# Cyclist and speeding laws help please.



## Sore Thumb (1 Dec 2012)

I am participating on another forum regarding cyclists and speeding. They are saying that cyclists can be done like motorists for a speeding offence.

This is what I have posted on the forum below

"Yep, speed limit only applies to motorised vehicles.

I get people tell me sometimes that they have seen a cyclist speeding or going too fast along a road. I ask them what was the speed limit of the road. It's normally the 30 or 50 limit. Well I don't know many cyclists that can get to the speed of 30 and I don't know any that can get to 50. So how are these cyclists be going too fast or speeding, when they can't reach the speed limit anyway."




But I need a legal/highway code reference that shows that speeding laws do not apply to cyclists, as they don't believe me.
Can anyone help and provide me with a good source of information? 

Many thanks


----------



## ianrauk (1 Dec 2012)

On of CC's fuzz will be along to answer.
But I am pretty sure that yes, cyclists are subject to the laws of the road.
So if you are speeding then you can be/will be done.

Richmond Park's speed limit is 20mph.
Many cyclists break this so now and again the bobbies hang about and jump out from behind trees to try catch cyclists that are breaking the speed limit.
We experienced this last year on one of our Rides for Food.


----------



## summerdays (1 Dec 2012)

I thought that the speeding laws didn't apply to cyclists - for a start a large number of cyclists don't have calibrated speedometers on their handlebars. In a few places such as the parks there are by-laws that include cyclists in the speed limits. However can't remember the exact law but that cyclists could instead be done for cycling dangerously/recklessly?


----------



## Sore Thumb (1 Dec 2012)

ianrauk said:


> On of CC's fuzz will be along to answer.
> But I am pretty sure that yes, cyclists are subject to the laws of the road.
> So if you are speeding then you can be/will be done.
> 
> ...



The royal parks have a local bylaw in force do different to national speeding laws as far as I am aware.

However they can only do you for furious cycling I believe.


----------



## ianrauk (1 Dec 2012)

Sore Thumb said:


> The royal parks have a local bylaw in force do different to national speeding laws as far as I am aware.
> 
> However they can only do you for furious cycling I believe.


 

Ok, that maybe the case....

The fuzz don't seem to stop the London Dynorod mob from acting like prats in the park though.


----------



## Sore Thumb (1 Dec 2012)

ianrauk said:


> Ok, that maybe the case....
> 
> The fuzz don't seem to stop the London Dynorod mob from acting like prats in the park though.




Managed to find a good link

http://www.astounding.org.uk/ian/cyclelaw/speed_limits.html

Are there any more?


----------



## slowmotion (1 Dec 2012)

ianrauk said:


> Ok, that maybe the case....
> 
> The fuzz don't seem to stop the London Dynorod mob from acting like prats in the park though.


That would require the entire resources of the Metropolitan Constabulary.

Edit:... and a small army of mental healthcare professionals...


----------



## ianrauk (1 Dec 2012)

@CopperCyclist @Vikeonabike @139NI

Let's call out one of our friendly cycle chat fuzz for advice...


----------



## Drago (1 Dec 2012)

Yes, you can be.


----------



## ianrauk (1 Dec 2012)

Drago said:


> Yes, you can be.


 
Expand please.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (1 Dec 2012)

ianrauk said:


> Expand please.


Indeed


----------



## BentMikey (1 Dec 2012)

ianrauk said:


> @CopperCyclist @Vikeonabike @139NI
> 
> Let's call out one of our friendly cycle chat fuzz for advice...


 
It's not 'kin twitter, mate.


----------



## MrJamie (1 Dec 2012)

Drago said:


> Yes, you can be.


Would the offence be speeding or just something like cycling dangerously and what would the punishment likely be, since we cant get points?


----------



## Drago (1 Dec 2012)

ianrauk said:


> Expand please.


A cyclist can be stuck on for speeding.

Enormous mitigation for not having a speed measuring device, hence prosecutions are almost unheard of.

Punishment will be a fine, but I don't know what scale (ie, the max amount you can be fined) without checking.


----------



## ianrauk (1 Dec 2012)

BentMikey said:


> It's not 'kin twitter, mate.


 

What's not 'kin twitter when it's at home?


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (1 Dec 2012)

Drago said:


> A cyclist can be stuck on for speeding.
> 
> Enormous mitigation for not having a speed measuring device, hence prosecutions are almost unheard of.


That is really indepth Drago, thank you.


----------



## Drago (1 Dec 2012)

Always a pleasure


----------



## Sore Thumb (1 Dec 2012)

Drago said:


> A cyclist can be stuck on for speeding.
> 
> Enormous mitigation for not having a speed measuring device, hence prosecutions are almost unheard of.




More info required please and a legal reference if possible.

I'm taking about a specific cycling offence for speeding. Not the police, not being able to charge for speeding so use the furious and dangerous cycling laws instead to get them for speeding.


----------



## ufkacbln (1 Dec 2012)

Morally there is an obligation to stick to the speed limits (and other legisation) however it is not the same offence. For instance you cannot have points placed on your license.

Bizarrely the penalties for the laws that can be used are far higher than for motorists. The common offence is "Wanton or Furious Cycling" and is ludicrously part of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861



> Drivers of carriages injuring persons by furious driving 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 misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years.”


 
If only speeding motorists were looking at two year sentences!


----------



## I like Skol (1 Dec 2012)

The frequently repeated mantra, often heard on this forum, is that cycles have no legal requirement to have a calibrated speedo and so cannot be expected to observe the speed limit posted for motorised vehicles. Just to be pedantic (and absurd), what if a runner could break the speed limit, would they be prosecuted?


----------



## slowmotion (1 Dec 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Morally there is an obligation to stick to the speed limits (and other legisation) however it is not the same offence. For instance you cannot have points placed on your license.
> 
> Bizarrely the penalties for the laws that can be used are far higher than for motorists. The common offence is "Wanton or Furious Cycling" and is ludicrously part of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861
> 
> ...


Splendid! Can they bang up London Dynorod en-masse?


----------



## Drago (1 Dec 2012)

Sore Thumb said:


> More info required please and a legal reference if possible.
> 
> I'm taking about a specific cycling offence for speeding. Not the police, not being able to charge for speeding so use the furious and dangerous cycling laws instead to get them for speeding.


I'm at home and this has never arisen since I was in class at Ashford over 2 decades ago, so you're not going to get one tonight.

If you think you can stand the suspense I'll find itvin Blackstones when I'm at work in the week.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (1 Dec 2012)

Sore Thumb said:


> The royal parks have a local bylaw in force do different to national speeding laws as far as I am aware.
> 
> However they can only do you for furious cycling I believe.


