Speed monitors in Hackney park to discourage speeding cyclists

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

I wonder whether the frowny-face thing will be any more effective at influencing cyclist behaviour than it is when used for motorists on the roads? Possibly cyclists are more affected by such social pressure, due to not feeling so insulated inside a metal box. But these things seem to have no effect whatsoever when used for drivers.

There's one on the way into the village where I live. I stood and watched it one day while I was waiting for a bus. About 70% triggered the red,  angry face, most of them slowed down, about half of them enough to change it to the green smiley face.

On a sample size of one, I'd say they're effective.

By the way, I haven't yet managed to trigger the angry face on my bike, and I have been trying.

FrankH wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

I wonder whether the frowny-face thing will be any more effective at influencing cyclist behaviour than it is when used for motorists on the roads? Possibly cyclists are more affected by such social pressure, due to not feeling so insulated inside a metal box. But these things seem to have no effect whatsoever when used for drivers.

There's one on the way into the village where I live. I stood and watched it one day while I was waiting for a bus. About 70% triggered the red,  angry face, most of them slowed down, about half of them enough to change it to the green smiley face.

On a sample size of one, I'd say they're effective.

By the way, I haven't yet managed to trigger the angry face on my bike, and I have been trying.

Well, of the two near me, neither of them seem to have any effect at all. One in particular frowns at anyone going over 20mph, yet the average speed seems to be about 30, and at certain times (late at night, early mornings, weekends) 60mph is fairly frequent.

I never managed to get it to frown at me on the bike either, though I gave up cycling that road because of the thought of those 60mph speeders coming up behind me (it's a road with pedestrian island choke points and parked cars, not a wide dual carriageway)

But maybe people are better behaved in rural areas?

cyclisto wrote:

Apart from the fact that it seems really overpriced (it seems just a speed radar, a monitor and a basic computer) it seems great. Parks can be really nice shortcuts free of air pollution and road hazards. There will always be stupid people that will want to show off on their bikes and speed, so such measures are welcome. I would even agree to penalties for speeders (if it could be done since bicycles are not fitted with speedometers). So keep bicycles in parks, even try to attract more cyclists with extra infrastructure or integrating them into bicycle routes but their behaviour should be regulated.

Not sure an assumption of only one set is valid, it does say radars in the article.

Hopefully those who have no speed indicator will slow down a bit and share the space.

StuInNorway wrote:

Surely with 4000 cyclists a day, the money would be better spend on actually providing a safe means to allow commuters to cycle with a segregated path on the main routes ? Add offsett gates at access points and periodically allow route to help ensure teh worst speed freaks 8and there are some real idiots, now and again) have their speed runs controlled a bit. 

Also a max length on dog leads of 3m as these 10m long thin leads are a danger to all.

Why allow bikes, cars or other fast machines into a park at all? Such spaces are designed for quietude, not whizz-about anxious commuters or boy racers - especially those of the ilk "self-centred little skinbag".

If London has one virtue it's the several large green spaces away from the press and noise of all the aggresive angst-ridden thrusters pushing about the streets. Why let these thrusters infest such islands of tranquility? Yes, I know - already too late in some of them.

Cugel, from a remote and empty country lane in the cold dark north. 

Cugel wrote:

Why allow bikes, cars or other fast machines into a park at all? .......

....errr...perhaps because many of those who would prefer to cycle wouldn't be cycling fast?

Y'know...like disabled, mobility impaired, mums with kids, children who could cycle to school, elderly folk getting to the shops etc...?

Hampstead Heath in north London is surrounded by abominable speedophile infested roads as drivers race from the cycling wasteland that is Barnett into Camden (which really should know better).

Although Camden cannot do much about the archaic non-democratic mindset and 'rules' of Corporation Of London, that allows braying and mouth frothing groups such as Heath For Hate...or rather 'Feet'....to deny any options for avoiding the surrounding roads ensuring that cycling is effectively banned, it could certainly do something about the atrocious Hampstead Lane, East Heath Road, Swains Lane, Dartmouth Park Hill and Highgate Road; running into the festering daily lung blight of Kentish Town's foulled-up High Street).

The fact that speeding as a crime is one of THE major deterrents to cycling take-up has not registered in the consciousness of London authorities, let alone those outside the capital.

There are plenty of options for preventing cyclists going too fast through parks (without putting in the stupid speed humps that those 'friends of cycling' at Hyde Park have built).

Holland Park has a fleet of police 4 x 4s (as does the Heath) to catch any cyclist committing the heinous crime of erring from a designated path (where they exist).

But really, some kind of reality check - just a little bit of perspective - from anyone in authority, would be a welcome breath of fresh air. 

StuInNorway wrote:

Surely with 4000 cyclists a day, the money would be better spend on actually providing a safe means to allow commuters to cycle with a segregated path on the main routes ? 

Obviously not commenting from in the uk- you expect "sensible" actions from a London Council ?

This the type of councils that paint a line along a main road and call it a cycle lane

Bob'sbikes wrote:

One wonders how much this has cost the local tax payers and how effective it will be. Also could the money not have been used more sagely in detering bad driving/parking habits in the area?

 

One wonders if you read the article above that states how much it cost before commenting.