“Irresponsible cyclists” in the City of London are being urged to drop their speed, with the City of London Corporation, which governs the Square Mile, warning that their behaviour is threatening initiatives aimed at promoting cycling, such as the ban on vehicles other than buses and bicycles at Bank Junction.
That initiative, which began in May last year and applies between 7am and 7pm on weekdays, has resulted in the number of road traffic casualties halving at the junction, and the City of London Corporation will decide in the coming weeks whether to make it permanent.
But it warns that a small number of inconsiderate cyclists at peak times are jeopardising that and other potential safety initiatives through riding at excessive speed, and is calling on riders to adhere to “considerate cycling” on its streets.
A statement from the Corporation, quoted on trade journal BikeBiz, said: “Our message is simple – in the City, please ride at a speed where you can easily stop if a person walking happens to step out.
It said that efforts to get more people cycling, such as the changes at Bank junction, were “under threat due to the behaviour of a small minority of irresponsible cyclists. Travelling over 10mph is simply not acceptable.”
The Corporation continued: “In terms of danger the biggest issue is that some cyclists travel too fast for the crowded environment we experience at peak times, and it must be expected that pedestrians may step out at any time.
“Attitudinal studies show that the majority of road users see cyclists as the biggest cause of concern.
“We are also seeing that collisions between pedestrians and cyclists are the cause of an increasing number of injuries, which is a priority to address since this type of collision tends to lead to two injuries, as both the pedestrian and cyclist are injured.
“Studies show that the vast majority of cyclists are responsible and polite, and we call on this silent majority to help us promote considerate cycling.”
Those issues were highlighted in the Corporation’s Road Danger Reduction and Active Travel Plan 2018-23, which outlined a Vision Zero for road casualties by 2041, including through issues such as preventing cyclists being injured through ‘dooring’ by promoting the Dutch Reach technique to licensed cab drivers and private hire drivers and their passengers.
The Corporation also launched, last November, four “road etiquette principles” to coincide with the start of Road Safety Week and targeted at reducing the number of people killed or seriously injured in road traffic collisions in the Square Mile.
Aimed at all road users, the four principles urge people to:
Look around – keep your eyes open and focus on what’s around you.
Be aware – the City of London’s a busy place, so always expect the unexpected.
Be considerate – remember other road users are people too.
Less haste – take an extra second to think about what you’re doing and any potential hazards.
The “considerate cycling” campaign will be formally launched at next week’s inaugural City Cycling Festival, running from 13-15 June, and hosted at Guildhall jointly by the Corporation, the LCC and the International Cycle History Conference.
Among the events on the programme at the City Cycle Festival will be a panel discussion chaired by Alderman Alison Gowman entitled, “Why do so many people have a problem with cyclists and what can be done about it?”
The panel will include comprise cycling author and BikeBiz editor at large, Carlton Reid, cycling journalist and road.cc contributor Laura Laker, Rachel Lee from the everyday walking charity Living Streets, Ashok Sinha of LCC and Jackie O’Donovan who runs the waste disposal business O’Donovan Waste.
NB: An earlier version of this story said that the “considerate cycling” initiative was being run in conjunction with the LCC.
We have been informed by the LCC that this is incorrect and are happy to put the record straight.
76 thoughts on “City of London urges “irresponsible cyclists” to curb their speed”
Thanks god it’s just the
Thanks god it’s just the cyclists doing this. Imagine the carnage if other vehicles ever broke the motorised speed limit.
I wonder why there aren’t policemen patrolling and stopping this plague? There always seem to be plenty around when a decent citizen tries to make a phone call whilst stuck in traffic.
I just can’t believe them going at more than 10mph – those complete and utter bastards. Hanging’s too good for ’em, I say.
Does anyone have access to any KSI figures that these dangerous cyclists have caused?
hawkinspeter wrote:
I think that the majority of incidents at these speeds are not going to cause “serious injury” or death so there is likely to be no record of them in KSI statistics. Taking a quick straw poll round the office, people would be less likely to report “slight injuries” because it is not worth the hassle as cyclists are seen as uninsured. Just because they are not counted or formally recorded does not mean that they do not exist though.
