The Telegraph newspaper this weekend published information from a “dossier of collision data” from The Royal Parks in London and claimed it revealed “the full threat posed to pedestrians by dangerous and illegal cycling in the country’s most famous parks”.
It was released, the newspaper said, using freedom of information laws and listed incidents involving cyclists in the eight London green spaces that are run by The Royal Parks charity, but mainly related to Richmond Park and Regent’s Park, the two most popular with the capital’s sport cyclists.
Marking its release, a Royal Parks spokesperson suggested that while cycling has a “deep-rooted history” in the parks, the “speeds that can now be achieved when cycling in such populated spaces bring new challenges that we are committed to addressing”. Last month, the charity asked the government to amend legislation “with a view to setting speed limits for cyclists” in its parks which, if introduced, could see riders exceeding 20mph speed limits prosecuted — something a source at the Department for Culture Media and Sport reportedly told the newspaper is still being considered.
In the article, titled ‘How rogue cyclists in London’s parks have knocked down children and the elderly’, The Telegraph published information from the dossier and said it referenced “‘speeding’ and ‘aggressive’ cyclists being involved in hit and runs, ignoring zebra crossings, travelling on illegal bikes and hitting pedestrians so hard they are ‘catapulted’ into the air.”
Richmond Park and Regent’s Park saw the most reports, one of which was the collision at the latter park where, in 2022, 81-year-old Hilda Griffiths was hit by Brian Fitzgerald as he rode at 29mph, injuries she died from in hospital two months later.
Another incident from Regent’s Park reportedly noted a pedestrian suffering two broken ribs in a collision with a cyclist “doing laps” of the park, however The Telegraph piece does also state that the injured pedestrian “admitted not looking properly” when crossing the road.
One cyclist commenting online suggested the interpretation of the dossier’s reports was “just bat***t” and highlighted that one of the six Regent’s Park incidents reported over the four-year period was a cyclist losing consciousness and their riding mates crashing as a result, hardly the “rogue cyclists” promised in the headline. Another report was from a cyclist who felt “unsafe” due to others “riding on his wheel”.
In Richmond Park, The Telegraph says a pedestrian was, in February, hit “at speed” on a “busy” path by a cyclist riding a “fixed wheel bike” that was “not road legal”. In August, a pedestrian was reportedly hospitalised with “multiple serious injuries to arm, head and hip” by a “speeding cyclist” who then “fled the scene”.
The file from the summer reportedly includes a note from a runner who said he will not visit the park as “it is becoming so dangerous”.
“I’ve on four occasions nearly been hit by a speeding bike. It’s all well and good saying pedestrians have priority but it’s clear that many cyclists (not all of course) are not adhering to this rule,” he reportedly added, the newspaper also suggesting there were “numerous reports” of cyclists going “at least 30mph”, “full pelt” or “out of control” over the past four years in Richmond Park.
The dossier also reportedly notes two incidents in the park in 2020, one seeing a partially sighted pedestrian “knocked to the ground” by a cyclist who had his “head down because of the wind”, the second incident reporting a “very fast” cyclist “on the wrong side of the road crashed head-on into another cyclist”.
Due to the quieter roads and continuous loops offered by Richmond Park and Regent’s Park, the green spaces are popular training and riding destinations for leisure and sport cyclists in the city who ride laps of the routes. Some of the other London parks ran by The Royal Parks are primarily used as through-routes by riders, the dossier also reportedly referencing collisions, near misses or incidents in Hyde Park, Kensington Gardens, St James’s Park and Bushy Park.
During the summer, The Royal Parks cited cyclists riding “at excessive speeds” and causing crashes as the reason for it reviewing its cycling policy, while also cancelling early-morning time trial events in Richmond Park and the London Duathlon.
In May, Strava was asked to remove “Regent’s Park as a segment on the app” by The Royal Parks, the move coming following the death of a pensioner who died from her injuries sustained in a collision with a cyclist riding laps of the park at 25-29mph.
In a letter to Sir Chris Bryant, the Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism, The Royal Parks’ chairman Loyd Grossman (the former presenter of MasterChef and Through the Keyhole) asked government to amend laws so that cyclists failing to adhere to the parks’ 20mph speed limits can be prosecuted for speeding.
