A group of cyclists riding on Dartmoor yesterday were stopped and spoken to by police officers after being seen riding at 39mph in a 30mph zone.
While there are no speed limits for cyclists in the UK — except where local byelaws apply, such as in some parks — Devon and Cornwall’s Roads Policing Team explained on Twitter how the group was stopped by officers who asked them to “be mindful of your speeds and just how this will affect you in the event of a collision”.
The traffic unit shared footage of the group descending yesterday morning just after 9:30 on the A386 into a village with a 30mph speed limit for motorists, the video having now been watched almost half a million times in the day since.
Cyclists, please be mindful of your speeds and just how this will effect you in the event of a collision. This group today on Dartmoor observed travelling at near 40mph on a 30mph restricted road. All stopped and offered appropriate words of advice ?♀️ ?♀️ 7163 & #MPS6758JONES pic.twitter.com/5oX0hFpEj2
— Devon and Cornwall Roads Policing Team ? (@DC_RPT) September 3, 2023
On the speedometer visible, the cyclists are shown to be travelling at between 39 and 37mph on the descent.
“Cyclists, please be mindful of your speeds and just how this will effect you in the event of a collision,” the police unit’s post said. “This group today on Dartmoor observed travelling at near 40mph on a 30mph restricted road. All stopped and offered appropriate words of advice.”
The Highway Code sets out speed limits for vehicles, but does not include bicycles, meaning — byelaw-restricted areas such as some promenades, paths or parks aside — cyclists cannot be fined for speeding.
> Cyclists in Richmond Park face crackdown for ‘speeding’ – even though limits do not apply to them
Instead however, cyclists can be charged with dangerous cycling, under the 1988 Road Traffic Act Section 28, which states an offence is committed if “the way they ride falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful cyclist” and it “would be obvious to a competent and careful cyclist that riding in that way would be dangerous”, with “dangerous” referring to “danger either of injury to any person or of serious damage to property”.
The charge of ‘wanton and furious cycling’ can also be applied if an injury is caused in the case of a collision.
Predictably, the video has caused much debate on social media, a retired police advanced driver, Marcus Laine, joining the discussion to defend the officers’ actions, saying it was “entirely the right thing to do”.
“Educate and inform,” he said, asking what if “the cyclists approach the restricted vision crossroads and a motorist pulls out expecting traffic to be travelling at 30”?
> Speeding fine for Richmond Park cyclist clocked riding at 41mph — but is penalty lawful?
“It’s about safety and that includes pedestrians who misjudges the bikes speed or elderly drivers. How about some personal responsibility?”
Road safety campaigner CyclingMikey was also on hand to reply to people who suggested the cyclists should be fined as a motorist would be, seemingly not aware of the fact speed limits do not apply to cyclists.
“They weren’t breaking the law,” he said. “The speed limit doesn’t apply to cyclists. That’s probably quite reasonable when a bicycle weighs maybe 10kg and an average car 1.5-2 tonnes.”

88 thoughts on “Police stop cyclists riding at 39mph in 30mph zone despite speed limits not applying to bicycle riders”
Not unreasonable by the
Not unreasonable by the Police there; just becasue you are not breaking the law doesn’t mean you should go do it.
Hopefully the conversation went, “I know the speed limit doesn’t apply to you but don’t be a ****ing bunch of ****holes as you know riding like this will wind the residents and other road users up; plus it may earn you a much more serious injury if you crash. Thank you and enjoy your ride.”
Spoken like someone who has
Spoken like someone who has never travelled at the speed limit in a residential area on a bike.
That will wind motorists up far more than cycling at 39 in a 30.
TriTaxMan wrote:
Written by somebody who doesn’t know the difference between spoken and written.
Written by someone who doesn
Written by someone who doesn’t understand that common phrases needn’t be literally true to be readily understood by readers.
Brauchsel wrote:
Written by a straw clutching resident from Bell End who hasn’t got a particular point to make.
Legin wrote:
Word salad.
Benthic wrote:
Reading comprehension disorder.
Benthic wrote:
Yummy.
Which was the bigger problem
Which was the bigger problem in this case, the cyclists, or the police car doing 40mph when not engaged in an emergency response?