And after police started trying to enforce the 20mph speed limit in Greenwich Park they discovered that the 20mph limit was not legally enforceable for bikes. As far as I know it is enforceable in Richmond Park and another park over in the west of London but it needs to have special legislation before it can be applied willy-nilly to other royal parks. 

As a freewheeling road bike will easily outdo 30mph down the hill in the park, I think you'd need a specific offence called ''furious freewheeling'' to secure a prosecution. 

Anyhow, the general rule outside the royal parks exception over in the west of London, is that speed limits _per se_ do not apply to bikes. Dangerous (or ''furious'' in legalese) cycling can apply.


----------



## ianrauk (1 Dec 2012)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> ''furious freewheeling''


 
How does one furious freewheel?


----------



## Sore Thumb (1 Dec 2012)

I like Skol said:


> The frequently repeated mantra, often heard on this forum, is that cycles have no legal requirement to have a calibrated speedo and so cannot be expected to observe the speed limit posted for motorised vehicles. Just to be pedantic (and absurd), what if a runner could break the speed limit, would they be prosecuted?



You have answered you own statement. It's not being pedantic if there is no law to enforce a cyclist to have a speedo and as far as I am aware no law specifically regarding cycling and speeding.

And a runner cannot break the speed limit because there is no law that says that a runner has to obey the speed limit laws. So even if they could run faster than 30 mph the law would still not apply.


----------



## HLaB (1 Dec 2012)

I'm guessing from Drago's posts that a cyclist can be done for speeding if they have a calibrated computer fitted, however there is no legal requirement to have one and thus it has never led to a prosecution.


----------



## Sore Thumb (1 Dec 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Morally there is an obligation to stick to the speed limits (and other legisation) however it is not the same offence. For instance you cannot have points placed on your license.
> 
> Bizarrely the penalties for the laws that can be used are far higher than for motorists. The common offence is "Wanton or Furious Cycling" and is ludicrously part of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861
> 
> ...




Morally AND legally motorists have an obligation to stick to speed limits.

However this does not stop many from breaking the law.

When you talk about morally, I think physically would be more important.

Because physically, most cyclists would not be able to reach or maintain the speed of 30mph.


----------



## I like Skol (1 Dec 2012)

Sore Thumb said:


> Because physically, most cyclists would not be able to reach or maintain the speed of 30mph.


 
I'm not bragging but I do frequently reach max speeds of upto 35 mph on my commute and I don't travel on any roads with a limit higher than 30mph. I am also not particularly fast so there are a good few cyclists that can go faster and for longer than I can manage.


----------



## Sore Thumb (1 Dec 2012)

HLaB said:


> I'm guessing from Drago's posts that a cyclist can be done for speeding if they have a calibrated computer fitted, however there is no legal requirement to have one and thus it has never led to a prosecution.



Maybe so. However I have not seen a law that says you can be done for speeding, only if you have a speedo fitted. 
If this was the case then most club/racer/time trial cyclists would remove their speedos sharpish.


----------



## slowmotion (1 Dec 2012)

Well, my Cateye Strada Wireless recorded that I reached the furious speed of 22.7 mph in Richmond Park this evening, in the dark. The bye-law limit is 20 mph. Should I present myself to Hammersmith police station and fess up? The possible guilt is a heavy burden to carry.


----------



## I like Skol (1 Dec 2012)

slowmotion said:


> Well, my Cateye Strada Wireless recorded that I reached the furious speed of 22.7 mph in Richmond Park this evening, in the dark. The bye-law limit is 20 mph. Should I present myself to Hammersmith police station and fess up? The possible guilt is a heavy burden to carry.


I think you should burn your computer to destroy the evidence then refuse to name the driver and move house sharpish so any NIP doesn't get to you!


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (1 Dec 2012)

ianrauk said:


> How does one furious freewheel?


This is a question to be put to the jury if any cyclist ever gets nicked for letting gravity have its wicked way.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (1 Dec 2012)

slowmotion said:


> Well, my Cateye Strada Wireless recorded that I reached the furious speed of 22.7 mph in Richmond Park this evening, in the dark. The bye-law limit is 20 mph. Should I present myself to Hammersmith police station and fess up? The possible guilt is a heavy burden to carry.


The deer know you're guilty. You'll never be able to look them in the eyes again till you turn yourself in.


----------



## HLaB (1 Dec 2012)

Sore Thumb said:


> Maybe so. However I have not seen a law that says you can be done for speeding, only if you have a speedo fitted.
> If this was the case then most club/racer/time trial cyclists would remove their speedos sharpish.


Are those speedos classified as properly calibrated, like that in a car


----------



## Drago (1 Dec 2012)

Gentlemen, enough! You can be fingered for it and I will make it my mission to establish the salacious details on Monday, because Thatcher was still PM when I did that lesson and I can't remember it.

Until then perhaps a little sweepstake?


----------



## slowmotion (1 Dec 2012)

I like Skol said:


> I think you should burn your computer to destroy the evidence then refuse to name the driver and move house sharpish so any NIP doesn't get to you!


 Yes, you are right. Facial plastic surgery is booked for Monday, and the private jet to some dodgy banana republic takes off in the evening. Sorted.


----------



## benborp (1 Dec 2012)

It's got nothing to do with speedos or computers or the ability of cyclists to reach the relevant speed. The law applies to motor vehicles. Bicycles are not motor vehicles. The Highway Code cites the following sections of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 19884 - sects 81, 86, 89 & sch 6. I've included the act's definition of motor vehicle and pedal cycle. The legislation covering Royal Parks specifically states that those speed limits apply to cycles. (Edit: The legislation is still the RTRA 19884, with two amendments, the latest in 2010 which changed the class of vehicle to which the Royal Park sections of the act applied. The speed limits are governed by primary legislation and not bye-laws.) Only certain areas of Greenwich Park are classified as a Royal Park.


> *81*​*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.​​*86*​*Speed limits for particular classes of vehicles.*​
> (1)​It shall not be lawful for a person to drive a motor vehicle of any class on a road at a speed greater than the speed specified in Schedule 6 to this Act as the maximum speed in relation to a vehicle of that class.​​*89*​*Speeding offences generally.*​
> (1)​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​
> ...


 
Schedule 6 mentioned above gives the specific speed limit for specific motor vehicle types. Cycles are not mentioned. The Act is carefully worded throughout as to which vehicles each section of the act applies to. Much of the act applies to the use of cycles as they are covered by the term vehicle. The omission of pedal cycles from various parts of the legislation is not an oversight.

I checked this five minutes ago, while David Cameron was still Prime Minister. My memory is pretty good over this timescale.


----------



## Tim Hall (1 Dec 2012)

I believe I'll have a piece of that action.

