Jeremy Vine busted for speeding

[Dammit]

Is not an answer.

[Soop Dogg]

sidaorb said:

From the Royal Parks info sheet...

[i]Always observe the speed limit of
the track you are on - that may be as low as 5mph! Our
pathways are not suitable for fast travel; if you are in a
hurry, you may wish to use another route.[/i]

What is on the Royal Parks Info Sheet is not necessarily law. All they could realistically do is to ban you from the Royal Parks. And if done so on the grounds of speeding, I'd like to see what would happen if someone challenged such a decision in court.

Speed limits have to be correctly signed as per the Highway Code, i.e. by use of the correct Mandatory Road Signs.

But even then, unless a cyclists are compelled to have a speedometer fitted to their bike and for all the accompanying standards and legislation that would go along with that to have been put in place, there's no way to prosecute cyclists for 'speeding'.

[Seight_Returns]

The Road Traffic Act defines the offence of Exceeding The Speed Limit solely in the context of Motor Vehicles - so no, you can't be done for speeding on a bicycle on the basis of that legislation on the road.

However, the The Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces Regulations 1997 - amended by the Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces (Amendment) Regulations 2004 - states that speed limits in the parks apply to all vehicles (not just motor vehicles) - this isn't a dodgy council bye-law, it's UK Government Statutory Instrumemt with Royal Assent - there is precedent for that legislation being used to legitimately prosecute cyclists for speeding in Richmond and other Royal Parks.

Edited by Seight_Returns on Thursday 20th November 18:54

[TalksShite]

It's Jeremy Vine; let's lock the fker up for whatever we can.

[Dammit]

Seight_Returns said:

The Road Traffic Act defines the offence of Exceeding The Speed Limit solely in the context of Motor Vehicles - so no, you can't be done for speeding on a bicycle on the basis of that legislation on the road.

However, the The Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces Regulations 1997 - amended by the Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces (Amendment) Regulations 2004 - states that speed limits in the parks apply to all vehicles (not just motor vehicles) - this isn't a dodgy council bye-law, it's UK Government Statutory Instrumemt with Royal Assent - there is precedent for that legislation being used to legitimately prosecute cyclists for speeding in Richmond and other Royal Parks.

Edited by Seight_Returns on Thursday 20th November 18:54

Said amendment has never been tested, and there have been no (unless you know of one?) prosecutions based on it - fines have been issued with reference to it, but no one has ever taken it to court, as far as I know.

Plus, even if the amendment was legit, it applies to the roads.

[Dammit]

Detail here: http://road.cc/content/news/95155-are-police-finin...

[Seight_Returns]

I concede I can't find a reference to any subsequent prosecution.

Some reasonably well researched comment on the ambiguity arising from The Royal Parks and Open Spaces regulations and subsequent amendments here:

http://road.cc/content/news/95155-are-police-finin...

Edit - spookily xposted with same link

[Dammit]

Snap! I think it needs someone willing to take a speeding "offence" to court in order to find out.

Anyway (and as referenced in that article) the speed limits don't apply to paths, even IF they are valid for bicycles.

So the 5mph "limit" for the path is simply a number on a stick.

NOTE - I am in no way supporting riding in a dangerous fashion, and anyone scaring peds by riding like a douchebag should be made to eat their bicycle.

However, the coppers should not be using a fiction to castigate people with.

[P1ato]

I cycled down that path every day for 6 years. I never knew the speed limit was 5mph and never got stopped by police. The stretch from Albert down to Hyde Park Corner is downhill and you can get to 20mph pretty much free wheeling. It's mostly a segregated cycle lane apart from some pedestrian junctions which they turned into a shared path about 3 years ago. Generally the cyclists are sensible, and you have to be careful as there are loads of tourists in the summer that walk aimlessly along the cycle lane.

Richmond Park is another matter...the last 2 times I rode there I saw paramedics dealing with injured cyclists. It really should be single file only for cyclists, or perhaps let them have it on a Sunday morning and then ban group cycling for the rest of the weekend...

[Type R Tom]

Problem is that the parks are within their rights to ban cyclist full stop. It would be extremely political so a ticking off from a copper for possibly riding a little too fast to me is the best option.

[Blakewater]

It's no different to limiting motorists to 20mph in residential areas. It's about minimising the speed differential between cyclists and the pedestrians they're sharing the paths with to avoid collisions and minimise the risk of injury and death should they occur. London Cyclists are commenting on Twitter that forcing cyclists to ride at walking pace will force them onto the roads. If they want to cycle closer to the speed of motorised vehicles they should be on the road, if they want to mix it with pedestrians a speed nearer walking pace is called for. It's not a strictly enforced limit, just an instruction not to take the piss, and I believe he only got a talking to rather than a fine.

