Jeremy Vine busted for speeding

[Kell]

yellowjack said:

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.

Edited by yellowjack on Thursday 20th November 23:03

I take your point about the blue signs being advisory, I figured as much anyway by the use of the word please. But then there's also a sign saying pedestrian crossing. Not cycle crossing or pedestrian and cycle crossing like you do get elsewhere.

Cyclists are not meant to use any other pedestrian crossing without dismounting so I fail to see how that one would be any different. It causes problems as most cyclist believe they have right of way, so many come across at speed which means they end up crossing a footpath, a cycle lane, a two-way road, another cycle lane and then end up pedalling along the footpath part of the shared path to get across.

It's actually quite a dangerous spot and probably the one part of the route around the park that I hate the most - and I normally do a few laps of the park before getting to work in the mornings.

[WinstonWolf]

SteveSteveson said:

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.

Unfortunately the 5MPH limit isn't signed, so how do you know you're not complying?

[yellowjack]

Kell said:

...Cyclists are not meant to use any other pedestrian crossing without dismounting so I fail to see how that one would be any different. It causes problems as most cyclist believe they have right of way, so many come across at speed which means they end up crossing a footpath, a cycle lane, a two-way road, another cycle lane and then end up pedalling along the footpath part of the shared path to get across.

It's actually quite a dangerous spot and probably the one part of the route around the park that I hate the most - and I normally do a few laps of the park before getting to work in the mornings.

Following your further description, I'm with you on this. I too worry about cyclists who ride at speed onto pedestrian crossings. I'm not at all bothered about crossings with light control, but Zebras? Cyclists approach so much faster than pedestrians, and it's not reasonable for such cyclists to expect the same reaction time from drivers as pedestrians get. On such crossings, I fully agree - cyclists should dismount. There used to be a Zebra crossing here... https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.3156578,-0.74423... ...and in fact the image still shows it, but if you click forward toward the crossing, it miraculously morphs into a light controlled crossing. I think that had a fair bit to do with cyclists barreling onto the crossing from the left and often causing chaos back onto the roundabout due to their causing drivers to brake hard to avoid them. (The change also had quite a bit to do with drivers failing to stop at all for pedestrians already crossing, and I do think it genuinely improved safety for most users).

[Dammit]

Bikes should give way to peds and cars should give way to both.

[TwistingMyMelon]

Blimey if you ride down a path that says 5mph for bikes, just stick to it Simples, you can argue about safety/non enforcement/speedo etc.....

Its not fking rocket science, I wouldn't bother riding down there at all

Its all about give and take and respecting rules and other path users

I often walk my dogs down shared paths and cyclists swerveing round me @ 15 mph is too fast.

[scubadude]

What a storm in a teacup!

Firstly its a park, therefore all the guff about laws and the road don't apply, they can set and apply their own rules as its essentially private property.

Secondly there are no signs and you cannot assume everyone has read the bylaws, despite them applying. So either put up signs or live with the speeding, the parks police are pretty stupid to tell someone off for something he didn't know he couldn't do!

Lastly, when the F did 16mph become a speed that was considered "fast" this place really is becoming Mumsnet!
I would say 15mph is about the average speed on the flat of a total novice cyclist not even trying, as a regular cycle commuter Mr Vine was not exactly "pushing on" at 16mph (in the video clip numerous cyclists pass behind the Policeman at well over 5mph too!) I imagine he easily exceeds 20mph at other times on his commute and I suspect he has previously exceeded 16mph in the park too, I know I have! :-)

FWIW, My kid just got his first balance bike and already I have to jog to keep up with him, so must be 5-6mph, better not take him to a royal park, he'll be the first 2yr old with a criminal record.


Talk about 1st World troubles- people cycling too quickly. What next- breathing too loudly, fines for reading the person next to you's paper on the tube?

[Antony Moxey]

TwistingMyMelon said:

Blimey if you ride down a path that says 5mph for bikes, just stick to it Simples, you can argue about safety/non enforcement/speedo etc.....

'Just stick to it'? How? Seriously, how?

[TwistingMyMelon]

Coast along at a fast walking pace piece of piss

[walm]

Antony Moxey said:

TwistingMyMelon said:

Blimey if you ride down a path that says 5mph for bikes, just stick to it Simples, you can argue about safety/non enforcement/speedo etc.....

'Just stick to it'? How? Seriously, how?

More to the point - you avoid some horrendous roads and junctions using that path.
And it really isn't that hard to avoid peds - who are pretty sparse there during busy commute times.

While maiming by bicycle isn't pretty I am sure, being crushed by a tourist bus is probably worse.

[Antony Moxey]

TwistingMyMelon said:

Coast along at a fast walking pace piece of piss

But how do you know you're doing 5mph or less? If you're going to say 'stick to 5mph' then you need to know what 5mph is - a 'fast walking pace' is vague at best. Plus, when you're on a bike, how on earth are you supposed to know what a 'fast walking pace' is if no-one's around who's walking fast for you to guage.

You didn't really think it through properly, did you?

[WinstonWolf]

Antony Moxey said:

TwistingMyMelon said:

Coast along at a fast walking pace piece of piss

But how do you know you're doing 5mph or less? If you're going to say 'stick to 5mph' then you need to know what 5mph is - a 'fast walking pace' is vague at best. Plus, when you're on a bike, how on earth are you supposed to know what a 'fast walking pace' is if no-one's around who's walking fast for you to guage.

You didn't really think it through properly, did you?

And how do you know the limit is 5MPH when it isn't posted?

[TwistingMyMelon]

Antony Moxey said:

TwistingMyMelon said:

Coast along at a fast walking pace piece of piss

But how do you know you're doing 5mph or less? If you're going to say 'stick to 5mph' then you need to know what 5mph is - a 'fast walking pace' is vague at best. Plus, when you're on a bike, how on earth are you supposed to know what a 'fast walking pace' is if no-one's around who's walking fast for you to guage.

You didn't really think it through properly, did you?

OK I admit defeat , I presumed people could gauge 5mph, obviously not

[Dammit]

It's a fast walking pace, as you previously said - not hard to gauge.

And it's a distraction, as I said - this story should be about the police, not the cyclist, even if he's a radio presenter.

[Soop Dogg]

yellowjack said:

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.

Exactly - these are all points I was trying to say would be impossible to enforce. (Only you made a more comprehensive job of it)

[Antony Moxey]

TwistingMyMelon said:

Antony Moxey said:

TwistingMyMelon said:

Coast along at a fast walking pace piece of piss

But how do you know you're doing 5mph or less? If you're going to say 'stick to 5mph' then you need to know what 5mph is - a 'fast walking pace' is vague at best. Plus, when you're on a bike, how on earth are you supposed to know what a 'fast walking pace' is if no-one's around who's walking fast for you to guage.

You didn't really think it through properly, did you?

OK I admit defeat , I presumed people could gauge 5mph, obviously not

Against a speed gun? What if you were doing 6mph, or 7mph, or maybe even 10mph? I would guess most people on a bike couldn't tell what speed they were doing.

[Kell]

yellowjack said:

Following your further description, I'm with you on this. I too worry about cyclists who ride at speed onto pedestrian crossings. I'm not at all bothered about crossings with light control, but Zebras? Cyclists approach so much faster than pedestrians, and it's not reasonable for such cyclists to expect the same reaction time from drivers as pedestrians get. On such crossings, I fully agree - cyclists should dismount. There used to be a Zebra crossing here... https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.3156578,-0.74423... ...and in fact the image still shows it, but if you click forward toward the crossing, it miraculously morphs into a light controlled crossing. I think that had a fair bit to do with cyclists barreling onto the crossing from the left and often causing chaos back onto the roundabout due to their causing drivers to brake hard to avoid them. (The change also had quite a bit to do with drivers failing to stop at all for pedestrians already crossing, and I do think it genuinely improved safety for most users).

This is the crossing in question...

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5037893,-0.17416...

Essentially, what people do is come from Kensington Gardens on the right (as stated above, crossing a pavement and a cycle lane on that side), then go across the pedestrian crossing and are normally going too fast to make the left hand turn to stay on the left in the cycle lane (contraflow - ie back towards the camera) before then having to turn right and go on the path that Jeremy Vine got stopped on.

It's muddies the waters even more as they resurfaced the pavements a while back and the cycle lane is no longer clearly marked on either side of the crossing. So you often get pedestrians walking blindly across it or stopping in it. There used to be a give way sign in the cycle lane just before the crossing, so cyclists in the cycle lane knew pedestrians had priority, but since the resurfacing, that's gone too.

Incidentally, you can see from this (if you turn the camera to the left) that there are no speed limit signs on the entrance to the cycle path through Hyde Park (parallel to Rotten Row). So how anyone is supposed to know that there's any limit in place is beyond me.

Edited by Kell on Friday 21st November 13:31

[Kell]

It also begs the question, what are you supposed to do at this bit:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5056574,-0.17298...

So the Road through the centre of the park picks up a Cycle lane just before crossing the bridge. So you can cycle as fast as like on this bit, but as soon as the bike lane mounts the pavement, are you supposed to slam the brakes on and reduce your speed to 5mph?

Bet that would surprise the cyclist behind you.

[yellowjack]

Turning the camera to the left in your first link reveals the track used to exercise horses. Is this also covered by speed limits?

If so, King's Troop RHA, the Life Guards, and the Blues and Royals had all better watch out for those pesky radar guns...

[Mave]

Soop Dogg said:

The reason there isn't a speed limit for bikes is because there is no compulsion in law for bikes to have a speedometer fitted. If they really wanted to enforce a speed limit, bikes would have to have a speedo fitted at point of sale and it would have to conform to some sort of standard to ensure it was accurate to within a specified tolerance. Then they'd have to alter the law to ensure that bikes had to keep the speedo fitted after purchase. Then there's the question of retro-fitting with speedos, all the bikes already on the road.

To tell someone they were exceeding a speed limit on a bicycle (under the current laws) is ridiculous. They could just turn round and tell a police officer that they thought they were doing 'x' mph and say 'sorry - I did my best'. At the end of the day it's going to be a best guess by the cyclist and you can't reasonably demand any more than that.

I haven't got a bloodalcoholometer fitted to my car but apparently I'm not allowed to drive when over the blood alcohol level - so if I get pulled over after a few pints can I just tell the police officer that I thought I was under the limit, sorry - I did my best?

Edited by Mave on Friday 21st November 19:27

[Vipers]

H

Antony Moxey said:

Against a speed gun? What if you were doing 6mph, or 7mph, or maybe even 10mph? I would guess most people on a bike couldn't tell what speed they were doing.

Same as some motorists

But your right, the only reason I know how fast I am cycling is because I cycle most days, (have been for over 20 years), and have a Cat Eye cycle computer on my bike.