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

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.

alexuk wrote:

 Its always a matter of time.

say that to the 1,624 people who died on the roads last year.

Or the more than 29,000 seriously injured.

"Ah, but that's different" says mr. carbrained culture warrior. No, I can promise you it's no different for the victims and their families.

One person steps out into traffic and it's headline news; and still discussed today SOLELY because she was hit by someone on a bicycle. 

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. 

Excellent resource, thanks!

According to a quick review of this, in 2019-2023 there were :

-  for Regents Park  - 8 pedestrian collisions with pedal cycles (but the rider came off worse in three of those), 3 with motor cycles; 147* pedal cyclists injuried colliding with motor vehicles, and 20 bike-bike or bike only collisions
 
*some apparent repetition noted, so maybe 10-15 less

- for Richmond Park -  9 pedestrian collisions with pedal cycles; 1 with a car but none in 2022-23; 56 pedal cyclists injuried colliding with motor vehicles, and 38  bike-bike or bike only collisions.

These data show that people cycling have a torrid time in the two parks compared with pedestrians,  but according to the data hardly any pedestrians have been harmed by motor vehicles in either park, which probably plays to the motonormatives**

I’ve never cycled in Regents Park but go for a spin to Richmond Park quite a lot. The actual issue I see is that on the downhills with cars, many cycles can easily match the 20 mph car speed limit whereas others can’t so at busy times you get a chaotic mess of cars doing about 20±5 mph and most cycles doing 15±10 mph trying to overtake each other in both directions, which is absolutely horrendous, especially for the slower riders.

However, the period of lockdown where cycles were allowed in the park but not motor vehicles showed that non-motorists rub shoulders with no problem, and you got road users not seen before or since - people wheeling baby buggies, skateboarders, skaters, road-skiers - much like any other Ciclovia worldwide (or indeed Middle Path in Richmond Park and most of Chestnut Avenue in Bushy Park still). The deer tended to wander about more freely, too. Add cars back in and you revert to a binary traffic ecosystem.

** since 10 deer were killed by motorists in the parks between 2019 and 2021 I find my eyebrows being raised slightly by that stat, but whatever, the main danger is to people cycling.

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.

These events were held early in the morning so that the risk to the general public has always been very low.

The time trials began at 6AM, an hour before the park is open to cars; with a startlist of around 60 riders in total (IIRC) and a 10 mile course they were pretty much over before any cars were on the roads. They've been run successfully since 2009 without, as far as I'm aware, any injuries being caused to non-participants, which would appear to indicate that Royal Parks have invented a problem/health and safety threat that simply didn't exist.

no experiene of the london parks, but I am invovled in running other time trials through CTT. They have been wrestling with the increase in 20mph zones and how to deal with them for the last couple of years.
I believe the biggest issue in the rest of the country isn't so much that riders are exceeding the speed limit as such but more the increased risk of an accident when riders (with race head on) come up behind slower motorised traffic (the assumption being that most drivers will be doing 20)

All bicycles would also need to undergo a regular MOT to check that the speedometer is fitted and working.  There would need to be a database and testing centres and statutory fee etc.  How many members of parliament in their right minds would really vote for such a law whilst thousands die each year from being hit by cars?

Judging by the hundreds of fools just elected - quite a few.

Why, the cyclist would be responsible for regulating their speed, we live in the era of almost universal smart phone possession, there is no need to have a fixed speedometer . I'm a little disgusted at the self righteousness indifference of some cyclists over this matter, as far as I remember the poor woman was crossing at a point where there was signage requesting vehicles to slow and show care.

The public (well, a few) seem to suddenly be grappling with the notion of safety around cyclists - serious incidents are that unusual.  But of course that means they're also highly salient.

Of course KSIs of pedestrians by cyclists are actually statistically invisible in the devastation wrought by motorised vehicles; but non-zero.  The danger posed by cyclists is also (as with motor vehicles) variable with speed - and while if we had "mass cycling" we could expect the average to be "like fast jogging" currently this will be higher, in some cases significantly.

I'm not entirely against "doing something" for kinds of dangerous of anti-social cycling but as always: what do you think the "something" will actually do?  How would you tell it has been effective - especially if the rate of incidents is incredibly low (e.g. once a decade or less)?  How would whatever measure be enforced, if people are not behaving in a suitable manner now?

 - For better or worse the coroner accepted that there was nothing the cyclist could have done (I haven't even looked at all the information that they did).  I certainly agree this line gets trotted out far too easily for road deaths in general, but that doesn't mean that this wasn't true here.  Or indeed true even if the cyclist had been travelling slower than the motorist speed limit.

 - This was "recreational activity" by the cyclists.  That for many people is enough to say "well they've no cause to be in a hurry!".  Yes ... but on the other hand, it's a park * - people are there for recreation.  Like throwing frizbees and running around.
Certainly nobody's fun or exercise should put others at risk of serious injury.  But yet again elsewhere we already apply a sliding scale to these activities.   We limit javelin throwing and rifle practice to special places, but allow the public to walk across golf courses or near cricket pitches unsupervised (that can lead to injury, although like with pedestrians cyclists, deaths are very rare).

 - The "waved across the road by a driver" analogy is not "like for like" exactly.  For one pedestrians and cyclists can generally pass each other much more safely than pedestrians and motor traffic ** and in less space.  For another it's much more of an inconvenience for a cyclist to actually stop.  The equivalent for a motorist in time and energy terms would be them stopping the car, opening the door, getting out, waving the pedestrian across, then getting back in again.  Pretty sure nobody would expect that to happen...

* On the other hand motor traffic *does* still use the park as a through route...

** So much so the Dutch, with millions of cycle trips every day, almost never put pedestrian crossings on cycle paths, never mind ones with traffic lights...

Robert Hardy wrote:

I'm a little disgusted at the self righteousness indifference

Not sure how one can be self-righteous and indifferent at the same time. They seem to me to be rather orthogonal to each other.

Robert Hardy wrote:

Why, the cyclist would be responsible for regulating their speed, we live in the era of almost universal smart phone possession, there is no need to have a fixed speedometer . I'm a little disgusted at the self righteousness indifference of some cyclists over this matter, as far as I remember the poor woman was crossing at a point where there was signage requesting vehicles to slow and show care.

'Universal smart phone possession' isn't the same thing as having your smartphone accessible and mounted in sight at all times.

 I have a phone but when I'm riding, my phone lives in my bag. Wouldn't be very helpful for regulating my speed...

brooksby wrote:

'Universal smart phone possession' isn't the same thing as having your smartphone accessible and mounted in sight at all times.

 I have a phone but when I'm riding, my phone lives in my bag. Wouldn't be very helpful for regulating my speed...

Indeed - and in an era where many people have smartphones costing into four figures (an absurdity in my opinion but each to their own) how long would it be before the light-fingered fraternity cottoned on and we started seeing reports of moped muggers in the park with machetes forcing cyclists to a stop and wrenching their phones from their handlebars?

Deleted / duplicate

Robert Hardy wrote:

I'm a little disgusted at the self righteousness indifference of some cyclists over this matter, as far as I remember the poor woman was crossing at a point where there was signage requesting vehicles to slow and show care.

I'm a little disgusted at self-righteous attempts to weaponise this tragic incident to impose restrictions on cyclists. As far as I remember eyewitnesses agreed there was nothing the cyclist could have done to prevent the incident and the police and CPS decided that they should not be prosecuted.