Cycle Speed Limits on a normal Cycle Path?

[Anthony Jones]

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

Unfortunately this isn't the attitude of many motorists I've met, and in the
eyes of the law, they're *not* winging it, because the legal blood alcohol
limit is scarily high.

Anthony

 

[Tony Raven]

Anthony Jones wrote on 08/02/2007 09:23 +0100:
> Simon Brooke wrote:
>> If you've drunk no alcohol at all in the past 24 hours you're legal.
>> Otherwise, you're winging it.
>
> Unfortunately this isn't the attitude of many motorists I've met, and in the
> eyes of the law, they're *not* winging it, because the legal blood alcohol
> limit is scarily high.
>

You would have had to drink quite a lot to be over the limit after
24hrs. The average half life of alcohol in the blood is 6hrs which
means that after 24hrs it is down to one sixteenth of its initial value.
Five times over the limit is fatal to most people IIRC

--
Tony

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

 

[Tony Raven]

Paul Boyd wrote on 08/02/2007 07:57 +0100:
>
> 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.
>

So how do you explain cyclists being prosecuted for speeding in Richmond
Park? They are not required to have speed measurement devices so cannot
know how fast they were going. By your argument there is therefore a
lack of mens rea and they cannot be prosecuted. Except they are.

As for an inbuilt alcohol measuring device, quite a few people have been
done, and especially in Scandinavia where they target such things, for
being over the limit in the morning after a heavy nights drinking. Most
people haven't got a clue they are still over the limit in the morning
because they actually don't have a measuring device built in.


--
Tony

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

 

[Tony Raven]

Dave Larrington wrote on 08/02/2007 08:34 +0100:
> 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".
>

My new one has a setting marked "Power Wash". That's a real man's
washing machine ;-)


--
Tony

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

 

[Buck]

On 2007-02-08 10:02:29 +0000, Tony Raven <[email protected]> said:

> Paul Boyd wrote on 08/02/2007 07:57 +0100:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> So how do you explain cyclists being prosecuted for speeding in
> Richmond Park? They are not required to have speed measurement devices
> so cannot know how fast they were going. By your argument there is
> therefore a lack of mens rea and they cannot be prosecuted. Except
> they are.
>
> As for an inbuilt alcohol measuring device, quite a few people have
> been done, and especially in Scandinavia where they target such things,
> for being over the limit in the morning after a heavy nights drinking.
> Most people haven't got a clue they are still over the limit in the
> morning because they actually don't have a measuring device built in.

Also, ignorance is not a valid defence under the law of England and Wales.
--
Three wheels good, two wheels ok

www.catrike.co.uk

 

[Anthony Jones]

Tony Raven wrote:
>>> If you've drunk no alcohol at all in the past 24 hours you're legal.
>>> Otherwise, you're winging it.
>>
>> Unfortunately this isn't the attitude of many motorists I've met, and in
>> the eyes of the law, they're *not* winging it, because the legal blood
>> alcohol limit is scarily high.
>
> You would have had to drink quite a lot to be over the limit after
> 24hrs. The average half life of alcohol in the blood is 6hrs which
> means that after 24hrs it is down to one sixteenth of its initial value.

I was meaning that many people will happily drive straight after a couple of
drinks, safe in the knowledge that there's no chance that they'll be over
the limit.

(and drifting more off-topic, I was also under the impression that blood
alcohol decreases linearly rather than exponentially since the alcohol
dehydrogenase enzyme quickly saturates, but I'm not disagreeing that 24
hours is plenty of time)

Anthony

 

[Mark Thompson]

> 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.

'Surprised by the slipstream of a passing bike' might imply that you're
going a little fast or close for their comfort.

 

[Tony Raven]

Anthony Jones wrote on 08/02/2007 10:14 +0100:
>
> (and drifting more off-topic, I was also under the impression that blood
> alcohol decreases linearly rather than exponentially since the alcohol
> dehydrogenase enzyme quickly saturates, but I'm not disagreeing that 24
> hours is plenty of time)
>

It seems you are correct and something I had read and carried with me
for many years is wrong. The things you learn on urc.

The range of elimination rates - 9-36mg/100ml/hr* would seem to make the
24hr rule unreliable after heavy drinking. You could still be over the
limit 24hrs after being only 2 1/2 times over the limit.

