Royal Parks speed humps won't slow cyclists down

QUOTE:
"Mount Walk, in Kensington Gardens, is an off-road route shared path with 900 cyclists per hour using it in peak times, a number set to grow as it will become part of the Central London Grid bike network, and link directly to London's new East-West Cycle Superhighway.

The Royal Parks says the path is too narrow to separate cycles and pedestrians, and are installing cobble rumble strips to keep cycles below the 12mph "design speed" for the route, and the path can't be widened because of trees that border it.

Hickman says cobbles could affect disabled users significantly, while having limited effect on faster riders.

He said: "My observation of these types of schemes is that those who cycle the fastest seem to be the least affected - they simply rise out of the saddle. That may be anecdotal but I'm not aware of any evidence that schemes like this work as intended."

http://road.cc/content/news/180341-c...-cyclists-most

Alycidon wrote:

"Mount Walk, in Kensington Gardens, is an off-road route shared path with
900 cyclists per hour using it in peak times, a number set to grow as it
will become part of the Central London Grid bike network, and link
directly to London's new East-West Cycle Superhighway.

Can we have one of our stupid petrolhead trolls along, to tell us all about
how speed limits in Royal Parks apply to cyclists?

Always good for a giggle, that one.

--
john smith |MA (Hons)|MPhil (Hons)|CAPES (mention très bien)|LLB (Hons)
'It never gets any easier. You just get faster'
(Greg LeMond (1961 - ))

On 26/02/2016 10:38, John Smith wrote:
Alycidon wrote:

"Mount Walk, in Kensington Gardens, is an off-road route shared path with
900 cyclists per hour using it in peak times, a number set to grow as it
will become part of the Central London Grid bike network, and link
directly to London's new East-West Cycle Superhighway.

Can we have one of our stupid petrolhead trolls along, to tell us all about
how speed limits in Royal Parks apply to cyclists?

Always good for a giggle, that one.


Since prosecutions succeed, they do apply.

MrCheerful wrote:
On 26/02/2016 10:38, John Smith wrote:
Alycidon wrote:

"Mount Walk, in Kensington Gardens, is an off-road route shared path
with 900 cyclists per hour using it in peak times, a number set to grow
as it will become part of the Central London Grid bike network, and
link directly to London's new East-West Cycle Superhighway.

Can we have one of our stupid petrolhead trolls along, to tell us all
about how speed limits in Royal Parks apply to cyclists?

Always good for a giggle, that one.

Since prosecutions succeed, they do apply.

*howls with derisive laughter!!!!!*

--
john smith |MA (Hons)|MPhil (Hons)|CAPES (mention très bien)|LLB (Hons)
'It never gets any easier. You just get faster'
(Greg LeMond (1961 - ))

On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 2:20:03 PM UTC, John Smith wrote:
MrCheerful wrote:
On 26/02/2016 10:38, John Smith wrote:
Alycidon wrote:

"Mount Walk, in Kensington Gardens, is an off-road route shared path
with 900 cyclists per hour using it in peak times, a number set to grow
as it will become part of the Central London Grid bike network, and
link directly to London's new East-West Cycle Superhighway.

Can we have one of our stupid petrolhead trolls along, to tell us all
about how speed limits in Royal Parks apply to cyclists?

Always good for a giggle, that one.

Since prosecutions succeed, they do apply.

*howls with derisive laughter!!!!!*

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

The term "vehicle" was briefly redefined to exclude bicycles, but then it was re-redefined to include bicycles.

On 26/02/2016 20:13, Phil W Lee wrote:
Tom Crispin considered Fri, 26 Feb 2016 09:38:22
-0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:

On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 2:20:03 PM UTC, John Smith wrote:
MrCheerful wrote:
On 26/02/2016 10:38, John Smith wrote:
Alycidon wrote:

"Mount Walk, in Kensington Gardens, is an off-road route shared path
with 900 cyclists per hour using it in peak times, a number set to grow
as it will become part of the Central London Grid bike network, and
link directly to London's new East-West Cycle Superhighway.

Can we have one of our stupid petrolhead trolls along, to tell us all
about how speed limits in Royal Parks apply to cyclists?

Always good for a giggle, that one.

Since prosecutions succeed, they do apply.

*howls with derisive laughter!!!!!*

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

The term "vehicle" was briefly redefined to exclude bicycles, but then it was re-redefined to include bicycles.

Where was it re-redefined, because I can't find any legislation which
does so?


This was the answer that someone found last time (might have been Peter
Parry, I am not sure):

"I suspect you will find the pertinent point is that a minority don't
seem to have realised the law they didn't like was replaced with one
they did (probably by mistake as few noticed) and then the one they
did was replaced by one they didn't effectively going back to the
start position.

The Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces regulations 1997 prior to
SI 2010 No. 1194 placed a speed limit on vehicles. Push bikes are
vehicles so the speed limits applied to them.

S1(2) of SI 2010 No. 1194 (which was essentially about parking
provision) somehow managed to specifically define a vehicle as "...a
mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on a road."
(reasonable if you are writing a rule on parking I suppose) so after
SI 2010 No. 119 the speed limits suddenly did not apply to push bikes
any more as they are vehicles but not motor vehicles.

Fairly quickly someone realised this was a mistake and an amendment
followed shortly thereafter when s1(2) of SI 2010 No. 1194 was revoked
by S2 of the Amendment of The Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces
(Amendment) etc. Regulations 2010 (SI2010 No. 2695) issued in November
2010 "Regulations 1(2) and 5 to 8 of The Royal Parks and Other Open
Spaces (Amendment) etc Regulations 2010(3) are revoked."

This meant the definition of vehicle reverted to the normal use as in
the speed limit provisions of The Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces
Regulations 1997 (SI1997 No. 1639) and the limits for vehicles
contained in SI 2010 No. 1194 The Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces
(Amendment) etc. Regulations 2010.

This meant speed limits went back to applying to push bikes."

On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 8:50:28 PM UTC, MrCheerful wrote:
On 26/02/2016 20:13, Phil W Lee wrote:
Tom Crispin considered Fri, 26 Feb 2016 09:38:22
-0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:

On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 2:20:03 PM UTC, John Smith wrote:
MrCheerful wrote:
On 26/02/2016 10:38, John Smith wrote:
Alycidon wrote:

"Mount Walk, in Kensington Gardens, is an off-road route shared path
with 900 cyclists per hour using it in peak times, a number set to grow
as it will become part of the Central London Grid bike network, and
link directly to London's new East-West Cycle Superhighway.

Can we have one of our stupid petrolhead trolls along, to tell us all
about how speed limits in Royal Parks apply to cyclists?

Always good for a giggle, that one.

Since prosecutions succeed, they do apply.

*howls with derisive laughter!!!!!*

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

The term "vehicle" was briefly redefined to exclude bicycles, but then it was re-redefined to include bicycles.

Where was it re-redefined, because I can't find any legislation which
does so?


This was the answer that someone found last time (might have been Peter
Parry, I am not sure):

"I suspect you will find the pertinent point is that a minority don't
seem to have realised the law they didn't like was replaced with one
they did (probably by mistake as few noticed) and then the one they
did was replaced by one they didn't effectively going back to the
start position.

The Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces regulations 1997 prior to
SI 2010 No. 1194 placed a speed limit on vehicles. Push bikes are
vehicles so the speed limits applied to them.

S1(2) of SI 2010 No. 1194 (which was essentially about parking
provision) somehow managed to specifically define a vehicle as "...a
mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on a road."
(reasonable if you are writing a rule on parking I suppose) so after
SI 2010 No. 119 the speed limits suddenly did not apply to push bikes
any more as they are vehicles but not motor vehicles.

Fairly quickly someone realised this was a mistake and an amendment
followed shortly thereafter when s1(2) of SI 2010 No. 1194 was revoked
by S2 of the Amendment of The Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces
(Amendment) etc. Regulations 2010 (SI2010 No. 2695) issued in November
2010 "Regulations 1(2) and 5 to 8 of The Royal Parks and Other Open
Spaces (Amendment) etc Regulations 2010(3) are revoked."

This meant the definition of vehicle reverted to the normal use as in
the speed limit provisions of The Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces
Regulations 1997 (SI1997 No. 1639) and the limits for vehicles
contained in SI 2010 No. 1194 The Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces
(Amendment) etc. Regulations 2010.

This meant speed limits went back to applying to push bikes."

So "un-redefined" might have been a better word for me to describe the process?

On Sat, 27 Feb 2016 18:13:50 +0000, Phil W Lee
wrote:

MrCheerful considered Fri, 26 Feb 2016
20:50:11 +0000 the perfect time to write:

On 26/02/2016 20:13, Phil W Lee wrote:
Tom Crispin considered Fri, 26 Feb 2016 09:38:22
-0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:

On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 2:20:03 PM UTC, John Smith wrote:
MrCheerful wrote:
On 26/02/2016 10:38, John Smith wrote:
Alycidon wrote:

"Mount Walk, in Kensington Gardens, is an off-road route shared path
with 900 cyclists per hour using it in peak times, a number set to grow
as it will become part of the Central London Grid bike network, and
link directly to London's new East-West Cycle Superhighway.

Can we have one of our stupid petrolhead trolls along, to tell us all
about how speed limits in Royal Parks apply to cyclists?

Always good for a giggle, that one.

Since prosecutions succeed, they do apply.

*howls with derisive laughter!!!!!*

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

The term "vehicle" was briefly redefined to exclude bicycles, but then it was re-redefined to include bicycles.

Where was it re-redefined, because I can't find any legislation which
does so?


This was the answer that someone found last time (might have been Peter
Parry, I am not sure):

"I suspect you will find the pertinent point is that a minority don't
seem to have realised the law they didn't like was replaced with one
they did (probably by mistake as few noticed) and then the one they
did was replaced by one they didn't effectively going back to the
start position.

The Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces regulations 1997 prior to
SI 2010 No. 1194 placed a speed limit on vehicles. Push bikes are
vehicles so the speed limits applied to them.

S1(2) of SI 2010 No. 1194 (which was essentially about parking
provision) somehow managed to specifically define a vehicle as "...a
mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on a road."
(reasonable if you are writing a rule on parking I suppose) so after
SI 2010 No. 119 the speed limits suddenly did not apply to push bikes
any more as they are vehicles but not motor vehicles.

Fairly quickly someone realised this was a mistake and an amendment
followed shortly thereafter when s1(2) of SI 2010 No. 1194 was revoked
by S2 of the Amendment of The Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces
(Amendment) etc. Regulations 2010 (SI2010 No. 2695) issued in November
2010 "Regulations 1(2) and 5 to 8 of The Royal Parks and Other Open
Spaces (Amendment) etc Regulations 2010(3) are revoked."

This meant the definition of vehicle reverted to the normal use as in
the speed limit provisions of The Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces
Regulations 1997 (SI1997 No. 1639) and the limits for vehicles
contained in SI 2010 No. 1194 The Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces
(Amendment) etc. Regulations 2010.

Well, that would be up to the courts (higher than magistrates courts)
to decide. If it reverts to the natural meaning of "vehicle" as
applied to speed limits everywhere else in the whole United Kingdom,
that would not include bicycles (or indeed, horse-drawn vehicles).

It was decided in 1895 by Ellis v Nott Bower (1895) that bicycles are
vehicles. Various road traffic Acts have defined speed limits to
exclude push bikes. The Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces regulations
1997 defined speed limits in Royal Parks specifically to _include_
push bikes. No one has challenged that.

Taykor vs Goodwin 1879 established that push bikes were also
carriages. So did the Local Government Act of 1888. Corkery vs
Carpenter in 1950 also held that a bicycle was a carriage.

Was it the intention that ALL definitions in the 2010(1) regs should
be deleted? Because that's what they apparently did.

Of course it was, all it said was "Regulations 1(2) and 5 to 8 of The
Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces (Amendment) etc Regulations 2010(3)
are revoked. "

1(2) defined, for the regulation it appeared in, a vehicle as being
mechanically propelled. Pretty obviously this was a mistake hence its
rapid rectification.

It would be for
a court to decide if it leaves parking spaces undefined, or parking
permits, or vehicles subject to speed limits - but as the amendments
were largely concerning parking, surely it's only in that context that
bicycles would be regarded as vehicles - they've left the whole thing
in a bit of a mess.

Nothing messy about it. It simply restored the position in the 1997
Act. Bicycles are vehicles irrespective of that regulation.

This meant speed limits went back to applying to push bikes."

Well, until it's tested in a competent court, it's hard to say.

A push bike is a vehicle, that was established in 1895. Royal Park
speed limits apply to vehicles. They applied from 1997 to 6th April
2010, they re-applied from 1 Nov 2010. What do you think needs
"testing"?

It's difficult to argue on any rational basis that the one and only
place in the entire UK where cyclists should be subject to speed
limits is in a park, and only a royal park, at that.

No it isn't. That is what the law states (and but for a brief hiatus
has since 1997). It would have been ridiculous to leave push bikes
as vehicles everywhere in the UK _except_ the Royal Parks.

I think there's a strong argument for all laws passed by the current
junta to be repealed on the basis of their illegal election
campaigning, and for at the very least, the cabinet to be locked up
for their undoubted human rights abuses

Oh dear. New supply of green dried frog pills needed?

You do realise the legislation on Royal Park Push Bike speed limits in
1997 was passed by a Labour government?

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 2:20:03 PM UTC, John Smith wrote:
MrCheerful wrote:
On 26/02/2016 10:38, John Smith wrote:
Alycidon wrote:

"Mount Walk, in Kensington Gardens, is an off-road route shared path
with 900 cyclists per hour using it in peak times, a number set to grow
as it will become part of the Central London Grid bike network, and
link directly to London's new East-West Cycle Superhighway.

Can we have one of our stupid petrolhead trolls along, to tell us all
about how speed limits in Royal Parks apply to cyclists?

Always good for a giggle, that one.

Since prosecutions succeed, they do apply.

*howls with derisive laughter!!!!!*

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

The term "vehicle" was briefly redefined to exclude bicycles, but then it was re-redefined to include bicycles.

As others have since pointed out during my absence, this is a matter for
the courts. And the matter has not been tested, since the muppets nicked
for 'speeding' in Royal Parks tend to put their hands up and say, 'it's a
fair cop, guv'.

--
john smith |MA (Hons)|MPhil (Hons)|CAPES (mention très bien)|LLB (Hons)
'It never gets any easier. You just get faster'
(Greg LeMond (1961 - ))