We get to Daneholes following the stretch from another blog.
This stretch makes use of the old A13 – namely the A1013 – which runs parallel to the A13. It joins with roads to Orsett, Horndon-on-the-Hill, Chadwell St Mary, Linford and then on to the Tilburys. It connects with the A128 at the Orsett Cock.
This stretch is easy to deal with. It has cross hatchings along the middle of the road the whole way along. These were put in about 20 years ago. Until then it had wide lanes in either direction and was probably easier to cycle on and be overtaken. Now it has traffic islands dotted all the way along, creating pinch points. The speed limit of the road is 40, rising to 50 as you approach the Orsett Cock.
From Daneholes to Orsett Cock it is pretty much all uphill – so those pinch points become more of a problem since a lot of cyclists would be slower up the hill. A segregated lane here would mean the slowness of the cyclist uphill would no longer be a problem.
The A1013 as it is now, this is typical layout all the way along.
As mentioned in the main blog, the pavement all along here has been redesignated shared space but having ridden on this it is a bumpy awkward ride and there are some places it becomes pavement again so one either has to join carriageway or push their bike.
My solution? Remove the cross hatching and traffic islands. Bring the “car lanes” together in the middle and have a segregated lane on either side. This can run the whole way to Stanford.
Current arrangement, the blue shows the shared spaceProposed – green indicates the cycle lane, with white showing the edge of the motor-traffic lanes indicating a barrier.
At the Orsett Cock you could utilise the shared space here to go round the roundabout, allowing access to the A128 north to Brentwood or south to Chadwell. Ideally, perhaps, a cyclops roundabout could be made…or with some integrated traffic lights a lane could go through the wasted space within the roundabout?
Current arrangement with blue showing the shared space.A potential solution, green showing segregated routes (bounded by white) and utilising current shared space. The dotted line could be a through route if staying on the C13. Zebra crossings indicated.
The junction with Buckingham Hill Road, down to Linford, has traffic lights. A segregated lane could be included here with an ASL if turning right into Buckingham Hill Road. The filter lanes here are relatively new and only put in when the lights were installed. This could be redesigned to allow a cycle lane, since there isn’t much traffic turning right or left here. The lights are more to help traffic FROM Buckingham Hill Road to join the A1013.
Current arrangement with the blue shared spaceProposed arrangement, with white borders indicated a barrier between cycle lane and motor traffic. An ASL on the left to allow those turning right to be ahead of traffic.
The junction with London Road, which leads into Stanford would be similar, with the C13 traffic directed into Stanford, rather than following the A1013 up to the junction with the A13. There is access here, via a well maintained bridleway into Horndon-on-the-Hill. Most of the motor-traffic here turns right into Stanford, meaning there isn’t really a need for a filter lane.
Current arrangement with blue shared spaceProposed new layout, with green cycle lane with a filter to the left for the bridleway.
From here one goes into Stanford – and that is for another blog.
This blog will come in stages, since there is a lot to cover. But, first I would like to give a general idea about this. There is a lot of talk about cycle lanes within boroughs, districts, towns and cities but this doesn’t seem to transfer into lanes in between areas. I imagine this is because of different councils being in control and so why would Thurrock Council, say, consider a cycle lane to Basildon which is under another council’s control. Yet, many towns are close and can be easily cycled from one to another.
The A13
The A13 runs from the City of London, roughly Aldgate, to the sea at Shoeburyness. It passes Limehouse, Poplar, Newham, Barking, Dagenham, Rainham, Lakeside, Grays, Stanford-le-Hope, Basildon, Benfleet, Leigh-on-Sea, Westcliff-on-Sea and Southend-on-Sea. It intersects with the A406 North Circular Road, the M25, the A128 and the A130 amongst other roads.
It is a primary route from London until Sadler’s Farm junction at Benfleet where it becomes a secondary route, with the primary route traffic being directed up the A130 to join the A127. It then snakes its way through urban areas, known as the London Road, from Benfleet, Leigh, Southend and eventually Shoebury.
I have mused about a cycling corridor (which I will call the C13), following a similar route, for a while. This would connect all the areas above allowing cycling inbetween these areas. The first question you may ask is: “would people cycle from Shoebury to Aldgate?” Well, how many people drive the entire M1? Many use bits of it. This would be the same. It may be some would use it to cycle from London to Southend (about 50 miles) but the idea is to create a cycling corridor to allow people to cycle from, say, Grays to Basildon or Leigh to Shoebury, without worrying about motor-traffic.
