Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

news

Cycling group and Royal Parks disagree over cyclist speed limit advice in Richmond Park

Richmond Park Cyclists also said it would ask the Royal Parks for an answer on why time trials in the park have been paused over cyclist speed fears but the "much bigger" London Duathlon is allowed to go ahead...

A group which aims to "represent all cyclists and para-cyclists who use Richmond Park" is in disagreement with the Royal Parks over advice to cyclists about speed limits in the south-west London park.

The 2,360-acre green space is the largest of the Royal Parks and a popular destination for the English capital's cyclists due to the network of largely uninterrupted roads, which at some times of the day can be quieter than other parts of the city, especially before the gates are opened to motor traffic in the morning.

Last month, the Royal Parks said it would be reviewing its cycling policy "following several cycling-related incidents" and cyclists riding "at excessive speeds" causing crashes. The charity also cancelled cycling club London Dynamo's time trial events on safety grounds as "they directly encourage cyclists to go faster than speed limit", although curiously the London Duathlon in September (half of which involves a closed-road bike event) has not been called off.

> Royal Parks cancels Richmond Park time trials over fears cyclists will break 20mph speed limit, after inquest into pedestrian fatality in "speeding" cyclist collision "brought this activity to people's attention"

Richmond Park Cyclists says it is to meet with Royal Parks management this month and will raise the question about why the Duathlon is allowed to go ahead but early morning, fully insured, heavily marshalled time trials cannot. The group representing cyclists also detailed its disagreement with the charity which manages Richmond Park over advice to cyclists regarding speed limits.

In an email to members, Richmond Park Cyclists said it had been asked to take down its 'Safer Riding Guide' from a noticeboard outside one of the park's cafes by the park's manager Paul Richards.

Formerly named the 'Code of Conduct', Richmond Park Cyclists' code for riders was not without criticism when it was first introduced, some riders who use the park and a campaign group saying it did not address the "real hazard" facing visitors – namely, motor traffic.

The Safer Riding Guide caught the attention of the Royal Parks last week when the charity apparently objected to its advice regarding cycling speeds.

Richmond Park Cyclists explained: "The park manager's concern with the Safer Riding Guide was its advice on the speed limit. The SRG, which was put together with the help of the park's police and our subscribers, states: Speed limits in the park do not apply to cyclists – but that does not mean you can ride as fast as you like all the time. The police enforce a regulation stipulating that you must not ride in a manner that would endanger the safety of other park visitors or yourself. So slow down for pedestrians, anticipate road furniture and other potential hazards, and always be aware that deer can run out at any time. Sensible speeds create a more welcoming environment for everyone.

Richmond Park 01 copyright Simon MacMichael

"The Royal Parks' policy on cycling reads: We do ask that cyclists observe the motor vehicle speed limit for the park, the road or path in question. This varies from 5mph to 20mph. This helps to maintain a safe environment for visitors of all ages, and protects road users, as well as wildlife – particularly as wild deer in Bushy or Richmond Parks may behave unpredictably and run across park roads.

"Essentially, both the Royal Parks and Richmond Park Cyclists are encouraging people, in differing ways, to ride sensibly while remaining aware of any potential hazards around them. But Paul Richards tells us that we 'endorse that cyclists can speed in the park as long as it’s not all the time', which is incorrect. The SRG clearly tells cyclists to adjust their speed, show consideration to all park visitors and abide by the park regulations, while correctly indicating that actual speed limits in the park only apply to drivers – just as they do on all UK roads."

Richmond Park Cyclists said it would meet with Darren Share, the Royal Parks' new Director of Parks, in a few weeks' time "to find out more and discuss how we can work more closely with TRP to help maintain a safe, welcoming environment for all park visitors".

The group also questioned whether "following pressure from some quarters triggered by the inquest into the fatality in Regent's Park", the Royal Parks would "be able to introduce enforceable speed limits for cyclists across its estate?"

Richmond Park Cyclists suggests this would be "possible, but extremely challenging".

Richmond Park 03 copyright Simon MacMichael

The issue around speed limits in the park and whether they apply to cyclists has been long running. Despite initially suggesting speed limits did apply to cyclists, in 2021 it was confirmed that the park's speed limits (which range from 5mph to 20mph) do not apply to cyclists, a stance in line with the wider law.

