Cycling and speed limits

[okgo]

Sticks. said:

This concept doesn't work, and seems to be a way of justifying ignoring rules. Which, as someone posted, are there for a reason.

It does work.

It’s why you can ride a bike pissed and probably just get a talking to by the cops if you get caught. That doesn’t happen in a car for obvious reasons.

The two, apart from sharing a road are totally different propositions. It’s so so obvious.

[ukbabz]

Sticks. said:

So passing a car doing 20 in a 20 on a bike is wrong/a bit wrong/not wrong?

<excluding a few specific places> it is not illegal, no more so than over taking a lorry on a dual carriageway in a car. In 20mph signed section the limit is 20mph for the car and there isn't a specific limit for the bike.

[okgo]

Who cares. It means nothing and no bad outcome likely will ever come. Go outside.

[okgo]

Sticks. said:

Indeed, what could possibly go wrong?

Almost nothing. As is born out in the stats.

Head remove from behind.

[okgo]

Sticks. said:

Too subtle?

If you're going to be arrogant and insulting, learn to spell.

I’m on a phone, autocorrect.

Anyway, I’m off to ride above 20mph in Richmond Park, bye for now.

[Julian Scott]

okgo said:

Siao said:

Oh come on. Play fair, you just tarred everyone with the same brush above, you can dish it but you can't take it?

Not every driver is on their phone and cappuccino and not every rider is on their Strava runs. This is my take and I do hope it is true.

Even if they were, what do you think is going to be more dangerous of those two scenarios - the man and bike at 100-150kg combined or the car made of metal at 10x that?

Perspective is what the anti bike mouthbreathers on PH forget.

Man and bike likely to be well under 100kg too. Car and humans likely to be approaching 20x.

[monthou]

Sticks. said:

okgo said:

It does work.

It’s why you can ride a bike pissed and probably just get a talking to by the cops if you get caught. That doesn’t happen in a car for obvious reasons.

The two, apart from sharing a road are totally different propositions. It’s so so obvious.

So passing a car doing 20 in a 20 on a bike is wrong/a bit wrong/not wrong?

Isn't the answer 'It depends'?

[okgo]

Julian Scott said:

Man and bike likely to be well under 100kg too. Car and humans likely to be approaching 20x.

Yep. Was allowing for some bigger units.

Also, having crashed a bike at speed. It really hurts, most people try to avoid that.

[Julian Scott]

Siao said:

okgo said:

Siao said:

Oh come on. Play fair, you just tarred everyone with the same brush above, you can dish it but you can't take it?

Not every driver is on their phone and cappuccino and not every rider is on their Strava runs. This is my take and I do hope it is true.

Even if they were, what do you think is going to be more dangerous of those two scenarios - the man and bike at 100-150kg combined or the car made of metal at 10x that?

Perspective is what the anti bike mouthbreathers on PH forget.

Sure, I did not say the opposite, cars can cause more harm. But I had the "Strava" racers almost knocking me down from my bike before, ran a red light and straight into my path. People can be dicks, from all sides is all I'm saying. Having cars doesn't make them more or less dicks, just that they should be (even) more considerate dicks.

Your ignorance is that they were 'Strava racers'. Strava is not the root of the problems with cyclists, just being a is.

I've ridden with 100s of cyclist thins year. I've not heard one of them specifically target a sector whilst we've been riding. It's a motivation issue that really doesn't exist except in the minds of the uninformed. Every single rider I know uses Strava to asses the their ride in retrospect, not to race against.

[Prisoner 24601]

Sticks. said:

okgo said:

Even if they were, what do you think is going to be more dangerous of those two scenarios - the man and bike at 100-150kg combined or the car made of metal at 10x that?

Why do it at all? In a 20 zone, pedestrians will not anticipate someone doing 20 being overtaken, and that's a risk. 100 or 100okg, it won't be good.

okgo said:

Perspective is what the anti bike mouthbreathers on PH forget.

This and your other comment about drivers says more about you than them.

100% agree with Sticks here. Also, the same poster earlier in the thread boasted of overtaking a car on a dual carriageway, during a time trial - along with a laughing smiley. Which for me, is really not a good look.

[okgo]

Prisoner 24601 said:

100% agree with Sticks here. Also, the same poster earlier in the thread boasted of overtaking a car on a dual carriageway, during a time trial - along with a laughing smiley. Which for me, is really not a good look.

Wasn’t a boast, though I did win the TT I guess.

Not sure if it came across but the judgement of a few duffers on PH is VERY low down my list of worries. Alongside perhaps seeing a fat bloke in a Lime go through a red at a ped crossing. Nobody cares.

