Yes, there's no clear law that states the 20mph speed limit applies to bicycles in The Royal Parks. The closest is The Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces Regulations 1997: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/1639/contents/made(Note that is secondary legislation [I think] not a bye-law.)However it, and its amendments, introduced an ambiguity specifically by one of the amendments removing the section that made the speed limit in The various Royal Parks apply to bicycles.On public roads speed limits only apply to motor vehicles, that's clearly demonstrable in law. There is a "furious cycling" offence, but there have only been a handful of prosecutions under that law in the last 20 years.I don't doubt people have been fined for "speeding" in Richmond Park (or other parks) but they've probably paid those fines without challenging them. The Police do make mistakes and fine people for things that aren't really offences, and people do just pay up.Also, just sticking a sign up, like the new "10" mph signs in Richmond Park have no validity. You can't just stick up a sign to change the speed limit. Changes in speed limits have a corresponding law or, more simply, a TRO (Traffic Regulation Order). I do not believe that such changes have been made to make the 10mph limits legal.Of course, the Government (or local council in the case of a TRO) could make the relevant changes to make the speed limits apply to bicycles in Richmond Park (and other parks) or even make every speed limit apply to bicycles on all roads, but I doubt they will.Next up is the fact that the Police do not have any equipment that is rated and certified to measure the speed of a bicycle (at least none of the mobile solutions). The speed guns are only rated and certified for measuring the speeds of most motor vehicles. (There's a bit of physics fun with open-wheeled vehicles, specifically tractors with big treads as the top of the wheel is moving at twice the speed of the car relative to the road, given that the bottom of the wheel is moving at 0mph relative to the road - aim at the top of the wheel and you will get an incorrect reading. Bicycles with spoked wheels can also give misleading results).So, if no law exists that makes speed limits apply to bicycles then why do they need mandatory speedometers? Bear in mind that motor vehicles are not fitted with mandatory breathalysers or blood-alcohol measuring devices, yet motorists are well aware of the need to remain within the drink drive limits.I would say that pretty much any cyclist who is capable of going more than 20mph (on the flat or slight downhill) is well aware that they are travelling more than 20mph. Either because they have a GPS device or just through experience. The average utility cyclist may not be aware of their speed on a steep downhill section though.Finally, I'd expect policing to be proportional to the possible outcomes of the crime itself. Cyclists kill one or two people a year (still one or two too many of course). Cars kill ~1,500 a year with the majority of deaths having "excessive speed" as a contributory factor. I don't mind the Police using their time to enforce things like road users (including cyclists) stopping at red traffic lights. A general level of visible enforcement is good for keeping the population in check. The problem is that there is no funding, few Police and therefore many people know there is little risk of being caught.Proportionality is key.Number of pedestrians on pavements killed by cyclists in the last 10 years: 2 or 3 I thinkNumber of pedestrians on pavements killed by motor vehicles: about 60 a yearBut, of course, cyclists on pavements are an absolute scourge. Separately we just accept that 60 pedestrians being killed by motor vehicles on pavements is an acceptable price for everyone being able to drive.I did 5 laps of Richmond Park today on my bike. I averaged ~17mph on my fastest lap (and I'm not in the best of shape, I used to be able to average >20mph, and plenty of people who overtook me would be able to do this), which means I definitely averaged >20mph on the flat and downhill sections. At times between Pembroke Lodge and Ham Gate I was averaging 30mph and still only just keeping up with some of the cars. I had numerous cars overtake me way too close, even when I had moved towards the centre of the road to make it clear it wasn't a safe time/place to overtake. Today alone I saw 3 instances of dangerous overtaking by cars on Dark Hill (just after the Kingston Gate car park on the way to car park near the Isabella Plantation). Most were impatient drivers behind slow cyclists (no surprise it is a steep hill) crossing the "no overtaking" double white lines with absolutely no view that the road ahead was clear (it's a blind crest to the hill). Twice the cars had to swerve back in and brake sharply because a car or some other cyclists were coming the other way. In my 2 hours cycling around the park I probably saw 30 motorists using their mobile (not in hands-free mode) or texting whilst driving. Not this time but previously I've even seen someone watching an episode of QI on their mobile mounted on the dashboard.But, yeah, cyclists going over a speed limit that doesn't apply to them are the real scourge.Anyway, it won't be long for further restrictions to come in for cars in Richmond Park. They've been clever it adding them slowly and steadily. No cars between Robin Hood Gate up Broomfield Hill. No cars past the car park at Sheen Gate. No cars between Richmond Gate and Roehampton Gate. (Obviously there are exceptions for the people who live in the park, or entities such as The Royal Ballet School). I hope the next barriers will prevent through traffic between Kingston, Ham and Richmond gates. All of the car parks should still be accessible, but only by their nearest entrances. It doesn't prevent anyone from using the park, it just makes their journey through a national park less easy, and completely removes the ability to use the park as a rat run or short cut. Yes the roads near the park will be busier, but that's the point. Make them busier, make many people think twice about using their cars, eventually they'll end up just as busy as they are now once many of the unnecessary trips are removed.Happy for people to disagree with any/all of this. I don't really care. But just remember that cycling is only going to be on the increase and drivers (including me) are going to be increasingly restricted in what they can do, and they'll need to pay something closer to the real cost of their actions as currently motorists are heavily subsidised in many respects.
Alex Greenbank ● 755d