The charity responsible for running London’s Royal Parks has today launched a campaign urging cyclists using the capital’s green spaces to be “more considerate” and to adhere to the parks’ speed limits, months after calling on the government to prosecute people on bikes riding at over 20mph in the parks.
The Royal Parks’ “considerate cycling” campaign comes after the charity commissioned a survey on cycling in London, which saw 86 per cent of respondents state that the 20mph speed limit in the centre of the capital should also apply to bikes.
It also includes a new code of conduct and “best-practice guidance” for all cyclists entering the parks, advising them to “control their speed”, “respect all park visitors”, and refrain from riding in large groups.
The Royal Parks manages eight of London’s open, green spaces, two of which – Richmond Park and Regent’s Park – are popular with the capital’s cyclists and attract a large number of two-wheeled visitors throughout the year.
However, the charity raised concerns about safety in its parks last May, following an inquest into the death of a pedestrian who was hit by a cyclist riding laps of Regent’s Park back in 2022.
Since then, The Royal Parks has been outspoken about cyclists riding “at excessive speeds” and causing crashes on its 27 miles of bike paths. Last summer, the charity began reviewing its cycling policies, while also cancelling early-morning time trials and the London Duathlon, before urging Strava to remove cycling segments from Richmond Park and Regent’s Park.
In November, it 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.
And now, The Royal Parks’ attempts to clamp down on “speeding” cyclists have been formalised with its new ‘considerate cycling’ campaign, which it says will “enhance safety and improve the park experience for all visitors” by forcing cyclists to adhere to a new code of conduct.
In a statement, the charity said the campaign has been launched in response to “several incidents in the parks”, as a well as a recent survey, which found that 72 per cent of London pedestrians have witnessed or experienced a near miss or collision with a cyclist.
The anonymous survey, which was conducted by Mustard Research on behalf of The Royal Parks, spokes to 2,005 London residents, who are not made aware that the charity was behind the questions.
According to the survey, 86 per cent of respondents stated that they believe the 20mph speed limit in central London, which does not apply to cyclists, should be expanded to include people on bikes, while 72 per cent said that “cycling without due care and attention” was their main concern as a pedestrian.
The campaign also features a new ‘code of conduct’ for all cyclists entering the Royal Parks, “whether they are commuting, exercising, or exploring the parks recreationally”.
This code of conduct asks cyclists to respect the park environment and all park visitors, “control their speed”, “know the rules” and comply with both park regulations and the Highway Code, and to “be seen and be heard”.
It also says cyclists should not exceed 20mph at all times in the park, and to also adhere to any lower speed limits. People on bikes are required as part of the code to “be mindful on shared paths and at crossing points” – noting that pedestrians “take priority” – and to take “extra care in low light and ensure you have lights and reflectors to see and be seen”.
Cyclists riding together have also been told they should only do so in “small groups” – the charity stating that “navigating around large, quick groups can create dangerous situations” – while cycling outside of the “clearly marked cycle paths” is not permitted.
“The safety of all our visitors is important to us and whilst we welcome everyone – whether on two wheels or two feet – pedestrians do have priority,” the code of conduct says.
“They make up the majority of park visitors and our ‘Transport Principles’ sets out our hierarchy of users. All cyclists therefore have a duty in our parks to enjoy their experience in a way that balances their needs with those of our many other visitors.”
Along with this code of conduct, The Royal Parks says new signage will be installed across their green spaces in high-traffic areas, while a new online hub has been set up on the charity’s website featuring more information about cycling in the parks.
The campaign will run throughout the spring and summer months and, the charity says, highlight “the importance of creating a harmonious environment for cyclists and pedestrians”.
“With an increasing number of people riding bikes in parks, it is crucial that cyclists adhere to posted speed limits and exercise caution,” The Royal Parks said.
In a statement issued on Thursday morning, Darren Share, the charity’s director of parks, added: “These wonderful urban green spaces are incredibly important to so many people, but we all need to remember that they are shared spaces meant for everyone, and we must all play our part.
“Cyclists must understand the impact their speed can have on others, which is why it is crucial that they comply with the Park Regulations, and we are asking people to stay within the vehicle speed limits in the parks.
“The safety of all visitors is our top priority. By encouraging cyclists to slow down, respect the park environment and be considerate of others, we hope to foster a culture of respect and a safer, more enjoyable experience for all park visitors whether on two feet or two wheels.”
Discussion around speed limits in the Royal Parks, notably Richmond Park, has been ongoing for years. Despite the charity initially suggesting cyclist should stick to the park’s speed limits, in 2021 it was confirmed that these limits (which range from 5mph to 20mph) do not in fact apply to cyclists, a stance in line with wider UK 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 face action if they ride “recklessly”.
Media and political discussion around cycling in the Royal Parks then intensified in May 2024, following the widely reported inquest into the death of elderly pedestrian Hilda Griffiths, who died in hospital in 2022 from injuries sustained two months earlier in a collision involving a cyclist riding laps of Regent’s Park as part of a group ride travelling at between 25 and 29mph.
Then in July, we reported that Richmond Park Cyclists, a group claiming to represent cyclists who use the park, had clashed with the charity over its speed limit advice for riders. In November, the charity asked the Labour government to pass new laws to “set speed limits for cyclists” in its parks and for riders above 20mph limit to be prosecuted.
