Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Telegraph publishes "dossier of collision data" involving "rogue cyclists" in London parks, as Royal Parks continues campaign for new laws to prosecute 'speeding' cyclists

The charity that runs London green spaces such as Richmond Park and Regent's Park has asked the government to amend legislation to let it "set speed limits for cyclists" in its parks and for riders above 20mph limit to be prosecuted...

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".

Richmond Park 03 copyright Simon MacMichael

"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 was asked to remove "Regent's Park as a segment on the app" by 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.

Regent's Park and Outer Circle Strava segment (Google Maps/Strava)

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.

London Dynamo Richmond Park time trials (Richmond Park Cyclists)

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.

Richmond Park queues (via The Royal Parks, Twitter)

[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.

Richmond Park collision (Twitter)

Dan is the road.cc news editor and joined in 2020 having previously written about nearly every other sport under the sun for the Express, and the weird and wonderful world of non-league football for The Non-League Paper. Dan has been at road.cc for four years and mainly writes news and tech articles as well as the occasional feature. He has hopefully kept you entertained on the live blog too.

Never fast enough to take things on the bike too seriously, when he's not working you'll find him exploring the south of England by two wheels at a leisurely weekend pace, or enjoying his favourite Scottish roads when visiting family. Sometimes he'll even load up the bags and ride up the whole way, he's a bit strange like that.

Add new comment

56 comments

Avatar
Mr Anderson | 1 month ago
1 like

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

Avatar
stonojnr | 1 month ago
4 likes

Can't believe you didn't label it a dodgy dossier

Avatar
the little onion replied to stonojnr | 1 month ago
3 likes

sexed up?

Avatar
redimp | 1 month ago
7 likes

Can road.cc put in an FOI for the dossier on incidents involving motor vehicles and right an article on that, for balance?

Avatar
Clem Fandango | 1 month ago
11 likes

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 better 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?).

Avatar
Rendel Harris | 1 month ago
11 likes

Quote:

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".

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.

Avatar
GMBasix replied to Rendel Harris | 1 month ago
7 likes

We need to be very careful about taking an approach that suggests that one vulnerable road user group should use the other facilities available to them and not share the road. That's a slippery slope that is already pointed at cyclists.

What really ought to be the case is that walkers, runners and cyclists should be confident of using parkroads and paths safely. And, to do that, the issue has been raised about removing motor vehicles.

I have no idea what the real problems of speed and volume of cycling through the park might be. More than happy to believe that, if the Telegraph "broke"* the "news", then the whole thing is manufactured. However, is there, within the silly fart noises, a reasonable call for more care and attention towards others from those seeking to train for speed?

(* "broke", of course, has more than one sense here)

Avatar
mdavidford replied to GMBasix | 1 month ago
5 likes

GMBasix wrote:

We need to be very careful about taking an approach that suggests that one vulnerable road user group should use the other facilities available to them and not share the road. That's a slippery slope that is already pointed at cyclists.

Definitely not a good idea to force either group to use slippery slopes.

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to mdavidford | 1 month ago
5 likes

mdavidford wrote:

Definitely not a good idea to force either group to use slippery slopes.

What about skiers?

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to hawkinspeter | 1 month ago
5 likes

Are they paying ski tax or are they just taking the piste?

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to chrisonabike | 1 month ago
3 likes

chrisonabike wrote:

Are they paying ski tax or are they just taking the piste?

I was thinking of taking up water-skiing, but I couldn't find a lake with a hill.

Avatar
Steve K replied to hawkinspeter | 1 month ago
2 likes

hawkinspeter wrote:

chrisonabike wrote:

Are they paying ski tax or are they just taking the piste?

I was thinking of taking up water-skiing, but I couldn't find a lake with a hill.

Do you just have a massive library of squirrel pictures carefully indexed ready to respond to any post?

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to Steve K | 1 month ago
1 like
Steve K wrote:

Do you just have a massive library of squirrel pictures carefully indexed ready to respond to any post?

Don't mention them!!

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to Steve K | 1 month ago
2 likes

Steve K wrote:

Do you just have a massive library of squirrel pictures carefully indexed ready to respond to any post?

You don't?

Avatar
Rendel Harris replied to GMBasix | 1 month ago
4 likes

GMBasix wrote:

What really ought to be the case is that walkers, runners and cyclists should be confident of using parkroads and paths safely.

I don't know if you know Richmond Park, the roads are vehicle roads with segregated pedestrian provision usually a metre or two off to the side, separated by grass strips. With the volume of traffic it makes no more sense for a pedestrian to "share the road" than it would for someone to walk down the middle of a busy High Street during rush-hour, something which presumably you wouldn't advocate? If someone says pedestrians should walk on the pavement and not walk in the roadway amongst the cars and cyclists that's not really the same as saying cyclists must use cycle lanes, is it?

Avatar
Zazz53 replied to Rendel Harris | 1 month ago
1 like

TBF there are plenty of mountain, gravel, Lime bikes and e-bikes using the Tamsin Trail.  Have never seen a collision but have thought a number of times that that a rider hadn't really considered the effect they were having on the pedestrians on the trail by riding fast and close to them.

Avatar
the little onion | 1 month ago
9 likes

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.

 

Avatar
Mr Hoopdriver | 1 month ago
10 likes

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'.

Avatar
Jitensha Oni replied to Mr Hoopdriver | 1 month ago
1 like

If it’s the same FOI response I saw ( FOI-0538-2425 ), in Richmond Park (local to me so the one I had a good look at in the FOI tables), from 2019-2023 there have been…

- 8 collisions between people cycling and walking, mostly in the northeeast corner
- 21 collisions between people cycling
- 58 between people cycling and driving
- and 75 cycling falls  Most of the falls were on or near the steeper hills as you’d expect , but there are clusters at Richmond Gate and the junction of Sawyers Hill with the road to Holly Lodge, though personally, I’d have expected the last two might have been hotspots for collisions, not falls 🤔.

and only one collision between a driver and a pedestrian was recorded (near Kingston gate).

Make of that what you will - *however* - the deer in the room…

https://www.frp.org.uk/carelessness-costs-deer-lives/

Avatar
mdavidford replied to Jitensha Oni | 1 month ago
0 likes

Jitensha Oni wrote:

personally, I’d have expected the last two might have been hotspots for collisions, not falls 🤔.

A fall may oftentimes be merely a narrowly avoided collision.

Avatar
kingleo replied to Jitensha Oni | 1 month ago
0 likes

You never mentioned that a cyclist was stabbed to death by a pedestrian a few years ago in Richmond Park. Also when the park was left open overnight for a year because of a sinkhole in Petersham motorists killed nearly 200 deer in a year and dogs owned by pedestrians killed nearly all the swans.

Avatar
Rendel Harris replied to kingleo | 1 month ago
2 likes

kingleo wrote:

You never mentioned that a cyclist was stabbed to death by a pedestrian a few years ago in Richmond Park.

It was in 2005, I'm not sure what relevance that has, tragic as it was;  the killer was a paranoid schizophrenic who had just walked out of a mental health unit who had heard voices telling him to kill someone, it was nothing to do with pedestrian/cyclist conflict.

Avatar
OldRidgeback | 1 month ago
11 likes

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.

Avatar
slc replied to OldRidgeback | 1 month ago
6 likes

OldRidgeback wrote:

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. 

 

Avatar
AidanR replied to slc | 1 month ago
0 likes

I suspect it's because they're interested in freedom for people like them, and the consequences and impingement on other people's freedom be damned

Avatar
slc replied to AidanR | 1 month ago
0 likes

AidanR wrote:

I suspect it's because they're interested in freedom for people like them, and the consequences and impingement on other people's freedom be damned

Nah, that's a type of rational self interest, if a rather callow one. More of a 1980s Reagan kind of right wing populism than the modern day version.

Pages

Latest Comments