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

[Rockets]

5 minutes ago, exdulwicher said:

"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. 

So you agree a bike is a vehicle - so if then the speed limit applies to ALL vehicles on a shared-use route then it does apply to bicycles too then? Or are you trying to assert that they are given a special "tho shalt go at whatever speed you want as you are a cyclist".

I am afraid the rules on non-public carriageway are different and clearly there nears to be better education about this - Dulwich Estates are clearly trying to make that point on the shared-use path in front of Dulwich College!!!

9 minutes ago, exdulwicher said:

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.

No I think you're the one being ridiculous now.

11 minutes ago, exdulwicher said:

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.

I think you're missing the point @exdulwicher. This is about applying commonsense to the situation you find yourself in when on a bike - and unfortunately a lot of cyclists seem to leave commonsense at home when they jump on their bikes and default to a "I will because I can/am allowed to" mentality. And every time someone utters the "the speed limit does not apply to bikes" it is often as they try to defend stupid, inconsiderate or downright dangerous cycling and this is usually followed by the next most-used phrase in the lexicon on cycling excuses - "ah, that's not actually a bike".

 

 

9 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

This makes no sense. I would guess (there is not data obviously) that just as many people knocked over in the park by people bumping into them on foot as on bike, probably more.

I dunno. I only tend to see people shouting at fast moving cyclists - I have never seen an issue with runners. Granted Park Run is a bit of a pain to navigate but it all seems to work harmoniously.

And I don't see surgeons talking about rising admissions from runner-caused injuries:

Jaison Patel, an orthopaedic knee surgeon at the Royal London, the national trauma centre that treated Stonkute, said he and his colleagues had seen a big rise in accidents involving riders or pedestrians as more commuters cycle to work since the pandemic, in part thanks to a proliferation of e-bikes. 

11 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

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')? 

No just highlighting that there is little point taking a position on it because that is the speed limit - the same with the A205. We can think it is ridiculous but that doesn't change the fact that it is the speed limit.

[Earl Aelfheah]

18 minutes ago, Rockets said:

No just highlighting that there is little point taking a position on it because that is the speed limit - the same with the A205.

But you have taken a position on the speed limit for the A205 - despite it being a road with a history of regular, serious collisions, 20 mph there is 'ridiculous'. So it's just the 5 mph for someone riding their bicycle in a park with (as far as i am aware) no history of deaths of serious injuries that there is 'little point' having a view on? Interesting that.

I suggest that if you flooded Dulwich park with police and strongly enforced a 5 mph limit for anyone riding their bike, the reduction in the number of people exercising would cause a lot more harm than it would do good. It's a solution desperately looking for a problem.

Edited Tuesday at 13:12 by Earl Aelfheah

[exdulwicher]

49 minutes ago, Rockets said:

So you agree a bike is a vehicle - so if then the speed limit applies to ALL vehicles on a shared-use route then it does apply to bicycles too then? 

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.

49 minutes ago, Rockets said:

No I think you're the one being ridiculous now.

And you're the one unable or unwilling to understand the concept of "analogy".

Maybe it doesn't apply to you?

Edited Tuesday at 13:44 by exdulwicher

[Earl Aelfheah]

43 minutes ago, exdulwicher said:

Speed limits do not apply to bicycles.

Yep, you're quite right about this.

The only cycling-related restriction written into Southwark's set of byelaws for 'pleasure grounds, public walks and open spaces', under the section 'horses and cycles', refers to a restriction on a particular path in bankside. 

The 5 mph limit doesn't apply to people traveling on a bicycle.

 

Edited Tuesday at 14:27 by Earl Aelfheah

[exdulwicher]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I suggest that if you flooded Dulwich park with police and strongly enforced a 5 mph limit for anyone riding their bike, the reduction in the number of people exercising would cause a lot more harm than it would do good. 

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!

[Rockets]

45 minutes ago, exdulwicher said:

And we return to the previous point. Speed limits do not apply to bicycles.

@exdulwicher we know that is the case on public roads but it is not the case on private land where the speed limit is set by the local authority. Dulwich Park is not part of the public highway. The route through the park is a shared-use route and Southwark have set the speed limit for all vehicles as 5mph. This is fact. You are wrong - the speed limit does apply to bicycles - whether it will ever be enforced is another matter.

9 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

The 5 mph limit doesn't apply to people traveling on a bicycle.

It does. You are wrong. It is a shared-use route with a speed limit of 5mph. Do you argue then that the 10mph limit on the shared-use path in front of Dulwich College does not apply to cyclists too?

