Speed limits

[Arch]

Yes, cyclists can be done in such circumstances. As I recall, that Cambridge cyclist who was supposedly training for an assault on the hour record a few years back was done for riding at 27mph in a 30 limit at pub kicking out time.

Thought so. Now then, could a motorist be done for the same? I'm assuming it could be made to stick under 'dangerous' or 'lack of due care' or something....

 

[col]

<sigh> That's just the point. We are following the rules of the road, which say that speed limits apply to motorised vehicles and not bicycles. Easy - there's the original question in your first post answered. If you want to start a separate thread about whether we have a moral obligation to ride at sensible speeds, that's fine, but the question in your OP was answered politely and reasonably some time ago.

But its moved on,or do we have to post a different thread for every question asked in a debate?Where does it say that speeding doesnt apply to cyclists?Just because its not saying cyclist must not speed,doesnt mean we are exempt does it?

 

[col]

You know more then me then

I very much doubt it

 

[wafflycat]

I wonder if Col, when cycling, would comply if a sign said "drive over the cliff in front"

As a cyclist, I comply with the law relating to cycling.
As a motorist, I comply with the law relating to motoring.

There, not that difficult, is it.

 

[gavintc]

But, how do you measure speed on a bike, when speedometers are not required.

 

[col]

I wonder if Col, when cycling, would comply if a sign said "drive over the cliff in front"

As a cyclist, I comply with the law relating to cycling.
As a motorist, I comply with the law relating to motoring.

There, not that difficult, is it.

Very ignorant of you ,and the comment rather childish,but im not talking about you cycling within the law,but someone who feels they can do something,just because it doesnt say they cant,when if done in a vehicle would be deemed breaking the law or dangerous.

 

[col]

No, you have moved it on (#22) after your original question was answered.

Other questions raised arnt allowed then?

 

[Arch]

But its moved on,or do we have to post a different thread for every question asked in a debate?Where does it say that speeding doesnt apply to cyclists?Just because its not saying cyclist must not speed,doesnt mean we are exempt does it?

This (the definition of cyclists/vehicles etc) has been explained. If you don't understand, go ask a lawyer?

 

[wafflycat]

Very ignorant of you ,and the comment rather childish,but im not talking about you cycling within the law,but someone who feels they can do something,just because it doesnt say they cant,when if done in a vehicle would be deemed breaking the law or dangerous.

Ah yes, ignorant to comply with the law that applies to the mode of transport being used.

 

[col]

Ah yes, ignorant to comply with the law that applies to the mode of transport being used.

No,ignorant to answer as if your talking to someone else,and childish to say someone would follow a sign like that.

 

[col]

If this is the case you should have said this in your op. Instead you have gone off on a tangent arguing the toss. Am now very bored and am going to stick pins in my eyes and do some star jumps.

Promises promises
Like most questions,the answer isnt as simple as i thought.And not realising that i had to post all questions relating to this before they came up,i apologise.

 

[wafflycat]

No Col, you're displaying ignorance and trollish behaviour when you've had a point answered - but not with the answer you seemingly wanted to hear, so you move goalposts - just like a Vicky Pollard "yebbut, nobut, yebbut, nobut.."

 

[col]

This (the definition of cyclists/vehicles etc) has been explained. If you don't understand, go ask a lawyer?

Do i sense a tad aggression there?Dont you understand what im asking ?How rules can apply to one but not another,just because they are not named?

 

[col]

No Col, you're displaying ignorance and trollish behaviour when you've had a point answered - but not with the answer you seemingly wanted to hear, so you move goalposts - just like a Vicky Pollard "yebbut, nobut, yebbut, nobut.."

A childish troll too eh The point has been answered as to the legalities,but it hasnt been answered as to why should we be not dangerous doing something that a car is?As i think it does relate .

 

[Arch]

Do i sense a tad aggression there?Dont you understand what im asking ?How rules can apply to one but not another,just because they are not named?

Agression? I just think you've had an answer and seemed determined to ignore it.

The cyclist isn't named as a cyclist, no. But they are named by virtue of not being the thing the law applies to - a motorised vehicle. Cyclists are liable to their own set of laws.

Think of it this way. A doctor is not supposed to pass on patient information if it's confidential, are they? And nowhere in the world is there a rule that specifically says "arch is exempt from the doctor/patient confidentiality rule". But as I'm not a doctor, I'm allowed to tell anyone I like anything I like about people I know. It may not be right, or nice to do so, but it's not against the rules, because the rules apply to a group of people to which I don't belong...