Highway Code

Now I know I should know the answer to this but I dont. The highway code shos speed limits for
vehicles but not for cyclists, now logically the speed limits should apply to us two wheel man
powered speed freaks but can anyone confirm or deny this please, and keep me out of trouble.

My question is prompted by just having gone through a radar speed trap set to catch motor cycles on
the moors above Rochdale. The policeman in charge was not impressed by a mountain bike doing 47 mph
through his trap!

Any answers via e-mail please, all would be appreciated.

Barrie Winstanley

 

"Bazza De Looney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Now I know I should know the answer to this but I dont. The highway code
shos
> speed limits for vehicles but not for cyclists, now logically the speed
limits
> should apply to us two wheel man powered speed freaks but can anyone
confirm or
> deny this please, and keep me out of trouble.
>
> My question is prompted by just having gone through a radar speed trap set
to
> catch motor cycles on the moors above Rochdale. The policeman in charge
was not
> impressed by a mountain bike doing 47 mph through his trap!

Cyclists are not subject to speed limits but can be done for behaving like a complete idiot (used to
be called riding furiously but is now called something else).

 

Look on the highway code website (don't remember the url off hand). There are hefty fines cycling
"carelessly" and even larger ones for cycling "dangerously". That's about all it says (apart from
cycling on the pavement fines).

Rob

 

Bazza De Looney wrote:
> Now I know I should know the answer to this but I dont. The highway code shos speed limits for
> vehicles but not for cyclists, now logically the speed limits should apply to us two wheel man
> powered speed freaks but can anyone confirm or deny this please, and keep me out of trouble.

Cyclists are not subject to speed limits because (a) we are not required to fit a speedometer and
(b) there are no standards for the accuracy of any speedomoeter which we might choose to fit.

> My question is prompted by just having gone through a radar speed trap set to catch motor cycles
> on the moors above Rochdale. The policeman in charge was not impressed by a mountain bike doing 47
> mph through his trap!

47 on a mountain bike? And he wasn't impressed? Presumably he rides a Colnago....

> Any answers via e-mail please, all would be appreciated.

Bad form, old chap.

--
Guy
===
I wonder if you wouldn't mind piecing out our imperfections with your thoughts; and while you're
about it perhaps you could think when we talk of bicycles, that you see them printing their proud
wheels i' the receiving earth; thanks awfully.

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#103 http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#104

 

"Bazza De Looney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> My question is prompted by just having gone through a radar speed trap set
to
> catch motor cycles on the moors above Rochdale. The policeman in charge
was not
> impressed by a mountain bike doing 47 mph through his trap!

What was the posted limit where he clocked you (presumably 30 if he pulled you for a 47)? Presumably
he could only do you for "furious cycling" rather than speeding? However, if you were freewheeling
down a steep hill it could hardly be decribed as "furious"!

 

Bazza De Looney wrote:
> Now I know I should know the answer to this but I dont. The highway code shos speed limits for
> vehicles but not for cyclists, now logically the speed limits should apply to us two wheel man
> powered speed freaks but can anyone confirm or deny this please, and keep me out of trouble.
>
> My question is prompted by just having gone through a radar speed trap set to catch motor cycles
> on the moors above Rochdale. The policeman in charge was not impressed by a mountain bike doing 47
> mph through his trap!
>
> Any answers via e-mail please, all would be appreciated.
>
> Barrie Winstanley
Am I just slow or is 47 on a bike _very_ fast?

I never expected a bike to be able to trigger a radar trap.... Theres one that flashes SLOW DOWN to
people going at >30mph on my daily route - Ill have to sprint it at some point to see

--

-Alex

 

In article <[email protected]>, Geraint Jones
<[email protected]> writes
>"Adrian Boliston" <[email protected]> wrote: ( What was the posted limit where he clocked you
>(presumably 30 if he pulled ) you for a 47)? Presumably he could only do you for "furious cycling"
>( rather than speeding? However, if you were freewheeling down a steep hill ) it could hardly be
>decribed as "furious"!
>
>Is it possible to freewheel at 47 without having pedalled hard (or had other mechanical assistance)
>first? I have a vague memory of the terminal velocity of a human being in free fall being less than
>that, and the bike surely cannot make all that much difference.

Skydivers do 100-120 mph iirc. The gradient will probably reduce that, though I wouldn't care to say
how the sums work. I've hit 40+ going down big hills before without trying too hard. Unfortunately
my speedo conked out during my fastest (down Dartmoor). Maybe it was the fog. Ahem.

ttfn

Martin

--
'Ambition is a poor excuse for not having enough sense to be lazy.' Steven Wright

Martin Harlow [email protected]

 

Bazza De Looney <[email protected]> wrote:

> My question is prompted by just having gone through a radar speed trap set
to > catch motor cycles on the moors above Rochdale. The policeman in charge was not > impressed by
a mountain bike doing 47 mph through his trap!

As long as he didn't get the number of your vehicle registration plate you should be OK!