Again, why are you getting so vexed that a rule may actually apply to cyclists - I don't know how, as a cyclist, I managed to avoid this  oppositional defiant disorder many cyclists, and their cheerleaders, seem to have? Honestly, why does it upset you so - this is a prime example of why so many people are fed-up with the blinkered approach many in the cycle lobby take? Who and what are you trying to protect - the divine right of cyclists to do what they want without hindrance? You seem to be prioritising the needs and wants of cyclists over every other shared-use route users in the park....is that not a little selfish?

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I suggest that if you flooded Dulwich park with police and strongly enforced a 5 mph limit for anyone riding their bike, the reduction in the number of people exercising would cause a lot more harm than it would do good. It's a solution desperately looking for a problem.

Nonsense.

Firstly, the police would not enforce it as it is private land and not the public highway - it would be enforced by the council as they set the speed limit of 5mph.

Secondly, the biggest groups this would likely impact are the e-bike and cargo bike riders who rattle through the parks at a hell of a rate without a care in the world for the other users and they are not doing a lot of exercise and if they were walking would do more!

18 minutes ago, exdulwicher said:

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).

Now that's not very nice is it? Anyway, it wouldn't happen as I am a very considerate cyclist.... You seem to be trying cast doubts over my cycling credentials - is this because I dare question some of the more cultish elements of being part of the cycling community?

BTW @exdulwicher and @Earl Aelfheah do you both cycle much?

22 minutes ago, exdulwicher said:

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!

Funny isn't it....you love it when the rules get applied to drivers to the letter...less so cyclists....C'est La vie!

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

It does. You are wrong. It is a shared-use route with a speed limit of 5mph.

Because national speed limits don't autonomically apply to cyclists, enforcement of a speed limit in the park would require a specific byelaw or traffic management order clearly stating that it applies to bicycles. Southwark's published byelaws don't contain such a clause. Neither is there signage pointing to the inclusion of bicycles and referencing a relevant byelaw.

So to be clear - a 20 mph speed limit on A205 is 'ridiculous', despite a number of serious injuries and deaths having occurred on that road as the result of collisions.

But you do support extending a 5 mph speed limit that currently applies to cars travelling through the park to bicycles? Despite there being (as far as I know) little history of any serious accidents?

This is nothing to do with safety. 

It's just another example of your massively disproportionate focus on (and exaggeration of) the 'danger' people pose others when travelling by bicycle, whilst at the same time minimising the significant havoc they can (and do) wreak when using high powered motor vehicle. It's a weirdly myopic obsession.

Edited Tuesday at 16:38 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

27 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Because national speed limits don't autonomically apply to cyclists, enforcement of a speed limit in the park would require a specific byelaw or traffic management order clearly stating that it applies to bicycles.

It would require a TMO or specific site rules to be able to put the signage up in the park would it not that alerts users of the park to the fact that it was a shared-use route with a speed limit of 5mph? And if that stated all vehicles then it would apply to all vehicles wouldn't it (unless of course it called out an exception for bicycles)?

31 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

So to be clear - a 20 mph speed limit on a road known as an accident hotspot is 'ridiculous', despite a number of serious injuries and deaths as the result of collisions. 

Your words not mine - clearly that was not what I said. You're adding elements and making things up again. New Year, same old tactics!!! 😉 

31 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

But you do support extending a 5 mph speed limit that currently applies to cars travelling through the park to bicycles? Despite there being (as far as I know) little history of serious accidents?

Tell that to the puppy that was killed by the cyclist......

I don't need to support extending it as it already does apply to cyclists - the council have done the work for me. I still don't know why you feel the need to get so angry when you find out a speed limit does apply to cyclists.

34 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

It's just another example of your disproportionate focus on (and exaggeration of) the 'danger' bicycles pose to others, whilst at the same time minimising the significant havoc wrought by misuse of high powered motor vehicles.

Again, speak to the owner of the puppy....any havoc in the park is not being caused by high powered motor vehicles is it.....?

When the discussion moves to something on the public highway you're more than welcome to play the "WHAT ABOUT THE CARS" hand but in a park you're on a bit of a dodgy wicket with that one.....

39 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Neither is there signage pointing to the inclusion of bicycles and referencing a relevant byelaw.

What signage is there @Earl Aelfheah - perhaps you would like to describe it to us and tell us what it includes and what it doesn't......?

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 minute ago, Rockets said:

40 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

So to be clear - a 20 mph speed limit on a road known as an accident hotspot is 'ridiculous', despite a number of serious injuries and deaths as the result of collisions. 

Your words not mine - clearly that was not what I said. You're adding elements and making things up again. New Year, same old tactics!!! 😉 

Hmm: 

4 hours ago, Rockets said:

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

New year yes. But your words are still recorded.

5 minutes ago, Rockets said:

I don't need to support extending it as it already does apply to cyclists - the council have done the work for me. I still don't know why you feel the need to get so angry when you find out a speed limit does apply to cyclists.

