A cyclist was fined £200 after being clocked by a speed gun at 38mph while riding in Richmond Park. This is despite the fact that a Royal Parks spokesman has previous said that speed limits in the places it manages don’t apply to cyclists.
Paul Harness was riding down Sawyers Hill on January 11 when he was stopped by a police officer who had been parked behind a tree with a speed gun.
Harness says he was charged with speeding and driving without due care on a bicycle. When he subsequently appeared at Lavender Hill Magistrates on October 10, he was fined £200 for each offence, plus £200 court cost and a £20 victim surcharge.
Harness told road.cc that he pleaded not guilty in the belief that the speed gun was not designed to work on cyclists and that he did not by law need a speed measuring device on his bike.
“I thought the whole affair was a waste of time and money and the policeman was way over the top and the judge would think the whole thing ridiculous. There were crimes going on all around Richmond that day and this fella was hiding behind a tree with a speed gun and I was having a Sunday cycle going down Sawyers Hill.”
As we reported in 2013, there is a large degree of doubt about whether speeding restrictions in London’s Royal Parks actually apply to cyclists. At the time, we concluded that that anyone issued a fine for doing so might have grounds for challenging it.
Indeed in 2014, Royal Parks told Radio 2 presenter Jeremy Vine that there is no speed limit for cyclists in Hyde Park and, by extension, any of the other 10 parks or open spaces it manages in London. However, none of this seems to have prevented cyclists from being charged.
In March, Rory Palmer was fined for riding his bike at 41mph in Richmond Park on January 2 – again on Sawyers Hill. After pleading guilty to breaking the park’s speed limit of 20mph, magistrates fined him £65 plus a £20 surcharge and he was also ordered to pay prosecution costs of £65.
47 thoughts on “Huge fine for cyclist caught ‘speeding’ in Richmond Park”
38mph in a public park? This
38mph through a public park with a 20mph speed limit? This would certainly come under the old charge of ‘Furious Pedaling’ if not being ‘Reckless’ bordering on ‘Dangerous’.
What was this idiot thinking? If he was thinking at all! Not big, not clever and not intelligent!
The only thing that can be argued about is the proportionality of the penalty.
levermonkey wrote:
You have evidently never been to Richmond Park, there is an outer perimeter road round the park which is almost wholly devoid of pedestrians and is used by bikes and cars almost exclusively. Due to a long gently sloping downward gradient, it really isn’t very difficult to reach 30mph+
rliu wrote:
Yes I have been to Richmond Park, many times in fact and I do know Sawyers Hill, and I do know that you can build up quite a speed. But … just because you can does not mean that you should!
I could cycle past my local infants school at 40mph+ (the road has a good slope and gravity loves me!) even though the posted speed limit is 20mph. Does that mean that I should? And what if I did it at a time when children are going to or from the school? As I said – just because you can does not mean that you should.
levermonkey wrote:
Err, I’ve done big speeds down there in the past, before all this fuss started about speeding. Technically cyclists cannot be fined for speeding as a bicycle is not required to have a speed measuring device by law, and any that are fitted do not comply with DfT requirements.
Yes, speeding by that much is a bit silly, but to be honest you can see anyone about to cross the road from a distance in any case. This is not a case of riding past a school at high speed. Plus, physics tells us that the energy involved in a cyclist going that quick is not that much in any case, certainly a great deal less than a 2tonne 4×4 travelling at the speed limit.
A warning to the rider would have been appropriate. A fine is illegal.
I hope the rider is able to contest it.
To be honest, the po;lice could be doing something more appropriate about tackling speeding. On the way home yesterday from the airport in my car, I was tailgated by an articulated lorry because I had the temerity to be driving at the speed limit along the A23 through Croyodn. The driver then went on to make a dangerous overtake of me, followed by two other vehicles. I decided wisely to keep my distance and let the idiot do whatever he wanted in front of me. Why aren’t the police tackling speeding by morons in 44tonne trucks instead? The potential for damage they have is rather higher than that of a cyclist.