 

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

> Bazza De Looney wrote:
> > Now I know I should know the answer to this but I dont. The highway code shos speed limits for
> > vehicles but not for cyclists, now logically the speed limits should apply to us two wheel man
> > powered speed freaks but can anyone confirm or deny this please, and keep me out of trouble.
>
> Cyclists are not subject to speed limits because (a) we are not required to fit a speedometer and
> (b) there are no standards for the accuracy of any speedomoeter which we might choose to fit.

Cyclists are not subject to speed limits because there is no legislation so subjecting them.
Speedometers are irrelevant.

 

"Adrian Boliston" <[email protected]> wrote: ( What was the posted limit where he clocked you
(presumably 30 if he pulled ) you for a 47)? Presumably he could only do you for "furious cycling" (
rather than speeding? However, if you were freewheeling down a steep hill ) it could hardly be
decribed as "furious"!

Is it possible to freewheel at 47 without having pedalled hard (or had other mechanical assistance)
first? I have a vague memory of the terminal velocity of a human being in free fall being less than
that, and the bike surely cannot make all that much difference.

 

Paul Rudin wrote:

>> Cyclists are not subject to speed limits because (a) we are not required to fit a speedometer and
>> (b) there are no standards for the accuracy of any speedomoeter which we might choose to fit.

> Cyclists are not subject to speed limits because there is no legislation so subjecting them.
> Speedometers are irrelevant.

And there is no legislation because etc. etc.

--
Guy
===
I wonder if you wouldn't mind piecing out our imperfections with your thoughts; and while you're
about it perhaps you could think when we talk of bicycles, that you see them printing their proud
wheels i' the receiving earth; thanks awfully.

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#103 http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#104

 

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

> Paul Rudin wrote:
>
> >> Cyclists are not subject to speed limits because (a) we are not required to fit a
> >> speedometer and (b) there are no standards for the accuracy of any speedomoeter which we
> >> might choose to fit.
>
> > Cyclists are not subject to speed limits because there is no legislation so subjecting them.
> > Speedometers are irrelevant.
>
> And there is no legislation because etc. etc.
>

We can speculate endlessly about why certain things are not legislated for...

"Why are we not required to legally required to wear green hats on Thursdays?" "Because there are
not enough to go round"..... well if you like; but really it's simply because there's no legislation
requiring it...

 

Paul Rudin <[email protected]> writes:

> ...required to legally required ...

Whoops, too many words there, but you know what I mean.

 

On Fri, 14 Feb 2003 18:08:03 +0000 (UTC), Alex Graham <[email protected]> wrote:
> Bazza De Looney wrote:
>> Now I know I should know the answer to this but I dont. The highway code shos speed limits for
>> vehicles but not for cyclists, now logically the speed limits should apply to us two wheel man
>> powered speed freaks but can anyone confirm or deny this please, and keep me out of trouble.
>>
>> My question is prompted by just having gone through a radar speed trap set to catch motor cycles
>> on the moors above Rochdale. The policeman in charge was not impressed by a mountain bike doing
>> 47 mph through his trap!
>>
>> Any answers via e-mail please, all would be appreciated.
>>
>> Barrie Winstanley
> Am I just slow or is 47 on a bike _very_ fast?
>
It's very fast. At these sorts of speeds there are almost no hills where terminal velocity isn't
less than this so you have to pedal to maintain the speed (Ducked down on my bike a 1:10 gives a
terminal velocity of around about 40mph - I've never actually measured this because I'm usually
pedalling like mad ;-).

IIRC, terminal velocity when tumbling in a fall is not much over 120mph. If I'm thinking straight
(which I might not be on a Friday night this implies to me that a 50mph terminal velocity
(coast) will be achived on something like a 1:6 and 40mph on a 1:9 (which agrees with my experience)

Unless you have really big gearing you are pedalling like mad.

I've managed 49.9 but I just couldn't get the big 50. 23x700, 48 front, 13 rear. I've since changed
the front to a 52 so next time I get a long hill ...

(49.9 is 22.3m/s. So this is slightly more than 10 revolutions of the wheels per second. 48:13 is
about 3.7:1 so about 2.7 revolutions of the pedals per second or a cadence of over 160 - and it
felt like it as well ;-)

> I never expected a bike to be able to trigger a radar trap.... Theres one that flashes SLOW DOWN
> to people going at >30mph on my daily route - Ill have to sprint it at some point to see
>
There is a complication WRT radar traps in that the spokes at the top of the wheel are travelling
twice as fast (relative to the ground) as the bike. There have been stories of some radar traps that
can be triggered easily by bikes - I've never come across one - I've managed 41mph through a 30mph
limit one once and it still didn't flash (And I had to arrange a friend to stand a but further down
the road because there was no way I could make that speed through the trap and then take the next
bend on the correct side of the road so we had arranged that he would wave like mad if a car started
coming up the hill from the other end so although I might not have noticed the flash he certainly
would have seen it.)

