A cyclist in London’s Richmond Park has been fined for riding his bike at more than twice the speed limit – just four months after a Royal Parks spokesman said that speed limits in the places it manages don't apply to cyclists.
Rory Palmer, aged 42, pleaded guilty to breaking the park’s speed limit of 20mph on Sawyers Hill on 2 January this year, reports This Is Local London.
Wimbledon Magistrates’ Court was told that police officers spotted the cyclist overtaking cars as he headed towards them from the direction of Richmond Gate.
The officers were conducting an anti-speeding operation close to Barn Wood, said to be busy with vehicles at the time in question.
The rider, from Shepherds Bush, admitted when stopped that he had been travelling too fast, telling officers, "I know, I'm sorry."
Mutahir Ahmed, speaking in mitigation, said: "Cycling is his hobby and he understands how dangerous it was. It was a windy day and he was coming down the hill.
“He did realise at the time he was going above 20mph but did not have a speedometer."
Magistrates fined him £65 plus a £20 surcharge and he was also ordered to pay prosecution costs of £65.
As we reported in October 2013, however, there is a large degree of doubt over 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.
Our article concluded that it appeared police might be going beyond their powers for fining cyclists for exceeding the speed limit, and that anyone issued a fine for doing so might have grounds for challenging it.
While we were unable to obtain a definitive response from a parks police spokesman at the time about whether or not speed limits in the Royal Parks applied to cyclists, BBC broadcaster Jeremy Vine had more luck in November last year when he was stopped for 'speeding' in Hyde Park.
A Royal Parks spokesman subsequently told him that there was no speed limit for cyclists in Hyde Park – and, by extension, any of the other 10 parks or open spaces it manages in London.
60 thoughts on “Speeding fine for Richmond Park cyclist clocked riding at 41mph – but is penalty lawful?”
Was he fined for speeding, or
Was he fined for speeding, or some kind of dangerous cycling offence?
n8udd wrote:Was he fined for
I’d hope the latter.
That is in honesty precisely how speed limits and prosecution for the breaking thereof [i]should[/i] 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.
The Road Traffic Regulation
The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 states:
“It shall not be lawful for a person to drive a MOTOR VEHICLE on a restricted road at a speed exceeding 30 miles per hour.” (RTRA 81.1)
Maybe someone should tell the judge.
Section 124 of the highway
Section 124 of the highway code ‘speed limits’ doesn’t apply to cycles.
It probably should, but it doesn’t. (someone may be along to prove me wrong later 😉 )
He must have been done for ‘dangerous or careless cycling’.
atgni wrote:Section 124 of
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.)
I foresee another very long
I foresee another very long discussion about whether or not the specific byelaws governing the Royal Parks do or do not apply to cyclists.
Unless someone wants to support a test case on that basis, there’s probably no definitive answer. And of course, new byelaws can always be introduced.
I do ride regularly in Richmond Park, and find the best way not to get caught speeding on Sawyer Hill, is to ride up it!
The National Parks have their
The National Parks have their own bye laws, which includes rather more all encompassing speeding laws. I’ve read them in the past, but can’t lay my hands on them right now…
One fact does emerge from all
One fact does emerge from all the associated BS; he’ll be telling people about this for years and bloody years because it has the same cachet as an ASBO does in less desirable circles…
Why did the muppet admit he
Why did the muppet admit he had been speeding. Sounds like his defence counsel was pretty poor if they couldn’t get him off 1) legislation only applies to motor vehicles and 2) there is no legal requirement to have a speedometer on a bicycle there fore how could he know how fast he was travelling? Barmy. He sounds a muppet. If he was a member of LCC or any other cycling organisation they should help him challenge his conviction as it may well be wrong in law.
Thanks, ‘doubt’
Thanks, ‘doubt’ =D>
Think I’d have gone with the
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?
Bigfoz wrote:Think I’d have
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
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
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.”
I thought the cclists defence
I thought the cclists defence fund or similar had vowed to fight any prosecutiion given the flakyness of the laws in relation to the park?
What I think they got pissed
What I think they got pissed cuz of overtaking cars otherwise he would not get ticket. I am riding there often and I can say if they would like to ticket cyclist “only” for speeding offence that’s a gold mine! I admit on descent I am reaching over 40 mph with any pushing to the limits myself or bike. My guess is that it was dangerous overtaking and police gave him ticket for speeding. :H
Hmmm…
In an area where cars
Hmmm…
In an area where cars are limited to 20 mph (which is presumably for safety reasons), is it all that sensible to be doing 40 mph on your bicycle?
Even if it was equipped with those new fangled disc brakes, I suspect that it is a tad unsafe and therefore stupid.
Richmond Park seems to have been adopted by the cyclists of that London as some kind of race track and being a dick is being a dick whether on a bicycle or in a car.
Send him down. 👿
maybe he shouldn’t have been
maybe he shouldn’t have been done for the speeding as it doesn’t apply to cyclists, however 41 mph 8| in a public park where cars are limited to just 20…..doesn’t take a genius to work out its a bad idea 😕
Just coz its not against the law doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do it…
Most RP regulars know where
Most RP regulars know where the speed trappers lurk. From the top of that hill you can see literally for miles (to Canary Wharf at least), and a mile down the road. He was done for careless riding 😀 …
Unless you brake it’s
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.
shmooster wrote:Unless you
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
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
I don’t think anyone is suggesting that.— shmooster
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
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
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.
