Safe Speed Forums

Get off your high horse.

If I argued with trolls, then I'd have no life. Please move along little child.

Really? And yet a Skateboarder was found guilty of exceeding the speed limit in Stoke some years ago.

Do you think this was wrong?

Do you believe it is right that there are no speed limits for non-motorised vehicles?

_________________
www.thatsnews.org.uk / www.thatsnews.blogspot.com / http://thatsmotoring.blogspot.com/

"A speed trap has been set up to enforce a 10mph seafront limit for cyclists"

Yes...

Mind you, without a speedo, how would a cyclist know what speed they were doing?

_________________
www.thatsnews.org.uk / www.thatsnews.blogspot.com / http://thatsmotoring.blogspot.com/

Of course! They have to count lamp posts!

_________________
www.thatsnews.org.uk / www.thatsnews.blogspot.com / http://thatsmotoring.blogspot.com/

Just to clarify things:

In general speed limits don't apply to non-motorised vehicles on public highways, but they can on Park roads. Richmond park is a well known example (20mph) which also applies to cyclists. It is legally enforceable by the Royal Parks Constabulary (not the MET). Mad Mogs was correct.

And without some form of ID on the bike - how are the enforcers going to be able to extract payment etc ---i've seen some bikes I would not pass as in a 20/30 ,I'd be holding them up( visions oh hi speed ( on carbon fibre bikes )or some form of small motor bike come to mind).

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

Not really, I often see cyclists who are patently going too fast, expecting people to get out of their way.

Ex car drivers I suspect.

Oooo, I'd be careful about defending the speed limit in Richmond Park...

The Park has many visitors, including the elderly and people with mobility problems or young children, and they often need to cross the Park's busy roads (4,000 cars an hour during rush hour). A lower speed limit reduces the risk of accidents and, combined with additional road crossing points which we will be installing, will make the Park more accessible for pedestrians.

http://www.royalparks.org.uk/press/curr ... ase_58.cfm

Apparently not, its the met since 2004.

After a review of the RPC by Mr. Anthony Speed, The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) took on the responsibility for policing the Royal Parks on 1st April 2004

http://www.royalparks.org.uk/about/police.cfm

How do you think I was defending it? I wasn't defending or attacking, I was merely showing how Mogs was correct. Why you went off on one I don't know.

Oh, many cyclists, especially the lycra-louts, are up in arms about the 20 limit. They greatly prefer the old 30 (having cycled around in it hundreds of times myself I can appreciate why [that doesn't mean I agree]).

Yup, you're right. It used to be the RPC until 2005, then the MET took over (and they started pulling cyclists).

Our lot fairly recently done a 40 something for reckless riding. Half expected the CTC to start frothing over it...

Only he accepted it was a fair cop..


30 mph the wrong way down a one way .. with a fairly sharp gradient ...

He'd never passed a driving test apparently.. - but was apparently a cycling nutcase.


He was fined £150 by the mags as I understand. The mag did say a car driver would have received penalty points or even a ban for such dangerous behaviour.


I do suspect he may have been the same way inclined had he taken to cars in the same way as he did to bikes all the same.


But back to Richmond Park.. it was the Met who were clobbering everyone on/in wheels for breaking the 20 mph limit and the Met are quite rightly stamping on anti-social behaviour from all road users .. INCLUDING cyclists.


They are not singling "cyclists" out. They are trying to make it very plain that certain standards of behaviour are expected and if some yob on a bicycle, middle aged moron in lycra or any other equally anti-social lout causes a nuisance to another - then its their bounded duty to try to stop it.. by arrest, presecution and consequences of yobbish, borish behaviour - and pavement cycling and other examples of arrogant and really inconsiderate behaviour on their part fall under this category - same as it does for a drunken and disorderly pedestrian and a really inconsiderate driver alike.


We do not - as far as I am aware -have one rule for different sets of people dependent as to how they choose to go about their business We can use professional judgement and we usually do. A camera does not and perhaps we should monitor Richmond Park by camera and insist all cyclists wear something by which we can trace and prosecute after all. In fact, I think Livingstone has a point on that issue. If you have nothing to hide.. and do not break the law after all.. what have the cyclists (the pro-cam ones) to fear?

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

Ok, a campaign to have all cycles registered and have to have number plates then ?
Followed by compulsory third party insurance ?
Or maybe, if they insist on cycling like maniacs in spite of warnings, they could be ASBOed ?
How about the cycling clubs who hold road-races on dual carriageways, and other roads (I can't, my insurance doesn't allow road racing !)

I was driving, slowly [no other way] behind a lycra of cyclists (my name for a collection of cyclists in one bunch), along with a dozen other drivers waiting to be allowed past.....there was going to be a long wait, since the road was a bit busy and they were not going to go single file....when one came off his bike and brought down quite a few more. It nearly caused another accident with the guys in the cars laughing. Unsympathetic, I know.

Shouldn't that be lycrae -if more than one ??( though other names come to mind)

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

Cycles, or cyclists, or both?

I think when people on cycles are involved in anywhere near the sorts of levels of death and injuries cars are you might have a point.

You could launch a petition on the Number 10 website.

_________________
www.thatsnews.org.uk / www.thatsnews.blogspot.com / http://thatsmotoring.blogspot.com/

Both.

Given the rising complaints about pavement cyclists and other illegal and anti-social behaviour displayed by several these days - I think Ken Livingstone has a point. One of the few occasions I agree with him.

As more take to the roads on bikes - the denser the volume and the more scope and possiblity of accidents amongst cyclists.

I fear it's inevitable that Nanny will start legislating ..

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

Possibly.

I think the dangers are greatly over egged, and people on cycles are massively over demonised by people who don't like to see cyclists 'getting away with it', because they are not getting the same 'treatment' as car drivers.

I'd go so far to say its simply jealousy.

I don't cycle through red lights on on pavements myself, but spending millions on a cycle and cyclist registrations scheme so people that choose to can be traced is a little overkill IMO, especially when the real (and present) danger to people is motorised vehicles going through red lights at speed.

A cyclist might approach a red light, check the scene out and pootle through it; vehicle drivers are more likely to see it going red and whack their foot down, shut their eyes and hope for the best.

As for cycling on pavements, again, I don't do it myself, but don't have a problem with cyclists dawdling along a pavement, indeed there are shared pavements and i don't see many yellow boards up on them where a cyclist has killed a family of four. Cyclists and peds happily co-mingle on many shared pavements I use.

However, if I see a cyclist on a pavement with a real "get out of my way attitude" I will generally do the opposite.