Richmond Park Cycling Review

qube

Both...

Is that really red tyres on that city chaps bike???

vermin

Asprilla wrote:

vermin wrote:

Ban the Dynamos

Would you like a bigger wooden spoon?

Oh and, make mine a Dreissigacker.

TheStone

Can we ban those people that ride around in the dark with 4 million watt front lights? Very inconsiderate.

Otherwise, the park seems to work fine.

Ideally, external entrances to the car parks, but can't imagine that's possible.

keyser__soze

TheStone wrote:

Can we ban those people that ride around in the dark with 4 million watt front lights? Very inconsiderate.

Given the lack of streetlights/much ambient light plus number of unlit deer/joggers/dog-walkers/xc skiers it's understandable why people use high-powered lights in there.

rick_chasey

Veronese68 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

but behaviour of a noisy minority could definitely be improved.

But this is true of every group be they cyclists, drivers, joggers, dog walkers or parents. Decimation is the only answer. Kill the worst behaved 10% of every group. It would also help alleviate the overcrowding problem and would focus the minds of those that survive. Obviously behaviour would slip over time so the exercise would have to be repeated every now and then, maybe not annually.
They already do this with the deer cull so why not other users of the park?

Cyclists are the worst and most regular offenders from my own experiences.

Haven't seen many joggers or parents lose their sh!t over being impeded when they don't have right of way.

Nor can the cars do much offending at a 20mph limit which, in my experience, they pretty much stick to.

asprilla

Keyser__Soze wrote:

TheStone wrote:

Can we ban those people that ride around in the dark with 4 million watt front lights? Very inconsiderate.

Given the lack of streetlights/much ambient light plus number of unlit deer/joggers/dog-walkers/xc skiers it's understandable why people use high-powered lights in there.

Quite, but I'm fairly sire they all come with the ability to be dipped / turned down so as not to blind folks coming the other way. It's even possible, for advanced riders, to cover the light with your hand a bit.

il_principe

Rick Chasey wrote:

Cyclists are the worst and most regular offenders from my own experiences.

Haven't seen many joggers or parents lose their sh!t over being impeded when they don't have right of way.

Nor can the cars do much offending at a 20mph limit which, in my experience, they pretty much stick to.

Really? The only cyclists I've had problems with are Dynamo chain gangs pulling the standard 'close overtake then blow up' move. Whereas I've lost count of the number of cars coming at me on the wrong side of the road as they attempt an overtake, or passing to close on Dark Hill etc etc.

There also seem to be increasing numbers of trade vehicles sneaking through the park. Noticed this a lot on early morning training rides over the Spring/Summer.

kurako

Il Principe wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Cyclists are the worst and most regular offenders from my own experiences.

Haven't seen many joggers or parents lose their sh!t over being impeded when they don't have right of way.

Nor can the cars do much offending at a 20mph limit which, in my experience, they pretty much stick to.

Really? The only cyclists I've had problems with are Dynamo chain gangs pulling the standard 'close overtake then blow up' move. Whereas I've lost count of the number of cars coming at me on the wrong side of the road as they attempt an overtake, or passing to close on Dark Hill etc etc.

There also seem to be increasing numbers of trade vehicles sneaking through the park. Noticed this a lot on early morning training rides over the Spring/Summer.

Yep. Some of the locals just use the park as an extension of the normal road network. Many a time I've been passed by some crappy little hatchback just for it to squeeze in behind a line of other cars. Then you sit there on the downhill sections not even pedaling and breathing in the toxic stink. You try to ride out to discourage overtakes but that just makes some of them angry and even more determined to get past.

keyser__soze

Kurako wrote:

Yep. Some of the locals just use the park as an extension of the normal road network.

That's one of the problems - it's considered by the council/TfL as part of the road network as well as a park.

veronese68

Keyser__Soze wrote:

Kurako wrote:

Yep. Some of the locals just use the park as an extension of the normal road network.

That's one of the problems - it's considered by the council/TfL as part of the road network as well as a park.

Try getting from Kingston to Kew Bridge. There are two routes you can take Richmond Park or the Petersham Road. Both have 20mph limits and the Petersham Road has more speed bumps and more traffic. There is no viable alternative on that side of the park. At one stage there was the ridiculous situation that the speed limit in the park was still 30mph when it was 20mph round the outside. So the council were actually pushing people to drive through the park. When you think how densely populated the area is and that the roads around the outside are so poor with no space to improve them its inevitable that locals drive through the park really.

kurako

Veronese68 wrote:

Keyser__Soze wrote:

Kurako wrote:

Yep. Some of the locals just use the park as an extension of the normal road network.

That's one of the problems - it's considered by the council/TfL as part of the road network as well as a park.

