The charity responsible for London’s Royal Parks has 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.
The organisation runs London’s Royal Parks — 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.
Writing to Sir Chris Bryant, the Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism, the Telegraph reports that The Royal Parks chairman Loyd Grossman (the former presenter of MasterChef and Through the Keyhole) has asked government to amend laws so that cyclists failing to adhere to the parks’ 20mph speed limits can be prosecuted for speeding.
The letter comes at the end of a summer when The Royal Parks cited cyclists riding “at excessive speeds” and causing crashes as the reason for it reviewing its cycling policy, while also cancelling early-morning time trial events in Richmond Park and the London Duathlon.
In May, Strava was asked to remove “Regent’s Park as a segment on the app” by The Royal Parks, the move coming following the death of a pensioner who died from her injuries sustained in a collision with a cyclist riding laps of the park at 25-29mph.
The death of Hilda Griffiths in 2022, a case much-publicised earlier this year following a coroner’s inquest, sparked Royal Parks action on cycling, as well as Conservative MP Iain Duncan-Smith to launch his campaign for stricter punishments for cyclists who kill or injure.
It was heard at the inquest that the cyclist involved, Brian Fitzgerald, would not face prosecution as the Metropolitan Police deemed there was “insufficient evidence for a real prospect of conviction”. He was riding laps of Regent’s Park as part of a group ride travelling at between 25-29mph when he hit the 81-year-old pedestrian as she crossed the road, causing her several broken bones and bleeding on the brain, injuries she died from in hospital two months later.
The letter written to government seeks an amendment to The Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces Regulations 1997 “with a view to setting speed limits for cyclists”.
“This will match what is already in place for motor vehicles on our park roads, namely a maximum speed limit of 20mph,” Mr Grossman writes. “Whilst we recognise there are challenges associated with this request, most notably on enforcement, we believe it is a change that would improve safety within the parks for both cyclists and other park users.”
A spokesperson for the charity added: “We have a responsibility to everyone who uses the parks to ensure we are acting in a way that protects and promotes their safety.”
A source from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport said the proposal would be considered “carefully”.
Discussion around speed limits in The Royal Parks, notably Richmond Park, have been long running.
Despite initially suggesting speed limits did apply to cyclists, in 2021 it was confirmed that the park’s speed limits (which range from 5mph to 20mph) do not apply to cyclists, a stance in line with the wider law.
Then, in the summer of 2022, The Royal Parks said that even if the speed limits do not apply to cyclists, riders would still have action taken if they ride “recklessly”.
In July, we reported that a group claiming to represent cyclists who use the park (Richmond Park Cyclists) had clashed with the charity over its speed limit advice for riders using the park.
This summer’s Richmond Park Time Trials were also cancelled by The Royal Parks. Organised by the London Dynamo cycling club and first run in 2009, they were due to take place on 23 June and 7 July this year – and had been praised for their inclusivity and for providing a gateway into the sport, enabling beginners to compete on road bikes and on almost traffic-free roads due to their 6am starts.
However, The Royal Parks cancelled this summer’s events over fears riders would break the park’s 20mph speed limit, a decision which left organisers “fuming” and arguing the decision had been clouded by “very irresponsible journalism” and that the alternative is “busy roads and fast-moving cars”.
“Following several cycling-related incidents, it is our duty to take action to minimise the risk of accidents and our priority to ensure the safety of all cyclists together with other visitors,” Richmond Park’s manager said. September’s London Duathlon in the park was subsequently also cancelled.
The Royal Parks has received plenty of criticism over the years for its approach to improving road safety in its parks. Many, including the London Cycling Campaign (LCC), have repeatedly asked why through-traffic is still allowed to use Richmond Park as a shortcut, the campaign calling the cancellation of well-organised events “weak” while “daily rat-runs” continue.
While some of Richmond Park’s roads are closed to motor traffic on weekends, during weekdays the green space, which The Royal Parks proudly calls an “extraordinary landscape” that is also London’s largest Site of Special Scientific Interest and a National Nature Reserve, is used as a cut-through for motorists driving between Kingston upon Thames, Richmond and Roehampton.
[Sunny summer weekend traffic in Richmond Park]
The LCC has campaigned for the park to be closed to through-traffic for years, arguing it would improve road safety and make them “far better for people walking, cycling and relaxing in”.
? Want safety @theroyalparks? Don’t use parks as through-roads.
We’re disappointed, yet again, by the behaviour of Royal Parks charity. Having Regent’s & Richmond Park as daily rat-runs while cancelling @londonduathlon is weak. Our CEO @TomFyans on @itvlondon pic.twitter.com/ixWtHbfT7j
— London Cycling Campaign (@London_Cycling) August 22, 2024
Two weeks ago, specialist cycling insurance provider ETA Services Ltd called it an “ongoing embarrassment” that The Royal Parks “allows this nature reserve to be used as a rat-run”, the comments coming in response to the incident below.
Officers from @MPSRoyal_Parks have been dealing with a road traffic collision in #RichmondPark where a vehicle has left the carriageway and collided with a tree. The driver has been reported for dangerous driving and no insurance. pic.twitter.com/zsgkkoz4Lw
— Royal Parks Police (@MPSRoyal_Parks) October 8, 2024
70 thoughts on “Charity that runs London parks wants new laws to prosecute cyclists for breaking 20mph speed limit in Regent’s Park and Richmond Park”
While ‘furious cycling’ isn’t
While ‘furious cycling’ isn’t smart, it’s obvious to anyone who has any idea of the UK’s road safety data that cyclists are not the problem on the country’s roads.
Obviously not, but it is not
Obviously not, but it is not unreasonable to expect cycles to largely confirm to the same same speed limits as other road traffic. My experience in Richmond Park is that you are far more likely as a pedestrian to be waved across the road by a slowing motor car driver than the sometimes almost rear wheel to front wheel columns of mile hungry cyclists to be found on a weekend morning.
This is culture wars nonsense
This is culture wars nonsense, not just because of the lack of attention to the real dangers on the roads. To make this law happen, you would need two things:
-enforce a rule requiring all cyclists (presumably including 3-year olds on their Thomas the Tank Engine tricyle) to have speedometers which are of the same level of accuracy as car speedometers. So not GPS-based ones which can be glitchy.
-have an accurate way of measuring cyclists’ speeds by the enforcers. As I understand it, the system used in speed cameras won’t work with cyclists because there isn’t enough metal in a bike, even steel framed bikes, to produce a good enough measurement.
Without these two technological and legal developments, the system just isn’t viable.
Less of a sledgehammer to crack a nut, more of a massive wrecking ball to crack a nut.
All bicycles would also need
All bicycles would also need to undergo a regular MOT to check that the speedometer is fitted and working. There would need to be a database and testing centres and statutory fee etc. How many members of parliament in their right minds would really vote for such a law whilst thousands die each year from being hit by cars?
Judging by the hundreds of
Judging by the hundreds of fools just elected – quite a few.
Why, the cyclist would be
Why, the cyclist would be responsible for regulating their speed, we live in the era of almost universal smart phone possession, there is no need to have a fixed speedometer . I’m a little disgusted at the self righteousness indifference of some cyclists over this matter, as far as I remember the poor woman was crossing at a point where there was signage requesting vehicles to slow and show care.
Robert Hardy wrote:
Not sure how one can be self-righteous and indifferent at the same time. They seem to me to be rather orthogonal to each other.
The public (well, a few) seem
The public (well, a few) seem to suddenly be grappling with the notion of safety around cyclists – serious incidents are that unusual. But of course that means they’re also highly salient.
Of course KSIs of pedestrians by cyclists are actually statistically invisible in the devastation wrought by motorised vehicles; but non-zero. The danger posed by cyclists is also (as with motor vehicles) variable with speed – and while if we had “mass cycling” we could expect the average to be “like fast jogging” currently this will be higher, in some cases significantly.
I’m not entirely against “doing something” for kinds of dangerous of anti-social cycling but as always: what do you think the “something” will actually do? How would you tell it has been effective – especially if the rate of incidents is incredibly low (e.g. once a decade or less)? How would whatever measure be enforced, if people are not behaving in a suitable manner now?
– For better or worse the coroner accepted that there was nothing the cyclist could have done (I haven’t even looked at all the information that they did). I certainly agree this line gets trotted out far too easily for road deaths in general, but that doesn’t mean that this wasn’t true here. Or indeed true even if the cyclist had been travelling slower than the motorist speed limit.
