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

Rendel Harris wrote:

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.

A) That is the definition of a mixed-use carriageway.

B) That isn't a matter of law, it's a matter of you assuming something that suits your case. If there are speed limits in parks applicable to cyclists, then cyclists in those parks need to fit a speedo - if they're going fast enough to be worried about breaching them.

You can't just imagine what the law 'ought' to be. You need to look up what it actually is. 

Now, bring on the attack dogs; when you lot round here don't like the facts, you usually attack the messenger. Your vituperous bile doesn't change the facts, though.

Dave Dave wrote:

You can't just imagine what the law 'ought' to be. You need to look up what it actually is. 

Do show me the law (not Park regulations, UK or English law) that applies speed limits to cyclists. You can't, because there isn't one. You're the one who's "just imagning" what the law is when it doesn't exist.

Rendel Harris wrote:

Dave Dave wrote:

You can't just imagine what the law 'ought' to be. You need to look up what it actually is. 

Do show me the law (not Park regulations, UK or English law) that applies speed limits to cyclists. You can't, because there isn't one. You're the one who's "just imagning" what the law is when it doesn't exist.

If you can't even read what I wrote and understand it, the chances you'll read and understand anything law-related are basically zero.

Want to try again? I made no assertions as to law. I merely debunked your incorrect assertions.

"I know but I'm not telling you and I've proved you wrong anyway even though I haven't said anything" - brilliant, not heard that sort of thing since primary school.

By the way the definition of a mixed use carriageway is one where the pavement or walkway directly abuts the roadway. In Richmond Park the pathways are always a minimum 2m, usually more, from the roadway, so it's not mixed use.

Rendel Harris wrote:

"I know but I'm not telling you and I've proved you wrong anyway even though I haven't said anything" - brilliant, not heard that sort of thing since primary school.

By the way the definition of a mixed use carriageway is one where the pavement or walkway directly abuts the roadway. In Richmond Park the pathways are always a minimum 2m, usually more, from the roadway, so it's not mixed use.

What are you babbling about? I explained to you why something you said is wrong. It is still wrong. You've imagined some other assertions I didn't make at any point. Those may well be wrong too, but, crucially, they're _only in your head_.

And that is simply not the definition of 'mixed-use carriageway'.

https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/urban/cycling/guidance-cycling-pro...(or%20shared,%2C%20motorised%20vehicles%2C%20or%20both.

"Mixed-use zones (or shared spaces) are designed to encourage different modes of transport to co­exist on the same roads and public spaces. This can include cyclists mixing with pedestrians, motorised vehicles, or both."

As I said, you can't just imagine your own facts, or guess what the law 'ought' to be based on your own assumptions.

Dave Dave wrote:

"Mixed-use zones (or shared spaces) are designed to encourage different modes of transport to co­exist on the same roads and public spaces. This can include cyclists mixing with pedestrians, motorised vehicles, or both."

And in Richmond Park, outside the closed areas introduced for Covid, cyclists do not mix with pedestrians on the road, as I said, the pedestrian paths are always 2m+ off the road, so by your own kindly-supplied definition, it is not a mixed-use roadway. Thank you for shooting yourself in the foot.

No further responses to you from me I'm afraid, because a) you're trolling and b) as Professor Dawkins said, don't argue with an idiot, the best you can hope for is to say you've won an argument with an idiot.

Rendel Harris wrote:

Dave Dave wrote:

"Mixed-use zones (or shared spaces) are designed to encourage different modes of transport to co­exist on the same roads and public spaces. This can include cyclists mixing with pedestrians, motorised vehicles, or both."

And in Richmond Park, outside the closed areas introduced for Covid, cyclists do not mix with pedestrians on the road, as I said, the pedestrian paths are always 2m+ off the road, so by your own kindly-supplied definition, it is not a mixed-use roadway. Thank you for shooting yourself in the foot.

No further responses to you from me I'm afraid, because a) you're trolling and b) as Professor Dawkins said, don't argue with an idiot, the best you can hope for is to say you've won an argument with an idiot.

