Greenwich Park speed limit reduced from 30 to 20mph

fnegroni

snailracer wrote:

It could be argued that a car can brake/swerve considerably faster than a bike, at any speed, and avoid a collision in the first place.

Breaking sure, swerving not so sure. Swerving a car needs a lot more room for manouvre, and I suppose you are likely to hit something else in the process.
Visibility is also an issue: in a place where kids abound, it is sensible to place a lower limit on vehicles with reduced visibility or where accidents are more likely to be less avoidable: a kid could run into a bicycle, but the cyclist has perfect all round visibility up to near the moment of impact. A car less so.

What a sensible speed for a car and bike is are different. I am not arguing that 30mph is *safe* for a bike. I am just saying that a speed limit for cars might be lowered where the one for bikes might be kept the same.

deptfordmarmoset

fnegroni wrote:

snailracer wrote:

It could be argued that a car can brake/swerve considerably faster than a bike, at any speed, and avoid a collision in the first place.

Breaking sure, swerving not so sure. Swerving a car needs a lot more room for manouvre, and I suppose you are likely to hit something else in the process.
Visibility is also an issue: in a place where kids abound, it is sensible to place a lower limit on vehicles with reduced visibility or where accidents are more likely to be less avoidable: a kid could run into a bicycle, but the cyclist has perfect all round visibility up to near the moment of impact. A car less so.

What a sensible speed for a car and bike is are different. I am not arguing that 30mph is *safe* for a bike. I am just saying that a speed limit for cars might be lowered where the one for bikes might be kept the same.

Indeed. In fact, the most recent fatality in Greenwich Park was when a car swerved onto the other side of the road to get to the public conveniences in 2007. Killed a cyclist - who was going nowhere near 30mph.

Solution: stop all traffic from exceeding 20mph?

spen666

Porgy wrote:

....

the problem with you Spen is you defend the law as if it's some sort of law of nature that cannot be wrong.

The lasw is the law. What the law states is the law is the law. There is no question of that.


Whether a law is a good law is a different debate.

I have merely stated what the law is. Like it or not, the law is still the law until it is changed

Other - normal people - like to debate the rights and wrongs of legislation as well as all the other issues.

The issue here is not is the law right or wrong, but what is the law. That was what was being debated. To challenge in court the law that is clear on the basis you think it is morally wrong is stupid and doomed to failure and huge expense. Laws are made by Parliament and change needs to come via parliamentart methods

Legislation can be changed you know - and there's nothing wrong with exploring the issues as we are here - you do not have to wade in every time to tell us what the law says and what it does not and turn the whole thread into a pointless bun-fight.

Bloody hell - legislation can be changed!!!!!!!!!! I never knew that. I've always thought it was set in stone. Thank you for this most enlightening information.


Until the law is changed however, it is what it is now. You will note I have erely said what the law is. You cannot change the law via the courts. It is changed via parliament. That is the venue to try to change law

Why not try a post that summarises the legal position and then leave it there. I sometimes get the feeling that you just like starting arguments.

I have posted what the legal position is on several occassions in this post. I have posted it several times to correct the repeated incorrect legal posts.

If you want to change the law, then campaign to do so, raise it with your MP etc.
If a post is wroing in law and I am aware it is wrong in law, then I will post the correct position whether you like it or not.

Porgy

spen666 wrote:

I have posted what the legal position is on several occassions in this post. I have posted it several times to correct the repeated incorrect legal posts.

Like i said - broken record. It's tedious mate, you need to knock this repetitive behaviour on the head. Seriously.

If you want to change the law, then campaign to do so, raise it with your MP etc.
If a post is wroing in law and I am aware it is wrong in law, then I will post the correct position whether you like it or not.

I do. And I'd like to be able to debate such things on a forum without constantly being reminded of what the law actually says (in your opinion - might I add - you speak as if everything is always black and white in law) by a tedious pedant like you.

fenboy369

Anybody got the highway code/relevant law bit that says that speed limits only apply to motorised vehicles?

Porgy

Does anyone know if the normal traffic laws apply in a royal park anyway?

Come on Spen - here's a chance to tell us about the law again.

bobinski

whether or not the speed limit in the park applies to cyclists will depend on the bye laws and/or any approval by Parliament. If it does it is an offence of strict liability.
But we would need to see the bye laws etc. to confirm.
I suspect that they do apply.

follow the special cases section from the following link...

http://www.astounding.org.uk/ian/cyclel ... imits.html

and its two further links

Apparently the amendment received approval by Parliament 24/03/10. But i would prefer to see it to be sure!!

Hope this helps.

Porgy

fenboy369 wrote:

Anybody got the highway code/relevant law bit that says that speed limits only apply to motorised vehicles?

The Highway code references the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, sections 81, 86, 89 & schedule 6. In fact, these sections all fall within Part VI of the act, which is entirely about speed limits.

The first thing to note is that the Highway Code blanket statement is wrong - section 81 is quite explicit that "It shall not be lawful for a person to drive a motor vehicle on a restricted road at a speed exceeding 30 miles per hour"

Further reading reveals that throughout this act, the speed limits discussed apply to motor vehicles and their drivers, not to cyclists. Note, for example section 89: "A person who drives a motor vehicle on a road at a speed exceeding a limit imposed by or under any enactment to which this section applies shall be guilty of an offence."


But the question will be - what law applies in a Royal Park?

EDIT - this presumably - http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1997/19971639.htm

Clever Pun

Porgy wrote:

the problem with you Spen is you defend the law as if it's some sort of law of nature that cannot be wrong.

but it doesn't matter if it's right or wrong... it's the law and as such police will enforce this ie you get a ticket. Appeal all you like claim ignorance you will be fined. It's not hard to understand we can all talk about it till the cows come home or the next helmet thread arrives, if you're outside of the law and you get caught STFU and take your punishment

that's really the end of it surely?

Porgy

Clever Pun wrote:

Porgy wrote:

the problem with you Spen is you defend the law as if it's some sort of law of nature that cannot be wrong.

but it doesn't matter if it's right or wrong... it's the law and as such police will enforce this ie you get a ticket. Appeal all you like claim ignorance you will be fined. It's not hard to understand we can all talk about it till the cows come home or the next helmet thread arrives, if you're outside of the law and you get caught STFU and take your punishment

that's really the end of it surely?

We can talk about it - I don't see why people need to be told to shut up. I'm not going to get fined for complaining about it in this forum.

My beef is that the way the law is being enforced in this park has driven people like me out of the park. The local LCC has been campaigniong on this issue for years - they wanted the 20mph limit though are less happy with the rigid enforcement of the law against cyclists while regulaitons remain wooly and poorly defined, and motorists are not on the whole being policed leaving cyclsts vulnerable.

Anyway - we're far from establishing what the law says int his situation - but I'm on it.

Clever Pun

Porgy wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

Porgy wrote:

the problem with you Spen is you defend the law as if it's some sort of law of nature that cannot be wrong.

but it doesn't matter if it's right or wrong... it's the law and as such police will enforce this ie you get a ticket. Appeal all you like claim ignorance you will be fined. It's not hard to understand we can all talk about it till the cows come home or the next helmet thread arrives, if you're outside of the law and you get caught STFU and take your punishment

that's really the end of it surely?

We can talk about it - I don't see why people need to be told to shut up. I'm not going to get fined for complaining about it in this forum.

Anyway - we're far from establishing what the law says int his situation - but I'm on it.

so whining and repetitive bleating for no real point? and there's you bitching to spen66 about tedium?

Porgy

Clever Pun wrote:

Porgy wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

Porgy wrote:

the problem with you Spen is you defend the law as if it's some sort of law of nature that cannot be wrong.

but it doesn't matter if it's right or wrong... it's the law and as such police will enforce this ie you get a ticket. Appeal all you like claim ignorance you will be fined. It's not hard to understand we can all talk about it till the cows come home or the next helmet thread arrives, if you're outside of the law and you get caught STFU and take your punishment

that's really the end of it surely?

We can talk about it - I don't see why people need to be told to shut up. I'm not going to get fined for complaining about it in this forum.

