Jeremy Vine busted for speeding
Discussion
LocoCoco said:
They don't test your knowledge of every law on your driving test. Many people guess correctly or get lucky with questions and pass their tests with gaps in their knowledge.
You can pass your driving test having never gone near a motorway, millions of people live too far away from one.
That poster's comparison works just fine.
Your right, even more reason why the test pass mark needs upping, and the other problems is a lot of drivers never ever look at the HC again once they pass.You can pass your driving test having never gone near a motorway, millions of people live too far away from one.
That poster's comparison works just fine.
Muppets, "Look at me, I passed so I must know,every thing there is to know"............................... Some time ago I was waiting at the lights to enter the box to drive over, muppet opposite was waiting waiting to turn right.
As the lights changed he started turning causing me to brake, I shouted as to what was he doing, didn't he know what a box junction was.
He was adamant he had the right of way.
When I politely enquired that as he was turning and he should have let me drive over, he said as he got on the box first, he had priority.
Oh well.
v12Legs said:
Bloody hell, if a police officer had pulled a driver over for breaking a nonexistent speed limit, this forum would be falling over themselves to criticise the police and exonerate the driver.
If a police officer had given a driver nothing more than a talking to for doing more than three times the speed limit in the vicinity of pedestrians I think even PH members would think he wasn't being hard enough. I doubt they were bothering about cyclists doing 7mph or 8mph but all cyclists were being asked to do was moderate their speed to something sensible for a shared path or use a different route. It's exactly the same thing motorists are asked to do around cyclists and many of the cyclists complaining about this on the Internet are very militant about 20mph limits and motorists being prevented from passing them too fast and too close. Someone driving through a 20mph zone at over 60mph would give them some outrageous YouTube footage and no one could argue 60mph through a residential area wasn't stupidly fast, even if they don't like 20mph limits. The technicalities of how legally enforceable the 5mph limit is isn't really relevant because it doesn't appear any fines were being issued, only requests for the faster cyclists to be more considerate of road users more vulnerable than themselves.This is a good example of the problems implicit in regulating dissimilar vehicles under one (broadly) the same set of rules.
You try to equate a motorised vehicle performing a punishment pass with Jeremy Vine cycling along a shared use path.
One of these is hugely dangerous for one party, one is very slightly dangerous for both parties.
You could be said to be correct in that both situations involve a faster party and a slower party, but if we compare the faster party in each we start to see some differences:
Jeremy Vine- lets say Jezza weighs 85kg, and his bike is another 10. Lets add a further 5 for bits and bobs. That's 100kg travelling at 16mph.
We'll ascribe 2,555 Joules of Kinetic energy to Mr Vine.
Punishment passing motorist- lets say that this driver is the same weight as Jeremy, and their car weighs 1,800kg, so we'll round that to 1,900kg, travelling at 35mph.
We'll ascribe 232,676 Joules of Kinetic energy to Mr Driver.
Now, which of the two parties are going to cause the most damage to the party to whom they strike a glancing blow?
Hopefully you can see that making the sort of false equivalency which you have in your post is actually hugely dangerous, as it helps to justify the sort of dangerous behaviour you mention by seeking to excuse it.
You try to equate a motorised vehicle performing a punishment pass with Jeremy Vine cycling along a shared use path.
One of these is hugely dangerous for one party, one is very slightly dangerous for both parties.
You could be said to be correct in that both situations involve a faster party and a slower party, but if we compare the faster party in each we start to see some differences:
Jeremy Vine- lets say Jezza weighs 85kg, and his bike is another 10. Lets add a further 5 for bits and bobs. That's 100kg travelling at 16mph.
We'll ascribe 2,555 Joules of Kinetic energy to Mr Vine.
Punishment passing motorist- lets say that this driver is the same weight as Jeremy, and their car weighs 1,800kg, so we'll round that to 1,900kg, travelling at 35mph.
We'll ascribe 232,676 Joules of Kinetic energy to Mr Driver.
Now, which of the two parties are going to cause the most damage to the party to whom they strike a glancing blow?
Hopefully you can see that making the sort of false equivalency which you have in your post is actually hugely dangerous, as it helps to justify the sort of dangerous behaviour you mention by seeking to excuse it.
Blakewater said:
The technicalities of how legally enforceable the 5mph limit is isn't really relevant because it doesn't appear any fines were being issued, only requests for the faster cyclists to be more considerate of road users more vulnerable than themselves.
Exactly, and use their bells as well when approaching pedestrians.Then again, how many cyclists have bells/horns these days.
Blakewater said:
v12Legs said:
Bloody hell, if a police officer had pulled a driver over for breaking a nonexistent speed limit, this forum would be falling over themselves to criticise the police and exonerate the driver.
