Richmond Park riders, beware!

tgotb

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

TGOTB wrote:

There's lots of (presumably apocryphal) stories of ancient laws still on the statue books which don't really make sense in the modern World (I think I read one about being allowed to kill Welsh people in Chester under certain circumstances, for instance).

Yeah. Not really seeing how your example is illustrative of your point.

Oh, wait. I've got it now.

It's only Chester, right?

Oh come on, I know at least one Welsh person on this forum, and he's not *that* bad (in very small doses, and if you disregard the suspicion ovine odours...)

anewman

BigMat wrote:

The point being missed is that car speeds are being reduced to 20mph due to the damage a car exceeding that speed can do to a pedestrian (or cyclist). That doesn't apply to cyclists - we pose a massively reduced threat to the general public, so why should we be tarred with the same brush? If we are riding safely and considerately then we should be able to do so at whatever speed we are capable of (IMO).

A car travelling at 50mph equipped with ABS and good quality legal tyres can no doubt reach 0mph far faster than you could on your bike at 30mph, assuming both driver and rider are as alert as possible and skilled in the operation of their vehicles. Well, not without taking the road rash. Sure, a bike is more manoeuvrable to avoid problems, but still accidents happen.

roger_merriman

anewman wrote:

BigMat wrote:

The point being missed is that car speeds are being reduced to 20mph due to the damage a car exceeding that speed can do to a pedestrian (or cyclist). That doesn't apply to cyclists - we pose a massively reduced threat to the general public, so why should we be tarred with the same brush? If we are riding safely and considerately then we should be able to do so at whatever speed we are capable of (IMO).

A car travelling at 50mph equipped with ABS and good quality legal tyres can no doubt reach 0mph far faster than you could on your bike at 30mph, assuming both driver and rider are as alert as possible and skilled in the operation of their vehicles. Well, not without taking the road rash. Sure, a bike is more manoeuvrable to avoid problems, but still accidents happen.

Thinking distance, scale with speed. at 50mph you've spent a fair time and distance thinking.

alexl89

This is just rediculous, Richmond Park is one of the best places to go cycling in london... this completely ruins it, some laws are just completely retarded.

So if I roll down a hill in RP I will be fined... great. FML

slowbike

alexl89 wrote:

This is just rediculous, Richmond Park is one of the best places to go cycling in london... this completely ruins it, some laws are just completely retarded.

So if I roll down a hill in RP I will be fined... great. FML

Using such a ridiculous term doesn't endear anyone to your point of view.

RP is quite a busy area with all sorts of traffic - it makes sense to keep a control on the speed of that traffic.
Cyclists want to be included as traffic when it comes to other roads so they should also be prepared to accept the limitations set on traffic within the park areas - including speed limits.
I don't quite understand why cyclists should be entitled to ride at nearly twice the posted speed limit - especially if that may cause danger to themselves, other users and the parks animals.

But - I think there may be a solution here.
It's a restricted park - why not have set times where motorised transport is banned and cyclists are allowed to use the road as a training ground without speed limits. May be contained in certain roads ...

tgotb

alexl89 wrote:

This is just rediculous, Richmond Park is one of the best places to go cycling in london... this completely ruins it, some laws are just completely retarded.

So if I roll down a hill in RP I will be fined... great. FML

I think a lot of petrolheads felt the same way when speed cameras were installed on the M25, putting a stop to the races that used to take place there in the late 80s.

notsoblue

Blasting round Richmond Park when its full of traffic is a nightmare anyway. I've gotten my best times in there when it has been pretty empty. And during the winter around commuting times its pretty much deserted anyway, and theres no traffic police at all.

If you're going for PB's on a saturday and can't spot a policeman in high vis at the bottom of a hill then you kinda deserve the fine :P

alexl89

It actually doesn't bother me that much, I only go to Richmond Park when the gates are shut and no cars have access anyway.

Cyclists want to be included as traffic when it comes to other roads.

We certainly aren't treated like this though. The UK is dire for cyclists, to many moron chavs in white vans... to many taxi drivers with an IQ of 40 etc.

