# Speeding cyclist and Highway Code Rule 69



## helston90 (11 Sep 2017)

On a local Facebook group I made the point speed limits do not apply to cyclists (someone was moaning about cyclists going way over the speed limit). 

Someone else has come back pointing to rule 69 of the Highway Code 

Under 'Rules for cyclists'
*Rule 69*
You *MUST* obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals. 

Does this not include speed limits? Surely a 40mph sign is a traffic sign and cyclists can't go above it? 
Just trying to back up statements I make with evidence.


----------



## tyred (11 Sep 2017)

Unlike a car/van/etc, there is no legal requirement for a bike to have a speedometer so I don't see how it could be legally enforced.

The old "stop in the distance you can see to be clear" advice applies which is very good advice and sadly often ignored by many road users of all road going vehicles.


----------



## Alan O (11 Sep 2017)

Here's a lawyer's take on it...

https://www.slatergordon.co.uk/medi...imit-or-does-the-law-only-apply-to-motorists/

"In general, British cyclists share no legal obligation to adhere to the same speed limits as motorists."


----------



## GrumpyGregry (11 Sep 2017)

Speeding cyclist, in law in England and Wales, is a contradiction in terms. A fast cyclist might be cycling furiously though, depending on circumstances.


----------



## DaveReading (11 Sep 2017)

User said:


> The Highway Code gives advice - it is not the law.



Though the word "must" in the Highway Code indicates that disobeying the instruction is a criminal offence.


----------



## mcshroom (11 Sep 2017)

DaveReading said:


> Though the word "must" in the Highway Code indicates that disobeying the instruction is a criminal offence.



It means there is a law that the HC is referring to. In this case the law only applies to motor vehicles.


----------



## midliferider (11 Sep 2017)

I would love to get a speeding ticket while cycling.
Last weekend, I was cycling along a rural village road and there were mobile unit holding camera. I cycled furiously fast but couldn't exceed the 30 limit. The policeman smiled and said not good enough!


----------



## Drago (11 Sep 2017)

The Highway Code is a code of practice, not a legal reference. Should and must is all well and good, the the remit of the code is far, far too brief to be taken as a legal guide.

If you're not in/on a motor vehicle, the speed limit can not be enforced with respect to you.


----------



## Tim Hall (11 Sep 2017)

tyred said:


> Unlike a car/van/etc, there is no legal requirement for a bike to have a speedometer so I don't see how it could be legally enforced.
> .


There's no breathlyser in my car, but I can still be done for having excess alcohol in my bloodstream. Or in other words, it's not the lack of a speedo that makes the law not applicable to cyckusts.


----------



## Beebo (11 Sep 2017)

Royal parks police can enforce speed limits in the parks. I have seen them in Greenwich Park with a speed gun.


----------



## Drago (11 Sep 2017)

Indeed, mopeds and motorcycles under 100cc built before a certain year are not required to have speedos, but will still fall down the stairs in the back of the coppers panda car if they break a speed limit.

Edit - don't the parks police have some particular legislation for their sites?


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (11 Sep 2017)

Drago said:


> Edit - don't the parks police have some particular legislation for their sites?


Yes


----------



## DaveReading (11 Sep 2017)

mcshroom said:


> It means there is a law that the HC is referring to. In this case the law only applies to motor vehicles.



Yes, and equally the instruction in the Highway Code Section 69 doesn't cover speed limit signs, so there's no inconsistency between the HC and the law.


----------



## Tim Hall (11 Sep 2017)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> Yes


I'm not up to date with the carious by laws / statutory instruments, but my last reading of the Royal Parks regulations had the speed limits applying to "mechanically propelled vehicles" again (thus not including bikes) after a time when they did apply to bikes as well.


----------



## growingvegetables (11 Sep 2017)

Tim Hall said:


> There's no breathlyser in my car, but I can still be done for having excess alcohol in my bloodstream...


