"Is dangerous cycling a problem" BBC

You say that but I always try to overtake on the right hand side but partly due to stupid/inadequate/dangerous cycle infastructure cyclists are conditioned to rigidly stick to the left even when passing junctions they have no interest in turning down*. As a result trying to overtake properly on Tower Bridge in the mornings can be tough. I recon some drivers see coming up on the left and purposly stay to the right as they feel, "do one! I've given you bloody cyclists enough space on the left!"

*The junction of Bishops Gate becoming Shoreditch (with Great Eastern St on your left) is a strong example of this.

Horrible things can happen though. Don't do it! :D

If all drivers and cyclists had drummed into them:

• Only pass if you can give safe (ideally 2m) space
  
• Never pass on the left
  
• If shit is in front of you, they can't see you
  
  

^ that's the recipe for successful living that is.

In this theoretical situation Somebody has won, all motorised traffic is banned and human powered vehicles are all that is allowed.

So- what would be the implications for the road infrastructure?

Edit: and society as a whole, come to that

i have not said that motorised traffic should be banned.

merely that in built up areas speed limits are put at 20 mph.

my reasoning for suggesting 20 mph is as follows (though i am sure many of you will be aware of this already).

if a vehicle travelling at 40 hits a ped or a cyclist the ped or cyclist will likely die from injuries.

at 30 mph the chances are 50/50.

at 20 mph the ped or cyclist will likely survive.

imo that alone is a good reason for 20 mph in built up areas.

plus i think there will be less crashes because drivers will have more time to react to events.

plus it will take away some of the benefit of mpv's so over time fewer people will have mpv's.

and less mpv's = less crashes and road death.

there are numerous other benefits of 20 mph (too many to list here).

but my main thesis has always been health and safety / reducing road death.

as most road death are drivers it will of course be drivers that benefit most / suffer less.

the people that i know directly that are now dead because of road danger were all mpv propelled.

i.e. not peds or cyclists.

and i miss them terribly.

Could you not compile your thoughts into one post?

20mph sucks if you’re a driver. The average driver during busy times is just trying to get to and from work, or they are working. i don't see why the driver should have to be subject to more rules than they are already, after all that is what we (cyclists) are complaining about, the possibility of being subject to more rules.

To enforce a 20mph rule to cars everywhere would surly mean that you would have to enforce it to bikes also, and who doesn't ever get up to 20mph down a hill. i actually don't know as i don't have a bike computer/heart rate/gps/twat meter on my any of my bikes (because they look shit), which in turn makes a point, what’s to stop bikes from getting speeding tickets?

I think the problem shouldn't be about restricting speed, and anyone who uses the words 'health and safety' is talking out of there arse. perhaps having more cycle awareness incorporated into a driving test or some informal advertising aimed at cyclists in the form of billboards next to bike racks which show diagrams of blind spots and dangers of jumping lights. Which 'us lot' are all aware of anyway but might put off someone who cycles rarely trying to copy cat and getting hurt.

Instead of a speed limit for wheeled vehicles there should be a kinetic energy limit of 100kJ. Fat cyclist going flat out down a hill reaches 100kJ at 58 mph. 1 ton small car reaches 100kJ at 22mph. 40 ton lorry reaches 100kJ at 3.5mph. Sorted

This post was brought to you by wolfram alpha, and GCSE physics.

But then what is 'fast' on a bike? To some 15mph is considered fast but to me it's something I would think of as moderate to slow.

I don't think "fast" is the appropriate descriptor, here. "Unsafely" would be better (and correct use of an adverb), and will depend on skill. But basically, you should be able to slow considerably, or stop, under the power available to you at the time (legs and/or brakes), without causing significant damage to yourself, your vehicle, or anyone else, should something unexpected come up.

Then again, I don't ride like that. But I should.

How would you go about enforcement of this new limit?

I would imagine unless very vigorous enforcement was implemented then it would be widely ignored - as it is in Lewisham for example

The reasons for a 20mph for motor vehicles would be entirely different than for bicycles, notwithstanding the difficulty of enforcing speed limits for bicycles.

Given than the average speed limit around London is around 12mph, and that lowering the maximum limit to 20mph could well increase that average (albeit counterintuitively), it's a little churlish to suggest that 20mph "sucks". Perhaps it does indeed suck not to be able to smash down the loud pedal between jams and lights, but then being a grown up is not always peaches and cream for tea.

I assume you mean the average traffic speed rather than speed limit.

What I'd love to see happen is cyclists riding well together (instead of competing) and on difficult/dangerous junctions, eg Vauxhall to ride 2-3 abreast to calm the motorised traffic behind and also look after cyclists who are not so fast/confident.

During commuting hours cyclists are blocked /forced into dangerous positioning because of heavy traffic. The majority of the vehicles are private cars carrying only one person. But the attitude is still that one driver has priority over 5+ cyclists. It is very odd.

