Speeding in RP

Ian.B

Just noticed this - fined for 41mph on Sawyers
http://www.richmondandtwickenhamtimes.co.uk/news/11844876.Cyclist_clocked_at_41mph_admits_speeding_through_Richmond_Park/

roger_merriman

Ian.B wrote:

Just noticed this - fined for 41mph on Sawyers
http://www.richmondandtwickenhamtimes.co.uk/news/11844876.Cyclist_clocked_at_41mph_admits_speeding_through_Richmond_Park/

Yup, the limit as signed is 20, the wording in the legalise *may* only apply to motorised vehicles but someone would have to contest it. Which for a telling off and under £100 pounds fine seems unlikely

tgotb

I've always wondered what the deal is for the RP TTs; I assume they must get some special exemption from Royal Parks. Last year I hit nearly 50mph down Sawyers, and most of the field must have averaged well over 20mph for the course...

Ian.B

Not sure why it went to court though, rather than just a ticket on the spot. Maybe above a certain speed they'll take it to court.

awavey

Ian.B wrote:

Not sure why it went to court though, rather than just a ticket on the spot. Maybe above a certain speed they'll take it to court.

thats what I wondered as well, as it says he even pleaded guilty, so why take it to court, add a surcharge to the fine + costs, that seems a bit odd, admittedly the whole speeding on a bike thing is a grey area in law at the best of times, so maybe its not as simple to deal with as motoring speeding offences.

rick_chasey

Good effort doing 41mph.

Must say i think it's a bit much sending him to court but then I have little sympathy for speeding drivers so I'm just being hypocritical.

okgo

Doing 40 mph safely and riding like a plank two different things of course. Assuming you do not brake you'll hit nearly 40 down Broomfield nearly every time which is perfectly safe most of the time. Overtaking on wrong side of road at 40 - less so

bendertherobot

As I just wrote on Road.cc, there's some interesting legal stuff here. Given that the Royal Parks have said, previously IIRC, that they weren't sure if it applied then the prosecutor has to look at whether it does. If they are also unsure they are ethically bound to bring that to the attention of the Court. The Court then has to decide whether there's a case to answer before proceeding to hear it.

That doesn't appear to have happened here. Probably because the guilty plea has overtaken that (no pun intended).

If I'd been defending here I would have brought the confusion to the Court's attention and asked the prosecutor to satisfy the Court that the law applied. If he can do that easily great. If he can't then the Defendant should not be penalised for the legal confusion if, in due course, he pleads.

DJFish

Isnt the lack of a speedo a defence for speeding on a bike?
Or is ignorance no defence?

bendertherobot

Most of the speeding laws apply to motor vehicles because of various legal definitions scattered throughout various places. That's probably due to many factors, risk of harm, inability to exceed (high) limits and, probably absence of a measuring device.

That won't apply in the present case because the suggestion is that all vehicles are included and not just motor vehicles. But no-one is clear and, IMO, that should be made clear to the Court when the case is brought.

rick_chasey

bendertherobot wrote:

Most of the speeding laws apply to motor vehicles because of various legal definitions scattered throughout various places. That's probably due to many factors, risk of harm, inability to exceed (high) limits and, probably absence of a measuring device.

That won't apply in the present case because the suggestion is that all vehicles are included and not just motor vehicles. But no-one is clear and, IMO, that should be made clear to the Court when the case is brought.

As has been mentioned many many times, RP is a royal park, and they have their own separate rules re speeding etc.

Their speed limits apply universally to all road users.

On normal roads you can't be done specifically for speeding on a bike, but get done for something like 'furious riding' or something odd like that. Same result, different process.

All explained here: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... r-speeding

bendertherobot

Rick Chasey wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Most of the speeding laws apply to motor vehicles because of various legal definitions scattered throughout various places. That's probably due to many factors, risk of harm, inability to exceed (high) limits and, probably absence of a measuring device.

That won't apply in the present case because the suggestion is that all vehicles are included and not just motor vehicles. But no-one is clear and, IMO, that should be made clear to the Court when the case is brought.

As has been mentioned many many times, RP is a royal park, and they have their own separate rules re speeding etc.

Their speed limits apply universally to all road users.

On normal roads you can't be done specifically for speeding on a bike, but get done for something like 'furious riding' or something odd like that. Same result, different process.

