RPC Bulletin #46, November 2021

Each month, we email a bulletin to everyone who has signed up on this site. Below is the edition that we sent in November 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… +++ Bike-jacking suspect in custody +++ Police to target drivers ignoring traffic trial restrictions +++ A summary of road incidents over the past three months +++ Speed limits – the police’s final word

ROBBERIES LATEST

The spate of violent bike-jackings in the park carried out by balaclava-wearing thugs has attracted national attention and led to a drop in the number of cyclists. The police investigation is now being run by Operation Venice, the Met unit which has been tackling motorcycle-enabled crime across London since 2012. They have made one arrest, which has hopefully sent a message to the brazen thieves that it is not worth the risk, and the suspect is currently remanded in custody.

There have not been any more thefts in the park since police apprehended the suspect three weeks ago. He is still under investigation, and Sgt Peter Sturgess from the park’s police unit, which is separate to Operation Venice, seemed confident that the ongoing inquiry will lead to a welcome outcome.

Nevertheless, please remain vigilant and follow the police’s key advice:

• Try to cycle in groups if you can.

• Keep a friendly eye out for cyclists riding alone.

• If you hear a motorbike approaching in the distance at speed, dismount rather than risk being rammed off.

• Do not share photos or video footage of assailants on social media. Send them to the police. Visual clues, such as items of clothing, are valuable to detectives, who can use them to link the people on camera to crimes. Distributing images online can alert the criminals and increase the chance of them altering their appearance.

Here is a timeline of the events so far, along with the crime reference numbers. Call 101, quoting the relevant number, if you have any information which could help police with their enquiries or lead to the recovery of the stolen bikes.

Wednesday, October 6: Two males wearing balaclavas and riding electric scooters on Sawyers Hill pushed a cyclist off his bike – a red 2021 Cannondale System Six Ultegra – and stole it. (Crime ref: 0709961/21)

Thursday 7: At around 3pm, four males on two motorbikes pursued and rammed British pro cyclist Alexandar Richardson near Sheen Gate. The Alpecin-Fenix rider held on to his £10,000 Specialized Tarmac SL7 as he was dragged along the ground for 100 metres before one of the gang threatened him with a machete and made off with the bike. Alex posted a photo showing bad cuts to his leg from the attack. (Crime ref: 5103/07Oct)

Friday 8: We happened to be riding past Roehampton Gate at around 1.30pm when two officers who had just driven in stopped their car to warn us that a couple of people wearing balaclavas were spotted heading down Priory Lane on a moped and were believed to be in the park. They were not located and there was no theft this time.

Monday 11: There were two more violent bike-jackings, both at 5pm at separate locations outside the park, with the assailants wielding machetes again. One was on Putney High Street (Crime ref: 5688/11Oct), the other outside Ibstock School on Danebury Avenue near Roehampton Gate. The victim of the former robbery escaped unharmed. The rider involved in the latter was Marc Radville, 37, from Lewisham, who suffered bruising after the assailants rammed him to the ground.

Wednesday 13: Officers from Operation Venice apprehended a male on a motorbike in the park. He was stopped using “tactical contact”, which is the police term for intentionally knocking a suspect off a vehicle. He was taken into custody.

Friday 15: Police state a 16-year-old male was arrested on suspicion of robbery, attempted robbery, possession of an offensive weapon and allowing to be carried in a stolen vehicle. He is under investigation for the offences relating to the robberies in the park and was charged with offences related to a separate investigation. He is currently remanded in custody.

NO BARRIERS TO PROGRESS

At the quarterly police panel meeting which we attended last month, we asked Sgt Peter Sturgess to target motorists who drive around the barriers restricting traffic in the park – and we are pleased to say he has agreed that this will be one of his unit’s four main priorities over the next three months. 

Every meeting of the panel decides what the police will prioritise during the coming quarter-year. The suggested priorities are often carried over at the next meeting, which means targeting motorists breaching the trial restrictions could also be extended beyond January.

Sgt Sturgess’s adoption of our suggestion builds on the police’s decision, mentioned in last month’s bulletin, to report motorists for driving without due care and attention if they are caught going around the barriers – a harsher charge which can result in a fine, penalty points or requirement to go on a driving course.

Many of those who drive around the barriers have permission to do so as they are on park business, and their vehicles will have a relevant permit displayed. But many others are simply trying their luck – and as we previously reported, in July a cyclist was left with a broken scapula, a fractured shoulder and a bent bike after a driver who should not have been at the foot of Broomfield Hill tried to do a U-turn. Now that the police are sending a stronger message to motorists that the restrictions must be obeyed, the chance of such dangers occurring will hopefully be reduced.

REPORT RUNDOWN

Staying on the subject of the Police Panel meeting, here is a summary of road-related incidents in the police report for July, August and September.

• A total of 355 trade vehicles were issued with fixed penalty notices for illegally driving in the park. We believe this figure to be a record. Targeting trade vehicles was one of the police’s priorities for the quarter, and will continue to be so for the next three months.

• The most dramatic cycling-related incident was the crash on Broomfield Hill caused by a U-turning driver, mentioned above and in our August bulletin.

• There were 84 drivers fined for excessive speed, 29 for driving around the trial barriers, three taken to court for driving without due care or attention, and seven for no insurance.  

• No cyclists were issued with fines, but many were given advice at the roadside for riding without due care, or endangering others which sometimes involved inappropriate speed for the traffic conditions.

