Cyclists and speeding

OrangeSmartie

Apologies if this has come up elsewhere.

A colleague and I have been having a debate about the legal status of cyclists with regard to speeding. I have heard many times that cyclists cannot be prosecuted for speeding and about the "cycling furiously" thing. I've also heard that cyclists are regarded as carriages in law.

However, I'm unable to find official confirmation of these points - can anyone point me to a link that states unequivocally the points above?

Cheers,

Pete

Mog Uk

A quick google dug up the following point:

cyclists cannot technically be charged with speeding as they do not have to
have a speedometer, they must observe the speed limits which apply to all
traffic on all roads as set out in the Highway Code as s.28 and s.29 of the
Road Traffic Act 1988 provide for the offences of "dangerous cycling" and
"careless and inconsiderate cycling".

Interesting point about not having to have speedo.....

spen666

Mog Uk wrote:

A quick google dug up the following point:

cyclists cannot technically be charged with speeding as they do not have to
have a speedometer, they must observe the speed limits which apply to all
traffic on all roads as set out in the Highway Code as s.28 and s.29 of the
Road Traffic Act 1988 provide for the offences of "dangerous cycling" and
"careless and inconsiderate cycling".

Interesting point about not having to have speedo.....

Mog- that google search gives you a very inaccurate reason.

Cyclists are not covered by the legislation on speeding. It has nothing to do with having speedometers or not. A cycle is not within the definition of things covered by the speed limit.

There is therefore no speed limit applying to cyclists ( Royal Parks etc may be different with their own bylaws)

There is a specific offence of careless or inconsiderate cycling which is punishable by a fine. It does not carry penalty points

OrangeSmartie

Spen - can you point me to a document which would clarify what would be within the definition of things covered by the speed limit?

Pete

spen666

OrangeSmartie wrote:

Spen - can you point me to a document which would clarify what would be within the definition of things covered by the speed limit?

Pete

Yes - The Road Traffic Act

OrangeSmartie

section 36 instructs "a person driving or propelling a vehicle " to comply with road signs. However, i can't find anything excluding cyclists from this....

spen666

OrangeSmartie wrote:

section 36 instructs "a person driving or propelling a vehicle " to comply with road signs. However, i can't find anything excluding cyclists from this....

firstly be clear what you are asking about ie are we talking road signs or speed limits?

secondly look up the definition of a vehicle

OrangeSmartie

Both, in a sense. If I see a road sign setting a speed limit whilst cycling, am I not required to comply with it?

The OED defines vehicle as "Any means of carriage, conveyance, or transport; a receptacle in which anything is placed in order to be moved."

spen666

OrangeSmartie wrote:

Both, in a sense. If I see a road sign setting a speed limit whilst cycling, am I not required to comply with it?

The OED defines vehicle as "Any means of carriage, conveyance, or transport; a receptacle in which anything is placed in order to be moved."

The OED is irrelevant. It does not make the legislation!

The RTA at the end has several clauses defining what are different types of vehicles. by reading ALL of these it is clear that a bicycle is not covered as a motor vehicle.

also s36 as you refer to it talks about someone driving - you do not drive a bicycle

spen666

192 General interpretation of Act (1) In this Act—
“bridleway” means a way over which the public have the following, but no other, rights of way: a right of way on foot and a right of way on horseback or leading a horse, with or without a right to drive animals of any description along the way,
“carriage of goods” includes the haulage of goods,
“cycle” means a bicycle, a tricycle, or a cycle having four or more wheels, not being in any case a motor vehicle,

spen666

Speed limits are not covered by the 1988 Act - hence why I asked you what you wanted to discuss.

speed limits are in the 1984 Road Traffic Regulation Act and specifically refer to motor vehicles

The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 provides traffic authorities with the authority to regulate traffic within their area.

Section 136 defines motor vehicle and other expressions related to vehicles.

136. In the Act:
HEAVY LOCOMOTIVE
Means a mechanically propelled vehicle which is not constructed itself to carry a load, other than excepted articles, and of which the weight unladen exceeds 11690 kilograms. 'Excepted articles' means water, fuel, accumulators and other equipment used for the purpose of propulsion, loose tools and loose equipment.