[Siao]

Julian Scott said:

Siao said:

okgo said:

Siao said:

Oh come on. Play fair, you just tarred everyone with the same brush above, you can dish it but you can't take it?

Not every driver is on their phone and cappuccino and not every rider is on their Strava runs. This is my take and I do hope it is true.

Even if they were, what do you think is going to be more dangerous of those two scenarios - the man and bike at 100-150kg combined or the car made of metal at 10x that?

Perspective is what the anti bike mouthbreathers on PH forget.

Sure, I did not say the opposite, cars can cause more harm. But I had the "Strava" racers almost knocking me down from my bike before, ran a red light and straight into my path. People can be dicks, from all sides is all I'm saying. Having cars doesn't make them more or less dicks, just that they should be (even) more considerate dicks.

Your ignorance is that they were 'Strava racers'. Strava is not the root of the problems with cyclists, just being a is.

I've ridden with 100s of cyclist thins year. I've not heard one of them specifically target a sector whilst we've been riding. It's a motivation issue that really doesn't exist except in the minds of the uninformed. Every single rider I know uses Strava to asses the their ride in retrospect, not to race against.

Very much agree, being a c*nt is the root of all problems, both for cyclists and drivers.

Strava racers was an attempt to replicate your own snipe to the cappuccino-drinkers, without calling you ignorant though. Anyway, this is going nowhere, at least we agreed on one thing! Happy riding friend

[Julian Scott]

Sticks. said:

okgo said:

It does work.

It’s why you can ride a bike pissed and probably just get a talking to by the cops if you get caught. That doesn’t happen in a car for obvious reasons.

The two, apart from sharing a road are totally different propositions. It’s so so obvious.

So passing a car doing 20 in a 20 on a bike is wrong/a bit wrong/not wrong?

Technically, it is not wrong.

Whether it is sensible depends on the circumstances.


Doing 80mph on a deserted dry motorway is technically wrong, but it's also perfectly fine with a sensibility mindset.

[ukbabz]

Sticks. said:

ukbabz said:

Sticks. said:

So passing a car doing 20 in a 20 on a bike is wrong/a bit wrong/not wrong?

<excluding a few specific places> it is not illegal, no more so than over taking a lorry on a dual carriageway in a car. In 20mph signed section the limit is 20mph for the car and there isn't a specific limit for the bike.

So an OK thing to do then? Or not.

It depends on other factors, such as oncoming traffic, visibility on the road, vulnerable road users - a bit like when you'd over take another car on a section of road.

However, you seem to be mixing legal and OK which are two different questions.

Also worth bearing in mind that people who are driving at speedo 20mph can be closer to 17/18mph when reading with a GPS device. Which is the main thing a cyclist is going to have to know their speed. So the bike may only be doing 20mph when passing a car doing a speedo 20mph.

[Julian Scott]

Prisoner 24601 said:

Sticks. said:

okgo said:

Even if they were, what do you think is going to be more dangerous of those two scenarios - the man and bike at 100-150kg combined or the car made of metal at 10x that?

Why do it at all? In a 20 zone, pedestrians will not anticipate someone doing 20 being overtaken, and that's a risk. 100 or 100okg, it won't be good.

okgo said:

Perspective is what the anti bike mouthbreathers on PH forget.

This and your other comment about drivers says more about you than them.

100% agree with Sticks here. Also, the same poster earlier in the thread boasted of overtaking a car on a dual carriageway, during a time trial - along with a laughing smiley. Which for me, is really not a good look.

Why? If you are doing 50kph (but less than half the speed limit) and a car is travelling at 40kph. What should you do?

[Julian Scott]

Siao said:

Julian Scott said:

Siao said:

okgo said:

Siao said:

Oh come on. Play fair, you just tarred everyone with the same brush above, you can dish it but you can't take it?

Not every driver is on their phone and cappuccino and not every rider is on their Strava runs. This is my take and I do hope it is true.

Even if they were, what do you think is going to be more dangerous of those two scenarios - the man and bike at 100-150kg combined or the car made of metal at 10x that?

Perspective is what the anti bike mouthbreathers on PH forget.

Sure, I did not say the opposite, cars can cause more harm. But I had the "Strava" racers almost knocking me down from my bike before, ran a red light and straight into my path. People can be dicks, from all sides is all I'm saying. Having cars doesn't make them more or less dicks, just that they should be (even) more considerate dicks.

Your ignorance is that they were 'Strava racers'. Strava is not the root of the problems with cyclists, just being a is.

