Zac Goldsmith, Member of Parliament for Richmond Park and North Kingston, will chair a public meeting next month to address cycling within the park and drawing up a code of conduct amid what he describes as “rising tensions” between people who use the space.
Questions are being invited from the public and will be answered by a panel including a senior police officer and London’s cycling champion, Andrew Gilligan.
The meeting will start at 7.30pm on Wednesday 17 December at the Duke St Church in Richmond, and comprises three half-hour sessions. According to an email sent to local residents by Mr Goldsmith, the agenda is:
1. Legal/Enforcement of existing highway and park regulations: To discuss legislation of Highway and Parks, whether this legislation is working and how it can be enforced
2. Physical design solutions for the Park: Can any changes be made to the layout of the park to improve safety for all and increase road capacity?
3. Behavioural change: Improve communications between users of the Park and agree a code of conduct for the Park
The panel that will discuss the issues at the meeting and field questions from the public will be chaired by Mr Goldsmith and besides Mr Gilligan will comprise Simon Richards of Royal Parks, where he is manager of Richmond Park, the Metropolitan Police’s borough commander for Richmond and Sergeant Michael Boulton, whose beat includes parts of the park.
They will be joined by Richmond Councillor Jean Loveland, the borough’s cycling champion, and Councillor Stephen Speak, cabinet member for highways, plus Peter Treadgold and Richard Lewis of Kingston Council’s Mini-Holland programme team.
The agenda looks as though it will try and pack a lot into the one and a half hours.
Just the park regulations themselves are confusing enough when it comes to bicycles, a point illustrated by our story from last year about whether police were within their powers to fine cyclists ‘speeding’ above 20mph.
The short answer? We’re not sure they were, but can’t be 100 per cent certain.
The road.cc reader who alerted us to Mr Goldsmith’s email was one of his constituents, Jon Fray, who expressed particular concern over the second item on the agenda.
He told us: “It seems to me that Zac Goldsmith wants more road capacity for cars. There is already plenty of road capacity for bicycles so it must be capacity for cars he wants. What he seems to have missed is that if there were less capacity for cars (or none at all for through traffic) the park would be a lot safer.”
The third item, regarding the agreement of a code of conduct, also potentially gives rise to concern among the many cyclists of all types who use the park, ranging from weekday commuters to families with children and roadies getting the miles in at the weekend.
There is already a code of conduct in place for shared use pathways within the Royal Parks – there are 17km of those around the perimeter of Richmond Park alone.
The code, which applies to “cyclists, roller skaters, roller bladers, skate boarders and visitors using other foot-propelled devices in designated areas,” says:
• Be considerate – Pedestrians have priority over all other users of pathways and shared pathways, even in areas designated and marked for other purposes. You are asked to use these pathways considerately. Other users may not be aware of you, please remember this when passing.
• Be safe – We recommend you wear British Standard approved protective equipment and ask that you adhere to all pathway and road markings. Our pathways are not suitable for fast travel, so please keep to a sensible speed. If you are in a hurry, you may wish to use
another route.
• Be seen & heard – Some park visitors may have a visual or hearing impairment, using a bell and or wearing high visibility clothing will help others to be aware of your presence. Use British Standard approved lights in low visibility conditions.
• Be polite – Thank other park visitors who allow you to over take or pass them.
As codes of conduct go, it’s reasonably short, so one question arising is whether the meeting in a fortnight’s time will aim to put more extensive obligations on cyclists? And will it just apply to bike riders, or to others using the park? Will it just cover shared use paths, or the roads too?
Last month Ron Crompton, chairman of Friends of Richmond Park, spoke of “the almost daily incidents “involving people on bikes “and the rising level of complaints” in an article published in the group’s newsletter.
Outlining some of the frustrations experienced by motorists, cyclists and other users of the park such as people on foot or on horseback.
He said: “I drive, cycle and walk in the Park and I know the irritation and intimidation I feel as a driver with cyclists crowding me on all sides; if I make a mistake I might kill someone. I also know the mix of adrenaline and fear I feel as a cyclist with drivers close; if they make a mistake it’s me who will be hurt.
“But in spite of these complaints, there are few collisions between cars and bikes; the vast majority of incidents are cyclists coming off their bikes with no one else involved.”