Quote:
I’m starting to form a plan, I wouldn’t object to driving at 10mph around Manchester/Liverpool/Glasgow/etc city centres if it means more cycling oriented initiatives. I think that as a working visitor I’d be inclined to park up and ride in the cities themselves.
Edinburgh is just shit, so not bothered aboth there.
Forgot to add:
Forgot to add:
“The “considerate cycling”
“The “considerate cycling” campaign will be formally launched at next week’s inaugural City Cycling Festival, running from 13-15 May”
June perhaps?
I basically agreed with this
I basically agreed with this until I read they wanted cyclists to travel at no more than 10mph.
The city has a 20mph speed limit – WHICH IS NEVER ENFORCED AND IS ROUTINELY BROKEN FFS!!
Not defending any bell ends who do ride with no consideration for others – a minority as they say.
But once again…how can a minority of bad cyclists affect a scheme when a minority of bad drivers (who kill) never would?!?!?! On that note if they let motorised traffic back in (cabbies) are they going to reduce the limit to 10mph and enforce it?!?? Of course they fucking wont.
I cycle through Bank junction
I cycle through Bank junction twice a day, five days a week. Things have really improved since the introduction of the vehicle restrictions, although it has been partially lifted of late due to diversions, which is frustrating.
I have to say that my peak speed through the City is well in excess of 10mph but I believe I ride with appropriate care and consideration. I am happy to cycle at a slower pace if all other vehicles are similarly restricted – to be honest, that sounds like a great plan. The City itself is tiny and it would not hugely impact my commute time, especially considering the number of traffic lights.
TJCD wrote:
traffic lights shouldn’t be necessary – they’re an admission of failure. The entire City should be closed to motor traffic, except for deliveries between 8pm and 10:30 pm, and sweeping up the drunks at 3am. Sheep may safely graze.
Quote:
Seems to me that this is good advice, but they should probably be directing it at the people in the metal boxes, rather than (or, as well as) the cyclists. I’d imagine that far more pedestrians have been injured or killed by cars than by bicycles in the Square Mile.
The Corporation also (left un
The Corporation also (left un)said “we would also ask pedestrians to lift their eyes from social media and check both ways before stepping out into a busy road in case there is an HGV, car, or worse still, a cyclist travelling at over 10mph”.
“Travelling over 10mph is
I didn’t realise the Corporation of London had lowered the speed limit to 10mph. I applaud this initiative to make cycling and walking safer.
<anecdote>
I’ve had two peds step out in front of me while staring into a phone in as many days. I always give a cheery, “Look where you’re going!” – yesterday, I was met with, “Shut up.”, while today I got, “I’ll do what I fucking want.”.
</anecdote>
Where’s Darwin when you need him?
srchar wrote:
I didn’t realise the Corporation of London had lowered the speed limit to 10mph. I applaud this initiative to make cycling and walking safer.
<anecdote>
I’ve had two peds step out in front of me while staring into a phone in as many days. I always give a cheery, “Look where you’re going!” – yesterday, I was met with, “Shut up.”, while today I got, “I’ll do what I fucking want.”.
</anecdote>
Where’s Darwin when you need him?— Somebody Who Doesn't Ride
Or a Kim Briggs award, I’ll get my coat.
srchar wrote:
I didn’t realise the Corporation of London had lowered the speed limit to 10mph. I applaud this initiative to make cycling and walking safer.
<anecdote>
I’ve had two peds step out in front of me while staring into a phone in as many days. I always give a cheery, “Look where you’re going!” – yesterday, I was met with, “Shut up.”, while today I got, “I’ll do what I fucking want.”.
</anecdote>— Somebody Who Doesn't Ride
In a crowded area you should expect people to step out, and anticipate it by riding at a speed that allows you to take evasive action without having to shout.
We ask motors to look out for cyclists, it’s our job as cyclists to look out for peds, even iPeds.
matthewn5 wrote:
Don’t be silly, I was told by a muppet riding a bike in Manchester that we have jay walking rules and that it would have been my fault if he had hit me after him coming at speed round a tram which created a blind corner, the stare he gave obviously encouraged me to have a chat with him. He was adamant that as a road user, I, the pedestrian should have watched out for him as it was dangerous and could have resulted in me injuring myself. He was unable to recognise that as a busy city centre we all have to watch out for each other and that it was his action that was dangerous, not mine. This was demomnstrated to him, he still couldn’t see it and then he disappeared.
