"If you use my lane, I'll use yours": Driver films himself using bike lane to overtake cyclist; Rain, rain and more rain...grim Roubaix forecast; Van der Poel hoping for wet cobbles; Bike lane petrol queues; Mudguard season + more on the live blog

has someone told the police?

https://road.cc/content/news/cycling-live-blog-16-july-2021-284883

and the courts

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/london-cyclist-fined-for-speeding...

Letter looks like entrapment

I've just tweeted Royal Parks to ask if this is genuine, if so it represents a complete about turn from their previous policy.

The Department of Parks & Recreation 🦌 (@ldnparks) Tweeted: 💥 https://t.co/DUZiiJb4x3 https://twitter.com/ldnparks/status/1443630319542882304?s=20

I came across it when scrolling through the item above about kids bike to school week.

Yes that's where I saw it – don't get me wrong, I hope it's genuine, it just seemed odd that Royal Parks, who generally ignore any queries made to them through tweets in my experience, should provide a long FOI-request style answer to one. Maybe they replied because it was actually from an anti-cyclist complaining about what s/he thought had been a suspension of speed limits for the Duathlon.

I think you must mean "they replied because they thought it was actually from an anti-cyclist"

"The Department of Parks & Recreation

hirsute wrote:

I think you must mean "they replied because they thought it was actually from an anti-cyclist"

"The Department of Parks & Recreation

@ldnparks

The campaign to reclaim The Royal Parks from motorists. Fighting auto-supremacy."

I accept the correction.

I'll send Miss Whiplash round !!

Genuine! Well that's quite a dramatic - and welcome - change in attitude. 

It may be genuine, but it's debateable whether it's law.  Assuming the regulations quoted are the extent of the applicable law (apart from the threadbare Parks Regulation Act 1872 as amended), then the speed limits apply to 'vehicles'.  The regulations have a short list of definitions, none of which extends to 'vehicles'. It would seem to be up to external definitions. Without silly references to a dictionary of choice, the applicable interpretations would necessarily be common law (Godwin v Taylor) in which a bicycle is a carriage (to the detriment of the cyclist in that case); and in the Highways Act.  The speed limits are not applied by virtue of the Road Trasffic Act, so it is the handling of the regulations that apply speed limits to Royal Parks that are important.

The regulations refer to 'vehicles' for speed limits. Assuming no other interference, it would appear to apply to cyclists as well.  However, the regulations make reference to 'vehicles' then separate reference to 'pedal cycles' for similar considerations.  Take regulation 3(10):

[3. no person using a Park shall—] (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

the separation of (b) & (c) might be inferred to separate (motor) vehicles from cycles.

So, the speed limits may only apply to motor vehicles. The social media and FOI epxressions from the Royal Parks would tend to support that theory.

As far as cycle racing is concerned, I imagine it might be argued that the Secretary of State's authority to give permission under regulation 4(28) has been delegated to the RP administration for the purposes of the race in question.  Nothing prevents the police from stopping a cyclist whom the police suspect of cycling without consideration, care, etc for others, even if the speed limits don't apply.

GMBasix wrote:

[3. no person using a Park shall—] (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

the separation of (b) & (c) might be inferred to separate (motor) vehicles from cycles.

I'm not a legal professional, but I do have some experience of interpreting legislation.  I would say, in the absence of any other definition of vehicle, that the separation of pedal cycle here would give a pretty strong indication that bicycles are not vehicles (in the way you say).

And that maybe a reasonable interpretation of the law the way it's been written, but it would be up to a court to decide that and agree with you,not the public court of approval that is Twitter.

And whilst that regulation has still been signed into law and states the speed limit exists in the royal parks whether a vehicle is driven or ridden on a park road it really doesnt matter what opinion someone offers on Twitter about it or even on here, that regulation is still there and it's back to then is it a reasonable interpretation as to whether or not "vehicle" applies to cyclists or not.

Awavey wrote:

the public court of approval that is Twitter.

And there I was labouring under the impression that it was just an online hate-bucket. Has it changed?

Steve K wrote:

GMBasix wrote:

[3. no person using a Park shall—] (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

the separation of (b) & (c) might be inferred to separate (motor) vehicles from cycles.