– This was “recreational activity” by the cyclists. That for many people is enough to say “well they’ve no cause to be in a hurry!”. Yes … but on the other hand, it’s a park * – people are there for recreation. Like throwing frizbees and running around.
Certainly nobody’s fun or exercise should put others at risk of serious injury. But yet again elsewhere we already apply a sliding scale to these activities. We limit javelin throwing and rifle practice to special places, but allow the public to walk across golf courses or near cricket pitches unsupervised (that can lead to injury, although like with pedestrians cyclists, deaths are very rare).
– The “waved across the road by a driver” analogy is not “like for like” exactly. For one pedestrians and cyclists can generally pass each other much more safely than pedestrians and motor traffic ** and in less space. For another it’s much more of an inconvenience for a cyclist to actually stop. The equivalent for a motorist in time and energy terms would be them stopping the car, opening the door, getting out, waving the pedestrian across, then getting back in again. Pretty sure nobody would expect that to happen…
* On the other hand motor traffic *does* still use the park as a through route…
** So much so the Dutch, with millions of cycle trips every day, almost never put pedestrian crossings on cycle paths, never mind ones with traffic lights…
Robert Hardy wrote:
‘Universal smart phone possession’ isn’t the same thing as having your smartphone accessible and mounted in sight at all times.
I have a phone but when I’m riding, my phone lives in my bag. Wouldn’t be very helpful for regulating my speed…
brooksby wrote:
Indeed – and in an era where many people have smartphones costing into four figures (an absurdity in my opinion but each to their own) how long would it be before the light-fingered fraternity cottoned on and we started seeing reports of moped muggers in the park with machetes forcing cyclists to a stop and wrenching their phones from their handlebars?
Additionally having a smart
Deleted / duplicate
Robert Hardy wrote:
I’m a little disgusted at self-righteous attempts to weaponise this tragic incident to impose restrictions on cyclists. As far as I remember eyewitnesses agreed there was nothing the cyclist could have done to prevent the incident and the police and CPS decided that they should not be prosecuted.
the little onion wrote:
I agree wholeheartedly with your remarks in general but I think speed guns can capture bike speeds pretty accurately, can’t they? In several places where I ride regularly there are those signs on lamp posts that light up with your speed and a smiling or frowning emoji depending on whether or not you are under the speed limit; the speed they show when I trip them is always the same as the reading on my GPS device. Before Royal Parks had to back down and admit that the speeding laws in their parks don’t apply to cyclists they handed out quite a few speeding tickets to cyclists caught with radar guns, I don’t recall anyone challenging the validity of their measurements.
Rendel Harris]
Yes, they haven’t been challenged yet. My understandign is that the accuracy with cyclists/bikes is nowhere near that of cars, and a measurement wouldn’t stand up in court unless it was miles over the limit.
the little onion wrote:
Trouble is it’s quite easy to be miles over the limit in Richmond Park, there are several long steepish descents where you can get up to about 30 mph virtually freewheeling, especially coming down Sawyer’s Hill from Richmond gate to Roehampton Gate, it’s around 2.5 km, average 2.5% (7% maximum) gradient, if you set out about 15 mph at the top you can easily reach 30 mph at the bottom.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Not my experience at all. It’s usually somewhere in the ballpark, but not unusual (particularly when there are other vehicles around, but sometimes when there’s not) for it to give a completely nonsensical reading. And in any case, there’s a difference between being good enough to give a close enough reading most of the time that people believe them enough to adjust their speed, and being reliably accurate enough that the reading would stand up in court.
I don’t think it would be
I don’t think it would be that difficult to come up with a measurement system that would stand up even if the radar did not, for example the painted lines that accompany fixed speed cameras.
It also seems possible this would be an FPN offense, where the cyclist is in effect asked to admit to the offense or risk a court appearance, bigger fine, etc.
As for requiring a speedo on the bike, the courts might just take the view that they are widely available and a cyclist that risks exceeding the (fast for an average citizen, if not a trained rider) speed limit is well advised to obtain one.
When you trip them is the key
When you trip them is the key point here. I would estimate 50% of those devices don’t register my passing at all and others give a reading so far removed from the truth that I can only think they are picking up a vehicle approaching behind rather than me. Any device that suggests I am capable of doing 41mph on the flat nearing the end of a 100 mile ride is living on a different planet to reality.
the little onion wrote:
Just take off and nuke that nut from orbit – it’s the only way to be sure…
So given that the Met have
So given that the Met have routinely stationed traffic police at the bottom of hills in Richmond Park to point speed guns at cyclists, including the short period during lockdown when it was open to cyclists but not cars, are the Met and Royal Parks guilty of wasting police time?
Should this guy be refunded https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/london-cyclist-fined-for-speeding-in-richmond-park-after-he-is-clocked-at-38mph-a3102191.html
I have to say I do have
I have to say I do have sympathy with them cancelling the time trials.
If you have a 20mph speed limit in the park, even if that doesn’t legaly apply to cyclists, then holding an event where competitors openly endeavor to go as fast as possible, which will certainly be well over that for the keen ones, seems reckless and hypocritical, unless you have the infrastructure in place – such as closing the whole park during the event/barriers/whatever – to prevent any possibility of a crash with any other member of public.
These events were held early
These events were held early in the morning so that the risk to the general public has always been very low.
The time trials began at 6AM,
The time trials began at 6AM, an hour before the park is open to cars; with a startlist of around 60 riders in total (IIRC) and a 10 mile course they were pretty much over before any cars were on the roads. They’ve been run successfully since 2009 without, as far as I’m aware, any injuries being caused to non-participants, which would appear to indicate that Royal Parks have invented a problem/health and safety threat that simply didn’t exist.
no experiene of the london
no experiene of the london parks, but I am invovled in running other time trials through CTT. They have been wrestling with the increase in 20mph zones and how to deal with them for the last couple of years.
I believe the biggest issue in the rest of the country isn’t so much that riders are exceeding the speed limit as such but more the increased risk of an accident when riders (with race head on) come up behind slower motorised traffic (the assumption being that most drivers will be doing 20)
There are far too many knee
There are far too many knee-jerk, anti-cycling responses to amplified risks.
Are there no grown-ups there?
Can’t wait for the free
Can’t wait for the free Garmin Edges, Karoo, Wahoo etc devices along with speed sensors being given out at all entrances to London Parks.
Boopop wrote:
You won’t need one. They’ll simply prosecute cyclists who overtake the cars which will all be travelling below 20mph.
Populist, anti-cycling
Populist, anti-cycling cronyism. This is the accident data from the Royal Parks in case someone is interested in making decisions based on data and facts:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1_RGJUK7G47iIr2CCFVvvO3PR6AS_3EYM?usp=share_link
Excellent resource, thanks!
Excellent resource, thanks!
According to a quick review of this, in 2019-2023 there were :
– for Regents Park – 8 pedestrian collisions with pedal cycles (but the rider came off worse in three of those), 3 with motor cycles; 147* pedal cyclists injuried colliding with motor vehicles, and 20 bike-bike or bike only collisions
*some apparent repetition noted, so maybe 10-15 less
– for Richmond Park – 9 pedestrian collisions with pedal cycles; 1 with a car but none in 2022-23; 56 pedal cyclists injuried colliding with motor vehicles, and 38 bike-bike or bike only collisions.
These data show that people cycling have a torrid time in the two parks compared with pedestrians, but according to the data hardly any pedestrians have been harmed by motor vehicles in either park, which probably plays to the motonormatives**
I’ve never cycled in Regents Park but go for a spin to Richmond Park quite a lot. The actual issue I see is that on the downhills with cars, many cycles can easily match the 20 mph car speed limit whereas others can’t so at busy times you get a chaotic mess of cars doing about 20±5 mph and most cycles doing 15±10 mph trying to overtake each other in both directions, which is absolutely horrendous, especially for the slower riders.
However, the period of lockdown where cycles were allowed in the park but not motor vehicles showed that non-motorists rub shoulders with no problem, and you got road users not seen before or since – people wheeling baby buggies, skateboarders, skaters, road-skiers – much like any other Ciclovia worldwide (or indeed Middle Path in Richmond Park and most of Chestnut Avenue in Bushy Park still). The deer tended to wander about more freely, too. Add cars back in and you revert to a binary traffic ecosystem.
** since 10 deer were killed by motorists in the parks between 2019 and 2021 I find my eyebrows being raised slightly by that stat, but whatever, the main danger is to people cycling.
