UK 20mph speed limits

[Saracen]

UK 20 mph speed limits

Did you know

The 20mph limits do NOT apply to cyclists

Just call your local police force to confirm this

 

[Ocsid]

Yes, they apply only to "motorised vehicles", but whilst that does not include legal pedelecs, once modified outside the regulations, then in does!
Points on licence and fine, plus chance of being charged with its use without insurance, helmets etc.

 

[Az.]

Is the Transport Secretary set to introduce a 20mph speed limit for cyclists? | RAC Drive

The Transport Secretary Grant Shapps has discussed potentially introducing a 20mph speed limit for cyclists.

www.rac.co.uk

Most cyclists don't ride that fast though.

 

[sjpt]

Is the Transport Secretary set to introduce a 20mph speed limit for cyclists? | RAC Drive

The Transport Secretary Grant Shapps has discussed potentially introducing a 20mph speed limit for cyclists.

www.rac.co.uk

Most cyclists don't ride that fast though.

Except downhill. I've been clocked and stopped, and I'm a fairly slow rider.

Helpful as it turned out; my rear light had a bad contact and had turned itself out. Good old EverReady where not working seemed the usual state. He warned me (unofficially) on that and I was easily able to fix it (at least for the next 5 minutes?).

 

[saneagle]

If you exceed the 20 mph speed limit, you can be done for wanton and furious cycling, but only if you run into someone or crash. It carries a 2 year nax prison sentence.

 

[Saracen]

Is the Transport Secretary set to introduce a 20mph speed limit for cyclists? | RAC Drive

The Transport Secretary Grant Shapps has discussed potentially introducing a 20mph speed limit for cyclists.

www.rac.co.uk

Most cyclists don't ride that fast though.

Delivery E bikers do and dangerously

 

[Saracen]

If you exceed the 20 mph speed limit, you can be done for wanton and furious cycling, but only if you run into someone or crash. It carries a 2 year nax prison sentence.

It was used in 2009 to prosecute a death caused by a cyclist collision, which would have fallen outside other laws as it is the closest equivalent to dangerous driving for cyclists.[4] It was used again in 2017 for similar reasons

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causing_bodily_harm_by_wanton_or_furious_driving#:~:text=It%20was%20used%20in%202009,in%202017%20for%20similar%20reasons

.

 

[Saracen]

Points on licence and fine, plus chance of being charged with its use without insurance, helmets etc.

NOT according to the Police

 

[StuartsProjects]

I think you can be done for 'wanton and furious cycling' regardless of what the the speed limit on the road might be.

 

[Az.]

Delivery E bikers do and dangerously

That is unfair generalization. While I agree they ride dangerously I haven't seen them speeding. Contrary to many members of this forum who brag about it here.

 

[guerney]

I think you can be done for 'wanton and furious cycling' regardless of what the the speed limit on the road might be.

I regularly exceed 20mph downhill, but I do so serenely - I believe this is directly proportional to higher air density as I descend to lower altitude, proffering higher levels of oxygen, which evens my mood. It's one of the few freedoms I have left, apart from my many other freedoms.

 

[saneagle]

I think you can be done for 'wanton and furious cycling' regardless of what the the speed limit on the road might be.

You can be, but there has to be an element of neglect or recklessness. When you go over a prescribed speed limit, it's much easier to prove that.

A year or so ago, we discussed that fixie rider that killed a woman who jumped out on him while she was texting. We was found guitly of wanton and furious cycling because he didn't have a front brake, so he was sent to jail. personally, I thought that was very unfair.

 

[Ocsid]

NOT according to the Police

Here you do LINK

 

[flecc]

A year or so ago, we discussed that fixie rider that killed a woman who jumped out on him while she was texting. We was found guitly of wanton and furious cycling because he didn't have a front brake, so he was sent to jail. personally, I thought that was very unfair.

Judge Wendy Joseph made it absolutely clear that Charlie Alliston was sentenced for his attitude and only shouting a warning to the woman:

“You have throughout sought to put your blame on her,” the judge said. “Perhaps one of the most shocking things about this case is that you could not and apparently cannot still see any fault in your cycling or judgment.“You chose to ride at a speed and on a bike which you could not stop, your attitude being that everyone else would just have to get out of your way,” Joseph added. “Of course you did not set out to cause the harm you did – but the jury have found that you were aware of the risks and went on to take them.”

As I posted at the time, it is the absolute duty in law of any vehicle user to be able to stop in time and avoid a collision. Giving an audible warning is only a courtesy, it does no absolve one from that duty.

Accordingly that was what he was charged over and sentenced for, there being no charge for the bikes illegality. It was the media who concentrated on the lack of brakes, giving the wholly wrong impression that constituted his guilt.
.

 

[Az.]

...the judge said. “Perhaps one of the most shocking things about this case is that you could not and apparently cannot still see any fault in your cycling or judgment.“You chose to ride at a speed and on a bike which you could not stop, your attitude being that everyone else would just have to get out of your way,” Joseph added. “Of course you did not set out to cause the harm you did – but the jury have found that you were aware of the risks and went on to take them.”