Quote:If anyone believes cars
Ah, the old ‘but everyone was being a bell-end’ defence.
Works everytime…
The problem with this is that if you want to argue that bikes are different, and should be treated differently, you leave yourselves open to having the ‘Ok, no bikes allowed’ option.
Sometimes cyclists are so dim.
Moral of the story, don’t do
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.
700c wrote:Moral of the
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
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.
40mph in a park?
Bad form.
40mph in a park?
Bad form.
Flying Scot wrote:40mph in a
Er, does that include Alexandra Palace roads?
[Speeds at which a vehicle
[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.]
Quote:Thing is he wasn’t
Again, for the hard of thinking; bellendery is bellendery, regardless of the number of wheels it is undertaken with.
crikey wrote:Quote:Thing is
Did you miss the part where it says “I’m not condoning what he did”?
But bellendery isn’t illegal.
But bellendery isn’t illegal. And neither, it seems, is exceeding the speed limit on a bicycle in Richmond Park. Prosecute him for careless and inconsiderate cycling by all means, but I don’t think we should be accepting of any situation where the authorities misapply or ignore the law.
I used to love Sawyers hill,
I used to love Sawyers hill, about 15 years ago on my highly geared heavy mountain bike I managed to hit nearly 47 mph although the amount of wobble and noise from the bike made me never do it again…plus the habit of the police to camp along various sections of the flat after the hill.
Well the old Bill are
Well the old Bill are regularly camped out at the bottom of Sawyers Hill at the weekend. Ironically Broomfield is the more dangerous descent with a sweeping bend with a bloody great tree on the corner….
See link below right at the
See link below right at the bottom it says…
“Special Cases
It is possible for locations to have bye-laws that impose speed limits on bicycles.
It used to be the case that speed limits in royal parks applied to bicycles, because the relevant SIs, The Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces Regulations 1997 amended by the Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces (Amendment) Regulations 2004 stated that speed limits in the parks applied to vehicles (not motor vehicles).
However, The Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces (Amendment) etc. Regulations 2010 include a definition of vehicle that applies only to motor vehicles, here, suggesting that everything which applied to all vehicles in the royal parks SIs now only applies to motor vehicles. Thus, speed limits would not apply to bicycles in royal parks, just as they do not in general elsewhere.”
http://www.astounding.org.uk/ian/cyclelaw/speed_limits.html
I suppose now wouldn’t be a
I suppose now wouldn’t be a good time to bring up the Range Rover that sped past me at 50+ (I’m good at estimating speeds, not an exaggeration) down Sawyers a couple of years ago.
In the wet with crosswinds and so close that I got a full wobble on due to the turbulence (bear with me)
There was a queue of 20mph traffic at the bottom.
He sat in that with no attempt of nuttery.
I’m afraid I was so pissed off I made him slow after the mini roundabout.
Surprise! He was a plain clothes police officer, tried to tell me that Advanced Motorists advise that’s how to do an overtake (Didn’t know they had the power to allow speeding). I’d have been a little more forgiving if he hadn’t been holding his coffee in his right hand.
Grrrrr.
Tried reporting him at Hammersmith but got the usual mumbles.
Oh well.
I’d be happy receiving a
I’d be happy receiving a ticket if I could hit 41 mph.
High speeds when coming off
High speeds when coming off the descents in Richmond Park were common when I went there some weeks back. Ok overtaking cars at 41mph is high but at the same time the parks/police need to be 100% certain if this applies to cyclists also…I like to think its for any road user whatever the vehicle but it is so easy to be riding fast without any intention of doing so there.
“police might be going beyond
“police might be going beyond their powers”
Or complying 100% with Common Purpose’s mantra of “going beyond one’s authority”.
Google Common Purpose, everyone, and realise that your enemies are not just the unelectable appointees at the next “election”. You never chose most of them in the first place.
It’s an interesting one. The
It’s an interesting one. The Royal Parks seem to be unsure. The Prosecutor has a duty to the Court to ensure that any information adverse to his case is brought to the Court’s attention. So, one must imagine the prosecutor has not or, if s/he has, the Court has decided that a particular law does apply. Very interesting.
Sadly, because he pleaded guilty, this is still untested.
Any cyclist who likes to race
Any cyclist who likes to race wants to get a speeding ticket one day. I would strut into court and pay my fine with a smug grin on my face. What an achievement. I go for an average of 21mph on a Richmond Park lap, looking forward to the day when I get a speeding ticket.
sean evans wrote:Any cyclist
£150 is a lot to pay for being smug. You could get some nice upgrades for your bike with that.
What to say…
Common sense:
What to say…
Common sense: Speeding, so let the fine stand.
Law: No liability.
A divided camp.
Time for all forms of transport to have a unified law for the protection of all.
A time to stop using technicalities to hide our faults in all aspect of the law.
