Richmond Park speed limits do not apply to cyclists, says the Royal Parks

Must be fake news from anti vaxxers.

Dave Dave wrote:

The actual legal position is not unclear. It is:

"4.  Unless the Secretary of State’s written permission has first been obtained, no person using a Park shall— [...] (28) drive or ride any vehicle on a Park road in excess of the speed specified in relation to that road in Part II of Schedule 2 to these Regulations;"

This may be bad drafting, it may be unintentional, but it is not unclear. 'Vehicles' is a broader class than 'motor vehicles'. It includes bicycles, scooters, and so-on.

For example:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/powered-transporters/informat...

"3. What law applies to the use of powered transporters?

"There is no specially-designed legal regime for powered transporters. This means that they are covered by the same laws and regulations that apply to all motor vehicles.

"The definition of “motor vehicle” as set out in the Road Traffic Act 1988 is “any mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on roads”. There is case law confirming that powered transporters fall within this definition (see section 8 of this information sheet)."

The discussion there concerns whether these vehicles are motorised. There is no suggestion they are not 'vehicles'. 

It is abundantly clear that 'vehicles' includes bicycles. It is therefore equally clear that the law _as it stands_ regarding speeding in Royal Parks applies to cyclists, scooter riders, skateboarders, and so-on. The presence of other clauses which make more specific prohibitions does not alter the meaning of the broader prohibitions.

This is, IMO, probably rather a stupid drafting error, and regardless of the cause, a stupid bit of legislation which ought to be changed. Until it is, though, there really isn't any sensible argument to be had about what it means - and the results are not ridiculous or nonsensical, so there are no grounds for a judge to overturn the legislation. It means what it appears to.

The point was made on the other discussion that one section of the regs have vehicles in one subsection and cycles, skateboards etc in another sub-section. The fact they are listed separately could well lead to the interpretation that vehicles in those regs does not include cycles etc. So I'm not sure it is clear as you suggest.

No, it's not clear.
I have read and applied various SIs in my working life and am familiar with their construct.
It's clear an argument can be made on the wording and format as you describe.
The fact that people have been prosecuted is only relevant if in each case the defence highlighted the different subsections and the court ruled against it.

It is also abundantly clear that bicycles are not treated as vehicles in certain situations eg with regard to zebra crossings.
It is not an offence to overtake a cyclist within the zigzags of a zebra crossing but it is for a motorised vehicle.
So the claim that it is not for debate is lacking in substance.

hirsute wrote:

No, it's not clear.
I have read and applied various SIs in my working life and am familiar with their construct.
It's clear an argument can be made on the wording and format as you describe.
The fact that people have been prosecuted is only relevant if in each case the defence highlighted the different subsections and the court ruled against it.

It is also abundantly clear that bicycles are not treated as vehicles in certain situations eg with regard to zebra crossings.
It is not an offence to overtake a cyclist within the zigzags of a zebra crossing but it is for a motorised vehicle.
So the claim that it is not for debate is lacking in substance.

I'm with you. And not only have I read and interpreted SIs in my working life, I've also instructed lawyers on writing them (and writing primary legislation too). But I'm sure Dave Dave knows better than either of us.

Steve K wrote:

hirsute wrote:

No, it's not clear. I have read and applied various SIs in my working life and am familiar with their construct. It's clear an argument can be made on the wording and format as you describe. The fact that people have been prosecuted is only relevant if in each case the defence highlighted the different subsections and the court ruled against it. It is also abundantly clear that bicycles are not treated as vehicles in certain situations eg with regard to zebra crossings. It is not an offence to overtake a cyclist within the zigzags of a zebra crossing but it is for a motorised vehicle. So the claim that it is not for debate is lacking in substance.

I'm with you. And not only have I read and interpreted SIs in my working life, I've also instructed lawyers on writing them (and writing primary legislation too). But I'm sure Dave Dave knows better than either of us.