I've ridden with 100s of cyclist thins year. I've not heard one of them specifically target a sector whilst we've been riding. It's a motivation issue that really doesn't exist except in the minds of the uninformed. Every single rider I know uses Strava to asses the their ride in retrospect, not to race against.

Very much agree, being a c*nt is the root of all problems, both for cyclists and drivers.

Strava racers was an attempt to replicate your own snipe to the cappuccino-drinkers, without calling you ignorant though. Anyway, this is going nowhere, at least we agreed on one thing! Happy riding friend

I didn't call you ignorant. I used the adjective, ignorance.

And I didn't snipe, what I said was that cyclists were less likely to riding with poor observation, less likely to be on their phone/holding a moka-frapa-caramel-venti-cup-of-diabetes/reprimanding their kids in the back seat/inputting on their satnav/etc. ....all of which are demonstrable causes of RTCs and KSI stats.

[Julian Scott]

Sticks. said:

ukbabz said:

It depends on other factors, such as oncoming traffic, visibility on the road, vulnerable road users - a bit like when you'd over take another car on a section of road.

However, you seem to be mixing legal and OK which are two different questions.

Also worth bearing in mind that people who are driving at speedo 20mph can be closer to 17/18mph when reading with a GPS device. Which is the main thing a cyclist is going to have to know their speed. So the bike may only be doing 20mph when passing a car doing a speedo 20mph.

I get what you mean, and no two locations are the same, but I don't agree I'm afraid.

20 zones are such as a mean adding extra safety. But pedestrians adapt to this and their behaviour/alertness changes - something to be aware of and adapt to. Mixing legal/OK, maybe, but 55 in a 50 (for eg) is very different to 25 in a 20 imho. As said, it's a 20 zone for a reason.

For me, doing something unexpected is a biggie for creating hazards/risks, and passing a car doing 20 in a 20 (in/on whatever) falls into that category (along with many other things).

I actually agree with some of that......however, it was previously stated that the '20 for a reason' reasons was for a school. And this was Sunday.

Doing 25 past a closed school (which unless a downhill I doubt the riders were) on a Sunday is arguably no different to doing 55 in a 50 (50 limits by their nature are deemed not safe enough for NSL).

The most unusual aspect was a driver only doing 20 (and as said, a speedo 20 so likely 18mph) in a 20 past a closed school. On the very rare occasions I've come across a driver actually doing 20 (regardless of my steed), it's comically slow, and so comical that it highlight how very few drivers stick to it unless forced (by traffic).

[Solocle]

okgo said:

Prisoner 24601 said:

100% agree with Sticks here. Also, the same poster earlier in the thread boasted of overtaking a car on a dual carriageway, during a time trial - along with a laughing smiley. Which for me, is really not a good look.

Wasn’t a boast, though I did win the TT I guess.

Not sure if it came across but the judgement of a few duffers on PH is VERY low down my list of worries. Alongside perhaps seeing a fat bloke in a Lime go through a red at a ped crossing. Nobody cares.

I was sad on this TT that I, just further back, never caught up to the tractor to overtake it, as I'd seen it at the turnaround.

That said, I have overtaken a car on a dual carriageway on a solo ride a couple of times before. Absolutely nothing wrong with overtaking slower moving traffic if you do so safely.

Edited by Solocle on Tuesday 25th June 12:23

[ukbabz]

Sticks. said:

I get what you mean, and no two locations are the same, but I don't agree I'm afraid.

20 zones are such as a mean adding extra safety. But pedestrians adapt to this and their behaviour/alertness changes - something to be aware of and adapt to. Mixing legal/OK, maybe, but 55 in a 50 (for eg) is very different to 25 in a 20 imho. As said, it's a 20 zone for a reason.

For me, doing something unexpected is a biggie for creating hazards/risks, and passing a car doing 20 in a 20 (in/on whatever) falls into that category (along with many other things).

Agreed and that needs to be taken into consideration. Around here (South Oxfordshire) pretty much every village is rushing to a 20mph limit whether it's appropriate or not which leads to situations like this - a good example is this road nearby https://maps.app.goo.gl/iQw7QKa8JBNnMyZFA which is now a 20mph zone through the entire village.

I hear similar issues in Wales where the 20mph zones have been applied with a broad brush

[Julian Scott]

Solocle said:

I was sad on this TT that I, just further back, never caught up to the tractor to overtake it, as I'd seen it at the turnaround.

Tractors offer the perfect draft. Most are limited to 30mph/46kph, and offer large draft (especially if towing a trailer) plus the nature of their tyres means you can hear the slightest change in speed to keep you safe.