OldRidgeback wrote:
look I totally agree the police ought to have something better to do tackling bigger road safety issues, and the technicalities of breaking a speed limit on a bike are well worn topics of debate especially in Royal Parks, and the appropriate thing should have been a jolly severe warning, or careless/dangerous cycling, certainly driving a bike without due care & attention sounds a totally made up thing, and its reasonable to question whether a speed gun acurrately measures a cyclists speed, but these are all things that should have been brought up in court if they were of question.
and you might be able to see someone cross in front of you, but would you be able to stop in time, at 38mph its surprising how rapidly you run out of room if you need to stop again, bike brakes arent really designed to stop optimally, and few people will ever grab the brakes fully to prevent locking up their front wheel and producing a comedy falling off.
we know its an area the parks take particular interest and issue with, rightly or wrongly, so a bit of common sense doesnt hurt, its not like its the only hill in the country.
levermonkey wrote:
Last time I checked (today) Richmond Park doesn’t have a school on Sawyers.
levermonkey wrote:
Buggerit, I can’t be arsed…
JonD wrote:
Is “speeding and driving
Is “speeding and driving without due care on a bicycle” even a valid charge? Not sure how accurate this is but it wouls suggest not. Maybe…
Interesting that there were
Interesting that there were two charges, but no details about why he was charged with driving without due care. Why don’t motorist get charged with this was well as the speeding offence, surely it would be a slam dunk. Not paying attention to speed limit signs = without due care + the speeding offence.
Am i reading that right – 620
Am i reading that right – 620 pound fine, including costs?
He should have done it in the car, fine would be about a quarter of that!
ribena wrote:
And if he’d knocked a cyclist off it would have been even less…
So do we live in a country of
So do we live in a country of law or not? It’s unclear.
Was he actually pedaling ? If
Was he actually pedaling ? If he was freewheeling when clocked then the charges are null and void ! ?
Batchy wrote:
And further more how did the police know that the Cyclist was actually furious ? Ecstatic more like WHEEeeeeeeeeeeee !
And now this comes down to
And now this comes down to whether or not the fella can afford to take this further, very sad.
Does this really make a difference? There’s a descent near me on an A road in a 30mph limit. You peak at about 44-45mph as you pass a speed camera, but (I’m) always freewheeling at that point.
Has there been a spate of
Has there been a spate of accidents in the area or is this just the usual prejudice?
Ah, but did he have a helmet
Ah, but did he have a helmet on?
I’m assuming if he not only
I’m assuming if he not only got charged with speeding but also with out care, that he was overtaking etc, the 10th was a Saturday and weekends get busy, and so on.
Sounds also like he may have failed the attitude test, agree with others even freewheeling knocking on 40mph is quite possible, though a weekend isn’t the best time for such antics.
Richmond Park had cameras and
Richmond Park had cameras and road sensors setup during the summer for a few weeks, which were monitoring all the traffic movements. I wonder if any data from that is available yet?
Regents Park did something similar, and in the correspondence with the local cycling club regarding speed bumps, the manager divulged that over half the cars broke the speed limit and speeds as high as 84mph were recorded.
My own experience of the Police in that park is that they aren’t bothered much by speed unless you descend like an utter berk. What they really don’t like is people overtaking moving traffic at high speed, and they’ll often catch and warn people doing that by parking up at the bottom of Sawyer.
Doing 38mph on a Sunday, he would have been amongst a lot of traffic, hence why he was nabbed.
bikebot wrote:
I would think it would have given an interesting picture of just how many cars use the park as a rat run and how fast they go. I hope it influences the Royal Parks to get rid a through traffic.
It’s interesting how a number
It’s interesting how a number of people below are continuing to say that legally he can’t be charged (no speed device, freewheeling, etc, etc). Given that a court has now judged against a defendant who pleaded not guilty means there is now a proven judgement on what is the law. It has just been verified.
Also driving without due care is often pushed for when the speedlimit is exceeded by a signifigant amount. Going nearly twice the limit may have counted in that case
macrophotofly wrote:
Magistrates courts do NOT create precedent and can get it wrong. This is why their decision can be appealed to Crown Court on either a point or points of law, or on the facts. But one would be wise to seek legal advice.
Should have got Mr Nick
Should have got Mr Nick “Loophole ” Freeman to defend him then he may well have got off.
Irrespective of whether you feel this guy was speeding or whether it was an appropriate use of police time and resources, I am sure that the court’s judgement could be appealed on several points of law and that the police acted unlawfully in bringing the prosecution. But first you would need to establish the full facts of whether the standard of this guy’s riding actually was reckless or merely careless in the eyes of one vindictive copper? Maybe speeding in itself might not be suffcient in itself to have made out the offence of wanton or reckless cycling, if you cannot lawfully speed on a bicycle, then in the opinion of a vindcitive copper the offence might be made out.
