Cyclists blast proposals to introduce 10mph speed limit on Richmond Park hill

That section of the park is closed to motor vehicles. It's a steep, winding downhill. It would take constant braking to stay within a 10mph limit.

I climb that hill generally at least once a week. I see people descending it very fast. I find their speed a bit scary sometimes. But a 10mph limit is just silly, frankly.

It might be silly, annoying, pointless and all the other adjectives to describe it's stupidness, but uncompliable it isn't.

I guess most riders will just not use that route anymore, or just ignore the speed limit, which is doubly annoying if its traffic free as it pushes them back to areas with traffic, but also no doubt boosts the antis view that cyclists dont follow the rules

Awavey wrote:

It might be silly, annoying, pointless and all the other adjectives to describe it's stupidness, but uncompliable it isn't. I guess most riders will just not use that route anymore, or just ignore the speed limit, which is doubly annoying if its traffic free as it pushes them back to areas with traffic, but also no doubt boosts the antis view that cyclists dont follow the rules

The only real alternative would be to truncate the lap by riding across from Ham Gate to Robin Hood Gate past Pen Ponds, but that involves using a shared path and goes through areas more favoured by deer (for the record I've never seen deer on Broomfield Hill, they prefer the flat pastures) so that would be pretty counter-productive in terms of pedestrians/wildlife safety (never seen a pedestrian on the road on Broomfield Hill either, as I mentioned elsewhere, there is a broad well-gravelled path to the side).

I agree, of course it isn't impossible to comply with such a limit but it does have a maximum gradient of 12% so it could be pretty painful on the hands to try and hold the bike back below 10 mph, especially for heavier riders.

I have seen deer on the flattish bit at the bottom of Broomfield and occasionally grazing to either side of the hill, but not often and not in the large groups you get alongside Sawyers. And never walking on the steep bit of the hill. And as others have said you don't get many pedestrians on the road up Broomfield, the footpath is much nicer.

I think trying to enforce a 10mph speed limit on any of the main RP roads would be ludicrous; you can't have a limit which applies only in one direction, and as most of them involve a descent of some sort, you're asking people to cycle pretty slowly in a situation where braking could be as dangerous as allowing sensible descending under control. I did some loops on Saturday and the park was full of cyclists of all types, all managing to happily and safely co-exist on Broomfield and elsewhere. The only issue I had with what was generally a lovely ride was the drivers overtaking me only to then have to slow because there was a slower rider ahead; the drivers overtaking me despite the fact there were cyclists going the other way on the other side of what are quite narrow roads; and the drivers overtaking me when I was doing around 20mph. Motor vehicles remain the principal danger and annoyance in the park.

eburtthebike wrote:

While 20mph is probably reasonable, 10mph sounds like they are just trying to wind up cyclists.

The 20mph limit was supposed to safeguard the deer that live in the park and have not mastered the green cross code. Obviously deer Vs car is dead deer.

I suspect that most deer will hear motor vehicles and avoid using the fear response. However a few don't which is a Royal Parks safeguarding fail.

Bicycle only roads could be a different problem since a noisy rear hub and free wheeling down hill can not be relied upon.

As said before the 20mph limit is frustrating when 30mph can easily be done downhill though hitting an adult deer would be a significant trauma for a cyclist. Clearly a brake test from 30mph on a wet road might end badly without that collision.

I agree that 10mph is just removing an otherwise car free training opportunity.

I have no data for this other than personal experience so let's hope that Royal Parks will do the study required to provide an evidence based rationale for any changes.

I've only heard of a single case of a cyclist hitting a deer in the park, and I believe it was later found to be one that was already injured, probably by a dog attack, and disoriented. Purely anecdotal but I must have done literally tens of thousands of miles round the park in the forty-odd years I've been riding there and not once come close to having an incident with a deer. Unless Royal Parks have some compelling reasoning that I can't imagine this looks very like yet another one of their pointless anti-cycling policies; after all before the current traffic restrictions were implemented during the pandemic half a dozen deer were killed each year by car drivers, where was the 10mph limit for them?

I'm also curious as to how they think they will enforce any new limit, given that they were forced to admit a year or so ago that the speed limit laws in the park cannot be applied to non-motorised traffic.

