'Speeding' on a bike

[Rhythm Thief]

I don't believe there's a specific offence of speeding on a bike, as others have said. But I always get a mild buzz going through a 40 limit at, say, 43.

 

[LLB]

I like the idea of a streamliner, but this put me off a bit


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5Dapy1xUq0

 

[Cycling Naturalist]

Should being done for shoplifting result in points on your driving licence? Same logic.

No, you're perfectly ok, you'll keep a clean licence.

 

[TheDoctor]

No, you're perfectly ok, you'll keep a clean licence.

*relieved*

*attempts to smuggle Trek Madone out of Evans under coat*

*fails*

Can anyone recommend a good defense lawyer?:?:

 

[LLB]

I think in all fairness, that cycles should be bound by speed limits. It would not be difficult to justify a blanket limit for all vehicles regardless of their propulsion in sensitive areas.

 

[TheDoctor]

I agree with you, LLB, but I'm not sure it's actually a problem. Ignoring tabloid hysteria, can many of us actually get to 30mph and sustain it for long, let alone exceed it? I can do a 28 min '10' but it's a struggle, and I wouldn't generally put that effort in.

 

[User482]

You cannot have your driving licence endorsed for cycling offences because a bicycle is not a vehicle under law. See here:

http://www.bikeforall.net/content/cycling_and_the_law.php

 

[LLB]

The problem is that in areas where the speed needs to be reined back you shouldn't really have one law for one, and one law for another. hit 30+mph on a downhill slope past a school and you are so quiet, people just don't hear you coming.

 

[LLB]

You cannot have your driving licence endorsed for cycling offences because a bicycle is not a vehicle under law. See here:

http://www.bikeforall.net/content/cycling_and_the_law.php

Time for change ?

What pees me off about pavement riders is that they consider themselves to be wheeled pedestrians. If cycles were classed as vehicles (proper), then more consideration would be given in funding to making better provision for us.

I think that the government thinks that cyclists are uber mobile pedestrians also with the way which the cyclepath schemes are knocked up

 

[User482]

Time for change ?

What pees me off about pavement riders is that they consider themselves to be wheeled pedestrians. If cycles were classed as vehicles (proper), then more consideration would be given in funding to making better provision for us.

I think that the government thinks that cyclists are uber mobile pedestrians also with the way which the cyclepath schemes are knocked up

There are specific cycling offences that cover dangerous cycling on pavements. What needs to happen is for the exisiting law to be enforced. Likewise for speeding and dangerous motorists!

 

[Haitch]

Highway Code rule 103, applicable to all drivers and riders states: "You MUST NOT exceed the maximum speed limits for the road and for your vehicle (see the table on page 26)".

The table on p. 26 does not mention bikes but does say, "the 30mph limit applies to all traffic on all roads in England and Wales (and Class C and unclassified roads in Scotland) with street lighting unless signs show otherwise".

My underlining

 

[User482]

Highway Code rule 103, applicable to all drivers and riders states: "You MUST NOT exceed the maximum speed limits for the road and for your vehicle (see the table on page 26)".

The table on p. 26 does not mention bikes but does say, "the 30mph limit applies to all traffic on all roads in England and Wales (and Class C and unclassified roads in Scotland) with street lighting unless signs show otherwise".

My underlining

Yes - but it says "vehicle". A bicycle is a "carriage".

 

[TheDoctor]

The problem is that in areas where the speed needs to be reined back you shouldn't really have one law for one, and one law for another. hit 30+mph on a downhill slope past a school and you are so quiet, people just don't hear you coming.

Agree. My first really big off was doing exactly that.

The difference was, however, that I was doing about 25 mph on a bike and I came off worst. If I was driving, I'd have barely felt the impact.

 

[Haitch]

Yes - but it says "vehicle". A bicycle is a "carriage".

Yes, but it's applicable to all riders and to all traffic. Bit vague.

 

[wafflycat]

Time for change ?

What pees me off about pavement riders is that they consider themselves to be wheeled pedestrians. If cycles were classed as vehicles (proper), then more consideration would be given in funding to making better provision for us.

I think that the government thinks that cyclists are uber mobile pedestrians also with the way which the cyclepath schemes are knocked up

No. When cycling, you should be done for breaking the law relating to *cycling*. Cycling is waaay different to motoring - not least because being in charge of a tonne or more of metal is inherently more *potentially* dangerous than even overweight me riding a velo. By all means, if breaking the law relating to cycling, when cycling - be done for that offence. When motoring, the law relating to motoring applies.