Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

OPINION

Richmond Park Cyclists’ co-founder responds to critics of controversial Code of Conduct

Avatar
Chris Campbell reveals how the code for cyclists using the Royal Park was drawn up, and what it aims to achieve

As we reported last week, a code of conduct published by the group Richmond Park Cyclists – which describes itself as “an umbrella group representing all cyclists and para-cyclists who use Richmond Park” and was founded in 2017 “as a means of creating a dialogue with The Royal Parks (the body in charge of Richmond Park), the Metropolitan Police and key stakeholder groups” – has come under strong criticism on social media for some of its contents.

In this guest blog for road.cc, Chris Campbell, the co-founder of the group, reveals how the code was drawn up, what it aims to achieve, and responds to some of the criticism it has attracted.

Richmond Park Cyclists 03

When I co-founded Richmond Park Cyclists four years ago, I realised there would be a backlash to our aim of improving the park for cyclists. What I didn’t expect was that it would come from some people who we are trying to help.

Our misdemeanour? Putting together a cycling Code of Conduct that aims to make the park’s roadway a more hospitable place, particularly for cyclists of all kinds and pedestrians. With the help of subscribers to our monthly email bulletin and our followers on social media, we put together 22 practical guidelines which have now been on our website for three months. The feedback was overwhelmingly positive, and still is, with many realising that a self-policing code could alter the behaviour of a minority of cyclists. So what changed?

Last month, an anonymous Twitter account came up with a false theory that Richmond Park Cyclists was a front for The Royal Parks (the charity that controls Richmond Park) and the Code was a means for TRP to portray cyclists as the bad guys. Why pick on cyclists, he reasoned, when it is the high levels of motor traffic, some of it intimidating and dangerous, that puts some people off coming to the park by bike?

The characterisation of cars in the park is more or less right, but the reasoning is like confusing an Allen key for a torque wrench. The Code is not the tool for tackling the overabundance of vehicles in the park. We do that by supporting TRP’s bid to introduce parking charges and applying pressure to eradicate through traffic, at the weekends at the very least.

Indeed, it’s worth noting that the choice of banning cut-through traffic was absent from the final survey questions in the public consultation on the Movement Strategy (the ongoing project to recalibrate the roads in Richmond Park, and TRP’s seven other green spaces, for pedestrians and cyclists) so we directed masses of respondents to use the tiny comments box stuck at the end of the form to express that view. In other words, TRP deliberately omitted the option to remove cut-through traffic, and we helped keep it on the table.

Two of us arranged to meet our hostile Twitter chum in the park to explain all this. We also made clear that we had shown the draft Code to TRP, the park’s Police, the Friends of Richmond Park and other stakeholders to seek their views. Pedestrian priority is enshrined in TRP policy, and we reflected that in the Code, but the people we showed it to added substantially little to the final version.

At the end of the two-hour conversation, we agreed to disagree on the need for the Code, and he accepted that we were not some dastardly cover for TRP. But this week he made a series of# tweets again unfairly mischaracterising the Code and repeated the false claim about our relationship with TRP.

Those criticisms, aided by circulating parts of the Code without context to cause maximum outrage, were the trigger for last week’s backlash. How dare you tell cyclists to single out – two abreast is legal and safe! Indeed it is, which is what it says in the part of the Code that has been cut out (and we only suggest that you consider singling out in particular circumstances when it is safe). As for the line that “motorists can be frightened too”, well, they can if you ride downhill very close to their back window, which is one manoeuvre that entry addresses (and it has twice happened to me while driving in the park).

Essentially, the Code shows that cyclists are just ordinary people who are allies of Richmond Park. It demonstrates that we, like TRP, want the park to be for everyone, by giving those cyclists with less experience or confidence (and more of them are coming to the park) greater self-assurance on its roadway. It’s a sincere initiative to improve visitor relations whilst we focus on the far bigger issue of cut-through traffic.

You can support the Code simply by carrying on riding courteously and safely, as well as kindly asking others to adjust their behaviour if they fall short. An edited, credit-card-sized version of the Code is available at Cycle Exchange, Giant Store Twickenham, La Ciclista and Pearson (other local businesses will receive supplies soon). You can also support our work by subscribing to our monthly newsletter, where we will provide updates on the 12-month extension to the park’s traffic trial which ends in March next year. And you can follow us on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook – or even meet us in the park. Just drop us a line //richmondparkcyclists [at] gmail.com" target="_blank">here

We’d love to hear your thoughts on Richmond Park and the Code – good and bad!

Richmond Park Cyclists 02

 

Add new comment

29 comments

Avatar
cgfw201 | 2 years ago
8 likes

There's a few bits of this CoC which really beggar belief.

