Cyclists cannot be done for speeding !

[cycleruk]

Have you have been fined for speeding on a bicycle in Richmond Park (etc) ?
https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/cycl ... ce-confirm

I know it's been mentioned in the forum somewhere so could be of interest.
Still could be prosecuted for reckless, furious or other anti-social riding.

[thirdcrank]

From that link

A Royal Parks spokesperson said: "There is no speed limit for cycling on Britain’s roads as cyclists are not required to have a speedometer.

"It is the same in the Royal Parks, although we do ask that cyclists observe the motor vehicle speed limit for the park, the road or path in question. This varies from 5mph to 20mph."

The urban myth about cyclists and speedometers rears its ugly head again.

AIUI, If there's a loophole for cyclists it's that the relevant park byelaw doesn't apply to cyclists or rather pedal cycles which are covered by a specific byelaw. I explained my thinking years ago to somebody on here who got a ticket and perhaps they decided to pay up, or used my suggested defence successfully and kept quiet
===========================================================

I've found the earlier thread from 2008

viewtopic.php?p=117590#p117590

Here's the main part of my reasoning: (As usual, there's lots more when the tomb raiders excavate an old thread)

Having seen the relevant legislation thanks to Russell, I think that this is one of those cases where somebody with a lot of £££ to spare, or some time and the ability to mug up on a bit of law and then represent themselves at court (being prepared to go to higher courts on appeal if necessary) could have a field day as I think a prosecution for speeding on a bike under this legislation is open to challenge.

It is settled law that a pedal cycle is a vehicle Ellis -v- Nott-Bower (1895) and the prohibition of speeding refers to driving or riding a vehicle (rather than the more usual 'motor vehicle' or 'mechanically propelled vehicle.)

BUT, the legislation makes specific separate provision for cycles, and does not specifically deal with speeding on cycles, which I think a court would accept means that the legislators did not intend cycles to be treated as vehicles here.

(Don't assume that just because the Metropolitan Police are behind this, that any proper legal advice has been obtained. Once something like this gets going, it's like a snowball rolling down a hill, until it hits something more solid.)

[drossall]

I have no direct experience of the Royal Parks, so this comment is guesswork. But, if in fact normal road law applies on the roads there (so no limits for bikes), what about the paths? Those would be particularly likely to be covered by bylaws. It's not unknown for speed limits to apply to bikes in other parks and on seafronts because they are set by bylaw. So you could have a situation where limits applied in some places in the park but not in others.

But again, just an ignorant guess.

[DaveReading]

It's not unknown for speed limits to apply to bikes in other parks and on seafronts because they are set by bylaw.

I would have thought that a reasonable defence in such circumstances would be "I judged (in the absence of a speedometer on my bike) that I was cycling within the speed limit".

[drossall]

I wouldn't think so. I believe that the response would be that, "Since you are clearly unable to judge speeds correctly, you should get an accurate speedometer." The general principle, as I understand it, is that the responsibility for knowing whether we are obeying laws lies with us as citizens.

Someone colourfully pointed out that, otherwise, we could avoid drink-driving charges by saying that we had no personal breathalysers.

[NUKe]

my sons University Cycling team practice round Richmond park and were lapping at around 40Kph (25MPH) the other night. I did wonder about the Speed limit when he told me

[Richard Fairhurst]

I wouldn't think so. I believe that the response would be that, "Since you are clearly unable to judge speeds correctly, you should get an accurate speedometer." The general principle, as I understand it, is that the responsibility for knowing whether we are obeying laws lies with us as citizens.

Exactly.

(Besides, pretty much every cyclist does have a speedometer on them these days. It's called a smartphone.)

[Psamathe]

(I've never been there but) when you pass from the public road network into the area covered by (apparently) separate laws, is there clear sinage that you are covered by a different set of laws and a reasonable means to establish what those different laws are?

Personally I'd question if a sign with lots of small text would be adequate as whenever you turn on a public road you cannot be expectd to stop, search around for a sign as to what laws apply to the road, find none and continue under the national laws, next junction stop and search around for another sign, find none, etc.

So I'd excpect something very obvious on leaving the public road network to prompt you to expect a different set of laws.

Maybe it is there - I've never been there.

That said, I've always understood that whilst cyclists might not be covered by speed limits, they can still be done for dangerous cycling (or is it called "wanton and furious cycling"). And it may be that cycling at 30 mph in a 20 mph limit past a school at school turnout time might not be breaking speed limit laws but might easily be breaking "wanton and furious" so lack of speed limits does not mean you can do what you want.

Ian

[thirdcrank]

All I know about the enforcement of byelaws in Royal Parks is what I've read on here. The matter of cyclists being fined for speeding in alleged contravention of park byelaws goes back some years and I get the impression it's been quite widespread so I'm interested to know what has happened apparently to change the policy. While it's true that pedal cycles are not legally required to be fitted with speedometers, it's claptrap to say that that offers a defence / loophole if the speeding byelaws include cyclists.

If the byelaws have not been changed and somebody in authority has recognised that they do not impose a speed limit on cyclists, then a lot of refunds must be in order. It needs some organisation with a bit of clout to look into this. imo