Speed limits

[col]

Agression? I just think you've had an answer and seemed determined to ignore it.

The cyclist isn't named as a cyclist, no. But they are named by virtue of not being the thing the law applies to - a motorised vehicle. Cyclists are liable to their own set of laws.

Think of it this way. A doctor is not supposed to pass on patient information if it's confidential, are they? And nowhere in the world is there a rule that specifically says "arch is exempt from the doctor/patient confidentiality rule". But as I'm not a doctor, I'm allowed to tell anyone I like anything I like about people I know. It may not be right, or nice to do so, but it's not against the rules, because the rules apply to a group of people to which I don't belong...

So if its not right or nice to do,would you still do it?

 

[Arch]

A childish troll too eh The point has been answered as to the legalities,but it hasnt been answered as to why should we be not dangerous doing something that a car is?As i think it does relate .

Might be something to do with the relative damage caused to someone hit but a bike and by half a tonne of car? Also, in a collision at high speed, the cyclist may well come off as badly as the person they hit (and yes, I know it could be quite bad for both), which is probably a restraining thought - whereas a car driver can probably walk away from killing an unprotected person.

I think you're just going round in circles. Most of us you're arguing with would completely agree that we need to be responsible. And the louts who ride madly proably don't give a hoot about the law in any case, so they aren't making that judgement, they are just being tits, and would be no matter what the law said.

 

[Arch]

So if its not right or nice to do,would you still do it?

It would depend on the cirumstances, wouldn't it? If I thought it was in someone's best interests (the person with the secret, or someone else) I might, but generally I wouldn't. I can assure you, I'm holding onto a number or rather painful secrets in order to avoid hurting the feelings of others.

 

[col]

Might be something to do with the relative damage caused to someone hit but a bike and by half a tonne of car? Also, in a collision at high speed, the cyclist may well come off as badly as the person they hit (and yes, I know it could be quite bad for both), which is probably a restraining thought - whereas a car driver can probably walk away from killing an unprotected person.

I think you're just going round in circles. Most of us you're arguing with would completely agree that we need to be responsible. And the louts who ride madly proably don't give a hoot about the law in any case, so they aren't making that judgement, they are just being tits, and would be no matter what the law said.

Im not argueing ,just asking questions,which after sarcasm or childish examples is actually starting to get answered.

 

[col]

It would depend on the cirumstances, wouldn't it? If I thought it was in someone's best interests (the person with the secret, or someone else) I might, but generally I wouldn't. I can assure you, I'm holding onto a number or rather painful secrets in order to avoid hurting the feelings of others.

Im relating it to road regulations too,this isnt about being discreet,or keeping secrets,its about what is deemed as right or wrong on the road,is it right that we can do things motorists cant,and not be held accountable in the same way?

 

[Arch]

Im not argueing ,just asking questions,which after sarcasm or childish examples is actually starting to get answered.

<bangs head on desk>

Your questions were being answered before, you just seemed to delight in going round in circles....

 

[wafflycat]

<bangs head on desk>

Your questions were being answered before, you just seemed to delight in going round in circles....

Col is either very stupid or being a troll. I did him the courtesy of not thinking him stupid.

 

[col]

Agression? I just think you've had an answer and seemed determined to ignore it.

The cyclist isn't named as a cyclist, no. But they are named by virtue of not being the thing the law applies to - a motorised vehicle. Cyclists are liable to their own set of laws.

Think of it this way. A doctor is not supposed to pass on patient information if it's confidential, are they? And nowhere in the world is there a rule that specifically says "arch is exempt from the doctor/patient confidentiality rule". But as I'm not a doctor, I'm allowed to tell anyone I like anything I like about people I know. It may not be right, or nice to do so, but it's not against the rules, because the rules apply to a group of people to which I don't belong...

But are not all road users bound by those same rules as motorised vehicles in as that sign says something so we must abbide by it,or because we are not motorised we dont have to?To me it doesnt seem right?

 

[col]

Col is either very stupid or being a troll. I did him the courtesy of not thinking him stupid.

She did me the courtesy of not addressing her trollish ways to me,and her childish example of following a sign into a river.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

Where does it say that speeding doesnt apply to cyclists?Just because its not saying cyclist must not speed,doesnt mean we are exempt does it?

Road Taffic act...


Quote:
Cycling offences

28 Reckless cycling

A person who rides a cycle on a road recklessly is guilty of an offence.

In this section “road” includes a bridleway.


29 Careless, and inconsiderate, cycling

If a person rides a cycle on a road without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, he is guilty of an offence.

In this section “road” includes a bridleway.

ALso "Offences against the Person"

Quote:
“35. Drivers of carriages injuring persons by furious driving Whosoever, having the charge of any carriage or vehicle, shall by wanton or furious driving or racing, or other wilful misconduct, or by wilful neglect, do or cause to be done any bodily harm to any person whatsoever, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years.”

The Police often (and correctly) use these ofences as oposed to speeding or other transgressions.

There. As posted on page three of this wart - inducingly ridiculous thread.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

Very ignorant of you ,and the comment rather childish,but im not talking about you cycling within the law,but someone who feels they can do something,just because it doesnt say they cant,when if done in a vehicle would be deemed breaking the law or dangerous.

Completely different circumstances. The law says I can't use my car on bridleways but that doesn't mean I feel unable to ride my bike or walk on bridleways. For the last time, your original question was whether it's illegal to break the speed limit on a bicycle. Which it isn't. the debate hasn't "moved on", unless your definition of moving on is going round and round in increasingly fractious circles.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

But are not all road users bound by those same rules as motorised vehicles?

No. It would obviously be ridiculous if they were. Why would pedestrians obey a sign which says "No Entry" when it clearly applies only to motorised vehicles?

 

[tdr1nka]

IMO the fact is that a lot of motorists and cyclists are fairly ignorant to the letter of road law regarding each others mode of transport.

That there is no upper speed limit for bicycles is academic.
The majority of day to day cyclists have few chances to regularly reach speeds in excess of prescribed limits for any significant length of time, the exception perhaps being in 20mph areas.

A car driver always has the choice to go faster than the limit because they have the ease of more power at their disposal, hence a law to regulate behaviour.

The problem IMO is there seems some confusion because the HC doesn't actually state 'cyclists do not have to obey speed limits so can go as fast as they wish', just that motorists must obey speed limits and there is no such reference to cycles.

A healthy horse is capable of breaking the 30mph limit but strangely they are also exempt from the law also.

What is unsafe is reckless speed of any kind in conditions obviously not suited to that speed.

Motorists have laws that reflect their potential to readily break speed limits and receive greater penalties because of the need to balance 'civic' trust/ licencing and the level of potential danger their vehicle and it's operation present on road.

 

[Arch]

No. It would obviously be ridiculous if they were. Why would pedestrians obey a sign which says "No Entry" when it clearly applies only to motorised vehicles?

Excellent, I have an image in my head now of a load of peds mingling about at one end of a street, confused, because it's 'no entry'...

 

[tdr1nka]

Excellent, I have an image in my head now of a load of peds mingling about at one end of a street, confused, because it's 'no entry'...