It doesn't apply to cyclists. I'm not remotely angry. 

[malumbu]

41 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

 

So to be clear - a 20 mph speed limit on A205 is 'ridiculous', despite a number of serious injuries and deaths having occurred on that road as the result of collisions.

 

I'm happy with 20mph as a driver, cyclist and pedestrian.  I rarely cycle or driver beyond Clapham junction and on the odd occasion I do drive my journeys are usually constrained by the amount of traffic and signals.

Life's too short to spend much more time on some of the anti cyclist stuff here and on numerous other threads.  I've got a chest infection so used the 185 yesterday and today rather than pedal,  All journeys were great, even at school closing time today.

[Earl Aelfheah]

13 minutes ago, Rockets said:

When the discussion moves to something on the public highway you're more than welcome to play the "WHAT ABOUT THE CARS" hand but in a park you're on a bit of a dodgy wicket with that one.....

You made the comparison with a 20 mph speed limit on the South Circular. You have said that limit is 'ridiculous', but are implying that 5 mph for bicycles is not. That 5 mph speed limit doesn't actually apply to bicycles, so would require changes to byelaws. If that's what you're calling for then make the case for why it's appropriate and proportionate in a way that presumably 20 mph on the A205 isn't in your opinion.

Edited Tuesday at 16:52 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

@Earl Aelfheah come on - describe the signs to us in Dulwich Park. What do they show and say...?

[exdulwicher]

11 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Again, speak to the owner of the puppy....any havoc in the park is not being caused by high powered motor vehicles is it.....?

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.

[Rockets]

@exdulwicher of course it is. So now the havoc is being caused by other vehicles isn't it?

Do you know what the signage says in Dulwich Park - perhaps you can help @Earl Aelfheah?

5 minutes ago, exdulwicher said:

an off-lead puppy hit by a bike.

Puppies are allowed off lead on the shared-use route - it's one of the reasons why the speed limit is set at 5mph to slow bikes down as it is a shared-use route.

[Earl Aelfheah]

7 minutes ago, Rockets said:

it's one of the reasons why the speed limit is set at 5mph to slow bikes down as it is a shared-use route.

The 5mph limit is for motor vehicles in the park. The limit isn't to slow bikes. It doesn't apply to bikes.

[Rockets]

@Earl Aelfheah would you be so good as to describe the signage to us? 

[Earl Aelfheah]

Why don't you? You obviously think there is something relevant in the signage that 'proves' your point - so what is it you want to say?

From memory, I only recall something along the lines of 'Vehicle entry for permit holders only' and then something asking people to 'please observe 5 mph' and 'give way to pedestrians'. It’s clearly aimed at those driving into the park. I don't believe there is any specific reference to bicycles or any signage referencing a relevant byelaw.

Because national speed limits don't autonomically apply to cyclists, enforcement of a speed limit in the park that did relate to bicycles would require a specific byelaw or traffic management order clearly stating that it applies. Southwark's published byelaws don't contain such a clause.

Edited Tuesday at 18:02 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

I believe one of the things Southwark Cyclists have asked for is greater connectivity between green spaces for those 'wheeling'. So really, it sounds like they want to increase the use of parks by anyone on a bike or e-bike/scooter/hover-board. A 5mph limit would rather get in the way of that aim. Perhaps that is the reason for the apparent outrage that a stated park speed limit could apply to those that 'wheel', even if in effect they are actually riding a powered vehicle capable of 15mph (or more).

Edited Tuesday at 18:32 by first mate

[Rockets]

@Earl Aelfheah I was just interested whether you actually knew what the signage said or whether you were arm-chair quarterbacking without actually having seen anything of the game!

Needless to say your memory fails you. The signs, which are all over the park at entry points long since used for any car access don't say anything about "vehicle entry for permit holders only" nor do they say anything about "please observe 5mph".

It might be worth you refreshing your memory next time you're there - take a look and let me know what you find!

18 minutes ago, first mate said:

I believe one of the things Southwark Cyclists have asked for is greater connectivity between green spaces for those 'wheeling'. So really, it sounds like they want to increase the use of parks by anyone on a bike or e-bike/scooter/hover-board. A 5mph limit would rather get in the way of that aim. Perhaps that is the reason for the apparent outrage that a stated park speed limit could apply to those that 'wheel', even if in effect they are actually riding a powered vehicle capable of 15mph (or more).

And this is exactly part of the issue and was one of the reasons Friends of Dulwich Park implored locals to review the consultation on the cycle spine through Dulwich Park back in 2015 and said in their correspondence to residents: 

• 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.

It's interesting because the whole subject of problematic cyclists in the park was discussed on here way back in 2011 too:  

 

Edited Tuesday at 18:52 by Rockets

[Earl Aelfheah]

35 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Needless to say your memory fails you. The signs, which are all over the park at entry points long since used for any car access don't say anything about "vehicle entry for permit holders only" nor do they say anything about "please observe 5mph".

