Richmond Park - Cops campaign v speeding cyclists !



Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
>
> I thought of addressing thatin the previous post, but thought the
> point was so obvious as to be superfluous. Apparently not.
>
> While it is possible to proceed through the park without the
> consumption of alcohol, it is not possible to do so without moving.
>
> Guy


True but we are not talking about how you ended up breaking the law but
whether not knowing you had broken it was a defence. You are travelling
and you know there is a speed limit, you are drinking and driving and
know there is a blood alcohol limit. If you transgress the limit in
either case its no good saying you didn't know you had crossed the line.
People seem to be hung up on "if I haven't got a speedo, I can't be
done for speeding" with a Smithian conviction. They are absolutely
totally and utterly wrong.

Tony
 
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 20:41:50 +0100, Tony Raven <[email protected]>
wrote in message <[email protected]>:

>True but we are not talking about how you ended up breaking the law but
>whether not knowing you had broken it was a defence. You are travelling
>and you know there is a speed limit, you are drinking and driving and
>know there is a blood alcohol limit. If you transgress the limit in
>either case its no good saying you didn't know you had crossed the line.


But you have the option not to drink. You don't have the option not
to move.

> People seem to be hung up on "if I haven't got a speedo, I can't be
>done for speeding" with a Smithian conviction. They are absolutely
>totally and utterly wrong.


Of course. But it is a strange law.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
 
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
> But you have the option not to drink. You don't have the option not
> to move.
>


You have the option not to cycle or drive a car. You can walk and
you'd be hard pressed to exceed 20mph walking. This is getting more and
more like the arguments of car drivers that they should be able to speed
and that they have no alternative to using the car.

Tony
 
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 21:11:03 +0100, Tony Raven <[email protected]>
wrote in message <[email protected]>:

>> But you have the option not to drink. You don't have the option not
>> to move.


>You have the option not to cycle or drive a car. You can walk and
>you'd be hard pressed to exceed 20mph walking. This is getting more and
>more like the arguments of car drivers that they should be able to speed
>and that they have no alternative to using the car.


No, not really. Drinking is not inherent to the concept of transport
in quite the way movement is. Cars are fitted by law with a speed
measuring device, bikes are not. In this case a law has been passed
which requires someone to keep below a certain speed, when there is no
certainty they wil have a methid of measuring that speed. In the case
of alcohol limits this is simply and prudently achieved by not
drinking when you drive.

I am not one of the ones arguing that the law does not apply -
although clearly they have taken it upon themselves to introduce a
by-law which acts on a whole class of vehicles exempt from the primary
legislation covering speed limits on public roads. It just seems odd.
It is a curiosity. An anomaly.

Presumably inline skaters and skateboarders are exempt? In my
experience a pedestrian is at far more risk from both these in the
parks than from cyclists, but my experience is limited.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
 
Tony Raven wrote:

> There has been extensive discussion of the need for speed limits in the
> park and the local community voted strongly in favour of it. The Park
> is intended to be for relaxation, recreation and wildlife, not a
> convenient high speed short cut for commuters.
>
> Tony


Indeed. As an avoider of the narrow (and pointlessly winding)
cycle/footpath/dog walking facility known as the "Tamsin Trail" I'm
impressed that:

a) A decision was taken to shut the Robin Hood gate (except to peds
and cycles :)) meaning that the park is now much less useful as a rat
run connecting West London with the A3.

b) The speed limit has been reduced from 30mph to 20mph, which has
also discouraged motor traffic. The park is now even more of a pleasure
to cycle through and if that means that I can no longer exceed 20mph (as
if! - a couple of hills excluded) I for one am not going to complain.

Jules
 
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 20:12:11 +0100, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
>Doctor J. Frink wrote:
>
>> How is the *cyclist* measuring their speed? When asked "Did you know you
>> were speeding?" you can quite honestly say "No." unless you have a cycle
>> computer, that's correctly configured, and that's not compulsory.

>
>Not relevant. Ignorance of the fact you are breaking the law is not a
>defence that is accepted I'm afraid. Just the same as "Did you know you
>were over the drink drive limit?" "No, officer I didn't" "Well I'm
>arresting you......"


No, Ignorance is not a legal defence, but I think it is often a
perfectly valid moral (and sometimes technical) one. If the driver was
over the limit cos someone had spiked their drink would they still be as
culpable?

People without cycle computers will not know exactly how fast they are
going.

People with cycle computers do not necessarily have them set up
properly (there's no equivalent of an MOT for such bike equipment that
I'm aware of).

How the hell is the cyclist supposed to stay within a set limit when
they are unlikely to have a reliable method of measuring it? If there
was a legal requirement for all bikes to have speedos it would be a
different matter.

