Cyclists win police court battle!

[[email protected]]

On 2 Jul 2006 05:34:22 -0700, "Tony Raven" <[email protected]>
wrote:


>Untrue actually. Speed limits don't apply to cyclists except in Royal
>Parks. The law specifically states that they only apply to motor
>vehicles on the public highways.
So the group of cyclists I was driving behind in a 30MPH area that
where steadily pulling away from me where perfectly legal then !!!!.

 

[Steve Walker]

In message <[email protected]>, David Hansen
<[email protected]> writes
>On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 13:23:20 +0100 someone who may be Steve Walker
><[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>>That's like saying that cyclists only obey speed limits because mostly
>>they can't pedal fast enough to break them. True,
>
>It is untrue, because speed limits on public roads apply only to
>motor vehicle drivers.

The speed limits don't apply to them because they, by and large, can't
break them. What would be the point, it would be like Pythonesque
discussions on the right of men to get pregnant.

However, whether the specific law applies to them or not is irrelevant
to the point I was making, which is that the argument that cyclists only
jump red lights more than cars because they can is like saying that
drivers only speed more than cyclists because they can.

--
Steve Walker

 

[Gizmo]

"Tom Crispin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 1 Jul 2006 11:28:37 +0100, Conor <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>Well as you're obviously an idiot try:
>>
>>1) 26 million cars.
>>2) 12,000 miles per annum average per vehicle.
>>3) Registration system making automated policing easy (Speed Cameras,
>>ANPR).
>
> 1 hr at > 70mph on the motorway on a 2 hr journey is 50% law breaking.
>
> 6 secs traffic light infringement on a 15 min bike journey is 0.5% law
> breaking.
>
> 2 min mobile phone call on a 20 min trip to the hairdresser is 10% law
> breaking.
>
> 30 seconds on the pavement to avoid queuing traffic on a 10 min ride
> to the shops is 5% law breaking.

Now take into account risk and impact of each of the above.

 

[Tony Raven]

[email protected] wrote:
>
> So the group of cyclists I was driving behind in a 30MPH area that
> where steadily pulling away from me where perfectly legal then !!!!.

Absolutely even if you had been exceeding 30mph at the time.

Tony

 

[Tony Raven]

Steve Walker wrote:
>
> However, whether the specific law applies to them or not is irrelevant
> to the point I was making, which is that the argument that cyclists only
> jump red lights more than cars because they can is like saying that
> drivers only speed more than cyclists because they can.
>

Nothing to do with the original point though that the propensity of
cyclists to jump red lights is no greater than that for motorists,
which puts motorists complaining about it in the category of pots and
black kettles.

Tony

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Sat, 01 Jul 2006 18:53:06 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>> "Brimstone" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>Tom Crispin said:
>
>>>>1 hr at > 70mph on the motorway on a 2 hr journey is 50% law breaking.
>
>>>>6 secs traffic light infringement on a 15 min bike journey is 0.5% law
>>>>breaking.
>
>>>>2 min mobile phone call on a 20 min trip to the hairdresser is 10% law
>>>>breaking.
>
>>>>30 seconds on the pavement to avoid queuing traffic on a 10 min ride
>>>>to the shops is 5% law breaking.
>
>>>>I do not condone any of the above, but cyclists' law breaking is much
>>>>less than motorists' law breaking.
>>>Where have these percentages come from and what are they a percentage of?
>
>> ... They are simply made up examples.
>
>Quite.

How about this, then.

A happy chance took me between juction 2 and 5 of the M25 today. I
asked my friend to be careful not to exceed 70 mph, and I counted the
number of cars, vans and motorbikes which we overtook and which
overtook us.

My friend is sure that she maintained an indicated speed between 65
and 70 mph.

88 cars, vans and motorbikes passed us and we passed 37.

I am perfectly happy to accept that a few of the vehicles which passed
us did so within the law, but even so, it seems that at least two
thirds of motorists on that sample of road at that time were breaking
the law.

I think that you'd be hard pressed to find that level of law breaking
amoung cyclists, even in the most notorious places.

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 14:47:09 +0100, "Gizmo" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> 2 min mobile phone call on a 20 min trip to the hairdresser is 10% law
>> breaking.
>>
>> 30 seconds on the pavement to avoid queuing traffic on a 10 min ride
>> to the shops is 5% law breaking.
>
>Now take into account risk and impact of each of the above.

1 pedestrian killed by a pavement cyclist every 4 years.

Several pedestrians killed by motorists on their phones every year.

 

[jtaylor]

"Al C-F" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
> Huge wrote:
> > On 2006-07-02, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>
> >>But is being "brushed past" by a cyclist actually dangerous or are you
> >>just thinking it is? Because cyclists have only killed on person on a
> >>pavement in the past four years and injure about 70 a year while around
> >>70 pedestrians are killed and 3,500 injured every year on the pavement
> >>by cars.
> >
> >
> > You are, of course, going to adjust those figures by the relevant
> > number of passenger-miles in each mode?
> >
>
> Wouldn't it be more appropriate to adjust for time, rather than distance?

No.

Much better to estimate the probability of a pedestrian being injured or
killed by a cyclist versus the driver of a motorcar, as that is where the
danger lies.

 

[jtaylor]

"Steve Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In message <[email protected]>, David Hansen
> <[email protected]> writes
> >On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 13:23:20 +0100 someone who may be Steve Walker
> ><[email protected]> wrote this:-
> >
> >>That's like saying that cyclists only obey speed limits because mostly
> >>they can't pedal fast enough to break them. True,
> >
> >It is untrue, because speed limits on public roads apply only to
> >motor vehicle drivers.
>
> The speed limits don't apply to them because they, by and large, can't
> break them.

