- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
richmond park footage screenshot - via Simon MacMichael.PNGMetropolitan Police confirm cyclists in Richmond Park are not subject to speed limits
The Metropolitan Police Service has confirmed that cyclists in Richmond Park are not subject to speed limits – but has also underlined that action can be taken against people riding irresponsibly and putting others in danger.
The confirmation follows a statement published last week by the Royal Parks, which manages the popular southwest London beauty spot, that speed limits there did not apply to bike riders.
> Richmond Park speed limits do not apply to cyclists, says the Royal Parks
Now, Twickenham Nub reports that in response to an enquiry to the Metropolitan Police press office, it was told that the statement from the Royal Parks was definitive.
However, the force added that officers would act upon cases of cyclists riding irresponsibly and putting others in danger.
In a statement, it said: “We expect all road users to act responsibly to ensure Richmond Park is a safe place for everybody.
“Officers carry out regular patrols and will take action against those seen to be driving or riding in an irresponsible manner which intentionally or recklessly puts public safety at risk.”
The website added that the Metropolitan Police did not respond to questions regarding previous prosecutions and fines, including whether those subjected to them would be notified that they may have been unlawfully prosecuted
While cyclists are not subject to speed limits on the public highway, the specific bylaws applying to the Royal Parks has long left it open to question on whether or not speed limits apply to them.
The issue has particular relevance to Richmond Park, which is very popular with road cyclists, especially at the weekend, and a number of cyclists have been fined in recent years for riding above the 20mph speed limit that applies to most roads there.
Last month, Twitter user The Department for Parks & Recreation asked the Royal Parks in a tweet: “How was the speed limit in Richmond Park suspended for the purposes of athletes cycling within the park for the London Duathlon, held on Sunday 5th September 2021?”
— The Department of Parks & Recreation 🦌 (@ldnparks) September 30, 2021
In response, an FOI (Freedom of Information) Officer at the Royal Parks said: “The roads in the Royal Parks are Crown Roads managed under the authority of the Secretary of State for DCMS.
(There is one exception – Regents Park, where the roads are managed by a separate body, the Crown Estates Paving Commission).
The FOI Officer continued: “The speed limits on the roads are specified in The Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces Regulations 1997 as amended.
“Section 4 (28) requires that: ‘No person shall 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 of these Regulations.’ (Part II schedule 2 lists the parks that that have vehicular access.)
“These regulations apply to motorised vehicles, not bicycles, and therefore the use of park roads by cyclists on events such as the London Duathlon is lawful. In answer to your specific question, the speed limits were not suspended for this event because they are not deemed to apply to bicycles.”
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- Freddy56 3 hours 56 min ago
The reflective nature of the fabric structure, in in a 2 layer sealed fabric-means moisture cannot pass thru, The breathability claim is lies.......
- HoarseMann 5 hours 8 min ago
Driver injured after car flips onto its roof https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy0g9rpp8x9o
- mark1a 5 hours 26 min ago
I don't think he wants to talk about it...
- Rendel Harris 5 hours 55 min ago
Ach, dinnae fret...
- Matt Page 6 hours 3 min ago
The Prevelo Alpha Three on the main feature image is 20".
- eburtthebike 6 hours 15 min ago
£100 bonus.
- chrisonabike 6 hours 23 min ago
To be fair if this is our usual revenant they've got form in rewriting history...
- chrisonabike 6 hours 25 min ago
"At the going down of the sun, and in the morning, we will remember them ... we have to because some numpty destroyed the roll of names"....
- hawkinspeter 8 hours 29 min ago
Looks like some Barton Hill residents don't want the Liverpool Neighbourhood or at least not Marsh Lane to be a no-through-road:...
Add new comment
43 comments
So in one article, Police shown they can't prosecute cyclists in Richmond park which seemed to be a great past time of theirs. In another article, a very recent bout of robberies on cyclists including ones on illegal vehicles (electric scooters) in the park according to one victim. Any correlation???
Huge Kudos to Parks and Recreation (twitter guy) for the FOI request that weadled this out. Disgusting that the police have been enforcing non-existant laws for years and years because of their irrational hate of cyclists.
It's odd, given the Police say they have too little resource for too much work, that they extend themselves to assiduously police laws which don't exist.
is the Met Police press office a valid source of determining what laws are and arent in effect though ? how is it any different from the Royal parks twitter wrangler as "official legal" status goes.
Id far rather theyd just said look the legal position is the speed limits applying to cyclists in Royal Parks is still in effect, it maybe considered a grey area on the precise extent of it, but its been enforced successfully before, so we are pretty certain it works in cases against cyclist, and because its in the official book of park rules or laws that apply in the parks until someone makes an admendment to that, its legally going nowhere.
but its not in the public interest to enforce it for cycling at this time, just like we used to have lots of ancient laws on the books that werent of public interest to pursue, however we will be keeping a close eye on cyclist behaviour and we reserve the right to enforce the laws that are there, as we see fit.
that to me then covers all the bases, everyone knows where they stand, and whats expected of them, and could defend themselves in court on it, going around saying well this twitter account said this, and then this PR office kind of agrees with it, thats just not to me how laws and the legal system works.
The press office aren't going to make a statement off their own bat, they would have run it past the relevant people first.
How is it any different from the police saying we did X in covid lockdown but we got it wrong. Derbyshire police comes to mind.
