Forum Topic

Richmond Park reopened to motor traffic

What utterly depressing news that the Royal Parks has cravenly surrendered to the car lobby and reopened the roads to cars, including a rat run between Kingston, Richmond and Ham Gates.  A desperately retrograde step, after the peace and freedom people have been able to enjoy for the past few months!

Richard Carter ● 2065d61 Comments

Good for her and of course the Royal Parks Police for their care and service following the incident.I hope it wasn't too serious an injury and that she makes a full and quick recovery and is able to resume her cycling again.Until then - a light hearted comment:New pedestrian makes donation - good news story :)

Ed Robinson ● 2061d

No further info on what happened.

Jonathan Callaway ● 2061d

Johnathon, how did she break her leg?

Barbara Stevens ● 2061d

This story was recently tweeted by the Royal Parks Police@MPSRoyal_Parks·12 AugPC Christmas & PC Browne assisted a cyclist who had broken her leg in #RichmondPark They were surprised to find £100 in a thank you card a few days later. The officers chose a charity each and donated £50 to @HollyLodgeCentr and £50 to @wildlifeaid #welldone

Jonathan Callaway ● 2061d

According to their website, a free minibus was trialled earlier this summer but is currently on hold due to the road reconfiguration trials.  This is  something still under consideration though . . https://www.royalparks.org.uk/parks/richmond-park/visitor-information/free-minibus-service-in-richmond-park

Liam Jones ● 2063d

Bunny, I gave some suggestions in my post of 10:12 this morning.

Richard Carter ● 2063d

So how could this be monitored, maybe something where we could dib in and out??

Bunny Payne ● 2063d

But, as Richard and others have said, the Park should only be open for access and not for through traffic.

Caroline Whitehead ● 2063d

I can't be bothered to read all the comments just now, but just to put my vote to keeping the park open to vehicles.  There are so many of us who couldn't get there on foot or (sadly now) by bike.  Plus we want to meet friends coming from different parts of the park.I think it's cruel and unnecessary, I am all for the environment and of course drive very slowly and give the deer the right of way.  Meanwhile cyclists train all round the park with no problem.  Where are the actual facts/statistics that prove that cars are such a problem.I think this comes from the NIMBYS who live near the Park, the Friends of Richmond Park who just want to ban everything and the cyclists, who want a clear run to train in the park.  It should be for EVERYONE!!

Bunny Payne ● 2063d

Hi Ivonne. Whether it's a symbiotic relationship or not I think travel and transport are an integral part of human life - I was just being a little pedantic with that post!I'm not particularly pro or anti car - I've had lots of great touring holidays by car in the Britain, Europe and North America - and car travel provides a lot of freedom for exploring at ones own pace and convenience. I'm just trying to be realistic about the future and the need for a better balance between transport types in the future.I agree there needs to be more civility whether it's between cyclists and pedestrians or between forum users. 

Michael Ixer ● 2063d

It is a shame that a "proper solution" or "imagination" isn't used to address speeding cyclists who are a danger to deer/pedestrians and family/casual cyclists.

Ed Robinson ● 2063d

Richard. Yes, there's a number of possible solutions. Another ANPR solution would be to chech if one leaves via the same entrance one entered and make a charge only if one exits via a diffent entrance.. Although I like Ed's proposal of a one way system. I know this post is specifically about Richmond Park but the problem is a symptom of there being too many cars in London, and pollution and climate issues caused by the use of hydrocarbon fuels. In the same way that people have adjusted their travel habits during the pandemic it will be necessary to make changes for environmental reasons. At least we were given time to plkan for climate change to avoid major disruption. I note Barbara's point about the range of electric cars. I believe a friend now has an electric car with a range of 200 miles.  With a fast charge of an hour, given one should be taking meal and rest breaks, then recharging on a long journey shouldn't be an issue if the infrastructure is put in place. Manufactures and planners are aware of the limitations of electric cars powered by batteries. I believe some commercial vehicles use fuel cells which have advantages although therir use of hydrogen has its own problems, but there's significant research into batteries being carried out by Tesla and others so an electric future is feasible.

