Live blog: Hungary stages for next year's Giro; Land Rover dealer claim the Discovery is the "best car for cyclists" (tweet backfires); Over half of car drivers exceed 30mph limit; Lachlan Morton stocks up on Lucozade on his epic GBDURO adventure + more

CXR94Di2 wrote:

So many FEW drivers-Forty Every Where, especially older drivers. They seem to have little perception of speed and just drive at a comfortable pace. Have you ever seen an old driver checking their speedo or turning their headto observe

Here we go again with the old road.cc stereotypes. So the answer to your question is yes, me, a 60 year old who drives a high performance sports car. Take your ageist shit elsewhere! And incidentally, insurance stats show that those of us in our second half century not only cause less accidents, but are also involved in fewer no fault accidents than young drivers, suggesting we have greater awareness, and anticipation, of risk, rather than lesser as you suggest. Unless of course you have evidence to the contrary?

Daveyraveygravey wrote:

On a slight tangent, what are cyclists' opinions of speed limits applying to them?  My average speed on most rides is around 16-18 mph, but with a tail wind or slight downhill I can easily hit 25 mph or more.  Should I get to a 20 mph zone, should I slow down?  On a long steep hill with a 40 mph limit, should I stay under that?

 

For cyclists a speed limit is a target!

Daveyraveygravey wrote:

On a long steep hill with a 40 mph limit, should I stay under that?

I should concentrate on staying on the bike !

And don't blow your nose.

Daveyraveygravey wrote:

On a slight tangent, what are cyclists' opinions of speed limits applying to them?  My average speed on most rides is around 16-18 mph, but with a tail wind or slight downhill I can easily hit 25 mph or more.  Should I get to a 20 mph zone, should I slow down?  On a long steep hill with a 40 mph limit, should I stay under that?

My personal opinion is that, on balance, cyclists sticking to the speed limit makes more sense than not. Especially in urban areas where the speed limit is low because of high densities of other road users (sometimes behaving unpredictably) then sticking to the speed limit would seem sensible to minimise accidents.

The main counter argument would be that, compared to a person in a heavy, well-protected metal box, a cyclist is much less likely to hurt other people and far more likely to be hurt themselves in the event of an accident. So there should be a far higher degree of self-regulation and lower risk of harm to others.

A final thought: I would strongly oppose any standalone change to the law to implement speed limits for cyclists on principal: it sends the message that cyclists are the problem and need greater regulation. I don't think the Government should waste their time adding further restrictions to cyclists - it would be much more productive if they encourage cycling and clamp down on the real dangers to society (which include dangerous driving, air pollution, and inactivity).

OnYerBike wrote:

Daveyraveygravey wrote:

On a slight tangent, what are cyclists' opinions of speed limits applying to them?  My average speed on most rides is around 16-18 mph, but with a tail wind or slight downhill I can easily hit 25 mph or more.  Should I get to a 20 mph zone, should I slow down?  On a long steep hill with a 40 mph limit, should I stay under that?

My personal opinion is that, on balance, cyclists sticking to the speed limit makes more sense than not. Especially in urban areas where the speed limit is low because of high densities of other road users (sometimes behaving unpredictably) then sticking to the speed limit would seem sensible to minimise accidents.

The main counter argument would be that, compared to a person in a heavy, well-protected metal box, a cyclist is much less likely to hurt other people and far more likely to be hurt themselves in the event of an accident. So there should be a far higher degree of self-regulation and lower risk of harm to others.

A final thought: I would strongly oppose any standalone change to the law to implement speed limits for cyclists on principal: it sends the message that cyclists are the problem and need greater regulation. I don't think the Government should waste their time adding further restrictions to cyclists - it would be much more productive if they encourage cycling and clamp down on the real dangers to society (which include dangerous driving, air pollution, and inactivity).

Speed limits for cyclists could only be enforced if all bicycles were required to be fitted with approved speedometers.

