CHARGING AHEAD… BUT NOT YET
It seemed like a shock to some when The Royal Parks revealed on Monday that 81 per cent of the 12,000 people who responded to its consultation on introducing car parking charges are against the proposal. But was it really a surprise? In effect, TRP was asking those who choose to drive to the park if they would like to pay for a facility they are already getting for free. Rather like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas, “no”, was a predictable response.
Nevertheless, TRP now plans to go ahead with the charges, which are £1.40 per hour Monday to Friday and £2 at weekends, up to a maximum of six hours. Blue badge holders get to park for free within the same time limit. In response to 84 per cent of respondents opposing the seven-day charging schedule of 9am to 6pm, TRP has reduced the proposed hours to 9am to 4pm on weekdays while keeping nine till six at weekends. The charges would bring Richmond Park and Bushy Park in line with TRP’s other green spaces, none of which offers free parking (and neither do most other parks and beauty spots.) You can see the full update here.
We would like to thank all our subscribers who took part in the consultation after we backed the proposal in October’s bulletin. Any reduction of motor vehicles increases the chance of more diverse populations of visitors coming to enjoy the unique environment of the park’s roadway by bike, many for the first time, as the restrictions during lockdown and the ongoing traffic trial have proved. Additionally, TRP has pledged to invest the revenue from charges on projects to help visitors access the park without a car.
But it is not a certainty that charging will happen. For a start, it requires parliamentary approval, which may take many months to table. In the meantime, Richmond Park’s MP Sarah Olney is seeking “urgent clarification” on the impact that displaced parking would have on the roads where her constituents live, and a petition opposing the move has attracted more than 2,700 signatures since it began last year. (For a good overview of the background, the current plan and reactions to it, have a look at Ross Lydall’s report in the Evening Standard, in which we get a brief mention. Thanks, Ross!)
Whatever the outcome, we commend TRP for pushing ahead. The original plan to introduce parking charges was kiboshed by the government of the time a decade ago – and since then alternative sources of vital funding have failed to materialise. TRP is now a charity, which means it must raise its own funding rather than rely on a government grant. And Richmond Park’s car parks are now in such a sorry state that the one at Roehampton Gate now has a hole the size of a large paddling pool. Surely those who drive to the park will want the surfaces they rely on repaired?
OUR PANEL OF EXPERTS
The parking charge issue may come up in the next meeting of the Police Panel, which takes place on Wednesday, April 14. As usual, Richmond Park Cyclists will be attending along with other stakeholders. The meeting sets out priorities for the police team over the coming quarter-year, so if there are any issues you would like us to bring up, perhaps in relation to the ongoing traffic trial, please get in touch.
COP A LOAD OF ABUSE
In November last year, we pointed out that delivery drivers, teachers at the ballet school, the Royal Parks’ staff and contractors all display permits in their vehicles that allow them to drive in the restricted areas of the roadway. You can also add police to that list.
Like the aforementioned workers, a blameless officer driving to Holly Lodge in his own unmarked car at the start of his working day has recently been the target of foul-mouthed abuse from cyclists who think he has broken the rules when, obviously, he hasn’t.
It was heartening that our social media post on this deplorable behaviour last week was one of our most viewed – clearly many of you feel the same way as we do. Nevertheless, the advice bears repeating: do not abuse any motorist, and if you see anyone do it, please ask them to stop. Their behaviour affects the reputation of us all.
CALLING THE POLICE
While on the subject of the park’s police unit, a small reminder about reporting incidents which was prompted by a direct message sent to us last month.
A Twitter follower was on Queen’s Road when he saw a moped rider grabbing a cyclist’s handlebars in a bid to take him off. The eyewitness said he was not sure how to share the information.
If you find yourself in a similar situation after witnessing an incident, please tell the police by dialling 101, or 999 if it is an emergency. You can also make a non-emergency report online or direct to @MetCC.
Also on Twitter this week, someone mentioned that a cyclist descended Sawyer’s Hill and hit the back of a car after it came to a halt. Sgt Peter Sturgess from the Parks Police has since told us the driver braked due to another car overtaking in the opposite direction, and the cyclists had minor cuts and concussion. If any more info emerges about either incident, we’ll let you know.
CROSSING THE DIVIDE
The report on the responses to the current traffic trial, which was published three weeks ago when The Royal Parks announced that the restrictions are being extended for a year, revealed that alongside the increase of traffic in surrounding areas, “dangerous interactions between cyclists and other park users” was the joint-second concern of respondents. One respondent in Kingston feared “dangerous speeds” of cyclists were putting pedestrians at risk, while another in Richmond predicted a fatality.
That’s the perception. What about the reality?
At the last Police Panel meeting, the park’s police said no accidents in recent memory have been reported that have resulted in the hospitalisation of a pedestrian after a collision with a cyclist – and, remember, that is after a period of time when more people have been riding bikes in the park than ever before. So it isn’t actual danger that is the cause of concerns.
The real root of the tensions between visitors walking in the park and cyclists is most probably confusion over pedestrian priority. Outside the park, cyclists generally understand that they should stop at crossings. Inside the park, they do not automatically know that pedestrians always have priority (although our Code of Conduct now exists to start getting that message across, as well as reminding everyone that the speed limit of 20mph applies to cyclists).
We have asked TRP to create a sense of shared space on the roads next to gates, car parks and junctions to calm traffic flows and allow easier crossing for pedestrians trialing of zebra crossings. We’ve also asked for more signage to get road users and pedestrians to yield and take care. TRP is understandably averse to making the environment of the park, which everyone values, look more urban. But in the interests of making everyone feel safe, we think some of these measures should be implemented.
VULNERABLE TO CRITICISM
Well, it had to happen some time. More than three years after making its debut, this monthly email bulletin has finally received its first series of complaints.
Last month’s report on the driver who caused a collision with a female cyclist at Ham Cross stated: “With more cyclists visiting the park – particularly women and other road users classed as vulnerable – it seems likely that there will be more incidents like this if the road between Kingston and Richmond gates remains open to through traffic.” Five people objected to the term “vulnerable”, arguing that the description implied women cyclists are not as competent as men and, therefore, more prone to accidents.
That was not our intention. It was meant to reflect a study in 2015 headed by the University of Westminster’s transport expert Rachel Aldred which found female cyclists are twice as likely to be subjected to near misses or harassment than men, with the cause attributed to women generally riding at slower speeds than their male counterparts. In that sense, women do appear to be more vulnerable – through no fault of their own.
Nevertheless, we recognise that many women who ride in the park are more confident than the average cyclist and, therefore, quite rightly do not consider themselves vulnerable. And, of course, the park is relatively much safer than roads outside it, which slightly alters the context. We’ll take both these aspects into account in future. In any case we apologise for any offense caused.
AND ON THAT BOMBSHELL...
It’s just as well that this bulletin has arrived in your inbox just after midnight, otherwise you might think that this final item is an April Fool’s joke. But it’s all true!
At around 7:45pm on Sunday evening, as the park was shutting its main gates, we were cycling along the Priory Lane section of the park’s outer road towards Roehampton Gate when a car, which was a fair distance ahead, came to a halt. It could go no further as there was a police car parked diagonally across the road. Two officers got out and advised us and the motorist to turn around and exit at Richmond Gate instead. Their manner was polite, but there was a slight air of urgency.
We have since discovered the reason for the detour: an unexploded World War Two German incendiary device had been discovered in the fields. Specialist officers removed it that night, and the park gates opened as normal the following morning. Amazing stuff!
SEE YOU NEXT MONTH...
As ever, thank you for allowing us to pop into your inbox, and let us know what you think about anything related to cycling in Richmond Park – we reply personally to every email you send us. If you enjoyed this bulletin, please share it with your cycling friends – and if they like what they read, encourage them to sign up to our mailing list too. The more subscribers we have, the bigger our voice.
All the best,
Richmond Park Cyclists