Are cyclists exempt from speed limits?

[Bryony]

I personally demand lower speed limits so us unfit cyclists can break them. A NSL of 12.5mph should do it

Yes I don't have to worry about getting pulled over, I just can't go that fast!!

 

[Dan B]

Magistrate in "doesn't actually know the law" shocker.

 

[Dan B]

I mean, assuming that the cyclist didn't just plead guilty in the first place

 

[Peter Armstrong]

When I go for a run am I trainer propelled?

 

[Andrew_Culture]

Magistrate in "doesn't actually know the law" shocker.

You can't be a Magistrate if you know the law. That's a fact. If you've had any training in Law at all you can't be a Magistrate or serve in a jury. I have a G at GCSE Law so can't do either

 

[SquareDaff]

Isn't a bike bio-mechanically propelled? Does that count?
{lights blue touch paper and steps a safe distance back}

 

[Andrew_Culture]

Thank god for small mercies I say.

I'd be an awesome Magistrate; I'd shake up the system!

 

[classic33]

42 mph cough

Fast enough to set the speed cameras off coming down from J24, Ainley Top, on the Brox. Thats a 50 limit.

 

[SteCenturion]

How does a cyclist know how fast he's going? :-s

Bike computer

If they have one.

 

[TheLondonCyclist]

Bike computer

If they have one.

He means in general... Bikes aren't made with speedometers, therefore, there would be no admission of guilt, as the cyclist has no clue of his current speed.

 

[SteCenturion]

He means in general... Bikes aren't made with speedometers, therefore, there would be no admission of guilt, as the cyclist has no clue of his current speed.

Bottom line says - "if they have one"

That's the bottom line

 

[classic33]

Bike computer

If they have one.

And who sets them up prior to use on a bike?

 

[Fasta Asloth]

He means in general... Bikes aren't made with speedometers, therefore, there would be no admission of guilt, as the cyclist has no clue of his current speed.

By the same logic, my car doesn't come with a breathalyzer, so.......

 

[glasgowcyclist]

I guess that is the crux of the debate, are they or aren't they, and as you say if indeed they are then both the police and (magistrate) courts are in need of some updating on the subject....

The Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989 already defines a pedal cycle as:

"A vehicle which is not constructed or adapted to be propelled by mechanical power and which is equipped with pedals, ..."

​

The term 'motor vehicle' is defined in section 185(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and section 136(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 as

"a mechanically propelled vehicle, intended or adapted for use on roads".

​

The definition used by The Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces (Amendment) etc. Regulations 2010 for a 'vehicle' is

"a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on a road"

​

Clearly, a pedal cycle is already considered not to be propelled by mechanical power therefore cannot be judged to be a "motor vehicle" under general road traffic acts nor a "vehicle" under the Royal Parks Regulations.

In my opinion the police were wrong to charge him and court was wrong to convict the cyclist of speeding.

GC

 

[Fasta Asloth]

The Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989 already defines a pedal cycle as:

​

The term 'motor vehicle' is defined in section 185(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and section 136(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 as

​

The definition used by The Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces (Amendment) etc. Regulations 2010 for a 'vehicle' is

​

Clearly, a pedal cycle is already considered not to be propelled by mechanical power therefore cannot be judged to be a "motor vehicle" under general road traffic acts nor a "vehicle" under the Royal Parks Regulations.

In my opinion the police were wrong to charge him and court was wrong to convict the cyclist of speeding.

GC

I don't personally disagree with you GC, and is indeed worrying, perhaps, that both police and magistrates are interpreting the definitions differently...