Legal standpoint of cycling and road use

MO said:

A friend of mine was, yes arrested, for riding a bicycle in a
"dangerous manner". I was curious to know if cyclists are bound by the
same laws and rules as motor vehicles (on roads)? Surely doubtful the
cyclist was in breach of the highway code by say doing over 40 on a
30mph road? I wasn't even aware that the motor vehicle driving licence
test was mandatory for cyclists?

www.highwaycode.gov.uk

We don't need driving licences, but laws still applies.

Quoted message said:

The arrest came after the officers had no fixed penalty notices on
them?

Hearing this story I found it absolutely bizarre.

I would be surprised if the plod nicked him, unless he was doing
something very stupid/dangerous. The plod would not want to waste his
own time.

Martin.

MO wrote on 24/04/2007 21:44 +0100:

Quoted message said:

A friend of mine was, yes arrested, for riding a bicycle in a
"dangerous manner". I was curious to know if cyclists are bound by the
same laws and rules as motor vehicles (on roads)? Surely doubtful the
cyclist was in breach of the highway code by say doing over 40 on a
30mph road? I wasn't even aware that the motor vehicle driving licence
test was mandatory for cyclists?

The arrest came after the officers had no fixed penalty notices on
them?

Hearing this story I found it absolutely bizarre.

There is an offence of dangerous cycling in the Road Traffic Act 1991:

"28. — (1) A person who rides a cycle on a road dangerously is guilty of
an offence.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above a person is to be regarded
as riding dangerously if (and only if)—
(a)the way he rides falls far below what would be expected of a
competent and careful cyclist, and
(b)it would be obvious to a competent and careful cyclist that riding in
that way would be dangerous.
(3) In subsection (2) above “dangerous” refers to danger either of
injury to any person or of serious damage to property; and in
determining for the purposes of that subsection what would be obvious to
a competent and careful cyclist in a particular case, regard shall be
had not only to the circumstances of which he could be expected to be
aware but also to any circumstances shown to have been within the
knowledge of the accused."

Doing 40mph in a 30mph limit is not in itself illegal on a bicycle - the
speed limits do not apply to bicycles - so it would depend on how he was
riding.

The Highway Code is irrelevant. It is not the law and you cannot be
prosecuted for disobeying the Highway Code. You need to look at the
laws referred to in the Highway Code.

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

In message <[email hidden]>, MO
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

A friend of mine was, yes arrested, for riding a bicycle in a
"dangerous manner". I was curious to know if cyclists are bound by the
same laws and rules as motor vehicles (on roads)?

Well some of them yes (such as stopping at red traffic lights), some of
them not (such as speeding), there are some that apply just to pedal
cycles.

Quoted message said:

Surely doubtful the
cyclist was in breach of the highway code by say doing over 40 on a
30mph road?

Well, it most likely is in breach of some part of the highway code, I'm
not going to look it up. Speed limits as such do not apply to cyclists.
But I have heard of other cases of cyclists being charged with this
offence (or a similar archaic sounding 'furious cycling' IIRC) for
cycling faster than the motor vehicle speed limit. It's not for breach
of the speed limit per se, but presumably the rationale would be that if
someone is cycling significantly faster than the speed limit, then that
could be dangerous and a risk to other road users.

Quoted message said:

I wasn't even aware that the motor vehicle driving licence
test was mandatory for cyclists?

It isn't. But what's that got to do with it? You don't have to have a
driving licence to be charged with motor vehicle offences when driving.
We still have a responsibility as cyclist to cycle within the law.

Quoted message said:

The arrest came after the officers had no fixed penalty notices on
them?

The arresting aspect seems a bit unusual.

Quoted message said:

Hearing this story I found it absolutely bizarre.

You friend is probably a bit unlucky here
--
Chris French

Tony Raven said:

Doing 40mph in a 30mph limit is not in itself illegal on a bicycle - the
speed limits do not apply to bicycles - so it would depend on how he was
riding.

I wonder if rule number 50[1] in the "Rules for cyclists" section - "You
MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals." actually means
"You MUST only obey /some/ traffic signs".

[1] http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/03.htm#50

--
Matt B

Matt B 'matt.bourke'@nospam.london.com said:

Tony Raven said:

Doing 40mph in a 30mph limit is not in itself illegal on a bicycle -
the speed limits do not apply to bicycles - so it would depend on
how he was riding.

I wonder if rule number 50[1] in the "Rules for cyclists" section -
"You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals." actually
means "You MUST only obey /some/ traffic signs".