... but not if you're riding a bike .


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (11 Sep 2017)

Tim Hall said:


> I'm not up to date with the carious by laws / statutory instruments, but my last reading of the Royal Parks regulations had the speed limits applying to "mechanically propelled vehicles" again (thus not including bikes) after a time when they did apply to bikes as well.


There's a Jeremy Vine story in there somewhere if I recall, I'm not bored enough to google it


----------



## ianrauk (11 Sep 2017)

I was stopped by a copper with a speed gun for doing 40mph in a 30mph zone, a nice downhill. It was all friendly. He asked if I was aware I was breaking the speed limit. I said that I was and that speed limit's don't apply to cyclists. He said of course I was quite correct and stopped me just to ask me to take it a bit easy as there had been a few incidents on that stretch of road.


----------



## ianrauk (11 Sep 2017)

Beebo said:


> Royal parks police can enforce speed limits in the parks. I have seen them in Greenwich Park with a speed gun.




I have also seen it in Richmond Park. They were stopping cyclists for speeding.


----------



## machew (11 Sep 2017)

growingvegetables said:


> ... but not if you're riding a bike .


Only if you are pushing it. 
http://road.cc/content/news/228582-...bike-was-locked-police-under-19th-century-law


----------



## glasgowcyclist (11 Sep 2017)

machew said:


> Only if you are pushing it.
> http://road.cc/content/news/228582-...bike-was-locked-police-under-19th-century-law



Ah, but that guy was done for being drunk in charge of a bike rather than over any limit since there is no prescribed limit for a cyclist.


----------



## Profpointy (11 Sep 2017)

growingvegetables said:


> ... but not if you're riding a bike .



But you still be rightly convicted of "drunk i charge of a carriage" and indeed twok'ing said carriage as an oafish acquantance can testify. He was proper drunk, not merely over the car driving limit so this doesn't strictly contradict your point


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (11 Sep 2017)

ianrauk said:


> I have also seen it in Richmond Park. They were stopping cyclists for speeding.


Yet no offence has taken place


----------



## ianrauk (11 Sep 2017)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> Yet no offence has taken place




It's a Royal Park which does have cycle speed limits.


----------



## HLaB (11 Sep 2017)

The Forth Road Bridge has a 20mph bylaw too but thats partly because the barriers are too low. This is the only pic I could find to give you sense, high enough at a reasonable speed but too fast  Its only a 48m fall


----------



## growingvegetables (11 Sep 2017)

Profpointy said:


> But you still be rightly convicted of "drunk i charge of a carriage" ... as an oafish acquantance can testify.


Absolutely . But it all depends on an officer's judgement as to whether one was cycling in a dangerous, careless or inconsiderate way.

Just pray you get the local force joker, who sends you off on your way - cos he's going to enjoy watching your antics. 

And NOT the British Transport Police, who drive their vans like WVM, and appear to think bikes ride rigid-rail-straight, like trains. DAMHIKT.


----------



## Profpointy (11 Sep 2017)

growingvegetables said:


> Absolutely . But it all depends on an officer's judgement as to whether one was cycling in a dangerous, careless or inconsiderate way.
> 
> Just pray you get the local force joker, who sends you off on your way - cos he's going to enjoy watching your antics.
> 
> And NOT the British Transport Police, who drive their vans like WVM, and appear to think bikes ride rigid-rail-straight, like trains. DAMHIKT.



I think the officer's judgement was entirely sound in the case in point. He'd also twok'd the bike. He got off the more serious charge of theft as the policeman asked "is this your bike sir" and he replied "no, I was just having a go". He was a prize oaf it must be said


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (11 Sep 2017)

ianrauk said:


> It's a Royal Park which does have cycle speed limits.