Michael Ixer ● 2063d

But by some, car driving is demonising and most people when using a car for a holiday etc. need to be able to drive more than 200miles without keep charging their vehicle.

Barbara Stevens ● 2063d

Access to the nearest car park is only one suggestion: there are others, including the introduction of a toll payable by those who leave the park within a set period, say 30 minutes. Easily monitored with ANPR, it would allow people to visit the park but militate against through traffic. An alternative would be to augment entry only to the nearest car park with a sustainable shuttle bus to enable more people to access the further reaches of the park.  What is really needed is a bit of imagination for a proper solution,  not just reversion to an old, failed system.

Richard Carter ● 2063d

My understanding is that Richard is suggesting access only to the nearest car park.That is different from saying no through traffic which a lot of people will agree with.A simple one way system would reduce any through traffic and should be simple to implement. The other lane could be entirely non car in both directions.

Ed Robinson ● 2063d

This has nothing to do with stopping other people’s enjoyment, it is about changing the way we enjoy the park. Cars pollute, even electric ones though less than petrol or diesel obviously.  So for the benefit of all you restrict car usage but then the park is a pleasanter place with far fewer cars around. I went there several times during lockdown and the peace and quiet was just wonderful.  And by the way I drove there with my wife on a couple of occasions and on others I cycled there, parked the bike and walked. Wonderful!  I didn’t mention cyclists before but they were banned too during lockdown and while the racers are not universally loved they do no harm and of course contribute zero pollution. Demonising all cyclists is like demonising all car drivers - simply wrong.

Jonathan Callaway ● 2064d

Agree with the point aboveVisitors wanting to spend time in the park no problem, people like my mum can’t walk in the park and so yes I should be allowed to drive her around to look at the sceneryBut the commuter and people using it as a cut through are spoiling it for everyoneOne suggestion might be to only allow cars in during certain hours, ie after the morning commute and before the evening one

Emma Blackwell ● 2064d

@Barbara. These are trends and are gleaned from motor industry reports on the future of motoring rather than something I've dreamed up. I agree with you that this is partly economics for younger people and in large cities it's obviously easier to use public transport. I'm not inherently anti motoring - my father was a motor mechanic, in the late 80s we had two company cars (which my wife and I needed for our jobs at that time) and I've spent time on track days at Brands Hatch, Snetterton, etc circuits, and follow F1 and Fe ... these days I see car ownership as a waste of money (I still use Zipcars occasionally) and hate sitying in jams and searching for parking. I'd note I started using Intercity trains in favour of driving when I was doing OU courses 15-20 years ago - I could study and write assignments on a train, driving was "dead time'. As I've noted elsewhere, my mother and mother-in-law enjoyed being driven around Richmond Park or similar places in their twilight years but these days my wife and I prefer a healthy walk in Richmond park or elsewhere. I just believe car use in its current model isn't sustainable but, as I say, that's based very much on motor industry predictions of shared vehicle use, electric cars and the holy grail of self drive vehicles.

Michael Ixer ● 2064d

Ah, at last, and however incoherently, we are getting back to the point of this thread, which is about through traffic in Richmond Park.There is no problem with people visiting the Park by car, if they use the car park nearest to the gate of entry: the real problem is the huge numbers of cars using it as a cut through: according to the survey by Peter Brett Associates in 1998 (and don't imagine that things have changed for the better since then), in weekday peak periods the proportion of through traffic in the Park was between 94 and 98% and about 80% at weekends, and that around 60% of car journeys there neither originated or terminated within a few miles of the Park.The lockdown gave an alternative approach and alllowed the restoration of calm and tranquility to a National Nature Reserve, an Site of Special Scientific Interest and a Special Area of Conservation. And for the Royal Parks to readmit cars  is a desperately retrograde step and a huge missed opportunity.

Richard Carter ● 2064d

Michael, in London we are lucky to have great public transport. Usually you wait 10 minutes at the most for a bus or tube train.  Outside of London, it isn’t the same, you might be waiting half an hour for a bus or train.  You need a car if you live in the countryside.

Martine Guy ● 2064d

Ivonne, ha, ha so the relationship would be the bike rack on the back of a car, so the bike is kept in a safe place out of everybody's way.