The A13 has been dualled up over the years. This has created, in places, the “old A13” running parallel to the new dual carriageway. For example, between Grays and Stanford-le-Hope, the A1013 (old A13) runs alongside the A13. (1) It is these “old A13” roads that could be used to facilitate cycling infrastructure.
What is there currently?
There is already some cycling “infrastructure” in place.
From Aldgate to Movers Lane (Barking) we have the blue painted Cycleway 3 – a bidirectional segregated cycle lane, which coincides with NCN13 for lots of the route. From Movers Lane to Ripple Road we have green painted segregated lane but then becomes more shared space or on-road through some quiet roads following NCN13. It then joins the route of the A1306 (which used to be A13) and is shared space or utilises bus lanes until we get to Dovers Corner in Rainham. There is some shared space in places between Dovers Corner and the M25 but the sort that makes it easier to stay on the carriageway. There is shared space under the M25 and then along the A1306 along to the Treacle Mine roundabout at Grays.
From here you use Lodge Lane, which has some shared space, along to Daneholes Roundabout where you get onto the A1013 (old A13). This has shared space (redesignated pavement) all the way to Stanford. There’s nothing in Stanford but on the other side there is some murder strips along the B1420 between One Tree Hill and Five Bells roundabout. Then nothing until you get to Pitsea where the old A13 has shared space on the pavement, getting you through the Sadler’s farm junction. Then nothing. Not a sausage.
This blog will consider improvements from Dovers Corner to Shoebury. The shared space is mostly redesignated pavement and there’s lots of kerbs to deal with and lack of priority etc. It is not that useful and the carriageway is in a much better state!
Rather than have one massive blog, the links below will take you to separate blogs for specific bits. These will be done over time and not necessarily in order… Bear with me!
Please note, I am no urban planner and there may be logistical issues with some of these ideas, but I hope this will get things started.
A while back I blogged about the seafront cycle lane. I raised concerns about it. So, how would I change it?
If money was no issue, and there was full political will, I would get rid of it and replace it with uni-directional lanes on either side of the carriageway, removing cross hatching in the middle (there is a lot along the front), utilising floating parking where appropriate, integrated into traffic lighted junctions and so on. This would make it a genuine transport link and a starting point for a greater cycling network.
Alas, both conditions don’t apply. Therefore, what we can only really talk about is closing the gap around the Pier. I understand the Council is looking into giving the lane a spruce up, replacing signs and a bit of maintenance here and there. I am not aware of plans of dealing with the gap.
This is what I would do – working east to west.
At the gasworks, where the lane currently directs you back into the carriageway, I would create a segregated lane along Eastern Esplanade, utilising floating parking, allowing the existing parking to continue. This creates a barrier between bicycles and moving motor-traffic. Whilst the car door threat remains, it is less likely and is less likely to push you under a moving car. Space can be created by removing or narrowing the cross hatching in the middle of the carriageway. This would run up to and through the junction with Southchurch Avenue. Some tinkering would be needed here but not massive amounts. Hell, even a ASL would be useful, if nothing else…
Yellow line indicates route of cycle path
Once through this junction you are in the 20mph share space along Marine Parade – is a segregated lane needed? Well, perhaps not, but why not have something clearly marked out so pedestrians and cyclists don’t mix. I would run a segregated path along the south side of the carriageway. There is already something that looks like it should be a lane and there is loads of pedestrian space on the promenade etc. This would run all the way to the Pier entrance.
The blue line indicates route of path through Marine Parade.This is Marine Parade shared space, looking west. See how it is laid out and just sort of looks like cycle path already… This is where Mr Miller et al want to put in parking.Bottom of Pier Hill looking east. Here the naturally looking lane continues, but comes to an end just where the photographer was standing.Around the Pier entrance, looking east. Again, a natural looking separate bit of pavement could be utilised as a cycle lane and would join up with Marine Parade proposed lane. By the Pier, looking east. Here some of the pavement could be turned into segregated path to join up with proposed lane on Marine Parade
It is here that Marine Parade becomes Western Esplanade. At this point you can turn some of the pavement into a segregated lane, which would then join up to the existing lane at the lagoon. Again, some floating parking needed.
Yellow line indicates route from Pier entrance to existing lane.Western Esplanade, looking west. Move the parking to the right, creating floating parking, and a segregated lane could go along between the pavement and parking – just as it does from the lagoon onwards.
So, we now have a continuous lane from Chalkwell to Shoeburyness. We just need to have some proper network for it to be part of as well…
This blog is inspired by a conversation I had with someone about how they often see cyclists cycling on the road along the front when, “There’s a cycle lane right there! Provided for their safety!” I advised I couldn’t comment on why those people on bikes she had witnessed were choosing the carriageway over the cycle lane but did go through some of the common issues.
The first thing I said was that there is no legal requirement to use a cycle lane (HWC61). Indeed, general guidance is that if you are travelling around 12-15mph or more it is better to be on the carriageway than a cycle lane or shared path. The lady I was chatting to admitted they did not know this and accepted that often the cyclists she saw were going just as fast as motor traffic and that a cyclists going nearly 20 mph may be a hazard to others on a shared path and so sensible to be on the carriageway instead.
I then went through some of the issues with the seafront cycle lane specifically, which I outline below. But first, a little something for those who don’t have the pleasure of living on the Essex Riviera.
The seafront cycle lane runs along the front (!) between Chalkwell and Shoeburyness, a distance of about 5 miles. It is designated as NCN16 yet does not connect with any other part of the National Cycle Network. It is bi-directional, running between the carriageway and pavement/promenade. It is probably the best piece of cycling infrastructure in the City of Southend (1) – for the bulk of the 5 miles it is separated from the carriageway and is clearly distinguishable from the pavement due to being a different height and painted green.
Southend seafront is predominantly a 30mph two-way road, with lots of through traffic. Between the pier and Southchurch Avenue it is a 20mph shared space where pedestrians, cyclists and motorists mingle freely.
So, if properly segregated, why do some people on bikes not use it? These could be reasons why.
Its width
It is designing for two-way traffic but really only gives a handlebar’s width each way. Generally this means having to slow for oncoming bikes just to ensure safety.(2) Safe overtakes can be hard too. Some parts of the lane have grassy verges and so one can utilise that for safety; other parts the lane has kerbs either side so hard to get as far over as one may wish. This gets even worse if using a cargo bike.(3)
It is not continuous
It stops either side of the pier. If one is cycling east, the cycle lane stops at Three Shells Beach, by the lagoon (the red circle in the photo below). Here, it directs you onto the pavement (following the blue arrow), which presumably has been designated as shared space. This pavement is quite wide but narrows as you go past the pier entrance and enter the 20mph shared space area. It isn’t clear where you are meant to go after this so most just cycle along the paved areas until you get to the other side of the pier where the segregated cycle lane re-starts.
If you are cycling west the cycle lane swerves into the carriageway by the gasworks car park (red circle in the photo below), forcing you into a 30mph busy road and then through a busy traffic-lighted junction (following blue arrow). Many people actually just ignore the lane at this stage and go onto the pavement/promenade (yellow arrow) but it would seem we’re meant to cycle onto the carriageway.
This lack of continuity can mean people stay in the carriageway, making better progress, rather than be leaving/re-joining traffic.
Its position
It is between carriageway and pavement/promenade on one side of the road. The position of the cycle lane does mean that if you want to turn off the seafront and head north (or indeed heading south and wanting to join the cycle lane) you have to cross two lanes of traffic. For many it is safer to just join the carriageway, particularly if only going a short distance along the front. It’s position is one of the reasons I feel it was built with pleasure riding in mind.
Chalkwell end
I consider this a death trap. If you are coming south down Chalkwell Ave you have to move from the left hand carriageway, across two lanes of traffic to join the lane (yellow line in the photo). Throw in a zebra crossing and a junction to contend with as well. So… safer to stay on the carriageway (green arrow), follow the road round and continue your journey without the hassle.
If you’re travelling west on the cycle lane, it stops and you join the carriageway right on a junction (my son approaching in the photo above) with nothing clear to indicate who has to give way… it looks like no one and it is two lanes suddenly merging beyond the zebra crossing on the bend.
Shoebury end
The last bit along Ness Road is actually shared space. If heading towards Shoebury you cross over New Barge Pier Road and paint markings direct you onto the carriageway – but you have to cross two lanes of traffic to do so. So it is easier and probably safer for you to not use the cycle lane if you join the seafront, say, at Thorpe Bay since you can just use the east bound side of the carriageway. The feeling here also is people cycling will want to go into Gunners Park, by turning right into New Barge Pier Road and have a bit of a ride in there. Again, a “ride for pleasure” thinking rather than a transport option.
