- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Cyclists probably breaking the speed limit in Richmond Park (CC licensed by adambowie:Flickr)Are police fining 'speeding' cyclists in Richmond Park exceeding their authority?
After a young cyclist was recently fined for speeding while descending a hill in Richmond Park, we wondered on what basis the Royal Parks apply their speed limits to bicycles. So we decided to find out and... well, it’s complicated, but it turns out parks police might well be exceeding a reasonable interpretation of the law in fining cycists.
Speed limits on public roads apply only to motor vehicles, which are defined in law as “mechanically propelled vehicles, intended or adapted for use on roads.”
Bikes don’t count because their source of propulsion is a person, and not an engine or motor.
The situation in Richmond Park and a few other Royal Parks is therefore very unusual. Armed with a few references to the regulations and statutory instruments amending the regulations, we asked the Metropolitan Police on what basis they nab cyclists in Richmond Park.
The Met put us on to parks police and Ben Edwin emailled us to say:
The Regulations are under The Royal Parks and Open Spaces regulations 1997
The 20MPH limit was brought in by the amendment below and of course a bicycle is a vehicle for the purpose of Royal Park Regulations
The Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces (Amendment) etc. Regulations 2010
Speeds at which a vehicle may be driven or ridden on a Park road
1. On a Park road in The Green Park, Hyde Park (other than the Serpentine Road), St James's Park or The Regent's Park, at a speed not exceeding 30 mph.
2. On a Park road in Bushy Park, Greenwich Park or Richmond Park, at a speed not exceeding 20 mph.
3. On the Serpentine Road in Hyde Park, and on the Park road from Kingston Gate leading to the Home Park Golf Club in Hampton Court Park, at a speed not exceeding 15 mph.
4. On a Park road (other than one mentioned in paragraphs 1, 2 or 3), at a speed not exceeding 10 mph.".
Well, that casual ‘of course’ was a red rag. Hang on, we said, doesn’t that same amendment also say this:
" "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:
2. 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.
That seemed to be that. The speed limit in Richmond Park was changed from 30mph to 20mph in 2010, and parking charges were brought in. Then, when the parking charges were revoked, the definition of 'vehicle' that went with them, and that would have excluded bikes, went too, perhaps accidentally, perhaps not.
SInce then, parks police have decided, apparently on their own, that 'vehicle' includes a bike and they can bust cyclists for speeding, which must feel very nice, as they're the only force in the country that can actually issue a ticket to someone who goes a bit fast down a hill without putting themselves or anyone else in danger.
A bit miffed by all this, we went and had a deeper dig through the original 1997 regulations, which turns out to contain rules like this:
Acts prohibited in a Park
3. Subject to the provisions of regulation 6, no person using a Park shall—
...
(10) (a) ride any animal,
(b) drive or ride any vehicle, or
(c) use any pedal cycle, roller skate, roller blade, skate board or other foot-propelled device
in any manner that endangers or is likely to endanger any person;
and this:
(11) (a) use a pedal cycle (other than when it is parked), or
(b) drive or ride a vehicle
between sunset and sunrise, or in seriously reduced visibility between sunrise and sunset, unless it is lit in accordance with the Road Vehicles (Lighting) Regulations 1989(1)...
What's interesting there is that the regulations draw a clear distinction between 'vehicle' and 'pedal cycle' even when applying the same rule to them both. Surely, we thought, if the framers of this legislation - which included speed limits for 'vehicles in its 1997 form - had intended the speed limits to apply to bikes, the rule Ben cited in his first reply would explicitly say so.
We pointed this out to Ben, and asked "On what basis, then, are bicycles assumed to be vehicles for the purposes of speed limits, when they are clearly differentiated elsewhere in the regulations?"
By this point, we think Ben was getting a bit fed up of us. He responded:
The regulations refer to vehicles NOT Motor Vehicles. A Cycle is a vehicle
The Oxford English Dictionary provides a general definition of vehicle:VEHICLE means:
- a conveyance, usually with wheels, for transporting people, goods, etcIf you have any further queries on this subject I would suggest you seek legal advice. I am not in a position to go any further into this subject.
