Cycle Speed Limits on a normal Cycle Path?

On 7 Feb 2007 08:17:15 -0800 someone who may be
wrote this:-

Are there any speed-limits for a standard cycle?

Not on public roads, where speed limits only apply to motor
vehicles.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

wrote:

Are there any speed-limits for a standard cycle?

Thank you.

Wasn't the offence "Cycling furiously"? Is it still?
If so then a smart black alpaca jacket and possibly a pipe that you can
pretend to be smoking when you see the constable was the standard remedy.
See this picture
http://www.classiclightweights.co.uk/dtwitchett4.jpg
obviously a man on his way to chapel.

see http://www.classiclightweights.co.uk/gallery.html for more pictures
and info
--
Roger Thorpe

My email address is spamtrapped. You can work it out!

On 2007-02-07 16:43:31 +0000, Helen Deborah Vecht
said:

yped


Are there any speed-limits for a standard cycle?

Thank you.

No but there is a limit of 8mph on Hampstead Heath and something else in
Richmond Park.

Mixing with pedestrians at 10mph is not personally recommended.

Isn't there a 10mph limit in Hyde Park as well?
--
Three wheels good, two wheels ok

www.catrike.co.uk

"GeoffC" typed

You just need a good bell :-)

You seem to have misspelt 'yell'...

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.

On 07/02/2007 16:44, Tony Raven said,

And that principle applies to driving blood alcohol levels too?

I'm not sure what the connection is there. Cars have speedos partly
(solely????) to ensure that drivers can remain within the speed limit -
they can't claim that they didn't know they were speeding. If bikes
were routinely going to be monitored for speeding, then they should also
have speedos so that they can ensure they aren't breaking the speed
limit. I know a lot of us break the speed limit on bikes, but could a
court reasonably prosecute a cyclist for doing 33mph in a 30 limit?
Perhaps they can, but without a speedo I can't tell the difference (on a
bike) between 30mph and 33mph. OK, ignorance is no excuse, but if cars
didn't have speedos then they also wouldn't be able to use ignorance as
an excuse. I'm not sure I explained my thoughts very well, but it's late!

Drinking, on the other hand, is subject to a set limit regardless of
what the circumstances are. These limits are quite low (but higher than
many other European countries), and anyone who drinks knows how much
they've drunk and has no excuse in saying that they thought they were
under the limit. If they've drunk so much that they can't remember how
much they've drunk, then they shouldn't be driving.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Paul Boyd wrote on 07/02/2007 18:41 +0100:
On 07/02/2007 16:44, Tony Raven said,

And that principle applies to driving blood alcohol levels too?

I'm not sure what the connection is there. Cars have speedos partly
(solely????) to ensure that drivers can remain within the speed limit -
they can't claim that they didn't know they were speeding.

So if, accepting for the discussion, your postulate that you cannot
prosecute for speeding if you don't have a speedo to tell you your
speed, presumably they cannot prosecute you for drunk driving unless you
have a means for measuring your blood alcohol fitted also. Otherwise
they could claim they didn't know they were drunk.


--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 18:47:24 +0000, Tony Raven wrote:

Paul Boyd wrote on 07/02/2007 18:41 +0100:
On 07/02/2007 16:44, Tony Raven said,

And that principle applies to driving blood alcohol levels too?

I'm not sure what the connection is there. Cars have speedos partly
(solely????) to ensure that drivers can remain within the speed limit -
they can't claim that they didn't know they were speeding.

So if, accepting for the discussion, your postulate that you cannot
prosecute for speeding if you don't have a speedo to tell you your
speed, presumably they cannot prosecute you for drunk driving unless you
have a means for measuring your blood alcohol fitted also. Otherwise
they could claim they didn't know they were drunk.

No.

When the drink driving laws were introduced it was deemed to be the motorist's
responsibility to ensure that he or she did not exceed the limit by whatever
means he or she could come up with. The normal requirement of mens rea was
removed from the necessary conditions for an offence to be commited.

The idea of a speed limit is that it saves a vast amount of court, prosecution
and defence time by removing the need to show that the speed was dangerous. The
normal requirement of mens rea was not removed from the offence of exceeding the
speed limit so it was deemed necessary for motorists to have a working
speedometer fitted as otherwise mens rea would be difficult to prove.

On 07/02/2007 18:54, Ewan said,

When the drink driving laws were introduced it was deemed to be the motorist's
responsibility to ensure that he or she did not exceed the limit by whatever
means he or she could come up with. The normal requirement of mens rea was
removed from the necessary conditions for an offence to be commited.

The idea of a speed limit is that it saves a vast amount of court, prosecution
and defence time by removing the need to show that the speed was dangerous. The
normal requirement of mens rea was not removed from the offence of exceeding the
speed limit so it was deemed necessary for motorists to have a working
speedometer fitted as otherwise mens rea would be difficult to prove.

Thank you - you explained it much better than I did!

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

In article , Tony Raven wrote:
Paul Boyd wrote on 07/02/2007 16:31 +0100:

I don't know, but I would have thought that to be able to enforce any
limit would imply that cyclists would have to have speedos fitted.

And that principle applies to driving blood alcohol levels too?

You can drive (or cycle) making sure you are under the limit by not
drinking any alcohol at all. Sitting in a car (or on a bike) not moving
at all to make sure you are under the speed limit is less practical,
so the two limits aren't really comparable.

On 07 Feb 2007 19:18:43 +0000 (GMT), (Alan Braggins)
wrote:

In article , Tony Raven wrote:
Paul Boyd wrote on 07/02/2007 16:31 +0100:

I don't know, but I would have thought that to be able to enforce any
limit would imply that cyclists would have to have speedos fitted.

And that principle applies to driving blood alcohol levels too?

You can drive (or cycle) making sure you are under the limit by not
drinking any alcohol at all. Sitting in a car (or on a bike) not moving
at all to make sure you are under the speed limit is less practical,
so the two limits aren't really comparable.

LOL, very neatly put!