Hypocrisy and the Law

W1

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

AndyManc wrote:

I don't condone RLJ because I despise motorists that do.

Of course motorists that do RLJ deserve to be hated, they are in a 1/2 ton - 40 ton killing machine.

I do sympathise with cyclists that do break the law because the infrastructure we have to deal with is not designed for cycling

+1 I don't RLJ (mainly because the next time I'm in a serious accident, I don't want my behaviour to be called into question), and I don't condone it. But I've encountered many situations where the infrastructure causes cyclists to be put in a more risky position by obeying the traffic light signals. It puts them right in front of an intimidating starting grid of cars, and I've seen less confident riders wobble off into the gutter under the pressure while drivers closely overtake/undertake them. Now this could just be the reality of what it is like to cycle in London; Always a struggle against motorists and the road infrastructure. Some people deal with that by flouting the rules, others by being better cyclists, but there will be a significant proportion that won't be able to deal with it at all and will either be scared away from cycling or heaven forbid become part of the RTA statistics

Most people who RLJ just do it because of convenience. I'm not defending that. But there are situations where having different phasing for cyclists would work out better for both us and the drivers. As it stands, the law doesn't always favour or protect us, so its no surprise that some people take a more laissez faire approach to the highway code.

It's chickens and eggs, people on bikes who rlj put themselves in danger and generally don't cause many accidents, it's not anywhere near a major factor. Speeding is different , the general rule is that the higher the speed the more accidents occur (and injuries and deaths)

Rubbish - motorways are the highest speed and have the lowest accident rate.

mybreakfastconsisted

W1 wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

AndyManc wrote:

I don't condone RLJ because I despise motorists that do.

Of course motorists that do RLJ deserve to be hated, they are in a 1/2 ton - 40 ton killing machine.

I do sympathise with cyclists that do break the law because the infrastructure we have to deal with is not designed for cycling

+1 I don't RLJ (mainly because the next time I'm in a serious accident, I don't want my behaviour to be called into question), and I don't condone it. But I've encountered many situations where the infrastructure causes cyclists to be put in a more risky position by obeying the traffic light signals. It puts them right in front of an intimidating starting grid of cars, and I've seen less confident riders wobble off into the gutter under the pressure while drivers closely overtake/undertake them. Now this could just be the reality of what it is like to cycle in London; Always a struggle against motorists and the road infrastructure. Some people deal with that by flouting the rules, others by being better cyclists, but there will be a significant proportion that won't be able to deal with it at all and will either be scared away from cycling or heaven forbid become part of the RTA statistics

Most people who RLJ just do it because of convenience. I'm not defending that. But there are situations where having different phasing for cyclists would work out better for both us and the drivers. As it stands, the law doesn't always favour or protect us, so its no surprise that some people take a more laissez faire approach to the highway code.

It's chickens and eggs, people on bikes who rlj put themselves in danger and generally don't cause many accidents, it's not anywhere near a major factor. Speeding is different , the general rule is that the higher the speed the more accidents occur (and injuries and deaths)

Rubbish - motorways are the highest speed and have the lowest accident rate.

That's the third fallacy you've posted in a row. Can you not, seriously, think of why there are so few cyclist/pedestrian, schoolchildren , pensioner fatalities on motorways?

rhext

Never quite understood what's wrong with 'arbitrary' speed limits. Risk is a continuum, you'd be a fool to argue that 30.01 MPH is significantly more dangerous than 29.99 MPH.

But the point about laws is that if they're to be of any use they have to be clear and enforceable. If you don't set these 'arbitrary' limits you have to leave it at the discretion of the police to decide whether or not you were driving recklessly. I'd rather have the arbitrary limits myself.

mybreakfastconsisted

rhext wrote:

Never quite understood what's wrong with 'arbitrary' speed limits. Risk is a continuum, you'd be a fool to argue that 30.01 MPH is significantly more dangerous than 29.99 MPH.

.

Nobody's argued it's "significantly" more dangerous. Just that risk increases with higher speeds.

W1

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

W1 wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

AndyManc wrote:

I don't condone RLJ because I despise motorists that do.

Of course motorists that do RLJ deserve to be hated, they are in a 1/2 ton - 40 ton killing machine.

I do sympathise with cyclists that do break the law because the infrastructure we have to deal with is not designed for cycling

+1 I don't RLJ (mainly because the next time I'm in a serious accident, I don't want my behaviour to be called into question), and I don't condone it. But I've encountered many situations where the infrastructure causes cyclists to be put in a more risky position by obeying the traffic light signals. It puts them right in front of an intimidating starting grid of cars, and I've seen less confident riders wobble off into the gutter under the pressure while drivers closely overtake/undertake them. Now this could just be the reality of what it is like to cycle in London; Always a struggle against motorists and the road infrastructure. Some people deal with that by flouting the rules, others by being better cyclists, but there will be a significant proportion that won't be able to deal with it at all and will either be scared away from cycling or heaven forbid become part of the RTA statistics

Most people who RLJ just do it because of convenience. I'm not defending that. But there are situations where having different phasing for cyclists would work out better for both us and the drivers. As it stands, the law doesn't always favour or protect us, so its no surprise that some people take a more laissez faire approach to the highway code.

It's chickens and eggs, people on bikes who rlj put themselves in danger and generally don't cause many accidents, it's not anywhere near a major factor. Speeding is different , the general rule is that the higher the speed the more accidents occur (and injuries and deaths)

Rubbish - motorways are the highest speed and have the lowest accident rate.

That's the third fallacy you've posted in a row. Can you not, seriously, think of why there are so few cyclist/pedestrian, schoolchildren , pensioner fatalities on motorways?

Just pointing out that what you said was balls. Sorry, a fallacy.

W1

rhext wrote:

Never quite understood what's wrong with 'arbitrary' speed limits. Risk is a continuum, you'd be a fool to argue that 30.01 MPH is significantly more dangerous than 29.99 MPH.

But the point about laws is that if they're to be of any use they have to be clear and enforceable. If you don't set these 'arbitrary' limits you have to leave it at the discretion of the police to decide whether or not you were driving recklessly. I'd rather have the arbitrary limits myself.

And I'd rather have a chap in a white cap (rather than a camera) to decide whether what someone is doing is actually dangerous, or merely in breach of an arbitrary figure.

To add, there's nothing wrong with an arbitrary figure (I mean, there has to be a limit), but those who slavishly bow down to them miss the point that they are generally just a convenient number and of themselves are not necesssarily "safe" or "dangerous" but that a number of other factors determine road safety. The speed kills mantra is churned out, but really it's bad driving that kills, and that can be above or below the set figure.

mybreakfastconsisted

Citing roads with, by definition, limited vulnerable road user interaction as 'evidence' that similar speeds where there ARE pedestrians must be safe is a quantum leap in logic and laughably inane, as well as dangerous.

rhext

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

rhext wrote:

Never quite understood what's wrong with 'arbitrary' speed limits. Risk is a continuum, you'd be a fool to argue that 30.01 MPH is significantly more dangerous than 29.99 MPH.

.

Nobody's argued it's "significantly" more dangerous. Just that risk increases with higher speeds.

I'm agreeing with you! W1 appears to be suggesting that the use of 'arbitrary' speed limits somehow justifies ignoring them. My point is that just because 29.99 MPH is not significantly more risky than 30.01 MPH doesn't mean that it's inappropriate to set and enforce a speed limit of 30 MPH. The fact that there's no 'step change' in risk is often used as an argument to justify why speed limits should be increased or replaced with driver discretion. As far as I'm concerned that's an irrelevance: the fact is that there is no step change, risk increases gradually with speed and if we're going to prevent mayhem, we have to draw an arbitrary line somewhere....

mybreakfastconsisted

rhext wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

rhext wrote:

Never quite understood what's wrong with 'arbitrary' speed limits. Risk is a continuum, you'd be a fool to argue that 30.01 MPH is significantly more dangerous than 29.99 MPH.

.

Nobody's argued it's "significantly" more dangerous. Just that risk increases with higher speeds.

I'm agreeing with you! W1 appears to be suggesting that the use of 'arbitrary' speed limits somehow justifies ignoring them. My point is that just because 29.99 MPH is not significantly more risky than 30.01 MPH doesn't mean that it's inappropriate to set and enforce a speed limit of 30 MPH. The fact that there's no 'step change' in risk is often used as an argument to justify why speed limits should be increased or replaced with driver discretion. As far as I'm concerned that's an irrelevance: the fact is that there is no step change, risk increases gradually with speed and if we're going to prevent mayhem, we have to draw an arbitrary line somewhere....