No, they don't apply to them because that is the way the law is written.

Ascribing intent to a the words of statute is moot.

 

[jtaylor]

"Al C-F" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news[email protected]...
> JNugent wrote:
> > Tony Raven wrote:
> >
>
> >
> >
> >> But is being "brushed past" by a cyclist actually dangerous or are you
> >> just thinking it is?
> >
> >
> > Of course it is dangerous. That it is dangerous is the very reason why
> > cyclists aren't allowed on footways.
> >
>
> If it is so dangerous, please will you explain the existance of
> shared-use (cyclist and pedestrian) paths?

An opportunity for drivers of motorcars who mount the pavement to score
double.

 

[[email protected]]

On 2 Jul 2006 06:52:23 -0700, "Tony Raven" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>> So the group of cyclists I was driving behind in a 30MPH area that
>> where steadily pulling away from me where perfectly legal then !!!!.
>
>Absolutely even if you had been exceeding 30mph at the time.
>
>Tony
Believe me or not Tony I always keep to speed limits even on motorways
unlike many other stupid pilocks . I was delayed by over an hour on
the M61 last Tuesday thanks to one of the afore mentioned stupid
pilocks ramming his car into a bridge at 80 MPH at least he won't be
holding up anyone else on any road from now on.
I got this info from my cousin who is a motorway cop with Lancashire
country police the car Speedo had jammed at 80 .

 

[Alan Braggins]

Tony Raven wrote:
>Huge wrote:
[...]
>Maybe but you are confusing the messenger with the message which is
>that the official Government position (and ACPO guidance) is that
>cycling on the pavement should only be prosecuted if done
>inconsiderately, irrespective of its legality. I presume though that
>you support prosecution of motorists that go 1mph over the speed limit
>and not the ACPO guidelines of not prosecuting for less than 10% over.

Surely that presumption assumes that Huge isn't a hypocrite with a
double standard? An assumption that seems unwarranted.

 

[Steve Firth]

On 2 Jul 2006 05:31:33 -0700, Tony Raven wrote:

> I presume though that
> you support prosecution of motorists that go 1mph over the speed limit
> and not the ACPO guidelines of not prosecuting for less than 10% over.

I support the prosecution of any motorist who drives along the pavement. I
support the prosecution of any cyclist who rides along the pavement.

I support the prosecution of any motorist who runs a red light.
I support the prosecution of any cyclist who runs a red light.

Go on, try and make out that this is somehow unjust.

 

[Steve Firth]

On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 13:21:52 +0100, Al C-F wrote:

> The motorists. The ones that generate the dangers that cyclists perceive.

As a pedestrian, it's pavement cyclists that generate the dangers.
Fortunately I have found that an umbrella through the spokes works wonders.
And it's amazing how one can "accidentally" smack a pavement cyclist in the
teeth with an elbow.

 

[Steve Firth]

On 2 Jul 2006 11:06:18 GMT, Huge wrote:

> On 2006-07-02, Al C-F <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>
>> The benefit to cyclists of cycling on the pavement is that of being
>> further away from the careless and inconsiderate motorists mentioned above.
>>
>
> And the benefit to pedestrians of having cyclists on the footpath? Can
> you not see that you are treating the pedestrians in the same way that
> you are complaining that the car drivers treat you?

Of course not because he's a selfish pavement cycling moron.

 

[Andy Leighton]

On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 18:44:51 +0100, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 13:24:46 +0100, Al C-F wrote:
>
>> It is possible to cycle safely amongst pedestrians if
>> one is sufficiently civil.
>
> If one ignores the illegality

This is the same Steve Firth who not long ago boasts about assaulting
pavement cyclists. Now I am not one to defend pavement cyclists but
when it comes to illegality I think you are being a tad hypocritical.

--
Andy Leighton => [email protected]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

 

[Paul Weaver]

Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
> All the applicable speed limits for cyclists in this country are easily
> broken by any moderately fit cyclist.

Raises the question if it's legal to ride in public parks without a
calibrated speedo, the situation if your speedo is not corectly
calibrated etc.

There's an offence of peddling furiously, I wonder if that means you
break the law if you like a high pedal cadence..

 

[Brimstone]

In news:[email protected],
Paul Weaver said:
> Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
>> All the applicable speed limits for cyclists in this country are
>> easily broken by any moderately fit cyclist.
>
> Raises the question if it's legal to ride in public parks without a
> calibrated speedo, the situation if your speedo is not corectly
> calibrated etc.
>
> There's an offence of peddling furiously, I wonder if that means you
> break the law if you like a high pedal cadence..

The term is "riding furiously" and was introduced when horses were the prime
mover.

 

[Ambrose Nankivell]

Paul Weaver wrote:
> Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
>> All the applicable speed limits for cyclists in this country are
>> easily broken by any moderately fit cyclist.
>
> Raises the question if it's legal to ride in public parks without a
> calibrated speedo, the situation if your speedo is not corectly
> calibrated etc.

Well, it's not compulsory to have a blood alcohol meter to drive, despite
having a maximum limit for blood alcohol

> There's an offence of peddling furiously, I wonder if that means you
> break the law if you like a high pedal cadence..

I think it's more to do with if you're pedalling hard enough that you're not
in control.

A

 

[Steve Firth]

On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 20:05:05 +0100, David Hansen wrote:

> You might like to start by
> campaigning against the Scottish

Well I'm all for that.