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/

 

Martin Harlow wrote:

> I've hit 40+ going down big hills before without trying too hard. Unfortunately my speedo conked
> out during my fastest (down Dartmoor). Maybe it was the fog. Ahem.

Yeah, 40 ain't too hard. I can exceed 35mph down the hill outside my front door, which leads into a
30 limit, by coasting only. But surely there's a difference between pedalling hard and cycling
"furiously".

--
Be careful of reading health books; you may die of a misprint.
- Mark Twain

 

Paul Rudin deftly scribbled:

> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Paul Rudin wrote:
>>
>>>> Cyclists are not subject to speed limits because (a) we are not required to fit a
>>>> speedometer and (b) there are no standards for the accuracy of any speedomoeter which we
>>>> might choose to fit.
>>
>>> Cyclists are not subject to speed limits because there is no legislation so subjecting them.
>>> Speedometers are irrelevant.
>>
>> And there is no legislation because etc. etc.
>>
>
> We can speculate endlessly about why certain things are not legislated for...
>
> "Why are we not required to legally required to wear green hats on Thursdays?" "Because there are
> not enough to go round"..... well if you like; but really it's simply because there's no
> legislation requiring it...

But there's a Thursday every week .. surely one has your name on it ..

--
...................................Paul-xxx Seti 1417 wu in 10303 hours
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ http://graffiti.virgin.net/ar.sole/Index.htm

 

My maximum speed in the UK on my bike has been 49 mph, descending the Derbyshire side of Holme
Moss while the road was closed in between laps for the Kelloggs Tour. There were plenty of police
who cleared the pedestrians for me, I think they thought I was one of the stragglers !! Descending
the Col du Tourmalet I clocked 56mph again on a closed road. At those speeds its too fast to turn
over 53x13.

I was riding around Heathrow once, flat out setting a time and plod had his gatso out. I shouted
'how fast ?' He replied that I was too small to be picked up by his device, however I know that SYPD
(South Yorkshire Police Dept) have guns that pic up hockey pucks at 95 mph !

"Alex Graham" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Bazza De Looney wrote:
> > Now I know I should know the answer to this but I dont. The highway code
shos
> > speed limits for vehicles but not for cyclists, now logically the speed
limits
> > should apply to us two wheel man powered speed freaks but can anyone
confirm or
> > deny this please, and keep me out of trouble.
> >
> > My question is prompted by just having gone through a radar speed trap
set to
> > catch motor cycles on the moors above Rochdale. The policeman in charge
was not
> > impressed by a mountain bike doing 47 mph through his trap!
> >
> > Any answers via e-mail please, all would be appreciated.
> >
> > Barrie Winstanley
> Am I just slow or is 47 on a bike _very_ fast?
>
> I never expected a bike to be able to trigger a radar trap.... Theres one that flashes SLOW DOWN
> to people going at >30mph on my daily route - Ill have to sprint it at some point to see
>
> --
>
> -Alex

 

In message <[email protected]>, Tim Woodall
<[email protected]> writes
>
>IIRC, terminal velocity when tumbling in a fall is not much over 120mph.
>
Yep, according to the rec.skydiving FAQ:

<http://www.afn.org/skydive/faq/faq.html#howfast>

It is around 120 mph when falling 'flat' If you fall standing up then 160-180, 200 with a lot
of practice.

The record is 321 mph
--
Chris French, Leeds

 

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> Cyclists are not subject to speed limits because (a) we are not required to fit a speedometer and
> (b) there are no standards for the accuracy of any speedomoeter which we might choose to fit.

I'm always puzzled by the logic of this this assertion. Surely if anything it's the other way
around: cyclists aren't subject to speed limits therefore there is no need to have a speedo. Do you
also claim that cyclists have no obligation to signal because signalling lights aren't obligatory?

James

 

Tim Woodall wrote:

>
> It's very fast. At these sorts of speeds there are almost no hills where terminal velocity isn't
> less than this so you have to pedal to maintain the speed (Ducked down on my bike a 1:10 gives a
> terminal velocity of around about 40mph - I've never actually measured this because I'm usually
> pedalling like mad ;-).

My understanding is that the aerodynamic benefit of a good tuck is worth more than the puny power of
a human pedalling. It's easy enough to do the sums BICBA. Maybe I'm wrong.

I've done over 50mph on the tandem, but I'm not really a fan of high speeds. Too much pain when
things go wrong.

> There is a complication WRT radar traps in that the spokes at the top of the wheel are travelling
> twice as fast (relative to the ground) as the bike. There have been stories of some radar traps
> that can be triggered easily by bikes

There was one ludicrous story of a non-serious cyclist getting clocked at some completely
implausible speed that was discussed here some time ago. Odd thing was, neither the policeman,
cyclist or newspaper(s) seemed to realise that it was obviously an erroneous reading. Funny how
people can suspend disbelief when faced with a reading from a machine.

James