BearstedCC wrote:What to
They’re not technicalities. Law makes provision for public policy (mostly 😉 ) That’s particularly the case for criminal law. The prosecution must prove its case. If no one is sure whether this law applies that’s not a technicality which “gets you off.” It means that the law does not apply and that you should not be prosecuted.
I’d imagine these cases are being dealt with by a junior prosecutor who knows they’ll get a guilty plea so don’t have to deal with what law applies. Ethically they should.
Impressive that he got up to
Impressive that he got up to that speed. Really I do not see the problem. He is on the road and surely he could see the driving conditions and was cycling appropriately.
Did his bike have a speedometer on it?
If he was not a danger then he was being a responsible road user. When was the last time you heard someone being crushed by a pedal bike?
I disagree with the courts on this one.
Has no one else noticed that
Has no one else noticed that the rider stitched himself up by pleading guilty?
If that hill’s so nice and
If that hill’s so nice and steep, they should have made him ride back up and come back down safely. :))
Since there is no legal
Since there is no legal requirement for a bicycle to have a means of measuring the speed it is travelling, how can it be a legal requirement for the rider to know what speed it is travelling? Even if the bike is equipped with a means of measuring it’s speed, if it’s not a legal requirement, how can you legally be required to know the speed you’re travelling?
Whilst ignorance is no defence I would think that this is a legal loophole bigger than those that large corporations & the rich regularly & repeatedly use quite legally to avoid paying tax.
Charge a cyclist with careless or reckless riding, although that is very subjective – what could be considered reckless when done by a 10 year old could be considered well within the safety envelope when the rider is an experienced professional – but then of course for that very reason it would be much more difficult to prove.
Whether on bike or other vehicle we should always conduct ourselves at a speed appropriate for the road conditions. Pedestrians and road users in Richmond Park are not expecting cars or cyclists to be appearing at excessive speed, whatever that may be.
I’m sure most of us like going downhill fast on a bicycle – Gerard Manley Hopkins, a jesuit priest & poet even composed a poem on the subject – personally I’d recommend the Tourmalet (down the La Mongie side) Nobody ever complains, cars pull over for you & my maximum speed (not of course that I have any means of legally measuring it!) is 94kph. admittedly 30kph slower than Sean Kelly.
Since there is no legal
Since there is no legal requirement for a bicycle to have a means of measuring the speed it is travelling, how can it be a legal requirement for the rider to know what speed it is travelling? Even if the bike is equipped with a means of measuring it’s speed, if it’s not a legal requirement, how can you legally be required to know the speed you’re travelling?
Whilst ignorance is no defence I would think that this is a legal loophole bigger than those that large corporations & the rich regularly & repeatedly use quite legally to avoid paying tax.
Charge a cyclist with careless or reckless riding, although that is very subjective – what could be considered reckless when done by a 10 year old could be considered well within the safety envelope when the rider is an experienced professional – but then of course for that very reason it would be much more difficult to prove.
Whether on bike or other vehicle we should always conduct ourselves at a speed appropriate for the road conditions. Pedestrians and road users in Richmond Park are not expecting cars or cyclists to be appearing at excessive speed, whatever that may be.
I’m sure most of us like going downhill fast on a bicycle – Gerard Manley Hopkins, a jesuit priest & poet even composed a poem on the subject – personally I’d recommend the Tourmalet (down the La Mongie side) Nobody ever complains, cars pull over for you & my maximum speed (not of course that I have any means of legally measuring it!) is 94kph. admittedly 30kph slower than Sean Kelly.
Saxman, most legislation is
Saxman, most legislation is defined as motor vehicles because, amongst other things (risk, level of damage etc) bikes don’t have speedos.
The Royal Parks legislation is not. It, appears to be, in relation to all vehicles. Therefore ignorance, lack of speedo etc is irrelevant.
What might be relevant is the Royal Parks making public statements that the law is one thing when it appears to be another.
I favour fining all those who
I favour fining all those who cycle up those hills faster than I can manage going down them. Demoralising others should be a taxable activity.
Totally illegal fine.
Totally illegal fine. Magistrates have clearly “erred in law” – take it to crown court.
Giles Pargiter wrote:Totally
But he pleaded guilty. I think that trumps any “error in law”.
But if he is pleading guilty
But if he is pleading guilty to something that is not illegal (i.e. that speed limit does not apply to cyclists), then it is void.
Jaeger90 wrote:But if he is
In which case he should have taken advice from the duty solicitor if he was at court.
I think out & out speed is
I think out & out speed is not the issue, rather dangerous behaviour.
I was cycling in the park yesterday afternoon & saw a cyclist overtaking a van in a stupidly dangerous move. It caused the oncoming traffic to swerve putting other cyclists in danger. There are quite a few of these ‘speed merchants’ in the park. If you need to train at these speeds, why not do it somewhere else where you wont get someone else killed & wont give other cyclists a bad name?
Not to say there arent idiot drivers there too, but the vast majority of park users manage to respect each other
[[[[[ If this silliness
[[[[[ If this silliness continues, m’lud, I fear one day all bikes will have to be fitted with speedometers to be road-legal. Then, in court, Mr. Justice Cocklecarrot will at least know where he stands, or rather sits.