As cyclists are increasing in number and are cycling at speed to get to places rather than for leisure they're becoming more of an issue in cities. I find it alarming when a cyclist I didn't hear coming whizzes past me on a footpath and I have encountered serious collisions between cyclists and pedestrians. A friend of my grandma was killed by one when she was hit on a footpath. Many people are concerned about these problems and, even though cyclists are now saying all the same things motorists do about speed limits and speed traps, they have to be considerate.

Ideally we shouldn't really need strict rule of law, all it needs is for people to see things from the perspectives of others and look out for each other. The problem is people expect others to compromise themselves for them so they can do whatever they want regardless of its effects on others. People want laws against everything other people do but none against what they do.

[Dammit]

That's very sad news about the friend of your grandmother - and statistically vanishingly rare, as on average point zero three of a pedestrian per year is killed in an accident with a cyclist on a footway.

You've also been extremely unlucky to come across a number of serious collisions between cyclists and pedestrians - there are around 60 of those every year in the whole of the UK.

Indeed, you are far more likely, as a pedestrian on a path or pavement (including shared use) to be injured by a car than a bicycle, ironically.

Do you walk under a lot of ladders, across the path of black cats, and have a strong hatred of mirrors?

[SteveSteveson]

Given that I know of three in Oxford last year, one broken sholder, one broken arm and a death, and the police didn't even record the first two, I suspect the number of 60 a year may be down to lack of recording. In the first one there was witnesses and the police response was "its a cyclist. We will never catch him". He was cycling on the pavement and hit a friend of mine who was in pain for six months and still does not have full use of her arm.

Equally, the danger to cyclists is vastly overstated, but that dosn't stop the likes of road.cc constantly complaining about how dangerous the roads are. So let's not get in to arguments about statistics.

Whatever the argument for and against what is right, he was brakeing the speed limit, which is legal under the royal parks bylaws, and was not a little over, everyone knows the diffrence between 16mph and 5mph.

[Type R Tom]

Dammit said:

That's very sad news about the friend of your grandmother - and statistically vanishingly rare, as on average point zero three of a pedestrian per year is killed in an accident with a cyclist on a footway.

You've also been extremely unlucky to come across a number of serious collisions between cyclists and pedestrians - there are around 60 of those every year in the whole of the UK.

Indeed, you are far more likely, as a pedestrian on a path or pavement (including shared use) to be injured by a car than a bicycle, ironically.

Do you walk under a lot of ladders, across the path of black cats, and have a strong hatred of mirrors?

Not KSI's granted but I do come across a fair amount of slights collisions involving peds and cyclists

[Dammit]

I'd be interested in how you could back this assertion up: "Equally, the danger to cyclists is vastly overstated, but that dosn't stop the likes of road.cc constantly complaining about how dangerous the roads are. So let's not get in to arguments about statistics"

What is the danger level currently stated at, and in what way is it incorrect?

[yellowjack]

Kell said:

I can understand them stopping people to ask them to slow down or consider their actions, but a fine and a radar gun is fking ridiculous.

If they wanted to have a go at dangerous cyclists, the best place would be the bit where you cross from Kensington Gardens onto the path that Mr Vine was on. There's a speed hump and a pedestrian crossing which is clearly signposted with a big blue sign saying Cyclists Please Dismount, yet in 7 years of cycling the road it crosses most days, I could count on one hand the amount of cyclists I've seen pushing their bike across the crossing.

It makes you wonder if the Parks Police are checking the speed of runners/joggers too? Why? 5mph limit is why. Average walking speed is around 3mph. It doesn't take the brains of an archbishop to work out that even some of those daft 'power walkers' could well be "travelling in excess of the posted limit". The fact that a cyclist riding at the sedate pace of 5mph would be overtaken by some daft Doris wiggling along with weights in her hands makes the whole speed gun thing doubly ridiculous.

Also, the 'Blue Sign' issue? Non enforceable. Those blue 'cyclists dismount' signs are advisory, and have no legal authority. If you want to prohibit something, then the correct pictogram in a circular sign with a red border needs to be used. It's the same as how the pictogram of a bike on a blue circular sign permits cycling on what otherwise would be a footpath, but does not require a cyclist to get off the carriageway.

I can't remember which organisation(s) published it, but I recall advice from some safety group or other that cyclists who want to travel in excess of 12mph ought not to be using shared paths anyway. At high commuting or training speeds, cyclists are better served by riding on the carriageways of the road network. It's all nonsense in the end. Too many agencies and authorities with different, conflicting advice, and not enough 'joined up thinking' - it's one of the areas that really does need addressing by the Department for Transport at a central government level. It should be simple. Either a path on which cycling is permitted should be fit for purpose, or cycling shouldn't be permitted on it.


