Volunteer speed monitors call out "group of cyclists at 44 mph" in "speed track" 30mph zone (that doesn't apply to cyclists); Reaction to Labour shadow transport secretary's "disappointing" cycling comments; Froome's dodgy bike + more on the live blog

Strava seems superfluous in that comment?

bob zmyuncle wrote:

Crossroads with limited visibilty from both sides. Pub with outside seating. Pub goers and hikers wandering across road.

44mph is just death wish stuff.

Like any group of people, the group labelled cyclists contains a percentage of idiots.

I'd hope that those pub goers and hikers do check the road - Tufty Club style - before crossing?

They probably do, but it's quite easy to be surprised by a vehicle travelling much faster than is usual. We tend to see what we expect to see, and generally a bike isn't doing 40+mph so we don't expect to see that. 

But of course, the cars going faster and with orders of magnitude more kinetic energy are the bigger problem so that's where the enforcement should be focussed. 

I was wondering the same thing. From maps/strava I can believe it would be easy to exceed 30mph, but 60mph?? According to Strava the all-time record for that segment ("Ringinglow descent 3") had an average speed of 41.6mph and a recorded maximum of 49.9mph. If you filter to This Week, the fastest time had an average speed 27.3mph and maximum of 42.3mph. 

I'm yet to see convincing evidence either way, but I have heard it suggested that speed guns can be fooled by the fact that certain parts of the bike (e.g. the top of the wheel) are moving at twice the actual speed of the bicycle, not to mention various other moving parts (pedals, legs etc.) which could confuse readings. 

From maps/strava I can believe it would be easy to exceed 30mph, but 60mph??

Reading the article shows that the 60 mph was a motorised vehicle

You're right; misread that bit.

Exactly, one of the issues with speedwatch is that the equipment is not regularly calibrated and therefore it's difficult to use as evidence. In this case are they even calibrated for cyclists? What are they reflecting off? 

My commute has one of those speed detector things where you get a frowny face if you are exceeding the speed limit and a smily face if you're below it.

If there aren't any cars around, I can set it off so it must be able to detect me riding a bike?

(It gets moved around a lot - when it was in the village, with a 20mph limit, I was so proud to get a frowny face)

brooksby wrote:

My commute has one of those speed detector things where you get a frowny face if you are exceeding the speed limit and a smily face if you're below it.

If there aren't any cars around, I can set it off so it must be able to detect me riding a bike?

(It gets moved around a lot - when it was in the village, with a 20mph limit, I was so proud to get a frowny face)

I'm very envious of this achievement.There's one on my way to work. I tried all summer to set it off. Even when my Garmin said 31 it would flash up 29. 😠
I have to say I also tried throwing my head forward at what I hoped was the opportune moment, in a lunge for the line sort of way. No difference.
....what do you mean I need to get out more😁

brooksby wrote:

My commute has one of those speed detector things where you get a frowny face if you are exceeding the speed limit and a smily face if you're below it.

If there aren't any cars around, I can set it off so it must be able to detect me riding a bike?

(It gets moved around a lot - when it was in the village, with a 20mph limit, I was so proud to get a frowny face)

"He got the frowny face" isnt enough evidence to support a speeding conviction in the courts tho...only a calibrated speed gun or camera is.  We have Mr Loophole and his ilk to thank for that.

Motoring law is a ludicrous mixture of the overly precise (speeding) and the woefully imprecise (careless and dangerous, wanton and the rest).

Hence certain dumb rozzers thinking reaching for your camera/phone whilst on a bike is a crime.

I think the radar picks up bikes reasonably well. There's a few where I used to live where it was a kudo to trip. Another set would flash your speed. I tripped this once and the motorist who caught up at the lights commented on my speed with some awe. I just smugly smiled and said I know. 

exilegareth wrote:

Not that I'd want to give anyone an excuse for doing silly speeds through a village, but does anyone even know if these hand held speedguns are reliably tested for use on bikes?

Indeed - I used to pass some of those guys fairly regularly when I commuted & they would always yell out my speed as I went past - rarely matched my (admitted almost certainly incorrect) speedo reading

AidanR wrote:

I get that it's a fun descent and that technically speed limits don't apply to cyclists, but going through a village at 44mph in a 30mph zone is a dick move.

It's not even a fun descent (straight rather than twisty) but I'm more surprised that they only found 13 out of 190 drivers exceeding the speed limit, must have been a slow day!

Yes, cars are worse, everybody here knows that.
But let's not use that as an excuse for misbehaviour from cyclists, like riding irresponibly fast in inapropriate places. If anything, let's hold each other to high standards. Any cyclist behaving like a d*ckhead is bad for us all.

Sredlums wrote:

Yes, cars are worse, everybody here knows that.
But let's not use that as an excuse for misbehaviour from cyclists, like riding irresponibly fast in inapropriate places. If anything, let's hold each other to high standards. Any cyclist behaving like a d*ckhead is bad for us all.

Whilst I agree with your general point about excusing misbehaviour, I disagree with your collective responsibility bit.

We don't want to hold up cyclists as being a perfect, virtuous group, but instead we want all the most aggressive, selfish and foolish people to get out of cars and onto bikes. Even getting them onto e-bikes/e-motorbikes would reduce the damage they can do.

The ultimate goal would be to have only the most caring, considerate people driving and everyone else can be arseholes on two wheels where at least they'll hurt themselves when they misjudge things.

Myself and a few friends were shouted at for doing 24 through a village ( 30mph zone) ,a ridiculous high speed apparently ...I wonder how many cars were sticking to under 30?

I would suggest that the argument is that not getting hit by anything going 44mph would be better...

Personally when I am driving or cycling, I go at a speed that allows me to stop and avoid unforeseen obstacles when I am likely to be caught unawares. It doesn't matter that the speed limit is 60 on our pokey country lanes, I think most people would agree that anything over 20-30 is suicide at times on them. 

I can understand the ridiculousness of calling out cyclists going too fast when drivers in much more dangerous vehicles weren't giving top billing with their speeding. 

Well ... not that I would be doing 45 on my "lighter" bike in this kind of environment.  (Or indeed anywhere not equipped with serious hills.)  But ... just self-interest, 45mph coming off a bike is plenty enough to trash you.  And you'd be hitting someone with about the energy of a very large-calibre bullet - only you plus bike is heavier.

So I suspect "but cars are worse" - while true - is less of a great argument here.