Speed limit signs on Clapham Common

[sigod]

I can indeed confirm there was a man and a woman with a speed gun and clipboard stationed halfway down the path last week (like a number of people here, it's part of my regular commute route).  
 
Over and above the notion that (during the summer months at least), the path is regularly crossed by walkers, children, pets, etc, I never really hack it along there. 8mph can easily be achived and exceeded on that patch of path but one wonders how such a speed limit can be enforced without some kind of permanent presence.
 
That said, most of the cyclists I see keep to a respectable speed there so I can't understand the need. It's also worth noting that for every fool out of the saddle, with their head down tickling the 20+mph mark, there is an equally stupid pedestrian determined to walk along the cycle route when there is a perfectly good pedestrian path less than 5 yards away that runs parallel. *cue evil stares all around*

[Regulator]

But if the cycle path is a cycle path (which itself has a legal definition) then it's not a road and the RTA doesn't apply.

Where might I find a legal definition of a cycle path?

Section 329(1) of the Highways Act 1980 (where the wording is a 'cycle track').

Cycle tracks can be made by way of converting part of an existing footpath, footway or highway, or by constructing from new.

Cycle tracks on existing or new footpaths and footways tend to be referred to as 'cycle paths'.  Cycle tracks on highways tend to be referred to as 'cycle lanes'.

[Access Legal Guy]

In my opinion the term cycle path is very ambiguous, has no clear definition and has probably made it's way to the UK via some other English speaking country.

'cycle paths' tend to try and describe one or other, or even a mixture of a cycle lane or a cycle track.

Cycle lanes form part of the road.

Cycle tracks are a way constituting or comprised in a highway, being a way over which the public have the following, but no other, rights of way; that is to say, a right of way on pedal cycles (other than pedal cycles which are motor vehicles within the meaning of the Road Traffic Act 1972) with or without a right of way on foot [Section 329(1) Highways Act 1980]. The words in brackets were inserted by section 1 of the Cycle Tracks Act 1984. Cycle tracks may be created through conversion of a footway, footpath or newly constructed road.

[alexb]

Thanks for the replies.

On that basis it looks as though none of the most likely charges could be applied.
The first two apply specifically to offences committed on a road.
The latter requires some poor soul to be hurt.

I'm not, by the way, doing this in order to plan to speed along the bike path at ludicrous speeds, it's more a matter of a) being in a position to argue that the wrong law is being applied and therefore I can't be guilty of committing an offence and I can therefore decide not to give my name and details and b) just to see what any official decides to give as any official reason to bring me to a halt.

Last summer we were being told we could be charged with "cycling without due care and attention" which is a load of cock becuase it's a made up charge and doesn't exist in law.

[Access Legal Guy]

The probable way that they will try and get you is by the implementation of a traffic regulation order. I think that the penalty for breaking such an order is by way of a penalty notice, but very much dependant on the order itself.

TRO's are what make cycling 'off road' a legal minefield.

[rogerzilla]

Presumably though if you exceed 20mph then they have you!

Question is, are they legal for use against cyclists?

Pretty unlikely, since the spokes at the top of the wheel present a large radar target moving at almost twice the speed of the bike.

[Greenbank]

Yes, ridiculously slow, you would be overtaken by the average jogger.

8mph is a long way from the "average jogger". That's 3h15 marathon pace!

Set a running machine to 8mph (or 12kph) and trying jogging.

[Jeremy Parker]

The government talks about minimum cycling speeds in Local Transport Note 2/08 "Cycle Infrastructure Design", published by the Department for Transport - it's on the web somewhere.

In section 2.2, Dynamic Envelope" LTN2/08 says

"At low speeds, cyclists are prone to wobble and deviate from a straight line.  For most cyclists, a speed of 7 mph (11km/h) is required to ride comfortably in a straight line without a conscious effort to maintan balance."

So, as well as being sure to stay below 8mph, you had better stay above 7 mph

[hellymedic]

ce."

So, as well as being sure to stay below 8mph, you had better stay above 7 mph

 

[alexb]

The government talks about minimum cycling speeds in Local Transport Note 2/08 "Cycle Infrastructure Design", published by the Department for Transport - it's on the web somewhere.

In section 2.2, Dynamic Envelope" LTN2/08 says

"At low speeds, cyclists are prone to wobble and deviate from a straight line.  For most cyclists, a speed of 7 mph (11km/h) is required to ride comfortably in a straight line without a conscious effort to maintan balance."

