Daily Mail and GB News journalist objects to 20mph speed limits because... cyclists don't pay tax (apparently); Sprinting Fabio Jakobsen smacked in face by fan's phone; Weekend round-up + more on the live blog

VIPcyclist wrote:

Good points. Also the hybrids weighing so much more have more inertial mass and are therefore, at any given speed, more likely to kill you should be hit. 20 mph certainly isn't for me as a cyclist, I can't keep it up very long.

I'm not sure whether the car weighs 20 - 40 times as much as the pedestrian or 30-60 makes any real difference. Essentially the car's momentum is barely affected by the impact, everything is about accelerating the pedestrian.

Off the back wrote:

I would happily support a 20mph speed limit in built up areas and its not just about protecting cyclists. 

I'm always confused about why people use the caveat 'in built up' areas. What about country lanes where there are no footpaths or street lights - why don't these roads get 20mph speed limits?  Why are they treated like defacto motorways?

That country road could be 30mph it could easily and more likely be 60mph. Drivers should realistically drive to the conditions. But in built up areas you have a much higher volume of pedestrians and vulnerable road users. More likelihood of encountering stop start traffic where speeds change quickly. More incidents of the unexpected happening. Why slap 20mph on quiet roads with a low amount of traffic? There is a very obvious reason it's a 20mph limit outside schools now. And if that needs explaining then hope is lost on some . 

jh2727 wrote:

Off the back wrote:

I would happily support a 20mph speed limit in built up areas and its not just about protecting cyclists. 

I'm always confused about why people use the caveat 'in built up' areas. What about country lanes where there are no footpaths or street lights - why don't these roads get 20mph speed limits?  Why are they treated like defacto motorways?

you want 20mph on every rural road that does not have a footpath or lights?

I certainly think these pedestrians, drovers, carters and horsepeople shouldn't be haring through the countryside at more than ... oh, wait...

Many of the country roads (if we're saying "no lights") have simply gained tarmac, and possibly a bit more width.  (But not a footway or cycleway.  No room, you see...) They're as windy as when the effective speed limit was "fast horse", still have poor sight lines, rapid changes in elevation, are now "narrow" (having two vehicles pass at speed).  But of course - have at it because derestricted.  TBH I sometimes wonder why we don't see many more vehicles in ditches, burnt out behind a ruined wall on a corner etc.

Yes.

me too

Exactly that. And calling yourself 'Toryboy' on Twitter. WTF?

Surreyrider wrote:

Exactly that. And calling yourself 'Toryboy' on Twitter. WTF?

Masochist.

Surreyrider wrote:

Exactly that. And calling yourself 'Toryboy' on Twitter. WTF?

Might as well just call himself thick and save a few keystrokes.

That would be a good idea, almost strange that organisers / UCI haven't implemented somethinh similar already (after a few collisions with the barriers).

But then you're getting into the world of VAR and the wait while we find out if someone did indeed cross the line or not. Low tech solution would be a double depth barrier in the last few hundred metres so the fans can't get within selfie reach of the riders. Would reduce the available road width by maybe 1.5 metres? 

Yep, that would certainly obviate the problem of fans hitting the riders, but how often does it actually happen? Riders hitting, or being pushed into, barriers happens much more frequently. Take your point about VAR but the commissaires always check the footage for legality anyway so it could just be added to their checks.

That's true. Seen a good few sprint replays while the commissaires do their thing. It's a tough one. A mad bunch sprint is a thrilling thing to witness, and nobody wants to see the riders get hurt. But at the same time we want to see them elbow to elbow. Either way, fans need to be educated to stay out the way whether out on the open road sectors or at the finish line. 

Annoyingly the AAD guy has a point, and even then infrastructure like speed bumps won't fix it. I regularly see cars, vans, motorbikes at speeds in excess of 40mph within local 20mph residential zones. There's just no enforcement.

He has a partial point.  Merely changing speed limit signs when the road signals "drive fast down me" doesn't do much.  It does even less with no enforcement.  However I believe when this came up in some of the Scottish 20mph debates (spoiler - idea chucked out) I think there was some research presented (sorry - link not to hand) to show it did have *some* slowing effect even though the average speed was still above 20mph.  (Example - average speed in "default 30mph" compared to that in 20mph area).

More enforcement is needed but it's not "the answer", just a part of it.  Infra changes are needed too.  For example if you can't rat-run through an area there may be much less incentive to speed.  You mention speed bumps - they're neither the best solution or without other issues e.g. for cyclists.  However they're in operation 24 hours per day and you can't just use a lawyer to get round their effects!

Yes, I'm regularly a road block at 30mph in my car which some people overtake in a 30 limit. Signs are not all that is needed, you need to make people follow the rules as well but there is no enforcement in most areas.

Maybole ran a 20 for a number of years to stop traffic racing through for the ferry. Even had to install avg speed cameras to enforce it. Not sure if it is still in place as they've now got a bypass which pretty much removes 95% of the through traffic. The twenty was pretty much ignored and when I drove through you could see traffic all backing up behind me. 

It is still there and still ignored by at least 90% of traffic because there is no traffic calming to enforce it, merely a few repeater signs. The average speed cameras predate the 20 limit, they run from Kilmarnock to just south of Girvan but I don't know anyone who has been caught by them so I wonder how high the tolerance is on them.

Yeah. I'd forgotten to account for that. With driving the 77 so often I've forgotten how long they've been up. The camera was more obvious with the new twenty.  Like you I know of no one who has been the beneficiary of a FPN. 

You're right about the bypass though, it makes it much more pleasant to ride through the town at any time of day, including the old road north out of the town that is now numbered the B77 up to Smithston bridge.

Steve K wrote:

There was a short piece on the Today programme this morning on 20mph potentially becoming the default.  Contributors were a spokesperson for the Association of Advanced Drivers, who was against such a move, but on the grounds that 20mph zones make no difference unless you change the infrastructure and visual clues to slow drivers down.  And then James May, who was in favour of more 20mph zones.

I too heard that, and wondered why they hadn't got anyone from the groups who were supposed to be the beneficiaries, pedestrians and cyclists, but then I remembered; BBC.

eburtthebike wrote:

Steve K wrote:

There was a short piece on the Today programme this morning on 20mph potentially becoming the default.  Contributors were a spokesperson for the Association of Advanced Drivers, who was against such a move, but on the grounds that 20mph zones make no difference unless you change the infrastructure and visual clues to slow drivers down.  And then James May, who was in favour of more 20mph zones.

I too heard that, and wondered why they hadn't got anyone from the groups who were supposed to be the beneficiaries, pedestrians and cyclists, but then I remembered; BBC.

To be fair, I think James May is a cyclist and a pedestrian.