Richmond Park idiots.

[Cycleops]

They use a radar trap, they don't look over your shoulder at your Garmin at 30 mph. Being serious, you are responsible for ensuring that you are within the law and you must take reasonable care that you comply with the law - for example, by fitting and using a speed measuring device, or simply by riding slowly.

It is still not clear if speed limits do apply in the parks to cyclists, people have paid fines for it. See https://road.cc/content/news/136752-royal-parks-says-jeremy-vine-didn’t-break-speed-limit-–-because-it-doesn’t-apply

I'm sure any competent brief would have a lot of fun with that if it ever came to court and you wanted to contest it.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

[QUOTE 5385782, member: 9609"]I think there is a pedalling furiously[/QUOTE]
No, there's no such offence.
There is the offence of furious or wanton driving but that requires that someone suffers bodily harm as a consequence. Without that there's no offence and it's got nothing to do with the rate of pedalling in any case.

 

[booze and cake]

Royal Parks (of which Richmond Park is one) have additional statutes such that they specifically treat pedal cycles the same as other road vehicles, and they are consequently subject to the same speed limits.

This was my understanding, that as its a Royal Park it has some by-law that makes cyclists fair game for fines. I've just cycled around Battersea Park (not a Royal Park) and there are signs there saying its a 12 mph speed limit but this only applies to motor vehicles, and I've cyclist past many a copper at much faster than that and they don't bat an eyelid there.

Richmond is a different kettle of fish, I don't go to Richmond anymore as its full of cyclist nobbers riding like douchebags trying to beat PB's. A popular challenge across other forums is to try and do 3 laps in under an hour, which as 3 laps is about 20 miles it means averaging over 20 mph for the whole 3 laps, so there's literally 1000's of cyclists trying to beat this every day. The police hide with their ray gun at the bottom of Broomfield hill where it is very easy to do 40mph, but over the course of a lap there is only really 2 or 3 places where cyclists can easily exceed 20mph, and only briefly. I've seen numerous cyclists pulled over before but not once have I ever seen a motorist being fined, it just strikes me as a waste of police time. There are definitely more pressing things the police could be dealing with, but traffic seems to be seen as a cash cow these days, and the fines seem more to do with income generation than any concerns over safety.

 

[simonali]

I think the police only do what generates the least paperwork or whatever is least likely to cause them work related stress. Poor snowflakes.

 

[Pale Rider]

This was my understanding, that as its a Royal Park it has some by-law that makes cyclists fair game for fines. I've just cycled around Battersea Park (not a Royal Park) and there are signs there saying its a 12 mph speed limit but this only applies to motor vehicles, and I've cyclist past many a copper at much faster than that and they don't bat an eyelid there.

Richmond is a different kettle of fish, I don't go to Richmond anymore as its full of cyclist nobbers riding like douchebags trying to beat PB's. A popular challenge across other forums is to try and do 3 laps in under an hour, which as 3 laps is about 20 miles it means averaging over 20 mph for the whole 3 laps, so there's literally 1000's of cyclists trying to beat this every day. The police hide with their ray gun at the bottom of Broomfield hill where it is very easy to do 40mph, but over the course of a lap there is only really 2 or 3 places where cyclists can easily exceed 20mph, and only briefly. I've seen numerous cyclists pulled over before but not once have I ever seen a motorist being fined, it just strikes me as a waste of police time. There are definitely more pressing things the police could be dealing with, but traffic seems to be seen as a cash cow these days, and the fines seem more to do with income generation than any concerns over safety.

Are these parks-only police?

Something rings a bell from my time in London that the Royal parks have their own coppers.

If so, they probably haven't got anything better to do once they've ensured the Queen's deer are not being poached.

 

[booze and cake]

@Pale Rider not as far as I know, they just seen your regular cops to me, they don't wear different uniforms or have special park vehicles, so we wouldn't be able to differentiate them even if they were. But if they are based in the park all day that sounds like a proper cushy posting.... hey lads, its ice cream and donut o'clock again.

 

[Pale Rider]

@Pale Rider not as far as I know, they just seen your regular cops to me, they don't wear different uniforms or have special park vehicles, so we wouldn't be able to differentiate them even if they were. But if they are based in the park all day that sounds like a proper cushy posting.... hey lads, its ice cream and donut o'clock again.

Seems the Park Keepers had the powers of a constable up to 2004, when the Met took over.

So when I was there in the 1980s it probably did look like the parks had their own police force.

Policing is now done by the Royal Parks OCU - Met-speak for operational command unit.

https://www.royalparks.org.uk/managing-the-parks/policing-in-the-royal-parks

 

[nickyboy]

This is a bit of an old saw.

If the speed limit legally applies to someone and if that someone is measured exceeding the speed limit with legally acceptable equipment (properly calibrated etc) then they can be prosecuted, whether or not they have a speedometer. Saying "but I don't have a speedo, I didn't know I was speeding" would prove to be a rather poor defence.

Edit. Ooops. Cross posts with several above. I didn't notice the thread had a second page.

I think, more generally, that trying to wriggle out of a speed limit isn't the way to go.

There is a decent downhill not far from me that is 20 limit due to the presence of a school. If I exceed the limit and hit a child while cycling of course I won't do as much harm as a car. But it still isn't going to be pretty. So I stick to the limit

Trying to argue that I'm not required to have a speedo etc so limits dont apply strikes me as poor form. You're on the road so obey the limit

 

[Oldfentiger]

I think, more generally, that trying to wriggle out of a speed limit isn't the way to go.

There is a decent downhill not far from me that is 20 limit due to the presence of a school. If I exceed the limit and hit a child while cycling of course I won't do as much harm as a car. But it still isn't going to be pretty. So I stick to the limit

Trying to argue that I'm not required to have a speedo etc so limits dont apply strikes me as poor form. You're on the road so obey the limit

My previous post, regarding the absence of a speedometer:
My reason for posting that was because I was told by a friend (who is a police officer in Traffic) that a cyclist cannot be prosecuted for exceeding a speed limit for this reason.
I hasten to add that I do not condone or defend speeding in any circumstance.
Feck sake - stick yer head above the parapet at your own risk on this forum.

 

[PK99]

Trying to argue that I'm not required to have a speedo etc so limits dont apply strikes me as poor form. You're on the road so obey the limit

My view entirely. Every bleat of "ya boo, I'm a cyclist the rules don't apply to me" makes the case for strengthening the law on cycling offences ever stronger.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

My reason for posting that was because I was told by a friend (who is a police officer in Traffic) that a cyclist cannot be prosecuted for exceeding a speed limit for this reason.

The real reason is that the applicable legislation only refers to motor vehicles. A bicycle is not a motor vehicle.
The lack of a speedo is a red herring.

 

[PK99]

The real reason is that the applicable legislation only refers to motor vehicles. A bicycle is not a motor vehicle.
The lack of a speedo is a red herring.

And at the time the (motorised) limits were initially farmed, the idea of a pushbike being able to exceed them was not condidered likely.

20 mph limits make it easy

 

[nickyboy]

The real reason is that the applicable legislation only refers to motor vehicles. A bicycle is not a motor vehicle.
The lack of a speedo is a red herring.

Applicable legislation or not, if you're cycling at 30 down a hill in a 20 zone and hit a child, you're going to hurt them. I get a bit fed up with the narrative that certain laws don't apply to cyclists. As @PK99 says, obey the laws on the road, all of them, even if they don't strictly apply to cyclists.

Otherwise expect tightening of cycling-specific legislation

 

[booze and cake]

This. ^

It's just a fact that the limits only apply to motor vehicles. That's all. There's no reason for it other than that's what the wording of the legislation says. Stating it as a fact isn't yar-boo-ism. It just is.

Personally speaking, the way I ride and my own physical limitations means I never (or am extremely unlikely to) exceed the limits anyway, so the whole thing doesn't matter much to me one way or the other.

The wind that's out there today can make us all look like racers, I got up to 33 mph along flat ground by Battersea this afternoon, overtaking a double-taking scooter in the process, and I'm a 46 year old knacker riding old steel bikes. Coming the other direction a bit earlier I was lucky to hit 16 mph. Just to clarify that does not mean I think bikers in Richmond could get off by claiming they were speeding because of the wind, though I'd love to see the officers face when they tried that one.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Applicable legislation or not, if you're cycling at 30 down a hill in a 20 zone and hit a child, you're going to hurt them. I get a bit fed up with the narrative that certain laws don't apply to cyclists. As @PK99 says, obey the laws on the road, all of them, even if they don't strictly apply to cyclists.

Otherwise expect tightening of cycling-specific legislation

I feel you may have misinterpreted the point of my post, which was to correct the faulty reasoning of @Oldfentiger 's traffic cop pal, not to justify ignoring a limit.

I've previously made my position on speeding (as it relates to cycles) clear, and agree there's no good reason not to obey posted speed limits for motor vehicles. See below...

I look at it from the pedestrians' perspective. In a 20mph zone, they are entitled to expect that the limit is there to prioritise their safety and that it should be respected by all vehicle operators. The elderly, and others who are less mobile, should be able to cross streets in these zones without the worry and apprehension that comes with doing the same in a 30mph, or higher, area. Crossing those roads is stressful, worrying and tiring, as they hurry as best they can to get to the other side.

And I don't expect the average pedestrian to know that speed limits can't be enforced against cyclists.

As infrequent as the opportunity to exceed it may be, I will always comply with the posted speed limit while cycling. While it might not be my legal obligation, I feel it is my moral/societal obligation.