Barbara Stevens ● 2064d

Michael, could also be that youngsters drive later in this day and age, because they can't afford it. Or are at Uni and parent's pay out enough with college fee's.  My son got a car as soon as he could and loved car's and read about them all the time, as he was at the time learning to be an electronic's engineer. He also had stereo equipment that he built himself. He had interest in car's. Then when a Black Cab driver, he would help people he new a fit alarms in their car's or mend other electrics.

Barbara Stevens ● 2064d

Hello Michael,I am not too sure about this, the cars are not independent as they are designed, manufactured and used by humans, you say,  but was this not the case with the horse and cart perhaps? I am not defending or attacking one against the other.I, for one, use my car once a week to go shopping as I could not do so otherwise, or at least, I like to see what I am buying! And I admit, hand in heart, I could not do shopping on a bicycle and do not have appropriate shops near me.I also admit driving in and around Richmond Park and loving the amount of space, the distance and the freedom of it, the deer and the green.  I cannot do it on foot but perhaps very small distances on a bicycle.One thing I am totally sure of is that we all should learn to respect each other, be they car drivers, motorbikes, cyclist, pedestrians or bus users, and accept each other.Above all, we must all be civil, something that existed in the 70s perhaps but has been lost since.

Ivonne Holliday ● 2064d

No it isn't as I lived just down the road to the Park people have used the park for year's why do selfish people want to put a stop to car's. They can't just pull up, they go into one or other car park like Penn Ponds, or the golf car Park. So what's the problem.

Barbara Stevens ● 2064d

Johnathon, I was in a car in Richmond Park in 1958, when my neighbour's dad took his daughter and myself for a ride.  Why have you got to stop people's enjoyment. Cyclists don't need to go in the park they cycle so fast with their head down they just use it as a race track.

Barbara Stevens ● 2064d

Richard but your doing the same the other way around. Cyclists, cyclists, cyclist. You don't want car's, how does that make you feel. Diddy dumdumbs. Most people hate cyclists.

Barbara Stevens ● 2064d

I'm not sure symbiosis is really an appropriate term as it implies a two way relationship. However, cars are not independent - they are designed, manufactured and used by humans - and it's debatable if long term their use is proving to be beneficial to us if in the process of using them we're destroying our environment? 

Michael Ixer ● 2064d

I understood it to mean most people can’t live without their cars but as Mike suggests maybe that link is becoming less strong, certainly in the younger generations. For the planet’s sake we have to hope so given the non-renewable resources consumed by building and running motorised vehicles. We still own a car but don’t use it much - 4,500 miles in two years but it does do 65+ miles per petrol gallon on a run so I don’t feel too guilty in using it when we have to.

Jonathan Callaway ● 2064d

I have/had no idea what symbiotic relationship is, so I Googled it.  Not too sure I am any wiser though! "Symbiosis is a close relationship between two species in which at least one species benefits. For the other species, the relationship may be positive, negative, or neutral. There are three basic types of symbiosis: mutualism, commensalism, and parasitism. According to the National Geographic, it is the art of living together: https://www.nationalgeographic.org/article/symbiosis-art-living-together/ If that is the case, I assume that car drivers, motorbikes and cyclists must learn the art of living together!

Ivonne Holliday ● 2064d

I'm guessing that 'symbiotic relationship ' with cars implied some - many? consider them an extension of their bodies (I remember sci fi predictions in the 60s that we'd evolve to lose the use of our legs). I've seen (but not verified) statistics that many younger people don't learn to drive - or leave it until they're older than previous generations - and even if they drive they don't own cars. That's in line with motor industry projections that car ownership will diminish in favour of shared car usage - car clubs or Uber style services. To be honest, I avoid driving in London these days and no longer own a car - traffic jams, tolls/charges, and scarce and expanding parking is breaking that 'symbiotic relationship'. 

Michael Ixer ● 2064d

Point completely missed by both Martine and Ed: this was nothing to do with bicycles but was, as I explained in the post, in answer to David McConnon's point about our "symbiotic relationship" with cars, whatever that was supposed to mean.

Richard Carter ● 2064d

Should have have said cars do more damage to pedestrians than cycles, but I am sure everyone knows that, as Richard has patronisingly told us that many times.

