You might have seen the topic of cyclists and speed limits is back in the news this week. That’s after a group ride in Dartmoor was stopped by the police for descending at 39mph into a village with a 30mph speed limit. But what does the law say about speed limits for cyclists? Can you be fined? Do you have to stick to them?
Devon and Cornwall’s Roads Policing Team explained to road.cc how they “offered appropriate words of advice” to the cyclists they saw riding above the 30mph limit, but crucially, “legislation does not require cyclists to adhere to the speed limit”. That’s the crux of the matter — cyclists do not share the same legal obligation as motorists to stick to speed limits in the United Kingdom.
Rule 124 of the Highway Code outlines a table for vehicles’ maximum legal speed on different roads, from built-up areas through to motorways, but does not mention cyclists. Furthermore, while the 1984 Road Traffic Regulation Act outlines the law regarding speed limits, again cyclists are not mentioned.
Now-retired traffic police officer and recent road.cc Podcast guest Mark Hodson, who pioneered close pass operations with West Midlands Police, told us: “It’s common knowledge that speed limits only apply to motor vehicles so the offence of ‘excess speed’ where a cyclist is concerned simply can’t happen.
“You could commit the offences of ‘cycling without due care’ or ‘wanton and furious cycling’ but you would have to hit a high threshold of possible endangerment that would normally only occur in shared spaces where other vulnerable road users are present.
“It really does baffle me as someone who has spent the best years of my life trying to reduce road danger and demand at source as to why some people, and officers, get so entangled in cyclist behaviours.
“After all, evidentially it’s obvious that to do so is a waste of time and resources, and anyone with even a bit of intelligence realises that the inherent sense of vulnerability that accompanies cycling prevents many of the endangering behaviours we see exhibited by drivers.
“If they are exhibited by cyclists, the relative amounts of kinetic energy involved and the tiny impact they currently induce on society means that to even concern oneself with them in a climate of increasing driver-induced demand and reduced resources is simply somewhere between incompetent and foolish.”
But what about bylaws?
The only exception is where a local bylaw has been enforced. These will be away from public roads, often in areas such as parks or seafront promenades.
For example, Hampstead Heath in north west London has a bylaw in place stating that: “No person shall in any open space drive any vehicle, bicycle or tricycle or ride any animal at a rate exceeding twelve miles an hour or so as to endanger the public.”
Breaching a bylaw can result in an on-the-spot fine.
Where do cyclists have to adhere to speed limits?
While the United Kingdom shares its stance that speed limits do not apply to cyclists with one of the world’s most cycling-friendly nations, the Netherlands, there are plenty of destinations around the world where you will be expected to stick to the same speed limit that motorists are obliged to follow, such as in Spain.
In Australia and the United States too cyclists must follow the same rules of the road as motorists, although exact details and fines may vary depending on the state.
In Queensland, for example, cyclists can be fined A$287 (£146) for exceeding the speed limit by 11km/h.
112 thoughts on “Do cyclists have to stick to the speed limit?”
Pace Mark Hodson, with all
Pace Mark Hodson, with all respect (which is a lot): I don’t think it is common knowledge that speed limits only apply to motor vehicles. Also that there is a good reason for that. That’s part of the problem.
Morgoth985 wrote:
It certainly might help if it were to be explicitly stated in the Highway Code. It seems to be common knowledge that cyclists claim this is the case but generally not believed by motorists: “You show me where it says that” is the common response, leaving one in the rather difficult position of having to prove a negative.
I think that’s easily
I think that’s easily remedied by batting it back: ‘you’ [them] show me where car drivers are restricted by speed limits.
If they’re bothered to do that, they’ll find out where. If they’re not, the conclusion is, I can’t make ‘you’ understand the law. And you draw that exchange with them to a close. They’ve attended an exchange of knowledge unburdened.
“You show me where it says I
“You show me where it says I can walk down the street to the shops.”
Maybe we should stop calling
Maybe we should stop calling them “speed limits” and start calling them “motor vehicle speed restrictions” or something?
OnYerBike wrote:
Oh come on! Next you’ll be wanting people to stop talking about “road tax” (which as we all know is what pays for the roads and entitles only road tax payers to use them).
OnYerBike wrote:
“Motorised speed limits” is what they are.
OnYerBike wrote:
That does point to the problem, which is the motor-normative mindset. People talk about doing X in “a 30”, as if the limit was some universally applicable law of nature, without qualification as to what is being speed-limited.
Truth is, 99.9% of motorists are breaking “the speed limit” all the time. It just depends which speed limit you mean – in this case the one for agricultural vehicles (25mph), which of course is irrelevant for motorists. Just like the limits they spout are irrelevant for cyclists.
Speed limits are based on risk assessment. The assessment for motor vehicles at a given speed bears no relationship to bicycles at that speed. It is meaningless to try to fit them both together.
Sriracha wrote:
Maybe we should stop calling them “speed limits” and start calling them “motor vehicle speed restrictions” or something?
— SrirachaThat does point to the problem, which is the motor-normative mindset. People talk about doing X in “a 30”, as if the limit was some universally applicable law of nature, without qualification as to what is being speed-limited. Truth is, 99.9% of motorists are breaking “the speed limit” all the time. It just depends which speed limit you mean – in this case the one for agricultural vehicles (25mph), which of course is irrelevant for motorists. Just like the limits they spout are irrelevant for cyclists. Speed limits are based on risk assessment. The assessment for motor vehicles at a given speed bears no relationship to bicycles at that speed. It is meaningless to try to fit them both together.— OnYerBike
The speed limits on British roads are often regarded by all and sundry as some sort of directive meaning: go at least this fast and faster if you can ‘cos you’re such a good driver/cyclist/whatever. In fact, the limits are a suggested maximum which any competant driver or cyclist will treat as such, often going much slower if the actual circumstances on the road seem to demand it because the risk exists that they can’t stop in time to avoid possible unforseen circumstances.
