The Metropolitan Police Service has confirmed that cyclists in Richmond Park are not subject to speed limits – but has also underlined that action can be taken against people riding irresponsibly and putting others in danger.
The confirmation follows a statement published last week by the Royal Parks, which manages the popular southwest London beauty spot, that speed limits there did not apply to bike riders.
> Richmond Park speed limits do not apply to cyclists, says the Royal Parks
Now, Twickenham Nub reports that in response to an enquiry to the Metropolitan Police press office, it was told that the statement from the Royal Parks was definitive.
However, the force added that officers would act upon cases of cyclists riding irresponsibly and putting others in danger.
In a statement, it said: “We expect all road users to act responsibly to ensure Richmond Park is a safe place for everybody.
“Officers carry out regular patrols and will take action against those seen to be driving or riding in an irresponsible manner which intentionally or recklessly puts public safety at risk.”
The website added that the Metropolitan Police did not respond to questions regarding previous prosecutions and fines, including whether those subjected to them would be notified that they may have been unlawfully prosecuted
While cyclists are not subject to speed limits on the public highway, the specific bylaws applying to the Royal Parks has long left it open to question on whether or not speed limits apply to them.
The issue has particular relevance to Richmond Park, which is very popular with road cyclists, especially at the weekend, and a number of cyclists have been fined in recent years for riding above the 20mph speed limit that applies to most roads there.
Last month, Twitter user The Department for Parks & Recreation asked the Royal Parks in a tweet: “How was the speed limit in Richmond Park suspended for the purposes of athletes cycling within the park for the London Duathlon, held on Sunday 5th September 2021?”
— The Department of Parks & Recreation ? (@ldnparks) September 30, 2021
In response, an FOI (Freedom of Information) Officer at the Royal Parks said: “The roads in the Royal Parks are Crown Roads managed under the authority of the Secretary of State for DCMS.
(There is one exception – Regents Park, where the roads are managed by a separate body, the Crown Estates Paving Commission).
The FOI Officer continued: “The speed limits on the roads are specified in The Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces Regulations 1997 as amended.
“Section 4 (28) requires that: ‘No person shall drive or ride any vehicle on a Park road in excess of the speed specified in relation to that road in Part II of Schedule 2 of these Regulations.’ (Part II schedule 2 lists the parks that that have vehicular access.)
“These regulations apply to motorised vehicles, not bicycles, and therefore the use of park roads by cyclists on events such as the London Duathlon is lawful. In answer to your specific question, the speed limits were not suspended for this event because they are not deemed to apply to bicycles.”
-1024x680.jpg "“Clear anti-cyclist bias”: Lawsuit filed against Toronto police after cop doored cyclist… before ticketing rider over incident")
43 thoughts on “Metropolitan Police confirm cyclists in Richmond Park are not subject to speed limits”
I bet they were almost crying
I bet they were almost crying responding to that question. It must have hurt them so much to own up.
Good to have this cleared up.
Good to have this cleared up. However I do find the reasoning strange;
How is the position different to cycling over the alcohol limit? Cyclists have no alcoholometer, just as they have no speedometer.
Sriracha wrote:
It’s not really the same, though, is it? You have a responsibility to know whether you are unsafe to drive/ride because of alcohol. You can’t really be expected to judge your speed accurately without a device for doing so.
Sriracha wrote:
Cyclists aren’t actually subject to alcohol limits either (ridiculously, in my opinion), you can only be charged with cycling under the influence on the evidence of your behaviour (weaving all over the road etc). A police officer can ask you to take a breathalyzer, blood or sputum test, but as a cyclist you have a right to refuse and it cannot be held against you in any subsequent proceedings. It’s one of the few areas where I agree with the anti-cycling mob, riding drunk should be as heinous an offence as driving drunk.
As mentioned it’s the ‘drunk
As mentioned it’s the ‘drunk in charge of’ that applies here.
You can be drunk in charge of many things – years ago my mother had to do a probation report on someone who was drunk in charge of a rowing boat on Emberton Lakes!
Can you be done for being
Can you be done for being drunk in charge of a keyboard? Asking for a friend…
Quite possibly! https://www
Quite possibly! https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2021/10/08/justin-trudeau-mocked-using-2slgbtqqia-acronym-sexual-identities/
I saw it mentioned elsewhere as Mr Trudeau ‘headbutting the keyboard’!
Just say it’s quertyitis
Just say it’s quertyitis
Sriracha wrote:
You can be drunk in charge of a bicycle, but its based on your ability to ride rather than set limits. My old man loves regaling the story of him getting arrested for it
Unfortunately you don’t have
Unfortunately you don’t have to be riding the bicycle, pushing it is enough.
And it is my understanding that they only need to have suspicion of drunkenness.
ktache wrote:
A neighbour got done for this – but they were absolutely paralytic. Without the bike to lean on, they would not have been able to walk.
I think they got a small fine, along the lines of what you’d get for being drunk in public (also includes in a pub, where it is actually illegal to be drunk!).