Providing an update a month later, a source at the Department for Culture Media and Sport confirmed the government had “received a proposal to improve safety for park users” and “are considering it”.
A Royal Parks spokesperson told The Telegraph: “The parks are shared spaces where pedestrians, cyclists and wildlife coexist, and we have a responsibility to all park users to ensure we are acting in a way that protects and promotes their safety. We continue to work closely with cycling groups, community groups and the Met Police to do all we can to ensure the parks can be enjoyed safely by everyone, now and in the future.”
She suggested the cycling policies had been reviewed due to “several cycling-related incidents linked to a minority of people cycling at excessive speeds” and “implemented physical changes in the parks, including larger or wider pedestrian paths, additional crossing points to improve pedestrian safety and additional signage”.
Discussions around speed limits in The Royal Parks, notably Richmond Park, have been long running. Despite initially suggesting speed limits did apply to cyclists, in 2021 it was confirmed that the park’s speed limits (which range from 5mph to 20mph) do not apply to cyclists, a stance in line with the wider law.
Then, in the summer of 2022, The Royal Parks said that even if the speed limits do not apply to cyclists, riders would still have action taken if they ride “recklessly”.
In July, we reported that a group claiming to represent cyclists who use the park (Richmond Park Cyclists) had clashed with the charity over its speed limit advice for riders using the park.
This summer’s Richmond Park Time Trials were also cancelled by The Royal Parks. Organised by the London Dynamo cycling club and first run in 2009, they were due to take place on 23 June and 7 July this year – and had been praised for their inclusivity and for providing a gateway into the sport, enabling beginners to compete on road bikes and on almost traffic-free roads due to their 6am starts.
However, The Royal Parks cancelled this summer’s events over fears riders would break the park’s 20mph speed limit, a decision which left organisers “fuming” and arguing the decision had been clouded by “very irresponsible journalism” and that the alternative is “busy roads and fast-moving cars”.
“Following several cycling-related incidents, it is our duty to take action to minimise the risk of accidents and our priority to ensure the safety of all cyclists together with other visitors,” Richmond Park’s manager said. September’s London Duathlon in the park was subsequently also cancelled.
The Royal Parks has received plenty of criticism over the years for its approach to improving road safety in its parks. Many, including the London Cycling Campaign (LCC), have repeatedly asked why through-traffic is still allowed to use Richmond Park as a shortcut, the campaign calling the cancellation of well-organised events “weak” while “daily rat-runs” continue.
While some of Richmond Park’s roads are closed to motor traffic on weekends, during weekdays the green space, which The Royal Parks proudly calls an “extraordinary landscape” that is also London’s largest Site of Special Scientific Interest and a National Nature Reserve, is used as a cut-through for motorists driving between Kingston upon Thames, Richmond and Roehampton.
[Queue for parking on a sunny summer weekend in Richmond Park]
The LCC has campaigned for the park to be closed to through-traffic for years, arguing it would improve road safety and make them “far better for people walking, cycling and relaxing in”. Specialist cycling insurance provider ETA Services Ltd recently also called it an “ongoing embarrassment” that The Royal Parks “allows this nature reserve to be used as a rat-run”, the comments coming in response to the incident below.
56 thoughts on “Telegraph publishes “dossier of collision data” involving “rogue cyclists” in London parks, as Royal Parks continues campaign for new laws to prosecute ‘speeding’ cyclists”
Has anybody asked for or
Has anybody asked for or received data of incidents involving cars in the parks under FOI ?
It would be interesting to see what sort of a risk pedestrians and cyclists are at with respect to cars.
I suspect that this question must’ve been asked but wouldn’t be surprised if it hasn’t because of ‘motornmativity’.
