Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Charity that runs London parks wants new laws to prosecute cyclists for breaking 20mph speed limit in Regent's Park and Richmond Park

The Royal Parks oversees popular training and riding routes for London cyclists, the body's chairman asking government to "set speed limits for cyclists" in its parks and for riders above 20mph limit to be prosecuted...

The charity responsible for London's Royal Parks has asked the government to amend legislation "with a view to setting speed limits for cyclists" in its parks which, if introduced, could see riders exceeding 20mph speed limits prosecuted.

The organisation runs London's Royal Parks — two of which, Richmond Park and Regent's Park — are popular with the capital's cyclists and attract a large number of two-wheeled visitors throughout the year.

Richmond Park 04 copyright Simon MacMichael

Writing to Sir Chris Bryant, the Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism, the Telegraph reports that The Royal Parks chairman Loyd Grossman (the former presenter of MasterChef and Through the Keyhole) has asked government to amend laws so that cyclists failing to adhere to the parks' 20mph speed limits can be prosecuted for speeding.

The letter comes at the end of a summer when The Royal Parks cited cyclists riding "at excessive speeds" and causing crashes as the reason for it reviewing its cycling policy, while also cancelling early-morning time trial events in Richmond Park and the London Duathlon.

In May, Strava was asked to remove "Regent's Park as a segment on the app" by The Royal Parks, the move coming following the death of a pensioner who died from her injuries sustained in a collision with a cyclist riding laps of the park at 25-29mph.

Regent's Park and Outer Circle Strava segment (Google Maps/Strava)

The death of Hilda Griffiths in 2022, a case much-publicised earlier this year following a coroner's inquest, sparked Royal Parks action on cycling, as well as Conservative MP Iain Duncan-Smith to launch his campaign for stricter punishments for cyclists who kill or injure.

> Cyclists "horrified" by Iain Duncan Smith's Telegraph column suggesting "dangerous cyclists should be driven off our roads", as Conservative MP accused of ignoring main road safety issues in latest call for stricter legislation

It was heard at the inquest that the cyclist involved, Brian Fitzgerald, would not face prosecution as the Metropolitan Police deemed there was "insufficient evidence for a real prospect of conviction". He was riding laps of Regent's Park as part of a group ride travelling at between 25-29mph when he hit the 81-year-old pedestrian as she crossed the road, causing her several broken bones and bleeding on the brain, injuries she died from in hospital two months later.

The letter written to government seeks an amendment to The Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces Regulations 1997 "with a view to setting speed limits for cyclists".

"This will match what is already in place for motor vehicles on our park roads, namely a maximum speed limit of 20mph," Mr Grossman writes. "Whilst we recognise there are challenges associated with this request, most notably on enforcement, we believe it is a change that would improve safety within the parks for both cyclists and other park users."

A spokesperson for the charity added: "We have a responsibility to everyone who uses the parks to ensure we are acting in a way that protects and promotes their safety."

A source from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport said the proposal would be considered "carefully".

Richmond Park 03 copyright Simon MacMichael

Discussion around speed limits in The Royal Parks, notably Richmond Park, have 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".

In July, we reported that a group claiming to represent cyclists who use the park (Richmond Park Cyclists) had clashed with the charity over its speed limit advice for riders using the park.

This summer's Richmond Park Time Trials were also cancelled by The Royal Parks. Organised by the London Dynamo cycling club and first run in 2009, they were due to take place on 23 June and 7 July this year – and had been praised for their inclusivity and for providing a gateway into the sport, enabling beginners to compete on road bikes and on almost traffic-free roads due to their 6am starts.

London Dynamo Richmond Park time trials (Richmond Park Cyclists)

However, The Royal Parks cancelled this summer's events over fears riders would break the park's 20mph speed limit, a decision which left organisers "fuming" and arguing the decision had been clouded by "very irresponsible journalism" and that the alternative is "busy roads and fast-moving cars".

"Following several cycling-related incidents, it is our duty to take action to minimise the risk of accidents and our priority to ensure the safety of all cyclists together with other visitors," Richmond Park's manager said. September's London Duathlon in the park was subsequently also cancelled.

The Royal Parks has received plenty of criticism over the years for its approach to improving road safety in its parks. Many, including the London Cycling Campaign (LCC), have repeatedly asked why through-traffic is still allowed to use Richmond Park as a shortcut, the campaign calling the cancellation of well-organised events "weak" while "daily rat-runs" continue.

