Check out the link. The cops are hunting for a skateboarder that speeded! I thought that cops could only give speeding tickets to motorized vehicles. Could a cop give a ticket to a man who is running to fast?
Unicorn
A friend of mine was once pulled over for riding his bike 35 mph in a 25 mph zone. This seems a little weirder, though. I can’t believe that guy could lose his driver’s license.
A cop once stopped me on my coker and said, “this ain’t no place to be doin’ your marathons!”
I thought it was going to be a speeding unicyclist, this being in RSU…
Anyway, I don’t think speed limits only apply to motor vehicles - certainly not in the UK. But AFAIK you can’t have points put on your driving license for cycling (or skateboarding?) offences.
Years ago* I was pulled over (twice in a week :o) while cycling to school in Bristol by police with a hand-held speed gun. They were on a long, straight, flat, wide stretch of road, non-residential, with no parked cars, that has a ludicrously low speed limit (30mph), and were presumably just out for easy money. The first time they thought it was a bit of a joke. The second time (same officer) I was given a pretty thorough bollocking and threatened with fines.
Rob
BTW, not about speeding, but I’ve never had any hassle from the police about unicycling on the road. I just behave like a cyclist and have had no problems.
*EDIT: Just realised that must have been over 20 years ago - eek, now I feel really old 
how can you be expected to keep to speed limits on equipment which isn’t legally required to have a speedometer?
I think the idea is that you’re not expected to be likely to go that fast, so you don’t have to have a speedo. (I did have one anyway so I couldn’t use that excuse…)
I would have been doing closer to 40mph on that particular bit of road (it’s almost flat, with a very slight downhill slope and quite often a bit of a tail wind) so it was a fair cop really! (apart from the argument that the 30mph limit is a joke on that bit of road)
Rob
My father still has a speeding ticket he got on his bike when he was 10. It was down a hill that just happened to have a 15 mph school zone on it.
I got a warning wen I was canoing
Re: Speeding!
On Wed, 3 Sep 2008, kington99 <> wrote:
>
> how you be expected to keep to speed limits on equipment which
> isn’t legally required to have a speedometer?
That’s a really bad argument.
My car does not have a breathalyser, but I’m still expected to comply
with the blood alcohol limits when driving it.
regards, Ian SMith
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ |
Re: Speeding!
On Wed, 3 Sep 2008, rob.northcott <> wrote:
>
> I thought it was going to be a speeding unicyclist, this being in
> RSU…
>
> Anyway, I don’t think speed limits only apply to motor vehicles -
> certainly not in the UK. But AFAIK you can’t have points put on your
> driving license for cycling (or skateboarding?) offences.
The short answer:
Speed limits in the UK only apply to motor vehicles (except in
special cases).
The long answer:
The Highway Code rule 124 states speed limits are in the adjacent
table, but the table has no row that applies to bicycles. There is a
bit of a fault in that a footnote to the table does indeed state that
“The 30 mph limit usually applies to all traffic on all roads with
street lighting unless signs show otherwise.”, but that appears to be
a wrong statement (there are a few such careless statements in the
Highway Code).
The Highway code references RTRA, which is the Road Traffic Regulation
Act 1984, sections 81, 86, 89 & schedule 6. In fact, these sections
all fall within Part VI of the act, which is entirely about speed
limits.
The first thing to note is that the Highway Code blanket statement is
wrong - section 81 is quite explicit that “It shall not be lawful for
a person to drive a motor vehicle on a restricted road at a speed
exceeding 30 miles per hour”. Note MOTOR vehicle.
Further reading reveals that throughout this act, the speed limits
discussed apply to motor vehicles and their drivers, not to cyclists.
Note, for example section 89: “A person who drives a motor vehicle on
a road at a speed exceeding a limit imposed by or under any enactment
to which this section applies shall be guilty of an offence.”
The main exception to the above is that it is possible to impose speed
limits on cyclists by means of byelaws, or other law. The main case of
this is the royal parks, where the speed limits apply tyo all
vehicles. For example, there is a limit of 8mph on Hampstead Heath
and 20 mph for all vehicles in Richmond park.
Some of the parks rules are set out in statutory instrument The Royal
Parks and Other Open Spaces Regulations 1997 amended by Royal Parks
and Other Open Spaces (Amendment) Regulations 2004.