Myself, happy to exceed speed limits on a bike, typically on a downhill into a village where the speed limit is away from the built up area, but cyclists should cycle at a speed they can stop in, be it junctions, bends or other obstructions, so advice about excess speed in a built up area is appropriate.
Strangely, one place I seek to exceed the speed limit for my own safety is in a 20mph, yet over 20 is not sufficient for motorists to get frustrated and “need” to overtake, mainly because many believe that 20 is a war on motorists therefore does not apply (which also there excuses overtaking into oncoming traffic, and past obstructions and close passing… and holding up the cyclists you’ve passed).
Good observation – the 20mph
Good observation – the 20mph is an example of the converse, where the speed limit is deemed to apply to cyclists but not to motorists!
A bicycle can only decelerate
A bicycle can only decelerate at about half the rate of a typical car [somewhere in Bicycle Science]. There are quite a few hazards here (driveways, pedestrian crossing, junctions, poor visibility…). I’d probably be going slower, but that’s just me.
Looks like YouGov are running
Looks like YouGov are running a related poll. Results are currently as pathetic as you’d expect.
Ah, our conservative leaders
Ah, our conservative leaders looking to cement party policies in time for the next general election.
As an aside, I am now utterly convinced that the tories will win the next election. They are now fully up and running with their campaigning, whilst Labour sits at the back staring at its belly button.
Unless they get off their arses now, the only thing the masses will actively care about is what Conservative generated PR tell them to.
I digress.
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
I hope they’re using a better quality of cement than the concrete in schools. Still, Rishi seems prepared to spend whatever’s necessary to fix them, unlike a couple of years ago as they hadn’t killed enough people at that time.
hawkinspeter wrote:
ftfy
Driver nation. Funny to think
Driver nation. Funny to think that car-related stuff like emissions control, 20 mph speed limits and prices at the pump will have such a significant effect on political fortunes.
Drivers and their levelling down – “be like us – pay road tax, insurance, follow speed limits” etc – let me know when the national cycling motorway network is ready and I might think about it.
David9694 wrote:
Or when drivers start doing those things…
All the parties were pretty
All the parties were pretty much all neck and neck in their support for it. Scotland was also the highest region coming in at 90%. T
Christ all Roadcc does these
Christ all Roadcc does these days is just stoke the fire between cars and cyclists – every article. Basically the Daily Mail of cycling journalism….
skullman wrote:
I think you’ll find it’s actually the police posting this material on Twitter which is stoking the fire, road.cc are simply reporting it as you would expect, given that it is a matter of considerable interest to many of us as to whether the police are going to start pulling us over for exceeding the motor-vehicle speed limit.
skullman wrote:
Well, it’s not common for cars to be reading and posting things on websites, so maybe you meant drivers?
hawkinspeter wrote:
Get a life mate
Saw them at the first Windsor
Saw them at the first Windsor Free Festival in 1972. What a great band.
perce wrote:
Think I encountered them ( backed by Sad Waste, Nothing Better To Do and Procrastination) at the Leeds Nowhere gathering. Times past!
Great times indeed.
Great times indeed.
Because of course, posting on
Because of course, posting on here shows you have a full life.
skullman wrote:
Dont worry, there will be a good article tomorrow on ULEZ, and then one on Wednesday on helmets to enjoy
Ah, Helmets to Enjoy. Their
Ah, Helmets to Enjoy. Their one and only tv appearance, in this country at least was on TOTP in 1977. More popular in Europe if I remember rightly.
Stoke the Fire were good too.
Stoke the Fire were good too. Though I disagreed with their views on Brexit.
Clem Fandango wrote:
You have to admit though that numbers like “350 Million a Week”, “(They’re Coming Over Here) Millions of Turks and Albanians” and “Ever Closer Union…?” really got the crowds fired up! (Sometimes requiring riot police).
I did find their insistence
I did find their insistence on showing their helmets at every opportunity a little offputting to be honest.
SimoninSpalding wrote:
Ooo-errrrr!
I should imagine the police
I should imagine the police were (illegally) following the cyclists hoping that they’d do anything, anything at all, that would indicate that they were speeding inappropriately so they could pull a ‘wanton and furious driving’ charge on them, however once the road leveled out, the bobbies had to settle for a stern word and online slating instead.
Please expand on how the
Please expand on how the police illegally follow road users (of any description).
The police car is keeping up
The police car is keeping up with the bikes so must be speeding? Don’t believe police can/should exceed the speed limit without their lights on?
Shermo wrote:
I believe that emergency vehicles are exempt from speed restrictions, but they should be using lights when doing so, though arguably 39mph in a 30 zone is about typical for motorists.
All emergency service
All emergency service vehicles must stick to the speed limit when not running blue lights and sirens (unless for reasons of noise pollution). It is also misconcieved that ambulances and fire engines are allowed to break the speed limit – which is a myth. Only police officers with specialist Advanced Driver Training can drive (under blue light conditions) over the speed limit. Fire and Ambulance service drivers are not given this advanced tactical driving training but a more basic blue-light course.
The blue light course
The blue light course undertaken by appliance drivers in my service meets the requirements of Section 19 of the Road Safety Act 2006 which is the section that deals with exemptions from speed limits. The rules were tightened as a result of that Act and most services had to scramble to requalify their drivers before the grace period expired but this was completed some years ago.
Matthew Acton-Varian wrote:
Nope;
They don’t have to use blue lights.
However there is an argument that they can only speed where necessary for official police business. As the riders speeding isn’t an offence on its own AND they would have likely caught up with the riders at the bottom of the hill when they slowed anyway, there is a good argument that speeding wasn’t necessary for police business however…
Nope, must follow all laws of
Nope, must follow all laws of the road, but can exceed speed limits and go through red lights only with lights on.
I’m not sure which bit of
I’m not sure which bit of hawkinspeter’s comment you’re disagreeing with…
Section 87 of the Road
Section 87 of the Road Traffic Act provides the exemption. It states that the exemption applies in the situation that to observe the speed limit would hinder the use of the vehicle for the purpose for which it is being used on that occasion. In this case all the police have to do is to say that they considered the speed of the cyclist inappropiate for the circumstances and they needed to take action. Therefore going faster than the posted speed limit was approriate and therefore lawful.
That’s useful to know, and
That’s useful to know, and makes sense. However in this case, on their own evidence, they were pursuing the cyclists for exceeding the speed limit, which itself is not a police matter, rather than for the general manner of their riding, which could be a police matter. So by their own admission the reason they were themselves exceeding the speed limit is not covered by the exemption, unless they are allowed to break the speed limit in pursuit of just any purpose they choose.
Are police required these
Are police required these days to give any grounds for stopping a wheeled road user?
Nope, 39mph in 30 zone has a
Nope, 39mph in 30 zone has a public safety factor element to it and the police have to act when there is a potential risk to public safety. There are also other charges the police could look for. I doubt the Dangerous Cycling part of the 1988 RTA would apply (unless there were additional factors not seen in the clip) however Careless, and inconsiderate, cycling, defined as “If a person rides a cycle on a road without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, he is guilty of an offence.” could apply. 39 in a 30zone would satisfy the ‘without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road‘ critera. Therefore the police have at least two legitimate grounds for exceeding the posted speed limit.
Capt Sisko wrote:
That only follows logically if you are referring to the speed of something for which the limit was framed.
But the speed limits are not informed by the dangers imposed by the speed of cyclists, any more than, say, bumblebees, since clearly the limits apply to neither. The limits are set with regard to the dangers imposed by motor vehicles, so I fail to see the rationale in using them as a yardstick to infer the dangers imposed by anything else at that speed.
Sriracha wrote:
I’ll tell you what then, you stand in the middle of the road and let cyclist ride into you at 39mph. In the infamous Charlie Alliston case he was only doing 18mph. Imagine the damage a bike & rider would do to you at over twice that speed. Speed, is all relative anyway. I’ll happily drive through my local High Street at 30mph at 5.00am. On a Saturday at say 10.00am when the market’s in full swing, 15mph is probably too fast.
Capt Sisko wrote:
So, if you had the choice of being ridden into by a 39mph cyclist or driven into by a 30mph driver, which do you think would cause you the most harm?
Or, compare a 39mph cyclist with a 15mph driver – I reckon the cyclist is far less dangerous.
Suppose there was a speed
Suppose there was a speed limit for, say, farm vehicles, or HGVs, and a car driver exceeded that limit. Are you saying that fact alone could be taken to indicate dangerous driving by the car driver, for whom the limit was never designed?
As a road user I’m
As a road user I’m disapointed that you must have never read the Highway Code. Perhaps you should get aquainted with it as it tells you that separate speed limits already exist for different classes of vehicles. As for the danberous driving bit, where did I say that as you seem to be creating an arguement of something that doesn’t exist.
But that’s precisely Sriracha
But that’s precisely Sriracha’s point – driving a car at 65mph on the motorway is not (of itself) dangerous driving simply because it exceeds the speed limit for a HGV.
You’ve lost me on this one.
You’ve lost me on this one. You suddenly seem to be going off at a tangent. The question was, was it right for the police to follow some cyclists for doing 39 in a 30 limit even if it means they are ‘speeding’ themselves. As I explained above, they are well within their rights to do so.
Capt Sisko wrote:
I’d agree with that! I was just trying to elucidate Sriracha’s last point, but I agree we’re straying a bit from where it started.
And as I pointed out it makes
And as I pointed out it makes as much sense to pursue a cyclist for exceeding a speed limit imposed on a different class of vehicle as it does to pursue a car driver for exceeding the speed limit imposed on a different class of vehicle.
Would the officers have offered words of advice to a motorist on the strength of them exceeding the speed limits governing agricultural vehicles on the same road? Or HGVs?
Imagine the conversation:
[Officer] do you know why I’ve pulled you over?
[Motorist] er, no officer, sorry.
[Officer] see that sign there? You were exceeding the speed limit
[Motorist] but that sign is for tractors…
[Officer] nevertheless, it tells me your driving was inappropriate for the circumstances …
[Motorist] … if I was driving a tractor, which I’m not.
[Officer] please don’t interrupt.
Not quite with you here. The
Not quite with you here. The speed limit posted here isn’t some “intermediate” one – it’s for the fastest expected vehicle / thing on the road. (Albeit we all know that mostly motor vehicles would get a pass for this). Also while it’s not a pedestrianised space or an urban area I think you could reasonably expect hazards to suddenly appear (e.g. from the junction). Why would 30mph be less appropriate for a bike? (Would it be unreasonable to stop someone on rollerskates doing over that?) What’s the stopping distance for one of those? I suspect none of the riders would know…
For the sportier end of recreational cycling perhaps it’s fairer to question folks’ speed? I suspect such riders are more likely to be interested in how fast they’re going. Albeit not required to have a calibrated measure.
(I hope) I would consider it fair enough *in that particular place* if told to moderate my speed – the fact that it’s a “finger in the air” measurement cuts both ways.
Having said that, I think your example could be shorter:
[Officer] Do you know what speed you were going?
[Cyclist] No.
[Officer] (!)
[Cyclist] … and I am not required to.
I fully agree the riders
I fully agree the riders ought to take account of their surroundings and moderate their speed accordingly, and 39mph is very likely too fast for the conditions, for all the reasons you give. If the officer had done the same calculus I would have no argument.
But he hung his hat on the speed limit sign instead.
Precisely because those who set the limits know they do not apply to cyclists they won’t be assessing the particular factors pertaining to cyclists when they weigh up what limit to set. 30mph may be too fast for cyclists given their particular attributes – quiet, slower to stop, less agile in a corner etc. For all we know, the speed limit could have been set with a view to noise or engine pollution. What we do know is that it was not set with a view to cyclists.
The most you could say is if it’s too fast for motorists then that’s one factor for cyclists to consider along with all the others.
Would you say the same for 20 limits? It’s a can of worms once you start saying motor vehicle limits have some application to non-motor vehicles, depending on the situation.
I’d far rather the police spoke to cyclists based on the whole situation, as if the speed limit signs were not there – which effectively is the case for cyclists. They chose the simplistic option instead.
