Do cyclists have to stick to speed limits?

Do cyclists have to stick to speed limits?

Author
Discussion

CDP

7,454 posts

253 months

Friday 5th October 2012
quotequote all
paranoid airbag said:
If you're so very worried about the danger to others, what is your solution to the 383 pedestrian deaths last year and 107 cyclist deaths at the hands of drivers, compared to the 2 pedestrian deaths and 0 motorist deaths at the hand of cyclists? Black boxes? Mandatory fitting of auto-brakes? Ah of course not, that would interfere with your precious right to drive a car. So I don't believe for a second you're really concerned about safety.
Sir,

My other post pointed out that I wasn't too worried about cycles and that my concern was the aggression of some cyclists.

Something you have demonstrated in your posts far better than I could have described.


Red 4

10,744 posts

186 months

Friday 5th October 2012
quotequote all
SS2. said:
Fortunately, the law in question requires very little by way of interpretation..
As far as bicycles and speeding are concerned, yes.

Not so much when considering what is or is not a motor vehicle.

How about an electrically assisted bicycle ?

A go-ped ?

Segway ?

Invalid carriage ? (that's probably the non pc term). Some are registered, some aren't.

Steam engine ?

Go cart ?

Quad bike ?

Trials bike ? Off road motorcycle ?

etc. etc.



Edited by Red 4 on Friday 5th October 15:40

Aretnap

1,643 posts

150 months

Friday 5th October 2012
quotequote all
Red 4 said:
How about an electrically assisted bicycle ?
That one's definitely not a motor vehicle - Road Traffic Act s189.

Unsure about the other ones you mention.

Red 4

10,744 posts

186 months

Friday 5th October 2012
quotequote all
Aretnap said:
That one's definitely not a motor vehicle - Road Traffic Act s189.

Unsure about the other ones you mention.
Electrically assisted pedal cycle is not a motor vehicle as you say.

But it is still a mechanically propelled vehicle.

Some road traffic offences could still apply. Confusing isn't it smile





Liquid Knight

15,754 posts

182 months

Friday 5th October 2012
quotequote all
SS2. said:
Heraclitus of Ephesus said:
Any law that's written by the hand of man is open to interpretation.
Fortunately, the law in question requires very little by way of interpretation..
...but the opportunity is there if an officer is having really long day and wants to get the CPS to set a president.


This debate is always so much fun.

Okay to be fair when I'm cycling I stick to the speed limit myself because it would be unfair of me to break the laws other road users have to follow. I also stop for red lights, use hand signals and only filter if there is enough room and traffic up ahead isn't moving.

The biggest issue for me when I'm at the speed limit car's see a cyclist, automatically assume we're pootling along, overtakes and then realises they're speeding, panic brakes and nearly take me off or gets hit by the vehicle behind etc.

Another classic is the last time I was knocked off. I was cycling at 30 in a 30 zone and approaching a traffic island a car driver underestimated how fast I was going and hit me to avoid the traffic island itself. Not good. If he had hit the traffic island he would have wheel and possibly suspension damage between £500-£600 for the car he was in but he totaled a £1,800 bike and I had to have three days off work so it cost him £2,100 in total plus whatever damage that did to is no claims bonus. I didn't report it to the Police at the time because CD10 on his CV wouldn't have been any good for him.

Edited by Liquid Knight on Friday 5th October 16:02

daz3210

5,000 posts

239 months

Friday 5th October 2012
quotequote all
Red 4 said:
A mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on roads.

Essentially it is open for a court to decide what is or is not a motor vehicle.
But if a cycle is a motor vehicle, what happens when the rider gets off? It no longer has a means to propel.



Red 4

10,744 posts

186 months

Friday 5th October 2012
quotequote all
daz3210 said:
But if a cycle is a motor vehicle
A pedal cycle is not a motor vehicle or a mechanically propelled vehicle.

It is a pedal cycle.


daz3210

5,000 posts

239 months

Friday 5th October 2012
quotequote all
SS2. said:
For the cyclist, corroboration of what ? What 'offence' was he potentially committing which required corroborating ?
Corroboration in that there was no way to confirm the speed involved in either case.

RemyMartin

6,759 posts

204 months

Friday 5th October 2012
quotequote all
Red 4 said:
A pedal cycle is not a motor vehicle or a mechanically propelled vehicle.

It is a pedal cycle.
This, its absolutely black and white.

Laws for MPVs or motor vehicles and laws for pedal cycles are pretty well defined.

Aretnap

1,643 posts

150 months

Friday 5th October 2012
quotequote all
Red 4 said:
Aretnap said:
That one's definitely not a motor vehicle - Road Traffic Act s189.

Unsure about the other ones you mention.
Electrically assisted pedal cycle is not a motor vehicle as you say.