Those unforseen circumstances can consist of many things. For example, on narrow country roads that are often restricted to 60mph maximum, you’d be mad to drive anywhere near that around the many blind bends with the possibility of a slow or stationary tractor (or cyclist) 30 yards around the corner. But loadsa eejits do.
On even straight roads with house driveways, field gates, junctions and other such tangential missile launchers every few yards, you’d be equally mad to think you can stop if one lurched out at an inopportune moment during your 39mph thrust down the road on a bike. But loadsa eejits do. “SMIDSY, pity about your gravel rash and snapped bike but you were going so fast and I didn’t see you ‘cos I wasn’t lookin'”.
In a village or urban approach to a town, the 30mph speed limit is now thought (in Wales at least) to be too high, so they’ll nearly all be changed to 20mph. A good thing too – if drivists et al take their advice, that is. Many won’t and will continue to mow down others or mangle themselves.
Cyclists who believe that they can safely go faster “because I’m so lightweight compared to a car” are simply being very stupid to imagine that speeding will somehow prevent them from crashing into an unforseen-yet-possible hazard in such places. In fact, it’ll take them longer to stop from such a speed than it would a car, everything else being equal. The speeding cyclist may not kill (unless he’s a Charlie) but can still do serious damage, especially to the stupid cyclist themselves.
Of course, “their helmet will save their life”, so they can go faster, innit? Also, every one o’ them is an expert cyclist with the bike handling skills of a reet Piddock. Ha! This is all goosewipe & poodlejuice.
Proof? Look at the “accident” stats. The inept, heeding the call of their vroomcar or bike “weapon of choice”, are still going amok on their way to the hospitals and morgues.
Oh, but I was forgetting. We cyclists can never do anything wrong on our bikes and probably when in our vroomcars. It’s all them others.
Still, if it ain’t illegal, anything goes!
Perhaps the bigger question
Perhaps the bigger question is, if I’m doing close to 20mph in a 20mph zone, why the driver behind doesn’t think the speed limit applies to them.
Maybe. It might also be
Maybe. It might also be argued that it’s a problem if police are requiring, and publicly suggesting, that cyclists comply with a law that doesn’t exist.
If it were legaly enforcable,
If it were legaly enforcable, then surely there would also be a legal imperative to sell bikes with a working speedo. AS no bike comes with one, we can safely assume sticking to any limit is unenforcable as you can’t know how fast youre going!
Yes, but I’ve heard a lot of
Yes, but I’ve heard a lot of people saying that there are no speed limits for cycling because bicycles don’t have speedometers. That may be an explanation for how some discussion went at some point, but the actual, literal answer is that there are no speed limits for cycling because the law does not prescribe any.
If we conjure up some explanation about speedometers, somebody will point out that lots of bikes have them, so why not make it mandatory.
The reason should be that there is no justification for a speed limit because it does not meet any significant risk-based need for one.
You could easily build a bike
You could easily build a bike. It doesnt have to be of off the shelf items either. You could make most of the working components from all sorts of bits and bobs. Kind of like Graeme Obree did for his hour record bike. And that bike would be perfectly legal to ride on the road so long as it has brakes and even then there is no real law prohibiting it. So it cant really even be pushed on manufacturers to put speedometers on since anyone could make one.
There are other road vehicle
There are other road vehicle regulations that do prescribe several criteria for a pedal cycle and its attachments (lighting, for example). So it is not beyond the realms of possibility to add a speedometer to the requirements. While a car has to be homologated or individually approved to be allowed on a public highway, a bicycle is roadworthy based on the facts before an inquisitive constable.
All said, it’s perfectly achievable to mandate a speedo – and even to enforce it. However, it’s just not worth anybody’s bother to exercise the legislative process.
GMBasix wrote:
Legislating and enforcing this would all but wipe out most cycling in the UK. It’s also completely pointless and basically unenforcable anyway.
What’s so funny about the video that’s started this all off is that the only people breaking the law in said video are the police officers who pull the cyclists over.
I agree with the impact and,
I agree with the impact and, for the avoidance of doubt, I’m not advocating legislation; I’m pointing out that it is perfectly achievable, and therefore that is not what is stopping it. It is, as you say, counter-productive to introduce.
However, the officer is not breaking the law, since police have qualified exemption from speed limits for the performance of their duties.
While some may disagree with the police stopping the cyclists, and while excess speed is not itself a reason to stop cyclists, it may constitute a cause to question whether they are cycling sufficently carefully (or whether, indeed, they are wanton or furiously doing otherwise).
It would be a contortion to presume that being faster than a non-applicable speed limit represents carelessness, but the officer may take an interest and may exceed the speed limit to do so. Force rules aside, they do not necessarily need to put on their lights/siren when they do so.
I do feel that there is no story here. The police action at the scene may have been proportionate, or it may have been over-zealous… who knows. The video doesn’t seem to show any carelessness to me. But if the officer felt it was appropriate to say something, so be it. However, if it forms a pattern, it’s a problem. And the posting of the story on the force SM draws unnecessary attentention to a non-story, stoking antipathy to cyclists based on prejudice. And that’s the problem here.
jkirkcaldy wrote:
And I suspect if you showed it to someone with the speed reading hidden then i doubt they would think there was anything wrong at all.
