Cyclists exceeding 20mph speed limit labelled "anti-social"

fatsmoker
fatsmoker Posts: 585
edited November 2013 in Road general
http://www.bikeradar.com/road/news/article/cyclists-exceeding-20mph-speed-limit-labelled-anti-social-38923/

Surely one of the great joys in life is to overtake cars :)
Shame i rarely manage to get above 18mph :(

Comments

  • Not a commuter but I have been through 20mph zones myself a few times and always watch my speed.

    Mainly because the road and conditions dictate 20 and below anyway. Usually 20 zones are built up residential streets with parked cars, short stints between junctions and kids/animals etc around. at 20+ is a bit too fast IMO.
  • ddraver
    ddraver Posts: 26,388
    They ve got a point I'm afraid...
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • Agreed, although cyclists don't have to stick to the limit, it's sensible for them to do so, as there's a reason there is a limit there.

    Having said that, lost count of the number of times I've been doing e.g. 24mph in a 20 zone, yet cars are still overtaking me.
  • kwi
    kwi Posts: 181
    That's because police don't enforce them.
    http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/p ... its-36634/
  • slowbike
    slowbike Posts: 8,498
    My local city has made all non-major roads a 20mph limit .. I don't tend to cycle there anyway, but if I did venture down and found myself catching cars then I'd be happy to sit up - often you're not going to be going fast enough to safely overtake the cars anyway.

    And - does anyone know the legality of the 20mph limit? I came back one route (by car) that has 20mph painted on the roads, but no signs (ala 40mph signs) and no repeaters ... does that mean that the 20mph is advisory only?
  • There are two types of 20mph limit.

    20mph 'zones' which have a pair of 20mph signs on entry to the zone and will have traffic calming throughout.

    20mph limits which are the same as any other limit, and must be signed as a deviation from the normal 30mph limit (assuming street lighting is present).

    Any numbers painted onto the roads have no meaning beyond being paint on the road.
  • slowbike
    slowbike Posts: 8,498
    Any numbers painted onto the roads have no meaning beyond being paint on the road.
    Ah - that's ok then ... it can only be advisory .. :) Good - because doing 20 through most of there was totally pointless
  • Wirral_paul
    Wirral_paul Posts: 2,476
    I guess the 20mph limit breakers could get charged with the law of "furious cycling"!!

    Actually - hands up if you'd like to be convicted of "furious cycling" :D:D It would be a proper cyclists badge of honour - just like an ASBO is to a hoodie!! ;);)

    (take that all in the manner intended - i'm not being serious :) )
  • lawrences
    lawrences Posts: 1,011
    I guess the 20mph limit breakers could get charged with the law of "furious cycling"!!

    Actually - hands up if you'd like to be convicted of "furious cycling" :D:D It would be a proper cyclists badge of honour - just like an ASBO is to a hoodie!! ;);)

    (take that all in the manner intended - i'm not being serious :) )

    Unfortunately the whole Furious cycling thing is a bit of a myth.
  • Wirral_paul
    Wirral_paul Posts: 2,476
    lawrences wrote:
    I guess the 20mph limit breakers could get charged with the law of "furious cycling"!!

    Actually - hands up if you'd like to be convicted of "furious cycling" :D:D It would be a proper cyclists badge of honour - just like an ASBO is to a hoodie!! ;);)

    (take that all in the manner intended - i'm not being serious :) )

    Unfortunately the whole Furious cycling thing is a bit of a myth.

    Wanton and Furious Cycling then.... near enough? :D:D

    http://road.cc/content/news/98005-man-court-wanton-and-furious%E2%80%99-cycling-charge
  • diy
    diy Posts: 6,473
    20 Zones are just a box ticking exercise for councils that fail to understand that most accidents are about concentration and inattention, not free travelling speed. 20 zones do nothing for road safety other than make people feel the slower they drive the safer they will be.

    Would personally rather drivers watch the road and drive at 30-35 than talk on their phones or text while driving in 20 zones. 20 mph is ridiculously slow 24/7. There may be less than 4 hours a day when that limit is appropriate.

    Personally I preferred the days when we had restricted and de-restricted roads and very little else. Then drivers set their speed according to the conditions instead of relying on the limit.

    Sorry but the cycle lobby should have thought this lot through when they set out to join in on the war on the motorists in the 0ies
  • diy
    diy Posts: 6,473
    Yep - I was involved in quite a bit of road safety work back then when teaching with plod and other advanced driving establishments and every single community lobby had a beardy wierdy sandal wearing cycling group campaigning for lower limits, more cameras and traffic calming. That is when social engineering became a major feature in road design and speed limit setting.

    Doing away with the previous policy set in 1991 based on the theoretical 85%ile and moving to avg speed meant that speed limits could repeatedly get cut every time a survey was run.
  • kwi
    kwi Posts: 181
    I recall reading about a traffic experiment in Germany where all traffic signs, restrictions, road marking, traffic lights etc have been removed. roads got safer for everyone and drivers became more courteous.
  • slowbike
    slowbike Posts: 8,498
    Why do they need funding to make it a free space?
  • kwi
    kwi Posts: 181
    Education, removal of existing systems and new signage. Seems a lot but working for a council I know how quickly public money can be spent.
  • This article has the distinct odour of motorist jealousy to me, as if a cyclist overtaking a car is upsetting the natrual order of things, is wrong and needs addressing.

    I thought some of the alleged justification for the 20mph limits is a big jump in serious injuries and fatalities at 30mph+ compared to 20mph. Show me all these cases of cyclists travelling at 20+ actually causing any problem other than embarrassement for drivers? I agree cycling along shared paths at 20mph or over is wrong, but on the road? Non issue, and as already mentioned there needs to be much more focus on actually enforcing the 20mph for motorists as they are the ones causing the harm.

    I could even argue the fact cyclists are exempt from the 20mph limits may contribute towards achieving the modal shift from driving to cycling, it may incentivize white van/gti/bmw man to take up cycling so they can bvreak the speed limits with impunity :twisted: . They would need to achieve a decent level of fitness to be a ble to consistently go more than 20mph and this may affect drastic lifestyle change and a significantly reduced burden on the NHS in terms of the costs of inactivity and obesity :D
  • kwi wrote:
    I recall reading about a traffic experiment in Germany where all traffic signs, restrictions, road marking, traffic lights etc have been removed. roads got safer for everyone and drivers became more courteous.
    isn't there somewhere in the UK where they trialled this?
  • Shared space. The examples have shown it to work - for about a day or two until drivers get used to the new arrangements, then it's far far worse for everyone concerned. As instead "might is right" takes over and cars rule the roost with pedestrians push to the absolute margins.
  • slowbike
    slowbike Posts: 8,498
    kwi wrote:
    Education, removal of existing systems and new signage. Seems a lot but working for a council I know how quickly public money can be wasted.
    Corrected that for you ... I used to work for a local council ... fortunately not the one where I lived - the amount of money wasted was shameful.
  • kwi
    kwi Posts: 181
    :D:lol::D
  • Thankfully this does seem to be changing, excruciatingly slowly but FOI and the likes of social media is starting to shine a light on this sort of thing.
  • diy
    diy Posts: 6,473
    "Confusion" between Impact speed and free traveling speed is one of the great "speed kills" cons.

    Cutting free traveling speed only works if impact speed is also reduced. We know that drivers concentrate less when their speed falls below the 85th percentile and significantly below the 50th based on research. What we don't know is how much that lack of concentration adds to accident risk and reaction times. If we add half a second then we pretty much consume all the benefit of the slower initial speed.