Away with you and your sensible opinion.
Meanwhile, moped gangs are
Meanwhile, moped gangs are terrorizing the place like Mad Max.
Either drop there speed
Either drop there speed limits to 10 miles an hour for all road users or they can get fucked.
Perhaps they should also threaten motorists with not repairing pot holes until a they stop killing people too.
Housecathst wrote:
I think the Corporation are being reasonable trying to prevent collisions before the pedestrian/car/Daily Mail/Daily Express lobby use any coming togethers between cyclists and pedestrians as a reason to bear down on cyclists.
If an area is busy shouldn’t you adjust your speed so you are safe? We know a lot of car drivers don’t but this isn’t aimed at car drivers (who are mainly banned from that junction in any case).
Housecathst. I can only assume that you were apoplectic which accounts for your spelling and telling people to “Get fucked”
Nemesis wrote:
Can you give any examples of motorists being given a similar message, ever ? If not I stand by my comment.
Housecathst wrote:
There are advisory speed limits all over the country, usually on bends, brows of hills etc….
so they do exist.
Incidentally there was a pedestrian vs cyclist collision this afternoon at 5:30 at Bank Junction. The pedestrian has “life changing injuries” so there’s your KSI.
So those of you ranting on here about how fast you should be allowed to go might want to reflect on that.
Nemesis wrote:
A couple of StreetView urls might help, I’m struggling to think of any “advisory” limits.
Jitensha Oni wrote:
Plenty of rural roads with bends have a max speed sign. There is even the odd one on a motorway slip road which has tight curves. No real need for a street view link.
Jitensha Oni wrote:
Here you go, this is a bend I can see from my window right now:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@55.8602558,-4.2726847,3a,75y,90.65h,80.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUbEAfQSv36vRwg2eq92YfQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
The image below, which includes the description of the signs meaning, is taken from the government publication “Know your traffic signs”
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/519129/know-your-traffic-signs.pdf
Nemesis wrote:
ok, so where the suggestion that other motorists should in force these advisory speed limits or the threat that if people don’t drive to at these speed limits they’ll stop build roads for instance.
The city of London threat is far more sinister. There in effect suggesting they will stop making improvements for cyclist ineffect putting people lives at risk. Perhaps there suggesting they’ll reopen bank therefore putting cyclist and pedestrians at greater risk.
Nemesis wrote:
What was the cause of this collision? Inattentive ped stepping out into the road or a “speeding” (whatever that means) cyclist?
srchar wrote:
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/bank-junction-crash-woman-rushed-to-hospital-after-being-hit-by-cyclist-at-notorious-junction-a3856176.html
“A female pedestrian has been rushed to hospital with possible life-changing injuries after being hit by a cyclist at the notorious Bank junction.
Police officers were called to the junction in the City just after 5.30pm following reports of a collision.
The victim was taken to Royal London Hospital with a head injury, City of London Police said.”
So, was ‘hit by a cyclist’ – so, does that mean the bicycle had nothing to do with it? Do we even know if they were riding their bike at the time? After all, since its always a pedestrian hit by a car (not a motorist) then presumably the Standard is being very careful in its language…?
srchar wrote:
I’d say that “speeding” is not being able to safely stop within the distance you can see to be clear ahead. However, that doesn’t include someone stepping into your way without warning. I have no problem with reducing my speed around pedestrians and being extra careful in shared spaces, but I don’t have a lot of sympathy for peds that step out into roads without looking.
There’s always going to be a small percentage of idiots walking, cycling, driving etc. Rather than bleating on about the dangers of behaving dangerously, they need to employ police to prevent/stop the worst ones and thus send a message about what is and isn’t acceptable.
Nemesis wrote:
The link to the story posted by Brooksby (thanks) does not explain the circumstances of the collision, so the fact is, we have no facts.
For the record, nobody’s “ranting” about how fast they should be allowed to go – just pointing out the rank hypocrisy on show and the ignorance of setting 10mph as an “acceptable” speed for a bicycle.