• There were two altercations involving a cyclist and a driver. The first, which took place in July on Broomfield Hill, resulted in the cyclist coming off his bike, suffering bruising and shallow cuts; the second was a verbal altercation on Queen’s Road in August where the driver braked hard and the rider went into the back of the car, grazing his hands.

• In July, a cyclist travelling uphill on Queen’s Road came off, hitting his head and hurting his hip, after he saw an oncoming driver overtaking cyclists and swerved to avoid him.

• Also in July, a driver waiting to turn right was overtaken by a cyclist as he started his manoeuvre. He hit the cyclist, causing grazes and cuts to his right arm, leg and face.

• There were two incidents of cyclists hitting pedestrians. On White Lodge Road in July, a pedestrian walking uphill was hit by a cyclist and fell to the floor. The pedestrian suffered a fractured cheek, extensive bruising, tooth damage and concussion. The cyclist, who came off the bike, cycled away. (We were previously told by the police that both parties were women and the cyclist said sorry before riding off.) The second incident, which was at Sheen Cross in August, saw a cyclist hitting a child who was crossing the road, resulting in grazes to the child’s hands.

Once again, the quarterly figures show that cyclists are open to greater danger in the park. The elimination of through traffic would reduce incidents that lead to their physical harm as well as free up police time which is currently spent on apprehending and fining drivers.

CULL BACK

It’s November, chums – which means the second of the biannual deer culls has begun. Here’s a quick reminder of the restrictions on cycling in the park at night and early morning while the operation is carried out.

For approximately six weeks, the pedestrian gates will open at 7:30am and close at 8pm, which means you will not be able to ride your bike in the park outside these times. Remember that the restrictions are for your own safety as firearms are used.

The Royal Parks’ team locks the gates in rotation each night. If you arrive at one of them shortly prior to locking time, please do not enter unless you are absolutely certain you can easily reach your exit before 8pm. Ride into the park at, say, 7.59 and you could find your exit is already locked – so you will have to head back to the gate where you entered, which will now be shut as well, then wait for TRP’s team to return on its final sweep and open it for you. Save yourself getting into a pickle by using the roads around the park instead. 

The cull, which TRP has a duty to carry out in order to control the number of deer, could last longer or shorter than the allocated six-week period, depending on the health of the herd. We will let you know via social media if the pedestrian gates reopen before our next monthly bulletin comes out.

SPEEDY RESOLUTION

On a final note, the park’s police and its management met to discuss a way forward after The Royal Parks wrote, in a response to a Freedom of Information request, that the speed limits stated in its regulations “are not deemed to apply to bicycles”.

The police’s response following the meeting clarifies the matter. Here is their statement: 

“It is a criminal offence, under existing Royal Parks regulations, for cyclists or any person in a park to intentionally or recklessly interfere with the safety, comfort or convenience of other visitors. This includes those cycling dangerously or recklessly at speed.  

“We acknowledge that while most visitors who cycle in the park are law-abiding, a small minority are not and their behaviour is an issue of concern for the wider public as well as other cyclists. We work closely with The Royal Parks as we enforce safe cycling across the parks, so all visitors and wildlife can enjoy the parks safely.

“To this end, we recommend that cyclists use the signposted limits as a guide for appropriate speeds.”

At the police panel meeting, which took place the day before the police and management met, it was made clear that the response to the FoI request makes no practical difference to the way the roads are policed. Officers have a range of powers to deal with excessive cycling speeds, and they tend to use them mainly when there is an aggravating factor involved such as, for example, weaving in and out of cars or crowds of people. (It should also be noted that the number of cyclists fined for speeding is incredibly small.)

We are pleased with the police’s statement. The limits of 20mph on the outer roadway and 10mph on the Quietway, which are signposted for cyclists, represent a reasonable speed for their particular environments. Now this distraction has been resolved, we can concentrate fully on our greater goal of eliminating through traffic from the park.

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

RPC Bulletin #44, September 2021

Each month, we email a bulletin to everyone who has signed up on this site. Below is the edition that we sent in September 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… +++ Come along to our inaugural public meeting! +++ Update on subscribers writing to Richmond Park’s MP +++ Plans for car-free weekend rejected +++ London Duathlon road closures on Sunday +++ Cycling speed advice changed

COME AND MEET US

We’ve met up in recent weeks with the representatives of the Richmond Cycling Campaign and the Friends of Richmond Park. Now we’re ready for our most important meeting – with YOU! 

Our first public event will take place in La Ciclista cafe in Sheen on Saturday, September 25 at 9.30am.  This get-together enables you to tell us what ideas you would like to be discussed when we meet with the management of Richmond Park on Tuesday 28th, which will be the first of our quarterly meetings with them. Or you can just come along to meet us in person, find out more about Richmond Park Cyclists, or just say hello!

Space is limited, so please reply to this email if you would like to come so we and the good people at Ciclista have some idea of numbers. See you there!

A MISSIVE EFFORT

A huge thank-you to everyone who wrote to Sarah Olney, the Liberal Democrat MP for Richmond Park, after reading last month’s bulletin, particularly those of you who forwarded or copied us in to the eloquently persuasive emails you sent to her. As we said in our previous newsletter, the majority of the correspondence Sarah receives about the park’s roads support their use as a through route, so it is vital that we redress that balance before the Movement Strategy trial ends in March next year.