Anyway - we're far from establishing what the law says int his situation - but I'm on it.

so whining and repetitive bleating for no real point? and there's you bitching to spen66 about tedium?

Whining or bleating? thanks mate. Nice to know my posts are appreciated.

I don;t see how anyone can campaign for change without talking about it first. Ho hum. I'm probably weird. :?

Porgy

Statutory Instrument 1997 No. 1639
The Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces Regulations 1997
Acts in a Park for which written permission is required
4. Unless the Secretary of State's written permission has first been obtained, no person using a Park shall -

(28 ) drive or ride any vehicle on a Park road in excess of the speed specified in relation to that road in Part II of Schedule 2 to these Regulations

so any speed limits do apply to bikes in a royal Park.

Clever Pun

Porgy wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

Porgy wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

Porgy wrote:

the problem with you Spen is you defend the law as if it's some sort of law of nature that cannot be wrong.

but it doesn't matter if it's right or wrong... it's the law and as such police will enforce this ie you get a ticket. Appeal all you like claim ignorance you will be fined. It's not hard to understand we can all talk about it till the cows come home or the next helmet thread arrives, if you're outside of the law and you get caught STFU and take your punishment

that's really the end of it surely?

We can talk about it - I don't see why people need to be told to shut up. I'm not going to get fined for complaining about it in this forum.

Anyway - we're far from establishing what the law says int his situation - but I'm on it.

so whining and repetitive bleating for no real point? and there's you bitching to spen66 about tedium?

Whining or bleating? thanks mate. Nice to know my posts are appreciated.

I don;t see how anyone can campaign for change without talking about it first. Ho hum. I'm probably weird. :?

Porgy wrote:

We can talk about it - I don't see why people need to be told to shut up. I'm not going to get fined for complaining about it in this forum.

complaining.. your own words.

Just telling it like I see it. I don't care about this issue personally, I just swoop in where I see injustice cr@p all over the place and flit off again

Porgy

Clever Pun wrote:

Porgy wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

Porgy wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

Porgy wrote:

the problem with you Spen is you defend the law as if it's some sort of law of nature that cannot be wrong.

but it doesn't matter if it's right or wrong... it's the law and as such police will enforce this ie you get a ticket. Appeal all you like claim ignorance you will be fined. It's not hard to understand we can all talk about it till the cows come home or the next helmet thread arrives, if you're outside of the law and you get caught STFU and take your punishment

that's really the end of it surely?

We can talk about it - I don't see why people need to be told to shut up. I'm not going to get fined for complaining about it in this forum.

Anyway - we're far from establishing what the law says int his situation - but I'm on it.

so whining and repetitive bleating for no real point? and there's you bitching to spen66 about tedium?

Whining or bleating? thanks mate. Nice to know my posts are appreciated.

I don;t see how anyone can campaign for change without talking about it first. Ho hum. I'm probably weird. :?

Porgy wrote:

We can talk about it - I don't see why people need to be told to shut up. I'm not going to get fined for complaining about it in this forum.

complaining.. your own words.

Just telling it like I see it. I don't care about this issue personally, I just swoop in where I see injustice cr@p all over the place and flit off again

for that I'm going to overtake you on the SCS :twisted:

Clever Pun

yeah was a good PWN wasn't it

if your bike holds out yeah sure , you might.

Porgy

Clever Pun wrote:

if your bike holds out yeah sure , you might.

On the bike front - it's a new one - there's no chance it'll be going wrong this side of September. :P

spen666

Porgy,

I've just been an re read this thread and to be honest you seem to be claiming you are campaigning about the need for as law change and some how I am opposxing that and telling you to shut up.


I am not aware in reading this that you have at any time called for the law to be changed or that I have somewhere told you to shut up.

If I am wrong, then please quote the relevant posts.
Telling someone that their appeal is a stupid appeal and doomed to failure is a different thing. An appeal against a court decision is just that, it is not a way to change the law.

