Regents Park

davek said:

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kind of civil disobedience that got the poll tax repealed.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.

Convenient, selfish and very rarely harmful, and not foolish when & where
you know you have little chance of getting stopped or annoying people.

Quoted message said:

Taking part in a critical mass ride, on the
other hand...

....pisses people off more than an old lady cycling in the park.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

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

Shock horror, PS might be right on this particular principle.

Quoted message said:

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

The authorities is who, who fortuantely are allowed to use their senses at
the moment. Written law can never be drafted to be as sensible and fair
as they can be. Of course the police won't always be fair or sensible
enough, but again I think this is better than the alternative.

~PB

davek said:

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?

For cycling in the park. He was going slowly, a little faster than
walking pace, as was the person who I saw stopped last time.

What the police were doing was waiting a few metres inside the park on
the south side of the zebra crossing I mentioned in an earlier post.
Cyclists heading south along the path crossed at the zebra crossing,
noticed the uniforms ahead (community support I think, not actually
police officers today), wobbled around a bit and then had the sense to
go along the road instead of continuing through the park. Consequently
the uniforms had to wait a few minutes before anyone came in their
direction, probably ensuring that their prey didn't even know cycling
is banned. You certainly wouldn't think it was, given the number of
cyclists.

Quoted message said:

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?

Yes, as I understand it, cycling is banned on all the paths in Regents
Park.

iakobski said:

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.

That would be nice but there are exceptions where and when no-one at all
will actually be bothered by a cyclist there. For example, when there is
no-one else in the park and alternative paths can be taken if someone did
enter it. Plenty of parks have flat & open enough landscaping, and wide
enough entrances, to be sure of that.

It's a broader issue than parks anyway. Some relatively frail people
enjoy CYCLING on footpaths. I do not want all of these people prosecuted
just because it is too difficult to draft laws, schemes and facilities
that would be complex and sophisticated enough to allow exactly what is
reasonable *without* the individual judgment of a human being, eg. police
officer.

Quoted message said:

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?

No because small pieces of dog excrement are just as bad as big pieces :-)

Quoted message said:

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

I think it would be deeply sad indeed if a cyclist running a red light
through a pedestrian crossing in the middle of a straight road at 3 am
when there are clearly no pedestrians anywhere near the crossing was
prosecuted. Fortunately, I've never heard of an actual case like this,
but a police officer would be obliged to nick this cyclist if the policy
changed to zero-tolerance.

~PB

max c said:

Cyclists heading south along the path crossed at the zebra crossing,
noticed the uniforms ahead (community support I think, not actually
police officers today),

Community Support explains it then. Proper police officers generally have
better things to do.

~PB

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 12:12:05 +0100, Tony Raven <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

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

In Greenwich Park I nearly collided with a boy, who had just lobbed a
stick into a tree to get conkers, and ran out into the Park Road. The
back end of my bike slewed round before I could release the brake, and
the wheel was damaged beyond repair. I had to carry the bike up the
hill.

The Park Constable refused to offer any assistance, and *physically*
prevented me from locking the bike up within the park.

spencer bullen said:

"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.

This is not before time. The raising of their staus from Park Wardens
to Park Constables was never justified.

On 18 Jul 2005 08:32:10 -0700, "iakobski" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

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?

Have you seen the clearance under the fence around the Flower Garden?
Most small dogs can get underneath with ease, I know, my parents'
border terrier can't be kept out - so how the rule can be enforced is
beyond me.

Pete Biggs said:

That would be nice but there are exceptions where and when no-one at all
will actually be bothered by a cyclist there. For example, when there is
no-one else in the park and alternative paths can be taken if someone did
enter it. Plenty of parks have flat & open enough landscaping, and wide
enough entrances, to be sure of that.

I would like to take my cycle training groups to Greenwich Park for
training. Use the band stand as a mock roundabout, use road junctions
to practice signalling and turning. Children under 11 learning to
cycle should be permitted to use the Royal Parks.

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

Quoted message 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.

As others have noted, surely he was fined simply for the fact of cycling.
Cycling slowly was probably his mistake though - if he'd been cycling faster
he might have been more difficult to catch 😉

Seriously, I often do wonder how cyclists get themselves caught in such
situations, unless they just obediently give up - you wouldn't expect a
foot-bound warden to be able to outsprint a cyclist after all!

