In any event, it's highly doubtful that the logistics of enforcing a speed limit for cyclists would be possible, given the majority of cyclists are unlikely to have a speedometer, & there would need to be a calibrated device display installed on millions of cycles?
Personally, I don't think in general it looks very reasonable to cycle above the motor vehicle speed limit. Yes we are lighter and smaller, but still subject to the same limits of reaction time and distractability, and our braking is often poorer than that of a car.
Look at it this way. If speed limit X is appropriate for motorised vehicles up to and including massive lorries, and the limit was set so as to protect pedestrians in the event of a collision (hence highlighting the survivability of a collision at 20 vs 30 vs 40 etc), then what would be an appropriate speed limit for bikes that would provide a similar level of protection in the event of a collision given the greater than 10-fold difference in energy involved?
Assuming 20mph was set to protect against the average car being driven at 20mph by an average driver, and a bike plus rider weighing 100kg, the equivalent speed limit would arguably be around 76mph. For a car of around 1500kg plus driver to hit with the same energy as a bike doing 25mph, it would have to be driven at no more than 6.5mph.
I'm not interested in what people think when they fall for the artificially generated outrage of the right wing gutter press. If people really cared about pedestrian safety, they wouldn't be up in arms about 20mph speed limits in built up areas, or insist on parking next to schools in massive Shitty Useless Vehicles. How many people dying of Covid did it take to provoke the whole world into lockdown, and how many people are KSIed every year without any meaningful change in how we deal with traffic collisions or deplorable driver behaviour?
There is nothing reasonable about the British approach to road safety. Why did this happen and how could it have been prevented are reasonable questions. Suggesting cyclists should comply with speed limits set for motorised vehicles is not at all reasonable.
Your carefully reasoned argument says that the speed limit for cyclists in the park should be 76mph? Did you step back and look at that afterwards to question yourself? Maybe think "Hold on, that doesn't sound sensible - perhaps I should question my calculation?"
You think kinetic energy is a sensible comparison? Your car of 1500kg at 20mph has around 59300J. Looking around the internet, a 5.6mm NATO bullet being fired from a gun has around 1600J of kinetic energy. Would you rather be hit by a car at 20mph, or 37 bullets? Lets scale it back a bit: would you rather be hit by a bullet, or a car at 3.3mph? This is the reality of your equal-energy comparison.
If you go back to my post, you'll discover I mentioned relevant issues for stopping distance. i.e. avoiding a collision entirely. It's not perfect either, but it's a damn sight closer to it than 76mph.
Recent Posts
🟨