph is ridiculous for bikes but if that is the speed a local authority set then that is the speed they should be abiding to. And remember this speed limit is set to protect other users of the shared path that would be deemed more vulnerable.

The Dulwich Estate (one presumes) has also set a 10mph speed limit on the shared use path in front of Dulwich College and painted large signs on it reminding cyclists of that speed.

There is a problem in Dulwich Park with some cyclists bombing around it and through it they are a menace to other park users and often get very angry when they are told to slow down or a dog runs in front of them. A bit like red light jumping in the other thread it seems a lot of cyclists need to better educate themselves on the rules that do actually apply to them!

And I think this part of the article about the puppy being killed by an e-bike in Dulwich Park is very telling and exactly why speed limits should to be adhered to:

https://southwarknews.co.uk/featured/exclusive-an-e-bike-killed-our-puppy/

She said the man was riding a green rental e-bike, and claims he was definitely over the 5mph speed limit the park has for vehicles passing through. She said they were not interested in pressing charges, but wanted people to be more aware of the dangers of cycling. “A bike is still a vehicle. I want people to be more conscious of this. There are a lot of people who don’t respect the rules.”

Trevor Moore, member of the Dulwich Park Friends committee – who help to maintain the park said: “This is terrible news. It’s as a result of lots of people on two wheels going too fast in a shared space. In a park, it has to be the people riding bikes and scooters that are aware of kids and dogs and vulnerable people around them.”

 

 

20 minutes ago, exdulwicher said:

If you want better / safer cycling (and likewise, safe conditions for pedestrians), campaign for proper segregated infrastructure built to a high standard. 

Or better education of cyclists?

[Spartacus]

15 hours ago, exdulwicher said:

Oh well, that settles it then... 🙄
A source nearly as reliable as the Daily Mail...

@Earl Aelfheah, I refer you to the above quote from ex in relation to Google ai (chatgpt in your case) 

EX, because something is hard to do, that doesn't make it not worth doing. 

In the eaery days cars had no speedometers,  you didn't need a licence to drive and they also had a person walking in front with a red flag, but now as they have become mainstream all that has changed at cost ,  so again I ask, why not the same for bikes? Or do.you believe cyclists should be excluded from additional regulations and potential costs (love to see that argument play out for cars) 

Edited Tuesday at 11:25 by Spartacus

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, Spartacus said:

@Earl Aelfheah, I refer you to the above quote from ex in relation to Google ai (chatgpt in your case) 

I haven't asked Google to produce a summary of opinions expressed across the internet, or relied on editorialising from the Mail. I've not asked for an opinion, I've used a very specific prompt to answer a specific question based on data, and shown you the calculations.

A bicycle would have to be travelling at around 77 mph in order to pose a remotely comparable risk to the average car travelling at 20 mph. 

From a harm-to-others perspective, bicycles do not need a numerical speed limit analogous to 20 mph for cars.

Treating bicycles as needing similar limits to cars is not evidence-based.

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

I am sorry but on a shared route off the public highway then a speed limit can and often does apply to cyclists as well. You may not like it but it is correct.

I have no problem with a speed limit for people travelling through a park, or shared space, in principle.

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

Now you can argue that 5mph is ridiculous for bikes but if that is the speed a local authority set then that is the speed they should be abiding to.

Yes, I think it's ridiculous. Try and cycle at under 5 mph and tell me you disagree.

1 hour ago, Spartacus said:

EX, because something is hard to do, that doesn't make it not worth doing. 

In the eaely days cars had no speedometers,  you didn't need a licence to drive and they also had a person walking in front with a red flag, but now as they have become mainstream all that has changed at cost ,  so again I ask, why not the same for bikes?

We don't make new laws, restrict peoples freedoms, and create expensive systems of regulation and enforcement on the basis of 'why not?'. You need to make your case for why it's appropriate and proportionate.

Edited Tuesday at 12:24 by Earl Aelfheah

[Spartacus]

Evidence for why 

Cycling has become more popular thus increasing numbers with promotional increases in bad practices, including going above set speed limits  jumping lights, (the list goes on).and as the roads and some paths are shared spaces then everyone needs to abide by the same rules 

Please stop being blinkered and using the normal cycling argument that they are special cases, they shouldn't be 

[Earl Aelfheah]

9 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

Please stop being blinkered and using the normal cycling argument that they are special cases, they shouldn't be 

If you're suggesting that they should have the same speed limits applied to them as motor vehicles, then you are arguing that they be treated as special cases - in a way that is wildly different and disproportionate to the risk they pose to others. 

Last year motor vehicles led to the death of around 1,600 other road users, bicycles 3, and pedestrians (running into someone else who was on foot) 1.

To suggest that you should treat someone travelling by bicycle as if they were in a motor car is obviously ridiculous. If you can't see that, then it's you who has blinkers on.

Edited Tuesday at 11:58 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

17 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

A bicycle would have to be travelling at around 77 mph in order to pose a remotely comparable risk to the average car travelling at 20 mph. 

