Cycle Speed Limits on a normal Cycle Path?

[Roger Merriman]

GeoffC <[email protected]> wrote:

> Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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...
> >
>
> One of these perhaps?
>
> http://cockie.org/postbodefiets.jpg
>
> --
>
> Geoff

not sure that would give much more advantage over the city trollies.
which can take. a full round, would still not fit. unless you had a
light round, though the rounds do differ in size in differnt areas.

it would have very little more than the standurd bike, mail bags don't
nessarly pack that well, and the weight would only be on the front.
looks a unweildy bike i would guess that most would opt for either load
it all into trolly or make circits with the standurd bikes.

certinaly they need to start with bikes and such as mail volumes are
rising and have been for years. so in the flater areas i would guess
bike use will be one option.

roger

 

[Andy Leighton]

On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 16:56:56 +0000, Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
> in message <[email protected]>, Andy Leighton
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>> I doubt a limit of 0 would be very enforceable and certainly wouldn't
>> have the support of the public. A reduction to 50mg/100ml which is the
>> usual limit for western Europe would have the broad support of the
>> public I feel (although not everyone).
>
> So it's not worth doing anything

Well I didn't say that did I Simon. If you reread the above it implies
an approval for the reduction in the the drink drive limits. I believe
that once a 50mg/100ml limit has bedded in there may well be
opportunities to reduce that to a 20mg/100ml level (which is a level I
can support - a level in which 1 pint or a glass of wine would put you
over).

The best laws are those that have the support of the general public. I
think a sudden change from the current 80mg/100ml to 0mg/100ml would
not have that support.

--
Andy Leighton => [email protected]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

 

[Daniel Barlow]

Will Cove wrote:
> FWIW, I've seen claims that the 1984 Act excludes pedal cycles, but since
> I've never had access to the full text I don't know for sure. Does anyone
> know of the full text of RTA 1984 on the 'net?

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/conten...223862&ActiveTextDocId=2223981&filesize=63578

(sorry, absurdly long url)

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/ is pretty comprehensive, but for some
reason seems to be a very well-kept secret. Perhaps they've somehow
managed to make it ungoogleable.


-dan

--
http://www.coruskate.net/

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>, Paul
Boyd
usenet.dont.work@plusnet says...
> 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?
>
>
What's strange about it?

 

[Ian Smith]

On 08 Feb 2007, Alan Braggins <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Phil Cook wrote:
> >
> >Well I can think of job interviews where I have decided "I don't want
> >to work with these people" so Tom may have wanted the job before he
> >knew what king of people the head and govenors were.
>
> "It wasn't clear what the job and/or pay being offered was until the
> interview" is another possibility (I've been there). But I'm still
> curious to know Tom's answer.

I needed to look like I was actively searching for work, but this job
was really dire is another.

I went to an interview for a job I didn't want once. (Their idea of
an interesting project was to design some pipe support brackets. My
idea of an interesting project is a couple of miles of prestressed
segmental highway bridge.)

However, their 'testing technical competence' questions were so
trivially simple (even though it was a somewhat outside my field and I
was solving them on the hoof from first principles) I couldn't bring
myself to get any of them wrong. That meant I had to mess up on the
'general knowledge' bits, so I claimed the prime minister was called
Norman (it was John Major) and I couldn't remember the name of the
american commander of the then Gulf War and so on.

Fortunately, they didn't offer me the job, and a much better job came
along soon after, and so far I haven't needed to find another.

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

 

[Alan Braggins]

Paul Boyd wrote:
> If you've drunk one pint you can legally
>drive, if you've drunk five pints you can't. Simple as that

I've drunk beers which differed in their alcohol content by a factor
of over four (not counting ones from which the alcohol has been removed
after brewing). So no, it isn't as simple as that.

 

[GeoffC]

Paul Boyd <usenet.dont.work@plusnet> wrote:
> Andy Leighton said the following on 08/02/2007 14:49:
>
>> I doubt a limit of 0 would be very enforceable and certainly wouldn't
>> have the support of the public.
>
> Tell you what, how about finding out how they enforce it in Estonia,
> Lithuania, Malta, Romania, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Hungary,

They don't. ( Don't know about Malta however). In Sweden ( limit = 0.2) they
considered making the limit 0 and rejected that idea as being uninforceable
due to the reasons Andy mentioned.

or
> certain states in the USA where under-21s have a zero limit?

IN general or just for driving?