Beg your pardon, I see your point.

spen666

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Citing roads with, by definition, limited vulnerable road user interaction as 'evidence' that similar speeds where there ARE pedestrians must be safe is a quantum leap in logic and laughably inane, as well as dangerous.

Sadly Bimbly, it is you whose logic is laughably inane.

The fact that there are lower casualy figures on the fastest road type proves as has been said that it is not speed that is the only factor in accident casualty rates.

You are in your post whilst purporting to call the op inane, but also backing up his statement

rhext

W1 wrote:

rhext wrote:

Never quite understood what's wrong with 'arbitrary' speed limits. Risk is a continuum, you'd be a fool to argue that 30.01 MPH is significantly more dangerous than 29.99 MPH.

But the point about laws is that if they're to be of any use they have to be clear and enforceable. If you don't set these 'arbitrary' limits you have to leave it at the discretion of the police to decide whether or not you were driving recklessly. I'd rather have the arbitrary limits myself.

And I'd rather have a chap in a white cap (rather than a camera) to decide whether what someone is doing is actually dangerous, or merely in breach of an arbitrary figure.

To add, there's nothing wrong with an arbitrary figure (I mean, there has to be a limit), but those who slavishly bow down to them miss the point that they are generally just a convenient number and of themselves are not necesssarily "safe" or "dangerous" but that a number of other factors determine road safety. The speed kills mantra is churned out, but really it's bad driving that kills, and that can be above or below the set figure.

Yes, you see that's the other argument used by the 'all motorists can be trusted to drive responsibly (in the face of all the evidence)' brigade.

I'd also rather have a completely trustworthy and unbiased chap in a white cap sitting in judgement over me (why wouldn't I, I'm white, male, middle class, don't drive flash car, and could be fairly certain I'd not be discriminated against). But I'm also a taxpayer, and I certainly don't want to have to pay this chap's (and his numerous colleagues) salary. Nor do I particularly want to pay the legal fees required to support the protracted debates about whether or not his judgement was sound.

mybreakfastconsisted

spen666 wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Citing roads with, by definition, limited vulnerable road user interaction as 'evidence' that similar speeds where there ARE pedestrians must be safe is a quantum leap in logic and laughably inane, as well as dangerous.

Sadly Bimbly, it is you whose logic is laughably inane.

The fact that there are lower casualy figures on the fastest road type proves as has been said that it is not speed that is the only factor in accident casualty rates.

You are in your post whilst purporting to call the op inane, but also backing up his statement

Perhaps you can show me where I said speed is the "only" factor?

Thought not.


Saying speeding is safe because motorways have low accident rates is not really helpful to me since I don't cycle on motorways, I cycle on roads where there are any number of interactions you simply don't get on mways.

W1

rhext wrote:

Yes, you see that's the other argument used by the 'all motorists can be trusted to drive responsibly (in the face of all the evidence)' brigade.

I'd also rather have a completely trustworthy and unbiased chap in a white cap sitting in judgement over me (why wouldn't I, I'm white, male, middle class, don't drive flash car, and could be fairly certain I'd not be discriminated against). But I'm also a taxpayer, and I certainly don't want to have to pay this chap's (and his numerous colleagues) salary. Nor do I particularly want to pay the legal fees required to support the protracted debates about whether or not his judgement was sound.

I don't think that "'all motorists can be trusted to drive responsibly". Quite the opposite. And that's why I'd rather have the chap in the cap, because he's not a one-trick speeding pony (which the speed kills camp think is the be all and end all) but can also get your dangerous, drunk, uninsured, stoned, blind, stupid and reckless driver at the same time. I think he therefore presents much better value for money than a camera. AND he can use his judgement.

greg66_tri_v2.0

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

I don't cycle on motorways, I cycle on roads where there are any number of interactions you simply don't get on mways.

Is there no chance that we can't persuade you to have a go?

Go on. You know you want to.

rhext

spen666 wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Citing roads with, by definition, limited vulnerable road user interaction as 'evidence' that similar speeds where there ARE pedestrians must be safe is a quantum leap in logic and laughably inane, as well as dangerous.

Sadly Bimbly, it is you whose logic is laughably inane.

The fact that there are lower casualy figures on the fastest road type proves as has been said that it is not speed that is the only factor in accident casualty rates.