Last summer’s Richmond Park Time Trials were also cancelled by The Royal Parks, before the charity later pulled the plug on September’s London Duathlon in the park.
Organised by the London Dynamo cycling club and first run in 2009, the Richmond Park Time Trials 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 the 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”.
That particular brand of journalism continued in November, when The Telegraph published information from a “dossier of collision data” collated by The Royal Parks, which it claimed revealed “the full threat posed to pedestrians by dangerous and illegal cycling in the country’s most famous parks”.
Meanwhile, The Royal Parks has received plenty of criticism over the years for its own 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.
The LCC has campaigned for the parks 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”.
93 thoughts on “Cyclists told to slow down in London parks as new cycling code of conduct launched – after 86% of Londoners said 20mph speed limits should apply to bikes”
I’d really like to see them
I’d really like to see them enforce the speed limit for cars, and the prohibition on trade vehicles in Richmond Park first before worrying about the speed limit for bikes. Both these things are far more dangerous than a cyclist going a bit faster than 20mph (which, to be fair, I do on the descents if there’s no traffic or deer).
Stopping through motor
Stopping through motor traffic would massively help to reduce this.
But I think those problems will get worse as the Royal Parks Police department of the Met gets disbanded.
Are you suggesting that 90%
Are you suggesting that 90% or more of cars completely ignore the 20 speed limit, even on tiny little rat run residential streets lined with cars? Because you would be right. When cars, which are 100x more dangerous than cyclists start to actually adhere to the speed limits we can worry about the menace of cyclists.
mctrials23 wrote:
Yup – and I’d estimate a similar proportion of cars in the park, judging by the number of times I’ve been overtaken while doing close to 20mph on my bike.
Its amazing how often I am
Its amazing how often I am overtaken by cars when I am doing 20/30mph on my bike and thats the speed limit. Even more surprising is that once they have massively exceeded the speed limit to overtake me, they continue to pull away at speed. A betting man would say that they aren’t doing the speed limit. A sensible man knows they obviously are because as we all know, drivers are punished at the slightest infraction of the rules and the police are lurking everywhere, waiting for the smallest chance to wage their unending war on motorists.
I was in the park on Tuesday
I was in the park on Tuesday and touched 34 mph descending Broomfield, closed to motors, not a deer or pedestrian or even another cyclist in sight. On the flat(ish) from Robin Hood to Roehampton Gate got passed by at least half a dozen drivers exceeding the speed limit (I know as I was pretty much dead on 20 mph), two of whom made totally unnecessary close passes and two of whom admittedly tried to pass wide but in doing so put oncoming cyclists and in one case motorists at risk. I know I would say this, but I really don’t think I’m the problem…
Rendel Harris wrote:
But you just admitted going both too fast (clearly 34mph on a bike is too fast, regardless of any motor vehicle speed limits! ) AND too slow (dead on 20mph)…
Absolutely pathetic stuff, if
Absolutely pathetic stuff, if they care so much about safety they should sprinkle loads of speed cameras around Regents and Richmond Park…..lol
lukei1 wrote:
Exactly this. Speed cameras, or indeed average speed cameras would be fantastic, as I’m damn surre it’ll be drivers of motor vehicles who are also speeding. I’m happy to abide by some rules and be safe, as long the other people using it are, such as motorised vehicle drivers et al. I would expect they’ll say it costs too much or that they have to hot a certain number if acciddnets or (shudders) fatalities, before they consider this.
So yet again, a survey
So yet again, a survey commissioned by a famously “war on cycling” pro drivist organisation (anonymous survey – sure & I wonder how the questions were phrased? Odd also that they welcome visitors on “two wheels or two feet”: the 4 wheeled wankpanzer being airbrushed from existence because it doesn’t play to the “evil cyclists are the pedestrians nemesis” narrative) determines that everyone in London thinks cyclists are a menace & should be slowed down (limited to 20mph) because they are so dangerous.
Yet as we all know from direct personal experience on the roads (and the meeja) on a reglar basis, they should also get out of the way when not doing at least the prevailing speed limit because they hold honest hard working polyester clad drivists up. Even in “wonderful urban
rat runscar parksgreen spaces ““The safety of all visitors
“The safety of all visitors is our top priority.”
Which is why we are enforcing the ban on trade vehicles, preventing through traffic, enforcing speed limits for cars and prosecuting close passes
It’s more fundamental than
It’s more fundamental than that – you are running a park. Once you’ve properly understood what that, your raison d’être, means, you don’t need the LCC to go on about it to you.
“while cycling outside of the
“while cycling outside of the “clearly marked cycle paths” is not permitted.”
On the Tamsin trail in Richmond park there are many sections where the cycle path is poorly marked, making staying on it difficult if you don’t know the park. There are some ‘No cycling’ signs on some of the routes for pedestrains only, but fewer signs marking where you should cycle.
TBF they have added a whole
TBF they have added a whole bunch of new signs lately, I noticed while doing the Tamsin trail the other week, which do help, provided you are minded to take notice of them (the vast majority of cyclists do I think).
Just typing an e-mail to the
Just typing an e-mail to the guys who run the cafes in Richmond Park explaining why the Park’s less than welcoming attitude to cyclists might hit their turnover……
Still waiting for a code of
Still waiting for a code of conduct for motorists.