We asked Ben what legal advice parks police themselves sought in deciding to use these regulations against cyclists, but we didn't get a reply.
Since Parks police wouldn’t tell us if they’d talked to a lawyer about this, we thought we’d better ask one ourselves.
Top British time trialist Michael ‘Dr Hutch’ Hutchinson is best known for going very fast and writing amusingly about it in Cycling Weekly, but he actually is a doctor and his PhD is in law.
We asked Hutch if it was reasonable to argue that the 1997 regulations constantly differentiate between vehicle and bicycle so unless a bike is specifically included regulations that use the word 'vehicle' don't apply to bikes?
He told us:
Using the differentiation made in the 1997 regulations is a valid technique for interpreting legislation, but it's working off first principals. Clearly if there is a distinction between two groups, it's reasonable to conclude that when a subsequent reference is made to only one group that it is not intended to include the other one. But if there is an authority that interprets it otherwise, then that would take precedence. A dictionary definition is irrelevant.
Hutch then went and did some digging for us, reading the regulations with a Proper Lawyer’s eye, and not the dim understanding of someone who did a law subsidiary 30 years ago.
Here’s what he told us:
As a matter of legislative interpretation, the 1997 regulations seem to me to clearly and consistently distinguish between vehicles and pedal cycles. S3(11) is especially clear.
Section 3(12), for example, makes provision for driving or riding vehicles off the park roads, but makes no provision for a pedal cycle using a bike path -- and there are certainly at least some bike paths that are not park roads. So if 'vehicle' includes 'pedal-cycle' then it becomes an offence to ride a bicycle anywhere you can't drive a car. The use of pedal cycles on paths etc is entirely separately regulated (S3(3)).
On the other hand, the Road Traffic Regulation Act of 1984 is what specifies speed limits on national roads. In that instance the limits are applied to 'motor vehicles' only, which is what means limits don't apply to bikes on the open highway. You could argue that 'vehicles' in the Park Regs is distinguished from 'motor vehicles', and that they therefore mean different things. However, to my mind that still doesn't really address the very clear distinction between 'vehicles' and 'pedal cycles' in the Park Regs.
Incidentally, as far as I can see the limits only apply on Park Roads, so they don't apply on bike paths...
But bear in mind it is bloody years since I was in practice, and even when I was this wasn't what I did. If there is an authority establishing that 'vehicle' includes 'pedal cycle', then all bets are off (though we still have the s3(12) anomaly). I haven't actually gone to a library to do this 'properly' -- I'm just working off the internet, where I don't have access to the legal indices. It is possible that there is something out there that I just don't know about -- but it seems to me that if there were, the police would be only too delighted to tell you what it is.
I suspect there isn't a simple answer to this -- 'vehicle' without 'motor' or some other qualifier on it is a term that seems to be rare in the general legislation, and I can't find a legislative definition of it. My guess is that the limits being applied to cyclists in the park is on, at best, a very shaky basis.
It certainly seems to us, therefore, that there's grounds to fight a cycling speeding fine in Richmond Park. A cycling barrister we spoke to has offered to work pro bono (that's legalese for 'for free') if anyone wants to take on Parks police on this, so if you get pinged in the park, get in touch.
Update: I subsequently submitted a Freedom of Information request to the Metropolitan Police asking for the legal advice they had received when they decided to start fining cyclists for speeding. They were unable to locate any such advice.
John has been writing about bikes and cycling for over 30 years since discovering that people were mug enough to pay him for it rather than expecting him to do an honest day's work.
He was heavily involved in the mountain bike boom of the late 1980s as a racer, team manager and race promoter, and that led to writing for Mountain Biking UK magazine shortly after its inception. He got the gig by phoning up the editor and telling him the magazine was rubbish and he could do better. Rather than telling him to get lost, MBUK editor Tym Manley called John’s bluff and the rest is history.
