Speeding fine for Richmond Park cyclist clocked riding at 41mph - but is penalty lawful?

[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.]

700c wrote:

Moral of the story, don't do twice the speed of the traffic, whatever your mode of transport.

Whether or not they can charge cyclists with speeding in royal parks is kind of missing the point in this case.

Thing is he wasn't doing twice the speed of the traffic, he was doing twice the speed limit. I can't find it right now but I remember reading somewhere that the average speed of cars measured in RP is 37mph. This cyclist was traveling only a few percent faster than that. I'm not condoning what he did, just pointing out the inconsistency.

portec wrote:

I can't find it right now but I remember reading somewhere that the average speed of cars measured in RP is 37mph.

I find that incredibly hard to believe. I ride in RP most days during the week and would say that while cars routinely break the speed limit, the average is probably closer to 25mph.

As for this cyclist, I have to say I have little sympathy - over double the speed limit clearly isn't a good idea. That said, I suspect what got him caught was that he was overtaking cars at those speeds. I once got pulled over by the police in RP after I overtook some cars while descending Sawyer's. I wasn't going anywhere near as fast as this guy (I think they clocked me at 33mph) and they let me off with a written caution. Now I just make sure that I never overtake any car in RP unless they are either stationary or going way below the speed limit. Never had any issues since.

shmooster wrote:

Unless you brake it's incredibly easy to hit 40mph in RP, both on Sawyers and on Broomfield, although Sawyers is a bit safer not having a bend at the bottom. I'm not suggesting it's a good idea to go that fast though, as there are a lot of pedestrians, dogs and deer just waiting to jump out in front of you.

If anyone believes cars stick to 20 and cyclists are the only ones breaking the limit then they've clearly never been there.

True. But if you don't want to be done, don't be obviously the fastest thing on the road by overtaking the cars.

shmooster wrote:

If anyone believes cars stick to 20 and cyclists are the only ones breaking the limit then they've clearly never been there.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that.

And whatever the fine points of law, I don't think we help ourselves, as cyclists, if we break what most people would term the speed limit.

It is a point I repeat, probably ad nauseam, but the more we allow there to be a "them and us" mentality between those on bikes and those in cars, the more dangerous it is for those on bikes- because we are not in 1.5tonne killing machines.

Therefore, for the sake of us all, do not be militant, abide by speed limits, and, much though it may stick in the craw, be nice to car drivers.

And I wasn't going to add this paragraph, but, obviously, I do- I really fear that some of those who campaign on behalf of cyclists, by for example, posting vids of appalling driving, may in fact make matters worse by creating the them-and-us atmosphere.

It is very difficult, and I am equivocal on this, but I think there needs to be a broader discussion about the best way forward.

rjfrussell wrote:

shmooster wrote:

If anyone believes cars stick to 20 and cyclists are the only ones breaking the limit then they've clearly never been there.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that.

I read one report (forget where from) which could be summarised as "Cyclist does 41mph, cars are limited to 20mph", the implication being that only cyclists were speeding.

shmooster wrote:

Unless you brake it's incredibly easy to hit 40mph in RP, both on Sawyers and on Broomfield, although Sawyers is a bit safer not having a bend at the bottom. I'm not suggesting it's a good idea to go that fast though, as there are a lot of pedestrians, dogs and deer just waiting to jump out in front of you.

If anyone believes cars stick to 20 and cyclists are the only ones breaking the limit then they've clearly never been there.

Unless you brake it's incredibly easy to shoot through a red light.

So what? Brake then. If your vehicle has trouble doing that it shouldn't be on the road.

nuclear coffee wrote:

Unless you brake it's incredibly easy to shoot through a red light.

There are no red lights in Richmond Park.

The point I was making is that from some reports you can get the impression the rider was going all out for some kind of land speed record, rather than just freewheeling down a hill.

Not defending the speed though, I gave a number of reasons why it's a bad idea.

Bigfoz wrote:

Think I'd have gone with the absurdity defence...

Really? Speeding? More than 20? I had no idea as I have no speedo officer, so I'm completely unable to stick to a speed limit whether it's legal or not.

After all, if a bicycle does not require a speedo by law, how can a speed limit be enforced?

My car does not require breathalyser input.

A government can pass a law and it's up to you to stay within it how you choose.

Bigfoz wrote:

...if a bicycle does not require a speedo by law, how can a speed limit be enforced?

Interestingly, I was at a meeting on Saturday where our local bobby explained that drivers can be prosecuted if, in the constable's judgement they were exceeding the speed limit. Speed guns, she said, are merely to corroborate that judgement. I was surprised at first, but it makes sense: speed laws have been around a lot longer than radar guns, so in the past it was all ultimately a question of judgement. I can recall my grandfather getting off a ticket some 40+ years ago by saying to the magistrate, 'Would the officer like to explain how it was possible for me to exceed 30mph in {place} at {time during the rush hour}?' The place would have been New Malden, Southall or Kingston, probably. The magistrate, with a busy schedule ahead of him, said, 'Case dismissed. Next'.
So, leaving aside the question whether the limit applies to cycles in the park, having no speedometer isn't necessarily an excuse.

arowland wrote:

Bigfoz wrote:

...if a bicycle does not require a speedo by law, how can a speed limit be enforced?

Interestingly, I was at a meeting on Saturday where our local bobby explained that drivers can be prosecuted if, in the constable's judgement they were exceeding the speed limit. Speed guns, she said, are merely to corroborate that judgement. I was surprised at first, but it makes sense: speed laws have been around a lot longer than radar guns, so in the past it was all ultimately a question of judgement. I can recall my grandfather getting off a ticket some 40+ years ago by saying to the magistrate, 'Would the officer like to explain how it was possible for me to exceed 30mph in {place} at {time during the rush hour}?' The place would have been New Malden, Southall or Kingston, probably. The magistrate, with a busy schedule ahead of him, said, 'Case dismissed. Next'.
So, leaving aside the question whether the limit applies to cycles in the park, having no speedometer isn't necessarily an excuse.

Cars aren't fitted with breathalysers either but being over the limit for alcohol in the blood is still an offence. I can see it now - "well yer honour, me jamjar isn't fitted with a breathalyser - you'll have to let me off". "No chance, Guilty as charged."

atgni wrote:

Section 124 of the highway code 'speed limits' doesn't apply to cycles.

You see the bit in the article where it says there's doubt about whether "speeding restrictions in London’s Royal Parks, unlike those on public roads elsewhere in the country, actually apply to cyclists as well as motorists"?

That's a clue that he was done under restrictions that are specific to London’s Royal Parks, and unlike those on public roads elsewhere in the country.

(Also, the Highway Code is, in part, a guide to the law, but it's not the actual law. The poster quoting Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 was closer, but still missing the "restrictions in London’s Royal Parks" bit.)

n8udd wrote:

Was he fined for speeding, or some kind of dangerous cycling offence?

I'd hope the latter.

That is in honesty precisely how speed limits and prosecution for the breaking thereof should be used - even in the absence of any other evidence, the speed alone made the conduct dangerous. Actually - the speed at which it becomes dangerous would be lower on two wheels, with tiny contact patches, less visibility, and no ABS.

It's a shame that's not how they're used in reality - and no, they're not revenue raisers. But they are set as a general parameter by councils in order to influence the safety of a road. Admirable aim, but that's not the same thing as a prosecution threshold.