# Richmond Park idiots.



## Racing roadkill (18 Sep 2018)

I was just talking to someone about the route I tend to use, to get into London. He was talking about the fact that the Met are responsible for policing the speed limits. That reminded me of an incident that happened a few weeks ago as I was riding through. I passed a rider on the climb up to the top of Sawyers hill, as I did, he muttered something under his breath, and tried ( but failed ) to catch me up. As I was getting to the top, and heading for the descent to the exit, I clocked a fully marked police car, coming in the opposite direction. I was then very careful to watch my speed on the descent. Who comes barrelling past me, overtaking the car in front of me in the process, at well over the speed limit, in the full knowledge that there are police about? That’s right, the guy I passed climbing the hill a few minutes earlier. Personally I wouldn’t do what he did, even if there wasn’t a speed limit there, and plod about, just because of the deer, if for no other reason. It did make me chuckle.


----------



## southcoast (18 Sep 2018)

I used to regularly ride and train around Richmond park, many years ago when it was a still 30 mph speed limit. What gear ratio where you using to climb sawyers hill?


----------



## I like Skol (18 Sep 2018)

Racing roadkill said:


> I passed a rider on the climb up to the top of Sawyers hill, as I did, he muttered something under his breath, and tried ( but failed ) to catch me up.


Cool story bro


----------



## Racing roadkill (18 Sep 2018)

southcoast said:


> I used to regularly ride and train around Richmond park, many years ago when it was a still 30 mph speed limit. What gear ratio where you using to climb sawyers hill?


52-23, for most of it, and 52-30 as I got near the top.


----------



## cosmicbike (18 Sep 2018)

I agree it can be full of idiots, especially Sunday mornings which is why I avoid the place. And 'Sawyers Hill' isn't _really _a hill, more of an undulation...


----------



## jefmcg (19 Sep 2018)

I don't understand why they are idiots. Do police regularly speed check vehicles coming towards them while they are moving? It's theoretically doable, but is it a thing? It would require recording the exact speed they are travelling at and adding it the simultaneous radar recording.

As for deer, assuming it was daylight, coming down Sawyer's Hill, you have a panoramic view. Unless there are deer close to the road, or moving towards the road, it's pretty safe to assume you can let it rip. The biggest risk is - on a Sunday afternoon - parents coming back from the ballet school approaching the roundabout at the bottom of the hill from your right. Also cyclists, at any time. Deer, not some much, unless they a visible from the top or with plenty of warning as you ride down.


----------



## slowmotion (19 Sep 2018)

At quieter times, when the team kit hordes have gone home, Richmond Park is great fun. The biggest hazard that I've found is the ridged tarmac as you descend Broomfield Hill at speed. Your teeth rattle and your eyeballs wobble in their sockets. People regularly go down there at speeds approaching 40 mph. I haven't, but I confess to not sticking to anything like the 20mph limit.


----------



## shirokazan (19 Sep 2018)

[QUOTE 5385782, member: 9609"]can you be done for speeding on a bike?[/QUOTE]

My knowledge may be out of date, but you can't be done for speeding in itself: the speed limits shown on signs only apply to motorised vehicles. But as you say, you might be prosecuted for "cycling furiously". See https://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/cycling-offences


----------



## mustang1 (19 Sep 2018)

I'm gonna get an e-bike and goto Richmond park .I'm going to troll all those cyclists and watch them call me a "cheater".


----------



## Ian H (19 Sep 2018)

I may be wrong, but I thought there were specific by-laws concerning cycle speed limits in Richmond Park.


----------



## si_c (19 Sep 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> Speed limits only apply to motor vehicles, so you can't be "done" for speeding on ordinary roads. But there are, or may be, some specific speed limits that apply inside some parks. I've read that on here, so it may not be true. Richmond Park may or may not be one such.
> 
> The police could still pull you over for speeding and give you a talking to, and generally make your life uncomfortable. Even worse, a passer by may see you and be almost-killed by you, and will angrily rush to the nearest phone in.


