Each month, we email a bulletin to everyone who has signed up on this site. Below is the edition that we sent in August 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… +++ Why through traffic must end, and why you should tell Richmond Park’s MP what you think +++ Police report on incidents during the last quarter-year +++ Crash on Broomfield Hill +++ Changes to Highway Code... but don’t celebrate just yet +++ Bike parking spaces – should there be more?
MAKE THE WRITE DECISION
Welcome to a special edition of Richmond Park Cyclists’ bulletin. This month, we are setting out our aim to end through traffic in Richmond Park, explaining why it should happen, and encouraging you to help us achieve this goal in the months ahead
Please take a moment to read our ideas below, and if you agree with us, write to Sarah Olney, the member of Parliament for Richmond Park to express your thoughts in your own words. We are told that the majority of the correspondence she receives about the park’s roads support their use as a through route so it is vital that we redress that balance before The Royal Parks’ Movement Strategy trial ends in March next year
You can email Sarah at office@saraholney.com. Do it today, chums!
IT’S TIME TO END THROUGH TRAFFIC
Mega-cities have expanded throughout the world, clogged and choked by motor traffic. By contrast, in London we are fortunate to still have our large, green open spaces such as Richmond Park which can provide respite from the stresses and challenges of daily city life.
But, depending on the time of the week, between 68 and 91 percent of motorists on the roads inside Richmond Park are using it as a shortcut, according to The Royal Parks. Its 2017 draft report also indicated that women, children and disabled riders are put off cycling in the park by motor traffic.
Richmond Park Cyclists is an ally of Richmond Park. We want what is best for it. And the best outcome of the Movement Strategy will be an end to through traffic, which encroaches on the use of London’s number one free cycling resource as a place for public recreation, health and well-being for all.
Our sedentary lifestyle has caused increasing obesity, cardiovascular disease and diabetes. As a society we should exercise more, but unless we have super-safe places to do that, many simply won’t get on their bikes. Without through traffic, Richmond Park would be a far better place for children and other less experienced cyclists to gain confidence
Richmond Park, which is a National Nature Reserve, should be a place of tranquility where Londoners can breathe clean air and listen to the natural world around them. Cars, even when driven considerately, are intimidating for many pedestrians and cyclists. The poor air quality motor vehicles create is linked to asthma, strokes and cancers, and traffic noise is linked with rising stress levels and reduced ability to concentrate. Away from the roadway, air quality is relatively good and noise levels are lower. But this is not the case near its roads. Removing shortcut traffic would improve all visitors’ general health.
Moreover, The Royal Parks is obliged by its charitable objects to protect the natural environment of its green spaces. Allowing through traffic to continue is contrary to those aims.
Some motorists argue that the rising number of cars on London’s roads justifies using Richmond Park as part of the road network. But it is increasingly accepted that the only solution to congestion is to reduce car journeys. Only a shift to more active travel and better public transport will prevent unworkable congestion and reduce pollution which is driving climate change. We need to encourage more cycling and walking, and a Richmond Park free of through traffic will do exactly that.
Covid has been a miserable experience for many, but it has highlighted the importance of open spaces in our cities. The complete closure of Richmond Park to motor vehicles in 2020 showed us how significantly the ambience and environment improved without cars. We want The Royal Parks to show leadership and seize this golden opportunity to keep all through traffic out of the park on a permanent basis.
Previous generations had the foresight to create the parks. It is our responsibility to enhance and protect them.
PASSED OVER
As promised last month, we spoke to the park’s police about measuring the incidence of close passes on the park’s roads. We were told that the specialist unit that carries out this type of investigation would not do so as the number of incidents on the roadway that result in hospitalisation of cyclists show that it is relatively safer than roads in London generally.
Well, the park is safe for cycling within that very limited definition. But, as the list below shows, it is not as safe as many would expect a public place of recreation to be. In what is a recurring theme of this edition of the bulletin, the solution in many cases is to end through traffic.
Here are the highlights of the data from the latest quarter-year, presented to the park’s Police Panel last month:
As in previous reports, the notion that cycling endangers others in the park is belied by the list of injuries. In 11 of the 15 reported incidents, cyclists were hurt with no other party involved. Most of these types of accidents were due to simple mistakes, such as braking too sharply downhill, and the injuries were only cuts and bruises. Two incidents were seemingly caused by weather conditions – in May, one rider fainted in the heat while another was blown off by a gust of wind on Broomfield Hill.
A cyclist and a driver nearly collided on Richmond Hill in May, and a “verbal altercation” took place as they entered Richmond Park, leading to the rider kicking the car. The motorist retaliated by slapping him across the head, knocking his glasses off.
In June, a driver turned left into one of the car parks, causing a cyclist to collide with the car and sustain cuts to their knees. Somewhat vaguely, the report gives the location as “Broomfield Hill (possibly Dark Hill)”.
In May, a cyclist and an off-duty police officer attempted to stop a driver maneuvering around barriers on Broomfield Hill. A “low-impact collision” occurred resulting in “a small cut to the officer’s hand”.
As we reported in May’s bulletin, a 12-year-old girl had a cut on her forehead after she stepped out into the path of a cyclist riding at a sensible speed on the road in front of the Roehampton Gate car park.
The number of motorists the police had to deal with far outstrips cyclists. The two commonest types of misdemeanors were trade vehicles passing through the park – 149 in June alone – and parking in unauthorised areas.
BROOMFIELD HELL
There was an incident – and it’s a pretty dramatic one – that will appear in the next police report. It was not recorded in the latest report as it took place outside its quarterly time frame of April to June.
On the evening of Monday, July 12, a cyclist descending Broomfield Hill came off after trying to avoid a car whose driver was doing a U-turn on the bottom corner. The motorist had driven around the barriers at the top and apparently claimed Google Maps had sent him down the hill.
Amazingly, the cyclist rode the short distance home with a broken scapula, a fractured shoulder and a bent bike rather than wait 90 minutes for an ambulance, which meant police did not attend the scene. But the victim later contacted Sgt Peter Sturgess from the park’s police with details, including the car’s number plate, which officers have used to locate the driver.
The cyclist, who is on the mend, says the specialist police unit that investigates road traffic accidents have not yet told him what action will be taken against the driver. He asked us to urge caution when riding in the park as drivers sometimes “panic and do stupid stuff”, and hazards ahead can be obscured by a tree and bushes on the bottom corner of Broomfield.
As for the driver apparently claiming he was guided by his sat nav app, that could be true. If it was not updated, the current restrictions might not have shown up – and in theory if enough motorists drive past the barriers, Google changes its maps to show the route is available to drive on. And it is not just Google – earlier this week, the injured cyclist showed us on his phone that Apple Maps gave Broomfield Hill as a drivable route through the park.
But, of course, “my sat nav told me to do it” is no defence; there is a big sign on the hilltop clearly telling drivers that it is a no-go area for cars.
This incident shows, yet again, that allowing through traffic invites bad driving which can cause serious injury to cyclists. The use of the park as a shortcut route for drivers must end.
HIGH AMBITIONS
A quick word about the Government’s interim announcement a few days ago concerning forthcoming changes to the Highway Code.
The new version will define a "hierarchy of road users" to make it clear that drivers of cars, vans and lorries "have the greatest responsibility to reduce the danger they may pose to others". It will also ensure cyclists have priority when travelling straight ahead at junctions. To sustain the increase in active travel during the pandemic, an extra £338million will be spent to boost cycling and walking.
All are welcome developments, but we will wait until the autumn when the Government publishes the new code in full before celebrating. In October, we spoke to Cycling UK and British Cycling about our concerns regarding the proposed alteration of Rule 66, which is likely to have an impact on riding two abreast in the park if it is implemented as written (essentially, the wording obliges cyclists to single out in some situations, which can be less safe, when drivers wish to overtake). We hope the Government listens to concerns on this issue from cycling bodies and cyclists who took part in the public consultation.
HOOPS AND DREAMS
On a final note, here’s a little victory that has led us to ponder a bigger question.
One of our subscribers was unable to lock her bike’s frame and front wheel at Pen Ponds because the cafe’s electricity generator was pushed up against the parking hoops. We sent photos of the problem to the park’s management, who said the mobile generator was in place while the permanent one was being fixed, and that they would chase up the cafe to get it sorted. Happily, this has now been done.
This got us thinking about bike parking generally. We do not know exactly how many spaces are provided throughout the park, where all of them are or how often they are used. Should The Royal Parks provide a greater number of secure and visible cycle parking spaces to encourage more visitors to leave their cars at home and ride to the park? We are now in the process of looking at all the bike parking areas to answer that question.
SEE YOU NEXT MONTH...
As ever, thank you for allowing us to pop into your inbox – and don’t forget to email Sarah Olney with your thoughts on making Richmond Park free of through traffic (her email address is office@saraholney.com).
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