Speeding cyclists

See

http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/Content/News/story.asp?datetime=21+Feb+2004
+11%3A28&tbrand=ENOnline&tCategory=NEWS&category=News&brand=ENOnline&itemi
d=NOED21+Feb+2004+11%3A28%3A48%3A113

or

http://tinyurl.com/2mngt

"Danger warning to speeding cyclists

February 21, 2004 11:28

CITY cyclists have been warned not to risk their lives hurtling down Grapes Hill trying to set off
the speed camera.

The warning follows reports that people have been reaching breakneck speeds descending the steep
hill, in the hope that they can cross the 30mph barrier and get a flash from the camera.

The cameras are designed to catch motorbikes and mopeds as well as cars and so would be triggered by
pedal bikes travelling at more than 30mph.

But because the bikes do not have license plates the riders cannot be fined and traced.

Despite the reports of people trying, Bryan Edwards, Norfolk Casualty Reduction Partnership, said he
was not aware that the camera had yet flashed any cyclists.

But he warned them it was still an offence to exceed the speed limit on a bike and that they were
putting themselves in great danger.

He said: "It is a motoring offence and you can be prosecuted under the Road Traffic Act, just like
you can be drunk in charge of a pushbike.

"All I would say is that they would be exceptionally stupid to do those speeds down Grapes Hill. You
would risk life and limb on a pushbike. It sounds like an accident waiting to happen.

"Cyclists are perhaps one of the most vulnerable of road users and they have no protection
around them."

Inspector Jeff Anderson, from Central Area Road Policing, said: "Norfolk Constabulary would
discourage cyclists from pursuing such a stupid activity which could result in a serious collision
injuring both the cyclist and other road users. The speed camera has been situated on Grapes Hill in
order to prevent such collisions."

The camera was installed in July 2003 in an effort to prevent accidents as traffic approaches the
busy crossroads at the bottom.

In the three years before it was put up, there had been 56 accidents on Grapes Hill, eight resulting
in death or serious injury.

Mr Edwards said that the road had been made safer by the camera."

Whilst I think any cyclist deliberately trying to set off the speed camera is a fool, it would be
"interesting" to see what would happen if they took a cyclist to court for *speeding* as described
by the RTA as opposed to the furious pedalling or pedalling furiously - or whatever the correct
offence is...

Cheers, helen s

--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam-- to get correct one remove dependency on fame &
fortune h*$el*$$e**nd***$o$ts***i*$*$m**m$$o*n**[email protected]$*$a$$o**l.c**$*$om$$

 

dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers posted ...

> Whilst I think any cyclist deliberately trying to set off the speed camera is a fool, it would be
> "interesting" to see what would happen if they took a cyclist to court for *speeding* as described
> by the RTA as opposed to the furious pedalling or pedalling furiously - or whatever the correct
> offence is...

Now there's a challenge ...

--
Paul

 

[email protected]l.comcomcom (dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers)typed

> Despite the reports of people trying, Bryan Edwards, Norfolk Casualty Reduction Partnership, said
> he was not aware that the camera had yet flashed any cyclists.

> But he warned them it was still an offence to exceed the speed limit on a bike and that they were
> putting themselves in great danger.

> He said: "It is a motoring offence and you can be prosecuted under the Road Traffic Act, just like
> you can be drunk in charge of a pushbike.

Oh dear! He really doesn't know, does he?

> "All I would say is that they would be exceptionally stupid to do those speeds down Grapes Hill.
> You would risk life and limb on a pushbike. It sounds like an accident waiting to happen.

Nah, Grapes Hill is smooth and wide. 30mph could be FUN!...

> "Cyclists are perhaps one of the most vulnerable of road users and they have no protection
> around them."

Quite. They wouldn't try if there was any other traffic...

> Inspector Jeff Anderson, from Central Area Road Policing, said: "Norfolk Constabulary would
> discourage cyclists from pursuing such a stupid activity which could result in a serious collision
> injuring both the cyclist and other road users. The speed camera has been situated on Grapes Hill
> in order to prevent such collisions."