----------



## Alan O (11 Sep 2017)

There's something on cycling speed and the law regarding Royal Parks here...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2014/jul/25/can-cyclists-be-fined-for-speeding
(From 2014, though, so might be out of date)


----------



## Shut Up Legs (11 Sep 2017)

I'd love to have a chat with these cyclists who somehow manage to go way over the speed limit. Whatever 'supplements' they're taking must be really good!


----------



## Tim Hall (11 Sep 2017)

Shut Up Legs said:


> I'd love to have a chat with these cyclists who somehow manage to go way over the speed limit. Whatever 'supplements' they're taking must be really good!


I use Vitamin G, at a rate of 9.8m/s/s.


----------



## StuAff (11 Sep 2017)

Shut Up Legs said:


> I'd love to have a chat with these cyclists who somehow manage to go way over the speed limit. Whatever 'supplements' they're taking must be really good!


In my case, the supplements are called 'gravity' and 'gradient'......


----------



## DaveReading (11 Sep 2017)

User said:


> DaveReading said:
> 
> 
> > Though the word "must" in the Highway Code indicates that disobeying the instruction is a criminal offence.
> ...



You might want to take that up with the editors of the HC, from which I was quoting directly:


> Many of the rules in The Highway Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence.


----------



## Tim Hall (11 Sep 2017)

ianrauk said:


> It's a Royal Park which does have cycle speed limits.


Not according to Cycling in the Royal Parks Policy Statement 2016


> Speed limits do not apply to cyclists within the parks but it is recommended that cyclists keep to appropriate speeds for the environment


.

Linky: https://www.royalparks.org.uk/__dat...812_CPB_cycle-policy-TRP-2016-approved_es.pdf


----------



## lazyfatgit (11 Sep 2017)

HLaB said:


> The Forth Road Bridge has a 20mph bylaw too but thats partly because the barriers are too low. This is the only pic I could find to give you sense, high enough at a reasonable speed but too fast  Its only a 48m fall



Didn't know that - I've been across there quicker than that (on the downhill bits. lol) The barrier is not much higher than my saddle - you can see in my avatar.


----------



## mjr (11 Sep 2017)

Beebo said:


> Royal parks police can enforce speed limits in the parks. I have seen them in Greenwich Park with a speed gun.


Not recently. Unless it was a different sort of speed gun, which would entirely fit in with my view of the parks police.



HLaB said:


> The Forth Road Bridge has a 20mph bylaw too but thats partly because the barriers are too low.


A bylaw set by someone who thinks cyclists wobble less if they go slower


----------



## johnnyb47 (11 Sep 2017)

Where does the law stand on time trial events held on the public highway. The local club by me holds them every Friday on a road that's still used by traffic and at one point the tt riders will easily exceed the 30mph through the village. There's never been any problems or concerns about it with the public but it could certainly be classed as furious riding.


----------



## mjr (11 Sep 2017)

johnnyb47 said:


> Where does the law stand on time trial events held on the public highway.


Off to one side unless it likes being hit by cyclists?

More seriously, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1960/250/contents/made - there are various amendments but I don't think any have changed the time trials parts.


----------



## growingvegetables (11 Sep 2017)

StuAff said:


> In my case, the supplements are called 'gravity' and 'gradient'......


... add a following wind, and I could break the 40mph limits on York Road, dropping down towards Leeds city centre. With a helpful digital display by the roadside, to confirm!


----------



## KnackeredBike (11 Sep 2017)

One of the perks of cycling is being the only road users allowed to overtake a police car at speed without consequences*.

* To date.


----------



## classic33 (11 Sep 2017)

growingvegetables said:


> ... add a following wind, and I could break the 40mph limits on York Road, dropping down towards Leeds city centre. With a helpful digital display by the roadside, to confirm!


You must have done it, traffic permitting


----------



## classic33 (11 Sep 2017)

KnackeredBike said:


> One of the perks of cycling is being the only road users allowed to overtake a police car at speed without consequences*.
> 
> * To date.