…and their drivers!
…and their drivers!
Mea culpa. Car brain got me
Mea culpa. Motonormativity got me. Amended.
Code of conduct? So every
Code of conduct? So every cyclist works for the royal parks do they? Shows the logic code of conduct is not enforcable as we dont work for these clowns who have half a brain cell, also will be hard to change law around cyclists speeding if they speed off what will happen? Not alot if you cant catch them, meqning that they will need a identifier
This excellent article says
This excellent article says it all. Physics and science based, researched and referenced. Now if only 50 percent of people weren’t below average intelligence we may have hope.
https://www.bristolhealthpartners.org.uk/news/seven-reasons-einstein-would-support-20mph/
I look forward to seeing the
I look forward to seeing the stats showing the deaths and serious injuries caused by different road users (cyclists, drivers, etc), not forgetting the economic costs, both before and after this is (hopefully not) introduced to indicate it made a difference and was worth it.
Coupled with an analysis of the costs for general road use countrywide, showing the difference it would make if all motorists obeyed the highway code and didn’t hurt or kill anyone.
Another astonishing move by
Another astonishing move by Royal Parks.
“survey, which found that 72 per cent of London pedestrians have witnessed or experienced a near miss or collision with a cyclist”
But have those people witnessed or experienced a near miss or collision with a cyclist in a Royal Park?
As others have pointed out, the overwhelming danger to all users and residents (e.g. deer) of Richmond park is from motorists, yet there is scant enforcement. Instead there is a bizarre focus on cyclists considering that pretty much all motor vehicles that enter the park can easily travel at many times the speed limit, and frequently exceed it, whilst few cyclists are exceeding the 20mph+10%+2mph=24mph limit that the police use.
Pub bike wrote:
And in addition, how do we define a “near miss”? I’ve heard plenty of people define a near miss as “I was about to cross the road and a cyclist came whipping by, if I’d stepped out they would have hit me!” – something they would never say about drivers.
Of course we’re habituated to
Of course we’re habituated to motor vehicles. And each year some find the *assumption* we’re safe on the pavement is just that…
… but is the issue with cyclists that people end up being more scared because lots of people “look with their ears” when crossing the road? So they’ll get to the point of stepping out if they can’t hear a car, and finally do a last second visual observation … to find a cyclist almost upon them!
Perhaps this is triggering because people feel they have lost their agency – it’s depriving then of the normal “alert” they get of a vehicle in the area, which prompts and earlier or more thorough check? They didn’t mean to be reckless – so it must be the cyclist’s fault.
(And they don’t think the cyclist may have seen them in advance and be watching out for them … I think that is something people have to learn – as they do in NL – perhaps because of our early childhood “you must stay out of the way of vehicles on the road” education?)
Then there are things like underestimating cyclist speed, and maybe it seems more *personal* with a cyclist because they’re obviously a person, rather than a car with a driver hidden inside?
Just my musings.
chrisonabike wrote:
Interesting point. I think also people are habituated to looking to the centre of the lane for motor vehicles and thinking it’s safe if there are none, disregarding the cyclist(s) near the kerb. Time and again I see people appearing to look carefully to their right – from whence I’m approaching – only to step out anyway when there are no cars in the vicinity.
Also true – even non-drivers
Also true – even non-drivers are trained to “look for the vehicles” (in early years but definitely by repeated practice – since most places there are very few cyclists, and even fewer on the roads).
Yes. In Greenwich Park. Big
Yes. In Greenwich Park. Big blokes with big rucksacks going fast down steep pedestrian paths clearly marked for no bikes. Happy to bump and barge and expect old folk and pushchairs to get out of their way quickly. Get furious when you stand your ground
Are you answering my question
Are you answering my question as one of the 72% surveyed?
In that 2nd picture of the
In that 2nd picture of the long queues of drivers, does that constitute ‘going around in large groups’ , or does this rule only apply if you are a cyclist? If I’m riding around the park at 20mph and approach other cyclists doing 19mph, will I have to reduce my speed to 19mph to avoid forming a group trying to overtake at just 1mph faster? Do the cyclists following me then have to tuck in behind similarly but also keeping a big distance so as not to form a large group? Can I expect drivers not to overtake me if I am riding at 20mph?
The Royal Parks once again
The Royal Parks once again proving themselves to be next to useless……
Cyclists in the Parks are the problem? Really? What are they smoking……..If they want to improve the Parks safety there is a pretty simple solution – ban motor vehicles.
I wonder where this CHARITY
I wonder where this CHARITY thinks its got all its its sudden legal clout.
They dont own the park, the public do, many of them are cyclists. For them to wish to dictate to people the law and even having the audacity to try and force Strava to remove segments shows they really think they can do whatever they like with somethingthat isnt even theirs.
Never been hit by a car. Been
Never been hit by a car. Been hit twice by cyclists when crossing a Pelican crossing on a green man, plus innumerable near-misses by arrogant, irresponsible cyclists.
Sensible cyclist wrote:
Been hit twice by car drivers (when riding a motorcycle). Never been hit by a cyclist. Have at least half a dozen friends who’ve been hit by cars, none who’ve been hit by cyclists. Kindly go and find another place to troll.
The forum thread Bicycle
The forum thread Bicycle Crashes into Building seemingly sunk without a trace, odd with the tens of thousands of examples…
Think someone had a thread /
Think someone had a thread / blog of trashed street furniture with a “bloody cyclists” caption? Nothing says “entitled, irresponsible cyclists” like bent railings, broken traffic lights, traffic sign posts at jaunty angles, dented bollards…
chrisonabike wrote:
I remember seeing a thread/blog titled something akin to “Should have worn Hi-Vis” and it was a selection of photos from across the public highways of items in fluorescent paint, retro-reflective material, or otherwise self-illuminated, which had all been subject to collisions from uncontrolled motor vehicles.
Bollards, roadsigns, security barriers, trees with reflective tape, police cars…
That would be the classic:
That would be the classic: https://waronthemotorist.wordpress.com/2017/10/28/new-road-safety-campaign-calls-for-greater-visibility-on-the-roads/
It’s one-nil in my favour
I trust you weren’t badly injured by the bikes crashing into you? Harm minimisation is generally the point – on average *far* better a bicycle than a motorbike / car etc.
It’s one-nil in my favour versus motor vehicles as I rode into a car (parked) when young, but haven’t yet been hit by a moving one. Some of that is due to luck and some to my judgement / reactions. e.g. realising that drivers who appear to be looking right at me are “looking for the car, not the cyclist” (several).
Haven’t hit any pedestrians that I recall, nor the other way round: although people have thrown stuff at me from within vehicles or on foot.
Can’t tell whether any of them were arrogant or entitled exactly. Up to you to judge in my case.
Certainly some antisocial types cycling – like the two wee boys who hit me with a water bomb this evening… Given that a rather small subset of the population cycles (unlike e.g. here) and far fewer women etc. and it is generally not seen as a “mainstream” activity (or even a “normal” one) I’m not so surprised.
One thing I know – when walking AND when cycling I would rather cyclists and pedestrians had their own marked spaces. Sharing only “works” when there aren’t many of either, and on the narrow spaces we have in the UK that means when on foot it can seem cyclists are going too fast while when cycling it can become a bit tiring (literally) to repeatedly have to slow down for people (and/or their dogs). And frustrating when some take offense, no matter what ritual of bell-ringing, calling out or just giving them a very wide berth you perform when passing.
You’re not in London.
You’re not in London. Wonderful thing is we do have a lot of pretty good bicycle infrastructure (and a lot of very bad) and, in many areas, tens of thousands of bikes being used. Unfortunately, at least half, sometimes 9 in 10 (I have counted numerous times) of people on pedal bikes, ebikes (legal and illegal), escooters are reckless, lawbreaking, dangerous. I get knocked most times I walk 45 minutes or more. This includes genteel ladies riding in eg, Morden College Footpath – they know they are doing wrong, the signage is clear, they smile apologetically (it’s a weird look) – there ate perfectly safe side roads that are faster (I use them every week)
E6toSE3 wrote:
I do wish you would stop perpetuating such utter rot about cycling and cyclists in London. I’ve lived here all my life and for the last 30 years in the same quadrant of the capital as you. I walk for hundreds of hours every year both in my neighbourhood and in the centre of town and I have never, ever, been “knocked” by a cyclist when doing so. Not once in maybe 5000 hours of walking. There are three alternatives when examining your claim to be “knocked most times I walk 45 minutes or more”, either I am spectacularly fortunate, you are spectacularly unfortunate, or you are talking spectacular nonsense. I know what my money is on. I freely admit that a significant proportion of cyclists in London do not obey the relevant rules and laws and I confront and challenge them for it when the opportunity arises. I would estimate the proportion to be 20% at most. The claim that 90% of London cyclists are breaking the law is simply untrue and the sort of rubbish one would expect to emanate from a Daily Mail opinion piece rather than someone who claims to be an experienced London cyclist.
It sounds like they’re not
It sounds like they’re not going very well nowadays compared to an athletic time when younger. Maybe they’re struggling with their own dyskinesia and that makes them feel extra vulnerable (and possibly project trips, slips and wobbles onto others)?
We could definitely do better by cyclists and pedestrians (together) by providing better for them separately.
But even if we were as clear and consistent about this as in eg. NL, and even if pedestrians didn’t currently far outnumber cyclists almost every location, we would still have people in the “wrong place” for years while they got used to the concept and social conventions settled in.
“Most times I walk 45 minutes
“Most times I walk 45 minutes or more “??? Are you quite sure about that?
Similar. And on a bike, I’ve
Similar. And on a bike, I’ve stopped at pedestrian crossing only for a bike behind me to blast past me and through the pedestrians who included people with pushchairs… numerous times over past 30+ years.
Now age 70 with less sharp eyes and hearing plus often pushing 16-month granddaughter or walking with wife with diminished walking mobility due to several hits by motorbike and cars, I’m getting scared of various forms of bicycle whether in parks (not using the cycle paths but on narrow steep pedestrian only paths), pavements, wrong bike lane, etc. Of 20 people on bike shaped objects, maybe 3 or 4 will follow Highway Code and Cycling Proficiency protocols. Almost no cyclists in SE London demonstrate any awareness of relevant rules.
