Speed limit signs on Clapham Common

[alexb]

Signs have appeared on Clapham Common saying roughly:
Cycle with consideration for pedestrians and other common users - roughly from memory
The next line said: Speed limit 8mph
Finally: Bylaw offences are punishable by a maximum fine of £500

So, I looked up the Bylaw for Clapham Common and there is no mention of a speed limit.
see here: http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/94D5D31B-8E0C-4FD9-B067-C5DCD22D3468/0/Byelawsforpleasuregroundsetc0405.pdf Dated March 2005

So presumably this notice is bullshit?
I don't see how they can enforce something which is not covered under the existing Bylaws.

I also read somewhere that speed limit offences don't apply to cyclists since we don't have calibrated speedometers.

[clarion]

The speed limits in the Royal Parks do apply, whether you have a speedometer or not.

Clapham Common is a different matter.  I've heard that there are limits (I believe we've discussed the by-laws before), but the signs are new.  Didn't someone say that there were speed guns last week?

8mph seems very slow.  Don't they set these limits the same way as they do motor speed limits?  I find it hard to believe that a significant amount of traffic is slower than 8mph.

[iakobski]

alexb:

Could well by bullshit, or there might be a byelaw saying "cycle with consideration to..." and the sign is showing what would be regarded as considerate. The implication being that over 8 mph might be regarded as inconsiderate, so not a speed limit as such, perhaps a "consideration limit"?

BTW, speed limits on roads can't be enforced on cycles because the law uses the words "motor vehicle" - there's no get-out for a motor vehicle without a speedo either.

clarion:

Yes, ridiculously slow, you would be overtaken by the average jogger.
Set limits on a cycle facility according to a formula or measurements? You jest, shirley. Like cycle paths have turning radii set by the design speed, have line of sight considered, camber, passing width, etc etc. 

[clarion]

All those things indeed

[origamist]

The signs, I suspect, are meant to be misleading open to interpretation as there is not a by-law that limits cyclists to 8mph, punishable with a £500 fine if exceeded. As far as I am aware, the "speed limit" is advisory only.

I was told by someone at Lambeth Parks that they were "extrapolating" in order to dissuade cyclists from riding at speed and in an inconsiderate manner.

[Biggsy]

8mph is fair enough when close-passing peds, but painfully slow otherwise.  Nevertheless, I'd rather have a speed limit, or pretend speed limit, than be banned from cycling altogether - which I bet was an alternative considered by the busy-bodies.

I even find it quite hopeful.  Perhaps cycling will eventually be allowed on all paths everywhere if there is some kind of speed limit.

[Greenbank]

Write to the council. Ask them whether it's actually enforceable. Or stop and ask the Police next time they're there with speed guns (assuming it was the Police).

The signs, I suspect, are meant to be misleading - there is not a bye-law that limits cyclists to 8mph, punishable with a £500 fine if exceeded. As far as I am aware, the "speed limit" is advisory only.

I was told by someone at Lambeth Parks that they were "extrapolating" in order to dissuade cyclists from riding at speed and in an inconsiderate manner.

I'm not sure of the legality of putting up false/misleading signs intentionally. The council could get into a bit of trouble if it turns out to be bluster.

[origamist]

8mph is fair enough when close-passing peds, but painfully slow otherwise.  Nevertheless, I'd rather have a speed limit, or pretend speed limit, than be banned from cycling altogether - which I bet was an alternative considered by the busy-bodies.

I even find it quite hopeful.  Perhaps cycling will eventually be allowed on all paths everywhere if there is some kind of speed limit.

Last time this was brought up they recommended 5mph, not 8mph.

[origamist]

Write to the council. Ask them whether it's actually enforceable. Or stop and ask the Police next time they're there with speed guns (assuming it was the Police).

The signs, I suspect, are meant to be misleading - there is not a bye-law that limits cyclists to 8mph, punishable with a £500 fine if exceeded. As far as I am aware, the "speed limit" is advisory only.

I was told by someone at Lambeth Parks that they were "extrapolating" in order to dissuade cyclists from riding at speed and in an inconsiderate manner.

I'm not sure of the legality of putting up false/misleading signs intentionally. The council could get into a bit of trouble if it turns out to be bluster.

If anyone does want to put this in writing, I have the name and email of the guy you need to contact.

I said as much to Lambeth Parks, but I suspect they would argue that the wording re: "fines" does not relate to cycling per se, but is informing the public that failure to adhere to the park's by-laws (generally) can be punishable with a fine...

[clarion]

I think that is really dodgy territory.  Mr Loophole would have them in the courts in ten seconds if they did that on the roads.

[alexb]

The speed limits in the Royal Parks do apply, whether you have a speedometer or not.

Those apply to use of the roads don't they? Or is there a specific instruction with regards to off-road paths (Richmond Park).

[Greenbank]

The speed limits in the Royal Parks do apply, whether you have a speedometer or not.

Those apply to use of the roads don't they? Or is there a specific instruction with regards to off-road paths (Richmond Park).

Roads: 20mph
Off-road paths: 10mph

Applicable to all vehicles, not just motor vehicles (which is why it applies to bicycles).

Different Royal Parks have different speed limits, it's all in the legislation and the amendments.

[Regulator]

It is possible that byelaws have been made that impose a speed limit on bicycles on Claham Common and that the Council has simply not yet published them on their web-site.  It isn't uncommon for such byelaws to take some time to surface and be published more widely.

The easiest thing to do is to contact the Borough Solicitor and ask for a copy of the relevant byelaw.

