Richmond Park riders, beware!

bails87

Headhuunter wrote:

I don't really get how they can enforce speed limits on cyclists anyway. Unless you have some kind of bike computer or Garmin, how are you supposed to know what speed you were doing? Last time I looked, it wasn't a legal requirement that cyclists (unlike drivers) have some kind of speedo onboard. So what happens? Plod stops you and says "do you have any idea what speed you were doing?"..... "errr, no..."

Ignorance is no defence....

tgotb

Kieran_Burns wrote:

My legs aren't mechanical.

Mine are. Here's a selection of definitions of the word "mechanical" from online dictionaries:
- relating to or controlled or operated by physical forces
- of or concerned with mechanics
- (of a gesture, etc) automatic; lacking thought, feeling, etc
- philosophy accounting for phenomena by physically determining forces

My legs, cranks, chain, gears and wheels very definitely form what, when I studied engineering, was referred to as a mechanism.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Kieran_Burns wrote:

You cannot ever get points on a licence for any kind of supposed offense on a bike. You don't need a licence and do not need to produce one. So you've somewhat undermined your entire argument regarding whether a bike is a mechanically propelled vehicle. My legs aren't mechanical.

Ok - not points - my mistake. You can be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence. See here: http://ukcyclerules.com/2010/09/27/can- ... g-offence/

I don't have to make any argument. It's apparently the verdict in the court decision linked to in the OP. Maybe the cyclist should have had you arguing his case, Matlock.

Headhuunter wrote:

I don't really get how they can enforce speed limits on cyclists anyway. Unless you have some kind of bike computer or Garmin, how are you supposed to know what speed you were doing? Last time I looked, it wasn't a legal requirement that cyclists (unlike drivers) have some kind of speedo onboard. So what happens? Plod stops you and says "do you have any idea what speed you were doing?"..... "errr, no..."

When did not knowing how fast you were going become a defence to speeding? I'm all in favour of such an approach, btw (there'd be a hole in the dash of my car by lunchtime if it worked), but I'm pretty sure that won't fly.

tgotb

Headhuunter wrote:

Unless you have some kind of bike computer or Garmin, how are you supposed to know what speed you were doing?

If you're overtaking moving cars, you're almost certainly exceeding the speed limit. If you're doing 37mph, but genuinely believe you're doing less than 20mph, you should b banned from cycling for your own safety.

These days, I suspect the number of riders who regularly exceed 20mph on the road and don't have some form of speed measuring device is pretty small...

timothyw

As a central London dweller, I'm wondering if anyone can recommend or suggest anywhere else where we can put in a decent lap without being restricted to 20mph?

Ideally I suppose somewhere that doesn't feature heavy goods vehicles, cars that fly past you at 60mph, traffic lights, heavy traffic that you need to filter and includes a few hills (rather than just the flat of Regents park).

Obviously laps up Swains lane have their charm, but as a heavy bastard it's quite a lot of work for both me and the brakes on the way down.

tgotb

TimothyW wrote:

As a central London dweller, I'm wondering if anyone can recommend or suggest anywhere else where we can put in a decent lap without being restricted to 20mph?

Ideally I suppose somewhere that doesn't feature heavy goods vehicles, cars that fly past you at 60mph, traffic lights, heavy traffic that you need to filter and includes a few hills (rather than just the flat of Regents park).

Obviously laps up Swains lane have their charm, but as a heavy bastard it's quite a lot of work for both me and the brakes on the way down.

Herne Hill Velodrome
Hillingdon cycle circuit
Hog Hill cycle circuit
Crystal Palace crits
The Countryside

Kieran_Burns

TGOTB wrote:

Kieran_Burns wrote:

My legs aren't mechanical.

Mine are. Here's a selection of definitions of the word "mechanical" from online dictionaries:
- relating to or controlled or operated by physical forces
- of or concerned with mechanics
- (of a gesture, etc) automatic; lacking thought, feeling, etc
- philosophy accounting for phenomena by physically determining forces

My legs, cranks, chain, gears and wheels very definitely form what, when I studied engineering, was referred to as a mechanism.

GOPEDS is apparently the term to remember:

Gas
Oil
Petrol
Electricity
Diesel
Steam

So a bicycle is not a mechanically propelled vehicle.

http://forum.ctc.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f ... in#p385552

tgotb

Kieran_Burns wrote:

TGOTB wrote:

Kieran_Burns wrote:

My legs aren't mechanical.

