It’s that time of the year again, folks, when community groups don their hi-vis vests, stand by the side of the road for a few hours, and then make vague, unsubstantiated claims about “speeding” cyclists, in turn kicking off a long, undignified debate on social media.
Last November, you may remember, we reported on the live blog that a volunteer speed group in Ringinglow clocked 13 speeding drivers during one such session (including one doing 60mph on the 30mph road), while also pointing out that they spotted “a group of cyclists at 44mph”, which they pointed out was “well in excess” of the 30mph and did not “comply with regulations” – despite, as we’ll note in a minute, speed limits not applying to cyclists.
> Volunteer speed monitors call out "group of cyclists at 44 mph" in "speed track" 30mph zone (that doesn't apply to cyclists)
And now, it’s the turn of another group of residents, this time in Oxford, to stir the pot and go all Telegraph on us when it comes to the speed of cyclists on our roads.
At the weekend, residents and members of the Independent Oxford Alliance, an Oxfordshire-based political party “wanting to bring common sense back into local politics” (we’ll be the judge of that), pitched up on Morrell Avenue, a residential street in the east of the city with a 20mph speed limit in place.
After conducting their speed watch, the IOA posted on social media: “During the session cars were clocked on average at 25-35 mph with several cyclists clocked over 30 mph. Please travel safely everyone.”
Unsurprisingly, the wording of the tweet kicked off an, ahem, lively discussion in the comments, with many questioning the veracity of the group’s claims that “several” people on bikes managed to reach 30mph on the road.
“Who were these cyclists doing over 30mph?” asked David. “The British Olympic Committee needs their names as they could get gold medals in four years’ time.”
“I didn’t know the Vuelta was passing through Oxford!” added another user, while Smudger sarcastically described the road as the “official Cavendish sprint training ground”.
Meanwhile, cycling solicitor Rory McCarron said: “Using your cordless travel hairdryer doesn’t seem like the most reliable speed reader judging by these results…”
However, one local cyclist did point out that the speed-monitoring group was situated at the bottom of the street, which includes pitches of six per cent and where he claims he has “hit 30mph down there without trying”.
Accepting that some – if maybe not several – cyclists could reach 30mph down the hill, others such as Chris called out the group’s apparent need to address the “false equivalence” evident in their post.
“So Morrell Ave is a 20 limit yeah, and you clocked drivers mainly doing 25-35mph, but the few cyclists you claim to have seen doing 30+ are more the issue here? How many cars were doing 25-35?” asked Stuart.
“Sounds like the cyclists are traveling at the same speed as traffic! Where’s the issue here?” added Lauri.
Meanwhile, Gordon noted: “You can’t quote ‘on average 25-35mph’. If you know the average number, then please state the actual value otherwise you are just spreading nonsense.”
> Press regulator rules Telegraph breached Editors' Code with inaccurate claim cyclists hit 52mph chasing London Strava segments
Fortunately, thanks to open data source Telraam, we are able to roughly figure out the speeds of motor vehicles on Morrell Avenue, despite the IOA’s vague tweet.
According to the data, over the past two weeks, of the almost 40,000 cars recorded using the 20mph road, 28 per cent were doing between 12-18mph and 29 per cent 18-24mph.
However, 22 per cent were also recorded to be driving between 24-31mph, while eight per cent were spotted at 31-37mph, and three per cent at over 37mph, roughly double the road’s limit.
Noting those numbers, Pedal and Post’s Christopher Benton said: “Cyclists are not the issue, vehicles are the danger to all on Morrel Avenue.”
Returning to the IOA’s tweet, Mark added: “So some 10kg pedal cyclists were recorded at 30mph+, and that warrants highlighting as dangerous, when many 2,000kg+ motor vehicles were doing that or faster speeds?? Maybe a basic physics lesson might help out here.”
“The false equivalence is the duplicity to focus on then,” agreed Stuart. “800 cars doing nearly double the speed limit, but they create a post about a few cyclists not speeding... Is the focus road safety?”
> Police stop cyclists riding at 39mph in 30mph zone despite speed limits not applying to bicycle riders
Of course, and as always needs to be highlighted when these kinds of things crop up, there are no speed limits for cyclists in the UK — except where local byelaws apply, such as in some parks. The Highway Code sets out speed limits for vehicles, but does not include bicycles, meaning — byelaw-restricted areas such as some promenades, paths or parks aside — cyclists cannot be fined for speeding.
Instead however, cyclists can be charged with dangerous cycling, under the 1988 Road Traffic Act Section 28, which states an offence is committed if “the way they ride falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful cyclist” and it “would be obvious to a competent and careful cyclist that riding in that way would be dangerous”, with “dangerous” referring to “danger either of injury to any person or of serious damage to property”.