General integration
Another thing that makes it feel a pleasure ride than transport is the general integration. It does not combine with any other cycle infrastructure. If you use it you will eventually be deposited back on the carriageway, so some may feel it is easier to stay on the carriageway.
Another integration consideration is how it interacts with the roads leading off the seafront and, to be fair, it is a game of two halves. The side west of pier is the issue. The side east of pier is better but there is one main junction that I will highlight.
West of pier – this is the stretch between Chalkwell and the pier. This is a semi-segregated cycle lane by virtue of a slightly raise kerb separating it from the carriageway (photo of my son below riding on it).(4)
Nowhere along this stretch is there a ramp to allow entry or exit at a point where the carriageway has a junction with another road. You have to mount or de-mount a kerb. Doing so at speed can damage wheels, so likely to slow down. This means you may be in the way of traffic for longer… Some can’t deal with kerbs due to their type of bike. A cargo bike isn’t great over them either. What this means is, if you are cycling along this stretch and want to head north it is easier to not use the cycle lane. Above is the junction with Shorefield Road. The yellow cross marks where something should be. The red and blue arrows indicate how the infrastructure pushes you. Below left is the junction with The Leas, and below right with Crowstone Ave. The point of highlighting these junctions is that to make these turns easier you either get off the cycle lane earlier or you don’t get on to the cycle lane at all.
East of pier – this is the stretch between the pier and Shoebury. This is better. The cycle lane here is on the pavement but sunk with kerbsides. This separates it from the carriageway and the pavement clearly. At most junctions there is a break in the kerb allowing entry/exit.(5) However, the junction with Thorpe Hall Ave does not have this. It is more of any issue if you are joining at this junction. In the photo below, the red, green and blue lines show a route joining from THA and heading west. The red is most sensible, joining the carriageway and getting onto the cycle lane as soon as possible (which is not in the photo and that bit circled in yellow is a floating bus stop which you can’t and shouldn’t be taking a bike through). When I do this I can get shouted at for not using the cycle lane. If you intend to head east then the easiest thing is to join the carriageway or do something similar to the blue or green lines. The purple shows how it is relatively easy to get off and head north up THA if coming from the east but the brown line shows the difficulties if heading from the west and wanting to go north.
Giving way
A tricky one – I don’t want to sound entitled in coming across that I shouldn’t have to give way to lots of things. However, there are lots of bits of the cycle lane where one has to give way, but the carriage way doesn’t. It has often been found that if a cyclist’s journey is impeded by having to give way all the time, they will make use of the carriageway where they have right of way. I have no issue with zebra crossings etc. It is when the cycle lane gives way but the carriage way doesn’t. They are both part of the road. The HWC generally says those not breaking direction have right of way (eg rule H3) . Why should a cyclist in the cycle lane, not breaking direction, have to give way to a side road when a driver in the carriageway doesn’t?
Some examples. First, in the Thorpe Hall Ave junction pictured above – note the bit that goes down to the beach (where the blue, purple and green lines meet). The cycle lane gives way here. Yet, no other traffic has to. Below are three more examples. Cyclists, according to the road markings, have to give way to motor traffic, yet this goes against the general principles of the Highway Code. If the cyclist was using the carriageway, they wouldn’t have to give way. Note the main picture – this is to allow boats to be taken over the road to the sea. Note the carriageway doesn’t have give way signs but the cycle lane does. Why the difference? Why do boats get a preference over bikes but not cars? The cycle lane is part of the road, yet one part of the road doesn’t have to give way to the boats but another does.
Car door risk
Some of the cycle lane is in between pavement and on road parking. There is the issue of being car doored by passengers of cars. There can often be people getting out of the car and leaving stuff on the cycle lane, eg buggies, something they wouldn’t even think of doing on the carriageway. I am not so uptight about this since if I had the choice of being car doored by a passenger or by a driver I would take the passenger. The driver side I am more likely to be pushed under motor traffic. Floating parking of this nature occurs in other cycling infrastructure in London, etc, and is probably a good compromise.
So, they are the things I have issue with on the seafront cycle lane. Some may seem them as petty or trivial, but humans like to take the easiest and most direct route. If you make on form of transport have to take more corners, stop more often and so on, you are inadvertently discouraging that form of transport. Ask yourself how often you have moaned about having to drive round a one-way system – yet you’re having to expend no energy in doing so. Once you are on a bike, you are using your own energy and so it should be made as convenient as possible.