Daveyraveygravey wrote:

On a slight tangent, what are cyclists' opinions of speed limits applying to them?  My average speed on most rides is around 16-18 mph, but with a tail wind or slight downhill I can easily hit 25 mph or more.  Should I get to a 20 mph zone, should I slow down?  On a long steep hill with a 40 mph limit, should I stay under that?

I obey 20 mph limits, other than that most of them aren't really an issue that I have to worry about as I'd rarely be going that fast unless it's downhill.

20 is there for a good reason (schools etc) so I stick to it

Daveyraveygravey wrote:

On a slight tangent, what are cyclists' opinions of speed limits applying to them

 

Why would you ask the question? Rule 69 says cyclists must obey all traffic signs. Simple enough?

Griff500 wrote:

Daveyraveygravey wrote:

On a slight tangent, what are cyclists' opinions of speed limits applying to them

 

Why would you ask the question? Rule 69 says cyclists must obey all traffic signs. Simple enough?

Rule 69 does not apply to irrelevant signs and the motorised speed limits have no relevance to horses, cyclists, pedestrians etc.

It's like seeing a "dogs must be carried" sign on an escalator and then searching around for a dog to carry if you don't have one.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Griff500 wrote:

Daveyraveygravey wrote:

On a slight tangent, what are cyclists' opinions of speed limits applying to them

 

Why would you ask the question? Rule 69 says cyclists must obey all traffic signs. Simple enough?

Rule 69 does not apply to irrelevant signs and the motorised speed limits have no relevance to horses, cyclists, pedestrians etc.

It's like seeing a "dogs must be carried" sign on an escalator and then searching around for a dog to carry if you don't have one.

The OP was not asking about 70mph signs, clearly irrelevant, he asked about a 20mph sign and a 40mph sign where he claims to exceed 40mph. If he is capable of exceeding the limit on the sign, (or in your world if he has a dog), then the sign is relevant.

Griff500 wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Griff500 wrote:

Daveyraveygravey wrote:

On a slight tangent, what are cyclists' opinions of speed limits applying to them

 

Why would you ask the question? Rule 69 says cyclists must obey all traffic signs. Simple enough?

Rule 69 does not apply to irrelevant signs and the motorised speed limits have no relevance to horses, cyclists, pedestrians etc.

It's like seeing a "dogs must be carried" sign on an escalator and then searching around for a dog to carry if you don't have one.

The OP was not asking about 70mph signs, clearly irrelevant, he asked about a 20mph sign and a 40mph sign where he claims to exceed 40mph. If he is capable of exceeding the limit on the sign, (or in your world if he has a dog), then the sign is relevant.

I stand corrected, apparently the only uk speed limit applying to cyclists is in Richmond Park. I suspect however that if you were involved in an incident while exceeding the speed limit, a dim view would be taken, and the "furious cycling" clause would be imposed.

Griff500 wrote:

Griff500 wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Griff500 wrote:

Daveyraveygravey wrote:

On a slight tangent, what are cyclists' opinions of speed limits applying to them

 

Why would you ask the question? Rule 69 says cyclists must obey all traffic signs. Simple enough?

Rule 69 does not apply to irrelevant signs and the motorised speed limits have no relevance to horses, cyclists, pedestrians etc.

It's like seeing a "dogs must be carried" sign on an escalator and then searching around for a dog to carry if you don't have one.

The OP was not asking about 70mph signs, clearly irrelevant, he asked about a 20mph sign and a 40mph sign where he claims to exceed 40mph. If he is capable of exceeding the limit on the sign, (or in your world if he has a dog), then the sign is relevant.

I stand corrected, apparently the only uk speed limit applying to cyclists is in Richmond Park. I suspect however that if you were involved in an incident while exceeding the speed limit, a dim view would be taken, and the "furious cycling" clause would be imposed.

The current climate seems to be to apply 'furious cycling' even when the cyclist is travelling slower than the motorised limits (e.g. 20mph).

As mentioned elsewhere, there's also an issue of enforcing a speed limit on cycles when they don't have a speedometer - that could be a significant loophole.