You must be able to read. Why won't you? You're talking about something which is there in black and white a few lines from where you're writing. Mixed-use zones are roads where _traffic_ and _cyclists_ share space, as well as various other mixtures. 

Dave Dave wrote:

"Mixed-use zones (or shared spaces) are designed to encourage different modes of transport to co­exist on the same roads and public spaces. This can include cyclists mixing with pedestrians, motorised vehicles, or both."

By that interpretation, mixed use zones covers nearly every road in the country.  Wheras mixed use is conventionally applied to areas where pedestrians and vehicles co-exist. On reflection I think your statement would be correct if the word pedestrians were swapped with the word cyclists, but then of course it would not help your argument that the roads in Richmond Park are mixed use zones because cyclists share with drivers.

there isnt a specific speeding law that applies to cyclists as such you are right, but there are certainly laws that can be used against cyclists who are considered to be speeding, section 28 & 29 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 as an example, and some lawyers do argue the wanton and furious cycling, the one Alliston and others have been successfully prosecuted on, could be used for speeding alone, though its really only been used when a cyclist hits a pedestrian and injures them.

For point B, can you confirm a legally calibrated Speedometer that can be fitted to a bike that could be trusted to be telling the correct speeds.  Most are based on wheel circumference so if the tyre is blown up or deflated more then normal, it will throw it out. Or if the cyclist changed from 25's to 28's the same thing could happen. Then I you have the weather issues as apparently I was doing speeds of 80mph plus. And don't say gps instead as heavily wooded areas throw that out as well. 

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

For point B, can you confirm a legally calibrated Speedometer that can be fitted to a bike that could be trusted to be telling the correct speeds.  Most are based on wheel circumference so if the tyre is blown up or deflated more then normal, it will throw it out. Or if the cyclist changed from 25's to 28's the same thing could happen. Then I you have the weather issues as apparently I was doing speeds of 80mph plus. And don't say gps instead as heavily wooded areas throw that out as well. 

Whether or not such a device exists has no relevance here. But in fact speedometers of reasonable accuracy do exist, and should be calibrated conservatively, just like car speedos, and recalibrated as necessary when o/d changes significantly.

This is basic common sense, not rocket surgery. If you voluntarily ride (fast) in the one place in the country where you need a speedo (when riding fast), then buy a bloody speedometer.

So as any bike can easily do above 20 mph going downhill, every bike needs a regularly calibrated speedo. Sounds like every bike will also need an mot and insurance soon as well. 

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

So as any bike can easily do above 20 mph going downhill, every bike needs a regularly calibrated speedo. Sounds like every bike will also need an mot and insurance soon as well. 

Only bikes being ridden that fast in Richmond Park. The rest don't need to worry.

So a kids bike, my mrs town framed ebike, my hybrid bike and any other bike that can do over 20 mph on one of the downhills in Richmond park needs a fully calibrated speedo. Thanks for the info. 

thats touch unfair IMO, as there is a clear issue about the specific wording of the speed limit regulations in Royal Parks, that leaves it unclear and open only to what a "reasonable interpretation" of the word vehicle really means in law and whether that technically still covers cyclists in this case. Normally the law as its applied to vehicles only applies to motor vehicles, and theres been case law that backs that view up.

so its not unreasonable for cyclists to say well based on that precedent, those speed limit regulations in the Royal Parks dont necessarily apply the way theyve been written.

but I dont think its sensible to assume they dont at all, and certainly not just because the Royal Parks twitter account says they dont, because as jmaccelari points out, the police can still issue you a speeding fine, because that speed limit regulation is still on the books, it hasnt disappeared just because a Royal Parks twitter account says it doesnt apply anymore & just leave it to a court to decide what the reasonable interpretation of vehicle really means, though we dont know anyone defending one of these speeding fines has ever used the bicycle isnt a vehicle as a defence.

regardless its all rather dancing on the head of a pin, as even if you felt the speed limit didnt apply,  you could still be prosecuted for wanton & furious cycling, or even careless/inconsiderate cycling for riding at a speed that the police felt wasnt in keeping with the situation or conditions, and theres no vehicle get out clause on those.

so my advice would be to use a footballing cliche, dont give the referee a decision they have to make because youll likely get sent off, just stick to the speed limit.