Oddly one of the few I'd not overtake, along with the other Emergency service vehicles.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 Sep 2017)

Tim Hall said:


> I use Vitamin G, at a rate of 9.8m/s/s.


Marketed as Ditchling Road, or somesuch, I believe.


----------



## DaveReading (12 Sep 2017)

User said:


> That's disobeying the legal requirements which the Highway Code refers to - not the Code itself. It has no legal force.



I don't recall claiming that it had The preamble to the HC from which I quoted makes that perfectly clear.


----------



## Tail End Charlie (12 Sep 2017)

I think if you're trying to counter the point that "cyclists go way over the speed limit" with the argument that "limits don't apply to cyclists", then you've lost the argument. It's like countering "cyclists don't pay road tax" with "there's no such thing as road tax". It might be accurate, but it saddens me whenever I see it as there are so many better counters.


----------



## DaveReading (12 Sep 2017)

Dogtrousers said:


> I'm getting confused. What exactly are you trying to say?



Simply that

a) the Highway Code makes it perfectly clear which bits have the backing of law (the must/mustn't items) and which don't (the should/shouldn'ts)

and

b) it makes it not quite so clear (because you have to look up the legislation that the HC cites) that speed limits aren't applicable to cyclists


----------



## jarlrmai (12 Sep 2017)

There's a longish downhill 20 mph limit in our town where freewheeling will have you doing over 20 (at least according to my Garmin) you'll still get over taken by drivers though. Interestingly it goes past the police station as well.


----------



## Racing roadkill (12 Sep 2017)

Bicycles are not legally required to have speedometers fitted. How would a cyclist know how fast they were going?


----------



## Racing roadkill (12 Sep 2017)

I know cyclists who have, on occasion, been 'spoken to' by plod, for setting off speed cameras, on certain stretches of road. Not a single one, that I'm aware of, has ever been actually 'done' for anything though.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 Sep 2017)

The good old government website is more explicit

Speed limits

You must not drive faster than the speed limit for the type of road _and your type of vehicle_. The speed limit is the absolute maximum - it doesn’t mean it’s safe to drive at this speed in all conditions.

A speed limit of 30 miles per hour (mph) or 48 kilometres per hour (km/h) usually applies, unless you see signs showing otherwise.

my italics.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (12 Sep 2017)

johnnyb47 said:


> There's never been any problems or concerns about it with the public but it could certainly be classed as furious riding.



If you're referring to the offence of furious or wanton driving, then that won't be relevant unless there's been bodily harm as a result. 
It can't be used for merely fast riding or driving.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (12 Sep 2017)

Dogtrousers said:


> The point about bikes not having speedometers, which always crops up when this is discussed, is a bit irrelevant. Other countries have bike speed limits. As noted above there are places in the UK where bike speed limits apply. The fact that the cyclists don't necessarily have any feedback on their speed is the cyclists' problem, not the law's.
> 
> @glasgowcyclist I'm fairly certain that a furious or wanton driving charge does not _require_ bodily harm to have resulted, and that it _can _be used for fast or dangerous riding. It appears that a chap was fined for riding furiously at 25mph in Cambridge in March 1997 linky No mention of any harm having resulted.



Thanks, that's a new one on me! But it's a different offence to that of furious or wanton driving I referred to, as specified by S35 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861:

_"Whosoever, having the charge of any carriage or vehicle, shall by wanton or furious driving or racing, or other wilful misconduct, or by wilful neglect, do or cause to be done any bodily harm to any person whatsoever, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour..."_

That does require bodily harm as an element.

The example you've given is furious driving under the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 where no injury is required.

That case seems to have been some cop wanting to make life difficult for someone by using what I'd assume is a rarely applied old statute. As the blog writer states, would he have charged a car driver with the same offence for the same speed? I wonder if the accused ever did go to jail or paid the fine.


----------



## DaveReading (12 Sep 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> The good old government website is more explicit
> 
> Speed limits
> 
> You must not drive faster than the speed limit for the type of road _and your type of vehicle_.



