Richmond Park - Cops campaign v speeding cyclists !

[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...

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 08:45:52 +0100, Tony Raven <[email protected]>
wrote in message <[email protected]>:

>OK lets take a different example to get round this "you
>don't have to drink to drive" etc. red herrings. Tyre
>tread. It is illegal to drive with less than 1.6mm
>tread depth in a continuous band over the central 75%
>of the tyre.

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

>A la spike drinks, if it turned out that while you were
>parked your mate had secretly swapped your tyres for bald
>ones without you knowing the courts would probably be
>lenient with you.

Undoubtedly. What if he secretly swapped your bike for a
faster one? I'd be lenient with the mate, I think...

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

 

[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

 

[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

 

[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...

 

[Just Zis Guy]

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

 

[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 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

 

[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 <cbtu2k$qg0$1@news-
> out.ftel.co.uk>:
>
> >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

 

[Just Zis Guy]

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

 

[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

 

[Ian G Batten]

In article <[email protected]>,
Alan Braggins <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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?

Especially as it's a regular cry amongst people opposed to
speeding drivers that when they say ``ah, but if I'm looking
at the speedometer I'm not looking at the road'' to say
``but you should know how fast you're going based upon gear
and revs''. Why is it different for cyclists?

ian