What is even more bizarre in this post is that you appear to be agreeing with what I have stated the law is so am bemused that you think I'm trying to shut you up

Porgy

spen666 wrote:

Porgy,

I've just been an re read this thread and to be honest you seem to be claiming you are campaigning about the need for as law change and some how I am opposxing that and telling you to shut up.


I am not aware in reading this that you have at any time called for the law to be changed or that I have somewhere told you to shut up.

If I am wrong, then please quote the relevant posts.
Telling someone that their appeal is a stupid appeal and doomed to failure is a different thing. An appeal against a court decision is just that, it is not a way to change the law.

What is even more bizarre in this post is that you appear to be agreeing with what I have stated the law is so am bemused that you think I'm trying to shut you up

Nowhere did I say you were trying to shut me up - but your insistence on quoting the law at every juncture serves to drive people away from the debate.

I quoted the law becasue you didn;t - all you do is give your interpretation. I realsie this is something that lawyers do becasue they want the law to be as clear as mud. It keeps them in a job.

spen666

Porgy wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Porgy,

I've just been an re read this thread and to be honest you seem to be claiming you are campaigning about the need for as law change and some how I am opposxing that and telling you to shut up.


I am not aware in reading this that you have at any time called for the law to be changed or that I have somewhere told you to shut up.

If I am wrong, then please quote the relevant posts.
Telling someone that their appeal is a stupid appeal and doomed to failure is a different thing. An appeal against a court decision is just that, it is not a way to change the law.

What is even more bizarre in this post is that you appear to be agreeing with what I have stated the law is so am bemused that you think I'm trying to shut you up

Nowhere did I say you were trying to shut me up - but your insistence on quoting the law at every juncture serves to drive people away from the debate.

I quoted the law becasue you didn;t - all you do is give your interpretation. I realsie this is something that lawyers do becasue they want the law to be as clear as mud. It keeps them in a job.

IOh, that will be the bdebate about whether the law applies in the Royal Park. That is a matter of what the law is.

Funnily enough quoting the law is relevant to a debate about what the law IS.

If you don't like it, then that's tough, but when the thread is about what the law is, then I will explain what the law is.

I will also explain why to appeal to a court against the exisatence of a law is stupid, expensive and a waste of time.

The way to change a law is via the legislature not the judiciary. Its a simple issue of Constitutional Law who can create or change laws.

Porgy

yeah, ok

snailracer

spen666 wrote:

Porgy wrote:

....

the problem with you Spen is you defend the law as if it's some sort of law of nature that cannot be wrong.

The lasw is the law. What the law states is the law is the law. There is no question of that.
...

The way you describe it, the existance of the law seems to be a circular argument, similar to a religion and not absolute, such as the laws of nature. If so, the law has practical effect only if enough people believe in it and enforce it, otherwise it is just a collection of documents (as some would consider the bible).
Just my musings, some people have a viewpoint outside of the circular argument and are not familiar with the intricacies within.

Porgy

snailracer wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Porgy wrote:

....

the problem with you Spen is you defend the law as if it's some sort of law of nature that cannot be wrong.

The lasw is the law. What the law states is the law is the law. There is no question of that.
...

The way you describe it, the existance of the law seems to be a circular argument, similar to a religion and not absolute, such as the laws of nature. If so, the law has practical effect only if enough people believe in it and enforce it, otherwise it is just a collection of documents (as some would consider the bible).
Just my musings, some people have a viewpoint outside of the circular argument and are not familiar with the intricacies within.

Spen's also wrong about the law is the law - interpretation is the key - either by police or by the courts - there are huge grey areas, though maybe not in this case.

Eau Rouge

So these Royal Parks have their own specific laws, one of which imposes a speed limit on cyclists, so there goes the grounds for appealling the legaility of fines for cyclists in the Parks. It was worth looking at, it's not uncommon for speeding prosecutions to be overturned by technicalities of the law not being in place.
Damn Royals. Viva la République!

spen666

Eau Rouge wrote:

So these Royal Parks have their own specific laws, one of which imposes a speed limit on cyclists, so there goes the grounds for appealling the legaility of fines for cyclists in the Parks. It was worth looking at, it's not uncommon for speeding prosecutions to be overturned by technicalities of the law not being in place.Damn Royals. Viva la République!