If it’s the same FOI response
If it’s the same FOI response I saw ( FOI-0538-2425 ), in Richmond Park (local to me so the one I had a good look at in the FOI tables), from 2019-2023 there have been…
– 8 collisions between people cycling and walking, mostly in the northeeast corner
– 21 collisions between people cycling
– 58 between people cycling and driving
– and 75 cycling falls Most of the falls were on or near the steeper hills as you’d expect , but there are clusters at Richmond Gate and the junction of Sawyers Hill with the road to Holly Lodge, though personally, I’d have expected the last two might have been hotspots for collisions, not falls ?.
and only one collision between a driver and a pedestrian was recorded (near Kingston gate).
Make of that what you will – *however* – the deer in the room…
https://www.frp.org.uk/carelessness-costs-deer-lives/
Jitensha Oni wrote:
A fall may oftentimes be merely a narrowly avoided collision.
You never mentioned that a
You never mentioned that a cyclist was stabbed to death by a pedestrian a few years ago in Richmond Park. Also when the park was left open overnight for a year because of a sinkhole in Petersham motorists killed nearly 200 deer in a year and dogs owned by pedestrians killed nearly all the swans.
kingleo wrote:
It was in 2005, I’m not sure what relevance that has, tragic as it was; the killer was a paranoid schizophrenic who had just walked out of a mental health unit who had heard voices telling him to kill someone, it was nothing to do with pedestrian/cyclist conflict.
Excellent – for comparison,
Excellent – for comparison, and to make the statistics in any way valid, I’m sure they have identified all the other sources of transport-related danger, and analysed their prevalence and magnitude relative to each other. Otherwise it is just meaningless cherry picking based on prejudice.
Once upon a time The Daily
Once upon a time The Daily Telegraph was a serious right leaning newspaper. Then Max Hastings stepped down as editor.
Ok, so I’m a member of London living, Guardian reading, tofu eating, wokerati (I don’t live in Islington though) but I did used to think of the Telegraph as a proper newspaper, if not one aligned with my own political views. But it’s gone downhill over the last decade.
I note an article in The Guardian today about the 20mph speed limits in Wales and how they’ve made roads safer. And yet there’s still a Conservative backlash against them. More cycling = fewer crashes too. So do right wingers not like safer roads? I don’t get it.
OldRidgeback wrote:
I reckon it is because safer roads benefit all equally, even the poorest, which is anathema to right wing populists. They much prefer safer (to the driver and passengers) *cars* because there the benefit is limited to the deserving owner and manufacturer.
I suspect it’s because they
I suspect it’s because they’re interested in freedom for people like them, and the consequences and impingement on other people’s freedom be damned
AidanR wrote:
Nah, that’s a type of rational self interest, if a rather callow one. More of a 1980s Reagan kind of right wing populism than the modern day version.
Quote:
So where does this person run? There is an excellent 7.3 mile loop which runs all the way round the outer perimeter of the park, the Tamsin Trail, access to and use of which requires crossing no roads at all except where it passes the gates, where high-speed cycling is not an issue. There are numerous other footpaths suitable for running criss-crossing the park as well in areas where cycling is completely banned. The only conceivable way a runner could perceive the park to be dangerous would be if they chose to run on the road alongside the cars and bicycles.
We need to be very careful
We need to be very careful about taking an approach that suggests that one vulnerable road user group should use the other facilities available to them and not share the road. That’s a slippery slope that is already pointed at cyclists.
What really ought to be the case is that walkers, runners and cyclists should be confident of using parkroads and paths safely. And, to do that, the issue has been raised about removing motor vehicles.
I have no idea what the real problems of speed and volume of cycling through the park might be. More than happy to believe that, if the Telegraph “broke”* the “news”, then the whole thing is manufactured. However, is there, within the silly fart noises, a reasonable call for more care and attention towards others from those seeking to train for speed?
(* “broke”, of course, has more than one sense here)
GMBasix wrote:
Definitely not a good idea to force either group to use slippery slopes.
mdavidford wrote:
What about skiers?
Are they paying ski tax or
Are they paying ski tax or are they just taking the piste?
chrisonabike wrote:
I was thinking of taking up water-skiing, but I couldn’t find a lake with a hill.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Do you just have a massive library of squirrel pictures carefully indexed ready to respond to any post?
Steve K wrote:
Don’t mention them!!
Steve K wrote:
You don’t?