Erm, how many cars are fitted
Erm, how many cars are fitted with an alcolholometer? (or a meter for detecting how high you are?) Should drivers not be done for this then?
The speedometer discussion is what I was having with Dave. Bikes are not enforced to have one and unless you are a dedicated roadie, you probably won’t have one. But even if you do, they are not calibrated to a legal standard like a car one. Mine for example has been showing me hitting 94mph in the wet whilst cycling up a small incline, and if I use the GPS speed side rather then the sensor, it will die under trees which I assume the park has.
But also most bikes can easily do over 20mph on a downhill just free wheeling if it is steep and long enough so how will they know if they are speeding before being pulled over. It is alright some twattish person arguing in a wheedly voice “mmm it will only be TT riders pulled over smmmhh” but that is not what the Policeman defending it as right said in the other article. Only that they pulled over and prosecuted people for going over 20mph as per the bylaw. .
@Sriracha’s reasoning is
@Sriracha’s reasoning is correct. That part of the Royal Parks statement is nonsense. Cyclists are not subject to speed limits on public roads in the UK, but it’s got nothing to do with lacking speedometers, any more than possession of a breathalyser affects whether alcohol limits can be enforced.
Cyclists are not subject to speed limits because Parliament, in its sovereign wisdom, chose to make a law that drivers of motor vehicles may not exceed the designated speed limit on a public road. Bicycles are not motor vehicles.
See for example the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 section 81(1) “It shall not be lawful for a person to drive a motor vehicle on a restricted road at a speed exceeding 30 miles per hour.” Other sections are similar in this respect.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/81
I imagine that the reason is that high speeds had not been a sufficiently serious problem on our roads until motor vehicles appeared – in spite of previous complaints about cyclists “scorching” and, no doubt, horse riders galloping.
Dave Dave will be along
Dave Dave will be along shortly to tell them they’re wrong.
And that they are anti
And that they are anti vaxxers and talking bollocks.
I wonder if jmaccelari will
I wonder if jmaccelari will chip in to acknowledge that he was wrong to state categorically that “The person from the Royal Parks writing this letter is mistaken”.
And maybe the same for enthusiastic sh*t-stirrer Nigel Garrage who could barely contain his glee, jumping in to say “It beggars belief and speaks to the self-entitlement of some cyclists that they believe speed limits don’t apply to themselves” the other day.
The daft bit of it is that, if speed limits did apply to cyclists then the vast majority of people who cycle would be willing to stick to them. Unlike so many drivers, who think speed limits are optional, like a lot of the rules of the road.
24 June 2021 – Number of cyclists killed on British roads up 40% in 2020
https://road.cc/content/news/cyclists-killed-british-roads-40-2020-284373
The daft bit of it is that,
The daft bit of it is that, if speed limits did apply to cyclists then the vast majority of people who cycle would be willing to stick to them.
TBF, for the vast majority of roads, even the best cyclists would be struggling to break the speed limit. Although on a downhill near me on a 30mph dual carriageway, I still get over-taken by cars even when my wahoo is showing 35.
The road through my village
The road through my village is a 20 limit; which is pretty much the speed I cycle through it – and I always get overtaken.
more worried about the next
more worried about the next week or so where hoards of cyclists will be riding furiously and get arrested for that rather than speeding per se…..ha ha..
Global Nomad wrote:
This could be my cue to achieve one of my lifelong ambitions; to be booked for furious riding. Do you get a certificate?
eburtthebike wrote:
You need to injure somebody to be charged with that.
Offences against the Person Act 1861 S.35
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/24-25/100/section/35
Crippledbiker wrote:
This could be my cue to achieve one of my lifelong ambitions; to be booked for furious riding. Do you get a certificate?
— eburtthebike You need to injure somebody to be charged with that. Offences against the Person Act 1861 S.35 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/24-25/100/section/35— Global Nomad
No – there’s a separate offence for furious riding (without injury). https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/10-11/89/section/28 and see also https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/whats-legal-and-whats-not-your-bike
OnYerBike wrote:
Going to have to define “Furious” here; I’d expect that to mean in a reckless or dangerous manner, or in an aggressive manner or with a lack of control.
Speed alone does not constitute those things.
Your second link actually specifically states this.
Had this specifically
Had this specifically confirmed by RP when I checked with them:
Global Nomad wrote:
Is somebody storing up their cyclists?
is the Met Police press
is the Met Police press office a valid source of determining what laws are and arent in effect though ? how is it any different from the Royal parks twitter wrangler as “official legal” status goes.
Id far rather theyd just said look the legal position is the speed limits applying to cyclists in Royal Parks is still in effect, it maybe considered a grey area on the precise extent of it, but its been enforced successfully before, so we are pretty certain it works in cases against cyclist, and because its in the official book of park rules or laws that apply in the parks until someone makes an admendment to that, its legally going nowhere.
but its not in the public interest to enforce it for cycling at this time, just like we used to have lots of ancient laws on the books that werent of public interest to pursue, however we will be keeping a close eye on cyclist behaviour and we reserve the right to enforce the laws that are there, as we see fit.
that to me then covers all the bases, everyone knows where they stand, and whats expected of them, and could defend themselves in court on it, going around saying well this twitter account said this, and then this PR office kind of agrees with it, thats just not to me how laws and the legal system works.
