Clapham Common Speed Limit for Cycles

[Regulator]

Does anyone have a copy of the notice that was handed out by police about a 5mph speed limit for cyclists on Clapham Common?

The reason that I ask is that I've looked at the extant byelaws - and can find no mention of a speed limit for cyclists.  I think this may be a case of Lambeth/Wandsworth Parks Police exceeding their authority and acting on out of date information.

I'm thinking of raising this formally as a CTC councillor-elect.

[αdαmsκι]

Is there any useful info on the thread that appeared elsewhere?

[ChrisO]

Sorry I've chucked it... but IIRC they didn't claim it was determined by byelaws, they said there was a sign (or signs) around the common saying the speed limit was 5mph.

And there was a thread in the other place from someone claiming to be part of the enforcement team (a PCSO I suppose) who admitted that was wrong but that the byelaws said 8mph, and the advice had been changed accordingly.

I would wholeheartedly support the speed limits if they also apply to the roads which slice the common in pieces.

[Regulator]

Is there any useful info on the thread that appeared elsewhere?

I shall follow up with the Clapham Common Safer Neighbourhood Team, which appear to be the police unit behind it.

I think the copper who responded Elsewhere is incorrect.

[Tiger]

5 mph is a very silly speed indeed - walking pace.  Might just as well have a get off and walk rule.

[clarion]

We can't really manage 5mph on the tandem.  I suspect a lot of riders get really wobbly at that speed... d'Oh!

[Regulator]

Sorry I've chucked it... but IIRC they didn't claim it was determined by byelaws, they said there was a sign (or signs) around the common saying the speed limit was 5mph.

And there was a thread in the other place from someone claiming to be part of the enforcement team (a PCSO I suppose) who admitted that was wrong but that the byelaws said 8mph, and the advice had been changed accordingly.

I would wholeheartedly support the speed limits if they also apply to the roads which slice the common in pieces.

A sign can only impose a limit if it backed up by law.  Otherwise I could go round sticking up signs saying that all men had to cycle naked across Clapham Common for my enjoyment and then insist on the police arresting those who didn't.

The fact that a sign is there doesn't mean that it's enforceable.

[clarion]

You mean I didn't have to strip at Clapham South?

[Snugsy]

Sorry I've chucked it... but IIRC they didn't claim it was determined by byelaws, they said there was a sign (or signs) around the common saying the speed limit was 5mph.

And there was a thread in the other place from someone claiming to be part of the enforcement team (a PCSO I suppose) who admitted that was wrong but that the byelaws said 8mph, and the advice had been changed accordingly.

I would wholeheartedly support the speed limits if they also apply to the roads which slice the common in pieces.

A sign can only impose a limit if it backed up by law.  Otherwise I could go round sticking up signs saying that all men had to cycle naked across Clapham Common for my enjoyment and then insist on the police arresting those who didn't.

The fact that a sign is there doesn't mean that it's enforceable.

If there's a speed limit sign anywhere, it must be well hidden.

I suspect all this hoo-hah began as a result of the fatal cycle/ped collision of some weeks ago (
BBC NEWS | England | Cyclists 'don't obey road laws'
although I also suspect that this case was the result of drunk teenagers playing chicken and trying to deliberately knock over the cyclist.

On Clapham Common, I expect some dog-emptier whinged to the police about cyclists (shock! horror!) actually using the cycle path for its intended purpose i.e getting across the common because the ickle puppywuppy aka crap machine had been fwighteneded.

Hence over-the-top action by the plod including thinking up a speed limit out of thin air.

[Gattopardo]

woof woof boing boing

[Regulator]

You mean I didn't have to strip at Clapham South?

I've told you countless times - your perversions are NOT mandatory!   

[Gattopardo]

You mean I didn't have to strip at Clapham South?

I've told you countless times - your perversions are NOT mandatory!   

Naturalist 

[ChrisO]

On Clapham Common, I expect some dog-emptier whinged to the police about cyclists (shock! horror!) actually using the cycle path for its intended purpose i.e getting across the common because the ickle puppywuppy aka crap machine had been fwighteneded.

Hence over-the-top action by the plod including thinking up a speed limit out of thin air.

Apparently there was some incident in which a pedestrian was alarmed. Not a collision. But they told the police they were afraid to use the Common any more.

It's funny you know... around the same time as this a bus driver deliberately rammed me on Clapham Common north side, an incident he admitted to his company resulting in disciplinary proceedings and of which there is (or was) CCTV footage.

Yet no team of police was despatched to hand out leaflets to bus drivers.

In fact apart from an administrative letter nearly a month after reporting it as far as I'm aware the police have done absolutely nothing about a red-mist bus driver still threatening the streets of London.

But come near a pedestrian on a bike path - well that's really serious stuff isn't it.

[Gattopardo]

On Clapham Common, I expect some dog-emptier whinged to the police about cyclists (shock! horror!) actually using the cycle path for its intended purpose i.e getting across the common because the ickle puppywuppy aka crap machine had been fwighteneded.

Hence over-the-top action by the plod including thinking up a speed limit out of thin air.

Apparently there was some incident in which a pedestrian was alarmed. Not a collision. But they told the police they were afraid to use the Common any more.

It's funny you know... around the same time as this a bus driver deliberately rammed me on Clapham Common north side, an incident he admitted to his company resulting in disciplinary proceedings and of which there is (or was) CCTV footage.

Yet no team of police was despatched to hand out leaflets to bus drivers.

In fact apart from an administrative letter nearly a month after reporting it as far as I'm aware the police have done absolutely nothing about a red-mist bus driver still threatening the streets of London.

But come near a pedestrian on a bike path - well that's really serious stuff isn't it.

PM hellymedic/regulator the details as that is not acceptable for what happened.

[Gattopardo]

Anyone got a photo of the signs and the location on Clapham Common.

Thank you

[Snugsy]

On Clapham Common, I expect some dog-emptier whinged to the police about cyclists (shock! horror!) actually using the cycle path for its intended purpose i.e getting across the common because the ickle puppywuppy aka crap machine had been fwighteneded.

Hence over-the-top action by the plod including thinking up a speed limit out of thin air.

Apparently there was some incident in which a pedestrian was alarmed. Not a collision. But they told the police they were afraid to use the Common any more.

That's a laugh. I'm quite often "alarmed" on the Common by phalanxes of running pedestrians crossing the path without looking in the rush hour and oncoming cyclists with an apparent death wish.

Should I whinge to the plod?

[Snugsy]

Anyone got a photo of the signs and the location on Clapham Common.

Thank you

AFAIK there aren't any signs. Not where passing cyclists can see them, anyway

[TimO]

It's hard to imagine where these signs are.

I cross the commons twice a day, once in each direction, using the only, as far as I know, legal bicycle path (ie the broadly North-South route from Narbonne Avenue to Cedars Road).  I've looked, fairly carefully, and I have seen no signs, aside from the normal blue bicycle route signs.  Unusually, I don't think there are even any "No Cycling" bits where the footpaths and cycle paths cross, which are quite common in places like Hyde Park which also allows cycling on some routes.

Given that there are previous cases where the lack of no cycling signs has seen prosecutions of cyclists overturned [1] , I can't see that a speed limit with no, or extremely poorly signed signage is going to have any effect.

Footnote [1]: The case involved No Cycling markings on the footpath not being adequate, as I recall.  I'm sure someone more familiar with such things will be along shortly.