*http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2004.12.020

--
Tony

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

 

[Roger Merriman]

Paul Boyd <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 07/02/2007 20:32, GeoffC said,
>
> > 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.
>
> Can't win really. I often ring my bell, and they think I'm using it in
> the same way as a car horn - i.e., "Get out of my way". The trick when
> deciding whether or not to ring is to try to work out what sort of
> people will give which reaction

if country lane or simular, riding over any usefuly places leafs twigs
etc works well i have found it alerts with out intruding.

roger

 

[Buck]

On 2007-02-08 10:28:59 +0000, Tony Raven <[email protected]> said:

> Anthony Jones wrote on 08/02/2007 10:14 +0100:
>>
>> (and drifting more off-topic, I was also under the impression that blood
>> alcohol decreases linearly rather than exponentially since the alcohol
>> dehydrogenase enzyme quickly saturates, but I'm not disagreeing that 24
>> hours is plenty of time)
>>
>
> It seems you are correct and something I had read and carried with me
> for many years is wrong. The things you learn on urc.
>
> The range of elimination rates - 9-36mg/100ml/hr* would seem to make
> the 24hr rule unreliable after heavy drinking. You could still be over
> the limit 24hrs after being only 2 1/2 times over the limit.
>
> *http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2004.12.020

I had thought the same as you Tony, probably heard it on TV. Maybe that
News Years day
ride was not the most sensible thing to do.

--
Three wheels good, two wheels ok

www.catrike.co.uk

 

[Buck]

On 2007-02-08 10:34:29 +0000, [email protected] (Roger Merriman) said:

> Paul Boyd <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 07/02/2007 20:32, GeoffC said,
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Can't win really. I often ring my bell, and they think I'm using it in
>> the same way as a car horn - i.e., "Get out of my way". The trick when
>> deciding whether or not to ring is to try to work out what sort of
>> people will give which reaction
>
> if country lane or simular, riding over any usefuly places leafs twigs
> etc works well i have found it alerts with out intruding.
>
> roger

I had the old "don't shout at me what's wrong with your bell?" line
from a ped the
other day, I said "I rang it three times but you ignored it", "oh" was
the reply.
--
Three wheels good, two wheels ok

www.catrike.co.uk

 

[MJ Ray]

JonMcD <[email protected]> wrote:
> Closest I have seen to a general limit on cycle paths is in some
> government publication saying that if you want to cycle faster than 18
> mph on a cycle path you should consider using the road. Can't find a
> source for that though.

Maybe you mean:
As a general rule, if you want to cycle quickly, say in excess of
18 mph/30 kph, then you should be riding on the road.

Annex D of Dept of Transport Local Transport Note 2/04: Code of Conduct
http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/archive/2004/ltnwc/annexdcodeofconductnoticefor1688

Hope that helps,
--
MJR/slef

 

[Helen Deborah Vecht]

Tony Raven <[email protected]>typed


> Anthony Jones wrote on 08/02/2007 09:23 +0100:
> > Simon Brooke wrote:
> >> If you've drunk no alcohol at all in the past 24 hours you're legal.
> >> Otherwise, you're winging it.
> >
> > Unfortunately this isn't the attitude of many motorists I've met,
> > and in the
> > eyes of the law, they're *not* winging it, because the legal blood alcohol
> > limit is scarily high.
> >

> You would have had to drink quite a lot to be over the limit after
> 24hrs. The average half life of alcohol in the blood is 6hrs which
> means that after 24hrs it is down to one sixteenth of its initial value.
> Five times over the limit is fatal to most people IIRC

Alcohol metabolism does not have a half life (first order
phamacokinetics, if I remember my ancient student teaching) but a fixed
rate of elimination (zero order kinetics). The body can clear
approximately one unit (9g) of alcohol per hour. Nothing can speed this
up usefully.

