London Dynamo rider fined for 41mph in Richmond Park resigns from club

racyrich wrote:

Someone's lying.

Well the police would never lie about anything, nor continue lying about it for 26 years...

mrmo wrote:

Chris Campbell wrote:

finknottle wrote:

London Dynamos won't have any members left if they throw out everyone who breaks the highway code. Can't seem to view the strava segment for Sawyers Hill (guess it has been removed) but 6/10 of the fastest going down Broomfield Hill are members of the London Dynamos and have all clocked over 35mph... https://www.strava.com/segments/5633695

Six riders out of 600 members. Hardly a representative sample.

Try again, Poirot.

I got bored after a while, but, 1700 riders have a average above 30mph, 22278 riders are 20mph and above, this is from a total of 25099 riders. How many of the 600 are in the bottom 3000 and how many in the top 22000?

As a point the OP says 6 out of the top 10, if you click randomly plenty more appear throughout the top of the leader board, and if you read comments they know they are traveling quickly.

TBH i don't really care too much, just strikes me as a rather hypocritical stance to take. The evidence exists that plenty of riders are disregarding the rules and are i assume still club members?

So the vast majority of riders who go faster than 20mph are not Dynamos. Many will be affiliated to other clubs. And tellingly, you're not questioning why those clubs aren't ejecting them.

Chris Campbell wrote:

So the vast majority of riders who go faster than 20mph are not Dynamos. Many will be affiliated to other clubs. And tellingly, you're not questioning why those clubs aren't ejecting them.

Do those clubs ask riders to abide by the highway code and not speed in Richmond Park?

bendertherobot wrote:

Incidentally, Legislation.gov.uk isn't awfully reliable.

Acts of Parliament are mostly updated but it's a slow process. Most Statutory Instruments (Orders, Regulations etc) are not, so the version you see is an old one.

So looking there isn't really very helpful. I had to use my Lexis Nexis access to get to see the most recent stuff.

But if you read the notes

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/2695/pdfs/uksiem_20102695_en.pdf

the purpose relates to cars, it does not intend to extend the scope to include bicycles into the definition of vehicle, the earlier act does differentiate between motor vehicles and bicycles.
and the really stupid one

Quote:

“vehicle” means a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on a road.

so use a mountain bike or a cross bike, and do not put slicks on it!

If you look at the earlier versions they clearly separate cars and bikes into two groups.

The only real solution is a test case, or for another amendment that clarifies.

I wonder if they expel them if they get speeding tickets in their cars as well

mrmo wrote:

Chris Campbell wrote:

So the vast majority of riders who go faster than 20mph are not Dynamos. Many will be affiliated to other clubs. And tellingly, you're not questioning why those clubs aren't ejecting them.

Do those clubs ask riders to abide by the highway code and not speed in Richmond Park?

All clubs ask members to behave. But you're only concerned about one of them, aren't you?

Joeinpoole wrote:

Makes me wonder if at some point in the future these Strava uploads could be considered 'admissible evidence' for speeding or dangerous cycling charges.

well no because the files can be edited and digitally doped, and none of the devices used to record Strava data are in any way calibrated or maintained to a standard, if my mobile phone strava data tracks were to be believed Id be the current cycling speed world record holder

Chris Campbell wrote:

mrmo wrote:

Chris Campbell wrote:

So the vast majority of riders who go faster than 20mph are not Dynamos. Many will be affiliated to other clubs. And tellingly, you're not questioning why those clubs aren't ejecting them.

Do those clubs ask riders to abide by the highway code and not speed in Richmond Park?

All clubs ask members to behave. But you're only concerned about one of them, aren't you?

I am guessing you belong to LD, as said not fussed, i don't live in London, the only encounter i have had with LD wasn't particularly good. But if your going to organise rides in the park with thru and off, laps etc, suggestions of disciplining riders for breaking park speed limits etc when it seems everyone does... as said it all comes across a bit hypocritical IMO.

mrmo wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Incidentally, Legislation.gov.uk isn't awfully reliable.

Acts of Parliament are mostly updated but it's a slow process. Most Statutory Instruments (Orders, Regulations etc) are not, so the version you see is an old one.

So looking there isn't really very helpful. I had to use my Lexis Nexis access to get to see the most recent stuff.

