Regents Park

max c said:

I've just seen someone get fined for cycling at a snail's pace in
Regents Park. The poor chap was on a wide tarmac path, putting nobody
at any risk at all. His momentum was very much less than than mine
when I jog along the same path, so I see no relevant argument about
safety in this case. I saw the same happen a couple of weeks ago too,
although I don't think the lady was fined.

Its one of the nuances of the law you need to be aware of. Regent's
Park is not a public space with normal roads, its a Royal Park with Park
Roads and its own law and police force. As such some of the normal
rules do not apply - for example speed limits apply to cyclists in Royal
Parks but not on the Public Highway. The regulations can be found at
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1997/97163901.htm and the relevant one is
3.(4)a.

Quoted message said:

I'm not a cyclist but have been thinking about getting a pair of the
new Bromptons. But if this is the sort of nonsense you guys have come
to expect then I think I'll get a cheap car for similar money. Have I
turned into a grumpy old man before my time, or have people just given
up complaining?

The bigger problem out in the wider world is usually grumpy motorists
rather than grumpy policemen.

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

max c said:

I've just seen someone get fined for cycling at a snail's pace in
Regents Park. The poor chap was on a wide tarmac path, putting nobody
at any risk at all. His momentum was very much less than than mine
when I jog along the same path, so I see no relevant argument about
safety in this case. I saw the same happen a couple of weeks ago too,
although I don't think the lady was fined.

I'm not a cyclist but have been thinking about getting a pair of the
new Bromptons. But if this is the sort of nonsense you guys have come
to expect then I think I'll get a cheap car for similar money. Have I
turned into a grumpy old man before my time, or have people just given
up complaining?

Fortunately that kind of zero-tolerance policing nonsense doesn't happen
much elsewhere... yet*. I've never even been done for cycling where
cycling is not permitted, despite police having plenty of opportunity to
have stopped me over the years.

You can at least cycle around the outside of Regents Park on the private
road (Outer Circle, is it called?) which lots of cyclist find pleasant.
(I find it a bit boring, actually).

* This may change if Ken Livingstone gets his way.

~PB

max c said:

I've just seen someone get fined for cycling at a snail's pace in
Regents Park.

Was he fined /for/ cycling at a snail's pace, or /while/ he was cycling
at a snail's pace?

Quoted message said:

The poor chap was on a wide tarmac path, putting nobody
at any risk at all.

Whether or not he was putting anyone at risk is less relevant than
whether or not he was breaking the rules. If he was breaking the rules,
then he has no grounds for complaint, even if the enforcing officer was
being excessively jobsworthy.

Quoted message said:

I'm not a cyclist but have been thinking about getting a pair of the
new Bromptons. But if this is the sort of nonsense you guys have come
to expect then I think I'll get a cheap car for similar money.

Get the Bromptons. Much more fun than a car. You will have to put up
with lots of nonsense, but not the nonsense of being stuck in a traffic
jam.

Have I

Quoted message said:

turned into a grumpy old man before my time, or have people just given
up complaining?

Stick around, you'll hear plenty of complaining - just not about people
getting done for breaking the rules. (though you're quite likely to
hear complaints about people /not/ getting done for breaking the
rules.)

My biggest cause for complaint on my commute is the erratic behaviour
of the pedestrians in Hyde Park, causing me danger when I use the
shared path. But such is the nature of pedestrians and such is the
nature of shared paths, so most of the time I just put up with it and
adjust my riding style (ie speed) to suit the conditions.

Most of the time...

d.

Tony Raven said:

As such some of the normal
rules do not apply - for example speed limits apply to cyclists in Royal
Parks but not on the Public Highway.

That is a good idea, and makes it even less justifiable that cycling is
not
permitted. What possible argument could there be against allowing
cyclists to go slowly if legislation already allows the imposition of a
speed limit?

On 18 Jul 2005 05:16:32 -0700, "max c" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Tony Raven said:

As such some of the normal
rules do not apply - for example speed limits apply to cyclists in Royal
Parks but not on the Public Highway.

That is a good idea, and makes it even less justifiable that cycling is
not
permitted. What possible argument could there be against allowing
cyclists to go slowly if legislation already allows the imposition of a
speed limit?

That's something you should probably ask the Royal Parks people
http://www.royalparks.gov.uk/

davek said:

Was he fined /for/ cycling at a snail's pace, or /while/ he was cycling
at a snail's pace?

He was fined shortly /after/ cycling at a snail's pace, and my
inference is that it was clearly /for/ cycling at a snail's pace.

