Do cyclists have to stick to speed limits?

[Aretnap]

Liquid Knight said:

The Road Traffic Act was renamed with the intention to include all Road Traffic. A cyclist using the road is traffic and therefore the Road Traffic Act should apply and soon I'm sure it will.

Speeding has nothing to do with the Road Traffic Act. It's an offence under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, a separate piece of legislation, which has this to say about it.

The law said:

A person who drives a motor vehicle on a road at a speed exceeding a limit imposed by or under any enactment to which this section applies shall be guilty of an offence.

That's why it's not an offence to exceed the speed limit on a bicycle. Nothing to do with the presence or absence of a speedometer.

[CDP]

Aretnap said:

Liquid Knight said:

The Road Traffic Act was renamed with the intention to include all Road Traffic. A cyclist using the road is traffic and therefore the Road Traffic Act should apply and soon I'm sure it will.

Speeding has nothing to do with the Road Traffic Act. It's an offence under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, a separate piece of legislation, which has this to say about it.

The law said:

A person who drives a motor vehicle on a road at a speed exceeding a limit imposed by or under any enactment to which this section applies shall be guilty of an offence.

That's why it's not an offence to exceed the speed limit on a bicycle. Nothing to do with the presence or absence of a speedometer.

So if we were to use a steam powered catapult to fire a soapbox down a road at more than 200mph it would be OK?

I think I've just invented a new sport.

[Cat]

CDP said:

If it didn't apply the police man would have had no reason to stop him.

What part of this is difficult to understand?

s.81 Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 said:

General speed limit for restricted roads.
(1)It shall not be lawful for a person to drive a motor vehicle on a restricted road at a speed exceeding 30 miles per hour.

Bikes are not motor vehicles, there is no similar legislation which refers to bikes, therefore bikes are not subject to speed limits.

It really isn't rocket science.

Cat

[SS2.]

CDP said:

If it didn't apply the police man would have had no reason to stop him.

If the officer claimed he stopped the cyclist for 'excess speed', then his reasoning had no basis in law.

[daz3210]

SS2. said:

If the officer claimed he stopped the cyclist for 'excess speed', then his reasoning had no basis in law.

But can an officer not stop anyone he wishes anyway?

[rs1952]

SS2. said:

CDP said:

If it didn't apply the police man would have had no reason to stop him.

If the officer claimed he stopped the cyclist for 'excess speed', then his reasoning had no basis in law.

It is not unknown for Plod to stop people for doing something that isn't against the law. There was a case mentioned on here some time ago when somebody was stopped and threatened with a FPN for doing 40 in a 40, until it was pointed out to Plod that the limit on that road was 40, not 30 as Plod had assumed

One can easaily imagine Plod's viewpoint in this scenario: "I've just stopped this van for speeding, so I'll also have a word with the tit on the bike who was keeping up with him in his slipstream"

[SS2.]

daz3210 said:

But can an officer not stop anyone he wishes anyway?

The claim was that the cyclist was stopped for (and warned about) excess speed.

That's no different to plod stopping a pedestrian in the street for walking whilst eating an apple, say.

I am reminded of Constable Savage..

[daz3210]

SS2. said:

The claim was that the cyclist was stopped for (and warned about) excess speed.

That's no different to plod stopping a pedestrian in the street for walking whilst eating an apple, say.

I am reminded of Constable Savage..

It is also no different to my being stopped several years ago in a similar manner, and the copper warning me that he believed me to be travelling too fast and suggesting I slow down a little in future. The only difference was that I was in a car and the officer, had he had corroboration, may have issued a valid ticket. But he hadn't and he didn't.

[Cat]

daz3210 said:

It is also no different to my being stopped several years ago in a similar manner, and the copper warning me that he believed me to be travelling too fast and suggesting I slow down a little in future. The only difference was that I was in a car and the officer, had he had corroboration, may have issued a valid ticket. But he hadn't and he didn't.

So, it was no different other than the fact it was different...genius

Cat

[SS2.]

daz3210 said:

It is also no different to my being stopped several years ago in a similar manner, and the copper warning me that he believed me to be travelling too fast and suggesting I slow down a little in future. The only difference was that I was in a car and the officer, had he had corroboration, may have issued a valid ticket. But he hadn't and he didn't.

Aside from the [fundamental] fact that in a car, you could have been breaking the speed limit, whereas on a pedal cycle, you could not.

Edited by SS2. on Friday 5th October 13:28

[heebeegeetee]

CDP said:

Car drivers are already covered by a raft of legislation, those you refer to are already breaking the law and if caught punished. Most of these laws also apply to cyclists and equestrians but never seem to be applied.

