Highway Code

[James Annan]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

>
> Chcken, egg, egg, chicken. I dunno. As far as I can see when speed limits were introudced there
> was no practicable bike speedo, and vbikes were perceived as slow anyway.

If a cager broke his speedo I bet you wouldn't accept that as an excuse for speeding. Ignorance is
not an excuse. There are certainly some vehicles that have speed limits without a means of measuring
them (many boats, for instance - and I wouldn't be surprised if some of the various power-assisted
bicycles are similar).

> It's a point of view.

Ah I thought it was intended as a statement of fact.

James

 

[Martin Harlow]

In article <[email protected]>, James Annan <still_the_same_m [email protected]> writes
>Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
>>
>> Chcken, egg, egg, chicken. I dunno. As far as I can see when speed limits were introudced there
>> was no practicable bike speedo, and vbikes were perceived as slow anyway.
>
>If a cager broke his speedo I bet you wouldn't accept that as an excuse for speeding.

I can't help feeling he would be illegal at any speed, for having a defective vehicle.

>Ignorance is not an excuse. There are certainly some vehicles that have speed limits without a
>means of measuring them (many boats, for instance - and I wouldn't be surprised if some of the
>various power-assisted bicycles are similar).

Don't power assisted bikes automatically cut the power at 15mph or whatever the limit is? Whatever.
Ignorance doesn't come in to it - there's no speed limit in law for HPVs.

ttfn

Martin

--
'24 hours in a day ... 24 beers in a case ... coincidence?' Steven Wright

Martin Harlow [email protected]

 

[Richard Goodman]

Martin Harlow wrote:
:: In article <[email protected]>, James Annan <still_the_same_m [email protected]> writes
::: If a cager broke his speedo I bet you wouldn't accept that as an excuse for speeding.
::
:: I can't help feeling he would be illegal at any speed, for having a defective vehicle.
::

Not true. The speedo is not an MOT requirement - I drove around with a broken speedo for over a year
because it was too expensive to fix (some fault in the gearbox). It's not a problem. A reasonably
competent driver will have a reasonably good idea of how fast they're going without looking at a
speedo. Of course, a broken speedo is no excuse for speeding!

Rich

 

[Dave Le Good]

On Sat, 15 Feb 2003 08:22:44 -0000, "Richard Goodman" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Martin Harlow wrote:
>:: In article <[email protected]>, James Annan <still_the_same_m [email protected]> writes
>::: If a cager broke his speedo I bet you wouldn't accept that as an excuse for speeding.
>::
>:: I can't help feeling he would be illegal at any speed, for having a defective vehicle.
>::
>
>Not true. The speedo is not an MOT requirement - I drove around with a broken speedo for over a
>year because it was too expensive to fix (some fault in the gearbox). It's not a problem. A
>reasonably competent driver will have a reasonably good idea of how fast they're going without
>looking at a speedo. Of course, a broken speedo is no excuse for speeding!

It is true. Under the construction and use laws a working speedo must be fitted. It's not an MOT
item though.

Dave

 

[Richard Goodman]

Dave Le Good wrote:
:: On Sat, 15 Feb 2003 08:22:44 -0000, "Richard Goodman" <[email protected]> wrote:
::
::: Not true. The speedo is not an MOT requirement - I drove around with a broken speedo for over a
::: year because it was too expensive to fix (some fault in the gearbox). It's not a problem. A
::: reasonably competent driver will have a reasonably good idea of how fast they're going without
::: looking at a speedo. Of course, a broken speedo is no excuse for speeding!
::
:: It is true. Under the construction and use laws a working speedo must be fitted. It's not an MOT
:: item though.
::

Ah, then I stand corrected. Which SI? Not that it's likely to bother anyone who has a broken speedo
very much - if you get pulled you won't be moving so the lack of a functioning speedo is unlikely to
be noticed.

Rich

 

[Richard Goodman]

Bazza De Looney 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!
::
::

On the moors sounds like out on the open road, if so 47 mph wouldn't have been over the limit so why
should he care? If you were in a 30mph restricted zone then 47mph strikes me as a bit OTT.

As others have observed, the legislation requiring observation of speed limits applies to motor
vehicles only. Still, we can hardly complain about motorists speeding if we do it ourselves, given
half the chance.

Rich

 

[Martin Harlow]

In article <[email protected]>, Richard Goodman
<[email protected]> writes
>Bazza De Looney 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!
>
>On the moors sounds like out on the open road, if so 47 mph wouldn't have been over the limit so
>why should he care? If you were in a 30mph restricted zone then 47mph strikes me as a bit OTT.
>
>As others have observed, the legislation requiring observation of speed limits applies to motor
>vehicles only. Still, we can hardly complain about motorists speeding if we do it ourselves, given
>half the chance.

Yeah, but the chances are pretty rare! I think we're really talking about taking advantage of big
hills here, and frankly, any cyclist going full tilt down a big hill, down over the bars through an
area with parked cars, peds about, side roads etc is playing a _very_ silly game. I'm pretty sure
our 'speeding' anecdotes are confined to open country roads. Hope so, anyway. I reckon I lose my
confidence to brake heavily at 30mph or so.

ttfn

Martin

--
Reporter: "What do you think of western civilisation?" Gandhi: "I think it would be a good idea."

Martin Harlow [email protected]

 

[Fred]

In article <[email protected]>, Tim Woodall
<[email protected]> writes
>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.
They are? Care to explain?
--
fred

 

[Martin Harlow]

In article <[email protected]>, fred <[email protected]> writes
>In article <[email protected]>, Tim Woodall
><[email protected]> writes
>>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.
>They are? Care to explain?