Mine are. Here's a selection of definitions of the word "mechanical" from online dictionaries:
- relating to or controlled or operated by physical forces
- of or concerned with mechanics
- (of a gesture, etc) automatic; lacking thought, feeling, etc
- philosophy accounting for phenomena by physically determining forces

My legs, cranks, chain, gears and wheels very definitely form what, when I studied engineering, was referred to as a mechanism.

GOPEDS is apparently the term to remember:

Gas
Oil
Petrol
Electricity
Diesel
Steam

So a bicycle is not a mechanically propelled vehicle.

http://forum.ctc.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f ... in#p385552

The Bloodhound SSC, which is being built to break 1000mph, uses two propulsion systems:
1. Rocket (fuelled by hydrogen peroxide and rubber)
2. Jet engine (fuelled by kerosene, which is effectively refined paraffin)
Are you trying to claim that this is not mechanically propelled? If you're going to claim paraffin is an oil derivative (in which case why list diesel and petrol separately), what if it just uses the rocket? For that matter, what if I exceed the speed limit down a hill in my car, with the engine turned off? Could I successfully claim, in court, that I wasn't breaking the law because my car was powered only by gravity?

Just because someone on the internet, has come up with a handy acronym, it doesn't mean that it covers all the corner cases, nor does it enable them to redefine basic scientific terms.

Headhuunter

Headhuunter wrote:

I don't really get how they can enforce speed limits on cyclists anyway. Unless you have some kind of bike computer or Garmin, how are you supposed to know what speed you were doing? Last time I looked, it wasn't a legal requirement that cyclists (unlike drivers) have some kind of speedo onboard. So what happens? Plod stops you and says "do you have any idea what speed you were doing?"..... "errr, no..."

When did not knowing how fast you were going become a defence to speeding? I'm all in favour of such an approach, btw (there'd be a hole in the dash of my car by lunchtime if it worked), but I'm pretty sure that won't fly.[/quote]

Yeah but it's law for cars to have some kind of speed monitoring device fitted but not bikes, although I can see that ignorance is no defence...

jonnyboy77

The story is short on detail, I find it hard to believe that this was pursued as far as it was without other factors being involved?

Regardless of this specific case though, which will no doubt please the anti-cycling collectives, 37mph is nearly double the posted speed limit - a driver caught speeding at 17mph over a 20mph speed limit I suspect would not escape with a fine/points: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road ... y_notices/

Speed limit: 20 mph
ACPO charging threshold: 24 mph
Summons: 35 mph

Also worth noting that as of August the following applies:

The minimum penalty for speeding is a £100 fine and 3 penalty points added to your licence.

from https://www.gov.uk/speeding-penalties

I'm reserving my jusdgement until/if there are more details release, which seems unlikely anyway.

I would treat speeding on a bike like speeding in a car, be aware of your surroundings ride in accordance with conditions and rules of the road and if you spot a police car in the distance, check your speed

- Jon



- Jon

Wunnunda

TGOTB wrote:

If you're overtaking moving cars, you're almost certainly exceeding the speed limit. If you're doing 37mph, but genuinely believe you're doing less than 20mph, you should b banned from cycling for your own safety.

There's definitely a clus there somewhere.....

dodgy

jonnyboy77 wrote:

Regardless of this specific case though, which will no doubt please the anti-cycling collectives, 37mph is nearly double the posted speed limit - a driver caught speeding at 17mph over a 20mph speed limit I suspect would not escape with a fine/points: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road ... y_notices/

Speed limit: 20 mph
ACPO charging threshold: 24 mph
Summons: 35 mph

Also worth bearing in mind the kinetic energy of a bicycle plus rider at 37mph compared with a scooter --> motorbike --> car --> tipper truck etc etc.

I imagine and hope that a car/truck/whatever would attract a higher fine than the cyclist based on the potential for harm. But I doubt it.

The Rookie

I'm still not convined a bike is a mechanically propelled vehicle and hence it has no speed limits, no point talking of double the speed limit if there isn't one!

Of course in the first case the report is so thin on detail we don't even know what he was accused of - which may have not been speeding but dangerous cycling or similar.