Which is exactly why Richmond Park is so good in the first place... I just want to get away from all the idiots.

bigmat

TGOTB wrote:

BigMat wrote:

The point being missed is that car speeds are being reduced to 20mph due to the damage a car exceeding that speed can do to a pedestrian (or cyclist). That doesn't apply to cyclists - we pose a massively reduced threat to the general public, so why should we be tarred with the same brush? If we are riding safely and considerately then we should be able to do so at whatever speed we are capable of (IMO).

Do you know that *for sure* or are you just making an assumption?

When the speed limit was reduced to 20mph (iirc it was 5 or 6 years ago) the argument put forward was that it was to reduce collisions with deer (which do tend to be even less predictable than pedestrians and cyclists, especially when pursued by labradors). Do you think the speed limit was dropped to reduce the number of collisions, or merely to limit the damage caused by those collisions?

I was talking more generally about 20mph zones.

Any keen cyclist who thinks we should be limited to 20mph in Richmond Park is mad.

steerpike

TGOTB wrote:

spen666 wrote:

TGOTB wrote:

spen666 wrote:

TGOTB wrote:

Rather than all this legal bickering about whether bicycles are technically within the scope of the law, isn't easier to accept that the spirit of the law is that the speed limit should apply to all vehicles, including bicycles? None of us is up on a speeding charge, so all we have to do is observe the speed limit (which will also help to avoid antagonising other road users) and everyone's happy...

So presumably you never dive above 56 mph on a motorway then?

That spped limit applies to HGVs, so I presume you limit yourself to that.


The fact is that for whatever reason Parliament decided the speed limit does not apply to bicycles and therefore there is no legal or moral reason to limit uyourself to a speed that certain otherr groups of transport users are limited to

(Danger etc is a different issue and I would not advocate driving/ riding dangerously)

Do you really think that Parliament had a serious intent to allow bicycles to travel faster than other vehicles in speed-limited areas? Do you really think that someone thought, "Well, let's restrict motor vehicles to 20/30mph but let bicycles go faster"?

It seems much more likely to me that they didn't anticipate/consider this scenario, and inadvertently created a loophole for bicycles. Like most law, it seems to be a hodge-podge of various different pieces of legislation, so it's not surprising that loopholes exist. There may be no legal reason to limit your speed, but I would argue that there is a moral reason. If, as you suggest, you base your morals purely on the letter of the law, you presumably process your earnings through the same 1% tax loophole reportedly used by Jimmy Carr et al.

So you do limit your speed on a motorway to 56mph the same as lorries then?


As for Jimmy Carr & his tax arrangements- why not? If Parliament doesn't want us to do something, they will legislate to prevent it. If they don't prevent it, then why should you limit yourself.

That is called freedom.

i personally have no problem with Jimmy Carr acting lawfully and reducing the amount of tax he pays. I would prefer it if Parliament limited the availability of such schemes but if they are lawful, then good on him

Of course I don't drive at 56mph on motorways (in good conditions). I observe both the letter of the law and what I believe to be the spirit of the law, and treat the speed limit as 70mph.

Here's another hypothetical scenario for you. There's lots of (presumably apocryphal) stories of ancient laws still on the statue books which don't really make sense in the modern World (I think I read one about being allowed to kill Welsh people in Chester under certain circumstances, for instance). Imagine I discover a law which allowed me to kill a business rival (for instance because he was from Berkshire, and I did the deed with a longbow at a range of 500m, on a Thursday, whilst wearing a red codpiece). In this hypothetical situation my lawyer, who is never wrong, tells me that I can use this law to avoid being convicted (remember, this is a thought experiment, so we can assume the lawyer is right). I then go ahead and kill my business rival, perfectly legally, and my lawyer helps me to avoid conviction. I argue that this is a manifestation of freedom, and if parliament didn't want me to do it they would have legislated to prevent it. Are my actions morally justifiable?

spen666 doesn't care for moral rectitude. So long as it is TECHNICALLY within the law, anything goes. And he knows the law, as his extreme pedantry on any matters legal demonstrates. I wouldn't get into a willy measuring contest with spen666 so far as morality is concerned; this is a man who cannot see it is repugnant to call Doreen Lawrence an idiot and racist on his public blog (let's not even look at the skewed logic that brings him to this conclusion).

spen666

steerpike wrote:

...

spen666 doesn't care for moral rectitude. So long as it is TECHNICALLY within the law, anything goes. And he knows the law, as his extreme pedantry on any matters legal demonstrates. I wouldn't get into a willy measuring contest with spen666 so far as morality is concerned; this is a man who cannot see it is repugnant to call Doreen Lawrence an idiot and racist on his public blog (let's not even look at the skewed logic that brings him to this conclusion).