--

Geoff

 

[Tony Raven]

Will Cove wrote on 08/02/2007 16:17 +0100:
> Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote in news:530vh5F1njesaU1
> @mid.individual.net:
>
>> But what is the "30" sign indicating? If you read the legislation it is
>> to inform the drivers of motor vehicles that there is a 30mph speed
>> limit for motor vehicles on that road. Ditto for other speed limit
>> signs. So unless your bicycle is a motor vehicle there is no indication
>> for you to comply with. Simple really.
>
> Er, no. Not AFAICT. TSRGD 2002 Part I, Section 5, subsection (1):
>

You are reading the wrong Act. Speed limits are covered by the Road
Traffic Regulation Act 1984 Schedule VI. This is specifically covered
by the bit you didn't quote on speed limits from TSRGD 2002:

"(1) In these Regulations “speed limit” means a maximum or minimum
limit of speed on the driving of vehicles on a road—
(a) imposed by an order under section 14 of the 1984 Act" etc

You will note that they all but one apply to orders imposed under the
1984 Act which is elsewhere defined as being the Road Traffic Regulation
Act 1984.

All clauses in that refer only to the "driving of motor vehicles" e.g.
"86. It shall not be lawful for a person to drive a motor vehicle of
any class on a road at a speed greater than the speed specified in
Schedule 6 of this Act"

The speed limit signs under Clause 85 are "For the purpose of ensuring
adequate guidance is given to the drivers of motor vehicles"

Where there is no speed limit sign but a 30mph limit is in force by
virtue of e.g. street lighting "It shall not be lawful for a person to
drive a motor vehicle on a restricted road at a speed exceeding 30mph"
(Section 81)

Ergo no speed limits are imposed by the 1984 Act on non-motorised
vehicles and therefore the speed limit signs do not apply.


--
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]

Will Cove wrote on 08/02/2007 17:24 +0100:
>
> Although most orders are indeed made under the 1984 Act, TSRGD 2002 allows
> for speed limits to be imposed by local Act - and those can apply to pedal
> cycles.
>

That's a local Act not a local TRO.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/chron-tables/local/introduction-to-local-acts.htm

--
Tony

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

 

[Don Whybrow]

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

A suitably adjusted brake also politely informs without being intrusive.

--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

Question _your own_ authority.

 

[Tony Raven]

Simon Brooke wrote on 08/02/2007 16:46 +0100:
>
> No, incompetent draftsmanship of the act. There is no offence for the
> person propelling a pedal cycle to be guilty of, and this act does not
> create such an offence. So it's just wrong.
>

No its correct. It refers then to orders under RTRA 1984 which is motor
vehicles only and local Acts which could conceivably in the future limit
bicycles. Therefore the draughtsman in correct in having the wide
definition in TSRGD and letting the Acts it refers to restrict it more
tightly.

--
Tony

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

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 12:56:29 +0000, Phil Cook
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Alan Braggins wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>, Tom Crispin wrote:
>>>
>>>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?"
>>
>>So (taking the '"beg the question" doesn't mean that/yes it does now language
>>changes over time' argument as read), why _did_ you bother applying in the
>>first place?
>
>Well I can think of job interviews where I have decided "I don't want
>to work with these people" so Tom may have wanted the job before he
>knew what king of people the head and govenors were.

Thanks, Phil. I had no idea what the ethos of a Religious school
would be like until I stepped through the door.

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 12:48:09 +0000, John B <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>
>Will Cove wrote:
>
>> John B <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>
>> >> 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.
>>
>> Do the police have a right to breath-test cyclists and pedestrians (or to
>> take blood or urine samples for that)?
>>
>
>No they don't, but if you refuse they could make it difficult for you.
>In my case teh over-zealous plod would have insisted I accompanied hm to the
>station - which was 15 miles away.

They can't just cart you off to the police station unless they arrest
you. And then you can do them for unlawful arrest and unlawful
imprisionment.

That said, taking a breath test is no problem.

>No doubt he would have taken great pleasure in sloooowly filling in all teh
>poaperwork and ensuring I was inconvenienced as much as possible.
>He was *not* a nice man at all.
>
>> I suspect
>> that the officer in John's case was exceeding his authority.
>
>I think he was stretching the rules to massage his ego.

Yup.

 

[Don Whybrow]

James Thomson wrote:
>
> But that rear brake is still a puzzle:
>

I *think* that the 2 cables pull the whole assembly forwards and it
pivots on the 2 long rods coming down from the seat post. What I can't
figure out is why the cable attached on the RHS below the unit as in
http://www.reneherse.com/images/DSC_00302.JPG but the LHS has it above
the unit as in http://www.reneherse.com/images/DSC_00462.JPG.

<peers intently>

No! that's not it.

The blocks are on 2 separate pivots, I do not think that they are even
connected. The RHS brake pivots on the lug on the RHS of the frame, but
is pulled by the LHS cable and vica verca. The rods from the seat post
are to support the weight and keep them in the correct position. How
they return when the brake is released is still a mystery I see no
springs, unless it is in the bit where the 2 arms overlap.

