Selling bikes for off-road use
Richard Bates
discovered that a bicycle retailer does not have to fit reflectors to a bike if
he can reasonably justify that he expected the bike was not going to be used
on a road in the UK. (I can't remember the exact wording).
Does this perhaps mean that MTBs don't need reflectors fitting when they are
sold.
Probably the retailer would be slated in court, and it's not very sensible but I
thought it was interesting anyway.
Also on the point of Road Traffic Act, I saw no mention of "pedalling
furiously" - something I have heard quoted in this newsgroup.
Rich. xxx
Nick Maclaren
In article <985855201...@news.clara.net>, Richard Bates <only.put.the.wo...@cuddle.clara.co.uk> writes:
|> I was browsing through the Road Traffic Act yesterday (as you do) and I
|> discovered that a bicycle retailer does not have to fit reflectors to a bike if
|> he can reasonably justify that he expected the bike was not going to be used
|> on a road in the UK. (I can't remember the exact wording).
|>
|> Does this perhaps mean that MTBs don't need reflectors fitting when they are
|> sold.
Some of the specialised ones, perhaps. In general, they do.
|> Probably the retailer would be slated in court, and it's not very sensible but I
|> thought it was interesting anyway.
Yes. It used to cause a lot of amusement with tractors, and still
does with lawn-mowers :-)
|> Also on the point of Road Traffic Act, I saw no mention of "pedalling
|> furiously" - something I have heard quoted in this newsgroup.
Riding furiously was in an older act. It is possible that the
offence has been repealed by accident.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren,
University of Cambridge Computing Service,
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QG, England.
Email: nm...@cam.ac.uk
Tel.: +44 1223 334761 Fax: +44 1223 334679
T. Ryan
message news:985855201...@news.clara.net...
> Also on the point of Road Traffic Act, I saw no mention of "pedalling
> furiously" - something I have heard quoted in this newsgroup.
'Riding furiously' does seem to be what most people think they'd be charged
with if the police caught them cycling recklessly. In fact 'Reckless
Cycling' would be seem to be a more likely charge:
http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880052_en_2.htm#mdiv28
The term 'riding furiously' is famously what the chap in Cambridge was
charged with a few years ago when he was done for, essentially, breaking the
30 mph speed limit. I don't think this was before the enactment of the RTA
1988, so I don't know why 'reckless cycling' wasn't preferred. Maybe it was
simply an old law which dealt more directly with speed and has now, as Nick
says, been repealed incidentally; maybe it was just an old bye-law,
peculiar (as many things are) to Cambridge and more suitable for that case.
Tom
Malarkey Mulligan
news:_HEw6.333$MZ2....@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> The term 'riding furiously' is famously what the chap in Cambridge
> was charged with a few years ago when he was done for, essentially,
> breaking the 30 mph speed limit.
Except he was only doing 25 in a 30 zone...
--
MM
Nick Maclaren
He was reported as riding at 25 MPH through a semi-pedestrianised
area, irrespective of whether there were pedestrians in his path
or not. Virtually nobody in Cambridge had any sympathy for him,
assuming the facts were as stated (which he was reported to have
admitted).
James Annan
>
> He was reported as riding at 25 MPH through a semi-pedestrianised
> area
Can you explain the legal status of this `semi-pedestrianised' area? Do
you mean motorised vehicles were not allowed, or something else?
Whether or not he was being silly, I can't remember ever having heard of
a car driver being punished for the offence of driving at 5mph below the
speed limit in the vicinity of pedestrians.
--
James Annan
Richard George
news:99vkmj$6hu$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
... and was therefore, at worst, 'riding while mildly aggrieved'.
As mentioned, the Road Traffic Act 1998 makes 'cycling recklessly' the
offence, this I'd take to be equivalent
to 'reckless driving'. Although you might be done in a car for being
'without due care and attention, or without
reasonable consideration', there appears to be no cycling equivalent.
it appears you have a duty to stop
when requested to do so by a Constable who feel
--
Richard George
Software Engineer IA, Pace Micro Technology plc
Technical Webmaster, http://www.cyclists.org.uk
Opinions herein should not be taken to be those of Pace Micro Technology
plc
Richard George
Danny Colyer
> Whether or not he was being silly, I can't remember ever having heard of
> a car driver being punished for the offence of driving at 5mph below the
> speed limit in the vicinity of pedestrians.
Sadly true - driving too fast for the conditions is reckless driving,
whether or not the posted speed limit is exceeded.
It seems the cyclist in question was a bit of a twat though. A thread back
in December, including a couple of eyewitness accounts, included the
following message from Alan Collier:
On Mon, 18 Dec 2000 21:32:13 -0000, "Roger Adams"
<rad...@chinstrap.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>lardychap <gareth_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:91lhed$vhq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> In article <91jigo$rov$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>,
>> "Roger Adams" <rad...@chinstrap.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > Wasn't there someone in Oxford three years ago (about Sept 97) stopped
for
>> > 'cycling furiously'? I remember this 'cos I wrote to the Guardian (and
was
>> > published - badly edited) about it. Seemed ridiculous at the time - he
>> > wasn't breaking the speed limit
>>
>> Cambridge. I saw him out at 11pm with no front light, a flashing rear
>> LED doing hell for leather all kitted out on a flash bike. He was going
>> round a 1 mile loop near a bunch of pubs, posing. No, he wasn't
>> breaking the speed limit (around 27mph) but anyone who rides like that
>> when there's lots of pissed people around is asking for a tumble.
