20 mph speed assistance limit for E-bikes?

It's a fair question. Visual deterrence (especially for teenage would-be shop lifters that don't realise the security guards can't do anything), can be useful for first aid. A lot of stores have known problem people that security guards follow around/ask to leave.

Well trained security guards can draft a good note as evidence for the police (it's amazing how many people present assumptions as fact, which then can be ripped apart in court)

Of course the very best use for a security guard is for hiding security tags in their uniform so they keep setting the alarms off.

brooksby wrote:

JustTryingToGetFromAtoB wrote:

Sadly, the guards probably are telling truth. A long time ago, the first thing we taught them was to not lay a hand on a shop lifter. In the store, the goods are not stolen yet (even if hidden in a bag or stuffed up a jumper). Outside the store, they are not insured and may find themselves on an assault charge.

Erm... So what are they being paid for, exactly?

As a deterrence and to occasionally eject unwanted customers. I've seen some cardboard cutouts of police used in lieu of security guards at some bargain/pound shops.

Oh - so that's private enterprise?  I assumed that what with cuts, Brexit Covid Russian war that was all we could afford to bolster police numbers.

Now you mention it though, maybe having some dummy cars / appropriately posed cardboard road police at prominent locations might help?  After all if just a pair of eyes will change behaviour...

Now that's good guarding!

I'm sorry but that's far too much like how things should be to be even remotely true

Backladder wrote:

I'm sorry but that's far too much like how things should be to be even remotely true

 It's not something I've experienced elsewhere, I admit, and it certainly doesn't pertain in any of the other supermarkets around here where I either walk or I cycle with my wife and one of us stands outside to watch the bikes while the other one goes in!

Would diabetes count?

Rezis wrote:

Would diabetes count?

Maybe if you telll them you urgently need to buy some jelly babies as you're feeling hypo.

My top tube bag might be empty... 

Rezis wrote:

My top tube bag might be empty... 

Is that a euphemism?

No, it's just where I can keep my Jelly Babies.

I use "athlete's foot mate" myself.

Making the default 20mph in urban areas would be good!

I don't know where the 15.5mph / 25kmph thing originates but - whisper it - the same rules apply "on the continent".  If you Google there appear to be EU directives about this.  They probably stole it from the UK though.

Travel choices are not just about speed.  For most it's overall "convenience".  Yes, for some people, for some journeys more speed is better.  (Hence illegal electric motorcycles).  As for bike vs car if we're going for mass cycling that means more infra to make cycling more convenient than driving for some trips.  Here's the synergy: even in existing UK cities cyclists can sometimes get there ahead of other transport options (if that's the most important thing).  They can manage a higher average speed.  Now with more good infra that becomes more widely possible - because bikes don't need traffic lights where there aren't motor vehicles!  That's part of how the Dutch [1] [2] and to some extent Danish get ahead.

Secondly even though some current cyclists say they'd feel safer in among motor traffic if they were going faster most people in the UK just don't want to be in motor traffic outside of a car.  Note that you can already buy a motorbike or a scooter and "speed like the cars" in places.  This is not a very popular option.

Upping the speed limit for ebikes and also having relaxed rules for e-pedelecs seems to be the industry seeing a new potential market to me.  Doesn't make it wrong - but we should certainly not rush into it.

Bus lanes - maybe we should have more dedicated bus lanes.  Just like cycle infra though how junctions are dealt with are critical.  Otherwise you've just got more buses blocked by cars.

As for bus / cycle lane - although I appreciate in the "survival environment" of UK urban roads many appreciate bus lanes this isn't a good idea long term.  Buses and cycles don't mix well for several reasons [1] [2].  Our current ones often only exist for part of the day and can be busy with taxis also.

I like all those!  We know it can be done, because others have done it.  And not just cities / countries who started from a much better place than the UK is now.