Kieran_Burns wrote:

You cannot ever get points on a licence for any kind of supposed offense on a bike..

Not true, if a cyclist has a licence it can be endorsed, if not then a virtual licence can be created and endorsed pending aquisition of a real one.

mattsaw

It has always been explained to me that there is not normally an enforceable speed limit for cycles, but dangerous cycling would fall under the the offence of 'wanton or furious' cycling.

In the case of Richmond park there is a local bylaw which does enforce a speed limit for bikes.

This may or may not be true, but I have seen it quoted from multiple sources.

Sharkyssurfers

The Rookie wrote:

I'm still not convined a bike is a mechanically propelled vehicle and hence it has no speed limits, no point talking of double the speed limit if there isn't one!

Of course in the first case the report is so thin on detail we don't even know what he was accused of - which may have not been speeding but dangerous cycling or similar.

Kieran_Burns wrote:

You cannot ever get points on a licence for any kind of supposed offense on a bike..

Not true, if a cyclist has a licence it can be endorsed, if not then a virtual licence can be created and endorsed pending aquisition of a real one.

my thoughts on this would be a bicycle is a mechanically propelled vehicle, it has a drivechain that turns a series of cogs via a crank to propel, yes you need your legs to propel it, but thats the same as you sitting on a motorbike you need to turn the grip to accelerate and use the accelerator pedal in the car and change gears etc.. to propel it forward.

Wrath Rob

TGOTB wrote:

The Bloodhound SSC, which is being built to break 1000mph, uses two propulsion systems:
1. Rocket (fuelled by hydrogen peroxide and rubber)
2. Jet engine (fuelled by kerosene, which is effectively refined paraffin)
Are you trying to claim that this is not mechanically propelled? If you're going to claim paraffin is an oil derivative (in which case why list diesel and petrol separately), what if it just uses the rocket? For that matter, what if I exceed the speed limit down a hill in my car, with the engine turned off? Could I successfully claim, in court, that I wasn't breaking the law because my car was powered only by gravity?

Just because someone on the internet, has come up with a handy acronym, it doesn't mean that it covers all the corner cases, nor does it enable them to redefine basic scientific terms.

I can't believe no-one has picked this up?

Bloodhound doesn't have any driven wheels and therefore isn't mechanicaly driven. Instead its driven by a combination of jet and rocket engines and are not coupled to the wheels in any way :P

wandsworth

So all those Strava segments showing speeds in Richmond Park are evidence for a criminal prosecution for many members of this forum?

bails87

wandsworth wrote:

So all those Strava segments showing speeds in Richmond Park are evidence for a criminal prosecution for many members of this forum?

Not really. It's easy enough to edit a gpx file, you could make it show you doing 100mph if you wanted.

spen666

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

mroli wrote:

Fair enough for me. If you can't spot the police checking for speeding, you're committing the same offence as a car driving around the park at 37mph.

Not really fair enough. If you get clocked as a driver speeding you'll likely get 3 points and a fine. You don't get a criminal record for speeding per se - if you go nuts and get charged with dangerous driving because you get clocked doing 130 on the M25, that's different.

Contrary to some speculation above, a bike is a mechanically propelled vehicle. And the evidence in the link in the first post shows that you can get a criminal record for speeding in RP on a bike.

I have no issue with cyclists who get caught speeding in RP getting a £60 fine (or whatever the going rate is for motorists) and conceivably even 3 points on their driving licence if they hold one. But getting a criminal record for doing something on a bike which, if done by a driver would not result in a criminal record, seems far from fair to me.

I disagree with you on this point.
I think you are wrong in law

spen666

Road CC have an interesting link

http://road.cc/content/news/94300-teen- ... hmond-park

tgotb

Rather than all this legal bickering about whether bicycles are technically within the scope of the law, isn't easier to accept that the spirit of the law is that the speed limit should apply to all vehicles, including bicycles? None of us is up on a speeding charge, so all we have to do is observe the speed limit (which will also help to avoid antagonising other road users) and everyone's happy...

spen666

TGOTB wrote:

Rather than all this legal bickering about whether bicycles are technically within the scope of the law, isn't easier to accept that the spirit of the law is that the speed limit should apply to all vehicles, including bicycles? None of us is up on a speeding charge, so all we have to do is observe the speed limit (which will also help to avoid antagonising other road users) and everyone's happy...