Mr Crompton added: “In all of this, the most vulnerable users – pedestrians, horses and wildlife – suffer. Ten years ago, cars and cyclists stopped for pedestrians and deer. Today they hardly ever do, and if a car does stop, cyclists will carry on. Incidents of pedestrians, horses and deer being hit are mercifully rare but they are increasingly intimidated and need more protection.”
While Mr Goldsmith talks about the meeting focusing particularly on “the rising tensions between the various users of Richmond Park,” many cyclists who use it will recall the death earlier this year of cyclist Dr Sian Tiong Lim in which no other vehicle or park user was involved.
The 40-year-old from Surrey crashed after apparently skidding on gravel while descending at the relatively low speed of 15mph. Shortly after his death in August a fellow cyclist said he too had crashed at the same point a few weeks earlier, but didn’t report his concerns about the road surface to the authorities.
In his email to local residents, Mr Goldsmith said: “Ahead of the meeting, I am hoping for some input from residents, in particular questions you'd like to submit to the panel.
“We will have representatives from Richmond and Kingston Councils, the Royal parks, and the police – and your questions will help me chair the meeting more effectively and ensure that the key issues are addressed.”
You can submit a question here.
Add new comment
38 comments
I agree with that ordering, except possibly for the horses. Say what you will about cyclist and motorists, but at least they don't stop and take a dump in the middle of the road (well, not that I've personally observed, anyway).
I think making the road one-way for cars would be counterproductive as it would allow drivers to go faster. I'd rather see some stragicly plased bollards or other filtering to make the road useless for motorists trying to get from one side of the park to the other, without necassarily blocking access to any particular place, and without obstructing cyclists of course.
Codes that say things like "Our pathways are not suitable for fast travel" annoy me, because one person's fast is someone else's moderate speed. If someone writing a code of conduct wants to tell people not to go to fast I think they should say how fast is too fast. Otherwise it's just confusing and I don't know what's being requested of me. But lots of parks seem to use similar wording.
Anything about dog owners who seem to think it OK for their dogs to roam free and harass deer?
Fenton hasn't been off my lead since
Reduce motor vehicle traffic!
And then start from there...
I use Richmond Park a fair amount, both as a safe commuting route and occasionally for training. If I were to give some genuine advice to the Police on enforcement, I would have these suggestions:
1. In dealing with cyclists, pay more attention to the pedestrian crossings. I've often seen their cars parked up at the foot of the two main hills to catch and speak to "speeding" cyclists, but I've never seen a presence at the main crossings.
2. In dealing with cars, please sit at a roundabout sometime and deal with the bloody drivers that seem to think indicators aren't necessary in parks. I have no idea why this is, but half the drivers just don't seem to bother once they pass the gates.
3. The western stretch between Richmond and Kingston gates is heavily used at peak commuter hours. Trade vehicles are not allowed to use the park. That's not a ban on trading in the park, that's a ban on trade vehicles, period. That isn't enforced effectively, and doing so might bring the traffic numbers down during the day.
I would agree with the concerns about Zak's last comment. The Royal Parks are for leisure first, not primary commuter routes. If there is too much thru traffic, they should be looking to reduce it not accommodate it.
I would imagine that a lot of the complaints come from the weekend users. I never cycle there on a Saturday or Sunday, except sometimes to cut across the centre. It's just too busy full stop, and it's actually quite unpleasant.
Why is it necessary to drive through the park at all?
Where are all these drivers going and could they not get there via another route or mode of travel? Have there been any studies to answer this question? If not, how can the issue be sensibly discussed sans data?
“In all of this, the most vulnerable users – pedestrians, horses and wildlife – suffer. Ten years ago, cars and cyclists stopped for pedestrians and deer. Today they hardly ever do, and if a car does stop, cyclists will carry on. Incidents of pedestrians, horses and deer being hit are mercifully rare but they are increasingly intimidated and need more protection.”
What are the figures for deer hit and injured by cyclists? I really don't understand why a cyclist would take the risk of hitting a deer, given how badly the cyclist is likely to come out of it. So it seems questionable to lump together cars and cyclists with regard to this issue.
How about making the park ring road (for want of a better term) one-way for cars? Perhaps keep the other lane of the road for cycling in both directions?
Pages