Two things: The speedo thing is a red herring. (clue: drink driving laws and the preponderance of intoximeters fitted to cars). And my understanding is speed limits refer back to, umm can't remember, RTRA, which then goes on to say about "motor vehicles" or "mechanically propelled vehicles". Which a bicycle aint. And another thing (so that's three). Royal Parks used to be covered by a bylaw that referred to "any vehicle", allowing London Dynamo to be banged up. But the latest revision refers to "mechanically propelled vehicles".

Where's User when you need him?

Edit: cross post with ben.


----------



## slowmotion (1 Dec 2012)

A bit off-topic, but who of this parish does not snigger at the antics of Shane John Corkery? He did a lot of damage to a toilet...

http://www.luyulei.net/cases/04_02-Corkery-v-Carpenter.html


----------



## snorri (1 Dec 2012)

"Speeding" is rather a loose term, some take it to mean exceeding the legal speed limit for a motor vehicle, but it can just as easily mean travelling too fast for your own safety and the safety of others.
If while cycling you are considered to be endangering other people there could well be an interest shown by law enforcement, regardless of your precise speed.


----------



## Trail Child (2 Dec 2012)

I know that here, bicycles are considered "vehicles" under the Highway Traffic Act, and are subject to the same laws as motorized vehicles. Cyclists here can be charged with speeding, failure to yield and stop, dangerous driving, impaired driving, etc. 

My brother has been charged with speeding and unsafe driving while on a bicycle about 10 years ago and the fine was the same amount as a motorist would have been charged (I personally think his poor attitude led to him being made an example, but that's another story.)


----------



## benborp (2 Dec 2012)

I bet I can tell you Adrian!


----------



## Trail Child (2 Dec 2012)

2182435 said:


> Where is here?


Ontario, Canada.


----------



## gaz (2 Dec 2012)

BentMikey said:


> It's not 'kin twitter, mate.


I think the @ username sends the user an alert.


----------



## ianjmcd (2 Dec 2012)

yes you can be done for speeding as i once was in ramsgate going down herson road approx 37 mph according to the local plod i got off with a caution though 

http://cyclinginfo.co.uk/blog/3037/cycling/laws-and-rules-about-cycling/


----------



## benborp (2 Dec 2012)

ianjmcd said:


> yes you can be done for speeding as i once was in ramsgate going down herson road approx 37 mph according to the local plod i got off with a caution though
> 
> http://cyclinginfo.co.uk/blog/3037/cycling/laws-and-rules-about-cycling/


 
With respect, you weren't prosecuted and the woman referred to in your link was issued a ticket in the United States. The police at the road side aren't necessarily up to speed with the specifics of current legislation with regard to cycles.


----------



## ianjmcd (2 Dec 2012)

no i was not prosecuted but while the absolute law regarding speeding does not apply to cyclists you can still be prosecuted for other archaic offences such as furious cycling which allthough is an old and outdated law still applies today


----------



## ianjmcd (2 Dec 2012)

2182453 said:


> A real caution or a bit of a telling off?


 
It was mainly a telling off but i took legal advice at the time and as i stated above legally they cannot charge you for speeding as speeding offences only apply to motor vehicles there are other things that still apply such as Furious cycling which as ive said still applies mad i know 

The highway code needs re-written on many counts and also laws need to be clarified


----------



## Svendo (2 Dec 2012)

When I did my speed awareness course <adopts sackcloth and ashes> recently I asked this. The trainer said it'd come up before and he'd no definite answer, although various things like lack of speedometers had been mentioned. The ex-traffic cop next to me (who to be honest was a bit of a know it all. Which was good because otherwise I'd have probably been the class bore!) butted in and said definitively that cyclists can be prosecuted for everything a motorist can. Which is plainly specious nonsense! All sorts of requirements for drivers and motor vehicles don't apply to bicycles. I went away and via the LINK given above read the RTRA Section VI and discovered I was right. Ha!
What it did make me wonder if the training police are given is a bit generalised in this area, so they have the impression they do apply.
I also read the actual act and it clearly says motor vehicles. Police training apparently doesn't actually contain that much law, an overview of powers and offenses but not much detail. The training is mostly about how to go about policing.


----------



## tonyhalsall (2 Dec 2012)

30 mph is a relatively tough speed limit to break on a bicycle unless you are really, really trying hard, but the current mooted proposals to reduce to 20mph on some roads may see much more consistent breaking of the "speed limit" by bicycles.
Having said that the total energy delivered in a collision with a motorised vehicle travelling at any speed will always exceed by a considerable margin the energy delivered by a human powered vehicle travelling at the same speed and it ios the total energy del;ivered that causes the problem.
Aviation is a great comparison whereby regulation for flying machines of less than 450KG total flying weight are considerably less onerous than for larger heavyweight aeroplanes. A paramotor or single seat microlight would not even put a dent in the roof of Asda if it "plummeted" onto said roof, whereas a heavier aircraft "plummeting out of control" would likely cause untold carnage.


----------



## slowmotion (2 Dec 2012)

Svendo, do you actually have to show contrition (Soviet show trial stuff, 1950s) at speed awareness courses, or do you just have to attend and pay the fee.? Taking the points seems a good financial punt for me. This is a matter that is close to my heart right now.


----------



## Svendo (2 Dec 2012)

ianjmcd said:


> It was mainly a telling off but i took legal advice at the time and as i stated above legally they cannot charge you for speeding as speeding offences only apply to motor vehicles there are other things that still apply such as Furious cycling which as ive said still applies mad i know
> 
> The highway code needs re-written on many counts and also laws need to be clarified


 
I think the point here is that the offences open to prosecutors such as furious cycling aren't 'strict liability', there needs to be evidence of more thasn just excessive speed in itself. The CTC forum thread here a bit less than half way down has the act with 'furious riding or driving' in it. It doesn't define furious so that would need knowledge of case law to make a useful definition. I also notice that the next post is by a familiar poster!


----------



## Svendo (2 Dec 2012)

slowmotion said:


> Svendo, do you actually have to show contrition (Soviet show trial stuff, 1950s) at speed awareness courses, or do you just have to attend and pay the fee.? Taking the points seems a good financial punt for me. This is a matter that is close to my heart right now.


 
No. They seem to actively avoid that, which makes sense as they want to keep you 'onside' so the training is effective. I found it very beneficial, and I feel I've refreshed my general defensive driving skills as a result.
I was expecting a 'round the class' admission of how you got caught what speed etc. but that didn't happen.
I think the course is far more effective at making roads safer than points and a fine.


----------



## slowmotion (2 Dec 2012)

I'm impressed that that is the case. Thank you.