While some of Richmond Park's roads are closed to motor traffic on weekends, during weekdays the green space, which The Royal Parks proudly calls an "extraordinary landscape" that is also London's largest Site of Special Scientific Interest and a National Nature Reserve, is used as a cut-through for motorists driving between Kingston upon Thames, Richmond and Roehampton.

Richmond Park queues (via The Royal Parks, Twitter)

[Sunny summer weekend traffic in Richmond Park]

The LCC has campaigned for the park to be closed to through-traffic for years, arguing it would improve road safety and make them "far better for people walking, cycling and relaxing in".

Two weeks ago, specialist cycling insurance provider ETA Services Ltd called it an "ongoing embarrassment" that The Royal Parks "allows this nature reserve to be used as a rat-run", the comments coming in response to the incident below.

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

69 comments

Avatar
Ben Graham | 1 month ago
1 like

I'm led to believe the 20mph limit would apply to all, albeit enforced differently for cyclists - 'furious pedalling' or something like that. Therefore it's simply the authorities making a decision around enforcing or not.

Meanwhile - irrespective of how this is enforced - as many cycle groups have pushed for 20 limits it would seem rather odd not to publicly encourage cyclists to abide by them wouldn't it?

Avatar
Rendel Harris replied to Ben Graham | 1 month ago
4 likes
Ben Graham wrote:

as many cycle groups have pushed for 20 limits it would seem rather odd not to publicly encourage cyclists to abide by them wouldn't it?

Not really Ben, you see cyclists aren't two metres wide and don't weigh two tonnes, they can manouevre and brake in rather different ways to motor cars. Saying it's rather odd not encourage the same rules for cyclists as for motor vehicles is like saying it's odd not to have the same rules for cap guns as for Uzis.

Avatar
Saucepan | 1 month ago
2 likes

It's ironic that Royal Parks who  are fine with motorists using the park for the rush hour but have the time to pursue the persecution of non polluting cyclists. 
surely conservation and protection of the park is their mandate???

Avatar
Rendel Harris | 1 month ago
3 likes

Astonishing article in the Telegraph from three days ago, I can't read the whole thing because I don't wish to sign up to them, but the headline is:

"Watch: Speeding cyclists joke about hitting people on London road where 81-year-old was killed"

Although you can't see the rest of the article without signing up, you can see the video, which shows a group of cyclists talking before setting off for a lap of the park, one says, "Remember to be careful around the ambassador's house and that [the official US ambassador's residence is in the north-west corner of the park]" and another responds, "Yes, we don't want to take out Mike Pompeo." So saying, admittedly in a light-hearted way, that we should watch out to make sure we don't hit people is "joking about hitting people"? The tagline also says that the video shows cyclists "racing on the wrong side of the road": I watched it all the way through and there's one point at which the rider in front of the camera cyclist might just stray on the wrong side of the road – it's very hard to tell because there are no centre lines in that part of the park – as he moves out and flicks an elbow for the camera cyclist to come through. There is no oncoming traffic in sight and if the cyclist does cross to the wrong side of the road it's literally for a second before moving back into line. 

Just look at the name they've chosen for the page as well: "cyclists-regents-park-dangerous-high-speed-culture-death", says it all really…

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/10/19/cyclists-regents-park-danger...

Avatar
eburtthebike replied to Rendel Harris | 1 month ago
4 likes

That's staggeringly desperate, portraying innocuous, innocent behaviour as reckless and dangerous: but why?  Is the establishment now so threatened by the increasing number of cyclists that they need to publish highly inaccurate, denigrating stories to stir up the masses against them?

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to eburtthebike | 1 month ago
6 likes
eburtthebike wrote:

That's staggeringly desperate, portraying innocuous, innocent behaviour as reckless and dangerous: but why?  Is the establishment now so threatened by the increasing number of cyclists that they need to publish highly inaccurate, denigrating stories to stir up the masses against them?

I'm not sure that I'd equate The Torygraph with the establishment. More likely Torygraph readers are an aging, senile demographic that get a thrill from hating others.

Avatar
JLasTSR replied to hawkinspeter | 1 month ago
1 like

The trouble is the majority of the nation reads the Sun, the Daily Mail and then the Times and the Telegraph, the Express, the FT and then the Guardian which has about a third of the circulation of either the Times or the Telegraph.

The London papers circulation competes with the higher numbers. So presumably as the circulations are all so low, the Sun is about 1200,000 the Times 400,000 the Guardian 130,000 , the establishment doesn't read.