There is no single place in Richmond Park where it is safe for a car to overtake a cyclist when there is a car coming the other way. Not one.

Yet the code tells riders to single out where they can to allow overtakes. This is absolute madness. If it's not safe to overtake two riders, it's not safe to overtake one when there's a car coming the other way. Everyone knows it's easier to overtake a short line of riders two-abreast rather than a long single line.

Let alone the fact that many of these two-abreast groups are parents with kids who they ride on the outside of for protection.

RPC seem to have no interest in making the park safe for riders.

Incredibly frustrating.

Avatar
TheBillder | 2 years ago
2 likes

Just on the "motorists can be frightened too" line... I initially thought "oh come on, bike vs 2 tons of steel" but then remembered a time when I was driving and almost had an involuntary motion.

Mine was the lead car at a traffic light on the A8 heading west out of Edinburgh. Busy road most of the time, multiple lanes but still 30 mph limit. Just as the light went green, a bloke on a BMX shot across in front of me, at right angles and about a metre from my bonnet. He'd come from the right, I guess down the road to the right of the cross roads, which is about a 4% gradient I suppose. I saw him in my peripheral vision just in time.

If I'd been slightly quicker off the line, I'd have run him down, or he'd have ploughed into the side of my car. Either would have been very shocking - the former obviously far worse than the latter. Luckily all I had to do was stay stationary.

Did this guy (not child-sized, at least mid teens skater guy) "come out of nowhere"? Well, pretty much. Should I have predicted it? He was moving pretty quickly and not in a direction I was at all anticipating a hazard to come from. Would I have reacted correctly in the millisecond I would have had if already moving? I don't really know.

So I can understand why some car drivers are spooked by some cyclists. No one wants to be part of someone else's hideous death, no matter if the personal physical danger is zero. And the fear of this may make some drivers react unpredictably - without malice, some drivers are not at all confident when under pressure. Should they be on the road? Doesn't really matter - they are on the road.

Hence when riding in traffic I try to think whether I'm in blindspots, or if my riding will seem unpredictable to an averagely rubbish driver. Just part of the defensive stuff I do, on 2 or 4 wheels.

Avatar
Hirsute replied to TheBillder | 2 years ago
3 likes

Not sure that is relevant to the park situation where it is supposedly about cyclists being close behind or alongside and there are (in the main) wide open spaces on either side of the road.

I wonder if motorists are equally frightened of deer running into them?

Avatar
TheBillder replied to Hirsute | 2 years ago
2 likes

It's about the odd ways in which people react to surprise. If a driver of modest ability suddenly realises that they are in a situation where someone is in danger, their reaction may be very sub-optimal, that's all.

I think filtering collisions, for instance, may sometimes be caused by drivers with poor observation skills panicking when they suddenly become aware of a cyclist and wonder for how long they've been unaware.

And that's why I have some sympathy with the defensive riding mindset which I think may have been used for this code of conduct. Should we have to risk our lives because of poor observation by car drivers? No. But we are where we are.

Avatar
Captain Badger replied to Hirsute | 2 years ago
4 likes

hirsute wrote:

.....I wonder if motorists are equally frightened of deer running into them?

FENTON!!!

Avatar
brooksby replied to Captain Badger | 2 years ago
0 likes

Captain Badger wrote:

hirsute wrote:

.....I wonder if motorists are equally frightened of deer running into them?

FENTON!!!

??

Avatar
AlsoSomniloquism replied to brooksby | 2 years ago
1 like

Fenton

Surprisingly the owner never got charged even though there was viral video evidence. 

Avatar
Hirsute replied to AlsoSomniloquism | 2 years ago
0 likes

some great spin offs from that !

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9w7I507D6E

Avatar
Captain Badger replied to brooksby | 2 years ago
0 likes

brooksby wrote:

Captain Badger wrote:

....FENTON!!!

??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GRSbr0EYYU

Avatar
PRSboy | 2 years ago
6 likes

Why can't they just stop vehicles entering the park altogether?  Why can't there just be one large open space where people can enjoy themselves without being in fear for their safety, and without pollution and noise, from motor vehicles?

Maybe just at weekends, if motorists find the prospect of being prevented from doing Important Things too terrifying.

Avatar
ts437 | 2 years ago
2 likes

I feel broadly similar to other comments here - there's nothing intrinsically wrong with trying to improve the behaviour of all cyclists using the park, and it's noble to attempt to challenge the unruly behaviour of some small minority of them.

But if I were to go for a ride in the park (which I haven't in years, because of the volume of traffic there now), had a lovely time abiding by this code but then got close passed by someone driving at 30mph in a 20 zone (probably a 20% chance of this happening on any given ride in the park), and then handed one of these cards at the coffee shop, I would be seriously miffed.