Martine Guy ● 2064d

Come on Richard, tell us all how cars do more damage to pedestrians than cars!  It’s your obsession isn’t it?

Martine Guy ● 2064d

Richard, Jane isn’t obsessive, she was hit by a cyclist and has reason to be unhappy about what happened to her. You are the person who is obsessed on this Forum and never put forward any proposals to deal with rogue cyclists. You do the cycling cause no good, quite the opposite.

Martine Guy ● 2064d

Richard I'm not sure where you are going with the stats -  apart from that we will all be safer if we fly! Which is obviously stupid but probably statistically correct.It seems to me that the cycle lobby would have more success if it were to address some of the concerns that pedestrians experience.

Ed Robinson ● 2064d

It's no use, Lisa: Jane Eades' obsessive posting about cyclists is almost pathological, and it's futile to try to explain that bad behaviour by the minority is deplored by all reasonable people.

Richard Carter ● 2064d

I agree that we need to consider "our symbiotic relationship with cars:" here's some evidence: in Britain in 2018, 777 people in cars were killed, along with 456 pedestrians, 354 motorcyclists and 99 cyclists (DfT Reported road casualties in Great Britain: 2018 Annual Report) - and that completely excludes people whose health was affected by the pollution emitted by motor vehicles.And the supposed "selfishness" in keeping cars out of Richmond Park is false: it's to preserve the peace and tranquility of the Park for all, so to damage this is the reverse of propitious.

Richard Carter ● 2064d

I remember a couple of years or so ago when I used to take a detour through or do a circuit or two of Richmond Park so my mother and mother-in-law could see the deer (neither capable of walking more than a few steps), while sticking rigorously to the 20 mph limit I'd be tailgated and overtaken by irritated cyclists 🙂

Michael Ixer ● 2064d

If we are to take the climate emergency seriously then our “symbiotic relationship”  with the car will have to change. Relatively small steps such as restricting usage of cars in a Royal Park should at least be tried. If we can’t do that what can we do?

Jonathan Callaway ● 2064d

Received this from a friend "Just fractured my ankle moving out of the way of two cyclists on a tow path".

Jane Eades ● 2064d

Very happy to condemn cyclists who don't obey the law or cycle inconsiderately.  What gets my goat is lazy stereotypes eg some cyclists are inconsiderate = all cyclists are inconsiderate.  Fortunately don't think anyone has made this link...yet

Craig Fordham ● 2064d

Richard Carter: I have been hit on the head by a cyclist at a pedestrian gate.  Opposite my house a pedestrian was hit by a cyclist who ignored no cycling signs.  Fortunately it was the cyclist who ended up in hospital, rather than the pedestrian.  However, those are the actual physical contacts I have been directly or indirectly involved in.  In the days when I used to cycle to work I was on occasion carved up by other cyclists including those going through red traffic lights.  My point is why the hell should anyone have any respect for cyclists when so much money is being spent on cycle paths, etc,, which so many cyclists ignore whilst also ignoring the law and pedestrians.  PS it would be nice sometimes to hear cyclist condemning other cyclists who give all a bad name.

Jane Eades ● 2064d

My non scientific poll:On the 20mph road around the park:A van was certainly speeding as were an equal small number of cars and cyclists.On the 10mph path with predestrian priority:All the cyclists were speeding irrespective of age or gender.Many of the cyclists were not careful of deer or predestrians. One doe almost became a John Doe.

Ed Robinson ● 2064d

That should have read "mobility issues"!Barbara. Yes, perhaps it's not a good time to introduce that idea at present but perhaps in the future when the " new normal" comes ...

Michael Ixer ● 2064d

I do keep off footpaths and obey the law.

Lisa Cottam ● 2064d

Whilst, as I've written many times, I  deplore the bad behaviour of some cyclists, I'd be interested to learn how many pedestrians have been "mown down" by them. Perhaps Jane Eades can enlighten us. However, that really is a side issue compared with the reintroduction of cars in Richmond Park.