But if you read the notes

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/2695/pdfs/uksiem_20102695_en.pdf

the purpose relates to cars, it does not intend to extend the scope to include bicycles into the definition of vehicle, the earlier act does differentiate between motor vehicles and bicycles.
and the really stupid one

Quote:

“vehicle” means a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on a road.

so use a mountain bike or a cross bike, and do not put slicks on it!

If you look at the earlier versions they clearly separate cars and bikes into two groups.

The only real solution is a test case, or for another amendment that clarifies.

The Explanatory Notes are not part of the legislation. Statutory interpretation will default to meaning not what may have been meant.

mrmo wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Incidentally, Legislation.gov.uk isn't awfully reliable.

Acts of Parliament are mostly updated but it's a slow process. Most Statutory Instruments (Orders, Regulations etc) are not, so the version you see is an old one.

So looking there isn't really very helpful. I had to use my Lexis Nexis access to get to see the most recent stuff.

But if you read the notes

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/2695/pdfs/uksiem_20102695_en.pdf

the purpose relates to cars, it does not intend to extend the scope to include bicycles into the definition of vehicle, the earlier act does differentiate between motor vehicles and bicycles.
and the really stupid one

Quote:

“vehicle” means a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on a road.

so use a mountain bike or a cross bike, and do not put slicks on it!

If you look at the earlier versions they clearly separate cars and bikes into two groups.

The only real solution is a test case, or for another amendment that clarifies.

The Explanatory Notes are not part of the legislation. Statutory interpretation will default to meaning not what may have been meant.

mrmo wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Incidentally, Legislation.gov.uk isn't awfully reliable.

Acts of Parliament are mostly updated but it's a slow process. Most Statutory Instruments (Orders, Regulations etc) are not, so the version you see is an old one.

So looking there isn't really very helpful. I had to use my Lexis Nexis access to get to see the most recent stuff.

But if you read the notes

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/2695/pdfs/uksiem_20102695_en.pdf

the purpose relates to cars, it does not intend to extend the scope to include bicycles into the definition of vehicle, the earlier act does differentiate between motor vehicles and bicycles.
and the really stupid one

Quote:

“vehicle” means a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on a road.

so use a mountain bike or a cross bike, and do not put slicks on it!

If you look at the earlier versions they clearly separate cars and bikes into two groups.

The only real solution is a test case, or for another amendment that clarifies.

The Explanatory Notes are not part of the legislation. Statutory interpretation will default to meaning, not what may have been meant.

bendertherobot wrote:

BigglesMeister wrote:

vonhelmet wrote:

don simon wrote:

Bearing in mind a cycle isn't required to have a speedo. What is the threshold speed where the police won't prosecute?
And more importantly, how will I know?

It's up to you to obey the law. If you're in doubt about your speed, buy a speedo.

Oh for fucks sake. The speed limit in Richmond park of 20mph only applies to MOTOR vehicles. If you're dumb enough to plead guilty so be it, even though there is no such offence. We've been round and round on this so it amazes me that the same old crap gets trotted out again and again. I'll say it loud and clear for the newbies SPEED LIMITS DO NOT APPLY TO BICYCLES as they are NOT mechanically propelled vehicles. Read the highway code which has a table for vehicles and limits, the observant will notice that bicycles are not on the list. If you don't have a paper copy those nice people at HM gov have put it on line. https://www.gov.uk/speed-limits

For reference, here is another cc thread on the very same subject.

http://road.cc/content/news/95155-are-police-fining-speeding-cyclists-ri...

Now remember children: Just because piglet plod says you've broken the law it does not mean that you have. They are just the enforcers and quite often choose to enforce how they would like the law to be and not how it is.

My final word on the matter, check for yourself - all legislation (aka law) is now on line http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ If plod want to change it then it requires an act of parliament not some nit with with a speed gun avoiding proper police work on a Sunday morning for double time.

The Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces Regulations 1997 (SI 1997/1639) is the main operative provision. Later SI's added to its content.

Its Part 2 contains the speed limit of 20 mph (for Richmond Park)

It relates to the use of vehicles. The confusion in this case is whether vehicles includes motor vehicles.

The Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces (Amendment) etc. Regulations 2010 inserted those provisions.

But, they also had an interpretation of vehicle as "“vehicle” means a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on a road." So the provision inserted into the original reads as if it was only intended to apply to motor vehicles.

However, “Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces (Amendment) (No 2) etc Regulations 2010" amended the earlier 2010 regs and removed the definition of vehicle from it and, therefore, from being applied to the 1997 ones.

