Speeding cyclist and Highway Code Rule 69

[DaveReading]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

Even I've exceeded 31mph in town.

 

[MontyVeda]

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]

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]

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]

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]

[

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]

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]

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

Is it defined by statute or by case law?

 

[Simontm]

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]

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]

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.