Rich

davek said:

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.

I totally agree ... unless nobodys looking

Quoted message said:

Taking part in a critical mass ride, on the
other hand...

😉
is a pointless exercise in a park

"Pete Biggs" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

davek wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Taking part in a critical mass ride, on the
other hand...

...pisses people off more than an old lady cycling in the park.

echoes of our last premier there

--
Critical Mass London Web site:
http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk

Have you asked whether you can do this? I was told by a member of the
Royal Parks Constabulary that the no cycling rule did not apply to
children under 11. Admittedly it's not RPC any more, but worth asking.

iakobski said:

Have you asked whether you can do this? I was told by a member of the
Royal Parks Constabulary that the no cycling rule did not apply to
children under 11. Admittedly it's not RPC any more, but worth asking.

Tip: It's good practice on a newsgroup to quote some text of the reply
you are referring to (like wot I is doing above) so readers know what
you're talking about, or who you are asking a question to, without having
to re-read previous messages in the thread (which may be hidden from view
after being read initially).

Thanks
~PB

iakobski said:

Have you asked whether you can do this? I was told by a member of the
Royal Parks Constabulary that the no cycling rule did not apply to
children under 11. Admittedly it's not RPC any more, but worth asking.

The law is specific:

Acts prohibited in a Park
3. Subject to the provisions of regulation 6, no person using a
Park shall -

......

(4) use -

(a) any pedal cycle, or

(b) any roller skate, roller blade, skate board or other
foot-propelled device

except on a Park road or in an area designated and marked as being for
that purpose by the Secretary of State;
(The Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces Regulations 1997)

However children below the age of ten can not be charged with an
offence. It used to be age 13 but that was changed in the Crime and
Disorder Act 1998.

--
Tony

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

Pete Biggs said:

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.

Better known as
"rules are for fools
and the guidance of wise men".

--
yours S

Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione

On 19 Jul 2005 02:08:37 -0700, "iakobski" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Have you asked whether you can do this? I was told by a member of the
Royal Parks Constabulary that the no cycling rule did not apply to
children under 11. Admittedly it's not RPC any more, but worth asking.

I was told by a member of the RPC that I could not lock my crashed and
unrideable bike in the park because it could be packed with explosives
in the frame.

soup said:

Pete Biggs said:

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.

Better known as
"rules are for fools
and the guidance of wise men".

aka as "I don't need to stick to the speed limit because its perfectly
safe to go faster" in uk.tosspot

--
Tony

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

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

soup wrote:
aka as "I don't need to stick to the speed limit because its perfectly
safe to go faster" in uk.tosspot

But, there may be circumstances where it is relatively safe to go faster, it
all depends where, when and by how much. Why do the French allow 130/110kph
depending on the weather on their motorways? Is it because theirs are safer
than ours, except when it rains, when ours become safer than theirs? The
limit does not define what is safe, it only defines what is legal. Even
then speed cameras allow a margin of tolerance, and that, IMO, is as it
should be. There is always a case for saying that rules that do not arise
from moral absolutes and are to some extent arbitrary in where the lines
have been chosen to be drawn, should be enforced with some degree of
discretion.

Rich

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The law is specific:

Acts prohibited in a Park
3. Subject to the provisions of regulation 6, no person using a Park
shall -

......

(4) use -

(a) any pedal cycle, or

(b) any roller skate, roller blade, skate board or other
foot-propelled device

So I can use my handcycle all over the park and they can't hassle me. Wohoo!
--
OJ

Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped.
Elbert Hubbard (1856 - 1915)

Guy Ballantine said:

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The law is specific:

Acts prohibited in a Park
3. Subject to the provisions of regulation 6, no person using a Park
shall -

......

(4) use -

(a) any pedal cycle, or

(b) any roller skate, roller blade, skate board or other
foot-propelled device

So I can use my handcycle all over the park and they can't hassle me. Wohoo!

Unfortunately not. As well as foot operated levers, the definitions of
pedal in OED include "either of a pair of levers for transmitting power
to a bicycle or tricycle wheel" which would include hand cranks. Sorry!

--
Tony

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