Cyclists get pulled for 39mph in a 30 limit.

[Mike_P]

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

Reports were never clear beyond both parties being seriously injured but it was a village at the foot of a long decent.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

So nothing then.

Well it was your post I quoted, so I don’t understand how you could miss it.

I was responding to a post regarding the zebra crossing.

You responded to my post, which had no mention of a zebra crossing.

 

[Alex321]

Well it was your post I quoted, so I don’t understand how you could miss it.



You responded to my post, which had no mention of a zebra crossing.

Fair point. I lost track of what I was responding to, thought it was the one about the zebra crossing.

And for the avoiudance of doubt, I fully accept that people are likely to cross at other places. I still think that in this particular case, visibility was clear enough that nobody would have suddenly appeared as they started to cross.

As I have maintained all along, it all depends on the circumstances. You can't (validly) make a blanket statement that it is always unsafe to be doing 40mph in a 30 limit, but you most certainly cannot say it will always (or even usually) be safe.

IF you can see all approaches to the road clearly, and can readily stop in what you can see to be clear, then it is probably safe. That is a pretty big IF. As soon as there are any blind spots, you need to be slowing considerably to account for the possibility of other traffic (pedestrian or otherwise) appearing out of those blind spots.

 

[markemark]

There is always a degree of danger in everything we do and people should act responsibly to mitigate that danger. The amount of danger varies and legislation is brought in when that danger passes an acceptable threshold. The number of KSIs will form a major part of that assessment.

The danger from motor vehicles is so great there are restriction on speed, driver skill, vehicle road worthiness, insurance liability, driver intoxication, driver awareness and many more. Despite the 'war on motorists' with fines, cameras, police they still manage to kill 2,000 people year. What is being done is clearly not enough as I would suggest that number is still above an acceptable threshold.

Other dangers are too low to warrant legislation but that danger is not zero but statistically negligible. If only zero deaths are tolerated (what if it was your mother that was killed????) , then pretty much everything will be banned or legislated as most things can kill or injury in the wrong hands and statistically probably do every year.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Fair point. I lost track of what I was responding to, thought it was the one about the zebra crossing.

No problem, I’ve done that myself In the past.

And for the avoiudance of doubt, I fully accept that people are likely to cross at other places. I still think that in this particular case, visibility was clear enough that nobody would have suddenly appeared as they started to cross.

My input to this was intended in general terms, not wanting to be specific about this particular case. To me, and I acknowledge that there’s no speeding offence committed, cyclists ought to respect posted limits for the reasons I outlined earlier.

In this particular case though there are several points, prior to and after the crossing, from where a pedestrian could suddenly cross.

 

[Dogtrousers]

It isn't "incredibly rare".

Fairly uncommon, particularly in built up areas, but not that exceptional.

I'm by no means a fast cyclist, but most of my rides have points where I exceed 30mph. Today my maximum according to Strava was 39.6mph (My wahoo had it as 44, but I never believed that).

How many of those points coincide with 30mph zones? Not many I wager.

And remember, most cyclists just pootle around. We on Cyclechat are more committed and even a slow-coach like me is probably faster than average. And I doubt I've ever exceeded a speed limit on the bike. Not because I'm a good citizen, just because it never happens.

If I look at my last long ride I see that I hit 60kmh/just under 40mph, going down a long straight hill which was national speed limits. But in speed restricted areas you tend not to have the long unobstructed downhill sections with no road hazards to build up speed. They do exist (I can think of only one) but they are atypical.

Maybe "incredibly rare" was an overstatement, but if not that it's certainly rare enough to warrant a news story about it.

 

[Alex321]

How many of those points coincide with 30mph zones? Not many I wager.

True. There are only two places I can think of where I regularly get over 30 that are in 30mph zones, both wioth very good visibility and few pedestrians.

And remember, most cyclists just pootle around. We on Cyclechat are more committed and even a slow-coach like me is probably faster than average. And I doubt I've ever exceeded a speed limit on the bike. Not because I'm a good citizen, just because it never happens.

If I look at my last long ride I see that I hit 60kmh/just under 40mph, going down a long straight hill which was national speed limits. But in speed restricted areas you tend not to have the long unobstructed downhill sections with no road hazards to build up speed. They do exist (I can think of only one) but they are atypical.

Agreed. While I do usually get over 30 at some point, that is almost always downhill on NSL rural roads

Maybe "incredibly rare" was an overstatement, but if not that it's certainly rare enough to warrant a news story about it.

Only when something bad happens.

 

[Punkawallah]

A wise man once said that you shouldn’t go faster than you are capable of stopping safely at, for the given road conditions.

And, unusually, it seems the local police thought ‘ooh, iffy!’ and had a quiet word about it. I’m surprised it wasn’t reported as a ‘non crime hate incident’.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

I've yet to see one that can teleport.

Ever heard of folk running?

 

[Dogtrousers]

Ever heard of folk running?

Is that a kind of speed morris dancing?

 

[classic33]

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.

The relevant services have set the standard which is why it isn't stated in law. They also train, or arrange the training, and testing of their drivers.

 

[T4tomo]

The relevant services have set the standard which is why it isn't stated in law. They also train, or arrange the training, and testing of their drivers.

The also often have one or both of blues and twos on when exceeding speed limits, which helps in spotting them and thus mitigates the "unsafe due to speed" element

Slight aside - I do find it annoying when plod, clearing in a rush, doesn't put their blues and twos on, and then get all agitated that you don't get out of their way.

 

[DaveReading]

A wise man once said that you shouldn’t go faster than you are capable of stopping safely at, for the given road conditions.

Move usually expressed as you shouldn't go so fast that you can't stop in the distance you can see ahead.

 

[Alex321]

Move usually expressed as you shouldn't go so fast that you can't stop in the distance you can see ahead.

Ideally, you should be able to stop in half the distance you can see ahead, on the basis somebody may come into view doing the same speed as you in the opposite direction.

 

[icowden]

True. There are only two places I can think of where I regularly get over 30 that are in 30mph zones, both wioth very good visibility and few pedestrians.

The most common place that I know of is going round Richmond Park where there are some fast steepish downhills (or killer uphills if going the other direction). The speed limit there is 20mph and it has long been a bone of contention for motorists that cyclists often exceed 20mph going down those hills - even the pootlers. The Parks Police used to enforce it for bikes as well (it's private land so owners rules apply), but then they stopped, and now they have started again (apparently):-

https://richmond.nub.news/news/loca...mit-in-royal-parks-applies-to-cyclists-184486