Too many ludicrous arguments against things that almost never happen in reality.

Like 20 mph e-bikes having their brakes explode in flames and causing shockwaves to pedestrians? :D

Blasting past someone close at 15 mph isn’t on

That’s what motorists do but even faster.

Also how does it stop head on collisions?

if you are cycling down the trail and another cyclist comes in the opposite direction, how do you know what side to pass him/her on?

The answer is you don’t. Although most cyclists seem to know tacitly that we pass left, some don’t and wobble all over the place, some are almost psychotically committed to passing right regardless of the position of the oncoming cyclist.

It’s unregulated and crashes are caused due to this.

Again, I ask you, how does increasing the ebike speed limit improve the situation?

I’m not saying it would. The discussion has drifted. But the keep left rule I propose would certainly make faster cycling less risky to walkers.

whilst being scared off of roads and simultaneously bullying peds off paths is the best way,

All that I would ask on shared-use paths is for people to stick to the left unless it’s a quiet time of day. This helps organised the traffic and enables predictable overtaking and prevents head-on collisions. The slow should have right of way over the fast as an addendum to those rules; nobody has to get out of anyone’s way if they stay left.

And any of this is improved by INCREASING the ebike speed limit?

You seem to be jumping to that inference on your own.

Btw, …. not my experience. I find the vast majority of walkers move over and give me space if I roll up to them at a slowish pace and politely let them know I’m there. Yes, I have to slow down…. so what, no big deal, it’s about sharing.

When I’m not mtbing and riding trails and want to push on a bit I ride on the road (in fact riding to trails on my mtb I pretty much always ride on the road.

It’s true that most do allow space but the rules are there to provide clarity for the people who can’t behave reasonably or are dumb. Our roads are governed by rules such as stay left so it seems sensible to apply that to paths in use for cyclists too.

Telling cyclists who object to the chaotic nature of the shared paths to go on the road is a BS thing to say. This is half the problem with our national transport strategy; the roads are a dangerous place for people on bikes and we should be separating cyclists from traffic, and if cyclists and pedestrians are so complementary then why not let cyclists use pavements too? The answer is we don’t do that because bikes and pedestrians don’t combine well, so why is teh strategy to get cyclists off the road to put them on shared-use paths? It’s not logically consistent.

If they are moving towards you then you stop and allow them to pass

Stop and go where though? If the path is two-people wide and they insist on walking two-abreast – as is their right apparently – you have nowhere to go but backwards on a bike.

A far better rule is to ask people to stay left unless no traffic. This allows faster path users to overtake and eliminates conflict from people going in opposite directions.

In reality, it means what it does now. If there’s a pedestrian on the shared path, anyone with any sense will ride around them.

How do you ride around them if they span the whole path?

I’m not sure this right of way idea makes much sense.

If two pedestrians are walking abreast and taking up the whole path, as a cyclist in the opposite direction, are you supposed to turn around and head back?

Cyclists should give way to pedestrians on shared use cycle tracks.

I’m not quite sure what that means exactly.

Are you actually aware of how much of an entitled arse you sound like?

I’m not sure that’s fair. I’m either forced to cycle on some extremely nasty roads near me (both busy and narrow b-roads with loads of blind corners) or take the TPT where dogs run all over the place, dog leads are a hazard, and some pedestrians walk 2 or 3 abreast like they own it.

There are places where walkers and dogs can go but cyclists can’t, they are called parks and footpaths. The roads are de facto cars only. This leaves commuting cyclists short-changed and forced to fit themselves around the wants of others; only cyclists lack their own routes.

& your solution to this is to increase the speed of electric bikes

I’m asking why we have a blanket assisted limit of 15.5 mph. This applies just as much on an open road or dedicated bike lane as it does on a busy towpath.

Irrelevant whether I support anything. I asked you (a supporter of 18mph) why you would not be a supporter of 22mph or 25mph or 30 mph. What are you reasons against it?

I’m principally questioning the appropriateness and validity of the extant 15.5 mph assisted limit.

It’s interesting that you don’t do this yet demand those asking for an increase to justify any new limit, as if any difficulty they have doing this only increases the validity of the 15.5 mph limit (which it doesn’t).

