You are reading a single comment by @Velocio and its replies. Click here to read the full conversation.
  • ^^^ Ooh, that'll be fun. Luckily I expect a sum total of fuck all to come from it other than maybe a temporary increased presence of Parks Police for a few weeks afterwards.

    Someone needs to get a speeding ticket for cycling too fast and then have the balls (and money) to challenge it to see if the law really does limit cyclists to 20mph.

  • In these Regulations– “vehicle” means a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on a road.

    Which is why I linked to: http://road.cc/content/news/95155-are-police-fining-speeding-cyclists-richmond-park-exceeding-their-authority

    "vehicle” means a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on a road."
    Surely, we said, that’s the exact definition of a motor vehicle so the speed limits brought in by that amendment can’t apply to bikes?
    But no, said Ben, because there’s another amendment.
    The definition you refer to was revoked by The Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces (Amendment) (No.2) etc. Regulations 2010, which stated the following:

    1. Regulations 1(2) and 5 to 8 of The Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces (Amendment) etc Regulations 2010(1) are revoked

    As a result, where the Royal Parks regulations refer to a vehicle the defined legal interpretation includes bicycles.

    Yes, it's an amendment to an amendment, but that's the way the law works, with newer bits replacing older bits and the whole creaking edifice keeping lawyers in jobs.

    The article goes on to discuss it further even getting Dr Hutch to cast his legal eye over it.

About

Avatar for Velocio @Velocio started