Cyclists blast proposals to introduce 10mph speed limit on Richmond Park hill

The key point, which is reasonable.. cyclists could be fined if they were believed to “intentionally or recklessly interfere with the safety, comfort, or convenience of other visitors”. The police are unlikely to be fining cyclists by using speed detection devices.

This is a bit of a pointless debate . There is currently a speed limit of 20 mph and no one follows that at the moment on that hill . Plus it will only apply to most going down as there will be very few who manage to average over 10mph up hill . I suspect though that they are thinking of reopening that section to cars hence the new speed limit . It was significant that they haven't consulted the local cycling group . There is a local election coming up and someone has twisted an arm . 

As a few others have pointed out and nicely shown in a map posted by @jaysa, this section of the road it totally closed off to traffic. It is vastly safer than it used to be with cars (again as pointed out by others). The Strava segment ("Broomfield Descent - Weeeeeeee") shows some 127,720 people having descended it and 13,424 this year already. Of those 13,424, 13,383 when down faster than 10mph (16km/h), that's 99.7%. The top part is over 10% and a nice smooth road so even the lightest cyclist on a badly maintained bike is going to hit 50km/h (30 mph) unless they seriously ride the brakes.
Sure it's dangerous, you have deer wondering into the road from time to time, the occasional idiot cyclist weaving across the road on the way up because it's too steep. The edge of the road has wooden stakes in it would would rip a body appart if you hit them at almost any speed.
However, mixing cyclists descending at 10mph or even 20mph (32km/h)  would present an unbelevably dangerous risk to those of us who descend at 50+km/h (>30mph).
I've been down that descent 190 times in the last few years (Strava recorded), I've NEVER seen a speed trap on it. I've had to call an ambulance twice, once due to a lost car trying to do a 3-point turn and a cyclist hit it and ther other for a roller-skater who went too fast and came off. I've seen deer in the road often enough to make me double check every time.
The police tend to speed-trap cars, and extremely occasionally bikes, on Sawyer's Hill Descent (north side going CW) and "Blitz" (West side going ACW). Both descents are on roads shared with cars. Generally the cars are pretty well behaved, many cyclists overtake the cars because you're going down at 50km/h+ and the cars generally stick to 20-25mph (32-40 km/h). It gets dangerous when there are on-coming cars overtaking cyclists in the oposite direction. I've spoken to the police many times when they're out with radars (I'm the curious chatty type). They are looking for idiots not speeders, people endangering others, they are there to enforce not make the rules.
As always, it's the occasional nutter doing 40+mph in a car who is creating the largest risk to others. A few well place cameras would sort almost all of them out and leave the police to more useful work.
I think the 10mph limit would just show how detached the "law-makers" are from reality. Put cameras on the gates and do an average speed checks and it will generate vastly more revenue, stop speeders and perhaps some of the crime there too (i.e. bike thefts).

as long as they are stopping drivers for going over 10mph (which will be all of them).

But since they will not be fining everyong breaking the speed limit down that hill, the proposal is unworkable.

Here is a likely scenario:

Police (or more likely park warden gimp) - Stop!

Cyclist - Why? 

Police - You're speeding, so I need to issue a fine. 

Cyclist - under what law? 

Police - erm, the park states you can't do more than 10mph. 

Cyclist - can you point me to the actual LAW that states that? 

Police - erm, I need your details. 

Cyclist - Why? Have I commited a crime? The law states I am not bound by the speed limit in this park as I don't have a speedometer. 

Police - Erm, um. no. but....

Cyclist - Sorry, I have no reason to show you any ID as I am not under suspicion of commiting a crime. Good day. Oh but please do try and pay attention to the stream of cars going well over the actual real posted speed limit. Im sure that is within your capablilty. 

Great park! If I was a cyclist there, I would be campaigning for a cyclists only tarmac surface circular route where you can travel fast, same speed limits for cyclists and motor vehicles on routes where MVs allowed, and cautious slow cycling when pedestrians about

Seems to be the quick downhill section shown on the attached ...
Without braking, speeds of 30mph can be reached.
Two nice bends would require commitment at that speed.
This section is banned to cars which is much safer than a few years ago, when a descending rider would encounter cars overtaking cyclists uphill where the road is narrow.

Currently there are lots of danger signs advising riders to slow.
What puzzles me is what difference a 10mph limit would make given the current 20mph limit is rarely enforced.
Whatever the rights and wrongs, surely spot checks with a radar gun would be more effective?

Seems pretty straightforward: restrict motorised vehicles to 10mph, and cyclists  are offenders if they persistently overtake cars which are not in a stationary/ very slow moving queue- naturally, a cyclist is exonerated if he is overtaken by a motorised vehicle in the same section. I now see that Rendel says there aren't any motor vehicles on this section.

Remember, the police refuse to accept that any cyclist is ever going over 10mph when it's a question of whether it's illegal to cross the unbroken white line while overtaking a cyclist? (clue: in Lancashire, it's always legal in any circumstances because there is no known method of assessing the speed of a cyclist)

I'm sure that they wouldn't introduce such a controversial measure without statistics on injuries caused by various methods of transport within the park to back it up. Perhaps a local rider could ask for details?

This road is currently completely closed to car traffic and there's an excellent walking path going down the side, precisely whom would a 10mph limit be protecting? I admit I'm biased because I learned quite a lot of my descending skills on that very bend forty years ago and still enjoy revisiting it as I pass through the park, but this seems to be utterly unnecessary. 

I dont see a 10mph limit as uncompliable for cyclists, even if it eats brakes, my concern would be more will any of the motorised traffic be held to the same standard and obeying this given most of them say 20mph is impossible to drive at ?