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.

It seems both the royal parks and the police have now confirmed speed limits do not apply. Awareness oif the law is now to be considered self entitlement.

jmaccelari wrote:

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.

I think you (or rather your force) should take this up with the Royal Parks and make sure a clear statement is put out. It can't be in anyone's interest to have official erroneous statements in the public domain.

We have, but unfortunately, the RP does not seem to inform all of its staff and they issue these kinds of statements without asking the police.

You can't report a cyclist for speeding. There is no FPN offence for speeding on a bicycle like there is for a car.

The police can report a cyclist for careless/dangerous cycling, in which speed was a factor. But it's unlikely they would be successful in court for speed alone. Especially if they had no speedometer on the bike. 

Did you read the analysis in the other thread?

What is being done about dangerous drivers who speed, close pass and ignore no entry points in the park?

jmaccelari wrote:

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.

Any idea what charges they were prosecuted for? Was it reckless cycling or something else?

Given the response to the fi request it now sounds as if someone now called to court over the issue would have a stronger defence than previously perceived, and unless the issue is tested in more senior courts, what actually is the Law rather than habitual legal custom has not yet been established. Aside from that there is a section of the cycling community who are an absolute menace, and I am very happy to see them restricted to 20mph on a road that many young and elderly people have to routinely cross. My experience is that that section of the cycling community is far less likely to slow or stop to allow you to cross the park roads than many motorists! Hopefully through cars will soon be banned and motorists and cyclists perhaps limited to a more sociable 15mph maximum. It is somewhat laughable to see the argument that cyclists can't be expected to know their speed when the chief offenders are tooled up with a vast collection of performance sensors and analysers.

It doesn't matter what tech the serious amateurs use. The requirement to know your speed would apply to those who get an old bike out the shed once a year.

I've been riding and walking in Richmond Park since I was five years old, which means, God help me, nearly 50 years. I honestly can't recall seeing any incidents between pedestrians and cyclists (before Nigel rushes to Google, yes I'm sure there have been some, but I haven't seen them, whereas I have seen plenty of incidents between pedestrians and motor vehicles and cyclists and motor vehicles). The whole issue of cycling speed is an absolute red herring, created in the usual anti-cycling brigade way of "I think that this is a safety issue so it must be, no matter what the evidence shows." The most significant danger to health and well-being in Richmond Park, as well as the most significant factor limiting people's enjoyment of the park, is the heavy motor traffic. It has been demonstrated during Covid, when sections of roads have been closed off, particularly between Roehampton gate and Richmond gate, that cyclists, pedestrians, joggers, scooterists, rollerbladers, families pushing prams et cetera can all peacefully coexist in the space available when there is no motor traffic there. It's all been rather lovely in fact, and in maybe 30 visits in the course of the pandemic I think I've seen three or four cyclists behaving stupidly in those areas, and they have all been roundly castigated both by myself and other cyclists.

lukei1 wrote:

I think they'll still keep handing out tickets if you're going 30mph into oncoming cyclists on the steeper hills but I will enjoy skimming past drivers while I'm gogin 25 mph (at least past the small minority that stick to the 20mph limit)

where does the 20mph figure come from? The legislation says:

Quote:

Regulation 4(28)

PART II
Speeds at which vehicles may be driven or ridden on a Park road

1.  On the Park roads in Bushy Park, Greenwich Park, Hyde Park (except for the Serpentine Road), The Regent’s Park, Richmond Park and St. James’s and The Green Parks, at a speed not exceeding 30 m.p.h.

Or have I got my wires crossed?
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/1639/made

Edit: oh, I've found the answer...
https://road.cc/content/news/95155-are-police-fining-speeding-cyclists-r...

brooksby wrote:

So are they going to rush out and refund all those wrongly applied speeding fines?

Either that, or rush out and fine all the participants in the London Duathlon. It must be one or the other.

Anyone know if the ride London's had special dispensation for the days. I suppose they did due to the Surrey classic later in the day.