With a review by government
With a review by government in progress and the Charlie Alliston case fresh in the memory, the decision makers can easily make things a lot harder for the cycling community. I see this as City of London saying “we’re trying to help cyclists, don’t make it hard for us”. The roads are congested and all road users get frustrated with that. The problem is, say what you like to the problem minorities on all sides and they won’t change their behaviour. More enforcement all round would be my way forward
I’m not sure 10mph is
I’m not sure 10mph is reasonable, but what’s wrong with asking cyclists to ride reasonabley. I would suggest that 10mph sounded like a good number, and better than something seemingly odd, like 12, or far to high, like 20mph. There is a small monority (a lot of them couriers) who ride like total bellends. The angry response just comes across badly and helps no one. There are people who ride too fast and, like it or not, bikes take longer to stop than cars from the same speed, and you have less concentration on what is around you when going hard. Just take a look at the crashes in races running in to stationary objects.
John Smith wrote:
Why is 20 far too high for cyclists, yet apparently far too low for motorists (who pretty much invariably exceed that limit, and are semi-officially allowed to by the police)?
Reasonable is reasonable, but 10mph is simply too low a figure.
And for me, at lesat, the anger is due to to (as a pedestrian more than anything) constantly having to deal with motorists doing 30 or more (sometimes _far_ more, i.e more like 60) on 20mph limit roads. As long as that is just accepted and taken for granted and rarely prosecuted, complaints about cyclist speed don’t sit well with me (even if it does piss me off when cowardly pavement-riders don’t have the decency to at least ride slowly, it’s just nothing like the same scale of problem)
Edit – it’s not clear in the story, but if they are solely talking about speed at Bank junction then I’m more sympathetic than if they mean roads generally…but 10mph is still too low a figure.
Problem are shared commuting
Problem are shared commuting paths,especially canal ways. I am equally amazed at people letting their dogs run loose on busy shared paths, than I am at fellow cyclists whizzing around pedestrians and oncoming cyclists at 20 miles an hour on tight shared canal paths. Now that the weather is warm again and those shared paths are even busier than usual, I tend to avoid them because I find them more stressful and dangerous than the road options on my commute.
My bike has no speedometer…
My bike has no speedometer… what does 10 mph feeel like? Surely it is possible to be inconsiderate at any speed? Surely it is possible to be inconsiderate in any kind of vehicle?
kevvjj wrote:
You need to cycle in Bushy Park. I know I must be riding at less than 10 mph because, despite my exertions, cars routinely overtake me beyond this point on a weekend: https://goo.gl/maps/QvJLYtgiKNn 
Are those buses going to be
Are those buses going to be limited to 10mph too?
Maybe pedestrians should be
Maybe pedestrians should be advised to cross at crossings, wait for the green man and maybe not be on the phone whilst crossing?
mattcycles wrote:
Maybe we should all take responsibility for our own actions a bit more, and blame others a bit less.
don simon wrote:
Just be excellent to each other, then?
brooksby wrote:
…and party on, dudes!
Having cycled around there
Having cycled around there numerous times, advice should be directed at pedestrians to cross after checking it is clear. Then a whole of nots: staring at your phone, blocking out traffic with music, walking in the middle of the road, playing chicken with the lights.
Be easier to ban everyone but pedestrians if they are so worried.
City of London Corporation
Thank you for bringing this concern to my attention, and I’m sorry that you think that bicycle speeds of more than 10mph are unacceptable. I should be grateful if you would provide me with any element of statute, leglislation, the Highway Code or semblance of primary evidence backing this up to enable me to come to a more informed position as to tell you how hard to go away.
Argos74 wrote:
Thank you for bringing this concern to my attention, and I’m sorry that you think that bicycle speeds of more than 10mph are unacceptable. I should be grateful if you would provide me with any element of statute, leglislation, the Highway Code or semblance of primary evidence backing this up to enable me to come to a more informed position as to tell you how hard to go away.— City of London Corporation
Highways Act 1835 – pedestrian vs cyclist collision this afternoon at 5:30 at Bank Junction. The pedestrian has “life changing injuries”
Still want to the Corporation to “go away”?
Nemesis wrote:
that act is nearly all repealed and there isn’t anything about going no more than 10 mph.
Until the circumstances of the incident are kniwn, it would not be sensible to comment or draw conclusions.