We could disagree about whether he has grounds for complaint for
getting done, but I didn't and wouldn't break the rules. The point is
that I have every right to complain about the rules being
unjustifiable, and in fact something of a duty. In my wife's home
country people tell the authorities loudly but rationally when they're
making a mistake, even on a local issue like this, and something gets
done about it. Why can't we do the same?

max c said:

davek said:

Was he fined /for/ cycling at a snail's pace, or /while/ he was
cycling at a snail's pace?

He was fined shortly /after/ cycling at a snail's pace, and my
inference is that it was clearly /for/ cycling at a snail's pace.

Erm, surely he was fined for /cycling/? Or are you saying that he was fined
for cycling too slowly?

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
You can't have ham!

On 18 Jul 2005 05:30:24 -0700, "max c" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

We could disagree about whether he has grounds for complaint for
getting done, but I didn't and wouldn't break the rules. The point is
that I have every right to complain about the rules being
unjustifiable, and in fact something of a duty. In my wife's home
country people tell the authorities loudly but rationally when they're
making a mistake, even on a local issue like this, and something gets
done about it. Why can't we do the same?

You're preaching to the converted here, both on the wrongness of how
cyclists get treated and the need to do something about it. Many
regulars in this ng do regularly tell the 'authorities' when they
believe they are getting cycling-related things wrong (and, I suspect,
when they are getting non-cycling-related things wrong, too).

max c said:

The point is
that I have every right to complain about the rules being
unjustifiable, and in fact something of a duty.

On this I agree with you in principle, though you do need to show that
the rules are unjustifiable.

On the subject of cycling in parks, I have mixed feelings. I do cycle
through Hyde Park (where cycling is permitted on /some/ paths - there
are irresponsible cyclists that treat the whole park as a network of
cycle paths) but I don't believe it is entirely safe, and certainly no
safer than the alternative option of cycling along Knightsbridge. I
choose to cycle through Hyde Park simply because the view is nicer.

I can't comment on the incident you saw since I don't know which part
of Regents Park you are referring to, but I know Regents Park well
enough to know that many of its paths would be quite as suitable for
shared use as the one through Hyde Park.

However, rules is rules, and even if they are stupid rules, you can't
really complain at being punished if you get caught breaking them.

d.

"max c" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Tony Raven said:

As such some of the normal
rules do not apply - for example speed limits apply to cyclists in Royal
Parks but not on the Public Highway.

That is a good idea, and makes it even less justifiable that cycling is
not
permitted. What possible argument could there be against allowing
cyclists to go slowly if legislation already allows the imposition of a
speed limit?

Greetings,

several years ago there was a death in the Royal Parks involving a collision
between a cyclist and a pedestrian. The response to this was to ban cycles
from all but specifically designated paths within the parks. I can see how
it would make a legislator's job easier to impose a blanket ban as opposed
to setting a cycle speed limit; unless every PC had a speed camera to
measure a cyclist any ticket issued would be too easily challenged. Also,
as a slight asside, the Royal Parks Constabulary has now been essentially
absorbed by the Metropolitan Police, existing Royal Parks Constables either
being admitted to the Met, or allowed to resign/retire.

T.T.F.N.

SPENNY

Quoted message said:

but I know Regents Park well
enough to know that many of its paths would be quite as suitable for
shared use as the one through Hyde Park.

The path I was on is the one that a lot of people cycle on in the
morning that runs north-south, it's tarmac and about 12-15 feet wide.
It crosses over a road where there's a zebra crossing, just next to a
little cafe hut and toilets. Looking at the map I think the road in
question is probably Chester Road. (Sorry for the rubbish
description!)

Quoted message said:

However, rules is rules, and even if they are stupid rules, you can't
really complain at being punished if you get caught breaking them.

I didn't get caught or punished (haven't even got a bike!).

I suppose the thing to do, as Audrey suggests, is to write to the Royal
Parks folk and find out if they can make any kind of cohesive argument
as to why slow, considerate cycling is being penalised. I did drop
them an email a few weeks ago asking politely if there was a cycle
path, but they didn't even reply. To add weight, would anyone care to
add their name & address to a letter if we can agree on some simple
words?

davek said:

However, rules is rules, and even if they are stupid rules, you can't
really complain at being punished if you get caught breaking them.

You should complain when you are not going against the spirit of the rule,
what the rule was invented for, and when the police have not used their
descretion wisely. Rules need to be broadly worded so they can be easily
applied whenever it really matters, but a civilised society doesn't have
to enforce all the rules all the time.

"Rules is rules" is the British Disease. I hate this attitude far more
than the "stupid" rules themselves, which do have their uses sometimes.

~PB

Yes and no.

Normally they would use their discretion and tell the person to stop
whatever they are doing against the rules. Perhaps they've had to stop
that same person before?

But they can't use their discretion and ignore it. So this person's
going at a snail's pace. Perhaps the next one goes at a pigeon's pace,
then the next one faster. At some point the police will stop someone
cycling "too fast" - but which point will that be? And he will rightly
feel agrieved that the others were allowed to cycle, just that he had
crossed some unwritten limit, as judged by the policeman at the time.
If there are rules, and those rules are followed, everyone knows where
they stand.

max c said:

I suppose the thing to do, as Audrey suggests, is to write to the
Royal Parks folk and find out if they can make any kind of cohesive
argument as to why slow, considerate cycling is being penalised. I
did drop them an email a few weeks ago asking politely if there was a
cycle path, but they didn't even reply. To add weight, would anyone
care to add their name & address to a letter if we can agree on some
simple words?

Yes. Please let us know if/when you're ready and people interested could
email their name & address to you or whoever drafts the letter.

cheers
~PB

iakobski said:

Yes and no.

Normally they would use their discretion and tell the person to stop
whatever they are doing against the rules. Perhaps they've had to stop
that same person before?

But they can't use their discretion and ignore it.

They can and do in most areas.

Quoted message said:

So this person's
going at a snail's pace. Perhaps the next one goes at a pigeon's pace,
then the next one faster. At some point the police will stop someone
cycling "too fast" - but which point will that be? And he will rightly
feel agrieved that the others were allowed to cycle, just that he had
crossed some unwritten limit, as judged by the policeman at the time.

This is what we have now for the most part. It's not perfect but I very
much prefer it to the opposite of dumb zero-tolerance. Police do and
should use their judgement. The guy who's going just faster than other
cyclists who gets stopped will be unlucky but there would be a greater
number of unfortuante people otherwise.

Quoted message said:

If there are rules, and those rules are followed, everyone knows where
they stand.

Yes, in a sad state, I think.

Having said all this, though, I would like more shared paths in parks.
It's not a nice feeling to break the law in this way, therefore I don't
much (even when I don't think it would actually bother anyone else). It
is nice to have the odd detour and rest from road cycling in town.

~PB

Pete Biggs said:

You should complain when you are not going against the spirit of the rule,
what the rule was invented for, and when the police have not used their
descretion wisely.

I'm all for trying to get stupid rules changed, even if it means the
kind of civil disobedience that got the poll tax repealed.

But cycling in a place where cycling is banned isn't civil
disobedience, it's breaking the rules for personal convenience, which
is selfish and foolish. Taking part in a critical mass ride, on the
other hand...

Rules need to be broadly worded so they can be easily

Quoted message said:

applied whenever it really matters, but a civilised society doesn't have
to enforce all the rules all the time.

....which is the kind of thing I'd expect P*** S**** to say.

The problem is this: who decides when it "really matters"? Is this one
of those appeals to "common sense"?

d.

max c said:

The path I was on is the one that a lot of people cycle on in the
morning that runs north-south

I'm a bit confused. What was the person actually stopped for? Cycling
where they shouldn't be cycling? or cycling too fast? Why weren't these
other cyclists also stopped?

It does sound like the officer was being a bit of a jobsworth, but I
presume the offender /was/ breaking some rule or other, yes?

Quoted message said:

To add weight, would anyone care to
add their name & address to a letter if we can agree on some simple
words?

I'd be happy to sign - but I'd want to check the path out for myself
first.

d.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yes, in a sad state, I think.

I don't agree. If there are places where you can cycle and places where
you can't, then people know what to expect. They can take their
toddlers to that part of the park without having to look out for
cycles, or frail elderly people can go there if they get flustered by
cycles.

In Greenwich Park they have a rule of no dogs in the flower garden.
Should people be allowed to get away with taking small dogs in there?
Or dogs on a lead?

By your argument, we are in a sad state if we stop at red lights,
rather than use our judgement and decide when to jump them based on how
much traffic there is around.

By your description you mean Broad Walk shown here:
http://streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=528341&y=182682&z=1&sv=chester+road&st=6&tl=Chester+Road,+London,+NW1&searchp=newsearch.srf&mapp=newmap.srf

I know that well. I agree it's wide and could be suitable for cycling.
However, since it runs parallel to Outer Circle, which is a smooth wide
road with very little traffic on it, I can't see any reason to ask for
Broad walk to be made a shared path (with all the problems shared paths
have).