There is then, of course, the issue of how you would measure the speed of any cyclists.  As far as I am aware, there are no speed guns currently available in the UK that are certified, for evidential purposes, for speeds below 20 mph.

[alexb]

Presumably though if you exceed 20mph then they have you!

Question is, are they legal for use against cyclists?

Further question, the cycle path across the Common, it does not fall under the description of a "road" as far as the RTA is concerned does it?

[clarion]

I wouldn't come anywhere near exceeding 20mph across the Common.  Too many hazards such as dogs, children, balls, random pedestrians, joggers etc.  And there are places where the cycle path gives way to footpaths.  I'd probably pass at 20-25kph max, depending on how clear it is.

[Regulator]

Presumably though if you exceed 20mph then they have you!

Question is, are they legal for use against cyclists?

Further question, the cycle path across the Common, it does not fall under the description of a "road" as far as the RTA is concerned does it?

Why is that relevant (or not)? 
 

[Greenbank]

Further question, the cycle path across the Common, it does not fall under the description of a "road" as far as the RTA is concerned does it?

No, that's why they need a specific by-law.

[origamist]

It is possible that byelaws have been made that impose a speed limit on bicycles on Claham Common and that the Council has simply not yet published them on their web-site.  It isn't uncommon for such byelaws to take some time to surface and be published more widely.

True, but Lambeth Council informed me last week that this was not a recently introduced by-law.

[Biggsy]

It would be interesting to obtain an official copy of the current byelaws just to make sure.  It could effect more than just Claphamites if the "speed limit" idea is copied by more councils.

[iakobski]

I think that is really dodgy territory.  Mr Loophole would have them in the courts in ten seconds if they did that on the roads.

How about this one?


These are on 90% of the byways in Northamptonshire - clearly intended to deceive.

[Access Legal Guy]

I see no issue with that sign.

[Andrij]

I read that sign to say:

We can't be bothered to keep an eye out for people misusing byways.  If someone damages them we won't fix it, just shut it down — it's cheaper and easier.  Thus endeth the sermon to the choir. 

More an attitude than a legal problem, IMHO.
 

[alexb]

Presumably though if you exceed 20mph then they have you!

Question is, are they legal for use against cyclists?

Further question, the cycle path across the Common, it does not fall under the description of a "road" as far as the RTA is concerned does it?

Why is that relevant (or not)? 
 

It applies to whether they can prosecute for the offence of Careless and Inconsiderate Cycling as defined here:
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. (Road Traffic Act 1988, Section 29)

I'm pretty sure that Dangerous Cycling could not be proven:

(1)A person who rides a cycle on a road dangerously is guilty of an offence.

(2)For the purposes of subsection (1) above a person is to be regarded as riding dangerously if (and only if)—

(a)the way he rides falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful cyclist, and

(b)it would be obvious to a competent and careful cyclist that riding in that way would be dangerous.

(3)In subsection (2) above “dangerous” refers to danger either of injury to any person or of serious damage to property; and in determining for the purposes of that subsection what would be obvious to a competent and careful cyclist in a particular case, regard shall be had not only to the circumstances of which he could be expected to be aware but also to any circumstances shown to have been within the knowledge of the accused.] (Road Traffic Act 1988, Section 28)

I've looked and there does not seem to be an offence of Furious Cycling. Although there is an offence of Furious Driving, now largely ignored and replaced by the various Dangerous Driving sections of the RTA.
The Furious Driving definition does have the wiggle room to be applied, but only if you collide with someone:
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, […] 61

This was used to prosecute a couple of cyclists who collided with pedestrians on the pavement.
BBC NEWS | UK | England | Dorset | Cyclist jailed for pavement death

[Regulator]

Presumably though if you exceed 20mph then they have you!

Question is, are they legal for use against cyclists?

Further question, the cycle path across the Common, it does not fall under the description of a "road" as far as the RTA is concerned does it?

Why is that relevant (or not)? 
 

It applies to whether they can prosecute for the offence of Careless and Inconsiderate Cycling as defined here:
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. (Road Traffic Act 1988, Section 29)

I'm pretty sure that Dangerous Cycling could not be proven:

(1)A person who rides a cycle on a road dangerously is guilty of an offence.

(2)For the purposes of subsection (1) above a person is to be regarded as riding dangerously if (and only if)—

(a)the way he rides falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful cyclist, and

(b)it would be obvious to a competent and careful cyclist that riding in that way would be dangerous.

(3)In subsection (2) above “dangerous” refers to danger either of injury to any person or of serious damage to property; and in determining for the purposes of that subsection what would be obvious to a competent and careful cyclist in a particular case, regard shall be had not only to the circumstances of which he could be expected to be aware but also to any circumstances shown to have been within the knowledge of the accused.] (Road Traffic Act 1988, Section 28)

I've looked and there does not seem to be an offence of Furious Cycling. Although there is an offence of Furious Driving, now largely ignored and replaced by the various Dangerous Driving sections of the RTA.
The Furious Driving definition does have the wiggle room to be applied, but only if you collide with someone:
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, […] 61

This was used to prosecute a couple of cyclists who collided with pedestrians on the pavement.
BBC NEWS | UK | England | Dorset | Cyclist jailed for pavement death

But if the cycle path is a cycle path (which itself has a legal definition) then it's not a road and the RTA doesn't apply.

[alexb]

But if the cycle path is a cycle path (which itself has a legal definition) then it's not a road and the RTA doesn't apply.

Where might I find a legal definition of a cycle path?