Responding to the widespread criticism on social media, the IOA released the following short statement: “To cycling Twitter who are getting a bit…well… Yes, it’s downhill. No, we didn’t say it was illegal. Next time we’ll take video. Thanks for popping by.”
Add new comment
39 comments
And on today's episode of 'La Vuelta a Indeed' the Quest highlights had Carlton Kirby utter the word 'indeed' twenty-three times in approximately 23 minutes of actual commentary coverage, including another instance of saying it 3 times in one sentence. 🙄
And don't get me started on how often Sean Kelly says "difficult" and "difficulty"! 😬
Independent Oxford Alliance?
REG: Right. You're in. Listen. The only people we hate more than the speeding motorists are the ******* Independent Oxford Alliance.
P.F.J.: Yeah...
JUDITH: Splitters.
P.F.J.: Splitters...
FRANCIS: And the Oxford Independent Alliance.
P.F.J.: Yeah. Oh, yeah. Splitters. Splitters...
LORETTA: And the Alliance of Oxford Independents.
P.F.J.: Yeah. Splitters. Splitters...
REG: What?
LORETTA: The Alliance of Oxford Independents. Splitters.
REG: We're the Alliance of Oxford Independents!
LORETTA: Oh. I thought we were the Independent Alliance.
REG: Oxford Independents! C-huh.
FRANCIS: Whatever happened to the Independent Alliance, Reg?
REG: He's over there.
P.F.J.: Splitter!
Way above this lot for August (25.7 mph)
- it's funny how the claimed August cyclists at 30+ don't have enough pride to use Strava If it's not on Strava, it didn't happen
It's never been lost on me that the idiots who try to quote these fantastic speeds fail to realise nearly every cyclist with a reasonably fast bike and the legs to power it carry with them a method of recording their speed with a more accurate device than their car speedo or a speed camera. And not only do we use them but if we manage to hit high speeds we do whatever we can to highlight it on apps like Strava. No laws broken and all the kudos we can glean from it.
What's a Strava?
English are walking record distances but car is still most popular form of transport (gRaudian)
Department for Transport’s travel survey also found the Covid-era shift to cycling continued to fizzle away
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/aug/28/english-are-walk...
And fun excerpts:
Dangerous Cycling:
"it “would be obvious to a competent and careful cyclist that riding in that way would be dangerous”
So cannot be judged by non-cyclists?
And how do we determine competence?
Or like other road traffic offences are police officers always deemed competent?
I'd judge competence by the cyclist not hitting someone/something and not falling off.
I'd be happy for a cycling police officer to give their opinion on competence, but not a driving police person.
I would offer that that is just luck!
In the same way as: "I've been driving for 50 years and never had an accident!"
Competence is objective and measurable and should be demonstrated.
But what are these measurable objectives?
Well we seem happy* with the offenses of "causing death by dangerous driving" and "causing death by careless driving" which require people to distinguish between driving which falls "below what is expected of a competent and careful driver" and "far below what is expected of a competent and careful driver"...
But yes - the fact we have unhelpful laws to police driving shouldn't be reason to add unhelpful ones for cycling which people understand even less. Not that all drivers never have a very good grasp of the legal requirements of driving either.
* I am not happy.
But most people that drive have demonstrated competence, even if only for a 35-40 min period.
It is by the by that after passing that test of competence many never invest in further training to enhance thier ability or to address skill degradation. This is the area where most benefit could be achieved.
Most people who have ridden a bike for a 34-40 minute period have demonstrated their competence by still being alive!
Indeed - most drivers* have demonstrated this "minimum standard" formally for precisely this half hour or a little more. Once in their life.
Beyond that? They may be great - or less so. Because we're human we can always go (badly) wrong.
However a rapid drop in the minimum standard of safe driving (passing test) is all but guaranteed, because the norm on the roads is not this level, feedback (enforcement) is minimal (and will likely remain so given cost) and people adapt to it.
As for "where most benefit could be achieved"... what benefit, for whom? I think the most benefit for people getting from A to B overall would be to change our underlying philosophy ("it's about how many vehicles we can move / park reasonably safely") and bring in a "sustainable safety" / "safe system" culture. We have a pretty good safety record (albeit by "removing the cyclists and pedestrians and making more space for driving") and we understand the idea of infra and rule fixes which "work with" humans. But that is a (multi) generational task and pretty fundamental...
* There are actually surprisingly many who have never taken a test or are currently banned and are driving.
No such thing: according to drivers.
