Speeding cyclists

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 22:52:24 +0000, Sue wrote
in message :

I wasn't successful, I think you need a proper road bike.

Which camera, Sue? I might give it a try on the 'bent ;-)

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Sue wrote:

Oh, come on - we've all had a go, haven't we?
With our club jersey on?


Better wrapped in some kitchen foil to ensure a good metal reflector for the
radar to bounce off.

Tony

andrew wrote:

super snip
He said: "It is a motoring offence and you can be prosecuted under the
Road
Traffic Act, just like you can be drunk in charge of a pushbike.

A cycling mate of mine who is still in the plod & former traffic officer
assures me that the speed limit only applies to motorised vehicles & not to
cycles.

And as for drunk in charge it is only in the opinion of the arresting
officer, you can't be breathalysed or get points on / loose your car
license.

Last year I was knocked off my bike by a moron on a roundabout who
overtook me then immediatelty turned left, when I was heading straight across.
An ambulance and the police were called.

The police insisted I took a breath test and told me it was now
Hampshire police's policy to _always_ breathalise cyclists in accidents
(they also tested the van driver).

I gained the very clear impression that if I refused i would be taken
off to the police station and that it would do my case no good.

John B

JohnB wrote:

Last year I was knocked off my bike by a moron on a roundabout who
overtook me then immediatelty turned left, when I was heading straight
across. An ambulance and the police were called.

The police insisted I took a breath test and told me it was now
Hampshire police's policy to _always_ breathalyse cyclists in accidents
(they also tested the van driver).

I gained the very clear impression that if I refused i would be taken
off to the police station and that it would do my case no good.


As a non-motorist the police have no powers to take a breath test. The police
only have the powers to demand a test if you were driving, or attempting to
drive, a motor vehicle and you either had an accident or committed a moving
traffic offence. There are no laws on the level of alcohol for non-motorists
and no right to demand a breathalyser test without consent.

The relevant section of the law can be found at
http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1988...en_2.htm#mdiv6

However it is an arrestable offence under Section 12 of the Licensing Act 1872
to be drunk whilst in charge on any highway or other public place of any
horse, cattle, pig, sheep, carriage, motor vehicle, trailer, bicycle or steam
engine. £200 fine or 1 month. In Scotland I believe it is the Licensing
(Scotland) Act 1903.

Under the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 there are also now on the spot
£40 fines in some areas for public drunkenness.

Section 30 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 states:"A person who, when riding a
cycle on a road or other public place, is unfit to ride through drink or drugs
(that is to say, is under the influence of drink or a drug to such an extent
as to be incapable of having proper control of the cycle) is guilty of an
offence." Fine £1000.

So strictly you could have refused but they had plenty of alternatives to hit
you with if you were really drunk.

Laws in Scotland may be different ;-)

Tony

"MSeries" wrote in message ...
vernon levy wrote:
Wheres Killhope Moor ? BTW

NW Durham near Stanhope. You'll have been pretty close to it on the
C2C.

Vernon

Is it the one out of Stanhope to the moor, where the Rookhope wagonway meets
the road. I missed the turn in Rookhope, some other cyclists were stood in
front of the sign, and ended up riding up that very steep hill out of
Stanhope.

I did that to avoid the Stanhope Common route. It's quite
steep!

Tony Raven wrote:
Sue wrote:

Oh, come on - we've all had a go, haven't we?
With our club jersey on?



Better wrapped in some kitchen foil to ensure a good metal reflector for the
radar to bounce off.

I was surprised to trip a speed camera one day descending a steep
hill... on my rollerblades. Now that is bloody dangerous. I would have
loved to have seen the photo!

30mph on a bike is not that fast...hell I can get near to that on the
flat on a 10 mile TT. These people need to live a bit.

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 12:23:43 +0000, JohnB wrote in
message :

The police insisted I took a breath test and told me it was now
Hampshire police's policy to _always_ breathalise cyclists in accidents
(they also tested the van driver).

This is, as Tny says, illegal. On the other hand, if you were sober,
WTF? It's another nail in the driver's coffin.

Unless of course they decided it was "just an accident" and cutting
left across a cyclist does not fall far below the standards expected
of a competent driver...

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 12:23:43 +0000, JohnB wrote in
message :

The police insisted I took a breath test and told me it was now
Hampshire police's policy to _always_ breathalise cyclists in accidents
(they also tested the van driver).

This is, as Tny says, illegal. On the other hand, if you were sober,
WTF? It's another nail in the driver's coffin.

I fully support the introduction of breath tests for cyclists and of
course I had not been drinking otherwise I would not have been cycling.
I took teh test because of the veiled threat that I wouldn't get home in
time for tea.

However, what does concern me is how such 'policies' can just be
introduced without going through the correct legal channels. I'm sure
that when the breath test laws were intoduced for motorists that they
were fully debated and then enacted by Parliament.
Yet when in comes to similar issues that relate to cyclists they can be
called 'policies' and simply introduced by the police.

OK, in this instance I agree with the policy, but the method of
introduction I find quite unpalateable.

What 'policy' will be next?

John B

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 15:28:17 +0000, JohnB wrote in
message :

what does concern me is how such 'policies' can just be
introduced without going through the correct legal channels.

With you on that. I suggest some letters, and getting in touch with
the CTC.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 15:28:17 +0000, JohnB wrote in
message :

what does concern me is how such 'policies' can just be
introduced without going through the correct legal channels.

With you on that. I suggest some letters, and getting in touch with
the CTC.


Or write to the Chief Constable asking whether this is policy as it does not
appear to have any legal authority. Then at least they might take notice and
change policy.

Tony