2014 Briefing Paper by Richmond Cycling Campaign and others around issues on cycling in Richmond Park.

1. Cycling in
Richmond Park
A briefing paper prepared for Zac Goldsmith
MP’s public meeting on 17th December 2014
Published by:
Richmond Cycling Campaign
Kingston Cycling Campaign
Kingston Wheelers
Twickenham Cycling Club
London Dynamo
Barnes Cycling Club
Chevalier Cycling Club
Kingston Juniors Cycling Club 10th December 2014

2.
The Challenges
“Cyclists break the law”
Everyone breaks the law occasionally. All the data shows that cyclists are just as
law­abiding as car drivers and pedestrians. And even if cyclists did break the law more
frequently, that will still not be justification to curtail their rights (for example of access to
Richmond Park, use of the road, etc.)
“There isn’t enough room for all these cyclists”
This is probably true, but it’s just as true to say ‘there isn’t enough room for all these
cars’. It is unfair and unreasonable to identify cycling as a problem when The Royal
Parks and the Metropolitan Police actively supports the estimated 80% of motor traffic
which is using the park solely as a way to get from one place to another.
If there is a problem with too much traffic (cycle and motor) in the park, then the solution
is either to provide more space for it, or to choose which one is more important and
appropriate in the park.
“They ride in packs”
An odd complaint ­ if you have enough cyclists in the park, it’s going to look like they
ride in groups anyway. The organised groups tend not to be no more than 8 strong, and
in any case there is nothing wrong with riding like this. Terms like ‘riding in packs’ also
come out when people talk about children, teenagers, or anyone else they distrust, and
tell us more about the person saying it than the actual complaint.
“A cyclist nearly hit me”
Everyone has one of these stories. And no doubt some are true: it is important that
everyone in the park gives each other enough space. It’s worth observing that ‘a cyclist
nearly hit me’ means they didn’t: the actual danger posed to pedestrians by most
cycling is extremely low ­ statistically one is more likely to be killed on a pavement, by a
car, than killed or seriously injured in any setting whatsoever by a bicycle. This is not an
attempt to justify poor behaviour by any party, but merely a reminder that an individual’s
perception of risk, and anecdotal experience, is not a good way to make policy or the
law.

3. “They don’t stop for pedestrians/horse­riders/deer”
Who has right of way to cross the road? On the open road, the road user would claim
this. In Richmond Park it is and should be different. There is education to be done
here, since road users (cyclists in particular) often do not or will not give way. See “Our
Proposals” below which address this mutually held concern.
“They don’t use their bells”
This is a common complaint on shared use paths, where some people believe that
cyclists are obligated to use their bell when approaching every pedestrian. This isn’t
actually true. A bell, like a car horn, is intended for warnings: in the Netherlands, where
people are more used to interacting with cycling, they are less concerned about this
type of activity, taking the view that cyclists don’t want to be knocked off any more than
they want to run someone down.
“They speed in the park”
This is true, but not especially relevant. Like with the question of who breaks the law:
everyone speeds in the park at some point, since even the most relaxed cyclist can
achieve over 20mph going down some of the hills. This is not to endorse speeding, but
to recognise that actually the speed itself is not generally relevant: we monitor and
discourage speed because of the danger inherent therein. Someone speeding on a
bicycle is making their own choice about their safety and the safety of others around
them
Most importantly, however, the STATS19 police data shows that the greatest danger to
anyone in the park is posed by cars. At worst, some cyclists are a danger to each other,
but the number of incidents between cyclists and pedestrians is tiny.
“They pass me too close”
And often cars pass cyclists too close ­ this is a complaint which recognises the
constricted nature of the road through the park which makes it very hard to avoid
conflict. Once again, however, the danger in this situation is almost invariably on the
cyclist, rather than the driver, so complaints of danger are hard to feel deeply
sympathetic to. Cyclists and drivers should provide plenty of additional room when
overtaking other cyclists to allow for the “wobble room” associated with riding on two
wheels.

4. “They’re endangering wildlife”
It’s difficult to say anything useful to this: what danger is there to wildlife that doesn’t
have at least as much, or more danger, to the cyclist? Running into a deer? Being hit by
a bird? Apparently horses and deer may need ‘more protection’, and we address these
concerns in our proposed Code of Conduct below.
(One outside observer commented to us “The greatest danger to the flora and fauna of
Richmond Park is traffic pollution”.)
“They’re endangering themselves”
More so than drivers, cyclists take on an additional degree of insecurity when they jump
on their two wheeled self propelled machines. They do so knowingly, and appreciate
the well meaning concerns of non­cyclists. However, they have chosen a mode of
transport and/or means of exercise that they enjoy. They understand their own
limitations just as much as car drivers understand theirs.
“They don’t pay road tax”
The vast majority of cyclists do because they drive cars and motorcycles, but the
argument is utterly irrelevant, since all public highways are paid for from general
taxation. (Besides, in Zac Goldsmith’s recent survey, 84% of cyclists also owned a
motor vehicle, which is higher than the 75% ownership of motor vehicles across
Richmond Borough). And even more so since, if the park is a private road, its upkeep is
paid for by The Royal Parks.
“More enforcement is needed in the park”
Absolutely. This would address a number of the issues­ so long as enforcement is
even­handedly applied to all road users and the number of warnings given reflect the
level of road use and abuse by each user group.
“We can’t share a cycle path / cycle way because it’ll
endanger children”
A well­designed facility needs to take into account the expected volumes of traffic. Any
new cycle route round the park needs to be built to support the actual expected usage,
rather than to be a more usual “We’ll do as little as we can get away with” approach.
This appears to have been the approach in the design and use off The Tamsin Trail.
It’s worth observing that horse­riding has its own trails which it are not expected to be
shared with anyone else, but perhaps could be.