The signs are useful
The signs are useful indicators . Nothing wrong suggesting to cyclists that they could consider them as guides
I would not have been shocked
I would not have been shocked if it had temporarily slipped the policeman’s mind that speed limits didn’t apply. So it may have had a simplistic motivation. But – to be fair the other way – he did reference “how this will affect you in the event of a collision” and we don’t have his words of advice.
It’s “reasonable outcome” for me. Sadly, it’s not so often police forces are correcting “popular opinion” also (Actually Polis Scotland up here is often doing the opposite..) And of course “dangerous scorchers” is a belief. (“they’re holding up traffic, going way to fast, shouldn’t be on the roads, they’re a danger to pedestrians…”).
Could the policeman been doing more good keeping drivers’ speeds down? Perhaps … although I guess his presence on the road was doing that (when he wasn’t over the limit…)
Polis to driver “a little
Polis to driver “a little fast there sir for the conditions”
driver to polis “I was under the speed limit so what are you going to do, Juliet Bravo.”
I can recall Grant shapps coming out with something about the 20 mph limits applying to cyclists a few weeks ago. Drivers sure like passing cyclists all right but it’s mind-blown when the boot is on the other foot.
You’ve lost me there Capt
You’ve lost me there Capt Sisko. I was suggesting a scenario where a speed limit was in force for one class of vehicle and exceeded by another – and you accuse me of being unaware that such various limits in fact exist!
For anyone else struggling to
For anyone else struggling to find the reference, it’s s.87 Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.
“Educate and inform,”
“Educate and inform,”
Totally agree. Why not start with drivers? In fact, why not start with the drivers that respond incorrectly to your twitter feed? If they don’t know this section of the highway code I suspect they’ll be equally ignorant on other parts of it – like protecting vulnerable road users.
The problem with road bikes
The problem with road bikes with narrow 23c tires and caliper brakes, is that based on my experience, they have very poor braking performance and most road cyclists use such. Test the worst performing car in braking from 40mph in wet and compare it to the best performing bike with 23c tires and calipers in same conditions. So yes 40mph in a 30mph zone can be too much.
But the thing is, how many pedestrians are actually killed on accidents caused by cyclists annually? They are about double compared to struck by lightning deaths level probability, so not something that we should worry too much, as it is kind of a freak unsual accident.
https://www.nationalworld.com/news/politics/pedestrians-killed-dangerous-cyclists-road-deaths-3812845
https://www.torro.org.uk/research/lightning/incidents
High speed recreational sport road cycling can be dangerous on open fast roads (sadly many road.cc accident articles are about such riding), but the actual danger is for themselves, not for others. And so is smoking or eating fast food in excessive amounts every day, but I don’t know many other people that get pissed off about what others eat, drink or smoke.
cyclisto wrote:
Unless things are startlingly different in other parts of the country, I reckon you could go to any popular road cycling venue and unless there was a group training for the Eroica present you’d be hard pushed to find more than one in fifty these days using 23mm tires and calipers together.
Evidence?
Evidence?
25s and 28s in the winter.
25s and 28s in the winter. 23s I used to run are faster in summer – don’t listen to Big Tyre – but too many pinch flats on corners.
Any braking system is only as good as its weakest link – that’s rider reaction time/ skill and on the non-human side, road traction, which in the case of anything 23-28 is a major weakness.
David9694 wrote:
What bag is that you’re using, David?
Looks like a Carradice Zipped
Looks like a Carradice Zipped Roll :-
https://carradice.co.uk/shop/saddlebags/originals-zipped-roll-saddlebag/?attribute_colour=Red&v=79cba1185463
Carradice Zipped Roll In
Carradice Zipped Roll In burgundy.
David9694 wrote:
Nice. Thanks.
David9694 wrote:
I prefer pears in brandy.
Narrow tires on caliper
Narrow tires on caliper brakes definitely is not a good thing for braking, let’s let poor bears on their privacy after having eaten a feast of salmons.
