Richmond Park - Cops campaign v speeding cyclists !

[Dave Kahn]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 18:03:06 +0000 (UTC), "PK"
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> <[email protected]>:
>
> >> 20 +/- what? And measured with what?
>
> >Measured by the cop car doing 20mph behind and the roadies zooming away!
> >Tht'a enough evidence to convict for speeding.
>
> But 20 +/- what? Surely the limts of speedometer error are such that
> prosecuting for speeds below, say, 25mph, would be problematic? And
> how many people are going faster than that? And if the cyclists are
> overtaking the cars, how can the "cop car" pace them? And how many
> "cop cars" have speedometers calibrrated for offences at 20mph? And
> how many will be interested in a Parks matter?
>
> I find the whole thing baffling, given that the practical limit of
> most bikes in that context is only going to be a few mph above 20
> anyway!

The Park is hilly. I must confess that I've frequently been above 40
mph on a couple of stretches.

--
Dave...

 

[Tony Raven]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

>
> And in order to help stay legal the tyres have wear indicators moulded
> into them. Sorry, Tony, that doesn't work.
>
>

Only if you go out and buy tyres with the indicators on them (bit like
buying a bicycle speedo). Even then those indicators err well on the
safe side so they do not tell you whether you are legal or not.

On another point, there are hills in Richmond Park so 20mph plus is
quite easily achieved.

Of course the fact that speed limits have been introduced for good
reasons that are well supported is irrelevant to a cyclist who thinks
speed limits should not apply at all.

Tony

 

[Dave Kahn]

"Dr Curious" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> There are or at least used to be standard times for doing circuits
> around Richmond park. When you take account of the gradients etc those
> guys could tell you their likely maximum speeds as readily as the
> weight of their bikes.
>
> With a bit of mathematical wizardry, probably all the cops need do
> is sit in their car and time the laps.

Not really, because the roadie could always claim to have taken the
short cut across the middle.

--
Dave...

 

[PK]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
> Of course. But the fact remains that a by-law has been introduced
> which applies to a class of vehicle not usually covered, and where
> there can be no expectation that more than a minority of those covered
> will have any means of measuring speed, and where the maximum likely
> speed is in any case not much more than the posted limit. It seems
> like a lot of work for no good effect, to me.


The issue wrt the Park is not speed per se.

the push for reduced speed limits is part of the push to reclaim the park
from trough traffic (esp commuting rat runs) and inappropriate use to give
full benefit to the leisure users and maintain its SSSI value.

No doubt that rat running is inappropriate use and the closure of robin hood
gate has done much to cut that out

Arguably also, little doubt either that the use of the Park roads as speed
training routes for road cyclists often travelling >>20mph is also
inappropriate.

The aim is not speed control per se but discouraging of inappropriate use.

I was driving in the park on Sunday - parking and walking not driving
through - and stuck rigidly to the 20 mph limit. It would certainly
discourage me from using the park as a cut through!

Applying the speed limit to cyclists is IMHO correct and appropriate.

pk

 

[PK]

Dave Kahn wrote:
> "PK" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>
>> a mate was stopped on the Tamsin trail a while ago (gravel cycle
>> track around the park limit 15mph) and told to watch his speed by a
>> park policeman who had clocked his speed from the park road and
>> followed him to richmond gate where the track crosses the road.
>
> Many of the off-roaders are way over 15 mph on much of the trail. Some
> of them are quite aggressive towards runners and walkers as well.

In my experience as walker, runner and cyclist of the Tamsin trail the
problem users are groups of runners who run 3/4/5 abreast across the full
width of the track and pointedly refuse to make way even when as a cyclist I
slow to walking pace and coming from behind give a polite "ding" or "scuse
please"

During the midweek day, there is never a problem. It is the weekend club
runners who seem to think they own the trail (which BTW was built as a
purpose built cycle/walking trail using funds donated in memory of "Tamsin",
hence the FoRP attempt to ban cyclists completely from the trail is doomed
to fail)

A few month ago, I came up behind 4 lady club runners (??red vests Sutton
somethings??). Ding ding from some way back, polite "excuse me" as I came up
behind at only very slightly more than their speed. I was met with a
mouthful of abuse and told quite forcibly that as I was on a MTB I should
get off the trail an leave it to them.

pk

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 10:42:00 +0100, Tony Raven <[email protected]>
wrote in message <[email protected]>:

>> And in order to help stay legal the tyres have wear indicators moulded
>> into them. Sorry, Tony, that doesn't work.