Result? the original applies to vehicles. Including bikes. Statutory interpretation defaults to usual English usage in the absence of a statutory definition.

So, yes, it does apply to cyclists. The question is why the RP spokesman is now saying that it doesn't. That could create a legitimate expectation that you will not be charged with an offence.

Of course, even if you are not prosecuted under the above provisions you can still be done for the Acts prohibited in the Park provisions (akin to careless cycling).

The original Royal Parks 1997 legislation differentiates between "vehicles" and "pedal cycles" under section 3 - Acts prohibited in a Park so "pedal cycles" are not "vehicles". As the speed limit of 20mph only applies to "vehicles" it does not apply to "pedal cylces".

These bits ..(especially para (10) b & c)

Acts prohibited in a Park
(4) use—
(a)any pedal cycle, or
(b)any roller skate, roller blade, skate board or other foot-propelled device
except on a Park road or in an area designated and marked as being for that purpose by the Secretary of State;

(10) (a) ride any animal,
(b)drive or ride any vehicle, or
(c)use any pedal cycle, roller skate, roller blade, skate board or other foot-propelled device
in any manner that endangers or is likely to endanger any person;
(11) (a) use a pedal cycle (other than when it is parked), or
(b)drive or ride a vehicle
between sunset and sunrise, or in seriously reduced visibility between sunrise and sunset, unless it is lit in accordance with the Road Vehicles (Lighting) Regulations 1989(8), and for the purposes of this regulation references in the Road Vehicles (Lighting) Regulations 1989 to a road shall be deemed to be references to a Park road or any other area designated and marked as being an area in which a pedal cycle may be used;

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/1639/made

And anyway, I would argue the statutory interpretation would only default to the usual English usage if there was still no definition AFTER falling back to the Road Traffic Act.

It may well be that he could have been charged under other sections of the Royal Parks legislation, but he wasn't, he was charged with Speeding.

arfa wrote:

I can not believe that anyone seriously thinks bikes in Richmond Park stay under 20mph especially on the descents. If that is the Dynamo official position it is utterly laughable.

That's the LD *official* position. The *unofficial* position is "don't get caught".

The rules/byelaws/whatever it is that applies in the parks. I think at the moment it suits the Parks to have them so woolly and poorly defined. A bit of confusion is great for allowing a few not-strictly-legal fines to slip through, keep all the riders (mostly) behaving themselves. From the Parks point of view:
if they say "the speed limit applies to absolutely every human powered vehicle" then someone will take them to court and win cos, as pointed out, not all bikes have speedos, there's no official calibration, what about someone galloping on a horse, blah blah.
If they say "the speed limit does not apply to bikes" then every MAMIL there is going to be hitting 40+ mph on the descents and things will get messy.
But a bit of a grey area - it might be legal, it might not. Job done, people will obey the limit (mostly) just in case it does apply.

They've just introduced a "no drones" law in the Royal Parks as well; that one came about due to some aerial footage of Buckingham Palace which was filmed from a quadcopter launched from Green Park so now all the Royal Parks are no-fly zones for radio controlled aircraft. Again, I'm not sure how easy that one is to enforce or indeed how legal their position is on the subject.

BigglesMeister wrote:

The original Royal Parks 1997 legislation differentiates between "vehicles" and "pedal cycles" under section 3 - Acts prohibited in a Park so "pedal cycles" are not "vehicles". As the speed limit of 20mph only applies to "vehicles" it does not apply to "pedal cylces".

These bits ..(especially para (10) b & c)

Acts prohibited in a Park
(4) use—
(a)any pedal cycle, or
(b)any roller skate, roller blade, skate board or other foot-propelled device
except on a Park road or in an area designated and marked as being for that purpose by the Secretary of State;

(10) (a) ride any animal,
(b)drive or ride any vehicle, or
(c)use any pedal cycle, roller skate, roller blade, skate board or other foot-propelled device
in any manner that endangers or is likely to endanger any person;
(11) (a) use a pedal cycle (other than when it is parked), or
(b)drive or ride a vehicle
between sunset and sunrise, or in seriously reduced visibility between sunrise and sunset, unless it is lit in accordance with the Road Vehicles (Lighting) Regulations 1989(8), and for the purposes of this regulation references in the Road Vehicles (Lighting) Regulations 1989 to a road shall be deemed to be references to a Park road or any other area designated and marked as being an area in which a pedal cycle may be used;

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/1639/made

And anyway, I would argue the statutory interpretation would only default to the usual English usage if there was still no definition AFTER falling back to the Road Traffic Act.