>>
>> It wasn't big, it wasn't clever, he just looked a berk, coming round
>> the bend every couple of minutes.
>>
>Fair enough - nice to get a second opinion!
The other thing that made him look a compete berk was that he didn't
stop when a copper stood in front of him on Bridge St (?). They had
to chase him in a van, and he claiimed not to have seen the bloke in a
big reflective vest. They should have done him for dangerous
driving/cycling/whatever if he wasn't looking where he was going.
And then he didn't turn up to court when summoned, IIRC. Deserved
everything he got. IMHO.
>> [For the locals, it was down Round Church Street, right onto Park St,
>> right onto Jesus Lane, right again onto Bridge St. Repeat]
How was he supposed to get training for an hour record if he kept
making RIGHT turns??? Even the central triangle would be better for
that - Market St, Sidney St, St John's St and repeat - lots of left
turns, and no traffic lights. And there's still plenty of students to
pose to...
--
Danny Colyer (remove your.mind to reply)
http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/danny.html
"The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that,
you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
T. Ryan
news:99vkmj$6hu$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
I didn't know that. I just now looked up the wording of this 'riding
furiously' charge and it sounds like what most people would regard as
reckless or careless cycling. It's under the Town and Police Clauses Act
1847:
"That he did in a public place drive or ride furiously to the annoyance,
obstruction or danger of any resident or passenger'.
cf. 'Careless Cycling' from Section 29 of the RTA 1988:
"If a person rides a cycle on a road without due care and attention, or
without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, he is
guilty of an offence."
The two are almost identical in both wording and spirit (with maybe a hint
more of speed in the former). I wonder why the newer law wasn't used. Still,
from Danny's post, it seems that the Police were right to do him for
something.
Tom.
James Annan
>
> Sadly true - driving too fast for the conditions is reckless driving,
> whether or not the posted speed limit is exceeded.
>
> It seems the cyclist in question was a bit of a twat though.
Sure but being ` a bit of a twat' is hardly a criminal offence.
--
James Annan
Malarkey Mulligan
news:_nPw6.2436$MZ2.4...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> "That he did in a public place drive or ride furiously to the
annoyance,
> obstruction or danger of any resident or passenger'.
Some people just seem to get annoyed at cyclists, in which case I'm
usually riding furiously!
--
MM
Danny Colyer
> Sure but being ` a bit of a twat' is hardly a criminal offence.
No, but I then qualified my statement by repeating eyewitness accounts of
him being a bit of a twat. He was endangering others for no good reason,
which again is not specifically a criminal offence. However, cycling
recklessly in a manner likely to endanger others *is* a criminal offence.
It's also the action that caused me to describe him as I did.
James Annan
> However, cycling
> recklessly in a manner likely to endanger others *is* a criminal offence.
> It's also the action that caused me to describe him as I did.
As I said, it is hard to imagine a car driver being stopped for merely
driving several mph below the limit in the vicinity of pedestrians. I
cycle at roughly that speed past a school each morning, and when the
traffic is not congested I am often overtaken by cars.
--
James Annan
Mediocre web pages at:
http://www.annan93.freeserve.co.uk/
NEW! Tidal bore on the Dee 11-12/03/01
Russell
James Annan <ja...@annan93.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9a2sq6$3ev4g$5...@ID-72857.news.dfncis.de...
Driving a few mph below the speed limit does not constitute an offence.
Driving at a speed inappropriate for a given situation is. Surely we have
all ridden through the semi-pedestrian areas where only buses & bikes are
allowed? Poeple just don't bother to look, if they don't HEAR a bus coming
they walk all over the road completely oblivious to a silent bike
approaching. Having said that, there's one bloke I've seen that rides
through such an area in Chichester politely dinging his bell all the time as
he goes. Unfortunately the pedestrians look at him as though he is mentally
sub-normal!
Russell
Tony Raven
"Russell" <rus...@tailtimepeace.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tcbevtm...@xo.supernews.co.uk...
>
>
> Driving a few mph below the speed limit does not constitute an offence.
> Driving at a speed inappropriate for a given situation is.
I agree. Driving through a crowd of people at 25mph could quite easily lead
to a charge of without due care and attention or worse.
>Surely we have
> all ridden through the semi-pedestrian areas where only buses & bikes are
> allowed? Poeple just don't bother to look, if they don't HEAR a bus coming
> they walk all over the road completely oblivious to a silent bike
> approaching.
I guess where I would take issue here is the implied assumption that a bike
or bus has priority over pedestrians. I would always assume in such
situations that I would behave on the bike as if I were walking i.e. be
prepared to stop or change direction to avoid others and not expect them to
automatically give way to me
>Having said that, there's one bloke I've seen that rides
> through such an area in Chichester politely dinging his bell all the time
as
> he goes. Unfortunately the pedestrians look at him as though he is
mentally
> sub-normal!
He must be, he's on a bike ;-^) [1]
Tony
[1] Please note use of tongue in cheek emoticon before you flame me for that
comment