Rugby League stars to race Italian Pursuit at Revolution 23

UK Murdoch/Harmsworth anti-cyclist psychosis continues with the worst politicians money can buy.

@Gd29 You accept going too fast is an issue but don't accept that reducing speed and falling accident/injury rates are related by anything other than correlation? In which case, how do you begin at your own starting point? Either speed is an issue or it isn't. And if drivers won't drive to the conditions, and we all agree speed is an issue, then forcing them to drive at lower speed is a perfectly reasonable solution. There is no harm in also educating drivers in better habits, but that is a much more difficult and timely process. So how many deaths and serious injuries are acceptable in a world where we keep 30mph as the standard limit on relevant roads whilst we wait for drivers to catch up in a utopian world. I do not disagree about most of the other solutions you put forward. Some of them, however, are even less likely to occur within the next generation or two than materially improved driving behaviours.

@Rendel Harris Yep, I’m pretty confident the sale was them wanting an ‘easy’ way of improving Zwift without having to do all the leg work.

Independent variable = speed limit Dependent variable = casualties Control variable = roads where no change made The figures prove that when we change the independent variable by lowering the speed limit then the dependent variable, casualties, falls in comparison to the control variable of roads where no change to the speed limit has been made. That is evidence.

The anticyclist exaggerates the disadvantages of cycle lanes beyond belief; it's like they imagine the worst-case scenario and then make it even worse. The Netherlands and Belgium have no problem with cycle paths.

@DrG82 just wait 'till you hear about the "blanket" 30mph limits it was replacing, or those "NSL" signs that just got stuck up everywhere else by default...

@Clem Fandango from that last observation I conclude that the only way to protect drivers from delays by being forced to stop and argue the toss with cyclists, or even being falsely accused by cyclists of various driving offenses is: - traffic lights at regular intervals along all roads, which should turn red whenever a cyclist approaches, alerting drivers there is a (RLJ) cyclist in front. - lights at every junction which default to all-ways red, unless they are briefly reset to green by a cyclist passing (and obviously riding through on red).

Make it so

Um, yes, that's how evidence works. Perhaps you meant they're not *proof*, which would be true. But they are the best evidence we have.

These stats aren't evidence, they show correlation. Without isolating the variables they don't actually say that much about the impact of the change. Speed limits are an ineffective tool when the problem is drivers not driving in an appropriate manner for the conditions and environment. Those drivers weren't following the speed limit and/or paying sufficient attention anyway! If that is the problem and you don't deal with it, but you want to keep reducing injuries/fatalities, you have to keep dropping speed limits until you prohibit road use entirely. The solution is driving standards improvement (education) and enforcement. In wider terms but more importantly it's better city and road design, and reducing commuting distances by reforming the housing market (to an easily exchanged basic human need - shelter, not primarily an asset with massive financial inertia to change) But that's expensive, in £, time, administration, politics.