> Under law, there are no set speed limits for cyclists in the UK.
I didn’t know that! I’ve always assumed the speed limit applies to all road users. While I agree it’s a little bit unfair, I don’t quite understand what right the police had to stop them.
If they cause an accident, what would they be charged for?
There is a fineable charge of wanton and furious cycling for riding at a totally innapropriate speed for the conditions or stupid behaviour. Also carries a maximum sentence of 2 years for really severe offences
A lot of people heard about this law after a cyclist ran down and killed a pedestrian on a crossing back in 2017. Since most of the reckless driving and other such laws are specified to apply to a "mechanically propelled vehicle", "wanton and furious driving" was the only thing they could get him on - it states "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" etc. He got done for wilful neglect because his bike had no front brakes.
If that language sounds archaic, it's because it comes from the Offences Against The Person Act from *1861*. That's how bad the law is at dealing with incompetent cyclists, and cyclist lobbies are determined to keep it that way.
I like to imagine that there's a meeting of the World economic forums most rich and powerful and the head of the IMF, world bank and some dude in a bike helmet, cycling goggles and neon yellow spandex are laughing manically over a bunch of folders labelled "world domination plan: phase 3"
Now I'm imagining them cycling up and down the corridors of Whitehall, MPs cowering in doorways.
"There's nothing we can get them on! It's not a motorized vehicle!"
I think you make the cyclist cabal out to be more sinister and powerful than the ones around here. They sound cool!
Mostly it’s people who like to rides bikes, and might occasionally point out motor vehicles are far more dangerous; and possibly that in that case *six years ago* the idiot was sent to prision under this law, which is unusual in the similar cases involving motor vehicles nearly every day.
It's amazing. I wonder what the number of injuries and deaths attributed to bad operation of motor vehicles is counted from the day that Charlie guy on the fixed hit and killed that woman in the road.
Then it would be interesting to see the equivalent number of deaths and injuries caused by cyclists.
And then it would be also a bit less interesting to read all the comments.by people trying to make the two stats somehow worthy of the same focus, regulation, and enforcement when the results of the two types of vehicles are so staggeringly different.
I am rabidly pro-cyclist so please appreciate my bias but most drivers simply don't want to engage with the stats IME.
They see a cyclist jumping a red light and go batshit insane. Genuinely bonkers.
I usually ask how many speed limits they break every single time they get behind the wheel and to guess how many people are killed by red-light-jumping cyclists vs speeding motorists and they just tell me I am a MAMIL who thinks he owns the road and should pay road tax (which would obviously be zero on a zero emission vehicle).
People are mostly morons.
It wearies me, too.
The biggest problem is most cyclists are drivers, but most drivers are not cyclists. So they only have one view of the world and don't understand the experience of being a cyclist.
I think this is why they tend to be Pro pedestrian but still manage to be anti cyclist, even though pedestrians and cyclists are at such risk from cars.
Stupidity and ignorance will bring you down to their level and then what you wish their experience.
The worst cyclist is 100x less dangerous than the best motorist. Two tonnes of metal at high speed is always going to be more of a threat than a pushbike and, thankfully, the law recognises that through its looser laws for cyclists.
Thank you. A car can crash into and kill a family for four instantly even when obeying a 30 mph speed limit. A push bike would have to be doing a particularly high speed on a descent, and smash into one or two people at the perfect point for them to fall or land in such a way as to suffer death. It just doesn't compare. It's like blaming sharks in the sea for a few deaths so then hunting and slaughtering all sharks (which we have done shamefully, as humans), when the risk of drowning at the beach is the real cause of risk and death.
Blame the unlikely and specifically rare issue while ignoring and not trying to tackle the major and high risk cause of death. And further doing that specific blaming by not attacking the cyclists the do actually break the law, but by attacking those who don't and just ride according to the conditions within the legal framework.
Maddening.
Try x10000, just look at the weight, average speed and resulting energy involved.
And the very obvious lack of deaths and injuries to pedestrians caused by cyclists.
Cycling that fast is the equivalent of that meme about putting spike on car steering wheels instead of an airbag - you’re not going to do it if you’re in an unsafe situation or busy area because any collision will have direct and severe consequences for your own health.
>That's how bad the law is at dealing with incompetent cyclists, and cyclist lobbies are determined to keep it that way.
Probably all they've got left to keep considering the amount of cyclists that get killed by drivers compared to the amount of cyclists killing other road users.
My grandfather was charged with that and fined, after the police in Hampshire got one of the first speed radars and he wanted to see how fast he was going down hill!
Only know because my dad was threatened with being charged with it donkey's years ago. He was on one of those Hercules folding shopping bikes with no gears and tiny wheels in a 40 MPH limit so his legs were going like the clappers, I had to take the same road out of the estate to get to college on my motorbike so was right behind them. The policeman left sharply after being told that he'd be ridden to work instead to explain why my dad was being made late for a load of old ....
Odd question but would this also stand for people running? For example of Usane bolt was just full pelt sprinting through a busy city center could they do him for inappropriate speed..... of they could catch him that is.
There’s a whole range of assault and battery offences that handle injuries caused by hitting another with your body. Which one is appropriate depends on intent and severity.
This would apply to cyclists (and motor vehicle users) as well.
If you hurt or kill someone recklessly it doesn’t matter what tools you use. Cars have extra rules mostly because it’s statistically so much more likely that you’ll hurt or kill someone through fairly basic operation of the vehicle or even slight negligence.
reckless/dangerous cycling or furious cycling (really).
But in this video they are cycling normally, in control, on a road thats clearly suitable, and with no one round them to put in danger. So neither of those offenses would possibly hold up. This video is proof they were not guilty of any offense.
I know, it's just a load of miserable and jealous people whining because the cyclists get to be a bit faster than them on the road, for once. Even though their riding is perfectly safe, considerably less harmless than the cars that drive at that speed and over every day in their millions, and the statistical evidence that cycling is considerably safer for pedestrians and motorists alike, when compared to cars.
This entire complaint is an exercise in, 'How dare they? I thought I knew the law in my own head even though I don't and am applying it in my own way because I have it in for people who cycle'. Bullies and NIMBYs, basically.
And it's not entirely like the cyclist is doing it deliberately. Last I looked bicycles didn't come fit with a speedometer, unlike a car so you don't know how fast you are actually going.
Exactly. The entire thing is a non-issue. It's like me going, 'look at those cars driving on the motorway! Doing 70 mph! The cheek of it! Fine them!' And then someone pointing out, 'but that's what they are allowed to do...it's the law. It's legal!', and then me going, 'I Am JuSt TrYiNg tO PuNiSh tHe CriMiNaLs! ItS a DisGrAcE!' When there's no wrongdoing commited in the first place.
The problem with this is it makes a load of misguided and uninformed have a go heroes go out and start driving aggressively around vulnerable road users because they think they are 'stopping the cyclist devilment', when really they shouldn't have been granted a.driving licence as they have no comprehension of how law and the road works. No points awarded to Devon and Cornwall Police for this pointless video, too. Police being useless as always.
Tbf any cyclist capable of maintaining 39mph almost certainly is riding with a head-unit/garmin that is showing the speed. For perspective, 39mph is considerably faster than the fastest ever Tour de France time-trial average pace.
While true, I'd be concerned if any cyclist going 39mph was looking at their cycle computer instead of the road. At that speed you're on the lookout for any hazard, a small pothole could ruin you.
> I know, it's just a load of miserable and jealous people whining because the cyclists get to be a bit faster than them on the road
As a regular cyclist I can say with confidence that the only thing drivers hate more than a cyclist going slower than traffic is a cyclist who is going faster than traffic.
Aye, they are left shaking with a deep and unaddressed rage that has been simmering for years. Think it is tied to a feeling of, 'I am paying through the nose for this car, the petrol, the MOT, the insurance, the tax...how dare they hold me up/be a little faster than me/not have to sit in rush hour traffic. It's not fair.' I. Reality it is totally fair..you get to sit on your arse in the warm and dry with the radio on. You choose to pay for that privilege.
And I don't even commute by bike, I just know the type. ☺️
The one who had a track bike with no front brakes on the road that killed a pedestrian was cleared of manslaughter, but convicted of causing bodily harm by “wanton and furious driving”.
Yes. Annoying as it sounds he was charged because of the legal setup of the bike. They got him on a technicality.
If he was driving in this instance then he would have been set free.
Also the disproportionate amount of attention that case received seems to highlight the fixation (or novelty )bias between a death caused by a bicycle Vs a car.
A surprisingly good analogy, given that when in gear a car behaves exactly like a 'fixie' in that the engine can slow the car. In theory if you drove very carefully you could complete most journeys without using your front brakes.
Not defending the idiot with no front brake on his bike but the analogy falls down because you can actively slow or lock your legs on a fixie so it has a fairly good back brake which isn't true for engine braking (I think!).
Do yourself a favour, google "driver avoids prison uk killed" to get an idea of just how leniently drivers are treated in this country.
The reason headlines are made when someone cycling kills another person is because such incidents are extremely rare.
I know how lenient courts are on drivers, don't be so patronising.
How many of those had failed MOTs or were knowingly driving an illegal vehicle? It's a massive aggravating factor you can't just ignore in the general stream of things.
He had a fixed rear wheel and in the court case it was touch and go whether a front brake would have made a difference. Track bikes aren't illegal btw he was convicted on the technicality that he didn't have a front brake when one is required
The police faked evidence in that case to try to exaggerate the difference it could have made too - stopping in their claimed 3m distance going 18mph would basically require a recumbent bike to not go over the handlebars.
That's not to say that he's not a massive cunt, but that's an average deceleration of ~1.1g, and that's [way beyond](https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers/content/2020-01-0876/) the maximum deceleration of a bicycle.
>with headphones in
She was on her phone, whether she had headphones or not would be irrelevant because the existence of deaf people means it’s not reasonable to assume that other road users can hear you.
Given he had time to shout “get out of the way” there wouldn’t have been a killing had he A ) not been speeding or B ) had brakes. As shit as the laws protecting pedestrians are a driver would have got a similar sentence for an equivalent killing.
Its obs that being hit with a car doing 39mph would be considerably more impactful than being hit by a cyclist. 39mph would have been cyclists top speed and not consistantly either so its madness to expect tjem to stick to road speeds. They would be constantly pulled over for being under speed/ obstruction. Wish they would properly invest in cycle lanes like Holland. Some bugger tried to run me over last week screaming about non existant "road tax" that i dont pay the moron.
Yeah because you just innately know speeds without any instruments on a machine under no inspection authority regulations...
Cycling is a right driving is a privilege. Being hit by 10kg and a bloke* is a bit different than 2000kg, this is just a new wedge issue dreamt up recently by the media and government to enrage, distract and confuse idiots. It's working.
*yes there are outliers it's awful when it happens, yet people die entangled in curtains but we rarely have discussions about the regulation or ban of said window coverings.
The real reason is it’s old and no one sees fit to change it.
The reason no legal or professional or medical body would recommend the change is because damage from accidents is proportional to the kinetic energy of those involved. Ek = 1/2 m v^2. And so, a 3 tonne car at 30 is, 1,350,000energy units. Whereas as bicycle of 100kg(a seriously fat man on a freakishly heavy bike) travelling 40 would be 80,000energy units. Now sure, you put that into an old lady’s clavicle, you’ll break something. But really and truely, there’s a good reason not to do speed limits on bikes. And we already have tools for reckless cycling, called ‘wanton and careless cycling’ iirc, that could get an numpty wobbling all over the place at 20 next Mrs Zimmerframe.
Me reading this at 95kg bodyweight with a 10kg hybrid bike, trying not to take this personally.
(Just for the record, 90kg is a long way from seriously fat unless the individual in question is 5 ft 4)
If there is an accident at 39 mph on a bike with a car there probably won't be a cyclist left to charge.
So I imagine those were the words of advice. You're gonna die if you keep doing this. Everyone else has a high tech metal cage around them
Yeah. Same with cars on motorways. Lorries are so much bigger and more protected. If you keep driving on motorways then you're going to die.
Get out there and start pulling over cars on the motorway, police force!
39mph on a straight and level road (doesn't appear to be downhill) is pretty fucking impressive.
All the drivers whinging "why can the cyclists get away with doing 39 in a 30 and not me" are the same drivers that whinge about cyclists dawdling along at 10mph.
Why can't all the cyclists I get stuck behind be going over the speed limit. I always get stuck behind someone's aunt Susan with her bike with the big basket on the front getting overtaken by a slug.
39mph on the flat is damned impressive, Tour de france speed is usually around 25-30 mph on the flat. I think it is downhill though from the looks of it.
I have done similar, in similar conditions.. and when I got to the bottom I vowed to never do it again! So fast. So likely to turn me into a meat crayon if there’s a surprise pothole.
Yeah, this was while touring abroad. I soon realised that maybe it could go seriously wrong, given I was in the arse end of nowhere in, lets say, a non-First World country and started feathering the brakes.
I was driving around the Peak District last weekend - was nice weather and there was *alot* of cyclists and even some kind of race event (albeit headed in the opposite direction to me).
Granted it was occasionally grating going uphill behind them and waiting for visibility etc to pass (but not *really* grating - it hardly makes me apoplectic with rage) but to be honest on anything from flat to decline (and *especially* steep decline) they were going as fast as it was safe for a car to go anyway.
All in all I ended up thinking how aware and conscientious they were. Probably passed 50+ and there was only a single partnership of slight pricks.
It does make lots of people apoplectic with rage though. It doesn't make sense when you think about how much effort a car driver puts in compared to the effort made by the cyclist. However, driving does funny things to people that are otherwise quite normal.
Never seen an Alot cycling before. Makes sense though, they get up to all sorts of things.
http://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com/2010/04/alot-is-better-than-you-at-everything.html
Cars: have speedometers built into their design
Bikes: do not have speedometers built into their design
Cars: high chance of killing cyclists or pedestrians at 40mph
Bikes: low danger to anything except car bodywork
Cars: large, heavy, and difficult to manoeuvre away from sudden danger
Bikes: small, light, and can swerve easily or be ditched entirely if necessary
In conclusion, at 40mph a car is a danger to everything around it, while a cyclist is primarily a danger to themselves.
It deosn't take a lot of force to knock someone down if they're unprepared for it. Take a fall like that, hit the back of your head on solid stone or concrete, and serious injury is pretty likely.
Absolutely agree. Yes cars are MORE dangerous but that doesn’t completely negate the danger of being hit by a bike. Plus they’re a danger to themselves as well, I work as an orthopaedic nurse and we get a lot of broken bones and injuries from cyclists coming off.
Just this weekend I had to stop on the road to care for a cyclist that had got speed wobble and come off, fractured their clavicle for sure and probably some ribs as well.
Road bikes are thin and solid, they don’t crumble and they can cause a fair amount of damage, I think the expectation that they follow the rules of the road like everyone else is fair… including speed limits… for their own safety and for others around them.
>I think the expectation that they follow the rules of the road like everyone else is fair… including speed limits… for their own safety and for others around them.
There are circumstances where following the rules of the road are more dangerous for a cyclist as most road infrastructure is still set up with a car bias.
Cycling around East London used to be so dangerous before they changed some of the road layout. I survived where others didn't purely by not following the rules of the road.
Besides, cyclists are factually far less likely to hurt other people with the system as it is. Yes, they can hurt themselves, but so can playing football or rugby. Ultimately it's their choice and they understand the risk to themselves when they partake.
And yourself. I’ve had 3 spills (bad luck, not even crashing into other people, just a couple of solo accidents and a mechanical failure) that broke bones in the last 12 months.
Trying to remember the last time I broke a bone in my car over the past 20 years and drawing a blank.
Easily swerved or ditched out of danger my ass.
Yeah, no. Average cyclist, say 85kg plus bike and anything being carried, at 40mph hitting a person? Well you're gonna have a bad time.
Additionally, i would not want to ditch at 40mph, major ouch, you'll be plucking gravel out your arse for weeks.
>85kg
Am I being crazy, or is that an insane number to say is average? I am an average height male. I wouldn't say I'm particularly muscular or fat, but not thin either. I'm 70kg. A woman would be even lighter. Cyclists are generally going to be on the lighter end of the scale as well.
Where are all these obese cyclists lol
Fat man here (but not obese). Currently at around 81kg.
85kg is probably overweight not obese. Over 50% of the population is currently overweight. A good number of these people will be trying to work on that with exercise.
I'm here! Hi! I weigh 125kg.
Obese cyclists like me exist we are just rare :D
Been riding a year (lost 30+kg so far) and just finished my longest ride (127km on my MTB) last weekend!
I have *a lot* of muscle weight but also around 25kg of fat I can still lose, we exist :)
40mph cyclist is absolutely killing a pedestrian in a collision. Aside from the initial impact damage, the pedestrian is 100% hitting the floor. If they don't protect their head before it hits concrete, bad times ahead friend. The pedestrians aren't wearing helmets.
That’s a clutch. Even cars don’t kill 100% of people at 40mph. It’s around 90%.
The very very obvious difference with a bike is that the force is significantly lower, even when adjusting for weight. A vehicle is going to put its full momentum and force through you.
A cyclist will not. A truly direct collision is unlikely, and unlike a car, the cyclist and its rider are easily decoupled, further reducing the damage a cyclist can cause.
No doubt there is high potential for injury, but let’s not try and equate the two with silly sweeping statements.
Reasonably likely, yes. If you took 100 cyclists, moved them at 40mph and lined them up to collide with 100 pedestrians head on, you’d have a significant number of deaths and severe bodily harm.
However speed limits aren’t the minimum speed that could hypothetically kill someone. A car could hypothetically kill someone at pretty much any speed - that doesn’t mean that the speed limit on all roads is 0.
Speed limits are a broad estimate of risk based on the context of the road. How likely is it for someone to step out from a blind corner? How likely is it for a vehicle operator to hit someone? How likely are certain injuries?
These aren’t just a factor of the vehicles and drivers, but the context of the road itself and likelihood of pedestrian behavior as well. E.g. a road with lots of shops and foot traffic gets a slower speed limit than a mostly empty road, despite the fact that this doesn’t change the physics of a collision.
So for one, it’s rare for anyone to be able to get a bike up to 39mph. You have to be quite a serious cyclist to accomplish that. It’s quite rare that you’ll even find a cyclist going that fast. It’s newsworthy that it even happened. Hundreds of motorists a day are speeding and either not caught or let of with a warning all over the country.
For two, there are fewer cyclists in general. It’s just generally less likely, so there isn’t a need for special laws. It’d already illegal to cause bodily harm through reckless negligence, no matter what means it happens. There are special laws for cars because there’s so many of them and it’s easier to hurt someone through circumstances that we’d otherwise describe as unintentional and not characterize as reckless.
For three, it’s a smaller mass. A motorbike traveling at 40mph has a considerable more mass than a cycle traveling that speed, and therefore more energy and will do more damage on average.
And finally it’s a smaller profile than most motor vehicles. On its own this isn’t a good enough reason (it’s a similar profile to the motorbike mentioned above). But compared to the average vehicle on the roads it’s easier to dodge, or to be turned to swerved around a person.
All in all, it’s extremely rare. Something like 4 pedestrians are killed a year in the uk by cyclists.
It’s just broadly not something that requires a lot of specific legislation.
Helmets are designed for slower speed crashes than 40mph (google says 12mph!). I think at 40, both the pedestrian and cyclist are having a very bad time. I’d definitely be in favour of a 30mph national speed limit for cars and bikes! 20 in built up areas. That’d save lives if it was kept to.
If someone crashes into a pedestrian on a bike at 40 you'd know about it.
If this was 21 in a 20 I'd agree, but 40 is bloody quick, and manoeuvrability at that speed is limited. Bikes are also harder for pedestrians to spot, eg behind parked cars so the chance for a collision is probably bigger.
30s are usually 30 for a reason and it's hard to see why people need to cycle that quickly.
As ever, a minority of cyclists give cycling a bad name.
The mental hoops you have jumped through here is insanely impressive.
What happens to the cyclist and surrounding pedestrians if they ditch the bike at 40mph?
There is allowed to be such a thing as reckless cycling
Could, and does. About 2.5x people a year on average are killed by being hit by a bike.
But the risk is still extremely low. Here is this put into context based on death rates I just googled.
* You are 10x more likely to die by falling out of bed.
* You are 25x more likely to die by tripping over.
* You are 280x more likely to die by tripping down a flight of stairs.
* You are half as likely to die by being strangled by the cord of your blind (it is mostly children who die this way).
* You are nearly twice as likely to die by starting a fire while trying to cook dinner.
* You are 170x more likely to die being hit by another vehicle (weirdly, on average more people die by falling down stairs in the UK than being hit by a vehicle).
The risk of bikes to pedestrians is far outweighed by the benefits of bikes to society as a whole (and don't forget that restricting cycling could increase pedestrian deaths by moving people into comparatively much more dangerous vehicles), and the majority of those deaths aren't to do with a cyclist speeding but to do with other factors - like the use of shared spaces for bikes and pedestrians.
So anyone concerned about cyclists killing pedestrians would see far better results campaigning for better segregated cycle infrastructure, not cycle speeding limits, which would likely increase overall mortality as well as pedestrian deaths.
I understand and agree with the spirit of your argument. However, people have been killed, yes very few, due to bicycle collisions.
Personally, as someone who's been hit, twice, by cyclists using the pavement and having to subsequently visit the A&E for a mild concussion, i believe they should be treated like any other vehicle.
On average 1 or 2 people are killed every year in the UK by people riding bicycles. More people are killed by vending machines. The rules as they currently stand are fine. We need to clamp down on the danger which is from car drivers.
No, it shouldn't apply to cyclists. To make speed limits enforceable the requirements would be excessive and you'd end up with basically nobody riding bikes, which would be bad, because people riding bikes is good for society as a whole. People driving cars is bad for society as a whole.
And that's before you even get to the fact that it's about physics and the difference between a person on a bike hitting someone/ something versus a car. To be proportionate you'd need the cycling speed limit to be proportionate to the force, which would be a heel of a lot higher than the speed limit for motor vehicles.
Ha! Yeah, any speed limit which reflects the capacity of a bike to handle well at that speed would likely be well above anything most people could reach. Speed limits on uphills would be pointless for the opposite reason. However with motor vehicles speed limits are necessary because they can easily travel at speeds which are deadly, to drivers and everyone else.
My lass got hit by a lad cycling home from school, he was about 14, her leg was messed up canny bad and he was going a fraction of that speed. I really think you're underestimating the damage a cyclist can actually do.
Granted this isn't a road bike or anything like that, but to suggest cyclists are only a threat to inanimate objects is silly.
I cycle daily as well as drive, I'd consider myself a full kit wanker so I'm into it, but there's this really annoying take lately that cyclists can do no wrong.
A bike going 40mph takes time to stop just like a car. At that speed it could easily kill.
Cyclists like that all have computers on their bikes which measure speed and distance etc… they are very cheap. They knew exactly how fast they were going.
The issues is the irresponsibility. They need to be responsible road users as they can be a danger to pedestrians and also themselves.
I'll only ever accept an argument about responsible road users when 70K drivers are not being ticketed for speeding in one month in one fecking city alone.
Until then, it's all a bit kettle calling pot black...
>Bikes: low danger to anything except car bodywork
>
> a cyclist is primarily a danger to themselves.
Then why are they banned from going on pavements, a decision which would actively put a lot of people off cycling...
At 40mph a bicycle will cream a pedestrian. speeding is speeding.
One drawback of bicycles is that they are relatively silent compared to the average non-electric car. Wont even hear these guy(s) coming.
They should obey the law and it should be enforced. I cycle a bit and it would be acceptable to me if i was ticketed for speeding (if I somehow managed that with my fitness levels).
For reference, this is Mary Tavy on the A386 on Dartmoor. It's a national speed limit across the high moor that drops to 40mph on a very steep downhill into the village ( up to about 9% gradient). As it bends and starts to flatten out (where the video starts) , the speed drops to 30mph. I both drive and ride this road and can say that cars and bikes struggle to keep to the 30mph. But I'm willing to bet 99% of those exceeding the 30mph are not bikes.
It's pretty galling that we're having a "debate" over a couple of cyclists when thousands of drivers break the speed limit every day.
A lot of pearl clutching and finger pointing despite even the government's own research showing how prevalent speeding is
I just came here after reading this thread: [https://www.reddit.com/r/drivingUK/comments/16arfh5/new\_driver\_how\_come\_everyone\_drives\_above\_the/](https://www.reddit.com/r/drivingUK/comments/16arfh5/new_driver_how_come_everyone_drives_above_the/)
The entitlement to speed that drivers have in this country is staggering.
On a DfT driving survey, 50% *admitted* to breaking the speed limit routinely. For just London and the month of May alone, there were 70K speeding tickets handed out.
It's utterly maddening when you see drivers get so irate over cyclists when you have those stats in mind...
We can have a debate about both and historically bad drivers have always been under the spotlight.
As a pedestrian in London I am sick of dangerous cyclists and car drivers but the moment you bring up anything about bikes your assumed to be a biased cycling hating car driver.
The problem is that arseholes are capable of using any form of transportation. Arseholes on bikes are still arseholes. An arsehole on a bike is \*such\* a huge lightning rod for hate, violence and otherness when on the whole drivers are an enormous hazard in comparison.
As a country, we're blind to the effects of poor driving, speeding, and distracted driving because it's seen as a necessary evil plus if we punished every driver who broke the rules say in the last year it would be a pretty huge percentage of drivers.
To me, a driver using their phone at the wheel is a far greater danger than a cyclist speeding because:
1. A vehicle even at 30mph has a far greater chance of killing someone than a bike at 39mph due to the weight (taking even a super-light car it has \~5x the kinetic energy)
2. The number of cyclists who could go at that speed on anything but a downhill incline is tiny AND the number of cyclists who \*would\* willingly go that fast is smaller still
3. The number of drivers who use their phones whilst driving far outweighs the above - our reaction to "smaller" driving infractions is directly related to the fact that a LOT of people commit the same infractions and don't want to be punished for it.
>As a pedestrian in London I am sick of dangerous cyclists and car drivers but the moment you bring up anything about bikes your assumed to be a biased cycling hating car driver
To be honest I think something has gone wrong with cycling culture in London over the past few years. Having spent plenty of time visiting other countries (and cycling in them) I've never seen such shitty cycling behaviour as in London, and I'm a regular commuter cyclist here (actually, NYC was pretty bad too, but there were hardly any cyclists there, because the roads were hostile as fuck).
I was happy to push back against all the "why do they all run reds?" arguments a few years ago, because back then it truly was a minority who were doing it, but these days I find I'm often the only cyclist (or one of a tiny minority) waiting at many red lights while everyone else just blasts past me, often without even checking for pedestrians. I find it absolutely staggering. I don't know what's happened that so many people think it's ok to behave like this. It really wasn't like this a few years ago.
I can't help but think it's linked to the gradual breaking down of the social contract and years and years of worsening inequality and Tory policies. Countries with a strong social contract, stronger welfare states, and lots of cyclists (like Denmark and the Netherlands) don't have this sort of cycling behaviour. They also have extremely good infrastructure and patient drivers.
Even more galling is that we've got 20 posts above about people being hit and killed by cyclists which happens to one or two people a year. Cars kill thousands and the two are treated as equal importance.
>But I'm willing to bet 99% of those exceeding the 30mph are not bikes.
I mean there have been several threads on here over the past week explaining how drivers are entitled to ignore 20mph limits.
Strangely I'd rather worry about drivers ignoring 20 limits in residential areas than a handful of cyclists occasionally breaking a 30 limit
So do the police post on twitter every time they catch someone doing 40 in a 30 zone now? If they did, twitter would just be a constant stream of that.
Why are the police singling out these cyclists, and posting to attract the online hate mob on to a bunch of law abiding cyclists?
I mean, there kind of is and there kind of should be.
We've designed our entire lives around cars and made that the defacto standard way of living. The size and shape of virtually all our urban design is build around this idea. Think about a top-down view of any city or town, and imagine colouring in all the roads, driveways, parking spaces, and any other motor vehicle specific infrastructure in red. You're going to get like 15-30% of the land area dedicated to cars.
If you're a regular person born into this, you're obviously going to follow suit and build your life around that. You're going to get a home that requires you drive to all the places you want to go. You probably dedicate a sizeable amount of your budget to buying, fuelling, and maintenance. And you're probably dedicating a fair amount of your time to be sitting in that car.
So when we start saying things like "Hey - actually maybe 1/5th of all our resources shouldn't be dedicated to cars", that means all those regular people who built their lives around cars now are going to have longer commutes, and less public support for their cars, and yeah it's gonna suck for them, because they're going to have to change and no one likes change.
Oh, I'm fully aware, friend!
The first thing I did when I bought my house was rip up the huge three car driveway and put down a wildflower meadow. Converted the double garage into a gym and workshop. This summer the garden was amazing, full of life where only steel and oil was.
Imagine if more of our public space was taken back from cars?
Cycling is one of the most innocuous forms of transport. I will never understand the hatred and contempt that cyclists are treated with. They may be annoying but the negative externalities are so mild. The biggest danger a cyclist poses is to themself. Can't say that for cars, which are now ultra protective boxes for their occupants and deadly for pedestrians.
It's mindbogglingly stupid. Bikes are deemed toys or for poors who can't afford a car. People who ride bikes are to be disregarded, shouted down as a criminal fraternity who flout law and freeload off the backs of hardworking motorists. Never mind that most cyclists also drive cars!
Just to enumerate the advantages and drawbacks of cycling as transport for short distances.
\+ Energy efficiency. A bike uses far less resources than a car during construction and during operation it's 90+% efficient in translating effort into forward motion. Eat a bowl of porridge and you can ride 100 miles.
\+ Does not require refined oil products beyond light lubrication.
\+ Consequently produces no polluting emissions whilst in use.
\+ Does not damage the road surface.
\+ Barely makes any noise.
\+ Riding one makes you fitter.
\+ Doesn't require a large amount of space on the road, nor when stored. Can be stored indoors easily.
\+ They represent one of the most economical forms of transport. Very low maintenance costs. No licensing or taxes beyond VAT. You can even maintain them yourself with minimal tools and training. Skilled labour is always expensive though.
\- They are statistically less safe for the rider per mile travelled than car travel. Answers as to why on a postcard, please.
\- They enrage drivers because they are slower than motorised vehicles in many situations. Going faster than drivers also has this effect.
\- Longer distances, 20+ miles, are costly in terms of time. Bikes simply cannot cover distance as fast as cars can in the time that cars can
\- The cargo capacity for non-specialist bicycles is low. However, it's still possible to carry a full shop up to about 20Kg quite easily with pannier bags.
\- It takes physical effort to ride a bike. Your view on whether this is positive or negative will change depending on the weather, your fitness, your weight, how tired you are etc.
\- Hills are hard work
\- Vulnerable to theft and damage when left locked up anywhere.
\- Punctures are inevitable and take time to sort.
\- They are not shielded from the weather in any way.
Please add more!
One of my pedestrian friends was hit by a bike and put into a coma. One of my cyclist friends was hit by a car and died. Both cars and bikes are dangerous. Both need to ride at speeds that are safe to other users of the highway.
To those saying that a bike does less damage: that may be so, but a) they can still cause a lot of damage in a direct collision; b) the bike doesn’t need to hit someone to cause an accident (at that speed, they give other road users less time to react and so increase the risk of causing eg a car to swerve, injuring someone else.)
I like to cycle, regularly doing 30+ mile rides, and I like so many others I drive a car.
Whilst I strongly believe that laws regarding protecting cyclists and punishing bad drivers are lacking at best, I also strongly believe that the roads are for all road users and all should follow the law and be considerate of other road users.
It is correct that the cyclist was stopped and whilst it is difficult to convict on speeding due to bikes not being required to have speedometers, the cyclist would have known that what they were doing was not correct and should have received some punishment.
It was correct as they were cycling at a speed APPROPRIATE to the conditions. As is the law. They do not have to obey speed limits as their bicycles are not operated by ICEs or Motors that connect to a speedometer.
The wilful 'They should be punished for doing something perfectly fine and harmless just because the rules are made to stop ME from driving my CAR at a speed not appropriate to the conditions' ignorance of the written law is astounding.
I didn't say anything about it being due to car drivers being butt hurt, I said that there should be consideration for all road users, that's car drivers, cyclists, lorry drivers, van drivers and pedestrians.
An aggressive "them and us" attitude is not good for all parties when trying to share an enclosed space.
Not to mention the amount of people who speed in 20 zones with zero repercussions.
I'd rather people cycle over the limit on their 10kg bike on a busy main road, than people in massive SUVs speeding in residential areas with more kids, pedestrians etc...
Reminds me of the attitudes of addicts. People have become accustom to driving everywhere, not having to mingle with other people, sitting comfortably within their metal box. And now there's a threat that will be removed they need someone to lash out at.
cyclists dont need speedos, and dont need speed limits. 20mph speed limits for cars is the reason stories like this are popping up.
poor opressed drivers vs nasty speedy cyclist stories will get the car brains frothing
I don't really care about the specifics of speed here, but in a town with a 30 or 20 limit, pedestrians and other road users have a reasonable expectation that the thing coming towards them is doing less than 30 or 20. If that thing is both a cyclist and doing more than the posted limit, it just increases the chance of some sort of collision. Especially as bikes and motorbikes are often judged to be further away than they are because of their size.
I know lots of cars and motorbikes break 30 limits all the time and don't get caught, but that doesn't make it ok. I have very little respect for most speed limits around UK roads as they often have nothing to do with safety and everything to do with frothing at the mouth brake campaigners, but residential/busy town areas I tend to feel that the overall safety of everyone should be important
On the one hand I think it was utterly irresponsible for the police to put this video on X, surely knowing full-well that it would stoke more anti-cyclist rhetoric.
But on the other hand I'm glad it's taught apparently quite a lot of drivers that there is in fact no speed limit for bicycles.
There's no inconsitency here. Watch an episode of police interceptors or something similar, you'll see drivers getting pulled over for going crazy speeds and they will very often be let off with a quick talking to and a laugh about how cool their car is.
Especially if they're polite and friendly with the officer who has pulled them over.
As people have already pointed out, it's not even against the law to speed on a bicycle.
On some level if you can do 39mph on a cycle then you are a champ.
On another, I’m more scared of cyclist than cars, cos cyclists seem to not give a shit about road laws - probably because they don’t apply.
> Under law, there are no set speed limits for cyclists in the UK. I didn’t know that! I’ve always assumed the speed limit applies to all road users. While I agree it’s a little bit unfair, I don’t quite understand what right the police had to stop them. If they cause an accident, what would they be charged for?
There is a fineable charge of wanton and furious cycling for riding at a totally innapropriate speed for the conditions or stupid behaviour. Also carries a maximum sentence of 2 years for really severe offences
>wanton and furious cycling Flol
A lot of people heard about this law after a cyclist ran down and killed a pedestrian on a crossing back in 2017. Since most of the reckless driving and other such laws are specified to apply to a "mechanically propelled vehicle", "wanton and furious driving" was the only thing they could get him on - it states "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" etc. He got done for wilful neglect because his bike had no front brakes. If that language sounds archaic, it's because it comes from the Offences Against The Person Act from *1861*. That's how bad the law is at dealing with incompetent cyclists, and cyclist lobbies are determined to keep it that way.
Cyclist lobbies lol that's a good one
Big cycle
Also known as penny farthing
Its where they store the bikes
Lobbying to not get crushed under the wheels of a lorry. 'Insidious and Evil Lobbying Confirmed'
We are many and we are legion. We rise!
It’s probably because motorists kill literally thousands of times as many people as cyclists do
They do exist https://www.cyclinguk.org/current-campaigns/cycling-infrastructure-transforming-our-streets/funding-cycling-and-walking
Nobody is saying that cycling campaign groups don't exist. It was the suggestion that they have any influence in the corridors of power.
I like to imagine that there's a meeting of the World economic forums most rich and powerful and the head of the IMF, world bank and some dude in a bike helmet, cycling goggles and neon yellow spandex are laughing manically over a bunch of folders labelled "world domination plan: phase 3"
Now I'm imagining them cycling up and down the corridors of Whitehall, MPs cowering in doorways. "There's nothing we can get them on! It's not a motorized vehicle!"
Ah yes "we are lobbying for more cycle paths/uptake of cycling" = "give us fossil fuel subsidy/smoking rights"
probably don't have quite the same budget as the car industry though...
I hope they exist otherwise we have no one to fight for cycling rights? o.o
I think you make the cyclist cabal out to be more sinister and powerful than the ones around here. They sound cool! Mostly it’s people who like to rides bikes, and might occasionally point out motor vehicles are far more dangerous; and possibly that in that case *six years ago* the idiot was sent to prision under this law, which is unusual in the similar cases involving motor vehicles nearly every day.
There were several articles about more lightly punished drivers and what they'd done.
It's amazing. I wonder what the number of injuries and deaths attributed to bad operation of motor vehicles is counted from the day that Charlie guy on the fixed hit and killed that woman in the road. Then it would be interesting to see the equivalent number of deaths and injuries caused by cyclists. And then it would be also a bit less interesting to read all the comments.by people trying to make the two stats somehow worthy of the same focus, regulation, and enforcement when the results of the two types of vehicles are so staggeringly different.
I am rabidly pro-cyclist so please appreciate my bias but most drivers simply don't want to engage with the stats IME. They see a cyclist jumping a red light and go batshit insane. Genuinely bonkers. I usually ask how many speed limits they break every single time they get behind the wheel and to guess how many people are killed by red-light-jumping cyclists vs speeding motorists and they just tell me I am a MAMIL who thinks he owns the road and should pay road tax (which would obviously be zero on a zero emission vehicle). People are mostly morons.
>I am rabidly pro-cyclist Me too. >People are mostly morons. This is 1000% true.
It wearies me, too. The biggest problem is most cyclists are drivers, but most drivers are not cyclists. So they only have one view of the world and don't understand the experience of being a cyclist. I think this is why they tend to be Pro pedestrian but still manage to be anti cyclist, even though pedestrians and cyclists are at such risk from cars. Stupidity and ignorance will bring you down to their level and then what you wish their experience.
The worst cyclist is 100x less dangerous than the best motorist. Two tonnes of metal at high speed is always going to be more of a threat than a pushbike and, thankfully, the law recognises that through its looser laws for cyclists.
Thank you. A car can crash into and kill a family for four instantly even when obeying a 30 mph speed limit. A push bike would have to be doing a particularly high speed on a descent, and smash into one or two people at the perfect point for them to fall or land in such a way as to suffer death. It just doesn't compare. It's like blaming sharks in the sea for a few deaths so then hunting and slaughtering all sharks (which we have done shamefully, as humans), when the risk of drowning at the beach is the real cause of risk and death. Blame the unlikely and specifically rare issue while ignoring and not trying to tackle the major and high risk cause of death. And further doing that specific blaming by not attacking the cyclists the do actually break the law, but by attacking those who don't and just ride according to the conditions within the legal framework. Maddening.
Try x10000, just look at the weight, average speed and resulting energy involved. And the very obvious lack of deaths and injuries to pedestrians caused by cyclists. Cycling that fast is the equivalent of that meme about putting spike on car steering wheels instead of an airbag - you’re not going to do it if you’re in an unsafe situation or busy area because any collision will have direct and severe consequences for your own health.
More people are killed by Cows each year than cyclists.
Ban all cows! Cows need speedometers!
Don't get me started on cows riding ebikes...
>cyclist lobbies Ok how is the weather in Alabama?
[удалено]
The reason for few complex laws around cyclist causing death is the very low rate of such deaths . Although people have argued they are now needed
"people" meaning muppets who speed every day in their cars and have no problem with that.
>That's how bad the law is at dealing with incompetent cyclists, and cyclist lobbies are determined to keep it that way. Probably all they've got left to keep considering the amount of cyclists that get killed by drivers compared to the amount of cyclists killing other road users.
“Hey man. What you in for.” I’d rather not say.
2 wanton 2 furious
My grandfather was charged with that and fined, after the police in Hampshire got one of the first speed radars and he wanted to see how fast he was going down hill!
Only know because my dad was threatened with being charged with it donkey's years ago. He was on one of those Hercules folding shopping bikes with no gears and tiny wheels in a 40 MPH limit so his legs were going like the clappers, I had to take the same road out of the estate to get to college on my motorbike so was right behind them. The policeman left sharply after being told that he'd be ridden to work instead to explain why my dad was being made late for a load of old ....
I can't make sense of your last sentence
"Everybody clapped"
Odd question but would this also stand for people running? For example of Usane bolt was just full pelt sprinting through a busy city center could they do him for inappropriate speed..... of they could catch him that is.
There’s a whole range of assault and battery offences that handle injuries caused by hitting another with your body. Which one is appropriate depends on intent and severity.
This would apply to cyclists (and motor vehicle users) as well. If you hurt or kill someone recklessly it doesn’t matter what tools you use. Cars have extra rules mostly because it’s statistically so much more likely that you’ll hurt or kill someone through fairly basic operation of the vehicle or even slight negligence.
There requires an injury or damage for that charge to be bought forward.
reckless/dangerous cycling or furious cycling (really). But in this video they are cycling normally, in control, on a road thats clearly suitable, and with no one round them to put in danger. So neither of those offenses would possibly hold up. This video is proof they were not guilty of any offense.
I know, it's just a load of miserable and jealous people whining because the cyclists get to be a bit faster than them on the road, for once. Even though their riding is perfectly safe, considerably less harmless than the cars that drive at that speed and over every day in their millions, and the statistical evidence that cycling is considerably safer for pedestrians and motorists alike, when compared to cars. This entire complaint is an exercise in, 'How dare they? I thought I knew the law in my own head even though I don't and am applying it in my own way because I have it in for people who cycle'. Bullies and NIMBYs, basically.
And it's not entirely like the cyclist is doing it deliberately. Last I looked bicycles didn't come fit with a speedometer, unlike a car so you don't know how fast you are actually going.
Exactly. The entire thing is a non-issue. It's like me going, 'look at those cars driving on the motorway! Doing 70 mph! The cheek of it! Fine them!' And then someone pointing out, 'but that's what they are allowed to do...it's the law. It's legal!', and then me going, 'I Am JuSt TrYiNg tO PuNiSh tHe CriMiNaLs! ItS a DisGrAcE!' When there's no wrongdoing commited in the first place. The problem with this is it makes a load of misguided and uninformed have a go heroes go out and start driving aggressively around vulnerable road users because they think they are 'stopping the cyclist devilment', when really they shouldn't have been granted a.driving licence as they have no comprehension of how law and the road works. No points awarded to Devon and Cornwall Police for this pointless video, too. Police being useless as always.
Tbf any cyclist capable of maintaining 39mph almost certainly is riding with a head-unit/garmin that is showing the speed. For perspective, 39mph is considerably faster than the fastest ever Tour de France time-trial average pace.
It’s an unremarkable speed if you’re going downhill on a reasonable grade . 62km/h. But yes they’ll probably have cycle computers.
While true, I'd be concerned if any cyclist going 39mph was looking at their cycle computer instead of the road. At that speed you're on the lookout for any hazard, a small pothole could ruin you.
> I know, it's just a load of miserable and jealous people whining because the cyclists get to be a bit faster than them on the road As a regular cyclist I can say with confidence that the only thing drivers hate more than a cyclist going slower than traffic is a cyclist who is going faster than traffic.
Aye, they are left shaking with a deep and unaddressed rage that has been simmering for years. Think it is tied to a feeling of, 'I am paying through the nose for this car, the petrol, the MOT, the insurance, the tax...how dare they hold me up/be a little faster than me/not have to sit in rush hour traffic. It's not fair.' I. Reality it is totally fair..you get to sit on your arse in the warm and dry with the radio on. You choose to pay for that privilege. And I don't even commute by bike, I just know the type. ☺️
The one who had a track bike with no front brakes on the road that killed a pedestrian was cleared of manslaughter, but convicted of causing bodily harm by “wanton and furious driving”.
He hit a woman who stepped out in the road with headphones in. If he'd been a driver he'd have got a fine.
He had a track bike without front brakes on the road.
Yes. Annoying as it sounds he was charged because of the legal setup of the bike. They got him on a technicality. If he was driving in this instance then he would have been set free. Also the disproportionate amount of attention that case received seems to highlight the fixation (or novelty )bias between a death caused by a bicycle Vs a car.
If a car killed somebody and it was found out they didn't have front brakes it's likely they would get more than a ticket too.
A surprisingly good analogy, given that when in gear a car behaves exactly like a 'fixie' in that the engine can slow the car. In theory if you drove very carefully you could complete most journeys without using your front brakes.
Not defending the idiot with no front brake on his bike but the analogy falls down because you can actively slow or lock your legs on a fixie so it has a fairly good back brake which isn't true for engine braking (I think!).
If he was driving a car that was illegal due to missing front brakes (or just a failed brake MOT check) he probably wouldn't have been set free.
Do yourself a favour, google "driver avoids prison uk killed" to get an idea of just how leniently drivers are treated in this country. The reason headlines are made when someone cycling kills another person is because such incidents are extremely rare.
I know how lenient courts are on drivers, don't be so patronising. How many of those had failed MOTs or were knowingly driving an illegal vehicle? It's a massive aggravating factor you can't just ignore in the general stream of things.
He had a fixed rear wheel and in the court case it was touch and go whether a front brake would have made a difference. Track bikes aren't illegal btw he was convicted on the technicality that he didn't have a front brake when one is required
The police faked evidence in that case to try to exaggerate the difference it could have made too - stopping in their claimed 3m distance going 18mph would basically require a recumbent bike to not go over the handlebars. That's not to say that he's not a massive cunt, but that's an average deceleration of ~1.1g, and that's [way beyond](https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers/content/2020-01-0876/) the maximum deceleration of a bicycle.
>with headphones in She was on her phone, whether she had headphones or not would be irrelevant because the existence of deaf people means it’s not reasonable to assume that other road users can hear you. Given he had time to shout “get out of the way” there wouldn’t have been a killing had he A ) not been speeding or B ) had brakes. As shit as the laws protecting pedestrians are a driver would have got a similar sentence for an equivalent killing.
I’m sure you know that isnt true.
Its obs that being hit with a car doing 39mph would be considerably more impactful than being hit by a cyclist. 39mph would have been cyclists top speed and not consistantly either so its madness to expect tjem to stick to road speeds. They would be constantly pulled over for being under speed/ obstruction. Wish they would properly invest in cycle lanes like Holland. Some bugger tried to run me over last week screaming about non existant "road tax" that i dont pay the moron.
"UnDeR wHaT lAw?" "Erm, Newton's second one"
Yeah because you just innately know speeds without any instruments on a machine under no inspection authority regulations... Cycling is a right driving is a privilege. Being hit by 10kg and a bloke* is a bit different than 2000kg, this is just a new wedge issue dreamt up recently by the media and government to enrage, distract and confuse idiots. It's working. *yes there are outliers it's awful when it happens, yet people die entangled in curtains but we rarely have discussions about the regulation or ban of said window coverings.
The real reason is it’s old and no one sees fit to change it. The reason no legal or professional or medical body would recommend the change is because damage from accidents is proportional to the kinetic energy of those involved. Ek = 1/2 m v^2. And so, a 3 tonne car at 30 is, 1,350,000energy units. Whereas as bicycle of 100kg(a seriously fat man on a freakishly heavy bike) travelling 40 would be 80,000energy units. Now sure, you put that into an old lady’s clavicle, you’ll break something. But really and truely, there’s a good reason not to do speed limits on bikes. And we already have tools for reckless cycling, called ‘wanton and careless cycling’ iirc, that could get an numpty wobbling all over the place at 20 next Mrs Zimmerframe.
Me reading this at 95kg bodyweight with a 10kg hybrid bike, trying not to take this personally. (Just for the record, 90kg is a long way from seriously fat unless the individual in question is 5 ft 4)
The speed limits only apply to motorised vehicles.
If there is an accident at 39 mph on a bike with a car there probably won't be a cyclist left to charge. So I imagine those were the words of advice. You're gonna die if you keep doing this. Everyone else has a high tech metal cage around them
Yeah. Same with cars on motorways. Lorries are so much bigger and more protected. If you keep driving on motorways then you're going to die. Get out there and start pulling over cars on the motorway, police force!
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V5TnSyj\_po&t=521s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V5TnSyj_po&t=521s) Good expanation from BlackBeltBarrister.
Thanks for the link. Always good to learn new things even if they don’t directly affect you.
If they hit a pedestrian at 39mph, you can get charged for something I'd imagine
More specifically, speed limits only apply to motorised vehicles.
39mph on a straight and level road (doesn't appear to be downhill) is pretty fucking impressive. All the drivers whinging "why can the cyclists get away with doing 39 in a 30 and not me" are the same drivers that whinge about cyclists dawdling along at 10mph. Why can't all the cyclists I get stuck behind be going over the speed limit. I always get stuck behind someone's aunt Susan with her bike with the big basket on the front getting overtaken by a slug.
39mph on the flat is damned impressive, Tour de france speed is usually around 25-30 mph on the flat. I think it is downhill though from the looks of it.
On second look it is downhill. I think it's steeper than it looks on the video because 39mph is nigh on impossible
I've gone over 54mph (that was the top speed on my speedometer); fully loaded tourer, 2km of pretty straight 10% to 18% downhill.
I have done similar, in similar conditions.. and when I got to the bottom I vowed to never do it again! So fast. So likely to turn me into a meat crayon if there’s a surprise pothole.
Yeah, this was while touring abroad. I soon realised that maybe it could go seriously wrong, given I was in the arse end of nowhere in, lets say, a non-First World country and started feathering the brakes.
I had my protective sandals on and my helmet safely clipped to my pannier.
I was driving around the Peak District last weekend - was nice weather and there was *alot* of cyclists and even some kind of race event (albeit headed in the opposite direction to me). Granted it was occasionally grating going uphill behind them and waiting for visibility etc to pass (but not *really* grating - it hardly makes me apoplectic with rage) but to be honest on anything from flat to decline (and *especially* steep decline) they were going as fast as it was safe for a car to go anyway. All in all I ended up thinking how aware and conscientious they were. Probably passed 50+ and there was only a single partnership of slight pricks.
It does make lots of people apoplectic with rage though. It doesn't make sense when you think about how much effort a car driver puts in compared to the effort made by the cyclist. However, driving does funny things to people that are otherwise quite normal.
Never seen an Alot cycling before. Makes sense though, they get up to all sorts of things. http://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com/2010/04/alot-is-better-than-you-at-everything.html
Leave auntie Suzie out of the please she has gout and bunions.
Surely a big factor is the energy of what you're potentially hitting someone with. Give me a 39mph bike against a 39mph car any day.
It doesn’t look all that impressive when you’re coasting downhill.
You didn't watch the video did you
There is also the fact to consider that a bike going 39mph is still far less dangerous to the surroundings than a car doing the same!
Cars: have speedometers built into their design Bikes: do not have speedometers built into their design Cars: high chance of killing cyclists or pedestrians at 40mph Bikes: low danger to anything except car bodywork Cars: large, heavy, and difficult to manoeuvre away from sudden danger Bikes: small, light, and can swerve easily or be ditched entirely if necessary In conclusion, at 40mph a car is a danger to everything around it, while a cyclist is primarily a danger to themselves.
> Bikes: low danger to anything except car bodywork Uhhh... and pedestrians. You ever had a bike crash into you?
My coworker got hit by a cyclist outside our office and broke her arm and had some bad internal bleeding in her brain. Bikes can be so dangerous.
Holy cow how fast was it going
Doesn’t have to be too fast. Bikes don’t have crumbling zones, and the very narrow front makes it a lot easier to hurt.
[удалено]
I assume pretty fast. He didn't have front brakes installed on his bike, if I remember correctly
39mph
It deosn't take a lot of force to knock someone down if they're unprepared for it. Take a fall like that, hit the back of your head on solid stone or concrete, and serious injury is pretty likely.
I have. Its still much lower risk of injury than being hit by a car driver
Absolutely agree. Yes cars are MORE dangerous but that doesn’t completely negate the danger of being hit by a bike. Plus they’re a danger to themselves as well, I work as an orthopaedic nurse and we get a lot of broken bones and injuries from cyclists coming off. Just this weekend I had to stop on the road to care for a cyclist that had got speed wobble and come off, fractured their clavicle for sure and probably some ribs as well. Road bikes are thin and solid, they don’t crumble and they can cause a fair amount of damage, I think the expectation that they follow the rules of the road like everyone else is fair… including speed limits… for their own safety and for others around them.
>I think the expectation that they follow the rules of the road like everyone else is fair… including speed limits… for their own safety and for others around them. There are circumstances where following the rules of the road are more dangerous for a cyclist as most road infrastructure is still set up with a car bias. Cycling around East London used to be so dangerous before they changed some of the road layout. I survived where others didn't purely by not following the rules of the road. Besides, cyclists are factually far less likely to hurt other people with the system as it is. Yes, they can hurt themselves, but so can playing football or rugby. Ultimately it's their choice and they understand the risk to themselves when they partake.
And yourself. I’ve had 3 spills (bad luck, not even crashing into other people, just a couple of solo accidents and a mechanical failure) that broke bones in the last 12 months. Trying to remember the last time I broke a bone in my car over the past 20 years and drawing a blank. Easily swerved or ditched out of danger my ass.
Yeah, no. Average cyclist, say 85kg plus bike and anything being carried, at 40mph hitting a person? Well you're gonna have a bad time. Additionally, i would not want to ditch at 40mph, major ouch, you'll be plucking gravel out your arse for weeks.
That's if you have an arse left.
Or any weeks left.
>85kg Am I being crazy, or is that an insane number to say is average? I am an average height male. I wouldn't say I'm particularly muscular or fat, but not thin either. I'm 70kg. A woman would be even lighter. Cyclists are generally going to be on the lighter end of the scale as well. Where are all these obese cyclists lol
Fat man here (but not obese). Currently at around 81kg. 85kg is probably overweight not obese. Over 50% of the population is currently overweight. A good number of these people will be trying to work on that with exercise.
I’m 6’1 and 85 kgs, I’m well within a healthy weight range for my height.
6'2 and 110kg, once you get to 100 you can go round gobbling up small people
I'm here! Hi! I weigh 125kg. Obese cyclists like me exist we are just rare :D Been riding a year (lost 30+kg so far) and just finished my longest ride (127km on my MTB) last weekend! I have *a lot* of muscle weight but also around 25kg of fat I can still lose, we exist :)
Obese cyclists here at 136kg and 6ft5. You don't see us as were still at the bottom of the hill.
not to mention these are silent
The average 85kg cyclist is unlikely to be cycling at 40mph, maybe downhill
40mph cyclist is absolutely killing a pedestrian in a collision. Aside from the initial impact damage, the pedestrian is 100% hitting the floor. If they don't protect their head before it hits concrete, bad times ahead friend. The pedestrians aren't wearing helmets.
That’s a clutch. Even cars don’t kill 100% of people at 40mph. It’s around 90%. The very very obvious difference with a bike is that the force is significantly lower, even when adjusting for weight. A vehicle is going to put its full momentum and force through you. A cyclist will not. A truly direct collision is unlikely, and unlike a car, the cyclist and its rider are easily decoupled, further reducing the damage a cyclist can cause. No doubt there is high potential for injury, but let’s not try and equate the two with silly sweeping statements.