Royal Parks (of which Richmond Park is one) have additional statutes such that they specifically treat pedal cycles the same as other road vehicles, and they are consequently subject to the same speed limits.


----------



## Oldfentiger (19 Sep 2018)

How can a speed limit be enforced on a vehicle that has no legal requirement to be fitted with a speedometer?


----------



## Mugshot (19 Sep 2018)

si_c said:


> Royal Parks (of which Richmond Park is one) have additional statutes such that they specifically treat pedal cycles the same as other road vehicles, and they are consequently subject to the same speed limits.


Do the speed limits apply to The Queen as they're her parks? I assume she can ride her bike as fast as she likes around them.


----------



## Milkfloat (19 Sep 2018)

Oldfentiger said:


> How can a speed limit be enforced on a vehicle that has no legal requirement to be fitted with a speedometer?



They use a radar trap, they don't look over your shoulder at your Garmin at 30 mph. Being serious, you are responsible for ensuring that you are within the law and you must take reasonable care that you comply with the law - for example, by fitting and using a speed measuring device, or simply by riding slowly. 

It is still not clear if speed limits do apply in the parks to cyclists, people have paid fines for it. See https://road.cc/content/news/136752...-break-speed-limit-–-because-it-doesn’t-apply


----------



## I like Skol (19 Sep 2018)

Oldfentiger said:


> How can a speed limit be enforced on a vehicle that has no legal requirement to be fitted with a speedometer?





Milkfloat said:


> They use a radar trap, they don't look over your shoulder at your Garmin at 30 mph. Being serious, you are responsible for ensuring that you are within the law and you must take reasonable care that you comply with the law - for example, by fitting and using a speed measuring device, or simply by riding slowly.



THIS^^^ It isn't hard and the police are not going to be interested in someone accidently exceeding the limit by a couple of MPH and have better things to do so may just 'have a word'. However, if you cycle like a complete Worzel at excessive speed and then argue the toss when stopped I am sure they will take great delight in throwing the book at you.


----------



## Cycleops (19 Sep 2018)

Milkfloat said:


> They use a radar trap, they don't look over your shoulder at your Garmin at 30 mph. Being serious, you are responsible for ensuring that you are within the law and you must take reasonable care that you comply with the law - for example, by fitting and using a speed measuring device, or simply by riding slowly.
> 
> It is still not clear if speed limits do apply in the parks to cyclists, people have paid fines for it. See https://road.cc/content/news/136752-royal-parks-says-jeremy-vine-didn’t-break-speed-limit-–-because-it-doesn’t-apply


I'm sure any competent brief would have a lot of fun with that if it ever came to court and you wanted to contest it.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (19 Sep 2018)

[QUOTE 5385782, member: 9609"]I think there is a pedalling furiously[/QUOTE]
No, there's no such offence.
There is the offence of furious or wanton driving but that requires that someone suffers bodily harm as a consequence. Without that there's no offence and it's got nothing to do with the rate of pedalling in any case.


----------



## booze and cake (19 Sep 2018)

si_c said:


> Royal Parks (of which Richmond Park is one) have additional statutes such that they specifically treat pedal cycles the same as other road vehicles, and they are consequently subject to the same speed limits.



This was my understanding, that as its a Royal Park it has some by-law that makes cyclists fair game for fines. I've just cycled around Battersea Park (not a Royal Park) and there are signs there saying its a 12 mph speed limit but this only applies to motor vehicles, and I've cyclist past many a copper at much faster than that and they don't bat an eyelid there. 