>Only if you go out and buy tyres with the indicators on them (bit like
>buying a bicycle speedo). Even then those indicators err well on the
>safe side so they do not tell you whether you are legal or not.

Um, well, maybe. I can't say I've ever asked for them, but I can't
remember a set without, either. Of course, I don't buy Itchifanni
Supacheep tyres. Michelin seem quite reasonable in V and W speed
ratings. In the Olden Days I was taught to use a coin to test tread
depth, this seemed to work OK.

>Of course the fact that speed limits have been introduced for good
>reasons that are well supported is irrelevant to a cyclist who thinks
>speed limits should not apply at all.

I wouldn't know.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

 

[Dr Curious]

"Dave Kahn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Dr Curious" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
>
> > There are or at least used to be standard times for doing circuits
> > around Richmond park. When you take account of the gradients etc those
> > guys could tell you their likely maximum speeds as readily as the
> > weight of their bikes.
> >
> > With a bit of mathematical wizardry, probably all the cops need do
> > is sit in their car and time the laps.
>
> Not really, because the roadie could always claim to have taken the
> short cut across the middle.

....

Plod: Excuse me sir you've just lapped the Park in 16 minutes 30
seconds.

Roadie: Wot me officer ? Oh no I cycled across the grass! What's more
I'm willing to swear on the Bible in Court if necessary, that cycling
across grass or on woodcihppings, often on a bike resembling a stripped
down motorbike, is a lot more fun than cycling fast on roads.

Everyone knows that.


Curious

....

>
> --
> Dave...

 

[David Martin]

On 30/6/04 10:41 am, in article
[email protected], "Dave Kahn"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> I find the whole thing baffling, given that the practical limit of
>> most bikes in that context is only going to be a few mph above 20
>> anyway!
>
> The Park is hilly. I must confess that I've frequently been above 40
> mph on a couple of stretches.

Indeed. We used to overtake the cars when the limit was a barely enforced
30mph.. (when I was younger and more foolish).

Used to do a timed lap in about 19 mins when I was all brawn and no
technique..

...d

 

[Graeme]

Ian G Batten <[email protected]> wrote in news:cbtvu8$qvk$1@news-
out.ftel.co.uk:

> anyone sensible
> changes their tyres well before 3mm.
>

Ah, sensible. We all know that description doesn't fit a lot of people out
there.

Graeme

 

[David Martin]

On 30/6/04 11:08 am, in article [email protected], "PK"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> I was driving in the park on Sunday - parking and walking not driving
> through - and stuck rigidly to the 20 mph limit. It would certainly
> discourage me from using the park as a cut through!

But that is just perception. Assuming that you will be travelling at the
speed limit all the way through (unlikely, but bear with me) that means you
take a maximum of 3 minutes longer than otherwise.

It is all how fast you *think* you are travelling. The main reason to use it
as a cut through is to avoid the Richmond Road. Even +3 mins it still makes
sense to use the park, even if it *feels* slower.

Making it one way would be interesting.

Stopping through traffic entirely makes it a pain to cycle through. The
pedestrians then drift all over the road.

...d

 

[Doctor J. Frink]

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 10:08:03 +0000 (UTC), PK
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>
>> Of course. But the fact remains that a by-law has been introduced
>> which applies to a class of vehicle not usually covered, and where
>> there can be no expectation that more than a minority of those covered
>> will have any means of measuring speed, and where the maximum likely
>> speed is in any case not much more than the posted limit. It seems
>> like a lot of work for no good effect, to me.
>
>The issue wrt the Park is not speed per se.

But that's what is being policed. I just don't see there being a
significant increase in danger to others and impact on the environment
between a cyclist at 20mph and one at 25mph. A biker can be plenty
dangerous enough at slower speeds if they ride irresponsibly. If it's
dangerous cycling that needs to be dealt with then deal with dangerous
cycling, arbitrary speed limits appear to me to have little correlation.

>The aim is not speed control per se but discouraging of inappropriate use.

People can cycle very dangerously and inappropriately well below 20mph.
Speed does not directly correlate with danger and environmental impact
with bikes as much as with motor vehicles, so even if there are going to
be speed limits set on cyclists the fact that it's the same speed for
bikes and motor vehicles seems a trifle fishy to me.

>I was driving in the park on Sunday - parking and walking not driving
>through - and stuck rigidly to the 20 mph limit. It would certainly
>discourage me from using the park as a cut through!

That's in your car though.

>Applying the speed limit to cyclists is IMHO correct and appropriate.

