Richmond Park idiots.

[glasgowcyclist]

20 mph limits make it easy

Easy?!

 

[si_c]

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.

There's an argument to be made from self preservation too, if you're cycling down a hill at 30mph in a 20mph zone, it's not unreasonable for other road users to expect you to be within the speed limit and act accordingly. For example pulling out of a side road.

I try to ride reasonably predictably when moving with traffic and adhering to speed limits falls within that category.

 

[screenman]

It is not a new thing in the park, I got pulled over in that park and told to ride slower and take more care when I was 14, I am 62 now.

 

[booze and cake]

I'm sure there was an online clip/film of David Miller when he was still riding pro, have a filmed lap of him thrashing round Richmond Park on his TT bike in full skin suit. He was famously on the special sauce of course, and did 3 laps in something like 45 mins or less, leaving local MAMILS slack jawed in amazement. Then someone realised that was way too fast to be legal and setting a bad example and the vid was removed.

 

[PK99]

Easy?!

We live in a hilly country. Coming down Wimbledon Hill it is easy to free wheel an hit the 20mph at the bottom at 30plus.

Lots of you tube commuters regularly show well over 20 on the flat.

I'm a 60 plus plodder and on long straights can easily wind up to 20 plus.
And on the pru100 averaged 20 from the start to Hampton Court.

So yes, easy

 

[slowmotion]

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 pretty much agree with that except that I don't expect to have to comply with laws that don't legally apply to me. If I am guilty, in mitigation I'll say that the sight lines in Richmond Park are excellent, and that the only things that might step out, randomly and suddenly , are badgers or deer.

 

[PK99]

I pretty much agree with that except that I don't expect to have to comply with laws that don't legally apply to me. If I am guilty, in mitigation I'll say that the sight lines in Richmond Park are excellent, and that the only things that might step out, randomly and suddenly , are badgers or deer.

Interesting, particularly as it is only for technical reasons that the law does not apply. My personal ethics tell me to follow the spirit of the law in this case rather than the letter. Given the high horse from which many cyclists pontificate about fast passes within the speed limit by motorists, it surprises me that that is not the general approach.

Next time a motorist passes me with 1.5m gap at 55 in a 60 limit, I'll give him a cheery wave.

 

[slowmotion]

Interesting, particularly as it is only for technical reasons that the law does not apply. My personal ethics tell me to follow the spirit of the law in this case rather than the letter. Given the high horse from which many cyclists pontificate about fast passes within the speed limit by motorists, it surprises me that that is not the general approach.

Next time a motorist passes me with 1.5m gap at 55 in a 60 limit, I'll give him a cheery wave.

I don't have a high horse on this, but I'm still going to go down Bromfield Hill as fast as I can when nobody is about. The only realistic victims are a badger, a deer, and me. It'll serve me right if I come to grief. Anyway, I'll die not breaking the law.

 

[nickyboy]

I don't have a high horse on this, but I'm still going to go down Bromfield Hill as fast as I can when nobody is about. The only realistic victims are a badger, a deer, and me. It'll serve me right if I come to grief. Anyway, I'll die not breaking the law.

I guess my issue with this is that it may not be you coming to grief.

Take the example I mentioned upthread. There's a hill near that is limited to 20 as there is a primary school there. It would be easy to do 30 down the hill. Do you think it's ok to do 30 down there?

It's kinda tough to say that one uses ones own judgement as to when it's ok to exceed the speed limit as everyone's judgement is different

 

[slowmotion]

I guess my issue with this is that it may not be you coming to grief.

Take the example I mentioned upthread. There's a hill near that is limited to 20 as there is a primary school there. It would be easy to do 30 down the hill. Do you think it's ok to do 30 down there?

It's kinda tough to say that one uses ones own judgement as to when it's ok to exceed the speed limit as everyone's judgement is different

The whole park is limited to 20mph for motorists, they say. For all I know, that speed limit is unenforceable too. What I do know is that after the gates to the park are shut in the evening, and motorised traffic is excluded, I don't feel that I'm terrorising anybody, including primary school children if I go down Broomfield Hill in a state of elation and utter terror. Badgers and deer may see it differently. I apologise for any inconvenience caused.

 

[mjr]

Interesting, particularly as it is only for technical reasons that the law does not apply. My personal ethics tell me to follow the spirit of the law in this case rather than the letter. Given the high horse from which many cyclists pontificate about fast passes within the speed limit by motorists, it surprises me that that is not the general approach.

It ain't technical reasons. Go read the parliamentary discussion of the introduction of the first speed limits for motorists (Hansard is online a long way back) and it may surprise you. The spirit of the law is also that they are motoring speed limits - they don't apply to horses either, high or otherwise, and a galloping horse is a much bigger beast than even @Drago.

ETA: as I understand it, speed limits for motor vehicles (then called locomotives) were introduced in the Locomotives on Highways Acts of the 1860s because of concerns about the damage that their wheel weight could do, primarily to the road surfaces when turning at speed (few of which were tarmacked before a CTC campaign started in 1885) but also if they hit other road users - people then seemed to understand that faster cars did more damage, perhaps better than most people now!

Next time a motorist passes me with 1.5m gap at 55 in a 60 limit, I'll give him a cheery wave.

With one finger or two? (assuming you mean less than 1.5m...)

 

[nickr]

https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/...mond-park-hits-out-at-hiding-policemen-198226

https://road.cc/content/news/94300-teen-cyclist-fined-riding-37mph-richmond-park

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2014/jul/25/can-cyclists-be-fined-for-speeding

 

[mjr]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2014/jul/25/can-cyclists-be-fined-for-speeding

Beware! That refers to the failed/withdrawn consultation draft of a code of conduct for cyclists as "archive notes on" it, misleading readers into thinking it was ever an issued code. What other sleight of pen is in that article, I wonder.