The Telegraph newspaper this weekend published information from a "dossier of collision data" from The Royal Parks in London and claimed it revealed "the full threat posed to pedestrians by dangerous and illegal cycling in the country's most famous parks".
It was released, the newspaper said, using freedom of information laws and listed incidents involving cyclists in the eight London green spaces that are run by The Royal Parks charity, but mainly related to Richmond Park and Regent's Park, the two most popular with the capital's sport cyclists.
Marking its release, a Royal Parks spokesperson suggested that while cycling has a "deep-rooted history" in the parks, the "speeds that can now be achieved when cycling in such populated spaces bring new challenges that we are committed to addressing". Last month, the charity asked the government to amend legislation "with a view to setting speed limits for cyclists" in its parks which, if introduced, could see riders exceeding 20mph speed limits prosecuted — something a source at the Department for Culture Media and Sport reportedly told the newspaper is still being considered.
In the article, titled 'How rogue cyclists in London's parks have knocked down children and the elderly', The Telegraph published information from the dossier and said it referenced "'speeding' and 'aggressive' cyclists being involved in hit and runs, ignoring zebra crossings, travelling on illegal bikes and hitting pedestrians so hard they are 'catapulted' into the air."
> Cyclists riding "at excessive speeds" and causing crashes prompt Royal Parks to review cycling policy, as charity cancels time trial events because "they directly encourage cyclists to go faster than speed limit"
Richmond Park and Regent's Park saw the most reports, one of which was the collision at the latter park where, in 2022, 81-year-old Hilda Griffiths was hit by Brian Fitzgerald as he rode at 29mph, injuries she died from in hospital two months later.
Another incident from Regent's Park reportedly noted a pedestrian suffering two broken ribs in a collision with a cyclist "doing laps" of the park, however The Telegraph piece does also state that the injured pedestrian "admitted not looking properly" when crossing the road.
One cyclist commenting online suggested the interpretation of the dossier's reports was "just bat***t" and highlighted that one of the six Regent's Park incidents reported over the four-year period was a cyclist losing consciousness and their riding mates crashing as a result, hardly the "rogue cyclists" promised in the headline. Another report was from a cyclist who felt "unsafe" due to others "riding on his wheel".
In Richmond Park, The Telegraph says a pedestrian was, in February, hit "at speed" on a "busy" path by a cyclist riding a "fixed wheel bike" that was "not road legal". In August, a pedestrian was reportedly hospitalised with "multiple serious injuries to arm, head and hip" by a "speeding cyclist" who then "fled the scene".
The file from the summer reportedly includes a note from a runner who said he will not visit the park as "it is becoming so dangerous".
"I've on four occasions nearly been hit by a speeding bike. It's all well and good saying pedestrians have priority but it's clear that many cyclists (not all of course) are not adhering to this rule," he reportedly added, the newspaper also suggesting there were "numerous reports" of cyclists going "at least 30mph", "full pelt" or "out of control" over the past four years in Richmond Park.
The dossier also reportedly notes two incidents in the park in 2020, one seeing a partially sighted pedestrian "knocked to the ground" by a cyclist who had his "head down because of the wind", the second incident reporting a "very fast" cyclist "on the wrong side of the road crashed head-on into another cyclist".
Due to the quieter roads and continuous loops offered by Richmond Park and Regent's Park, the green spaces are popular training and riding destinations for leisure and sport cyclists in the city who ride laps of the routes. Some of the other London parks ran by The Royal Parks are primarily used as through-routes by riders, the dossier also reportedly referencing collisions, near misses or incidents in Hyde Park, Kensington Gardens, St James's Park and Bushy Park.
During the summer, The Royal Parks cited cyclists riding "at excessive speeds" and causing crashes as the reason for it reviewing its cycling policy, while also cancelling early-morning time trial events in Richmond Park and the London Duathlon.
In May, Strava deleted "Regent's Park as a segment on the app" following pressure from The Royal Parks, the move coming following the death of a pensioner who died from her injuries sustained in a collision with a cyclist riding laps of the park at 25-29mph.
In a letter to Sir Chris Bryant, the Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism, The Royal Parks' chairman Loyd Grossman (the former presenter of MasterChef and Through the Keyhole) asked government to amend laws so that cyclists failing to adhere to the parks' 20mph speed limits can be prosecuted for speeding.
Providing an update a month later, a source at the Department for Culture Media and Sport confirmed the government had "received a proposal to improve safety for park users" and "are considering it".
A Royal Parks spokesperson told The Telegraph: "The parks are shared spaces where pedestrians, cyclists and wildlife coexist, and we have a responsibility to all park users to ensure we are acting in a way that protects and promotes their safety. We continue to work closely with cycling groups, community groups and the Met Police to do all we can to ensure the parks can be enjoyed safely by everyone, now and in the future."
She suggested the cycling policies had been reviewed due to "several cycling-related incidents linked to a minority of people cycling at excessive speeds" and "implemented physical changes in the parks, including larger or wider pedestrian paths, additional crossing points to improve pedestrian safety and additional signage".
Discussions around speed limits in The Royal Parks, notably Richmond Park, have been long running. Despite initially suggesting speed limits did apply to cyclists, in 2021 it was confirmed that the park's speed limits (which range from 5mph to 20mph) do not apply to cyclists, a stance in line with the wider law.
Then, in the summer of 2022, The Royal Parks said that even if the speed limits do not apply to cyclists, riders would still have action taken if they ride "recklessly".
In July, we reported that a group claiming to represent cyclists who use the park (Richmond Park Cyclists) had clashed with the charity over its speed limit advice for riders using the park.
This summer's Richmond Park Time Trials were also cancelled by The Royal Parks. Organised by the London Dynamo cycling club and first run in 2009, they were due to take place on 23 June and 7 July this year – and had been praised for their inclusivity and for providing a gateway into the sport, enabling beginners to compete on road bikes and on almost traffic-free roads due to their 6am starts.
However, The Royal Parks cancelled this summer's events over fears riders would break the park's 20mph speed limit, a decision which left organisers "fuming" and arguing the decision had been clouded by "very irresponsible journalism" and that the alternative is "busy roads and fast-moving cars".
"Following several cycling-related incidents, it is our duty to take action to minimise the risk of accidents and our priority to ensure the safety of all cyclists together with other visitors," Richmond Park's manager said. September's London Duathlon in the park was subsequently also cancelled.
The Royal Parks has received plenty of criticism over the years for its approach to improving road safety in its parks. Many, including the London Cycling Campaign (LCC), have repeatedly asked why through-traffic is still allowed to use Richmond Park as a shortcut, the campaign calling the cancellation of well-organised events "weak" while "daily rat-runs" continue.
While some of Richmond Park's roads are closed to motor traffic on weekends, during weekdays the green space, which The Royal Parks proudly calls an "extraordinary landscape" that is also London's largest Site of Special Scientific Interest and a National Nature Reserve, is used as a cut-through for motorists driving between Kingston upon Thames, Richmond and Roehampton.
[Queue for parking on a sunny summer weekend in Richmond Park]
The LCC has campaigned for the park to be closed to through-traffic for years, arguing it would improve road safety and make them "far better for people walking, cycling and relaxing in". Specialist cycling insurance provider ETA Services Ltd recently also called it an "ongoing embarrassment" that The Royal Parks "allows this nature reserve to be used as a rat-run", the comments coming in response to the incident below.
Add new comment
15 comments
Keeping it short to avoid a rant:
Meanwhile parks else where are a backdrop for real crime: muggings, fatal stabbings and worse....But sure distract the public from the REAL issues.
I wonder whether he'll be writing to the Transport Minister about funding for the London Philharmonic, or to the Foreign Secretary to talk about Universal Credit?
It's like the joke, isn't it?
Man: "CAN I GET TWO FISH SUPPERS PLEASE!"
Person behind counter: "Excuse me - but this is a library!"
Man: "Oh, sorry!" *whispers* "Can I get two fish suppers, please?"
I'd wager that the Torgraph didn't have to push their FOI request particularly hard - I imagine that the Royal Parks have just been
hopingbeggingpraying for a newspaper to support their campaign…This seem to be just a very vindictive but baseless attack on cyclists in response to widespread acceptance of 20mph speed limits for motor vehicles.
Any debate about the dangers of cycling should collapse as soon as motor traffic KSI stats and the overwhelming health benefits of cycling are considered.
For riders using Garmin RC715 (with latest FW), why not send video clips of incidents of speeding vehicles to Road.cc, to publish under a new theme
Can't believe you didn't label it a dodgy dossier
sexed up?
Can road.cc put in an FOI for the dossier on incidents involving motor vehicles and right an article on that, for balance?
So it's basically a campaign to get cycling banned in the Parks then? Thereby removing a perceived impediment to rat running through, and laying the groundwork for future "get cycling banned" nonsense wherever decent fear-mongering folk may care to drive or beter still, park.
All while simultaneously winning a battle in a manufactured culture war against an out group they can throw bigotry & hatred toward because "cyclists" are a uniquely safe target to our right whinge friends: a completey homogenous group with no defining characteristics such as ethnicity, gender, sexuality, age. Attacking groups like that can be somewhat problematic these days you see (bunch of woke nonsense what?).
So where does this person run? There is an excellent 7.3 mile loop which runs all the way round the outer perimeter of the park, the Tamsin Trail, access to and use of which requires crossing no roads at all except where it passes the gates, where high-speed cycling is not an issue. There are numerous other footpaths suitable for running criss-crossing the park as well in areas where cycling is completely banned. The only conceivable way a runner could perceive the park to be dangerous would be if they chose to run on the road alongside the cars and bicycles.
Excellent - for comparison, and to make the statistics in any way valid, I'm sure they have identified all the other sources of transport-related danger, and analysed their prevalence and magnitude relative to each other. Otherwise it is just meaningless cherry picking based on prejudice.
Has anybody asked for or received data of incidents involving cars in the parks under FOI ?
It would be interesting to see what sort of a risk pedestrians and cyclists are at with respect to cars.
I suspect that this question must've been asked but wouldn't be surprised if it hasn't because of 'motornmativity'.
Once upon a time The Daily Telegraph was a serious right leaning newspaper. Then Max Hastings stepped down as editor.
Ok, so I'm a member of London living, Guardian reading, tofu eating, wokerati (I don't live in Islington though) but I did used to think of the Telegraph as a proper newspaper, if not one aligned with my own political views. But it's gone downhill over the last decade.
I note an article in The Guardian today about the 20mph speed limits in Wales and how they've made roads safer. And yet there's still a Conservative backlash against them. More cycling = fewer crashes too. So do right wingers not like safer roads? I don't get it.
I reckon it is because safer roads benefit all equally, even the poorest, which is anathema to right wing populists. They much prefer safer (to the driver and passengers) *cars* because there the benefit is limited to the deserving owner and manufacturer.