Try getting from Kingston to Kew Bridge. There are two routes you can take Richmond Park or the Petersham Road. Both have 20mph limits and the Petersham Road has more speed bumps and more traffic. There is no viable alternative on that side of the park. At one stage there was the ridiculous situation that the speed limit in the park was still 30mph when it was 20mph round the outside. So the council were actually pushing people to drive through the park. When you think how densely populated the area is and that the roads around the outside are so poor with no space to improve them its inevitable that locals drive through the park really.

Isn't that the same reason why they closed Robin Hood Gate? People were using it as a thoroughfare. If they stop cars from driving through then the cars will go somewhere else or maybe people would use the train if they really had to. At busy periods cars will fill up any available space. Royal Parks and Commons are nice because they are largely without cars. I think access to car parks for visitors is fine but if moving metal boxes was such a huge priority we should run a few more roads across Putney Heath, Wimbledon Common, Richmond Park, etc.

veronese68

From Robin Hood Gate there is the A3 which is capable of carrying a lot more traffic than the Perersham Road. The great and the good of Petersham have a lot of money and a lot of lobbying power. I'm sure that also has a lot to do with it. I may be being overly cynical.

kurako

Veronese68 wrote:

From Robin Hood Gate there is the A3 which is capable of carrying a lot more traffic than the Perersham Road. The great and the good of Petersham have a lot of money and a lot of lobbying power. I'm sure that also has a lot to do with it. I may be being overly cynical.

The A3 can carry a lot of traffic as far as West Hill at which point it becomes a single lane and there are horrendous tailbacks. You can go to Putney High St one of the most polluted roads in Europe or go along Parkside to Wimbledon. Wimbledon Bridge Road is frequently grid-locked as is Kingston Road between South Wimbledon and Bushey Road.

These are all areas with a lot of money and lobbying power. It's a shame they didn't get together to try and discourage car use.

tgotb

Sounds like most of us cycle through the park; I do, and even use it for the occasional training lap. I also drive through the park on occasion. It seems very hard to come up with a rational argument that says cars should not be allowed to use the park as a through-route, and yet bicycles should. Bicycles already have preferential treatment (allowed access at night, allowed to use all the roads across the middle of the park).

If you ban cars from using the park as a through route, as many on this thread would seek to do, won't that focus people's attention towards the remaining road users (cyclists)? With everyone else travelling at walking/running pace, cyclists doing laps at 20mph are going to stand out like sore thumbs. That could increase calls either for cyclists to be banned, or to be subjected to a more pedestrian-friendly speed limit (10mph anyone?)

veronese68

TGOTB wrote:

Sounds like most of us cycle through the park; I do, and even use it for the occasional training lap. I also drive through the park on occasion. It seems very hard to come up with a rational argument that says cars should not be allowed to use the park as a through-route, and yet bicycles should. Bicycles already have preferential treatment (allowed access at night, allowed to use all the roads across the middle of the park).

If you ban cars from using the park as a through route, as many on this thread would seek to do, won't that focus people's attention towards the remaining road users (cyclists)? With everyone else travelling at walking/running pace, cyclists doing laps at 20mph are going to stand out like sore thumbs. That could increase calls either for cyclists to be banned, or to be subjected to a more pedestrian-friendly speed limit (10mph anyone?)

5mph like Jeremy Vine in Hyde Park? I actually think stopping cars would make it worse for cyclists in many ways. The roads would then become like the path I use to commute across Bushy Park. You would have kids on bikes, dog walkers and all sorts of others just meandering about with no idea what is going on around them. They don't look around before changing direction because there are no cars around so there is no need to. Except it would be a lot worse because more people use Richmond Park. I often have to virtually stop because of a large group of people with kids and dogs taking the whole width of the road. The cars keep the peds and small children off the roads, so keeping the roads flowing.

Ian.B

I don't agree with banning through traffic. It's a question of balance, and the whole of the centre of the park is traffic free.

Many people on here derive daily pleasure from cycling through the park. The same applies to those who drive - it is an uplifting experience, and I don't see why drivers shouldn't partake in that too.

For the same reason, I'm not in favour of hiding or tunneling the road past Stonehenge. Everyone who drives past there benefits from the sight of Stonehenge and it is always uplifting and awe inspiring. To remove that experience and opportunity from the huge number of people who pass by, and restrict the chance to see it to those who make a special visit and pay to do so, probably therefore only once or a handful of times in their lifetime, seems to me shameful.

surrey_commuter

Sorry to be pedantic but not everyone driving past Stonehenge is uplifted or inspired with awe. I just don't get how they are impressive when they were built at roughly the same time as the pyramids. Everytime I have crawled past I have thought "this place needs a bypass"

Not too bothered by the traffic in RP - just don't expect to do training laps on a sunny weekend afternoon but if you wanted to make a token gesture shut Sheen Gate to cars.

ugo.santalucia

I think it works as it is...
one of the few places in London that can be visited without being ripped off with extortionate car park fees and nonsensical parking restrictions, also not many retail opportunities to part with cash make it the ideal weekend out for the cash strapped family. Deer watching is free of charge, hooray!!