Since then he has worked on MTB Pro magazine and was editor of Maximum Mountain Bike and Australian Mountain Bike magazines, before switching to the web in 2000 to work for CyclingNews.com. Along with road.cc founder Tony Farrelly, John was on the launch team for BikeRadar.com and subsequently became editor in chief of Future Publishing’s group of cycling magazines and websites, including Cycling Plus, MBUK, What Mountain Bike and Procycling.
John has also written for Cyclist magazine, edited the BikeMagic website and was founding editor of TotalWomensCycling.com before handing over to someone far more representative of the site's main audience.
He joined road.cc in 2013. He lives in Cambridge where the lack of hills is more than made up for by the headwinds.
Latest Comments
- AidanR 41 min 59 sec ago
Nope, that's the third cyclist. The second one is invisible.
- quiff 1 hour 1 min ago
The linked article suggests that the station area is covered by an exclusion zone (presumably meaning Lime doesn't recognise it as properly parked...
- slc 1 hour 9 min ago
No rounding - it was 26 minutes. Looks as though someone has walked it many times and found the mean to obtain such precision. Not just looked on...
- Doug_D 1 hour 25 min ago
Another book suggestion - I can highly recommend "Lost Summers and Half-Forgotten Afternoons: A Mint Sauce collection" - a beautifully presented...
- chrisonabike 2 hours 38 min ago
But... the last is only not the case with drivers on normal roads because driving on the cycle path / footway / rolling a vehicle up there is seen...
- mdavidford 3 hours 16 min ago
I think you're missing an opportunity to pack even more tech into it - add accelerometers that can detect whether they're pedalling or stepping....
- chrisonabike 3 hours 40 min ago
Thanks. I guess the question is "need". If the road is busy, it sounds like it is a desired route between places? In which case (given this an...
- mdavidford 3 hours 48 min ago
Don't know what you mean. I thought my suggestion was entirely practical.
- Rapha Nadal 4 hours 23 min ago
I'd buy a motorbike fo rthat kind of money!
Add new comment
54 comments
Can somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Royal Park Regs have to be amended to allow the Olympic Road Cycling Race 2012 to pass through Richmond Park due to the speed the professionals travel at.....I don't think it's the Parks Police who are getting a bee in their bonnet!!!
Anyway, if we, the cyclists, that is, continue to go down this route how long will it be before the Royal Parks Regs are amended so that cyclists can be reported for speeding in the Royal Parks. Save it to say, slow down, do as your told or walk before the law is changed so the is 'grey' area!
A vehicle is not a motor vehicle. A 'locomotive' is not just one that travels on tracks....have a read of the Road Traffic Act.
I have used Richmond Park for over 10 years for cycling, but certainly find it increasingly congested with, walkers, runners, cars and other cyclists. For me its best to go to the Park early or head out for some miles into the Surrey Hills and beyond.
I think you will find that not withstanding all the, possibly confusing, details concerning vehicle definitions, their does exist another legitimate possible defence.
This is that, because a bicycle has no way to reliably or accurately determine the speed it is travelling at, it cannot be prosecuted for it.
This works on the basis that, if one takes the trouble to know, and try to stay within the law, but one has no reasonably practical method available to a normal citizen to determine wether one is doing so or not, then one cannot be prosecuted for it. I think this is known as "Habeas Corpus"(?).
Perhaps Dr Hutchinson might like to comment on this?
I think this is the main reason that speed limits are not applicable to cyclists on normal roads (but "furious riding" is!).
Habeas Corpus is something completely different. Its the right to not be illegally detained. And you will find the law does not accept not knowing about the law or not being able to assess whether you were breaking it as a defence. I think you may be thinking of the fact that having an honest belief that something would be permitted within the law is sometimes an allowable defence e.g. in criminal damage. But that would not work as you are suggesting with speed limits.
"The problem with the Royal Parks"
The problem with the Royal Parks is that motor vehicles are allowed in there at all.