Preventing people riding like dicks through parks is to be encouraged,
but setting a 20mph speed limit doesn't seem the right way to me, and
the vast majority of the cyclists will not know or have any way of
knowing they're breaking that speed limit. If the limit is being applied
to bikes then I hope there are very clear signs around the park pointing
this out, and maybe giving cyclists some idea of how to abide by it (ie
the next sign is x miles away, you shouldn't see it in less than y
minutes).

Frink

--
Doctor J. Frink : 'Rampant Ribald Ringtail'
See his mind here : http://www.cmp.liv.ac.uk/frink/
Annoy his mind here : pjf at cmp dot liv dot ack dot ook
"No sir, I didn't like it!" - Mr Horse

 

[PK]

David Martin wrote:
> On 30/6/04 11:08 am, in article [email protected],
> "PK" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I was driving in the park on Sunday - parking and walking not driving
>> through - and stuck rigidly to the 20 mph limit. It would certainly
>> discourage me from using the park as a cut through!
>
> But that is just perception. Assuming that you will be travelling at
> the speed limit all the way through (unlikely, but bear with me) that
> means you take a maximum of 3 minutes longer than otherwise.
>
> It is all how fast you *think* you are travelling. The main reason to
> use it as a cut through is to avoid the Richmond Road. Even +3 mins
> it still makes sense to use the park, even if it *feels* slower.


True, all percepttion.

My perception: 30mph in the park. Reasonable speed on a country lane.
20mph, painfully slow. The car finds it difficult to keep that slow over a
couple of miles clear road. Very different from 20mph in a town zone, where
the nature of the road makes 20mph a very easy & comfortable speed.

for those who don't know the park the roads a good and open with few bends.
out in the sticks they would be national speed limit 60mph!

pk

 

[PK]

Doctor J. Frink wrote:
>. If it's
> dangerous cycling that needs to be dealt with then deal with dangerous
> cycling, arbitrary speed limits appear to me to have little
> correlation.


Are you Paul Smith in disguise? the anti camera lobby use that argument all
the time!

If it's legitimate to use speed as a proxy measure for dangerous driving
then surely it is equally legitimate to use speed as a proxy for cyclists
using the park in an inappropriate way.

I really can't see why there is any difficulty on this. A clear policy
decision has been made to restrict speeds in the park to 20 mph, not as a
direct saftey issue but as a matter of enviromental policy to protect the
essential character of the park.

if the view is "speed limits don't apply to cyclist on the road they sould
not apply anywhere" then I'm afraid that is just so much tosh.

As a cyclist you might not know whterh you are doing 22mph, but you damn
well know if you are doing 30mph or 40mph and it is those sort of speeds
that it is the intention to control.

pk

 

[Ian G Batten]

In article <[email protected]>,
Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 08:36:36 +0000 (UTC), Ian G Batten
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> <[email protected]>:
>
> >There are both cars and motorcycles which don't have speedometers, and
> >it is perfectly legal for them not to. They are, however, still subject
> >to the speed limit.
>
> Really? They are not covered separately under the RTRA?

I don't believe so. I don't think there's a requirement for vehicles
manufactured before speedometers were a compulsory part of the
construction and use regulations to be retrospectively fitted. I'm
happy to be shown wrong, but it would have to be an explicit exception
to the C&U regulations, which are broadly ``if it was legal then, it's
legal now''.

Of course, at the speeds involved, a cycle computer on the undriven
wheels would work well enough...

> >There is also nothing stopping someone who is concerned that they may
> >exceed a bicycle speed limit from purchasing a cycle computer (20
> >pounds).
>
> Of course. But the fact remains that a by-law has been introduced
> which applies to a class of vehicle not usually covered, and where
> there can be no expectation that more than a minority of those covered
> will have any means of measuring speed, and where the maximum likely

An interesting point would be to compare the incidence of cycle
computers on the bikes of people riding at 15mph, and the incidence of
cycle computers on the bikes of people riding at 25mph. My money's on
the latter being much higher than the former.

ian

 

[Ian G Batten]

In article <[email protected]>,
PK <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Many of the off-roaders are way over 15 mph on much of the trail. Some
> > of them are quite aggressive towards runners and walkers as well.
>
> In my experience as walker, runner and cyclist of the Tamsin trail the
> problem users are groups of runners who run 3/4/5 abreast across the full
> width of the track and pointedly refuse to make way even when as a cyclist I
> slow to walking pace and coming from behind give a polite "ding" or "scuse
> please"

Mind you, in Nicky Crowther's book of bike rides around London, there's
a section saying that approaches to the council to provide a circular
route though (I think) Hampstead Heath have failed, because perceived
behaviour of cyclists over the past few years has made the council
unwilling to encourage them. It doesn't matter if that's justified or
not, it's still a bad position to be in.

ian

 

[David Martin]

On 30/6/04 12:28 pm, in article [email protected], "Ian G
Batten" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I don't think there's a requirement for vehicles
> manufactured before speedometers were a compulsory part of the
> construction and use regulations to be retrospectively fitted. I'm
> happy to be shown wrong, but it would have to be an explicit exception
> to the C&U regulations, which are broadly ``if it was legal then, it's
> legal now''.

