GB News hosts Mark White and Emily Carver have been left flabbergasted after a cyclist insisted speed limits did not apply to bikes while defending new 20mph zones in Birmingham.
Dave Sherry was speaking as the second city plans to impose the restrictive “anti-motorist” measures.
“It’s making the roads safer, a better place, especially for pedestrians, cyclists and other vulnerable road users,” Mr Sherry, famed for his helmet camera footage, said.
“As long as you get to your destination in one piece, it doesn’t matter what speed you do it at. You’re not in a rush, you’re not in a race,” he stressed.
Mark was keen to challenge Britain’s so-called “most hated cyclist”, suggesting those on bikes did not keep to the strict limits imposed on other road users.
Mr Sherry said: “Would you concede that maybe most of your or some of your cycling brethren don’t obey the speed limits there?
“Well, speed limits are for motorised vehicles. Cyclists are not.”
As both hosts erupted into hysterics, Mark exclaimed: “Are you really being serious?!”
Cycling activist Dave Sherry insisted bikes do not have to obey speed limits
|
GB NEWS
“The road traffic acts are there for motorised vehicles. Cyclists are not motorised vehicles,” the cyclist insisted.
Birmingham City Council has pushed to make all roads below A-road status 20mph zones.
The policy, outlined in the council’s updated local plan last week, said it would promote walking and cycling.
“Active travel – walking and cycling – will become how most people get around their locality most of the time,” the policy plan reads.
The remark left Mark White and Emily Carver in hysterics
|
GB NEWS
“Cars will no longer dominate street life around homes and schools.”
The city will also change how it allocates road space to “support the delivery of a public transport system fit for a global city”, the plan added.
In the GB News debate, writer Charles Amos said the policy was a “bad idea” for Birmingham.
He said: “I’ve looked at the rollout of 20-mile-an-hour speed limits across Wales and found that although there were £45million of benefits through reduced deaths and serious injuries, the increased costs are about £227 million in terms of increased journey time.
“The net cost is £182million and I, for one, don’t want to see motorists bear that £182million.
“When setting the speed limit, we should ensure that the marginal cost of it is equal to its marginal benefit.
“I’m against 20-mile-an-hour speed limits.“
The benefits of them are, or rather, the cost of them is three times greater than the benefits. So let’s not go ahead with them.”