What really ought to be the
I don’t know if you know Richmond Park, the roads are vehicle roads with segregated pedestrian provision usually a metre or two off to the side, separated by grass strips. With the volume of traffic it makes no more sense for a pedestrian to “share the road” than it would for someone to walk down the middle of a busy High Street during rush-hour, something which presumably you wouldn’t advocate? If someone says pedestrians should walk on the pavement and not walk in the roadway amongst the cars and cyclists that’s not really the same as saying cyclists must use cycle lanes, is it?
TBF there are plenty of
TBF there are plenty of mountain, gravel, Lime bikes and e-bikes using the Tamsin Trail. Have never seen a collision but have thought a number of times that that a rider hadn’t really considered the effect they were having on the pedestrians on the trail by riding fast and close to them.
Can road.cc put in an FOI for
Can road.cc put in an FOI for the dossier on incidents involving motor vehicles and right an article on that, for balance?
Can’t believe you didn’t
Can’t believe you didn’t label it a dodgy dossier
sexed up?
sexed up?
For riders using Garmin RC715
For riders using Garmin RC715 (with latest FW), why not send video clips of incidents of speeding vehicles to Road.cc, to publish under a new theme
This seem to be just a very
This seem to be just a very vindictive but baseless attack on cyclists in response to widespread acceptance of 20mph speed limits for motor vehicles.
Any debate about the dangers of cycling should collapse as soon as motor traffic KSI stats and the overwhelming health benefits of cycling are considered.
Pub bike wrote:
Yes, where are the same figures for drivers, Telegraph?
I’d wager that the Torgraph
I’d wager that the Torgraph didn’t have to push their FOI request particularly hard – I imagine that the Royal Parks have just been
hopingbeggingpraying for a newspaper to support their campaign…Quote:
I wonder whether he’ll be writing to the Transport Minister about funding for the London Philharmonic, or to the Foreign Secretary to talk about Universal Credit?
It’s like the joke, isn’t it?
It’s like the joke, isn’t it?
Man: “CAN I GET TWO FISH SUPPERS PLEASE!”
Person behind counter: “Excuse me – but this is a library!”
Man: “Oh, sorry!” *whispers* “Can I get two fish suppers, please?”
In a way, it illustrates how
In a way, it illustrates how the matter is perceived, doesn’t it? Mr Grossman clearly sees the management of the Royal Parks and all of the traffic therein as a matter for tourism not a matter for transport.
Or maybe it reflects the fact
Or maybe it reflects the fact that the governance of the royal parks lies with DCMS, not DfTransport. So I think it more reflects that these are weird places, rather than anything else.
Well if they’re doing leisure
Well if they’re doing leisure laps and not going from A to B on meaningful journeys…
Like going to a cello lesson?
Like going to a cello lesson? 😉
Keeping it short to avoid a
Keeping it short to avoid a rant:
Meanwhile parks else where are a backdrop for real crime: muggings, fatal stabbings and worse….But sure distract the public from the REAL issues.
So it’s basically a campaign
So it’s basically a campaign to get cycling banned in the Parks then? Thereby removing a perceived impediment to rat running through, and laying the groundwork for future “get cycling banned” nonsense wherever decent fear-mongering folk may care to drive or better still, park.
All while simultaneously winning a battle in a manufactured culture war against an out group they can throw bigotry & hatred toward because “cyclists” are a uniquely safe target to our right whinge friends: a completey homogenous group with no defining characteristics such as ethnicity, gender, sexuality, age. Attacking groups like that can be somewhat problematic these days you see (bunch of woke nonsense what?).
Last time I rode in Richmond
Last time I rode in Richmond Park was 2012. Had just dropped off son in Chiswick for a cricket match, looked forward for a few hours fast ride like the same time in 2011. Hot day. Trundled to park, could hardly ride up the slope at the gates. Ground round in bottom gear with grannies overtaking me. Wondered if someone had sacked all the oxygen out of the air. Massive heart attack sometime afterwards. Genetic, with my core fitness helping me survive and recover
Never cycled in Richmond Park
Never cycled in Richmond Park myself but I reckon my core fitness stopped a bowel cancer breaking out of my stomach for long enough in my late 30s / early 40s, and because I was in good shape when it was dignosed I was in and out and on the road to recovery in no time. Just before I could barely cycle up a slope either.