Well, the real solution is dedicated cycle paths and (protected) lanes. Just asking for this would have brought accusations of being a fool or hopeless idealist a few years ago.

In the UK we are improving things but the general solution has been to either force cyclists to share space with cars or pedestrians. Either way, there is a conflict.

For example, the TPT and Bridgewater canal towpath near me is both a functional commuter route and means of getting from A to B for many cyclists, in addition to being a recreational space for walkers, families, and dog walkers. One can see how this naturally promotes a conflict. Nobody asks motorists to share spaces with people walking dogs.

As I’ve said before pedestrians should be more disciplined (like traffic) when using shared use paths.

If pedestrians or dog walkers want they can go and walk on footpaths or parks if they don’t want to do this.

Its already been seen that in europe there has been a significant increase in bike accidents down to old folk on ebikes.

I’d expect there to be more accidents involving bikes if more people take up cycling.

What’s the evidential basis for suggesting it should be 18mph?

If I was to petition for 22mph limit you would clearly be against it as 18mph is the “safe” limit. Can you please give me the reasons you are against having a 22mph limit?

That’s bad faith questioning since you’re trying to put the ‘burden of safety’ on me without first assuming the burden for the 15.5 mph you clearly support, and I can’t argue my case without first knowing the evidence and arguments that support the 15.5 mph assisted limit.

I’ve still to see any evidence of vast amounts of commuters on regular bikes doing >15.5mph mile after mile day after day.

What’s the evidential basis for 15.5 mph being the appropriate assisted limit?

I never said anything about “unrestricted” e-bikes, I said I believe 15.5mph is enough assistance in all transport settings, some seem to want 20mph, others want to split the difference at 18.

But that all misses the point, you’re not “limited” to 15.5mph, the assistance you receive is, you can ride your e-bike faster, it just won’t help you do it.

It doesn’t miss any point; we’re asking for assistance up to a faster speed than 15.5 mph. :)

An 18 mph assistance limit wouldn’t change the essence of e-bikes for example.

Better still just give them a power limit.

The legislation as it stands caterers for the “lowest standard” of bicycle user, for whom there is no barrier or prior requirements to demonstrate skill/ability in operating an e-bike on the road/shared path/bridalway. Therefore it is only right that the capabilites of the equipment are limited in order to control the level of risk…

Nobody is arguing that they should be unrestricted just that 15.5 mph is too onerous a restriction.

Now apply that to a shared cycle path where you want to increase that speed differential beyond normal commuting speeds.

Plenty of commuters do more than 15.5 mph.

Well, I used to have the same fundamentalist or purist attitude as you convert but now I can see the benefit of e-bikes as part of a low-carbon transport strategy. Many people are never going to be able to get or stay ultra-fit, and some people are just old. Besides, even for a fit cyclist, an e-bike could increase the useful commuting range by bike getting them out of the car or off a train or bus.

I deliberately bought a fixed gear bike to limit my top speed on the flat when commuting. Max sustainable speed was just short of 25mph due to the gearing (could do about 30 down hill). Normally I’d be riding around 20-22mph. Same conditions with gears, easily upto and above 30.

just nuts allowing ebike assist to go much faster.

ATM they aren’t allowed anywhere close to your 20-22 mph assisted so I don’t know what you mean.

Plus as soon as you OK a 20mph country assist mode, it’s going to be used in and around towns…

I do see your point but we ‘trust’ motorists to mostly keep to variable speed limits but it seems e-cyclists can’t be trusted?

Isn’t this an example of Daily Mail ‘lycra lout’ characterisation where ‘irresponsible cyclists’ can’t be trusted?

And saying I don’t have to go flat out is not an arguement because maybe I’ll just nip along it on my 600cc sports bike -but I’ll go canny

Your motorbike probably weighs at least 150 kg.

Perhaps all bikes should be limited to 15.5 mph including purely pedal-powered ones?

So what powered speed to you want people to be able to use on bridleways and “cycling paths”?

I’d say at least 18 mph.

But the s-pedelec classification would be useless to me because I couldn’t use the cycling paths and bridleways.

Increasing the speed limit of e-bike will help to increase the useful commuting range of e-bikes.