20mph is a fair lick on a
20mph is a fair lick on a bike, through a park. Although the focus should be on safety against the greatest danger (cars), the Park authority must still get pressure to address danger from fast cyclists too, which does exist. I don’t think its unreasonable to set a limit for bikes, but there should be wiggle-room for exceptions (like events, etc.) and enforcement should be applied with some wisdom.
If they do eventually ban cars through the park (which I think they should, or at least set a very narrow window when cars are permitted), it will increase the speeds of cyslists and the park authority can’t let it get too Mad Max, (just look at the lawlessness of a lot, but not all) cyclists in the city at the moment, sadly. It would only be a matter of time before a peleton of fast moving weekend warriors smash into a bunch of kids on bikes, or some slower cyclists or a pedestrian and someone loses their life; then the whole place will be closed to all vehicles and that sucks for everyone. A 20mph limit isn’t a huge price to pay.
alexuk wrote:
Why would it only be a matter of time? Cyclists have been training in the park ever since I’ve been riding there (more than forty years) without speed limits being applied and presumably were doing so long before that and as far as I’m aware nobody has been killed by a cyclist in the park. There is ample provision on the trails all round the park for kids on bikes, pedestrians et cetera and they don’t mix with the cyclists on the road, there is no more reason there should be a fatal cyclist/pedestrian incident in the park than there would be on any public road, in fact there is less reason due to the aforementioned segregation of users.
I’m sure someone said the
I’m sure someone said the same about Regents park. Its always a matter of time.
alexuk wrote:
Firstly, Richmond Park and Regent’s Park are two entirely different entities, the roads in Regent’s Park have pavements on both sides and numerous crossing points, Richmond Park has pedestrian paths completely separated from the road and people only tend to cross the roads outside the car parks. Secondly, everything can be said to be “a matter of time”, it’s only a matter of time before an asteroid hits Richmond Park and wipes out everyone in it but it’s not that likely that precautionary measures (compulsory hard hats?) need to be introduced. Richmond Park was fully opened to the public in 1872 and the first safety bicycles went on sale in the next decade, so people have been cycling around the park for nearly 150 years without killing anyone. Thirdly, the pedestrian death in Regent’s Park was caused by a pedestrian stepping out in front of a cyclist when they were just a few metres away and if he had been travelling at 20 mph the result wouldn’t have been any different, so it has no relevance as evidence for imposing speed limits on cyclists.
I’m not comfortable with that
I’m not comfortable with that as an excuse, if a pedestrian stepped out in front of a car that was within the speed limit, I’m not sure we’d be happy to blame the pedestrian,regardless of whether the law did naff all about it.
We’d expect, some might even demand, the driver to have spotted the specific risks first, like the HC encourages you to do, and there are specific examples around elderly pedestrians waiting to cross roads on the test, and drive accordingly, so why can’t we expect to cycle in the same way ?
Just out of common respect for others using the park, I’m not ok with the but there’s no speed limit on bicycles so I can ride how the damn well I like attitudes a minority of cyclists seem to have adopted.
And see this last weekends latest Telegraph hit piece for how it gets portrayed to a non cyclists community
stonojnr wrote:
If the pedestrian stepped out when the car driver was about 2 m away I would have no qualms about saying that it was their responsibility, however tragic the consequences. As far as I understand this incident, the pedestrian had crossed to a halfway island in the road and was standing there waiting for the cyclists to go by when she inexplicably, whether from bad timing or confusion or whatever, stepped straight into their path. It’s important to note that the incident did not take place on a marked crossing, this wasn’t like cyclists or motorists blasting through a zebra or a pelican. If the cyclist has looked up and seen someone standing on a traffic island who has clearly stopped and is waiting for them to pass then proceeding through is perfectly acceptable and indeed standard procedure as far as I know, I’ve never had cars stop for me to cross when I’m on a traffic island and there is no painted zebra or controlling lights, have you? I don’t believe it’s even suggested in the highway code that a driver/rider should do this. The only reference is to rules for pedestrians, Rule 7d: “If traffic is coming, let it pass. Look all around again and listen. Do not cross until there is a safe gap in the traffic and you are certain that there is plenty of time.”
Also – as per “whatabout
Also – as per “whatabout applying the same comparison as you would a car/driver” while the cyclists had upped their kinetic energy and reduced their reaction time (faster speeds) they had not:
Equipped themselves with hard metal exoskeletons and increased their mass by a factor of 15 – 20, or increased their effective width making it more likely they would hit things in front of them.
Reduced their vision with side-pillars or their hearing by being within a metal box. *
Added to any other problems by scattering quantities of particulates everywhere and being inactive.
* Of course your practical ability to observe will be affected by your body position and at speed wind noise affects your ability to hear.
Rendel Harris]
Personally, yes, it happens every now and again. Usually when crossing would put me in the path of oncoming traffic beyond them that they haven’t really thought about. But you’re correct that the majority of drivers do not.
Listen to yourself. You can
Listen to yourself. You can see the same argument being made by motorists: “Pedestrians and Cyclists are not allowed on the motorway, so we should be able to go as fast as we want!”. Sometimes, just sometimes, read your words back to yourself and reflect on what you’re saying and thinking.
As per usual in this community; “The cyclist is always Jesus and does no wrong, everyone else is to blame and everyone else has a responsibility – we don’t!”
Encouraging us to cycle through Richmond park at a considerate speed (20mph/32kph) to protect ourselves and others, its not a lot to ask, as long as its policed with widsom and exceptions are made for events, etc.
To re-iterate: I think cars should be banned/heavily restricted for access to the park.
alexuk wrote:
Leave that poor strawman alone – what did it ever do to you?
alexuk wrote:
The irony of you telling other people to think about what they’re saying when you come up with this rubbish is very strong. You haven’t addressed the point at all that for well over a century people have been cycling around Richmond Park perfectly safely without problems and without killing anyone and without being speed limited. It’s no good you clutching your pearls and shrieking “it’s only a matter of time before someone is killed!” – 120 years of something not happening is quite a big evidence base that it’s unlikely to happen. There are already laws in place to deal with cyclists that ride recklessly and dangerously and nobody, least of all me, has any objection to the police using them to control those who need controlling, in fact I would welcome it. However, there is no evidence that a speed limit in Richmond Park is necessary or will do anything to improve safety, so the proposal is simply a knee-jerk reaction to a tragic incident (which, incidentally, the law did not blame on the cyclist) in another park where the circumstances are entirely different.
Nice “As per usual in this community the cyclist is always Jesus” nonsense, most reminiscent of a number of other trolls who have infested this place in the past.
alexuk wrote:
— alexuksay that to the 1,624 people who died on the roads last year.
Or the more than 29,000 seriously injured.
“Ah, but that’s different” says mr. carbrained culture warrior. No, I can promise you it’s no different for the victims and their families.
One person steps out into traffic and it’s headline news; and still discussed today SOLELY because she was hit by someone on a bicycle.
It’s only a question of time
It’s only a matter of time before it all goes Lethal Weapon, Pocahontas and Braveheart put together. Great actor, that Mel Gibson bloke. He’s a keen cyclist, dontcha know. I was stuck in a lift with him once. He owes me a fiver.
It’s like Mad Max out there –
It’s like Mad Max out there – people are afraid to leave their houses! The parks are lawless!
(from Bicycle Dutch, see also here on the same place).
Having said that I believe there was a pedestrian death from a collision with a cyclist about a decade ago in Central Park in NYC ([collision], [death]). They also had a 25mph speed limit there which they lowered to 20mph (and it being NYC, police are happy to do occasional crackdowns).
Not to be flippant about unnecessary deaths but with a safety record like that, the city should have been begging for fast cycling everywhere instead of driving.
If there are sufficient cyclists that this is a real concern, perhaps everyone should be lobbying to build more dedicated cycling facilities?
It’s only a matter of time
It’s only a matter of time before a giant asteroid strike wipes us all out, so… er… what was the point again?
Dammit – Rendel got there
Dammit – Rendel got there before me. And everyone knows asteroids never strike the same place twice.
Given enough time, I’m sure
Given enough time, I’m sure they do.
It’s shocking that all those
It’s shocking that all those dangerous trees haven’t been removed. Any one of them could crash into a car.
Better remove the deer while
Better remove the deer while they’re at it…
If it wasn’t so stupid it
If it wasn’t so stupid it would be funny. Cyclist kills a pedestrian and we have a national issue on our hands that needs addressing. Driver kills an entire family and its just a blip on the local news for that area. The fact this is reality is quite mind boggling.
mctrials23 wrote:
Motonormativity. Four wheels good, two wheels bad.
Even though the tragic death
Even though the tragic death can’t be overlooked the police report at the time stated that the victim stepped off the pavement without looking when the cyclists were ~7 feet away.
Even if the group of cyclists had been doing 20 the victim would still have been knocked over and in all likelihood would likely have suffered similar injuries.
And even though the cause of the accident was the failure to look before crossing by the pedestrian, the royal parks are now taking it upon themselves to further restrict cycling whilst seemingly doing absolutely nothing about the tens of thousands of vehicles that pour through Richmond Park every day using it as a cut through from Kingston to Richmond.
Culture war isn’t new…
Culture war isn’t new…
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2015/oct/29/scorchers-cycle-haters-how-victorian-cyclists-were-also-vilified-in-the-press
And in the States:
https://ephemeralnewyork.wordpress.com/2014/08/09/the-bicycle-scorchers-menacing-the-1890s-city/
Of course it’s also true that now, as then, some cyclists are more concerned about their sport and speed than others (think high-wheelers – expensive, dangerous and really not very practical for things other than going fast and showing you were a dashing young man of some means).
Naturally the police had their own pursuit vehicles:
https://british-police-history.uk/f/hertfordshire-scorchers
Quote:
So they’ll be banning motor vehicles from going through there, then?
If there’s no law to say I
If there’s no law to say I have to have a speedometer on my bike, can I be prosecuted if I go 25mph down a hill in a 20 zone? If you don’t know exactly how fast you’re going and you’re otherwise riding safely on a bike that’s in good order, could a conviction stick? Genuine Q – IANAL.
It is an interesting question
It is an interesting question. Speedometers have not always been a requirement for motor vehicles. Cars registered before they were mandatory (1937) can still be driven on the road but the speed limits would still apply. As far as I can tell speedos for motorcycles only became compulsory in 1984, but you still don’t need one to pass an MOT, and speed limits also apply.
Interesting reply – the
Interesting reply – the motorbike rule might suggest responsibility is on the rider to inform themselves and make sure they meet speed regs (ignorance is not a defence). That would mean cyclists in Regents Park would need a speedo or they’d be risking it based on thier own perception of speed.
https://register-of-charities
https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/en/charity-search/-/charity-details/5096383/governing-document
Trying to marry up the charitable objects of the TRP with their attitude to cyclists at the moment.
In terms of the stats do they identify whether the incidents between bikes and pedestrians are on the tarmac roads our on the outer ring path? I do think there is an issue with bikes using the outer ring path at the moment (esp the electrically assisted bikes).
Cars are to be banned from
Cars are to be banned from Richmond Park because they are a great danger to the cyclists – ‘It’s only a matter of time before a cyclist is killed by a motorist’ said a Richmond Park manager.
I occasionally cycle though
I occasionally cycle though Regents Park as a commuter. I’m reasonably certain the vast, vast majority of motor vehicles are not doing 20mph. I suppose if and when ”they’ start enforcing 20mph for cyclists ‘they’ will do the same for motor vehicle drivers?
Astonishing article in the
Astonishing article in the Telegraph from three days ago, I can’t read the whole thing because I don’t wish to sign up to them, but the headline is:
“Watch: Speeding cyclists joke about hitting people on London road where 81-year-old was killed”
Although you can’t see the rest of the article without signing up, you can see the video, which shows a group of cyclists talking before setting off for a lap of the park, one says, “Remember to be careful around the ambassador’s house and that [the official US ambassador’s residence is in the north-west corner of the park]” and another responds, “Yes, we don’t want to take out Mike Pompeo.” So saying, admittedly in a light-hearted way, that we should watch out to make sure we don’t hit people is “joking about hitting people”? The tagline also says that the video shows cyclists “racing on the wrong side of the road”: I watched it all the way through and there’s one point at which the rider in front of the camera cyclist might just stray on the wrong side of the road – it’s very hard to tell because there are no centre lines in that part of the park – as he moves out and flicks an elbow for the camera cyclist to come through. There is no oncoming traffic in sight and if the cyclist does cross to the wrong side of the road it’s literally for a second before moving back into line.
Just look at the name they’ve chosen for the page as well: “cyclists-regents-park-dangerous-high-speed-culture-death”, says it all really…
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/10/19/cyclists-regents-park-dangerous-high-speed-culture-death/
That’s staggeringly desperate
That’s staggeringly desperate, portraying innocuous, innocent behaviour as reckless and dangerous: but why? Is the establishment now so threatened by the increasing number of cyclists that they need to publish highly inaccurate, denigrating stories to stir up the masses against them?
eburtthebike wrote:
I’m not sure that I’d equate The Torygraph with the establishment. More likely Torygraph readers are an aging, senile demographic that get a thrill from hating others.
The trouble is the majority
The trouble is the majority of the nation reads the Sun, the Daily Mail and then the Times and the Telegraph, the Express, the FT and then the Guardian which has about a third of the circulation of either the Times or the Telegraph.
The London papers circulation competes with the higher numbers. So presumably as the circulations are all so low, the Sun is about 1200,000 the Times 400,000 the Guardian 130,000 , the establishment doesn’t read.
JLasTSR wrote:
I’m suspicious of the circulation figures, not because they’re wrong, but because most people don’t buy/read a newspaper, but get their news online and some papers have stopped producing circulation figures from 2020 onwards due to this. Personally, I would guess that the right-wing papers are more likely to be bought by the older generation, so it’s entirely possible that the figures are skewed according to this.
My experience is that I don’t know anyone under the age of 70 that buys a newspaper, but then I’m in the particularly lefty city of Bristol which isn’t very representative of the rest of the country.
Edit: Had a look for online readership and that paints an interesting picture
https://pressgazette.co.uk/media-audience-and-business-data/media_metrics/most-popular-websites-news-uk-monthly-2/
That shows the Grauniad in 2nd place (44%) to the BBC (78%) followed closely by The Sun, Mail Online etc. The Torygraph is a bit behind at 33%.
The Guardian is free online
The Guardian is free online and can be accessed with just a subscription so it is widely read but the figures are potentially skewed because the others are mostly talking about paid subscriptions. The online circulation also skews some other numbers as well so the FT goes up because it overseas readership is quite high.
The numbers for all of them are still surprisingly low. When you would like to think we are a moderately well educated country and you would expect everyone to want to know at least a bit about what is going on, they probably see the TV news or the radio and I am always pleasantly surprised to find everyone knows miles more than I do about lots of things.
I just went to Guardian for the first time in about a couple of years and they are definitely pushing their paid subscription like mad. I didn’t realise it had such a close link with the Observer. Online of the broadsheets it is definitely sitting top of the pile.
I remember at school an English Master was particularly keen on the Guardian, He made us read an article headlined and do an analysis of the text “Women Who Smoke Have Lighter Babies” It was written without what I would call journalistic vigour. It was more a meandering prose that was largely inconclusive but I enjoyed the joke. Mr Spring was not overly impressed when I asked if the babies were all called Zippo.
I have also discovered that 75% of adults consume news properly on more of a monthly basis, and only look at headlines in between times. Funny how you read one thing and then wind up looking up a few things. Mind you I would not be surprised if there are some that read several. My wife looks at Sky News, Google, The Mail, Express, Telegraph every day and if there is something interesting on another website she will visit that as well.
One of the videos it shows at
One of the videos it shows at least three of the cyclists going to the right of traffic islands with keep left signs on them. I think that is a bit naughty, breaking the rules of the road, but if there is no oncoming traffic and no pedestrians about it is probably safe enough.
It’s ironic that Royal Parks
It’s ironic that Royal Parks who are fine with motorists using the park for the rush hour but have the time to pursue the persecution of non polluting cyclists.
surely conservation and protection of the park is their mandate???
I’m led to believe the 20mph
I’m led to believe the 20mph limit would apply to all, albeit enforced differently for cyclists – ‘furious pedalling’ or something like that. Therefore it’s simply the authorities making a decision around enforcing or not.
Meanwhile – irrespective of how this is enforced – as many cycle groups have pushed for 20 limits it would seem rather odd not to publicly encourage cyclists to abide by them wouldn’t it?
Ben Graham wrote:
Not really Ben, you see cyclists aren’t two metres wide and don’t weigh two tonnes, they can manouevre and brake in rather different ways to motor cars. Saying it’s rather odd not encourage the same rules for cyclists as for motor vehicles is like saying it’s odd not to have the same rules for cap guns as for Uzis.
Considering something like 80
Considering something like 80% of motorist speed in 20mph zone, it’s hard to conceive that the police will target cyclists instead of the MGIF drivers overtaking them