Cycle Speed Limits on a normal Cycle Path?

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Tony Raven
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Paul Boyd wrote on 07/02/2007 18:41 +0100:
>> On 07/02/2007 16:44, Tony Raven said,
>>
>>> And that principle applies to driving blood alcohol levels too?
>>
>> I'm not sure what the connection is there. Cars have speedos partly
>> (solely????) to ensure that drivers can remain within the speed limit -
>> they can't claim that they didn't know they were speeding.
>
> So if, accepting for the discussion, your postulate that you cannot
> prosecute for speeding if you don't have a speedo to tell you your
> speed, presumably they cannot prosecute you for drunk driving unless you
> have a means for measuring your blood alcohol fitted also.

You do, it's called the mark one human taste bud. If the taste bud hasn't
detected alcohol in the past 24 hours, off you go. Otherwise, phone a
taxi.

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

;; may contain traces of nuts, bolts or washers.

 

[Paul Boyd]

On 07/02/2007 21:57, Ian Smith said,

> There is no doubt whatsoever that speed limits do not apply to cycles,

Really? So on a local hill or three where I can easily reach 35mph in a
30 limit on my MTB I can't actually be done for speeding?

I would probably be charged with "cycling furiously" instead

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

 

[Chris Eilbeck]

Paul Boyd <[email protected]> writes:

> On 07/02/2007 21:57, Ian Smith said,
>
>> There is no doubt whatsoever that speed limits do not apply to
>> cycles,
>
> Really? So on a local hill or three where I can easily reach 35mph
> in a 30 limit on my MTB I can't actually be done for speeding?
>
> I would probably be charged with "cycling furiously" instead

Only if you were angry, m8! I think the big grin might give the game
away though.

Chris
--
Chris Eilbeck

 

[Tony Raven]

Paul Boyd wrote on 07/02/2007 22:35 +0100:
> On 07/02/2007 21:57, Ian Smith said,
>
>> There is no doubt whatsoever that speed limits do not apply to cycles,
>
> Really? So on a local hill or three where I can easily reach 35mph in a
> 30 limit on my MTB I can't actually be done for speeding?
>

If you are on the public highway, correct. The relevant legislation
applies specifically to motor vehicles.


--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

 

[Tim Hall]

On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 22:15:22 +0000, Simon Brooke
<[email protected]> wrote:

>in message <[email protected]>, Helen Deborah Vecht
>('[email protected]') wrote:
>
>> [email protected]yped
>>
>>
>>> Are there any speed-limits for a standard cycle?
>>
>>> Thank you.
>>
>> No but there is a limit of 8mph on Hampstead Heath and something else in
>> Richmond Park.

20 mph for *all* vehicles in Richmond park. No "motorised" get out
clause.

>
>Is that a local bye-law?

Statutory Instrument governing Royal Parks.
<http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2004/20041308.htm>, which refers to
another one.


>
>> Mixing with pedestrians at >10mph is not personally recommended.
>
>Agreed.

And here.


Tim

 

[Helen Deborah Vecht]

Simon Brooke <[email protected]>typed

> > No but there is a limit of 8mph on Hampstead Heath and something else in
> > Richmond Park.

> Is that a local bye-law?

Yes

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email protected]
Edgware.

 

[Tom Crispin]

On 7 Feb 2007 13:51:06 -0800, "naked_draughtsman"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I know an enhanced one allows the police to disclose relevant
>information (rather than just convictions) but I think that is pushing
>the limit as it was so long ago and you were never found guilty!

I was using a bit of poetic licence.

During an interview for a Catholic School, 10 years ago, I was asked
if I had any criminal convictions. I replied that I was once in court
accused of being drunk while cycling but found to have been sober.

 

[Buck]

On 2007-02-08 06:23:49 +0000, Tom Crispin
<[email protected]> said:

> On 7 Feb 2007 13:51:06 -0800, "naked_draughtsman"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I know an enhanced one allows the police to disclose relevant
>> information (rather than just convictions) but I think that is pushing
>> the limit as it was so long ago and you were never found guilty!
>
> I was using a bit of poetic licence.
>
> During an interview for a Catholic School, 10 years ago, I was asked
> if I had any criminal convictions. I replied that I was once in court
> accused of being drunk while cycling but found to have been sober.