I'd say 20 years is extremely ambitious!  We could save time though.  We can see the nuts and bolts of "what works".  The UK even already has some "knowledge" of proper infra here.  We certainly know "what doesn't work" here.  We could combine knowledge of our failures and eliminate things that are the same in the UK as where "it works" to help us spot the elephants in the room - the things we just can't seem to see.

However I think most people do know that really.  It's just the vicious circle of "can't move motor traffic from the number 1 spot".  Plus our divvying up of public space for people can store their private property (cars) for free etc.  And "not invented here" is very prevalent in the UK.

When I said "we" I meant the EU as this was pre Brexit. 

As for cycle infra, I'm guessing it will take many years to improve even a little and we'll probably never get it on every urban street so people will still prefer their cars over bikes. The law could be changed tomorrow to match e-bikes and cars top speed limits at 20mph and instantly bikes would make more sense than cars for many more people. It wouldn't cost much more than the price of changing all the speed limit signs too.

On bus lanes I can only speak from my own experience. I've spent over 20 years travelling the same dual carriageway and for about half that time it had a bus lane almost the entire length with priority traffic lights at some junctions. That is now gone and it is just a plain dual carriageway. I can honestly say it went from a safe quick ride past queues of traffic every day riding in the middle of my own almost empty lane to a nightmare of threading through two lanes of gridlocked traffic or multiple dangerous 40mph+ close passes every trip. I know which I prefer.

Of course we could just get drivers to be safer and more conside . . . . . . no sorry, I'm just being stupid now.

chrisonatrike wrote:

I don't know where the 15.5mph / 25kmph thing originates ...

In UK law, a two wheeled vehicle that has pedals and provides motorised assistance between 25 and 45km/h is classed as a moped, which have to be taxed and registered, and can only be ridden by those aged 16+, wearing a compulsory motorbike style helmet and holding a valid  licence having undergone some training. 

Restricting eBikes to 25km/h means they are classed as bicycles and can be ridden by anyone. 

At some point those moped rules probably need to be revisited as they are getting a bit long in the tooth now (when was the last time you saw an actual moped?) but that is what we are stuck with for now. 

I saw a moped in Altrincham this morning, actually  commented to my wife that the guy would be putting his ride on Strava.   (Because I've spotted a few 30mph+ segments recently).

chrisonatrike wrote:

I don't know where the 15.5mph / 25kmph thing originates but - whisper it - the same rules apply "on the continent".  If you Google there appear to be EU directives about this.  They probably stole it from the UK though.

I think the 15.5mph limit probably comes from the Dutch 'snorfiets', a moped with a maximum speed of 25kph that is permitted to use cycling infrastructure and where no helmet is required to ride (although this is changing).

https://bikecity.amsterdam.nl/en/inspiration/mopeds/

As much as the Dutch don't like mopeds on the cycle lanes, I do think having to cater for moped traffic has resulted in a better standard of infrastructure.

chrisonatrike wrote:

Making the default 20mph in urban areas would be good!

I've never understood the distinction for urban areas.  Why is the national speed limit on unlit, narrow roads with no cycle lanes or pavements twice that of roads which are well lit, generally quite wide, always with pavements and sometimes with dedicated cycle infrastructure? Why should country roads be any less safe than urban roads?

I don't know but suspect it's about compromises.  Urban environments are more congested in terms of vehicles, vulnerable road users, number of interactions, often the space involved (and other "obstacles" diverting / obscuring each) and overall time spent there (vehicles simply can't move as fast there due to traffic lights / other vehicles).  Countryside distances may be greater - increasing temptation.  Lots more countryside to police...

So there's recognition that simply sticking up a sign isn't going to be terribly effective.

I would support this, and it should be easy: if there's no centre line, default the speed limit to 30 mph. It won't stop the hooligans but might influence others.

There are roads in the Highlands and Islands (you know, the places that you can't get online delivery to) where there are some empty single track roads with very long sight lines and 30 (+ the speed drivers add as a garnish to any limit) would seem quite slow. So not a perfect idea, I admit.