- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
City of London (licensed CC BY-SA 4.0 by Colin and Kim Hansen).jpgCity of London urges "irresponsible cyclists" to curb their speed
“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.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- Jigzy99 1 sec ago
Have you tried the local press? They love a good 'police not doing their job' story. May just kick them into action.
- Car Delenda Est 18 min 39 sec ago
Is she riding a legal e-bike or a pedal bike?...
- perce 33 min 51 sec ago
Gosh. Even worse than trollingforbeginners.com?
- cyclisto 43 min 18 sec ago
My bike was bought cheap and now it is on its second decade, but is loaded with tons of memories. Its value for me is definitely higher for me than...
- Rendel Harris 52 min 48 sec ago
I remember a story some years ago where a motorist claimed that a cyclist was riding alongside her car at "nearly 25 miles an hour", banging on the...
- RobD 55 min 31 sec ago
So the appealing feature of this, being able to swap the setup from a road bike one day to a gravel bike the next involves taking it to a dealer?...
- SecretSam 2 hours 19 min ago
Fantastic that someone just thought of a new app that communicates to a group of people at the same time, as part of a private discussion group....
- David9694 2 hours 54 min ago
The old "one-two" seems familiar, but even if the collision happened at breakfast time, the bit about the £1400 quote appearing same day doesn't...
- froze 10 hours 41 min ago
I agree, all you have to do is look back on the history of the TDF and discover that since 1968 the average speed has only gone up about 3 mph,...
- HarrogateSpa 13 hours 35 min ago
Mostly due to the court case - they are stuck doing what Hornbeam Park Developments want, or they'll probably face another judicial review....
Add new comment
76 comments
Given that their four priniciples cover "all" road users, I look forward to their "Considerate Driving", and "Considerate Pedestrainning" campaigns.
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".
"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.
Pedestraining deserves to be a real word (probably something to do with Paula Radcliffe).
5mph would be even safer. Surely you care? Monster.
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
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.
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-envi...
City of London should start handing out free helmets for pedestrians.
Apparently they are very effective in collsions with motor vehicles.
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?
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
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?
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.
Erm:
Yes, they are.
That's a turn of phrase rather than a call for an enforceable limit.
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...).
it doesn't mean anything on face value, other than '... over 10 mph, ya! Boo! Sux!'.
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.
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.
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.
I always adopt that approach to any bill or invoice I receive. I've saved £000's !
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-ign...
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?
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.
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.
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.
" 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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
Pages