So presumably you never dive above 56 mph on a motorway then?

That spped limit applies to HGVs, so I presume you limit yourself to that.


The fact is that for whatever reason Parliament decided the speed limit does not apply to bicycles and therefore there is no legal or moral reason to limit uyourself to a speed that certain otherr groups of transport users are limited to

(Danger etc is a different issue and I would not advocate driving/ riding dangerously)

tgotb

spen666 wrote:

TGOTB wrote:

Rather than all this legal bickering about whether bicycles are technically within the scope of the law, isn't easier to accept that the spirit of the law is that the speed limit should apply to all vehicles, including bicycles? None of us is up on a speeding charge, so all we have to do is observe the speed limit (which will also help to avoid antagonising other road users) and everyone's happy...

So presumably you never dive above 56 mph on a motorway then?

That spped limit applies to HGVs, so I presume you limit yourself to that.


The fact is that for whatever reason Parliament decided the speed limit does not apply to bicycles and therefore there is no legal or moral reason to limit uyourself to a speed that certain otherr groups of transport users are limited to

(Danger etc is a different issue and I would not advocate driving/ riding dangerously)

Do you really think that Parliament had a serious intent to allow bicycles to travel faster than other vehicles in speed-limited areas? Do you really think that someone thought, "Well, let's restrict motor vehicles to 20/30mph but let bicycles go faster"?

It seems much more likely to me that they didn't anticipate/consider this scenario, and inadvertently created a loophole for bicycles. Like most law, it seems to be a hodge-podge of various different pieces of legislation, so it's not surprising that loopholes exist. There may be no legal reason to limit your speed, but I would argue that there is a moral reason. If, as you suggest, you base your morals purely on the letter of the law, you presumably process your earnings through the same 1% tax loophole reportedly used by Jimmy Carr et al.

spen666

TGOTB wrote:

spen666 wrote:

TGOTB wrote:

Rather than all this legal bickering about whether bicycles are technically within the scope of the law, isn't easier to accept that the spirit of the law is that the speed limit should apply to all vehicles, including bicycles? None of us is up on a speeding charge, so all we have to do is observe the speed limit (which will also help to avoid antagonising other road users) and everyone's happy...

So presumably you never dive above 56 mph on a motorway then?

That spped limit applies to HGVs, so I presume you limit yourself to that.


The fact is that for whatever reason Parliament decided the speed limit does not apply to bicycles and therefore there is no legal or moral reason to limit uyourself to a speed that certain otherr groups of transport users are limited to

(Danger etc is a different issue and I would not advocate driving/ riding dangerously)

Do you really think that Parliament had a serious intent to allow bicycles to travel faster than other vehicles in speed-limited areas? Do you really think that someone thought, "Well, let's restrict motor vehicles to 20/30mph but let bicycles go faster"?

It seems much more likely to me that they didn't anticipate/consider this scenario, and inadvertently created a loophole for bicycles. Like most law, it seems to be a hodge-podge of various different pieces of legislation, so it's not surprising that loopholes exist. There may be no legal reason to limit your speed, but I would argue that there is a moral reason. If, as you suggest, you base your morals purely on the letter of the law, you presumably process your earnings through the same 1% tax loophole reportedly used by Jimmy Carr et al.

So you do limit your speed on a motorway to 56mph the same as lorries then?


As for Jimmy Carr & his tax arrangements- why not? If Parliament doesn't want us to do something, they will legislate to prevent it. If they don't prevent it, then why should you limit yourself.

That is called freedom.

i personally have no problem with Jimmy Carr acting lawfully and reducing the amount of tax he pays. I would prefer it if Parliament limited the availability of such schemes but if they are lawful, then good on him

bigmat

The point being missed is that car speeds are being reduced to 20mph due to the damage a car exceeding that speed can do to a pedestrian (or cyclist). That doesn't apply to cyclists - we pose a massively reduced threat to the general public, so why should we be tarred with the same brush? If we are riding safely and considerately then we should be able to do so at whatever speed we are capable of (IMO).

prj45

I've changed my mind on this, this amendment pretty clearly states that '“vehicle” means a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on a road.' That's a motor vehicle.