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

 

[Roger Merriman]

Buck <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 2007-02-08 10:34:29 +0000, [email protected] (Roger Merriman) said:
>
> > Paul Boyd <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> On 07/02/2007 20:32, GeoffC said,
> >>
> >>> 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.
> >>
> >> Can't win really. I often ring my bell, and they think I'm using it in
> >> the same way as a car horn - i.e., "Get out of my way". The trick when
> >> deciding whether or not to ring is to try to work out what sort of
> >> people will give which reaction
> >
> > if country lane or simular, riding over any usefuly places leafs twigs
> > etc works well i have found it alerts with out intruding.
> >
> > roger
>
> I had the old "don't shout at me what's wrong with your bell?" line
> from a ped the
> other day, I said "I rang it three times but you ignored it", "oh" was
> the reply.

i used to have that with door bells etc as a postie why didn't you
ring/knock?....

noticed posties on the bikes round here (hampton) very quaite heh. way
way too hilly and to honest you'd never fit 100KG+ mail on to a bike,
might get the weight i guess but that is a lot of bags...

roger

 

[Buck]

On 2007-02-08 10:43:30 +0000, MJ Ray <[email protected]> said:

> JonMcD <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Closest I have seen to a general limit on cycle paths is in some
>> government publication saying that if you want to cycle faster than 18
>> mph on a cycle path you should consider using the road. Can't find a
>> source for that though.
>
> Maybe you mean:
> As a general rule, if you want to cycle quickly, say in excess of
> 18 mph/30 kph, then you should be riding on the road.
>
> Annex D of Dept of Transport Local Transport Note 2/04: Code of Conduct
> http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/archive/2004/ltnwc/annexdcodeofconductnoticefor1688

Hope
>
> that helps,

How fast was Daniel Cadden going as a matter of interest?
--
Three wheels good, two wheels ok

www.catrike.co.uk

 

[Anthony Jones]

Tony Raven wrote:
>> (and drifting more off-topic, I was also under the impression that blood
>> alcohol decreases linearly rather than exponentially since the alcohol
>> dehydrogenase enzyme quickly saturates, but I'm not disagreeing that 24
>> hours is plenty of time)
>
> It seems you are correct and something I had read and carried with me
> for many years is wrong.

Well, in that I was still assuming 24 hours was plenty, only partially
correct!

> The things you learn on urc.

Indeed!

> The range of elimination rates - 9-36mg/100ml/hr* would seem to make the
> 24hr rule unreliable after heavy drinking. You could still be over the
> limit 24hrs after being only 2 1/2 times over the limit.

Anthony

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Don Whybrow
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Roger Thorpe wrote:
>>
>> see http://www.classiclightweights.co.uk/gallery.html for more pictures
>> and info
>
> Interesting forks in this one:
> http://www.classiclightweights.co.uk/racingbates800.jpg
>
> Were they bent like that to provide some shock absorption?

Yesish.

You weren't at one period allowed to have the makers name on a bike which
you raced, so makers liked to make their bikes look distinctive (main
reason for the 'flying gate' design, for example). But more curvature in
steel forks does give more resilience.

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

;; An enamorata is for life, not just for weekends.

 

[naked_draughtsman]

On Feb 7, 9:57 pm, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 7 Feb 2007, naked_draughtsman <> wrote:
>
> > PS already sent them the speeding question to see what they say!
>
> What question did you ask?

Their reply was that you can be charged with "wanton and furious
driving" instead which apparently applies to any form of transport
including cyclists (as well as dangerous cycling)

peter

 

[John B]

[email protected] wrote:

> Has anybody here ever been breath-testing whilst on a cycle?

i was after being knocked off by a moronic driver on a roundabout.
Of course I hadn't been drinking at all, but the PC said it was now
standard practice to breathalyse everybody involved in a collision.
He made it quite clear that if I didn't comply I'd be taken off to the
station.

John B

 

[naked_draughtsman]

On Feb 8, 10:50 am, Buck <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On 2007-02-08 10:43:30 +0000, MJ Ray <[email protected]> said:
> > Maybe you mean:
> > As a general rule, if you want to cycle quickly, say in excess of
> > 18 mph/30 kph, then you should be riding on the road.
>
> How fast was Daniel Cadden going as a matter of interest?

I think it was more than 18mph, but not sure. That document says that
they are suggested messages for a cycling code of conduct so they
might not have been published yet although it dates back to 2004!

It also says it's ok to cycle in a pedestrianised area if it's not
'busy' with pedestrians. I've always thought you can't unless the
signs say otherwise (in Loughborough small signs say you can't cycle
until after 4pm).

peter