If it saves one deer.........

Surely the Royal Parks should be making the deer safe by fitting them with hi-viz and helmets?

eburtthebike wrote:

Surely the Royal Parks should be making the deer safe by fitting them with hi-viz and helmets?

Don't deer wear head protection for some of the year anyway?

I've heard of several, more deer hitting cyclists though, but given the amount of miles ridden in the park it is still very low.  Just avoid rutting season.

rct wrote:

I've heard of several, more deer hitting cyclists though, but given the amount of miles ridden in the park it is still very low.  Just avoid rutting season.

Yes, I've looked it up now and there seem to be a couple of incidents a year, which I must admit surprised me; no mention in the figures of whether or not that's deer running into cyclists or maybe deer spooked by cyclists being injured running away. Certainly not as many as are killed by cars. Of course all vehicle-related and dog-worrying deaths are minuscule compared to the 200-odd deer Royal Parks cull by shooting every year, bringing them in a healthy £50,000 from venison sales. There is actually an alternative to this as effective contraceptive vaccines for deer have been employed to limit herd numbers elsewhere, so until Royal Parks start employing this method (as has been suggested to them by numerous people, including me) I'll take any claims that they are imposing restrictions on cyclists because they care so much about their deer with a pinch of salt.

Rendel Harris wrote:

.. compared to the 200-odd deer Royal Parks cull by shooting every year, bringing them in a healthy £50,000 from venison sales. There is actually an alternative to this as effective contraceptive vaccines for deer have been employed to limit herd numbers elsewhere,

Honestly, until the consumption of all meat is banned, I am far less concerend about deer roaming free in the Royal Parks, and then being harvested for meat, than factory farming alternatives.

I'm not sure that sterlising a large percentage of the herd is beneficial for the genetic health of the deer population either.

Whether or not it's desirable or ethical to use the deer population of the park as a meat source is down to one's personal principles; personally although I don't eat meat myself I agree that free roaming deer killed with a single shot is a better alternative than factory farmed/abattoir slaughtered meat. I believe the genetic question would be fairly easily solved by alternating the deer given the contraception, it's not sterilisation, it's more like the human contraceptive pill in a once-a-season shot so a female that doesn't breed one year can still breed the next. Anyway, I was really just pointing out the inconsistency between the Royal Park's justification (if it is indeed their justification) for imposing new rules on cyclists to protect the deer when they plan to slaughter a substantial part of the herd each year when there are alternatives available.

Rendel Harris wrote:

Whether or not it's desirable or ethical to use the deer population of the park as a meat source is down to one's personal principles; personally although I don't eat meat myself I agree that free roaming deer killed with a single shot is a better alternative than factory farmed/abattoir slaughtered meat. I believe the genetic question would be fairly easily solved by alternating the deer given the contraception, it's not sterilisation, it's more like the human contraceptive pill in a once-a-season shot so a female that doesn't breed one year can still breed the next. Anyway, I was really just pointing out the inconsistency between the Royal Park's justification (if it is indeed their justification) for imposing new rules on cyclists to protect the deer when they plan to slaughter a substantial part of the herd each year when there are alternatives available.

Maybe deer killed by cyclists (and cars) is essentially lost stock. But they are not quite ballsy enough to admit that is the reason.

Please drive carefully in the park, you are reducing our revenue from meat sales wouldn't go down well with the population.

Although the who;le story is bizarre, 20mph is safe enough, but the cyclists responding "it's not easy to stick to 10", sounds a bit too much like drivers saying "it's almost impossible to stick to 20mph"

wycombewheeler wrote:

Although the who;le story is bizarre, 20mph is safe enough, but the cyclists responding "it's not easy to stick to 10", sounds a bit too much like drivers saying "it's almost impossible to stick to 20mph"

It isn't the same though, is it?

Cars can easily be driven at or below 20mph by picking the correct gear. 

Bikes can also be easily ridden at or below 10mph in most circumstances, but if I am on a descent that includes sections of -10% gradient I want to be keeping my focus on the road ahead of me (both traffic and surface), not constantly worrying that my speed might have crept over 10mph. 

And that is without once again pointing out that bikes are not generally fitted with properly calibrated speed measuring devices. 

Jetmans Dad wrote:

Cars can easily be driven at or below 20mph by picking the correct gear. 

Bikes can also be easily ridden at or below 10mph in most circumstances, but if I am on a descent that includes sections of -10% gradient I want to be keeping my focus on the road ahead of me (both traffic and surface), not constantly worrying that my speed might have crept over 10mph.

Shurely it's the same with bikes?  Just pick the correct (fixed) gear - hey presto, you'll *really* know when you're above 10mph! 

Bonus - now holding 15mph is a real workout!

It feels like it's the same type of complaint though, especially when you say the issue is youre left focusing on the speed.

When the reality is you know what 10mph looks & feels like on a bike and youd just to have to be on the brakes the whole time.

Which is the real issue, because you can damage your brakes doing that. I rode down an 11% hill on the brakes trying to keep 10-15mph because I wasnt confident of the road, worried about the bike running away from me and oncoming traffic and stopping in time at the bottom where a T junction meets with a major road.

And you could smell the brake pads burning and the disc turned a lovely shade of blue till it cooled down. You dont want to be trailing the brakes like that on such a hill, that's why speed limit should be challenged, in terms that arent just copying motorists language when it comes to 20mph zones being uncompliable because they cant drive that slow as they focus on the speedometer.

rct wrote:

I've heard of several, more deer hitting cyclists though, but given the amount of miles ridden in the park it is still very low.  Just avoid rutting season.

Yes, ruts always make steering difficult

It's great to see the Met per usual focussing its record number of officers not on the tens / hundreds of thousands of daily road offences across London (phone use, speeding etc) that present an immediate risk to vulnerable road users.... but instead wasting their time on an imaginary risk on a stretch of road closed to traffic.

I was going to reply that the Royal Parks had their own police - but on consulting PC Google, found out this hasn't been true since 2004, following a review by Anthony Speed. Presumably, he's Anti for short.

www.royalparks.org.uk/managing-the-parks/policing-in-the-royal-parks

Dnnnnnn wrote:

I was going to reply that the Royal Parks had their own police - but on consulting PC Google, found out this hasn't been true since 2004, following a review by Anthony Speed. Presumably, he's Anti for short.

www.royalparks.org.uk/managing-the-parks/policing-in-the-royal-parks

It's quite interesting, after I had a run in with a parks policeman (who accused me of something I hadn't done and who was officially reprimanded and given retraining on the basis of my video) I was told by a policeman friend that before the Parks Police were incorporated into the Met they were well known as a place for those who had failed the Met's selection procedures. When they were absorbed into the Met these rejects became Met officers by the back door; according to my friend they were well known for ineffectiveness and incompetence, and I must say most of my interactions with them have borne this out (to be fair I have met some brilliant ones as well, possibly those who joined after 2004?).

Rendel Harris wrote:

It's quite interesting, after I had a run in with a parks policeman (who accused me of something I hadn't done and who was officially reprimanded and given retraining on the basis of my video)........

Do tell.

eburtthebike wrote:

Rendel Harris wrote:

It's quite interesting, after I had a run in with a parks policeman (who accused me of something I hadn't done and who was officially reprimanded and given retraining on the basis of my video)........

Do tell.

Accused me of swearing at a dog walker, which as you can see from this video ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFFsrDNYUOk ) wasn't the case...full apology from his super, warned as to future conduct, note placed on record and sent for extra training.

Thanks.  He's obviously had the anti-cyclist training.

Rendel Harris wrote:

eburtthebike wrote:

Rendel Harris wrote:

It's quite interesting, after I had a run in with a parks policeman (who accused me of something I hadn't done and who was officially reprimanded and given retraining on the basis of my video)........

Do tell.

Accused me of swearing at a dog walker, which as you can see from this video ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFFsrDNYUOk ) wasn't the case...full apology from his super, warned as to future conduct, note placed on record and sent for extra training.

Isn't that the incident that one or more of our trolls got themselves very worked up about?

Yes, Marty and Nigel got together to agree that it was disgraceful the way I was "bullying" an innocent policeman who was only (and "correctly") upholding the law…