Another sunny weekend, another case of a cyclist being intimidated by a motorists in London’s Richmond Park – in this instance, a female rider who was beeped loudly by a driver who was about to overtake her, a disconcerting experience for anyone on a bike.
The footage was posted online by Twitter user The Department for Parks & Recreation, who had been filming motor traffic in the Royal Park.
The tweet prompted a reply from London Cycling Campaign, which urged The Royal Parks to act upon the results of its own consultation and ban through traffic from the southwest London beauty spot.
This system is a choice. We call on @theroyalparks to stop the through-traffic as per their own consultation to prevent this unacceptable intimidation and harassment of park users. No one should be frightened off from cycling in a park https://t.co/1f9yXoPitX
— London Cycling Campaign (@London_Cycling) June 12, 2021
Despite calls from road safety and active travel campaigners for through motor traffic to be permanently banned from the park, earlier this year the Royal Parks confirmed that it was prolonging its trial Movement Strategy there by a further 12 months until March next year.
The trial, which started last August to coincide with motor vehicles being allowed back into Richmond Park after they were excluded during the first lockdown, is aimed at reducing through traffic while allowing access to car parks, although posts on social media regularly show the roads there choked with cars.
In a separate incident, Royal Parks has said that a cyclist was involved in a crash in the park this weekend in which a young deer was killed.
While the age of the animal was not disclosed, some Twitter users questioned whether a cyclist would have come out of such a crash uninjured.
Who witnessed this incident, or is someone making an assumption? I find it hard to believe that anyone who hit a deer hard and fast enough to kill it would have been in any state to walk/ride away.
— Rendel Harris (@Rendel_Harris) June 13, 2021
The post also drew a number of comments critical of cyclists using the park, in response to which one Twitter user linked an article by Friends of Richmond Park which said that human carelessness was responsible for the deaths of around 20 deer there annually, with the article specifically mentioning speeding drivers, out-of-control dogs and littering – but not cyclists.
Who witnessed this incident, or is someone making an assumption? I find it hard to believe that anyone who hit a deer hard and fast enough to kill it would have been in any state to walk/ride away.
— Rendel Harris (@Rendel_Harris) June 13, 2021
53 thoughts on “Video: Richmond Park driver intimidates female cyclist by beeping horn before overtake”
It’s ludicrous that a park is
It’s ludicrous that a park is used for through traffic. I can understand letting vehicles get access to a car park, but block off the through routes so that each car park is only accessible from one entrance/exit.
I hate it when drivers beep “at” cyclists as it’s just bullying behaviour. I’ve had A&S refuse to action a van beeping at me in the past as they couldn’t prove that the van was beeping “at” me (just very close and before overtaking me with no other plausible reason for using their horn).
“It’s ludicrous that a park
“It’s ludicrous that a park is used for through traffic.”
It’s pretty normal as a feature of old, large parks. There are no alternative routes for through traffic which aren’t also completely unsuitable, near Richmond Park.
Never having knowingly been
Never having knowingly been that near the park, but what’s wrong with the roads around the park specifically?
Or why dont the A308, A3 & Roehampton lane provide the same function for traffic ?
Awavey wrote:
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with them, save that they too are clogged up with traffic and depending on where you’re going the routes could be slightly longer.
The park is still much better now than it used to be – restricting through traffic to two sides of the loop has made it far more user-friendly, and I’m sure there are still more families and leisurely cyclists than pre-pandemic. However every time I go I’m overtaken by a number of vehicles doing in excess of 20mph and making risky overtakes, even when I’m cycling at around 20mph myself.
Dave Dave wrote:
That is demonstrably untrue – the Kingston Road – AKA the A3 literally runs parallel to the Southern perimeter of the park – having driven on it on Saturday morning I can confirm it was entirely suitable for my motor vehicle.
Further the A307 makes a very good North/South route from Roehampton. I query what you think a suitable road for motor vehicle is if you think driving through a park is more suitable than driving along an A-road (and the A3 is even dual carriageway for a decent chunk of that stretch!).
Carior wrote:
The A3 runs right through the park, splitting it into two pieces! It’s hardly an alternative route if we’re closing it to traffic!
The 307 is just local suburban high street. There is way too much local/through traffic for the area’s roads to handle. Richmond park is just a symptom.
Dave Dave wrote:
The A3 runs between Richmond park and Putney heath/Putney cemetary/putney common extension. No part of Richmond park is on the south side of the A3. This is quite clear by the lack of any royal parks fancing (identified with the crown motiff) around any of the green space to the south.
But even if you do want to take an intepretation of all green space in south London being part of Richmond park. It’s clear no one is calling for the A3 to be closed.
Stop being ridiculous.
This is not a reason to turn the park roads, which were not designed to be busy thoroughfares into prt of the general road network. Let the symptom of too much traffic be congestion for those insisting on driving private vehicles and not destruction of what should be a quiet green space
You’re maddeningly
You’re maddeningly inconsistent. Why not close the A3 – or at least cover it with a tunnel?
” Let the symptom of too much traffic be congestion for those insisting on driving private vehicles and not destruction of what should be a quiet green space”
Quite. No idea why you’re arguing against that idea.
So called out that the A3
So called out that the A3 doesn’t go right through the middle of Richmond Park so wouldn’t be covered in “banning through traffic” and blames someone else as maddeningly inconsistent?
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
Our fave Dave is consistently inconsistent
Dave Dave wrote:
That doesn’t mean that the roads are unsuitable. It means that the traffic is unsuitable. Which is a different problem, that requires a different solution.
mdavidford wrote:
And it certainly doesn’t mean that, if one road is considered “unsuitable”, we should open up sensitive routes that are even less suitable.
Dave Dave wrote:
The nearby routes only get clogged up because of people using the park as a rat run. The only reason for the volume of traffic on Priory Lane is people who have used RP as a cut through to the South Circular. Likewise Clarence Lane is full of drivers trying to avoid the junction at the bottom of Roehampton Lane.
One of the most offensive sights is isling cars backed up at Roehampton Gate on a winter morning waiting for the gates to open.
You do realise that the only
You do realise that the only time it is legal to use a horn in a car is to warn other road users of your presence i.e. the same as a bell on a bike. The correct headline here is:
Richmond Park driver warns female cyclist they are about to overtake by beeping horn.
Now if the motorist is doing a close pass and basically being a prick, that is different.
I suggest motorist and cyclist alike go read a rather good article about horn use: https://www.iam-bristol.org.uk/index.php/articles/associate-s-guide/33-horn
I came here to make the same
I came here to make the same comment Bill. Glad to find I’m not alone in being reasonable.
Storris wrote:
Bill McLaren wrote:
Thanks for the link.
I don’t really agree with the author’s use of a horn to attempt to overtake two abreast cyclists as most of the time if it’s unsafe to overtake two abreast, it’s also unsafe to overtake two in-line cyclists (does depend on the specific situation, though).
It’d be great if more motorists did use their horns appropriately as I’ve gotten so used to motorists behind me using them as a means of expressing displeasure and often following up with a close-pass that I think I’ve got some mild PTSD from car horns.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Jesus HFC!! is that really from an advanced motorist???
The first paragraph read like Clarkson on bad acid…..
Why would a driver need to
Why would a driver need to “warn” a cyclist (or any other road user) of their presence in this situation? Both were going along the same road in the same direction. Unless the driver was intent on creating one then there was no hazard to the cyclist, the driver, nor anyone else.
The horn is not permission to create a hazard (well, I warned them by sounding my horn, but since they still didn’t get out of my way I was forced to…. what, endanger them?)
Slight aside – years ago, a somewhat timid friend of mine was learning to drive. At a right turn junction (lights, but no actual filter), she was a bit hesitant, and then stalled, resulting in the idiot behind “warning” her of his presence – as if she was not aware already.
Right, said her instructor, I now want you to stall three more times. Just leave the handbrake on!
Sriracha is right – there was
Sriracha is right – there was nothing to warn about unless the driver was intending to make the situation dangerous. A more extreme example I experienced (and submitted on NMOTD and to Sussex Police a couple of months back): https://youtu.be/XkAbPo4PLGU
Appropriate use would be if someone was about to drive into you, or crash into a pedestrian or whatever, in order to give them an opportunity to avoid an accident.
Sriracha wrote:
I interpreted the article’s horn use as a polite request for the cyclists to cycle in-line rather than two abreast.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Which is inappropriate use of the horn.
The article is not very clear
The IAM article (in Bill’s comment) is not very clear about the situation:
“two cyclists were riding 2 abreast towards the brow of a bridge. Unless they changed to tandem it would be impossible to overtake them safely”.
This can be understood in many different ways. It could mean that the road, perhaps a single lane road, is wide enough for a safe overtake but the cyclists use more than half of it, and perhaps it’s a small rural road with rarely any traffic and the cyclists are not aware of the car behind them, in which case it’s fair to alert them and ask them them to make some space (and then overtake them slowly and carefully with enough space).
But mentioning the “brow” could also mean a blind summit so the driver does not want to change lanes as there might be cars coming the other direction. In that case they simply shouldn’t overtake at all but wait. Without more details, we don’t know and I find the example not good for a general text on road safety as people will read different things into it.