Here is a video of me traversing the lane and routes around the pier the other day.
And, you may say, I’m moaning about it but not offering solutions. Well, my next blog will do just that!
Photos that include a bird’s eye view are taken from Googlemaps. They own the copyright etc.
Footnotes
1. All other cycling infrastructure is either magic paint or shared space, with the exception of the cycle lanes parallel to the A127, which are really just shared space (in some places shared with parked cars). The SFCL is the only cycling infrastructure in the City that feels properly segregated; however, to me, it also feels as infrastructure designed for a pleasure ride (come and park at Chalkwell, ride to Shoebury and back etc) and not part of an active travel network.
2. Compare this with the sheer number of roads that have cross hatching in the middle to keep two lanes of motor traffic apart so motorists don’t have to worry about this.
3. This could be read with a “so what?” attitude – so what if you have to slow because there’s oncoming traffic? Well, most carriageways are designed with lanes much wider than vehicles. Do you slow for all oncoming traffic when driving?
4. I don’t feel this is a very good design. The kerb would not stop a vehicle entering the cycle lane. When this photo was taken I was still hyper-vigilant.
5. Although, they are tight – in the video you can see me use one. They slow you down considerably, and not like many road junctions that allow motor vehicles to go through at speed.
There’s been a lot of talk about 15-minute neighbourhoods (or 20-minute neighbourhoods, 20-minute cities etc) lately in my local paper, and indeed nationally – it was recently debated in Parliament. The local council said they were looking at these schemes. This prompted some FB posts in opposition to such schemes, and some local councillors took to the letters page of the local rag to argue against them. This has led to the relevant cabinet member of the Council administration to deny that the council is looking at 15-minute neighbourhoods. (1)
This piqued my interest. I had heard a bit about 15-minute neighbourhoods (for brevity I will refer to them as 15MNs) and understood them to be a way of bringing essential amenities together so that people can access them within a 15-minute walk or cycle. I did not see what people could oppose about that.
I read the FB posts and these talked about a loss of freedom. The letters from councillors said the same and referred to the scheme in Oxford and how it was forcing people to stay in their neighbourhoods. I tweeted, asking why people thought a 15MN would restrict freedom. The main response was about freedom of movement. “Because of the road blocks!” was one reply to my tweet. It became clear that people had a genuine concern that 15MN create ghettos where people are restricted from leaving, and it seemed this came from how these schemes were being reported on. It was also noteworthy that many equated freedom of movement to freedom to drive.
I decided to do some research of my own, rather than rely on the media.
I looked at:
What is freedom of movement?
What is a 15-minute neighbourhood?
Do 15-minute neighbourhoods create roadblocks?
What is the Oxford scheme?
Freedom of Movement
On our fair isle, this concept can be traced back to Magna Carta of 1215, which gave the Barons a freedom of movement in and out of the kingdom. This idea has developed over time. Note, Magna Carta has no legal standing today, but some of the concepts have been re-imagined in later statutes. (2)
Today, we can look at the UN’s Declaration of Human Rights. This refers to the “right of freedom of movement … within [the country]”. This simply means that a citizen can move freely within their country. One doesn’t need permission to travel from Norwich to Newquay or Penzance to Perth etc. It is recognised that restrictions may be in place, for example in English Law we have the civil tort of trespass, which is ultimately a restriction on freedom of movement – it prevents one from entering someone else’s property. If convicted of a crime one’s freedom of movement can be restricted via a curfew or prison. So, in a general sense we can go where we wish as long as there isn’t a legal reason for preventing it.
15-minute Neighbourhood
The Town and Country Planning Association defines a 15MN as “complete, compact and connected neighbourhood where people can meet their everyday needs within a short walk or cycle”. This means that I should be able to go to shops, coffeehouses, pub, GP etc all conveniently close to my house. Indeed, many neighbourhoods had or still do have local amenities like this. It can also go so far that one’s workplace is close by. (3)
However, none of this says you MUST stay in your neighbourhood and that if you do you’ll be fined. So where has this idea come from? It may be a perception of the use of filters in conjunction with 15MN and these are often referred to as road blocks.
Do 15-minute Neighbourhoods Create Road Blocks?
