pokemonsuper9
Established Member
DownhillWhen in practice would a cyclist even be able to surpass 20mph? Probably not often
DownhillWhen in practice would a cyclist even be able to surpass 20mph? Probably not often
Cyclists are not subject to the 20 mph as it applies to motorised vehicles only.
This does seem to be turning into an echo chamber for the motoring lobby (can you have a chamber that's a lobby??). I remember that as a pedestrian, my chances of surviving being hit by a car at 20mph are eight times higher than at 30mph. Turning all 30mph zones into 20mph ones doesn't make sense, but where cars and pedestrians interact frequently with each other (as in many town centres and housing estates) 20mph zones make perfect sense. And the fact that drivers frequently exceed speed limits is no argument at all.
That is even more justification for 20mph limits. Given that so many wilfully exceed the 30mph limits, the probability of surviving a collision is even greater at many drivers' idea of 30mph than actually at 20mph.... And the fact that drivers frequently exceed speed limits is no argument at all.
I normally cruise along at 15 mph. I can get well into the 30s going down a steep hill. Not unusual to overtake a few cars, especially as they crawl past the speed camera at 20. In general though, it has made no difference to my day to day life on my bike. The idiots are still idiots and everyone else is still fine.When in practice would a cyclist even be able to surpass 20mph? Probably not often
When in practice would a cyclist even be able to surpass 20mph? Probably not often
People out riding expensive road bikes perhaps, but hardly any utility cyclists will come close to 20 except down a decent hillVery common. A road bike can easily be exceeding 20 mph on the level and quite probably touching or exceeding 30 mph going downhill, especially if the wind direction is favourable. 40 mph is pushing it, but can be done on a decent downhill.
People out riding expensive road bikes perhaps, but hardly any utility cyclists will come close to 20 except down a decent hill
Ok, what proportion of cyclists do you think could be capable of that sort of speed on a flat road? I don't think it's many, especially not of people just going to work or the shopsNot really true, I am very often up to 20 mph on the Brompton in London, and that’s hardly a speed bike, nor particularly uncommon.
I once reached 56 mph on a long downhill. That was a touring bike, not a racer with skinny tyres. (It was a wide straight road with no potholes or side turnings.)Very common. A road bike can easily be exceeding 20 mph on the level and quite probably touching or exceeding 30 mph going downhill, especially if the wind direction is favourable. 40 mph is pushing it, but can be done on a decent downhill.
More relevantly the riders who go at that speed probably aren’t bothered by the difference between 20 and 30 - it’s aimed at current and potential utility cyclists. The irony being that all the campaigning actually puts them off with all the shouting about it being lethal out there and they need a helmet.Ok, what proportion of cyclists do you think could be capable of that sort of speed on a flat road? I don't think it's many, especially not of people just going to work or the shops
Seems to be partly down to the replacement of former transport minister Lee Waters, who resigned at the same time as Mark Drakeford retired from being FM.They aren't dropping the policy they are reducing the number of roads it applies to by giving councils discretion. You are probably right that eventually, with strict enforcement it could have become the norm in all built up areas. However, Wales is a democracy and Labour maintains dominance by occasionally backing down when something is very unpopular. More residents of Wales signed the petition than vote Labour. I think the Welsh Labour Party has correctly read public opinion. There was strong support for 20 mph in some areas, moderate support in others and opposition to applying it to main roads (away from schools etc). Watering down the policy should mostly remove it from the political debate while bringing most of the safety benefits of the original plan. The best option would have been to give councils discretion in the first place.
Ok, what proportion of cyclists do you think could be capable of that sort of speed on a flat road? I don't think it's many, especially not of people just going to work or the shops
Ok, what proportion of cyclists do you think could be capable of that sort of speed on a flat road? I don't think it's many, especially not of people just going to work or the shops
I think many people underestimate how fast cycles can travel. Which possibly explains some of the ill-judged overtaking that goes on.
10 years going by the lifespan of a London busIs it that ridiculous that the mode of transport that poses a far lower risk to other road users is allowed to go faster?
To be fair it won't be long before all London buses are full electric.