I'm not a legal professional, but I do have some experience of interpreting legislation.  I would say, in the absence of any other definition of vehicle, that the separation of pedal cycle here would give a pretty strong indication that bicycles are not vehicles (in the way you say).

Exactly the same argument that Road.cc presented 8 years ago... https://road.cc/content/news/95155-are-police-fining-speeding-cyclists-r...

I think the only way to get a final answer would be either for the Regulations to be amended to be specific, or for someone who is fined by a magistrate to appeal that fine in a higher court which can form case law. But understandably people are reluctant to appeal when it's such a massive faff over a relatively small fine. 

OnYerBike wrote:

Steve K wrote:

GMBasix wrote:

[3. no person using a Park shall—] (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

the separation of (b) & (c) might be inferred to separate (motor) vehicles from cycles.

I'm not a legal professional, but I do have some experience of interpreting legislation.  I would say, in the absence of any other definition of vehicle, that the separation of pedal cycle here would give a pretty strong indication that bicycles are not vehicles (in the way you say).

Exactly the same argument that Road.cc presented 8 years ago... https://road.cc/content/news/95155-are-police-fining-speeding-cyclists-r...

I think the only way to get a final answer would be either for the Regulations to be amended to be specific, or for someone who is fined by a magistrate to appeal that fine in a higher court which can form case law. But understandably people are reluctant to appeal when it's such a massive faff over a relatively small fine. 

Or for the SoS to state that cyclists have permission to exceed the speed limits under regulation 4(28).

That court case was 2015

Maybe the regs have changed since or the FOI officer got it wrong.

Would be an interesting case if it ever got to court.

hirsute wrote:

Just came across this on Richmond Park speed limits

 

Can we print this and staple to every single sign "20 mph" in Richmond Park? It would be nice. Also it's handy to keep it in a pocket.. just in case a policeman stops you.

I have taken a screenshot and will keep it on my phone just in case!

My winter tyres (mud specific, Surly dirt wizards) come in at 1.2kg in their not quite 3inch variant, as stated.  So I'm going to wait until they are really necessary.  Very draggy on tarmac, but the only deep winter filth to have defeated them was a logging area bridleway and my front disk was in the mud, they laugh in the face of the pedals going in and a bit of foot dragging.

Fitted 1.8 conti mud kings on my 26 inch Getting to Work bike (Ultimate Commuter off the road waiting through the world wide bike boom warranty replacement) last year, wish I had done that years ago, surprisingly nippy on the roads, and they didn't destroy themselves too much either, even with 4-5 months of use.  Very effective, though not quite Dirt Wizard nearly 3 inch traction.

Have Crud's Racepack on her at the moment, alright and year round fitment, most of the mud went during August and September, but never all, but want to give SKS bluemels 75s a go, maybe in long, not quite wide enough, only meant for 2.6s, but want to see if proper guards work for me and the bike before I take the plunge and invest in the full custom American wooden ones. Because of the rohloff setup I need to be able to move the rear wheel back to accommodate chain stretch.  Looking forward to not using a derellieur drivetrain this winter.

ktache wrote:

My winter tyres (mud specific, Surly dirt wizards) come in at 1.2kg in their not quite 3inch variant, as stated. 

Mud specific tyres?  Is that like having Gravel Socks?

Mud specific

I hate stuff like this - why bother? "Don't do it, until you do".

Amusingly Edinburgh's council's Covid "active travel infra" page has what I hope is a typo but may actually sum this up:

> Advisory cycle lanes tell drivers that they should not use this space on the road, unless avoidable.

Actually, I thought that decision had already been taken. Perhaps it had been "announced" without yet being formally confirmed. Anyway, good news. I wonder how long it will take to sort out some paving so they can get rid of those lumps of tarmac serving as wheelchair ramps?

But but but drivers are already propping up the economy by paying tax on petrol (mostly tax) and road tax and insurance and you have to pay to park most places and cash-cow speed cameras and have you seen the queues on the M25 these days? And what about the roads getting smaller?  My new Tesla barely fits down some of these streets.

And been "driving around all morning" looking for somewhere to fill up.