What is the law on cyclists speeding?

What is the law on cyclists speeding?

Author
Discussion

matchmaker

8,462 posts

199 months

Monday 15th September 2014
quotequote all
contractor said:
isn't there a charge "furious cycling" that you can be slapped with?
"Wanton and furious cycling" I think. I've seen someone prosecuted and convicted of whatever the Scottish equivalent is/was.

yellowjack

17,065 posts

165 months

Monday 15th September 2014
quotequote all
gazza285 said:
Nice rant Yellowjack!
Rant? That ain't a rant. It's not even the stroll to the track to begin the warm up for the rant. That, there, is me at my most generous and forgiving wink

thelawnet

1,539 posts

154 months

Tuesday 16th September 2014
quotequote all
NicD said:
the streams of fast cyclists are a pain when crossing the roads in Richmond Park, especially with dogs.

Its funny, boy racers on these roads would not be accepted but its ok for the lycra lot to pretend to be in a velodrome.
But you can't be a boy racer on those roads, because boy racers do 90mph in a car, not 30mph on 2 wheels.

CGJJ

857 posts

123 months

Tuesday 16th September 2014
quotequote all
I would ban dogs from Richm d Park.

They are a danger to cyclists and deer.

creampuff

6,511 posts

142 months

Tuesday 16th September 2014
quotequote all
rs1952 said:
To repeat an earlier post:

"Police let man go who wasn't breaking the law shocker!!"
Except that 45 in a 30 on a bicycle could, as has been pointed out, be considered furious cycling which is an offence.

WinstonWolf

72,857 posts

238 months

Tuesday 16th September 2014
quotequote all
creampuff said:
rs1952 said:
To repeat an earlier post:

"Police let man go who wasn't breaking the law shocker!!"
Except that 45 in a 30 on a bicycle could, as has been pointed out, be considered furious cycling which is an offence.
You're just jealous because we can legally speed (very occasionally) tongue out

HereBeMonsters

14,180 posts

181 months

Tuesday 16th September 2014
quotequote all
creampuff said:
Except that 45 in a 30 on a bicycle could, as has been pointed out, be considered furious cycling which is an offence.
I've done that before, and I wasn't furious. Not even a little bit angry.

WinstonWolf

72,857 posts

238 months

Tuesday 16th September 2014
quotequote all
HereBeMonsters said:
creampuff said:
Except that 45 in a 30 on a bicycle could, as has been pointed out, be considered furious cycling which is an offence.
I've done that before, and I wasn't furious. Not even a little bit angry.
I was bloody furious when some dozy bint in a Micra kept holding me up in a 20 irked

HereBeMonsters

14,180 posts

181 months

Tuesday 16th September 2014
quotequote all
WinstonWolf said:
HereBeMonsters said:
creampuff said:
Except that 45 in a 30 on a bicycle could, as has been pointed out, be considered furious cycling which is an offence.
I've done that before, and I wasn't furious. Not even a little bit angry.
I was bloody furious when some dozy bint in a Micra kept holding me up in a 20 irked
I was going down a very steep hill on the IoW, 30 limit. Ford Ka overtook when I was doing 35, so I slipstreamed it, and overtook it once the road was clear. I was beeped for my troubles, then shouted at as I slowed down as the road levelled off.

esuuv

1,306 posts

204 months

Tuesday 16th September 2014
quotequote all
CGJJ said:
I would ban dogs from Richm d Park.

They are a danger to cyclists and deer.
Can we start with cars? - then dogs..........

CGJJ

857 posts

123 months

Tuesday 16th September 2014
quotequote all
OK lets talk Richmond Park.

How to sort it out- i.e. make it a fun,recreational place for people to enjoy and stop this stupid problem of cars vs road bikes caused by the idiotic 20mph speed limit which puts the two into competition with each other.

Lets also sort out the pedestrians vs mountain bikers caused by the dirt perimeter path.

Firstly,next to the road there should be another tarmac perimeter road for cyclists separated by an 8ft strip of grass.The cyclists should not be allowed on the cars road but instead should use the new perimeter road which would be the width of a single lane,divided for clockwise and anti clock wise.

So,no more cars vs cyclists.


Next,the dirt perimeter path should be allocated to mountain bikers and a new dirt perimeter path separated by an 8ft strip of grass should be built for pedestrians.

So no more pedestrians vs mountain bikes.

