Speed limits in Richmond Park do not apply to cyclists, according to the Royal Parks, which manages the southwest London beauty spot as well as several other parks in the capital and Windsor Great Park.
The confirmation, in response to a question raised on Twitter last month, will hopefully put an end to confusion on the issue, with a number of cyclists having been fined in the past for riding in excess of a speed limit which applies only to motor vehicles.
Cyclists are not subject to speed limits on the public highway, but the special status of the Royal Parks, with separate bylaws in force, has muddied the waters, particularly in Richmond Park, which is hugely popular with road cyclists, particularly at weekends.
Indeed, as far back as 2013, after reports of cyclists being fined in Richmond Park, road.cc’s John Stevenson undertook a lengthy dissection of the regulations, coming to the conclusion that “there’s grounds to fight a cycling speeding fine in Richmond Park” – although some have been fined since then.
> Are police fining ‘speeding’ cyclists in Richmond Park exceeding their authority?
Seeking clarification on the issue, on 2 September, Twitter user The Department of Parks & Recreation – who regularly posts pictures of cyclists being pulled over by police in the park for alleged speeding – asked the Royal Parks in a post: “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
(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.”
Tim Lennon, convenor of Richmond Cycling Campaign, told road.cc: “We’ve long suspected that cyclists in the park should be following the same rules as outside the park.
“We do receive complaints about cyclists speeding, the reality is that the vast majority of cyclists in the park are moving at a safe pace, and riding appropriately for the conditions.
“We love the Park, and it was awesome to see it being enjoyed by so many people during lockdown.
“The quicker Royal Parks act on their stated strategy to have a park for people rather than cars, the better,” he added.
We’re aware through social media that cyclists do still get pulled over by police in Richmond Park for breaking a supposed speed limit that has now been confirmed as not applying to them.
So, if you do ride there, it may be worth saving the letter from the Royal Parks FOI Officer to your phone, just in case you need to produce it if you are stopped.
64 thoughts on “Richmond Park speed limits do not apply to cyclists, says the Royal Parks”
Not sure if this is going to
Not sure if this is going to clarify the situation on the ground…it may well cause more arguments or debate – whether with drivers or police….
So are they going to rush out
So are they going to rush out and refund all those wrongly applied speeding fines?
brooksby wrote:
Either that, or rush out and fine all the participants in the London Duathlon. It must be one or the other.
Anyone know if the ride
Anyone know if the ride London’s had special dispensation for the days. I suppose they did due to the Surrey classic later in the day.
It’s closed roads for both
It’s closed roads for both events, speed limits don’t apply
I think they’ll still keep
I think they’ll still keep handing out tickets if you’re going 30mph into oncoming cyclists on the steeper hills but I will enjoy skimming past drivers while I’m gogin 25 mph (at least past the small minority that stick to the 20mph limit)
lukei1 wrote:
where does the 20mph figure come from? The legislation says:
Or have I got my wires crossed?
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/1639/made
Edit: oh, I’ve found the answer…
https://road.cc/content/news/95155-are-police-fining-speeding-cyclists-richmond-park-exceeding-their-authority
Please note that this advice
Please note that this advice is wrong. The person from the Royal Parks writing this letter is mistaken. The regulations do not mention motorised vehicles, only vehicles – which includes bicycles. The Metropolitan Police enforce the Royal Parks and Open Spaces Regs. The Royal Parks weeds the gardens. The police view on this is that cyclists are subject to speed limits, and they have reported several cyclists to court who have been successfully prosecuted for speeding. Please correct this article.
For a fuller analysis see
For a fuller analysis see
https://road.cc/content/news/cycling-live-blog-1-october-2021-286745
It’s not b&w as you claim.
I’m sure the police have a view doesn’t mean they are right. They are not lawyers after all.
Unfortunately, it is black
Unfortunately, it is black and white. I am one of the police officers who work in the Royal Parks and we do report cyclists for speeding. We are not lawyers, as you correctly point out, but every single case we have reported to court has been successfully prosecuted, so the lawyers and magistrates do agree with us.
Thanks for the clarification.
Thanks for the clarification. It beggars belief and speaks to the self-entitlement of some cyclists that they believe speed limits don’t apply to themselves, especially in a mixed use area such as Richmond Park.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
A) The roads in Richmond Park aren’t mixed use (except the parts that have been closed off since Covid, where in my experience 99% of cyclists are being extremely sensible), they are roads, there are paths and trails for walkers, joggers etc along the side of all of them;
B) Do explain how a cyclist without a speedo is supposed to know if they’re doing 19 or 21? That’s the exact reason that speed limits don’t apply to cyclists, it’s not “self-entitlement” but the law.
Rendel Harris wrote:
B) Do explain how a cyclist without a speedo is supposed to know if they’re doing 19 or 21? That’s the exact reason that speed limits don’t apply to cyclists, it’s not “self-entitlement” but the law.— Rendel Harris
A) That is the definition of a mixed-use carriageway.
B) That isn’t a matter of law, it’s a matter of you assuming something that suits your case. If there are speed limits in parks applicable to cyclists, then cyclists in those parks need to fit a speedo – if they’re going fast enough to be worried about breaching them.
You can’t just imagine what the law ‘ought’ to be. You need to look up what it actually is.
Now, bring on the attack dogs; when you lot round here don’t like the facts, you usually attack the messenger. Your vituperous bile doesn’t change the facts, though.
Dave Dave wrote:
Do show me the law (not Park regulations, UK or English law) that applies speed limits to cyclists. You can’t, because there isn’t one. You’re the one who’s “just imagning” what the law is when it doesn’t exist.
Rendel Harris wrote:
If you can’t even read what I wrote and understand it, the chances you’ll read and understand anything law-related are basically zero.
Want to try again? I made no assertions as to law. I merely debunked your incorrect assertions.
“I know but I’m not telling
“I know but I’m not telling you and I’ve proved you wrong anyway even though I haven’t said anything” – brilliant, not heard that sort of thing since primary school.
By the way the definition of a mixed use carriageway is one where the pavement or walkway directly abuts the roadway. In Richmond Park the pathways are always a minimum 2m, usually more, from the roadway, so it’s not mixed use.
Rendel Harris wrote:
What are you babbling about? I explained to you why something you said is wrong. It is still wrong. You’ve imagined some other assertions I didn’t make at any point. Those may well be wrong too, but, crucially, they’re _only in your head_.
And that is simply not the definition of ‘mixed-use carriageway’.
https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/urban/cycling/guidance-cycling-projects-eu/cycling-measure/mixed-use-zones_en#:~:text=Mixed%2Duse%20zones%20(or%20shared,%2C%20motorised%20vehicles%2C%20or%20both.
“Mixed-use zones (or shared spaces) are designed to encourage different modes of transport to coexist on the same roads and public spaces. This can include cyclists mixing with pedestrians, motorised vehicles, or both.”
As I said, you can’t just imagine your own facts, or guess what the law ‘ought’ to be based on your own assumptions.
Dave Dave wrote:
And in Richmond Park, outside the closed areas introduced for Covid, cyclists do not mix with pedestrians on the road, as I said, the pedestrian paths are always 2m+ off the road, so by your own kindly-supplied definition, it is not a mixed-use roadway. Thank you for shooting yourself in the foot.
No further responses to you from me I’m afraid, because a) you’re trolling and b) as Professor Dawkins said, don’t argue with an idiot, the best you can hope for is to say you’ve won an argument with an idiot.
Rendel Harris wrote:
You must be able to read. Why won’t you? You’re talking about something which is there in black and white a few lines from where you’re writing. Mixed-use zones are roads where _traffic_ and _cyclists_ share space, as well as various other mixtures.
Dave Dave wrote:
By that interpretation, mixed use zones covers nearly every road in the country. Wheras mixed use is conventionally applied to areas where pedestrians and vehicles co-exist. On reflection I think your statement would be correct if the word pedestrians were swapped with the word cyclists, but then of course it would not help your argument that the roads in Richmond Park are mixed use zones because cyclists share with drivers.
there isnt a specific
there isnt a specific speeding law that applies to cyclists as such you are right, but there are certainly laws that can be used against cyclists who are considered to be speeding, section 28 & 29 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 as an example, and some lawyers do argue the wanton and furious cycling, the one Alliston and others have been successfully prosecuted on, could be used for speeding alone, though its really only been used when a cyclist hits a pedestrian and injures them.
For point B, can you confirm
For point B, can you confirm a legally calibrated Speedometer that can be fitted to a bike that could be trusted to be telling the correct speeds. Most are based on wheel circumference so if the tyre is blown up or deflated more then normal, it will throw it out. Or if the cyclist changed from 25’s to 28’s the same thing could happen. Then I you have the weather issues as apparently I was doing speeds of 80mph plus. And don’t say gps instead as heavily wooded areas throw that out as well.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
Whether or not such a device exists has no relevance here. But in fact speedometers of reasonable accuracy do exist, and should be calibrated conservatively, just like car speedos, and recalibrated as necessary when o/d changes significantly.
This is basic common sense, not rocket surgery. If you voluntarily ride (fast) in the one place in the country where you need a speedo (when riding fast), then buy a bloody speedometer.
So as any bike can easily do
So as any bike can easily do above 20 mph going downhill, every bike needs a regularly calibrated speedo. Sounds like every bike will also need an mot and insurance soon as well.
They won’t prosecute Joe
They won’t prosecute Joe Bloggs cruising down the hill at 22mph just like they wouldn’t a car.
However wannabe Ganna, head down on his TT bike doing 30mph is going to get the book thrown at him. In fact I’d hope TT bikes are banned from the royal parks entirely.
Hope that helps.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
Only bikes being ridden that fast in Richmond Park. The rest don’t need to worry.
So a kids bike, my mrs town
So a kids bike, my mrs town framed ebike, my hybrid bike and any other bike that can do over 20 mph on one of the downhills in Richmond park needs a fully calibrated speedo. Thanks for the info.
thats touch unfair IMO, as
thats touch unfair IMO, as there is a clear issue about the specific wording of the speed limit regulations in Royal Parks, that leaves it unclear and open only to what a “reasonable interpretation” of the word vehicle really means in law and whether that technically still covers cyclists in this case. Normally the law as its applied to vehicles only applies to motor vehicles, and theres been case law that backs that view up.
so its not unreasonable for cyclists to say well based on that precedent, those speed limit regulations in the Royal Parks dont necessarily apply the way theyve been written.
but I dont think its sensible to assume they dont at all, and certainly not just because the Royal Parks twitter account says they dont, because as jmaccelari points out, the police can still issue you a speeding fine, because that speed limit regulation is still on the books, it hasnt disappeared just because a Royal Parks twitter account says it doesnt apply anymore & just leave it to a court to decide what the reasonable interpretation of vehicle really means, though we dont know anyone defending one of these speeding fines has ever used the bicycle isnt a vehicle as a defence.
regardless its all rather dancing on the head of a pin, as even if you felt the speed limit didnt apply, you could still be prosecuted for wanton & furious cycling, or even careless/inconsiderate cycling for riding at a speed that the police felt wasnt in keeping with the situation or conditions, and theres no vehicle get out clause on those.
so my advice would be to use a footballing cliche, dont give the referee a decision they have to make because youll likely get sent off, just stick to the speed limit.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
It seems both the royal parks and the police have now confirmed speed limits do not apply. Awareness oif the law is now to be considered self entitlement.
jmaccelari wrote:
I think you (or rather your force) should take this up with the Royal Parks and make sure a clear statement is put out. It can’t be in anyone’s interest to have official erroneous statements in the public domain.
We have, but unfortunately,
We have, but unfortunately, the RP does not seem to inform all of its staff and they issue these kinds of statements without asking the police.
You can’t report a cyclist
You can’t report a cyclist for speeding. There is no FPN offence for speeding on a bicycle like there is for a car.
The police can report a cyclist for careless/dangerous cycling, in which speed was a factor. But it’s unlikely they would be successful in court for speed alone. Especially if they had no speedometer on the bike.
Did you read the analysis in
Did you read the analysis in the other thread?
What is being done about dangerous drivers who speed, close pass and ignore no entry points in the park?
Has nothing to do with this
Has nothing to do with this story does it?
The headline says “Richmond Park speed limits do not apply to cyclists”. The policeman has confirmed that isn’t correct.
jmaccelari wrote:
Any idea what charges they were prosecuted for? Was it reckless cycling or something else?
Given the response to the fi
Given the response to the fi request it now sounds as if someone now called to court over the issue would have a stronger defence than previously perceived, and unless the issue is tested in more senior courts, what actually is the Law rather than habitual legal custom has not yet been established. Aside from that there is a section of the cycling community who are an absolute menace, and I am very happy to see them restricted to 20mph on a road that many young and elderly people have to routinely cross. My experience is that that section of the cycling community is far less likely to slow or stop to allow you to cross the park roads than many motorists! Hopefully through cars will soon be banned and motorists and cyclists perhaps limited to a more sociable 15mph maximum. It is somewhat laughable to see the argument that cyclists can’t be expected to know their speed when the chief offenders are tooled up with a vast collection of performance sensors and analysers.
It doesn’t matter what tech
It doesn’t matter what tech the serious amateurs use. The requirement to know your speed would apply to those who get an old bike out the shed once a year.
I’ve been riding and walking
I’ve been riding and walking in Richmond Park since I was five years old, which means, God help me, nearly 50 years. I honestly can’t recall seeing any incidents between pedestrians and cyclists (before Nigel rushes to Google, yes I’m sure there have been some, but I haven’t seen them, whereas I have seen plenty of incidents between pedestrians and motor vehicles and cyclists and motor vehicles). The whole issue of cycling speed is an absolute red herring, created in the usual anti-cycling brigade way of “I think that this is a safety issue so it must be, no matter what the evidence shows.” The most significant danger to health and well-being in Richmond Park, as well as the most significant factor limiting people’s enjoyment of the park, is the heavy motor traffic. It has been demonstrated during Covid, when sections of roads have been closed off, particularly between Roehampton gate and Richmond gate, that cyclists, pedestrians, joggers, scooterists, rollerbladers, families pushing prams et cetera can all peacefully coexist in the space available when there is no motor traffic there. It’s all been rather lovely in fact, and in maybe 30 visits in the course of the pandemic I think I’ve seen three or four cyclists behaving stupidly in those areas, and they have all been roundly castigated both by myself and other cyclists.
This was on the Royal Parks
This was on the Royal Parks website as late as July this year. May have changed since….
mikewood wrote:
That may be what they claim, but if so they are simply wrong.
The actual legal position is
The actual legal position is not unclear. It is:
“4. Unless the Secretary of State’s written permission has first been obtained, no person using a Park shall— […] (28) 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 to these Regulations;”
This may be bad drafting, it may be unintentional, but it is not unclear. ‘Vehicles’ is a broader class than ‘motor vehicles’. It includes bicycles, scooters, and so-on.
For example:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/powered-transporters/information-sheet-guidance-on-powered-transporters
“3. What law applies to the use of powered transporters?
“There is no specially-designed legal regime for powered transporters. This means that they are covered by the same laws and regulations that apply to all motor vehicles.
“The definition of “motor vehicle” as set out in the Road Traffic Act 1988 is “any mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on roads”. There is case law confirming that powered transporters fall within this definition (see section 8 of this information sheet).”
The discussion there concerns whether these vehicles are motorised. There is no suggestion they are not ‘vehicles’.
It is abundantly clear that ‘vehicles’ includes bicycles. It is therefore equally clear that the law _as it stands_ regarding speeding in Royal Parks applies to cyclists, scooter riders, skateboarders, and so-on. The presence of other clauses which make more specific prohibitions does not alter the meaning of the broader prohibitions.
This is, IMO, probably rather a stupid drafting error, and regardless of the cause, a stupid bit of legislation which ought to be changed. Until it is, though, there really isn’t any sensible argument to be had about what it means – and the results are not ridiculous or nonsensical, so there are no grounds for a judge to overturn the legislation. It means what it appears to.
Dave Dave wrote:
The point was made on the other discussion that one section of the regs have vehicles in one subsection and cycles, skateboards etc in another sub-section. The fact they are listed separately could well lead to the interpretation that vehicles in those regs does not include cycles etc. So I’m not sure it is clear as you suggest.
No, it’s not clear.
No, it’s not clear.
I have read and applied various SIs in my working life and am familiar with their construct.
It’s clear an argument can be made on the wording and format as you describe.
The fact that people have been prosecuted is only relevant if in each case the defence highlighted the different subsections and the court ruled against it.
It is also abundantly clear that bicycles are not treated as vehicles in certain situations eg with regard to zebra crossings.
It is not an offence to overtake a cyclist within the zigzags of a zebra crossing but it is for a motorised vehicle.
So the claim that it is not for debate is lacking in substance.
hirsute wrote:
I’m with you. And not only have I read and interpreted SIs in my working life, I’ve also instructed lawyers on writing them (and writing primary legislation too). But I’m sure Dave Dave knows better than either of us.
Steve K wrote:
Well, I know that you’re both talking bollocks. There is no legal principle of the type you are trying to cite. There is a legal principle that you’ve both got upside down and inside out.
Vehicles is a broader category than ‘motor vehicles’. It includes all vehicles, including bicycles.
You are attempting to argue that because bicycles are elsewhere referred to specifically, they are not included in the broad category. In one place they are referred to specifically to define a much narrower category which has additional restrictions. That does not remove them from, or contradict, the broader categorisation.
You are both apparently thinking of a weird mashup of at least two of these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_interpretation#Textual_Canons
Dave Dave wrote:
Well, I know that you’re both talking bollocks. There is no legal principle of the type you are trying to cite. There is a legal principle that you’ve both got upside down and inside out.
Vehicles is a broader category than ‘motor vehicles’. It includes all vehicles, including bicycles.
You are attempting to argue that because bicycles are elsewhere referred to specifically, they are not included in the broad category. In one place they are referred to specifically to define a much narrower category which has additional restrictions. That does not remove them from, or contradict, the broader categorisation.
You are both apparently thinking of a weird mashup of at least two of these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_interpretation#Textual_Canons— hirsute
Genuine question – what’s your experience or expertise in interpreting legislation?
Steve K wrote:
My ‘experience or expertise’ is sufficient to avoid the fallacy of ‘argument by authority’ 🙂
This one really isn’t hard and one doesn’t need to be an expert. Words can be assumed to take their plain meaning; an attempt to interpret them otherwise faces a fairly high bar.
Wanting the law to be something it isn’t, and indulging in wishful-thinking interpretations as a result, is very common. This is a classic example. ‘Oh, this half-remembered, half-related legal principle suits my case’ won’t begin to outweigh ‘the legislation says the opposite’.
So no expertise, then. I’ll
So no expertise, then. I’ll stick to my and hirsute’s view that it is at the very least arguable.
Steve K wrote:
Grow up. You sound like you’re about 12. Despite your increasingly dubious claims earlier, I judge your ‘expertise’ by what you’ve said – and it’s very obvious you have none.
You’ve repeatedly asserted something for which there is no legal basis, and haven’t come up with anything that supports it, any kind of evidence, any kind of further argument. Just a dimly remembered thing you ‘feel’ must have some weight even though you can’t say how.
I, on the other hand, have presented a prima facie case you haven’t actually disputed in any way other than with the above assertion. I’ve included various references to demonstrate the truth of various points.
But you can’t actually judge for yourself whether I’m right or wrong, because you have no legal expertise whatsoever, so you’re insisting on an appeal to authority.
If I now claim to be the Lord Chief Justice will you decide I’m right? Or at least finally admit what a stupid request that was?
Dave Dave]
No you haven’t. You’ve just asserted you are right. And yes, if you were a lawyer, I would give more weight to your view of the legal position. That’s what a reasonable person would do – you are the one acting like a child.
I wouldn’t bother if I were
I wouldn’t bother if I were you, DD’s MO appears to be to state what he claims are facts and then when asked for provenance say he won’t provide it because the person who challenges him is either too stupid to understand them or mentally ill. He’s done that a number of times this weekend alone.
He’s just a fantasist anyhow.
He’s just a fantasist anyhow.
Previously claimed as a pedestrian to remove a cyclist from their bike because he considered they were in danger. ie assaulted them
Removed car keys from a motorist and threw them away.
Oh yeah, I remember! Not a
Oh yeah, I remember! A rather strange individual.
You lot argue like anti
You lot argue like anti-vaxxers – which apparently several of you are. I’m done.
Translation:
Translation:
I can’t come up with an argument and put it forward in a reasonable manner so I’m going to be rude and insult people and play the man instead of the ball.
BTW the only person who seems to be anti vax is cyclistpreviouslyknowas who did get a bit of flack from Rendel his postion.
Dave Dave any comment now the
Dave Dave any comment now the police have confirmed speed limits dont apply?
Dave Dave wrote:
Prima facie means that on first impression there appears to be sufficient evidence to support a case. It does not mean, as you quite clearly believe it does, a clear or incontrovertible case. Don’t try it with the $10 words when you don’t know what they mean, it’s embarrassing.
Steve K wrote:
The point was made on the other discussion that one section of the regs have vehicles in one subsection and cycles, skateboards etc in another sub-section. The fact they are listed separately could well lead to the interpretation that vehicles in those regs does not include cycles etc. So I’m not sure it is clear as you suggest.[/quote]
I have read that notion, discussed it, and disputed it. It doesn’t make a lot of sense.
“The presence of other clauses which make more specific prohibitions does not alter the meaning of the broader prohibitions.”
Where they are referred to in specific terms, bicycles are treated as a specific subcategory of vehicles. That does not remove them from the main category when it is referred to broadly.
You are trying to make the argument that the law does not mean what it appears to mean on first interpretation. Whilst I understand where you’re coming from, the law is pretty clear, and you’re reaching. No-one in their right mind would defend a speeding ticket on this basis, given the risks and costs of losing.
Dave Dave wrote:
But they’re not. In the section being referred to, quoted on the other thread, they’re treated as a separate category to ‘vehicles’.
mdavidford wrote:
You’ll have to quote that. I don’t see anything of the sort.
Dave Dave wrote:
Well, it appears that the
Well, it appears that the police have now understood the separation of definitions in the regulations:
https://twickenham.nub.news/n/police-admit-cyclists-should-not-be-prosecuted-for-speeding-in-royal-parks-%E2%80%93-raising-doubts-over-previous-court-action
Nevertheless, for those who have been prosecuted in the past, to recover their apparently unlawful fines and any compensation, they would still have to appeal through the courts and convince the appropriate authority that the case was, indeed, unlawful.
This amounts to a change in enforcement policy, not a court-recognised confirmation of the law.
Must be fake news from anti
Must be fake news from anti vaxxers.
I have no interest in Mousers
I have no interest in Mousers, from Texas Instruments. I will NEVER take a cycling tour with PedalTripr. Not do I care what Cricut makes. I have no interest in Tableau, Wayrite’s shitty clothes, Chubb insurance, or Nicorette FFS.
I subscribed to road.cc to help you make it a better site: ad free to subscribers. When are you going to fulfil your side of the bargain?