5. “We will lose the right to the road if we take a cycle
path/cycleway”
This is highly unlikely since it would require a change in the law. In any case, it
pre­supposes The Royal Parks would build a facility wide and smooth enough to attract
most road cyclists off the higher quality open road.
“They ride two abreast”
Many park drivers don’t seem to understand that this is legal as enshrined in The
Highway Code ­ Rule 66.
“They undertake cars”
Most cyclists are aware of the rules around this. Undertaking vehicles that are moving at
anything around the speed limit is distinctly unwise. Cyclists should undertake vehicles
only if moving at a slow pace in traffic and when safe to do so. Preferably they should
wait until there’s space to overtake.
“They shout at us”
To make themselves heard, cyclists sometimes have to raise their voices when warning
one another of hazards or giving directions – especially when riding in groups.
Commonly used hand signals are preferred to be used, but sometimes only a raised
voice will do. Do not assume they are shouting at you.
“Why don’t they cycle elsewhere instead?”
Richmond Park is far safer to ride in than almost any road we can think of – even
outside the M25. There are brilliant sight lines, no HGVs or buses, few junctions and
relatively slow moving vehicles with motorists who largely respect cyclists. Traffic at
weekends can be a bugbear – which does lead to some road users taking unnecessary
risks endangering primarily cyclists.
“What about those London Dynamos?
Every Saturday morning, London Dynamo meet at Pen Ponds Car Park for a
marshalled club ride finishing at around 10am (10.30am in winter) at Roehampton Gate
Cafe. After a member “safety and respect” briefing and a welcome to newcomers,
groups of 8 ride 4 laps of the park anti­clockwise. The club insist on members wearing
club­kit to make them even more conscious of their responsibility to ride considerately

6. and respectfully, and to make their members conspicuous for the authorities and visitors
alike to hold them to account.
“They whizz along not wearing helmet / hi viz / lights /
etc.”
The law is clear about this, as is The Highway Code. It is your personal decision around
the use of helmets and hi­visibility clothing, whilst lights are obviously mandatory at
night. Your bike should be sold with a bell, but that doesn’t mean you have to have one
fitted. May be the law should be changed to include the fitting of a bell.
QUESTIONS WE WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT
● What data does The Royal Parks have on value different groups bring to the
park? i.e. how does it measure the economic benefits of various groups visiting
and using the park versus the costs their visit entails?
● What data does The Royal Parks have on traffic volumes and how they have
changed? This includes people arriving by all modes, as well as how those
modes use the park.
● What about incidents in the park? Car, cyclist, pedestrian, other? Apart from
publicly available STATS19 data and newspaper reports, there’s little available
information. What data does The Royal Parks and the Metropolitan Police hold or
gather?
● What is the economic impact to the park of restricting through traffic? Has any
assessment been done of this?
Our Proposals
1. Create Separate Facilities for Cycling
The present road is insufficient for the volumes of traffic which use it. Road cycle usage
in Richmond Park exceeds 70% at peak times*. Based on standards used in the

7. Netherlands, proposed by London Cycling, and partly instantiated in the new London
Cycle Design Standards, Richmond Park needs a dedicated cycleway which is fit for the
levels of cycling traffic in the park.
*Friends of Richmond Park traffic survey on Saturday 29th
March 2014
2. Create Pedestrian Priority Zones
Create pedestrian priority zones with zebra crossings adjacent to all four roadside car
parks where pedestrian crossing is most prevalent. Whilst we believe pedestrians and
horse­riders should have priority wherever they seek to cross the road in Richmond
Park, road users often assume the rules of the open road apply i.e. pedestrians wait for
a safe gap in traffic before crossing, or they should go to a zebra crossing. See 5 below
to help educate and persuade road users to give way to pedestrians and horse­riders in
Richmond Park.
3. Introduce Road Charging
Proven in Central London, and capable of being extended to Richmond Park, road
charging would reduce through traffic, (presently estimated at around 80% of all traffic)
freeing up road space for genuine visitors. Drivers who enter and leave the park within
say 20 minutes would pay to do so. Revenues would cover establishment and running
costs with an easily achievable surplus for reinvesting in The Royal Parks. The
surrounding roads can accommodate the diverted through­traffic as proven when the
park gates are opened late and closed early during the darker months. There are
significant additional benefits of reduced pollution benefitting both wildlife and visitors.
4. Install Width Restricting Rising Bollards
Install width restricting rising bollards to make vehicular access possible but precarious.
This has been rolled out in a number of London Boroughs. Rising bollards would be
engineered to drop to permit commercial vehicle access. Like road charging, this would
deter through traffic, reduce pollution, and free up valuable road space for genuine
visitors.
5. Produce a Road Users Code of Conduct
Our group invite The Royal Parks and the Metropolitan Police to develop with us, a
code of conduct for all road users in Richmond Park. We believe a leaflet called “On
the Road in Richmond Park” endorsed by the Metropolitan Police and The Royal Parks
could be a useful basis.

8.
Contacts
For further information about this paper and our group, please contact Tim Lennon,
Communications Coordinator of Richmond Cycling Campaign – info@richmondlcc.co.uk