So because I have a different view on things to you, I don't care for moral rectitude eh?

Perhaps if you took the blinkers from your mind and engaged your brain you would be able to understand what I have said.

Who decides what are the right moral values?

The body who set the laws of the land is Parliament. If our democratically elected representatives think something is wrong thwy will pass legislation against it.

If something is not against the law, then in this country it is legal. That is called democracy and it is the type of freedom our ancestors have fought to preserve.

To try to prevent people exercising those freedoms simply because you dislike it is far more morally repugnant than someone exercising their lawful rights.

If Parliament want to limit cyclists to the same speed limits as motorists, they can easily legislate for that. It would take no effort at all to add a clause to any bill going through Parliament to say the definition of vehicle includes pedal cycles. Parliament chooses not to do that because it does not want to include cyclists in that definition.

Similarily, Parliament could easily pass legislation to ensure people pay tax on all income at whatever rate they want. They don't because they choose not to.

That is democracy.

Your ill conceived ideas of moral rectitude are a nonsense. Who is to be the arbitrator of what is morally acceptable if not Parliament? How are people to know what is acceptable and what is not if there is not a set of rule for guidance?

Would you prefer that we cannot do anything unless Parliament allow it? Not sure that is what we call freedom?



We could have a series of rules to guide people so they know what is allowed.

Those rules could outlaw that which is against the values society hold dear

We could say call those rules Laws.

We could elect a set of representatives to pass these laws.

We would have the periodic right to choose whether to retain the same representatives or chose different ones

We could call those representatives MPs

Oh wait, we do have that system already

steerpike

So you've pre-judged me as stupid and blinkered yet you know nothing of me - the reasons being that I don't choose to broadcast my 'personality' across the internet, allowing others to judge me as, say, a fatuous blowhard trading in specious semantics and pedantry.

spen666

steerpike wrote:

So you've pre-judged me as stupid and blinkered yet you know nothing of me - the reasons being that I don't choose to broadcast my 'personality' across the internet, allowing others to judge me as, say, a fatuous blowhard trading in specious semantics and pedantry.

Interesting that you have now resorted to inventing things.

I have not pre judged you as stupid. I have said that on this point you are looking at things through blinkers and I stand by that. Your post fails to put what you suggest into the context that we already have a system of morals.

However, feel free to change the topic aware from the issues in this thread when you find yourself unable to answer the issues

If you think that morals and rules are specious semantics and pedantry, then that says a lot about you rather than me, as does your repeated personal abuse.

menthel

Anyway, back to RP. Went and knocked out 3 laps this morning. 1 lot of rozzers in a car but no speed guns. Lots of people still going quickly, cars and bikes included. Still, it's a nice place to cycle in London, one of the few without constant lights etc.

Wrath Rob

menthel wrote:

Still, it's a nice place to cycle in London, one of the few without constant lights etc.

Get thee out to the Surrey Hills. RP is all well and good but incredibly busy at the weekend and very repetitive. Surrey is close and has far, far more interesting riding. You don't even need to do Box Hill!

menthel

Wrath Rob wrote:

menthel wrote:

Still, it's a nice place to cycle in London, one of the few without constant lights etc.

Get thee out to the Surrey Hills. RP is all well and good but incredibly busy at the weekend and very repetitive. Surrey is close and has far, far more interesting riding. You don't even need to do Box Hill!

Don't worry, I cycle surrey when I have time! I also try to avoid box hill unless I need expensive cake. I like to head eastwards- Nutfield etc is a lot quieter and has some real knee busters!

This mornings ride was just 1 1/2 cobweb blower. I am lucky to live nice and close to RP