Speed limit signs on Clapham Common

[TimO]

Like others have said, the cycle route through the park has very clear sight lines along most of the way, so you can go faster than 8mph perfectly safely, if you do watch out for dogs, people on the paths at right angles, and gormless cyclists who are too busy reading an SMS on their phones or similar (I get this once every few months).

An 8mph limit verges on the ridiculous, and I don't think any guidelines anywhere suggest that it's a sensible limit for cycles on any sort of route.  If you need a speed that low, it's probably not appropriate to have a route which is so close to pedestrians at all, but that's not really the problem here.

It's an important route because it feeds directly onto Cedars Road, which itself is pretty directly in line with Chelsea Bridge, and in the other direction is fed from various southerly directions, and various useful and important routes, including CS7.

Click for a bigger and more extensive map

This map shows the Clapham Common path we're talking about in Red, although the bit along the Windmill Drive (the middle of the three red lines) is actually a normal road, and covered by the normal highway laws.  It's also frequently used by car drivers doing a lot more than 8mph, and fairly often more than 30mph.

The Magenta lines show some feeds into this path from the south (including CS7), and the Cyan show the direction that many cyclists follow north of it.

In Black I've tried to show some alternative routes.  The one to the West has some fairly nasty junctions and the traffic levels on that road are very high.  It's not a nice road to cycle on, and you'd avoid it, since it's significantly more dangerous than going across the Common and along Queenstown Road.

The routes to the East of the common isn't as bad as the Western one, but still does have some iffy junctions, and unless they've resurfaced a lot of it recently has some very bad surfaces, to the extent that if I couldn't cross the Common, I'd seriously consider using the Western route rather than this one.

All of the roads immediately around the Common are very busy at most times, and not very pleasant to use at all.

The route across the Common is useful, convenient and important to London cyclists.  As far as I'm aware there isn't any significant history of problems, certainly not compared to many of the roads in London, which are generally far less friendly for both pedestrians and cyclists.  It seems very odd the effort that seems to be going into discouraging cyclists from using what admittedly isn't a perfect facility, but which is a damned site better than many.  The local councils should be improving it and encouraging cyclists to use it.  Pushing cyclists off of the common and onto the surrounding roads is certain to increase the number of collisions between cyclists and motor vehicles, with consequent effects on injuries and fatalities.

[Jurek]

Sounds a bit like a SafeSpeed "it's fine to do 60mph past a primary school" campaign, if we're not careful!

Yes.
You are correct.
Although I didn't think this was a debate about driving a car at 60mph past a primary school.

[EdinburghFixed]

Well, you're welcome to let me spear my 70t chainring into your thigh at 30mph instead, if you think that's not going to be a problem! 

At the end of the day, exactly the same logic supports speed limits on the road and off it. Since I definitely prefer my motorists to be doing less than 60mph round town, I find it impossible to convincingly object to the *principle* of speed limits on shared use paths.

What is necessary though is to set a sensible speed limit. The Union Canal in Edinburgh has 6mph signs, which is not only slower than somebody bimbling along slowly would be doing, but actually slower than many people can ride without wobbling across into oncoming traffic. Consequently it is completely ignored, and if enforced would simply drive cyclists off the path altogether.

If we allow that a speed limit needs to strike a balance between both groups of users (otherwise we could make the roads very safe by enforcing an 8mph limit on cars), we need to choose a value that is both an improvement for people walking, and still worthwhile for those travelling by wheel.

[Cudzoziemiec]

Oh, I dunno, in these times of financial crisis, imagine how much employment could be generated if all cyclists (and motorists, naturally) had to be proceeded by a man on foot carrying a red flag!

[Tewdric]

I can indeed confirm there was a man and a woman with a speed gun and clipboard stationed halfway down the path last week (like a number of people here, it's part of my regular commute route).  
 

They were probably from the anti cycling "friends" of clapham common club... I've felt like ripping down those signs every time I've passed them  

It's good of them to provide an intermediate sprint to make the trip to work more interesting.  Do you get a green jersey if you're fastest through it for three weeks in a row I wonder?

[TimO]

Also worth noting is that the signage for any speed limit along this path is laughable.  The path is in two sections, joined by a short section of road travel along Windmill Drive.  This means for it to be enforceable there would need to be four signs.

Yesterday on my way home, I had a look to see what was there.  The southern section of path has no signs whatsoever (or they're very well hidden).  The northern section has a sign at the Northern end, near the junction with Cedars Road.  I think they'res a sign at the southern end, but it seems to be on the footpath, which I miss, because I come from the opposite direction.