[1] http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/03.htm#50

You must obey signs - but the sign intructs you to obey the relevant
law, which is quite explicit in applying to motor vehicles only.

This is has been done to death before. The law on speed limits applies
only to the drivers of motor vehicles, and nothing in the law relating
to signage makes it apply to anyone else. I agree that it's not that
clear from the HC - but read the legislation and it's clear.

(FWIW there are local by-laws in some places - Richmond Park springs
to mind - where limits on cycles are in place.)

Paul Rudin wrote on 25/04/2007 06:10 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> writes:

Quoted message said:

This is has been done to death before.

And yet you still respond to Troll B. Curious.

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

chris French wrote on 24/04/2007 22:34 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Well, it most likely is in breach of some part of the highway code, I'm
not going to look it up. Speed limits as such do not apply to cyclists.
But I have heard of other cases of cyclists being charged with this
offence (or a similar archaic sounding 'furious cycling' IIRC) for
cycling faster than the motor vehicle speed limit.

The last such case was Tony Adams in Cambridge in IIRC 1997. He was
cycling below the speed limit but doing so on a city street busy with
pedestrians "training for a time trial". It was the manner and
circumstances of his cycling not the speed that led to the charge.

Quoted message said:

It's not for breach
of the speed limit per se, but presumably the rationale would be that if
someone is cycling significantly faster than the speed limit, then that
could be dangerous and a risk to other road users.

Insufficient for a dangerous cycling charge. It has to be obvious that
there is a danger of injury to a third party or serious damage to
property for the charge to stick. Just exceeding the motor vehicle
speed limit on a quiet road in insufficient but since when did many
policemen know the law.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I wasn't even aware that the motor vehicle driving licence
test was mandatory for cyclists?

It isn't. But what's that got to do with it? You don't have to have a
driving licence to be charged with motor vehicle offences when driving.
We still have a responsibility as cyclist to cycle within the law.

Lad near us got points recorded for if and when he ever applies for a
license for driving without one. His friend in the passenger seat got
points on his provisional license having been judged to be supervising a
learner driver and therefore able to be charged also with a driving offence.

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

Paul Rudin said:

Matt B 'matt.bourke'@nospam.london.com said:

Tony Raven said:

Doing 40mph in a 30mph limit is not in itself illegal on a bicycle -
the speed limits do not apply to bicycles - so it would depend on
how he was riding.

I wonder if rule number 50[1] in the "Rules for cyclists" section -
"You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals." actually
means "You MUST only obey /some/ traffic signs".

[1] http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/03.htm#50

You must obey signs - but the sign intructs you to obey the relevant
law, which is quite explicit in applying to motor vehicles only.

This is has been done to death before.

Yes, I know. I wasn't questioning whether speed limits applied, or even
/should/ apply, to bikes, but whether the HC is inaccurate in its use of
the "MUST" word.

<snip>

--
Matt B

Paul Rudin said:

Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> writes:

Don't feed the Troll.

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 10:23:51 GMT, _ <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Paul Rudin said:

Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> writes:

Don't feed the Troll.

He's not a troll just because you frequently disagree with him.

in message <[email hidden]>, MO

(') said:

A friend of mine was, yes arrested, for riding a bicycle in a
"dangerous manner". I was curious to know if cyclists are bound by the
same laws and rules as motor vehicles (on roads)?

Broadly, yes, but there are some differences. He could be arrested
for 'pedalling furiously', or for being drunk in charge of a vehicle (a
bicycle is a vehicle), or for various other breaches of the law, such as
failing to stop at a red light.

Quoted message said:

Surely doubtful the
cyclist was in breach of the highway code by say doing over 40 on a
30mph road? I wasn't even aware that the motor vehicle driving licence
test was mandatory for cyclists?

A motor vehicle driving test is not mandatory for cyclists; nor is any
other test. A cyclist is not bound to observe speed limits except where
regulated by local by-laws (most noticeably, in royal parks).

Quoted message said:

Hearing this story I found it absolutely bizarre.

Why? If he actually was riding dangerously, don't you think it's better for
everyone that he was stopped?

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

'there are no solutions, only precipitates'

in message <[email hidden]>, Martin Dann

(') said:

MO said:

A friend of mine was, yes arrested, for riding a bicycle in a
"dangerous manner". I was curious to know if cyclists are bound by the
same laws and rules as motor vehicles (on roads)? Surely doubtful the
cyclist was in breach of the highway code by say doing over 40 on a
30mph road? I wasn't even aware that the motor vehicle driving licence
test was mandatory for cyclists?

www.highwaycode.gov.uk

We don't need driving licences, but laws still applies.