If you haven’t emailed her, please do so at the address below, and express in your own words why you think there should be no through traffic in the park. You can read the item in last month’s bulletin, titled It’s Time To End Through Traffic, which sets out our approach for the coming months.

In her individual responses to some of the emails from our subscribers, Sarah has told those of you who are not her constituents that she is unable to assist “due to strict parliamentary protocol”. She asks those who live outside her constituency to write to their own MP instead. Please do so, and copy in Sarah as well. We are due to meet Sarah in the near future to discuss how she can take on board the concerns of constituents and non-constituents about cycling in the park.

To give you some inspiration for your emails to Sarah or your local MP, here are a few excerpts of messages other subscribers have sent.

“I am a car driver and cyclist. I have three children of 19, 17 and eight and have cycled with them all in Richmond Park many times as well as on my own. My strong view is that the park should be closed to all through traffic. [...] This would serve to drastically reduce the volume of vehicle traffic in the park along with the commensurate risk of accidents and pollution. There are perfectly adequate routes around the park (which of course seem to be no hardship for people to use at night) which traffic can use.”

“During the Covid pandemic I took up cycling and it really saved my mental health. [...] The cyclists who flock there (including women, children, people with disabilities, elderly people, etc, not just middle-aged men in expensive Lycra!) show just how much it’s enjoyed and could be enjoyed if it were a car-free zone. [...] We need, desperately, ONE safe space to cycle in: for mental health, for physical health, to lower our carbon footprints, to connect in safe, open-air environments with our family and friends.” 

“During lockdown local residents used Richmond Park as an oasis for exercise. Without cars driving through the park, recreational visitors enjoyed cleaner air and lower noise levels. For families with children and less experienced cyclists, it created a safe space where they could try cycling without the presence of cars on the road which many find intimidating. Given the need to reduce carbon emissions and to encourage people to exercise more to reduce the strain on health services through obesity and Type 2 diabetes, surely it would make sense to restrict vehicle through-traffic to support the continued use of the park as a safe space for exercise and cycling.”

“As a long-time resident of Richmond and someone who walks, cycles and (very occasionally) drives, I ask you to help us reclaim Richmond Park as a place to enjoy nature, to recreate and to breathe fresh air. I walk and cycle in Richmond Park, though not during busy times, as it has become just too dangerous, and I am shocked by the behaviour of many motorists who pay no attention to the speed limit, close pass cyclists, line up trying to enter the already expanded car parks, and generally behave as if it is their right to do what they want with no consideration for others – human or animal – in this beautiful natural space. Even those motorists who observe the speed limit and drive safely are contributing to pollution in this place of nature. [...] Future generations will look back and wonder what we were thinking, desecrating Richmond Park and places like it.”

“Leaving a rat run for [motorists], given the pressures of climate change, or the simple fact a park should be blighted by cars, cannot be supported. I would actively support and fund a credible Green candidate who pushed this as one of their core policies at the next election.”

So there you have it – ordinary people like you, expressing their personal experience of the park, and hoping to shape its future.  You can email Sarah at office@saraholney.com. Do it today, chums!

CAR-FREE ROADBLOCK

Our concept of a car-free day in Richmond Park, which appeared in July’s bulletin, has a natural appeal to many in the cycling community – so we were pleased to see other stakeholder groups take up a similar idea independently a couple of weeks ago and approach The Royal Parks to implement it. Less pleasingly, TRP has rebuffed the groups’ proposal to host it this month. Nevertheless, the chance of a car-free day at some point in the future remains a possibility, particularly as TRP itself has floated the idea in the recent past.

Last month’s approach to TRP was spearheaded by local environmental groups, including Richmond and Twickenham Friends of the Earth, the Kingston Environment Forum and Wandsworth Living Streets. We were approached by Andree Frieze, Green Party councillor for Ham and Petersham, to sign their letter, which also included the Wandsworth, Richmond and Kingston branches of the London Cycling Campaign as co-signatories. The Friends of Richmond Park declined to sign the letter, stating that its “overwhelming priority” instead is to encourage TRP to make the current traffic restrictions permanent, and asking that it is given “more time” in future to respond to other initiatives. (It should be noted that FoRP also has a stated position: “In the long-term, through traffic is surely incompatible with a National Nature Reserve. The park should not be a relief valve for the roads outside it.” We agree, although we would prefer if the Friends had added that this should be the case at the end of the trials.)

The plan was to hold the event on the weekend before Wednesday, September 22, which is World Car-Free Day. The letter to Andrew Scattergood, the Chief Executive of TRP, said: “The car-free weekend would be a family- and disability-friendly event, enabling everyone – whatever their ability or age – to use the park’s roadway, regardless of whether they are on foot, mobility aid, horse or bicycle.” Part of our role would have been to ask local cycling clubs to avoid using the park during that particular weekend and help find volunteers.

In turning down the request, Andrew Scattergood referred to the traffic restrictions currently in place and stated: “We will not be considering any further interventions until the trials have concluded.”

We do not consider a car-free day to be so much of an intervention, but more of an opportunity for TRP to show an enlightened attitude towards the growing need for more active travel. Indeed, the possibility of a car-free day appears in The Royal Parks’ Movement Strategy document (scroll down to “Outcome 6” and see for yourself). For this reason, and because so many who come to the park by bike and on foot would like to see it happen, we will continue to pursue our original idea.

DU BACK

After an enforced absence last year, the London Duathlon returns to Richmond Park this Sunday, which means you will not be able to cycle on the roadway as normal while the event is taking place. 

Those of you out for a leisurely cycle will still be able to enter the park through the pedestrian gates and ride along the Tamsin Trail. The park’s management say they do not mind children and less confident cyclists riding on the tarmac path, which runs from Roehampton Gate to Richmond Gate and between Ham Cross and Kingston Gate, although others should not treat it as an alternative route during the duathlon as the pathway is suited to lower speeds and has smaller capacity than the outer road.

Please also note that the interior routes that go to or pass Pen Ponds kiosks from Sheen Cross, Robin Hood Gate and Ham Cross will not be available to cycle on as they are all part of the event route. 

The duathlon is scheduled to finish around 6pm, although cyclists should stay off the road while contractors deconstruct and clear up the site.

Best of luck to everyone taking part – especially to any of our subscribers who are putting on their running shoes. Let us know how you get on!

SPEED OF CHANGE

The Royal Parks has amended the advice on its website concerning safe speeds for cycling. 

Previously, the advice was: “Speed limits do not apply to cyclists within the parks but it is recommended that cyclists keep to appropriate speeds for the environment. Cycling design speeds between eight and 12mph have been found to be more acceptable for park visitors.”

This has now been changed to: “It is recommended that cyclists keep to appropriate speeds for the park environment.”

The original statement, which was general advice for all royal parks, did not reflect the fact that Richmond Park does have sign-posted speed limits for cyclists – 20mph on its outer roadway and 10mph on the quietway and Tamsin Trail, all of which are policed. Moreover, the wording left itself open to the interpretation that those who cycle at more than 12mph on the outer road, as many who respect the speed limit do, are moving at an unacceptable speed – which, of course, they are not. 

SEE YOU NEXT MONTH...

As ever, thank you for allowing us to pop into your inbox. Let us know what you think about anything related to cycling in Richmond Park – we reply personally to every email you send us. Better still, meet the team and join us at Ciclista on Saturday 25th at 9.30am.  

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

RPC Bulletin #43, August 2021

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

RPC Bulletin #42, July 2021

Each month, we email a bulletin to everyone who has signed up on this site. Below is the mailout that we sent in July 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… Your chance to communicate your thoughts and ideas to the park’s management +++ Fresh opportunity for a car-free day +++ Close passes, two collisions and the Police Panel +++ Gates to replace barriers +++ Three new food outlets opening soon 

MEET FEAST

A meeting about meetings may not sound like the most thrilling opening item for this bulletin, but the outcome of a chat we had a couple of weeks ago with Simon Richards, the manager of Richmond Park, should help make the capital’s greatest free cycling resource an even better place to ride a bike.

Simon has agreed to meet us quarterly to better understand issues surrounding riding in the park. Being given the chance to meet management on a formal basis is a valuable opportunity, and we thank Simon for giving it to us. These management meetings will complement the meetings and regular communications we have with Sgt Peter Sturgess and his parks’ police unit.

We need you, our subscribers, to tell us about issues you want us to raise. We had a meeting (yes, another one!) on Wednesday to discuss amongst ourselves how other cyclists can contribute ideas for the quarterly meetings as well. We will let you know our plans when they are finalised ahead of the at our first get-together in September. 

CAR-FREE ATTITUDE

Remember pre-pandemic times? Long-term subscribers may struggle to recall that, at the tail end of 2019, we floated the idea of having a car-free day in Richmond Park. The concept briefly resurfaced in February last year when The Royal Parks stated that it wanted to implement the idea across its green spaces. The following month, we included the recommendation of a car-free day in our submission to the Movement Strategy.

Fast forward 15 months later, and the indications are that a car-free day could get off the ground. We will be speaking to stakeholder groups to garner support, which we are confident of receiving. 

The car-free day would be a family-friendly event, enabling all types of cyclists to use the park’s roadway, regardless of their levels of confidence or experience. We will keep you posted with our progress.

GATE OUTTA HERE

Begone, unsightly plastic! The temporary barriers and cones which limit the movement of motor vehicles during the ongoing traffic trial are scheduled to be replaced this autumn by timber gates and permanent roadways for cyclists. This is welcome news for those who are often surprised to find the layout of the barriers changing from week to week.

The gateways, which are designed by road engineers, will be clearly signposted and designed for easy navigation. They are removable but should stay in place at least until the conclusion of the traffic trial in March next year, when The Royal Parks decides on the extent to which through traffic is curtailed.

Following the conclusion of the Movement Strategy, The Royal Parks will begin installing courtesy crossings next to car parks, which are already busy pedestrian zones. We have yet to see the designs but we are hopeful they will have a cycle-friendly design and clear signage for pedestrians and cyclists.

PASS NOTES

How often do close passes occur in the park these days? With the numbers of cyclists coming to the park remaining high and traffic patterns returning to normal, there is good reason to suspect that the frequency of close passes is too much, especially for a recreational space. 

That’s why we are asking the park’s police team about the possibility of measuring the incidence of close passing. This would have to be carried out by a specialist unit, rather than the park’s officers. We will make this request at the next quarterly Police Panel meeting, which takes place on Wednesday July 14. Let us know if there are any other issues you would like to bring up.

As usual, the police will provide figures and details at the meeting regarding cycling-related incidents in the park during the past quarter-year. We’ll go through them in our next monthly bulletin. In the meantime, here is some information about a couple of incidents that took place recently.

• A driver collided with a cyclist at the entrance to the car park on Dark Hill on Tuesday, June 8. The cyclist only had minor grazes. The incident took place at around 6.50am, which is ten minutes before the park’s police unit came on duty. The local officer from Kingston who recorded the details mistakenly filed it as a restricted report, leading to a delay in the details being made public (and a false theory propagated by a deeply odd Twitter account that the police were “oblivious” to the collision). Many thanks to Sgt Sturgess from the park’s police unit for tracking down the details and successfully requesting that the report should not be restricted.

• On Wednesday afternoon, a driver crashed into a fence at the bottom of Dark Hill. He claimed that a group of cyclists coming in the opposite direction went for an overtake in his lane so he had to choose between taking them out or going into the fence. There were no witnesses or CCTV, and the other side of the story is not yet known. If more information on either incident comes to light at the Police Panel meeting, we will let you know.

TWO’S COMPANY

You wait years for a food and drink outlet on the eastern side of the park and then two come along almost at once.

The old police hut in front of the toilets at Kingston Gate has been turned into a mini-cafe run by Colicci which is scheduled to open this weekend for a temporary summer trial. Round the corner on Park Road, the site of the old Richmond Park Cafe and vegan cafe Tava appears to be under new management after lying vacant for two-and-a-half years. It’s called Fika, and is yet to open its doors. Both look like welcome additions if, like us, you usually exit the park at Kingston Gate and fancy scoffing or imbibing a cheeky reward for knocking out a few laps.

Meanwhile, over at Sheen Gate, The Royal Parks plans to open another food and drink outlet in the next few weeks. It’s like they’re trying to fatten us all up!

PADDLE DO NICELY

A quick word about the free credit-card-sized flyers featuring the cycling Code of Conduct which local businesses are stocking. A rowing club whose members cycle in the park has contacted us to get their hands on a batch, and we have offered to give some to them. So if you are part of a local organisation and you too would like a few cards to distribute, please drop us a line.

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

RPC Bulletin #41, June 2021

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

RPC Bulletin #40, May 2021

Each month, we email a bulletin to everyone who has signed up on this site. Below is the mailout that we sent in May 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…

Code of Conduct – physical copies are out now +++ An analysis of road incidents in the park +++ Collision outside Roehampton Gate car park +++ Farewell to The Royal Parks’ transport boss

CODE AND GET IT

It’s out, chums! After months of being confined to our website and this bulletin, the Code of Conduct for cycling in Richmond Park has finally been set free in the wild. 

The full text is pinned on our new noticeboard near the Roehampton Gate car park (you’ll find it on the pathway opposite the ramp up to Colicci) while our friends at Cycle Exchange, Ciclista and Pearsons all have the credit-card-sized version on their countertops for customers to take. The park’s police unit also has a batch of cards to hand out. 
Many thanks to all our subscribers who have contributed to the Code and support its aims to make the roadway a more hospitable place for every type of cyclist and visitor to the park – we couldn’t have got this far without you!

DANGER OF ASSUMPTIONS

It’s a common assumption in some quarters that more cycling in the park leads to greater danger for other visitors – but the latest quarterly figures revealed at the Police Panel meeting we attended two weeks ago suggest that is an exaggerated claim. During a period when the roadway has been much busier than it was pre-Covid, there were only 15 reported incidents from January to March, and nine of those were simply cyclists falling off their bikes, either due to an error on their part or, on two occasions, animals appearing in the road (for the record, one was a dog and the other was a goose). 

It’s true that four incidents involving cyclists, all of which are currently under investigation, were more serious. As we reported in February, the danger of leaving the park open to through traffic was highlighted when a motorist caused a collision with a female cyclist at Ham Cross before mistakenly hitting the accelerator and smashing into a tree. Then, in March, a driver pushed a member of the public for filming them losing their rag with a couple of cyclists who had been riding two abreast. And later that month, a motorist going down Sawyer’s Hill had to brake suddenly, causing a cyclist to hit the back of the car and suffer concussion, after an oncoming vehicle moved out to overtake. Additionally, in January, a driver pulled an off-duty police officer from their bike, causing minor damage to the bicycle, after he spoke to him about driving carelessly.

There was also an incident in January where a driver and a cyclist had a verbal confrontation in which, the police report states, “one party is alleged to push the other”. Neither of them wished for any action to be taken.

But with cyclists covering tens of thousands of miles in the park during that three-month period, all of these incidents are few and far between. As for the notion that pedestrians face risks getting from one side of the road to the other, there was only one collision on a crossing – and it was a car that hit them, resulting in a dislocated shoulder. 

CROSS PURPOSES

Some of you who ride in the park on weekdays may have seen two ambulances parked on the road outside the Roehampton Gate car park three weeks ago. They were called out after a cyclist unfortunately hit a 12-year-old girl.

The rider’s partner who came to pick him up afterwards tells us that he had slowed down for a car pulling out and was travelling at around 15mph. A man stepped out into the road followed by a friend’s three children who he was looking after. The rider shouted and all stopped, except the girl, and the collision occurred. We understand the girl was taken to hospital for stitches, and the cyclist had minor abrasions. The man looking after the children was apparently very apologetic and wanted to know how the rider was.

While pedestrians have priority on the park’s roads, this incident shows that a sense of shared space must be created around the car parks to allow for easier crossing. In our response to the final consultation on the Movement Strategy, we called for such measures to be implemented in various areas across the park. 

On the subject of pedestrian safety, we should correct a claim we made in our last bulletin – that “no accidents in recent memory have been reported that have resulted in the hospitalisation of a pedestrian after a collision with a cyclist”. It seems we misheard what Sgt Peter Sturgess told a previous meeting. He points out there were, in fact, two incidents in the park last year where a cyclist colliding with a person on foot resulted in hospitalisation (one with a pedestrian, the other with a jogger) and a further two incidents in the past nine months where a pedestrian was injured by a cyclist but did not go to hospital. We’re happy to set the record straight, sergeant!

MAT’S IT

Finally, we would like to wish a fond farewell and the best of luck to Mat Bonomi, who left his post at The Royal Parks a couple of weeks ago to begin work on implementing transport schemes over in Tower Hamlets. We’ll miss you, buddy!

Mat relocated from Australia to join TRP as its Head of Transport and Access and ushered in the Movement Strategy which has brought lots of ordinary people to Richmond Park on bikes, many for the first time. His willingness to speak to us and encouragement of our work has helped to strengthen our relationship with TRP. 

The next step in the Movement Strategy process that Mat’s successors are likely to implement is a measurement of traffic levels in and around the park. The aim should be to find out how traffic patterns have been affected by the year-long extension to the trial, and how much is Covid-related as more people avoid public transport and use their cars instead. We look forward to seeing the results and continuing our ongoing dialogue with TRP.

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

RPC Bulletin #39, April 2021

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

RPC Extra Bulletin – response to Movement Strategy extension

ONE YEAR MORE

The Royal Parks has announced that the current trial in Richmond Park will be extended for a year to evaluate the impact of displaced traffic on the surrounding roads. 

The announcement should have marked the conclusion of the Movement Strategy, which began almost two years ago. Instead, there is a 12-month wait. And there is no guarantee that a year from now we will get something better than the trial, which has removed or restricted through traffic from more than three-fifths of the perimeter road.

But with uncertainty comes opportunity. The overall reduction in shortcut journeys by motorists during the pandemic has led to a wider variety of people visiting, and many have taken up cycling in the park. Yet if the trial had been made permanent this week, through traffic would still have had unrestricted access to Queen’s Road – the stretch between Kingston and Richmond gates which is the busiest section of the roadway – inhibiting the presence of less confident cyclists. 

Richmond Park Cyclists and the wider cycling community now have the chance to show, once and for all, that through traffic should be eliminated from all the park’s roads, at the very least during weekends, to make it a more pleasant place for every kind of visitor. 

And the results of the survey show that this is the outcome that people want: around half of the responses in the open comment section said they would support further restrictions on motor vehicles in the park.

Here, we look at the background to the decision, examine some of the data from the third public consultation and look at a way forward.

WHY EXTEND THE TRIAL?

Judging by the form of questions in the final public consultation, which related solely to the trial, it would have been a fair bet that TRP was going to make the current restrictions permanent if respondents favoured them. Indeed, that seemed the likely outcome based on indications we were getting from the management of Richmond Park in recent weeks. But TRP’s trustees convened on February 17th, and as a result of discussions at that meeting,  the extension was announced.

All of the trials in TRP’s parks will now end in a year’s time. But with 10,000 of the 18,000 responses to the public consultation centered solely on Richmond Park, and the restrictions causing more debate than any other of the royal parks, it’s likely that the 12-month extension was influenced by Richmond upon Thames Council – particularly because that is exactly what its deputy leader Alexander Ehmann requested.

Councillor Ehmann, who also chairs Richmond’s transport and air quality committee, wrote in the council’s formal response to the consultation: “We would like to be able to carry out some additional traffic counts and parking surveys in the surrounding area and we hope that the traffic trial will be extended so it runs for at least an additional twelve months. This is particularly important as we have not seen a return to ‘normal’ traffic patterns within the initial six months of the trial. This extension should provide an opportunity for more robust data to be collected.”

This data will only be truly robust if it is balanced against the detrimental effect cut-through traffic has on limiting access to the park’s roads for less confident cyclists, and its urbanisation of the park’s environment which affects the experience of all types of visitors. The data should also be placed in context with wider London traffic patterns. For too long, there has been an assumption that journey times on areas close to the park are much worse than other roads (indeed, statistical evidence in the responses from Richmond and Kingston councils to the Movement Strategy is notably absent). In fact, a TfL survey from 2017 suggests that Petersham Road – invariably the first place mentioned when complaints about traffic levels arise – mostly has higher average bus speeds than Roehampton Lane, which also takes some of the traffic that would otherwise go through the park. (The TfL survey, which Tim Lennon from the Richmond Cycling Campaign has allowed us to share, is available here in the file marked “TfL borough book”). 

And let’s not forget that TRP launched the Movement Strategy to prioritise walking and cycling. Can councils in the surrounding boroughs provide statistical evidence that TRP should override that aim on the busiest section of the roadway to accommodate shortcut journeys?

10K RUN-THROUGH

There were 10,765 responses to the Richmond Park traffic trial public consultation. The vast majority said that the restrictions should be made permanent, the park was now a more pleasant place to be and the trial had had a positive impact. Here’s a quick run-through of some other figures in TRP’s 83-page report on the responses to the consultation…

• A total of 73 per cent were in favour of the measures taken on the east of the park and between Richmond and Roehampton, while 69 per cent were in favour of the closure to all cars on the East Sheen link.  

• The text box for open-ended comments at the end of the survey was used by 6,389 respondents. According to TRP, the most common theme raised by nearly half of these was “support for further measures discouraging motor vehicles in the park”. 

• About half again (presumably more than 1,500 responses, an astonishing number given this was an option which TRP deliberately chose not to give) called for the complete removal of all through traffic. 

While accepting that this was not a referendum, we nevertheless wonder why TRP would go through such a lengthy and rigorous process and then ignore the clear direction of public consensus. How is it that Richmond Council, which has no authority in the park, seems to have such influence over TRP’s trustees?

In next month’s bulletin, we will cover the “dangerous interaction between cyclists and other park users” which was raised by some respondents.

SEE YOU NEXT MONTH...

Thank you for allowing us to pop into your inbox with this special bonus bulletin. Our next regular monthly email will be with you at the start of April. Please let us know what you think about the trial extension and our approach to it  – 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

RPC Bulletin #38, March 2021

AT A CROSSROAD

With The Royal Parks due to announce permanent restrictions on through traffic in around seven days’ time, dramatic images of a car crash following a collision with a cyclist the week before last provided striking evidence of what can go wrong when motor vehicles are given unrestricted access to sections of the park’s roadway.

An elderly driver, who was carrying a passenger, drove uphill on Ham Gate Avenue, stopped at Ham Cross and then pulled out to turn right – but failed to see a female cyclist coming towards him from the direction of Kingston Gate. He drove into her path, causing the collision, and she fell to the ground. In a panic, the driver hit the accelerator instead of the brake (he was driving an automatic) which caused his car to speed off down the hill and crash straight through the metal barrier towards a tree.

Sergeant Peter Sturgess from the Royal Parks’ Police tells us: “Had the driver not turned his steering towards the end, he would have gone straight into the tree – and almost certainly he and the passenger would have died.”

The driver was taken to hospital with burn injuries to his hand. The cyclist had facial injuries and was discharged from hospital the same day. The attending officer’s accident report has been passed to the police’s traffic offenses unit in Sidcup, Kent, which will decide whether the driver should be charged.

The woman who fell victim to the driver’s apparent inattention was cycling on Queen’s Road – the busiest section of the perimeter road which, unlike the rest of it, is not subject to restrictions on through traffic as part of the current trial. No one can say for certain what permanent restrictions TRP will announce next week as the Movement Strategy draws to a close. But 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. 

TRP should recognise that the welcome increase in the number of ordinary cyclists visiting the park should be matched with appropriate restrictions to make them feel safe at all times.

REBUKES OF ‘HAZARD’

Sarah Olney, the Lib Dem MP for Richmond Park, caused a few eyebrows to be raised three weeks ago when she told Radio Jackie that some cyclists treat our favourite cycling destination as “a sports venue” and in doing so present a “hazard” which puts people off cycling there. 

Well, it’s certainly true that no one likes inconsiderate riding. But as we have said in previous editions of this bulletin, the significant increase in people choosing to ride in the park for the first time, and doing so alongside sports cyclists, shows that most people recognise it is a safe environment for cycling. What really puts some people off riding in the park is high levels of through motor traffic.

So it was in a spirit of understanding that we requested a Zoom meeting with Sarah to put the other side of the story – and we were delighted when she accepted. And we are pleased to announce that she has chosen to endorse our Code of Conduct. Here’s Sarah’s statement in full:

“I encourage cycling of all kinds in Richmond Park, whether for leisure, exercise or just getting from A to B. Cycling in the park has become even more popular recently, so any measure to improve relations between park users is to be commended. I am, therefore, delighted to endorse and promote the new Code of Conduct prepared by Richmond Park Cyclists.”

Sarah will feature the code in her newsletter to constituents, and we look forward to working with her more closely in the future.

NOTICE ANYTHING DIFFERENT?

Speaking of the Code of Conduct, the full text of our guidelines will soon be publicly displayed on a brand new noticeboard which eagle-eyed readers may have spotted on the pathway next to Colicci. Our thanks to park manager Simon Richards for arranging its installation, thereby giving our organisation a permanent physical presence in the park. The noticeboard is empty at the moment, so please email us with any cycling-related non-commercial notices you may feel are of interest to others. It’s there for all of us, so please use it!

CLOSE TO THE LIMIT?

How many is too many? When it comes to visitor numbers, Richmond Park may be nearing the limit, if the closing remarks of a short report delivered at the last meeting of the Police Panel is anything to go by. 

Park manager Simon Richards told RPC and the other stakeholders attending the virtual meeting in January that some damage to grassland caused by more people coming to the park “will never be reversed”. Other areas will take years to recover. The minutes show that TRP is also concerned that the deer are “reacting to the continual disturbance from high numbers of visitors and their dogs”.

Most weekends, the car parks appear to be running close to full capacity – and Saturday was exceptionally busy, with some drivers once again parking on the grass. The overflow from the car parks back up onto the roadway, causing an unnecessary hazard for pedestrians and cyclists. TRP has resorted to costly marshalling, and with many new visitors having discovered Richmond Park, we anticipate many of them will carry on arriving by car.

If TRP has to eventually restrict the number of visitors to protect the park, then limiting access to the car parks would surely be an effective place to start – and, of course, it would make the roadway better for cycling. Or maybe there will be fewer visitors arriving by car if TRP decides to bring in parking charges as planned. We shall see...

GREAT SIXPECTATIONS

A few dates for your diary. The big one is Monday, March 29, when you will be able to enjoy riding in the park with five of your buddies as the rule of six comes into effect again as part of the Government’s easing of Covid restrictions. In roughly two weeks, the bi-annual deer cull will be over, which means you will be able to ride in the park again before 7:30am and after 8pm. And from Monday, March 8 until Saturday, March 27, Church Road in Ham will be closed for the annual toad migration – so if you usually enter the park by Ham Gate, you had better hoppit and find another route!

A MOMENT OF SI DRAMA

Finally, we’re bracing ourselves for accusations of bias as Simon Richards makes his third appearance in this bulletin – this time as a have-a-go-hero of sorts. The source is the park’s police unit, so you can take this as gospel.

It turns out that back in December a bike owner came out of the loos at Roehampton Gate car park one morning to find some toerag mounting his pride and joy and riding off. Simon, who was nearby, hears the cyclist shouting, and the two set off in hot pursuit. The thief rides over the cattle grid and climbs over the fence, leaving the bike behind him. The thief escaped, and the bicycle was reunited with its owner.

As ever, the lesson here is to take a portable lock if you are heading to the park, and consider removing a wheel as well if you are going to leave your bike unattended. Simon cannot be on hand to stop every thief, you know!

SEE YOU NEXT WEEK...

A special bonus bulletin will arrive in your inbox in around seven days’ time once The Royal Parks releases details of the permanent restrictions to motor traffic. Whatever happens, it will be a momentous day, chums! 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

RPC Bulletin #37, February 2021

Each month, we email a bulletin to everyone who has signed up on this site. Below is the mailout that we sent in February 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.

CULL OF DUTY

Welcome to February, chums – and prepare for the usual scheduled restrictions to the park as the first of this year’s biannual deer culls begins.

From today for approximately six weeks, the pedestrian gates will open at 7:30am and close at 8pm, which means you will not be able to ride your bike in the park outside these times. Remember that the restrictions are for your own safety as firearms are used.

The Royal Parks’ team locks the gates in rotation each night. If you arrive at one of them shortly prior to locking time, please do not enter unless you are absolutely certain you can easily reach your exit before 8pm. Arrive at, say, 7.59 and you will most likely find your exit gate is already locked – so you will have to ride back to where you entered, which will now be shut as well, then wait for TRP’s team to return on its final sweep and open it for you. Save yourself the bother by using the roads around the park instead. 

The cull, which TRP has a duty to carry out in order to control the number of deer, could last longer or shorter than the allocated six-week period, depending on the health of the herd. We will let you know via social media if the pedestrian gates reopen before our next monthly bulletin comes out.

CODE SHARING

It’s out, pals! After months of refining, with lots of helpful suggestions and pointers from you, our super subscribers, the official Richmond Park Cyclists’ Code of Conduct is finally up on our website. Hooray!

These guidelines will help to create a safe and welcoming environment for every type of cyclist and other visitors to the park. If you see a cyclist falling short of the code, politely ask them to adjust their behaviour in future. And if you are an experienced cyclist, your good behaviour can be an example to others.

Put together with the help of The Royal Parks, the Royal Parks Police and the Friends of Richmond Park, the Code will also strengthen RPC’s links with these three important organisations as well as raising the profile of cyclists’ concerns among stakeholder groups in general.

To publicise the Code to the wider cycling community, a brief summary of it will appear on credit-card-sized flyers which will feature the link to the full-length version. We’ll let you know when they’re out. 

ALMOST THERE...

It has been more than a year and a half since we attended the stakeholder meeting at Holly Lodge where The Royal Parks officially launched its Movement Strategy – and now its project to facilitate cycling and walking in its eight green spaces, including Richmond Park, is in the finishing straight. 

Huge thanks to everyone who took part in the survey on the ongoing traffic trials after we issued our final reminder last month before the consultation closed. The permanent restrictions on through traffic in the park, which TRP will base on the findings of the survey, are due to be announced some time this month. We’ll send you an extra bulletin before our usual monthly missive as soon as it becomes clear what the plan is.

Even if the trial restrictions are made permanent, the park will still be an even better place to ride your bike than it was in those faraway pre-pandemic days. But as mentioned in our previous two bulletins, we have written to TRP’s trustees to make sure that they listen to the view that through traffic should be eradicated in the park (you can read the letter here). Making this a reality would be the best possible outcome of the process, and we are hopeful that TRP has a plan that is much bolder than the current restrictions. Let’s see what happens.

FROST REPORT 

Finally, a word of caution regarding the road conditions in the park. The ground has become waterlogged due to the recent wet weather, and some road users are consequently hogging the middle of the road where the standing water is shallowest, so please be mindful of others. Some of the water inevitably turns to frost, and when it is forecast, TRP’s contractors carry out salting – although it may not have bedded in sufficiently by the time you arrive in the park, and they may not be able to tackle it every single time. Please take care!

SEE YOU NEXT MONTH...

Thank you for allowing us to pop into your inbox. As ever, let us know what you think about any of the subjects in this bulletin, or 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