In the end, if it’s not safe to overtake, then you mustn’t, and that’s a more fundamental and strict rule than anything about horn use.
Just a with using a bicycle
Just as with using a bicycle bell, for a friendly signal of your approach, best used whilst approaching, not when you are on their shoulder already. I find cycling right up close before ringing my bell tends to startle people, and does not produce the desired result. Do the same with a car horn and people can jump out of their skins – not good if you a cyclist and it is a car on your tail. Anyway, I didn’t see two abreast here, just a single cyclist.
Edit – just realised we are probably talking about different events?
Agreed – I’m more likely to
Agreed – I’m more likely to use my bell from a distance (which doesn’t work as it’s not very loud) and use an “excuse me” close up if my freewheel doesn’t get a response.
Sriracha wrote:
exactly this, driver approaching from behind on clear road, can see nothing coming and is going to pass give a quick bip (less than half a second) so cyclist is not startled by passing driver.
Leaning on the horn for 2 seconds while already right behind the cyclist and they can hear the car and the engine tone change as it begins an overtake gives no benefit.
wycombewheeler wrote:
Something of an understatement…
Sriracha wrote:
I was referring to Bill McLaren’s link and not the Richmond Park incident (which looks to be an incorrect usage of a car horn in my opinion) and I should probably have been more specific.
There is nothing polite about
There is nothing polite about using a horn. I’ve been told it’s rude by motorists when I’ve used an AirZound to warn them not to reverse onto the roadway as I am riding past. A bell is polite but that cannot be heard from inside a car.
as such the only time a horn should be used is to warn against imminent collision, not to bully others out of your way because you think your time is more precious than their life.
Mostly the horn is used to
Mostly the horn is used to draw attention to a driver who is engaged in the act of doing something stupid.
It would be more helpful, and one less thing to be concentrating on, if they could use the horn to warn other road users before they do something stupid.
Mungecrundle wrote:
Nice
The driver is in a BMW. That
The driver is in a BMW. That’s why.
That doesn’t seem to apply to
That doesn’t apply to the video at all… There’s a constant stream of cars, so cyclists certainly don’t need to be “warned” that there is another car coming. And the beep comes from a driver who overtakes against oncoming traffic and then passes too close. The correct action would’ve been to wait for 2 seconds for the long gap in the oncoming traffic and then overtake properly, giving the cyclists wide space, with absolutely no need to “warn” the cyclist.
If you can’t overtake safely, then you shouldn’t overtake at all and not just sound the horn while overtaking dangerously.
Stephan Matthiesen wrote:
You are misinterpreting what a correct “warning” is. I am not talking about “I’m here, get out the way” (that comes under the classification of the driver being a prick as per my first comment), what I’m saying as a very brief tap on the horn a distance back, or if you have been behind for a while then immediately before the overtake, so that a rider is aware of your presense and that you are about to pass is both correct and legal.
The video (to me) is not clear enough and there is no sound, what I can make out is the rider looking back just before the driver starts to overtake so, I’m guessing, the driver correctly made the cyclist aware with the horn at that moment. Yes I get the impression that the gap was too small and they passed too close BUT as I said the video is from too far away and no way of knowing if they lent on the horn as they went past.
I do exactly the same as hawkinspeter when I’m on the bike. When I’m in the car I’ll either tap the horn or flash the lights for a split second before overtaking anything if I’m in any doubt they know I’m there (the exception being over taking a horse where the horn could startle it even from 50 yards away).
Bill McLaren wrote:
Are we looking at the same video? The one in the article has clear sound, the horn is audible at about 42 seconds and it’s pretty clear that there’s a lot of traffic and it’s not an empty road where a warning might possibly be useful.
Also the horn is followed by a close pass and a horn is no excuse for a close pass, no?
Ah, there are actually two
Ah, there are actually two different videos… But in both, the horn appears inappropriate to me….
Bill McLaren wrote:
That’s usually the excuse. I can usually tell that they mean to be helpful when it’s a pip-pip, but even then it’s unnecessary.
My blanket request would be that drivers don’t do it. Cyclists can be a bit like horses and are easily startled. I know you’re there, and I have every faith you are going to overtake safely and legally – just carry on and do your thing with minimum fuss please.
…and moreover, if they are
…and moreover, if they are overtaking with a clear 1.5m margin, where is the need to “warn” anyone? One more time, you don’t need to “warn” anyone that you are about to do something safe and ordinary.
Unless you truly believe that the cyclist is likely to veer 1.5m into your path, what is there to warn about?