One of the comments on Twitter, and I felt was quite fair, was that if one has everything available than they won’t have to leave, so why the road block? This was part of an exchange where the person stated the road blocks of 15MNs constrict freedom. Alas, people don’t mean a road block. They are referring to filters.
A road block is a way of stopping all road users which may include checking papers, for example at international boundary and passports. A filter is a way of restricting which vehicle goes along a road – they divert certain traffic but not prevent it completely. It has been used for many years and there is evidence that Roman towns were built with areas chariots could not go. You may not realise but there are probably filters in your area already.
A pedestrianised high street is ultimately a filtered high street. A common use for filters is to prevent rat running through a neighbourhood – by closing a road at one end to motor vehicles you can prevent through traffic trying to cut corners. There are some in the Southend area – Colchester Street, Coleman Street for example.
A one way road could be a filter since it prevents traffic coming from one direction, stopping traffic from leaving the main road to use side streets as a rat run, for example.
This is nothing new. Local authorities have been deciding or dictating where people could drive as soon as cars were being driven. There are lots of places one cannot drive or turns one cannot make in a motor vehicle. Do all theses represent a restriction on freedom of movement?
A 15MN may benefit from having some filters, since the reduction of traffic within the neighbourhood means the roads are quieter and more open to other forms of transport be it on foot, on bike, on mobility scooter etc. However, they are not necessarily required for a 15MN.
The Oxford Scheme
Oxford authorities have introduced six filters in certain parts of the city, which are between certain traditional neighbourhoods. This has been reported as people being prevented from leaving those areas or face a fine. This has led to a statement providing clarity.
These filters are there to prevent someone driving through that road. The idea is to divert that person to a different route. There are in operation at certain times of day and exemptions exist for blue badge holders and certain professions and emergency services. Residents can obtain a permit allowing 100 trips through the filter each year. The filters are not physical barriers – the road is open but monitored by cameras. So one can drive through at any time but if they do when the filter is in operation they will be fined.
The scheme does not prevent you from travelling from one part of the city to another. It does not require permission to travel. It is to encourage you to not drive in certain areas at certain times of the day.
In many regards this is no different to what has been done time and time again as mentioned above.
Conclusion
I shall leave it to the reader to decide if a 15MN restricts freedom based on the definitions above.
What I will say is that no definition of freedom of movement refers to a specific mode of transport. It seems clear that objections are about a freedom to drive (indeed a local councillor has said just that!). Driving is not a right, it is a privilege that is earnt via a test and retained by keeping to the rules. There is no right to drive anywhere you choose – you have to drive on the road, you are prohibited from driving on the pavement etc etc.
These concerns are perhaps more about a freedom of choice of transport. Car centric planning of the last few decades has removed that choice for many since they feel driving is the only option.
Perhaps a filter here and there, in combination with a 15MN is simply redressing that balance and giving people a real choice over transport.
——————————————————————————————————
(1) I note, however, they actually are looking at 15-min neighbourhoods but have distance themselves from that title due to the perceived negative connotations.
(2) Which is why anyone quoting an article of the 1215 Magna Carta to defend some sort of action can be ignored. Of the 1215 Magna Carta only three articles remain law and that is only because they were re-stated in a later charter in 1297. The 1215 Magna Carta was quickly repealed by King John.
(3) A quick look at my local area shows that I can get to a barber, butcher, baker, kids’ schools, vet, GP, newsagent, smaller supermarkets, three pubs, post office, cinema, several restaurants, curry house, Chinese, chip shop, town hall, county, crown and magistrates’ courts and two railway stations all within 15/20 mins. My workplace is 1 minute away – the end of my garden…
In December 2022 I read through a Twitter conversation about speeding. One person was adamant speed was not an issue since if it was there would be crashes all the time. They said there were barely any crashes. So, I decided to keep a record for one month.
For January 2023, I reviewed the local paper for articles about crashes. I tweeted them individually but now am putting them together. Maybe not all are a result of speeding but it emphasises the point that crashes involving motor vehicles happen regularly: we have almost become blind to it.
One or two have come from a national paper but otherwise these are just from my local area. The southern half of a county in the south east of England. I have not gone looking for these – it is just what is reported and I have spotted as part of my daily read of the paper. Of course, this means almost all these happened in one tiny bit of the UK and are those that warranted being reported.
In total, 22 articles were recorded. One or two related to a crash before January 2023 but that is still a significant number of crashes in a 31 day period.
Boots on a Bike 