I, too, have always understood 'vehicle' to mean 'motor vehicle' and speed limits apply to them for one main reason they have speedometers, which are meant to be, within a few percent of error, spot on the reading they give you. A 10% error is usually accepted as the norm so the Police will not prosecute for doing 32 in a 30 but probably would at 34 and above. The reason is that in court an accused person could argue they were driving by their speedo and it just happened to be a few percent out. Not sure if there is precedence set at Crown Court level but I expect there is. As the accuracy of the speedo is out of the control of the driver and isn't even part of an MOT some leeway is reasonable.
Bicycles do not have speedos, hence the difficulty in prosecuting someone who has no idea what speed they are doing at any given time, though I do wonder if an over-zealous Royal Parks cop might suggest my cycle computor is equivalent to a cars speedo. I would argue otherwise and suggest it is only a guide unlike a car speedo, which is engineered with a specific vehicle in mind and therefore more accurate. Also, and most importantly, is the fact that cycles are very light weight bits of kit and even if there was a collision with something or someone it is highly unlikely anyone will receive anything more than minor injuries, unlike motor vehicles, which tend to maim and kill people on a regular basis.
As far as speed guns are concerned is there any data on whether they are tested on pedestrians, cyclists or anything else, other than the motor vehicles they were designed to be aimed at? I doubt it. So how realiable are they when they are used on cyclists? Aren't cyclists regarded as closer to pedestrians than motor vehicles? Maybe that should be clarified.
I ride in Richmond Park & Bushy Park regularly and at times my computer indicates speeds in excess of 20mph only to have cars overtake me and zoom off ahead. Indeed, even down the few hills in Richmond Park, cars overtake cyclists and as they are clearly not breaking the speed limit I assume my speed is always less than the limits too. Finally, all the road signs specifying speed limits are the same as the ones on normal roads, which I understand have always been aimed at motor vehicles.
The problem with the Royal Parks is they are getting a bee in their royal bonnets about cyclists in general as cycling for fitness becomes more popular and especially with those of us using the Parks as relative safe havens on which to exercise. The local amateur cycling club, the London Dynamos, are for ever being targetted for riding too fast for their own good. Frankly, it is simply an example of nimbyism and the sooner someone challenges it the better.
As others commented a bicycle is not legally required to be fitted with a speedometer for use on public highway? Considering my bike computer has indicated 88mph whilst pushing my bike across our bike shop's floor whilst leaving the building I suspect its not at all accurate. How can the police prosecute me for speeding when I have either: no speedo, or one that is wildly inaccurate...
I find the cars generally get in the way anyway. Perhaps I should get up and cycle earlier. I haven't been to Richmond for a long while now since moving across town.
If Plod stops you and asks "do you know how fast you were going?" You could legitimately say "No. My bicycle does not have a speedometer, nor is one required, so I have no way of knowing."
I think that could be the basis for a defence.
Its no more a defence than not having a breathalyser in your car is a defence for drink driving.
Of course it's a defence, why on earth do you think motor vehicles that can do more than 17mph all have to have speedos fitted? I'll let you into a secret it has bugger all to do with the driving experience and all to do with allowing the driver to accurately stay within the speed limits and to aid successful prosecutions if they fail to do so. If speedos were fitted to cars simply to enhance the driving experience, and merely a coincindence that they helped drivers stick to the speed limit, F1 cars and MotoGP bikes would have them fitted too, and guess what, they don't.
So are you saying not having a breathalyser is a defence for drink driving because you have no way of knowing what your blood alcohol level is without one?
I note that the regs specifically mention bicycles. Any fast men want to borrow my racing trike for some parks police baiting?
If they fined this kid for exceeding the 20mph, did the Royal Parks make any formal temporary concessions for the Olympics or Ride London Pro event? I'm betting not and is this something that could be checked up under a Freedom of Information request?
.
Yes they did!! I remember the incessant talk at the time!!!
What a load of nonsense! They are obviously bored and have nothing better to do.
Does anyone know where we can watch 'that' Dave Millar video?
It was on the BBC before it got taken down, I emailed them asking for a copy but they said No Way, and I can't find it on Youtube...