Bill McLaren wrote:
The hazard in this article is the approaching motorist. The author suggested to the driver to sound the horn – which is only to be used to warn of danger – to warn of a danger that he was entirely able to negate. The author states that it might not even have been possible to overtake them riding two abreast – so it clear is not a safe situation overtake them if they were to single out. It is actually the perfect time for a pair of cyclists to ride two abreast.
Given that IAM is always going on about defensive driving, you would think their members might know a thing or two about defensive cycling, but clearly not.
The only reason I can see to
The only reason I can see to use the horn there is if the cyclist wobbled and looked like they were moving out at just the wrong moment. I doubt that happened, but I’m only getting a video too grainy to see.
As for general use of the horn, while it’s not in the Highway Code, there is a convention that ‘beeeeeeeeep’ is what you do when someone’s doing something wrong/dangerous, and ‘pip-pip’ is what you do to communicate.
Also, I’ve had cars where the horn buttons were so badly placed – yes, Rover group, I’m, talking about you – I’d accidentally hit them embarassingly often. V, v, unlikely in this case, but it’s surprising how often you see someone do it, making themself jump.
Bill McLaren wrote:
Long blast like that, yep, we’re in your “different’ case. A quick toot to say “you may not be aware I’m here” is not what we see in the video.
Clearly the cyclist just wasn
Clearly the cyclist just wasn’t being respectful enough and sharing the road properly…
Cyclists aren’t allowed to
Cyclists aren’t allowed to share the road. We don’t pay road tax so aren’t allowed on them.
Hitting a deer must hurt…I
Hitting a deer must hurt…I hit a person once, and that wasn’t a pleasant experience. Some teenager ran from a bus shelter without looking, and right in front of me. I didn’t have time to brake, and he got up and ran off after, while i was still lying in the road…Little shit.
Jenova20 wrote:
Clearly less than true, otherwise the media reports would have been deafening.*
*May contain multiple buckets of irony.
It really annoys me when a
It really annoys me when a motorist sounds their horn when they are up your arse, the shock of the sudden noise makes me jump so much it’s a wonder I haven’t fallen off and ended up under their wheels. I swear, one day I’ll cycle up to a car with an open drivers window and suddenly yell BIKE in the driver’s ear, let’s see how they like it.
rate driver -hg09foj
rate driver -hg09foj 😀
ive done almost the same thing youve described when filtering past stationary traffic, i point left and yell SINGLE FILE! or ”use the bus service i paid for!”
if motorists are allowed to yell about bike lanes at cyclists for slowing them down, then it works the other way around.
Let’s be honest, the only
Let’s be honest, the only vehicles on the road that need to warn you of their presence are emergency vehicles. Horns have fuck all practical use for anyone else.
Truffl3Shuffl3 wrote:
Quite, and when sirens are deployed it’s rarely when they are right be-f*cking-hind you. You (usually) know they’re coming for miles
I can think of very few
I can think of very few occasions in nearly 40 years of driving. Once when the driver of the vehicle in front at traffic lights put it into reverse and once on the M25 where vehicle in the slip lane looked like it was going to merge into the side of my car and due to not being in the right place I had no real option to slow or change lane.
Other than that just the normal hooting and waving at friends in the street.*
*That last bit isn’t true, but there are plenty of drivers who think that is a correct use.
Been a long time since I last
Been a long time since I last did a lap of the park, late 90s. Rode a lot of laps in the 8os-90s.my thoughts then are the same now.the park should be one way single file narrow car lane and a dedicated bike lane.strategic closing of access gates to traffic in rush hour with one way system would leave access for all that need it and make the park a much friendlier space for all.my 2p worth.
Nice to see my tweet up there
Nice to see my tweet up there, lots and lots of cycle hate on Twitter with people saying there you go, that’s the sort of bastards cyclists are, hit a deer and leave it to die. I’ve now had confirmation from the RPS that the cyclist in fact called them and informed them of the incident and they sent gamekeepers who found the fawn dead where it had crawled into the bracken; I’m assuming the cyclist, having picked themselves up, couldn’t see where it had gone and so quite rightly called the authorities. I’ve asked Royal Parks why they decided to go with the inflammatory “He then left the scene” rather than the true “He informed the proper authorities.”
Rendel Harris wrote:
That is pretty duplicitous of them. From what you are saying they only found the fawn because they had been informed by the cyclist, so there is no element of mis-timing here. It is difficult to put an innocent construction on their twitter output. “…left the scene” is a knowingly loaded phrase.
There was also this:
[I]With regards to the collision on Broomfield Hill yesterday, following the incident the cyclist left #RichmondPark [b]and contacted @theroyalparks call centre to report the matter. [/b]We encourage park users to contact park staff ASAP so they can assist injured wildlife if possible.[/i]