Any complain from timed lappers about traffic is risible and twxts on bikes are a nuisance which is almost inevitable these days

Leave the Park alone

tgotb

Ian.B wrote:

For the same reason, I'm not in favour of hiding or tunneling the road past Stonehenge. Everyone who drives past there benefits from the sight of Stonehenge and it is always uplifting and awe inspiring. To remove that experience and opportunity from the huge number of people who pass by, and restrict the chance to see it to those who make a special visit and pay to do so, probably therefore only once or a handful of times in their lifetime, seems to me shameful.

We're getting OT, but I disagree quite strongly with this. The A303 is a major trunk route to the South West, and the delays caused by people slowing down to look at Stonehenge have to be seen to be believed; it's not unusual to spend a hour sat in the associated traffic jam on a busy day, and the only way to avoid this is by rat-running through local villages. I, for one, *do not* benefit from the sight, on the contrary it wastes a lot of my time. It's the same effect as the traffic jams you get when people slow down to rubberneck an accident on the opposite carriageway, except that it's more predictable.

There are plenty of opportunities to get an equally good view of Stonehenge from other public rights of way without paying, and I don't think it's unreasonable to expect people to make a small effort to see it if the payback is to save everyone else up to an hour. In fact, if it was screened off, you could probably drive to one of those public rights of way, get out of the car, have a good look at the stones, and be on your way in less time than it currently takes to drive past.

veronese68

ugo.santalucia wrote:

I think it works as it is...
one of the few places in London that can be visited without being ripped off with extortionate car park fees and nonsensical parking restrictions, also not many retail opportunities to part with cash make it the ideal weekend out for the cash strapped family. Deer watching is free of charge, hooray!!

Any complain from timed lappers about traffic is risible and twxts on bikes are a nuisance which is almost inevitable these days

Leave the Park alone

This. mind you the Mrs told me they may start charging to use the loos. I suspect if true it may be because they were told they couldn't charge for parking.
Went through the park the other day and there was an old couple sat in their car at Pembroke Lodge car park looking out over the park with a Thermos of tea. I don't think they should be stopped from doing that.

ugo.santalucia

Veronese68 wrote:

Went through the park the other day and there was an old couple sat in their car at Pembroke Lodge car park looking out over the park with a Thermos of tea. I don't think they should be stopped from doing that.

Were they having a poo in the car to avoid paying to use the toilet?

veronese68

They will be soon. Travel potty anyone?

cjcp

What Ugo and Veronese said.

(OT: Veronese - the Wych Elm was packed tonight. Couldn't get a table! Went to the Pottery for some tapas. Anyhoo, beer soon? @London Red too.)

andrewc3142

It works as is. But, as everywhere, fewer cars would be a good thing.

The problem is that RP is surrounded by private schools that hold a Q7/Range Rover owners club meeting outside the gates every day. Part of the club ritual is double or triple parking and then having to demonstrate your multi-tasking skills when you pull off.

And they are inconsiderate enough to hold these just when the kids are trying to walk or cycle to school.

roger_merriman

Since i have been in jolly old Kingston Hospital the last few days I thought I might as well.

Not as aggressive a meeting as I had feared/wondered.

number of people made Steve's point which is people just need to get along.

I do find it mildly concerning, that the clubs where being held up as being the ideal/better behaved. in my experience it's the club chain gangs that do the worrying or just plain selfish riding.

I hadn't realized how much car traffic is cut though, figures of 80+% where quoted.

idea of car free mornings or even half mornings was mooted, got to wounder if that would encourage walkers/kids on bikes etc much like you get in Bushy Park.

I do wounder if in time the weekend chaingangs and car though traffic might end up being being discouraged.

veronese68

Summary of what was discussed at the meeting on Zac Goldsmith's website.

Gallywomack

TGOTB wrote:

We're getting OT, but I disagree quite strongly with this. The A303 is a major trunk route to the South West, and the delays caused by people slowing down to look at Stonehenge have to be seen to be believed; it's not unusual to spend a hour sat in the associated traffic jam on a busy day, and the only way to avoid this is by rat-running through local villages. I, for one, *do not* benefit from the sight, on the contrary it wastes a lot of my time. It's the same effect as the traffic jams you get when people slow down to rubberneck an accident on the opposite carriageway, except that it's more predictable.

I can scarcely believe I'm debating this past midnight on a Saturday night, and you can rest assured I will be going straight to bed the moment I hit 'Submit', but surely much of the traffic issue is a combination of a two-lanes-into-one bottleneck followed by a roundabout? The A303 above that point is two lanes with no interruptions. The same happens on any major road where it turns from dual carriageway into single (eg, the A21 past Tonbridge).