You are in your post whilst purporting to call the op inane, but also backing up his statement

Oh, go on then, I'll bite.

Risk is related to a number of factors, one of which is speed. To cite low casualty figures on motorways to justify a position that speed isn't a factor ignores the interaction between speed and all the other factors. Let's complete the logic chain shall we....

Speed limits in town are 30 MPH, most accidents happen in town, speed limits on motorways are 70 MPH, fewest accidents happen on motorways, therefore if we increase the speed limit in town to 70MPH we should see a reduction in casualties.....

The other logical fallacy: enforcing speed limits doesn't do anything to deal with the other risk factors (eg bad driving); therefore we shouldn't bother enforcing speed limits. It's rubbish!

spen666

rhext wrote:

spen666 wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Citing roads with, by definition, limited vulnerable road user interaction as 'evidence' that similar speeds where there ARE pedestrians must be safe is a quantum leap in logic and laughably inane, as well as dangerous.

Sadly Bimbly, it is you whose logic is laughably inane.

The fact that there are lower casualy figures on the fastest road type proves as has been said that it is not speed that is the only factor in accident casualty rates.

You are in your post whilst purporting to call the op inane, but also backing up his statement

Oh, go on then, I'll bite.

Risk is related to a number of factors, one of which is speed. To cite low casualty figures on motorways to justify a position that speed isn't a factor ignores the interaction between speed and all the other factors. Let's complete the logic chain shall we....

Speed limits in town are 30 MPH, most accidents happen in town, speed limits on motorways are 70 MPH, fewest accidents happen on motorways, therefore if we increase the speed limit in town to 70MPH we should see a reduction in casualties.....

The other logical fallacy: enforcing speed limits doesn't do anything to deal with the other risk factors (eg bad driving); therefore we shouldn't bother enforcing speed limits. It's rubbish!

Think you are inventing things to argue against.

no one has said that speed is not a factor in accidents.

No one has said that speed limits should be increased in towns


You are falling for the mantra that speed = accidents.

Speed & other factors = accidents

it is impossible to ignore the other factors

rhext

W1 wrote:

rhext wrote:

Yes, you see that's the other argument used by the 'all motorists can be trusted to drive responsibly (in the face of all the evidence)' brigade.

I'd also rather have a completely trustworthy and unbiased chap in a white cap sitting in judgement over me (why wouldn't I, I'm white, male, middle class, don't drive flash car, and could be fairly certain I'd not be discriminated against). But I'm also a taxpayer, and I certainly don't want to have to pay this chap's (and his numerous colleagues) salary. Nor do I particularly want to pay the legal fees required to support the protracted debates about whether or not his judgement was sound.

I don't think that "'all motorists can be trusted to drive responsibly". Quite the opposite. And that's why I'd rather have the chap in the cap, because he's not a one-trick speeding pony (which the speed kills camp think is the be all and end all) but can also get your dangerous, drunk, uninsured, stoned, blind, stupid and reckless driver at the same time. I think he therefore presents much better value for money than a camera. AND he can use his judgement.

It's not 'either/or' though is it? We've got chaps in caps: they're called police. If you have stretches of road where speeding is known to be a particular risk factor, why would you tie up an expensive copper to monitor them, when you can just stick up a camera. In fact, why is it then wrong to use the revenues generated from fines to pay for a few more chaps in caps to detect the bad behaviours that camera's can't spot?

rhext

spen666 wrote:

rhext wrote:

spen666 wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Citing roads with, by definition, limited vulnerable road user interaction as 'evidence' that similar speeds where there ARE pedestrians must be safe is a quantum leap in logic and laughably inane, as well as dangerous.

Sadly Bimbly, it is you whose logic is laughably inane.

The fact that there are lower casualy figures on the fastest road type proves as has been said that it is not speed that is the only factor in accident casualty rates.

You are in your post whilst purporting to call the op inane, but also backing up his statement

Oh, go on then, I'll bite.

Risk is related to a number of factors, one of which is speed. To cite low casualty figures on motorways to justify a position that speed isn't a factor ignores the interaction between speed and all the other factors. Let's complete the logic chain shall we....

Speed limits in town are 30 MPH, most accidents happen in town, speed limits on motorways are 70 MPH, fewest accidents happen on motorways, therefore if we increase the speed limit in town to 70MPH we should see a reduction in casualties.....

