Speeding on your bike

Clever Pun

I'm pretty sure everyone wants to be clocked on a speed camera...

but it's illegal thought isn't it? which makes you a lawless renegade (or whatever Dondare calls rlj'ers)

especially with this potentially happening
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7046200.stm

your thoughts? have you ever gone too fast on your bike (if there is such a thing)

Lbaguley

Regularly.

Been through two camaras at 40+ in a 30-zone - thoughtfully positioned at the end of a really open downhill section - but didn't trigger either.

My commute also includes a lovely downhill section where I was easily doing 36 on my (now ex-) hybrid - not transfered the computer to my 'new' road bike yet, but guessing it's faster - there's no camera on this section tho.

I think, but really not at all sure, that the speeding laws only apply to motor vehicles...??

Eat My Dust

I hit 35mph+ every morning going through a speed camera, touched 40 once and never set it off. As far as I'm aware it's not illegal, although I think if you were to cause an accident, you'd then be falling into the "furious cycling" catagory, which I believe (could be wrong) carries a max 2 year jail term.

misterben

Eat My Dust wrote:

I hit 35mph+ every morning going through a speed camera, touched 40 once and never set it off. As far as I'm aware it's not illegal, .

Speeding is illegal in any vehicle. I don't think there is a specific offense for it, but it would be covered under the "dangerous" or "furious" cycling.

RufusA

Lbaguley wrote:

Been through two camaras at 40+ in a 30-zone - thoughtfully positioned at the end of a really open downhill section - but didn't trigger either.

Presumably these "road safety" cameras had been positioned at an accident blackspot. Therefore IMHO it would be very irresponsible cycling to travel in excess of the speed limit, in a known danger area, in a vehicle that didn't have brakes / traction designed for stopping in a short distance safely at that speed!

A bicycle doing 40mph can easily kill a pedestrian and the cyclist riding it! However cyclists often forget that they are in control of a deadly vehicle!

I am certain a car doing 40+ in a 30 limit would be given short thrift, so whilst it may be legal for a cyclist to do the same, it's not big and it's definitely not clever.

Rufus (probably only jealous as I'm lucky if I manage 25mph).

Eat My Dust

misterben wrote:

Eat My Dust wrote:

I hit 35mph+ every morning going through a speed camera, touched 40 once and never set it off. As far as I'm aware it's not illegal, .

Speeding is illegal in any vehicle. I don't think there is a specific offense for it, but it would be covered under the "dangerous" or "furious" cycling.

The 30mph limit is for motor vehicles not bikes (pedal variety) so is not speeding as there is no speed set for bicycles.

Lbaguley

RufusA wrote:

Presumably these "road safety" cameras had been positioned at an accident blackspot. Therefore IMHO it would be very irresponsible cycling to travel in excess of the speed limit, in a known danger area, in a vehicle that didn't have brakes / traction designed for stopping in a short distance safely at that speed!

I would agree that 99% of the time doing those speeds is irresponsible :oops: but if I may offer a few notes in my defence:

1) I am not sure why these cameras had been positioned where they were, but my guess is that they were put there as a cash-cow for the local Safety Camera Partnership, being as they were at the bottom of extended and relatively steep hills, less than half a mile after the speed limit was reduced from 40 to 30. My reasoning behind this guess is below...

2) I did mention that the roads were very open - they were dead straight with perfect visibility, very wide, not in a residential area and with no side roads.

I would also agree that's it's neither big nor clever, but it is a rush :twisted:

dondare

Clever Pun wrote:

I'm pretty sure everyone wants to be clocked on a speed camera...

but it's illegal thought isn't it? which makes you a lawless renegade (or whatever Dondare calls rlj'ers)

especially with this potentially happening
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7046200.stm

your thoughts? have you ever gone too fast on your bike (if there is such a thing)

Cyclists can not be prosecuted for speeding as it is an offence that only applies to "mechanically propelled" vehicles, (which bikes are not, according to the legal definition). So feel free to trigger as many cameras as you like.
But riding in a way that endangers others is an offence whether or not you a pedalling furiously.

magibob

RufusA wrote:

Presumably these "road safety" cameras had been positioned at an accident blackspot.

Brilliant bit on a Radio 5 report about speed cams. Interview with one of the bosses of a speed cam partnership company in London out on the street.

INT; "So for instance, this is a straight bit of road, with good visability, why do you have speed cameras on this bridge if it's not just to make money from the motorist"

Boss: "Well, in fact this is a perfect example, because, whilst from here it is a straight peice of road with few apparent dangers, as soon as you get over the brow of this hill, there is a sharp right angled bend that you can't see till you are nearly upon it. There have been many accidents there and this is, Contrary to initiall appearances, a Very dangerous piece of road."

INT. Thank you for that. Can I now ask, Why do you also have a camera on the other side of the bridge to catch cars coming the other way, onto the stretch of road that you just admitted was straight and with perfect visibility?"
PAUSE
Boss, "er, well, i don't have the figures to hand, but I'm sure there must have been many accidents on this stretch of road to justify it."

INT: I DO have the figures to hand, and there have been NO accidents on this stretch of road in the past 10 years. So I'll ask the same question, Why do you have the camera here if it's not to make money from the motorist?"

Boss ...............

INT: "Sir?"

Boss............

Int "Sir?"


Boss, ..........

Int, "Unless you have something to say, I think we can draw our own conclusions from your silence."

Boss .......................................................................



Reads like something from Bird and fortune, but is genuine.

Andy

dondare

Paul Smith, founder of Safespeed.org.uk, said the policymakers had missed a "golden opportunity".

"We don't need more regulation," he said. "We don't need more speed management.

"These policies have failed in spades. We need better drivers through education, information, and above all improved road safety culture."

And I agree with him.

But until it happens, I'd like to see more speed cameras.

flattythehurdler

Is that that w@nker who looks like a girl paul smith you are referring to.
P.S. This is not libel. He is a w@nker, and he does look like a girl (albeit an ugly one)

Eat My Dust

clanton

AARRGGHHHH!!!!! You just spoilt my dinner. And my breakfast too!

nwallace

According to the Highway code the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 sets the current speed limits (along with associated amendments)

Couldn't find it on line on OPSI but the ABD website threw this up

http://www.abd.org.uk/30.htm

Note the important word before Vehicle.

So if there are specific offences for motor vehicles, and specific offences for Bicycles.... If I was to operate at an unsafe speed woudl it be covered by a road traffic offence?


Out of interest has OPSI changed the amount of acts and SIs available? Previouisly i was able to find ACts of the pre-1707 scottish parliment and all of the road traffic acts (with the sections that have been superceeded removed) and some other oddities from way back.

And on another thought, if any goverment can repeal any act, law etc etc etc placed by any previous goverment. A goverment could in theory stop recognising the independance of all the coutnries that escaped the Empire. Which would give an easy route into "invading" Iraq, Burma, Zimbabwe etc.