The recent widespread introduction of 20mph speed limits in built up areas has been welcomed by road danger reduction campaigners, but it might turn out to be inconvenient for cyclists. That’s the prospect in the London borough of Southwark, where the council plans to include cyclists and horse-drawn buggies in the scope of the 20mph limit to be introduced at the end of July.
The Borough has long had an unusual relationship with cyclists, until recently refusing to even consider segregated cycling infrastructure because it believed mixing cyclists with motor traffic would help get drivers to slow down. Although new Southwark cabinet member for transport Mark Williams has said he will reverse this policy, Southwark did for a long time appear to consider cyclists to be mobile speed bumps.
Now, it seems, cyclists are to be included in an initiative intended to reduce the danger to pedestrians from being hit by heavy motor vehicles and not soft, fleshy bike riders.
According to the London SE1 website, the council plans to circumvent the usual exclusion of cyclists from speed limits (which in the Road Traffic Act apply only to motor vehicles) by referring simply to 'vehicles' in its proposed traffic management order.
Although it appears never to have been used foer the purpose of applying speed limits to cyclists, the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 allows for speed limits to be imposed by local acts.
That ‘vehicles’ includes cycles is the same logic used by the Metropolitan Police to prosecute cyclists for exceeding the speed limit in Richmond Park. Carelessly framed traffic regulations refer in part to vehicles, although read as a whole they are clearly intended to apply only to motor vehicles.
As far as we are aware, nobody has ever mounted a serious legal challenge to a cycling speeding fine in Richmond Park. In a response to a Freedom of Information request submitted by road.cc last year, the Metropolitan Police said it was unable to find any record of legal advice indicating the limit applied to cyclists.
In Southwark, the council seems to think that cyclists are just as much of a hazard as motor vehicles (when they’re not using cyclists as unwitting moving-target traffic-calming, of course).
In a response to a member of the public who pointed out that it was unrealistic to expect unpowered vehicles to be able to accurately monitor their speed, the council's head of public realm Des Waters wrote: "The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 does indeed refer to 'motor vehicles' however since 1984 cycling as a modal share has grown substantially and the council receives a number of complaints from residents – particularly pedestrians – about the excessive speed of cyclists.
"Therefore it would be inappropriate to treat cyclists differently to any other form of traffic and effectively tie the hands of police when it comes to speed enforcement."
The Metropolitan Police seem quite happy to have their hands tied, though. In the Met’s formal objection to the plan, Catherine Linney of the force's traffic management unit said that enforcing the limit would be “unrealistic” and it should not be introduced unless the “look and feel” of the road made it obvious to drivers that the limit was 20mph. The Met apparently believes drivers are too dense to notice dirty great round signs with the number twenty on them.
Linney wrote: "Introducing speed limits where traffic speeds are too high places an unrealistic expectation to enforce on the Metropolitan Police.
"Whilst any reduction in speed is of benefit, the number of offenders will increase significantly in the roads which presently have average speeds of over 24 mph, placing an expectation on the Police for enforcement which we do not have the extra resources to fulfil.
"The Metropolitan Police objects to a 20 mph speed limit on any road in the London Borough of Southwark where the mean speed is above 24 mph.
"We also object to the implementation of the 20 mph limit where it is not obvious to the motorist through the look and feel of the road that the speed limit is 20 mph."
Add new comment
81 comments
I am not well enough informed on the doings of the borough of Southwark to comment generally on how they deal with cyclists; the way this is worded does sound callous. But whatever you think of segregated infrastructure, 'roads for everyone' is not unsound reasoning, and suggesting that the council regards us as little more than "mobile speedbumps" may be a tad unfair. To the extent we calm traffic, I think it's a good thing!
The more cyclists on the road the better. You don't have to be a hardcore vehicular cyclist [bias alert: I am] to eventually reap the benefits of encountering more motorists who through experience will be trained to better deal with your presence on the road.
...and I'm going to need faster legs.
Bit of a pointless debate, really. Councils have no legal authority to enforce speed limits, if the Police aren't supportive of the 20mph, then you're not going to get booked even if technically cycles are included in the TRO.
Love to see the cops policing this.
They will have to give cyclists a buffer like 3mph over the limit like they do with drivers or is that just for special ones?
tbh its the slow cyclist that cause more problems, usually riding in the gutter, not shoulder checking or indicating and blinding people in their head to toe HiViz.
Is that true? I mean I know I can cross the road anywhere but if I am on a bike and I signal and turn into side road a pedestrian is walking over and hit them is it not their fault? Have they not failed to make sure they are good to cross? Note that I am all in favour of live and let live on the roads and don't generally knock over pedestrians, but it is interesting.
If they are NOT at fault then I have to change my behaviour a little, both as a cyclist and as a pedestrian
As for 20mp zones, I have one locally (Walthamstow) . Lots of people ignore it knowing that they haven't got a snowflakes chance in hell of being caught, but it has slowed the traffic down (it only takes one person doing 20 to slow the whole road down).
Low hanging fruit?
