Speeding fine for Richmond Park cyclist clocked riding at 41mph - but is penalty lawful?

Saxman, most legislation is defined as motor vehicles because, amongst other things (risk, level of damage etc) bikes don't have speedos.

The Royal Parks legislation is not. It, appears to be, in relation to all vehicles. Therefore ignorance, lack of speedo etc is irrelevant.

What might be relevant is the Royal Parks making public statements that the law is one thing when it appears to be another.

I favour fining all those who cycle up those hills faster than I can manage going down them. Demoralising others should be a taxable activity.

Totally illegal fine. Magistrates have clearly "erred in law" - take it to crown court.

I think out & out speed is not the issue, rather dangerous behaviour.
I was cycling in the park yesterday afternoon & saw a cyclist overtaking a van in a stupidly dangerous move. It caused the oncoming traffic to swerve putting other cyclists in danger. There are quite a few of these 'speed merchants' in the park. If you need to train at these speeds, why not do it somewhere else where you wont get someone else killed & wont give other cyclists a bad name?
Not to say there arent idiot drivers there too, but the vast majority of park users manage to respect each other

[[[[[ If this silliness continues, m'lud, I fear one day all bikes will have to be fitted with speedometers to be road-legal. Then, in court, Mr. Justice Cocklecarrot will at least know where he stands, or rather sits.

Since there is no legal requirement for a bicycle to have a means of measuring the speed it is travelling, how can it be a legal requirement for the rider to know what speed it is travelling? Even if the bike is equipped with a means of measuring it's speed, if it's not a legal requirement, how can you legally be required to know the speed you're travelling?
Whilst ignorance is no defence I would think that this is a legal loophole bigger than those that large corporations & the rich regularly & repeatedly use quite legally to avoid paying tax.
Charge a cyclist with careless or reckless riding, although that is very subjective - what could be considered reckless when done by a 10 year old could be considered well within the safety envelope when the rider is an experienced professional - but then of course for that very reason it would be much more difficult to prove.
Whether on bike or other vehicle we should always conduct ourselves at a speed appropriate for the road conditions. Pedestrians and road users in Richmond Park are not expecting cars or cyclists to be appearing at excessive speed, whatever that may be.
I'm sure most of us like going downhill fast on a bicycle - Gerard Manley Hopkins, a jesuit priest & poet even composed a poem on the subject - personally I'd recommend the Tourmalet (down the La Mongie side) Nobody ever complains, cars pull over for you & my maximum speed (not of course that I have any means of legally measuring it!) is 94kph. admittedly 30kph slower than Sean Kelly.

Since there is no legal requirement for a bicycle to have a means of measuring the speed it is travelling, how can it be a legal requirement for the rider to know what speed it is travelling? Even if the bike is equipped with a means of measuring it's speed, if it's not a legal requirement, how can you legally be required to know the speed you're travelling?
Whilst ignorance is no defence I would think that this is a legal loophole bigger than those that large corporations & the rich regularly & repeatedly use quite legally to avoid paying tax.
Charge a cyclist with careless or reckless riding, although that is very subjective - what could be considered reckless when done by a 10 year old could be considered well within the safety envelope when the rider is an experienced professional - but then of course for that very reason it would be much more difficult to prove.
Whether on bike or other vehicle we should always conduct ourselves at a speed appropriate for the road conditions. Pedestrians and road users in Richmond Park are not expecting cars or cyclists to be appearing at excessive speed, whatever that may be.
I'm sure most of us like going downhill fast on a bicycle - Gerard Manley Hopkins, a jesuit priest & poet even composed a poem on the subject - personally I'd recommend the Tourmalet (down the La Mongie side) Nobody ever complains, cars pull over for you & my maximum speed (not of course that I have any means of legally measuring it!) is 94kph. admittedly 30kph slower than Sean Kelly.

If that hill's so nice and steep, they should have made him ride back up and come back down safely.

Has no one else noticed that the rider stitched himself up by pleading guilty?

Impressive that he got up to that speed. Really I do not see the problem. He is on the road and surely he could see the driving conditions and was cycling appropriately.
Did his bike have a speedometer on it?
If he was not a danger then he was being a responsible road user. When was the last time you heard someone being crushed by a pedal bike?
I disagree with the courts on this one.

What to say...
Common sense: Speeding, so let the fine stand.

Law: No liability.

A divided camp.

Time for all forms of transport to have a unified law for the protection of all.

A time to stop using technicalities to hide our faults in all aspect of the law.

Any cyclist who likes to race wants to get a speeding ticket one day. I would strut into court and pay my fine with a smug grin on my face. What an achievement. I go for an average of 21mph on a Richmond Park lap, looking forward to the day when I get a speeding ticket.

It's an interesting one. The Royal Parks seem to be unsure. The Prosecutor has a duty to the Court to ensure that any information adverse to his case is brought to the Court's attention. So, one must imagine the prosecutor has not or, if s/he has, the Court has decided that a particular law does apply. Very interesting.

Sadly, because he pleaded guilty, this is still untested.

"police might be going beyond their powers"

Or complying 100% with Common Purpose's mantra of "going beyond one's authority".

Google Common Purpose, everyone, and realise that your enemies are not just the unelectable appointees at the next "election". You never chose most of them in the first place.

High speeds when coming off the descents in Richmond Park were common when I went there some weeks back. Ok overtaking cars at 41mph is high but at the same time the parks/police need to be 100% certain if this applies to cyclists also...I like to think its for any road user whatever the vehicle but it is so easy to be riding fast without any intention of doing so there.

I'd be happy receiving a ticket if I could hit 41 mph.

I suppose now wouldn't be a good time to bring up the Range Rover that sped past me at 50+ (I'm good at estimating speeds, not an exaggeration) down Sawyers a couple of years ago.
In the wet with crosswinds and so close that I got a full wobble on due to the turbulence (bear with me)
There was a queue of 20mph traffic at the bottom.
He sat in that with no attempt of nuttery.
I'm afraid I was so pissed off I made him slow after the mini roundabout.
Surprise! He was a plain clothes police officer, tried to tell me that Advanced Motorists advise that's how to do an overtake (Didn't know they had the power to allow speeding). I'd have been a little more forgiving if he hadn't been holding his coffee in his right hand.
Grrrrr.
Tried reporting him at Hammersmith but got the usual mumbles.
Oh well.

See link below right at the bottom it says...
"Special Cases

It is possible for locations to have bye-laws that impose speed limits on bicycles.

It used to be the case that speed limits in royal parks applied to bicycles, because the relevant SIs, The Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces Regulations 1997 amended by the Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces (Amendment) Regulations 2004 stated that speed limits in the parks applied to vehicles (not motor vehicles).

However, The Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces (Amendment) etc. Regulations 2010 include a definition of vehicle that applies only to motor vehicles, here, suggesting that everything which applied to all vehicles in the royal parks SIs now only applies to motor vehicles. Thus, speed limits would not apply to bicycles in royal parks, just as they do not in general elsewhere."

http://www.astounding.org.uk/ian/cyclelaw/speed_limits.html

Well the old Bill are regularly camped out at the bottom of Sawyers Hill at the weekend. Ironically Broomfield is the more dangerous descent with a sweeping bend with a bloody great tree on the corner....

I used to love Sawyers hill, about 15 years ago on my highly geared heavy mountain bike I managed to hit nearly 47 mph although the amount of wobble and noise from the bike made me never do it again...plus the habit of the police to camp along various sections of the flat after the hill.

Quote:

Thing is he wasn't doing twice the speed of the traffic, he was doing twice the speed limit. I can't find it right now but I remember reading somewhere that the average speed of cars measured in RP is 37mph. This cyclist was traveling only a few percent faster than that. I'm not condoning what he did, just pointing out the inconsistency.

Again, for the hard of thinking; bellendery is bellendery, regardless of the number of wheels it is undertaken with.

40mph in a park?

Bad form.