It should be noted that it seems there is a theoretical possibility
for a speed limit to be imposed on cyclists. Although the ‘standard’
way for speed limits is via the RTRA noted above, TSRGD 2002, The
Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 allows for speed
limits to be imposed by local acts.
In principle, a local act might create a speed limit that applied to
cyclists. However, it’s very unlikely, and I’ve never seen a reference
to one that does. Further, the act would have to define the offence
and penalty - it could not simply refer back to the RTRA, because the
offence created in that act (section 89, quoted above) explicitly
applies to the drivers of motor vehicles. So, it would be possible for
a road to have a speed limit created by local act that applied to
cyclists, but it’s very unlikely, and even if it did, it is further
unlikely that there would be an offence committed in breaking the
speed limit.
> Years ago I was pulled over (twice in a week :o) while cycling to
> school in Bristol by police with a hand-held speed gun. They were on a
> long, straight, flat, wide stretch of road, non-residential, with no
> parked cars, that has a ludicrously low speed limit (30mph), and were
> presumably just out for easy money. The first time they thought it was
> a bit of a joke. The second time (same officer) I was given a pretty
> thorough bollocking and threatened with fines.
If he was threatening you with fines for breaking the speed limit
he was talking out of his arse. However, you can be prosecuted for
riding too fast on a bicycle (or a unicycle) - under the charge of
‘cycling furiously’. You can also be prosecuted for riding dangerously
or carelessly.
The other hoary canard you flagged up was whether you can get points
on your driving licence for something you do while cycling. This one,
however, you got right - you can’t (except for one odd exception).
The relevant act is the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. Section 28
states that the offences that attract points are in schedule 2 and
that the number of points is in the last column. However, for
completeness you also need to note that Section 97 is what tells you
that column 5 of Part I of the schedule sets out the circumstances in
which Section 28 is relevant. That is, column 5 tells you whether the
offence is one that results in obligatory or discretionary
disqualification, and it is those offences that attract points.
So then, you just need to read down schedule 2 and look at column 1
(the offences) and column 5 (whether they result in discretionary or
obligatory disqualification, ie, attract points. (Column 6 indicates
whether endorsement is obligatory - that’s described in sections 27
and 96 respectively).
The first relevant offence is RTRA section 17(4), Use of special road
contrary to scheme or regulations. This could attract 3 points, but
column 5 says “if committed in respect of a motor vehicle”, i.e. not
if committed in respect of a cycle.
“If committed in respect of a motor vehicle” appears for the offences
RTRA sections 25, 28, 29 and 30 too, being the next four eligible
offences.
Next up, however is RTRA section 89, exceeding speed limit. Column 5
simply says that it’s discretionary, and column 6 says it is
obligatory to endorse a licence. However, as discussed above, RTRA
section 89 itself only applies to motor vehicles, so you can’t commit
the offence on a cycle, so the offence doesn’t apply to cyclists, so
the penalty of committing the offence is irrelevant.
And so it continues, every offence in Schedule 2 either does not apply
to cyclists because of the definition of the offence, or the offence
only attracts points on a driving licence if committed in resect of a
motor vehicle.
However, Part II of Schedule 2 hides a tiny exception to the above. In
this part, it’s column 2 that indicates whether the offence is one
that could attract points.
The first row is covered as above - a cyclists cannot commit that
offence.
The other rows are a bit more tricky - you can commit these offences
without driving (without, in fact, having ever sat in a car at all).
For example, if you go equipped for stealing a car, you can get 8
points on your licence. (As an aside, an interesting contrast there -
kill someone with your car = 4 points, appear to be preparing to steal
someone else’s car = 8 points, do our law-makers really have their
priorities straight?)
The point is, you can get points on your licence if you are cycling
equipped for stealing etc. So, in the strict sense of the question at
the top of the page, you can get points on your licence for something
done while cycling. (But, the only case where that’s true you could
also have got the points had you been walking.)
It’s sometimes said that cycling offences can’t attract points because
a cyclist might not have a licence to accumulate the points. This is
baloney - there’s a mechanism by which the points accumulate even if
you don’t have a licence. When you get a licence, it will have the
points on. It’s the way under-age joyriders (for example) get points.
It’s set out in Section 45 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act, which
has such phrasing as “whether he is at the time the holder of a
licence or not” and so on.