I doubt that was actually written with cycles in mind, it's more relevant to vehicle-specific speed limits like those for HGVs, trailers, etc.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (12 Sep 2017)

I don't think the 'furiously' has anything to do with the pedalling action, rather the manner of driving the carriage in question.


----------



## Racing roadkill (12 Sep 2017)

For a bike, the law would have to try and make something other than exceeding a speed limit apply. The defence that you couldn't tell what speed you were doing would hold, if the speed was inappropriate for the conditions, it doesn't matter so much, what that speed was.


----------



## Firestorm (12 Sep 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> The good old government website is more explicit
> 
> Speed limits
> 
> ...


I reckon thst the type of vehicle bit relates to the reduced speed limits for thar larger vehicles , or those towing


----------



## Ming the Merciless (12 Sep 2017)

Dogtrousers said:


> Are you daring to doubt what a bloke told me about 35 years ago? He definitely said "furious pedalling". I think.



He'll be doubting the furious pedalling bit as the 19th Century law in question applies to carriages and is not bike specific. So whilst your friend may have said furious pedalling that is not the law.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (12 Sep 2017)

Dogtrousers said:


> Are you daring to doubt what a bloke told me about 35 years ago? He definitely said "furious pedalling". I think.




Oooh, far be it from me...


----------



## mustang1 (12 Sep 2017)

I'm afraid that is the old version. It has recently been updated but it seems car drivers think it applies to them as well:

Under 'Rules for cyclists'
*Rule 69*
You *MUST* obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals unless you are in a hurry.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (12 Sep 2017)

helston90 said:


> Someone else has come back pointing to rule 69 of the Highway Code



Ask that person to specify the relevant act and applicable section that would be used to charge a cyclist with speeding. Speeding is covered by the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and every reference in it is to drivers of motor vehicles, not bicycles.


----------



## growingvegetables (12 Sep 2017)

And I'd another Audiot tonight "suggesting I needed to study the Highway Code" (that is a generous translation of his speech - into language acceptable for the forum).

Stupid b@st@rd - hadn't a ****ing clue about how cyclists dissect the minutest of minutiae, and can quote chapter-and-verse. Oh, and explain each of the revisions over the last 20 years.


----------



## mjr (12 Sep 2017)

Racing roadkill said:


> For a bike, the law would have to try and make something other than exceeding a speed limit apply. The defence that you couldn't tell what speed you were doing would hold, if the speed was inappropriate for the conditions, it doesn't matter so much, what that speed was.


Ignorance of your speed wouldn't be a defence, if there was such an offence.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (13 Sep 2017)

That there is no such law broken or to be prosecuted under would be a defence though


----------



## Tim Hall (13 Sep 2017)

Dogtrousers said:


> True, but in the few exceptional places in the UK where such an offence does exist, and in other countries where such offences exist, absence of speedometers is not a barrier to prosecution.
> 
> The point being made is: The fact that bikes aren't required by law to have speedometers is irrelevant to the discussion of speed limits. I don't understand why it crops up again and again.


Because this is The Internets.


----------



## mjr (13 Sep 2017)

Tim Hall said:


> Because this is The Internets.


And it's the 8779th day of September 1993.


----------



## jarlrmai (13 Sep 2017)

Dogtrousers said:


> True, but in the few exceptional places in the UK where such an offence does exist, and in other countries where such offences exist, absence of speedometers is not a barrier to prosecution.
> 
> The point being made is: The fact that bikes aren't required by law to have speedometers is irrelevant to the discussion of speed limits. I don't understand why it crops up again and again.



It crops up because some anti cycling people like to muddy the waters about the legality of cycling on the roads as a classic distraction technique and here we are 6 pages later.

