Police warn cyclist about speeding in Richmond Park; Jeremy Vine recruits another impatient driver to the Clown of the Day circus; LTN vandals pour oil over planters; Rapid Tour de France times; World's longest solar bike path + more on the live blog

Well I didn't hear the program but trans people who identify as male but hasn't fully trans would still have a cervix. So when targetting people for Cervical Smears, is it discrimination to state a gender that is not the self identifying one? I suspect the same argument is also for Prostrate Cancer and targetting. So unless you want to ban gender reassignments etc, the head needs a wobble. 

Rick_Rude wrote:

I thought you couldn't be nicked for speeding on a bicycle as such, given that having a speedo isn't a requirement? 

Special bylaw in the royal parks.

Are the Royal Parks private land or not?  I mean - their trustees can pass all sorts of bylaws as if it's private land, but then the police seem able to do their policing as if it's public land...

https://www.royalparks.org.uk/managing-the-parks/policing-in-the-royal-p...

Steve K wrote:

https://www.royalparks.org.uk/managing-the-parks/policing-in-the-royal-p...

Found this on that website

I know I could google and check but:- What 'driving design speeds ' (whatever that may mean) have been found to be acceptable to other park users.

Does a policy statement on Driving in the Royal Parks exist, and were cyclists (as 'other park users' ) consulted and asked for their ideas on acceptable speeds for motor vehicles?

Edit:

No thought not. Plenty of rules and policies about bikes and e-scooters, picnics, demos, scattering of ashes, religious celebrations, but precious little about what must be the biggest danger to life and limb in the park

So if there is no speed limit regulation that applies to cyclists, and the met police are responsible for enforcing regulations, what exactly were they enforcing here?

The cyclist was pulled over on blue lights - I presume the police need genuine grounds for suspicion of some actual, not imagined, infraction before they can do that. Or can they police according to their own prejudice?

Sriracha wrote:

So if there is no speed limit regulation that applies to cyclists, and the met police are responsible for enforcing regulations, what exactly were they enforcing here? The cyclist was pulled over on blue lights - I presume the police need genuine grounds for suspicion of some actual, not imagined, infraction before they can do that. Or can they police according to their own prejudice?

and yet this page

https://www.parkcycle.co.uk/ride-planning/cycling-in-the-park.aspx

states 

"Penalty Notices may apply for not keeping to designated cycling routes or speeding.

Please note that Police Officers are now able to issue Penalty Notices, which carry a £60 fine for a number of offences in the Royal Parks including failure to adhere to the designated cycle routes."

emphasis mine. Nothing like a consistent message to let people know where they stand. Has anyone submitted a FOI request about how many cyclists and how many drivers have been charged with speeding within the park?

wycombewheeler wrote:

"Penalty Notices may apply for not keeping to designated cycling routes or speeding.

I was referring to the source in mikewood's post stating that "Speed limits do not apply to cyclists within the parks..." See his post above.

If there are no speed limits that apply to cyclists in the parks then how do they define "speeding" in the source you link to?

Looking at your link, it's just a Web page for general information. I suspect whoever wrote the text was misguided on that particular point. The word "speeding" is the giveaway, it is just vernacular - there is no actual regulation.

Sriracha wrote:

I was referring to the source in mikewood's post stating that "Speed limits do not apply to cyclists within the parks..." See his post above. If there are no speed limits that apply to cyclists in the parks then how do they define "speeding" in the source you link to?

this is the inconsistency in messaging on the various pages of the royal parks site that I was alluding to.

If the royal parks can't decide whether or not speed limits apply, what chance do cyclists have.

And of course, there is this 

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/london-cyclist-fined-for-speeding...

So the magistrates were convinced that speed limits do apply to cyclists within the royal park, even though the highway code makes clear that on the general highway they apply only to mechanical driven vehicles.

Maybe cycling UK need to step up and get members acquited of all charges, like a certain organisation for taxi drivers.

mikewood wrote:

Found this on that website

I'd like to tink the 8-12mph applies to off road cycle routes and not the roads.

I'm sure drivers who use the park would not find cyclists taking the lane at 12mph to be acceptable.

wycombewheeler wrote:

mikewood wrote:

Found this on that website

I'd like to tink the 8-12mph applies to off road cycle routes and not the roads.

I'm sure drivers who use the park would not find cyclists taking the lane at 12mph to be acceptable.

Found it. The 8 - 12 mph speed is a reference specifically to shared use paths, and specifically not to cyclists on the roads:

"The Royal Parks advocates a design speed for shared use paths of 8–12mph. For roads, design speeds should be appropriate for the designated speed limit. This will impact on the choice of surface material and the delineation of shared /segregated routes."

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.royalpa...

Well spotted!  Your google-fu is strong, young (?) padawan.

Am I the only one that's beginning to think the RP just don't want cyclists there and are just making it up as they go along...?

brooksby wrote:

Am I the only one that's beginning to think the RP just don't want cyclists there and are just making it up as they go along...?

Beginning to think?  Do try to keep up.

eburtthebike wrote:

brooksby wrote:

Am I the only one that's beginning to think the RP just don't want cyclists there and are just making it up as they go along...?

Beginning to think?  Do try to keep up.

I'm so sorry, Burt: youre quite right and i was clearly a bit off my game yesterday...

mikewood wrote:

Steve K wrote:

https://www.royalparks.org.uk/managing-the-parks/policing-in-the-royal-p...

Found this on that website

 

The Royal Parks clearly have no idea what they think.  If you scroll down on this link, https://www.parkcycle.co.uk/about-richmond-park/royal-park-rules.aspx you will find it says "speed limits on the park roads apply to pedal cycles as well as other vehicles".  It then has a link for "full details of parks regulations" and if you follow that you get to the policy statement which you posted, which says they don't.  Clear as mud.

Yeah, but 'bike', innit?

Disproportionate in so many ways:

• policing those less likely to be exceeding the limit;
• policing those less likely to cause KSIs, and creating much less impact force;
• policing those less likely to be polluting the park by exceeding the limit;
• policing those who are not required to carry a speedometer and, if they do, not to have it callibrated to any specific degree of accuracy.

(edited) Read the comments before posting. Read the comments before posting.

Aren't OneLambeth the anti-LTN organisation, though?  I'm sure they'd try and explain away anything as "art" to try and avoid accusations that they're just bunch of polluting NIMBYs.

What does that mean? If you mean he posts lots of cycling content and this is a news and topic conglomeration blog, then yes he will appear alot. The same as Boardman, Cycling Mikey and unfortunately recently Nick "I will get drivers off but want cyclists penalised" Freeman.

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

...recently top lawyer Nick "I will get drivers off but want cyclists penalised" Freeman.

FTFY before Nigel / not Nigel gets here.