Perhaps it is a time and place to make an appeal:

Please do not help idiots to derestrict their bikes.

 

[saneagle]

Judge Wendy Joseph made it absolutely clear that Charlie Alliston was sentenced for his attitude and only shouting a warning to the woman:

“You have throughout sought to put your blame on her,” the judge said. “Perhaps one of the most shocking things about this case is that you could not and apparently cannot still see any fault in your cycling or judgment.“You chose to ride at a speed and on a bike which you could not stop, your attitude being that everyone else would just have to get out of your way,” Joseph added. “Of course you did not set out to cause the harm you did – but the jury have found that you were aware of the risks and went on to take them.”

As I posted at the time, it is the absolute duty in law of any vehicle user to be able to stop in time and avoid a collision. Giving an audible warning is only a courtesy, it does no absolve one from that duty.

Accordingly that was what he was charged over and sentenced for, there being no charge for the bikes illegality. It was the media who concentrated on the lack of brakes, giving the wholly wrong impression that constituted his guilt.
.

Alliston was cleared of manslaughter but found guilty of causing bodily harm by “wanton and furious driving”.
The judge said Alliston’s “whole manner of driving” caused the accident. “If your bicycle had a front-wheel brake you could have stopped, but on this illegal bike, you could not."
The guy'slack of remorse had nothing to do with his guilt, but might have affected his sentence.

Cyclist Charlie Alliston jailed for 18 months over death of pedestrian

Alliston jailed over death of Kim Briggs, who sustained ‘catastrophic’ head injuries in east London collision last year

www.theguardian.com

 

[flecc]

Alliston was cleared of manslaughter but found guilty of causing bodily harm by “wanton and furious driving”.
The judge said Alliston’s “whole manner of driving” caused the accident. “If your bicycle had a front-wheel brake you could have stopped, but on this illegal bike, you could not."
The guy'slack of remorse had nothing to do with his guilt, but might have affected his sentence.

Cyclist Charlie Alliston jailed for 18 months over death of pedestrian

Alliston jailed over death of Kim Briggs, who sustained ‘catastrophic’ head injuries in east London collision last year

www.theguardian.com

He was NOT sentenced for the lack of a front brake as you wrongly said, since he faced no charge whatsover for the bike's illegality, so could not be sentenced for that.

His "whole manner of driving" caused the accident as you quoted the judge saying, and caused the subsequent sole charge, and his attitude clearly made the custodial sentence more certain.

I cannot see how his 18 month sentence was unfair compared with:

Causing death by dangerous driving

Road Traffic Act 1988, s.1

Sentencing Council Guideline effective from: 01 July 2023

Triable only on indictment
Maximum: life imprisonment for offences committed after 28 June 2022; otherwise 14 years’ custody
Offence range: 2 – 18 years’ custody

LINK
.

 

[saneagle]

He was NOT sentenced for the lack of a front brake as you wrongly said, since he faced no charge whatsover for the bike's illegality, so could not be sentenced for that.

His "whole manner of driving" caused the accident as you quoted the judge saying, and caused the subsequent sole charge, and his attitude clearly made the custodial sentence more certain.

I cannot see how his 18 month sentence was unfair compared with:

Causing death by dangerous driving

Road Traffic Act 1988, s.1

Sentencing Council Guideline effective from: 01 July 2023

Triable only on indictment
Maximum: life imprisonment for offences committed after 28 June 2022; otherwise 14 years’ custody
Offence range: 2 – 18 years’ custody

LINK
.

Wanton and furious driving/cycling is the charge for driving recklessly or negligently. Basically without regard for otheer peoples safety. He was prosecuted and convicted for that charge because he didn't have a front brake. The police tested his stopping distance by riding his bike (ridiculous but true) and used their evidence to convict him. If he'd had a brake, there would have been no charge.

 

[soundwave]

 

[flecc]

Wanton and furious driving/cycling is the charge for driving recklessly or negligently. Basically without regard for otheer peoples safety. He was prosecuted and convicted for that charge because he didn't have a front brake. The police tested his stopping distance by riding his bike (ridiculous but true) and used their evidence to convict him. If he'd had a brake, there would have been no charge.

He was convicted for that charge because he made no effort to stop or avoid the pedestrian, expecting her to get out of his way, which is unlawful.

He faced no charge for having no front brake so could not be imprisoned for that. To argue that he was makes no sense, since firstly the law requires a bicycle to have two brakes, the fixie not counting as one, and secondly that breach of the construction and use regulations by an individual could only attract a fine.

I'll happily agree that there was unfairness in the sentence, but that was entirely due to the mishandling of his defence. To try to get the courts sympathy for him when he showed none for the victim was a serious mistake, almost bound to get the backs up of the Jury and Judge as clearly happened, compounded by his trying to blame the victim. Had there been obvious remorse and no attempt of an excuse for his inexcusable manner of riding, his sentence could have been lighter. But there is no way one can cause a death by deliberate dangerous riding or driving without a custodial sentence resulting.
.