Cyclists get pulled for 39mph in a 30 limit.

[DaveReading]

I wonder what a 70kg male on a 7kg bike going at 37mph when hitting me as an 87kg pedestrian would feel like. I don't think I'll be saying n it was OK because he doesn't have the kinetic energy of a car or SUV!

But at least you'd probably be saying something.

Whereas being hit by a car travelling at that speed, it's odds-on that you won't be saying anything more, ever.

 

[marzjennings]

So the police are allowed to break the law themselves (speeding) to pursue cyclists who are not breaking the law. Yeah, that makes sense.

 

[icowden]

So the police are allowed to break the law themselves (speeding) to pursue cyclists who are not breaking the law. Yeah, that makes sense.

Yes, Police are allowed to exceed the speed limit in order to do their job. They determined that the cyclists were not breaking the law but wanted to ask them to be a little more considerate. The reason that the Police are allowed to speed is because Police drivers are highly trained.

 

[mjr]

Apart from your quoted stopping distance, I disagree with everything you say here, just my humble opinion.

Are you sure? That means you believe, amongst other things, the potential collision point is at the edge of the road not mid-crossing, competent cyclists would not signal "ease up" and people can appear on the crossing without being visible approaching it. 😲

You display remarkable optimism in the behaviour of humans.

I've yet to see one that can teleport.

my point was they are all going to maim travelling at over close to 40 mph - sorry you seem to argue otherwise

I didn't.

 

[mjr]

Yes, Police are allowed to exceed the speed limit in order to do their job. [...] The reason that the Police are allowed to speed is because Police drivers are highly trained.

I think both points above are slightly wrong:
1. Speed limits do not apply to "any vehicle on an occasion when it is being used for fire and rescue authority, for ambulance purposes or police purposes, if the observance of that provision would be likely to hinder the use of the vehicle for the purpose for which it is being used on that occasion." (Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 section 87). This is slightly different to cycles and horses, in that there is a specific exemption, rather than the law being written so it wouldn't apply to them.
2. This exemption is only allowed if the vehicle is "being driven by a person who has been trained in driving vehicles at high speeds" or is being used to train them. It's a requirement for exceeding the speed limits, not the reason. The reason isn't stated in the law and I've not checked the parliamentary record but I suspect it's because the benefits of faster arrival of the emergency services is considered to outweigh the risk of letting their trained drivers exceed limits.

 

[Dogtrousers]

I've just actually learned something from this thread.

Amazing, if you discuss something enough times...

 

[Alex321]

I quoted the relevant post in my reply.

So nothing then.

You appear to focus on the zebra crossing, when there’s no reason a pedestrian wouldn’t, or couldn’t, attempt to cross elsewhere.

I was responding to a post regarding the zebra crossing. What would you expect me to focus on in that post?

 

[Alex321]

There's a road through two hamlets and past a primary school halfway between them that has a not that steep but long hill that I could start from a standstill and one pedal stroke to get moving before freewheeling and easily reach 40mph. In my youth when things didn't cross my mind like now I used to get to 60mph before a quick brake and scary bend at 40mph or so.

Back then it was a 60mph speed limit. More recently 30mph and I think 20mph now. As to driving down there I never felt comfortable driving above about 40mph down that stretch because of school, houses, farm entrances, bends, narrow country road, high hedges, stopping distance, sightings, etc. Sometimes speed limits are guides only and a slower speed makes more sense.

Sometimes they aren't even a guide. I'd say only a lunatic would drive at 60mph on the majority of the national speed limit rural roads round here.

 

[Alex321]

So the police are allowed to break the law themselves (speeding) to pursue cyclists who are not breaking the law. Yeah, that makes sense.

The law (Road Traffic Regulation Act 19843, section 87) specifically exempts the police (an other emergency services) when it would interfere with their duties. So they aren't breaking the law, any more than the cyclists are.

No statutory provision imposing a speed limit on motor vehicles shall apply to any vehicle on an occasion when it is being used for [F2fire and rescue authority], for ambulance purposes or police purposes, if the observance of that provision would be likely to hinder the use of the vehicle for the purpose for which it is being used on that occasion.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

Reminds me of constable Savage

View: https://youtu.be/teSPN8sVbFU?feature=shared

 

[Ming the Merciless]

my point was they are all going to maim travelling at over close to 40 mph - sorry you seem to argue otherwise , lets hope you don't have to stand in court someday and do the same when it matters

And where exactly are all these pedestrians being maimed by those travelling on bikes at 40 mph? They seem to oddly be missing from the accident stats. Why do you think that is, when there are tens of thousands killed or seriously injured by those driving cars, in the UK, every year?

 

[Mike_P]

Sometimes they aren't even a guide. I'd say only a lunatic would drive at 60mph on the majority of the national speed limit rural roads round here.

And that you come to a 30 sign that is still faster than the speed you are going

And where exactly are all these pedestrians being maimed by those travelling on bikes at 40 mph? They seem to oddly be missing from the accident stats. Why do you think that is, when there are tens of thousands killed or seriously injured by those driving cars, in the UK, every year?

There was an incident of a cyclist colliding with a pedestrian in Nidderdale. Press reports beyond the initial seem scarce. Is it not the case the majority of cyclists pay some regard to the speed limit and cycle at a speed they can come to a stop within the clearly free to proceed space.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

There was an incident of a cyclist colliding with a pedestrian in Nidderdale. Press reports beyond the initial seem scarce. Is it not the case the majority of cyclists pay some regard to the speed limit and cycle at a speed they can come to a stop within the clearly free to proceed space.

Was the cyclist doing 40 mph and what were the injuries to the pedestrian?

 

[icowden]

I think both points above are slightly wrong:

Thank you for nit picking and summing up my concise summary using far more words than were necessary ! Apologies for not using the phrase "exempted from the law" even though it amounts to pretty much the same thing.

 

[newts]

Are you sure? That means you believe, amongst other things, the potential collision point is at the edge of the road not mid-crossing, competent cyclists would not signal "ease up" and people can appear on the crossing without being visible approaching it. 😲


I've yet to see one that can teleport.

No need for teleportation or other figment of imagination/pedantry.

A pedestrian walking towards you & approaching the crossing could quite easily be obscured by the crossing poles/barriers from your field of view. Their clothing may also help them blend into the background.
Point of impact could quite easily be 2-3 steps into the road (3 paces would still be close to the kerb to satisfy your nitpicking).
At 37mph & 30 meters from the crossing when you might first see this person step onto the crossing you are travelling at 16m/s. Factor in thinking/reaction time & braking distance you have less than 2 seconds to safely stop.
Very risky to think you can execute a safe stop in these circumstances.