There's a small band of very aggressive cyclists who are a danger to themselves and more importantly others. To say their actions aren't worth bothering with is indeed very hypocritical.

Remember how many more miles cars cover than cycles, several orders of magnitude. I wonder what the odds of injuring somebody per mile is in a car compared with a bicycle?

Legislation doesn't help much when you're dead.

There might be a small band of aggressive cyclists, but you cam measure the numbers of aggressive drivers by the tens of millions.

[daz3210]

SS2. said:

Aside from the fact that in a car, you could have been breaking the speed limit, whereas on a pedal cycle, you could not.

But in either case there was no corroboration as such, so a ticket was not issuable in either event even if legislation was in place to allow it.

So a warning can be given, along the lines of 'slow down'

[paranoid airbag]

CDP said:

Car drivers are already covered by a raft of legislation, those you refer to are already breaking the law and if caught punished. Most of these laws also apply to cyclists and equestrians but never seem to be applied.

There's a small band of very aggressive cyclists who are a danger to themselves and more importantly others. To say their actions aren't worth bothering with is indeed very hypocritical.

Remember how many more miles cars cover than cycles, several orders of magnitude. I wonder what the odds of injuring somebody per mile is in a car compared with a bicycle?

Funny. Even putting aside speeding, I have seen dozens, probably hundreds, of motoring offences and never seen someone pulled for one.

If you're so very worried about the danger to others, what is your solution to the 383 pedestrian deaths last year and 107 cyclist deaths at the hands of drivers, compared to the 2 pedestrian deaths and 0 motorist deaths at the hand of cyclists? Black boxes? Mandatory fitting of auto-brakes? Ah of course not, that would interfere with your precious right to drive a car. So I don't believe for a second you're really concerned about safety.

CDP said:

There seems to be an attitude among the hardcore cycling community that laws should not apply to them, all motorists are evil and pedestrians have got it coming to them.

The most anti-motorist belief I've encountered is that motorists are quick to jump on a cyclist's failings as evidence against all cyclists whilst being completely blind to their own (how many people here are ok with speeding? I'm not saying speeding is always wrong btw, just that it is always illegal). Frankly, you're proving that belief right.

(I'd like to see casualty-per-mile stats too, but you'd have to control for area somehow - there's a fairly big cycling bias towards urban areas which have a high density of peds, and obviously none on ped-free motorways, which would skew the data)

[Pontoneer]

heebeegeetee said:

There is simply no point in even discussing what cyclists do, unless of course hypocrisy matters.

Some of us here ( yours truly included ) are cyclists as well as motorists .

I have had a speedometer on a previous bike , although not on my current one , and although I could use one of the GPS apps on my iPhone to see how fast I am going , I wouldn't dream of doing so .

I know from past experience , when I was younger and fitter than I am now , that you have to go some to do even 30 on a pedal cycle , and other than down moderately steep hills you will not pass 30 accidentally .

Like a couple of others who have commented , I take care ( probably more so than when I drive ) to observe all the rules of the road when cycling , precisely because of the risk of injury to myself .

[SS2.]

daz3210 said:

But in either case there was no corroboration as such..

For the cyclist, corroboration of what ? What 'offence' was he potentially committing which required corroborating ?

[Liquid Knight]

So how do you define a motor vehicle?

I would say any vehicle that converts calorific energy from fuel Petrol/Diesel into kinetic energy by means of internal combustion within an engine.

Now how would I define a cyclist?

A cyclist converts calorific energy from fuel food/drink to kinetic energy by means of internal combustion within a digestive system and muscle tissue.

So both both vehicles and cyclists convert calorific energy into kinetic energy by means of a form of internal combustion and both transmit that kinetic energy via gears to create momentum.

Therefore technically a cyclist is also a motor vehicle by simple definition.

[SS2.]

Liquid Knight said:

So how do you define a motor vehicle?

Nowhere near as tenuously as you have..

[Liquid Knight]

SS2. said:

Liquid Knight said:

So how do you define a motor vehicle?

Nowhere near as tenuously as you have..

Heraclitus of Ephesus said:

Any law that's written by the hand of man is open to interpretation.

He was referring to divine law as dictated by the Roman gods as opposed to those of the Emperor.

Edited by Liquid Knight on Friday 5th October 15:21

[Red 4]

Liquid Knight said:

So how do you define a motor vehicle?

A mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on roads.

Essentially it is open for a court to decide what is or is not a motor vehicle.

[SS2.]

Heraclitus of Ephesus said:

Any law that's written by the hand of man is open to interpretation.

Fortunately, the law in question requires very little by way of interpretation..