Time was when I could average about 20mph between Earls Court and Forest Gate, East Ham, or Beckton riding 531 steel frame. I’d overtake large blokes on mopeds. Beat the tube. I also obeyed Highway Code. Very few cyclists today know it exists. Now, I put on my hi vis reflective stuff when walking plus I wear lights as if riding a bike (ah… barely ⅓ cyclists have lights)
So your wife is disabled from
So your wife is disabled from having been hit by cars and motorbikes, but you fear cyclists? Make that make sense.
It’s pretty risible that the
It’s pretty risible that the Royal Parks claim to be safety focussed when they have literally tens of thousands of speeding offences a year in their parks involving vehicles that weigh 150 to 300 times the weight of most bikes.
Unless they’ve repopulated
But unless they’ve repopulated the parks with wild Cervélos instead of the deer I think those bikes are almost always carrying around ten times their own weight, or more…
So still an order of magnitude more kinetic energy, just not such a large difference. Though a car at 20mph – even without passengers – has significantly more kinetic energy than a cyclist-bike combination at any likely cyclist speed.
Kinetic energy is
Kinetic energy is proportional to the square of the velocity, but directly proportional to the mass. So, a smart car doing the posted speed limit, versus a cyclist doing more than double it?
Add in that pressure is force/area, and a bicycle has a much smaller surface area at the front than the smart car, and I’m going with more injury would be caused by the cyclist riding faster than the posted speed limit than the car being driven at it…
MattDinnery wrote:
A 1500kg car travelling at 20mph has a kinetic energy of a whisker under 60,000 joules; 100 kg of cyclist plus bike travelling at 40 mph has a kinetic energy of a whisker under 16,000 joules. To be in the same ballpark as a car travelling at 20 mph the cyclist would have to be doing 80 mph, something one doesn’t often see. Also, although there is something in what you say about the concentration of force you neglect the fact that the far smaller frontal area of a cyclist means the likelihood of a glancing – and thus less damaging – blow is far higher than when struck by a car. Additionally, given the relative similarity of weight between a cyclist and a pedestrian, cyclists and pedestrians will generally bounce off each other so the only injuries are those sustained from the initial impact and hitting the ground, whereas with a car there is often significant “follow through”, i.e. death or serious injury is caused not by the initial impact but by the fact that once knocked down the pedestrian will then be run over by the car.
I’m not sure how a cyclist is
I’m not sure how a cyclist is going to be doing 45 mph but hey
cyclist and bike 100 kg at 45 mph 20234 J
Car 2100 at 20 mph 82963 J
So 4 times as much with a car and the impact will be significant as there is no scope for glancing off. The pressure idea is irrelevant to a dynamic situation where both bodies are moving and the cyclist will glance of the ped.
At a more realist speed of 25 mph it is 6245 J which is 7.5% of the energy of the car.
If you get hit by a cyclist,
If you get hit by a cyclist, there will be some deflection of the bike and/or the rider’s body. How much deflection will there be from a car?
Don’t know about the car, but
Don’t know about the car, but drivers (and their lawyers) seem to be very good at deflection).
That’s a cheery name…
That’s a cheery name…
I know! Would calling it
I know! Would calling it ‘death machine’ affect their sales?
It’s pretty risible that the
It’s pretty risible that the Royal Parks claim to be safety focussed when they have literally tens of thousands of speeding offences a year in their parks involving vehicles that weigh 150 to 300 times the weight of most bikes.
open_roads wrote:
Since there is little to no enforcement – especially now Parks Police are being abolished – these offences rarely get prosecuted and hence recorded, so Royal Parks can cynically claim the offences don’t happen and it is “bloody cyclists” who are the problem according to their highly unscientifc survey.
Cyclists asked to slow down,
Cyclists asked to slow down, hmmm. Q. How will a cyclist know what speed they are doing unless they are fitted with a speedometer? All bikes entering the parks will need to be checked that they have a speedo and only allowed to ride in a park if they do. Who is going to provide the manpower for 24-hr checks at every entry point to every park? Every new bike will need to be sold with a government approved speedo so cyclists can keep to the required limit. What if a rider has a non-approved speedo?
The Police are in dire straights as it is coping with everything else. They do not have the resources to manage this. Who else will stop riders going too fast?
Who has the responsibility of ensuring that EVERY Cyclists is informed of this new code of conduct? How strong is the defence of “no one told me about it”?
Nice idea and good luck, but it will never work. Only way to stop Cyclists riding “fast” is a speed bump every 10m. But again, who pays for that?
Other than on downhill
Other than on downhill sections I doubt most leisure riders would trouble the 20mph limit. As for club riders etc, I read that the actual enforcement threshold for 20mph by cameras is 24mph (20mph + 10% + 2mph) – presumably to prevent traffic bombing along at 15mph or drivers spending more time with eyes glued to speedo than road/pedestrians while trying to stay at 20mph… – so reduced risk of an actual enforcement. (I did have police check my speed with a radar gun once during an evening 10 that passed Brands Hatch when there was a motorcycle event on but obviously the main interest was the attendees and I was just a object of curiosity 😂 I wasn’t moving at a speed much above “embarassing” ). I’d say most faster moving riders would have bike computers fitted to manage/record training data and speed is a basic feature so for “the usual suspects” Royal Parks should have little trouble on that front.
Met used to be happy to post
Met used to be happy to post a car and officers with a speed gun at the bottom of the hills to monitor whether freewheeling cyclists had reached 20mph, I expect they’d be equally happy to check for speedos.
“72 per cent of London
“72 per cent of London pedestrians have witnessed or experienced a near miss or collision with a cyclist”
Somebody rode a bike near me = I was nearly killed by a cyclist.
Somebody drove a car near me = I’d happily stand at the edge of the pavement all day while cars speed by inches away at 40 mph.
I wonder if that figure
I wonder if that figure actually included “my friend told me …”
But yes, it should come as no surprise. London has actually done a (rather small) exercise in providing for cycling. (Plus the dubious food delivery businesses have taken off). That has in fact increased numbers cycling (a bit, in places). So now “cyclists are everywhere” say people.
Because this is newly salient, people are maybe more sensitive to being passed by cyclists than motorists (they feel the road is “space for cars” so as long as the vehicles are there…)
And there no doubt is some antisocial cycling (perhaps see “food delivery” again? )
Plus there’s still lots of UK shared use cramming together people walking and people cycling – a recipe for conflict in busier places.
Yet in GB, pedestrian KSIs 2
Yet in GB, pedestrian KSIs 2.4% involve a bicycle, 71% involve a car.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-pedestrian-factsheet-2023/reported-road-casualties-in-great-britain-pedestrian-factsheet-2023#which-vehicles-are-involved-in-collisions-with-pedestrians
Or pedestrians chancing
Or pedestrians chancing running across a busy road via a traffic light controlled crossing at a red even clearly seeing cyclists coming. Manchester Whitworth St. just outside the Oxford Street railway station which I used to ride past everyday commuting to work and never once managed to ride past that crossing without almost crashing with someone just brazenly walking in front of me.
whosatthewheel wrote:
Theres a pelican crossing in Bristol- for those who know it, I’m talking about the one by the card shop just before the Triangle in Clifton (junction into Berkeley Square just past it on the left). Twice now I’ve been going uphill approaching it and with no motor traffic, and the pedestrians waiting – green traffic light /red man – seem to have collectively shrugged and started crossing. Leaving me having to weave between them so as to perfectly legally continue on my way. Last week one of them suddenly looked up from his phone and stopped just in time to avoid walking into me, and glared at me as if I was the one at fault
brooksby wrote:
I would suggest using the “Oi” shout to get them to move out of your way, but you may not have enough breath left after the uphill bit. Ideally, you shout it really loud and fairly close to them so that they stop with a start and look afraid.
hawkinspeter wrote:
I had one where I did shout, “What the heck, man?!?” just before he walked into me. He stopped, smiled and shrugged, and walked behind me. (I wasnt travelling very fast, obviously)
brooksby wrote:
Ah, the great democratic crossing. It will be more so if the motor traffic reduction plans for park street and queen street go ahead. We are just going to have to get used to it.
I think at busy places within
I think at busy places within cities – if we ever manage to transition towards “mass cycling” – it will ultimately come down to “slow down and learn to mingle”.
That is where other places have ended up, and is probably still more efficient overall than our current “it’s not safe to mix because cars” system. That requires traffic lights / pedestrian crossings, which has lead us to “cyclists are basically cars” and: “cyclists: race to the next traffic light, then stop for 30 seconds while everyone crosses, then charge on again. Pedestrians: feel as safe as you like while you’re hanging around waiting to cross…”
Cyclist-pedestrian interactions at a “steady pace” on view here: https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2019/06/12/how-hard-is-it-to-cross-the-cycle-path/
Although if it ever gets this busy then it might be time to consider spreading the traffic out a bit!
Another reckless cyclist who
Another reckless cyclist who refuses to have a bell !
Perhaps he just forgot his
Perhaps he just forgot his bagpipes that day? (Flames optional – but wear a helmet!)
Compatible with many forms of wheeling and cycling, naturally.
Nobody will fail to notice * ! Noise pollution you say? Philistines! Troglodytes!
* Except perhaps a couple of very deaf folks. Or if you’re in central Edinburgh / Glasgow…
Harmonica on a neck holder?
Harmonica on a neck holder? Completely hands free operation although does need some puff.
Pub bike wrote:
Not being a piper I was thinking of some kind of hurdy-gurdy using a power take-off from the chain. Of course with a modern hub coasting will generally sound like a swarm of bees approaching.
The assumption seems to be
The assumption seems to be that the more vulnerable person (pedestrian) involved in a collision is never at fault. My own observations over the last couple of years (while walking as I’ve had a bit of a hiatus I my cycling) have been that a highproportion of the near misses involving a cyclist on the road have involved a pedestrian stepping out into the road engrossed in their phone or having apparently failed to register the presence of a cyclist riding within the speed limit but, importantly, too close to stop safely. Oddly, the latter condition often seems to be related to nipping across the road in a decent gap between cars but with an apparently invisible cyclist in between.
I have also seen some commuters and riders on training rides (going by the clothing/timing) who have chosen to maintain their speed and ride around a pedestrian – I don’t need to explain the thinking. Mostly I’d say the pedestrian was in no danger of collision as long as they kept steady pace as the riders were aware and adjusting their trajectory accordingly but it probably felt more dangerous because the pedestrian had no way to know that for sure. Perception matters. And quite a few were what we, as cyclists, would criticise a driver for as “close passes”.
