Highway Code

[Just Zis Guy]

On Sat, 15 Feb 2003 22:42:03 +0900, 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.

>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.

Because there is no excuse for the ignorance, I reckon. If there is a sound technical reason why you
cannot tell how fast you're going, and that reason doen not itself constitute an offence, and if
your speed was consistent with the speed of most other vehicles on the road, you might have a case.
But Harperson was (a) going much faster than the run of traffic and (b) in a car with (as far as we
know, she having made no comment to the contrary) in a car with a working speedo.

I can see what you're getting at, of course, but I'm confident that in any court the defence of
ignorance thorugh not having looked at the speedo would fall at the first fence: we are, after, all,
required to keep within the speed limit, which implies use of the speedo.

However, let's see if Mr Safety can get away with it next time he's up before the beak. "I was too
busy practicing advanced driving techniques to look at my speedo, your honour."

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.

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Sat, 15 Feb 2003 12:58:58 -0000, "MatSav" <matthew DOT savage AT felthamscouts DOT org DOT
uk> wrote:

>"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,

Seems fair

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.

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Sat, 15 Feb 2003 13:27:19 +0100, Jeremy Parker <[email protected]> wrote:

>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

He was done by a copper who was also a cyclist and judged that the bloke was behaving like a ****.

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.

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Sat, 15 Feb 2003 11:17:09 +0000, Martin Harlow <[email protected]> wrote:

>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.

And, more obviously, at the contact point the tyre must be stationary with respect to the road. The
hub is moving at your forward speed, and the rest becomes obvious.

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.

 

[Paul Rudin]

Jeremy Parker <[email protected]> writes:

> >
> > 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.

There's no particular reason if it's not his speciality that he should know, and in this case he
doesn't...

>
> 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.

Nope - the law relating to observering traffic signs is quite carefully worded to ensure that it
doesn't extend it's scope to cover people who would not otherwise be bound by the legislations
creating the offence to which the sign relates. The relevant act is online if you feel like
reading it.

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

Perhaps, but they'd need a by-law in order to make it legally enforcable.

 

[Fred]

In article <[email protected]>, Martin Harlow
<[email protected]> writes
>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.
Agreed, I got there . . . . . . eventually
--
fred

 

[Danny Colyer]

Richard Goodman wrote:
> A reasonably competent driver will have a reasonably good idea of how fast they're going without
> looking at a speedo.

I once rode my motorbike without a working speedo (I forgot to remove the disk lock before trying to
ride off [1], and the lock broke the speedo cable). As it happened my wife and I had met some
friends after work - we arrived separately, then the missus followed me home in her car. She told me
afterwards that I had ridden dead on the speed limit all the way home.

Which sounds good, until I confess that I'd been particularly careful because of the lack of speedo
and I'd estimated my speed at about 10mph below the speed limit (the ride home was mostly dual
carriageway, so 70mph limit).

[1] FWIW, I *was* riding home from the pub, but I'd only drunk lemonade.

--
Danny Colyer (remove safety to reply) ( http://www.juggler.net/danny ) Recumbent cycle page:
http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/recumbents/ "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." -
Thomas Paine

 

[James Annan]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> 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.

But a different offence. You are ducking and weaving. I rest my case.

James

 

[David Damerell]

Geraint Jones <[email protected]> wrote:
>Is it possible to freewheel at 47 without having pedalled hard (or had other mechanical
>assistance) first?

Yes - except for pedalling hard up the hill first.

>I have a vague memory of the terminal velocity of a human being in free fall being less than that,

Your memory is at fault.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?

 

[James Annan]

David Damerell wrote:
> Geraint Jones <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Is it possible to freewheel at 47 without having pedalled hard (or had other mechanical
>>assistance) first?
>
>
> Yes - except for pedalling hard up the hill first.

Cos if you get a lift to the top, it's not freewheeling, it's motorbiking instead.

