Southwark plans crackdown on 20+mph cyclists

seven wrote:

The offence may stand, and in that respect your point is valid, but it becomes moot the second the first person comes along and mounts a challenge to the statute itself. You can't simply make a law that says "it's an offence to step over this here line when you're wearing blue shoes" if the majority of people wearing blue shoes have no reliable means of seeing where that line is. Well, you can, but you won't get very far with it. You either don't prosecute it very often (in which case what was the point of having it in the first place?) or you prosecute freely in which case watch the legal challenges mount up.

As a byelaw, a Council really can propose whatever they want, including banning blue shoes. However, they have to be approved by the appropriate Gov't Minister which is to avoid any conflict with national laws or interests. Presumably Ken Clarke was the minister with responsibility for shoes, and would have intervened in the blue shoe banning proposal.

Most local byelaws that introduce 20mph zones reference the national legislation, Southwark have specifically used their own choice of words to include all road vehicles rather than just motor vehicles, and in law bicycles are vehicles. If that wording is approved by a minister, it's law in Southwark.

The requirements for signage on 20mph zones are significantly simpler than 30mph. However, concerns have been raised in the past about using such signage borough wide. Obviously many more cars than bicycles are affected, not just because there are more motorists, but that the average speed of cyclists in Southwark is already below that limit. If there is any legal challenges, it's more likely to come from a motoring group.

I am interested to see if they will modify their 20mph signage in anyway. Where a 20mph road in a neighbouring borough, joins a 20 mph road in Southwark, the position for cyclists would be ambiguous, and that might be a matter for a legal challenge. The Police in the Richmond Park have signs placed around the road which specifically include cyclists in the speed limit.

Regarding the speedometer defence. You might find a judge has remarkably little sympathy, and tell you bluntly to ride at walking speed if you can't tell how fast you're going. The "how could I know" defence is used in all kinds of area of law and is often very badly received. Personally, I know when I'm hitting around 20mph even without looking at the computer.

bikebot wrote:

Doesn't matter whether you have a speedometer or not, the law doesn't except ignorance as an excuse.

But thankfully, the law as it stands doesn't support Southwark's interesting ideas about a cyclist speed limit. So I can safely remain blissfully unaware of my actual speed (like I really ever hit 20mph anyway).

jacknorell wrote:

bikebot wrote:

Doesn't matter whether you have a speedometer or not, the law doesn't except ignorance as an excuse.

But thankfully, the law as it stands doesn't support Southwark's interesting ideas about a cyclist speed limit. So I can safely remain blissfully unaware of my actual speed (like I really ever hit 20mph anyway).

I've been following this story for sometime, there's no legal reason at all why Southwark Council or any other can't introduce speed limits against all road users, despite some common misconceptions that this is impossible.

Nor can I see a particularly strong reason to object to such speed limits in the congested central areas of our cities. Lots of groups have had a say in these consultations, to disregard the concerns of pedestrians would be fairly hypocritical when at the same time we're asking for our concerns about vehicles to be listened to.

If someone wanted to introduce a speed limit where it was inappropriate I would object. I have no need or desire to put down times in the centre of London. For reference, I would classify myself as a fast commuter, I can cruise above 20mph when cycling into town fairly easily and I'll pass through Southwark. The fact that I can do that, doesn't mean I have to do that everywhere.

bikebot wrote:

Nor can I see a particularly strong reason to object to such speed limits in the congested central areas of our cities. Lots of groups have had a say in these consultations, to disregard the concerns of pedestrians would be fairly hypocritical when at the same time we're asking for our concerns about vehicles to be listened to.

And why, pray tell, would a pedestrian be in the middle of the road where I'm cycling?

Mostly, they have these nice segregated things called sidewalks / pavements to walk on, or cross-walks, that I respect (whenever they're actually in use).

This isn't about pedestrian safety, in fact, cycles are hardly an issue here. Speeding metal boxes are though.

Getting off the soapbox now...!

jacknorell wrote:

bikebot wrote:

Nor can I see a particularly strong reason to object to such speed limits in the congested central areas of our cities. Lots of groups have had a say in these consultations, to disregard the concerns of pedestrians would be fairly hypocritical when at the same time we're asking for our concerns about vehicles to be listened to.

