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

Ben Graham wrote:

as many cycle groups have pushed for 20 limits it would seem rather odd not to publicly encourage cyclists to abide by them wouldn't it?

Not really Ben, you see cyclists aren't two metres wide and don't weigh two tonnes, they can manouevre and brake in rather different ways to motor cars. Saying it's rather odd not encourage the same rules for cyclists as for motor vehicles is like saying it's odd not to have the same rules for cap guns as for Uzis.

That's staggeringly desperate, portraying innocuous, innocent behaviour as reckless and dangerous: but why?  Is the establishment now so threatened by the increasing number of cyclists that they need to publish highly inaccurate, denigrating stories to stir up the masses against them?

eburtthebike wrote:

That's staggeringly desperate, portraying innocuous, innocent behaviour as reckless and dangerous: but why?  Is the establishment now so threatened by the increasing number of cyclists that they need to publish highly inaccurate, denigrating stories to stir up the masses against them?

I'm not sure that I'd equate The Torygraph with the establishment. More likely Torygraph readers are an aging, senile demographic that get a thrill from hating others.

The trouble is the majority of the nation reads the Sun, the Daily Mail and then the Times and the Telegraph, the Express, the FT and then the Guardian which has about a third of the circulation of either the Times or the Telegraph.

The London papers circulation competes with the higher numbers. So presumably as the circulations are all so low, the Sun is about 1200,000 the Times 400,000 the Guardian 130,000 , the establishment doesn't read.

JLasTSR wrote:

The trouble is the majority of the nation reads the Sun, the Daily Mail and then the Times and the Telegraph, the Express, the FT and then the Guardian which has about a third of the circulation of either the Times or the Telegraph. The London papers circulation competes with the higher numbers. So presumably as the circulations are all so low, the Sun is about 1200,000 the Times 400,000 the Guardian 130,000 , the establishment doesn't read.

I'm suspicious of the circulation figures, not because they're wrong, but because most people don't buy/read a newspaper, but get their news online and some papers have stopped producing circulation figures from 2020 onwards due to this. Personally, I would guess that the right-wing papers are more likely to be bought by the older generation, so it's entirely possible that the figures are skewed according to this.

My experience is that I don't know anyone under the age of 70 that buys a newspaper, but then I'm in the particularly lefty city of Bristol which isn't very representative of the rest of the country.

Edit: Had a look for online readership and that paints an interesting picture

https://pressgazette.co.uk/media-audience-and-business-data/media_metrics/most-popular-websites-news-uk-monthly-2/

That shows the Grauniad in 2nd place (44%) to the BBC (78%) followed closely by The Sun, Mail Online etc. The Torygraph is a bit behind at 33%.

The Guardian is free online and can be accessed with just a subscription so it is widely read but the figures are potentially skewed because the others are mostly talking about paid subscriptions. The online circulation also skews some other numbers as well so the FT goes up because it overseas readership is quite high. 

The numbers for all of them are still surprisingly low. When you would like to think we are a moderately well educated country and you would expect everyone to want to know at least a bit about what is going on, they probably see the TV news or the radio and I am always pleasantly surprised to find everyone knows miles more than I do about lots of things. 

I just went to Guardian for the first time in about a couple of years and they are definitely pushing their paid subscription like mad. I didn't realise it had such a close link with the Observer. Online of the broadsheets it is definitely sitting top of the pile.

I remember at school an English Master was particularly keen on the Guardian, He made us read an article headlined and do an analysis of the text "Women Who Smoke Have Lighter Babies" It was written without what I would call journalistic vigour. It was more a meandering prose that was largely inconclusive but I enjoyed the joke. Mr Spring was not overly impressed when I asked if the babies were all called Zippo.

I have also discovered that 75% of adults consume news properly on more of a monthly basis, and only look at headlines in between times. Funny how you read one thing and then wind up looking up a few things. Mind you I would not be surprised if there are some that read several. My wife looks at Sky News, Google, The Mail, Express, Telegraph every day and if there is something interesting on another website she will visit that as well.

One of the videos it shows at least three of the cyclists going to the right of traffic islands with keep left signs on them. I think that is a bit naughty, breaking the rules of the road, but if there is no oncoming traffic and no pedestrians about it is probably safe enough.

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.

Rendel Harris]</p>

<p>[quote=stonojnr

wrote:

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?

Personally, yes, it happens every now and again. Usually when crossing would put me in the path of oncoming traffic beyond them that they haven't really thought about. But you're correct that the majority of drivers do not.

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?