Speeder 2x limit accuses police of hiding behind trees!
Discussion
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/london-cycli...
Is it so hard to gather enough evidence?
Evening Standard said:
Paul Harness, 40, lashed out for police for "hiding behind trees" after he appeared at court charged with speeding and cycling without due care and attention
I realise that the law allows for speeding cyclists to be prosecuted in the park, although there is some dissent to this view, but why don't police tackle cyclists OUTSIDE the park, for their reckless behaviour, such as jumping red lights, and riding on the pavement when it is dangerous to do so?Is it so hard to gather enough evidence?
Mill Wheel said:
I realise that the law allows for speeding cyclists to be prosecuted in the park, although there is some dissent to this view, but why don't police tackle cyclists OUTSIDE the park, for their reckless behaviour, such as jumping red lights, and riding on the pavement when it is dangerous to do so?
Is it so hard to gather enough evidence?
They do tackle it outside the park as well most of the time if they catch them jumping red lights etc.Is it so hard to gather enough evidence?
I have lived next to the park for most of my life.
The 20mph speed limit is dangerous and has put cyclists and cars into conflict with each other as
most cyclists average around 25mph and now slowly overtake the cars.
This has led to many angry confrontations on both sides and repeatedly spoils the tranquility of the park.
When the speed limit was 30mph there was rarely any interaction between cyclists and cars because
the cars travelled faster than most cyclists.
I have no idea why the speed limit was reduced as I have never heard of any RTA's in the park or pedestrians being knocked over when the limit was 30mph.
A friend of mine was stopped from flying a kite in the park with his young son by police officers who told him he may be scaring wild birds.I was chased on my bicycle across a piece of grass by a Police Land Rover who went on to accuse me of ruining the flora and fauna.
The 20mph speed limit is dangerous and has put cyclists and cars into conflict with each other as
most cyclists average around 25mph and now slowly overtake the cars.
This has led to many angry confrontations on both sides and repeatedly spoils the tranquility of the park.
When the speed limit was 30mph there was rarely any interaction between cyclists and cars because
the cars travelled faster than most cyclists.
I have no idea why the speed limit was reduced as I have never heard of any RTA's in the park or pedestrians being knocked over when the limit was 30mph.
A friend of mine was stopped from flying a kite in the park with his young son by police officers who told him he may be scaring wild birds.I was chased on my bicycle across a piece of grass by a Police Land Rover who went on to accuse me of ruining the flora and fauna.
Mill Wheel said:
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/london-cycli...
Is it so hard to gather enough evidence?
Who says the police don't do that? Maybe there is a case that says they should do a bit more of it but then again I wanted them to sort out the scammers who emptied £23,000 from a bank account but the police station isn't open on a weekend and hey...they don't do fraud.Evening Standard said:
Paul Harness, 40, lashed out for police for "hiding behind trees" after he appeared at court charged with speeding and cycling without due care and attention
I realise that the law allows for speeding cyclists to be prosecuted in the park, although there is some dissent to this view, but why don't police tackle cyclists OUTSIDE the park, for their reckless behaviour, such as jumping red lights, and riding on the pavement when it is dangerous to do so?Is it so hard to gather enough evidence?
The police do what they can but unfortunately they are not funded to catch everyone...even when you do provide them with the evidence to do so. Perhaps those who fund the police need to look at the real reason the crime rate is falling.
As for the rider, it maketh no difference where the police observe you from as they only police what you do and it seems the cyclist was clearly in the wrong. Maybe he should grow up.
wildoliver said:
38mph is going some on a bike on the flat, I can easily believe he will have been cycling without due care and attention.
I don't really see what his argument is, does he think cyclists are above the law?
I think you are reading without due care and attentionI don't really see what his argument is, does he think cyclists are above the law?
"he was clocked doing 38mph down Sawyers Hill "
wildoliver said:
38mph is going some on a bike on the flat, I can easily believe he will have been cycling without due care and attention.
I don't really see what his argument is, does he think cyclists are above the law?
It was down a hill...I don't really see what his argument is, does he think cyclists are above the law?
I struggle to see how they can be prosecuted, how can a cyclist be expected to know how fast they are going if they haven't got a speedo?
Will this mean the police trawling Strava records? if so I'd better delete mine as I think I clocked similar speeds (probably as I'm fat though! - gravity helps some times!)
I disagree while there is no requirement for cyclists to have speedos , any rider with any common sense knows roughly what speed they are doing, if they arent the should wise up a bit
I commute everyday on bike and hit 40-45 mph on a national limit hill on the way home, I have no speedo, but once you get around 40mph its pretty obvious the speed you are doing, plus I wouldnt do it in an area with a blanket limit of 20mph! As much as I love cycling, 20 mph limit seems fair to me.
Never really get why the park is such a mecca for cyclists, then again not many other options in London, im spoilt out in the countryside and dont even get me started when riders mention the "hill" in Richmond Park!
I commute everyday on bike and hit 40-45 mph on a national limit hill on the way home, I have no speedo, but once you get around 40mph its pretty obvious the speed you are doing, plus I wouldnt do it in an area with a blanket limit of 20mph! As much as I love cycling, 20 mph limit seems fair to me.
Never really get why the park is such a mecca for cyclists, then again not many other options in London, im spoilt out in the countryside and dont even get me started when riders mention the "hill" in Richmond Park!
tapereel said:
Who says the police don't do that? Maybe there is a case that says they should do a bit more of it but then again I wanted them to sort out the scammers who emptied £23,000 from a bank account but the police station isn't open on a weekend and hey...they don't do fraud.
The police do what they can but unfortunately they are not funded to catch everyone...even when you do provide them with the evidence to do so. Perhaps those who fund the police need to look at the real reason the crime rate is falling.