Nemesis wrote:
Is that the terrible and ancient Victorian legislation which is allegedly not fit for purpose (see every tabloid reporting on the Alliston/Briggs case) and which means we MUST review cycling and then introduce more and harsher legislation?
” and it must be expected
” and it must be expected that pedestrians may step out at any time.” .. So therefore cyclists riding within the speed limits (even if they actually applied – On a side note I am still trying to get a speeding fine on my bike here in Norway where it IS possible) need to slow down, rather than trying to persuade pedestrians to actually look (up from their mobile device) before stepping into the public highway in front of a moving vehicle ?
That’s got to be politicians logic that.
Side note 2, maybe it’s time the speed limits did apply to all vehicles, not that many cyclists exceed them anyway.
If people on bikes are being
If people on bikes are being asked to cycle no more than 10mph by definition of the increased hazard motorvehicles should be driven at no more than 2.5mph, just to ensure that pedestrians AND people on bikes are safe!
utterly clueless, targetting the wrong group especially when the governments own report states that out of 20 pedestrian deaths nationally only 4 were the fault of a cyclist. Whilst Alliston is fresh in the mind we can remind ourselves that his speed just before impact was as low as 10mph, this was admitted in court by the prosecution. This speed is well below pretty much every at fault motorist who ever killed or maimed a pedstrian or cyclist.
Cycle safely yes but some onus of responsibility has to be spread to the zombies too, they are capable of killing a cyclist when they step in to your path suddenly and as we see from the Alliston case if they are running at 10mph then it would be manslaughter right?
And here is the news. Due to
And here is the news. Due to some incredibly selfish cyclists, klling and maiming at will, speed limits have been reduced to 3mph, for cyclists only, obviously those nice drivers never kill or maim anyone.
It is so comforting to know that the City of London make decisions based on the evidence, not their own prejucidices.
This problem will go away
This problem will go away once electric cars become the norm. Careless pedestrians will be weeded out by natural selection until only the deaf and the observant remain.
Cyclists are told that
Cyclists are told that greater than 19mph is unacceptable, while drivers are told that 20 is plenty.
Maybe I should cycle my entire commute at 10mph in primary position, bet that would go down like a shot sandwich with drivers.
Or is there something different about the laws of physics in the city?
wycombewheeler wrote:
I think you should be cycling in primary most of the time.
I do much of the way from north London down to Lower Thames Street once a week.
It would be nice to not have to feel so angered / aggressed towards the gobshites that enjoy their race to get to the next traffic jam -but it’s usually possibly to sail past in the opposite lane while it’s empty.
CS6 at peak hour, is over-subscribed. Re-allocating cyclists the space needed should be considered now. A single bi-directional track for the incredible number of riders is no longer adequate – or safe.
But the scariest part is still crossing the road on foot on Lower Thames Street, when HGVs and coaches etc hurtle along westbound at something above 20mph – and in close proximity to numbers of pedestrians.
Get the through traffic out of the town. Keep to perimeter / boundary routes /
It’s not a cycling grid, but a through-motor-traffic grid that’s needed.
A very big problem in road
A very big problem in road safety is speed inconsistency, and bicycles arguably suffer the most in this sector, yet it is amazing that big organisations say such BS.
Bicycles have indeed though a stopping problem. Skinny tires, old style caliper brakes, steel rims, worn/dried tires, or macho fixed bike rear wheel skidding will not simply work. I would love to see an exhaustive test from an experienced rider and a newbie on a bicycle that has all 4 mounts for according brake types.
” and it must be expected
” and it must be expected that pedestrians may step out at any time.”
When i was little, we were taught “The Green Cross Code”, which basically explains how you should take care for your own safety when crossing the road. Perhaps we need to make the great unwashed pedestrians of London aware of it – maybe a Green Cross Code app?!
And 10mph (16kmh)? That’s nothing! Isn’t the speed limit 30mph in most UK cities, 20mph in Bristol?
Nemesis wrote:
Still want to the Corporation to “go away”?— Nemesis
2 years ago, a pedestrian on her mobile phone stepped out into the cycle lane five yards in front of me, I was riding at 14-15mph. Hydraulic disc brakes ftw. Did an emergency stop, nearly endoed, coming off in the process, incurring slight injuries (no hospital needed), and bust the fork. Pedestrian uninjured (bloodied smiley face emoji).
What concerns me is the disparity of assumption of duty of care. For example:
Pedestrian: steps into road on mobile phone. Car: travelling at 25 mph in 20mph limit road. Result: KSI. Legal verdict: Darwin lol.
Pedestrian: steps into road on mobile. Bike: travelling at 14-15 mph in 20mph limit road. Result: Moderate injuries. Legal verdict: BURN THE LYCRA WITCH!
If CoLC now want to make a pedestrian free-for-all where the legal assumption is that following the removal of motorised vehicles the pedestrian now owes utterly no duty of care for their own or anyone else’s safety, they should have the courage of their convictions and pedestrianise the whole area during the specified 7am-7pm timezone. But yeah in the meantime, setting an arbitrary speed limit of 10mph max for bikes only? Yeah, go away. Go away hard.
Argos74 wrote:
Back when I’d only started cycling and wasn’t very experienced, my one accident was when someone stepped into the road (about two car-lengths ahead, maybe, whatever that is) from behind a parked lorry, while carrying a long scaffolding pole over their shoulder. I came off the bike but didn’t hit the guy or the pole (which protruded across the entire road).
I still am not sure how the blame should be allocated, because I was probably too close to the parked vehicles and/or going too fast. Also I could have come off a bit more gracefully, I reckon. But he was certainly just listening for motor vehicles and not looking.
My point is just that as a cyclist (a) I came off far worse and (b) not only do I partly blame myself but I’m sure the public and authorities would have if I’d hit the guy – whereas if I’d been in a car I’m equally sure the general view would be it was all the ped’s faulf for stepping out without looking.
There’s a blatant double-standard about that. In motorists vs peds the former is always given the benefit of the doubt if there’s any pretext for blaming the latter. That doesn’t seem to be the case for cyclists.
Argos74 wrote:
Maybe it was like this one ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vU2dFQLOZxs Note the lights on the left are red for pedestrians
On the Standard site I see there are the usual comments about lawless cyclists and lycra thugs. Not that there is any description of what actually happened.
Isn’t it interesting how
Isn’t it interesting how studies like this can see the light of day..
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/eighty-per-cent-of-drivers-ignore-20mph-limits-a3578081.html
And yet no one bothers their arse asking the Commissioners of police of the City and the Met, for an explanation?
‘We’re not enforcing the law, we’re sorry’.
‘I’m shit at my job, I’m resigning’
Nope. Just business as usual.
Anyone know who the bloke with the ‘zombie knife’ is and if so, has he been bought a cold beer yet?
No legal requirement for
No legal requirement for bikes to have a speedometer attached, so how are most cyclists going to know what speed they’re going at anyway?
For those that do have one, how many of those are going to be correctly calibrated?
Would CoLC prefer cyclists were looking out for the pedestrians, or looking at their speed?
LastBoyScout wrote:
Yet we expect drivers to have a tape measure out of the side of their car to ensure they pass cyclists by not less than 1.5m?
The point is that we should ride, or drive, at a speed suitable for the conditions which seems fair enough. I don’t think anyone is suggesting a mandatory 10mph speed limit for bikes.
PRSboy wrote:
Erm:
Yes, they are.
brooksby wrote:
That’s a turn of phrase rather than a call for an enforceable limit.
PRSboy wrote:
So are you one of the senior hobgoblins of the City of London Corporation? You know that its only a turn of phrase rather than a call for an enforceable limit because…?
(Personally, I’ll take it on face value, thank you very much, which is that it is intended to be a call for an enforceable limit. The City has its own police, after all…).
brooksby wrote:
it doesn’t mean anything on face value, other than ‘… over 10 mph, ya! Boo! Sux!’.
ConcordeCX wrote:
No, you’re quite right. At face value, the Corporation has said that it thinks that riding over 10mph is not acceptable. I understood that (extra level of interpretation) to be a call by the Corporation for an enforceable limit. I stand corrected.
PRSboy wrote:
I like this ‘turn of phrase’ thing – you can excuse anything with it, apparently. Nothing means what it says, nobody can be held responsible for what they say, words no longer mean what they mean (apparently an authority saying something is ‘unacceptable’ doesn’t mean that authority considers it unacceptable).