All explained here: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... r-speeding

I know, I'm well aware of it and see my post above it. Hence my comment about motor vehicles. Because that piece of the legislation is the bit that everyone is unclear about. The fudging between the various amendments to the Royal Parks legislation.

My point stands. IF the prosecutor has any doubt (as the Royal Parks spokesman appears to have) then it should be brought to the attention of the Court.

bendertherobot

I've had a quick trawl through Lexis to have a look at what the current situation might be. A very quick trawl.

The Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces Regulations 1997 (SI 1997/1639) is the main operative provision. Later SI's added to its content.

Its Part 2 contains the speed limit of 20 mph (for Richmond Park)

It relates to the use of vehicles. The confusion in this case is whether vehicles includes motor vehicles.

The Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces (Amendment) etc. Regulations 2010 inserted those provisions.

But, they also had an interpretation of vehicle as "“vehicle” means a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on a road." So the provision inserted into the original reads as if it was only intended to apply to motor vehicles.

However, “Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces (Amendment) (No 2) etc Regulations 2010" amended the earlier 2010 regs and removed the definition of vehicle from it and, therefore, from being applied to the 1997 ones.

Result? the original applies to vehicles. Including bikes. Statutory interpretation defaults to usual English usage in the absence of a statutory definition.

So, quick read, may have missed something. I wonder why RP are confused as to whether it does?

bendertherobot

http://road.cc/content/news/136752-roya ... %99t-apply

Now, against that backdrop (Hyde Park is in the legislation as well) what's the truth? Does it apply or not?

Or, is speeding a red herring here? Is the charge being brought under the Acts prohibited in the park provisions?

bendertherobot

http://road.cc/content/news/136752-roya ... %99t-apply

And here, Paul M has done the same research as me, I agree. I think they do apply.

So, it raises an interesting question as to why the Royal Parks are saying they do not. What we need to see is the charge that's being brought.

kurako

According to Standard he is a member of London Dynamo and they are not very happy about it. I can't find anyone on Strava with that name so I guess it didn't really happen.

Ian.B

Kurako wrote:

According to Standard he is a member of London Dynamo and they are not very happy about it. I can't find anyone on Strava with that name so I guess it didn't really happen.

Maybe what's needed is for Dynamo to support a test case then. It would be good to have the uncertainty sorted out.

roger_merriman

Ian.B wrote:

Kurako wrote:

According to Standard he is a member of London Dynamo and they are not very happy about it. I can't find anyone on Strava with that name so I guess it didn't really happen.

Maybe what's needed is for Dynamo to support a test case then. It would be good to have the uncertainty sorted out.

I'd of though it was unlikely that Dynamo would want to rock the boat, there Saturday club runs clearly habitually break that limit, as far as I'm aware they are hardly in the parks most loved group any way. Thus I would be staggered if they wanted to side with this chap, club member or not.

spasypaddy

TGOTB wrote:

I've always wondered what the deal is for the RP TTs; I assume they must get some special exemption from Royal Parks. Last year I hit nearly 50mph down Sawyers, and most of the field must have averaged well over 20mph for the course...

i think because its run before the gates officially open the speed limit doesnt apply as its essentially a closed circuit

bigmat

Also, nearly 50mph?! I'm doing well to break 40 in the park, maybe I need bigger gears?

kurako

Ian.B wrote:

Kurako wrote:

According to Standard he is a member of London Dynamo and they are not very happy about it. I can't find anyone on Strava with that name so I guess it didn't really happen.

Maybe what's needed is for Dynamo to support a test case then. It would be good to have the uncertainty sorted out.

Why so keen to challenge the rules? The speed limit was put in place to protect wildlife and park users. Sawyers often has loads of deer milling around and its not uncommon to have loads of cars stopping to gawp at the pretty deer. Riding at 40mph in those conditions is madness especially since plod said the park was quite busy at the time.

itboffin

41 in a 20 does it matter on what?

The Rookie

The law is the law, it either applies to pedal cycles or not, what was intended by it doesn't really matter as has been seen numerous times in various higher court rulings where what was clearly intended by parliament wasn't what was written in the law and it is what is written that counts, if they want it to apply to pedal cycles they should prove it in court or amend the bye-laws to remove any ambiguity.

Furious pedalling can still be used for unsafe cycling regardless of speed if it's a safety issue.

bendertherobot

http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/1835highwayact/

Is worth a read. Bicycles are carriages and, as such, permitted to use the Highways. That's important. If they weren't then we'd be stuffed. Vehicles is given a natural construction in law and applies to bicycles.