Ignorance here is not the problem. The law itself is at fault for being
broadly applied to two very different types of vehicle, with very
different impacts (pun) on their environment and obviously with little
regard to the difficulty of cyclists abiding by it even if they want to.

Many places have speed limits of 5-10mph. This is easily within the
range of walkers, runners, skateboarders and skaters as well as bikes.
Would it not be daft to apply it to everyone, particularly as someone on
foot won't know their speed. They could, maybe GPS stuff could measure
that but not everyone has it.

The law's daft and needs changing.

Frink

--
Doctor J. Frink : 'Rampant Ribald Ringtail'
See his mind here : http://www.cmp.liv.ac.uk/frink/
Annoy his mind here : pjf at cmp dot liv dot ack dot ook
"No sir, I didn't like it!" - Mr Horse
 
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 20:25:13 +0100, Tony Raven <[email protected]>
>wrote in message <[email protected]>:
>
>>> Although in that case the driver presumably knew he'd been drinking.

>
>>As in the other case he presumably knew he was not stationary. So one
>>didn't know how fast he was going relative to the speed limit and the
>>other didn't know how high his blood alcohol was relative to the drink
>>limit.

>
>I thought of addressing thatin the previous post, but thought the
>point was so obvious as to be superfluous. Apparently not.
>
>While it is possible to proceed through the park without the
>consumption of alcohol, it is not possible to do so without moving.


On the other hand it's possible to be sure that although you have
had a drink, you are well under the legal alcohol limit, and also
possible to be sure that although you are moving, you are well under
the legal speed limit.
 
Julesh wrote:
>
> Indeed. As an avoider of the narrow (and pointlessly winding)
> cycle/footpath/dog walking facility known as the "Tamsin Trail"



Pointlessly winding? It's a leisure trail not a race track, it winds
sensibly especially where there is a need to control speed or make hills
climbable (on foot or bike)

Narrow? Wider than most pavements in all but a few spots.

pk
 
[email protected] (Doctor J. Frink) wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> People with cycle computers do not necessarily have them set up
> properly (there's no equivalent of an MOT for such bike equipment that
> I'm aware of).


I've never had a speedo calibration check done at an MOT, so I doubt many
car drivers know the accuracy of their speedos either.

Graeme
 
Doctor J. Frink wrote:
>
>
> No, Ignorance is not a legal defence, but I think it is often a
> perfectly valid moral (and sometimes technical) one. If the driver was
> over the limit cos someone had spiked their drink would they still be as
> culpable?
>


NO, the courts have ruled years ago on cases like that and showed leniency.

> People without cycle computers will not know exactly how fast they are
> going.
>
> People with cycle computers do not necessarily have them set up
> properly (there's no equivalent of an MOT for such bike equipment that
> I'm aware of).
>
> How the hell is the cyclist supposed to stay within a set limit when
> they are unlikely to have a reliable method of measuring it? If there
> was a legal requirement for all bikes to have speedos it would be a
> different matter.
>


OK lets take a different example to get round this "you don't have to
drink to drive" etc. red herrings. Tyre tread. It is illegal to drive
with less than 1.6mm tread depth in a continuous band over the central
75% of the tyre. No cars are equipped with vernier callipers to do
those measurements. You can have not bothered to look at your tyres for
years. You cannot really drive your car without the tyres. If you
drove with tyres that are illegal and were stopped the fact that you did
not know and had no means provided for you to know would not be a
defence. If you want to be sure you are not breaking the law go out and
buy a tyre depth gauge and do the necessary measurements otherwise rely
on your eyeball judgement and hope its right.

A la spike drinks, if it turned out that while you were parked your mate
had secretly swapped your tyres for bald ones without you knowing the
courts would probably be lenient with you.

Tony
 
On 29 Jun 2004 22:57:58 +0100 (BST), [email protected] (Alan
Braggins) wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>>While it is possible to proceed through the park without the
>>consumption of alcohol, it is not possible to do so without moving.


>On the other hand it's possible to be sure that although you have
>had a drink, you are well under the legal alcohol limit, and also
>possible to be sure that although you are moving, you are well under
>the legal speed limit.


Really? Having been repeatedly told that the limit is somewhere
between 1 1/2 and 2 pints, I can see how some sort of empirical
measure of intoxication could be arrived at, but how would you
empirically measure speed?

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
 
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On 29 Jun 2004 22:57:58 +0100 (BST), [email protected] (Alan
> Braggins) wrote in message
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>> While it is possible to proceed through the park without the
>>> consumption of alcohol, it is not possible to do so without moving.