(G,D+R)

James

 

[K Parsons]

What a long thread. Anyway, I'm off next Thursday, wearing a green hat of course, to see just how
fast I can go thru' the speed camera at the bottom of my local hill. (or NOT as the case may be).
Trouble is , there's a sharp bend at the bottom just after the camera, hope it's dry. Niv. "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!
>
> Any answers via e-mail please, all would be appreciated.
>
> Barrie Winstanley

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On 15 Feb 2003 16:07:37 +0000, Paul Rudin <[email protected]> wrote:

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

>Perhaps, but they'd need a by-law in order to make it legally enforcable.

I'm not sure it would be enforceable as such; I'm not convinced there is a legislative framework
under which such an order could legally be made. ICBW, obviously.

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.

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 08:14:11 +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.
>But a different offence. You are ducking and weaving. I rest my case.

Sure - and I wouldn't accept it as an excuse for speeding. I don't think the law would either, but
they'd probably prosecute on the other offence anyway.

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.

 

[David Hansen]

On Sat, 15 Feb 2003 13:25:27 +0100 someone who may be Jeremy Parker <[email protected]>
wrote this:-

>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.

One would guess that police officers would know the law, but they often don't. Random example - one
who thought that a "beware of low flying motorcycles" sign means no cycling.

If motor vehicle speed limits did apply to human powered vehicles I imagine it would be mentioned in
the Highway Code. A bit with YOU MUST in it.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[James Hodson]

On Sat, 15 Feb 2003 15:02:27 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:

>I can see what you're getting at, of course, but I'm confident that in any court the defence of
>ignorance thorugh not having looked at the speedo would fall at the first fence: we are, after,
>all, required to keep within the speed limit, which implies use of the speedo.
>

Many moons ago a cousin of mine was prosecuted for speeding but found not guilty as the 30mph road
sign was obscured by trees. (He had photographic evidence of this.) If I recall the story correctly,
the magistrate declared that the cousin had no way of knowing that he'd entered a 30mph zone.

All this happened before I was born.

James

--
A credit limit is NOT a target.

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 17:50:39 +0000, James Hodson <[email protected]> wrote:

>Many moons ago a cousin of mine was prosecuted for speeding but found not guilty as the 30mph road
>sign was obscured by trees.

Yes, I can see that would be a valid excuse (as long as there were no street lights or repeaters).

These days, of course, there is only one speed limit: 25mph. And the sign is a large yellow box...

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.

 

[Davep]

James Annan 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. Ignorance is
> not an excuse.f fact.
>
> James

you've just reminded me of the group who were on Family Fortunes and were told "we asked a hundred
people what excuse they would give if stopped for speeding" ...........broken speedo was one answer
, and i _think_ "the brakes weren't working" was another. I had a quick trawl to check the second
point but couldn't confirm it, but came up with
http://www.shanemcdonald.com/laughs/l-familyfortunes.html I'm still aching after reading some of
the answers.

davep

 

[James Hodson]

On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 19:54:34 +0000 (UTC), davep <[email protected]> wrote:

>you've just reminded me of the group who were on Family Fortunes and were told "we asked a hundred
>people what excuse they would give if stopped for speeding" ...........broken speedo was one answer
>, and i _think_ "the brakes weren't working" was another. I had a quick trawl to check the second
>point but couldn't confirm it, but came up with
>http://www.shanemcdonald.com/laughs/l-familyfortunes.html I'm still aching after reading some of
>the answers.
>

How's about a temporarily stuck throttle cable - or a software glitch in a drive-by-wire car?

James

--
A credit limit is NOT a target.

 

[Richard Goodman]

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

> These days, of course, there is only one speed limit: 25mph. And the sign is a large yellow box...
>

Nah, not around here. People won't even touch the brakes for those boxes at less than 35mph. Well, a
few cowards might but most don't bother.

Rich

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 21:17:54 +0000, James Hodson <[email protected]> wrote:

>How's about a temporarily stuck throttle cable - or a software glitch in a drive-by-wire car?

For that you have brakes.

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.