Speeding cyclists

[Gareth A .]

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 21:04:02 +0900, James Annan
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Trevor Barton wrote:
>
>>
>> I've read most of this thread and frankly I've rarely been as unimpressed by the hypocrisy of
>> some of the views here. Somehow it's acceptable to exceed the speed limits or ride drunk, if
>> you're on a bike, but not so if you're in a car? How?
>
>Same way as it's ok to exceed the speed limits on foot, or walk/run when drunk. Unless you'd like
>to outlaw them too?

You are unlikely to exceed any speed limit on foot, and you could be prosecuted if your actions
unjured somebody by running anyway, and it is illegal to be drunk in a public place, even if you
are sat down.

Gareth

 

[Gareth A .]

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 11:55:08 -0000, "Dave Larrington"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Gareth A. wrote:
>
>> I would be interested to know the locations of speed cameras where you think is safe for cyclists
>> to exceed the camera's trigger speed...
>
>There's one about here:
>
>http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=533618&y=188395&z=1&sv=533750,188250&st=4&ar=Y&mapp=newmap-
>.srf&searchp=newsearch.s
>
>Not too much of a problem to reach the speed at which it ought to go off when cruising merrily down
>the bus lane. It's never gone off for me though.

I wonder why the camera was installed...

 

[David Hansen]

On 23 Feb 2004 13:22:07 +0000 (GMT) someone who may be
[email protected] (Alan Braggins) wrote this:-

>Is it really likely that a spokesman for the Norfolk Casualty Reduction Partnership thinks it is
>fine to speed past a camera in a motorised vehicle?

The bod was complaining about cyclists doing 30mph. 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.

 

[Trevor Barton]

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 12:57:26 -0000, Tony Raven wrote:
> Trevor Barton wrote:
>>
>> I've read most of this thread and frankly I've rarely been as unimpressed by the hypocrisy of
>> some of the views here. Somehow it's acceptable to exceed the speed limits or ride drunk, if
>> you're on a bike, but not so if you're in a car? How? If you run into a pedestrian at 35mph on a
>> bike you may indeed not be *as likely* to kill or seriously injure them as you are in a car, but
>> you are *likely* to. The only saving grace is that you are just as *likely* to do the same to
>> yourself in the process.
>>
>
> I think you have well and truly grasped the wrong end of the stick. First, doing 30mph is for most
> of us, hills aside, more a fantasy than reality but its always nice to speculate and pretend.
> Second we are talking about matters of law not practice. I would always advocate riding or driving
> at a speed that is safe for the circumstances and that does not mean at the speed limit. Its just
> that legally there is no cap on bicycle speeds giving you freedom to go faster than the speed
> limit while cars are legally required not to exceed it - provided circumstances are appropriate.
> Finally on your injury point, a bicycle doing 30mph probably has the same injury potential as a
> car doing 10mph (based on a 100kg to 1000kg ratio) with much greater potential of injury to the
> cyclist than the motorist if there were an accident.

Part of the discussion was about the law, but much of it was about various people bragging about
trying to set speed cameras off. If you replace the words "bike" with "car" and "riding" with
"driving" you'll get a completely different flavour of the conversation.

I can "speculate and pretend" about driving my car at it's maximum speed
limit. Not all the conversation was about speculation, many of the contributors were telling us how
they try do set them off. You say "hills aside", but it's on hills that most of those
discussing setting off speed cameras were trying to do it.

Even Paul Shithead does not advicate driving at a speed that *he* would consider inappropriate for
the conditions, as I believe he has said a number of times. How many of you prople who think it's
acceptable to deliberately ride above the speed limit, just because *you* think it's approriate for
the circumstances, believe PS has the right to drive above the speed limit when *he* thinks it's
appropriate?

What's more, just because the law does not currently cap bycycle speed limits does not make it
morally defensible to knowingly break limits.

Finally, I knew someone would have to bring up the specious argument about the injury potential of a
car being so much more than that of a bike. There are several flaws in that argument. Firstly,
although their mass is considerably different, there's a hell of a lot more pointy bits on a bike to
injure a pedestrian. Secondly, given the same distance and speed, a car is both more likely to stop,
and considerably more manoeverable under heavy braking. Thirdly, if that argument held any merit
whatsoever, then I could just as easily argue that a Nissan Micra ought to be allowed to travel
faster under the same conditions as a Volvo estate.

So no, I don't think I have grasped the wrong end of the stick. Some people here are quite happy to
apply double standards, as long as they are the ones on the benifiting end of their application.