And why, pray tell, would a pedestrian be in the middle of the road where I'm cycling?

Mostly, they have these nice segregated things called sidewalks / pavements to walk on, or cross-walks, that I respect (whenever they're actually in use).

This isn't about pedestrian safety, in fact, cycles are hardly an issue here. Speeding metal boxes are though.

Getting off the soapbox now...!

And that's why I'll take on board the request of the most vulnerable.

It's amazing how quickly cyclists who object to these sort of proposals can display the same attitude to pedestrians as that of the worst drivers towards cyclists.

A pedestrian would be in the middle of the road, because he has a right to cross it. Anywhere.

I've seen plenty of pedestrians knocked down by cyclists, the injuries may be a lot less than for a car but it's not something you'll do for fun, and it's a genuine concern for the elderly.

bikebot wrote:

A pedestrian would be in the middle of the road, because he has a right to cross it. Anywhere.

Is that true? I mean I know I can cross the road anywhere but if I am on a bike and I signal and turn into side road a pedestrian is walking over and hit them is it not their fault? Have they not failed to make sure they are good to cross? Note that I am all in favour of live and let live on the roads and don't generally knock over pedestrians, but it is interesting.

If they are NOT at fault then I have to change my behaviour a little, both as a cyclist and as a pedestrian

As for 20mp zones, I have one locally (Walthamstow) . Lots of people ignore it knowing that they haven't got a snowflakes chance in hell of being caught, but it has slowed the traffic down (it only takes one person doing 20 to slow the whole road down).

alotronic wrote:

bikebot wrote:

A pedestrian would be in the middle of the road, because he has a right to cross it. Anywhere.

Is that true? I mean I know I can cross the road anywhere but if I am on a bike and I signal and turn into side road a pedestrian is walking over and hit them is it not their fault? Have they not failed to make sure they are good to cross? Note that I am all in favour of live and let live on the roads and don't generally knock over pedestrians, but it is interesting.

If they are NOT at fault then I have to change my behaviour a little, both as a cyclist and as a pedestrian

As for 20mp zones, I have one locally (Walthamstow) . Lots of people ignore it knowing that they haven't got a snowflakes chance in hell of being caught, but it has slowed the traffic down (it only takes one person doing 20 to slow the whole road down).

That is about the gist of it.

Pedestrians are not obliged to only cross when the green man is lit, when you have the flashing amber that makes a pelican crossing subject to the same rules as a zebra crossing, i.e. if a pedestrian has one foot on the crossing you must stop.

I know many people don't but they are the rules.

alotronic wrote:

Is that true? I mean I know I can cross the road anywhere but if I am on a bike and I signal and turn into side road a pedestrian is walking over and hit them is it not their fault? Have they not failed to make sure they are good to cross? Note that I am all in favour of live and let live on the roads and don't generally knock over pedestrians, but it is interesting.

If they are NOT at fault then I have to change my behaviour a little, both as a cyclist and as a pedestrian

My driving instructor told me that if you hit a pedestrian in the road it's almost always your fault. I believe that's true when you're cycling as well.

Not to mention the fact that a pedestrian crossing a side road always has priority over vehicles turning into it.

ollieclark wrote:

alotronic wrote:

Is that true? I mean I know I can cross the road anywhere but if I am on a bike and I signal and turn into side road a pedestrian is walking over and hit them is it not their fault? Have they not failed to make sure they are good to cross? Note that I am all in favour of live and let live on the roads and don't generally knock over pedestrians, but it is interesting.

If they are NOT at fault then I have to change my behaviour a little, both as a cyclist and as a pedestrian

My driving instructor told me that if you hit a pedestrian in the road it's almost always your fault. I believe that's true when you're cycling as well.

Not to mention the fact that a pedestrian crossing a side road always has priority over vehicles turning into it.

As regards pedestrians and cyclists, it may not be the case that fault lies with the cyclist in the event of a crash. I've had a few very close calls over the years while commuting in London when pedestrians have walked straight out without looking and this seems to be on the increase as people's reliance on smartphones increases. I ride very defensively and I do ride out from the kerb, taking the lane. Cycling is NOT the same as driving. I'd be interested to see the results of studies into pedestrian/cyclist crashes but I rather suspect that in a very high percentage of incidents, the pedestrian would be at fault. People do rely on their hearing as a warning of oncoming traffic, which simply doesn't work with regard to cyclists.