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to JLasTSR | 1 month ago
1 like
JLasTSR wrote:

The trouble is the majority of the nation reads the Sun, the Daily Mail and then the Times and the Telegraph, the Express, the FT and then the Guardian which has about a third of the circulation of either the Times or the Telegraph. The London papers circulation competes with the higher numbers. So presumably as the circulations are all so low, the Sun is about 1200,000 the Times 400,000 the Guardian 130,000 , the establishment doesn't read.

I'm suspicious of the circulation figures, not because they're wrong, but because most people don't buy/read a newspaper, but get their news online and some papers have stopped producing circulation figures from 2020 onwards due to this. Personally, I would guess that the right-wing papers are more likely to be bought by the older generation, so it's entirely possible that the figures are skewed according to this.

My experience is that I don't know anyone under the age of 70 that buys a newspaper, but then I'm in the particularly lefty city of Bristol which isn't very representative of the rest of the country.

Edit: Had a look for online readership and that paints an interesting picture

https://pressgazette.co.uk/media-audience-and-business-data/media_metrics/most-popular-websites-news-uk-monthly-2/

That shows the Grauniad in 2nd place (44%) to the BBC (78%) followed closely by The Sun, Mail Online etc. The Torygraph is a bit behind at 33%.

Avatar
JLasTSR replied to hawkinspeter | 1 month ago
0 likes

The Guardian is free online and can be accessed with just a subscription so it is widely read but the figures are potentially skewed because the others are mostly talking about paid subscriptions. The online circulation also skews some other numbers as well so the FT goes up because it overseas readership is quite high. 

The numbers for all of them are still surprisingly low. When you would like to think we are a moderately well educated country and you would expect everyone to want to know at least a bit about what is going on, they probably see the TV news or the radio and I am always pleasantly surprised to find everyone knows miles more than I do about lots of things. 

I just went to Guardian for the first time in about a couple of years and they are definitely pushing their paid subscription like mad. I didn't realise it had such a close link with the Observer. Online of the broadsheets it is definitely sitting top of the pile.

I remember at school an English Master was particularly keen on the Guardian, He made us read an article headlined and do an analysis of the text "Women Who Smoke Have Lighter Babies" It was written without what I would call journalistic vigour. It was more a meandering prose that was largely inconclusive but I enjoyed the joke. Mr Spring was not overly impressed when I asked if the babies were all called Zippo.

I have also discovered that 75% of adults consume news properly on more of a monthly basis, and only look at headlines in between times. Funny how you read one thing and then wind up looking up a few things. Mind you I would not be surprised if there are some that read several. My wife looks at Sky News, Google, The Mail, Express, Telegraph every day and if there is something interesting on another website she will visit that as well.

Avatar
JLasTSR replied to Rendel Harris | 1 month ago
1 like

One of the videos it shows at least three of the cyclists going to the right of traffic islands with keep left signs on them. I think that is a bit naughty, breaking the rules of the road, but if there is no oncoming traffic and no pedestrians about it is probably safe enough.

Avatar
Rome73 | 1 month ago
9 likes

I occasionally cycle though Regents Park as a commuter. I'm reasonably certain  the vast, vast majority of motor vehicles are not doing 20mph. I suppose if and when ''they' start enforcing 20mph for cyclists 'they' will do the same for motor vehicle drivers? 

Avatar
kingleo | 1 month ago
3 likes

Cars are to be banned from Richmond Park because they are a great danger to the cyclists - 'It's only a matter of time before a cyclist is killed by a motorist' said a Richmond Park manager.

Avatar
Zazz53 | 1 month ago
1 like

https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/en/charity-search/-/charity-details/5096383/governing-document

Trying to marry up the charitable objects of the TRP with their attitude to cyclists at the moment.  

In terms of the stats do they identify whether the incidents between bikes and pedestrians are on the tarmac roads our on the outer ring path?  I do think there is an issue with bikes using the outer ring path at the moment (esp the electrically assisted bikes).

Avatar
brooksby | 1 month ago
23 likes
Quote:

A spokesperson for the charity added: "We have a responsibility to everyone who uses the parks to ensure we are acting in a way that protects and promotes their safety."

So they'll be banning motor vehicles from going through there, then?

Avatar
chrisonabike | 1 month ago
1 like

Culture war isn't new...

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2015/oct/29/scorchers-...

And in the States:

https://ephemeralnewyork.wordpress.com/2014/08/09/the-bicycle-scorchers-...

