Charity that runs London parks wants new laws to prosecute cyclists for breaking 20mph speed limit in Regent's Park and Richmond Park

Even though the tragic death can't be overlooked the police report at the time stated that the victim stepped off the pavement without looking when the cyclists were ~7 feet away.

Even if the group of cyclists had been doing 20 the victim would still have been knocked over and in all likelihood would likely have suffered similar injuries.

And even though the cause of the accident was the failure to look before crossing by the pedestrian, the royal parks are now taking it upon themselves to further restrict cycling whilst seemingly doing absolutely nothing about the tens of thousands of vehicles that pour through Richmond Park every day using it as a cut through from Kingston to Richmond.

mctrials23 wrote:

If it wasn't so stupid it would be funny. Cyclist kills a pedestrian and we have a national issue on our hands that needs addressing. Driver kills an entire family and its just a blip on the local news for that area. The fact this is reality is quite mind boggling. 

Motonormativity.  Four wheels good, two wheels bad.

Better remove the deer while they're at it...

alexuk wrote:

 It would only be a matter of time before a peleton of fast moving weekend warriors smash into a bunch of kids on bikes, or some slower cyclists or a pedestrian and someone loses their life

Why would it only be a matter of time? Cyclists have been training in the park ever since I've been riding there (more than forty years) without speed limits being applied and presumably were doing so long before that and as far as I'm aware nobody has been killed by a cyclist in the park. There is ample provision on the trails all round the park for kids on bikes, pedestrians et cetera and they don't mix with the cyclists on the road, there is no more reason there should be a fatal cyclist/pedestrian incident in the park than there would be on any public road, in fact there is less reason due to the aforementioned segregation of users.

I'm sure someone said the same about Regents park. Its always a matter of time.

alexuk wrote:

I'm sure someone said the same about Regents park. Its always a matter of time.

Firstly, Richmond Park and Regent's Park are two entirely different entities, the roads in Regent's Park have pavements on both sides and numerous crossing points, Richmond Park has pedestrian paths completely separated from the road and people only tend to cross the roads outside the car parks. Secondly, everything can be said to be "a matter of time", it's only a matter of time before an asteroid hits Richmond Park and wipes out everyone in it but it's not that likely that precautionary measures (compulsory hard hats?) need to be introduced. Richmond Park was fully opened to the public in 1872 and the first safety bicycles went on sale in the next decade, so people have been cycling around the park for nearly 150 years without killing anyone. Thirdly, the pedestrian death in Regent's Park was caused by a pedestrian stepping out in front of a cyclist when they were just a few metres away and if he had been travelling at 20 mph the result wouldn't have been any different, so it has no relevance as evidence for imposing speed limits on cyclists.

I'm not comfortable with that as an excuse, if a pedestrian stepped out in front of a car that was within the speed limit, I'm not sure we'd be happy to blame the pedestrian,regardless of whether the law did naff all about it.

We'd expect, some might even demand, the driver to have spotted the specific risks first, like the HC encourages you to do, and there are specific examples around elderly pedestrians waiting to cross roads on the test, and drive accordingly, so why can't we expect to cycle in the same way ?

Just out of common respect for others using the park, I'm not ok with the but there's no speed limit on bicycles so I can ride how the damn well I like attitudes a minority of cyclists seem to have adopted.

And see this last weekends latest Telegraph hit piece for how it gets portrayed to a non cyclists community

stonojnr wrote:

I'm not comfortable with that as an excuse, if a pedestrian stepped out in front of a car that was within the speed limit, I'm not sure we'd be happy to blame the pedestrian,regardless of whether the law did naff all about it. We'd expect, some might even demand, the driver to have spotted the specific risks first, like the HC encourages you to do, and there are specific examples around elderly pedestrians waiting to cross roads on the test, and drive accordingly, so why can't we expect to cycle in the same way ?

If the pedestrian stepped out when the car driver was about 2 m away I would have no qualms about saying that it was their responsibility, however tragic the consequences. As far as I understand this incident, the pedestrian had crossed to a halfway island in the road and was standing there waiting for the cyclists to go by when she inexplicably, whether from bad timing or confusion or whatever, stepped straight into their path. It's important to note that the incident did not take place on a marked crossing, this wasn't like cyclists or motorists blasting through a zebra or a pelican. If the cyclist has looked up and seen someone standing on a traffic island who has clearly stopped and is waiting for them to pass then proceeding through is perfectly acceptable and indeed standard procedure as far as I know, I've never had cars stop for me to cross when I'm on a traffic island and there is no painted zebra or controlling lights, have you? I don't believe it's even suggested in the highway code that a driver/rider should do this. The only reference is to rules for pedestrians, Rule 7d: "If traffic is coming, let it pass. Look all around again and listen. Do not cross until there is a safe gap in the traffic and you are certain that there is plenty of time." 