Did you get the job?
--
Three wheels good, two wheels ok

www.catrike.co.uk

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 06:42:28 GMT, Buck
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 2007-02-08 06:23:49 +0000, Tom Crispin
><[email protected]> said:
>
>> On 7 Feb 2007 13:51:06 -0800, "naked_draughtsman"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> I know an enhanced one allows the police to disclose relevant
>>> information (rather than just convictions) but I think that is pushing
>>> the limit as it was so long ago and you were never found guilty!
>>
>> I was using a bit of poetic licence.
>>
>> During an interview for a Catholic School, 10 years ago, I was asked
>> if I had any criminal convictions. I replied that I was once in court
>> accused of being drunk while cycling but found to have been sober.
>
>Did you get the job?

No. And glad of it. I am not a fan of sectarian schools.

My comments had nothing (probably) to do with me not getting the job.
The clincher was my answer to the question, "If we offered you this
job, would you accept it?" Which begged the follow up question, "Why
the f*&$ did you bother applying in the first place?"

I have since met Monsigor Rothom at a council meeting - about young
people and cycling - but I don't think that he remembered me.

 

[Paul Boyd]

Simon Brooke said the following on 07/02/2007 22:17:

> If you've drunk no alcohol at all in the past 24 hours you're legal.
> Otherwise, you're winging it.

I'm amazed at the way this thread has turned! Some people seem to have
difficulty in understanding the fact that a human does not have built-in
speed measurement devices so we need speedos, but we do have built-in
alcohol measuring devices, so we don't need breathalysers.

I'm with you on the no alcohol in 24 hours "rule". I don't need to
breathalyse myself before getting into a car if I haven't touched
alcohol for 24 hours.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

 

[Paul Boyd]

Don Whybrow said the following on 07/02/2007 21:28:

> Interesting forks in this one:
> http://www.classiclightweights.co.uk/racingbates800.jpg

Is it just me, or is that a very strange riding position?

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

 

[Paul Boyd]

Simon Brooke said the following on 07/02/2007 22:13:
> in message <45ca4058.0@entanet>, Zog The Undeniable
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> Are there any speed-limits for a standard cycle?
>>>
>>> Thank you.
>>>
>> No, but few of them seem to have a design speed of more than 15mph.
>
> Oh, for heaven's sake! Any bike that's designed to go down a hill has to be
> able to handle predictably and stop effectively from at least 40mph.

I /think/, reading rather vaguely between the lines, that he meant the
cycle paths didn't have a design speed of more than 15mph rather than
the bikes not being designed for more than 15mph.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

 

[Buck]

On 2007-02-08 07:58:58 +0000, Paul Boyd <usenet.dont.work@plusnet> said:

> Don Whybrow said the following on 07/02/2007 21:28:
>
>> Interesting forks in this one:
>> http://www.classiclightweights.co.uk/racingbates800.jpg
>
> Is it just me, or is that a very strange riding position?

Yes very strange, why is he all hunched up like that and why are his feet
underneath him?
--
Three wheels good, two wheels ok

www.catrike.co.uk

 

[Dave Larrington]

In news:[email protected],
Ian Smith <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
> On Wed, 07 Feb, Don Whybrow <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Interesting forks in this one:
>> http://www.classiclightweights.co.uk/racingbates800.jpg
>>
>> Were they bent like that to provide some shock absorption?
>
> I've always assumed that things like this (and, for example, Hetchins
> curly stays) were actually produced solely to have a distinguishing
> feature, and passed off as some super scientific development that
> provides shock absorption (or whatever).

Yep. Back in those days, builders were forbidden from using time-trial
results for advertising purposes, so a lot of them built stuff that was
instantly recognisable by the cognoscenti, such as the Bates in question,
the Hetchins "Curly" and the truly appalling (from an engineering
standpoint) Paris Galibier:

http://www.bicycle-gifts.com/jpg/vp1d.jpg

Which some genius resurrected as a mountain bike design and then wondered
why the bottom bracket wobbled about.

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Oxymoron: spot cream for chavs.

 

[Dave Larrington]

In news:[email protected],
[email protected] <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine
to tell us:
> Are there any speed-limits for a standard cycle?

Mine goes up to 1400 rpm on the "cotton" setting, but only 1000 for
"synthetic".

HTH

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Bandersnatch? I would never have guessed.

