The problem was the cyclists ran a red light, not it's speed!
I would argue that the problem is the knee jerk reaction of the person that nearly got hit by a cyclist and then comes out with a blanket statement like "cyclists are silent killers".
The call for a speed limit clearly comes from the sentiment that __something__ has to be done, and rather than just holding that thought until common sense kicks back in one blurts out "speed limit".
Laws, Regulations and stricter processes are a funny thing, they don't always bring you closer to what you're trying to achieve. The removal of clear signage in order to calm down traffic, as done in the netherlands and germany recently, is a good example that illustrates that the signs didn't help at all. Yet, they were probably put up with the intention to prevent accidents and make traffic safer.
seriously though, riding at speed through stationary traffic is dangerous. 20kph is pretty low but in areas like the Central Market and Grenfell St there is a lot of foot traffic ... of course in those places a police car or a lumpy copper on a police issue MTB is hardly going to catch a "motivated" offender
For me tinted windscreens are the silent killer.
Before tinted windscreens became the norm you could see the driver was looking or not looking at you.
You see if the driver was talking on their phone and possibly not 100% concentrating.
Looking in the wing mirror you could see faces and if there was a potential to be car doored from parked cars.
I don't really think the age are in line with this guy's agenda. It's a pretty balanced article?
You have lost me. I don't understand why if the windscreens in Australia are not tinted, why can't we see into the vehicle. IMHO older cars have much clearer glass and I feel safer riding where I can see what's happening everywhere.
I have trouble seeing in because I'm looking in from behind at a tinted window with a near flat angle.
TY It makes some sense, but ....