The technicality being the prosecution have not proved beyond all reasonable doubt that defendant is guilty!

This is different from trying to have law changed. The law is still the same after an acquittal

Eau Rouge

spen666 wrote:

Eau Rouge wrote:

So these Royal Parks have their own specific laws, one of which imposes a speed limit on cyclists, so there goes the grounds for appealling the legaility of fines for cyclists in the Parks. It was worth looking at, it's not uncommon for speeding prosecutions to be overturned by technicalities of the law not being in place.Damn Royals. Viva la République!

The technicality being the prosecution have not proved beyond all reasonable doubt that defendant is guilty!

This is different from trying to have law changed. The law is still the same after an acquittal

I've come across more than one of them relating to signs used and I'm fairly sure (but predctably vague) I've seen a case where the driver got off because of the legal way the council had changed the limit not being correct.

I wasn't questioning how to change the law, I was questioning if the Police's activities in fining cyclists was in accordance with the law. It seems in the specific case of these Royal Parks it is. In a park not covered by a specific law, instead using the current RTRA it would not be legal for the Police to fine cyclists for breaking the speed limit.

il_principe

OldSkoolKona wrote:

Mikelyons wrote:

New 20 signs have gone up in Bushy park as well .
This is a reduction from the previous 30.

My initial observations are that at least some people are observing the limits.

of course the presence of a police car at the Teddington gate helps comlpliance.

About time too as before the change, there was the anomaly of the limit inside the park being greater than outside it (at least Teddington side)

Mike

+1

Iit makes these parks a lot safer for cyclists and a much more pleasant place to go. What they really need to do is deal with through traffic in all of the parks, too many people use them as rat runs.

It's a Catch 22 though. I'd love it if cars were banned from RP - or at least limited to driving as far as the closest carpark to their entry point - but this would doubtless result in the road getting covered in peds, kids on bikes etc who are not expecting cars and get more than a little surprised to find a cyclist bearing down on them at 20mph +... so I'm afraid the cars have got to stay. On the other hand I was in RP early this morning and hardly saw any cars at all. Early bird and all that.

OldSkoolKona

Il Principe wrote:

OldSkoolKona wrote:

Mikelyons wrote:

New 20 signs have gone up in Bushy park as well .
This is a reduction from the previous 30.

My initial observations are that at least some people are observing the limits.

of course the presence of a police car at the Teddington gate helps comlpliance.

About time too as before the change, there was the anomaly of the limit inside the park being greater than outside it (at least Teddington side)

Mike

+1

Iit makes these parks a lot safer for cyclists and a much more pleasant place to go. What they really need to do is deal with through traffic in all of the parks, too many people use them as rat runs.

It's a Catch 22 though. I'd love it if cars were banned from RP - or at least limited to driving as far as the closest carpark to their entry point - but this would doubtless result in the road getting covered in peds, kids on bikes etc who are not expecting cars and get more than a little surprised to find a cyclist bearing down on them at 20mph +... so I'm afraid the cars have got to stay. On the other hand I was in RP early this morning and hardly saw any cars at all. Early bird and all that.

Its a fair point, and similar to why I don't like town centres that are closed to all vehicles except cyclists.

twas in RP early this morning too, what time do you go through? Look out for a yellow clad person on a white mtb :-)

skenaja

Re the 20mph limit for bikes, the bye-laws changed in April 2010. The "Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces (Amendment) etc. Regulations 2010" (SI2010/1194) came into force on 6th April. They finally contain a definition for "vehicle" which wasn't in precedent legislation - it's now specifically "mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on a road" - ie a standard definition which doesn't include cycles, and it covers all the Royal Parks, including Greenwich, Bushy & Richmond, and it overrides the unclear definition in the 1997 regs... It seems they've done this so they can charge "vehicles" parking fees, and the nice by-product is that the speed limits no longer apply to non-mechanically propelled things.

The "do not ride dangerously" clause in the original 1997 Regulations (SI1997/1639) still apply, so the park wombles can still get you for this...