Richard Carter ● 2064d

To ignore our symbiotic relationship with cars is futile and naive. Creating a worse problem elsewhere is also selfish. The knock-on effect on streets and properties surrounding Royal Parks would cause greater problems.As with many things in life, a considered outcome is required.  Therefore a return to the previous arrangement, specifically in Richmond Park, is the most propitious answer.

David McConnon ● 2064d

Really sad to read this.  A missed opportunity to make long-lasting positive change.

Craig Fordham ● 2064d

I'm glad I'm not the only one who is fed up with the self righteousness of cyclists who are happy to mow down pedestrians, whilst claiming to be hard done by.  I wish cyclists would keep off footpaths and obey the law.

Jane Eades ● 2064d

Traffic, especially through traffic = noise and pollution in a park which also contains Sites of Special Scientific Interest. If you drive to the entrance and car park of your choice, the disabled parking at Isabella included, that should be enough for most folk.

Jonathan Callaway ● 2064d

Michael, not really able to provide transport with the virus at the moment, people are probably glad to have a ride and just look at the scenery. A lot of people don't even want to get on a bus. That's why it's nice for older people to just go for a ride.

Barbara Stevens ● 2064d

Surely the answer is to ban traffic except to car parks and then provide transport for those with mobility isduyes like the National Trust does?

Michael Ixer ● 2064d

Good at least people can drive up there and park and take their dogs to Penn Ponds for a walk or drive grandchildren round the park to look at the deer.  Now cyclists have been stopped from going over Hammersmith Bridge,  such a shame. All the car drivers will be saying good, cyclists can't always have their own way. Hope they stop them riding past the traffic lights when people are crossing and telling the pedestrian to F-Off.

Barbara Stevens ● 2064d

Pembroke Lodge access via Richmond park gate was only accessible on weekday.There are many people that are not disabled that will not be able to reach Isabella plantation on foot which I have already mentioned!I agree that thru traffic should be prohibited. Before the lock down I noticed an increase in commercial vechiles cutting through the park including a rather large lorry.

Ed Robinson ● 2064d

Disappointing indeed. Access to the car parks from the nearest gate would have been fine but through traffic brings only air and noise pollution.

Jonathan Callaway ● 2065d

No cars in Richmond Park, no planes in the sky, for a few weeks no traffic on Putney Bridge,now no Hammersmith Bridge, we will have something to tell our grand children,thats if we live long enough!

Hugh Thompson ● 2065d

Neither of these points is a problem: Pembroke Lodge can be reached from Richmond Gate and Isabella already has disabled parking at the back. There is no need to allow through traffic.

Richard Carter ● 2065d

How can less mobile people get to Pembroke Lodge and Isabella Plantation?Pembroke Lodge was empty last time I visited. Excellent place to get your eyes tested as you can see Windsor Castle from Henry's mould - also St Paul's still!.The Butler's Pantry are trying to be imaginative - they are missing a lot of their more mature guests from my personal observation.At the other end of the spectrum - Isabella plantation is a long a way for small legs.Suggestions welcome

Ed Robinson ● 2065d

But the whole point is that "Through traffic [is] permitted"!

Richard Carter ● 2065d

The chart isn't easy to see on here, but can be viewed at https://www.royalparks.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/118942/MovementFactSheet_Richmond.pdfBut in short, the new regime means that:Through traffic is allowed between Kingston, Ham and Richmond Gates at any time;Through traffic is allowed on weekdays between Richmond and Roehampton Gates;Access to Broomhill car park (for the Isabella Plantation) allowed from Kingston Gate at any time;Access to Robin Hood and Pen Ponds car parks allowed from Roehampton Gate at any time.It seems that the only access that's not allowed is on a short section in between Robin Hood and Kingston Gates and from Sheen Gate to Sheen Cross.The changes are supposed to run only from 15 August but were already in use on Thursday afternoon.The whole thing is described as "a six-month trial of these road closures," when they are more accurately described as road openings. Given the gutless performance on traffic by Royal Parks, I don't think anyone will believe that this is in any way a genuine trial.

Richard Carter ● 2065d

"rat run between Kingston, Richmond and Ham Gates"Perhaps access only signs should be positioned at the entrances - i.e not for thru traffic!

Ed Robinson ● 2065d