It doesn't matter whether a bike is a vehicle, a bike or a chocolate muffin. The Royal Parks are royal - which means they can have their own rules. It would make sense to refuse to pay the fine and argue in court that the Royal Parks cannot alter the Highway Code to suit themselves.
On the subject of speeding bikes I actually side with the parks. They can either spend money putting up disclaimer signs or stop people cycling too fast. If you want to go fast - get a number on your back.
After seeing someone get pulled over I don't know if I'm in favour or not. In defence of the Parks Police in Richmond Park Autumn is the right time to enforce the speed limit in Richmond Park -
1) They seem to be doing it at dusk (not sure if this is because it's rush hour or if it's the much better reason of that being when it's most dangerous to be on the road),
2) It's rutting season in a park full of deer and you do get herds moving around without taking any interest in the road or what's in it.
3) The guy I saw pulled over was doing way over 30, in the near dark while there were deer either side of the road. I don't think that was unreasonable.
4) Give it a month and it will be dark enough that people will slow down anyway as for most of us bike lights aren't good enough to go at much over 20. Can't imagine Parks Police will be doing this for all that long.
I'm still trying to set that against the problem that any kind of traffic enforcement in London these days only seems to apply to cyclists (thanks the Daily Mail!). Today was the first time I've seen a Police officer educating people about ASL's (officer on a bike of course, got to help drive that wedge between classes of road users) and I see cars running red lights daily.
Anyone ever seen a car done for speeding in Richmond Park? Sadly I expect the answer to be no.
So this is why drivers of off-road vehicles seem to think the law doesn't apply to them - technically they're right!
My head hurts...
How exactly do the police reliably service a ticket to a cyclist? I mean I don't carry my license when riding so how can they reasonably verify my identity to issue a summons? I mean I could just as easily claim I am my neighbor who would then receive the summons and the corresponding arrest warrant for failure to appear????
I really, really wouldn't advise you to go down this route. If the police do not stop you at the time then there is no way they could identify you let alone issue a summons. However, if you are stopped after having commit an 'offence' and you are unable to provide suitable identification, whether physically or verbally from another, you could make yourself liable to arrest. The law on this changed years ago and I would advise a look at the current amended version of the Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Save it to say, you can now be arrested for any offence provided the necessary criteria are in place.
Oh, and by the way the Parks Police (those that patrol the Royal Parks, not the local authority Parks Police) are now part and parcel of the Metropolitan Police Service.
Bike Magazine (motorbikes) tested handheld radar guns on motorcycles travelling at "normal" speeds and they failed to record accurately, especially when aimed at tyres, wheels and flapping clothing.
If the radar reflection is from the spokes of the wheel then it's possible the speed detector will measure up to 2x the actual speed of the motorcycle and this applies equally to bicycles. With a car, the speed measurement is on the front area of the vehicle so the reading is more accurate.
But since bicycles are not required by law to have speed monitoring equipment fitted and those that do have it are not legally calibrated, then it does beg the question as to how cyclists are supposed to know how fast they are travelling anyway. Is it easy to tell the different between 19mph and 21mph?
Anyway, I generally ride my mountain bike on the off-road sections at Richmond Park with my sons, which is more fun anyway.
What a load of parochial nonsense.
the '10 mph on a park Road' is particularly daft - if you're going to fine cyclists at that speed, logically, you should also target 6 minute/mile runners...
Good research.
Sounds like whoever wrote up the 2010 amendment was a bit lazy and assumed vehicle would cover cycles (or just didn't think about cyclists at all).
So a challenge for sppeding on a cycle would have a decent chance of succeeding, but would probably just lead to another amendment including cycles as well.
The Police only ever seem to be in their car doing speed checks near the Ham Gate junction and at the bottom of Sawyers hill. I live nearby so tend to use the park out of peak times when the traffic can be a bit busy so I may have missed other checks.
It tends to be on the flat in other areas that cars speed in there.
Enforcement in the park can be very variable as on one of the May bankholidays earlier this year car were parked illegally on most verges in the park with no-one seeming to stop them.
Is this not a good thing. A further ammendment to the Regulations would require a period of consultation in which we could object.
Pages