On our local plod Facebook group they posted about how now it's "getting darker cyclists should be wearing lights and have reflectors" 3 replies later there's some mutual appreciation bubble about the guy that says that cops should be out enforcing this and arresting cyclists that don't have reflectors rather than "wasting time with speed cameras and taxing the poor victimised motorists" (of course HE doesn't speed though)


----------



## Racing roadkill (13 Sep 2017)

Dogtrousers said:


> True, but in the few exceptional places in the UK where such an offence does exist, and in other countries where such offences exist, absence of speedometers is not a barrier to prosecution.
> 
> The point being made is: The fact that bikes aren't required by law to have speedometers is irrelevant to the discussion of speed limits. I don't understand why it crops up again and again.


It crops up again and again because you can't be had for exceeding a speed you can't gauge.


----------



## Tim Hall (13 Sep 2017)

Racing roadkill said:


> It crops up again and again because you can't be had for exceeding a speed you can't gauge.


No. No. No. You can't be had for transgressing a law which doesn't apply to you. The law (Road Traffic Regulation Act) refers to "motor vehicle" which a bike is not. It's nothing to do with being able to gauge the speed.


----------



## mjr (13 Sep 2017)

Tim Hall said:


> No. No. No. You can't be had for transgressing a law which doesn't apply to you. The law (Road Traffic Regulation Act) refers to "motor vehicle" which a bike is not. It's nothing to do with being able to gauge the speed.


It might be that the speed limit clause refers to "motor vehicle" and bikes weren't included by our esteemed legislators because they don't have speedos, but I'm sure someone will point at the relevant bit in Hansard or whatever to prove it, if that's the case 

As I think someone mentioned, you can't get out of breaching the alcohol limit for driving simply by pointing out that you had no way to gauge it.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (13 Sep 2017)

User said:


> Really? Why do you think motor vehicles have to have speedometers - and those speedometers have to be accurate within certain tolerances?
> 
> Speedometers are not irrelevant to discussions of speed limits.



Not all motor vehicles require a speedo. Their drivers would still not have a defence to speeding.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (13 Sep 2017)

User said:


> Those motor vehicles excluded from the requirement to have a speedo were those not capable of reaching the lowest speed limit - 30 mph at the time the legislation was passed.



Not quite.
My brother's 1970s Suzuki AP100 falls within the category of pre-1984 motorcycles not exceeding 100cc capacity which don't require a speedo. It is easily capable of 60mph (well, I say easily...)

Here's a picture of a nice one


----------



## Ming the Merciless (13 Sep 2017)

Dogtrousers said:


> True, but in the few exceptional places in the UK where such an offence does exist, and in other countries where such offences exist, absence of speedometers is not a barrier to prosecution.
> 
> The point being made is: The fact that bikes aren't required by law to have speedometers is irrelevant to the discussion of speed limits. I don't understand why it crops up again and again.



Well if you will bring it up. I said nothing about speedos I said there was no such speeding law for pedal bikes.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (13 Sep 2017)

User said:


> You're talking about pre-legislation vehicles - I'm talking about post.



It doesn't matter whether it's pre or post the 1986 Regs, the point is that :

1. there is a class of motor vehicle capable of exceeding 30mph which doesn't need a speedometer fitted

and

2. the absence of a speedometer on that vehicle would not protect its rider from a speeding charge.


----------



## Racing roadkill (13 Sep 2017)

Dogtrousers said:


> Nonsense.
> Other countries with speed limits that apply to bicycles don't have a problem (eg Germany).
> 
> Let's imagine, for a moment, that the law was changed to extend speed limits to bicycles right now.
> ...


They wouldn't be able to get you for the offence of exceeding the speed limit, they'd have to make it one of the offences related to appropriateness of the speed / and or manner in which you were riding. For example, you couldn't get an SP30 riding a bike, you haven't got a licence to endorse, and you can't be had for exceeding a speed you can't gauge.


----------



## Tim Hall (13 Sep 2017)

Dogtrousers said:


> I give up.


Can I give up too? It's been that kind of a day.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (13 Sep 2017)

I gave up long ago.


