CTC Forum - On the road

Syndicate content
Discussion boards hosted by CTC, the national cycling charity
Updated: 2 hours 14 min ago

Re: Speeding cyclists on LBC now

21 November 2014 - 10:08am
I don't know how they can enforce a speed limit for a bicycle when having a speedometer isn't a legal requirement.

Re: Speeding cyclists on LBC now

21 November 2014 - 9:23am
There is some confusion about Park Police or the MET on that roadcc website.

Having watched Jeremy Vine's video clip that Policeman appeared to have MET written on his chest.
Does that mean it wasnt the Park Police after all or are the Park Police from within the MET?

Re: And all she got was a penalty charge notice

21 November 2014 - 9:19am
The crowd should have administered some instant justice. As they had to move her car by physical lifting they should have positioned it somewhere that it could not have been driven out of, like between two posts.
and then melted away before the PCSO stopped laughing.

Re: Speeding cyclists on LBC now

21 November 2014 - 9:14am
Flinders wrote:I read that the limit in this instance was 5mph, a speed at which the slightest bump would tip me over sideways onto anything alongside, which could easily include a pensioner, a child, or a dog.
I walk at 4mph on the flat, surely anyone jogging would be going faster than 5mph. And if this is where the horses go, a horse walks at 4mph or more, and trots at 6-8mph, though trotting racers go at anything up to 30mph.
Are horses allowed to trot in the park?

Even just ambling along on my bike putting in zero effort on the flat I would imagine I would be travelling in excess of 5mph. Staying below 5mph would require some effort.

Re: Speeding cyclists on LBC now

21 November 2014 - 9:02am
Theres a good discussion on this on road.cc (here and the initial discussion here) but the crux of the issue is royal parks police think they have the ability to apply the road limits to bikes, but rather a few lawyers think they are talking out their bum. Its all to do with the wordings of some amendments which remove mechanically powered from the description of vehicles for the speed limits (seeming to therefore include bikes) against other clauses from earlier where it specifically states vehicle and bicycles therefore making a distinction between the two.

Either way 5mph is a ridiculous speed limit, even if it is a shared use path.

Re: I Hate Virgin Trains

21 November 2014 - 8:59am
Japanese trains are faster, but so are a lot of European trains, and they are far cheaper than here.

Re: Speeding cyclists on LBC now

21 November 2014 - 8:56am
I read that the limit in this instance was 5mph, a speed at which the slightest bump would tip me over sideways onto anything alongside, which could easily include a pensioner, a child, or a dog.
I walk at 4mph on the flat, surely anyone jogging would be going faster than 5mph. And if this is where the horses go, a horse walks at 4mph or more, and trots at 6-8mph, though trotting racers go at anything up to 30mph.
Are horses allowed to trot in the park?

Re: I Hate Virgin Trains

21 November 2014 - 8:55am
Ben@Forest wrote:TonyR wrote:The maglev that has been running for years between Shanghai Airport and Pudong runs a regular service at 270mph over the 19 mile journey and has reached the 500kph/311mph speed in passengerless tests.
Is this feasible? At 270 mph 19 miles takes 4 minutes and 13 seconds. Can it accelerate to 270 mph for any meaningful distance before having to start slowing down? Even if it is feasible it seems an odd investment, how much electrical power is required to get the train up to that speed just to start decelerating? I can understand wanting to travel at 270 mph if you have say 300 or more miles to cover but surely covering 19 miles in 20 minutes would be perfectly adequate?
The full name of the Shanghai maglev train is the Shanghai Maglev Demonstration Operation Line, which gives a clue as to why they built it even though it seems a bit silly to have something that fast for such a short run. Its run time is 7m20s so it achieves an average speed of 180mph including acceleration and braking. It was originally envisaged that it might be extended to a much longer long distance high speed line connecting Shanghai to other major cities. But I think they learned from doing this project that Maglev was just too horribly expensive to build to adopt as a technology for long distance lines, and so they built a conventional high speed line through Shanghai instead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Maglev_Train

Re: And all she got was a penalty charge notice

21 November 2014 - 8:54am
There's quite a big hint in the story there that all she was doing was having a coffee in Costa as well. I dont know what passes for peoples thinking to do something like this...

And all she got was a penalty charge notice

21 November 2014 - 8:42am
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-no ... e-30138390

When you have caused an obstruction and considerable inconvenience to many people and probably caused substantial cost to commercial businesses, there really ought to be a much more serious penalty than a penalty charge notice. A financial penalty, not a criminal one.