----------



## ColinJ (2 Dec 2012)

tonyhalsall said:


> 30 mph is a relatively tough speed limit to break on a bicycle unless you are really, really trying hard


Not downhill it isn't! 

I don't think I've done many rides in over 20 years up here where I didn't go over 30 mph, and I usually hit 40 mph and sometimes go over 50.


----------



## benborp (2 Dec 2012)

ianjmcd said:


> The highway code needs re-written on many counts and also laws need to be clarified


 
There are quite a few bits of the code that are a bit vague when it comes to cycling. Mind you, that might be due to cycling being a good deal more adaptable than other forms of transport.

Looking at the Richmond Park situation it seems the latest update to the legislation has taken cyclists' legal position when riding in the park into a grey area. Rather than 'vehicles' (which covers everything), it now refers to 'mechanically propelled vehicles' for which there is no definition within the act. Mechanically propelled doesn't necessarily mean having an engine. Sailing boats are considered mechanically propelled in some circumstances. Does anyone know of any case law that has ever considered whether a bicycle is mechanically propelled?


----------



## slowmotion (2 Dec 2012)

Sorry, my hearing is not as good as it used to be. Did you say chemically propelled?


----------



## benborp (2 Dec 2012)

tonyhalsall said:


> 30 mph is a relatively tough speed limit to break on a bicycle unless you are really, really trying hard, but the current mooted proposals to reduce to 20mph on some roads may see much more consistent breaking of the "speed limit" by bicycles.


 
Not that any sanction is applied to motor vehicle users exceeding the 20mph limit. They're self enforcing you know. There is a speed camera near me in a twenty zone. It has a handy little repeater sign under it. The sign says '30' and I know that people consistently pass in excess of thirty without setting it off.

Actually one of the circumstances in which I would feel morally comfortable exceeding the motor vehicle speed limit on a bike is in a twenty zone - when the surrounding traffic is exceeding the limit and my safety is better served by being in the traffic flow rather than being an additional, ineffective traffic calming measure.


----------



## MrJamie (2 Dec 2012)

tonyhalsall said:


> 30 mph is a relatively tough speed limit to break on a bicycle unless you are really, really trying hard, but the current mooted proposals to reduce to 20mph on some roads may see much more consistent breaking of the "speed limit" by bicycles.
> Having said that the total energy delivered in a collision with a motorised vehicle travelling at any speed will always exceed by a considerable margin the energy delivered by a human powered vehicle travelling at the same speed and it ios the total energy del;ivered that causes the problem.
> Aviation is a great comparison whereby regulation for flying machines of less than 450KG total flying weight are considerably less onerous than for larger heavyweight aeroplanes. A paramotor or single seat microlight would not even put a dent in the roof of Asda if it "plummeted" onto said roof, whereas a heavier aircraft "plummeting out of control" would likely cause untold carnage.


I was wondering about that recently, the difference in weight/momentum is unquestionably huge, even for a heavy cyclist on a laden bike, but cars are meant to be better to be hit by than they used to be with those improving NCAP ratings for hitting peds. In terms of the total energy delivered the car reduces its impact force by absorbing/deflecting where as a bike/rider isnt designed to do so. Im sure ive heard of a motorcyclist t-boning a car and coming off better than the driver. Im by no means suggesting getting hit by a car is preferable though, nor really relating this to the speed limit :P


----------



## booze and cake (2 Dec 2012)

I've always wondered about this, interesting reading.

So in summary, 

-in Richmond Park you can definately be done for speeding. (20 mph limit). Very easily done down Broomfield hill where i've hit nearly 40 before. David Millar did'nt get in trouble and he put a video up of him doing over 30 mph average round the park did'nt he? And he's Scottish! I'm surprised Liz2 did'nt send him to the Tower of London. I know the video was removed from youtube or wherever he posted it. Can you be fined from video evidence alone even if the cops were'nt present to witness it first hand? I wonder if the Rozzers would have fined him if they'd caught him or let him off as he's pro.

-Although the law does not strictly say so you could be fined for furious cycling if you cycled at over 30 mph in a 30 mph zone, but there would have to be some evidence of 'furiousness' beyond just the speed itself? Seems vague, but for example speeding past a school at opening and closing times, which in places is a 20mph zone I can see it as reasonable. As for speeding past the same school in the evening with no one around an no traffic, I don't see anything wrong with that.

-As already mentioned I had also wondered about the increase in liklihood of cyclists being fined in London with the spread of 20mph zones (some entire boroughs are proposing a 20 mph limit, not just outside schools). I wonder if this means the law will be reviewed/challenged on this soon.

-Out on the open highway (60mph limit) we do not have any alpine type descents long enough to allow us to get to this speed in this country do we? I've managed 50mph descending in Wales but thats as fast as I've been, and that felt fast enough on a flexy old steel frame from the 80's. But even if you were able to top 60mph I guess out in quiet rural areas it would be hard to prove you were a danger to anyone but yourself so not sure any attempt to fine would be successful. Personally I think you'd deserve a medal! 

-But what about Graham Obree and Beastie, he is trying to reach 100mph no? If you get caught doing 100mph in a car you lose you licence automatically don't you? Irrespective of danger to others or anyone in the vicinity, cycling at 100mph could'nt be described as anything other than furious could it? What would PC plod make of that?


----------



## CopperCyclist (2 Dec 2012)

gaz said:


> I think the @ username sends the user an alert.



It does normally, or at least has in the past - but the one in this thread didn't work for some reason. 

Anyway, I'm piling in now. I've tried to skim the the thread, as I'm going to disagree with Drago, but see Benborp raised the relevant point. 

Cycles cannot be done for 'speeding'. This is because the legislation for speeding offence refer to motor vehicles, and cycles are not a motor vehicle. 

Some e-bikes MAY be argued to be a motor vehicle. Any vehicle with an engine is a mechanically propelled vehicle (mvp). For an mpv to become a motor vehicle it needs to be intended of adapted for the road, which most e-bikes probably are. 

Normal cycles though, nope. 

This does not however mean you can speed regardless - there are still separate offences of careless or inconsiderate cycling which could be considered instead - however these have to be proven abstractly on the standard of your riding, rather than a speed limit offence where you either are or aren't over the limit. 

Cycles can and do break speed limits, and can also do so without breaking other motoring offences. There is a 20 limit on my commute that I regularly exceed - mind you, so do the cars and buses that still pass me! I have also broken 30 limits, and on a good downhill I suspect I could break a fifty - but I haven't ever achieved those sorts of speeds (yet!).


----------



## CopperCyclist (2 Dec 2012)

Oh yes I forgot - I believe some parks have separate by-laws such as Richmond Park, and are an exception to the 'cant be done for speeding' rule.


