Speed in Royal Parks

[Phil_Lee]

It has often been mentioned in here (and elsewhere) that the only place that speed limits apply to cycles in in the Royal Parks.
While looking this up for someone who didn't believe it, I found that it appears no longer to be true.
In The Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces (Amendment) etc. Regulations 2010, S1 (2) an important change was made, namely:

1.—(1) These Regulations may be cited as The Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces (Amendment) etc. Regulations 2010 and shall come into force for the purposes of regulations 1 to 4 on 6th April 2010 and for all other purposes on 1st October 2010.
(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.

Note the parts I've highlighted in green.

Prior to that amendment, "vehicle" was undefined, giving it the usual all inclusive meaning.
The change to "mechanically propelled" excludes pedal cycles.

I'd guess that as the reduction from 30 to 20 mph was made in the previous amendment, it was not realised that this would start catching cyclists, and this was unintended, so in this latest amendment, this situation was rectified.

The original legislation The Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces Regulations 1997 had 30mph for Richmond. (Part II S1)

This was reduced in the Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces (Amendment) Regulations 2004 to 20mph in S2 (5).
My guess is that this was never intended to catch cyclists, and that situation has been remedied in the 2010 amendment - which brings it into line with other UK speed limit legislation.

Does that all make sense? (or as much as the law ever does!).

[snibgo]

Good research, Phil.

Being derestricted in royal parks is our own version of raising motorway speed limits, I suppose.

[thirdcrank]

We did have a thread about this before when somebody was done for it. I can't remember the details now, but there was ambiguity in the various bits of legislation (one referred to vehicles and the other to motor vehicles IIRC) and I suggested that he should plead not guilty and argue it on that basis. I don't think we heard anymore so I presume he just stumped up. It's often only when somebody contests a case that revisions are made.
======================================================================
Found it:

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=14954&hilit=

[Edwards]

“vehicle” means a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on a road

This is exactly the sort of legislation that makes the legal lot very rich.

A pedal cycle is propelled by mechanical means(pedals and drive train) and powered by human. Unless somebody can provide a link that proves the above wrong then somebody somewhere could make a lot of cash.

[snibgo]

Pedal cycles are vehicles, but not mechanically propelled vehicles. See http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1983 ... 176_en.pdf and many other examples.

[thirdcrank]

I've had a bit of a read through the previous thread I linked to above. It was the first post of a member called Gradru who made another early post on the same thread and was never heard of again. At the time, I assumed it was a wind-up because it came not long after another thread which attracted quite a bit of comment, warning people that the park byelaws were being enforced against speeding cyclists.

Gradru's original query was because the summons - which would have be automatically produced - alleged he had been driving a motor vehicle. In the midst of a lot of flak, eg suggesting he was morally guilty, even if not legally guilty, somebody posted a helpful link to the park byelaws and I suggested that the way they were written might be enough to have the summons dismissed. I fancy that what has now happened is that somebody in the relevant legal department has had this poor drafting brought to their notice and has amended it. Who knows, it's even possible that somebody got a summons and decided to dispute it as I suggested to Gradders. I'm pretty sure that a proper lawyer would have taken the same line as me on this.

If anybody knows anything about how the byelaws came to be amended, I'd be interested to hear. It's not the sort of thing that happens without deliberate decisions being made.

[cycleruk]

I still don't understand how you can be done for speeding when you don't know what speed your doing and have no means of doing so?

Yes there are bicycle speedo's available but they are not a legal requirement and cycles are sold without them.

[[XAP]Bob]

Because eyeballs are a valid speedo

I think the technical term is that "ignorance is not a defence"

[Russcoles]

How can a radar gun work effectively on a bicycle? Its a much smaller target than a car and many parts of it are rotating and would give false high or low results.

[Vorpal]

When the community speedwatch have checked my speed, it has matched that on my computer. Similarly, those smiley face things (speed indicator displays) at village gates match what my computer says.

The local community speedwatch folks are quite friendly, and always call out my speed to me as I pass by.

[Phil_Lee]

I've had a bit of a read through the previous thread I linked to above. It was the first post of a member called Gradru who made another early post on the same thread and was never heard of again. At the time, I assumed it was a wind-up because it came not long after another thread which attracted quite a bit of comment, warning people that the park byelaws were being enforced against speeding cyclists.

Gradru's original query was because the summons - which would have be automatically produced - alleged he had been driving a motor vehicle. In the midst of a lot of flak, eg suggesting he was morally guilty, even if not legally guilty, somebody posted a helpful link to the park byelaws and I suggested that the way they were written might be enough to have the summons dismissed. I fancy that what has now happened is that somebody in the relevant legal department has had this poor drafting brought to their notice and has amended it. Who knows, it's even possible that somebody got a summons and decided to dispute it as I suggested to Gradders. I'm pretty sure that a proper lawyer would have taken the same line as me on this.

If anybody knows anything about how the byelaws came to be amended, I'd be interested to hear. It's not the sort of thing that happens without deliberate decisions being made.

I can say that the Chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group was completely unaware of the change when I told him last night, so it wasn't anything to do with them.
The time scale would be about right for it to be the result of a contested decision in 2008 though.
So if that's what it was, well done that person, and it goes to show that changes CAN be made when legislators get it wrong.

[Phil_Lee]

I still don't understand how you can be done for speeding when you don't know what speed your doing and have no means of doing so?

Yes there are bicycle speedo's available but they are not a legal requirement and cycles are sold without them.

So you have scales built into your car, a tyre pressure gauge installed in each wheel, and a breathalyser?

If not, how can you be done for improperly inflated tyres, overloading, or drunken driving then?
Obviously, all vehicles should be supplied with a certified accurate tape measure, so that width, height and length limits can be enforceable.

The law sets limits.
In some cases, it may also make a device mandatory that tells you if you are exceeding those limits, but it is not obliged to do so.
It is still your responsibility to stay within those limits that apply to you.
If you choose to get close to those limits, it may be in your interest to purchase and install equipment that allows you to take advantage of the maximum allowance in law - be that a speedometer, breathalyser, tyre pressure monitor, weighbridge, or whatever.

[Regulator]

Pedal cycles are vehicles, but not mechanically propelled vehicles. See http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1983 ... 176_en.pdf and many other examples.

The law is actually quite clear. Pedal cycles are mechanically propelled vehicles - they are not motor vehicles.

[snibgo]

The law is actually quite clear. Pedal cycles are mechanically propelled vehicles - they are not motor vehicles.

Can you cite a reference for that?

[thirdcrank]

...The law is actually quite clear. Pedal cycles are mechanically propelled vehicles - they are not motor vehicles.

I'd be interested to see the authority for that assertion, which I believe to be wrong. AFAIK, the change from 'motor vehicle' to 'mechanically propelled vehicle' in the road traffic acts was an attempt to avoid the limitations which had attached to "motor vehicle" through expressions like "intended or adapted for use on a road" which meant that some vehicles like huge motorway construction plant could be driven more or less willy-nilly.

Also AFAIK "mechanically propelled vehicle" was always the term used in the vehicle excise legislation to cast the net as widely as possible.