ETA: I thought this was interesting, prepared with legal advice, apparently... https://www.eta.co.uk/cycling-and-the-law/#LAWFAQ1...

Edited by yellowjack on Thursday 20th November 23:03

[yellowjack]

Soop Dogg said:

...but even then, unless a cyclists are compelled to have a speedometer fitted to their bike and for all the accompanying standards and legislation that would go along with that to have been put in place, there's no way to prosecute cyclists for 'speeding'.

Such a regulation as compelling the fitting of an approved and calibrated speed measuring device with associated data display would likely fall on it's arse.

You only have to look at areas like seat belts, external lighting, and emissions testing with regard to motor vehicles. MOT test standards for vehicles vary with the age of the vehicle. If a safety item, such as a fog light or seatbelt was not required by law to be fitted (Construction and use regulations) at the time the vehicle was built, the law seldom, if ever, requires retro-fitting of that item/device. Classic and veteran cars anyone? A Model T with inertia reel seatbelts, fog lights and electrically powered indicators? Not going to happen. Same with bicycles and pedal reflectors. Bikes built prior to Oct 1985 do not require pedal reflectors, even now. So if, on 1st January 2015, a law came into force requiring all new bicycles to be fitted with an approved speedometer, there would still be tens of millions of bicycles floating around without one for many, many years to come. Even the 'reduced to clear' bikes from the 2014 season (or earlier) could still be sold without one, as these regulations apply to new cycles built and provided by manufacturers and importers, not shops and purchasers/end users.

[Blakewater]

Dammit said:

I'd be interested in how you could back this assertion up: "Equally, the danger to cyclists is vastly overstated, but that dosn't stop the likes of road.cc constantly complaining about how dangerous the roads are. So let's not get in to arguments about statistics"

What is the danger level currently stated at, and in what way is it incorrect?

The point is simply that if a motorist has a collision he's traceable because his vehicle has a registration that can be picked up by cameras and recorded by witnesses. The police are also more likely to be involved, even where little harm has been done, as people are more likely to call them and they're more likely to respond. There's also then the issue of accident victims suing the motorists. When cyclists hit pedestrians they can cycle off and be untraceable or, when they do stop and see if the pedestrian is all right, there's little the pedestrian can do to obtain their identity to take further action against them. Therefore those incidents are less likely to be officially recorded and counted anywhere.

A friend of mine, on her driving test, had a cyclist crash through the back window of the car when he was coming downhill at speed with his head down against the rain. A dog walker near where I live found a cyclist dead behind a wall at the bottom of a path. He'd come down a hill and hit the wall, catapulting himself head first over it.

There's risk everywhere in life. Three people a year are killed in this country by vending machines falling on them. I'm not a fan of spurious laws and enforcement that seems to be about catching people out rather than directly targeting a problem and educating people. This kind of thing will just get people's backs up and seem like an Orwellian approach to controlling society. People just need to be educated to consider others and minimise risk as far as is practically possible. That means staying on the right side of the white line on a shared path with lane markings, and looking both ways before crossing the cycle lane, as well as cyclists travelling at an appropriate speed when amongst pedestrians.

[Dammit]

Gah.

I agree that the biggest issue faced by absolutely everyone when trying to get anywhere outside the home is selfishness, closely followed by laziness.

i.e. (no matter the mode of transport) people who will prioritise themselves over anyone else- travelling too fast for the conditions, jumping lights, crossing solid white lines etc etc, and people are far, far too lazy when travelling - staring at their phone whilst they are meant to be paying attention to what they are doing.

The basic behaviours are present in everyone - we are all human, no matter the mode of transport.

But, and it's a big but, the level of potential harm follows an exponential curve if we plot pedestrian/runner/cyclist/motorist.

That's why speed limits apply to the motorist, and vehicle and driver licensing are in place to help ensure that the most dangerous road-users are in a healthy vehicle and can be traced if needed.

The most recent study undertaken by TfL, based on the major junction outside Oval tube station showed (surprisingly to many) that despite having registration plates and licensed drivers who could be identified after the fact, more cars umped the traffic lights than were jumped by cyclists.

The biggest problem with this Jeremy Vine story, and the others like them, is that it brings out the "my friends sisters husband was killed stone dead by a cyclist who jumped a red light whilst on the pavement, with headphones on and no lights at 2am on a cloudy night AND WASN'T WEARING A HELMET" comments.

And the slightly baffling comments of SteveStevenson - I wasn't aware that there was a cyclist danger level that was stated, much less over (or under) stated.

I'm imaging something like the Domesday Clock, but maybe it's analogous to the DefCon number?

[Dammit]

Three cyclists, yesterday: