Confusion as Grant Shapps now says he is "not attracted to bureaucracy" of number plates for cyclists

Although if cyclists did have limits, then they would also be forced into buying and fitting a calibrated and accurate speed measuring device. I'm sure Grant won't have already invested in firms selling those things beforehand though. 

Look for a kickstarter under one of his alter-egos. 

Although if cyclists did have limits, then they would also be forced into buying and fitting a calibrated and accurate speed measuring device

These, of course, already exist and are highly accurate when calibrated against GPS, and are more accurate than car speedos even when simple measurement of the tyre circumference is performed. However, it is axiomatic for the police that cyclists are always travelling at less than 10 mph, which is why it is always legal to cross unbroken white lines to overtake them. Therefore, the police will be forced to simultaneously decry cyclist rev/counter or GPS speedos as worthless junk and therefore legitimising DWL crossing motorists, while simultaneously approving them for the purpose of prosecuting cyclists. These double standards come naturally to the police

mbrads72 wrote:

If it's really him, his Strava profile has 31 rides. Ever. "Keen cyclist?"

Could be; I have none.

eburtthebike wrote:

mbrads72 wrote:

If it's really him, his Strava profile has 31 rides. Ever. "Keen cyclist?"

Could be; I have none.

HERETIC!

But have you checked his other accounts? He's well-known for making up multiple identities.

Yeah, but it's all concentrated through those tiny thin wheels, so it does more damage...

You are Edward Mountain and I claim my £5

https://road.cc/content/news/255991-conservative-msp-argues-bike-could-d...

Poor choice of examples.

A small electric moped weighs 75kg.

A driver of such a vehicle has to legally obey speed limits.

A fully laden e-cargo bike can easily weigh 120kg.

It is exempt from speed limits.

Now obviously it's quite hard to get 120kg of fully laden cargo bike up to speed on the flat but downhill you could easily surpass 30mph.

According to this Danny MacAskill short you can do a wheelie with cargo bikes though. Yet more dangerous and anti- social behaviour which some politician could flirt with regulating to play to party members usefully look into.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XD2eRIgBgI4

Rich_cb wrote:

Poor choice of examples.

A small electric moped weighs 75kg. A driver of such a vehicle has to legally obey speed limits.

A fully laden e-cargo bike can easily weigh 120kg. It is exempt from speed limits.

Now obviously it's quite hard to get 120kg of fully laden cargo bike up to speed on the flat but downhill you could easily surpass 30mph.

Poor basis for comparison.

Have you ridden a fully laden e-cargo bike at 30 mph? Do you know anyone who has? Or are you just trying to justify the bullshit around this topic because Grant Shapps is a Tory?

If the tiny number of heavily-laden cargo bikes are a problem* then let's have registration, number plates, third party insurance and speed limits. But before we introduce that level of beaurocracy for a very small number of vehicles we should ask whether those things are working for larger, more dangerous vehicles...

The road casualty stastics and other evidence show that that they are not.

So this idea is a non-starter.

https://twitter.com/CarltonReid/status/933636636717584384

* has anyone identified how many collisions are there between cargo bikes and other road users, specifically pedestrians? Or is this just more pie-in-the-sky making-it-up-as-we-go-along bullshit?

I have personally ridden a fully laden cargo bike at over 30mph. It was obviously downhill and, for the record, the section of road had a 40 mph limit.

The point is that it is entirely possible for a bicycle being ridden legally to have significantly more kinetic energy than a motorised vehicle being driven legally. That doesn't just apply to cargo bikes either.

Using kinetic energy as justification for the speed limit exemption therefore doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Personally I don't think the number plate idea will ever take off so, in order to catch speeding cyclists, the police will have to actually get out onto the roads and actively police illegal behaviour.

As your data so neatly demonstrates the consequence of this will be far more drivers having their collar felt alongside a tiny number of cyclists. I'm happy with that exchange.

Rich_cb wrote:

I have personally ridden a fully laden cargo bike at over 30mph. It was obviously downhill and, for the record, the section of road had a 40 mph limit.

Chapeau! Or - down with this reckless, dangerous "speeding" behaviour.
I'm confused - I guess we should be getting into stopping distances, centres of inertia and were you cycling to the conditions?
So... maybe similar questions to those for a motor vehicle operator! Hmm...

I also think this is empty noise by a politician. At least as far as taking it literally. So - maybe sadly - not really surprising.

It's very much empty noise.

Unfortunately it has hit a sweet spot for the outrage merchants on both sides.

Why was it a poor choice of examples? Pretty standard weights for the majority of variants of each vehicle on the road. You have decided to choose too very rare examples of two vehicles, then decided to put them on one specific section of road. At any other time the e-cargo bike would only be able to get to half the speed limit of this very small e-scooter, which itself is capped under the speed limit of majority of roads (28mph), and in theory might also be able to freewheel passed 30mph.

As I explained below, if kinetic energy is your justification for the lack of speed limits then it's easy to demonstrate the flaws in your argument.