@Rendel Harris I you must be right for more affluent areas, I wish I could see more bike porn on my streets. Having briefly owned an Eroica age road bike, the braking experience was by far the worse aspect of it. Steel rims and Mafac brakes. But even on modern 23c caliper brakes I felt unsafe. On the contrary, riding a MTB with huge tires and hydraulic disks I was super supriced by the braking power. Haven’t ridden a modern hydro disk road bicycle with wide tyres, but I believe it will be quite close to the MTB experience I had.
cyclisto wrote:
Highway Code braking distances are based on a rather ols Ford Anglia… I don’t believe that this test you suggest is going to go the way you think, at all.
Speed limits were introduced for Motor Vehicles for very good reasons.
Were the cyclists also
Were the cyclists also chastised for not wearing seatbelts?
On a lighter note. How many
On a lighter note. How many clubs can add an item to their AGM regarding a chaingang exceeding a posted limit and being pulled over by the peelers.
There’s a particular radar on one of my old loops which I would burst myself trying to trigger a frown. Never succeeded. I did however trip a temp speed recorder in a twenty once. Have a pic from my cam somewhere showing 23.
Because cyclists never think
Because cyclists never think about the consequences when descending at speed given all the armor surrounding them.
Exactly this
Exactly this
Fellow cyclists . We really
Fellow cyclists . We really do need to consider why speed limits are there as it is generally because of increased hazard . Just because laws on speed (signs) generally don’t apply to us doesn’t mean we can consider that they might be due to an elevated risk and chill a bit
I think the Police were
I think the Police were trying to do the right thing but got the messaging wrong.
Firstly, how a collision might affect them? Not sure that the Police would do this anywhere else. Do they stop and warn rock climbers about the dangers, or sea swimmers, the list of other riskyer hobbies is endless. I don’t think they want or need to police every risky activity.
I did just see a jogger on a busy A road this morning, not sure how the police would react to this.
Better messaging would be if they were likely to put at risk (or even startle) more vulnerable road users. The elements of that argument in this thread have more resonance.
Discussion of speed limits is just plain misleading given that they don’t apply. Really makes the post look like click bait waiting for a reaction from drivists. Specifically goes against the “just trying to educate” idea.
Of course we don’t know what was said to the cyclists only what they chose to put on Twitter. Perhaps all that’s required is a better understanding of how social media works.
IanMK wrote:
Exactly this. The dangerous anti-cycling bigots (and hate-sirring media) are all over this tweet and using it as ammunition.
According to the local speed
According to the local speed watch group, 1 in 10 drivers exceed 35mph through there (Mary Tavy), with the top recorded speed being 64mph!
I hope the police were also dealing with those drivers in the same manner.
I always speed up when I see
I always speed up when I see our local speedwatch. Gives the dear souls (who clearly have nothing better to do) something to get worked up over and some data to report, and keeps the average speed up too.
We don’t have a local speed
We don’t have a local speed watch in my village – the residents are the main problem when it comes to speeding. We do sometimes get the automated flashing signs, which when on my bike I try desperately to trigger (they seem to require approx 25mph to wake them up), but in the absence of any of these so-called “downhills” of which everyone speaks I rarely manage it
I hope the police were also
I hope the police were also dealing with those drivers in the same manner
If they’re anything like Lancashire, they almost certainly weren’t: the attitude here is that ‘everbody does it (going though red lights, illegally crossing unbroken white lines in a dangerous position, mobile phone use while drugged up on nitrous, having no MOT etc. etc). See S2 AOA, for instance. This will be completely ignored.
HoarseMann wrote:
let’s hope
‘Our roads need to be safe places to drive so stop speeding’
In an effort to reduce fatal and serious collisions, Roads Policing Officers from Devon & Cornwall Police have been carrying out increased roadside speed checks.
https://www.devonlive.com/news/news-opinion/our-roads-need-safe-places-8713994
Okay officer, if you reckon I
Okay officer, if you reckon I was riding at a speed in excess of the posted limit, I’ll have to take your word for it, given I don’t have a speedometer on my bicycle, nor is there a legal requirement to have one. Now jog on, and catch someone possibly actually breaking a law.
Alternative text for tweet:
Alternative text for tweet:
“Cyclists so law abiding that the only thing we can find to post to show we also enforce laws on riders is stopping them when they were cycling completely legally”
“It’s not illegal, but don’t
“It’s not illegal, but don’t do it again” can also apply to going too slowly…
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-56618809