Then, in the summer of 2022, the Royal Parks said that even if the speed limits do not apply to cyclists, riders would still have action taken if they ride "recklessly".

Last month, the park's manager Richards confirmed to road.cc that time trials had been cancelled in the park in the wake of "several" high-profile incidents involving a "minority" of cyclists riding at speed.

Richmond Park Cyclists also addressed the situation around the time trials' cancellation in its email: "London Dynamo, which has been running the Richmond Park TTs for 15 years, does a risk assessment in conjunction with the sporting body Cycling Time Trials for the two popular, inclusive, fully insured events, and there have never been any safety-related incidents to our knowledge. Richmond Park is one of CTT's safest and most heavily marshalled courses – but despite a month of talks with TRP, we were unable to reverse the decision.

"And yet the London Duathlon, half of which is a cycling time trial, is going ahead in September. Obviously, we are pleased for the competitors that the event (which is much bigger than the RPTTs) has not been cancelled. But why 'pause' one and not the other? We hope to have an answer after our two meetings with TRP's management this month."

Dan is the road.cc news editor and joined in 2020 having previously written about nearly every other sport under the sun for the Express, and the weird and wonderful world of non-league football for The Non-League Paper. Dan has been at road.cc for four years and mainly writes news and tech articles as well as the occasional feature. He has hopefully kept you entertained on the live blog too.

Never fast enough to take things on the bike too seriously, when he's not working you'll find him exploring the south of England by two wheels at a leisurely weekend pace, or enjoying his favourite Scottish roads when visiting family. Sometimes he'll even load up the bags and ride up the whole way, he's a bit strange like that.

Add new comment

46 comments

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to Mr Hoopdriver | 5 months ago
1 like

Mr Hoopdriver wrote:

Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells wrote:

Erm.... As bicycles are not equipped with speedometers, how are all cyclists supposed to comply?

Cyclists must have insurance, number plates, bells, fluorescent clothing, a helmet that is securely fitted and on their head, reflectors on their pedals and in their wheels also front and back lights in working order and powered on at all times, an annual roadworthiness test, ride on the cycle paths and have a SPEEDOMETER fitted.

Should solve that problem

 

Don't forget "must be equipped with a bell audible 25 m away" (and the bike also)!  Perhaps you can then drop the headgear requirement though.

Avatar
wtjs replied to Mr Hoopdriver | 5 months ago
0 likes

 ...ride on the cycle paths and have a SPEEDOMETER fitted

Of course, the police approve of all those requirements, so they can 'do' cyclists at will, rather than wasting time on otherwise law-abiding motorists accidentally transgressing so-called rules concerning red traffic lights, mobile phones, MOTs and other such nonsense when the motorists clearly didn't mean to do it. However, this cyclist speedometer business works directly against one of their list of preferred dodges, which is that by The Police Uncertainty Principle, it's never possible to determine the speed of a cyclist when a hard-working etc. etc. driver has to cross single or double unbroken white lines to overtake them- therefore, it's always legal under Lancashire Law to overtake cyclists whatever the circumstances

https://upride.cc/incident/dhw5w_velar_dwlcross/

https://upride.cc/incident/b5hol_tanker_closepassdwlcross/

https://upride.cc/incident/dl11lja_bmw320_uwlcross/

https://upride.cc/incident/sh63ymkdg64yvn_corsacrv_uwlcross/

https://upride.cc/incident/ma21oyt_vito_closepassuwlcross/

https://upride.cc/incident/yf70xwu_aadrivingschool_uwlcross/

As you can see, the Lancashire AA Driving School even teaches people to do it, knowing that Lancashire Constabulary does not accept that this is a real offence (the official position on just about everything here: WT16 ATX failed MOT for numerous serious defects over 4 months ago and has been driving around this paradise for offenders, under police protection, ever since- first reported by me 24th April)

Avatar
BigDoodyBoy | 5 months ago
2 likes

That's a lot of words and people getting het up about being responsible. Why do cyclists insist on pushing the "speed limits don't apply to us so we can be just as much a dick as any speeding motorist" when in fact they can win the war by being RESPONSIBLE. Oh, and take a bit of the moral high ground too.

But no! You just have to keep on being dicks!

Avatar
essexian replied to BigDoodyBoy | 5 months ago
3 likes

BigDoodyBoy wrote:

But no! You just have to keep on being dicks!

I take it that, as you are posting on a cycling site, that you are a cyclist too....