Quoted message said:

The arrest came after the officers had no fixed penalty notices on
them?

Hearing this story I found it absolutely bizarre.

I would be surprised if the plod nicked him, unless he was doing
something very stupid/dangerous. The plod would not want to waste his
own time.

Or unless he got shirty with the plod. Plod doesn't like it if you get too
uppity.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Ziggy said:

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 10:23:51 GMT, _ <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Paul Rudin said:

Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> writes:

Don't feed the Troll.

He's not a troll just because you frequently disagree with him.

I thought that /was/ the definition of a troll - to many here at least. ;-)

--
Matt B

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 11:58:31 +0100, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com>

Quoted message said:

Ziggy said:

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 10:23:51 GMT, _ <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 06:10:09 +0100, Paul Rudin wrote:

> Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> writes:
>
Don't feed the Troll.

He's not a troll just because you frequently disagree with him.

I thought that /was/ the definition of a troll - to many here at least. ;-)

Sadly, that seems to be true.

OTOH you do, IMO, come perilously close, sometimes; perilously close. :-)

Ziggy said:

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 10:23:51 GMT, _ <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Paul Rudin said:

Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> writes:

Don't feed the Troll.

He's not a troll just because you frequently disagree with him.

Correct, he's not just a troll because he diagrees with me.
I frequently disagree with him, and he's ALSO a troll.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Ian Smith said:

Ziggy said:

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 10:23:51 GMT, _ <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 06:10:09 +0100, Paul Rudin wrote:

> Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> writes:

Don't feed the Troll.

He's not a troll just because you frequently disagree with him.

Correct, he's not just a troll because he diagrees with me.
I frequently disagree with him, and he's ALSO a troll.

regards, Ian SMith

I never disagree with him; to do so would be to encourage him to continue
as the u.r.c. resident troll.

_ said:

I never disagree with him [Matt B];

Ah, so do you deny that...

any of these:
http://tinyurl.com/39gzxu

or any of these:
http://tinyurl.com/38d2e4

posts are from you then? Or have you a very short memory, or are you a
liar?

--
Matt B

Paul Rudin said:

Matt B 'matt.bourke'@nospam.london.com said:

Tony Raven said:

Doing 40mph in a 30mph limit is not in itself illegal on a bicycle -
the speed limits do not apply to bicycles - so it would depend on
how he was riding.

I wonder if rule number 50[1] in the "Rules for cyclists" section -
"You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals." actually
means "You MUST only obey /some/ traffic signs".

[1] http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/03.htm#50

You must obey signs - but the sign intructs you to obey the relevant
law, which is quite explicit in applying to motor vehicles only.

This is has been done to death before. The law on speed limits applies
only to the drivers of motor vehicles, and nothing in the law relating
to signage makes it apply to anyone else. I agree that it's not that
clear from the HC - but read the legislation and it's clear.

(FWIW there are local by-laws in some places - Richmond Park springs
to mind - where limits on cycles are in place.)

No entry signs that don't apply to cyclists springs to mind as well.

Martin Dann said:

MO said:

A friend of mine was, yes arrested, for riding a bicycle in a
"dangerous manner". I was curious to know if cyclists are bound by the
same laws and rules as motor vehicles (on roads)? Surely doubtful the
cyclist was in breach of the highway code by say doing over 40 on a
30mphroad? I wasn't even aware that the motor vehicle driving licence
test was mandatory for cyclists?

www.highwaycode.gov.uk

We don't need driving licences, but laws still applies.

True, my point being if you have a driving licence you automatically
understand the law of the road, highway code etc. So completely
irrelevant as it applies to motor vehicles.

But for riding a bike things are subtly different; even I have found
it hard at times to get hold and understand the do's and dont's in
this case.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The arrest came after the officers had no fixed penalty notices on
them?

Quoted message said:

Hearing this story I found it absolutely bizarre.

I would be surprised if the plod nicked him, unless he was doing
something very stupid/dangerous. The plod would not want to waste his
own time.

Martin.

I wouldn't be too confident in plod's justification when it comes to
bicycles on the road, or worse still, plods on bike. What is dangerous/
stupid? Who could say unless one is a complete amateur or lightweight
and sees things that way?