I think Royal Parks should balance the books a little by introducing pedestrian-specific codes of conduct covering interaction with cyclists for the benefit of both groups, highlighting such things as speed bikes can reach (even if limit of 20mph is observed, many pedestrians wouldn’t expect a cyclist to be moving as fast as a car), relative silence of bikes, longer braking distance, riders moving within group and potentially unsighted etc.
Nigel_2003 wrote:
Arguably, it was the Briggs case – where this is what happened – that set all of this off.
Nigel_2003 wrote:
I have had a driver rant at me about ‘riding in the middle of the road’ despite having watched a pedestrian step off the kerb maybe 2m in front of me – literally the only reason there wasn’t a collision was because I had clocked the pedestrian approaching the kerb on their phone so left additional clearance.
I expect a significant chunk of people telling me I need to slow down for pedestrians will also rant about me blocking traffic if I do slow down and adjust my road position for pedestrians. (And god forbid suggesting that if cyclists need to do no more than 5mph in area X then drivers should also be doing no more than 5mph in similar area Y…)
There are some musings by
There are some musings by myself, Rendel and others about pedestrians “not looking for / not seeing cyclists” which may be of interest elsewhere in this post.
Behaviour change / conventions are always a factor – but people respond to what’s there. I think where there are very few cyclists * but there are motor vehicles then:
a) People will not expect cyclists.
b) They will only expect “faster wheeled things” in the main carriageway (and as Rendel said probably look towards the middle of this, not the near side).
c) They will often only do a full green cross code “stop, look …” check where the “listen” has already indicated to them that there are indeed motor vehicles (or other noisy things e.g. horses) around.
… because experience / convention tells them to expect only visually significant motor vehicles, in the main carriageway only (normally…) and expect those to make plenty of noise (also “normally” – but even “slient” EVs produce loud road noise above say 20mph). (And possibly that any cyclists they see will be slow-moving).
Ultimately I think most of this goes away in time if (a) there are lots of cyclists and (b) people know exactly where to expect them. And I think that happening is bound up with providing separate space for cyclists where needed. That often corresponds to where formal pedestrian crossings of the road would be needed e.g. on busier or multi-lane roads, and/or where faster speed limits apply.
(So not in these kinds of places where you’d expect cyclists “in the street“).
And in fact providing for cycling (and perhaps narrowing the “motor vehicle” section) should make it *easier* for pedestrians to cross! See here, or layout here. Or e.g. wait for / get onto or off of a bus.
* Very few cyclists in almost all places in the UK – and until recently perhaps “very few cyclists outside of e.g. Cambridge”.
Now to cycling on pavements..
Now to cycling on pavements.. Full disclosure, I’ve occasionally done this to avoid being stationary in traffic at a set of lights near home where the staggered light settings have led to a large number of crashes. I’ve unclipped one foot and used the other for partial rev power to move at walking pace or below, stopping if necessary and always giving way to pedestrians. And the section of pavement involved is about 10 metres. Nowadays I take the turn before and accept the slightly uphill detour. I’ve also been known to ride longer distances on pavements when I’ve misjudged weather conditions/ride duration and not taken lights or, battery duration hadn’t been up to the job. Here though, we’re ususlly talking about late in the day when the pavements are pedestrian-free anyway and in some cases have cycle-paths anyway.
All that said, walking around get close-passed on the pavement at least once a day and my usual walk is only a few hundred yards to pick up a Metro at the local station and similar distances on shopping/library trips a few times per week so I’m not racking up big walking distances to begin with!
Culprits include delivery drivers, schoolkids and commuters on Lime bikes or e-scooters and the ubiquitous all in black and masked up types on e-MTBs. Most of the types listed weave in and out of pedestrians, close-passing and at excessive speed – the pedestrians aren’t usually rushing so probably most doing 2mph or slower, the bikes/scooters probably 5-10mph. The commuters tend to be more considerate and the schoolkids probably next in line. Reintroducing some form of cycling proficiency training in schools, even if only theoretical, might help (and have trickle-down effect as the kids become commuters, delivery riders, or motorists) but for the rest I think a police clampdown on inconsiderate pavement cycling is the answer. (Plus the more cyclists on the road, the more drivers are forced to notice them and drive accordingly. Anecdotally, I noticed more respect from drivers under 2 different conditions – 1. Team GB success at Olympics. 2. Local reporting of gang shootings carried out by rival gang members on bikes! 😂)
It occurs to me that instead
It occurs to me that instead of asking Strava to remove segments through their parks, Royal Parks would be in a stronger position to enforce speed limits on the most likely to break them by using Strava data, if they could get hold of it. Data protection laws and Strava reluctance, plus possibly the difficulty of upholding accuracy of the data would be likely obstacles.
Cycle safety review 2018
Cycle safety review 2018
For completeness, not all of these fatalities were attributed to cyclist error:“15/20 fatalities were assigned at least one contributory factor, with 6/20 assigning a factor to the pedestrian only, 5/20 assigning a factor to both the pedestrian and the cyclist, and 4/20 assigning a factor to the cyclist only.”
