Cyclists get pulled for 39mph in a 30 limit.

[mjr]

But it would be entirely possible for a cyclist to sneeze while riding a bike at 39mph and kill or main a pedestrian by riding into them. It has happened before.

When? I call bull shoot.

I am not really interested in working out the relative kinetic energy of different vehicles. It makes no difference - either way, the person you hit in either vehicle at 39mph is likely to be killed or badly injured.

Rather than justify us being allowed to ride faster than cars on some spurious quasi legal argument, can we just agree that one point and answer my question.

No, it's physical not quasi legal or spurious. The person you hit with a car at 39mph is massively more likely to be killed than the one hit with a bike. Plus, it's massively easier to do 39mph in a car than on a bike. I'd say it's pretty much impossible to do 39mph on a bike by accident: even downhill, you'd know you were going for speed. We need laws against motorists doing an easy, thoughtless, more dangerous action, which should not be diluted with freak cases of people doing more difficult less dangerous actions.

How would you feel if you killed someone by riding too fast for the road conditions?

I'd feel awful but it wouldn't have anything to do with what the speed limit was. Now you answer me this, please: would you only feel bad if you killed someone by riding too fast for the road conditions if you were also faster than the signed speed limit?

 

[rogerzilla]

They should have done Merrivale to Tavistock. That road's good for over 60mph. I only managed 56mph before I caught a Land Rover, but someone from St Budeaux CC claimed to have hit 72mph. It all smooths out above 50.

The main thing is not to let rip until you're over the cattle grid, as a wandering sheep could ruin your day.

 

[newts]

On a dry level road, not quite (stopping distance estimate from 37mph from one calculator is 33m) but there are two saving graces: 1. people won't simply appear and begin to cross without warning, so from when they became visible heading towards the crossing, any competent cyclists would signal "ease up" to the group and start slowing; 2. the conflict/potential-collision point is not at the edge of the road where the crossing begins. That extra metre or two for the person crossing makes it almost certain the cyclists would have been able to stop before hitting them. Problems usually seem to happen when incompetent cyclists decide they can swerve and avoid the person crossing without stopping, then the person turns around or runs forwards or ....

Apart from your quoted stopping distance, I disagree with everything you say here, just my humble opinion.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

This comes up every now and again so I’ll just cut and paste what I wrote the last time. It was in relation to a 20mph limit but my feelings are the same whatever the posted limit:

I look at it from the pedestrians' perspective. In a 20mph zone, they are entitled to expect that the limit is there to prioritise their safety and that it should be respected by all vehicle operators. The elderly, and others who are less mobile, should be able to cross streets in these zones without the worry and apprehension that comes with doing the same in a 30mph, or higher, area. Crossing those roads is stressful, worrying and tiring, as they hurry as best they can to get to the other side.

And I don't expect the average pedestrian to know that speed limits can't be enforced against cyclists.

As infrequent as the opportunity to exceed it may be, I will always comply with the posted speed limit while cycling. While it might not be my legal obligation, I feel it is my moral/societal obligation.

people won't simply appear and begin to cross without warning

You display remarkable optimism in the behaviour of humans.

 

[berty bassett]

They don't "all do pretty much the same". One of cars, cyclists and pedestrians will do massively more damage than the other groups when hitting something or someone at 30mph. Would you care to guess which?


They probably won't care because you would have committed more than enough other offences to get you to court. Even if you'd been on a motorcycle, it seems it's too difficult to prove speeding into a collision with the certainty required, so they don't often charge it if there's more obvious offences whose punishment will dwarf the points and fine anyway.

my point was they are all going to maim travelling at over close to 40 mph - sorry you seem to argue otherwise , lets hope you don't have to stand in court someday and do the same when it matters

 

[DaveReading]

I am not really interested in working out the relative kinetic energy of different vehicles. It makes no difference

I sincerely hope you are never in the position of having to put that to the test.

 

[Dogtrousers]

But it would be entirely possible for a cyclist to sneeze while riding a bike at 39mph and kill or main a pedestrian by riding into them. It has happened before. Not often, but that is because that's not a speed most cyclists are capable of or comfortable with.

I am not really interested in working out the relative kinetic energy of different vehicles. It makes no difference - either way, the person you hit in either vehicle at 39mph is likely to be killed or badly injured.

Rather than justify us being allowed to ride faster than cars on some spurious quasi legal argument, can we just agree that one point and answer my question. How would you feel if you killed someone by riding too fast for the road conditions?

So what's your concern here?

Do you think speed limits should be changed to include cycles? IMO that would be an enormous waste of public resources - only a minority of road users are cyclists, only a minority of cyclists are even capable of reaching speeds that exceed the road limits, let alone do so habitually. Plus, the likelihood of death or injury in the case of a collision with one of this minority of a minority is way lower than with a vehicle. It's a non-problem, certainly when considered in the context of road safety as a whole.

Or do you think that those cyclists who are capable of these speeds should jolly well stop it? OK. Feel free to tell them.

It's not as if the country is plagued by sneezing cyclists leaving a trail of bodies in their wake. And there's nothing "spurious" or "quasi legal" about the fact that different classes of vehicles are affected differently by speed limits. It's just the law. It's quite clear. (And it's got nothing to do with speedometers)

 

[chris667]

I sincerely hope you are never in the position of having to put that to the test.

Not quite sure what you are trying to say there.

It's just the law. It's quite clear.

I am trying to say law and some of the assumptions made about the behaviour, ability and focus of various groups of road users are not important.

If you hurt or kill someone because you are in a group who are riding too fast, how would you feel?

The fact that police officers judged it important enough to stop this group of cyclists shows that they thought they were riding at a speed that could endanger other road users is enough for me. I'd trust them before I trust any of you!

 

[Dogtrousers]

Not quite sure what you are trying to say there.


I am trying to say law and some of the assumptions made about the behaviour, ability and focus of various groups of road users are not important.

If you hurt or kill someone because you are in a group who are riding too fast, how would you feel?

The fact that police officers judged it important enough to stop this group of cyclists shows that they thought they were riding at a speed that could endanger other road users is enough for me. I'd trust them before I trust any of you!

You seem very agitated, but I really can't see what your point is. Are you arguing for a change in the law? For a change in the behaviour of cyclists in general? Do you think there is a country-wide problem with speeding cyclists?

If you just think that it was OK for the police to flag down, and have a word with the riders in question. I don't particularly have a problem with it either. I'm just a bit surprised that there were any police around at all. It's a complete non-story.

 

[Seevio]

I invite you to calculate the speed required for the kinetic energy of a 100 kg cyclist to equal that of a Ford Kia at 67 mph.

Thank you for the the invite.
285mph.

Spoiler: Boring workings out

Ford Ka 1.3 (898kg) + Driver (100kg) - 998kg
67mph = 107.2 kph = 27.78m/s
Kinetic Energy of ka @ 67mph = ½mv² = 442471J

We will give the rider a 10kg bike so total mass of cyclist = 110kg
Substituting values and rearranging for v, we get
v = √((2*442471)/110) = 126.8 m/s
In freedom units this is 285mph

 

[steveindenmark]

Its a non news item

 

[Jameshow]

Thank you for the the invite.
285mph.

Spoiler: Boring workings out

Ford Ka 1.3 (898kg) + Driver (100kg) - 998kg
67mph = 107.2 kph = 27.78m/s
Kinetic Energy of ka @ 67mph = ½mv² = 442471J

We will give the rider a 10kg bike so total mass of cyclist = 110kg
Substituting values and rearranging for v, we get
v = √((2*442471)/110) = 126.8 m/s
In freedom units this is 285mph

I don't think that figures.

Ford Ka bonnet is quite soft DAMHIK...

Cyclist will alloy wheels, possibly disc brakes,followed by a 100kg mamil is going to hurt just as much given the same speed.....

 

[Solocle]

I don't think that figures.

Ford Ka bonnet is quite soft DAMHIK...

Cyclist will alloy wheels, possibly disc brakes,followed by a 100kg mamil is going to hurt just as much given the same speed.....

The difference is that a pedestrian/cyclist collision at such a speed is pretty much mutually assured destruction.

 

[Gunk]

We had an elderly lady seriously injured outside our house a couple of years hit by a cyclist. It’s a 20 limit which is largely ignored

 

[Deleted member 121159]

You're all focusing on whether it is wrong or right for a cyclist to do 39mph on a 30mph road. Let's grant that they shouldn't do this and it is a public safety hazard. What I want to know is why the police decided to stop the cyclists instead of every single car on that road that's going at 45?