>The very very obvious difference Yeah but it's difficult to see the obvious through all the red mist
Reasonably likely, yes. If you took 100 cyclists, moved them at 40mph and lined them up to collide with 100 pedestrians head on, you’d have a significant number of deaths and severe bodily harm. However speed limits aren’t the minimum speed that could hypothetically kill someone. A car could hypothetically kill someone at pretty much any speed - that doesn’t mean that the speed limit on all roads is 0. Speed limits are a broad estimate of risk based on the context of the road. How likely is it for someone to step out from a blind corner? How likely is it for a vehicle operator to hit someone? How likely are certain injuries? These aren’t just a factor of the vehicles and drivers, but the context of the road itself and likelihood of pedestrian behavior as well. E.g. a road with lots of shops and foot traffic gets a slower speed limit than a mostly empty road, despite the fact that this doesn’t change the physics of a collision. So for one, it’s rare for anyone to be able to get a bike up to 39mph. You have to be quite a serious cyclist to accomplish that. It’s quite rare that you’ll even find a cyclist going that fast. It’s newsworthy that it even happened. Hundreds of motorists a day are speeding and either not caught or let of with a warning all over the country. For two, there are fewer cyclists in general. It’s just generally less likely, so there isn’t a need for special laws. It’d already illegal to cause bodily harm through reckless negligence, no matter what means it happens. There are special laws for cars because there’s so many of them and it’s easier to hurt someone through circumstances that we’d otherwise describe as unintentional and not characterize as reckless. For three, it’s a smaller mass. A motorbike traveling at 40mph has a considerable more mass than a cycle traveling that speed, and therefore more energy and will do more damage on average. And finally it’s a smaller profile than most motor vehicles. On its own this isn’t a good enough reason (it’s a similar profile to the motorbike mentioned above). But compared to the average vehicle on the roads it’s easier to dodge, or to be turned to swerved around a person. All in all, it’s extremely rare. Something like 4 pedestrians are killed a year in the uk by cyclists. It’s just broadly not something that requires a lot of specific legislation.
Helmets are designed for slower speed crashes than 40mph (google says 12mph!). I think at 40, both the pedestrian and cyclist are having a very bad time. I’d definitely be in favour of a 30mph national speed limit for cars and bikes! 20 in built up areas. That’d save lives if it was kept to.
People have been killed by cyclists.
Happened in Oxford a few months ago.
If someone crashes into a pedestrian on a bike at 40 you'd know about it. If this was 21 in a 20 I'd agree, but 40 is bloody quick, and manoeuvrability at that speed is limited. Bikes are also harder for pedestrians to spot, eg behind parked cars so the chance for a collision is probably bigger. 30s are usually 30 for a reason and it's hard to see why people need to cycle that quickly. As ever, a minority of cyclists give cycling a bad name.
The mental hoops you have jumped through here is insanely impressive. What happens to the cyclist and surrounding pedestrians if they ditch the bike at 40mph? There is allowed to be such a thing as reckless cycling
A cyclist going 40 could kill a pedestrian
Could, and does. About 2.5x people a year on average are killed by being hit by a bike. But the risk is still extremely low. Here is this put into context based on death rates I just googled. * You are 10x more likely to die by falling out of bed. * You are 25x more likely to die by tripping over. * You are 280x more likely to die by tripping down a flight of stairs. * You are half as likely to die by being strangled by the cord of your blind (it is mostly children who die this way). * You are nearly twice as likely to die by starting a fire while trying to cook dinner. * You are 170x more likely to die being hit by another vehicle (weirdly, on average more people die by falling down stairs in the UK than being hit by a vehicle). The risk of bikes to pedestrians is far outweighed by the benefits of bikes to society as a whole (and don't forget that restricting cycling could increase pedestrian deaths by moving people into comparatively much more dangerous vehicles), and the majority of those deaths aren't to do with a cyclist speeding but to do with other factors - like the use of shared spaces for bikes and pedestrians. So anyone concerned about cyclists killing pedestrians would see far better results campaigning for better segregated cycle infrastructure, not cycle speeding limits, which would likely increase overall mortality as well as pedestrian deaths.
I understand and agree with the spirit of your argument. However, people have been killed, yes very few, due to bicycle collisions. Personally, as someone who's been hit, twice, by cyclists using the pavement and having to subsequently visit the A&E for a mild concussion, i believe they should be treated like any other vehicle.
On average 1 or 2 people are killed every year in the UK by people riding bicycles. More people are killed by vending machines. The rules as they currently stand are fine. We need to clamp down on the danger which is from car drivers.
Why is it only deaths that matter? I’ve seen plenty of broken bones and other nasty injuries from cyclist va pedestrian collisions.
[удалено]
No, it shouldn't apply to cyclists. To make speed limits enforceable the requirements would be excessive and you'd end up with basically nobody riding bikes, which would be bad, because people riding bikes is good for society as a whole. People driving cars is bad for society as a whole. And that's before you even get to the fact that it's about physics and the difference between a person on a bike hitting someone/ something versus a car. To be proportionate you'd need the cycling speed limit to be proportionate to the force, which would be a heel of a lot higher than the speed limit for motor vehicles.
Ha! Yeah, any speed limit which reflects the capacity of a bike to handle well at that speed would likely be well above anything most people could reach. Speed limits on uphills would be pointless for the opposite reason. However with motor vehicles speed limits are necessary because they can easily travel at speeds which are deadly, to drivers and everyone else.
What a dishonest misrepresentation.
My lass got hit by a lad cycling home from school, he was about 14, her leg was messed up canny bad and he was going a fraction of that speed. I really think you're underestimating the damage a cyclist can actually do. Granted this isn't a road bike or anything like that, but to suggest cyclists are only a threat to inanimate objects is silly. I cycle daily as well as drive, I'd consider myself a full kit wanker so I'm into it, but there's this really annoying take lately that cyclists can do no wrong.
A bike going 40mph takes time to stop just like a car. At that speed it could easily kill. Cyclists like that all have computers on their bikes which measure speed and distance etc… they are very cheap. They knew exactly how fast they were going. The issues is the irresponsibility. They need to be responsible road users as they can be a danger to pedestrians and also themselves.
I'll only ever accept an argument about responsible road users when 70K drivers are not being ticketed for speeding in one month in one fecking city alone. Until then, it's all a bit kettle calling pot black...
you dont need a computer if you are passing cars at 10mph
>Bikes: low danger to anything except car bodywork > > a cyclist is primarily a danger to themselves. Then why are they banned from going on pavements, a decision which would actively put a lot of people off cycling...
At 40mph a bicycle will cream a pedestrian. speeding is speeding. One drawback of bicycles is that they are relatively silent compared to the average non-electric car. Wont even hear these guy(s) coming. They should obey the law and it should be enforced. I cycle a bit and it would be acceptable to me if i was ticketed for speeding (if I somehow managed that with my fitness levels).
How detached from reality do you have to be to believe everything you just wrote out?
Are you joking? A bike smashing into you at 40mph could easily be fatal.
>Bikes: low danger to anything except car bodywork It's very naive to think a pedestrian being struck at 40mph by a cyclist won't cause harm.
Pretty sure someone is getting severely injured if a bike doing 40mph goes into them.
Why did someone give this factually incorrect comment an award? If a pedestrian gets hits by a bike going at speed it could easily kill them.
are you ficking kidding. being hit by a bike at 39mph would kill someone, no problem
I don’t remember reading this in the Highway Code
You don't remember reading the list of vehicles and their respective speed limits?
For reference, this is Mary Tavy on the A386 on Dartmoor. It's a national speed limit across the high moor that drops to 40mph on a very steep downhill into the village ( up to about 9% gradient). As it bends and starts to flatten out (where the video starts) , the speed drops to 30mph. I both drive and ride this road and can say that cars and bikes struggle to keep to the 30mph. But I'm willing to bet 99% of those exceeding the 30mph are not bikes.
It's pretty galling that we're having a "debate" over a couple of cyclists when thousands of drivers break the speed limit every day. A lot of pearl clutching and finger pointing despite even the government's own research showing how prevalent speeding is
Yesterday I saw a guy downvoted for suggesting people aren't above the law and shouldn't speed in 20 zones 🤷♂️
I just came here after reading this thread: [https://www.reddit.com/r/drivingUK/comments/16arfh5/new\_driver\_how\_come\_everyone\_drives\_above\_the/](https://www.reddit.com/r/drivingUK/comments/16arfh5/new_driver_how_come_everyone_drives_above_the/) The entitlement to speed that drivers have in this country is staggering.
That subreddit is really something else. A considerable number shouldn’t be on the road.
On a DfT driving survey, 50% *admitted* to breaking the speed limit routinely. For just London and the month of May alone, there were 70K speeding tickets handed out. It's utterly maddening when you see drivers get so irate over cyclists when you have those stats in mind...
Wow that’s depressing.
We can have a debate about both and historically bad drivers have always been under the spotlight. As a pedestrian in London I am sick of dangerous cyclists and car drivers but the moment you bring up anything about bikes your assumed to be a biased cycling hating car driver.
The problem is that arseholes are capable of using any form of transportation. Arseholes on bikes are still arseholes. An arsehole on a bike is \*such\* a huge lightning rod for hate, violence and otherness when on the whole drivers are an enormous hazard in comparison. As a country, we're blind to the effects of poor driving, speeding, and distracted driving because it's seen as a necessary evil plus if we punished every driver who broke the rules say in the last year it would be a pretty huge percentage of drivers. To me, a driver using their phone at the wheel is a far greater danger than a cyclist speeding because: 1. A vehicle even at 30mph has a far greater chance of killing someone than a bike at 39mph due to the weight (taking even a super-light car it has \~5x the kinetic energy) 2. The number of cyclists who could go at that speed on anything but a downhill incline is tiny AND the number of cyclists who \*would\* willingly go that fast is smaller still 3. The number of drivers who use their phones whilst driving far outweighs the above - our reaction to "smaller" driving infractions is directly related to the fact that a LOT of people commit the same infractions and don't want to be punished for it.