HEAVY MOTOR CAR
Means a mechanically propelled vehicle, not being a motor car, which is constructed itself to carry a load or passengers and of which the weight unladen exceeds 2540 kilograms.

INVALID CARRIAGE
Means a mechanically propelled vehicle of which the weight unladen does not exceed 254 kilograms and which is specially designed and constructed, and not merely adapted, for the use of a person suffering from some physical defect or disability and is used solely by such a person.

LIGHT LOCOMOTIVE
Means a mechanically propelled vehicle which is not constructed itself to carry a load, other than excepted articles, and of which the weight unladen exceeds 7370 but does not exceed 11690 kilograms. 'Excepted articles' means water, fuel, accumulators and other equipment used for the purpose of propulsion, loose tools and loose equipment.

MOTOR CAR
Means a mechanically propelled vehicle, not being a motor cycle or an invalid carriage, which is constructed itself to carry a load or passengers and of which the weight unladen:
(a) if it is constructed solely for the carriage of passengers and their effects, is adapted to carry not more than 7 passengers exclusive of the driver, and is fitted with tyres of such type as may be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State, does not exceed 3050 kilograms;
(b) if it is constructed or adapted for use for the conveyance of goods or burden of any description, does not exceed 3050 kilograms (or 3500 kilograms if the vehicle carries a container or containers for holding, for the purposes of its propulsion, any fuel which is wholly gaseous at 17.5 degrees Celsius under a pressure of 1.013 bar or plant and materials for producing such fuel); or
(c) in a case falling within neither of the foregoing paragraphs, does not exceed 2540 kilograms.


MOTOR CYCLE
Means a mechanically propelled vehicle (not being an invalid carriage) with fewer than 4 wheels, of which the weight unladen does not exceed 410 kilograms. (except for the purposes of section 57)

MOTOR TRACTOR
Means a mechanically propelled vehicle which is not constructed itself to carry a load, other than excepted articles, and of which the weight unladen does not exceed 7370 kilograms. 'Excepted articles' means water, fuel, accumulators and other equipment used for the purpose of propulsion, loose tools and loose equipment.

MOTOR VEHICLE
Means a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on roads (except for invalid carriages subject to section 20 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970).

TRAILER
Means a vehicle drawn by a motor vehicle

OrangeSmartie

I take your point. However the sentence I quoted from mentions "vehicle" not "motor vehicle" and I certainly propel my bicycle. I can't find any definition of "driver" though; section 36 comes under the heading "Drivers to comply with traffic signs".

spen666

OrangeSmartie wrote:

I take your point. However the sentence I quoted from mentions "vehicle" not "motor vehicle" and I certainly propel my bicycle. I can't find any definition of "driver" though; section 36 comes under the heading "Drivers to comply with traffic signs".

Hence why we need to know what you want to discuss is it speed limits or is it road signs?

The rules are different for each.

BigWomble

http://forum.ctc.org.uk/viewtopic.php?t ... sc&start=0

Some more thoughts there.

Cunobelin

BOurnemouh has localised limits which are enforced with speed cameras!

However these are laid down by bye-law and apply to the promenade area specifically.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/03/nbike03.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/09/03/ixhome.html

What I love is the cyclists "broadly accept it" as sensible, but a well known por speeding campaign feels it is absurd!

nickcuk

I would absolutely LOVE to find a speed camera at the bottom of a decent hill where a cyclist has a chance to get well over the trigger speed for the camera, in order to ride past with my a**e showing.

Will the forum allow the formation of a formation-a**e-flashing-team to target suitable speed camera sites ?

spen666

nickcuk wrote:

I would absolutely LOVE to find a speed camera at the bottom of a decent hill where a cyclist has a chance to get well over the trigger speed for the camera, in order to ride past with my a**e showing.

Will the forum allow the formation of a formation-a**e-flashing-team to target suitable speed camera sites ?

You'd get done for something like indecent exposure

nickcuk

How would they track me down ? Crimewatch ? They could get Johnny Vegas as a body double for the reconstruction and fire him out of a cannon. Even my missus wouldn't recognise my a**e at 40mph

unCivilServant

You also sometimes have to check the 'Interpretation' AND 'Application' of a bit of legislation to get the full picture of its coverage.