----------



## Cubist (2 Dec 2012)

You could all have waited until I got in from work.

As Coppercyclist and Benborp point out, speed limits only apply to the users of motor vehicles.

Not bicycles.

So you can't be "stuck on" (f*ck me I hate that phrase!) for speeding on a pedal cycle.

Wanton and furious cycling and all that other pub barrister bollox is archaic and irrelevant.

@ianjmcd you weren't given a caution. you were told off by a copper who didn't know what else to do with you, but was ignorant of the law and procedure.


----------



## Sore Thumb (2 Dec 2012)

And, we got there in the end.

Many thanks


----------



## Drago (2 Dec 2012)

Disagree with me! Damn you man!!!

You could well be right though as it was prehistoric times since I covered that topic, and I am now very old and infirm. Ill check PNLD tomorrow and check the wording.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (2 Dec 2012)

Has anyones child ever been fined/banned from driving(point accrual) for cycling on the footpath "furiously"?


----------



## Drago (2 Dec 2012)

You can't accrue endorsements if you're not on/in a motor vehicle or mechanically propelled vehicle. I've never personally come across anyone being had for furious cycling either.

Some of these laws are creakingly archaic.


----------



## BentMikey (2 Dec 2012)

Drago said:


> *You can't accrue endorsements if you're not on/in a motor vehicle or mechanically propelled vehicle*. I've never personally come across anyone being had for furious cycling either.
> 
> Some of these laws are creakingly archaic.


 
User would argue otherwise, I believe.


----------



## BentMikey (2 Dec 2012)

There was a cyclist in Cambridge, I believe, prosecuted for careless cycling or somesuch, doing 25mph on a pedestrianised high street when it was deserted. I'm not sure I recall that correctly. Tim Hall might remember this one from the long past days of URC.


----------



## byegad (2 Dec 2012)

ColinJ said:


> Not downhill it isn't!
> 
> I don't think I've done many rides in over 20 years up here where I didn't go over 30 mph, and I usually hit 40 mph and sometimes go over 50.


 
Exactly! It may be a bit of an ask (Should that be arsk?) in Lunnon, but come play in the North Yorks Moors, Yorkshire Dales or the Pennine Dales of County Durham and 50 is an easily achievable speed on most rides. Think Blakey Ridge, dropping down to Reeth from Tan Hill Inn or dropping into Wolsingham from Tow Law. All have 50+mph potential on a recumbent trike. Staying below 40mph on all of these is a slow and cautious descent and the last two deliver you into a 30mph speed limit at the bottom! While trying to roll on into the limited area at the sort of terminal velocity that you will have by then may well turn out to be terminal, it would not necessarily be illegal *unless you are endangering others. *


----------



## Drago (2 Dec 2012)

BentMikey said:


> User would argue otherwise, I believe.


And it's possible he might be right, though I'm pretty sure he isn't. As aforementioned, I last covered this topic in the late 80's and never had to grapple with it since so my memory is hazy. What seems damn certain to me could be off beaam.

Hence ill get the definitive, unequivocal answer tomorrow from the legal database the CPS use, if you fellers think you can manage a bit if a cliffhanger until tomorrow evening.

Ill use the CPS source because it really is definitive - the legislation alone isn't enough to answer such a question, as when determining if you can get fingered for it we need to also consider the correct charging standards, and any case law. The legislation alone won't give us an answer.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (2 Dec 2012)

Drago said:


> You can't accrue endorsements if you're not on/in a motor vehicle or mechanically propelled vehicle. I've never personally come across anyone being had for furious cycling either.
> 
> Some of these laws are creakingly archaic.


So you cannot get points for speeding on a bicycle - But you can be "stuck for speeding" of which there is no offence? It would merely be a different offence/wording used at discretion of an officer - to suit the situation?


----------



## Drago (2 Dec 2012)

How about you merely use your discretion until I can check definitively tomorrow?

If you want speedy legal advice I charge £140 per hour plus VAT in 6 minute increments, but even then is still need to refer by Blackstones and that's in my desk at work - my degree is in Public Law, which doesn't cover bicycles.

So patience. I know what I think it is, and I also concede I may be in error, so no more 20p questions please. Ill check the applicable legislation. Ill check what the current charging standard or advice is, and ill check for any case law and you can sleep soundly tomorrow night.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (2 Dec 2012)

It's more fun this way


----------



## ufkacbln (2 Dec 2012)

MrJamie said:


> I... but cars are meant to be better to be hit by than they used to be with those improving NCAP ratings for hitting peds.


 
Not the case I am afraid, there is a larger proportion of vehicles such as the Jeep Cherokee that have a zero rating on pedestrian safety


----------



## subaqua (2 Dec 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Not the case I am afraid, there is a larger proportion of vehicles such as the Jeep Cherokee that have a zero rating on pedestrian safety


 
but some would argue that you don't get many peds in a field or the rockies.


----------



## Alun (2 Dec 2012)

Cubist said:


> Wanton and furious cycling and all that other pub barrister bollox is archaic and irrelevant.


 It certainly sounds archaic, anybody know the last time someone was prosecuted for "Wanton and furious cycling"?
It conjures up images of Cavendish in a sprint finish to me


----------



## ufkacbln (2 Dec 2012)

subaqua said:


> but some would argue that you don't get many peds in a field or the rockies.


 
You obviously haven't seen a Surrey School Run!


----------



## gaz (2 Dec 2012)

What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so.


----------



## summerdays (2 Dec 2012)

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


> Has anyones child ever been fined/banned from driving(point accrual) for cycling on the footpath "furiously"?


If they are under 16 they can't get a FPN as far as I'm aware, though I do know some children where they were asked to walk or that they needed to get lights on their bike (at night time).


----------



## Cubist (2 Dec 2012)

I have the Police National Legal Database open on my desktop. I'm not allowed to copy and paste, and am typing on a smartphone, so bear with me.
Speeding offnces are all dealt with by the 1984 Road Traffic Regulation Act , and apply only to motor vehicles.

There are a number of offences listed which may be used, but I would suggest only as the result of furthe consequence. So, if you hoon around and wipe out Aunty Doris by cyclic too fast you'll be potentially liable to prosecution under headings such as careless or inconsiderate cycling on road,bridleway or footpath, under sec 29 Road Traffic Act 1988, or if she's on a footpath or causeway set aside for the accommodation of foot passengers, for riding on the footpath contrary to the 1835 Act. There's also dangerous cycling under the 1988 Act. Plenty to go at there, but no speeding. And no need to look at wanton and furious nonsense.


----------



## doug (2 Dec 2012)

I think there is a specific offence of "going equipped to steal a car" or some such, for which you can get points on your license even if you are not driving. I think this is the only way in the UK a cyclist can be given points on their driving license.