Here in Bristol, there's lots of 20mph speed limits around the town but I have no qualms about exceeding that when conditions are suitable (e.g. downhill, with a following wind and being towed by a team of racing squirrels). I don't think I'm causing any particular danger to anyone else by doing so and there always seems to be drivers keen on overtaking me despite the motorised speed limit.

squired wrote:

I'd love to know what percentage break 20mph limits.

That came up recently fluffykitten found this link
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-6363507/Government-stud...

workhard wrote:

But breaking the 30mph speed limit when driving is fine. It isn't at all dangerous and, besides, all cyclists are scofflaw red light jumpers so drivers are justified.

 

Breaking the speed limit is not necessarily dangerous. Plenty of roads I can think of that have had speeds changed but it didn't suddenly become dangerous overnight to continue to do 50 where the limit is now 40.
There also seems to be a difference as to where you live in the country as to a road being 30 or 40 when the makeup and layout is very similar.

hirsute wrote:

workhard wrote:

But breaking the 30mph speed limit when driving is fine. It isn't at all dangerous and, besides, all cyclists are scofflaw red light jumpers so drivers are justified.

 

Breaking the speed limit is not necessarily dangerous. Plenty of roads I can think of that have had speeds changed but it didn't suddenly become dangerous overnight to continue to do 50 where the limit is now 40. There also seems to be a difference as to where you live in the country as to a road being 30 or 40 when the makeup and layout is very similar.

True theoretically, however by definition it is dangerous because of the potential damage that it can do, even at speeds much below the limit we know that motorists can and do kill and maim with great regularity including themselves never mind innocent victims - just under 200,000 deaths or injuries annually despite all the 'protection' motorists have.

On top of that is the hundreds of thousands if not millions of non injury collisions EDIT - where an injury doesn't occur due to the massively increased tech/safety provision (including making vehicles more massive and by definition more dangerous to other road users).

Even on an empty motorway we have to concentrate, make hazard perception judgements all the time.

The limits are set in the hope that this restricts the damage that cunts motorists do, however history has shown us that the limits are simply inadequate/too high as despite all the armour, improved brakes, too many humans are simply shit.

I doubt the figures given are a true representation in the 30mph areas and the 60/NSL speed numbers seem to me to be well out. I reckon that the 20mph figure is closer to  95%.

hirsute wrote:

workhard wrote:

But breaking the 30mph speed limit when driving is fine. It isn't at all dangerous and, besides, all cyclists are scofflaw red light jumpers so drivers are justified.

 

Breaking the speed limit is not necessarily dangerous. Plenty of roads I can think of that have had speeds changed but it didn't suddenly become dangerous overnight to continue to do 50 where the limit is now 40. There also seems to be a difference as to where you live in the country as to a road being 30 or 40 when the makeup and layout is very similar.

Is it possible they changed the speed limit because people kept crashing?

hirsute wrote:

Breaking the speed limit is not necessarily dangerous. Plenty of roads I can think of that have had speeds changed but it didn't suddenly become dangerous overnight to continue to do 50 where the limit is now 40. There also seems to be a difference as to where you live in the country as to a road being 30 or 40 when the makeup and layout is very similar.

Breaking the speed limit might not necessarily always be dangerous, but the one thing I took away from a speed awareness course was that wherever speed limits, signage and/or road markings get changed you can think of it in economic terms.

Budgets are always tight. Local authorities don't decide to change the speed limit on a whim and will only go to the trouble and expense of doing so if there have been accidents on that road on a regular enough basis to flag it as a genuine safety concern. Same with markings on the road saying "SLOW" and that sort of thing. If they weren't there before then they were only added because of a genuine danger, which unfortunately often means there's been accidents.

So, no it didn't suddenly become [more] dangerous overnight to continue to do 50 where the limit is now 40, but maybe it was already dangerous to do 50 there. Just remember that no one is going to spend all that money on new signage unless they absolutely have to. Made me look at these things from a different perspective.