Eg there's a set of Regulations I used to work with that have that has "vehicle" means (other than for the purposes of the definition of "railway") any conveyance used for the carriage of goods by road So, that means, say, tractors are covered by these Regs as "vehicles"? Well, no, 'cos further down These Regulations shall not apply to [...] a vehicle intended for use on the road which - [...] (d) is an agricultural or forestry tractor

And do beware of local bylaws! The Oxford Uni Parks used to have one prohibiting "all bicycles, whether ridden or not". Unlike the usual quaint rules on the backs of park signs ("Use of swearing, whether a lady is nearby to be offended or not....), this one was keenly enforced.

SteveR_100Milers

nickcuk wrote:

I would absolutely LOVE to find a speed camera at the bottom of a decent hill where a cyclist has a chance to get well over the trigger speed for the camera, in order to ride past with my a**e showing.

Will the forum allow the formation of a formation-a**e-flashing-team to target suitable speed camera sites ?

There are two I can think of near me, and try every time to set it off. Only managed once and caused mild panic amongst the cars around me!

Even if it were illegal to speed on a bike, then the point about speedometer must apply - how else could you control your speed and therefore comply knowingly with the law? Since a bicycle does not have to have a speedometer fitted, then how could you be prosecuted for speeding? Secondly, there is no licensing of bikes, so agin what mechanism is there for policing and enforcing limits?

OrangeSmartie

I actually contacted the Police National Legal Database people via www.askthepolice.co.uk and received the following reply to my original question;


"Pete
For the offence of speeding it has to be a motor vehicle. A different offence could be used for a cyclist eg furious / wanton cycling, or cycling without due care."


My colleague still has an issue with the whole speed sign thing. Perhaps Spen (or others) can clarify for me; if whilst on my bike, I ignore a speed sign, would that not be prosecutable as "speeding"?

Pete

spen666

OrangeSmartie wrote:

I actually contacted the Police National Legal Database people via www.askthepolice.co.uk and received the following reply to my original question;


"Pete
For the offence of speeding it has to be a motor vehicle. A different offence could be used for a cyclist eg furious / wanton cycling, or cycling without due care."


My colleague still has an issue with the whole speed sign thing. Perhaps Spen (or others) can clarify for me; if whilst on my bike, I ignore a speed sign, would that not be prosecutable as "speeding"?

Pete

NO, YOU CANNOT BE CONVICTED OF SPEEDING ON A PEDAL CYCLE

spen666

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

nickcuk wrote:

I would absolutely LOVE to find a speed camera at the bottom of a decent hill where a cyclist has a chance to get well over the trigger speed for the camera, in order to ride past with my a**e showing.

Will the forum allow the formation of a formation-a**e-flashing-team to target suitable speed camera sites ?

There are two I can think of near me, and try every time to set it off. Only managed once and caused mild panic amongst the cars around me!

Even if it were illegal to speed on a bike, then the point about speedometer must apply - how else could you control your speed and therefore comply knowingly with the law? Since a bicycle does not have to have a speedometer fitted, then how could you be prosecuted for speeding? Secondly, there is no licensing of bikes, so agin what mechanism is there for policing and enforcing limits?

Speedometers are irrelevant to the offence.

The offence is driving in excess of the speed limit. If you chose to use a vehicle without a speedometer, you cannot escape a speeding offence.

It is a seperate offence not to have a valid speedometer.

You seem to be suggesting the failure of the road user to equip their vehicle to enable them to comply with the law (ie speeding) should be some form of defence

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

spen666 wrote:

Speedometers are irrelevant to the offence.

But apparantly, mode of transport is not.

Anyway, just because something is legal doesn't mean you should do it. :idea:

nickcuk

So .... should I do it and take it to the European Court of Justice ?

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

Indecent exposure.
Where there's a will...

drenkrom

In Canada it seems we can't be fined for speeding either. On one of my training rides, there is this insanely fast descent (after an insanely hard ascent, of course) and the cops are always on radar there. In fact, it seems to always be the same poor soul who's always on duty there. He must get bored, because he often drives down the hill to catch up with me and show me my speed reading. I get a thumbs-up if I break 80kph. Then again, he also lets me hitch onto his window...