But it is still a mechanically propelled vehicle.

Some road traffic offences could still apply. Confusing isn't it smile
Agreed, and I like the irony that if you ride an electrically assisted pedal cycle drunk you get a mandatory driving ban - but the ban doesn't prevent you from riding the electric bike you got done on. It led to this amusingly inaccurate story in my local rag, where they asked a bloke who works in a bike shop for clarification on the legal aspects. rolleyes

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/News/Drunk-woman-b...

daz3210

5,000 posts

239 months

Friday 5th October 2012
quotequote all
Red 4 said:
A pedal cycle is not a motor vehicle or a mechanically propelled vehicle.

It is a pedal cycle.
That is exactly what I thought, but another poster suggested otherwise.

Interestingly on this subject though, I did mention it at the local cycle club last night. One or two of the senior members (both in age and in committee positions, did answer that speed limits do apply to pushbikes.

Having said that, there may well not be anything in law that specifically gives rise to an offence of excess speed on a pushbike. But, similar to the old argument pre mobile phone law that you could be done for DWDCA, is there scope for the offence of Dangerous Cycling (Carries up to £2500 fine) or careless cycling (Up to £1000 fine) (figures obtained from Direct Gov website)?

Red 4

10,744 posts

186 months

Friday 5th October 2012
quotequote all
daz3210 said:
Interestingly on this subject though, I did mention it at the local cycle club last night. One or two of the senior members (both in age and in committee positions, did answer that speed limits do apply to pushbikes.
The local cycle club ? Oh well, they must be right then.rolleyes

Did they also write the story that Aretnap posted the link to ?

Poor reporting and a clear lack of understanding of the law at its finest biggrin

Edited by Red 4 on Friday 5th October 17:03

Aretnap

1,643 posts

150 months

Friday 5th October 2012
quotequote all
daz3210 said:
Having said that, there may well not be anything in law that specifically gives rise to an offence of excess speed on a pushbike. But, similar to the old argument pre mobile phone law that you could be done for DWDCA, is there scope for the offence of Dangerous Cycling (Carries up to £2500 fine) or careless cycling (Up to £1000 fine) (figures obtained from Direct Gov website)?
Potentially yes, someone riding a bike stupidly fast could be done for careless/dangerous cycling, or if they injured someone, under the ancient offence of wanton or furious driving. But the prosecution would have to show that the speed made the riding careless/dangerous/furious, not just that it was over the limit.

yellowjack

17,065 posts

165 months

Friday 5th October 2012
quotequote all
Liquid Knight said:
...but the opportunity is there if an officer is having really long day and wants to get the CPS to set a president.

Edited by Liquid Knight on Friday 5th October 16:02
The CPS cannot set a president. Barack Obama and Bashar al-Assad are presidents. The CPS can bring a case before a court by means of a prosecution, but it takes a court of law to set a precedent. Black's Law Dictionary defines "precedent" as a "rule of law established for the first time by a court for a particular type of case and thereafter referred to in deciding similar cases."

And yes, I will be ordering one of these: http://www.shotdeadinthehead.com/images/designs/CD...



By way of an example:

The Highways Act 1835 made it illegal to ride, or drive a carriage on the footway:

"Penalty on persons committing nuisances by riding on footpaths, &c.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . If any person shall wilfully ride upon any footpath or causeway by the side of any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of foot passengers; or shall wilfully lead or drive any horse, ass, sheep, mule, swine, or cattle or carriage of any description, or any truck or sledge, upon any such footpath or causeway; or shall tether any horse, ass, mule, swine, or cattle, on any highway, so as to suffer or permit the tethered animal to be thereon;. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . every person so offending in any of the cases aforesaid shall for each and every such offence forfeit and pay any sum not exceeding [level 2 on the standard scale], over and above the damages occasioned thereby."

BUT, it wasn't until 1879 that "Taylor v Goodwin (1879) 4 QBD 228" defined bicycles as "carriages" and therefore "not allowed on pavements" actually brought bicycles under the scope of the act by setting a precedent. Following the setting of this precedent, the Highways Act 1835 was amended by Section 85(1) of the Local Government Act 1888. Section 85 of the Local Government Act 1888 extended the definition of “carriage” to include “bicycles, tricycles, velocipedes and other similar machines.”

There have been many new and amended pieces of legislation in the intervening period, some recent ones allowing for the issue of FPNs to deal with offences. (Cycling on the footway is also one of the few offences for which you can be issued with a FPN by a Community Support Officer, not a Police Officer.)

However, largely thanks to the fact that there has been no legislation which makes it an offence to exceed any speed limit on a bicycle, nor has there been any precedent set by the prosecution of any person in court for this (non-existent) offence, then the answer to the question at the top of the thread is

NO. Cyclists do NOT have to stick to speed limits.

This is one area in which a cyclist enjoys more legal freedom than the drivers of motor vehicles, and until the Government has solved every problem of higher priority that this country faces, and finds that it has time to waste, fiddling with the law regarding the subject, I will continue to exercise my right to travel as fast as I possibly can whilst cycling. Until my speed is subject to sanction under the law, you'll get the same answer as a WVM did in Sibble Hedingham recently. Him - "Oi mate, you know you were speeding back there?" Me - "Not possible mate. Not possible" tongue out

daz3210

5,000 posts

239 months

Friday 5th October 2012
quotequote all
Red 4 said:
The local cycle club ? Oh well, they must be right then.rolleyes
No, I was just making the point that even folks who you would expect to know can get it wrong.


yellowjack

17,065 posts

165 months

Friday 5th October 2012
quotequote all
Aretnap said:
Potentially yes, someone riding a bike stupidly fast could be done for careless/dangerous cycling, or if they injured someone, under the ancient offence of wanton or furious driving. But the prosecution would have to show that the speed made the riding careless/dangerous/furious, not just that it was over the limit.
You should note that this little used law dates from 1861, and is called the "Offences Against the Person Act". The clue is in the name, as you would have to be involved in a collision, or in some other way "do or cause to be done any bodily harm to any person". This offence also applies as much to the driver of a motor vehicle, although the charge of dangerous driving, an offence created by section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (as substituted by section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1991), would be the more likely one used in any prosecution. The charge of "Wanton or Furious Driving" cannot therefore be used against a cyclist who simply cycles at what is adjudged to have been an excessive speed.

Furthermore, the 1988 Act states "A person who drives a mechanically propelled vehicle dangerously on a road or other public place is guilty of an offence." Here the emphasis is on Mechanically Propelled Vehicle, meaning that it does not apply to cyclists. This is why there is a gap in legislation with regard to cyclists. You cannot be charged with 'dangerous driving', and unless you cause injury to another person, you cannot be charged with 'wanton or furious driving'. This is the reason that few bad cyclists actually face criminal charges. There is too much of a subjective nature to the offences, and the likelihood of successful conviction is low. For this reason, even if a Police Officer decides to 'have a word', that's often as far as it goes. Strongly worded advice. It is obviously a different story where there is a specific offence, such as failing to obey a traffic signal, of riding on the footway, and the offence can be dealt with by means of a FPN.


heebeegeetee

28,596 posts

247 months

Friday 5th October 2012
quotequote all
yellowjack said:
I will continue to exercise my right to travel as fast as I possibly can whilst cycling.
Quite right too. Speed matters. smile

yellowjack

17,065 posts

165 months

Friday 5th October 2012
quotequote all
heebeegeetee said:
yellowjack said:
I will continue to exercise my right to travel as fast as I possibly can whilst cycling.
Quite right too. Speed matters. smile
Trouble is, at the moment I'm only fast on the easy bits - I've done way too little riding of any sort recently wink

Aretnap

1,643 posts

150 months

Friday 5th October 2012
quotequote all
yellowjack said:
Aretnap said:
Potentially yes, someone riding a bike stupidly fast could be done for careless/dangerous cycling, or if they injured someone, under the ancient offence of wanton or furious driving. But the prosecution would have to show that the speed made the riding careless/dangerous/furious, not just that it was over the limit.
You should note that this little used law dates from 1861, and is called the "Offences Against the Person Act". The clue is in the name, as you would have to be involved in a collision, or in some other way "do or cause to be done any bodily harm to any person". This offence also applies as much to the driver of a motor vehicle, although the charge of dangerous driving, an offence created by section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (as substituted by section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1991), would be the more likely one used in any prosecution. The charge of "Wanton or Furious Driving" cannot therefore be used against a cyclist who simply cycles at what is adjudged to have been an excessive speed.
I know. That's why I said "if they injured someone".

yellowjack said:
Furthermore, the 1988 Act states "A person who drives a mechanically propelled vehicle dangerously on a road or other public place is guilty of an offence." Here the emphasis is on Mechanically Propelled Vehicle, meaning that it does not apply to cyclists.
Yes, but it also says elsewhere "a person who rides a cycle on a road dangerously is guilty of an offence" and "if a person rides a cycle on a road without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, he is guilty of an offence". So the offences of careless and dangerous cycling seem to be essentially the same as careless or dangerous driving - it's just the penalties which are different.

SS2.

14,455 posts

237 months

Friday 5th October 2012
quotequote all
daz3210 said:
Corroboration in that there was no way to confirm the speed involved in either case.
As far as the cyclist is concerned, who cares ? Whatever speed they may (or may not) have been travelling at is completely irrelevant as they could not be prosecuted for an offence of excess speed..