Fully aware of Torygraph bot
Fully aware of Torygraph bot writing and the algorithms to select & distort data to suit their dying out readership and sad to see how a generally honest (right of centre) paper has degenerated to compete with Mail & Express.
But, tbf, I’ve posted before how, age 69, most friends and same generation family are no longer sprightly mobile, they’re hard of hearing, sight failing, etc and more frightened of bikes and scooters in shared use areas than cars on roafs. They can’t relate to idea of bikes doing 20, 30, even more mph.
I just did 43 kph for a fair distance on my 2018 Ultegra Roubaix. Bikes, wheels, tyres so much faster than my old 531 steel and aluminium-carbon frame bikes with 23C tyres at 120 psi. Bikes at Rouler show on Sunday were exotic with wheels at £3.5k to £4k+. Head down aero positions don’t help you look ahead and I know how I can still get into a zone running, cycling, swimming where I’m oblivious to other people – I’m not alone in that tendency.
Reality is, Torygraph will have distorted hate material but there are many snippets of truth for them to extrapolate and distort. Walking and riding with most of my contemporaries is scary due to people using various forms of bicycle, scooter, trike recklessly. I’m sure such riders don’t read this outlet or any other bike news media.
Even a slow cyclist can seem
Even a slow cyclist can seem fast to somebody who is standing still and not expecting to see a bike.
Also if you’re being told
Also if you’re being told they are too fast, then you’ll perceive then as such. As not local I don’t know how many electric mopeds are increasing that perception.
Cyclists need to own their
Cyclists need to own their own mistakes and poor behaviour. I cycle, I have been cut down by cyclists and have been overtaken by faster cyclists in an aggressive manner. In parks where there will be more people why can’t cyclists accept that they need to moderate their speed. Let’s not go do the whataboutary, but actually accept cyclists need to be respectful of pedestrians and each other. Lone female older cyclist.
You sound like another person
You sound like another person who doesn’t know Richmond Park. Many people talk of cyclists moderating their behaviour as if the park is akin to a municipal urban park in which cyclists most certainly should slow down virtually to walking pace when there are pedestrians about. However, Richmond Park is better thought of as a large piece of countryside with roads running through it that just happens, fortuitously and delightfully, to be plonked down in the middle(ish) of a great city. There is no reason for pedestrians to be on the roads in the park apart from when crossing them and so no reason for cyclists to behave differently (or need different regulation) to the way they would on any other road.
I can vouch for this. Priory
I can vouch for this. Priory Lane for example runs from the junction with the A205 all the way to Stag Lodge.
Also, just to prove it is a public road, the police are equally as unlikely to prosecute a close pass on any part of Priory Lane, whether in the park or not.
Rendel Harris wrote:
And it is only relatively recently that it ceased to be possible for motor vehicles to drive all the way around the park on those public roads.
well no, there isnt a
well no, there isnt a pavement in Richmond Park, so cyclists and pedestrians are sharing the same space. It’s quite busy at times, so not really comparable to belting down a country B road without a pedestrian for miles, if at all. It isnt hard to show a little consideration as a cyclist.
There are footpaths running
There are footpaths running alongside all the roads. There is no reason for pedestrians to be walking along the roads and in fact none of them do, they use the footpaths. You sound like another who doesn’t actually know the park at all.
I’m a Richmond resident, have
I’m a Richmond resident, have never driven a car/van etc and have been on two wheels (bicycle and motorbike) my entire life. I also lived/worked and cycled in both the Netherlands and Denmark (in both places rules on cyclists are pretty tough and enforced not only by old bill but breaking them also incurs wrath of other cyclists). First of all a large number of cyclists in Richmond Park are just middle class blokes who’ve found the last bastion of their entitlement. I’ve personally witnessed them spitting and screaming at pretty much anyone, including other cyclists, and they are quick to threaten and be abusive. I seen them overtaking cars etc at high sped down the hill past Pembroke Lodge into oncoming traffic, seen them looking at their phones as they cycle and seen them kick out at people. Now, the debate about the road – yep peds won’t walk on the road usually and stick to the path. But, guess what?, cyclists are now racing around the walking path (the one permitted as a shared space) on off-road racing bikes. Only today I saw two cycling two abreast on this path going way above the 10mph limit. Personally it’s got to the stage that I’d ban bicycles completely from Richmond Park and also close the roads to traffic – green over the whole place.
Amazing that I’ve been
Amazing that I’ve been cycling in Richmond Park for 45 years and still visit regularly and I’ve never once seen a cyclist scream, spit at or threaten anyone else, cyclist, pedestrian or driver. Absuive, well yes I have heard the odd one shout “fuck off” to drivers close passing them at speed, I may even have done that myself on occasion, it’s quite hard to keep one’s temper completely under control when somebody is doing things that could kill you. I do agree that some of the weekend racers do take far too many chances with the downhill overtakes and I also agree that with the trend for gravel bikes and e-mountain bikes it may be time something was done about cycling on the shared path (Tamsin Trail), whether more signage, more close monitoring or even perhaps a gravel cycle trail running alongside the extant path.
Kudos on the last sentence, it’s good of you to give an indicator of quite how out of touch with reality you are; I’ve never seen anyone, not even the most virulent of pro-motorist anti-cyclist park users, seriously suggest that bicycles should be banned from the park.
Yep, green over the whole
Yep, green over the whole park, remove the road, except for access for park maintainence. No road vehicles or bicycles. Would be brilliant. A nice calm, green space for everyone to enjoy rather than as a rat run for cars or a race track for rich people on bikes. In fact I’d probably put in some kind of tarmacced paths for disabled people who use wheelchairs. I’d priotise those people over aggressive estate agents in lycra.
And I’m simply astonished – incredulous in fact – that a member of the cycling lobby has only witnessed the most mild kinds of poor behaviour from other cyclists! It’s almost as if you are blinkered, unable to be objective or just like to lie about stuff.
The other option would be Danish/Dutch style enforcement for cyclists which in those countries includes – spot fines imposed regularly, enforced use of cycle lanes, no two abreast when vehicles are behind and a visible registration number, speed limits etc. I mean the cycle lobby in the UK are always saying they want a Danish/Dutch style cycling environment. I fully agree.
Dougal McFougal wrote:
Well that would be nice. Tell me now though, what are you going to do about the people who want to drive there? I can’t quote you numbers but it wouldn’t surprise me if the majority of people drive to the park. So they’re either going to be trying to park on the roads around (which is going to block the buses and taxis) or on side-streets, which is going to have the local residents (who almost certainly walk to the park) on your back.
I’m a bit confused about the “quiet” in relation to bikes though – but perhaps people are racing through there, ringing their bells?
You better do so, else you’re also going to be fighting accessibility cases in the courts. Plus those disabled people are – currently – likely going to be driving there (perhaps via taxis); see above about parking again.
The vast majority of people
The vast majority of people who visit Richmond Park don’t drive there. I’m not sure the “you can’t park a car so no-one will go there” argument holds either. After all the Natural History Museum doesn’t have a car park and gets plenty of visitors. I take your point re: access – a car park for the disabled is a good idea.
The “quiet” was in relation to the lack of road vehicles (should be obvs) and the “calm” was in relation to the lack of roid-rage estate agents racing on their £4k bikes which they brought to the park on the roof of their SUV.
Well I defer to your local
Well I defer to your local knowledge. I note that Richmond Park apparently has quite a few parking spaces (7 car parks – numbers here suggests possible >1000 spaces but not sure if that’s reliable. Aside from that I’ve only childhood memories to go on! And with a tiny smattering of blue badge ones, even though there is a dedicated disabled-only car park).
The Natural History Museum is near the centre of a major city, with fantastic public transport links including a tube line about 100m away. And it’s actually a bit less convenient to drive there. So not really comparing similar things.
You clearly have had some “bad cyclist” experience though – as always a shame if a few spoil it for the many, as it were.
Dougal McFougal wrote:
Careful what you wish for!
I would suggest you first actually pay a visit to the Netherlands then, or Copenhagen (actually other parts of Denmark / Sweden are arguably better the Copenhagen in some ways). Even from the comfort of your computer.
Here are a couple of helpful places where you can do so:
https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/
https://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/
I suggest you ask locals about “enforced use of cycle lanes, no two abreast when vehicles are behind and a visible registration number, speed limits”. That will give them a laugh at least.
(It is true that you are required – in certain circumstances – to use the cycle path provided in NL. However I think it’s more like if you ride on roads where you shouldn’t the drivers will let you know in traditional fashion you should be “op de fietspad”!)
It seems you may have an “abreast fixation”? In this case you may find the following triggering e.g. here, or here…
If you go – in reality or virtually – you’ll find it a very pleasant experience. After the few days it may take you to “learn the rules of the road” when it seems like chaos of course. Because now there is motor traffic, there are trams, pedestrians and cyclists each with their spaces and rules. And the latter groups aren’t “just waiting patiently” either.
Yes – you will find some enforcement of people breaking cycling rules. But – like the roads here – not much. And (also per reports from people who actually live there and post here) you will no doubt be horrified at the “free and easy” attitude towards regulations you’ll see! Because exactly the same kind of everyone (more or less careful / inclined to obey all the rules) you find walking and driving in the UK will also sometimes be cycling over there. And they’re pretty relaxed when doing so, as they’re rarely “in heavy traffic” and almost never “with fast cars”.
Lived, worked and cycled in
Lived, worked and cycled in both Denmark and Netherlands so don’t need to look at your google search results. Thanks though. Was actually a bit of a shock to cycle in both after London/UK cycling as it was the other cyclists on my back when I cycled like I do in the UK. Even stuff like doing a left turn (equivalent to a right turn in the UK) was weird in Denmark – you’re not supposed to make said turn and have to go to the opposite side and wait for the traffic to stop, then cross. Then the way cyclists in Copenhagen observe the safety of shared spaces with peds, at floating bus stops etc. All the cyclists stop and if you don’t you’ll have them on your back. Also the VIN number on the bikes – very good way to reduce theft. So so different to the UK. But then cycling is seen as a grown up form of transport in those countries rather than a way for middle class middle aged blokes to relive their adolescence and desperately seek out their last bastion of entitlement. It’s a shame really as it’s allowed an anti-cycling narrative to take hold way too easily.
Dougal McFougal wrote:
I’m glad you’ve had the chance to enjoy those places. But in that case what were you talking about with the “enforced use of cycle lanes, no two abreast when vehicles are behind and a visible registration number, speed limits” stuff then?
(The Danish VIN number is just a theft-deterrent as I understand it. Given this apparently could be on the bottom bracket it’s not exactly “visible” in the same way as a car numberplate – and the existence of those doesn’t exactly seem to trouble criminals…).
Yeah – I believe Denmark is still distinctly second-rate for cycling compared to NL (although no doubt they’re improving) and the “Copehagen left” is not something we should aim to import here (but we have, and e.g. here in Edinburgh we’ve been “treated” to this. Better than before? I’d say not much…).
As above – there are UK schemes for registering your bike. I’m interested to know how much that actually affects rates of theft and/or recovery? That comes down how much the police care / resources, then things like the type of bike that is left about the place and how easy it is to secure bikes, no? I’m not knowledgable about Denmark in this respect but NL at least has mandated provision of bike storage in residential places for quite some time, plus recently has done a rush of building high-quality public bike garages – likely mostly to avoid the streets being clogged with hundreds or thousands of parked bikes.
You get what you plan and provide for. Both countries (and indeed even lesser cycling places like parts of Germany) understand cycling as a normal, mainstream transport mode.
“grown up” – it sounds like you’ve bought into that narrative yourself pretty heavily. But … perhaps it’s just London, or your part of London? Staying in Edinburgh that’s not really been my experience – or elsewhere in the UK in fact. Although on a visit down south to the Bristol to Bath path I did have a roadie chastise me for not holding my line. People eh?