Of course it's also true that now, as then, some cyclists are more concerned about their sport and speed than others (think high-wheelers - expensive, dangerous and really not very practical for things other than going fast and showing you were a dashing young man of some means).

Naturally the police had their own pursuit vehicles:

https://british-police-history.uk/f/hertfordshire-scorchers

Avatar
mctrials23 | 1 month ago
24 likes

If it wasn't so stupid it would be funny. Cyclist kills a pedestrian and we have a national issue on our hands that needs addressing. Driver kills an entire family and its just a blip on the local news for that area. The fact this is reality is quite mind boggling. 

Avatar
open_roads replied to mctrials23 | 1 month ago
18 likes

Even though the tragic death can't be overlooked the police report at the time stated that the victim stepped off the pavement without looking when the cyclists were ~7 feet away.

Even if the group of cyclists had been doing 20 the victim would still have been knocked over and in all likelihood would likely have suffered similar injuries.

And even though the cause of the accident was the failure to look before crossing by the pedestrian, the royal parks are now taking it upon themselves to further restrict cycling whilst seemingly doing absolutely nothing about the tens of thousands of vehicles that pour through Richmond Park every day using it as a cut through from Kingston to Richmond.

Avatar
eburtthebike replied to mctrials23 | 1 month ago
18 likes
mctrials23 wrote:

If it wasn't so stupid it would be funny. Cyclist kills a pedestrian and we have a national issue on our hands that needs addressing. Driver kills an entire family and its just a blip on the local news for that area. The fact this is reality is quite mind boggling. 

Motonormativity.  Four wheels good, two wheels bad.

Avatar
Aluminium can | 1 month ago
12 likes

It's shocking that all those dangerous trees haven't been removed. Any one of them could crash into a car.

Avatar
Surreyrider replied to Aluminium can | 1 month ago
10 likes

Better remove the deer while they're at it...

Avatar
alexuk | 1 month ago
3 likes

20mph is a fair lick on a bike, through a park. Although the focus should be on safety against the greatest danger (cars), the Park authority must still get pressure to address danger from fast cyclists too, which does exist. I don't think its unreasonable to set a limit for bikes, but there should be wiggle-room for exceptions (like events, etc.) and enforcement should be applied with some wisdom.

If they do eventually ban cars through the park (which I think they should, or at least set a very narrow window when cars are permitted), it will increase the speeds of cyslists and the park authority can't let it get too Mad Max, (just look at the lawlessness of a lot, but not all) cyclists in the city at the moment, sadly. It would only be a matter of time before a peleton of fast moving weekend warriors smash into a bunch of kids on bikes, or some slower cyclists or a pedestrian and someone loses their life; then the whole place will be closed to all vehicles and that sucks for everyone. A 20mph limit isn't a huge price to pay.

Avatar
Rendel Harris replied to alexuk | 1 month ago
18 likes
alexuk wrote:

 It would only be a matter of time before a peleton of fast moving weekend warriors smash into a bunch of kids on bikes, or some slower cyclists or a pedestrian and someone loses their life

Why would it only be a matter of time? Cyclists have been training in the park ever since I've been riding there (more than forty years) without speed limits being applied and presumably were doing so long before that and as far as I'm aware nobody has been killed by a cyclist in the park. There is ample provision on the trails all round the park for kids on bikes, pedestrians et cetera and they don't mix with the cyclists on the road, there is no more reason there should be a fatal cyclist/pedestrian incident in the park than there would be on any public road, in fact there is less reason due to the aforementioned segregation of users.

Avatar
alexuk replied to Rendel Harris | 1 month ago
1 like

I'm sure someone said the same about Regents park. Its always a matter of time.

Avatar
Rendel Harris replied to alexuk | 1 month ago
19 likes
alexuk wrote:

I'm sure someone said the same about Regents park. Its always a matter of time.

Firstly, Richmond Park and Regent's Park are two entirely different entities, the roads in Regent's Park have pavements on both sides and numerous crossing points, Richmond Park has pedestrian paths completely separated from the road and people only tend to cross the roads outside the car parks. Secondly, everything can be said to be "a matter of time", it's only a matter of time before an asteroid hits Richmond Park and wipes out everyone in it but it's not that likely that precautionary measures (compulsory hard hats?) need to be introduced. Richmond Park was fully opened to the public in 1872 and the first safety bicycles went on sale in the next decade, so people have been cycling around the park for nearly 150 years without killing anyone. Thirdly, the pedestrian death in Regent's Park was caused by a pedestrian stepping out in front of a cyclist when they were just a few metres away and if he had been travelling at 20 mph the result wouldn't have been any different, so it has no relevance as evidence for imposing speed limits on cyclists.