In well over 20 years of cycle commuting in London, the only time I've ever actually be knocked from my bike to the ground happened when a Danish couple looked the wrong way before stepping out in front of me. I was taking the lane and I was highly aware and hauled on the brakes immediately I saw them step out, which is probably why all three of us suffered only small cuts and bruises. My wife had a similar incident two years ago when a Polish woman stepped out from the front of a bus, but looking the wrong way. Both fell to the ground but the woman quickly got up and hobbled away. My wife had a lot of severe bruising afterwards that was uncomfortable, plus a mild sprain of her wrist, but no serious injuries fortunately. The wire basket on my wife's bike was hugely distorted after the crash and I strongly suspect that it was very effective in absorbing the impact shock and preventing any more serious injuries.

Regarding speed enforcement of cyclists, radar equipment is inaccurate when used on bicycles. A decent lawyer would be able to throw out any charge made against a cyclist based on evidence from radar equipment as it is widely known that these units are suited to use with motor vehicles only (they need a wide frontal area to take readings from). Why anyone would want to ride at more than 20mph along a back street in Southwark is a question worth asking, given all the potholes and parked cars.

For anyone who isn't aware though, Southwark has been very pro-cycling in many respects. The council directly helped the Peckham BMX Club with sourcing funding for its £1.2 million BMX track in Burgess Park.

OldRidgeback wrote:

As regards pedestrians and cyclists, it may not be the case that fault lies with the cyclist in the event of a crash. I've had a few very close calls over the years while commuting in London when pedestrians have walked straight out without looking and this seems to be on the increase as people's reliance on smartphones increases. I ride very defensively and I do ride out from the kerb, taking the lane. Cycling is NOT the same as driving. I'd be interested to see the results of studies into pedestrian/cyclist crashes but I rather suspect that in a very high percentage of incidents, the pedestrian would be at fault. People do rely on their hearing as a warning of oncoming traffic, which simply doesn't work with regard to cyclists.

snip

There was a study done in Westminster. It found 60% of pedestrian/cyclist collisions were the fault of the pedestrian, 40% the cyclist. The lack of a 'not sure' category does make me wonder what methodology was used though.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/drivers-to-blame-for-twothirds-of-...
(midway down story, couldn't find the link to the original research)

pikeamus wrote:

There was a study done in Westminster. It found 60% of pedestrian/cyclist collisions were the fault of the pedestrian, 40% the cyclist. The lack of a 'not sure' category does make me wonder what methodology was used though.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/drivers-to-blame-for-twothirds-of-...
(midway down story, couldn't find the link to the original research)

I did see the original sometime ago (I like data). The danger in focusing on the headline is that it boils a lot of grey data into black and white answers. It's not so much a "not sure" category, as the balance of multiple contributing factors in most incidents. Very few accidents are pure black and white.

But from a safety campaigners point of view, the cause can be less important than the practicality of countering each of them. That's especially true when children are involved. We may not like it, but often that means there is a greater onus on one party for prevention even if they do not bear the greatest responsibility for causing the incidents.

davkt wrote:

Hang on a minute, are you really saying it won't hurt a pedestrian if they are hit by a cyclist doing 25mph?

Nobody's saying that. It will hurt significantly less than being hit by a car at the same speed though. F=MA.

teaboy wrote:

davkt wrote:

Hang on a minute, are you really saying it won't hurt a pedestrian if they are hit by a cyclist doing 25mph?

Nobody's saying that. It will hurt significantly less than being hit by a car at the same speed though. F=MA.

Well the article hints at it, "Now, it seems, cyclists are to be included in an initiative intended to reduce the danger to pedestrians from being hit by heavy motor vehicles and not soft, fleshy bike riders." 70kg of bike and rider doing about 9m/s is still going to cause one hell of a mess if brought to a dead stop by a pedestrian, and most cyclists I know are rather more bony than soft and fleshy!