This probably explains why so many commercial vehicles ignore "no loading at any time" notices so routinely in London, often completely blocking narrow streets, or causing gridlock when another large vehicle can't squeeze past. If the worst that happens is that you get a fixed penalty once in a while, they can absorb that as "the cost of doing business".

Re: I Hate Virgin Trains

21 November 2014 - 1:20am
Ben@Forest wrote:
Is this feasible? At 270 mph 19 miles takes 4 minutes and 13 seconds. Can it accelerate to 270 mph for any meaningful distance before having to start slowing down? Even if it is feasible it seems an odd investment, how much electrical power is required to get the train up to that speed just to start decelerating? I can understand wanting to travel at 270 mph if you have say 300 or more miles to cover but surely covering 19 miles in 20 minutes would be perfectly adequate?

An excellent point/question.

Re: BT Openreach cyclists stay back

21 November 2014 - 12:01am
My daughter drives a little Peugeot van, no bigger than a car, that is restricted to 70mph, I assume the council put some form of restrictor in them.

Re: Speeding cyclists on LBC now

21 November 2014 - 12:01am
MikeF wrote:As there isn't a requirement for cycles to be fitted with speedometers, how can a cyclist knowingly exceed a speed limit?
Ignorance is rarely an excuse for breaking the law. The duty would be on the cyclist to ride sufficiently cautiously to be sure of remaining within the limit. It's a limit, not a target.

Re: Speeding cyclists on LBC now

20 November 2014 - 11:49pm
I think we should bring back the man with the red flag, walking in front.
That'll teach 'em. All of 'em.

Re: Undertaken - on the pavement...

20 November 2014 - 11:48pm
andy65 wrote:There appears to be a problem with perception. Drivers often see cyclists as something that must be overtaken immediately. It's not just fast or aggressive drivers. I have been passed very dangerously by people driving very slowly, the classic being little old ladies passing on the wrong side of a solid white line on a blind bend on a narrow road. They are clearly not in a hurry and they are not being aggressive, but it doesn't occur to them that if they wait a short amount of time they can pass more safely.

I don't know what causes it and I don't know what can be done to change it. Perhaps there needs to be research into the psychology of road users, to understand how we can overcome things like this. I include cyclists in this because I know that we can also be affected. It's not just cyclists that have to be overtaken. I used to drive regularly for work with a 12'x5' capacity trailer. Some drivers just had to pass me at all costs.

It's often old people, both men and women, who seem to pass me rather too close when I'm cycling, and, as you note, they are not usually going that fast. I'm not sure why? I'm an old'un myself.

Re: Speeding cyclists on LBC now

20 November 2014 - 11:25pm
Bicycler wrote:thirdcrank wrote:mercalia wrote:isnt thre also a law some think like cycling too vigorously? that applies every where?

There's furious cycling, which only applies in areas which have adopted the Town Police Clauses Act.

(Bicycler posted before me. )
Yes but I didn't post that one: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/10-11/89
Every person who rides or drives furiously any horse or carriage, or drives furiously any cattle:
That makes three separate offences of furious carriage driving!

(Don't ask me how anybody knows where it applies because I've no idea.
Well that's my next question out the window

I recall that a few years ago some lads were driving cars around a local car park at night creating a din etc. After complaints they were prosecuted for driving furiously.

Re: Speeding cyclists on LBC now

20 November 2014 - 11:23pm
"Knowingly" isn't an ingredient of the offence. The offence applies to the drivers of certain motor vehicles which aren't required to be fitted with a speedo.

Re: BT Openreach cyclists stay back

20 November 2014 - 11:21pm
Not strictly relevant, but I saw a small white van today with a sign on the back "Limited to 70mph"

It was too small to be likely to have a governor, so it was probably a statement of principle.

Re: Why do so many people die shovelling snow?

20 November 2014 - 11:21pm
Nice snow shovel!

I'm embarrassed to admit that I have four: Two large ones for doing the street, and two folding ones for driving. Incidentally, there's nothing like clearing snow to bring out the old jokes, as in

"When you've finished there, they need volunteers to do the third lane of the M62."

Re: Speeding cyclists on LBC now

20 November 2014 - 11:16pm
As there isn't a requirement for cycles to be fitted with speedometers, how can a cyclist knowingly exceed a speed limit?

Archive

  • Patron: Her Majesty The Queen
  • President: Jon Snow
  • Chief Executive: Paul Tuohy
  • Cyclists' Touring Club (CTC): A company limited by guarantee, registered in England no.25185. Registered as a charity in England and Wales No 1147607 and in Scotland No SC042541

 

Terms and Conditions