[Closed] Speed cameras and bikes

You can't be prosecuted for speeding
So forget about any cameras

In theory, you can be done if you're riding in a dangerous manner

pulls me in his jam sandwich

Complain.

In theory, you can be done if you're riding in a dangerous manner

I think the usual suggestion is that if you're caught over the speed limit they will say it was dangerous because of the speed and get you that way anyway. But they'd actually have to see you doing it.

I was asked to sit in the back of a police car after "speeding" on my bike. They just gave a bit of a verbal warning about careless/reckless bike riding and sent me on my way. I had allegedly hit about 50 on my road bike in a 30zone in a village...they couldn't keep up and stopped me on the next hill.

pulls me in his jam sandwich
Complain.

Or tip him.

I seriously doubt a policeman would be able to do you for speeding on the basis that a camera flashed as you passed it. Even in a car the fact the camera flashed is not proof of speeding, only the review of the photos afterwards will be enough to proceed with a prosecution. I would imagine you probably would be pulled for a patronising warning about the dangers of riding quickly on bikes.

You could be charged with careless or reckless cycling which actually have a higher maximum fine (£1000 and £2500) than for motorists although with the later you get points too adding to the financial sting.
In reality most likely nothing as it would be the camera operators who would have the resources to track you down. I would add an exception to that if it was very busy area with other road uses, schools and pedestrians when they may wish to make an example out of you.

Years ago,when I was about 14, i went down the hill into town full pelt. At the bottom was a copper with a radar gun. As I approached him he stepped out into the road and stopped me. I thought I was going to get a rollicking. He was well impressed that I'd hit 38 on my bike.
He asked if I wanted to go again and see if I could top 40. I declined.

In reality most likely nothing as it would be the camera operators who would have the resources to track you down.

I've thought about putting my address on a sign on the back of my bike along with the radar reflector so they send me the photos when I attempt to set off a camera. There is no risk of prosecution, as the photos alone would be insufficient evidence for anything other than the laws about exceeding the speed limit they are in place for.

Crap, deleted post.

Oh well. I thought the charge was furious cycling?

I think after the morning I've had I'd get done for that if I got on my bike this morning, regardless of the speed.

they couldn't keep up and stopped me on the next hill.

So if I do fifty I can outrun a police car? Bank jobs just became sssoooo much easier!

There's a great big hill down into Kidsgrove with a speed camera on, always try and trigger it if I'm going that way, haven't managed to do so yet. There was a strava segment through it but it was banned as dangerous!

I'm not convinced that speeding though a built-up area, by any means, is something to boast about.

This is worth a watch to prove it can be done.

I find you need to have two cyclists riding abreast to trip a speed camera.

Usual hypocritical stance. If it is deemed dangerous to drive above 30 of course it must be safe to go faster on a bike just because it is harder to catch us.

🙄

Well it is clearly a lot safer (for other road users) doing 35 on a bike than in a car.

Of course we're also talking about going fast past speed cameras, which tend to be placed in locations where it's easy to go fast safely 😈

rode past a copper with a handheld radar gun a few years back as I was climbing up a hill, said I might see him later if he was still around and see if I could beat the limit. An hour later I bombed down and passed him, he chuckled and gave me a thumbs up. I should have gone back and asked how much I'd beaten it by.

I can see a national underground 'strava-esque' sport starting, speed camera triggering on bike. Sounds ace.

I'm not convinced that speeding though a built-up area, by any means, is something to boast about.

Well it is clearly a lot safer (for other road users) doing 35 on a bike than in a car.

Balls. Modern cars are designed to be as crash friendly to pedestrians as possible, and can stop in a distance a bicycle couldn't hope to get near.

Then explain why cyclists hardly ever kill pedestrians in collisions, whereas motorists do every day.

KE = 0.5m*v^2.

You're better off stepping in front of the car.

Tell you what I'll step in front of the bike, you step in front of the car.

Just to help you with your frothing, I used to have KOM on a Strava segment in my village at an average of 35mph (have now been beaten by 1s, so need to try and get it back).

I like the idea of getting a speeding ticket for my bike 😀

You can get 50mph coming down Dunmail Raise into the 30 limit in Grasmere

More seriously, drivers are way too unobservant these days to risk it - even if you can ride at 30 in a 30 limit, I avoid it now as the liklihood of getting a driver pull out on me feels too high, and there's no way I'd stop in time...

Then explain why cyclists hardly ever kill pedestrians in collisions, whereas motorists do every day.

KE = 0.5m*v^2.

Serious question? Because cyclists very very very rarely actually do 35mph. In this thread we're not talking about the typical harmless and useful UK cycle use of 5-10mph tootling to work in your office clothes with the saddle at the wrong height and etc etc, for which I have nothing but good feelings and which kills no-one.

Serious question? Because cyclists very very very rarely actually do 35mph.

And the ones that do, don't kill anyone. So why are you getting on your high horse about something that doesn't appear to be harmful?

p.s. A car travelling at 30mph has more than 10 times the kinetic energy of a cyclist travelling at 35mph. If I had to stand in front of one, I know what I'd choose.

This is obviously the same argument we have over speeding cars. If I don't hurt anyone it is de facto OK to do it.

Then we wonder why we don't get taken seriously.

If a car driver came on here saying how they'd done 90mph when there was no one around, on a clear day and in good conditions, plenty on here would be frothing at the mouth to have a go, and have done.

Either we obey the rules of the road or we don't. If we don't, some discretion might be worthwhile.

I've always wondered if it is possible to fit mini corner reflectors at the end of each spoke to make it easier to trip speed cameras as the top of the spoke is going at twice the speed of the bike?

This is obviously the same argument we have over speeding cars. If I don't hurt anyone it is de facto OK to do it.

No, the argument is about the potential to hurt someone.

Either we obey the rules of the road or we don't. If we don't, some discretion might be worthwhile.

Either we obey the rules of the road or we don't

I do. In my car I stick to the 30mph speed limit which applies to cars. On my bicycle I stick to the 60mph limit which applies to bicycles.

(strictly speaking the 60mph NSL does apply to bicycles, though I don't think anybody's ever been stopped for that)

[i]Modern cars are designed to be as crash friendly to pedestrians as possible. .. You're better off stepping in front of the car.[/i]

Someone really thinks this??

I'm calling Lee Mack for a scientific test!

I've set off one of those 30 flashing signs before with the aid of a tail wind, never managed to get flashed by a proper camera though.