The press office aren’t going
The press office aren’t going to make a statement off their own bat, they would have run it past the relevant people first.
How is it any different from the police saying we did X in covid lockdown but we got it wrong. Derbyshire police comes to mind.
There is a difference –
There is a difference – specifically where cyclists have refused to pay FPNs and instead taken it to court, the magistrates have seen fit to agree that the speed limits do apply to cyclists (e.g. https://road.cc/content/news/169880-huge-fine-cyclist-caught-speeding-richmond-park).
OnYerBike wrote:
If you read ‘The Secret Barrister” you will see that magistrates are not always au fait with the law…
I have actually read it, and
I have actually read it, and I agree that magistrates can be wrong.
I was just pointing out whilst in Derbyshire (from what I recall) it was Police issuing on-the-spot FPNs that were not justified under the relevant regulations, but those were dropped or not upheld in court. Where as with the speeding in Richmond Park, it hasn’t been solely reliant on the Police’s interpretation of the law.
I do wonder what the next steps are, so to speak. If someone (such as the people mentioned in the article linked) feel they have been wrongly convicted and want to appeal, is the police making this statement sufficient for the appeal to automatically succeed? Or would it have to go back to the magistrates (or a higher court) to review, and they might decide that actually the police were right first time and the fines stand?
OnYerBike wrote:
Higher court, I’d have thought – but I don’t know.
You can’t get a FPN though
You can’t get a FPN though and I’m not sure of the relevance of a link from 2015.
The article from 2015 gives
The article from 2015 gives examples of cyclists who refused to pay the Police fines* for speeding, and were ultimately convicted by magistrates. Unless you think that the laws used to issue those fines have changed then why wouldn’t it be relevant? The whole point is the law hasn’t actually changed (to the best of my knowledge) and so this announcement from the police seems to go against the previously upheld interpretation of the legislation.
The Derbyshire police were handing out FPNs in relation to coronavirus regulations, but there is no evidence anyone else interpretted the law in the same way as them (and indeed they eventually withdrew several of the FPNs without the cases going to court).
(*possibly they aren’t called FPNs for this specific offence, but the effect is the same)
Doesn’t mention refusing to
Doesn’t mention refusing to pay ‘fines’ and also questions the legality of the situation.
I think it is a bit of an overstatement to say “to go against the previously upheld interpretation of the legislation”.
Derbyshire police were just an obvious example but other forces failed to understand the regs or what an appurtenance is.
I imagine there is an
I imagine there is an arguement that since the Royal Park roads, as public roads are subject to the road traffic acts, for instance if you use a mobile phone at the wheel in one you are subject to the same law as someone using one at the wheel in Kensington Highstreet, that the interpretation of the bylaw as including peddle cycles might fail because it fails to specifically mention that it applies to peddle cycles as well as motor vehicles contrary to the road traffic laws that generally apply. Particularly in the light of the fact that park regulations specifically mention peddle cycles as one of a group of catagories of road user separate to the catagory it terms as vehicles.
Robert Hardy wrote:
I think you need permission to trade in the park whether using a bike or a motor vehicle
no but did they go speak to
no but did they go speak to legal counsel about it ? probably not because that costs money.
I just want to know from someone legally qualified, and apologies to the Met press office if they are considered to be in that position, that this isnt just the current senior office opinon, which is reasonable,dont get me wrong Im not arguing speed limits must apply to cyclists, Im simply saying once its in the book of law that applies in Royal Parks, until you amend that specific law, that law applies and its been used successfully before so has precedent, and if it only becomes something that the current whim of the person responsible for whether they enforce it or not that its used, thats not a good position to be in surely ?
we dont want to get 6 months from here and find someone new responsible for policing the Royal Parks in the position, who is less cycling friendly & immediately takes a different position.
They probably didn’t engage
They probably didn’t engage counsel, but I expect they cleared the line with in house lawyers. As for legal precedent, magistrates can’t set precedent, so if all the cases have been as that level precedent hasn’t been set.
well lets hope so then, and
well lets hope so then, and Im sure we’ll never hear another word about it…
Awavey wrote:
Seriously, it would probably help if it was taken to a court that could make a definitive ruling.
Huge Kudos to Parks and
Huge Kudos to Parks and Recreation (twitter guy) for the FOI request that weadled this out. Disgusting that the police have been enforcing non-existant laws for years and years because of their irrational hate of cyclists.
Zjtm231 wrote:
It’s odd, given the Police say they have too little resource for too much work, that they extend themselves to assiduously police laws which don’t exist.
So in one article, Police
So in one article, Police shown they can’t prosecute cyclists in Richmond park which seemed to be a great past time of theirs. In another article, a very recent bout of robberies on cyclists including ones on illegal vehicles (electric scooters) in the park according to one victim. Any correlation???