It may well be that he could have been charged under other sections of the
Royal Parks legislation, but he wasn't, he was charged with Speeding.

You can't interpret this legislation using the RTA. It's certainly arguable to look at section 3 as creating its own interpretation. But the SI remains, sadly, silent in relation to the definition of a vehicle. So, as per the original case law, it's likely to include a bike.

As I said previously, I wouldn't necessarily want to test that. But I DO think that the RP's are creating a legitimate expectation of the law NOT applying given that they keep saying that it does not (at least recently).

bendertherobot wrote:

BigglesMeister wrote:

The original Royal Parks 1997 legislation differentiates between "vehicles" and "pedal cycles" under section 3 - Acts prohibited in a Park so "pedal cycles" are not "vehicles". As the speed limit of 20mph only applies to "vehicles" it does not apply to "pedal cylces".

These bits ..(especially para (10) b & c)

Acts prohibited in a Park
(4) use—
(a)any pedal cycle, or
(b)any roller skate, roller blade, skate board or other foot-propelled device
except on a Park road or in an area designated and marked as being for that purpose by the Secretary of State;

(10) (a) ride any animal,
(b)drive or ride any vehicle, or
(c)use any pedal cycle, roller skate, roller blade, skate board or other foot-propelled device
in any manner that endangers or is likely to endanger any person;
(11) (a) use a pedal cycle (other than when it is parked), or
(b)drive or ride a vehicle
between sunset and sunrise, or in seriously reduced visibility between sunrise and sunset, unless it is lit in accordance with the Road Vehicles (Lighting) Regulations 1989(8), and for the purposes of this regulation references in the Road Vehicles (Lighting) Regulations 1989 to a road shall be deemed to be references to a Park road or any other area designated and marked as being an area in which a pedal cycle may be used;

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/1639/made

And anyway, I would argue the statutory interpretation would only default to the usual English usage if there was still no definition AFTER falling back to the Road Traffic Act.

It may well be that he could have been charged under other sections of the
Royal Parks legislation, but he wasn't, he was charged with Speeding.

You can't interpret this legislation using the RTA. It's certainly arguable to look at section 3 as creating its own interpretation. But the SI remains, sadly, silent in relation to the definition of a vehicle. So, as per the original case law, it's likely to include a bike.

As I said previously, I wouldn't necessarily want to test that. But I DO think that the RP's are creating a legitimate expectation of the law NOT applying given that they keep saying that it does not (at least recently).

I don't think the law has ever been tested in court and anyway, the section of the 1997 Act that differentiates between pedal cycles and vehicle would create a very reasonable doubt and trying to argue that section 3 of the act should be ignored in favour of the OED definition of vehicle would likely fail.

They only ever get dealt with by way of a fixed penalty ticket which get paid and not contested. I'd be interested to see the wording on the tickets as they may actually be normal fixed penalty tickets referring to the RTA as I doubt the police have printed some up especially for the Royal parks. If they did refer to the RTA, then again a bike is not mechanically propelled so under the RTA no offence has been committed.

What's going on here is that the police are trying to decide for us but as the UK is not a police state this it's just not on.

This old cc thread on the same subject ...

http://road.cc/content/news/95155-are-police-fining-speeding-cyclists-ri...

finishes off with ...

"It certainly seems to us, therefore, that there's grounds to fight a cycling speeding fine in Richmond Park. A cycling barrister we spoke to has offered to work pro bono (that's legalese for 'for free') if anyone wants to take on Parks police on this, so if you get pinged in the park, get in touch.

Update: I subsequently submitted a Freedom of Information request to the Metropolitan Police asking for the legal advice they had received when they decided to start fining cyclists for speeding. They were unable to locate any such advice."

By the way, the OED definition of vehicle doesn't include pedal cycles.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/vehicle

Definition of vehicle in English:
noun

1A thing used for transporting people or goods, especially on land, such as a car, lorry, or cart:
the vehicle was sent skidding across the road
a heavy goods vehicle
MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCES
One part of the terminal is onshore, and land transport vehicles will be unloaded there.
Possible modes of transport include ambulances, local transport vehicles, military vehicles, helicopters, fixed wing aircraft, and rescue boats.
Many buses and large transport vehicles were sent to evacuate the community.