Each month, we email a bulletin to everyone who has signed up on this site. Below is the edition that we sent in June 2022. 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 the Friends of Richmond Park’s stance on through traffic matters +++ Surveys on traffic trials +++ Time trials return +++ Accident round-up +++ Notice on bike thieves +++
A FRIENDLY SUGGESTION
Who said this? “No concessions at all must be made to motorists who wish to use the roads of Richmond Park as a throughway.”
This statement, as we revealed on Twitter on Tuesday, was made by the Friends of Richmond Park (FRP) when it was founded in 1961. Today, with the relatively high levels of through traffic seriously affecting many visitors’ enjoyment of the park, it would seem vital for the present leaders of the organisation to have a clear vision for the roadway that is in keeping with their founding principles. So we recently asked them to create a road policy for the park – which, sadly, they have declined to do. In our view, this is a mistake that has ramifications for all sides of the debate on through traffic – whether you choose to ride a bike in Richmond Park or not.
We formally made our request at FRP’s annual general meeting which took place via Zoom last month. Our question was this:
“Would the Friends formally develop and adopt a visionary, sustainable transport policy that will cover movement within the park, getting to and from the park, through traffic and timescales?”
Our suggestion was read out by one of the people chairing the meeting (none of the attendees who submitted questions could ask them directly or respond to the answers). Trustee Nick Coleman responded. He began by establishing that FRP’s “fundamental starting point” is the “balance” between “protecting the environment of the park” and “public benefit”. What follows is a complete transcript of the rest of Nick’s answer:
“The Friends stands for finding a way of doing both. And on the public benefit half of that, the Friends stands for, as I said, a balance between park users – how they access the park, how they get around the park, no one group dominates.
“But on the park roads, there’s also the hierarchy I mentioned – wildlife first, then pedestrians, then cyclists, then vehicles – and each of these must not be disadvantaged by the rest. That’s where the Friends stands on this, and as I said, this is very much like The Royal Parks’ policy. And next up, the Friends has always been in favour of reducing through traffic.
“So there you have a package of existing policies to do with our balance, to do with the hierarchy and to do with through traffic. And we don’t see a need to revise these or package them up or add any more to this package of policies which has stood us well so far. And we, on top of that, don’t think it’s necessary, a good idea to go through any more changes right now when the current road changes – the largest in a generation, if I may say so – have already, have not actually been finalised, let alone settled in, and it would be premature to move beyond those and start thinking about more changes when this lot is still actually going through.”
This is a plan of inaction, and its justification is undermined by a central contradiction. Because the road hierarchy is not designed to be balanced – in a hierarchy one or more groups are by definition disadvantaged relative to the others. Pedestrians and cyclists are meant to have greater freedom of the roadway than motorists. An eradication of through traffic, which is what we are asking for, would fully achieve this aim.
And the stance of FRP’s leaders on the road hierarchy is not “very much like” The Royal Parks’. TRP’s road hierarchy is the foundation of the Movement Strategy, which produced the ongoing traffic trial. FRP’s current leadership, on the other hand, has never set out a vision for the park’s roads, and will only go as far as “being in favour of reducing through traffic” – which could mean they are perfectly happy to keep the route between Kingston and Richmond gates as a frequently busy, seven-days-a-week shortcut for motorists, as long as the rest of the restrictions remain. In essence, TRP used the road hierarchy to stimulate change; FRP’s leaders appear to see it as the basis for maintaining the status quo.
As for it being “premature” to go beyond the current changes to the roadway, post-pandemic traffic patterns outside the park are now well established, and the trials will have been in force for more than two years when they finally conclude in the autumn. It is encouraging that since its AGM, the Friends have stated in its newsletter: “In our view, the benefits and the public support are sufficient to implement the trials on a permanent basis.” But If FRP’s leaders won’t publicly state now how they would like to see the roadway used in the future, particularly in regard to removing through traffic, will they ever do so?
The unwillingness of FRP’s leadership to clearly outline a policy on traffic and other movement in the park has, we believe, an impact on local democracy. Many people, like us, want to eliminate shortcut journeys; others might want to drive their cars wherever and whenever they like and rid the park of cyclists. But what everyone spanning those two opposites has in common is an instinctive belief that local politicians and stakeholders connected to the park are key to bringing about change. In fact, if you talk to some people with long-standing experience of local civic matters, they will tell you that any change in the park usually has to come with the blessing or involvement of FRP; indeed, one of the first things mentioned at the organisation’s AGM was its continued influence. So FRP could be more influential on the issue of through traffic than elected officials or other stakeholder groups. The public deserves to know where the Friends stand.
We set out our vision for the park some time ago. Less access to car parks, shuttle buses, hire bike docking stations and, of course, no through traffic are among the key elements. You can read it here. Could those leading the Friends of Richmond Park follow suit – and in doing so, fulfil the remit of their founders?
If the Friends would like to respond, we will happily publish their words in our next newsletter.
