James May rubbishes "nonsense" ideas to regulate cyclists in response to fatal collision

brooksby wrote:

The overall average speed was 23 mph.  For every 250 vehicles, 222 were travelling under 30mph, 27 were travelling at 30-40 mph and 1 was travelling over 40mph.

I'm (pleasantly) surprised that the average speed is as low as 23mph.

I guess the scary thing is the outlier's that bring the average up and then take into account where I live the limit is 30 so add 10 mph to those figures if you get hit it's not going to be pretty! The tolerance on limits is intolerable ( no pun intended) 

In Australia, two Melbourne suburbs with car-hating notoriously Green Left councils have 18 mph (30 kph) speed limits, essentially forcing cars to travel at the same speed as bicycles, which was the intent of the speed limit; of course, there are many drivers angered by slow moving traffic who then overtake dangerously, with the result that traffic is more unpredictable for all users and therefore more unsafe..

Also, Priory Lane which leads to Richmond Park. it has a 20 MPH speed limit, at night it is often used as a performance test road by motorists and motorcyclists.

These newspapers' relative attitude to speeding cyclists versus speeding drivers reminds me of the attitude of General Melchett in Blackadder Goes Forth to spies: the German ones are "Filthy hun weasels, fighting their dirty underhand war" whereas British ones are "Splendid fellows, brave heroes, risking life and limb for Blighty!"

Rendel Harris wrote:

I've got a lot of time for Mr May (always been confused as to why such a seemingly decent chap can bear to work with someone like Clarkson) but that statement is a bit silly. Firstly, as has been widely noted, training in a pace line is not racing, if people were racing on any public road without suitable permissions and safeguards that should of course be condemned and they should be sanctioned for any incidents they cause, but the cyclist in the case in question was not racing. Secondly, the fact of the road being in a park makes it no different to any other London road, it's a standard road with wide pavements either side and there's no more reason a cyclist shouldn't ride on it at a decent pace, as long as they are careful, than any other road. Some of the coverage in certain "newspapers" has stressed the "in a park" aspect of the incident as if the cyclist was ploughing straight through the middle of innocent dog walkers and picnickers, which anyone who has ridden round the Outer Circle, or even just looked at the pictures on Streetview, knows is very far from the case.

I think that you are somewhat splitting hairs with the wording that Mr May was using. Although Mr Fitzgerald was not in a race, according to what was reported to the coroner they were travelling at up to 29 mph in aerodynamic “pace line” formation. The dictionary definition of "racing" includes "moving swiftly" which I think is a fair description of what was going on.

I agree with May that there are appropriate public places where you can do this and not-so appropriate places. Regent's Park would not be one of the places where I would be riding “pace line” formation. There are too many people, dogs etc (stuff that you are not in control of) for it to be safe.

When you are no. 2 or more in the line, your forward visibility and ability to react is greatly reduced. Whether you are driving or riding a bike, you need to be able to react and stop if necessary. It doesn't sound like what they were doing was particularly smart or careful, even if it was strictly speaking legal.

You're completely ignoring the point I made about the fact that just because it encircles the park the Outer Circle is no different to any other road in London, it's actually generally sparsely populated with people because people simply cross it to go to the green parts of the park, nobody really walks around it. Where would you say would be an appropriate public place and what would make it more appropriate than the Outer Circle?

The outer circle does not entirely encircle the park, about 1/4 is within the park boundaries (park on both sides) and the other 3/4 has the park on 1 side and mostly residential on the other. Pedestrians have to cross the outer circle to get into the inner section of the park. This is why I don’t think that pacing is a smart move and you cannot be “careful” while you are in a pace line at up 29mph.

More suitable locations are out of town B roads, especially those out in the countryside where there aren't any pavements and therefore no unexpected pedestrians crossing the road. Most of my riding is done in the Surrey Hills, Hampshire and West Sussex. There are loads of roads that are perfect for riding at any speed.

When I ride back into town where there is more traffic and people, I moderate my speed and keep my distance/head on a swivel ready for anyone who isn't paying attention. Unfortunately most people are tuned for cars and don't have an awareness for cycles.

Edit: Also don't forget all the parked cars on both sides of the road for a lot of the circle that really affect your visibility 

Rendel Harris wrote:

You're completely ignoring the point I made about the fact that just because it encircles the park the Outer Circle is no different to any other road in London, it's actually generally sparsely populated with people because people simply cross it to go to the green parts of the park, nobody really walks around it. Where would you say would be an appropriate public place and what would make it more appropriate than the Outer Circle?

The point about pedestrians and dog walkers etc still stands, because it is a London road not an empty country road. Sometimes on club rides we will set up a chain gain, but these would normally be on straight rural roads with few junctions. Not urban roads, no matter how straight.

Other than dedicated cycling tracks like at Uxbridge or the olympic park I would suggest there are no suitable locations for riding a paceline in London. The fact that pedestrian islands exist indicates there is a reasonable possibility of pedestrians wanting to cross. Pedestrians that can only be seen by the front rider.

hawkinspeter wrote:

So we now have to rely on a TV presenter to speak sense and our politicians to spout rubbish? It should be the other way round.

TBF, it's usually both spouting nonsense.

That's untrue.  They're trying to solve the problems of being noticed in politics - which in the modern world means "controversial" (it always did but we've information overload now).  Plus appealing to those with power - in their party, or in general.  Maybe even appeal to a few voters!

Voters are a detail of making your way in politics.  At some point yes, you need to win votes but merely getting to that point requires making the right connections with those with power, influence and money.  There are things such as "safe (insert party here) seats".  Plus elections only happen every five years!

I doubt that's what May meant... but then your comment might be tongue in cheek.

chrisonabike wrote:

That's untrue.  They're trying to solve the problems of being noticed in politics - which in the modern world means "controversial" (it always did but we've information overload now).  Plus appealing to those with power - in their party, or in general.  Maybe even appeal to a few voters!

Voters are a detail of making your way in politics.  At some point yes, you need to win votes but merely getting to that point requires making the right connections with those with power, influence and money.  There are things such as "safe (insert party here) seats".  Plus elections only happen every five years!

Have you read that book, "How Westminster Works... And Why It Doesn't" by Ian Dunt?  https://www.weidenfeldandnicolson.co.uk/titles/ian-dunt/how-westminster-... Explains these very points.

Thanks! At risk of confirming what I already thought I will add it to the list.  No doubt there will be much which proves my prejudices "not even wrong".  I hope...