Huge fine for cyclist caught 'speeding' in Richmond Park

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???

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 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 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.

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 inforce this!

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.

[double post]

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.

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 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.