 

[LSMike]

On Feb 7, 8:32 pm, "GeoffC" <[email protected]> wrote:
> LSMike <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Feb 7, 5:23 pm, "GeoffC" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Helen Deborah Vecht <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>> Mixing with pedestrians at >10mph is not personally recommended.
>
> >> You just need a good bell
>
> > I do see the smiley, but really, that's as bad as an impatient moton
> > wanting a cyclist off "his" road.
>
> Nope, I disagree. You can hear a car coming up behind you but a bike is as
> good as silent. If I am walking along a cycle path I would rather be warned
> by a gentle "ding " than surprised by the slipstream of a passing bike.
>

LOL, very true. That's not what you initially implied, however, which
was that speeds of >10mph amongst pedestrians is fine if you use a
bell to force them to move out the way.

 

[p.k.]

Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
> Simon Brooke <[email protected]>typed
>
>>> No but there is a limit of 8mph on Hampstead Heath and something
>>> else in Richmond Park.
>
>> Is that a local bye-law?
>
> Yes

The road limit in RP is 20 for ALL vehicles.

The limit on the Tamsin Trail is 10mph - imposed at the behest of the
Friends of Richmond Park when the failed to have cyclists banned from the
trail despite its having been funded by a bequest specifically as a cycle
trail.

The "community Support officers" have been out recently stopping everyone on
the trail (walkers, runners, cyclists) and reminding them that it is a
*shared* trail and all should be courteous - pedestrian priority does not
mean it is legitimate for pedestrians to deliberately block cyclists'
passage as some do.

pk

 

[Buck]

On 2007-02-08 08:53:18 +0000, "p.k." <[email protected]> said:

> Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
>> Simon Brooke <[email protected]>typed
>>
>>>> No but there is a limit of 8mph on Hampstead Heath and something
>>>> else in Richmond Park.
>>
>>> Is that a local bye-law?
>>
>> Yes
>
> The road limit in RP is 20 for ALL vehicles.
>
> The limit on the Tamsin Trail is 10mph - imposed at the behest of the
> Friends of Richmond Park when the failed to have cyclists banned from
> the trail despite its having been funded by a bequest specifically as a
> cycle trail.
>
> The "community Support officers" have been out recently stopping
> everyone on the trail (walkers, runners, cyclists) and reminding them
> that it is a *shared* trail and all should be courteous - pedestrian
> priority does not mean it is legitimate for pedestrians to deliberately
> block cyclists' passage as some do.
>
> pk

Good information, thanks.
--
Three wheels good, two wheels ok

www.catrike.co.uk

 

[Will Cove]

[email protected] (Ewan) wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> The normal requirement of mens rea was not removed from the offence of
> exceeding the speed limit so it was deemed necessary for motorists to
> have a working speedometer fitted as otherwise mens rea would be
> difficult to prove.
>

That's incorrect! Speeding is an absolute offence with strict liability.
There is no mens rea, and motorists can be convicted of speeding where no
intent to speed was present. For example, a motorist cannot escape
conviction for speeding (punishable by points and fine) by claiming that
his speedometer wasn't working (punishable by a smaller fine and no
points). Speeding (and many other traffic offences) are often given as
examples of strict liability (where mens rea is not required).

From the BBC law jargon buster subsite:

Mens Rea : Mens rea basically means a guilty mind and refers to the state
of mind of the accused at the time the actus reas (act of the crime) is
committed. Mens rea and actus reus must exist at the same time. For
example, the burglar knew they were going to deprive the rightful owner of
their property before the burglary. Nearly all criminal offences require a
demonstration of mens rea. Cases that don't require mens rea are known as
strict liability offences.

Strict Liability : Most crimes can be committed with intent (mens rea), but
some crimes don't fall into this category and are called strict liability
offences. These offences are quite often those less serious crimes such as
traffic offences and those where the usual penalty is a fine.

 

[Anthony Jones]

Paul Boyd wrote:
> I'm amazed at the way this thread has turned! Some people seem to have
> difficulty in understanding the fact that a human does not have built-in
> speed measurement devices so we need speedos, but we do have built-in
> alcohol measuring devices, so we don't need breathalysers.

Are you suggesting that a typical person can more accurately estimate their
blood alcohol level than their speed? Excluding the case when they've
consumed no alcohol (but then see below), I'd disagree.

> I'm with you on the no alcohol in 24 hours "rule". I don't need to
> breathalyse myself before getting into a car if I haven't touched
> alcohol for 24 hours.

Indeed, but as Alan pointed out, you can't really do the same for you speed.
If speed limits *did* apply to cyclists we wouldn't all be drifting around
below walking speed simply to avoid breaking the limit.

Anthony