BAFFLED BY QUESTIONS
As mentioned in our extra bulletin a couple of weeks ago, The Royal Parks unexpectedly decided to extend the traffic trials in Richmond Park and its other green spaces until the autumn and carry out face-to-face surveys to find out how visitors would like to see the traffic-restricted areas used.
Among a range of questions, respondents were asked if they thought the air was cleaner and the park seemed quieter than it did before the trials. Such questions could only be answered by visitors who had knowledge of what the park was like before the trials.The key question asked how visitors thought the roads which are currently closed to traffic seven days a week or at weekends only might be used in future if the trial restrictions are made permanent. The questionnaire was generic for all surveys undertaken across the Royal Parks.
We had earlier learned that Mat Bonomi, TRP’s former Head of Transport who instigated the Movement Strategy, is back on board for a limited time to finalise the trials. Mat knows his stuff, so his involvement is encouraging. Nevertheless, the emergence of the surveys is a baffling twist in the long-running saga of the Movement Strategy. Why did TRP not do these interviews much earlier, given that the trials started in July 2020? Will they generate any useful information? And will the range and number of respondents be a representative sample size? We’re keen to learn more about these factors in the coming months.
ALL-INCLUSIVE DEAL
At the Richmond Park Stakeholders Meeting, where the extension to the trials was announced, TRP revealed it is working on a five-year plan. Tom Jarvis, the Head of Parks, did not give many details, although we were encouraged to see that one of the organisation’s values, listed on a graphic presented to us and the other attendees, was being “inclusive”. This is key to our approach too, as we want everyone to feel they can ride a bike on the park’s roadway, regardless of their level of confidence. In that context, the presence of through traffic is a barrier for many. We hope TRP realises that by having the courage to remove through traffic, the park’s roads would become more inclusive.
TT TIME
They’re back, pals! After a Covid-enforced hiatus of three years, London Dynamo’s two annual time trials are returning to Richmond Park, with the first taking place on Saturday, June 26 and the second on Saturday, July 10. You can still ride on the park’s roads during both 10.4-mile events, which are sanctioned by TRP, but please be aware there will be more cyclists around than you may usually expect to see between 6am and 7:30am. And if you have never time-trialled before, these largely traffic-free events are the perfect introduction – you don’t even need a TT bike to take part (but please note that aero bars and helmets are not permitted in the road bike category, and rims may be no more than 50mm deep). Entries fill up fast, so head over to Rider HQ, pick a category and nab a place for this month’s event. Entries for the second time trial are scheduled to open on Friday, 10 June at 12.30pm. Best of luck!
SUN AND REIGN
With the four-day Jubilee Bank Holiday upon us, it seems likely that the park’s roads will be clogged with cars if the weather is nice. The park’s management has recently increased its supervision of additional traffic, employing contractors to shut car parks after they fill up, closing gates when queues cause disruption and communicating the situation via social media. We would also like them to work with local councils on a plan to minimise the disruption to nearby residents when motorists can no longer enter the park, and when they are leaving in large numbers due to the car parks closing. And to help those who are confronted by nose-to-tail Bank Holiday traffic when they come to the park to ride their bikes, maybe the message on social media should be more direct: do not drive to the park unless you absolutely have no other choice.
ACCIDENT ROUND-UP
Five items of injury-related news – and sadly, one of the victims is in a very serious condition.
At around 5pm on Friday, May 13, a cyclist was riding across Sheen Cross from Sheen Gate towards the ballet school when a driver heading from Roehampton to Richmond clipped his back wheel, causing him to come off. The cyclist was taken to hospital with a broken leg.
On Sunday, May 22, an air ambulance attended the scene of an accident outside the park. Police were called at 8:15am following a collision involving a cyclist and a pedestrian in his early 30s on Priory Lane, at the junction with Clarence Road. The Wandsworth Times reported the victim’s condition as “life-threatening”. Investigations are ongoing. The cyclist had minor grazes on his leg.
As reported in last month’s bulletin, the case of the U-turning driver on Broomfield Hill is due to be heard on Friday, June 17 – 11 months after the crash which left the victim with a broken scapula, fractured shoulder and a written-off bike. The hearing has been adjourned three times – the last occasion at the request of the defendant for an unspecified reason.
FLUSH ’EM OUT
The park’s police unit has produced posters warning of bike thieves operating around the toilet block near Roehampton Gate. They are now on display on our noticeboard by the car park. Please note there has NOT been another spate of bike thefts – this is just general advice to be on your guard when popping to the loos. As ever, our tips are to carry a portable lock, or ask a friend to keep an eye on your bike, or take it into the toilet block with you. You can’t be too careful, pals!
A QUIET WORD
On a final note, a brief tip on descending on the Quietway from White Lodge to Sheen Cross. At busy times, vulnerable cyclists and pedestrians can be startled by fast-moving riders, and subscribers have voiced their concerns about this. So please show consideration, moderate your speed and leave a good gap as you pass.
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