Hmmm... Idon't think there are speed cameras on East Heath Road in Hampstead. I've done
38mph there...

> The camera was installed in July 2003 in an effort to prevent accidents as traffic approaches the
> busy crossroads at the bottom.

Anyone with sense would slow down long before the crossroads.

> In the three years before it was put up, there had been 56 accidents on Grapes Hill, eight
> resulting in death or serious injury.

How many involved cyclists? EMWTK.

> Mr Edwards said that the road had been made safer by the camera."

> Whilst I think any cyclist deliberately trying to set off the speed camera is a fool, it would be
> "interesting" to see what would happen if they took a cyclist to court for *speeding* as described
> by the RTA as opposed to the furious pedalling or pedalling furiously - or whatever the correct
> offence is...

Quite!

> --This is an invalid email address to avoid spam-- to get correct one remove dependency on fame &
> fortune h*$el*$$e**nd***$o$ts***i*$*$m**m$$o*n**[email protected]$*$a$$o**l.c**$*$om$$

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email protected] Edgware.

 

On 21 Feb 2004, dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers
<[email protected]> wrote:

> But he warned them it was still an offence to exceed the speed limit on a bike and that they were
> putting themselves in great danger.
>
> He said: "It is a motoring offence and you can be prosecuted under the Road Traffic Act, just like
> you can be drunk in charge of a pushbike.

Yet more proof that the powers-that-be are often at least as ignorant as the Daily Mail.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers wrote:

> CITY cyclists have been warned not to risk their lives hurtling down Grapes Hill trying to set off
> the speed camera.

Where? Where?

My record freewheeling naughtiness was 48mph in a 30 zone...sadly no camera. And it isn't illegal,
although I'm sure there's some 19th century law aimed at horse riders which you can be charged
under. Didn't some guy get done in Cambridge a few years ago for "riding furiously" at 20mph? That's
cruising speed for people on racing bikes!

Going up to the North Pennines in April. I reckon I should be able to join the 100km/h (62.14mph)
club coming off Killhope Moor

 

Just spotted this:

> He said: "It is a motoring offence"

Hehe - anyone see the flaw in his logic?

 

Ian Smith wrote:
>
> Yet more proof that the powers-that-be are often at least as ignorant as the Daily Mail.
>

And the powers-that-be in this case is the Norfolk Casualty Reduction Partnership which comprises
- Norfolk County Council Planning & Transportation Department,
- Norfolk Constabulary,
- Norfolk Magistrates Court,
- The Highways Agency
- Crown Prosecution Service (Norfolk Branch).

Oh dear

Tony.

 

Zog The Undeniable wrote:
> dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers wrote:
>
>> CITY cyclists have been warned not to risk their lives hurtling down Grapes Hill trying to set
>> off the speed camera.
>
> Where? Where?
>
> My record freewheeling naughtiness was 48mph in a 30 zone...sadly no camera. And it isn't illegal,
> although I'm sure there's some 19th century law aimed at horse riders which you can be charged
> under. Didn't some guy get done in Cambridge a few years ago for "riding furiously" at 20mph?
> That's cruising speed for people on racing bikes!
>
> Going up to the North Pennines in April. I reckon I should be able to join the 100km/h (62.14mph)
> club coming off Killhope Moor

Maybe we should have a u.r.c meet early one Sunday morning at the top of Grapes Hill and all of us
give it a go ! Wheres Killhope Moor ? BTW My all time fastest speed was 56 mph descending the Col du
Tourmalet during L'Etape du Tour in '94. 49 in the UK on Holme Moss. Maybe by the time I'm 40 I can
join the 100 Club.

 

On 21 Feb 2004 16:40:41 GMT someone who may be
[email protected] (dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers) wrote
this:-

>He said: "It is a motoring offence and you can be prosecuted under the Road Traffic Act, just like
>you can be drunk in charge of a pushbike.