----------



## Vikeonabike (2 Dec 2012)

2182932 said:


> Is there not law whereby a driving license can be removed or suspended outside of specific driving offenses but where it is relevant to the crime?


No is the simple answer to that one. If you don't commit an offence in a motor vehicle then you won't have any penalty against your licence.


----------



## Cubist (2 Dec 2012)

doug said:


> I think there is a specific offence of "going equipped to steal a car" or some such, for which you can get points on your license even if you are not driving. I think this is the only way in the UK a cyclist can be given points on their driving license.





2182932 said:


> Is there not law whereby a driving license can be removed or suspended outside of specific driving offenses but where it is relevant to the crime?


yes, offences under the theft act, twoc,theft of motorvehicle, attempts at either of those and aggravated vehicle taking and going equipped for the theft of a motorvehicle all can attract penalty points.


----------



## Vikeonabike (2 Dec 2012)

Cubist said:


> yes, offences under the theft act, twoc,theft of motorvehicle, attempts at either of those and aggravated vehicle taking and going equipped for the theft of a motorvehicle all can attract penalty points.


Good point, I wasn't considering theft.. but if it's non motor vehicle related the answer is still No


----------



## theclaud (2 Dec 2012)

2182434 said:


> I can't help but think that Ben and you could have held back until we had found out exactly what Drago was offering by way of a bet.
> 
> And no *we don't need User. You don't take a nuke to a knife fight*.


 
 (Sorry, Adrian)


----------



## Cubist (2 Dec 2012)

Vikeonabike said:


> Good point, I wasn't considering theft.. but if it's non motor vehicle related the answer is still No


Yes, they all relate to the use of a motor vehicle, but don't have to involve driving. Carried on is the example. 

Therefore if I set off on my bike, equipped to steal cars, my licence can be endorsed. If i ride at 900 mph on thepavement a d wipe out Aunt Doris, it won't be.


----------



## Cubist (2 Dec 2012)

2182580 said:


> And another one who could have waited until we knew what Drago was offering in terms of stakes.


I don't want to upset him by suggesting we'd have been disappointed. He makes a gracious reply afterwards!


----------



## Cubist (2 Dec 2012)

Drago said:


> And it's possible he might be right, though I'm pretty sure he isn't. As aforementioned, I last covered this topic in the late 80's and never had to grapple with it since so my memory is hazy. What seems damn certain to me could be off beaam.
> 
> Hence ill get the definitive, unequivocal answer tomorrow from the legal database the CPS use, if you fellers think you can manage a bit if a cliffhanger until tomorrow evening.
> 
> Ill use the CPS source because it really is definitive - the legislation alone isn't enough to answer such a question, as when determining if you can get fingered for it we need to also consider the correct charging standards, and any case law. The legislation alone won't give us an answer.


Add tothat the latest ACPO guidelines and the truth will often remain obscure.:P


----------



## fossyant (2 Dec 2012)

Ah all good. I shall carry on breaking the speed limit every time I ride my bike than. LOL


----------



## Schneil (2 Dec 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> You obviously haven't seen a Surrey School Run!


Sorry a bit off topic, but I saw a sign today that said
"Children please dive carefully"
I'm wondering if a comma was missing somewhere?


----------



## Sore Thumb (2 Dec 2012)

Schneil said:


> Sorry a bit off topic, but I saw a sign today that said
> "Children please dive carefully"
> I'm wondering if a comma was missing somewhere?





Ah, but did you see the sign in the local swimming baths?? ;-)

Or

Was the sign by the road and it means that motorists drive too fast and the children need to 'dive' out of the way?


----------



## Norm (2 Dec 2012)

Schneil said:


> Sorry a bit off topic, but I saw a sign today that said
> "Children please dive carefully"
> I'm wondering if a comma was missing somewhere?


And, possibly, an 'r'?


----------



## Schneil (2 Dec 2012)

Norm said:


> And, possibly, an 'r'?


 
Oh yeah haha, sorry my bad typing, it was "drive" not "dive"


----------



## simon.r (2 Dec 2012)

Vikeonabike said:


> Good point, I wasn't considering theft.. but if it's non motor vehicle related the answer is still No


 
In *theory* a criminal court can order disqualification for any offence: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/6/section/146

In practice I'd assume there has to be a good reason, but I wonder if that reason could be bicycle related?


----------



## Cubist (2 Dec 2012)

Schneil said:


> Sorry a bit off topic, but I saw a sign today that said
> "Children please dive carefully"
> I'm wondering if a comma was missing somewhere?


Was it a junior football academy?


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (2 Dec 2012)

[QUOTE 2183550, member: 45"]You can't break a speed limit that doesn't apply to you.[/quote]
But where's the fun in that?


----------



## 400bhp (2 Dec 2012)

Is this a 3 word game?


----------



## Cubist (2 Dec 2012)

2183564 said:


> Too literal, it is to do with perception. Everyone knows that the urban speed limit is 30 unless otherwise stated. As a cyclist you can break that speed limit and people might be shocked to learn that you can do so without legal consequence.


[QUOTE 2183573, member: 45"]Ignorance doesn't change facts.[/quote]
Well, yebbutt, of course it's much better to be able to exceed the speed limit AND work one right up the stroppy twats who think we shouldn't be allowed to.


----------



## HLaB (2 Dec 2012)

subaqua said:


> but some would argue that you don't get many peds in a field or the rockies.


Or in Chelsea


----------



## jarlrmai (2 Dec 2012)

Can you be done for exceeding speeds on shared use paths/cycle routes?


----------



## Cubist (2 Dec 2012)

No.


----------



## Drago (3 Dec 2012)

OK, what an exciting lunch break that was. Trawled through the CPS Legal Database to find about 230 pieces of legislation involving riding bicycles, and that's ignoring the Con & Use Stuff, the point-of-sale-or-supply legislation etc.

I was wrong in the sense you can't be slapped for speeding. You guys have already dientified the careless and dangerous offcences, and if anyone is interested I have the guidelines for what constitutes 'dangerous' in this regard.

I was right in the sense you can not receive endoresements for a cycling offence or non-compliance. To simplify it, in order to get endorsements you need to be driving/riding "in accordance" with a licence, ie, quite lawfully driving a car for example, but commiting anohter offence such as spoeeding. Alternatively, you need to be driving "otherwise in accordance", ie, driving/riding with no licence, or on/in a vehicle which your licence doesnt cover. For examply, driving a car while holding only a motorcycle licene would fit in this category.

On a sickle you're neither riding "in accordance" with a licence, because you don't need one to ride it, and you're not "otherwise in accordance" because there is no applicable licence who's terms you can breach. So you can't receive an endorsable FPN, or have points imposed by a court.