Avatar
Rendel Harris replied to essexian | 5 months ago
5 likes

essexian wrote:

BigDoodyBoy wrote:

But no! You just have to keep on being dicks!

I take it that, as you are posting on a cycling site, that you are a cyclist too....

That's quite a reach...

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to BigDoodyBoy | 5 months ago
3 likes
BigDoodyBoy wrote:

That's a lot of words and people getting het up about being responsible. Why do cyclists insist on pushing the "speed limits don't apply to us so we can be just as much a dick as any speeding motorist" when in fact they can win the war by being RESPONSIBLE.

Would that war be the War on the Motorist?

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to BigDoodyBoy | 5 months ago
6 likes

BigDoodyBoy wrote:

That's a lot of words and people getting het up about being responsible. Why do cyclists insist on pushing the "speed limits don't apply to us so we can be just as much a dick as any speeding motorist" when in fact they can win the war by being RESPONSIBLE. Oh, and take a bit of the moral high ground too. But no! You just have to keep on being dicks!

Maybe cyclists keep pushing that narrative as it's the truth and how the law works? I mean you can make up random laws and then complain that people aren't abiding by them, but that would just make you look like a dick wouldn't it?

Avatar
The_Ewan replied to BigDoodyBoy | 5 months ago
7 likes

BigDoodyBoy wrote:

Why do cyclists insist on pushing the "speed limits don't apply to us so we can be just as much a dick as any speeding motorist"

Two reasons really. Firstly, because the fact itself is, well, a fact - motor vehicle requirements simply do not in fact apply to bikes. And secondly, because it's right that they don't - despite the propaganda speed itself really isn't the problem in a crash, energy is. And a bike and rider at 45mph doesn't have anywhere near the energy that a car does.

You know that intuitively - if you imagine someone riding a bike into a brick wall at 45mph they're going to hurt themselves. Someone driving a car into it at 45mph is going to demolish the wall. It makes no sense to regulate those two very different situations as if they were the same.

And that difference is why people are routinely killed by people driving cars into them, and hardly anyone ever dies from being hit by a bike.

Avatar
mdavidford replied to The_Ewan | 5 months ago
8 likes

The_Ewan wrote:

hardly anyone ever dies from being hit by a bike cyclist.

Sauce for the goose and all that.

Avatar
john_smith replied to The_Ewan | 5 months ago
1 like

I wouldn't get too hung up on the kinetic energy the moving object. There are other factors that are just as or more important, such as the shape and hardness of the bit that hits you. 

Avatar
ROOTminus1 replied to john_smith | 5 months ago
3 likes
john_smith wrote:

I wouldn't get too hung up on the kinetic energy the moving object. There are other factors that are just as or more important, such as the shape and hardness of the bit that hits you. 

...because Range Rovers are all marshmallows and eider down?
The majority of mass in collision with a cyclist is the squishy meatbag in the saddle, which at the very most has the same density and hardness as anything a cyclist may be in collision with.

Avatar
john_smith replied to ROOTminus1 | 5 months ago
0 likes

Dunno about that. Not every moving object is a Range Rover. And I can put quite a nice dent in the bonnet of a car with my bare fist, so while the steel might be denser, it is effectively less hard.

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to john_smith | 5 months ago
2 likes

And just imagine if they hadn't washed their bicycle that day!

Studies available of this kind of thing of course eg

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1757-899X/252/1/012001

 

Avatar
tootsie323 replied to john_smith | 5 months ago
2 likes

That's nice. Now try it on the engine block.

Avatar
Pub bike | 5 months ago
7 likes

Royal Parks seem to be in cloud cuckoo land.  Do they think that every other user of the park is studiously complying with the letter of the regulations?  Do they not see the kind of motoring that goes on in the park?  And the lack of any enforcement by the Met Police (who are responsible for enforcing road traffic in the park). There are plenty of speeding motorists, and far more than a neglible number of close passes and tailgating.   Even the official buses that go to White Lodge don't follow the hazards-on and 10mph guidance. The RP1 bus is so wide and with the drivers tending to drive down the middle of the road there is barely enough room for a cyclist to pass it.  I was close-passed by a Police vehicle on Sawyers Hill, which of course led to NFA.

There seems to be some other agenda here.

Avatar
MTB Refugee | 5 months ago
1 like

Basically, don't be a dick.

Pages

Latest Comments