The other logical fallacy: enforcing speed limits doesn't do anything to deal with the other risk factors (eg bad driving); therefore we shouldn't bother enforcing speed limits. It's rubbish!

Think you are inventing things to argue against.

no one has said that speed is not a factor in accidents.

No one has said that speed limits should be increased in towns


You are falling for the mantra that speed = accidents.

Speed & other factors = accidents

it is impossible to ignore the other factors

I agree, but I still don't think that makes speed limit enforcement (by whatever means) a bad thing to do!

spen666

rhext wrote:

spen666 wrote:

rhext wrote:

spen666 wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Citing roads with, by definition, limited vulnerable road user interaction as 'evidence' that similar speeds where there ARE pedestrians must be safe is a quantum leap in logic and laughably inane, as well as dangerous.

Sadly Bimbly, it is you whose logic is laughably inane.

The fact that there are lower casualy figures on the fastest road type proves as has been said that it is not speed that is the only factor in accident casualty rates.

You are in your post whilst purporting to call the op inane, but also backing up his statement

Oh, go on then, I'll bite.

Risk is related to a number of factors, one of which is speed. To cite low casualty figures on motorways to justify a position that speed isn't a factor ignores the interaction between speed and all the other factors. Let's complete the logic chain shall we....

Speed limits in town are 30 MPH, most accidents happen in town, speed limits on motorways are 70 MPH, fewest accidents happen on motorways, therefore if we increase the speed limit in town to 70MPH we should see a reduction in casualties.....

The other logical fallacy: enforcing speed limits doesn't do anything to deal with the other risk factors (eg bad driving); therefore we shouldn't bother enforcing speed limits. It's rubbish!

Think you are inventing things to argue against.

no one has said that speed is not a factor in accidents.

No one has said that speed limits should be increased in towns


You are falling for the mantra that speed = accidents.

Speed & other factors = accidents

it is impossible to ignore the other factors

I agree, but I still don't think that makes speed limit enforcement (by whatever means) a bad thing to do!

I think you will find you are again inventing things to argue against

I have not once in this thread commented on the merits or otherwise of enforcing speed limits.

bigmat

Greg66 wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

I don't cycle on motorways, I cycle on roads where there are any number of interactions you simply don't get on mways.

Is there no chance that we can't persuade you to have a go?

Go on. You know you want to.

dodgy double negative Mr grammar pedant!

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Most people who RLJ just do it because of convenience. I'm not defending that. But there are situations where having different phasing for cyclists would work out better for both us and the drivers. As it stands, the law doesn't always favour or protect us, so its no surprise that some people take a more laissez faire approach to the highway code.

I agree with much of that. But for reasons that you already know (albeit don't agree with), it is far easier to argue for better facilities without all the nay-sayers bleating about RLJers. For example the parts of CS8 that I ride are fantastic - a really good facility. It would be easier, I think, for more money to be invested in cycling if "people" generally had a good opinion of cyclists.

Well we have polar opposite opinions on this. But I'll restate mine for the hell of it. The "people" who post the usual squalid bull$hit about cyclists running red lights, holding up traffic and riding on the pavement terrorising WWI Veterans in every comment box associated with a story about cycling, will do so even if its counter to their real world experience (which it generally is).

Luckily, cyclists are getting more of a voice (in London at least) about facilities, as the issue of the Blackfriars Bridge redevelopment shows. And this will happen more often as we reach a critical mass.

W1 wrote:

As you said, RLJers do so far more for convenience than anything else, so I think it's hard to find any really good examples where being "laisse faire" with the HC is due to safety. There's rarely a reason why getting off and walking isn't an option.

I think you've missed my (badly made) point. Poor road infrastructure means that for some the path of least resistance leads them to break the law. Inexperienced cyclists who stick rigidly to the law often expose themselves to dangerous situations simply because of how many roads are designed.

What we need is for road design to take into account even the most inexperienced cyclist so that they are not unnecessarily exposed to risk, and aren't tempted to break the law to feel safe (I'm talking about riding on the pavement, being in front of the stop line etc. here).

notsoblue

Keith1983 wrote:

I think we've lost some perspective here people. The issue for some may be that it is black and white and that laws should not be broken, by any amount at any time by any person and if that is your stance then good luck to you trying to live by your own standards. There is a reason that sentences for different crimes are different as the severity of the crime is different. I don't like RLJers as their actions potentially cause a serious traffic accident which will at least inconvenience lots of people and at worst will mean a car driver will have to live with the memory of killing someone. To me the gains don't justify the risk, this is why I don't like RLJers and don't do it myself. simples!