Well, I know that you're both talking bollocks. There is no legal principle of the type you are trying to cite. There is a legal principle that you've both got upside down and inside out. 

Vehicles is a broader category than 'motor vehicles'. It includes all vehicles, including bicycles. 

You are attempting to argue that because bicycles are elsewhere referred to specifically, they are not included in the broad category. In one place they are referred to specifically to define a much narrower category which has additional restrictions. That does not remove them from, or contradict, the broader categorisation.

You are both apparently thinking of a weird mashup of at least two of these:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_interpretation#Textual_Canons

Dave Dave wrote:

Steve K wrote:

hirsute wrote:

No, it's not clear. I have read and applied various SIs in my working life and am familiar with their construct. It's clear an argument can be made on the wording and format as you describe. The fact that people have been prosecuted is only relevant if in each case the defence highlighted the different subsections and the court ruled against it. It is also abundantly clear that bicycles are not treated as vehicles in certain situations eg with regard to zebra crossings. It is not an offence to overtake a cyclist within the zigzags of a zebra crossing but it is for a motorised vehicle. So the claim that it is not for debate is lacking in substance.

I'm with you. And not only have I read and interpreted SIs in my working life, I've also instructed lawyers on writing them (and writing primary legislation too). But I'm sure Dave Dave knows better than either of us.

Well, I know that you're both talking bollocks. There is no legal principle of the type you are trying to cite. There is a legal principle that you've both got upside down and inside out. 

Vehicles is a broader category than 'motor vehicles'. It includes all vehicles, including bicycles. 

You are attempting to argue that because bicycles are elsewhere referred to specifically, they are not included in the broad category. In one place they are referred to specifically to define a much narrower category which has additional restrictions. That does not remove them from, or contradict, the broader categorisation.

You are both apparently thinking of a weird mashup of at least two of these:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_interpretation#Textual_Canons

Genuine question - what's your experience or expertise in interpreting legislation?

Steve K wrote:

Genuine question - what's your experience or expertise in interpreting legislation?

My 'experience or expertise' is sufficient to avoid the fallacy of 'argument by authority'

This one really isn't hard and one doesn't need to be an expert. Words can be assumed to take their plain meaning; an attempt to interpret them otherwise faces a fairly high bar. 

Wanting the law to be something it isn't, and indulging in wishful-thinking interpretations as a result, is very common. This is a classic example. 'Oh, this half-remembered, half-related legal principle suits my case' won't begin to outweigh 'the legislation says the opposite'.

So no expertise, then. I'll stick to my and hirsute's view that it is at the very least arguable.

Steve K wrote:

So no expertise, then. I'll stick to my and hirsute's view that it is at the very least arguable.

Grow up. You sound like you're about 12. Despite your increasingly dubious claims earlier, I judge your 'expertise' by what you've said - and it's very obvious you have none. 

You've repeatedly asserted something for which there is no legal basis, and haven't come up with anything that supports it, any kind of evidence, any kind of further argument. Just a dimly remembered thing you 'feel' must have some weight even though you can't say how.

I, on the other hand, have presented a prima facie case you haven't actually disputed in any way other than with the above assertion. I've included various references to demonstrate the truth of various points.

But you can't actually judge for yourself whether I'm right or wrong, because you have no legal expertise whatsoever, so you're insisting on an appeal to authority.

If I now claim to be the Lord Chief Justice will you decide I'm right? Or at least finally admit what a stupid request that was?

Dave Dave]</p>

<p>[quote=Steve K

wrote:

I, on the other hand, have presented a prima facie case you haven't actually disputed in any way other than with the above assertion. I've included various references to demonstrate the truth of various points.

No you haven't.  You've just asserted you are right.  And yes, if you were a lawyer, I would give more weight to your view of the legal position.  That's what a reasonable person would do - you are the one acting like a child.