Not sure what the point is in having a discussion with anyone who uses that ploy, though.
PRSboy wrote:
It’s a statement from the Corporation of London. The Corporation (which has its own police force) has stated that travelling faster than 10mph on a bicycle is unacceptable. It really isn’t a turn of phrase.
That’s notwithstanding the fact that 10mph can be inappropriately fast in some situations and inappropriately slow in others, no matter what mode of transport you’re using – including your own two feet.
PRSboy wrote:
I always adopt that approach to any bill or invoice I receive. I’ve saved £000’s !
I propose that they equip all
I propose that they equip all the cyclists with a red flag bearer to walk in front of them to warn pedestrians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locomotive_Acts
As already mentioned,
As already mentioned, bicycles do not require a speedometer, so I am unsure how a set speed can be specified in this way.
I’d also argue that as a speed, 10mph is far too low for the majority of time, but equally, too high in certain situations. As we see in collisions involving motor vehicles, traveling within a given speed limit is often an automatic ‘good to go’ for the driver… He/she wasn’t speeding therefore it must have been an unavoidable accident. I don’t think that is right, the focus should be to educate all users as to the risk out there and their responsibilities.
The second point that grated on me was the importance placed on the two injuries rather than one… the inferrance for me was that it was better to hit a pedestrian with a car as there was likely to be only one casualty… those bastard cyclists not only have the gaul to ride a bike into people, they then clog up the NHS by getting injured.
I love how the whole point of cyclists being acutely vulnerable in all collisions means that they are less likely to behave in a way that deliberately jeopardises their well being.
Finally, I too am aggravated by the threat made to law abiding cyclists that unless they take responsibility for taking to task their unreuly brethren, then their own safety will be put at risk.
Seriously… how is this deemed acceptable? Maybe I should ask Oprah Winfrey to sort out the black gang culture in the states or risk the local police force from protecting her home?
City of London should start
City of London should start handing out free helmets for pedestrians.
Apparently they are very effective in collsions with motor vehicles.
The solution is to convert
The solution is to convert more pedestrians into cyclists.
We’re just in that awkward middle ground in the UK where cycling is growing in popularity but still not mainstream, hence there is a general lack of awareness. Try walking into a cycle lane in the Netherlands, let alone the road and see the response you get! It’s only the tourists that do (and they probably only make the mistake once!).
Good article on the subject…
https://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/blog/2013/07/03/how-does-a-dutch-environment-work-for-pedestrians
For the same speed motorist
For the same speed motorist attack cyclists because they ride too slow and get in the way, and pedestrians verbally attack cyclist because they ride too fast – 10 mph fast? I use to run that fast on the pavements. Over a 48 year period commuting on my bike in London I would go along at about 15 to 20 mph – I never had an accident with a pedestrian.
What about irresponsible
What about irresponsible pedestrians who walk out in front of you with their phones glued to their ears, like about two years ago when travelling north over London Bridge the lights were green when someone walked out in front of me I swerved to miss her but she stepped back into me we both ended on the floor she just picked herself up and fucked off leaving in the middle of the road
Given that their four
Given that their four priniciples cover “all” road users, I look forward to their “Considerate Driving”, and “Considerate Pedestrainning” campaigns.
kitsunegari wrote:
Pedestraining deserves to be a real word (probably something to do with Paula Radcliffe).
I don’t see any issue with
I don’t see any issue with this, it is just a speed figure that is being touted as a sensible speed to try and stop those cyclists, who are riding too fast to be able to stop, to think twice.
Much in the same way that the 1.5m space is suggested for cyclists when overtaking in a motor vehicle.
I doubt anyone is going to bother if the overtaking distance is actually 1.4m or if the cycling speed is 10-15mph. It is when people ignore these suggested figures completely that they need to be actioned, but they can’t be actioned effectively if people are not informed in the first place.
An arguement against along the lines of “but pedestrians do X” or “pedestrians do Y” is no different than the usual motorists arguements of “but cyclists run red lights”.
ClubSmed wrote:
5mph would be even safer. Surely you care? Monster.
“Cycle at less than 10mph”? I
“Cycle at less than 10mph”? I reckon that’s a simple typo error. The actual advice to cyclists was to “Keep your speed below 100 mph”, and I would be very happy to comply with that directive.