Are we sure these signs are actually targeted at cyclists?  Out of four locations, there is only one sign on which the text is so small it's probably impossible to read without actually stopping.  From a point of view of the courts, this is laughable, and you wouldn't need Mr Loophole to get out of it, I doubt you'd even have to argue hard.  Without a "normal" red circle on a white background with the speed limit in black numerals, they've got virtually no case.  The council can pull speed limits out of the air if they wish, but they're going to find it very hard to enforce if they choose not to make people aware of this in a reasonable and clear fashion, and one badly designed sign does not cover this.

[David Martin]

However, the presence of such a sign may swing the balance if a pedestrian decides to sue a cyclist who they claim was riding far too fast.

Agree that the signs are a waste of money. Here, they have signs which say 'Cyclists slow down. Beware of pedestrians' or similar on some of the more popular shared path routes (like Grassy Beach).

That seems to be more in keeping with the spirit.

..d

[origamist]

Also worth noting is that the signage for any speed limit along this path is laughable.  The path is in two sections, joined by a short section of road travel along Windmill Drive.  This means for it to be enforceable there would need to be four signs.

Yesterday on my way home, I had a look to see what was there.  The southern section of path has no signs whatsoever (or they're very well hidden).  The northern section has a sign at the Northern end, near the junction with Cedars Road.  I think they'res a sign at the southern end, but it seems to be on the footpath, which I miss, because I come from the opposite direction.

Are we sure these signs are actually targeted at cyclists?  Out of four locations, there is only one sign on which the text is so small it's probably impossible to read without actually stopping.  From a point of view of the courts, this is laughable, and you wouldn't need Mr Loophole to get out of it, I doubt you'd even have to argue hard.  Without a "normal" red circle on a white background with the speed limit in black numerals, they've got virtually no case.  The council can pull speed limits out of the air if they wish, but they're going to find it very hard to enforce if they choose not to make people aware of this in a reasonable and clear fashion, and one badly designed sign does not cover this.

Tim, the signs are aimed at cyclists and as I said up-thread somewhere the 8mph speed limit is not currently enforceable - it's advisory. When I asked the Lambeth Parks chap who had installed the signs (I use the word "signs" loosely as they are little more than a few poorly laminated A4 printouts tethered to lampposts that become unreadable when it's windy) whether a cyclist could be fined for exceeding the 8mph limit he said they were "extrapolating" as there was not a new bylaw, at that point he refused to go into further detail. That said, he supplied his email address and asked to me write to him, which I have done and am awaiting a reply.

PS I like your map.

[Cudzoziemiec]

Well that somewhat changes things. I had assumed these were proper signs with a figure in a red circle. But thinking about it, that would be a road sign, and this is not a road...

[clarion]

I find it impossible to convincingly object to the *principle* of speed limits on shared use paths.

Nor me, but this isn't a shared use path we're talking about.

I think it is reasonable (though not realistically enforcable) to set a speed limit on this path, but 8mph is utterly ridiculous.  

[alexb]

I think the whole issue that riles me is that there have been very few accidents, but some pretty loud complaints and the council's response is to apply an arbritray speed limit.

Apply the same logic to the roads - loads of accidents, many fatal, lots of complaints, loads of scientific research all of which backs the idea that a speed limit reduction would deliver in so many areas.
 - Council response - "No" in the face of all evidence.

It's a good path. It works.
Almost all the cyclists behave responsively and reactively.

Those that don't behave now, won't behave in the future.

Leave it alone - target those that are seen to behave badly.

[TimO]

... It's a good path. It works.
Almost all the cyclists behave responsively and reactively.

Those that don't behave now, won't behave in the future.

Leave it alone - target those that are seen to behave badly.

Exactly.  There's far better cycling on there than compared to driving on most of the roads of London.

Incidentally, just because it's not a road doesn't mean things aren't enforcable.  To some degree the Councils can make whatever rules they want, but for something like a speed limit, I think the courts would expect it to be done in line with other similar locations ie the roads.

To support that argument, there is signage for road vehicles on the Common (presumably deliveries to the Cafe and commons maintenance work vehicles predominantly), which use the footpath, and there are traditional 5mph speed limit signs.

[clarion]

When I say it isn't enforcable, I am alluding to the lack of approved devices calibrated for measuring such low speeds accurately (especially for bikes, which are a small target, and have part of the vehicle travelling at twice the speed, as well as the spokes providing irregular reflections).