Whilst big companies get away with tax avoidance and the Queen's horse is found to be doped up. Councils are going after more cash from the public under the disguise of improving safety.
Time the government accepted that self regulation no longer works especially as those high up are at it.
They could fit loads of these everywhere?
Translated as: "there's nothing in the primary legislation that allows us to do this, but we're going to show we can flex our muscles and do something (which we can't enforce anyway)"
Yet more time wasted by council numpties on a piddling issue, when there are significantly more important road safety issues to be dealing with.
Has anyone ever tested standard police radar guns on cyclists? I would imagine that they are less accurate than when used on a car, due to the lack of a large reflective surface and the greater amount of relative motion from flapping clothing and turning wheels.
I don't know Southwark, but I can't imagine that many cyclists will be regularly exceeding the limit. Throw in that the police don't seem interested in enforcing this and we probably won't see anyone getting ticketed for a good while.
"Usain Bolt averages out at about 25mph over 100m (standing start) and hits a maximum speed in excess of 27mph (60 to 80m)."
Yes. However Usain is not a vehicle.
I don't think it's particularly unreasonable to expect cyclists to observe some speed limits. 20mph is actually quite fast for a lot of cyclists. 30mph is faster than most ever go. I was going down a hill this morning at 54.8kph (max) and thinking to myself "this is way faster than my wife would ever cycle".
Ever been hit by a bike at 30mph? It hurts. Sometimes more than a car due to all the sticky out bits.
That is about the gist of it.
Pedestrians are not obliged to only cross when the green man is lit, when you have the flashing amber that makes a pelican crossing subject to the same rules as a zebra crossing, i.e. if a pedestrian has one foot on the crossing you must stop.
I know many people don't but they are the rules.
My driving instructor told me that if you hit a pedestrian in the road it's almost always your fault. I believe that's true when you're cycling as well.
Not to mention the fact that a pedestrian crossing a side road always has priority over vehicles turning into it.
To put it into context, these quotes about mobile speedbumps have come up during the campaign around the Elephant & Castle which is controlled by Southwark.
When the southern junction was redesigned just a few years ago, campaigners wanted it to have a left turn bypass lane for cyclists. The Council had an active policy of using cyclists as a traffic calming measure, and it is suspected this lead to them not providing the bypass lane, with everyone using the large ASL box across multiple lanes of traffic.
That policy has obviously had a spotlight on it following the continuing accidents and recent death at that junction.
This is a new one on me. I can think of several dual-carriageways or motorways that have 50 limits, but the "look and feel of the road" suggests it should be a 70.
The police seem quite happy to enforce those.
As regards pedestrians and cyclists, it may not be the case that fault lies with the cyclist in the event of a crash. I've had a few very close calls over the years while commuting in London when pedestrians have walked straight out without looking and this seems to be on the increase as people's reliance on smartphones increases. I ride very defensively and I do ride out from the kerb, taking the lane. Cycling is NOT the same as driving. I'd be interested to see the results of studies into pedestrian/cyclist crashes but I rather suspect that in a very high percentage of incidents, the pedestrian would be at fault. People do rely on their hearing as a warning of oncoming traffic, which simply doesn't work with regard to cyclists.
In well over 20 years of cycle commuting in London, the only time I've ever actually be knocked from my bike to the ground happened when a Danish couple looked the wrong way before stepping out in front of me. I was taking the lane and I was highly aware and hauled on the brakes immediately I saw them step out, which is probably why all three of us suffered only small cuts and bruises. My wife had a similar incident two years ago when a Polish woman stepped out from the front of a bus, but looking the wrong way. Both fell to the ground but the woman quickly got up and hobbled away. My wife had a lot of severe bruising afterwards that was uncomfortable, plus a mild sprain of her wrist, but no serious injuries fortunately. The wire basket on my wife's bike was hugely distorted after the crash and I strongly suspect that it was very effective in absorbing the impact shock and preventing any more serious injuries.
Regarding speed enforcement of cyclists, radar equipment is inaccurate when used on bicycles. A decent lawyer would be able to throw out any charge made against a cyclist based on evidence from radar equipment as it is widely known that these units are suited to use with motor vehicles only (they need a wide frontal area to take readings from). Why anyone would want to ride at more than 20mph along a back street in Southwark is a question worth asking, given all the potholes and parked cars.
For anyone who isn't aware though, Southwark has been very pro-cycling in many respects. The council directly helped the Peckham BMX Club with sourcing funding for its £1.2 million BMX track in Burgess Park.
If cyclists are exceeding 20mph in 20mph zones chances are its as a desperate attempt to get out of the way of the motorist doing 30mph and hooting angrily as they come up behind them.
In my comments on this thread, I've purposefully been a little provocative, because I knew a lot of cyclists would object to this on principle rather than any real concern about the impact of the law itself.
In likelihood, the Police will give not just 3mph leeway, but quite a bit more. Speed guns are very unreliable on bikes, they'd need to see someone giving it quite a lot of welly.
Which is actually fairly similar to the situation in Richmond Park, where the Police largely don't care about cyclists riding around a fair amount over the limit. What they don't like is people absolutely hammering it down the hills amongst traffic. That's why they are often parked up at the foot of Sawyer of Dark hill of an evening or weekend, to catch the Strava numpties trying to do hills the easy way. Sometimes they'll just pull people over to offer a word of advice...
We might see some enforcement at specific points (against all traffic), but I really don't expect a "crackdown" as the road.cc headline suggests. And besides, as I mentioned much earlier, the byelaw doesn't cover the red routes which are set by TfL, and CS7 which passes through Southwark is mostly a red route.
There was a study done in Westminster. It found 60% of pedestrian/cyclist collisions were the fault of the pedestrian, 40% the cyclist. The lack of a 'not sure' category does make me wonder what methodology was used though.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/drivers-to-blame-for-twothirds-of-...
(midway down story, couldn't find the link to the original research)
Interesting that there are no comments here about Metropolitan Police’s formal (and pragmatic) objection to the plan being that roads should be designed for the speed limits desired e.g. 20mph, rather than just putting up signs & paint on the roads.
Though often poorly designed, many existing cycle ways prevent cyclists from speeding, without needing formal limits, signs etc.
Highway code rule 170 (for vehicles) includes:
Take extra care at junctions. You should
• watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way
Seems like a non-issue to me.
If you are in free-flowing traffic you wouldn't be able to exceed the speed limit by any substantial amount unless you were overtaking vehicles that were adhering to the limit - this seems reckless to me. In slow-moving traffic it's reasonable to filter but to do so at speeds over 20 mph again seems reckless.
The only time that a reasonable cyclist is likely to fall foul of rules like this would be if the road were clear and they were pushing on fairly hard. In this circumstance the point about danger to pedestrians does become valid. To say 'take it a bit easy, you're in the middle of town' is perfectly fair.
On the other hand, I'm very much opposed to local authorities making up local rules of this sort. Road signage should mean exactly the same thing wherever it is placed. The idea that the rules and parameters for using the roads can be different depending on which borough/vilage/town/city you happen to be in at the time just seems like madness. It may be perfectly legal and enforceable but it's still bonkers.
Finally, as the radar guns used by the police were not designed/tested/calabrated for use on cycles any atempt to prosecute a speeding cyclist is likely to be thrown out if challenged.
I did see the original sometime ago (I like data). The danger in focusing on the headline is that it boils a lot of grey data into black and white answers. It's not so much a "not sure" category, as the balance of multiple contributing factors in most incidents. Very few accidents are pure black and white.
But from a safety campaigners point of view, the cause can be less important than the practicality of countering each of them. That's especially true when children are involved. We may not like it, but often that means there is a greater onus on one party for prevention even if they do not bear the greatest responsibility for causing the incidents.
20 mph??? Surely one exsanguinates through ones ears at such an extreme velocity.
Only when going through a tunnel.
No, I haven't - but given the choice between bike or car, i'd pick the bike any day of the week.
Precisely, and as a cyclist if I'm involved in a collision with a pedestrian whilst I'm doing 25mph I'm likely to get badly hurt unlike a car driver, this is the reason this law isn't needed - because most cyclists will cycle cautiously and the other idiots won't slow down even if the law is changed anyway.
Another factor is the width of a bicycle is much less than the width of a car meaning cyclists can give give pedestrians a wider berth and have more forewarning of any stupid moves they might make. And, if a cyclist is traveling at 25mph then their heart is racing and the thinking part of their stopping distance is going to be much quicker than the lard arse in the car reading texts.
Speed limits on motor vehicles were introduced in 1903 in order to protect members of the public from the harm that can be done by excessive speed made possible by engines. The speed limit in 1903 was set at 20mph; this limit was routinely breached by early motorists. In 1934 the speed limit in towns was set at 30mph.
Not then and not since have any laws been enacted to make cyclists adhere to the speeding regulations brought in for motorised vehicles.
Rule 124 of the currently in force Highway Code states speed limits on a tabulated panel, but there is no row that applies to bicycles.
“A person who drives a motor vehicle on a road at a speed exceeding a limit imposed by or under any enactment to which this section applies shall be guilty of an offence.” (Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, s.89.1)
Bicycles are not legally required to have speedometer, and no bicycle speedometer is in any event calibrated to meet any Department of Transport test.
Despite all of this, cyclists can always be charged under the laws relating to furious cycling, and councils have the power to put by-laws in place which affect only their own adopted roads eg. Bristol City Council has brought in across-the-board (or, as good as) 20mph speed limits within the city boundary, but their own website states that "Who does the 20mph speed limit apply to? All motorised vehicles."
I don't see how Southwark would enforce a speed limit on bicycles, any more than I see how the Royal Parks do... Does it just come down to a policeman saying, "Ooo - that seemed a bit fast!"?
Yes.
Perhaps you should consider not repeatedly walking out in front of fast moving cars and bikes.
Well, thats just silly!
How do you think the traffic Police deal with most offences. Only a few can be measured, most tickets are the subjective view of the issuing officer.
Pages