It would indeed be interesting to see him make a fool of himself with such a prosecution.

>"All I would say is that they would be exceptionally stupid to do those >speeds down Grapes Hill.

Though he presumably thinks it fine to travel at such speeds in a motorised vehicle.

--
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.

 

<super snip>
> He said: "It is a motoring offence and you can be prosecuted under the
Road
> Traffic Act, just like you can be drunk in charge of a pushbike.

A cycling mate of mine who is still in the plod & former traffic officer assures me that the speed
limit only applies to motorised vehicles & not to cycles.

And as for drunk in charge it is only in the opinion of the arresting officer, you can't be
breathalysed or get points on / loose your car license.

--
Andrew

"Look laddie, if you're in the penalty area and aren't quite sure what to do
with the ball, just stick it in the net and we'll discuss all your options
afterwards."

 

"andrew" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> And as for drunk in charge it is only in the opinion of the arresting officer, you can't be
> breathalysed or get points on / loose your car license.

This is interesting. A few years ago when I lived near Andover, I was stopped by the police on my
bike. I had just come from the pub and had had a few. I was advised to get off the bike and push
it home. Otherwise he would arrest me for drink driving. The policeman claimed I could lose my
driving licence.

I complied - I did not want to push my luck. I am interested that this warning seems not to be
based on law.

Gavin

 

gavin wrote:
>
> This is interesting. A few years ago when I lived near Andover, I was stopped by the police on my
> bike. I had just come from the pub and had had a few. I was advised to get off the bike and push
> it home. Otherwise he would arrest me for drink driving. The policeman claimed I could lose my
> driving licence.

Even if you didn't have one?

>
> I complied - I did not want to push my luck. I am interested that this warning seems not to be
> based on law.
>

It's a threat to get you to comply and not be arsey lest you lose your licence. Better to comply
than to argue the toss.

 

In message <[email protected]>, dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers
<[email protected]> writes
>
>http://tinyurl.com/2mngt
>
>Whilst I think any cyclist deliberately trying to set off the speed camera is a fool,

Oh, come on - we've all had a go, haven't we? With our club jersey on? And the phone number of our
mate who works at the police speed traps office ready on our mobile so we could ask him to grab the
picture for us?

Perhaps the location mentioned in the article isn't suitable for this activity, but there are lots
of speed cameras in places that are.

BTW I wasn't successful, I think you need a proper road bike.
--
Sue ];)

 

Wheres Killhope Moor ? BTW

NW Durham near Stanhope. You'll have been pretty close to it on the C2C.

Vernon

 

dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers wrote:
>
> He said: "It is a motoring offence and you can be prosecuted under the Road Traffic Act, just like
> you can be drunk in charge of a pushbike."

Ah, an idiot. Perhaps he should examine the the word 'motoring' in its relation to bicycles.

> "All I would say is that they would be exceptionally stupid to do those speeds down Grapes Hill.
> You would risk life and limb on a pushbike. It sounds like an accident waiting to happen."

In my youth I remember being dead chuffed to have finally broken the 50mph barrier going from Biggin
Hill down to Bromley Common. On average, it used to take me 45 minutes to get from my house to the
airport, and 12 to get back. Happy days...

> Whilst I think any cyclist deliberately trying to set off the speed camera is a fool, it would be
> "interesting" to see what would happen if they took a cyclist to court for *speeding* as described
> by the RTA as opposed to the furious pedalling or pedalling furiously - or whatever the correct
> offence is...

Hmmm, if my MTB didn't have what seems to be a terminal velocity of 35mph, I think I'd quite enjoy
setting off speed cameras. I think the offence is actually "wanton and furious cycling", or
something like that.

 

David Hansen wrote:
> On 21 Feb 2004 16:40:41 GMT someone who may be [email protected]
> (dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers) wrote
>
>>"All I would say is that they would be exceptionally stupid to do those >speeds down Grapes Hill.
>
>
> Though he presumably thinks it fine to travel at such speeds in a motorised vehicle.
>

Of course because we all know that motorised vehicles are inherently safer and controllable at those
speeds... Ring, ring, hello, no im driving down the hill., what, yes, no terrible hangover, how are
you feeling ...