Avatar
stonojnr replied to Rendel Harris | 1 month ago
4 likes

I'm not comfortable with that as an excuse, if a pedestrian stepped out in front of a car that was within the speed limit, I'm not sure we'd be happy to blame the pedestrian,regardless of whether the law did naff all about it.

We'd expect, some might even demand, the driver to have spotted the specific risks first, like the HC encourages you to do, and there are specific examples around elderly pedestrians waiting to cross roads on the test, and drive accordingly, so why can't we expect to cycle in the same way ?

Just out of common respect for others using the park, I'm not ok with the but there's no speed limit on bicycles so I can ride how the damn well I like attitudes a minority of cyclists seem to have adopted.

And see this last weekends latest Telegraph hit piece for how it gets portrayed to a non cyclists community

Avatar
Rendel Harris replied to stonojnr | 1 month ago
8 likes
stonojnr wrote:

I'm not comfortable with that as an excuse, if a pedestrian stepped out in front of a car that was within the speed limit, I'm not sure we'd be happy to blame the pedestrian,regardless of whether the law did naff all about it. We'd expect, some might even demand, the driver to have spotted the specific risks first, like the HC encourages you to do, and there are specific examples around elderly pedestrians waiting to cross roads on the test, and drive accordingly, so why can't we expect to cycle in the same way ?

If the pedestrian stepped out when the car driver was about 2 m away I would have no qualms about saying that it was their responsibility, however tragic the consequences. As far as I understand this incident, the pedestrian had crossed to a halfway island in the road and was standing there waiting for the cyclists to go by when she inexplicably, whether from bad timing or confusion or whatever, stepped straight into their path. It's important to note that the incident did not take place on a marked crossing, this wasn't like cyclists or motorists blasting through a zebra or a pelican. If the cyclist has looked up and seen someone standing on a traffic island who has clearly stopped and is waiting for them to pass then proceeding through is perfectly acceptable and indeed standard procedure as far as I know, I've never had cars stop for me to cross when I'm on a traffic island and there is no painted zebra or controlling lights, have you? I don't believe it's even suggested in the highway code that a driver/rider should do this. The only reference is to rules for pedestrians, Rule 7d: "If traffic is coming, let it pass. Look all around again and listen. Do not cross until there is a safe gap in the traffic and you are certain that there is plenty of time." 

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to Rendel Harris | 1 month ago
7 likes

Also - as per "whatabout applying the same comparison as you would a car/driver" while the cyclists had upped their kinetic energy and reduced their reaction time (faster speeds) they had not:

Equipped themselves with hard metal exoskeletons and increased their mass by a factor of 15 - 20, or increased their effective width making it more likely they would hit things in front of them.

Reduced their vision with side-pillars or their hearing by being within a metal box. *

Added to any other problems by scattering quantities of particulates everywhere and being inactive.

* Of course your practical ability to observe will be affected by your body position and at speed wind noise affects your ability to hear.

Avatar
mdavidford replied to Rendel Harris | 1 month ago
4 likes
Rendel Harris]</p>

<p>[quote=stonojnr

wrote:

I've never had cars stop for me to cross when I'm on a traffic island and there is no painted zebra or controlling lights, have you?

Personally, yes, it happens every now and again. Usually when crossing would put me in the path of oncoming traffic beyond them that they haven't really thought about. But you're correct that the majority of drivers do not.

Avatar
alexuk replied to Rendel Harris | 1 month ago
0 likes

Listen to yourself. You can see the same argument being made by motorists: "Pedestrians and Cyclists are not allowed on the motorway, so we should be able to go as fast as we want!". Sometimes, just sometimes, read your words back to yourself and reflect on what you're saying and thinking.

As per usual in this community; "The cyclist is always Jesus and does no wrong, everyone else is to blame and everyone else has a responsibility - we don't!"

Encouraging us to cycle through Richmond park at a considerate speed (20mph/32kph) to protect ourselves and others, its not a lot to ask, as long as its policed with widsom and exceptions are made for events, etc.

To re-iterate: I think cars should be banned/heavily restricted for access to the park.

Avatar
mdavidford replied to alexuk | 1 month ago
12 likes
alexuk wrote:

As per usual in this community; "The cyclist is always Jesus and does no wrong, everyone else is to blame and everyone else has a responsibility - we don't!"

Leave that poor strawman alone - what did it ever do to you?

Pages

Latest Comments