Exactly this. Several people in work express disbelief that I ride along busy roads. And yet here I am, having been doing so for 25 years, the first 12 without a helmet. In my experience the biggest risk is at junctions where speeds are low anyway. Not many cyclists are being rear ended at speed on a straight road.The irony being that all the campaigning actually puts them off with all the shouting about it being lethal out there and they need a helmet.
From my observations, there are more illegal electric bikes on the road than legal ones. Most of them have no trouble going at 30 or more.(Legal) electric bikes are actually the hardest to get over 20 mph as the motor cuts out at 25 km/h by law, meaning you are left to propel a heavy bike under your own steam. Obviously the many illegal ones out there don't have such a limitation.
Exactly this. Several people in work express disbelief that I ride along busy roads. And yet here I am, having been doing so for 25 years, the first 12 without a helmet. In my experience the biggest risk is at junctions where speeds are low anyway. Not many cyclists are being rear ended at speed on a straight road.
OK! I clearly need to work on my fitness then, I ride my bike a fair bit but my average speeds tend to 15-18mph.No idea, however I can do it pretty readily, so we aren’t talking about something that requires superhuman levels of fitness. And just from experience around London observing cyclists around where I work, I’d say 20 mph isn’t unusual by any means.
When I cycle home from work, it’s quite common to get an *average* speed of 17-18mph, which includes stops. Once out of town I will typically get five consecutive miles where speed never drops below 20 mph, and is typically likely to reach about 32 in a couple of places. And this is without any major assisting gradients.
I think many people underestimate how fast cycles can travel. Which possibly explains some of the ill-judged overtaking that goes on.
(I’ve attached a speed graph from my most recent utility cycle. As can be seen, there’s a fair proportion above 20 mph).
My boss drove less than a couple of miles to work as he said it was too far to walk.Exactly this. Several people in work express disbelief that I ride along busy roads. And yet here I am, having been doing so for 25 years, the first 12 without a helmet. In my experience the biggest risk is at junctions where speeds are low anyway. Not many cyclists are being rear ended at speed on a straight road.
That sort of language exacerbates the friction. The speed limit policy is to improve pedestrian/cyclist safety, - it doesn't prevent powered road vehicles from using the road, it merely encourages some respect for other road users. It may involve a sacrifice of few minutes of motorists' precious time, but against the safety of others that is only a real issue for a very small but vociferous proportion of them.Draconian anti car policies such as blanket 20 limits just reinforce the them and us, and harm the cause.
That sort of language exacerbates the friction. The speed limit policy is to improve pedestrian/cyclist safety, - it doesn't prevent powered road vehicles from using the road, it merely encourages some respect for other road users. It may involve a sacrifice of few minutes of motorists' precious time, but against the safety of others that is only a real issue for a very small but vociferous proportion of them.
How much does it improve safety? Has a cost benefit analysis been done to show that it’s worth the extra journey times (it may only be a few minutes, but that’s a few minutes on locals every journey multiplied by lots of people)?That sort of language exacerbates the friction. The speed limit policy is to improve pedestrian/cyclist safety, - it doesn't prevent powered road vehicles from using the road, it merely encourages some respect for other road users. It may involve a sacrifice of few minutes of motorists' precious time, but against the safety of others that is only a real issue for a very small but vociferous proportion of them.
I don't know just how much safety improvement (in terms of near misses, actual collisions and KSI events), so I wouldn't make assertions just to amplify comments on social media here. However, slightly more time spent on journeys through roads that have more restrictions than some drivers would prefer does not simply translate to a direct cost when the full human impact is included.How much does it improve safety? Has a cost benefit analysis been done to show that it’s worth the extra journey times (it may only be a few minutes, but that’s a few minutes on locals every journey multiplied by lots of people)?
I'm not convinced that additional time is that significant, particularly on some roads in Wales where the actual average speed when a 30 mph limit was nowhere near that figure, and the actual speed was much nearer the new 20mph limit since it was changed. Then there's the actual speed when a 30mph limit road isn't heavily loaded where speeds are consistently heading towards the 40mph level, effectively invalidating any case for 30mph being as safe as body collision tests indicate. Essentially, forget the actual number on the signs, look at the speed that a significant number of drivers actually do, and adjust the legal limit to bring that down to the appropriate safety aspirations.If you are building a road you put a value on time saved for the business case - it’s crazy not to do that when you are adding journey time.
I don't know just how much safety improvement (in terms of near misses, actual collisions and KSI events), so I wouldn't make assertions just to amplify comments on social media here. However, slightly more time spent on journeys through roads that have more restrictions than some drivers would prefer does not simply translate to a direct cost when the full human impact is included.
I'm not convinced that additional time is that significant, particularly on some roads in Wales where the actual average speed when a 30 mph limit was nowhere near that figure, and the actual speed was much nearer the new 20mph limit since it was changed. Then there's the actual speed when a 30mph limit road isn't heavily loaded where speeds are consistently heading towards the 40mph level, effectively invalidating any case for 30mph being as safe as body collision tests indicate. Essentially, forget the actual number on the signs, look at the speed that a significant number of drivers actually do, and adjust the legal limit to bring that down to the appropriate safety aspirations.
There is no "anti-car" policy, merely a well-founded intent on making roads safer for all, i.e. not just motorists in their protective boxes.
He shouldn't be sweating after a two mile ride unless it's all uphill. Summer heatwaves can be hard work but I leave slightly earlier and take it easy. The car would not be much better as it would be roasting for half the journey before the air con or open windows had much effect.My boss drove less than a couple of miles to work as he said it was too far to walk.
I suggested a bike and he responded that he didn’t want to have to have a shower when he got to the office. Because of all the campaigning for showers in workplaces for cyclists he assumed you always needed one if you cycled in.
Draconian anti car policies such as blanket 20 limits just reinforce the them and us, and harm the cause.
He shouldn't be sweating after a two mile ride unless it's all uphill. Summer heatwaves can be hard work but I leave slightly earlier and take it easy. The car would not be much better as it would be roasting for half the journey before the air con or open windows had much effect.
I expect we will have some numbers in a few years but, from my personal perspective, it appears to have made little difference. The people that blatantly drove more than 30 still do so. Those that pass too close when overtaking still do so. I've reached the point that I don't really care so long as they don't collide with me. It's never going to change so I either need to accept it or stop cycling.I don't know just how much safety improvement (in terms of near misses, actual collisions and KSI events), so I wouldn't make assertions just to amplify comments on social media here. However, slightly more time spent on journeys through roads that have more restrictions than some drivers would prefer does not simply translate to a direct cost when the full human impact is included.
I'm not convinced that additional time is that significant, particularly on some roads in Wales where the actual average speed when a 30 mph limit was nowhere near that figure, and the actual speed was much nearer the new 20mph limit since it was changed. Then there's the actual speed when a 30mph limit road isn't heavily loaded where speeds are consistently heading towards the 40mph level, effectively invalidating any case for 30mph being as safe as body collision tests indicate. Essentially, forget the actual number on the signs, look at the speed that a significant number of drivers actually do, and adjust the legal limit to bring that down to the appropriate safety aspirations.
There is no "anti-car" policy, merely a well-founded intent on making roads safer for all, i.e. not just motorists in their protective boxes.
Fair point but then they would also sweat walking two miles, or in an overheated car, or in hot weather generally. Most people of working age should be able to cycle two miles without problem.Not sure, some people end up in a significant sweat just climbing up the stairs to my second-floor office. But perhaps if they invested more time in meaningful exercise (as opposed to the faux-exercise which became fashionable during Covid times!) then they wouldn’t!
So if you stop doing what you need to be reasonably safe from law breaking motorists on the public highway, you are being bullied. That's just about summing the situation up. No wonder that so many potential cyclists just don't bother.I expect we will have some numbers in a few years but, from my personal perspective, it appears to have made little difference. The people that blatantly drove more than 30 still do so. Those that pass too close when overtaking still do so. I've reached the point that I don't really care so long as they don't collide with me. It's never going to change so I either need to accept it or stop cycling.