Like, what did I do wrong? Why am I suddenly receiving advice on what I ought to be doing?

Avatar
barrymcgee | 2 years ago
1 like

This CoC all reads as perfectly reasonable to me and well done to the guys organising it for engaging in positive dialogue to try and improve relations. Anyone up in arms for being asked to basically to obey the highway code while practicing basic good manners needs to take their head for a wobble.

Avatar
Captain Badger replied to barrymcgee | 2 years ago
5 likes

barrymcgee wrote:

This CoC all reads as perfectly reasonable to me and well done to the guys organising it for engaging in positive dialogue to try and improve relations. Anyone up in arms for being asked to basically to obey the highway code while practicing basic good manners needs to take their head for a wobble.

I don't think anyone's "up in arms" for the general gist of what is being said, it's more the why. It just seems odd that this "code of conduct", which is as you say is HWC with a few good manners thrown in (and a healthy dollop of patronisation: drivers scared of riders - really??), has no apparent point at all.

Those, like you and I, who are likely to agree and follow it already are. So why has it been produced?

Is there a corresponding one for drivers (genuine question, don't know) who cause far more mayhem and injury, and who have no place in a public recreational space?

In addition on what authority? Oh yes, the "Cycling Community"....

What happens if we refuse to accept its legitimacy?

It seems an utter waste of time, which makes people suspicious as to what the real motivation is behind it. I think folk can be excused if they are suspicious that this will end up another stick to beat cyclists with: "The cycling "community" can't even follow their own code of conduct, they should be excluded"

Avatar
Hirsute replied to barrymcgee | 2 years ago
3 likes

The code certainly helped this cyclist https://twitter.com/rjdekanter/status/1392162035803332608

People push back when they feel a code does not address the real issues eg that cyclists have a right to use roads and don't require road tax or insurance  and where driving standards are poor.

Avatar
AlsoSomniloquism replied to barrymcgee | 2 years ago
8 likes

The video the other day of the bike being far left as per the CoC and the motor vehicle coming past almost brushing his elbow whilst on a small bridge shows why it doesn't matter on what we do if the killing vehicles don't bother to "obey the highway code while practicing basic good manners". 

Get rid of motor vehicles from the park AND then concentrate on better manners from the minority of cyclists who need them.

Avatar
Hirsute | 2 years ago
4 likes

Why would anyone be frightened that a cyclist is a bit close? It's 100kg v 1500 kg where the driver is also enclosed in a safety cage and with 4 wheels

Even if the cyclists is 4m away, they will still appear large in the rear view mirror so the driver will still be frightened (although their remedy is really to hand in their licence).

I don't think your code helps me - it needs sections on the rights of cyclists and explanations of cyclists' behaviours.

Plenty of footage has been posted on this site showing the danger that vehicles pose to cyclists and the incompetence of those driving, so it is not surprising that people on this site push back against your code.

Avatar
AlsoSomniloquism replied to Hirsute | 2 years ago
0 likes

He points out that it is to cover when cyclists tail gate cars which I suspect is easy to do on downhills when they are doing 20mph. ANd tbh and tailgating is a problem to the front driver no matter what the vehicle is doing behind, especially if said driver is unsure on how fast a cyclist can stop.

The concern I have is his mention of it happening to him when he drives through the park. Of course I don't know the context of where / when / why but considering he knows the  cyclists and pedestirans concerns about through traffic but still does it himself seems abit double standard and not example setting.

Avatar
Hirsute replied to AlsoSomniloquism | 2 years ago
0 likes

Not double standards as he said he was the driver when it happened.

The code says 2 bike lengths so at 4m you would still be tail gating and frightening drivers.

Avatar
AlsoSomniloquism replied to Hirsute | 2 years ago
2 likes

I meant double standards in he is supposedly helping to remove motor vehicles from the park but is driving his motor vehicle through the park. 

Avatar
Hirsute replied to AlsoSomniloquism | 2 years ago
0 likes

Ah! So basically a parallel with the 'keep left' above !

Avatar
Pyro Tim | 2 years ago
9 likes

Despite the good intentions, the code is rediculous. Cyclists are not the problem, and never have been. Neither is their behaviour, while bad behaviour is antisocial, and not condoned, it doesn't really put anyone other than the individual at risk. We should not be saying sorry for the tiny minority, but fighting the elephant in the room. Traffic is the problem. Traffic is the killer. Traffic must be banned from the park (and all parks). Not just through traffic either, but the car parks in the middle need to be moved or removed. Nobody goes to the park to see cars and breath fumes, we go to parks to get away from that. Inconvenient? Tough, it's in London, with the best public transport in the country. The only possible excuse to bring a car to the park is if you are disabled or have mobility issues, or is there for work within the park

Avatar
notMyRealName | 2 years ago
2 likes

I'm torn on this one.