Any bicycle can theoretically surpass the kinetic energy of a moped as the weight difference isn't always that great.

Eg 90kg rider on 15kg bike Vs 50kg rider on 75kg moped.

Still doesn't answer why his is a poor example though. Yours needs such a combination of vehicle types in such specific circumstances. (E-cargo bike fully laden on a specific downhill section with a rider who would let it go faster then 20mph v lighest legal scooter with nothing else on the bike). When most people give examples, they give standards. He gave standards, hence not a poor example. 

If your basing your argument on kinetic energy but there is overlap between the two categories your examples should probably reflect that at least to some degree.

A standard bike and rider can easily surpass the kinetic energy of a small moped and rider. Neither are particularly unusual vehicle types.

If you put a moped into the original examples you'd find yourself arguing that speed limits shouldn't apply to it.

That's why the examples were poorly chosen as they ignored the obvious flaw in the argument.

Rich_cb wrote:

A standard bike and rider can easily surpass the kinetic energy of a small moped and rider. Neither are particularly unusual vehicle types. ...

The crucial word you've left out here is "sometimes". I'd guess that *while moving* mopeds will be expected to have higher average speed. Because of the motor. That would make their average kinetic energy higher as the velocity is the dominant term, no? (Through an urban area they could end up with similar average speed if the bike took the same path eg. waiting at same traffic lights; there might be faster routes for bikes via cycle infra).

Where I stay there are plenty of places at the bottom of hills where planners / designers certainly should note that bikes could be moving fast. Overall though - even with motor assistance up the hills - I'd expect a lower average K.E. Other factors are also important here for safe operation eg. braking, stability, turning circle. And asuming that the bikes are legal of course! (I'd suggest that for commercial freight cycles - if enough get used - we might even consider a mini-MOT).

Otherwise we need to take account of the terminal velocity of bikes falling off bridges in the argument!

The point is that if speed limits are needed because of kinetic energy then they need to apply to bicycles too as a bike can easily possess the same kinetic energy as a motorised vehicle which is subject to speed limits.

The average kinetic energy is a meaningless distraction.

If a car breaks the speed limit on one part of its journey but keeps below the limit for the rest do we discount the speeding because the average speed is ok?

So why should we discount periods of high kinetic energy just because the average is lower?

Rich_cb wrote:

The point is that if speed limits are needed because of kinetic energy then they need to apply to bicycles too as a bike can easily possess the same kinetic energy as a motorised vehicle which is subject to speed limits. The average kinetic energy is a meaningless distraction. If a car breaks the speed limit on one part of its journey but keeps below the limit for the rest do we discount the speeding because the average speed is ok? So why should we discount periods of high kinetic energy just because the average is lower?

Average speed cameras do indeed work like that.

The point of using average weights/kinetic energy of different vehicle classes is just to simplify the calculations - otherwise it's a case of weighing each and every vehicle in order to discuss them which is an unnecessary level of detail. Yes, there's going to be outliers that would suggest that a vehicle should be in a different class, but they will be a minority.

I'd say both are important for road design and regulation. However if we're talking about the importance of KE for setting speed restrictions (or not) looking at expected / average speeds is entirely sensible. If you put a cargo bike in South Holland, say, (flat) it would be extremely unlikely to ever get near your magic number (downhill). * A moped there would be going around at whatever top speed it's capable of, and most of the time - because more motor. And it could have that speed anywhere - on a long straight in the country, in an urban area...

Move that to near me and now you could hit your max speed. So would that justify regulation *everywhere*? I'd suggest this would be excessive (eg. waste of money). There are only a limited number of places where this would be possible. Again the moped could possess dangerous KE anywhere.

Back to the big picture - however you want to manage things we should be measuring outcomes (including "near miss events"), prioritising and (the government's own choice - so they say) encouraging active travel. That seems a world away from what Shapps' has been saying for his own political advertising!

* it's blowy there sometimes so maybe you could occasionally put up a sail...

Thinking again - don't the Dutch have some intermediate categories between "cycle" (which covers a lot of vehicles) and "full motorcycle / car". There's definitely a "motor scooter" class. They also have some fast pedelecs- not sure what category they fall into.

Ignoring the fact that all these things are currently very rare and accepting we "need to do something" - shouldn't the government be proposing a *study* (or even trial, just like with scooters - although that horse may have bolted now)? Since we don't have packs of them over here why not look overseas? Nothing to stop then reviewing both the safety data and how / why things are regulated.

Yes, in NL there have long been "snorfietsen" and "bromfietsen".

A snorfiets is a very light motorbike, some historically were basically bicycles with engines. They are, by law, not supposed to be capable of more than 25 km/h. There was no requirement to wear a helmet with them, but that is (sadly?) changing next year.

A bromfiets is a 50cc bike, meant to be limited to 45 km/h. A helmet is required, since the 70s. You need to pass a test to ride one (since mid 90s).

Snor and brom fietsen used to go on bicycle paths (fietspad), but now they generally can not, unless otherwise indicated.