It might be worth you refreshing your memory next time you're there - take a look and let me know what you find!

The signs at the main entrance, by the barriers says this. Definitely did anyway, unless there has been a recent change. I don't know what the your point is here? What is it you think the signs say in relation to bicycles, or are you just being weird?

What is it you're trying to say without actually saying it? 

Edited Tuesday at 19:13 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

The signs which are at all the entrances to the park (which are comprised of one round blue one and one round red one - can you remember from the Highway Code what that means.....;-)) show that it is a shared-use route to be used by certain groups only, that users must give-way and priority to pedestrians and unleashed dogs and that the speed limit on the shared-use route is 5mph.

 

 

 

 

9 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

What is it you think the signs say in relation to bicycles, or are you just being weird?

I am not sure it's right you suggest I am being "weird" I was merely asking if you had any knowledge of the sign you were talking about. Per the forum rules are you allowed to accuse someone of being weird?

[Earl Aelfheah]

13 minutes ago, Rockets said:

The signs which are at all the entrances to the park (which are comprised of one round blue one and one round red one - can you remember from the Highway Code what that means.....;-)) show that it is a shared-use route to be used by certain groups only, that users must give-way and priority to pedestrians and unleashed dogs and that the speed limit on the shared-use route is 5mph.

And? Does it mention bicycles specifically? Because again, without a byelaw or traffic management order clearly stating that it applies to bicycles, it is not legally enforceable. 

You've said that you think the 20 mph limit on the A205 is 'ridiculous'. Presumably you consider it disproportionate, or inappropriate in some way, relative to the number of serious collisions that take place on that road?

Why do you think that it's proportionate for the 5 mph speed limit in the park to be extended to bicycles? Do you think they pose the same risk to other park users as a car, or that it's a particularly dangerous environment, unlike the A205? 

13 minutes ago, Rockets said:

I am not sure it's right you suggest I am being "weird" I was merely asking if you had any knowledge of the sign

No, you repeatedly asked me to 'describe the sign', with no explanation as to why. That is weird. If you have a point to make, do so, rather than playing silly games. As it happens you didn't have a point, which is doubly strange imo, but fair enough, I'm sure there was a killer point in there somewhere 🤔.

Edited Tuesday at 19:15 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

2 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

And? Does it mention bicycles specifically? Because again, without a byelaw or traffic management order clearly stating that it applies to bicycles, it is not legally enforceable. 

But it is because it is a shared-use route on private land and the signage itself makes it very clear what the speed limit is.

4 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Why do you think that it's proportionate for the 5 mph speed limit in the park to be extended to bicycles?

What you or I think is irrelevant as the speed limit is 5mph. And it applies to bicycles too. If you have an issue with that you need to contact the council and ask them to increase the speed limit - I doubt they will as they are trying to protect the other shared-use users.

10 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

No, you repeatedly asked me to 'describe the sign', with no explanation as to why. That is weird.

No because as someone who does know what the sign says and shows it was clear to me you didn't have the foggiest clue as to what you were talking about. That's not weird.

[Earl Aelfheah]

19 hours ago, Rockets said:

No because as someone who does know what the sign says and shows it was clear to me you didn't have the foggiest clue as to what you were talking about.

And your 'big reveal' is that the sign says that the speed limit is 5 mph? 🤣.

Without a bye-law or other specific statutory regulation applying to the parkland, any speed-limit sign in a park is not legally enforceable. It might act as a guidance or policy notice but not a legal obligation enforceable in court. And as speed limits do not generally apply to bicycles, scooters or 'hover boards' (not sure what that means), they would have to be specifically referenced. What's the byelaw that give legal effect to a speed limit on bicycles in the park?

I have no problem in principle with a speed limit in a park, as I've already said. I do think 5 mph for a bicycle is far too low though. Even children will generally cycle faster than that, as at less than 5 mph an inexperienced cyclist will actually be unstable. Effectively you may as well call for a ban on people riding their bike, which I think would be a really sad move. It would also be strange to apply the same 5 mph limit placed on people taking vans and cars through the park, to people on their bicycles - it demonstrates a complete lack of any sort of proportionality, or risk based assessment. It's irrational (or perhaps 'ideological' is more accurate). It's very strange that you would argue otherwise, whilst also describing a 20 mph speed limit on a road that sees significant numbers of serious accidents as 'ridiculous'.

Edited 19 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[Spartacus]

Suggestion 

Why don't you both provide recent photos of the relevant signs so everyone reading this can see what they say. 

Question

Are you all in the same retirement home or different ones as you seem to spend all your days posting? 🤣