On the one hand, there really are some obnoxious people on bikes who frequent the park, and I get why RPC might want to distance themselves from that behaviour, and they might feel like they're not really conceding anything to motorists by publishing a fairly standard list of what they see as common sense. (You might disagree about whether all of those are common sense, or you might word some of them differently, but try and ignore the details there for a bit to focus on just the question of whether publishing a code of conduct is helpful at all.) Other sports (surfing, skiing, for example) have formal or informal codes of conduct that are helpful to encourage safe behaviour from newcomers and generally keep things amiable. E.g. give way to people down hill, don't drop in on someone else's wave (unless you're the ex-Prime Minister, etc). 

 

On the other hand, neither of those sports suffer from the extreme power imbalance that cyclists experience on the roads, and I worry that the code of conduct will just be used as a way to further criticise and other "cyclists" as a whole. I'm already following all of the guidelines in the code of conduct, just like I'm already following all of the MUSTs and SHOULDs in the Highway Code, and it hasn't led to any better treatment from drivers. I don't know what the solution is... but I don't think it's handing out printed copies of the code to cyclists. 

 

Avatar
notMyRealName replied to notMyRealName | 2 years ago
8 likes

It's really upsetting to hear friends, family and colleagues say things like "cyclists are so dangerous they..." when I'm already doing as much as I can to try and keep myself safe, short of not actually riding my bike. It's like they think that they don't need to make any effort to try and protect me until I have not just made all of the effort I can myself, but also somehow policed the riding of other cyclists as well. 

I think this beyondthekerb article says it best, from https://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2013/08/05/the-horse-and-the-python/:

"I ride responsibly, believe me. If someone decides that my safety is less important because they once saw someone else jump a light then any even vaguely reasonable campaign would address that cancerous attitude rather than tell me not to jump lights. (I don’t jump lights! How many times do I have to tell you?) I have nothing I can give. I’m all out. I do everything I can for my safety first and foremost, and secondarily for the safety and convenience of other road users around me. Where do I fit in? You’re asking me to sit around waiting for everyone else – at least those that happen to be on a bike, since you don’t seem to give a toss about cars jumping red lights – to be fully compliant before you’ll accept that people in cars should be listening to you? It’s a deeply offensive message, but more importantly it’s doomed from the start. It will not have any effect."

Avatar
MattieKempy replied to notMyRealName | 2 years ago
0 likes

notMyRealName wrote:

 . . .don't drop in on someone else's wave (unless you're the ex-Prime Minister, etc). 

Does Theresa May surf? Epic!

(edited spelling)

Avatar
lesterama | 2 years ago
6 likes

It sounds as if the people behind the code are well-intentioned. I am still concerned about it, though.

First some of the wording. Always ride on the left-hand side of the road gives people an excuse to berate anyone riding in primary or secondary, or even overtaking on the right-hand side of the road. Motorists can be frightened too and the rest of that point sound ridiculous and like victim-blaming. 

Second, the political dimension.  Who is RPC accountable to? Whom does it really represent? What are the intended and unintended outcomes of publishing a code of conduct? Politicians are frustratingly careful with words. They need to be or their words come back to haunt them. Chris Campbell says that the code shows cyclists are ordinary people. I think he is wrong.

I think that RPC have good intentions. I just hope that they can get someone politically astute on their team to position this code far better for people on bikes.

Avatar
nniff replied to lesterama | 2 years ago
1 like

lesterama wrote:

 

First some of the wording. Always ride on the left-hand side of the road gives people an excuse to berate anyone riding in primary or secondary, or even overtaking on the right-hand side of the road. 

You sound like a motorist saying "You're riding in the middle of the road".  The middle of the road is marked by the white lines.  You should ride to the left of that (the left hand side of the road) except when overtaking.  Your positioning on the left hand side is a matter for your personal judgement, taking into account road conditions and street furniture.

Avatar
Hirsute replied to nniff | 2 years ago
4 likes

Your reply makes no sense.

 

Avatar
AlsoSomniloquism replied to Hirsute | 2 years ago
1 like

It makes some sense but the two different takes on keeping "to the Left" does show the point the OP was making. He has read "keep to the left" as stay in the gutter / as far to the left of the road as possible where nniff is stating they mean stay on the correct side of the road (left of centre marking if present) but allowed anywhere there. Which context did RPC mean? Which context will drivers decide they mean? 

Avatar
lesterama replied to nniff | 2 years ago
3 likes

I'm anticipating some drivers thinking ride on the left = ride in the gutter

Latest Comments