[Cudzoziemiec]

I'm a bit wary of this spokes argument. If someone who actually knows about radar says it's correct, then that's a different matter, but atm it just reminds me of the argument about radiator fans in cars. That a radar speed gun is inaccurate in the case of a slow-moving smallish vehicle like a bike seems quite believable, but spokes are pretty small, even compared to a bike...

[clarion]

I've heard it from radar-savvy experts.  I don't know any different.

[Cudzoziemiec]

I can see sense in having an enforceable speed limit in this way: if someone is riding dangerously or antisocially fast, you can stop them and tell them they were breaking the limit, and that means something, whereas just saying "you were going too fast" will almost certainly be met with a "says who?" attitude. Even without fines. Just as on the roads, really, if we left speed decisions solely to the individual driver, there would be virtually no way of showing people they were driving too fast.

Not that speed limits are a panacea in any situation, obviously; and 8mph does seem rather slow, and I'm sure there are other roads (even other cycle paths, maybe) where the need for speed enforcement and reduction is far more urgent - but in principle it's not a bad idea. It's just been implemented in a stupid way.

[alexb]

I'm a bit wary of this spokes argument. If someone who actually knows about radar says it's correct, then that's a different matter, but atm it just reminds me of the argument about radiator fans in cars. That a radar speed gun is inaccurate in the case of a slow-moving smallish vehicle like a bike seems quite believable, but spokes are pretty small, even compared to a bike...

I believe this is an over extrapolation of the argument why speed cameras are inaccurate when applied to tractors and other vehicles with very large driving wheels. On tractors, the return at the top of the wheel is considerably shifted compared to the vehicles forward movement or the lower part of the wheel.

In other words, target a radar gun at a tractor cab and you get the true speed.
If you miss the cab and get the top of the wheel (which is moving a lot faster than the centre of the wheel) then it appears that the tractor is travelling faster than its actual road speed.

[origamist]

I have just received the following relply:

Dear XXXXXX

Pleasure speaking with you and we are very grateful for your concern and advice on this matter.

To answer your questions directly there aren't specific by-laws on cycling apart from Part 3 item 15 which states: that no person shall without reasonable excuse ride a cycle in the ground except in any part of the ground where there is a right of way for cycles or on a designated route for cycling.

However, the problems and risk of an accident are evident as we have received several complaints about speeding cyclist and near misses. In the light of this the temporary signs presently displayed are meant to encourage considerate cycling and we are in the process of forming a working group to find appropriate resolutions to our inconsiderate cycling problems.

Furthermore we concede that the wording of the new signs will need to be more carefully selective. The £500 fine is in reference general to bye law contraventions and enforcing a speed limit will be difficult even if the bye-law could be correctly interpreted.    

I would like to keep you informed of our progress on this matter, meanwhile please do not hesitate to contact me on this or any other subject regarding the management of the common.

Yours sincerely

XXXXX  XXXXXX
Area Parks Officer

[Greenbank]

Print that out.
Continue to ride carefully and considerately (even above 8mph).

Await outcome of 'working group' (which will, unsurprisingly, be nothing).

Meanwhile, the inconsiderate 'speeding' cyclists will continue to ignore any signs put up there.

[clarion]

So they have deployed strategic porky pies to achieve a desirable end (improved cycling behaviour)?

But they're in danger of making themselves ridiculous by the stringency of their invented requirements.

[spindrift]

It's not a million miles away from the "Be Polite" signs on The Regents Canal. I gave up using that route because the speeding cyclists really annoyed me, why not use the roads if you want to do 15mph, instead of scaring joggers, dog walkers etc.

[clarion]

Yes, but this is not a path for joggers or dog walkers.

[Cudzoziemiec]

Surely the entire park is, or should be, for joggers and dog walkers? This is just a path for cyclists to cross the park. Though I think it would be good if they could do so on any other path in the park, riding considerately.

[clarion]

Most paths on the Common are barred to cyclists, including the path which runs parallel to the cycle path.  Where they cross, pedestrians have priority.

Yes, joggers & dog walkers could use the path, just as they could run or walk their dogs on the A3 adjacent, but that's not what its designed for, and, tbf, you generally don't get non-cycling users going along it.  Across is, obviously, a different matter.

[Biggsy]

These kind of paths are fine for cyclists as well as walkers if everyone is just reasonable.

Nevermind a pretend speed limit - that makes the authorities look silly when they get found out - just have this advisory:

"Dear cyclists, it would be appreciated if you would go dead slow near pedestrians.  Have a nice day".