@Earl Aelfheah I would treat this with some caution as I think it is a slippery path doing a like-for-like comparison on comparable kinetic energy as being hit by anything at any speed comes with risk and could injure/kill people especially on shared use routes where more vulnerable users. Often it is not the collision of cycle vs pedestrian that causes the problems but the fall that takes place as a direct result and the kinetic energy values for that are much much less. The lady killed in Regent's Park died not from the injuries sustained during the impact with the cyclist but the fall that happened after the impact with the cyclist.

25 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I have no problem with a speed limit for people travelling through a park in principle.

And per the above it is exactly why the speed limit has been set at 5mph - shared use dictates the need for a difference approach.

26 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Yes, I think it's ridiculous. Try and cycle at under 5 mph and tell me you disagree.

I am one of those annoying cyclists who tries to balance when I stop so slow speed cycling is not an issue for me!!! 😉 But if the speed limit is 5mph it is 5mph whether people agree or not - I think it is ridiculous that the A205 is 20mph but I still have to adhere to that limit.

28 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

We don't make new laws, restrict peoples freedoms, and create expensive systems of regulation and enforcement on the basis of 'why not?'. You need to make your case for why it's appropriate and proportionate.

But we do when trends emerge that show that harm is being done because of a lack of regulation and whilst I don't think we are heading down a route of speedos for bikes I do think there will have to be more stringent policing of cyclists in future. On this thread and the red-light thread you will read a constant narrative of the need for better education for cyclists and much of what the police and authorities are doing are invoking what powers they have to stop cyclists and educate them - be that the speeding on Tooting Bec or showing red-light jumpers the video of the lady being hit by a bus (interesting that it seems the police in that instance seem to feel frustrated by what they can do). Of course, if the problems keep getting worse then more draconian measures will be required - if for nothing else to stop cyclists injuring themselves - the testimony from the surgeon in the FT red-light jumping article is an eye-opener.

[Earl Aelfheah]

20 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Often it is not the collision of cycle vs pedestrian that causes the problems but the fall that takes place as a direct result and the kinetic energy values for that are much much less

So the risk is not the force of the impact, but of being bumped into and knocked over? The risk of runners in this scenario is at least as high, and there are more of them in our parks. Do they therefore require the same speed limit because that's the corollary of your logic?

20 minutes ago, Rockets said:

And per the above it is exactly why the speed limit has been set at 5mph - shared use dictates the need for a difference approach.

At under 5 mph many people are likely to be less in control of their bike than at say 8-10 mph. Which makes me question what one wants to achieve. Is it actually about safety? At 5 mph, you may as well just ban bicycles (and running for that matter).

I stand by what I said earlier in the thread:

On 23/12/2025 at 14:41, Earl Aelfheah said:

Clearly people should cycle carefully in parks. Dogs shouldn’t be out of control and off the lead either ideally (often they are). A bit of courtesy and care is probably what’s called for rather than unenforceable laws.

21 minutes ago, Rockets said:

I think it is ridiculous that the A205 is 20mph but I still have to adhere to that limit.

The difference being that there are regular, very serious collisions, injuries and deaths on the A205. I'm not aware of the same scale of destruction in Dulwich Park.

Edited Tuesday at 12:29 by Earl Aelfheah

[exdulwicher]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

But, as pointed out previously, runners are not classified as a vehicle are they so the speed limit on a shared use route does not apply to them does it? 

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.

2 hours ago, Spartacus said:

Funny, this feels similar to the argument that 20.was too slow for cars and drivers would have more accidents as they monitored their speedometers. Proved incorrect in the end and drivers adjusted and it didn't increase accidents. 

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.

Edited Tuesday at 12:35 by exdulwicher
spelling

[Rockets]

19 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

The risk of runners in this scenario is just as high and there are more of them in our parks. Do they also need a speed limit because that's the corollary of your logic?

No. Firstly because the speed limit is for vehicles only and secondly humans have an inbuilt mechanism to avoid one another - the problems tend to occur when you put them on or in devices to make them go faster.

21 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

At under 5 mph you're likely to be less in control of your bike than at say 10 mph. You may as well just ban bicycles (and running).

But regardless that is the speed limit for vehicles in the park isn't it so surely if you cannot cycle within it you should dismount? It was interesting because the cycle route through the park that was proposed back in 2015 got rejected and I do wonder if that was on the basis of the mixed-use nature of the park. It is clearly being used as a cut-through for many. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

3 hours ago, Rockets said:

No. Firstly because the speed limit is for vehicles only and secondly humans have an inbuilt mechanism to avoid one another - the problems tend to occur when you put them on or in devices to make them go faster.

This makes no sense. I would guess (there is not data obviously) that at least as many people are knocked over in the park by people bumping into other people on foot, as on bike - probably more. We know at least one person is recorded as having died in the UK last year as the result of another person running into them - only two less than were killed by bicycles on the road. 

3 hours ago, Rockets said:

But regardless that is the speed limit for vehicles in the park isn't it so surely if you cannot cycle within it you should dismount?

So you're not taking any position on whether a 5 mph limit is appropriate -  just on the 20mph limit applied to the A205 (which you describe as 'ridiculous')? 

Edited Tuesday at 16:02 by Earl Aelfheah