--
Trevor Barton

 

[Tony Raven]

> You are unlikely to exceed any speed limit on foot, and you could be prosecuted if your actions
> unjured somebody by running anyway, and it is illegal to be drunk in a public place, even if you
> are sat down.
>

But the definition of "drunk" is much more intoxicated than the alcohol limit for driving. Or are
you suggesting that people should not be out on the streets after more than a pint or so.?

Tony

 

[Tony Raven]

David Hansen wrote:
> On 23 Feb 2004 13:22:07 +0000 (GMT) someone who may be [email protected] (Alan Braggins)
> wrote this:-
>
>> Is it really likely that a spokesman for the Norfolk Casualty Reduction Partnership thinks it is
>> fine to speed past a camera in a motorised vehicle?
>
> The bod was complaining about cyclists doing 30mph. Presumably thinks it fine to travel at such
> speeds in a motorised vehicle.

I think he was complaining about them doing more than 30mph actually

Tony

 

[David Martin]

On 23/2/04 1:46 pm, in article [email protected],
"Gareth A." <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 21:04:02 +0900, James Annan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> it is illegal to be drunk in a public place, even if you are sat down.

No it isn't. The offence is Drunk AND disorderly. You have to be both at the same time. Just drunk
in public is not an offence. Drunk in charge of a bicycle (or a pig, horse, cow, steam engine and so
on) on the public highway is an offence.

..d

 

[Tony Raven]

Trevor Barton wrote:
>
> Thirdly, if that argument held any merit whatsoever, then I could just as easily argue that a
> Nissan Micra ought to be allowed to travel faster under the same conditions as a Volvo estate.
>

It does sort of Apart from built up areas, the speed limit is graded between trucks over 7.5tons and
cars with progressively lower limits as the vehicle gets heavier. For example on a single
carriageway its 40mph for goods vehicles over 7.5 tons, 50mph for goods vehicles under 7.5 tons,
buses and cars towing trailers, 60mph for cars and motorcyles and unlimited for bicycles

Tony

 

[Dave Larrington]

Gareth A. wrote:

> I wonder why the camera was installed...

Seems a strange place to put one, if you ask me. I don't recall ever having seen an accident there,
whereas I /have/ encontered several further south on that stretch of the A10.

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================

 

[Gareth A .]

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 14:18:11 +0000, David Martin
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 23/2/04 1:46 pm, in article [email protected], "Gareth A." <gareth@nospamplease-
>attrill.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 21:04:02 +0900, James Annan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> it is illegal to be drunk in a public place, even if you are sat down.
>
>No it isn't. The offence is Drunk AND disorderly. You have to be both at the same time. Just drunk
>in public is not an offence. Drunk in charge of a bicycle (or a pig, horse, cow, steam engine and
>so on) on the public highway is an offence.

Licensing Act 1872, S12:

It is offence for any person to be found drunk on any highway or other public place whether a
building or not or in any licensed premises.

 

[]Not Responding]

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 15:28:17 +0000, JohnB <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 12:23:43 +0000, JohnB <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> <[email protected]>:
>>
>> >The police insisted I took a breath test and told me it was now Hampshire police's policy to
>> >_always_ breathalise cyclists in accidents (they also tested the van driver).
>>
>> This is, as Tny says, illegal. On the other hand, if you were sober, WTF? It's another nail in
>> the driver's coffin.
>
>I fully support the introduction of breath tests for cyclists and of course I had not been drinking
>otherwise I would not have been cycling. I took teh test because of the veiled threat that I
>wouldn't get home in time for tea.
>
>However, what does concern me is how such 'policies' can just be introduced without going through
>the correct legal channels. I'm sure that when the breath test laws were intoduced for motorists
>that they were fully debated and then enacted by Parliament. Yet when in comes to similar issues
>that relate to cyclists they can be called 'policies' and simply introduced by the police.
>
>OK, in this instance I agree with the policy, but the method of introduction I find quite
>unpalateable.
>
>What 'policy' will be next?
>

Earlier in this thread I was about to repeat sage advice given to me once; never argue with a copper
even if he is utterly wrong. Getting arsey and clever nearly always ends in trouble.

But to see informal heavy handedness (and the veiled threats necessary to get compliance) being
officially sanctioned as policy is very worrying.

On the one hand, of course, it is only policy and not law. On the other, I know just how easy it for
the police to make your life miserable if they choose.

 

[]Not Responding]

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 14:06:06 -0000, "Tony Raven"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>
>> You are unlikely to exceed any speed limit on foot, and you could be prosecuted if your actions
>> unjured somebody by running anyway, and it is illegal to be drunk in a public place, even if you
>> are sat down.
>>
>
>But the definition of "drunk" is much more intoxicated than the alcohol limit for driving. Or are
>you suggesting that people should not be out on the streets after more than a pint or so.?
>
>Tony

Reminds me of one of the ABD website pages moaning that x% of pedestrian motor victims had more than
the driving legal limit blood alcohol.

Getting peds off the streets after 1 pint seemed to be precisely their aim.

 

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 18:51:15 +0000 someone who may be "[Not
Responding]" <[email protected]> wrote this:-

>Earlier in this thread I was about to repeat sage advice given to me once; never argue with a
>copper even if he is utterly wrong. Getting arsey and clever nearly always ends in trouble.

Being right is not the same as "being arsey and clever". If one does not stand up to bullies they
just get worse.

--
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 Mon, 23 Feb 2004 14:18:11 +0000, David Martin
<[email protected]> wrote:

>No it isn't. The offence is Drunk AND disorderly.

I thought being drunk and incapable was the offence.

James

 

[Vernon Levy]

> Yes, the second time I did C2C we took the wagonway, many riders found it too much and walked.
>
I walked up Crawleyside, a heavily laden 12 speed bike was just too much for a relatively recent
returnee to cycling to cope with.

I must get out there again. In my feckless youth I regularly used to sleep out in the shooting
lodges with pals and several cases of ale on Stanhope Moor and be amazed at the glow from Consett
lighting up the night sky. To have seen Consett when everything had a red tinge from the steelworks
was an experience never to be forgotten.

 

[James Annan]

Gareth A. wrote:

> On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 21:04:02 +0900, James Annan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Trevor Barton wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I've read most of this thread and frankly I've rarely been as unimpressed by the hypocrisy of
>>>some of the views here. Somehow it's acceptable to exceed the speed limits or ride drunk, if
>>>you're on a bike, but not so if you're in a car? How?
>>
>>Same way as it's ok to exceed the speed limits on foot, or walk/run when drunk. Unless you'd like
>>to outlaw them too?
>
>
> You are unlikely to exceed any speed limit on foot,

It's unlikely on a bike too. The question was, how is it acceptable?

> and you could be prosecuted if your actions unjured somebody by running anyway,

Same as when you are on a bike, and there is the additional 'pedalling furiously' option for
cyclists to worry about.

> and it is illegal to be drunk in a public place, even if you are sat down.

So drunk cycling is already illegal, but with a higher limit ('drunk' not just over the drink-
drive limit).

So it does indeed appear that cycling is more strictly controlled than walking, and less so than
driving, which seems broadly reasonable in light of the danger it poses to others.

James

 

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 14:07:09 -0000 someone who may be "Tony Raven"
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>I think he was complaining about them doing more than 30mph actually

The bod is complaining about the speed cyclists are doing down the hill now. He also says that the
camera has not yet been activated by a cyclist. Therefore he must be complaining about them going at
30mph, or "just creeping over" that speed.

--
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.

 

[David Hansen]

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 17:42:59 +0000 someone who may be "Just zis Guy,
you know?" <[email protected]> wrote this:-

>>Or write to the Chief Constable asking whether this is policy as it does not appear to have any
>>legal authority. Then at least they might take notice >>and change policy.
>
>Who else do you think the letters would have been addressed to? ;-)

MP. I would use the line, "who makes the law, you or the officials that are supposed to enforce 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.

 

[Just zis Guy]

On 23 Feb 2004 09:00:41 -0000, [email protected] (B.G. Finlay
IT Services) wrote in message <[email protected]>:

>: Which camera, Sue? I might give it a try on the 'bent ;-)

> You normally come across as pro camera Guy. If this road has a bad accident history and it
> requires a camera why is it OK for you to cycle along there fast enough to set it off? Even if the
> limit doesn't apply to bikes surely it's still dangerous?

E=1/2mv^2.

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

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

 

[DavidR]

"Trevor Barton" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> If I had a choice between being hit by a car at 20mph or a bike at the same speed, it'd be the car
> any day. Well, assuming that is, I didn't have any other choice

Even a direct hit is below the waist. Above the waist the rider must be softer than a windscreen.

> Of course, if I had the same warning of the impact, withing bounds I'd be better off with the bike
> because it's narrower and I'm more likely to be able to avoid it by jumping out of the way,

...and the rider has more sideways room... ...and the rider has more incentive not to hit you.

Below 20mph I can outbrake any car. 30mph plus is admittedly less easy (though at that speed I am
unable to make a comparison using a flat road).

> but that's *still* not an argument for knowingly speeding on a bike.

True.