It isn’t just a matter of fatigue but one of how long commuters want to spend commuting, of sitting in the saddle.

For example, right now I can do my 13-mile commute in about 1 hr on my normal bike at a decent pace. An e-bike with a 20 mph limit may be able to turn that into a 45 min commute making it much more attractive to many people or allowing people living maybe 18 miles away to do it in 1 hr.

The rules as they stand, are fine, they protect pedestrians and riders in and around urban areas.

Then you agree that the e-bikes should be afforded a higher speed limit in rural areas?

I think it’s this and the speed differential uphill that needs careful and considerate riding

That’s a good point. One wouldn’t propose a universal car speed-limit throughout the UK; it should depend on the circumstances.

For example, I would suggest that doing 15.5 mph on a tightly twisting uphill trail past walkers and slow-moving non-e-bike cyclists is much more dangerous than doing 15.5 mph on a b-road.

This. The problem with shared facilities is that pedestrians do not behave as if they are traffic. Nor should they have to.

Why not? Perhaps pedestrians should be able to lay down their towel and sunbathe or have a picnic right in the middle of the path?

It’s got Cummings’ fingerprints all over it; the disruption, the castration of existing bureaucracy and centralisation of power to the executive (and himself), all topped off with a three-word slogan to appeal to the Gammons drinking in Wetherspoons.

FYI only about 8% of UK homes are self-build. It’s always about the volume builders and the mooted new system is being designed with them in mind primarily.

You’re kidding – there was a guy on radio 4 saying they were doing residential conversions of commercial units of 30m2 with no windows – welcome to the new utopia

Many of those commercial to residential conversions (under permitted development) are ok but yes a significant number are terrible being built as a means to battery farm tenants on housing benefits. Poor housing in the wrong places filled with all the wrong people just like some of the high rise mistakes of the 60/70s.

Actually investigating whats holding up planning would probably result in more houses being built.

Is planning really holding anything up though? 90% of applicants are approved and there are about one million permissions unbuilt. It is true though that planning may put an unknown number of people off.

It’s certainly not a perfect system but replacing it with a crude zoning system seems to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Personally I don’t see sea fronts as places where pedestrians should maintain any ‘lane discipline’. It somewhere u go for fresh air rather than it being primarily a means to get from A to B.

Ha ha the tape is my own after-market addition for visibility purposes.

And yes, for the same reason it’s too much to ask that people on bikes don’t ride primary, only use cycle lanes when one is provided and so on.

Shared use, shared space etc, everyone gets to use it equitably, I struggle with the fact my 6 year old niece understands how to share but grown adults seem to find it hard to comprehend.

My point about the shared-use paths is that as a cyclist I wouldn’t ride two or three-abreast and expect pedestrians to get out of my way so why are pedestrians doing the same? It’s completely reasonable to my mind to expect cyclists to need to overtake ergo pedestrians should walk in single-file unless the path is particularly wide.

Before you talk about cyclists riding primary on roads, consider that primary means only taking up one lane; the motorist as full use of the other lane to overtake. These pedestrians are effectively taking up ‘both sides of the roads’ of the shared-use paths.

This is something that vexes me about shared-use paths/bridleways; walkers and dog-walkers know to expect cyclists yet many treat the path as their own private park letting their dog lead (if the dog is even on a lead) cross the path, kids to run around or they all insist on walking three-abreast.

Would you walk down a quiet country lane three-abreast expecting cars to honk and wait for you to move to the side?

Some walkers are totally passive-aggressive and just won’t move even.

There are plenty of paths near me that bikes aren’t allowed on. If you find cyclists such an annoyance then feel free to walk on them only.

Is walking single-file on one side of a shared-use path (left preferably) too much to ask?

‘Trail use’ – however you define that exactly – isn’t relevant for your average commuter who may use a combination of public roads, dedicated cycle lanes, bridleways and combined use paths.

There is definitely a conversation to be had about what performance parameters are appropriate for defining a restricted e-bike. The current 15.5 mph limit seems to have been arrived at quite arbitrarily.

15.5mph is plenty and is a good speed where the current legislation (no licence, no mot, no insurance

So I should get a licence, mot, and insurance if I take my non-e-bike past 15.5 mph?