Richmond is a different kettle of fish, I don't go to Richmond anymore as its full of cyclist nobbers riding like douchebags trying to beat PB's. A popular challenge across other forums is to try and do 3 laps in under an hour, which as 3 laps is about 20 miles it means averaging over 20 mph for the whole 3 laps, so there's literally 1000's of cyclists trying to beat this every day. The police hide with their ray gun at the bottom of Broomfield hill where it is very easy to do 40mph, but over the course of a lap there is only really 2 or 3 places where cyclists can easily exceed 20mph, and only briefly. I've seen numerous cyclists pulled over before but not once have I ever seen a motorist being fined, it just strikes me as a waste of police time. There are definitely more pressing things the police could be dealing with, but traffic seems to be seen as a cash cow these days, and the fines seem more to do with income generation than any concerns over safety.


----------



## simonali (19 Sep 2018)

I think the police only do what generates the least paperwork or whatever is least likely to cause them work related stress. Poor snowflakes.


----------



## Pale Rider (19 Sep 2018)

booze and cake said:


> This was my understanding, that as its a Royal Park it has some by-law that makes cyclists fair game for fines. I've just cycled around Battersea Park (not a Royal Park) and there are signs there saying its a 12 mph speed limit but this only applies to motor vehicles, and I've cyclist past many a copper at much faster than that and they don't bat an eyelid there.
> 
> Richmond is a different kettle of fish, I don't go to Richmond anymore as its full of cyclist nobbers riding like douchebags trying to beat PB's. A popular challenge across other forums is to try and do 3 laps in under an hour, which as 3 laps is about 20 miles it means averaging over 20 mph for the whole 3 laps, so there's literally 1000's of cyclists trying to beat this every day. The police hide with their ray gun at the bottom of Broomfield hill where it is very easy to do 40mph, but over the course of a lap there is only really 2 or 3 places where cyclists can easily exceed 20mph, and only briefly. I've seen numerous cyclists pulled over before but not once have I ever seen a motorist being fined, it just strikes me as a waste of police time. There are definitely more pressing things the police could be dealing with, but traffic seems to be seen as a cash cow these days, and the fines seem more to do with income generation than any concerns over safety.



Are these parks-only police?

Something rings a bell from my time in London that the Royal parks have their own coppers.

If so, they probably haven't got anything better to do once they've ensured the Queen's deer are not being poached.


----------



## booze and cake (19 Sep 2018)

@Pale Rider not as far as I know, they just seen your regular cops to me, they don't wear different uniforms or have special park vehicles, so we wouldn't be able to differentiate them even if they were. But if they are based in the park all day that sounds like a proper cushy posting.... hey lads, its ice cream and donut o'clock again.


----------



## Pale Rider (19 Sep 2018)

booze and cake said:


> @Pale Rider not as far as I know, they just seen your regular cops to me, they don't wear different uniforms or have special park vehicles, so we wouldn't be able to differentiate them even if they were. But if they are based in the park all day that sounds like a proper cushy posting.... hey lads, its ice cream and donut o'clock again.



Seems the Park Keepers had the powers of a constable up to 2004, when the Met took over.

So when I was there in the 1980s it probably did look like the parks had their own police force.

Policing is now done by the Royal Parks OCU - Met-speak for operational command unit.

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


----------



## nickyboy (19 Sep 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> This is a bit of an old saw.
> 
> _*If*_ the speed limit legally applies to someone and _*if*_ that someone is measured exceeding the speed limit with legally acceptable equipment (properly calibrated etc) then they can be prosecuted, whether or not they have a speedometer. Saying "but I don't have a speedo, I didn't know I was speeding" would prove to be a rather poor defence.
> 
> Edit. Ooops. Cross posts with several above. I didn't notice the thread had a second page.


I think, more generally, that trying to wriggle out of a speed limit isn't the way to go.

There is a decent downhill not far from me that is 20 limit due to the presence of a school. If I exceed the limit and hit a child while cycling of course I won't do as much harm as a car. But it still isn't going to be pretty. So I stick to the limit

Trying to argue that I'm not required to have a speedo etc so limits dont apply strikes me as poor form. You're on the road so obey the limit


----------



## Oldfentiger (19 Sep 2018)

nickyboy said:


> I think, more generally, that trying to wriggle out of a speed limit isn't the way to go.
> 
> There is a decent downhill not far from me that is 20 limit due to the presence of a school. If I exceed the limit and hit a child while cycling of course I won't do as much harm as a car. But it still isn't going to be pretty. So I stick to the limit
> 
> Trying to argue that I'm not required to have a speedo etc so limits dont apply strikes me as poor form. You're on the road so obey the limit


My previous post, regarding the absence of a speedometer:
My reason for posting that was because I was told by a friend (who is a police officer in Traffic) that a cyclist cannot be prosecuted for exceeding a speed limit for this reason.
I hasten to add that I do not condone or defend speeding in any circumstance.
Feck sake - stick yer head above the parapet at your own risk on this forum.


----------



## PK99 (19 Sep 2018)

nickyboy said:


> Trying to argue that I'm not required to have a speedo etc so limits dont apply strikes me as poor form. You're on the road so obey the limit



My view entirely. Every bleat of "ya boo, I'm a cyclist the rules don't apply to me" makes the case for strengthening the law on cycling offences ever stronger.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (19 Sep 2018)

Oldfentiger said:


> My reason for posting that was because I was told by a friend (who is a police officer in Traffic) that a cyclist cannot be prosecuted for exceeding a speed limit for this reason.



The real reason is that the applicable legislation only refers to motor vehicles. A bicycle is not a motor vehicle.
The lack of a speedo is a red herring.


----------



## PK99 (19 Sep 2018)

glasgowcyclist said:


> The real reason is that the applicable legislation only refers to motor vehicles. A bicycle is not a motor vehicle.
> The lack of a speedo is a red herring.



And at the time the (motorised) limits were initially farmed, the idea of a pushbike being able to exceed them was not condidered likely.

20 mph limits make it easy


----------



## nickyboy (19 Sep 2018)

glasgowcyclist said:


> The real reason is that the applicable legislation only refers to motor vehicles. A bicycle is not a motor vehicle.
> The lack of a speedo is a red herring.


Applicable legislation or not, if you're cycling at 30 down a hill in a 20 zone and hit a child, you're going to hurt them. I get a bit fed up with the narrative that certain laws don't apply to cyclists. As @PK99 says, obey the laws on the road, all of them, even if they don't strictly apply to cyclists.

Otherwise expect tightening of cycling-specific legislation


----------



## booze and cake (19 Sep 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> This. ^
> 
> It's just a fact that the limits only apply to motor vehicles. That's all. There's no reason for it other than that's what the wording of the legislation says. Stating it as a fact isn't yar-boo-ism. It just is.
> 
> Personally speaking, the way I ride and my own physical limitations means I never (or am extremely unlikely to) exceed the limits anyway, so the whole thing doesn't matter much to me one way or the other.



The wind that's out there today can make us all look like racers, I got up to 33 mph along flat ground by Battersea this afternoon, overtaking a double-taking scooter in the process, and I'm a 46 year old knacker riding old steel bikes. Coming the other direction a bit earlier I was lucky to hit 16 mph. Just to clarify that does not mean I think bikers in Richmond could get off by claiming they were speeding because of the wind, though I'd love to see the officers face when they tried that one.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (19 Sep 2018)

nickyboy said:


> Applicable legislation or not, if you're cycling at 30 down a hill in a 20 zone and hit a child, you're going to hurt them. I get a bit fed up with the narrative that certain laws don't apply to cyclists. As @PK99 says, obey the laws on the road, all of them, even if they don't strictly apply to cyclists.
> 
> Otherwise expect tightening of cycling-specific legislation



I feel you may have misinterpreted the point of my post, which was to correct the faulty reasoning of @Oldfentiger 's traffic cop pal, not to justify ignoring a limit.

I've previously made my position on speeding (as it relates to cycles) clear, and agree there's no good reason not to obey posted speed limits for motor vehicles. See below...



glasgowcyclist said:


> I look at it from the pedestrians' perspective. In a 20mph zone, they are entitled to expect that the limit is there to prioritise their safety and that it should be respected by all vehicle operators. The elderly, and others who are less mobile, should be able to cross streets in these zones without the worry and apprehension that comes with doing the same in a 30mph, or higher, area. Crossing those roads is stressful, worrying and tiring, as they hurry as best they can to get to the other side.
> 
> And I don't expect the average pedestrian to know that speed limits can't be enforced against cyclists.
> 
> As infrequent as the opportunity to exceed it may be, I will always comply with the posted speed limit while cycling. While it might not be my legal obligation, I feel it is my moral/societal obligation.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (19 Sep 2018)

PK99 said:


> 20 mph limits make it easy



Easy?!


----------



## si_c (19 Sep 2018)

nickyboy said:


> Applicable legislation or not, if you're cycling at 30 down a hill in a 20 zone and hit a child, you're going to hurt them. I get a bit fed up with the narrative that certain laws don't apply to cyclists. As @PK99 says, obey the laws on the road, all of them, even if they don't strictly apply to cyclists.



There's an argument to be made from self preservation too, if you're cycling down a hill at 30mph in a 20mph zone, it's not unreasonable for other road users to expect you to be within the speed limit and act accordingly. For example pulling out of a side road. 

I try to ride reasonably predictably when moving with traffic and adhering to speed limits falls within that category.


----------



## screenman (19 Sep 2018)

It is not a new thing in the park, I got pulled over in that park and told to ride slower and take more care when I was 14, I am 62 now.


----------



## booze and cake (19 Sep 2018)

I'm sure there was an online clip/film of David Miller when he was still riding pro, have a filmed lap of him thrashing round Richmond Park on his TT bike in full skin suit. He was famously on the special sauce of course, and did 3 laps in something like 45 mins or less, leaving local MAMILS slack jawed in amazement. Then someone realised that was way too fast to be legal and setting a bad example and the vid was removed.


----------



## PK99 (19 Sep 2018)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Easy?!



We live in a hilly country. Coming down Wimbledon Hill it is easy to free wheel an hit the 20mph at the bottom at 30plus.

Lots of you tube commuters regularly show well over 20 on the flat.

I'm a 60 plus plodder and on long straights can easily wind up to 20 plus. 
And on the pru100 averaged 20 from the start to Hampton Court.

So yes, easy


----------



## slowmotion (19 Sep 2018)

nickyboy said:


> Applicable legislation or not, if you're cycling at 30 down a hill in a 20 zone and hit a child, you're going to hurt them. I get a bit fed up with the narrative that certain laws don't apply to cyclists. As @PK99 says, obey the laws on the road, all of them, even if they don't strictly apply to cyclists.
> 
> Otherwise expect tightening of cycling-specific legislation


I pretty much agree with that except that I don't expect to have to comply with laws that don't legally apply to me. If I am guilty, in mitigation I'll say that the sight lines in Richmond Park are excellent, and that the only things that might step out, randomly and suddenly , are badgers or deer.


----------



## PK99 (19 Sep 2018)

slowmotion said:


> I pretty much agree with that except that I don't expect to have to comply with laws that don't legally apply to me. If I am guilty, in mitigation I'll say that the sight lines in Richmond Park are excellent, and that the only things that might step out, randomly and suddenly , are badgers or deer.



Interesting, particularly as it is only for technical reasons that the law does not apply. My personal ethics tell me to follow the spirit of the law in this case rather than the letter. Given the high horse from which many cyclists pontificate about fast passes within the speed limit by motorists, it surprises me that that is not the general approach.

Next time a motorist passes me with 1.5m gap at 55 in a 60 limit, I'll give him a cheery wave.


----------



## slowmotion (19 Sep 2018)

PK99 said:


> Interesting, particularly as it is only for technical reasons that the law does not apply. My personal ethics tell me to follow the spirit of the law in this case rather than the letter. Given the high horse from which many cyclists pontificate about fast passes within the speed limit by motorists, it surprises me that that is not the general approach.
> 
> Next time a motorist passes me with 1.5m gap at 55 in a 60 limit, I'll give him a cheery wave.


I don't have a high horse on this, but I'm still going to go down Bromfield Hill as fast as I can when nobody is about. The only realistic victims are a badger, a deer, and me. It'll serve me right if I come to grief. Anyway, I'll die not breaking the law.


----------



## nickyboy (19 Sep 2018)

slowmotion said:


> I don't have a high horse on this, but I'm still going to go down Bromfield Hill as fast as I can when nobody is about. The only realistic victims are a badger, a deer, and me. It'll serve me right if I come to grief. Anyway, I'll die not breaking the law.


I guess my issue with this is that it may not be you coming to grief. 

Take the example I mentioned upthread. There's a hill near that is limited to 20 as there is a primary school there. It would be easy to do 30 down the hill. Do you think it's ok to do 30 down there?

It's kinda tough to say that one uses ones own judgement as to when it's ok to exceed the speed limit as everyone's judgement is different


----------



## slowmotion (19 Sep 2018)

nickyboy said:


> I guess my issue with this is that it may not be you coming to grief.
> 
> Take the example I mentioned upthread. There's a hill near that is limited to 20 as there is a primary school there. It would be easy to do 30 down the hill. Do you think it's ok to do 30 down there?
> 
> It's kinda tough to say that one uses ones own judgement as to when it's ok to exceed the speed limit as everyone's judgement is different


The whole park is limited to 20mph for motorists, they say. For all I know, that speed limit is unenforceable too. What I do know is that after the gates to the park are shut in the evening, and motorised traffic is excluded, I don't feel that I'm terrorising anybody, including primary school children if I go down Broomfield Hill in a state of elation and utter terror. Badgers and deer may see it differently. I apologise for any inconvenience caused.


----------



## mjr (20 Sep 2018)

PK99 said:


> Interesting, particularly as it is only for technical reasons that the law does not apply. My personal ethics tell me to follow the spirit of the law in this case rather than the letter. Given the high horse from which many cyclists pontificate about fast passes within the speed limit by motorists, it surprises me that that is not the general approach.


It ain't technical reasons. Go read the parliamentary discussion of the introduction of the first speed limits for motorists (Hansard is online a long way back) and it may surprise you. The spirit of the law is also that they are motoring speed limits - they don't apply to horses either, high or otherwise, and a galloping horse is a much bigger beast than even @Drago.

ETA: as I understand it, speed limits for motor vehicles (then called locomotives) were introduced in the Locomotives on Highways Acts of the 1860s because of concerns about the damage that their wheel weight could do, primarily to the road surfaces when turning at speed (few of which were tarmacked before a CTC campaign started in 1885) but also if they hit other road users - people then seemed to understand that faster cars did more damage, perhaps better than most people now!



PK99 said:


> Next time a motorist passes me with 1.5m gap at 55 in a 60 limit, I'll give him a cheery wave.


With one finger or two? (assuming you mean less than 1.5m...)


----------



## nickr (20 Sep 2018)

https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/...mond-park-hits-out-at-hiding-policemen-198226

https://road.cc/content/news/94300-teen-cyclist-fined-riding-37mph-richmond-park

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2014/jul/25/can-cyclists-be-fined-for-speeding


----------



## mjr (20 Sep 2018)

nickr said:


> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2014/jul/25/can-cyclists-be-fined-for-speeding


Beware! That refers to the failed/withdrawn consultation draft of a code of conduct for cyclists as "archive notes on" it, misleading readers into thinking it was ever an issued code. What other sleight of pen is in that article, I wonder.


----------