If you're curious, the record is set at 94kph when there was 2 of us doing slingshots. And the speed limit is 50kph. That would be one hefty fine!

Do you have those big panels with a radar in them and the speed limit in huge number, then a "your speed" line underneath that in the UK? If you don't, lobby your police department. Those are great! I always try to set the high score on those.

megilleland

Reported today in the Times. Shouldn't have been on the pavement in the first place. More bad publicity for cyclists.


Facing jail, a ‘wanton’ cyclist in pavement death smash

From The Times
October 6, 2007
Facing jail, a ‘wanton’ cyclist in pavement death smash
Yepoka Yeebo

A cyclist who collided with a pedestrain, who later died, is facing jail after admitting “wanton and furious” cycling yesterday.

Peter Messen, 28, was cycling on the pavement at 25mph. He struck 41-year-old Gary Green last April as he reached the bottom of a hill in Stenalees, Cornwall, at a speed that witnesses described as “like a bat out of hell”.

Mr Green, who was loading his car outside his home for a trip to Venice, had just stepped back on to the pavement when Messen collided with him on his mountain bike.

Mr Green, a supermarket storeman who lived with his partner, Ruth Stead, and her four children, was knocked unconscious and died from head injuries and skull fractures four days later.

Messen, of Swindon, pleaded guilty to a charge of causing bodily harm by wanton or furious cycling when he appeared at Truro Crown Court. The offence carries a maximum sentence of two years’ imprisonment.

The court was told that Messen had been heading for the nearby village of Bugle, on his nephew’s bike, which he said he had never ridden before.

An inquest in March was told that he had mounted the pavement because he thought that it was safer than riding on the road.

Don Lowe, who had been walking home from a nearby shop when Mr Messen rode past him, said at the inquest: “When he passed me I shouted after him: ‘You are going to kill someone’, but I don’t believe he heard me.”

Mr Lowe added: “I remember thinking that he had an arrogant manner. He didn’t have a bell to warn me to get out of the way.”

Andrew Price, who was in a delivery van and saw the collision, told the inquest that Mr Green held out his hands in shock just before he was knocked over by the cyclist.

David East, from Devon, who was driving the van, told the inquest in Truro: “My attention was drawn to him as the speed he was travelling at was far too fast for someone cycling on the pavement. He continued to pick up speed as he went down the hill and I said to my colleague that he would send someone flying if he hit them. He was on the pavement where he shouldn’t have been. He had a total disregard for anyone else but himself.

“He was not giving the impression that he was having any difficulty in slowing down. He looked like he knew exactly what he was doing travelling at the speed he was.”

In a police interview, Messen said that he could remember riding down the hill but not the accident. All he could remember was waking up in hospital after the collision. He said at the inquest: “I am really sorry about what has happened and I wish it had never happened.”

Andrew Cox, the deputy coroner for Cornwall, recorded a verdict of accidental death. Yesterday’s court hearing was adjourned until November 16 for pre-sentence reports.

Mike Healey

Speedometers are irrelevant to the offence.

The offence is driving in excess of the speed limit. If you chose to use a vehicle without a speedometer, you cannot escape a speeding offence.

It is a seperate offence not to have a valid speedometer.

You seem to be suggesting the failure of the road user to equip their vehicle to enable them to comply with the law (ie speeding) should be some form of defence[/quote]

The relevance of the lack of a speedometer is that the speeding law was framed at a time when there were no effective means of measuring cyclists' speed. It was therefore decided not to include cycles in the legislation, because it would be unjust to prosecute cyclists for breaking the limit, since they could have no means of knowing it.

That is why motor vehicles are required to have a speedometer and bikes are not.

The absence of speedometer theerefore goes to the heart of the argument

Massimo

I was once stopped by the police for 'speeding'. They followed me dowm a veeerrrrry steep hill outside Lichfield an clocked me doing 54mph in a 40mph zone. They asked me to pull over and said thay they were unable to charge me with speeding as I was on a bike, but had I fallen off at 50+ mph they would have had to spend the next couple of hours scraping me off the road. They took my details and let me go with a verbal warning.

eternal_headwind

I would wonder if there is a risk of council officials causing a accident. Would you stop for someone armed with a clipboard? And handing out leaflets? I hope the council provides enough bins.