Good News!

[Just Zis Guy]

"PeterE" <peter@xyz_ringtail.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> >> Let us say, for example, that the government decided to impose a 10 mph speed limit on all
> >> pedal cycles on public roads (maybe 20 mph in 50s and NSLs), and required all cycles to be
> >> fitted with speedometers. However this limit only carried a fine, no points, and was only
> >> sporadically enforced. Under those circumstances, what proportion of cyclists do you think
> >> would exceed that speed limit?

> > Why would it be different from the speed limit for motor vehicles which carries a fine, few
> > points, and is only sporadically enforced?

> I'm glad to see you acknowledge that under these circumstances speed
limits
> would be routinely broken by cyclists, those paragons of virtue.

Which would make sense if I pretended that cyclists don't break rules. Which I don't.

> The points are what make all the difference, of course.

Obviously, since the existence of points means that no driver would now dare to exceed the
speed limit.

> And the scenario I envisaged would include no "cycle Gatsos" but merely
the
> very occasional bit of enforcement by plod with a laser gun, which given
the
> lack of cycle registration plates would make catching offenders somewhat problematical.

Obviously you would want to minimise enforcement activity because the experience with speeding among
drivers is that lack of enforcement encourages lack of compliance. You have, of course, failed to
explain why any Government would introduce such a rule, given that it would make cycling more
dangerous by increasing speed differentials.

> Would *you* break such a cycle speed limit?

Pointless question based on a pointless premise. Would you obey the Red Flag Act if they brought it
back in? What proportion of licensed, registered, traceable drivers freely admit to breaking the
speed limit?

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, AndyP wrote:
>"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>> >> The cyclists in this thread have repeatedly condemned *all* lawbreaking by *all* road users.
>
>> >But refused to condemn that by cyclists except when combined with *all*
>road
>> >users.
>
>> Obviously. Since most of us are also drivers, it would be hypocritical to condemn cyclists while
>> not condemning drivers for committing the same offences. It would sound as if we were trying to
>> reserve the right to jump red lights and use the pavement in our cars, while exhorting fellow-
>> cyclists not to do it on their bikes.
>
>Ignoring speeding (since most cyclists can't break the speed limit in most circumstances) would you
>say a higher percentage of motorists or a higher percentage of cyclists commit traffic offences on
>a daily basis?

It's traditional to ignore parking offences too, on the grounds that they are so common they don't
count, and cyclists would commit them too if their vehicles were equally obstructive. And driving
without insurance or tax or an MOT, because cyclists aren't required to have them. In fact it's
traditional to assume the only significant traffic offences are riding on the pavement, riding
without lights, and going through red lights (except when they have only just turned red, because
lots of drivers do that so it doesn't count).

 

[Just Zis Guy]

"Nick Finnigan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> > Did you check the Road Traffic Act?

> Which part of the RTA mentions any speed limits?

According to the Highway Code: sects 81,86,89 & sch 6 of the Road Traffic /Regulation/ Act 1984,
begging it's pardon.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

 

[Nick Finnigan]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Nick Finnigan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
> berlin.de...
>
> > > Did you check the Road Traffic Act?
>
> > Which part of the RTA mentions any speed limits?
>
> According to the Highway Code: sects 81,86,89 & sch 6 of the Road Traffic /Regulation/ Act 1984,
> begging it's pardon.

Do you know anywhere online where those sections of the RTRA can be checked?

 

[Just Zis Guy]

"Nick Finnigan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> > According to the Highway Code: sects 81,86,89 & sch 6 of the Road
Traffic
> > /Regulation/ Act 1984, begging it's pardon.

> Do you know anywhere online where those sections of the RTRA can be checked?

AFAIK it predates the publication of statutory instruments on the Web. Your local Library may have a
paper copy.

You could always ask the ABD. They seem to think that incorrect completion of a TRO is blindingly
obvious to a driver on the affected road, who will then choose to drive perfectly legally at a
higher speed - they would obviously comply had the TRO been completed correctly. So they probably
know chapter and verse.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

 

[Ian Smith]

On Wed, 4 Feb, AndyP <[email protected]> wrote:

> Ignoring speeding (since most cyclists can't break the speed limit in most circumstances) would
> you say a higher percentage of motorists or a higher percentage of cyclists commit traffic
> offences on a daily basis?

Dunno. Ignoring offences committed under 20mph (since these are dramatically less likely to cause
death or serious injury to third parties) would you say a higher percentage of motorists or a higher
percentage of cyclists commit traffic offences on a daily basis?

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

 

[Ian Smith]

On Wed, 4 Feb, AndyP <[email protected]> wrote:

> Ignoring speeding (since most cyclists can't break the speed limit in most circumstances) would
> you say a higher percentage of motorists or a higher percentage of cyclists commit traffic
> offences on a daily basis?

Dunno. Ignoring offences committed under 20mph (since these are dramatically less likely to cause
death or serious injury to third parties) would you say a higher percentage of motorists or a higher
percentage of cyclists commit traffic offences on a daily basis?

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

 

[Andyp]

"Ian Smith" <[email protected]> wrote

> Dunno. Ignoring offences committed under 20mph

Yeah, ignoring things which have 4 wheels and are called cars....your turn.

 

[Andyp]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote

> Did you check the Road Traffic Act?

No, but I remember you once telling me to read the Cyclecraft book and that turned out not to say
what you claimed when I did read it.

> I'm perfectly capable of riding my bike at 40mph, the unpaced world bike speed record is currently
> a shade over 80mph, and the currentl Land's End to John o'Groats record holder averaged over 30mph
> for the full 800-odd miles.

Uh, so?

> But the speed limit only applies to motor vehicles.

So bikes are incapable of breaking it then...isn't that what I said even if I was meaning it from
the point of view that most cyclists don't routinely travel at 30mph plus let alone 60mph.

> You believe whatever you like. My point is simply that the evidence shows that all road user
> groups are covered by laws which they are perceived as reoutinely breaking. Excluding the offence
> which is most often admitted
by
> one road user group serves no useful purpose.

Well no it wouldn't if you've got no interest in fair comparisons.

 

[Ian Smith]

On Thu, 5 Feb 2004, AndyP <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Ian Smith" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> > Dunno. Ignoring offences committed under 20mph
>
> Yeah, ignoring things which have 4 wheels and are called cars....your turn.

Exactly. I'm glad you got the point.

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

 

[Just Zis Guy]

"AndyP" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> > Did you check the Road Traffic Act?

> No, but I remember you once telling me to read the Cyclecraft book and
that
> turned out not to say what you claimed when I did read it.

By under a foot. You can always Google.

> > But the speed limit only applies to motor vehicles.

> So bikes are incapable of breaking it then...isn't that what I said even if I was meaning it from
> the point of view that most cyclists don't
routinely
> travel at 30mph plus let alone 60mph.

My point was that you were right for the wrong reason, and since the balance of your argument
depended on the reason, not your being right, that was important in context.

> > You believe whatever you like. My point is simply that the evidence
shows
> > that all road user groups are covered by laws which they are perceived
as
> > reoutinely breaking. Excluding the offence which is most often admitted by one road user group
> > serves no useful purpose.

> Well no it wouldn't if you've got no interest in fair comparisons.

Righhhht. So in your world a fair comparison between the propensity of different road user groups to
break the law is best arrived at by excluding the lawbreaking to which which drivers freely admit on
the grounds that cyclists are unlikely (or inthis case unable) to commit that offence, and including
another offence which is equally hard for drivers to commit, given the large size of their vehicles.

Obviously you're using fair in the sense of "fair and balanced (tm)"

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk