A coroner will file a report asking whether speed limits should include pedal cyclists after a pedestrian died as a result of a collision in Derbyshire. A forensic collision investigator said that Craig Bond had been riding at 38mph in a 30mph zone before he hit 79-year-old John Beach when the latter stepped into the road to cross.
Bond and his friend James Holmes were cycling on Nottingham Road in Ripley at around 5pm on April 16 when the collision took place.
Bond said that Beach stepped out in front of him and that he couldn’t have done anything to prevent the collision.
A witness who had been in a parked car said that Beach, “had his head down and at no point did I see him look.”
PC Lee Simpson, a forensic collision investigator with Derbyshire Constabulary, analysed CCTV footage and calculated that Bond had been travelling at an average speed of 38mph on the 30mph road.
At an earlier hearing, Bond disputed this. “I can’t believe that – it’s got to be incorrect,” he said. “I can’t imagine doing 38mph on my push bike.”
Bond’s wife said Strava indicated his speed ‘at the point of impact was 18mph’.
Coroner Sarah Huntbach adjourned the inquest to allow police to carry out further investigations.
The Derbyshire Times reports that data from Bond’s Garmin bike computer confirmed he was travelling at an average speed of about 38mph prior to the collision but slowed to 29mph before the impact.
Huntbach said Beach’s death was due to ‘a tragic combination of factors’.
“Mr Beach did not see the cyclists and they did not see him until it was too late,” she said.
Speed limits on roads only refer to motor vehicles and Huntbach said she would be filing a report asking whether they should cover cyclists as well.
67 thoughts on “Coroner asks whether speed limits should apply to cyclists after pedestrian stepped into road in front of Derbyshire rider”
So we are all going to have
So we are all going to have GPS units calibrated yearly as part of an mot?
How about worrying instead about kliier drivers doing 67 in a 40 or the other idiot doing 90 in a 30?
Why is it that a very rare event involving a cycle results in a knee jerk reaction?
hirsute wrote:
Because these events are still a rarity, therefore are news worthy. Death by car is common place, therefore not news worthy, therefore practically accepted.
Cyclolotl wrote:
Because these events are still a rarity, therefore are news worthy. Death by car is common place, therefore not news worthy, therefore practically accepted.— hirsute
Wanna be in the papers? Go out and bite a dog!
hirsute wrote:
In Norway speed limits apply to all vehicles, but he local Police have stated they’ve never actually fined anyone for speed as given a bike has no legal requirement for a speedo, so by the time they allow for that (you have to “feel” the speed), and the normal “safety margin” they remove from readings for any minor calibration errors, the actual chances of stopping a cyclist is pretty rare, and that given in surveys over 50% of drivers admit to “stretching” speed limits, they feel concentrating on that is more important.
Given the average speed control here in a 60 zone will generally net at least 1 doing 85+, and in an 80km/h zone will have several over 100, they prioritise. In association with the local council they just made a film to encourage cyclists to give more passing clearance and slow down more when passing people, especially kids, on shared use paths.
Our roads authority are
Our roads authority are piloting a major cycle route here, a fully segregated (no cars or pedestrians near it) route between Stavanger and the next town Sandnes, passing the areas major industrial and commercial hub, following the motorway. Having been asked specifically, it has been confirmed it’s being built to allow for continuous travel at 30km/h (so no sharp bends, or steep hills), and will have a theoretical speed limit of 80km/h….. I think I’ll be safe from getting a ticket once it opens.
Totally unenforceable.
Totally unenforceable.
Maybe people should look before stepping into the road.
Something very odd about the
Something very odd about the contradictory evidence. Police analysis of cctv footage gives 38mph, extremely unlikely unless the road is significantly downhill, and police analysis of the Garmin data shows 38mph also, but Strava showed 18mph, rather more realistic. Nottingham Road is quite long, so difficult to tell exactly where this happened, but perhaps someone with local knowledge can tell us if the road is significantly sloping?
Rather sad to see a cyclist giving the usual appalling excuses that drivers use; from the newspaper website
“Giving evidence at the earlier hearing, Mr Bond said: “He (Mr Beach) stepped out in front of me – he came out of nowhere.
“I couldn’t have done anything to prevent it.””
Clearly not true, as it isn’t true for drivers. Will there be any subsequent legal action against the cyclist?
burtthebike wrote:
I looked at strava segments on that road and there is one downhill segment with a kom with an average of 34mph or something, so it’s not unfeasible that he’d have been doing 38mph at some point.
burtthebike wrote:
I’d like to consider myself a reasonable cyclist, maybe towards the top end of average, but most definitely not good.
In order for met to hit 38 mph generally involves a combination of factors largley – A steep downhill (somewhere in excess of 10% gradient), a tail wind, and a balls to the wall effort….. and that is a peak speed not an average speed.
On one such descent, an average of -5.3% over 1.15 miles I managed to average 25.4mph, I managed to maintain in excess of 38 mph for a total of 11 seconds, where I had gradients of approaching -13% and as the gradient levelled off to -5% my speed dropped to around 28-30mph.
Crusing down a hill of that descent I would probably be hitting max speeds around 30 ish. So I think that the analysis of the police cctv footage is fundamentally flawed IMHO. But very easy to verify. Set a car driving at 38mph along the same stretch of road with the cctv camera recording identical footage, then play both sets of footage side by side and see the outcome
craigstitt wrote:
its difficult to judge theres probably a big difference in effort required to hit 38mph avg vs 36mph avg on the same descent but because the segment distance is so short the error factor is probably easily within +-5mph anyway.
there are couple of hills in Essex, which is hardly known for its steep climbs and descents, and which have been used in Tour of Britain/Womens Tour, but one in particular is 0.36mile segment of 5% average descent, you dont even make it in the top 2000 riders if you are slower than 30mph, the KOM is 44mph the QOM 37mph, now its NSL so no-one is breaking speed limits here, but the only thing stopping you from going over 30mph even for the average cyclist, is nothing to do with how much power you can put out,how quick you can pedal or how aero you are, its your inner doubt about falling off the bike at the moment with vehicles overtaking you at 60mph isnt going to end well, plus theres a big roundabout at the bottom you probably should stop for.
Ive not ridden on the roads where this accident happened so I dont know how easy or not it is to go “fast” on them, it seems at the top end of the recorded segment data speeds in the area, but there could be a massive error factor in play due to the shortness of segments,different measuring devices/means, subset of riders.
for me the take away from this is really in the 3 days since people have debated this, another 15 people will have likely died on the roads, another 40 will likely die before the end of this year in collisions caused entirely by motor vehicles.
Speed limits should apply to
Speed limits should apply to all road users, end of.
If you think you are fast enough to have a Garmin and a Strava account you have no excuse not to obey the posted speed limit.
If we want to be treated with the respect we want to receive from other road users, we have to not believe we are above a common sense law even if a obscure and outdated statute permits us too.
And if you think ‘but bicycles are different’, that poor old man is just as dead as if he had been hit by a car, bus or lorry.
Wiltsrider wrote:
Whether or not the speed limit should apply is different from the question of whether of the law is either enforceable or likely to be enforced. The answer to both those questions is a resounding no, so why bother legislating for it? It’s a waste of everyone’s time that will fail to prevent something that happens once in a blue moon.
Wiltsrider wrote:
Obviously bicycles are different with a mass of 10 to 15kg as opposed to a car of 1300 to 2100+ kg which can reach 100mph.
Do you regularly reach 30mph on the flat or uphill?
What is this obscure and outdated statute ?
hirsute wrote:
Obviously bicycles are different with a mass of 10 to 15kg as opposed to a car of 1300 to 2100+ kg which can reach 100mph.
Do you regularly reach 30mph on the flat or uphill?
What is this obscure and outdated statute ?— Wiltsrider
I suspect Wiltsrider found it too hard to concentrate in physics. Doesn’t seem to understand law either.
Wiltsrider wrote:
The use of the term “common sense” is a reliable sign that the writer is someone who is either incapable of thinking or is just too lazy to bother.
(Bog off with your “we” – there is no “we”, at least not one that links me to you).
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
If cyclists killed and injured thousands of people every year they would be treated with respect, like motor vehicle users.
Wiltsrider wrote:
There was a comprehensive review of road safety and sentencing announced in 2014, so maybe when the govt gets around to it, they’ll include bicycles, horses, skateboards, scooters and joggers in the speed limits, but as it stands the posted speed limits are specifically for motorised vehicles.
Personally, I don’t think there would be any benefit in including other vehicles in the speed limits. It would be introducing legislation that would possibly effect one or two people per year and there certainly isn’t the spare police capacity to warrant that.
By the way, there isn’t any minimum speed/distance/skill required to get a Garmin and/or Strava account. I think you may be a bit confused. End of.
Wiltsrider wrote:
That ‘poor old man’ stepped out into the roadway without looking according to a witness..I feel for the poor cyclist,that has to deal with all the issues of crashing into someone that died as a result,along with damage to himself and his bike.
As I posted on the other
As I posted on the other thread, I believe the incident took place approximately here due to the police referring to using the CCTV from a car show room to get the original speeds. Now nothing has been mentioned about which side he was coming from but assuming he crossed from the bus stop, and that it was rush hour, and coming down to a set a traffic lights I would suggest either the data is still wrong, or they were cycling in a dangerous manner to the situation (or both).
As Vonhelmet mentions, for anyone interested the two strava segments covering the area are this one for the short segment and this one covers all the hill and pre and post it. If the recorded data is correct (and I know sometimes I have been told I have hit 60mph so not always), then he would have been one of the fastest people down it. So I am wondering if an independent review would corroborate the data.
In Onatario the speed limit
In Onatario the speed limit applys to anyone on the road that includes bikes. Just like all the other signs and rules of the road. If you going as fast as the posted limit then you have the right to stay in the center of the lane if not then you have to move to the curbside just as a slow moving vehicle would have to do.
Mybike wrote:
What’s that got to do with the topic? How successful is Ontario at achieving a decent modal share for active travel? If it’s not at a Dutch level then what it does is irrelevant, except possibly as an example of how not to do it.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
I’m just posting to law were I live
Mybike wrote:
Typical North American backward thinking all round. Why would you force vulnerable road users to hog the kerb (curb is to restrict) when this puts them in more danger? How are you going to force people on bikes to keep within the posted limit when the various agencies don’t with those that kill and maim with ease by the tens of thousands?
Yeah, I had a look at the
Yeah, I had a look at the Strava data and Streetview stuff, there’s no way he was averaging 38mph.
Bear in mind that once you start getting to those speeds on Strava segments, the time differences are always very minimal, it’s quite routine on a downhill segment to see dozens of riders at (say) 28.7mph, dozens more at 28.6 – to get significantly more means the data is wrong or cheated (ie done in a car). With so many millions of people on Strava and so many runs along segments, that data averages and bell curves are normally easy to calculate so if the maximum is 34 on a segment, there’s no way on earth he was [b] averaging [/b] 38.
I found the guy as well actually, he’s got a reasonable Strava history but nothing that fast.
This is the same level of “calculation” from the police as the Charlie Alliston fixie stopping distance maths, widely regarded to be massively flawed.
crazy-legs wrote:
This a thousand times.
crazy-legs wrote:
There was also this incident, where a witness described cyclist as “going at high speed”:
https://road.cc/content/news/219639-cyclist-life-threatening-condition-following-collision-pedestrian-reading
(there were 2-3 articles about the incident)
As I commented at the time, “high speed” is highly unlikely due to the road layout, but the implication was it was the cyclists fault and not the bloke crossing the road having just left the pub after an afternoon of drinking! I’ve got a vague memory of a preposterous speed being quoted, but might be getting cases confused.
Wiltsrider wrote:
Little hint because you are either dim or dishonest: numbers and probabilities matter – someone who died because someone walked into them causing them to fall over and hit their head is just as dead as if they were shot, but that doesn’t mean shoes should be subject to the same laws as guns.
Oh, while we are doing that arrogant “End of” thing – you are a troll, end of.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
Little hint because you are either dim or dishonest: numbers and probabilities matter – someone who died because someone walked into them causing them to fall over and hit their head is just as dead as if they were shot, but that doesn’t mean shoes should be subject to the same laws as guns.
Oh, while we are doing that arrogant “End of” thing – you are a troll, end of.— Wiltsrider
You need to calm dowr and find something better to do on your Saturday nights.
I’ll inject my entirely
I’ll inject my entirely unwanted two cents here: speed limits should “ideal world” apply to cyclists, but higher, mvv/2 being a function of both variables and all that. Outside that ideal world, two big issues arise with my idea: shear in traffic flow is hazardous (we’re all accustomed to the version which involves a much faster motorist and a bicycle; the inverse isn’t desirable either), and going to the bother of setting separate speed limits in a non-blanket fashion would be a waste of resources that could go to improving cyclcing infrastructure. So, in the real world, I actually like my home of Alabama’s approach (NB: there are issues with cycling and the law that could be improved on here; this is not one). Here, bicycles are vehicles, and broadly subject to the same laws when on the road as any others; but speed enforcement against cyclists typically doesn’t happen, because it’s understood to be at best a minor issue compared to the drivers we have (who, if you weren’t aware, suck, and only use directionals marginally more often than our friends from Tennessee).
The complete absence of speed limits on cyclists would be undesirable in a few contexts: school zones, for instances, though you could still try to go after it as careless/reckless. That, however, is much harder to pursue and much more reactive than having a number set out as well.
werics wrote:
Speed limits in themselves don’t ultimately dictate safety, just the amount of punishment you may/may not get. We already know that vehiclular cyclists are more likely to go somewhat quicker to try keep pace as this is percieved (rightly or wrongly) as being safer – less vehicles passing you, ability to hold centre line position with less aggravation from motorists behind etc
Speed limits were introduced because of motorists inability to drive safely with respect to other road users, the number of ‘speeding’ cyclists killing human beings and at fault is what ratio. None of the at fault cyclists in the last 7 years (all four of them) have been accused of speeding. I couldn’t say what the number is with serious injuries.
There’s no reliable evidence from the police as to actual speed in this case, we already know that the accuracy of speed from CCTV can be as much as 40% variance even at slow speeds when the police investigate (See Charlie Alliston case and the prosecutions guessed speeds), their numbers seem to vary hugely and cannot be trusted in mine and others opinion.
I see no reason based upon factual evidence that speed limits for people on bikes need to be a thing, careless, dangerous cycling already covers all manner of actions that a cyclist may pose a reasonable assumption that harm may come about, even if that is mis-used by police because they tend to havezero understanding of the potential for harm to actually occur, despite what media and the general public may say. We know that injuries caused by people on bikes and being at fault is a ridiculously low number, lower than injuries caused by pedestrians to other pedestrians. (In the Uk at least)
We’d have to have bike
We’d have to have bike registration and number plates for speed limits to be used. Unless there is to be a policeman on every corner.
hirsute wrote:
There would also have to be a legal requirement to have an independently calibrated speedometer fitted.
Sure, anyone can buy and fit either a basic “magnet & sensor” or a GPS-enabled cycle computer but they’re never flawless. As kids we used to “double our speeds” by fitting an extra magnet to the wheel (and I guess riders of a certain age will remember the endless faffing of rolling a bike along a line and trying to measure it to the millimetre to programme the wheelsize correctly and how easy it was to lie about it a bit so it seemed you went further/faster than you actually did).
GPS are prone to occasional errors (especially when riding through tunnels) so they can’t be relied upon as an independently calibrated option either.
I can’t understand why they haven’t just looked at his Strava – it wouldn’t be perfect but I bet it’d give a better indication than CCTV in front of a shop (which usually films at something like 6 shots a second to save on storage/film).
The idea that you could or would be doing 38mph in front of shops in a busy-ish urban area seems incredibly far-fetched. Or have they confused mph and kph?? 38kph is a much more reasonable 23mph.
crazy-legs wrote:
This would explain the difference between the 29mph at the point of impact reported by the police and the 18mph reported by the cyclist’s wife: 29km = 18.02miles.
Sarah Huntbatch hasn’t
Sarah Huntbatch hasn’t thought this through has she? How are all those millions of cyclists going to know what speed they are doing when they do not have a speedometer. If you impose that on bicycles, at what size bike do you start putting them on, those suitable for 10 year olds? They might exceed a downhill 20 mph limit……
This is a very sad case as someone died, but let’s get some sense of proportion in this
Drivers kill 5 people each day on average
Drivers put 450 people into hospital each day on average
Tackle that first, then we can move on to whether cyclists need to have a speedometer attached to their vehicle.
The speed limit is almost
The speed limit is almost irrelevant apart from being a data point that can be used to apportion blame in a legal sense or create a punishable offence.
Occassionally people riding bicycles have collisions with people being pedestrians. Rarer still are circumstances where the bicyclist exceeding the posted speed limit is a factor.
What is, and always will be a major factor, is that at least one party and often both fail the basic test of situational awareness. Walking into live traffic without looking / failing to observe the presence of pedestrians and predicting their likely path.
One comment that strikes me is the witness who described the cyclists as head down and not being observed to be looking ahead. This may or may not be the case but along with the speed estimated from cctv by someone supposedly an expert in such matters, it does make a picture that I’m sure most of us can relate to.
All road users have a basic duty of care to each other. To my mind the pedestrian could be stark bollock naked, out of their head on Red Stripe, wandering into the road at random and it is still incumbent for other road users to take whatever action is required not to collide with them. The only circumstance where you can get away with the “There was nothing I could do to avoid the collision” defence is if your vehicle was stationary at the point of impact and even then it’s marginal. This of course might be different to being held legally to blame, but it is still your duty as a decent human being to avoid being a cause of injury to others.
Urban environment = heads up, sensible speed and looking for hazards, not chasing some stupid Strava section.
Mungecrundle wrote:
One comment that strikes me is the witness who described the cyclists as head down and not being observed to be looking ahead.<snip>.— Mungecrundle
it was the unfortunate victim who was described as head down and not looking, not the cyclist.
edit. Just to add the initial reports stated that the witness was in a stationary car and the unfortunate man walked in front of him. If the road is the bit I posted earlier, then I suspect the cars were all queued back from the lights and the cyclists were filtering down the middle. I then suspect Mr Beech thought he could cross as all traffic was stopped which is why there was no looking up when crossing. If the cyclists were doing the reported speeds alongside the queue coming to lights, then I would like to see them charged.
Mungecrundle wrote:
A young girl was cycling on a narrow cycle path with parent, she lost control and went into the carriageway, the motorist who struck her was doing nearly 60mph in a 60 zone with the young girl clearly visible yet only feet away from the live carriageway.
The police report said the driver could do nothing, and yet when similar happens to a cyclist the cyclist is supposed to be not only overtly over cautious and go at a vastly slower speed so that they can stop on a sixpence, but be a mind reader and in fact react instantaneously to any event whatsoever without a split seconds hesitation despite that phsyiologically this is impossible (Again see Alliston’s case as a good example)w
The case of the young girl getting mowed down at speed and the police saying the driver couldn’t do anything or drivers being let off in so many instances is repeated every single week, if not day there’s so many of them.
Why are the rules of the road/road law applied differently to people on bikes virtually every single time either as them as the victim or as a potential criminal?
Mungecrundle wrote:
All road users have a basic duty of care to each other. To my mind the pedestrian could be stark bollock naked, out of their head on Red Stripe, wandering into the road at random and it is still incumbent for other road users to take whatever action is required not to collide with them. The only circumstance where you can get away with the “There was nothing I could do to avoid the collision” defence is if your vehicle was stationary at the point of impact and even then it’s marginal. This of course might be different to being held legally to blame, but it is still your duty as a decent human being to avoid being a cause of injury to others. Urban environment = heads up, sensible speed and looking for hazards, not chasing some stupid Strava section.— Mungecrundle
First – as others have pointed out – it was the pedestrian, not the cyclist described as not having looked.
Second – you’re wrong – there is no obligation to take “whatever action is required to not collide” with a pedestrian. You have to take reasonable action. If the alternative is swerving to avoid the idiot is a potential head on collision, or colliding with other pedestrians etc there is zero obligation to take as possible action to avoid crashing with one idiot!
Third – if someone steps out right in front of you and the laws of physics prevent you from being able to stop you aren’t “the cause of injury to others” – its a ridiculous suggestion both in fact and in law. Are manufacturers of pencils responsible for causing injury to others if someone falls over while carrying a pencil and stabs themselves? Obviously not but by you’re logic, as the only way a pencil manufacturer can be sure his pencil won’t cause harm to others is by making them blunt (or not at all) then he shouldn’t make a useful sharp pencil!
Carior wrote:
First, iirc, the cyclist was described as riding ‘head down’. Besides, your reasoning is flawed: supposing that the pedestrian was not looking doesn’t mean that the cyclist was.
Second, zero obligation to kill yourself is not by itself grounds for exoneration, it depends on what put you in that situation.
Third: if the laws of physics prevent you from stopping that won’t help in front of a judge if the determination is made that you were either speeding or at fault due to circumstances being such that a normal, reasonable and careful cyclist would have paid more attention/been riding slower. I’m not even going to try and explain why the pencil analogy is not an analogy but an error in reasoning.
Xenophon2 wrote:
Instead of guessing wrongly, you could read the story to find
“A witness who had been in a parked car said that Beach, “had his head down and at no point did I see him look.””
Mungecrundle wrote:
You really need to check your facts before posting,as you’ve confused the witness evidence to be against the cyclist,when it’s against the pedestrian – of course,road users should avoid accidents if at all possible but the reality of physics dictates that if a pedestrian unpredictably steps in front of a passing vehicle,even the most technologically advanced vehicle won’t avoid hitting the pedestrian.
and the highway code says”
and the highway code says” you SHOULD use cycle lanes, as they can improve your journeys safety” what it fails to state is that our councils have too much money and dont know how to spend it. They simply cant be arsed to spend it on proper bicycle lanes, where you can cycle as fast as you can on any road, without a side road, junction or pedestrian in your path. So, what if im using a ”shared path” does that count as a ”cycle lane?” so do i have to adhere to the ”speed limit” on these designs? or can i freely pedal as fast as i feel like going? just putting this up, as this is what a typical council seems to think is perfectly acceptable. I know i wouldnt feel safe walking my kid on a space with cyclists going past me at 25 or 30 mph. and this is where cyclists struggle- you either get up to a good speed, use the ”cycle lane” and kill pedestrians, or you use the road and get ”told off” by motorists who dont cycle. https://rate-driver.co.uk/HF12GXC https://rate-driver.co.uk/HF12GXC so if a ped steps slightly right here and i hit them, is that my fault for going faster than them? or the councils fault for mixing a vehicle with ten times the speed difference together? 3 mph walker, mixing with a potential 30 mph bicycle….. and they say bus drivers get trained and are professionals. HA!
david rides wrote:
Where do you live? I’m not aware of any council that has too much money, post austerity.
This incident must be like
This incident must be like Final Destination, in that the victim happened to step out and be invisible to a cyclist who was travelling at probably the fastest speed a cyclist has been on that section and at a speed highly unusual for the riders typical ability (as highlighted by another commenter). Or, the maths is bollocks.
Speed limits should apply to all road users, but cyclists breaking speed limits must be very rare and incidents of speeding cyclists involved in crashes as a result of that excess speed even rarer. Do DOT approved speedos for bicycles even exist? There are enforced speed restrictions for cyclists, such as Bournemouth promenade, where fines are given out.
Any increased effort to catch speeders should be directed towards vehicles, they kill every day.
It’s funny how ‘we’ (not
It’s funny how ‘we’ (not including the kitten) probably all have a speedos (not swimwear) but are throwing our hands up and saying how are we supposed to know our speeds!?! How dare they!
Everyone i know who’s into cycling has a bike computer of some sort.
Anyway back in the real world if you’re catching cars up you’re probably going too fast. Unless it’s a Prius.
Rick_Rude wrote:
My concern about speed limits being applied to cyclists is that it’ll act as another deterrent to getting people to cycle.
I can just imagine the Met setting up a “cycle safety” day and prosecuting all the cyclists that don’t have calibrated speedometers if the law was to be changed.
Rick_Rude wrote:
And what about your grandma or teenagers?Or just people trundling to the shops?
You are just generalising from a self selecting group, not looking at the population.
hirsute wrote:
Hence the last bit. If you are catching cars up then slow down. Obviously granny etc aren’t going to be doing more than 30.
I still think most people on drop bars will have a speedo. Shopping basket types aren’t probably going to crack 15mph anyway so they won’t. I’d reckon the majority of readers on here a drop bars boys (sounds like a club, wanna join? beat up the flat bar warriors or basket cases).
Rick_Rude wrote:
Hence the last bit. If you are catching cars up then slow down. Obviously granny etc aren’t going to be doing more than 30.
I still think most people on drop bars will have a speedo. Shopping basket types aren’t probably going to crack 15mph anyway so they won’t. I’d reckon the majority of readers on here a drop bars boys (sounds like a club, wanna join? beat up the flat bar warriors or basket cases).— Rick_Rude
You seem to be missing that granny will need a speedo even if she barely touches double figures.
Then she will need to get it checked each year, along with renewing her licence, tax and registration plate.
Rick_Rude wrote:
Hence the last bit. If you are catching cars up then slow down. Obviously granny etc aren’t going to be doing more than 30.
I still think most people on drop bars will have a speedo. Shopping basket types aren’t probably going to crack 15mph anyway so they won’t. I’d reckon the majority of readers on here a drop bars boys (sounds like a club, wanna join? beat up the flat bar warriors or basket cases).— Rick_Rude
Here in Bristol there’s lots of 20mph speed limits for cars etc, and also the average speed tends to be less than that, so I fail to see why I shouldn’t be overtaking them. Do you want me to slow down and doff my helmet to all the drivers?
Rick_Rude wrote:
Hence the last bit. If you are catching cars up then slow down. Obviously granny etc aren’t going to be doing more than 30.
I still think most people on drop bars will have a speedo. Shopping basket types aren’t probably going to crack 15mph anyway so they won’t. I’d reckon the majority of readers on here a drop bars boys (sounds like a club, wanna join? beat up the flat bar warriors or basket cases).— Rick_Rude
At certain times of day I regularly catch cars up while walking on the pavement! Am I speeding?
On the other hand, today I noticed a driver zooming past the speed-readout sign near here with a score of 58mph. The sign ‘frowns’ at anyone exceeding 20mph. It almost never smiles – I worry it must be quite depressed.
Most motorists go past at about 30-40, but not infrequently some will exceed 50 or even 60. Quite puzzled what the point of the sign is supposed to be.
Rick_Rude wrote:
Hence the last bit. If you are catching cars up then slow down. Obviously granny etc aren’t going to be doing more than 30.
I still think most people on drop bars will have a speedo. Shopping basket types aren’t probably going to crack 15mph anyway so they won’t. I’d reckon the majority of readers on here a drop bars boys (sounds like a club, wanna join? beat up the flat bar warriors or basket cases).— Rick_Rude
Rubbish. I (like many of my drop bar cycling friends) use my phone for recording rides. It sits in my back pocket for the duration. And anyway, a LAW won’t apply to ‘most people’, it would apply to ALL cyclists. For it to be effective it would mean every single bicycle would have to have a visible, legally calibrated speedometer. Think about how stupid an idea this really is.
Rick_Rude wrote:
Yawn. Most cyclists aren’t using computers. We are not most cyclists.
Rick_Rude wrote:
i do have one now but for almost 18 months i used strava via my watch app to turn on and off but had no live speed reading.
There is one downhil section of dual carriageway road on my commute which is 30 but I can and have done almost 40mph on it. I’ve still had cars pass me then. Using cars to determine speed is a bit blind leading blind.
Rick_Rude wrote:
Do you look at your speedometer all the time when driving or cycling, or, like most people drive to the conditions and glance at the speedometer from time to time and make adjustments as necessary.
Do you have 360 degree vision, are you able to compute/react to an action instantaneously, because this is what the police and justice system seem to think only applies to people on bikes!
We already know from motorvehicle crash investigators that it takes 1.5seconds for someone to react to an unexpected occurence, it takes an additional 0.4-0.5 seconds for the mechanical action of the brakes actually starting to put force to retard speed. In a panic situation the reaction time can extend hugely, you see this in crashes often, in fact people can freeze through fear/confusion. People on bikes are no different.
if you’re shoulder checking or glancing at a potential threat not directly in your path which is what happens when you’re cycling quite often, then you’re not always going to have your eyes straight ahead all the time, this potentially adds another small amount of time to the reaction period.
This is why the Alliston charges were a complete load of BS, the person who stepped out actually made two unusual manoeuvres, Alliston reacted to the first whilst braking (and giving an audible warning as suggested by the HC code) from a slow speed which would have meant no interaction, it was the pedestrians second movement that he had zero chance to avoid and in fact caused the collision. The police re-enactment of what happened was false and should never have been submitted because it misrepresented what actually occurred, gave no reaction time into the equation not to mention using a cycle that was not comparative in any way shape or form.
Are some people on bikes dicks, absolutely, but we must have equity within the law, must have equitable treatment as others with respect to known harm caused otherwise that treatment is unlawfully discriminating.
Rick_Rude wrote:
My comment about speedometers was general and did not mention ‘keen’ cyclists. You go into any bikes shop and look around, how many bikes are equipped with a speedometer as standard? Yes I have a GPS, so I know my speed, I’m talking about the majority of bicycles in this country that don’t have them.
*SPOILER ALERT*
*SPOILER ALERT*
For those of you who don’t have the time to read through it, the answer to the question in the article title is ‘No’
HTH
It’s a valid point about KpH
It’s a valid point about KpH and MPH. A lot of cyclists in this county do seem to use the former first and I don’t know how garmin data is stored but if the police were expecting those figures off their initial calculations and then saw similar figures in the Gamrin data, would they have thought to confirm the units measured?
I might do a quick survey of
I might do a quick survey of the bikes at work, see how many have speedo mounts.
I can’t bear going anywhere
I can’t bear going anywhere without a speedo (VDO M6) on any of my n bikes. I keep them indoors in winter and if I happen to set off without one I always go back to put one on. Maybe strange but that is the way it is.
I might have a problem here
I might have a problem here (if speed limits were to apply to bicycles)
whilst driving any car the speedometer in a car is large and illuminated in darker conditions.
whereas on the bicycle I often struggle to see the speed reading on my Garmin as I cannot it see clearly wihout reading glasses
obviously can’t cyclke with reading glasses as thenI could not see the road clearly
Also any bike computer (effective speedometer) is battery powered. Batteries can run down.
So there are many differences between a motor vehicles and a bicycle which makes the blanket imposition of speed limits more complication than many are acknowledging.
Over here, speed signs do
Over here, speed signs do apply to cyclists riding on the road (strangely enough, they don’t apply when riding on a separate cyclepath, which has to be used when present).
In practice, only the 30 km/h sign is relevant for most cyclists but some towns apply this all over the center. Except for speedelecs, bicycles don’t carry registration tags so enforcement only happens if police are physically in the area and can stop you. This is enforced, usually near schools and with police teams riding speedelecs or motorcycles. Not stopping when ordered to is not a good idea.
How the cyclist ‘knows’ he is hitting 30 km/h is not the problem of the law, it’s the problem of the cyclist. What people -including some in this thread- don’t seem to understand is that the speed signs indicate a MAXIMUM speed, nobody obliges anyone to ride at that speed. Also, I don’t know about the UK but over here, speed sign or not, you have to be able to stop for any obstacle that is not totally unforseeable. Example of case law: residential town center with houses on both side of the street, no high traffic zone, high summer, nice weather, kid runs over the road chasing a football–> not an unforseeable obstacle under those circumstances.
Just say, through the wonders
Just say, through the wonders of technology, all new bikes could be made with speedo like say, they come with a bell and it worked and was visible in all conditions…..would you chose to ignore it because….cycling, probably won’t hurt anyone?
Rick_Rude wrote:
But they don’t and won’t so it’s a silly question.
Let’s see what happens with the investigation. IF it is 38mph in a 30 zone then yes it’s dangerous riding.
Rick_Rude wrote:
In this new world, how do cyclists get caught for speeding?
Is it only by a speed gun and team of coppers?
Had he been driving a car
Had he been driving a car instead of riding a bike, you’d have crucified your hero.
Hypocrites.
Xenophon2 wrote:
If you step out right in front of anything then all bets are off.