So you can't break the speed limit on a cycle in Richmond park (you used to be able to). People can still cycle like dicks though, which is against the law.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/1194/made

itboffin

I drove from Windshire to Bergerac and never once went over 60mph ....do I win a prize?

PS. it took foooooooooooor everrrrrrrrrrrr zzzzz!

tgotb

spen666 wrote:

TGOTB wrote:

spen666 wrote:

TGOTB wrote:

Rather than all this legal bickering about whether bicycles are technically within the scope of the law, isn't easier to accept that the spirit of the law is that the speed limit should apply to all vehicles, including bicycles? None of us is up on a speeding charge, so all we have to do is observe the speed limit (which will also help to avoid antagonising other road users) and everyone's happy...

So presumably you never dive above 56 mph on a motorway then?

That spped limit applies to HGVs, so I presume you limit yourself to that.


The fact is that for whatever reason Parliament decided the speed limit does not apply to bicycles and therefore there is no legal or moral reason to limit uyourself to a speed that certain otherr groups of transport users are limited to

(Danger etc is a different issue and I would not advocate driving/ riding dangerously)

Do you really think that Parliament had a serious intent to allow bicycles to travel faster than other vehicles in speed-limited areas? Do you really think that someone thought, "Well, let's restrict motor vehicles to 20/30mph but let bicycles go faster"?

It seems much more likely to me that they didn't anticipate/consider this scenario, and inadvertently created a loophole for bicycles. Like most law, it seems to be a hodge-podge of various different pieces of legislation, so it's not surprising that loopholes exist. There may be no legal reason to limit your speed, but I would argue that there is a moral reason. If, as you suggest, you base your morals purely on the letter of the law, you presumably process your earnings through the same 1% tax loophole reportedly used by Jimmy Carr et al.

So you do limit your speed on a motorway to 56mph the same as lorries then?


As for Jimmy Carr & his tax arrangements- why not? If Parliament doesn't want us to do something, they will legislate to prevent it. If they don't prevent it, then why should you limit yourself.

That is called freedom.

i personally have no problem with Jimmy Carr acting lawfully and reducing the amount of tax he pays. I would prefer it if Parliament limited the availability of such schemes but if they are lawful, then good on him

Of course I don't drive at 56mph on motorways (in good conditions). I observe both the letter of the law and what I believe to be the spirit of the law, and treat the speed limit as 70mph.

Here's another hypothetical scenario for you. There's lots of (presumably apocryphal) stories of ancient laws still on the statue books which don't really make sense in the modern World (I think I read one about being allowed to kill Welsh people in Chester under certain circumstances, for instance). Imagine I discover a law which allowed me to kill a business rival (for instance because he was from Berkshire, and I did the deed with a longbow at a range of 500m, on a Thursday, whilst wearing a red codpiece). In this hypothetical situation my lawyer, who is never wrong, tells me that I can use this law to avoid being convicted (remember, this is a thought experiment, so we can assume the lawyer is right). I then go ahead and kill my business rival, perfectly legally, and my lawyer helps me to avoid conviction. I argue that this is a manifestation of freedom, and if parliament didn't want me to do it they would have legislated to prevent it. Are my actions morally justifiable?

greg66_tri_v2.0

TGOTB wrote:

There's lots of (presumably apocryphal) stories of ancient laws still on the statue books which don't really make sense in the modern World (I think I read one about being allowed to kill Welsh people in Chester under certain circumstances, for instance).

Yeah. Not really seeing how your example is illustrative of your point.

Oh, wait. I've got it now.

It's only Chester, right?

tgotb

BigMat wrote:

The point being missed is that car speeds are being reduced to 20mph due to the damage a car exceeding that speed can do to a pedestrian (or cyclist). That doesn't apply to cyclists - we pose a massively reduced threat to the general public, so why should we be tarred with the same brush? If we are riding safely and considerately then we should be able to do so at whatever speed we are capable of (IMO).

Do you know that *for sure* or are you just making an assumption?

When the speed limit was reduced to 20mph (iirc it was 5 or 6 years ago) the argument put forward was that it was to reduce collisions with deer (which do tend to be even less predictable than pedestrians and cyclists, especially when pursued by labradors). Do you think the speed limit was dropped to reduce the number of collisions, or merely to limit the damage caused by those collisions?