--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

"This is all very interesting, and I daresay you already see me
frothing at the mouth in a fit; but no, I am not; I am just
winking happy thoughts into a little tiddle cup." (Nabokov,
Lolita)

 

[Mark W]

On 8 Feb, 10:45, Helen Deborah Vecht <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.

Working for the railways, they have a very simple rule for "near zero"
for safety critical work - though it is actually backed up by random
testing. No more than 3 1/2 units in the previous 24hrs before booking
on and nothing in the previous 8hrs. 1 unit is "defined" in the
guidance as 1 normal pub glass of wine or a half pint of bitter
(meaning you have to "derate" most lagers).

 

[Clive George]

"Don Whybrow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> James Thomson wrote:
>>
>> But that rear brake is still a puzzle:
>>
>
> I *think* that the 2 cables pull the whole assembly forwards and it pivots
> on the 2 long rods coming down from the seat post. What I can't figure out
> is why the cable attached on the RHS below the unit as in
> http://www.reneherse.com/images/DSC_00302.JPG but the LHS has it above the
> unit as in http://www.reneherse.com/images/DSC_00462.JPG.
>
> <peers intently>
>
> No! that's not it.
>
> The blocks are on 2 separate pivots, I do not think that they are even
> connected.

Yup.

> The RHS brake pivots on the lug on the RHS of the frame, but is pulled by
> the LHS cable and vica verca.

Looks about right.

> The rods from the seat post are to support the weight and keep them in the
> correct position. How they return when the brake is released is still a
> mystery I see no springs, unless it is in the bit where the 2 arms
> overlap.

Is that rod going across between the tops of the two arms a spring? I reckon
that would provide the release force.

cheers,
clive

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>, James
Thomson
[email protected] says...

> But that rear brake is still a puzzle:
>
> http://www.reneherse.com/images/DSC_00443.JPG
>
It's just a form of U-brake wth slightly strange pivots and braces.

 

[JonMcD]

Paul Boyd wrote:
> On 07/02/2007 20:47, JonMcD said,
>
>> 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.
>
> I wonder if Daniel Cadden's team had that source.
>
I seem to recall that this was mentioned.

Another bit of advice relevant to Daniel's case is in this document

http://www.hertsdirect.org/infobase/docs/pdfstore/cyclistsroadfeatures.pdf

which says:

"Do not be confused by white lines put down to mark the edge of the
carriageway on unlit roads or as a means of narrowing the road. The gap
left is not meant to be used by cyclists as it will be too narrow".

I believe this was the confusion that the police who stopped Daniel were
suffering from when they said he should be using this narrow gap.


JonD

 

[GeoffC]

Don Whybrow <[email protected]> wrote:
> Roger Merriman wrote:
>>
>> if country lane or simular, riding over any usefuly places leafs
>> twigs etc works well i have found it alerts with out intruding.
>
> A suitably adjusted brake also politely informs without being
> intrusive.

Agreed. The bike I am riding at the moment (just had good bike nicked), has
a couple of shriekers, fortunately it also has a backpedal brake so I don't
have to use them.
They are, however, not a patch on the front brake of a mountain bike I had a
few years ago. It could make people leap for the ditch at 30 paces and would
clot blood at close range.

--

Geoff

 

[Will Cove]

Daniel Barlow <[email protected]> wrote in news:1170960279.83743.0
@iris.uk.clara.net:

> (sorry, absurdly long url)
>
> http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/ is pretty comprehensive, but for some
> reason seems to be a very well-kept secret. Perhaps they've somehow
> managed to make it ungoogleable.

Thanks for that - Someone previously gave me a reference to that site,
but I'd forgotten.

OK, again I can't find a definition of "vehicle", and so the implicit
definition in TSRGD 2002 looks like the best we've got at the moment.

TSRGD 2002 refers to TROs made under:

- Section 14 of the 1984 Act (temporary prohibition or restriction of
traffic on roads), which doesn't refer explicitly to "motor vehicles"

- Section 16A of the 1984 Act (special events), which refers to vehicles
of any class and pedestrians.

- Section 17 of the 1984 Act (traffic regulation on special roads), which
refers to traffic of all classes.

- Section 81 of the 1984 Act, which is the reference you provided and
does limit TROs made under this section to "motor vehicles" and refers to
"restricted roads", which are lit roads with the default limit of 30 mph.

- Section 84 of the 1984 Act, which deals with speed limits on roads
other than restricted roads and does limit TROs made under this section
to "motor vehicles".

- Section 88 of the 1984 Act, which deals with temporary speed limits and
TROs made under this section are limited to "motor vehicles".

- any local Act, which are not limited to "motor vehicles".

So, although many (indeed, most) speed limits clearly do not apply to
cyclists, in the case of some temporary restrictions, special events,
special roads, and anywhere restricted by a local Act, I'd say the speed
limit could apply to cyclists - but you'd need to see the actual order to
be sure.