Lights are only required at
Lights are only required at night but even so, a speedometer is a whole different ballpark to a bike light and any attempt by government to mandate fitment of an accurate speedometer to a pedal bicycle would inevitably fail.
Yea right. See e-scooters as
Yea right. See e-scooters as the refutation of this comment.
surely there would also be a
surely there would also be a legal imperative to sell bikes with a working speedo. AS no bike comes with one
It’s worse than that. The police refuse to believe that any cycle is travelling at 10mph or more, except when they’re trying to ‘do them’ for ‘furious cycling’. This is why, in Lancashire at least, it’s always legal to overtake any cyclist by crossing double or single unbroken white lines- the police ignore, or don’t kow, that bit about ‘it must be seen to be safe to do so’. We have GPS speedos, we have supremely accurate ‘count the revolutions’ speedos (last night I did 34 km and the CtR speedo and the GPS were less than 1 part in a thousand apart), but the police refuse to pay any attention to them- therefore they can’t prosecute us for exceeding any speed limit we can manage ‘as long as it’s safe to do so’
Is there a requirement for
Is there a requirement for roadworthy bicycles to be equipped with a shoehorn to fit in mentions of the Lancashire constabulary?
Brauchsel wrote:
No. But I do think a cycling bingo card should be provided with every new bike. Or maybe thoughtfully nestled inside every helmet – to give you something to do while waiting for the emergency services to arrive.
Is there a requirement for
Is there a requirement for roadworthy bicycles to be equipped with a shoehorn to fit in mentions of the Lancashire constabulary?
No, but I obviously haven’t mentioned it often enough as Rendel thought I was in the West Midlands!
There’s a section in the
There’s a section in the Highway code covering the legality of overtaking cycles and some other categories on such lines . If I recall the Highway Code section is a “must not cross ” etc so is Law , so padding a slow moving bike
Or horse , combine or such is legal
I think the speedometer
I think the speedometer argument is a red herring – it’s perfectly possible for something to be made an offence without also mandating a way to measure it.
For example, drivers are not required to carry around a breathalyser yet they still commit an offence if they drive when over the blood alcohol limit.
OnYerBike wrote:
I can see some logic parallels but I think the more important principles in law-making are proportionality and harm reduction. Alcohol-impaired drivers really are a danger whereas cycling above motor speed limits aren’t.
Yes but you know when you
Yes but you know when you have a drink, you don’t necessarily know you’re speeding when on a bike, espscially when you don’t have any equipment. And espscially when the limit is lower like the 20mph limits. It’s extremely easy to go over this in the middle of a town if there is a descent.
The reason there is an acceptable amount of blood alcohol isn’t so you can have a pint and drive home, it’s so that if you had a pint last night and there is a small amount of alcohol detectabe in your blood you don’t immediately get penalised.
It’s relatively easy to
It’s relatively easy to assess BAC by only drinking a certain amount before driving; anybody that drinks in excess before driving deserves punishment..
grOg wrote:
It’s really foolish to assume there’s a “safe” amount to drink before your BAC reaches illegal levels: metabolism, hormonal levels, drinking speed, type of drink and/or mixer, medications and even altitude can affect BAC levels. There’s only one sensible way to guarantee that your blood alcohol concentration is within legal driving limits and that’s not to put alcohol in your blood.
Rendel Harris wrote:
quite, and therefore no problems with staying legal without a breathlyser unit.
I note that in 2020 the French dropped their rule requiring breathalyser units to be carried in cars. This would have irked me somewhat having not consumed alcohol since around 2000
Let’s pretend they updated
Let’s pretend they updated the Highway Code and included Cyclists in the speed limit table.
Since bikes don’t come fitted with an speedometer, they would need to include a new law saying new bikes must come fitted with a speedometer. (generally how they approach new requirements for motorvehicles)
These speedometers would then need to be calibrated frequently. I would imagine bikes get “bumped” more often than cars, so would be more prone to breaking the speedometer.
Then we get to the practical use of the speedometer. Probably best to liken it to motorbikes. Motorbikes have a heavy engine shifting the centre of gravity further down, so when you glance down at the speedometer, I would imagine it causes less instability than when on a bike. (I don’t ride motorbikes, so please chip in if you do)
Okay – we’ve got a speedometer, its callibrated correctly. A cyclist does 40mph in a 30mph limit. If that cyclists decides to continue breaking the limit, we’ll have to rely on civic minded individuals to report them. Now we are into licence plates.
When all is said and done – as with drivers, the majority of the time we are relying on the individual to police themselves. Cyclists will get it wrong, much like drivers. The big difference is in personal consequences – a cyclist doesn’t have decades of safety features ensuring they have the best possible chance of walking away unscathed from an accident.
The law informs the Highway
The law informs the Highway Code, not the other way around.
HoldingOn wrote:
Cars & Motorbikes manufactured before a certain date don’t have to have a speedometer fitted, but their driver/riders are still subject to the same speeding laws. With cars that’s a long time ago, 1932. With motorbikes it only came into effect in 1984! What’s even stranger, a working speedo isn’t part of the motorcycle MOT requirement.
Wouldn’t changing a wheel or
Wouldn’t changing a wheel or a tyre affect a speedometer on a bike?
With old, mechanical speedometers run by a cable from the gearbox, changing the profile of the tyres on the car could alter the accuracy of the device.