Also you certainly don’t drive, but ride a bicycle. Driving implies a motorised vehicle which a bicycle is not. Speed guns have been used to successfully prosecute speeding motorcyclists although they are a little wider than a cyclist and have engines, etc.
I would be concentrating on whether the police speed guns have been properly calibrated for use on cyclists. Also that cyclists are not required by law to have speed measuring devices fitted to their bicycles, irrespective of whether he did have one in use at the time.
I would consider an appeal to Crown Court, but then again this could be costly, even more costly if the appeal failed. Mr Harness needs to get legal advice, as I suggest from Mr Nick “Loophole” Freeman.
Airzound wrote:
I don’t think he’s a fan of cyclists…. http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/motoring-lawyer-says-bicycles-should-carry-id-plates-and-riders-wear-hi-vis-197113
Put in some small speed bumps
Put in some small speed bumps, that would slow most castelli lingerie clad hero roadies down.
Thelma Viaduct wrote:
Richmond Park already has speed bumps. They do absolutely nothing to slow the huge herds of 4x4s that roam the perimeter of the park.
bikebot wrote:
Richmond Park already has speed bumps. They do absolutely nothing to slow the huge herds of 4x4s that roam the perimeter of the park.— Thelma Viaduct
From memory Richmond Park has only three speed humps and they are between Richmond Gate and Pembroke Lodge, and yes they do absolutely nothing to slow the aggressive speeding drivers. I used to frequently match or mildly exceed the 20mph but still drivers would dangerously attempt to overtake when there is no room.
webster wrote:
There’s a few more, by some of the entrances, one at the top of Broomfield, little ones at the roundabout for Sheen gate. They’ve recently put some rumble strips in by Robin Hood gate as well which don’t really seem to do anything useful.
I’ve actually been there twice this week around dawn, with the clocks changing you get that nice little window again between sunrise and the gates opening to motor traffic.
Ah Magistrates, eh? They are
Magistrates are advised by a qualified lawyer, I read, but aren’t lawyers themselves. Quality varies, of course. It’ll be too pricey to quiz this in a bigger court, though the hour or two of casual reading I’ve done in this area tells me it should’ve been thrown out. Must be irritating to the fellow involved. I suppose he’s reviewing his defence’s performance too.
Having no speed limit for
Having no speed limit for cyclists sounds OK but does it mean I can use aero tech to reach 60mph and be OK will everyone ?
The rule exists presuming that assholes wont use it aganst the spirit of itself. Just because something is not illegal does not make it the right thing to do.
Beaufort wrote:
True, but what governs us is law. If the cyclist actually committed the offences for which he was prosecuted then he should indeed be found guilty, but if he did not commit an offence(s) in law or on the facts he should not. The court may have been ultra vires ie acting beyond it’s powers, in which case Mr Harness should consider appealing. I wonder if he represented himself?
How do I know how fast I’m
How do I know how fast I’m going?
Bicycles don’t have speedometers, and I don’t use a newfangled cycling computer, so how do I know how fast I’m travelling? If I go down a hill in a 20mph limit zone, how could I know how fast I’m travelling without doing some pretty amazing counting-and-mental-arithmetic (wheel circumference, revolutions per minute, that sort of thing)?
And if I can have no idea how fast I’m travelling, how logical is it to then fine me for speeding???
brooksby wrote:
Taking an unrelated situation as an example: it is illegal to import various wild animals to the UK. Unaware of this restriction, you might buy such an animal while abroad, put in in your suitcase, and bring it home. It’s still illegal to import the animal, and you are responsible for checking that you are acting within the law. If you’re not sure, then you can avoid breaking the law by not importing the animal.
Now let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that “cycling over 20mph is illegal”. In that case, cycling over 20mph is illegal whether or not you know you are doing so. You are responsible for ensuring that you are within the law and you must take reasonable care that you comply with the law – for example, by fitting and using a speed measuring device, or simply by riding very slowly.
Gizmo_ wrote:
I totally understand your “wild animals import” analogy. However – should I ride more slowly than I’d like (or that feels appropriate for the conditions), just in case I’m speeding? Not sure the motorists behind me will like that, but OK…
UK’s top cyling lawyer offers
UK’s top cyling lawyer offers to take it further on a “no win, no fee” basis:
https://twitter.com/MartinPorter6/status/659332774583795712
Can we link them up?
There seem to be quite a few
There seem to be quite a few issues with this prosecution, the biggest of which appears to be a failure in the judgement of “hard pressed” police who are apparently battling cuts but still have time to hide behind trees catching speeding cyclists.