I wouldn't bother if I were you, DD's MO appears to be to state what he claims are facts and then when asked for provenance say he won't provide it because the person who challenges him is either too stupid to understand them or mentally ill. He's done that a number of times this weekend alone.

He's just a fantasist anyhow.
Previously claimed as a pedestrian to remove a cyclist from their bike because he considered they were in danger. ie assaulted them
Removed car keys from a motorist and threw them away.

Oh yeah, I remember! A rather strange individual.

You lot argue like anti-vaxxers - which apparently several of you are. I'm done.

Translation:

I can't come up with an argument and put it forward in a reasonable manner so I'm going to be rude and insult people and play the man instead of the ball.

BTW the only person who seems to be anti vax is cyclistpreviouslyknowas who did get a bit of flack from Rendel his postion.

Dave Dave any comment now the police have confirmed speed limits dont apply?

Dave Dave wrote:

I, on the other hand, have presented a prima facie case

Prima facie means that on first impression there appears to be sufficient evidence to support a case. It does not mean, as you quite clearly believe it does, a clear or incontrovertible case. Don't try it with the $10 words when you don't know what they mean, it's embarrassing.

Steve K wrote:

The point was made on the other discussion that one section of the regs have vehicles in one subsection and cycles, skateboards etc in another sub-section. The fact they are listed separately could well lead to the interpretation that vehicles in those regs does not include cycles etc. So I'm not sure it is clear as you suggest.[/quote]

I have read that notion, discussed it, and disputed it. It doesn't make a lot of sense. 

"The presence of other clauses which make more specific prohibitions does not alter the meaning of the broader prohibitions."

Where they are referred to in specific terms, bicycles are treated as a specific subcategory of vehicles. That does not remove them from the main category when it is referred to broadly. 

You are trying to make the argument that the law does not mean what it appears to mean on first interpretation. Whilst I understand where you're coming from, the law is pretty clear, and you're reaching. No-one in their right mind would defend a speeding ticket on this basis, given the risks and costs of losing.

Dave Dave wrote:

Where they are referred to in specific terms, bicycles are treated as a specific subcategory of vehicles.

But they're not. In the section being referred to, quoted on the other thread, they're treated as a separate category to 'vehicles'.

mdavidford wrote:

Dave Dave wrote:

Where they are referred to in specific terms, bicycles are treated as a specific subcategory of vehicles.

But they're not. In the section being referred to, quoted on the other thread, they're treated as a separate category to 'vehicles'.

You'll have to quote that. I don't see anything of the sort. 

Dave Dave wrote:

You'll have to quote that. I don't see anything of the sort. 

GMBasix wrote:

 Take regulation 3(10):

[3. 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

the separation of (b) & (c) might be inferred to separate (motor) vehicles from cycles.

mikewood wrote:

This was on the Royal Parks website as late as July this year. May have changed since....

That may be what they claim, but if so they are simply wrong.

For a fuller analysis see
https://road.cc/content/news/cycling-live-blog-1-october-2021-286745

It's not b&w as you claim.
I'm sure the police have a view doesn't mean they are right. They are not lawyers after all.

Unfortunately, it is black and white. I am one of the police officers who work in the Royal Parks and we do report cyclists for speeding. We are not lawyers, as you correctly point out, but every single case we have reported to court has been successfully prosecuted, so the lawyers and magistrates do agree with us.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

Thanks for the clarification. It beggars belief and speaks to the self-entitlement of some cyclists that they believe speed limits don't apply to themselves, especially in a mixed use area such as Richmond Park.

A) The roads in Richmond Park aren't mixed use (except the parts that have been closed off since Covid, where in my experience 99% of cyclists are being extremely sensible), they are roads, there are paths and trails for walkers, joggers etc along the side of all of them;

B) Do explain how a cyclist without a speedo is supposed to know if they're doing 19 or 21? That's the exact reason that speed limits don't apply to cyclists, it's not "self-entitlement" but the law.