>
>> On the other hand it's possible to be sure that although you have
>> had a drink, you are well under the legal alcohol limit, and also
>> possible to be sure that although you are moving, you are well under
>> the legal speed limit.

>
> Really? Having been repeatedly told that the limit is somewhere
> between 1 1/2 and 2 pints, I can see how some sort of empirical
> measure of intoxication could be arrived at, but how would you
> empirically measure speed?



Cadence and gearing! the sort of cyclists we are discussing (Richmond park
very fast road cyclists on trining runs) do know that sort of thing!


pk
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> wrote:
> in quite the way movement is. Cars are fitted by law with a speed
> measuring device


There are both cars and motorcycles which don't have speedometers, and
it is perfectly legal for them not to. They are, however, still subject
to the speed limit.

There is also nothing stopping someone who is concerned that they may
exceed a bicycle speed limit from purchasing a cycle computer (20
pounds).

ian
 
Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote in news:2kf9deF1ink0U1@uni-
berlin.de:

> If you want to be sure you are not breaking the law go out and
> buy a tyre depth gauge and do the necessary measurements otherwise rely
> on your eyeball judgement and hope its right.
>


At what point do the tread wear indicators start showing? I assume it isn't
the standard legal depth as I would have thought it different for different
countries and the tyre manufacturers aren't likely to cater for that? They
should still give you a rough idea of how close to the limit you are.


Graeme
 
Graeme wrote:

>
> At what point do the tread wear indicators start showing? I assume it isn't
> the standard legal depth as I would have thought it different for different
> countries and the tyre manufacturers aren't likely to cater for that? They
> should still give you a rough idea of how close to the limit you are.
>
>


You only get those on certain makes of tyre so they do not invalidate
the premise and certainly "my tread wear depth indicators aren't showing
officer" would not be a defence although you might have a case against
the tyre company

Tony
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Graeme <[email protected]> wrote:
> At what point do the tread wear indicators start showing? I assume it isn't


Not all tyres have them, they don't cover the width of tread
restrictions, they're set to an unspecified depth and anyone sensible
changes their tyres well before 3mm.

ian
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 29 Jun 2004 22:57:58 +0100 (BST), [email protected] (Alan
> Braggins) wrote in message
> <[email protected]>:
>
> >>While it is possible to proceed through the park without the
> >>consumption of alcohol, it is not possible to do so without moving.

>
> >On the other hand it's possible to be sure that although you have
> >had a drink, you are well under the legal alcohol limit, and also
> >possible to be sure that although you are moving, you are well under
> >the legal speed limit.

>
> Really? Having been repeatedly told that the limit is somewhere
> between 1 1/2 and 2 pints, I can see how some sort of empirical
> measure of intoxication could be arrived at, but how would you
> empirically measure speed?


Er...

Richmond Park is approx 7 miles around.

A very good time lap time is 16 mins.

Respectable is 3 laps - 21 miles - in the hour

Curious




>
> Guy
> --
> May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
>
> 88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington

University
 
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 08:36:36 +0000 (UTC), Ian G Batten
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>There are both cars and motorcycles which don't have speedometers, and
>it is perfectly legal for them not to. They are, however, still subject
>to the speed limit.


Really? They are not covered separately under the RTRA?

>There is also nothing stopping someone who is concerned that they may
>exceed a bicycle speed limit from purchasing a cycle computer (20
>pounds).


Of course. But the fact remains that a by-law has been introduced
which applies to a class of vehicle not usually covered, and where
there can be no expectation that more than a minority of those covered
will have any means of measuring speed, and where the maximum likely
speed is in any case not much more than the posted limit. It seems
like a lot of work for no good effect, to me.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
 
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 08:45:52 +0100, Tony Raven <[email protected]>
wrote in message <[email protected]>:

>OK lets take a different example to get round this "you don't have to
>drink to drive" etc. red herrings. Tyre tread. It is illegal to drive
>with less than 1.6mm tread depth in a continuous band over the central
>75% of the tyre.


And in order to help stay legal the tyres have wear indicators moulded
into them. Sorry, Tony, that doesn't work.

>A la spike drinks, if it turned out that while you were parked your mate
>had secretly swapped your tyres for bald ones without you knowing the
>courts would probably be lenient with you.


Undoubtedly. What if he secretly swapped your bike for a faster one?
I'd be lenient with the mate, I think...

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
 
"PK" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> a mate was stopped on the Tamsin trail a while ago (gravel cycle track
> around the park limit 15mph) and told to watch his speed by a park policeman
> who had clocked his speed from the park road and followed him to richmond
> gate where the track crosses the road.


Many of the off-roaders are way over 15 mph on much of the trail. Some
of them are quite aggressive towards runners and walkers as well.

--
Dave...