AIUI, modern speedometers are driven from the ABS unit or EMC and I’m not sure if they self-adapt to changes in wheel diameter from the factory setting.
Changing from road tyres to Marathon Plus or to gravel tyres could throw the speedometer out on a bike, with no way of recalibration
Oldfatgit wrote:
I would imagine so – anything that changes the circumference of the tyre would impact a speedometer.
I want to say I didn’t realise it was that recently, but that is 39 years ago. When did I get so old!
I wonder how the legal system handled speeding motorbikes back then* – whether there was a degree of leniency because it would be difficult to tell the difference between 30mph & 31mph without a speedometer.
*there are probably not a big proportion of motorbikes on the road now, that were manufacturer before 1984
HoldingOn wrote:
Welcome to the club!
Oldfatgit wrote:
Unless it is GPS based but then it would be inaccurate in forests or when there are high rise buildings about.
They’d probably need to
They’d probably need to accept GPS and it’s foibles
If they made speedometers
If they made speedometers compulsory on bicycles they’d have to specifically accept cycle computers , cost otherwise would be prohibitive . But what standard is another matter .
Do we know whether the Senedd
Do we know whether the Senedd considered making the new 20mph speed limit to include cyclists. Perhaps too complicated legally to do that?
With the 20 mph limits
With the 20 mph limits becoming more widespread, we’re now getting in to a zone where some more spirited riders could consistently exceed this. But I don’t think drivers’ salty tears is reason enough for this to become enforceable.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/grant-shapps-speed-limit-cyclists-20mph-transport-secretary-b1019031.html#
On my more spirited days I
On my more spirited days I cycle at 20mph in 20 zones. I try not to exceed this even though I know that technically the limit doesn’t apply to me (only really an issue with gravity/wind in my favour) and I regularly get overtaken by drivers.
AidanR wrote:
I live at the bottom of a hill on a residential road. The limit is 20. If I free-wheel down I would exceed 20 – but I don’t as there are many parked vehicles and side roads.
.
Let’s hope not!
.
.
Let’s hope not!
.
This is my practical example
This is my practical example from this morning whilst out in the Suffolk countryside. OK we aren’t blessed with big descents, but apparently after consulting my Garmin post ride I hit 34mph…somewhere. It could have been in a 30mph, I have no idea, as I don’t stare at my Garmin head unit whilst descending, I prefer to look where I am going.
velotrev wrote:
You may not have hills but you do have the Fen Blow which can be quite beneficial when caught the right way. Once after fighting for many miles I swung round a dog leg to end up being pushed to an eye watering 35mph.
There appears to be some
There appears to be some touching faith in “but laws should be consistent, should be formulated to cover all circumstances, and different parts of legislation should hang together” on display here…
Consistent for the UK I guess? Presumably those responsible know there’s a chance legislation may emerge somewhat changed if it makes it through parliament – then the courts are going to set about interpreting it? (If the police / CPS decide to bring cases before them, of course!)
Cyclists were so preoccupied
Cyclists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.
stonojnr wrote:
Velociraptor.
Clever girl.
Clever girl.
In your opinion.
In your opinion.
There are a lot of opinions
There are a lot of opinions on here with which Parliament doesn’t agree, otherwise there would already be speed limits for bicycles.
Isn’t there a legal
Isn’t there a legal requirement to obey
signage and legal instructions?
Why are speed limit signs exempt from this, but a Stop sign (for example) aren’t?
Oldfatgit wrote:
Speed limits are not exempt. Cyclists must obey all signs that apply to them. Speed limit signs don’t.
Equally, car driver must obey all signs that apply to them. There is no need for a[n otherwise legal] car driver to comply with signs prohibiting heavy vehicles.
Motor vehicles are required
Motor vehicles are required to have an operating speedometer.
Pedal cycles are not.
‘Why are speed limit signs
‘Why are speed limit signs exempt from this, but a Stop sign… aren’t?’
If you had thought this through before posting this, you would realise the difference between a stop sign and speed limits; anybody knows when they have stopped but knowing what speed you are doing requires a speed measuring device, so clearly, a bicycle that is not fitted with a speedo must be exempt from speed limits.
Capt Sisko points out further
Capt Sisko points out further down – motorbikes manufactured before 1984 don’t need to have a speedometer fitted, but they aren’t exempt from speed limits. (it was eye opening for me too!)
I agree with your overall point though – without a speedometer fitted, a cyclist would be guessing what speed they are going. I certainly wouldn’t be able to tell if i was doing 29mph or 31mph without one.
But the majority of cyclists
But the majority of cyclists are probably rightly confident they are never, ever going to exceed 25 MPH. So you can say, fine, they don’t need a speedometer, but the speed limit is still 30, and not knowing because you had no speedo is no defence to a charge.
I think that position is very
I think that position is very contestible. With no obligation for a speedo, much less a calibrated one, what measures are cyclists to use to gauge speed?
Fine, if they were overtaking cars, but on a general level I don’t think a charge would stand up to court scrutiny.
As someone has pointed out,
As someone has pointed out, there is no get-out for drink-driving on the grounds that you do not have a calibrated breathalyzer. I think that’s a fair and valid analogy. If you want some degree of protection you can get a bike gps from amazon for £30 and work out for yourself how accurate it really is.
Strava says I peaked at 33 today, on an unrestricted road which I know and which has exactly one driveway opening on to it, for which I always slow down in case someone turns out and doesn’t see me. 33 feels plenty fast even if the only danger is a front tyre blowout. Now look on google maps at the A386 running through Mary Tavy with literally dozens of roads and driveways on both sides. It just takes one retiree with less than 20/20 eyesight reversing out of their own drive and you are dead.
titaniumbloke wrote:
so you needed Strava to tell you what speed you were doing – did you need a calibrated breathalyzer to tell you how many alcoholic beverages you had as well?
