Plans to introduce a 10mph speed limit on a section of Richmond Park have been criticised by local cyclists, who claim that people on bikes will be unable to comply with the proposed restriction while riding downhill.
According to the Richmond Parks Cyclists organisation, which aims to represent all types of cyclists and para-cyclists who use the London park, a meeting of the Safer Parks Police Panel on Wednesday revealed that The Royal Parks – which manages several parks in the capital, including Hyde Park, Green Park, and St James’s Park – is intending to introduce a 10mph speed restriction on the road between Broomfield Hill car park and Robin Hood Gate roundabout.
The group, which said it was not consulted on the new measure, criticised the change, which is set to be implemented on a sweeping, hilly section of the park which currently features a 20mph limit.
“It seems unlikely that many cyclists will be able to comply with this restriction descending the hill, even if they try to,” Richmond Parks Cyclist wrote on social media.
“Speed differentials are likely to increase and the road is likely to become more hazardous.”
However, the group said that it will “keep an open mind” until it has discussed the matter with the park’s management.
> Cyclists in Richmond Park face crackdown for ‘speeding’ – even though limits do not apply to them
The new speed limit comes less than a year since The Royal Parks warned bike riders who do not observe speed limits in the parks under its management that they will be subjected to a crackdown – including fines and even prosecution – for recklessly endangering others.
Despite cyclists technically not having to adhere to speed limits on roads in the park, as bicycles are not required by law to be fitted with a speedometer, the agency said in August last year that they were nevertheless expected to observe those limits on the “park, road, or path in question,” and could be fined if they were believed to “intentionally or recklessly interfere with the safety, comfort, or convenience of other visitors”.
“The Royal Parks is currently reviewing and updating its regulatory signage to ensure cycling and other behavioural messages are communicated clearly to visitors,” a spokesperson said at the time.
“We are reviewing our signage, and we are currently planning how we can revise it, to deliver clearer and more visible information. Enforcement of park regulations is a matter for the Metropolitan Police Service.”
The Metropolitan Police added: “We acknowledge that while most visitors who cycle in the park are law-abiding, a small minority are not and their behaviour is an issue of concern for the wider public as well as other cyclists.
“We work closely with The Royal Parks as we enforce safe cycling across the parks, so all visitors and wildlife can enjoy the parks safely. To this end, we recommend that cyclists use the signposted limits as a guide for appropriate speeds.”
> Metropolitan Police confirm cyclists in Richmond Park are not subject to speed limits
Following last year’s apparent crackdown on ‘speeding’ cyclists, the news that descending cyclists will be subject to a 10mph speed limit has not gone down well online.
One cyclist called on The Royal Parks to “get on with removing the actual road danger instead of wasting time on this”, while another said that “they should first enforce the 20mph speed limit inside Richmond park, a lot of people drive faster than that”.
The cyclist continued: “Even better, they could stop the park being used as a motorway between Kingston and Richmond. Cycling is good for society, they should promote it, not make it harder.”
57 thoughts on “Cyclists blast proposals to introduce 10mph speed limit on Richmond Park hill”
“The Metropolitan Police
“The Metropolitan Police added: “We acknowledge that while most visitors who cycle in the park are law-abiding, a small minority are not and their behaviour is an issue of concern for the wider public as well as other cyclists.”
While I agree that the small minority of cyclists are a hazard to other people, not much of one, especially when you consider that they are just as likely to come off worse in any collision, so the risk they pose to others is very small. Maybe the police and the Royal Parks could address the far larger risk posed by drivers who break the rules? Unless they are just anti-cycling of course.
While 20mph is probably reasonable, 10mph sounds like they are just trying to wind up cyclists. Are they bringing this in to celebrate the coronation or something?
eburtthebike wrote:
The 20mph limit was supposed to safeguard the deer that live in the park and have not mastered the green cross code. Obviously deer Vs car is dead deer.
I suspect that most deer will hear motor vehicles and avoid using the fear response. However a few don’t which is a Royal Parks safeguarding fail.
Bicycle only roads could be a different problem since a noisy rear hub and free wheeling down hill can not be relied upon.
As said before the 20mph limit is frustrating when 30mph can easily be done downhill though hitting an adult deer would be a significant trauma for a cyclist. Clearly a brake test from 30mph on a wet road might end badly without that collision.
I agree that 10mph is just removing an otherwise car free training opportunity.
I have no data for this other than personal experience so let’s hope that Royal Parks will do the study required to provide an evidence based rationale for any changes.
I’ve only heard of a single
I’ve only heard of a single case of a cyclist hitting a deer in the park, and I believe it was later found to be one that was already injured, probably by a dog attack, and disoriented. Purely anecdotal but I must have done literally tens of thousands of miles round the park in the forty-odd years I’ve been riding there and not once come close to having an incident with a deer. Unless Royal Parks have some compelling reasoning that I can’t imagine this looks very like yet another one of their pointless anti-cycling policies; after all before the current traffic restrictions were implemented during the pandemic half a dozen deer were killed each year by car drivers, where was the 10mph limit for them?
I’m also curious as to how they think they will enforce any new limit, given that they were forced to admit a year or so ago that the speed limit laws in the park cannot be applied to non-motorised traffic.
If it saves one deer………
If it saves one deer………
Surely the Royal Parks should be making the deer safe by fitting them with hi-viz and helmets?
eburtthebike wrote:
Don’t deer wear head protection for some of the year anyway?
I’ve heard of several, more
I’ve heard of several, more deer hitting cyclists though, but given the amount of miles ridden in the park it is still very low. Just avoid rutting season.
rct wrote:
Yes, I’ve looked it up now and there seem to be a couple of incidents a year, which I must admit surprised me; no mention in the figures of whether or not that’s deer running into cyclists or maybe deer spooked by cyclists being injured running away. Certainly not as many as are killed by cars. Of course all vehicle-related and dog-worrying deaths are minuscule compared to the 200-odd deer Royal Parks cull by shooting every year, bringing them in a healthy £50,000 from venison sales. There is actually an alternative to this as effective contraceptive vaccines for deer have been employed to limit herd numbers elsewhere, so until Royal Parks start employing this method (as has been suggested to them by numerous people, including me) I’ll take any claims that they are imposing restrictions on cyclists because they care so much about their deer with a pinch of salt.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Honestly, until the consumption of all meat is banned, I am far less concerend about deer roaming free in the Royal Parks, and then being harvested for meat, than factory farming alternatives.
I’m not sure that sterlising a large percentage of the herd is beneficial for the genetic health of the deer population either.
Whether or not it’s desirable
Whether or not it’s desirable or ethical to use the deer population of the park as a meat source is down to one’s personal principles; personally although I don’t eat meat myself I agree that free roaming deer killed with a single shot is a better alternative than factory farmed/abattoir slaughtered meat. I believe the genetic question would be fairly easily solved by alternating the deer given the contraception, it’s not sterilisation, it’s more like the human contraceptive pill in a once-a-season shot so a female that doesn’t breed one year can still breed the next. Anyway, I was really just pointing out the inconsistency between the Royal Park’s justification (if it is indeed their justification) for imposing new rules on cyclists to protect the deer when they plan to slaughter a substantial part of the herd each year when there are alternatives available.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Maybe deer killed by cyclists (and cars) is essentially lost stock. But they are not quite ballsy enough to admit that is the reason.
Please drive carefully in the park, you are reducing our revenue from meat sales wouldn’t go down well with the population.
Although the who;le story is bizarre, 20mph is safe enough, but the cyclists responding “it’s not easy to stick to 10”, sounds a bit too much like drivers saying “it’s almost impossible to stick to 20mph”
wycombewheeler wrote:
It isn’t the same though, is it?
Cars can easily be driven at or below 20mph by picking the correct gear.
Bikes can also be easily ridden at or below 10mph in most circumstances, but if I am on a descent that includes sections of -10% gradient I want to be keeping my focus on the road ahead of me (both traffic and surface), not constantly worrying that my speed might have crept over 10mph.
And that is without once again pointing out that bikes are not generally fitted with properly calibrated speed measuring devices.
Jetmans Dad wrote:
Shurely it’s the same with bikes? Just pick the correct (fixed) gear – hey presto, you’ll *really* know when you’re above 10mph!
Bonus – now holding 15mph is a real workout!
It feels like it’s the same
It feels like it’s the same type of complaint though, especially when you say the issue is youre left focusing on the speed.
When the reality is you know what 10mph looks & feels like on a bike and youd just to have to be on the brakes the whole time.
Which is the real issue, because you can damage your brakes doing that. I rode down an 11% hill on the brakes trying to keep 10-15mph because I wasnt confident of the road, worried about the bike running away from me and oncoming traffic and stopping in time at the bottom where a T junction meets with a major road.
And you could smell the brake pads burning and the disc turned a lovely shade of blue till it cooled down. You dont want to be trailing the brakes like that on such a hill, that’s why speed limit should be challenged, in terms that arent just copying motorists language when it comes to 20mph zones being uncompliable because they cant drive that slow as they focus on the speedometer.
rct wrote:
Yes, ruts always make steering difficult
It’s great to see the Met per
It’s great to see the Met per usual focussing its record number of officers not on the tens / hundreds of thousands of daily road offences across London (phone use, speeding etc) that present an immediate risk to vulnerable road users…. but instead wasting their time on an imaginary risk on a stretch of road closed to traffic.
I was going to reply that the
I was going to reply that the Royal Parks had their own police – but on consulting PC Google, found out this hasn’t been true since 2004, following a review by Anthony Speed. Presumably, he’s Anti for short.
http://www.royalparks.org.uk/managing-the-parks/policing-in-the-royal-parks
Dnnnnnn wrote:
It’s quite interesting, after I had a run in with a parks policeman (who accused me of something I hadn’t done and who was officially reprimanded and given retraining on the basis of my video) I was told by a policeman friend that before the Parks Police were incorporated into the Met they were well known as a place for those who had failed the Met’s selection procedures. When they were absorbed into the Met these rejects became Met officers by the back door; according to my friend they were well known for ineffectiveness and incompetence, and I must say most of my interactions with them have borne this out (to be fair I have met some brilliant ones as well, possibly those who joined after 2004?).
Rendel Harris wrote:
Do tell.
eburtthebike wrote:
Accused me of swearing at a dog walker, which as you can see from this video ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFFsrDNYUOk ) wasn’t the case…full apology from his super, warned as to future conduct, note placed on record and sent for extra training.
Thanks. He’s obviously had
Thanks. He’s obviously had the anti-cyclist training.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Isn’t that the incident that one or more of our trolls got themselves very worked up about?
Yes, Marty and Nigel got
Yes, Marty and Nigel got together to agree that it was disgraceful the way I was “bullying” an innocent policeman who was only (and “correctly”) upholding the law…
Wouldn’t a 10mph speed limit
Wouldn’t a 10mph speed limit require consent from the Secretary of State, who probably regards speed limits as “woke”. Or is it different because it’s a Royal Park?
I dont see a 10mph limit as
I dont see a 10mph limit as uncompliable for cyclists, even if it eats brakes, my concern would be more will any of the motorised traffic be held to the same standard and obeying this given most of them say 20mph is impossible to drive at ?
even if it eats brakes
even if it eats brakes Well, I have now fitted the excellent SKS/ Bluemels 20″ mudguards to the Halfords Intercity (Good bike, but you can’t get decent tyres). This makes the bike useful again, and I am reminded of how good these El Cheapo Tektro hydraulics are! These disk brakes don’t get eaten!
If you’re running 20″ rims
If you’re running 20″ rims there are plenty of tyres to choose from. The new Michelin BMX tyres are really great. I’ve been running the Maxxis DTH tyres also on my 20″ BMX and they’re really popular too, nice and grippy and they cope well with road riding.
If you’re running 20″ rims
If you’re running 20″ rims there are plenty of tyres to choose from
A misconception shared by many, including Halfords. The required tyre is ERTO 451, about 35mm width. Your suggested tyres aren’t- they’re probably 406. Halfords hasn’t even heard of ERTO and lists tyres without telling you the proper size- it’s a safe bet they haven’t got any, even for their own brand bikes, which the Intercity is. SJSC does have a 28-451, but I need a higher volume tyre. It’s all in here
Interesting – so it has odd
Interesting – so it has odd wheel sizes!
In summary, the original duff
In summary, the original duff tyres on the bike don’t display the ERTO size, so I didn’t know and had to go on the useless 20 x 1 3/8 descriptor. Halfords didn’t know either and supplied replacements for 406
I think he has the almost
I think he has the almost-impossible-to-find 20″ ETRTO 451s, not BMX standard 20″ ETRTO 406s…
Correct! The tedious detail
Correct! The tedious detail is below!
Awavey wrote:
Im mostly inclined to this. With a side order of – of all the ways to object to this – WTF were the RPC thinking?
This isnt the first time they have come up with an odd take either…
That section of the park is
That section of the park is closed to motor vehicles. It’s a steep, winding downhill. It would take constant braking to stay within a 10mph limit.
I climb that hill generally at least once a week. I see people descending it very fast. I find their speed a bit scary sometimes. But a 10mph limit is just silly, frankly.
It might be silly, annoying,
It might be silly, annoying, pointless and all the other adjectives to describe it’s stupidness, but uncompliable it isn’t.
I guess most riders will just not use that route anymore, or just ignore the speed limit, which is doubly annoying if its traffic free as it pushes them back to areas with traffic, but also no doubt boosts the antis view that cyclists dont follow the rules
Awavey wrote:
The only real alternative would be to truncate the lap by riding across from Ham Gate to Robin Hood Gate past Pen Ponds, but that involves using a shared path and goes through areas more favoured by deer (for the record I’ve never seen deer on Broomfield Hill, they prefer the flat pastures) so that would be pretty counter-productive in terms of pedestrians/wildlife safety (never seen a pedestrian on the road on Broomfield Hill either, as I mentioned elsewhere, there is a broad well-gravelled path to the side).
I agree, of course it isn’t impossible to comply with such a limit but it does have a maximum gradient of 12% so it could be pretty painful on the hands to try and hold the bike back below 10 mph, especially for heavier riders.
I have seen deer on the
I have seen deer on the flattish bit at the bottom of Broomfield and occasionally grazing to either side of the hill, but not often and not in the large groups you get alongside Sawyers. And never walking on the steep bit of the hill. And as others have said you don’t get many pedestrians on the road up Broomfield, the footpath is much nicer.
I think trying to enforce a 10mph speed limit on any of the main RP roads would be ludicrous; you can’t have a limit which applies only in one direction, and as most of them involve a descent of some sort, you’re asking people to cycle pretty slowly in a situation where braking could be as dangerous as allowing sensible descending under control. I did some loops on Saturday and the park was full of cyclists of all types, all managing to happily and safely co-exist on Broomfield and elsewhere. The only issue I had with what was generally a lovely ride was the drivers overtaking me only to then have to slow because there was a slower rider ahead; the drivers overtaking me despite the fact there were cyclists going the other way on the other side of what are quite narrow roads; and the drivers overtaking me when I was doing around 20mph. Motor vehicles remain the principal danger and annoyance in the park.
This road is currently
This road is currently completely closed to car traffic and there’s an excellent walking path going down the side, precisely whom would a 10mph limit be protecting? I admit I’m biased because I learned quite a lot of my descending skills on that very bend forty years ago and still enjoy revisiting it as I pass through the park, but this seems to be utterly unnecessary.