I'm going to try and find some of this from a source that I can copy and paste onto here, or you could delve into ask.thepolice.com


----------



## byegad (3 Dec 2012)

booze and cake said:


> -Out on the open highway (60mph limit) we do not have any alpine type descents long enough to allow us to get to this speed in this country do we? I've managed 50mph descending in Wales but thats as fast as I've been, and that felt fast enough on a flexy old steel frame from the 80's. But even if you were able to top 60mph I guess out in quiet rural areas it would be hard to prove you were a danger to anyone but yourself so not sure any attempt to fine would be successful. Personally I think you'd deserve a medal!


 
A recumbent trike riding friend told me she had touched 70mph coming off Shap Fell with a full camping load onboard. Given I've topped 50mph I believe her. On the Tour de France TV coverage they frequently show the TV Motorbike's speedo on descents and I've seen 115kph on one of those. If a stick bike can do it a recumbent certainly can.


----------



## BentMikey (3 Dec 2012)

Here's LeeW's 72mph max descent on ROAM (Ride Over AMerica). Last year a whole flock of velomobiles rode across the US in a month in an organised tour.



I doubt he was breaking the US speed limit though, whatever it was on that highway?


----------



## gaz (3 Dec 2012)

BentMikey said:


> Here's LeeW's 72mph max descent on ROAM (Ride Over AMerica). Last year a whole flock of velomobiles rode across the US in a month in an organised tour.
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt he was breaking the US speed limit though, whatever it was on that highway?



Depends on the state. Could be anything from 65 to 80mph limit.


----------



## Cubist (3 Dec 2012)

2184597 said:


> So what were the stakes?


Two conkers, one drilled, the other baked, plus a dead mouse in a matchbox are on their way to you by courier as we speak.


----------



## 4F (3 Dec 2012)

400bhp said:


> Is this a 3 word game?


 
That was six


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (3 Dec 2012)

4F said:


> That was six


Tis actually five words and a number


----------



## booze and cake (3 Dec 2012)

byegad said:


> A recumbent trike riding friend told me she had touched 70mph coming off Shap Fell with a full camping load onboard. Given I've topped 50mph I believe her. On the Tour de France TV coverage they frequently show the TV Motorbike's speedo on descents and I've seen 115kph on one of those. If a stick bike can do it a recumbent certainly can.


 

Yeah I knew the pro's went as quick down the mountains in the TDF, 70 in the UK though, wow, fair play to her. I've not been down that road but I'm sure the road is not as wide and empty as the one on that american clip either.

I've never had a go on a recumbent but have a friend who recently got one and he's offered to give me a go, its a basic one though, not with a fairing or anything.

I think its the old james bond movies and the cheesy batman series of my youth, but i have a recurring fear about recumbents that in case of an accident that chainring in front of you, between your legs has the potential to do more than create a few more creases in the scrotum, more like totally cut you in half like a buzz saw!


----------



## byegad (3 Dec 2012)

Don't worry, by the time you've hit the chainring the dérailleur post will have made any other damage academic. On the other hand you're not likely to need a helmet as you hit feet, rather than head, first.


----------



## Electric_Andy (4 Dec 2012)

I like Skol said:


> The frequently repeated mantra, often heard on this forum, is that cycles have no legal requirement to have a calibrated speedo and so cannot be expected to observe the speed limit posted for motorised vehicles. Just to be pedantic (and absurd), what if a runner could break the speed limit, would they be prosecuted?


 
Funny, I was just thinking about that! I guess they would be warned/fined for walking on a public highway. Regardless of speed, pedestrians are generally not allowed to walk along roads. Going back to cycling, I'd only worry about breaking a speed limit if it was a built up area or within a 20mph school zone.


----------



## newfhouse (4 Dec 2012)

Electric_Andy said:


> Funny, I was just thinking about that! I guess they would be warned/fined for walking on a public highway. Regardless of speed, pedestrians are generally not allowed to walk along roads.


 
Are you sure? Discouraged, yes. Disallowed, I don't think so. I can imagine powers to prevent obstruction or nuisance being used in some circumstances, but don't believe there is a more general prohibition, still less one that would attract a fine. Does anyone have something definitive that would help?


----------



## benborp (4 Dec 2012)

Regardless of speed, pedestrians are generally allowed to walk along roads.

I won't go any further in case someone wants to put money on this (or conkers or whatever).


----------



## Crankarm (4 Dec 2012)

byegad said:


> A recumbent trike riding friend told me she had touched 70mph coming off Shap Fell with a full camping load onboard. Given I've topped 50mph I believe her. On the Tour de France TV coverage they frequently show the TV Motorbike's speedo on descents and I've seen 115kph on one of those. If a stick bike can do it a recumbent certainly can.


 
Have you seen the footage of Fabian Cancellara descending the Pyrenees in Le Tour a few seasons ago. IIRC at one point he was riding at 75mph  .


----------



## Risex4 (4 Dec 2012)

2186758 said:


> Don't be silly, how is a person supposed to get along a country lane where there is no pavement?


 
Find a suitably sized cow from a nearby field?


----------



## byegad (4 Dec 2012)

benborp said:


> Regardless of speed, pedestrians are generally allowed to walk along roads.
> 
> I won't go any further in case someone wants to put money on this (or conkers or whatever).


 
Pity, I'd have taken the bet. The only roads banned to pedestrians are Motorways and the odd stretch of, usually, busy roads or river crossings where there is specific ban.


----------



## Cubist (4 Dec 2012)

Electric_Andy said:


> Funny, I was just thinking about that! I guess they would be warned/fined for walking on a public highway. Regardless of speed, pedestrians are generally not allowed to walk along roads. Going back to cycling, I'd only worry about breaking a speed limit if it was a built up area or within a 20mph school zone.





2186771 said:


> Paging Insp Cubist.





benborp said:


> Regardless of speed, pedestrians are generally allowed to walk along roads.
> 
> I won't go any further in case someone wants to put money on this (or conkers or whatever).


Benborp wins (although there was only a small bag of marbles and a blunt pencil sharpener riding on this one) 

Generally a pedestrian has every right to use any part of a highway, except for a motorway. 

There are places where pedestrians will be restricted/prohibited by bylaws and local measures. 

Nuisance behaviour/ obstruction all have their own bits of legislation to go at.


----------



## Cubist (4 Dec 2012)

2186867 said:


> Ooo yes. I wonder if they will be on the mat when I get in.


Not often I'll use the phrase "Your mouse is in the post."

However, on trying to get it to you I encountered the following prohibitions: 

Filth
Human and animal remains*



*http://www.royalmail.com/despatch-inward-mail-services/hints-and-tips/prohibited-goods (ibid)


----------



## Cycling Dan (4 Dec 2012)

this website answers all
http://www.astounding.org.uk/ian/cyclelaw/speed_limits.html


----------



## CopperCyclist (5 Dec 2012)

Electric_Andy said:


> Going back to cycling, I'd only worry about breaking a speed limit if it was a built up area or within a 20mph school zone.


Ah - you may however have to drive to the limit, and may be able to be summonsed for breaking them! That's on the presumption that your username means you ride an electric assist bike. (If you are just an electrician, or a modern day cybernetic human, I withdraw this claim!).

I can find no stated cases on this, so this is mostly just theorising on my part, (and Id be interested to know if @Cubist @Drago @VikeOnABike would agree with the below logic) however:

An electric bike has a small electric engine, and as such can be easily defined as a mechanically propelled vehicle.
A motor vehicle is 'any mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on the road'.
I suspect most e-bikes are intended for use on, rather than off road. Even if this wasn't the case, if you add lights to it to help you be seen by cars, this would constitute adapting it for use on road.
It therefore follows that an e-bike is a motor vehicle and as such must obey speed limits - the fact that most give no assistance above 15mph is neither here nor there legislation-wise!

Back in the real world, if you actually manage to find an officer who will try this, you've been very, very unlucky!


----------



## benborp (5 Dec 2012)

CopperCyclist said:


> Ah - you may however have to drive to the limit, and may be able to be summonsed for breaking them! That's on the presumption that your username means you ride an electric assist bike. (If you are just an electrician, or a modern day cybernetic human, I withdraw this claim!).
> 
> I can find no stated cases on this, so this is mostly just theorising on my part, (and Id be interested to know if @Cubist @Drago @VikeOnABike would agree with the below logic) however:
> 
> ...


 
Again, from RTRA 1984


> 140
> *Certain vehicles not to be treated as motor vehicles.*​
> (1)​For the purposes of this Act—​(a)​a mechanically propelled vehicle which is an implement for cutting grass, is controlled by a pedestrian and is not capable of being used or adapted for any other purpose;​(b)​any other mechanically propelled vehicle controlled by a pedestrian which may be specified by regulations made by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section and of [section 189 of the Road Traffic Act 1988]; and​(c)​an electrically assisted pedal cycle of such class as may be prescribed by regulations so made,​shall be treated as not being a motor vehicle. ​(2)​In this section “controlled by a pedestrian” means that the vehicle either—​(a)​is constructed or adapted for use only under such control, or​(b)​is constructed or adapted for use either under such control or under the control of a person carried on it, but is not for the time being in use under, or proceeding under, the control of a person carried on it.


 
The fact that most give no assistance above 15mph is very much here and there legislation wise as that is a requirement of the regulations that recognise an electrically assisted pedal cycle as such.

I want a gobstopper and some string.


----------



## CopperCyclist (5 Dec 2012)

benborp said:


> Again, from RTRA 1984
> 
> I want a gobstopper and some string.



You should have asked for a diamond


----------



## Electric_Andy (5 Dec 2012)

benborp said:


> Again, from RTRA 1984
> 
> 
> The fact that most give no assistance above 15mph is very much here and there legislation wise as that is a requirement of the regulations that recognise an electrically assisted pedal cycle as such.
> ...


 
Good work!


----------



## Electric_Andy (5 Dec 2012)

newfhouse said:


> Are you sure? Discouraged, yes. Disallowed, I don't think so. I can imagine powers to prevent obstruction or nuisance being used in some circumstances, but don't believe there is a more general prohibition, still less one that would attract a fine. Does anyone have something definitive that would help?


 
Ok maybe I have lived in the city for too long - of course where I grew up we walked on the roads/lanes all the time. But I mean, even if it's not a Motorway, I could see a person being spoken to by a traffic officer if they were walking on the road (and there was a pavement on offer). I recall seeing one of those police, Camera, Action videos, and a lad was stopped and cautioned becasue he was walking in the road (not in the middle). Yes he had been drinking, but that wasn't why he was stopped. However he was told that the offence would be drunk and disorderly if he continued to use the road instead of the pavement.


----------



## benborp (5 Dec 2012)

CopperCyclist said:


> You should have asked for a diamond


 
What would be the point of getting my hopes up? As far as I know Adrian's still waiting on his conkers!


----------



## newfhouse (5 Dec 2012)

Electric_Andy said:


> I recall seeing one of those police, Camera, Action videos, and a lad was stopped and cautioned becasue he was walking in the road (not in the middle)


 
Advised perhaps, told off for his own benefit maybe, but not cautioned. That has a particular meaning when interacting with the police, as I'm sure one of the forum's officers will be able to explain.


----------



## BentMikey (6 Dec 2012)

Electric_Andy said:


> Funny, I was just thinking about that! I guess they would be warned/fined for walking on a public highway. Regardless of speed, pedestrians are generally not allowed to walk along roads. Going back to cycling, I'd only worry about breaking a speed limit if it was a built up area or within a 20mph school zone.


 
I've learnt how much more enlightened the UK is on this. There are no jaywalking laws here, jaywalking laws are the sign of a backward country. Pedestrians are rightly allowed to walk on the public highway as needed. It's up to all of us to be careful around them, not to expect them to leap out of our way just because we're heavier and/or faster than them on a bike or in a car.

Besides, I bet you didn't know that the pavements are part of the public highway?


----------



## BentMikey (6 Dec 2012)

CopperCyclist said:


> Ah - you may however have to drive to the limit, and may be able to be summonsed for breaking them! That's on the presumption that your username means you ride an electric assist bike. (If you are just an electrician, or a modern day cybernetic human, I withdraw this claim!).
> 
> I can find no stated cases on this, so this is mostly just theorising on my part, (and Id be interested to know if @Cubist @Drago @VikeOnABike would agree with the below logic) however:
> 
> ...


 
Apart from Ben's reply, assuming it was a legal electric cycle, then it wouldn't be giving assist at above 15mph, so would destroy your argument.

I'm not sure whether Electric Andy's cycle is illegally modified or not, mind you. I've seen quite a few bikes in London that definitely were.


----------



## Electric_Andy (6 Dec 2012)

BentMikey said:


> Apart from Ben's reply, assuming it was a legal electric cycle, then it wouldn't be giving assist at above 15mph, so would destroy your argument.
> 
> I'm not sure whether Electric Andy's cycle is illegally modified or not, mind you. I've seen quite a few bikes in London that definitely were.



No I'm all legal. When I go above 15mph I am pedalling a 27kg bike around!


----------



## BentMikey (6 Dec 2012)

Sorry for that tiny bit of doubt in my mind!


----------