What I'd love to see happen is cyclists riding well together (instead of competing) and on difficult/dangerous junctions, eg Vauxhall to ride 2-3 abreast to calm the motorised traffic behind and also look after cyclists who are not so fast/confident.

When you say "calm" do you mean "anger"?

Possibly "enrage"?

But car drivers are slower than cyclists. They're only fast at those junctions and get stuck in traffic jams 500m away. Do cyclists shout at drivers for creating traffic jams?

Oi!

I assume you mean the average traffic speed rather than speed limit.

What I'd love to see happen is cyclists riding well together (instead of competing) and on difficult/dangerous junctions, eg Vauxhall to ride 2-3 abreast to calm the motorised traffic behind and also look after cyclists who are not so fast/confident.

During commuting hours cyclists are blocked /forced into dangerous positioning because of heavy traffic. The majority of the vehicles are private cars carrying only one person. But the attitude is still that one driver has priority over 5+ cyclists. It is very odd.

From my experience cyclists do look out for each other, the ones who always wanna challenge or take risks are the ones one ill fitted bikes. Do you serious call these people on bikes cyclists? Or indeed those ones with extremely fancy bikes who properly went in evans and asked for the most expensive bike just because they have the money.

As for cyclists being forced into dangerous situation, I think a lot of drivers have a lot to answer for. They alaways stop at that 5m cycle box and so are focred to stay well in front of them or be at risk of getting knocked off onece the car turns. Once I had a bus driver insisted he has the right to stay in that cycle box and I was focred to stop in the middle of the crossing and the bus driver was slowly pushing me forward. Did I put myself in a dangerous situation or did the driver then?

Sadly as much as I would and I assumer many would like to cycle together like the London Freewheel event every single day, this is just not gonna happen simply because the number of asshole drivers totally outnumbered anything. I think many people should be banned from driving.

Why don't we introduce a blanket speed limit of 12 MPH?

If that is the current average anyway it surely makes sense?

How would you go about enforcement of this new limit?

I would imagine unless very vigorous enforcement was implemented then it would be widely ignored - as it is in Lewisham for example

This is a very good question. All models which suggest 20mph would make things better assume that such a limit would be obeyed. As no driver in London obeys the 30mph limit unless they have to this is an unwise assumption to make.

I accept the argument that if motor traffic was doing 20mph their journey times may actually improve. Traffic flow improvement can be counter-intuitive sometimes. But how do you make it do 20mph?

Though it would have a small effect on cyclist deaths by HGVs which have almost all been very low speed incidents at junctions and traffic lights.

However, we all know that the average speed of cars in London is 12mph. This means that average speed cameras won't work, as even with 50mph bursts between cameras, the likelihood of recording an average of above 20mph is slim. You would have to litter the city with cameras to cover every junction as well, or they are useless. The money simply isn't there.

Static speed cameras (e.g. Gatsos) are not only useless, but a menace to safety, as drivers simply drive as fast as they like, then slam the brakes on as they go past the camera.

You couldn't employ enough traffic police to do it.

Which leaves us with what we have now - self enforcing 20mph zones by means of "traffic calming" measures. All of which, in my opinion make cycling more dangerous, not less.

So what we would probably end up with is a 20mph limit that was routinely ignored, and either cars would "speed" at 30, rather than at 40 or 50 as happens now, or they would continue to speed at 40 or 50 and drivers would have even less respect for speed limits in general than they do now.

the same can be said for any proposed legislation to make cyclists more accountable. i.e. registration, insurance etc

they'll make no difference because if someone is jumping a red and there's no police to enforce it there and then what does having a number plate on the bike do to change things? very little because if the police are there to see it in the first place they would already have words with the cyclist.

even if some disgruntled cabbie/ped were to report the cyclist for an infringement it's their word against the others and any claim could easily be dismissed by the other party unless there was video/photographic proof or valid witnesses. even then the hassle of chasing prosecution will mean it has as few major outcomes as it does when cyclists report cabs/lorries.

tl;dr

basically legislation is only there for when someone needs to be punished when caught in the act, unless people agree to share the roads and behave like rational, unselfish arseholes very little will change regardless of what laws are laid down.

How would you go about enforcement of this new limit?

I would imagine unless very vigorous enforcement was implemented then it would be widely ignored - as it is in Lewisham for example

Hm, how about looooads of speed bumps? Ideally with gaps for bicycles...

http://blog.ghostbikes.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Gatso_Camera.jpg
http://www.p-wholesale.com/upimg/6/322a1/road-barrier-55.jpg

I'm sure that these two beauties could learn to talk together.

But car drivers are slower than cyclists. They're only fast at those junctions and get stuck in traffic jams 500m away. Do cyclists shout at drivers for creating traffic jams?

average speed of a motorised vehicles in central london - 7mph.

avertage speed of a cyclists in central london - 14mph.