As a regular to the park
As a regular to the park (cycing and on foot) I wold agree that this section is pretty rare to see pedestrian on the road (even since it closed) as it’s steep and doesn’t have many connecting paths.
I’m not sure what the issue the Royal Parks are trying to address here.
thereverent wrote:
REMOVE ALL CYCLISTS!
😉
There does seem to be an
There does seem to be an element in the Royal Parks that would like that (probably to make there life quieter from the small but vocal nuber of people who constantly complain about cyclists in thepark).
I’m sure that they wouldn’t
I’m sure that they wouldn’t introduce such a controversial measure without statistics on injuries caused by various methods of transport within the park to back it up. Perhaps a local rider could ask for details?
Seems pretty straightforward:
Seems pretty straightforward: restrict motorised vehicles to 10mph, and cyclists are offenders if they persistently overtake cars which are not in a stationary/ very slow moving queue- naturally, a cyclist is exonerated if he is overtaken by a motorised vehicle in the same section. I now see that Rendel says there aren’t any motor vehicles on this section.
Remember, the police refuse to accept that any cyclist is ever going over 10mph when it’s a question of whether it’s illegal to cross the unbroken white line while overtaking a cyclist? (clue: in Lancashire, it’s always legal in any circumstances because there is no known method of assessing the speed of a cyclist)
Seems to be the quick
Seems to be the quick downhill section shown on the attached …
Without braking, speeds of 30mph can be reached.
Two nice bends would require commitment at that speed.
This section is banned to cars which is much safer than a few years ago, when a descending rider would encounter cars overtaking cyclists uphill where the road is narrow.
Currently there are lots of danger signs advising riders to slow.
What puzzles me is what difference a 10mph limit would make given the current 20mph limit is rarely enforced.
Whatever the rights and wrongs, surely spot checks with a radar gun would be more effective?
Great park! If I was a
Great park! If I was a cyclist there, I would be campaigning for a cyclists only tarmac surface circular route where you can travel fast, same speed limits for cyclists and motor vehicles on routes where MVs allowed, and cautious slow cycling when pedestrians about
Here is a likely scenario:
Here is a likely scenario:
Police (or more likely park warden gimp) – Stop!
Cyclist – Why?
Police – You’re speeding, so I need to issue a fine.
Cyclist – under what law?
Police – erm, the park states you can’t do more than 10mph.
Cyclist – can you point me to the actual LAW that states that?
Police – erm, I need your details.
Cyclist – Why? Have I commited a crime? The law states I am not bound by the speed limit in this park as I don’t have a speedometer.
Police – Erm, um. no. but….
Cyclist – Sorry, I have no reason to show you any ID as I am not under suspicion of commiting a crime. Good day. Oh but please do try and pay attention to the stream of cars going well over the actual real posted speed limit. Im sure that is within your capablilty.
I think that the parks can
I think that the parks can set their own rules’n’regulations – they don’t have to have a traffic control order in place, so there’s no law to point at.
But they cannot issue a fine
But they cannot issue a fine if they cannot confirm your ID
And you are not obliged to give it unless they have a reason to belive you have broken a law or about to
Most of the time the Royal
Most of the time the Royal Parks need an act of Parliament to change fairly simple things. For example they want to introduce car parking charges (logcial and needed) but are waiting for Parliamentary time to pass the act to enable this.
You can see some of the acts herehttps://www.royalparks.org.uk/managing-the-parks/park-regulations-legislation-and-policies
brooksby wrote:
They do have their own rules and regulations but they are set by Parliament and they had to admit a couple of years ago that the local bylaw setting the speed limit at 20 mph does not apply to unpowered vehicles. Knowing Royal Parks and their attitude towards cyclists fairly well I can guarantee that if there was a way for them to impose limits on cyclists without Parliamentary permission they would have done it by now.
Rendel Harris wrote:
OK, fair enough – I’d misunderstood. I didn’t appreciate the RP had to go to Parliament for new powers: I thought they could just make them up as they went along…
as long as they are stopping
as long as they are stopping drivers for going over 10mph (which will be all of them).
But since they will not be fining everyong breaking the speed limit down that hill, the proposal is unworkable.
As a few others have pointed
As a few others have pointed out and nicely shown in a map posted by @jaysa, this section of the road it totally closed off to traffic. It is vastly safer than it used to be with cars (again as pointed out by others). The Strava segment (“Broomfield Descent – Weeeeeeee”) shows some 127,720 people having descended it and 13,424 this year already. Of those 13,424, 13,383 when down faster than 10mph (16km/h), that’s 99.7%. The top part is over 10% and a nice smooth road so even the lightest cyclist on a badly maintained bike is going to hit 50km/h (30 mph) unless they seriously ride the brakes.
Sure it’s dangerous, you have deer wondering into the road from time to time, the occasional idiot cyclist weaving across the road on the way up because it’s too steep. The edge of the road has wooden stakes in it would would rip a body appart if you hit them at almost any speed.
However, mixing cyclists descending at 10mph or even 20mph (32km/h) would present an unbelevably dangerous risk to those of us who descend at 50+km/h (>30mph).
I’ve been down that descent 190 times in the last few years (Strava recorded), I’ve NEVER seen a speed trap on it. I’ve had to call an ambulance twice, once due to a lost car trying to do a 3-point turn and a cyclist hit it and ther other for a roller-skater who went too fast and came off. I’ve seen deer in the road often enough to make me double check every time.
The police tend to speed-trap cars, and extremely occasionally bikes, on Sawyer’s Hill Descent (north side going CW) and “Blitz” (West side going ACW). Both descents are on roads shared with cars. Generally the cars are pretty well behaved, many cyclists overtake the cars because you’re going down at 50km/h+ and the cars generally stick to 20-25mph (32-40 km/h). It gets dangerous when there are on-coming cars overtaking cyclists in the oposite direction. I’ve spoken to the police many times when they’re out with radars (I’m the curious chatty type). They are looking for idiots not speeders, people endangering others, they are there to enforce not make the rules.
As always, it’s the occasional nutter doing 40+mph in a car who is creating the largest risk to others. A few well place cameras would sort almost all of them out and leave the police to more useful work.
I think the 10mph limit would just show how detached the “law-makers” are from reality. Put cameras on the gates and do an average speed checks and it will generate vastly more revenue, stop speeders and perhaps some of the crime there too (i.e. bike thefts).
jtdavies wrote:
Might stop the trades vehicles coming through too, a rule which seems to be pretty much ignored at present.
I’ve also done 190+ descents
I’ve also done 190+ descents of Broomfield with average speeds ranging from 23.9 kph (14.9 mph) up to 47.1 kph (29.3 mph).
No idea why the slowest is so slow, it was in 2021 so the road was closed to traffic, and it was sunny – I guess I must have been behind someone else. I was at about 39 kph at the weekend when it was busy and both times I went down I was behind slower cyclists, including a child one time, so was keeping wide and careful while not infringing the route of those ascending. I’m on a carbon road bike with rim brakes and I’m not the most confident descender, but I’m comfortable on Broomfield because I know it so well. I suspect the same would go of an awfully high proportion of those coming down that hill.
This is a bit of a pointless
This is a bit of a pointless debate . There is currently a speed limit of 20 mph and no one follows that at the moment on that hill . Plus it will only apply to most going down as there will be very few who manage to average over 10mph up hill . I suspect though that they are thinking of reopening that section to cars hence the new speed limit . It was significant that they haven’t consulted the local cycling group . There is a local election coming up and someone has twisted an arm .
This is the key point, which
The key point, which is reasonable.. cyclists could be fined if they were believed to “intentionally or recklessly interfere with the safety, comfort, or convenience of other visitors”. The police are unlikely to be fining cyclists by using speed detection devices.
grOg wrote:
That could be very problematic as the police may well be racist and will use their “judgement” in a discriminatory fashion.