Next-

The Queen should invite all the top cyclists in the world to compete for a weekend every year to see who can lap the park 3 times anti-clockwise the fastest.
This would bring in a lot of revenue.


Next-

The Queen should also invite all the top motorcyclists to compete for a weekend every year to see who can lap the park 3 times anti-clockwise the fastest.
This would also bring in a lot of revenue.


So,now we have a Richmond Park that is fun instead of a place full of Neo Nazi police who delight in nicking people for driving at 25mph and stopping cyclists to tell them to slow down.
The 20mph speed limit has caused the cyclists and the car drivers to be constantly in a rage with each other when there were never any RTA's with the old 30mph limit and no one ever got run over.


Edited by CGJJ on Tuesday 16th September 18:54

rs1952

5,247 posts

258 months

Tuesday 16th September 2014
quotequote all
WinstonWolf said:
creampuff said:
rs1952 said:
To repeat an earlier post:

"Police let man go who wasn't breaking the law shocker!!"
Except that 45 in a 30 on a bicycle could, as has been pointed out, be considered furious cycling which is an offence.
You're just jealous because we can legally speed (very occasionally) tongue out
It might be an idea to deal with this once and for all (except that this is PH and nothing ever gets sorted out once and for all, because in a few months time somebody will start a new thread about speeding cyclists smile )

Have a look at this: http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/files/file_pub...

There are all sorts of things that a cyclist can be done for, and there is a pretty comprehensive list on that link, with "wanton & furious cycling" being one of them. But as somebody has already pointed out, that particular piece of legislation is very rarely used, and almost invariably only when a KSI is involved.

You will notice a lot of things on that link, and one of the most important is that the majority of offences that cyclists can be nicked for are not of the strict liability variety, which means that Plod, rather than say "you've exceeded the number on the stick, therefore you're nicked," have more of a burden of proof put upon them. And then of course there's the CPS to convince as well that they'll get a "result" from it.

A bit like DWDCA when you think about it - that legislation is normally only used when something untoward happens. It is generally not used when the motorist in question is simply being a tit and causing no quantifiable harm to others (eg MLMs) Ditto a cyclist doing 45 in a 30 - unless he hits something wink

One interesting snippet on the link is that cyclists who run red lights are responsible for 4% of the KSIs caused by red light running. Car drivers are responsible for 71% wink

Walford

2,259 posts

165 months

Wednesday 17th September 2014
quotequote all
Drinking and cycling ?

gazza285

9,779 posts

207 months

Wednesday 17th September 2014
quotequote all
Walford said:
Drinking and cycling ?
Very difficult, apparently.

ohHello

313 posts

114 months

Wednesday 17th September 2014
quotequote all
Walford said:
Drinking and cycling ?
It's an offence to be unfit through drink or drugs, but unlike driving, there is no set limit which you are innocent if under, and guilty if over.

creampuff

6,511 posts

142 months

Wednesday 17th September 2014
quotequote all
ohHello said:
It's an offence to be unfit through drink or drugs, but unlike driving, there is no set limit which you are innocent if under, and guilty if over.
I'd say the time I rode my bicycle into a hedge would have made me "unfit through drink" even without a set alcohol limit wink

esuuv

1,306 posts

204 months

Wednesday 17th September 2014
quotequote all
CGJJ - thats some proper pent up aggression there !!

My solution is - make it one way for cars on the outside lane.............split the remaining half into 2 ways for cyclists - job jobbed!! This will stop a lot of the commuting through it which is a lot of the problem - no one needs to commute through it as you can't in the winter anyway.

WRT the off road path, i think it should be "rebranded" as an activity path, i run around it a lot and the only people i ever have a problem with are people with dogs on those stupid extension leads..........so let the runners / mountain bikers get on with it - and the families, dog walkers etc are free to use the other three trillion acres that are no good for the runners and the MTBers aren't allowed on!!


Mave

8,208 posts

214 months

Wednesday 17th September 2014
quotequote all
creampuff said:
ohHello said:
It's an offence to be unfit through drink or drugs, but unlike driving, there is no set limit which you are innocent if under, and guilty if over.
I'd say the time I rode my bicycle into a hedge would have made me "unfit through drink" even without a set alcohol limit wink
I remember cycling back from the pub along a narrow pathway; for some reason I decided to try cycling with my hands swapped over. I wasn't THAT drunk (honest!) but I still woke up in a hedge.... smile