It is much easier to know how many alcoholic beverages you have had, than whether you are doing 29mph or 33mph.
However, for nearly forty
However, for nearly forty years speedos have been mandatory on new motorbikes. So the vast majority of motorbikes will have a speedo. Those that don’t are ridden on the understanding that the rider needs to adhere to the speed limit somehow.
Rather than proving an argument for speed limits applying to cyclists, the motorcycle reference actually further demonstrates that you can’t apply speed limits without also enforcing a means for drivers/riders to monitor their speed.
Myself and Capt Sisko has
Myself and Capt Sisko has this discussion further down the thread
Quote:
The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, Section 14 paragraph 4a, does allow for speed limits to be imposed in certain circumstances (eg, road or adjacent works), which apply to “vehicles”, which includes bicycles.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/14
No, it doesn’t. They are not
No, it doesn’t. They are not vehicles in UK law for the purpose of road traffic legislation.
Northumber_lad wrote:
Uk Road traffic legislation, definition of a driver:
[I]“driver”
(a)
in relation to[b] a vehicle which is a motor cycle or pedal cycle[/b], the person[b] riding the vehicle[/b] who is, or is purporting to be, in control of it; …
…
[/i]
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/1/made
In fact your own link tells
In fact your own link tells you that:
“The traffic authority for a road may at any time by notice restrict or prohibit temporarily the use of the road, or of any part of it, by vehicles, or vehicles of any class, or by pedestrians…”
no cycles ever mentioned because they are not vehicles under UK road traffic law
I see in another post you say
I see in another post you say that you are a serving officer, so perhaps the following will persuade you:
https://police.community/topic/290072-pc-stout-vs-cyclist/?do=findComment&comment=2264629
I’m a former LEO in Australia
I’m a former LEO in Australia and generally, bicycles worldwide are classed as vehicles, so any laws relating to vehicles apply to bicycles, although some laws specify motor vehicles which do not apply to pedal bicycles; speeding laws applied to pedal bicycles however, would and should fail in court, if a policeman chose to fine a cyclist for speeding; there is no legal requirement for a bicycle speedometer, so speed laws are simply not enforceable against cyclists.
On the contrary, the fact
On the contrary, the fact that cycles are not expressly mentioned in your quote could be precisely because they are considered as ‘vehicles’.
The speed limit section in
The speed limit section in RTAvcertainly refers to motorised vehicles (that are then further defined) Temp road works I believe follow the same definitions
The statutory interpretation
The statutory interpretation of “Vehicle” within the Act is one propelled by a motor.
It doesn’t include any vehicle propelled by human or animal power and indeed doesn’t include animals in any circumstances.
The point made about byelaws is an interesting one. A young chap was nicked for riding at speed down one of the hills in Richmond Park a few years back. The Royal Parks Constabulary prosecuted him. He pleaded guilty at magistrates court. I believe he was ill-advised and should have pleaded not guilty. His defence would be that the alleged offence occured on a park main road with a 20mph speed limit, away from pedestrians and was not liable to cause a danger to any other park user. Furthermore, he could rightly argue that the byelaw should only apply to vehicles fitted with a statutory speedometer, which excludes cyclists.
And indeed Royal Parks have
And indeed Royal Parks have now admitted (2021) that speed limits in Richmond Park do not apply to cyclists, though there are signs that they are trying to change that with their proposal to impose a (ludicrous) 20mph cycling limit on Broomfield Hill. It’s not that they couldn’t impose a limit if they wanted (the roads within the park not counting as a public highway) but that the instruments they curently have in place cannot be applied to cyclists.
It’s worse than that – it’s
It’s worse than that – it’s actually a 10 mph speed limit that they’re attempting to impose on Broomfield Hill.
Going downhill that is absurdly slow and totally ignored. I previously thought it might not be an issue going up the hill. Then this evening I set PRs on 2 of the 10.7% gradient uphill segments, at 11.4 mph. I’m in my mid-60s, and not particularly quick – others will be capable of exceeding the 10 mph “limit” uphill by a much bigger margin…
JohnP_SM7 wrote:
That’s truly absurd. I’d argue that it would be more dangerous, especially for a beginner rider, to be descending Broomfield desperately dragging the brakes and trying to stay under 10mph, especially on the camber, than it would be for them to freewheel down at 25. Just checked the segment on Strava and my record going up (from some years ago now!) is 17mph – if it wasn’t for the financial cost it would be a badge of honour to get a ticket for speeding uphill, I’d have it framed!
Rendel Harris wrote:
Some utterly convoluted unlogicals there, Rendered, to justify your speed-lust. Did you get this “justification” from a vroomcar website, where they are sure that 100mph is no problem for vroomcar drivists as they are all so good at it?
One feels that you strava-strivers have had your wetware scrambled by your queer lusts for speeding over bits of road as fast as possible for no reason whatsoever except an unaccountable addiction to a data-app.
Based on your 453 word
Based on your 453 word teatime rant from yesterday, I’m not sure you should be throwing stones at “utterly convoluted unlogicals” from within your particular greenhouse.
There is a pattern of conflated presumptions and extrapolation in extremis going on.
I don’t disagree that cyclists should be cautious in low speed limit areas, but I do disagree that cycling faster than the speed limit for motor vehicles is automatically careless. To link that to driving at 100mph is unfounded hyperbole.
GMBasix wrote:
I’ll send you some flowers and perhaps even a buncha grapes when you’re in the hospital with serious gravel rash or worse. I won’t be visiting you, though – in the hossie or the gaol, where they may put you if you mangle of murder whilst doing 39mph into a slow gran or even a fast bairn.
At least try to look where you’re going rather than gazing at your gizmo for strava thrill, as you speed through the villages and urbans, overtaking cars wth a gesture and gurn of distain at their law-abiding and failure to be one of the cycling ubermen unrestrained by anything as mundane as speed limits.
But I’m sure that you are “cautious” …. somehow …. even at 39mph in the 30 or even 20 zones.
Amusing as you can be old
Amusing as you can be old chap you don’t half promulgate some unmitigated old tadgery at times. You’ve created a whole nonsensical narrative about people charging along staring at their Garmins at twice the speed limit through dangerous situations which is not what GMB is talking about at all. It’s perfectly possible to exceed the speed limit for motor vehicles and be safe, e.g there’s a 20mph road near me which is a long, dead straight 1% descent with very wide (2m+) grass verges on either side, then 2m wide pavements. The sightlines are such that any potential hazards can easily be identified a hundred yards away, and it’s perfectly safe, and perfectly legal, to ride down there at 25mph. Stop assuming everyone is a talking about a worse case scenario which actually only exists within your fermentingly creative noggin.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Ha ha – a whole series of the usual drivel, based on made-up anecdotes, justifying the assumption of the egotist that he and his ilk are special, with no need to obey the usual laws, good manners or any considerations of others as “I know best and am a superb drivist/cyclist/everythingist”.
Break one little law because “I’m special and know better” and it becomes easier and easier to break them all. Just observe any Toryspiv posh yob or the more numerous common-or-garden variety of yob.
Some cyclists are the same carloons who drive about everywhere too fast in their motorised lumps of tin; and with insufficient attention. They’ve convinced themselves that they’re superior because they can roar about “at the limit” and get away with it 364 days out of 365. The law is “just advice, that clever & superior people like me can ignore”. On the bike they also roar about albeit their roaring is not quite so momentum-dangerous when cycling as it is in their car.
My own cycling has involved decades of riding with a number of cycing clubs which, by their nature, tend to contain a number of those who ride beyond their competance as they imagine themselves in a daring-do road race. A good club curbs their stupidities, although there was a marked increase in inconsiderate and dangerous behaviour within most clubs when strava-striving became all the rage.
*********
Why become all tribal and go about portraying all cyclists as fullly considerate paragons of virtue who are never bad but only badly done to by others? The human group “those who cycle” contains just as high a proportion of inconsiderate and sometimes dangerous self-centred little skinbags as any other human group. Our bodyweight + bike may be a lot less dangerous than a carloon in a wankpanzer but that doesn’t mean that cyclists can’t cycle dangerously.
It’s a simple enough observation that anyone can make, the above – if you don’t don some tribalist blinkers that auto-exclude the sight of your tribe members doing any ill ever, whilst showing you only the bad stuff that the other tribes do.
Cugel wrote:
There is no law that limits the speed of cyclists and so cyclists riding above the posted limit for motor vehicles are not breaking any laws. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
PS If I were going to make things up I would make up something slightly more interesting than “There is a road near me with a 20 mph limit for motor vehicles that it’s safe to cycle down at 25 mph.”
PPS You are always keen to regale us with how many decades you have been riding with cycling clubs: presumably you began long before accurate bicycle speedometers were available, so how did you ensure that you were always obeying the law?
Rendel Harris wrote:
See a reply to another of your pedantries about speed, elsewhere.
“To speed on a road” … To travel too fast for the conditions such that unanticiapted hazards manifested ahead can’t be avoided and collisions or other damaging events occur.
Speed limit signs don’t mean, “Go at this speed”. They mean, “This is the maximum speed above which it is illegal to go in a vehicle that comes with a speedometer built in”. It only excludes bikes because they have no speedometer. But you can still go too fast (speed) for the conditions when on a bike.
There are other laws considering a more meaningful definition of “speeding” such as driving carelessly or dangerously; and cycling furiously. These, at bottom, include, “Cyling or driving too fast for the conditions to be safe from having an potential ‘accident'”. They can make you legally liable to prosecutions no matter if you are going at the speed limit, above it or below it.
More to the point, speeding (going too fast for the conditions) can do damage, often serious, even if you’re doing it on a bike.
Surely this is completely obvious …… unless you’re just a biological robot with a simple program considering only the bare bones of the law about speed restriction signs?
Cugel wrote:
To paraphrase George Bernard Shaw, the quality of accuracy is often described as pedantry by those who lack it.
Do feel free to keep on replying to my comments as you wish but I don’t think I’ll bother with yours from now on, as it’s become increasingly clear that you are much more interested in handing out lengthy and pompous lectures than actually participating in any form of discussion or debate. All the best.
Rendel Harris wrote:
🙂
I do enjoy a long and pompous lecture, delivered in a reedy tone of voice with a look down my long sneck at the
victimreceiver of my pearls. I can be more pedantic than even you. Not easy!Here’s another.
Your walk from the chamber signifies only that its you yourself that’s not interested in participating in any form of discussion or debate. However pompous the lecture style, the only thing that counts is the cogency of the syllogisms; and more cogent refutations of their conclusions than an, “Well I think that…. (aka a bald opinion) and I’m going off in a huff if you don’t agree”.