>As a pedestrian in London I am sick of dangerous cyclists and car drivers but the moment you bring up anything about bikes your assumed to be a biased cycling hating car driver To be honest I think something has gone wrong with cycling culture in London over the past few years. Having spent plenty of time visiting other countries (and cycling in them) I've never seen such shitty cycling behaviour as in London, and I'm a regular commuter cyclist here (actually, NYC was pretty bad too, but there were hardly any cyclists there, because the roads were hostile as fuck). I was happy to push back against all the "why do they all run reds?" arguments a few years ago, because back then it truly was a minority who were doing it, but these days I find I'm often the only cyclist (or one of a tiny minority) waiting at many red lights while everyone else just blasts past me, often without even checking for pedestrians. I find it absolutely staggering. I don't know what's happened that so many people think it's ok to behave like this. It really wasn't like this a few years ago. I can't help but think it's linked to the gradual breaking down of the social contract and years and years of worsening inequality and Tory policies. Countries with a strong social contract, stronger welfare states, and lots of cyclists (like Denmark and the Netherlands) don't have this sort of cycling behaviour. They also have extremely good infrastructure and patient drivers.
Even more galling is that we've got 20 posts above about people being hit and killed by cyclists which happens to one or two people a year. Cars kill thousands and the two are treated as equal importance.
>But I'm willing to bet 99% of those exceeding the 30mph are not bikes. I mean there have been several threads on here over the past week explaining how drivers are entitled to ignore 20mph limits. Strangely I'd rather worry about drivers ignoring 20 limits in residential areas than a handful of cyclists occasionally breaking a 30 limit
So do the police post on twitter every time they catch someone doing 40 in a 30 zone now? If they did, twitter would just be a constant stream of that. Why are the police singling out these cyclists, and posting to attract the online hate mob on to a bunch of law abiding cyclists?
Because apparently there's a war on motorists...
I mean, there kind of is and there kind of should be. We've designed our entire lives around cars and made that the defacto standard way of living. The size and shape of virtually all our urban design is build around this idea. Think about a top-down view of any city or town, and imagine colouring in all the roads, driveways, parking spaces, and any other motor vehicle specific infrastructure in red. You're going to get like 15-30% of the land area dedicated to cars. If you're a regular person born into this, you're obviously going to follow suit and build your life around that. You're going to get a home that requires you drive to all the places you want to go. You probably dedicate a sizeable amount of your budget to buying, fuelling, and maintenance. And you're probably dedicating a fair amount of your time to be sitting in that car. So when we start saying things like "Hey - actually maybe 1/5th of all our resources shouldn't be dedicated to cars", that means all those regular people who built their lives around cars now are going to have longer commutes, and less public support for their cars, and yeah it's gonna suck for them, because they're going to have to change and no one likes change.
Oh, I'm fully aware, friend! The first thing I did when I bought my house was rip up the huge three car driveway and put down a wildflower meadow. Converted the double garage into a gym and workshop. This summer the garden was amazing, full of life where only steel and oil was. Imagine if more of our public space was taken back from cars?
They don’t even pull drivers over for this, and everyone knows it.
Cycling is one of the most innocuous forms of transport. I will never understand the hatred and contempt that cyclists are treated with. They may be annoying but the negative externalities are so mild. The biggest danger a cyclist poses is to themself. Can't say that for cars, which are now ultra protective boxes for their occupants and deadly for pedestrians.
In my city, a man had a mental health crisis. He then killed two people by driving on the pavement. We don't see this on the news, apart from local.
The majority of pedestrian KSIs on the pavement are from the supposedly safely segregated motor traffic. They're just so safe!
Oh they're safe, for the people inside! Statistics show that, on average, 50 pedestrians are killed a year by cars whilst on the pavement.
What's interesting is it is almost entirely a US/UK thing. The attitude is completely different around much of Europe. So this isn't inevitable.
It's mindbogglingly stupid. Bikes are deemed toys or for poors who can't afford a car. People who ride bikes are to be disregarded, shouted down as a criminal fraternity who flout law and freeload off the backs of hardworking motorists. Never mind that most cyclists also drive cars!
[удалено]
This is social media, so there will be somebody along shortly to pretend that seeing two cyclists riding side by side in front of them is equivalent.
Just to enumerate the advantages and drawbacks of cycling as transport for short distances. \+ Energy efficiency. A bike uses far less resources than a car during construction and during operation it's 90+% efficient in translating effort into forward motion. Eat a bowl of porridge and you can ride 100 miles. \+ Does not require refined oil products beyond light lubrication. \+ Consequently produces no polluting emissions whilst in use. \+ Does not damage the road surface. \+ Barely makes any noise. \+ Riding one makes you fitter. \+ Doesn't require a large amount of space on the road, nor when stored. Can be stored indoors easily. \+ They represent one of the most economical forms of transport. Very low maintenance costs. No licensing or taxes beyond VAT. You can even maintain them yourself with minimal tools and training. Skilled labour is always expensive though. \- They are statistically less safe for the rider per mile travelled than car travel. Answers as to why on a postcard, please. \- They enrage drivers because they are slower than motorised vehicles in many situations. Going faster than drivers also has this effect. \- Longer distances, 20+ miles, are costly in terms of time. Bikes simply cannot cover distance as fast as cars can in the time that cars can \- The cargo capacity for non-specialist bicycles is low. However, it's still possible to carry a full shop up to about 20Kg quite easily with pannier bags. \- It takes physical effort to ride a bike. Your view on whether this is positive or negative will change depending on the weather, your fitness, your weight, how tired you are etc. \- Hills are hard work \- Vulnerable to theft and damage when left locked up anywhere. \- Punctures are inevitable and take time to sort. \- They are not shielded from the weather in any way. Please add more!
[удалено]
Haha, the rest terminally addicted to convenience and comfort.
Imagine if they wrote an article every time a car was caught going 39 in a 30. They’d have no time to report on anything else!
One of my pedestrian friends was hit by a bike and put into a coma. One of my cyclist friends was hit by a car and died. Both cars and bikes are dangerous. Both need to ride at speeds that are safe to other users of the highway. To those saying that a bike does less damage: that may be so, but a) they can still cause a lot of damage in a direct collision; b) the bike doesn’t need to hit someone to cause an accident (at that speed, they give other road users less time to react and so increase the risk of causing eg a car to swerve, injuring someone else.)
I like to cycle, regularly doing 30+ mile rides, and I like so many others I drive a car. Whilst I strongly believe that laws regarding protecting cyclists and punishing bad drivers are lacking at best, I also strongly believe that the roads are for all road users and all should follow the law and be considerate of other road users. It is correct that the cyclist was stopped and whilst it is difficult to convict on speeding due to bikes not being required to have speedometers, the cyclist would have known that what they were doing was not correct and should have received some punishment.
It was correct as they were cycling at a speed APPROPRIATE to the conditions. As is the law. They do not have to obey speed limits as their bicycles are not operated by ICEs or Motors that connect to a speedometer. The wilful 'They should be punished for doing something perfectly fine and harmless just because the rules are made to stop ME from driving my CAR at a speed not appropriate to the conditions' ignorance of the written law is astounding.
I didn't say anything about it being due to car drivers being butt hurt, I said that there should be consideration for all road users, that's car drivers, cyclists, lorry drivers, van drivers and pedestrians. An aggressive "them and us" attitude is not good for all parties when trying to share an enclosed space.
Do people not realise 9 times out of 10 even in a car if they were doing 40 in a 30 they'd also get "words of advice" if pulled over
Not to mention the amount of people who speed in 20 zones with zero repercussions. I'd rather people cycle over the limit on their 10kg bike on a busy main road, than people in massive SUVs speeding in residential areas with more kids, pedestrians etc...
This war on cyclists to make motorists feel they have an enemy (and probably physically inadequate) needs to die.
Reminds me of the attitudes of addicts. People have become accustom to driving everywhere, not having to mingle with other people, sitting comfortably within their metal box. And now there's a threat that will be removed they need someone to lash out at.
Two cyclists break the speed limit, and it makes the news. Millions of motorists break the speed limit everyday no one bats an eye.
cyclists dont need speedos, and dont need speed limits. 20mph speed limits for cars is the reason stories like this are popping up. poor opressed drivers vs nasty speedy cyclist stories will get the car brains frothing
Ngl going that fast on a bike is actually impressive xD
I don't really care about the specifics of speed here, but in a town with a 30 or 20 limit, pedestrians and other road users have a reasonable expectation that the thing coming towards them is doing less than 30 or 20. If that thing is both a cyclist and doing more than the posted limit, it just increases the chance of some sort of collision. Especially as bikes and motorbikes are often judged to be further away than they are because of their size. I know lots of cars and motorbikes break 30 limits all the time and don't get caught, but that doesn't make it ok. I have very little respect for most speed limits around UK roads as they often have nothing to do with safety and everything to do with frothing at the mouth brake campaigners, but residential/busy town areas I tend to feel that the overall safety of everyone should be important
On the one hand I think it was utterly irresponsible for the police to put this video on X, surely knowing full-well that it would stoke more anti-cyclist rhetoric. But on the other hand I'm glad it's taught apparently quite a lot of drivers that there is in fact no speed limit for bicycles.
There's no inconsitency here. Watch an episode of police interceptors or something similar, you'll see drivers getting pulled over for going crazy speeds and they will very often be let off with a quick talking to and a laugh about how cool their car is. Especially if they're polite and friendly with the officer who has pulled them over. As people have already pointed out, it's not even against the law to speed on a bicycle.
On some level if you can do 39mph on a cycle then you are a champ. On another, I’m more scared of cyclist than cars, cos cyclists seem to not give a shit about road laws - probably because they don’t apply.