Yes, but twenty pedestrian
Yes, but twenty pedestrian deaths involving cyclists in those London parks since 2018 does seem like a bit too many. Perhaps they should be encouraged to follow a speed limit…
Hmm… I’m pretty sure people
Hmm… I’m pretty sure people get startled (at least) by cyclists because they’re too quiet. Maybe if they had some noise-making device – perhaps say a small ICE engine – people would be able to detect them.
Then … they’re visually a lot smaller than a car. Could we make them … wider somehow? Perhaps with some kind of bodywork – maybe carried on a couple of outrigger wheels?
Alternatively I think people might find this more “in keeping”.
ktache wrote:
Agreed – lets say 3mph – there’s no need to be walking any faster than that.
ktache wrote:
Apologies if you’re being ironic…but just in case if not it’s twenty deaths in cyclist/pedestrian collisions for the whole of England and Wales since 2018, not just in London parks.
Wow, for the entire nation.
Wow, for the entire nation. Compared to the 5 deaths a day caused by drivers. Doesn’t seem to be much of a problem then…
Apology accepted.
Willing to bet a substantial
Willing to bet a substantial amount that if you asked the very same people if there should be a 20mph limit for cars, less than 86% would say yes.
The road from train station to my house is 20mph, I don’t think 1 in 10 drivers actually stick to that, especially the downhill direction. Is it ever enforced? Absolutely never, despite being obviously a pedestrian heavy area.
But sure, let’s make cyclists the issue.
Officer! Officer! Masked men
Officer! Officer! Masked men on a moped are attacking that cyclist!
Sorry, I’m only to ensure the speed limit is respected so you can try calling 111 and report your issue
Surely the solution is to
Surely the solution is to designate seperate cycling and pedestrian paths. That way the two groups can be kept apart. As for the telegraph, they’ve jumped on the anti-net zero bandwagon. There was a time when their articles were quite well written, but now they’re just a right wing tory/reform rag.
In general I am all for
In general I am all for separate cycling and pedestian space – on our roads (e.g. like here – you can see the separate spaces although the article is focussed on crossing the cycle paths).
Not a local but isn’t the issue “speeding cyclists … on the roads” mostly? There appear to be quite a few paths in the parks, presumably originally aimed at pedestrians only. Are there many issues on those?
If the idea is “safety improvements” (I suspect it’s more about “reacting to talking points”) wouldn’t the most effective action be to first remove the through motor traffic (in Richmond Park) or on the outer circle (Regents park)? Then perhaps look at warning people that the roads are still used – by cyclists and they are very quiet and may be going faster than you think?
OTOH … it seems that a small minority of people just don’t expect or spot cyclists even where they’re reminded about them (e.g. the recent-ish Regents Park death – although this was with a very old person).
If this is really an “issue” (even if it’s just felt to be) perhaps there is a case for “grade separation” of (road) cyclists and pedestrians at a few places where they interact and problems have been reported?
It would be really nice if the park could serve multiple purposes e.g. relaxed leisure for people on foot (including perhaps the young, old, hearing and/or visually impaired…) and relaxed riding (but perhaps at a reasonable rate e.g. above 8-12 mph) by cyclists.
But for the few people wanting to put the hammer down (whether on bikes or in cars) it may be if a few can’t “play nice” with other park users – some of whom have understandably let their guard down a bit – then none of them can have nice things. And they’ll have to find somewhere else for that specific activity – velodrome or rally circuit.
I ride in London daily to
I ride in London daily to work and cross the north circular into inner London each time. For the stretch over the north circular and the roads in and out, there’s a split sidewalk path for cyclists and pedestrians with a big line down the middle and bike paintings on one side.
I have never. Ever. Been up that path without at least two groups of peds on the wrong side of the road. Daily.
Even at Shepherds Bush where the bike paths are on the road and separated by bollards from the cars, people will walk on the road in the bike lane.
I know these are very different examples, but I do feel that some bike lanes get ignored to the point of making them more dangerous than the open road and those separate bike paths will be walked on all the same.
20mph = 32kph wich is quite a
20mph = 32kph wich is quite a pace for a normal cyclist…
Pedestrians should be more aware of cyclists you don’t hear them, if you look once you could “miss” the cyclist. With ease !.
As a cyclist you should be aware of those with “empty lives” they don’t understand the speed.
New poster noticed this
New poster noticed this evening in Brompton Cemetery (part of the Royal Parks portfolio). Good to see RP focussing on the important issue of cyclists harrassing ducks (who are apparently “park users”, who knew?).
NB There are no ponds in Brompton Cemetery, there are no ducks.
Maybe it’s supposed to be a
Maybe it’s supposed to be a dove of peace? Their wheelchair illustration looks a bit wonky too.
Has there being a problem with cyclists doing Strava segments through the cemetery? Or have they been BMX’ing over the new graves, or doing trials moves on the monuments?
Is juggling while unicycling riding respectfully? Perhaps if wearing a black armband? Will my dignified example embarrass the young tearaways / food delivery riders following their app’s shortcut?
chrisonabike wrote:
That’s not a wheelchair – it’s a spacehopper.
I can only hear this in Obi
I can only hear this in Obi-Wan’s voice – “that’s no moon…”