Cycle Speed Limits on a normal Cycle Path?

On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 06:42:28 GMT, Buck
wrote:

On 2007-02-08 06:23:49 +0000, Tom Crispin
said:

On 7 Feb 2007 13:51:06 -0800, "naked_draughtsman"
wrote:

I know an enhanced one allows the police to disclose relevant
information (rather than just convictions) but I think that is pushing
the limit as it was so long ago and you were never found guilty!

I was using a bit of poetic licence.

During an interview for a Catholic School, 10 years ago, I was asked
if I had any criminal convictions. I replied that I was once in court
accused of being drunk while cycling but found to have been sober.

Did you get the job?

No. And glad of it. I am not a fan of sectarian schools.

My comments had nothing (probably) to do with me not getting the job.
The clincher was my answer to the question, "If we offered you this
job, would you accept it?" Which begged the follow up question, "Why
the f*&$ did you bother applying in the first place?"

I have since met Monsigor Rothom at a council meeting - about young
people and cycling - but I don't think that he remembered me.

Simon Brooke said the following on 07/02/2007 22:17:

If you've drunk no alcohol at all in the past 24 hours you're legal.
Otherwise, you're winging it.

I'm amazed at the way this thread has turned! Some people seem to have
difficulty in understanding the fact that a human does not have built-in
speed measurement devices so we need speedos, but we do have built-in
alcohol measuring devices, so we don't need breathalysers.

I'm with you on the no alcohol in 24 hours "rule". I don't need to
breathalyse myself before getting into a car if I haven't touched
alcohol for 24 hours.

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

Don Whybrow said the following on 07/02/2007 21:28:

Interesting forks in this one:
http://www.classiclightweights.co.uk/racingbates800.jpg

Is it just me, or is that a very strange riding position?

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

Simon Brooke said the following on 07/02/2007 22:13:
in message 45ca4058.0@entanet, Zog The Undeniable
') wrote:

wrote:
Are there any speed-limits for a standard cycle?

Thank you.

No, but few of them seem to have a design speed of more than 15mph.

Oh, for heaven's sake! Any bike that's designed to go down a hill has to be
able to handle predictably and stop effectively from at least 40mph.

I /think/, reading rather vaguely between the lines, that he meant the
cycle paths didn't have a design speed of more than 15mph rather than
the bikes not being designed for more than 15mph.

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

On 2007-02-08 07:58:58 +0000, Paul Boyd usenet.dont.work@plusnet said:

Don Whybrow said the following on 07/02/2007 21:28:

Interesting forks in this one:
http://www.classiclightweights.co.uk/racingbates800.jpg

Is it just me, or is that a very strange riding position?

Yes very strange, why is he all hunched up like that and why are his feet
underneath him?
--
Three wheels good, two wheels ok

www.catrike.co.uk

In ,
Ian Smith tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
On Wed, 07 Feb, Don Whybrow wrote:

Interesting forks in this one:
http://www.classiclightweights.co.uk/racingbates800.jpg

Were they bent like that to provide some shock absorption?

I've always assumed that things like this (and, for example, Hetchins
curly stays) were actually produced solely to have a distinguishing
feature, and passed off as some super scientific development that
provides shock absorption (or whatever).

Yep. Back in those days, builders were forbidden from using time-trial
results for advertising purposes, so a lot of them built stuff that was
instantly recognisable by the cognoscenti, such as the Bates in question,
the Hetchins "Curly" and the truly appalling (from an engineering
standpoint) Paris Galibier:

http://www.bicycle-gifts.com/jpg/vp1d.jpg

Which some genius resurrected as a mountain bike design and then wondered
why the bottom bracket wobbled about.

--
Dave Larrington
http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk
Oxymoron: spot cream for chavs.

In oups.com,
tweaked the Babbage-Engine
to tell us:
Are there any speed-limits for a standard cycle?

Mine goes up to 1400 rpm on the "cotton" setting, but only 1000 for
"synthetic".

HTH

--
Dave Larrington
http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk
Bandersnatch? I would never have guessed.

On Feb 7, 8:32 pm, "GeoffC" wrote:
LSMike wrote:
On Feb 7, 5:23 pm, "GeoffC" wrote:
Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:

Mixing with pedestrians at 10mph is not personally recommended.

You just need a good bell :-)

I do see the smiley, but really, that's as bad as an impatient moton
wanting a cyclist off "his" road.

Nope, I disagree. You can hear a car coming up behind you but a bike is as
good as silent. If I am walking along a cycle path I would rather be warned
by a gentle "ding " than surprised by the slipstream of a passing bike.


LOL, very true. That's not what you initially implied, however, which
was that speeds of 10mph amongst pedestrians is fine if you use a
bell to force them to move out the way.

Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
Simon Brooke typed

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

Is that a local bye-law?

Yes

The road limit in RP is 20 for ALL vehicles.

The limit on the Tamsin Trail is 10mph - imposed at the behest of the
Friends of Richmond Park when the failed to have cyclists banned from the
trail despite its having been funded by a bequest specifically as a cycle
trail.

The "community Support officers" have been out recently stopping everyone on
the trail (walkers, runners, cyclists) and reminding them that it is a
*shared* trail and all should be courteous - pedestrian priority does not
mean it is legitimate for pedestrians to deliberately block cyclists'
passage as some do.

pk

On 2007-02-08 08:53:18 +0000, "p.k." said:

Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
Simon Brooke typed

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

Is that a local bye-law?

Yes

The road limit in RP is 20 for ALL vehicles.

The limit on the Tamsin Trail is 10mph - imposed at the behest of the
Friends of Richmond Park when the failed to have cyclists banned from
the trail despite its having been funded by a bequest specifically as a
cycle trail.

The "community Support officers" have been out recently stopping
everyone on the trail (walkers, runners, cyclists) and reminding them
that it is a *shared* trail and all should be courteous - pedestrian
priority does not mean it is legitimate for pedestrians to deliberately
block cyclists' passage as some do.

pk

Good information, thanks.
--
Three wheels good, two wheels ok

www.catrike.co.uk