+1, But at least you aren't the kind of person who sympathises with or panders to the type of hateful dribbling moron who posts anti cyclist cr4p on the Daily Mail......are you?

mybreakfastconsisted

Boris has just rejected a 20mph limit on Blackfriar's Bridge:

http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/5413

SimonAH

"My information is that the general speed [on Blackfriars Bridge] is nearer 12 miles an hour, therefore a speed limit of 20 mph isn't necessary

rhext

spen666 wrote:

rhext wrote:

spen666 wrote:

rhext wrote:

spen666 wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Citing roads with, by definition, limited vulnerable road user interaction as 'evidence' that similar speeds where there ARE pedestrians must be safe is a quantum leap in logic and laughably inane, as well as dangerous.

Sadly Bimbly, it is you whose logic is laughably inane.

The fact that there are lower casualy figures on the fastest road type proves as has been said that it is not speed that is the only factor in accident casualty rates.

You are in your post whilst purporting to call the op inane, but also backing up his statement

Oh, go on then, I'll bite.

Risk is related to a number of factors, one of which is speed. To cite low casualty figures on motorways to justify a position that speed isn't a factor ignores the interaction between speed and all the other factors. Let's complete the logic chain shall we....

Speed limits in town are 30 MPH, most accidents happen in town, speed limits on motorways are 70 MPH, fewest accidents happen on motorways, therefore if we increase the speed limit in town to 70MPH we should see a reduction in casualties.....

The other logical fallacy: enforcing speed limits doesn't do anything to deal with the other risk factors (eg bad driving); therefore we shouldn't bother enforcing speed limits. It's rubbish!

Think you are inventing things to argue against.

no one has said that speed is not a factor in accidents.

No one has said that speed limits should be increased in towns


You are falling for the mantra that speed = accidents.

Speed & other factors = accidents

it is impossible to ignore the other factors

I agree, but I still don't think that makes speed limit enforcement (by whatever means) a bad thing to do!

I think you will find you are again inventing things to argue against

I have not once in this thread commented on the merits or otherwise of enforcing speed limits.

So what is your point then?

I don't support the mantra 'speed = accidents'. My position is 'all other things being equal, the faster you drive the higher the probability of an accident'.

spen666

rhext wrote:

...So what is your point then?

I don't support the mantra 'speed = accidents'. My position is 'all other things being equal, the faster you drive the higher the probability of an accident'.

All other things are not equal though, so its no use people pretending they are

rhext

spen666 wrote:

rhext wrote:

...So what is your point then?

I don't support the mantra 'speed = accidents'. My position is 'all other things being equal, the faster you drive the higher the probability of an accident'.

All other things are not equal though, so its no use people pretending they are

I don't think we are pretending that they are. That's why we have different speed limits for different types of road, and sometimes even for different traffic conditions on those roads. All I'm saying is that

a) it's appropriate (indeed necessary) to assign a relatively arbitrary speed limit to a given section of road.

b) it's not inappropriate to enforce that speed limit, even if that enforcement doesn't necessarily remove all of the possible factors which cause increased risk to the driver and to other road users.

notsoblue

SimonAH wrote:

"My information is that the general speed [on Blackfriars Bridge] is nearer 12 miles an hour, therefore a speed limit of 20 mph isn't necessary

Ugh. Thats a shame. Jenny Jones did a great job of putting the argument forward. Its disappointing that Johnson tried to derailed her every opportunity he got. He got away with totally disregarding the TFL research.

mybreakfastconsisted

Boris.


Funny on chat shows, but would you send him to Tescos with a list?

rhext

SimonAH wrote:

"My information is that the general speed [on Blackfriars Bridge] is nearer 12 miles an hour, therefore a speed limit of 20 mph isn't necessary

That's typical politician bull***t. I'd counter that by asking 'if the general speed on Blackfriar's Bridge is 12MPH then the general motorist won't be affected by a 20MPH speed limit will they? So you might as well impose one and make life safer for pedestrians and cyclists using the bridge on those rare occasions when the traffic frees up enough to give people a bit of space to floor the accelerator'.