----------



## DaveReading (13 Sep 2017)

mjr said:


> Ignorance of your speed wouldn't be a defence, if there was such an offence.



Anything and everything can be a defence. Whether it proves to be a successful defence is another story.


----------



## Dan B (13 Sep 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> 1. there is a class of motor vehicle capable of exceeding 30mph which doesn't need a speedometer fitted


Probably quite a large class if we suppose the presence of a sufficiently steep and long downhill


----------



## mjr (13 Sep 2017)

User said:


> Do you know what the speed limits for cyclists are in Germany?
> 
> They were set due to pressure from motoring organisations - but are set so high (50 km/h in urban areas and 100 km/h elsewhere) as to be meaningless.


Those are km/h. Even I've exceeded 50km/h (on a steep downhill with no potential for cross-traffic!) in a non-German urban area (albeit mostly through a park), so I'm not sure that's so high as to be meaningless.


----------



## Randombiker9 (13 Sep 2017)

helston90 said:


> On a local Facebook group I made the point speed limits do not apply to cyclists (someone was moaning about cyclists going way over the speed limit).
> 
> Someone else has come back pointing to rule 69 of the Highway Code
> 
> ...


I think one of the reasons speed limits don't apply is because bicycles don't have a built in Speedomiter so therefor if this rule was their if say police pulled cyclists over for speeding. They can't prove the evidence since bikes don't have speedomiters.


----------



## MontyVeda (13 Sep 2017)

Even I've exceeded 31mph in town.


----------



## MontyVeda (13 Sep 2017)

Randombiker9 said:


> I think one of the reasons speed limits don't apply is because bicycles don't have a built in Speedomiter so therefor if this rule was their if say police pulled cyclists over for speeding. They can't prove the evidence since bikes don't have speedomiters.


I'll bet a pound that you didn't read the thread before posting.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (13 Sep 2017)

Randombiker9 said:


> I think one of the reasons speed limits don't apply is because bicycles don't have a built in Speedomiter so therefor if this rule was their if say police pulled cyclists over for speeding. They can't prove the evidence since bikes don't have speedomiters.




I'm guessing you didn't bother reading past the first post...


----------



## DaveReading (13 Sep 2017)

Randombiker9 said:


> I think one of the reasons speed limits don't apply is because bicycles don't have a built in Speedomiter so therefor if this rule was their if say police pulled cyclists over for speeding. They can't prove the evidence since bikes don't have speedomiters.



I've got one on my bike, but I'm going to take it off now I know that the police can read it.


----------



## classic33 (13 Sep 2017)

Randombiker9 said:


> I think one of the reasons speed limits don't apply is because bicycles don't have a built in Speedomiter so therefor if this rule was their if say police pulled cyclists over for speeding. They can't prove the evidence since bikes don't have speedomiters.


Car speedometer would show zero if it wasn't moving.


----------



## swansonj (14 Sep 2017)

[


User said:


> Which are?
> ....


I'll bite. I think that quite possibly speed limits do apply to bicycles in Royal Parks. At best it is ambiguous.

We all agree that the original Regulations used "vehicle" which, in normal use in legislation, includes bicycles. We all agree that the amendment regulations used the definition "mechanically propelled vehicle" which doesn't. I think it is ambiguous whether the new definition applies only to the places where the amendment regulations insert changed text into the original regulations (which is primarily to do with car park charge iirc) or to all places where "vehicle" is used. If the former, speed limits (probably) still apply to bicycles, if the latter, they don't. The consolidated regulations, which are not I think definitive but may be indicative of how lawyers interpret it, opt for the former iirc (I'm on an iPhone so doing this from memory).