On a related note, when I was in Norway I imported my car from UK. This
involved a lot of paperwork and careful organisation to ensure that the car
was legal to drive between the customs station and the equivalent of an MOT
test station. It then had to have the equivalent of an MOT test which it
failed because it had a GB sticker on the back (and the headlamps needed
adjusting).

After going through this rigmarole I was in a position to advise a German
colleague importing his car.

He filled out all the paperwork, got the necessary tax exemption and took
his car for the technical check. The tester walks round the car and asks him
a few questions, all appearing perfectly innocent. He then pronounces that
it is illegal for him to test the car, stamps the paperwork as approved and
that was it.

Apparently there was a law passed during occupation in WWII that if a german
citizen wanted to import their car which had been manufactured and bought in
germany and owned byt hem from new into Norway that, providing the fiscal
requirements were met, the technical check should ascertain that:

There was apparatus for steering
There was apparatus for braking
there were red lamps to the rear
there were white lamps to the front.
and there were to be no further technical constraints.

This law had not been repealed so the tester could not legally test the
functionality of any of these parts with a view to denying acceptance, nor
could he deny acceptance based on roadworthiness.

Fun and games...

...d

 

[Alan Braggins]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
>Really? Having been repeatedly told that the limit is somewhere
>between 1 1/2 and 2 pints, I can see how some sort of empirical
>measure of intoxication could be arrived at, but how would you
>empirically measure speed?

Are you seriously suggesting that without a speedometer you are completely
unable to estimate your speed or compare it approximately with times when
you have had a speedometer?

(The literal answer is "with a speedometer", but I assume you don't
actually mean "by measurement rather than theory" here from the context.)

 

[Julesh]

PK wrote:
> Julesh wrote:
>
>>Indeed. As an avoider of the narrow (and pointlessly winding)
>>cycle/footpath/dog walking facility known as the "Tamsin Trail"
>
>
>
> Pointlessly winding? It's a leisure trail not a race track, it winds
> sensibly especially where there is a need to control speed or make hills
> climbable (on foot or bike)
>
> Narrow? Wider than most pavements in all but a few spots.
>
> pk
>
>
Perhaps I'm at a loss as to what a "leisure trail" is supposed to offer?

For the most part it's about 2m wide and either tarmac or fine gravel.
How this compares to a pavement I'm not in a position to personally
comment

IIRC the trail was built as a shared Farcility when cycling on other
paths in the park was banned in the early 90's and the majority of its
users are cyclists (horses have their own tracks, pedestrians can
happily wander at will in the 2500 acres available, and much of tghe
trail is too steep to want to push a wheelchair. As the path follows the
perimeter wall (while the roads lead from gate to gate) it obviously
wasn't intended as a route to anywhere (perhaps that's why it's a
"leisure" route?)

Hovever, many younger MTB'ers seem to like it so perhaps it has its uses
for some?

Jules

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 30 Jun 2004 14:49:57 +0100 (BST), [email protected] (Alan
Braggins) wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>Are you seriously suggesting that without a speedometer you are completely
>unable to estimate your speed or compare it approximately with times when
>you have had a speedometer?

Not with any degree of accuracy, no. I can do it if I can calibrate
every few minutes by looking at the magic number, but I can't do it
cold.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

 

[David Martin]

On 30/6/04 3:01 pm, in article
[email protected], "Julesh"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> IIRC the trail was built as a shared Farcility when cycling on other
> paths in the park was banned in the early 90's and the majority of its
> users are cyclists (horses have their own tracks, pedestrians can

Cycling on anything other than the roads or bridlepaths has always been
illegal. There was nothing new in the 1990's to make riding on other paths
illegal.

> happily wander at will in the 2500 acres available, and much of tghe
> trail is too steep to want to push a wheelchair. As the path follows the
> perimeter wall (while the roads lead from gate to gate) it obviously
> wasn't intended as a route to anywhere (perhaps that's why it's a
> "leisure" route?)

Indeed. I looked at it but decided it was ****.

>
> Hovever, many younger MTB'ers seem to like it so perhaps it has its uses
> for some?

...d