Also - as per "whatabout applying the same comparison as you would a car/driver" while the cyclists had upped their kinetic energy and reduced their reaction time (faster speeds) they had not:

Equipped themselves with hard metal exoskeletons and increased their mass by a factor of 15 - 20, or increased their effective width making it more likely they would hit things in front of them.

Reduced their vision with side-pillars or their hearing by being within a metal box. *

Added to any other problems by scattering quantities of particulates everywhere and being inactive.

* Of course your practical ability to observe will be affected by your body position and at speed wind noise affects your ability to hear.

Listen to yourself. You can see the same argument being made by motorists: "Pedestrians and Cyclists are not allowed on the motorway, so we should be able to go as fast as we want!". Sometimes, just sometimes, read your words back to yourself and reflect on what you're saying and thinking.

As per usual in this community; "The cyclist is always Jesus and does no wrong, everyone else is to blame and everyone else has a responsibility - we don't!"

Encouraging us to cycle through Richmond park at a considerate speed (20mph/32kph) to protect ourselves and others, its not a lot to ask, as long as its policed with widsom and exceptions are made for events, etc.

To re-iterate: I think cars should be banned/heavily restricted for access to the park.

alexuk wrote:

As per usual in this community; "The cyclist is always Jesus and does no wrong, everyone else is to blame and everyone else has a responsibility - we don't!"

Leave that poor strawman alone - what did it ever do to you?

alexuk wrote:

Listen to yourself. You can see the same argument being made by motorists: "Pedestrians and Cyclists are not allowed on the motorway, so we should be able to go as fast as we want!". Sometimes, just sometimes, read your words back to yourself and reflect on what you're saying and thinking.

The irony of you telling other people to think about what they're saying when you come up with this rubbish is very strong. You haven't addressed the point at all that for well over a century people have been cycling around Richmond Park perfectly safely without problems and without killing anyone and without being speed limited. It's no good you clutching your pearls and shrieking "it's only a matter of time before someone is killed!" - 120 years of something not happening is quite a big evidence base that it's unlikely to happen. There are already laws in place to deal with cyclists that ride recklessly and dangerously and nobody, least of all me, has any objection to the police using them to control those who need controlling, in fact I would welcome it. However, there is no evidence that a speed limit in Richmond Park is necessary or will do anything to improve safety, so the proposal is simply a knee-jerk reaction to a tragic incident (which, incidentally, the law did not blame on the cyclist) in another park where the circumstances are entirely different. 

Nice "As per usual in this community the cyclist is always Jesus" nonsense, most reminiscent of a number of other trolls who have infested this place in the past.

It's only a matter of time before it all goes Lethal Weapon, Pocahontas and Braveheart put together. Great actor, that Mel Gibson bloke. He's a keen cyclist, dontcha know. I was stuck in a lift with him once. He owes me a fiver.

It's like Mad Max out there - people are afraid to leave their houses!  The parks are lawless!

(from Bicycle Dutch, see also here on the same place).

Having said that I believe there was a pedestrian death from a collision with a cyclist about a decade ago in Central Park in NYC ([collision], [death]).  They also had a 25mph speed limit there which they lowered to 20mph (and it being NYC, police are happy to do occasional crackdowns).

Not to be flippant about unnecessary deaths but with a safety record like that, the city should have been begging for fast cycling everywhere instead of driving.

If there are sufficient cyclists that this is a real concern, perhaps everyone should be lobbying to build more dedicated cycling facilities?

It's only a matter of time before a giant asteroid strike wipes us all out, so... er... what was the point again?

Dammit - Rendel got there before me. And everyone knows asteroids never strike the same place twice.

Given enough time, I'm sure they do.

It is an interesting question. Speedometers have not always been a requirement for motor vehicles. Cars registered before they were mandatory (1937) can still be driven on the road but the speed limits would still apply. As far as I can tell speedos for motorcycles only became compulsory in 1984, but you still don't need one to pass an MOT, and speed limits also apply.

Interesting reply - the motorbike rule might suggest responsibility is on the rider to inform themselves and make sure they meet speed regs (ignorance is not a defence). That would mean cyclists in Regents Park would need a speedo or they'd be risking it based on thier own perception of speed. 

Boopop wrote:

Can't wait for the free Garmin Edges, Karoo, Wahoo etc devices along with speed sensors being given out at all entrances to London Parks.

You won't need one.  They'll simply prosecute cyclists who overtake the cars which will all be travelling below 20mph.