It's true. Your brake blocks are travelling the same speed as the bike. The wheel (at the top, ish)
is passing them going forwards, so it's going faster. To put it another way, on average, the wheel
is going at the same speed as the bike. At the ground, it's stationary relative to the ground
(ideally!), so at the top it's going twice as fast.

ttfn

Martin

--
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for
me" - Hunter S. Thompson

Martin Harlow [email protected]

 

[Marc]

James Annan <[email protected]> wrote:

> >
> > Chcken, egg, egg, chicken. I dunno. As far as I can see when speed limits were introudced there
> > was no practicable bike speedo, and vbikes were perceived as slow anyway.
>
> If a cager broke his speedo I bet you wouldn't accept that as an excuse for speeding. Ignorance is
> not an excuse.

Errr Yes it is, Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Ignorance that you are breaking a law is an
excuse. I once sat on a jury where this was expalined in very fine detail.

 

[Jeremy Parker]

> 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.

I got soundly berated a while ago by a fellow cyclist for asserting that cyclists don't have to obey
speed limits. He is a barrister, so I guess he should know.

He said that the law requiring cyclists to obey road signs covers it. I guess the law requiring
vehicles, not just vehicles with motors, to keep to 30 mph where there are lamp posts ought to
apply too.

London's Hampstead heath has a special speed limit, just for cyclists. It's 8 mph.

Jeremy Parker

 

[Jeremy Parker]

> 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!

I met somebody once who had been given a ticket for breaking California's 55mph limit, going down
some mountain there. He was very proud of it.

Jeremy Parker

 

[Jeremy Parker]

> 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"!
>
I seem to remember a case in Cambridge a year or two ago when somebody got done in a Cambridge
street for "furious cycling" at 23 mph

Jeremy Parker

 

[Jeremy Parker]

> 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
>
> --
Perhaps making a radar reflector out of aluminium foil might help.

I cna't think of a way of mounting a reflector on your wheel, so that it could go twice as fast as
the bike. You would need one of those fancy one sided forks.

Jeremy Parker

 

[James Annan]

Marc wrote:

>
> Errr Yes it is, Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Ignorance that you are breaking a law is an
> excuse. I once sat on a jury where this was expalined in very fine detail.

Interesting, but does that mean that all the Harman-esque whiners saying that they didn't realise
they were going so fast are actually innocent?

James

 

[Matsav]

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

<snip>

> I've already been prosecuted, and found not guilty, TWICE for being drunk in charge of a
> pedal cycle.

I vaguely recall being stopped by the police after one drunken student session, more than 20 years
ago. The roads were almost empty, except for the ambulance being escorted by a police car. The
ambulance was moving at less than 10mph, so I presume they were carrying a spinal injury patient, or
something like that. The police car didn't stop, but the passenger door opened, and PC Plod exited
the (still moving!) car. He walked over to me, and asked, "Do you think you should be riding that
machine, sir?" "Pwobababably not", I replied. His response? "Then get off and f*kin' WALK then!" -
which I did, while he returned to the car (now stopped to await his return)

--
MatSav

 

[Marc]

James Annan <[email protected]> wrote:

> >
> > Errr Yes it is, Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Ignorance that you are breaking a law is
> > an excuse. I once sat on a jury where this was expalined in very fine detail.
>
> Interesting, but does that mean that all the Harman-esque whiners saying that they didn't realise
> they were going so fast are actually innocent?

No. However if they were perhaps blindfolded with a broken speedometer they could claim that
they had no way of knowing what speed they were doing,og cous by then thy would ahve admitted to
other offences.

 

[Marc]

James Annan <[email protected]> wrote:

> >
> >>>Errr Yes it is, Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Ignorance that you are breaking a law is
> >>>an excuse. I once sat on a jury where this was expalined in very fine detail.
> >>
> >>Interesting, but does that mean that all the Harman-esque whiners saying that they didn't
> >>realise they were going so fast are actually innocent?
> >
> >
> > No.
>
> Why not, if your previous post was correct?

I said that Ignorance that you are breaking a law is an excuse , not that it is THE excuse to cover
everything.

 

[James Annan]

Marc wrote:
> James Annan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>>Errr Yes it is, Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Ignorance that you are breaking a law is
>>>an excuse. I once sat on a jury where this was expalined in very fine detail.
>>
>>Interesting, but does that mean that all the Harman-esque whiners saying that they didn't realise
>>they were going so fast are actually innocent?
>
>
> No.

Why not, if your previous post was correct? If they didn't look at the speedo, they would not know
their speed, therefore would not know that they were breaking that particular law.

James

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Sat, 15 Feb 2003 08:31:10 +0900, James Annan <[email protected]> wrote:

>Just zis Guy, you know? wrote: If a cager broke his speedo I bet you wouldn't accept that as an
>excuse for speeding.

They would be committing an offence even without speeding. Construction & Use regs require a speedo
within certain limits of accuracy. Don't know the position wrt. taking a cage with a broken speedo
to the garage, though - but my BiL will as he's a mechanic. And he's welcome to that, having spent
half of today fitting a new battery and electric aerial to the MDG. Give me a bike to mend any time.
Can be done inside in the warm

> > It's a point of view.
>Ah I thought it was intended as a statement of fact.

Nope. Should have made that clear - again, address for service of documents etc. etc.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.