What about the remaining 10% ?
Sensors couldn't catch them...
So atleast 50% of drivers (20,000 cars) speed through a 20mph zone (perhaps more depending on the breakdown of that 29%, and yet cyclists speeds are the problem
PS its a terribble mix of numbers and letters (i.e 28 per cent and three percent). The cynic in me thinks its on purpose so casual readers either focus on a relatively larger number driving legally (28%) or a relatively low amount breaking the law significantly (three %), and also to make the 10% less obvious!
Hmmm... Not sure why a cycling site would want to mislead anyone about dangerous driving. More a case of it just being a lot of numbers and trying to publish a live blog quickly in the morning. Also, I left the 10 per cent of motorists apparently driving at 10mph out, because it didn't really add anything.
PS. Rule of thumb when writing numbers is to use letters up to 10, then numbers beyond that. For example, you never see '2 riders attacked on the hill'.
I'm going on the basis that Road.cc have just done a copy and paste quote from the residents group and they are the ones possibly misleading folks not R.CC. Apologies if it reads otherwise.
PS And I was always told not to mix numbers and letters as it reads bad; they used 28% (numbers) and should have stuck to numbers (3%) so it would read better and be interpeted better, and say if they arent including those sub 12mph!
By rampaging deer?
Parked on the pavement?
Wondering if someone are Road.CC needs a trip to Specsavers...
I could be wrong but the quote
"“So Morrell Ave is a 20 limit yeah, and you clocked drivers mainly doing 25-35mph, but the few cyclists you claim to have seen doing 30+ are more the issue here? How many cars were doing 25-35?”"
doesn't seem to be by Chris, although I do appreciate you correcting my typo from cary to cars. (Unless someone called Chris has also quote me exactly, and corrected my typo too)
Ah good spot! I deleted your name to move it to after the quote, but then obviously immediately forgot it and typed 'Chris' instead (as a Chris was quoted in the paragraph directly above). My bad, fixed now!
“To cycling Twitter who are getting a bit…well… Yes, it’s downhill. No, we didn’t say it was illegal. Next time we’ll take video. Thanks for popping by.”
Patronising gits. Notice how they casually avoid the main complaint, that they think a cyclist going faster than the speed limit is the problem, not drivers doing the same speed or more.
I am guilty of getting to 30mph in this 20mph zone, its the only speed where I don't get overtaken by traffic.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/57HATgX6g3YJwQTT6
https://maps.app.goo.gl/hXgiA2EkaZ3h736n8
good one
Calling Morrell Avenue 'a residential street' is rather misleading - it does have properties fronting on to it (though set well back from the road, beyond a row of trees and the armour of wall of parked cars), but it's semi-arterial, forming a major route out to the hospitals, and is pretty lightly foot trafficked.
That is just the problem though. A confusion of places, and multi-functional roads. This is almost ubiquitous in the UK, but in other places roads are engineered to serve a single function well. (Here's a good longer article on the smaller "streets" but it covers how the differences in thinking in the UK and NL lead to radically different outcomes).
I think our logic generally runs as your observation does - we end up defining the "routes" by where the motor traffic goes. The problem is that in the UK is pretty much everywhere - because we have fixed it so almost everywhere is through-traffic permeable for motor vehicles. And often we've suggested a higher driving speed with wide carriageways (but but on-street parking...) and ample turn radii. Sometimes even multiple lanes in "residential" areas.
To run the logic of your statement the other way round "Calling Morrell Avenue a 'through road' is rather misleading because it's a residential street, because ... people are living on it"
Yes - the "residential" definition will need a lifetime or two to sort out in the UK (though NL has done a great deal in 50 years...). It will probably need changes "at network level" e.g. more than just street-by-street. (As some have pointed out in NL some if this has been done by essentially road-building - lots of ring-roads and some radial access).
And there are some places where this is probably workable, or wider "boulevards" BUT those tend to have "service streets" on either side of the main road. That allows the main road to keep its function e.g. as an efficient distributor, while parking, walking and cycling (and children playing...) happen on the side streets.
I don't really disagree with any of that, except that you've misinterpreted my comment as a statement of 'what it's for', when it was more an observational statement of 'how it's used'.
My point was that they're trying to represent this as the evergreen sidestreet - quiet, peaceful, serene - that is until Bert cyclist hoons through it, scattering playing children in his wake, when in reality Cyril Steer has already driven everyone off it with his dastardly machines. (Also, there's no particular reason for anyone to want to be crossing it, unless they were planning to climb over the fence into the park.)
It's not an attractive space for people - cyclists or no cyclists.
Pages