Most legislation "lets us off" because they use motor vehicles as the definition.

So, it's fine to test the legislation here. It probably should be. But my interpretation is that it applies to cyclists. My issue is why the RP spokespeople are now telling people it does not. That could be an important point of legitimate expectation. If its being widely publicised that there is no speed limit for bikes in the Royal Parks then that might be relied on to defeat a charge.

But, as pointed out, the other potential cycling charge remains (see Acts prohibited in the Park in the 2007 Regs)

kurako

So maybe a better lawyer could have got him off but so what. The fine is a pittance. I'd be more worried about having my name splashed over all the papers and at least one article has named him as a Dynamo when you hope they would have taught him a bit more sense.

Overtaking cars at 40 in a 20 zone is poor judgement and doing it with plod around demonstrates poor observation and no amount of legal argument will change that.

In any case anyone can go downhill quickly. It's not particularly impressive in and of itself.

Wunnunda

Yes - the increasing introduction of 20mph zones (Brighton for e.g. is thinking to make pretty much the whole inner city 20mph soon) is going to make this a serious issue before too long. people I know that live in Brighton got very quickly tired of being overtaken by (as they see it) 'racing' cyclists and it'll only get worse IMO.

The Rookie

You seemed to have missed the point completely, the majority of 20 limits are set under the road traffic act and apply to motor vehicles only, we are exempt, in RP they are set by byelaws and apply to vehicles.

tgotb

Aside from the technicalities of whether the law actually applies - If there's a 20mph limit for motor vehicles, doesn't common sense suggest that it's not a bad idea to adhere to the same limit on a bicycle? I'm thinking of the Brighton example here; even if they bring in a city-wide 20mph speed limit that doesn't extend to bicycles, what's the sensible justification for continuing to hoon around at 25mph?

W12_Lad

TGOTB wrote:

Aside from the technicalities of whether the law actually applies - If there's a 20mph limit for motor vehicles, doesn't common sense suggest that it's not a bad idea to adhere to the same limit on a bicycle? I'm thinking of the Brighton example here; even if they bring in a city-wide 20mph speed limit that doesn't extend to bicycles, what's the sensible justification for continuing to hoon around at 25mph?

You seriously think that 2 tonnes of metal traveling at 20mph is somehow comparable to 80/100Kg traveling at the same speed :shock:

tgotb

W12 lad wrote:

TGOTB wrote:

Aside from the technicalities of whether the law actually applies - If there's a 20mph limit for motor vehicles, doesn't common sense suggest that it's not a bad idea to adhere to the same limit on a bicycle? I'm thinking of the Brighton example here; even if they bring in a city-wide 20mph speed limit that doesn't extend to bicycles, what's the sensible justification for continuing to hoon around at 25mph?

You seriously think that 2 tonnes of metal traveling at 20mph is somehow comparable to 80/100Kg traveling at the same speed :shock:

No, but if all the other traffic is doing 20mph (and assuming you're capable of riding faster than that) you can either:
1. Ride at the same speed and fit in with the traffic (as something like a motorbike would be expected to do)
2. Ride faster than 20mph, overtaking motor vehicles, giving drivers an excuse to wheel out the "lycra lout" stereotype, and then justify it with what many of those drivers will regard as being a legal loophole.

Both of these activities may technically be legal; both of them may even be safe, but I'm struggling to see a sensible justification for doing the second...

Wunnunda

The Rookie wrote:

You seemed to have missed the point completely, the majority of 20 limits are set under the road traffic act and apply to motor vehicles only, we are exempt, in RP they are set by byelaws and apply to vehicles.

No I haven't missed the point. I know cyclists are not covered by the speed limit. My question is, how long will that/should that remain the case?
The problem my Brighton friends have is that cyclists also appear to see themselves as exempt from other rules of the road such as how, when and where they can overtake. (These are not bad or aggressive people by the way, they are well aware of the fact that they can do a lot of damage with thier cars They just find themselves in a situation where they are expected to look 4 ways at once. They get quite badly frightened at times). The speed issue has made this worse as far more cyclists now have the ability to pass slower motorised vehicles. I have to say, as a cyclist and driver (and, I am coming to realise, an old f4rt) that there is astonishing amount of selfish, get out of my way can't you see I'm on a mission, riding and driving out there and a depressing lack of defensive awareness.