 

gavin wrote:
> "andrew" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>> And as for drunk in charge it is only in the opinion of the arresting officer, you can't be
>> breathalysed or get points on / loose your car license.
>
> This is interesting. A few years ago when I lived near Andover, I was stopped by the police on my
> bike. I had just come from the pub and had had a few. I was advised to get off the bike and push
> it home. Otherwise he would arrest me for drink driving. The policeman claimed I could lose my
> driving licence.
>
> I complied - I did not want to push my luck. I am interested that this warning seems not to be
> based on law.

It's one of those urban legend things - you can't lose your driving licence for being drunk in
charge of a bicycle, tho you can be fined quite a large number of notes for it - 2500, iirc.

 

vernon levy wrote:
> Wheres Killhope Moor ? BTW
>
> NW Durham near Stanhope. You'll have been pretty close to it on the C2C.
>
> Vernon

Is it the one out of Stanhope to the moor, where the Rookhope wagonway meets the road. I missed the
turn in Rookhope, some other cyclists were stood in front of the sign, and ended up riding up that
very steep hill out of Stanhope.

 

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 22:25:58 +0000, Vincent Wilcox <[email protected]> wrote:

>gavin wrote:
>>
>> This is interesting. A few years ago when I lived near Andover, I was stopped by the police on my
>> bike. I had just come from the pub and had had a few. I was advised to get off the bike and push
>> it home. Otherwise he would arrest me for drink driving. The policeman claimed I could lose my
>> driving licence.
>
>Even if you didn't have one?
>
>>
>> I complied - I did not want to push my luck. I am interested that this warning seems not to be
>> based on law.
>>
>
>It's a threat to get you to comply and not be arsey lest you lose your licence. Better to comply
>than to argue the toss.

I have been prosecuted twice (and found innocent twice) of being drunk in charge of a bicycle.

There was much hilarity in court during the first case where the police officer described driving at
speeds of up to 25mph through the back streets of Greenwich to catch me. The magistrate (a fantastic
old buffer with a spotted bow tie) asked the prosecutor if she expected him to believe that Mr
*Gonzalez* could cycle like the *Yellow Jersey* in the Tour de France and still be drunk.

The prosecutor replied that "Some people cycle better when they've had a few drinks."

The magistrate turned to me and said, "What do you have to say to that, Mr *Gonzalez*"

I replied that the prosector has seen to many Carling Black Label adverts and believed that beer
refreshed the cyclists other beers couldn't reach.

The magistrate puffed himself up and said, "NO! No! no! Mr *Gonzalez*. That is quite wrong! It
wasn't Carling Black Label. It was Heineken.

 

Gonzalez wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 22:25:58 +0000, Vincent Wilcox <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> I have been prosecuted twice (and found innocent twice) of being drunk in charge of a bicycle.
>
> There was much hilarity in court during the first case where the police officer described driving
> at speeds of up to 25mph through the back streets of Greenwich to catch me. The magistrate (a
> fantastic old buffer with a spotted bow tie) asked the prosecutor if she expected him to believe
> that Mr *Gonzalez* could cycle like the *Yellow Jersey* in the Tour de France and still be drunk.
>
> The prosecutor replied that "Some people cycle better when they've had a few drinks."
>
> The magistrate turned to me and said, "What do you have to say to that, Mr *Gonzalez*"
>
> I replied that the prosector has seen to many Carling Black Label adverts and believed that beer
> refreshed the cyclists other beers couldn't reach.
>
> The magistrate puffed himself up and said, "NO! No! no! Mr *Gonzalez*. That is quite wrong! It
> wasn't Carling Black Label. It was Heineken.

Stunner. Ive oft wondered whether I would TT faster if I mounted a can of guiness on the end of the
aero bars.