Then there's the policy statement that you helpfully pointed me to when I asked previously and which Tim linked to upthread here. Firstly, a policy statement can't rewrite the law (a parallel with the Highway Code). Secondly, I'm not persuaded that the statement of policy in that document is any more authoritative than the other extant statement of policy in the shape of the notices in Richmond Park which say that the limits do apply to bicycles. Thirdly, I'd be happier if they hadn't muddied the waters by talking about design guides and 8-12 mph in the same paragraph, which surely apply to off-road not road cycling. 

So my conclusion is that I honestly don't think there is any certainty as to whether speed limits do or do not apply to bicycles in Royal Parks.


----------



## DaveReading (14 Sep 2017)

swansonj said:


> We all agree that the amendment regulations used the definition "mechanically propelled vehicle" which doesn't.



Not so fast - is there a definition of that definition? 

A cycle is propelled via a mechanism, namely the pedals/cranks/chainwheel/chain/cassette.


----------



## swansonj (14 Sep 2017)

User said:


> 'Mechanically propelled vehicle' is a defined terms in law. It does not include bicycles.


Is it defined by statute or by case law?


----------



## Simontm (14 Sep 2017)

User said:


> The amended regulations, together with the formal position issued by the Royal Oarks in September 2016, are fairly persuasive and I doubt any court would have difficulty in reaching a decision.
> 
> What is very worrying is that the Royal Parks and the Met Police are actively pursuing the introduction of a blanket 10 mph speed limit for all cyclists in all Royal Parks.



my major problem about this is unless you have a bike computer you have no way of knowing what speed you're doing.
Taking Richmond Park as an example, most cars do 30 in the 20 so even if you could keep up with them such as downhill, you're breaking the limit as well.
And despite above comments, unfortunately afaik no one has challenged their speeding fines yet so what I personally think is a bad precedent - fining bikes for speeding- it has yet to be tested in Law


----------



## swansonj (14 Sep 2017)

Simontm said:


> my major problem about this is unless you have a bike computer you have no way of knowing what speed you're doing.
> Taking Richmond Park as an example, most cars do 30 in the 20 so even if you could keep up with them such as downhill, you're breaking the limit as well.
> And despite above comments, unfortunately afaik no one has challenged their speeding fines yet so what I personally think is a bad precedent - fining bikes for speeding- it has yet to be tested in Lola's.


Well, I agree we all need* someone to challenge a speeding fine in a court. I don't think the grounds should be "I didn't have a speedometer so I couldn't tell", I think the grounds should that the amendment regs modify the whole of the original regs and thus speed limits no longer apply to bicycles. Unlike Reg, I am not confident they would succeed. But there's only one way to find out. Volunteers?

*i may be overstating slightly


----------



## classic33 (14 Sep 2017)

swansonj said:


> Well, I agree we all need* someone to challenge a speeding fine in a court. I don't think the grounds should be "I didn't have a speedometer so I couldn't tell", I think the grounds should that the amendment regs modify the whole of the original regs and thus speed limits no longer apply to bicycles. Unlike Reg, I am not confident they would succeed. But there's only one way to find out.* Volunteers?*
> 
> *i may be overstating slightly


Well volunteered.


----------



## mjr (15 Sep 2017)

User said:


> If I Google the term it points me to something called Oxford Reference which states "driven by petrol, oil, steam, or electricity" and cites s.185 RTA 1988. If I then look at that section, it doesn't define the term but uses it as though defined.


Here's the CPS advice on the subject and I think it means it's defined by case law - http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road_traffic_offences/#definition


----------



## swansonj (15 Sep 2017)

classic33 said:


> Well volunteered.


I did cycle at over the speed limit in Richmond Park a few weeks ago, but narry a policeman in sight. That may have had something to do with it being midnight.


----------



## benb (15 Sep 2017)

I think instead of speed limits there should a maximum kinetic energy allowed, varying by road type. 
So a Lorry would have to go slower than a truck (and that would also vary on whether they were loaded or unloaded) 
A Land Rover would have to slower than a Fiat 500.
And cyclists could basically go as fast as we want to.

I can't see a downside.


----------