If a police officer had given a driver nothing more than a talking to for doing more than three times the speed limit in the vicinity of pedestrians I think even PH members would think he wasn't being hard enough. I doubt they were bothering about cyclists doing 7mph or 8mph but all cyclists were being asked to do was moderate their speed to something sensible for a shared path or use a different route. It's exactly the same thing motorists are asked to do around cyclists and many of the cyclists complaining about this on the Internet are very militant about 20mph limits and motorists being prevented from passing them too fast and too close. Someone driving through a 20mph zone at over 60mph would give them some outrageous YouTube footage and no one could argue 60mph through a residential area wasn't stupidly fast, even if they don't like 20mph limits. The technicalities of how legally enforceable the 5mph limit is isn't really relevant because it doesn't appear any fines were being issued, only requests for the faster cyclists to be more considerate of road users more vulnerable than themselves.v12Legs said:
What part of "The speed limit doesn't apply to cycles" are some people finding hard to understand?
Quoted from elsewhereelsewhere said:
Actually, I'm afraid, there is a speed limit for bicycles in the Royal Parks.
The principal regulations were laid in 1997. Amendments have been laid from time to time since, and in 2010 there were amendments which set new speed limits for veicles in each park, and a new definition of "vehicle" as a mechanically propelled vehicle designed primarily for road use.
Some people have read this on legislation.gov.uk and looked no further, but the site doesn't show legislation as amended, only as it was in its original form, so you have to read on to later amendments.
In fact, there was a furher amendment regulation in 2010, very shortly after the 2010 regs referred to by other commenters, which explicitly revoked specific bits of the regs only laid a few months earlier. They did not revoke the 2010 amendments on speed limits, but they did revoke the definitions including that of "vehicle"
That means you have to go back to the 1997 regulations, which don't contain their own definition of vehicle. That means you have to look under the rules of statutory construction first to a general legal definition, and failing that to a dictionary definition. I understand that the general legal definition however does not restrict to mechanically propelled and does include bicycles (and presumably horse drawn carriages) .
The principal regulations were laid in 1997. Amendments have been laid from time to time since, and in 2010 there were amendments which set new speed limits for veicles in each park, and a new definition of "vehicle" as a mechanically propelled vehicle designed primarily for road use.
Some people have read this on legislation.gov.uk and looked no further, but the site doesn't show legislation as amended, only as it was in its original form, so you have to read on to later amendments.
In fact, there was a furher amendment regulation in 2010, very shortly after the 2010 regs referred to by other commenters, which explicitly revoked specific bits of the regs only laid a few months earlier. They did not revoke the 2010 amendments on speed limits, but they did revoke the definitions including that of "vehicle"
That means you have to go back to the 1997 regulations, which don't contain their own definition of vehicle. That means you have to look under the rules of statutory construction first to a general legal definition, and failing that to a dictionary definition. I understand that the general legal definition however does not restrict to mechanically propelled and does include bicycles (and presumably horse drawn carriages) .
v12Legs said:
The park police confirmed that the limit doesn't apply. See my link a page or so back.
Ah yes,The Royal Parks said:
Among other things, he was told that “there is no legal speed limit for cyclists in the Royal Parks,” but cyclists were requested to adhere to the 5mph speed limit that applies to motorists on the path he was on, “even though [for bike riders] it is not a legal limit
WinstonWolf said:
v12Legs said:
The park police confirmed that the limit doesn't apply. See my link a page or so back.
Ah yes,The Royal Parks said:
Among other things, he was told that “there is no legal speed limit for cyclists in the Royal Parks,” but cyclists were requested to adhere to the 5mph speed limit that applies to motorists on the path he was on, “even though [for bike riders] it is not a legal limit
v12Legs said:
If you as a driver got a talking to from the police for not following an unknown, unsigned, stupidly slow speed limit that didn't apply to your vehicle anyway, what would you think about that? Would you perhaps think that the police would be better spending their time on more productive and useful exercises?
Well, who leaked it to the press? Not the police, me thinks Vine himself.They might have said "Excuse me sir, do you know you were cycling at 16 mph, would you mind slowing down as there are pedestrians around"
Seems more plausible to me, knowing what a t
t Vine is. I just loved the radio programme when a caller was making a point, and as usual Vine kept butting in, finally the caller said "Jeremy, if you shut up I will answer the question"v12Legs said:
This is hilarious. A group of people with the most, how shall I put it, "flexible" attitude with regards to breaking speed limits, but as soon as it's a cyclist, well then the police can't be strict enough!
Yet again: the limit was not only unsigned, but not applicable.
You must be new here.Yet again: the limit was not only unsigned, but not applicable.
Cyclists rank somewhere below benefit fraudsters and kiddy fiddlers on PH.
walm said:
v12Legs said:
This is hilarious. A group of people with the most, how shall I put it, "flexible" attitude with regards to breaking speed limits, but as soon as it's a cyclist, well then the police can't be strict enough!
Yet again: the limit was not only unsigned, but not applicable.
You must be new here.Yet again: the limit was not only unsigned, but not applicable.
Cyclists rank somewhere below benefit fraudsters and kiddy fiddlers on PH.
I'm off to kick a kitten.
Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff