Each month, we email a bulletin to everyone who has signed up on this site. Below is the mailout that we sent in June 2021. If you like it, please sign up on our Get Involved section – you will be showing your support for our work and you will receive our free monthly bulletins a month before they appear here.
IN THIS ISSUE…Traffic data gathering has begun +++ What are the aims of The Royal Parks’ trustees? +++ Code of Conduct cards available in two more local stores +++ E-scooters – time for TRP to rethink +++ A brief explainer of the 20mph limit
TUBE SERVICE
The collection of traffic data, which was the reason behind the decision to extend Richmond Park’s traffic trial for one year, has now begun. Tube counters – two black leads set about a foot apart – have been laid across the road by Ham Gate, Richmond Gate and Roehampton Gate by the surrounding borough councils. There are also counters on nearby roads in Richmond and Kingston.
Their purpose is to estimate how much traffic is being displaced from the park to the neighbouring roads as a result of the trial. At the same time, Transport for London is monitoring traffic movements on main roads near the park. TfL has data going back a considerable length of time, which should enable it to distinguish between historic traffic patterns, those related to the pandemic and those caused by the park’s trial.
Our aim, as long-time subscribers will know, is for The Royal Parks to exclude through motor traffic in the park. Traffic data will form part of that debate. TRP believes all the data from the boroughs will be shared on an open basis, so we’ll be keeping an eye out for when it appears and letting you know when it does.
OBJECTS LESSON
With the clock ticking on the extension of the park’s traffic trial, we are now turning our attention to the charitable objects that The Royal Parks’ trustees have to work towards and how they are seemingly at odds with allowing the park to be used as a shortcut for motorists.
The objects state that the trustees will “promote the use and enjoyment of the Royal Parks for public recreation, health and well-being, including through the provision of sporting [...] activities”. As the experience of lockdown showed, lower traffic levels increase the use of the roadway for recreation and exercise in the form of cycling, walking and running. But removing through traffic was not given as an option in the questions that formed the Movement Strategy’s final public survey.
TRP’s charitable status is underpinned by its objects. If the trustees believe they have other duties to the park which override the need to tackle through traffic, then we should know what they are.
CARD HOLDERS
Our thanks to Giant Twickenham and Sigma Sport who join Cycle Exchange, La Ciclista and Pearson on the list of local businesses who are stocking the credit-card-sized versions of the cycling Code of Conduct for their customers to pick up. And thank you to those on social media who were not quite as supportive as our subscribers have been – your comments did at least earn us more sign-ups than we usually get over the course of a month!
The full version of the Code, as we mentioned in last month’s bulletin, is in a newly-erected noticeboard near the Roehampton Gate car park. We’ll review the wording of the two-abreast section once the Government publishes its revised wording on Rule 66 of the Highway Code, which we discussed with Cycling UK, British Cycling and the Institute of Civil Engineers, and will look at updating the rest of the Code of Conduct at a later date based on the feedback we receive.
ELECTRIC FAULT
This Monday sees the start of Transport for London’s 12-month trial of electric scooters which will be available for hire, initially across six selected boroughs. Richmond upon Thames is one of them – but, curiously, Richmond Park will be out of bounds. The Royal Parks has refused permission as it believes e-scooters pose “an unacceptable risk to pedestrians” and “undermine the peace and ambience” of its green spaces. This is despite the three firms who are hiring out the scooters limiting them to a relatively sedate maximum speed of 12.5mph.
Of course, what really makes the park less pleasant than it should be is the high level of motor traffic. TRP will not immediately shut out motorists who use the park as a shortcut as it has already agreed to extend the duration of the trial restrictions in order to measure and analyse traffic data. But with this announcement, it has put itself in a questionable position. When the trial finishes in March next year, would TRP really choose to leave cars cutting through the park unimpeded, making many cyclists and pedestrians feel less safe, while keeping its ban on e-scooters, which are a far less polluting and less dangerous form of transport than motor vehicles?
This isn’t the first time that e-scooters have been sent packing from a royal park. More than two years ago, TRP turned down no fewer than eight scooter hire companies who wanted to run trials in Hyde Park. Mat Bonomi, TRP’s former Head of Transport, cited the idea of using scooters to traverse Hyde Park as one of many concepts that were attempting to reimagine the movement of people through cities. The Movement Strategy is intended to be TRP’s own vision, independent of outside influence, of how people move through its green spaces.
Our view is that the two should not be mutually exclusive. The Movement Strategy can rebalance Richmond Park’s roads in favour of cycling and walking while also allowing this new, legal form of scooter travel. TRP should evaluate which parts of the park are safe for them to be in and use geofencing to keep them within those areas.
A blanket ban is not the answer – and as more people choose e-scooters for commuting as restrictions are lifted and they return to their workplaces, the pressure is surely on for a rethink.
COOP DE GRACE
What’s the difference between a chicken shed on wheels and a bicycle? The answer is probably not much, as far as the law is concerned.
Our cycling Code of Conduct, which states that cyclists should respect the 20mph speed limit in the park, has prompted a debate about its enforceability. Some wise legal heads have argued that it does not apply to cyclists. But there has never been a legal challenge on this basis, let alone a successful one – and until there is, the practical and sensible approach is to treat 20mph as the maximum.
The theories recently put forward have been lingering on cycling websites and forums for many years. Some reason that as bicycles do not need to be fitted with a speedometer, speed limits do not apply. This contradicts the golden rule that ignorance of the law is no excuse – and other vehicles, such as motorbikes with an engine smaller than 100cc and first used before April 1984, also do not need speedos yet are still subject to speed limits.
Others point to The Royal Parks’ advice that speed limits do not generally apply to cycling in its parks, and overlook its recommendation that cyclists “keep to appropriate speeds”. The Royal Parks police are clearer. They tell us: “We deem the appropriate speed to be the sign-posted speed limit.” This is 20mph on the outer roadway and 10mph on the Quietway through the centre of the park.
Then there is TRP’s regulation that “no person using a park shall drive or ride any vehicle on a park road in excess of the speed specified”. The regulations do not consistently define bicycles as vehicles, which leads some to the conclusion that the speed limit doesn’t apply to cyclists. This is where our mobile chicken home trundles into view. In case law, a poultry shed on wheels has been defined as a vehicle, as has a moveable stall with tyres. The police say: “It is therefore possible that a court may conclude that a bicycle is a vehicle and therefore the speed limit does apply.”
It is certainly true that the law and the park’s regulations could do with some clarity. But it is a general principle that the substance of the law should be followed where the form is unclear, particularly when there has been no specific legal challenge. And in this case, the big digits reading “20” and “10” that are painted on the park’s road are a fairly obvious indication of the maximum speeds the general public and police expect us to adhere to. (A less obvious indication are the small signposts dotted around the park, which feature a little graphic of a bicycle next to the 20mph limit. Slow down or you might not see them!)
One of the joys of riding in Richmond Park is that the roadway is unencumbered by some of the more extreme forms of traffic calming measures. If The Royal Parks came under pressure to deal with the minority of cyclists who speed, then that might change. The simplest way to avoid greater traffic calming in the future, or legislation specifically targeting cyclists’ speed, is to follow the advice of the Code and keep within the 20mph limit.
It’s a fairly simple rule which helps make the roads a bit more hospitable for less confident or inexperienced cyclists. So let’s all keep up the good work and set an example of riding well to others.
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