European Parliament recommends introduction of 30kph / 20mph zones across Europe

I don't want a 20mph limit.

I want cars to go enough faster than me that they're past quickly, rather than stuck alongside edging me into the gutter.

I want them to leave me well behind so that when they stop at the next traffic queue they're more than 1m in front of me.

I want them to think they've made up the time they think they lost while behind me, hopefully making them just a little more patient they catch the next cyclist.

What's the gain if cars go at 20mph? They're no less likely to hit us 'cos that requires them to see us at all, and speed doesn't affect that at all.

And on the odd day I'm in a car I don't want to be stuck at 20mph on a deserted wide open road just because it meets EU criteria.

Regardless of one's political beliefs, I would expect most cyclists to know that conditions for cyclists in northern Europe are significantly better than in the UK. Therefore it makes sense to work with this recommendation.

In response to roadie come mountain biker, I would say that Richmond Park (where there is a 20 mph limit) shows the benefits of a lower speed limit. Motorists are happy to pootle along behind cyclists, without harassing us our making dangerous overtaking moves.

Also, if we follow the advice from Bikeability training and take the primary position then car drivers find it very difficult to force a cyclist off the road. I find that car drivers do give way to us as they would to other cars if we assert ourselves by taking a confident road position.

I think that 'I'm sorry I didn't see you' is more truthfully 'I thought I could get past without hitting you'.

oh come on! Hi viz does nothing, except as a sacrificial layer against road dirt. Drivers aren't dangerous because they can't see you. I get harassed by drivers in broad daylight which is why I've got a handlebar cam now. This week's prat: B654VDE a mini passing too close and honking because I wasn't in the cycle lane - which had a car parked in it.

Introduce strict liability. It seems like the quickest way to some semblance of safety on our roads.

@cborrman - contrary to your experience I find that the majority of cars do give way and take cyclists into consideration but I agree that attitudes need to be addressed and that legislation can only go so far.

Unfortunately we're fighting against years of cultural conditioning that driving = freedom, glamour and pleasure, despite the fact that often as not, that's a complete illusion.

How you do this, I'm not sure, but I doubt that another government sponsored public info campaign will do it (anyone herad of 'Road Respect'). I reckon you need to start with the advertising first.

"Audi - an acceptably comfortable place to sit in traffic"

comments above

re the perceived right of cars to own the road. The slower speed limit should make cars and bikes closer in velocity. This could make cars treat bikes as more like an equal. Worth a try.

re SOD OFF
The origin of the idea doesn't matter. 30kph speed limits are a good idea

SOD OFF EUROPE!

UKIP all the way for me!

I think this avoids the issue main issue, although it would be a partial solution, it is not a full one.

I think that lowering the speed limit to 20 will help, by there being fewer situations where a motorist feels "stuck" behind a bike, but not everybody can cycle at 20mph. A good example is the Boris (barclays cycle hire) bikes in London, you cannot do 20mph and get to your meeting without a 20 min sweat, so going slower I get even impatient cyclysts doing silly things and getting just as flustered if not more than some motorists, and worse, flustering motorists at the same time.

The problem I have noticed is (all the below have one root):

1) if you have a street that is just wide enough for two cars - drivers will drive slowly to their side and two way traffic is maintained, or they will give way at an approriate point if another car is already in that narrow space. With a cyclist even one already in this space, a car will never give way and often drive down the middle forcing the cyclist to stop.

2) if you have a street only narrow enough for one way traffic, cars, again, will give way, except to cycles, and again drive down the middle, even if a cyclist is already half or more way down!

3) if you are at a mini roundabout, most drivers will drive though, even though a bike is on or in the mini roundabout before them, whereas with cars they obey the first come first served or give way triangle.

4) in above, if there is a give way triangle, most motorists will not "give way" to a cyclist with priority, no matter how fast they are going. And in priroy lane (approaching righmond park, london) where both the cycle lane and the approaching roads have give way signs, I have seen motorists who would have arrived after I as a cyclist had crossed, accelerate and force a cyclist to give way.

4) whenever a bike comes into contact or a neear miss with a pedestrian or a car, in the general scheme of accidents and incedents where blame is not fully proportional to one party there is a general automatic assumption that it was more the cyclists fault.

In short; the key issue? drivers (of which I am also one) think they have more right to be on the roads than cyclists, and until it is drilled into them that all traffic (dare I say it, even caravans!) have the same right to use public roads, then I think we are avoiding this key issue number 1 that I hear again and again as to why more poeople are not using even cycle hire bikes. Until we address this we cannot get more than the "brave" riding bikes.

To go one further, this argument of high viz clothing is also a red herring; motorists should be looking out for cyclists as they do for other traffic or pedestrians on or even near the public highway - just as you cannot say to a taxi driver "sorry for banging into you guv, but I did't see your cab coz its black - you should paint it stabillo boss yellow" nor can you run over a pedestrian and say "sorry, did not see you in black, where is your flourescent donkey jacket" there should be no reason for a cyclist to not wear whatever colour they happen to be wearing and feel safe on the roads. Full Stop. Again, it is unrealistic to assume we can get people onto boris bikes if they have to carry a flouresnt donkey jacket to their meetings.

However, having said this, lights on during the day, as any wise motrocyclist does, having been one of them, is the way to go day or night, and a high viz jacket is no excuse for not having lights.

but the main point, it is not the difference in speed that causes the problems, its the attidude drivers have in their cars that needs addressing, and the high viz jacket comment further shows that this whole issue needs a lot more thought that silly populist speed limit changes!