I know a mutual admiration society can be a source of comfort in this noisy world of hooted and screeched lunacies but such cosy societies can also induce a state of feeble “certainties” that soon crumble when reality gives them a bash.
Cyclists speeding through urbanity often get bashed. I’ve watched it happen just up ahead there. It was going to happen to them no matter how many other cyclists agreed with their claim that ego-speeding on a bike is perfekly safe in all circumstances, despite their previous seven crashes (all someone else’s fault).
Where are you getting the
That’s the definition of “motor vehicle”. “Vehicle” doesn’t appear to be defined in that Act. That said, Part IV on Speed Limits is all framed by reference to “motor vehicles” anyway.
In the UK, bicycles are
In the UK, bicycles are considered vehicles under the Road Traffic Act of 1988 and are permitted to ride on the road.
A bicycle is a vehicle according to the UN’s 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Traffic. The UK is a signatory of this convention.
The position of British cyclists was first established by the Local Government Act in August, 1888. It removed the right of local councils to treat cyclists among the “nuisances” it could ban and defined them as “carriages”.
BigBear63 wrote:
Says who? Source?
Certainly The Traffic Signs Regulations and Directions 2002 implies that pedal cycles are vehicles, when it refers to [b]vehicles other than pedal cycles[/b]:
[I]
“cycle lane” means a part of the carriageway of a road which—
(a)
starts with the marking shown in diagram 1009; and
(b)
is separated from the rest of the carriageway—
(i)
if it may not be used by [b]vehicles other than pedal cycles[/b], by the marking shown in diagram 1049; or
(ii)
if it may be used by [b]vehicles other than pedal cycles[/b], by the marking shown in diagram 1004 or 1004.1
[/i]
Does the same logic apply to motorists charged with drink-driving; their vehicle isn’t fitted with a statutory alcohol-meter?
I’m a serving officer and
I’m a serving officer and also a cyclist ( I hide no bias here). I completely and utterly agree with the comments by the former traffic officer in the story. If you watch that video of Dartmoor and imagine there is no speed on the bottom corner, there is clearly no dangerous or wanton cycling whatsoever, leaving us only with speed. The advice given over speed to the group is simply that- advice over their own safety.
If anyone came to me to try and prosecute them, not only would I not allow the prosecution itself, I believe no court in the land would ever convict based on that evidence.
Its a nothing story that has just stirred up the usual hatred of cyclists by the usual suspects.
But we are happy to legislate
But we are happy to legislate people into doing things for their own safety (seat belts). You get an oldie pulling out onto that road, poor eyesight, not expecting 40 MPH traffic, not good at judging bicycle speed, and you have no ABS, no airbag, no seatbelt, no crumple zones. You could very easily kill a whole peloton.
I’m a cyclist, not a cycle hater.
If they have poor eyesight
If they have poor eyesight they shouldn’t be driving
If they have poor reaction times they shouldn’t be driving
If cyclists travel at nigh on 40mph there i find it hard to believe all cars go slower, so if they can’t anticipate speeding traffic, they shouldn’t be driving.
Having said that, I do think cyclists should be considering pedestrians and their own safety, and on the evidence of the video, I would have been going much slower.
I don’t have a speedo on my
I don’t have a speedo on my bike, if I follow cars in a 30 zone I assume I’ll be doing 35mph or so?
You can assume Ineos will
You can assume Ineos will sign you
Let’s kill this one off!
Let’s kill this one off! There aren’t going to be speed limits for cyclists. Speedos are very accurate if you want them to be, but Count the Revolutions Speedos are very easily recalibrated to tyre circumference so you can simply lie to them, and very simply change them back. GPS Speedos linked to a camera would reliably link speed to location, and if they weren’t working would not give a speed value. However, the police have backed themselves into a corner by declaring that no bicycle speedometers are acceptable. Hence, no cyclist speeding prosecution in the absence of a collision
The median age in the village
The median age in the village in question is 52, and 40% of the inhabitants are over 60. I know this because I live there. Many of them cross that road on foot, bicycle, horseback or by car at all hours. Doing 39 on a bike down it is asking for trouble irrespective of what the law says.
It’s a horrible road to cycle on anyway, a single carriage way carrying all North Devon to Plymouth traffic including lorries. If they had looked at a map they could have looped off at Sourton or Lydford and had a much nicer ride.
There’s also a distinction to
There’s also a distinction to be made between the danger posed by 1 cyclist and the danger posed by 10 or 20. Some old dear tottering across the road isn’t going to expect 800kg of cyclists to be travelling at that speed, virtually silent, in a 30 limit. Only those at the front have any kind of view, so I’m not sure the rest could stop if granny stepped out. I’m sure many here have suffered “brown chamois” moments in the middle of the pack after the lead bikes swerve or slam on! I’d like to see some stats on how quickly a peleton can do an emergency stop!?
I think the police did the right thing here. A proportionate response.
manonbike wrote:
Are there any instances where a peloton crashed into someone (not during a race)?
hawkinspeter wrote:
I just had a quick search and the only thing I could find was deaths caused by Peloton treadmills.
Well I’ve been in a training
Well I’ve been in a training peleton that crashed in to a parked car ( not all of us but a few) , so just luck no human around . Anyhoo my alternative thought is – when arriving at a speed restricted zone it’s for a reason which is
increased hazard. More side streets per
distance travelled, crossings, parking traffic,
pedestrians and probably more potholes.
Though legal to do 39 on a bike , might it not
be prudent to take a clue from the non cycling
speed restriction and rein it in accordingly ?
