Richmond Park - Cops campaign v speeding cyclists !

[Tony Raven]

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

 

[Just Zis Guy]

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

 

[Tony Raven]

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

 

[Just Zis Guy]

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

 

[Doctor J. Frink]

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

 

[Julesh]

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

 

[Alan Braggins]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 20:25:13 +0100, Tony Raven <junk@raven-
>family.com> wrote in message <2kdu0pF17lgjU2@uni-
>berlin.de>:
>
>>> 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.

 

[Pk]

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

 

[Graeme]

[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

 

[Tony Raven]

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

 

[Just Zis Guy]

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

 

[Pk]

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

 

[Ian G Batten]

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

 

[Graeme]

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

 

[Tony Raven]

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

 

[Ian G Batten]

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

 

[Dr Curious]

"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

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 08:36:36 +0000 (UTC), Ian G Batten
<[email protected]> wrote in message <cbtu2k$qg0$1@news-
out.ftel.co.uk>:

>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

 

[Dave Kahn]

"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...

 

[Dave Kahn]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 18:03:06 +0000 (UTC), "PK"
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> <[email protected]>:
>
> >> 20 +/- what? And measured with what?
>
> >Measured by the cop car doing 20mph behind and the
> >roadies zooming away! Tht'a enough evidence to convict
> >for speeding.
>
> But 20 +/- what? Surely the limts of speedometer error are
> such that prosecuting for speeds below, say, 25mph, would
> be problematic? And how many people are going faster than
> that? And if the cyclists are overtaking the cars, how can
> the "cop car" pace them? And how many "cop cars" have
> speedometers calibrrated for offences at 20mph? And how
> many will be interested in a Parks matter?
>
> I find the whole thing baffling, given that the practical
> limit of most bikes in that context is only going to be a
> few mph above 20 anyway!

The Park is hilly. I must confess that I've frequently been
above 40 mph on a couple of stretches.

--
Dave...