There is a difference - specifically where cyclists have refused to pay FPNs and instead taken it to court, the magistrates have seen fit to agree that the speed limits do apply to cyclists (e.g. https://road.cc/content/news/169880-huge-fine-cyclist-caught-speeding-ri...).
If you read 'The Secret Barrister" you will see that magistrates are not always au fait with the law...
I have actually read it, and I agree that magistrates can be wrong.
I was just pointing out whilst in Derbyshire (from what I recall) it was Police issuing on-the-spot FPNs that were not justified under the relevant regulations, but those were dropped or not upheld in court. Where as with the speeding in Richmond Park, it hasn't been solely reliant on the Police's interpretation of the law.
I do wonder what the next steps are, so to speak. If someone (such as the people mentioned in the article linked) feel they have been wrongly convicted and want to appeal, is the police making this statement sufficient for the appeal to automatically succeed? Or would it have to go back to the magistrates (or a higher court) to review, and they might decide that actually the police were right first time and the fines stand?
Higher court, I'd have thought - but I don't know.
You can't get a FPN though and I'm not sure of the relevance of a link from 2015.
The article from 2015 gives examples of cyclists who refused to pay the Police fines* for speeding, and were ultimately convicted by magistrates. Unless you think that the laws used to issue those fines have changed then why wouldn't it be relevant? The whole point is the law hasn't actually changed (to the best of my knowledge) and so this announcement from the police seems to go against the previously upheld interpretation of the legislation.
The Derbyshire police were handing out FPNs in relation to coronavirus regulations, but there is no evidence anyone else interpretted the law in the same way as them (and indeed they eventually withdrew several of the FPNs without the cases going to court).
(*possibly they aren't called FPNs for this specific offence, but the effect is the same)
Doesn't mention refusing to pay 'fines' and also questions the legality of the situation.
I think it is a bit of an overstatement to say "to go against the previously upheld interpretation of the legislation".
Derbyshire police were just an obvious example but other forces failed to understand the regs or what an appurtenance is.
I imagine there is an arguement that since the Royal Park roads, as public roads are subject to the road traffic acts, for instance if you use a mobile phone at the wheel in one you are subject to the same law as someone using one at the wheel in Kensington Highstreet, that the interpretation of the bylaw as including peddle cycles might fail because it fails to specifically mention that it applies to peddle cycles as well as motor vehicles contrary to the road traffic laws that generally apply. Particularly in the light of the fact that park regulations specifically mention peddle cycles as one of a group of catagories of road user separate to the catagory it terms as vehicles.
I think you need permission to trade in the park whether using a bike or a motor vehicle
no but did they go speak to legal counsel about it ? probably not because that costs money.
I just want to know from someone legally qualified, and apologies to the Met press office if they are considered to be in that position, that this isnt just the current senior office opinon, which is reasonable,dont get me wrong Im not arguing speed limits must apply to cyclists, Im simply saying once its in the book of law that applies in Royal Parks, until you amend that specific law, that law applies and its been used successfully before so has precedent, and if it only becomes something that the current whim of the person responsible for whether they enforce it or not that its used, thats not a good position to be in surely ?
we dont want to get 6 months from here and find someone new responsible for policing the Royal Parks in the position, who is less cycling friendly & immediately takes a different position.
They probably didn't engage counsel, but I expect they cleared the line with in house lawyers. As for legal precedent, magistrates can't set precedent, so if all the cases have been as that level precedent hasn't been set.
well lets hope so then, and Im sure we'll never hear another word about it...
Seriously, it would probably help if it was taken to a court that could make a definitive ruling.
more worried about the next week or so where hoards of cyclists will be riding furiously and get arrested for that rather than speeding per se.....ha ha..
This could be my cue to achieve one of my lifelong ambitions; to be booked for furious riding. Do you get a certificate?
You need to injure somebody to be charged with that.
Offences against the Person Act 1861 S.35
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/24-25/100/section/35
No - there's a separate offence for furious riding (without injury). https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/10-11/89/section/28 and see also https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/whats-legal-and-whats-not-your-bike
Going to have to define "Furious" here; I'd expect that to mean in a reckless or dangerous manner, or in an aggressive manner or with a lack of control.
Speed alone does not constitute those things.
Your second link actually specifically states this.
Had this specifically confirmed by RP when I checked with them:
Is somebody storing up their cyclists?
Dave Dave will be along shortly to tell them they're wrong.
And that they are anti vaxxers and talking bollocks.
I wonder if jmaccelari will chip in to acknowledge that he was wrong to state categorically that "The person from the Royal Parks writing this letter is mistaken".
And maybe the same for enthusiastic sh*t-stirrer Nigel Garrage who could barely contain his glee, jumping in to say "It beggars belief and speaks to the self-entitlement of some cyclists that they believe speed limits don't apply to themselves" the other day.
The daft bit of it is that, if speed limits did apply to cyclists then the vast majority of people who cycle would be willing to stick to them. Unlike so many drivers, who think speed limits are optional, like a lot of the rules of the road.
24 June 2021 - Number of cyclists killed on British roads up 40% in 2020
https://road.cc/content/news/cyclists-killed-british-roads-40-2020-284373
The daft bit of it is that, if speed limits did apply to cyclists then the vast majority of people who cycle would be willing to stick to them.
TBF, for the vast majority of roads, even the best cyclists would be struggling to break the speed limit. Although on a downhill near me on a 30mph dual carriageway, I still get over-taken by cars even when my wahoo is showing 35.
The road through my village is a 20 limit; which is pretty much the speed I cycle through it - and I always get overtaken.
Pages