As to the specifics of the case:
1. It seems unclear if the device the police were using to catch the speeding cyclist was actually tested or validated for the way it was being used.
2. As the cyclist could have entered by a gate rather than the main entrances (which do have 20 mph signs) the prosecution would need to prove the cyclist had actually seen a sign
3. The regulations in vehicle speed apply to vehicles, not bikes
My biggest problem though is that there seem to be no shortage of police hiding behind trees or sitting in their cars for long periods in the coffee areas away from the main “loop” round Richmond Park.
Perhaps police time might be better spent dealing with the persistent and very obvious use of mobile phones by drivers in the park for calls whilst driving, or texting / facebooking – when cycling loops of the park it’s amazing how many drivers are looking down to the right of their steering wheel, presumably fiddling with their phones rather than looking at the road.
To date there haven’t been any instances of cyclists causing death or serious injury to drivers or the deer in the park but not only is the converse true for drivers, the police don’t seem at all interested in doing anything about it.
It’s the tendency of the police to focus on silly “distractions” like this one rather than the very real threats to lives and animals caused by driver inattention that contributes to a sense they are not fit for purpose or able to exercise any common sense.
Like I’ve already said, if
Like I’ve already said, if the Cyclist was not pedalling and he was not furious he was not breaking the law. The law specifically says ” pedalling furiously “. The law is obviously an ass in this case.
Batchy wrote:
Never assume common meaning = legal meaning. Furious pedalling is just the title, what it specifically means will be defined in its associated statutes and by case law.
In principle I dont object IF
In principle I dont object IF the roads were policed as effectively focusing on the real perpetrators of road violence…which is motorised traffic.
The law demonstrates on a sickingly daily basis that anything caused by a car is merely ‘an accident’ ergo no one is really to blame and it is wholly unavoidable. It is thinking at its most primitive level and it costs lives.
Further, the fine for this supposed crime is entirely out of proportion given a motorist causing the death of an innocent can expect to pay less!
MPs and the whole judiciary have blood on their hands and should be thoroughly ashamed, its a national disgrace.
Best of luck trying to
Best of luck trying to inforce this!
But what was the actual speed
But what was the actual speed involved? The radar gun would have picked the highest speed found which would have been the spokes at the top of the front wheel. These would be doing twice the speed of the bike, 19 mph sounds are more reasonable speed.
Not almost. There are no
[double post]
Not almost. There are no
Not almost. There are no pedestrians. Pedestrians walk by the path next to the road which in this case is quite far away. 38mph sounds like a lot on a bike, but it’s quite easy to pick up speed there as it’s a very long straight. There are virtually no bends; so it would feel quite safe.
I cycle there every week. However, like I think most people, I cycle anticlockwise so have no problem on that stretch (but do have to watch their speed at Broomfield Hill where a cyclist crashed and died last year). The cyclst in question must have been cycling clockwise. Seeing them as they come down, I think everyone, both cars and bikes, travels faster than 20mph.
The park is not very safe during the weekends. Many drivers drive aggressively tailgating cars and bikes (the Park’s road is narrow) and overtake at over 20mph, sometimes in front of police cars. I’ve never seen a policeman take any action. The police cars are normally parked by the cafes presumably checking that no car crime takes place there.
Like many others I’d expect the Police to act to reduce the danger to others rather than to focus on someone who, at most, is putting his own life a little bit in danger.
alexwlondon wrote:
I totally get this^
I try and avoid RP at the weekends for the reasons you state.
I think the badly worded
I think the badly worded amendment to the Royal Park regulations probably mean the speed limits don’t apply for cycles. He has a point about the speed gun accuracy as well.
But a bit of common sense would have avoided this. The bottom of Sawyers hill is one of only two places the Parks Police do speed checks (the other being by Ham cross), and it’s a reasonably straight road so he should have been able to see the Police vehicle (the trees aren’t that wide). The Police are only there during busier times, when doing 38mph down Sawyers probably isn’t that great an idea.
The driving without due care on a bicycle might be harder to argue, espically if he was overtaking traffic.
If proportionality were the
If proportionality were the measure, then the Police would far better serve Public safety by going out after speeding, phone-driving and unlicenced and uninsured drivers. This case is quite outrageous. I fail to see how this prosecution benefited the Public interest in any way.
I haven’t ridden along Sawyer’s Hill for some time, I tend to stick to the route by Spanker’s Hill, where the School is. I also tend to keep my speed down in the park, because I don’t want to be prosecuted and because of the speed humps.