The London Duathlon will not be going ahead next month as planned, the event joining local cycling club time trials in being removed from Richmond Park this year after the charity that runs the green space announced it was reviewing its cycling policy “following several cycling-related incidents” due to cyclists riding “at excessive speeds”.
Some had questioned why the major duathlon, which sees participants run and cycle the event distances and has in previous years seen the park closed to traffic, was still allowed to go ahead when smaller club-organised early-morning cycling time trials had been banned this summer, because “they directly encourage cyclists to go faster than speed limit”.
Now, in an announcement on the London Duathlon website, the event’s organisers confirmed it too had been cancelled, a somewhat obscure statement suggested “a number of unforeseen factors this year that have led to this difficult decision” and “this includes an increased focus on the security and logistics of cycling events in public spaces which creates significant operational challenges”.
We contacted the Royal Parks for further information about the decision but were only told: “A range of factors, including significant operational challenges, have meant that the London Duathlon will not be going ahead in Richmond Park this year. We will work closely with potential event organisers to determine the future of the event.”
The situation comes at the end of a summer when the Royal Parks have come under scrutiny for its cycling-related policies and communication, the charity in June stating that the inquest into the death of a pedestrian — killed in a collision involving a cyclist back in 2022 while crossing Regent’s Park’s Outer Circle — widely reported by certain sections of the UK’s print and broadcast media, had prompted it to review its cycling policy.
A coroner’s inquest heard that cyclist Brian Fitzgerald was part of a group riding laps of Regent’s Park’s Outer Circle and travelling at between 25-29mph when he hit the 81-year-old pedestrian, causing her to suffer several broken bones and bleeding on the brain, injuries she died from in hospital two months later. Fitzgerald was not prosecuted for his role in her death, with the Metropolitan Police deeming there was “insufficient evidence for a real prospect of conviction”.
The charity which manages eight of London’s royal parks including Richmond Park and Regent’s Park reacted to the inquest by asking Strava to remove a Regent’s Park segment, and also halted time trial events in Richmond Park.
The Richmond Park Time Trials, organised by the London Dynamo cycling club and first run in 2009, 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.
Then, last month, the Richmond Park Cyclists group said it had clashed with the Royal Parks over speed limit advice for riders using the park.
The issue around speed limits in the park and whether they apply to cyclists has 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”.
Now, amid the ongoing reviews and statements about cycling, the London Duathlon has been scrapped too. An announcement on the event’s website states:
Regrettably, we are unable to host this year’s London Duathlon, and therefore the event will not go ahead on the 8 September 2024.
We had been extremely excited to bring you another year of the longstanding London Duathlon, and the support we’ve seen from our running and cycling community has been fantastic.
However there have been a number of unforeseen factors this year that have led to this difficult decision, particularly in relation to the operational complexity of producing a multi-sport event.
This includes an increased focus on the security and logistics of cycling events in public spaces which creates significant operational challenges. Our team has been working hard to explore all available options in recent weeks, but we have concluded that we can’t make the event work this year.
We understand that this will be unwelcome news, and we apologise for the disappointment caused. Currently we are not able to confirm whether a 2025 London Duathlon will take place, and we will be working to establish this in the coming months.
All London Duathlon 2024 ticket holders have been emailed with the necessary information regarding their ticket options. Please ensure you check your junk folder if you can’t find the email.
We apologise for the disappointing news but thank you in advance for your support and understanding.
If you had an entry but haven’t received any communication from us, please reach out hello@londonduathlon.com
20 thoughts on “Latest cycling event cancelled in Richmond Park, as organiser highlights “increased focus on security and logistics of cycling events in public spaces””
Richmond park turning more
Richmond park turning more nimby to everything by the day. This isn’t restricted to bikes. Walking dogs gets harder each year too
Dogs aren’t a problem in the
Dogs aren’t a problem in the park as long as they are on a short leash and not allowed to stray close to the resident animals such as the two species of deer which roam free, and the areas allotted for ground-nesting skylarks such as between White Lodge and Pen Ponds. These restrictions have been in place for a long time. Sadly though just like the 20mph and 10mph speed limits for motorists and requirement for them to use hazard warning flashers and drive at 10mph on the restricted roads these requirements are widely ignored by users of this precious national nature reserve.
Never seen anyone with hazard
Never seen anyone with hazard lights there..been passed closely even there by motorists..
Pub bike wrote:
Which is a big ask for your average british dog walker. As soon as they’re on a footpath the leash comes off and will tell you their darling wouldn’t hurt a fly moments before it starts chasing deer halfway across the park.
Fenton! https://m.youtube.com
Fenton! https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3GRSbr0EYYU
You beat me to it!
You beat me to it!
Beat me to it, lol.
Beat me to it, lol.
thrawed wrote:
No never.
Pub bike wrote:
I agree that many dog owners in the park are irresponsible in the lack of control they have of their pets, but to be fair to them there’s no mandatory requirement for leads except in deer birthing season (June and July), around the ponds and in the Isabella Plantation.
What’s vastly annoying with dogs near deer is that the park is vast and the deer population a) isn’t huge and b) tends to stick to certain limited areas, so it’s easy to find a spot to give Fido a run without a deer within a mile of you, one can only conclude that some people can’t be arsed to walk that far fom the carparks.
Unfortunately, a large number
Unfortunately, a large number of dog owners merely take them to have a shit rather than exercise them. I live opposite a disused car park in an area of outstanding beauty…car park gets regularly used as a dog toilet and I sense poor old Fido sees little of the countryside.
Same in nearby Bushy Park.
Same in nearby Bushy Park. Not many drivers stick to 20mph and many are happy to close pass. Plus dogs are often off their lead.
FENTON!!
FENTON!!
Amazing the amount of change
Amazing the amount of change that a single incident with a cyclist has caused and the complete lack of shits given with the hundreds that die every year from cars.
It is clear that of those in
It is clear that of those in a position to implement common sense, none of them cycle. Instead we have policy after policy created from the driving seat.
The common issue here is
The common issue here is irresponsibility. Irresponsible cyclists, drivers, dog walkers.
Nothing new here, when it was
Nothing new here, when it was open for bikes and closed to cars for a few days during COVID there was still a copper with a speed gun at the bottom of the hill.
I would raise an issue with those who cycle flat out on the section through the middle, robin hood gate to ham gate, that path is for slower traffic and walkers.
anotherflat wrote:
100% agree with that, had words on more than one occasion with heads-down TT merchants giving it full gas through there. We all know what the Royal Parks’ attitude to cyclists in general is so they are probably itching for an excuse to ban cyclists through there, if/when some Remco wannabe hits a pedestrian, dog or deer I’m sure they would leap at the chance.
if/when some Remco wannabe
if/when some Remco wannabe hits a pedestrian, dog or deer I’m sure they would leap at the chance
Whereas, if a motorised vehicle hits a pedestrian, dog or deer they would do…nothing at all
Getting things back to the
Getting things back to the “security and logistics” comment for a moment?
A duathlon, by its nature, needs riders to leave their bikes at a transition point while they run before and after their ride. There have been instances, one recently at an event down south springs to mind but I forget the event name, where disturbing numbers of bikes have been stolen from camping sites. Concerns that organisers might need to ramp up security at venues must therefore be a valid consideration, with the potential for the additional costs to make events financially enviable.
Same with logistics. Inflationary pressure has put up the price of many things. Add in an element of “profiteering” from suppliers, possibly based on the idea that bike events attract relatively wealthy participants who “can afford to pay more”, and you can see how it might be difficult to turn a profit from running these events.
Recently we’ve seen punters left as creditors by the collapse of events companies, so surely it’s better for all concerned if an organisation is honest and up front about their concerns, rather than selling entries to an event (or three) and then hoping they can remain solvent long enough to run the events they’ve planned?
Who knows, ultimately, what the full reasons are for pulling events from the calendar? Maybe it’s onerous conditions imposed by Royal Parks? Maybe it’s financial viability? Maybe it’s public opinion, logistics, or security? Or more likely a combination of factors. But promoters have got to fight the battles they feel they can win otherwise they’ll fall by the wayside, probably taking participants’ money with them, and we’ll be left with no promoters and no events at all.
Sad for those who like organised events, but ultimately they have to accept that the events they love will have to cost more, or they’ll have to end.
Organising large events has
Organising large events has got much harder, but the Royal Parks haven’t helped with the new chicane at the Beverly Brook bridge (the new gates at the top and botoom of Broomfied hill can be opened for an event). The Royal Parks seem to have an obsession with cyclist speed more than motor vehicle speed (as highlighted with the 10mph marking on Broomfield hill). They sem particaully scared of any cycle race in the park (even one with lots of marshalls).
A shame as it was a good event for lots of people.
Richmond park must have lost a decent amount of monye from the organisers as well.