Cyclist fined for speeding in Richmond Park

On 20/09/2013 16:07, TMS320 wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote

37 in a 20 limit sounds like dangerous cycling.

I don't know Richmond Park but a measurement on Google Earth suggests a 30m
descent over 800m. The alleged 37mph needs to be taken with a big stretch of
credibility. It's also necessary to wonder why his lack of identification
failed to work (for him).

However he got a conditional discharge and a total of 100 quid to pay.

Makes the £60 fine for a driver quite a bargain.


37 in a 20 is not a fpn job, it would go straight to magistrates.

On 23/09/2013 20:57, Piatkow wrote:
The article doesn't actually state the offence with which he was charged.

could have been:
"use any pedal cycle, roller skate, roller blade, skate board or other
foot-propelled device in any manner that endangers or is likely to
endanger any person"
Clocking him at 37 would prove the case.

On Monday, 23 September 2013 21:10:55 UTC+1, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 23/09/2013 20:57, Piatkow wrote:

The article doesn't actually state the offence with which he was charged.



could have been:

"use any pedal cycle, roller skate, roller blade, skate board or other

foot-propelled device in any manner that endangers or is likely to

endanger any person"


but which "person" would that be? male, female, thing or other?


Clocking

What's this "clocking", were you employed as T&M?

him

goat, pig, mule, sheep, horse, boar?

at 37 would prove the case.

where's your person? and what's your person?

BTW one proves the yeast, the case is stationary. To say otherwise, you must be delusional or a liar. Which are YOU, and you can't blame it on a glass of port?

On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 14:01:20 +0100, Iain wrote:
Phil W Lee wrote:

There has been no speed limit for cyclists in the Royal Parks since
the regulations were last amended in 2010, when the speed limit
regulations were brought into line with those on all other public
highways, where speed limits apply only to motor vehicles.

Nowhere in those regulations does it mention a 'motor' vehicle. All
references are to a vehicle (alone).

Indeed, it even seems to clarify it he
"Speeds at which a vehicle may be driven or ridden on a Park road"
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2...ulation/2/made

IANAL

That is evident.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2...ulation/1/made

"In these regulations ... 'vehicle' means a mechanically propelled
vehicle intended or adapted for use on a road."

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Ian Smith wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 14:01:20 +0100, Iain wrote:
Phil W Lee wrote:

There has been no speed limit for cyclists in the Royal Parks since
the regulations were last amended in 2010, when the speed limit
regulations were brought into line with those on all other public
highways, where speed limits apply only to motor vehicles.

Nowhere in those regulations does it mention a 'motor' vehicle. All
references are to a vehicle (alone).

Indeed, it even seems to clarify it he
"Speeds at which a vehicle may be driven or ridden on a Park road"
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2...ulation/2/made

IANAL

That is evident.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2...ulation/1/made

"In these regulations ... 'vehicle' means a mechanically propelled
vehicle intended or adapted for use on a road."

Hmm - I missed the most obvious place

--
Iain

On 25/09/2013 00:30, Phil W Lee wrote:
"Iain" considered Mon, 23 Sep 2013 14:01:20 +0100 the
perfect time to write:

Phil W Lee wrote:

Absolutely wrong, since he was not charged with anything that is
actually illegal.
There has been no speed limit for cyclists in the Royal Parks since
the regulations were last amended in 2010, when the speed limit
regulations were brought into line with those on all other public
highways, where speed limits apply only to motor vehicles.

Nowhere in those regulations does it mention a 'motor' vehicle. All
references are to a vehicle (alone).

Indeed, it even seems to clarify it he
"Speeds at which a vehicle may be driven or ridden on a Park road"
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2...ulation/2/made

However, if you click on the button labeled "Previous: Provision"
You will find s1 (2) In these Regulations-

"parking permit" means a permit issued by or on behalf of the
Secretary of State for the parking of a vehicle;

"parking place" means a place shown on a notice exhibited by or on
behalf of the Secretary of State as being appointed under these
Regulations as a place where a person may park a vehicle; and

"vehicle" means a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted
for use on a road.


The phrase "mechanically propelled" specifically excludes any vehicle
propelled by human or animal power.


This was a change from previous regulations and amendments.
So there has been so such offence as speeding for bicycles in the
Royal Parks since 6th April 2010.


of course an electric bicycle would qualify as a motor vehicle.

So there has been so such offence as speeding for bicycles in the
Royal Parks since 6th April 2010.

Could you post the link that explicitly states that he was charged with "speeding"? It has already been established that this was not stated in the original article.

On 28/09/2013 03:11, Phil W Lee wrote:
Piatkow considered Thu, 26 Sep 2013
15:17:58 -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:

So there has been so such offence as speeding for bicycles in the
Royal Parks since 6th April 2010.

Could you post the link that explicitly states that he was charged with "speeding"? It has already been established that this was not stated in the original article.

The original article
http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/n...chmo nd_Park/
states "The 16-year-old, who cannot be named for legal reasons, broke
the royal park’s 20mph speed limit when he rode his bike down Sawyers
Hill on June 13"


no mention of what he was charged with