The police have to take public opinion into account. They regularly hold consultation settings with members of the public, but 'the public' in this case is the self-selecting set of paranoid loons who can be bothered to turn up to meetings with the police. The police do what they can but unfortunately they are not funded to catch everyone...even when you do provide them with the evidence to do so. Perhaps those who fund the police need to look at the real reason the crime rate is falling.
Typically these people are not representative of public opinion as a whole. Or even if they are, the 'public' almost certainly lacks insight into what the real law + order problems are in society, and may cite 'dangerous bicyclists', because they are highly visible, even if they are not in fact particularly dangerous or harmful.
thelawnet1 said:
Typically these people are not representative of public opinion as a whole. Or even if they are, the 'public' almost certainly lacks insight into what the real law + order problems are in society, and may cite 'dangerous bicyclists', because they are highly visible, even if they are not in fact particularly dangerous or harmful.
That probably includes a large section of this site given how many anti-cycle topics appear, often containing YouTube examples. La Liga said:
hat probably includes a large section of this site given how many anti-cycle topics appear, often containing YouTube examples.
Here's the thing... I cycle to and from work along a busy main road with a cycle path along side.I can see both sides of the arguments as I also drive a car when travelling long distances, or carrying more than I can fit in my rucksack - and I find the behaviour of some cyclists, and some car drivers even in Cumbria, appalling - and when I look at the videos on YouTube there seems no end of offending from both groups which looks largely unaddressed elsewhere too, which is why I was heartened by this prosecution and fine.
Where poor cycling behaviour IS addressed, then it needs the sort of publicity that has been given to this clown, to ensure that HIS and others prosecutions deter others.
Here in Cumbria we are facing yet more cuts in police spending, and I am certain that eventually we will lose our local police station, because somebody has made the case that we are a sparsely populated county with a decreasing amount of crime - yet we recently had our first home invasion, and several jewellers and the like have had their phone lines cut - presumably to trigger the alarms and test the response time... (well at night, I could probably respond quicker on my bike - and that is not the fault of the police) and naturally, bicycles without lights or failing to obey other laws is now low on the list of priorities. That is WRONG - the law applies to all road users - including pedestrians, and nobody should be exempt from prosecution.
It appears to me that the end result of the cuts is going to be a criminal free for all, where people are going to have to protect themselves - and those with homes, cars, and businesses are going to end up paying more.
Cyclists with a few exceptions, with no registration plates, no insurances (and no common sense in some cases) will continue to travel on the cheap with more and more concessions given, and drivers will naturally feel annoyed at this state of affairs.
TwistingMyMelon said:
Never really get why the park is such a mecca for cyclists, then again not many other options in London, im spoilt out in the countryside and dont even get me started when riders mention the "hill" in Richmond Park!
How steep is this hill? 
I think the reason they like to dress up in lycra and congregate in the park is explained here:
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/th...
La Liga said:
thelawnet1 said:
Typically these people are not representative of public opinion as a whole. Or even if they are, the 'public' almost certainly lacks insight into what the real law + order problems are in society, and may cite 'dangerous bicyclists', because they are highly visible, even if they are not in fact particularly dangerous or harmful.
That probably includes a large section of this site given how many anti-cycle topics appear, often containing YouTube examples. His speed isn't dangerous until you throw in the what if scenario which the authorities like to do, so what if this guy doing 38mph weighing 17 stone hit a child skipping through the park, that child could end very badly injured
107kgs travelling at 38mph will hurt.Personally I don't mind he was speeding nor do I think it particularly dangerous the same as a car travelling over the speed limit in the right conditions isn't dangerous (if the car had been doing 38mph & a child had run out the car would've stopped quicker) but people will always have a go.
Most people on here aren't anti bike but what they are is frustrated at cycle lobbies who portray cyclists as victims all the time.
Mill Wheel said:
Cyclists with a few exceptions, with no registration plates, no insurances (and no common sense in some cases) will continue to travel on the cheap with more and more concessions given, and drivers will naturally feel annoyed at this state of affairs.
Travel on the cheap?What an odd comment.
No more so than someone walking, surely?
ZX10R NIN said:
It's simple you speed in any other form of transport & get caught you'll get a fine & points this guy just got a fine so he should be a bit relived.
Not 'any other form of transport', only motor vehicles.ZX10R NIN said:
if the car had been doing 38mph & a child had run out the car would've stopped quicker
If a child runs out in front of a bike, the bike can typically swerve around it. thelawnet1 said:
If a child runs out in front of a bike, the bike can typically swerve around it.
The same could be said for a motorbike, does it mean they shouldn't be ticketed if caught speeding if they were doing the same 38mph in the park?Edited by ZX10R NIN on Monday 2nd November 18:01
ZX10R NIN said:
The same could be said for a motorbike, does it mean they shouldn't be ticketed if caught speeding?
That's a strawman - you said that a car has a better stopping distance than a bicycle. That's a rather specific point that doesn't have anything to do with speeding tickets.In general, there are NO speeding fines for bicycles, the exception is the Royal Parks under byelaws, and possibly Bournemouth seafront.
If you want to compare motorcycles and bicycles for speeding, that's a broader comparison not solely predicated on children running out in front of bicycles.
Bicycles are generally presumed by law to be 'slow'. While it is possible for bicycles to exceed the speed limit (which generally does not apply to them), most bicycles, most of the time, are not even capable of it.
If by some miracle of physics, bicycles became capable of routinely reaching speeds regarded as unsafe, a public policy issue might arrive. However that's not the case at the moment, as most of them do about 10mph.
Motorbikes OTOH, reach speeds of 100mph+ every day.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff