To Overtake or Not

[Dogtrousers]

He said going up not down (which you meant with descent?)

Personally I wouldn’t overtake a car doing 20 even if I could…I did overtake a learner the other day doing about 10 in a 20 after s/he pulled out in front of me and failed to accelerate. Hope s/he wasn’t on test!

Actually I hadn't considered learners. I often come across them on Saturday mornings as I weave along my suburbia escape routes. Have I ever overtaken one? I can't remember. Probably

 

[Mr Celine]

Royal Parks speed limits don't apply to cyclists either. https://road.cc/content/news/cyclists-richmond-park-face-crackdown-speeding-295361

One speed limit that does seem to apply to cyclists is the 40 mph limit on the A87 Skye Bridge, and part of an adjacent 30 limit in Kyle of Lochalsh. Fastest I've seen on Strava is 44!

That limit applies because it's a Special Road, and the regulation says "vehicles". Thus it's Section 17 RTRA, not Section 81-84.

Note, this is also a Special Road, but the wording isn't easily findable.
View attachment 702105

Also (in Scotland) temporary speed limits through road works apply to 'vehicles' and not just 'motor vehicles'.

Englandshire and Wales may or may not be the same.

 

[Solocle]

Also (in Scotland) temporary speed limits through road works apply to 'vehicles' and not just 'motor vehicles'.

Englandshire and Wales may or may not be the same.

I presume you mean wording like this:

Section 14 does seem to allow this.

However, the regulations about signage apply to motor vehicles, and there'd be no way to tell on the ground! All gets a bit iffy.

Other temporary limits in Scotland only apply to motor vehicles:

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

In Oxton ? That's some hill. I had the KOM going up in the early days of Strava.

WOW
I didn;t expect anyone to know it!!!

but yes - that one - it was on my way to school on the rare occasions that I was allowed to cycle to school

It was part of one of the cycle rides I did during school holidays etc

record from home to school was under 15 minutes - pre Strava etc etc so no idea of my time on the hill or even if there was a KOM

 

[DRM]

To be fair in the 20 mph zones where I live, there is a slight descent near home, I can be doing 23 mph, yet still get overtaken by cars, on the other hand many, many years ago, when I was much fitter I overtook a bus going up a short hill, into town, the expression of the bus driver was priceless, as was the now Mrs DRM when she got off the bus at the town hall!

 

[Amanda P]

An interesting discussion. Different types of vehicles are subject to different speed limits - motor vehicles limited to 20mph, cyclists limited only to something that's not 'wanton' or 'furious'.

Isn't this just the same as, say, national speed limit roads where cars are limited to 60mph, but large commercials or those towing to 50mph?
Is it 'twattish' for a motorcyclist or a nippy car to overtake a lorry lumbering along at 50, if it's safe and no limits are broken?

And if it isn't, why is it twattish for a cyclist moving briskly to overtake slower-moving motor traffic - if it's safe and not objectively 'wanton' or 'furious'?

 

[cougie uk]

WOW
I didn;t expect anyone to know it!!!

but yes - that one - it was on my way to school on the rare occasions that I was allowed to cycle to school

It was part of one of the cycle rides I did during school holidays etc

record from home to school was under 15 minutes - pre Strava etc etc so no idea of my time on the hill or even if there was a KOM

OOf. Heck of a hill to have to use for your school route !!

 

[Alex321]

...Restricted roads are usually located in residential and built-up areas where there are lots of people...
...We recognise not all roads with a currently at 30mph limit will be suitable to change to 20mph. These roads will be known as exceptions. Local Authorities will consider with their communities which roads should remain at 30mph and there will be 30mph signs to tell you this....
https://www.gov.wales/introducing-default-20mph-speed-limits

The idea that cyclists should not just ignore these, but overtake motorists complying with them, is utterly twattish.

In some circumstances, indeed probably most circumstances, yes it would be.

But not in ALL circumstances, particularly given that by no means all of the new 20 limits will actually be in residential zones.

Why you think that cyclists should NEVER overtake other vehicles travelling at their speed limit when the limit does not apply to vehicles, I do not understand.

 

[Dogtrousers]

An interesting discussion. Different types of vehicles are subject to different speed limits - motor vehicles limited to 20mph, cyclists limited only to something that's not 'wanton' or 'furious'.

Isn't this just the same as, say, national speed limit roads where cars are limited to 60mph, but large commercials or those towing to 50mph?
Is it 'twattish' for a motorcyclist or a nippy car to overtake a lorry lumbering along at 50, if it's safe and no limits are broken?

And if it isn't, why is it twattish for a cyclist moving briskly to overtake slower-moving motor traffic - if it's safe and not objectively 'wanton' or 'furious'?

What you're missing here is the absolute values of the speeds involved. The bike will have to be doing around 25mph (40km/h that's the speed of a pro peloton) to complete an overtake of a 20mph vehicle. Most 20mph limits are (or the ones where I live are) residential, one lane each way with pavements and street lights and all the associated hazards.

There's a very good chance of such a manoeuvre being twattish ( @roubaixtuesday ) or at least poor cycling ettiquette ( @Time Waster ). But there is also a possibility that it's fine ( @vickster overtaking a learner going at 10mph).

The different speed limits for other vehicles are based on safety assessments of the vehicles. Now, I don't know this but I'm going to guess that the absence of speed limits for cycles is because the legislators either forgot them or considered that they don't go fast enough to be relevant, which the vast majority of the time they don't. It's a loophole, and one that hardly anyone would care if it were closed.

 

[nickyboy]

This topic comes up here every now and then. There is a village near me that is entirely 20mph and it's on a fairly long hill. The reason it is 20mph is because there is a Primary School in the middle of it

Whilst it is undoubtedly true that a car travelling at more than 20mph is going to do more damage to a child, a bike travelling at more than 20mph isn't going to leave a child unscathed. So there is a strong moral imperative to keep it under 20mph like the rest of the traffic on the road. There is absolutely no way I would be overtaking a car doing 20mph there. To overtake would mean I'd have to be doing 25mph minimum and if a child walked out into the road and I hit them, it's going to end badly for the child and I, regardless of what the law says I can and can't do, would feel entirely culpable

 

[Alex321]

What you're missing here is the absolute values of the speeds involved. The bike will have to be doing around 25mph (40km/h that's the speed of a pro peloton) to complete an overtake of a 20mph vehicle. Most 20mph limits are (or the ones where I live are) residential, one lane each way with pavements and street lights and all the associated hazards.

There's a very good chance of such a manoeuvre being twattish ( @roubaixtuesday ) or at least poor cycling ettiquette ( @Time Waster ). But there is also a possibility that it's fine ( @vickster overtaking a learner going at 10mph).

Indeed. I quite agree that in the majority of cases, it is neither sensible nor good manners.

But there are exceptions, which is what @roubaixtuesday doesn't seem to accept.

The different speed limits for other vehicles are based on safety assessments of the vehicles. Now, I don't know this but I'm going to guess that the absence of speed limits for cycles is because the legislators either forgot them or considered that they don't go fast enough to be relevant, which the vast majority of the time they don't. It's a loophole, and one that hardly anyone would care if it were closed.

I think there are a combination of reasons why speed limits don't apply to cyclists.

But the biggest reason, AFAIK, is that cyclists are not required to actually know how fast they are going. Motor vehicles generally have a requirement to have a speedometer (and the construction and use regulations require that it can never read low, but can read up to 10%+2.4mph high). Therefore, drivers of motor vehicles should always know what speed they are doing, and therefore whether they are exceeding the limit, while cyclists have no such requirement.

But then there is also the fact that until 20 limits started to appear, it would be quite rare for cyclists to actually exceed the limits anyhow, and when they do, the damage they are likely to cause in an accident is far less. They are also far more manoeuvrable, and have a much smaller frontal area to colide with others.

 

[Alex321]

It will be interesting next month here in Wales to see just how many of the non-residential restricted roads retain the 30 limit, and how many go to the new default 20 limit.

I can think of a few roads that are currently 30 limits where I usually travel at well over 20, and sometimes over 30. I've never overtaken a car in any of them yet, but if I came across a car doing 20, I probably would. But IMO, the roads I'm thinking of should not be changed to 20.

The road I gave a streetview link to above is one of those. But it probably WILL change to 20, because up until a couple of hundred yards before that point, it is residential enough to just about warrant it, and they are just going to want to replace the existing 30/40 signs with 20/40 ones, rather than adding a new set of 20/30 signs 300 yards away.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

Indeed. I quite agree that in the majority of cases, it is neither sensible nor good manners.

But there are exceptions, which is what @roubaixtuesday doesn't seem to accept.

I stand by exactly what I wrote and have nothing to add.

 

[DogmaStu]

Indeed. I quite agree that in the majority of cases, it is neither sensible nor good manners.

But there are exceptions, which is what @roubaixtuesday doesn't seem to accept.



I think there are a combination of reasons why speed limits don't apply to cyclists.

But the biggest reason, AFAIK, is that cyclists are not required to actually know how fast they are going. Motor vehicles generally have a requirement to have a speedometer (and the construction and use regulations require that it can never read low, but can read up to 10%+2.4mph high). Therefore, drivers of motor vehicles should always know what speed they are doing, and therefore whether they are exceeding the limit, while cyclists have no such requirement.

But then there is also the fact that until 20 limits started to appear, it would be quite rare for cyclists to actually exceed the limits anyhow, and when they do, the damage they are likely to cause in an accident is far less. They are also far more manoeuvrable, and have a much smaller frontal area to colide with others.

Indeed.

Bicycles are not subject to the National speed limits.
Bicycles do not require speedometers (if I'm following my watt programme or navigation, I can't see my speed since I don't have it on those screens)
Bicycles are permitted to overtake slower moving motor vehicles as per the Highway Code.

As cyclists, we have to each make our own risk assessments so as to ensure the safety of other road users incl. and most importantly, pedestrians, when it comes to how fast we wish to travel.

It should go without say that 'wanton and furious' cycling outside a school or in an area of great pedestrian use must be avoided. It isn't difficult to work out where such instances might occur and the 20mph zones do highlight many of these.

However, contrary to 'The Jobsworth Approach', sections of road do exist where 20mph (and 30mph) limits have been imposed for motor vehicles that are not near schools etc whereby an experienced cyclist who has a clear road ahead of the vehicle they want to pass can perform an overtake without alarming or endangering other road or nearby pavement users. This is legal, despite The Jobsworth Approach' to cycling.

Naturally, it isn't that common for a cyclist to overtake a car at 20mph and above. In my case, when I do exceed the National speed limits on my bicycle it most likely I am doing interval training and possible chasing a KOM as motivation for that interval - as such, I do not want a vehicle potentially slowing me down so I generally only do them on totally empty roads, mostly country lanes. That said, I have overtaken cars at 20/30/40mph (even 50mph in Spain) speeds but I stand by my own risk assessments in those instances.

 

[Dogtrousers]

I think there are a combination of reasons why speed limits don't apply to cyclists.

But the biggest reason, AFAIK, is that cyclists are not required to actually know how fast they are going.

With respect, I think that's nonsense. It's just a massive red herring.

If you really want to know your speed there are lots of devices you can buy to tell you. So if speed limits were to apply, then you could get yourself one. If you were to choose not to, and didn't exercise reasonable care, then you could find yourself with a ticket. The absence of 1.5m long rulers sticking out of cars* doesn't prevent the highway code (rule 163) from stipulating that drivers should give cyclists 1.5m of space.

I'm not arguing for a change in the law to close the loophole by the way. I think it's pretty benign and would be a waste of effort to change. The vast majority of cyclists are never going to get close to breaking the speed limit. But if it were changed I wouldn't care one bit. It wouldn't affect me at all.

* Maybe some kind of laser sighting device may be a bit safer.