Obviously those with computers are the only
ones who could guide them and I’m against legislation but it’s a fair suggestion
‘In Australia ….cyclists
‘In Australia ….cyclists must follow the same rules of the road as motorists, although exact details and fines may vary depending on the state.
In Queensland, for example, cyclists can be fined A$287 (£146) for exceeding the speed limit by 11km/h.’
Cyclists in most states in Australia are not required to adhere to speed limits set for motor vehicles and the example given for Queensland would not be enforceable, as bicycles are not required to be equipped with a speedometer, in other words, the offence is laughable and there would be few Queensland cops dumb enough to give a speeding ticket to a cyclist; that said, I believe that electric bicycles and electric personal mobility devices should be required to have speedometers and have rules specific to them, differentiating them from pedal only bicycles.
Driving at under he speed
Driving at under he speed limit does not automatically render your driving safe.
There was a recent case where a driver was found to be driving at an unsafe speed despite being under the speed limit on a 30 road.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/bmw-lawyers-buckinghamshire-oxfordshire-milton-keynes-b1092468.html
As cyclists we might not be subject to the speed limit but should an accident occur and you could be shown to have been travelling far in excess of the posted vehicular limit then you’d be in a difficult spot legally.
If there’s a reasonable likelihood of pedestrians on the road, as other posters have stated, then 39mph is far too fast IMO, even more so in a group.
Rich_cb wrote:
As cyclists we might not be subject to the speed limit but should an accident occur and you could be shown to have been travelling far in excess of the posted vehicular limit then you’d be in a difficult spot legally. If there’s a reasonable likelihood of pedestrians on the road, as other posters have stated, then 39mph is far too fast IMO, even more so in a group.— Rich_cb
I get that in the event of an accident, the prosecutor is going to highlight that a cyclist was clocked going over the posted speed limit – the subtleties legally will be lost at that moment.
Speed limits aren’t just about safety – they can also be to protect residents’ amenities more broadly, so cycling doesn’t have any impact there – unless it’s certain cyclist hating villages who think that a the occasional noisome peloton is worthy of making a fuss about.
All this talk of Speedos on a
All this talk of Speedos on a warm day is making me think of going for a dip.
And speedos for pedestrians
And speedos for pedestrians
(they’re the thin end of the wedgie)
GMBasix wrote:
Ouch
Just be glad he doesn’t show
Just be glad he doesn’t show “Everton” off all the time
Man arrested for cycling naked along the Wales Coast Path
Naturist Stuart Gilmour, 44, was wearing nothing but a pair of trainers and said his lifestyle is about body positivity and has “nothing to do with sexuality”.
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/man-arrested-cycling-naked-along-27660736
David9694 wrote:
Surely the correct response is “well I can clearly see you’re nuts”?
All I know is “Naturism
All I know is “Naturism appears to be on the rise in north Wales, according to Stuart, with a new group having just been formed in Flintshire, which is why he was recently in the region. He added his recent arrest has not put him off and he will be returning to North Wales in the coming weeks for another outing.”
David9694 wrote:
Seems they found a good source here – country boy reveals all!
Perhaps it’s Flintshire Lad?
I guess we’ll be seeing more of the naturists in the future, then?
and for all times’ sake: “a
and for old times’ sake: “a police spokesman told us ‘we do get some naked or naturist cyclists in the summer months, but it tends to drop off in the winter’ “
What about minimum speed
What about minimum speed signs? Do cyclists have to comply with them? Or do they only exist in places that cycling is prohibited?
As far as I can tell from
As far as I can tell from snooping around the legislation, yes in theory a minimum speed limit sign could apply to cyclists, but in practice I’m not aware of any locations where one is in force and cycling is permitted. Obligatory note that I’m no lawyer and this is just my interpretation from what I have read in a spare few minutes.
Schedule 1 of the TSRGD 2016 defines “Speed Limits” (including minimums) and sets out the relevant legislation that may be used to impose a speed limit. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/made
The most commonly used orders to set speed limits are those made under Part IV of the RTRA 1984 – i.e. the ones referred to in this article, which only apply to motor vehicles. Notably, however, those Sections only make reference to prohibtions on exceeding a speed limit – i.e. setting a maximum speed limit. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/part/VI
However, Schedule 1 of the TSRGD 2016 also states that speed limits (as defined) can made by orders under S17 of the RTRA 1984 – Traffic regulation on Special Roads. S17 allows pretty broad scope of power to “regulate the manner in which and the conditions subject to which special roads may be used by traffic”. I presume the power to set a minimum speed limit normally falls under this power (note that “traffic” includes all vehicles, motorised or otherwise, and pedestrians). It is also made explicit (by virtue of being exercisable by the Scottish/Welsh Ministers rather than other Authorities in Scotland/Wales) than this does include “provision for regulating the speed of vehicles on special roads” – note that this specifies “vehicles” and not just “motor vehicles”, and also “regulating the speed” which could include a minimum. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/17
Looking at how Special Roads are used, it would appear unlikely that any Authority would go through the hassle of creating a Special Road and both permitting cyclists and also setting a minimum speed limit. Most Special Roads are motorways, dual carriageways, bridges/tunnels etc., from which cyclists are prohibited See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_road But as far as I can tell, the legislation wouldn’t preclude this possibility, and if it were to happen then the minimum speed limit would apply to cyclists too.
Finally, Schedule 1 of the TSRGD 2016 also states there is the option for speed limits to be made by a local Act, which presumably could, in theory, apply minimum speed limits to cyclists. Again, seems unlikely that this would actually happen though.