Southwark backs down on 20mph cycling limit

..

100 years or so ago, when I did my police motorcycle training, I learn that the safest speed to travel at ( on a road - regardless of whether you have an engine or not) is the same speed that everyone else is doing. If you are interested in staying safe please bear that in mind.
I've never been knocked off a motorcycle or push bike (touch a large lump of wood). There are a lot of cyclists who seem to ride "aggressively" and expect everyone else to take care of their safety. Don't do this - ride like everyone else on the road is trying to kill you and expect the worst. Live long and prosper.

As bikes are not legaly required to carry computers/speedometer.... how is anyone on a bike supposed to tell how fast they are going???
I believe I heard of a case some years ago where a cyclist had broken the speed limit with a computer fitted! but the judge threw it out beacause its pretty ridiculas to impose such a precedent on a machine that is not required to tell you what speed you are going.

So called 'Dangerous cycling' is just an opinion that is almost impossible to proove from observation... eg I can ride considerably faster than my Mum and still remain safe because I have the skill... Peter Sagan could ride much faster than me & remain safe for the same reason.

very wierd proposal imo

I don't necessarily disagree with ALL traffic being limited to 20mph in built-up areas, but points already raised here are valid:
1. Existing speed limits are not enforced.
2. The council in this case have not been aware of what they can and can't legislate on.

The truth of the matter is that few cyclists will speed in built up areas, and many motor vehicles will.

At least they've acknowledged their error rather than beligerantly pushing it through!

The most troubling thing , and least surprising frankly, is the basic lack of knowledge from council officers.
If they dont even bother to check out the legality of imposing a pretty fundamental piece of policy how can we expect them to trusted with building any decent cycling infrastructure?
In my experience local councils are inhabited by well meaning but useless officers hamstrung by clueless and myopic elected members. A perfect environment for incompetence and inactivity.

I believe I am the member of the public who originally complained about this plan during the consultation period and who was quoted at the relevant council meeting.

I am not looking for a battle and I am not an especially fast cyclist doing most of my riding on a folding commuter bike. I certainly never blast my way though busy roads and past pedestrians. I'm copying my submission to the council below. As you can see my main points of concern were that 1) it would be confusing if there were differences in policy on bikes between boroughs and between boroughs and national rules and 2) cyclists would be penalised for accidental speeding when going downhill keeping up with traffic. In relation to (2), Southwark is not all commuter grid-lock there are some fast roads on hills as you get to the south of the borough.

Date: 18 March 2014 18:56
Subject: Re: PRP/PD/TMO1314-034 (Introduction of borough-wide 20 m.p.h. speed limit)
To: traffic.orders [at] southwark.gov.uk

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re: PRP/PD/TMO1314-034

I would like to object to the wording of the draft Traffic Management Order included as part of the proposal to introduce a borough-wide 20 m.p.h. speed limit.

Specifically, I am concerned by the wording in Section 2.1 of the traffic order where I maintain that the term "vehicle" should be replaced by "motor vehicle":

"2.1 No person shall cause or permit any vehicle to proceed at a speed in excess of 20 miles per hour in any road, street or part thereof as lies within the London Borough of Southwark."

It is unreasonable that non-motorised vehicles should be subject to the traffic order on the following two grounds:

1) It creates an inconsistency between national legislation and local traffic management rules. The relevant statue (Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, sections 81 & 89) governing national speed limits specifically refers to "motor vehicles". If different wording is used in Southwark to that used in national legislation, this will create confusion and uncertainty amongst the public.

2) It is not realistic to expect those in control of all non-motorised vehicles to know their speed accurately, and therefore it is unreasonable for them to be subject to maximum speed limits. For example, a cyclist travelling downhill could easily but unknowingly exceed 20 mph even without pedalling and it would be unjust for them to receive punishment for doing so.

I hope that you will agree that the change of wording is both reasonable and desirable and the draft Traffic Management Order will be amended accordingly.

Yours faithfully,

James

@crazy-legs

Spot on

Police response during their limited 'campaigns' in London are a sad joke

Ignoring asl-infringing, traffic light jumping, mobile obsessed drivers in favour of soft targets like cyclists, or just ignoring all and standing in pairs chatting at lights instead of doing any enforcement.

Even for those who can top 20 by pedal power, their speed is effectively limited by the rather larger armoured mobility scooters to whom the speed limits do apply.

We effectively have a reverse of the previous situation in which the vulnerable were being used to slow the invulnerable. The worst that should happen is that some idiot on a bike crashes into the back of a law abiding person in a car. Which is infinitely preferable to some idiot in a car crashing into the back of a law abiding person on a bike.

Also, I am hugely in favour of 20mph zones in built up areas, for actual safely reasons and for creating a much more pleasant environment altogether.

However dodgy the road has been leading up to this law, I am highly glad of the outcome.

Storm in a tea cup.

What's most revealing about this incident is the utterly disproportionate fear that people have of cyclists. A cyclist doing noticeably more than 20mph around town on the flat is really quite rare, yet people have the perception that speeding cyclists are a problem.

I suspect that the issue is that bicycles aren't noisy enough, so people are more easily startled by them, but are quite happy to share their space with 1.5 ton noisy metal boxes doing 30mph because they can hear them coming.

My cynicism-muscle is twitching.

Was there ever any serious intention of implementing a borough wide 20mph speed limit?
Is it an attempt to stir-up yet more ill feeling between road users?
Is this putting in an early excuse for not implementing a 20mph speed limit on the grounds that it would discriminate against motor-vehicles?
Who are these pedestrians? Des Waters? Friends and cronies of Des Waters?

Why am I depressed again?

Could someone arrange for a photographer to be there when the "people from Denmark and the Netherlands" first visit the Elephant & Castle. I want someone to capture the moment their jaws hit the ground.

I think the point here is that there is little or no enforcement of 20mph limits for motor vehicles and as there is no basis in law for any limit with cyclists the whole thing smacks of political posturing. Most city cyclists don't get over 20mph, most city drivers do. Most speed related injuries and fatalities are caused by motor vehicles. Focussing on cyclists is bogus until the higher risk (and actually illegal) behaviour is tackled.

Not entirely pointless.

Putting laws that will be spottily/selectively enforced (or have no legal standing but come with FPNs) isn't exactly a good thing.

Laws do need to be enforceable, fairly applied, and relevant. This possibly met the second criteria.

I also wish new laws were a bit more rare, but that's not going to happen.

Why do I get a feeling cycle campaigners have won a totally pointless battle and in doing so have started a completely unnecessary war...

Frankly it's fair to ask cyclists to keep to a reasonable speed as well. We are at best second in the pecking order: the needs of pedestrians come first. So if councils can't enforce a limit on their own, they'll have no choice but to ask national government, for whom far less discretion will be applied...