[No, I don’t have the above memorised, someone talked such bollocks
once that I wrote it out on a web page with links to the legislation.
If you want to read the legislation for yourself most of the above is
at http://www.astounding.org.uk/ian/cyclelaw/index.html with links to
the relevant parts of the relevant acts.]
regards, Ian SMith
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ |
While training for RTL I reguarly rode through Hampstead Heath at well over 8mph, sadly I never got a ticket 
Something else to keep in mind is that policemen can write tickets for things that are not illegal at all. So maybe it can then be overturned, maybe not, and it’ll cost you a day off plus court costs to find out. And if the cop doesn’t care, he doesn’t need to show up at all, it’s no skin off his nose.
That’s interesting, I didn’t know that. Seems pretty ridiculous really - surely if a speed limit is for safety reasons (another whole debate of course) then all road users should have to observe it. But then the law and common sense don’t often coincide unfortunately.
Rob
He certainly gave me the impression that it was quite possible I would be fined, and that speeding was the offence. Nothing ever came of it, so it’s possible he was just implying that as a warning, or really meant it but then realised the offence didn’t exist - I don’t know.
I still think it’s silly that I would presumably have been prosecuted for doing the same speed in a car, but not on a bike.
Rob
Although a bike hitting you at 40mph is going to hurt a lot less than a car (as the tiny number of bike related deaths shows), so there’s a good argument for bikes going fast being much less of a safety risk than cars going fast.
Joe
Now, could that work for motorbikes too? 
They weigh something like 1/4 as much as a small car, so still present a high danger in that respect, and are also very accident prone, so maybe even are more dangerous to pedestrians and other road users (and definitely are more dangerous to themselves).
Joe
I shall defer from expressing further opinion as I think it’s likely to result in a threadjack and, possibly, an argument
Re: Speeding!
On Thu, 4 Sep 2008, Gadge <> wrote:
>
> joemarshall wrote:
> > Although a bike hitting you at 40mph is going to hurt a lot less than a
> > car (as the tiny number of bike related deaths shows), so there’s a
> > good argument for bikes going fast being much less of a safety risk
> > than cars going fast.
>
> Now, could that work for motorbikes too?
In principle. Unfortunately, motorbikes are proportionately very,
very dangerous to pedestrians, and might therefore be deserving of
lower speed limits.
From Road Casualties GB 2006 (the latest year I have to hand),
pedestrian fatalities in ‘accidents’ involving one vehicle, there were
3 with bicycles, 25 with motorbikes and 366 with cars.
But if you want to assess how dangerous a vehicle is to to
pedestrians, or a given pedestrian journey you need to correct for the
fact that a pedestrian is exposed to more cars than motorbikes. That
is, if you are setting policies on vehicle control according to the
danger those vehicles pose to pedestrians, you should look at how
dangerous the vehicle is per distance the vehicle travels. [Provided
the vehicles have similar capabilities - so this comparison is dubious
for bicycle v. car because cars do lots of miles on motorways where
there are no pedestrians, but bicycles do no miles on motorways. But
motorbikes and cars don’t have differing legal restrictions - a
motorbike can use almost any road a car can, and vice versa, so the
comparison is reasonable, even if not precise.]
From the same report, the mileage by vehicles, in hundred million
vehicle km, was bike 46, motorbike 52, car 4024.
So divide one by the other and scale to get useful figures, pedestrian
fatalities per 100 billion km travelled by that class of vehicle:
bicycle = 65
motorbike = 481
car = 90
On which basis, motorbikes, even though they are lighter than cars,
manage to be in ‘accidents’ that kill five times more pedestrians per
kilometre than do cars. You could argue that maybe they should have
tighter controls and lower speed limits.
In fact, HGVs, which do have a lower speed limit on many roads, killed
59 pedestrians over 291 hundred million km. So 202 dead pedestrians
per 100 billion km, or less than half as bad as motorbikes.
The Department for Transport do not seem to gather statistics for
unicycles accident rates.
regards, Ian SMith
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ |
Overturned Ticket
When in high school I got a speeding ticket on my bike, and had to pay a $15 fine, but it was overturned when I contested it because there was no law that required me to have a speedometer, and the reason for the 25mph wasn’t safety, it was to keep noise down in the area. I think there is a lot of discretion about these things, and that unfortunately the officer on the street doesn’t always use good sense.