So, as well as being sure to stay below 8mph, you had better stay above 7 mph

Thanks for that. Query sent to Lambeth parks.
The source you quote is here by the way: http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tpm/ltnotes/ltn208.pdf

My bet is that they'll say that 8mph is sufficient since it's above the govt minimum guidelines.

[style over speed]

I can indeed confirm there was a man and a woman with a speed gun and clipboard stationed halfway down the path last week (like a number of people here, it's part of my regular commute route).  
 

They were probably from the anti cycling "friends" of clapham common club... I've felt like ripping down those signs every time I've passed them 

[gordon taylor]

I'm slightly worried about the tone of this thread.

Is there a view that cyclists are (or should be) untouchable and at liberty to cycle across the park however they like? I'd guess that high speed cyclists have caused a problem to other park users and the managers are trying to do something about it.

There's some similarity to the "I know my rights" anti-20mph zone motorists and green lane wreckers IMHO.

[alexb]

I've always ridden across the Common at sensible speeds. Faster when it's empty asnd at walking pace when the really little ones are about. I'm curteous and polite, but I hate being pulled up by the Parks Police and quoted bullshit made up laws, which is what they did last year.
On that occasion on a bright sunny half-term morning I was the only cyclist on the path and doing about 20kph when I was stopped. We had a friendly chat, but it did wind me up becuase I'd just been squeezed into the fence by some bully boy in an X5 on Windmill Drive.

[origamist]

The government talks about minimum cycling speeds in Local Transport Note 2/08 "Cycle Infrastructure Design", published by the Department for Transport - it's on the web somewhere.

In section 2.2, Dynamic Envelope" LTN2/08 says

"At low speeds, cyclists are prone to wobble and deviate from a straight line.  For most cyclists, a speed of 7 mph (11km/h) is required to ride comfortably in a straight line without a conscious effort to maintan balance."

So, as well as being sure to stay below 8mph, you had better stay above 7 mph

I made this very point about 18 months or so ago. I like to think it had an effect as it's now 8mph and not the 5mph that was originally mooted.

@Alex - I'm still waiting for a reply from an email sent last week. I suspect we will now both get cut and paste jobs, but I'll post the reply from Lambeth when it hits my inbox.

[Greenbank]

"At low speeds, cyclists are prone to wobble and deviate from a straight line.  For most cyclists, a speed of 7 mph (11km/h) is required to ride comfortably in a straight line without a conscious effort to maintan balance."

The problem with that is that the reply will come back along the lines of:-

"Thank you, this proves that it is easy for the majority of cyclists to limit themselves to speeds under 8mph by just riding as slowly as possible without needing to consciously maintain balance. We will add this as further weight towards an 8mph limit for bicycles on the cycle paths on the common."

[ScumOfTheRoad]

Re. 5mph, you often see 5mph signs in private car parks, underground car parks etc.
I seriously doubt if anyone really rolls a car along at less than 5mph, they're generally taken
to mean "dead slow". And you don't see officious security guards standign around with radar guns.
There are industrial sites where the securoty people do have radar guns, and will give you a ticking off, I agree.

My point is that these 5mph signs have very little legal backing, and are treated as advice by most people.
Sadly the chance to "enforce" an 8mph limit on a common will be joyfully siezed upon by pompus types.

[Jurek]

..... pompus types.

Am I correct in thinking that it's only a fully uniformed police officer you have to obey, when asked to stop?

[clarion]

The Met would suggest that it is proportionate to assault anyone who tries to delay you in your journey, even if you may have been guilty of an offence

Or does that only work for cabbies?

[alexb]

..... pompus types.

Am I correct in thinking that it's only a fully uniformed police officer you have to obey, when asked to stop?

I've seen that quoted on a website elsewhere as well. Don't forget that Parks Policing is now handled by the Metropolitan Police though (Royal Parks have their own Police though IIRC).

[Greenbank]

I've seen that quoted on a website elsewhere as well. Don't forget that Parks Policing is now handled by the Metropolitan Police though (Royal Parks have their own Police though IIRC).

I think you've got that the other way round.

Royal Parks are now policed by the Met: Policing the Royal Parks - keeping you safe in the Royal Parks

For non-Royal parks it'll be local Parks Police employed by the council as part of the local police force.

[rogerzilla]

I'm slightly worried about the tone of this thread.

Is there a view that cyclists are (or should be) untouchable and at liberty to cycle across the park however they like? I'd guess that high speed cyclists have caused a problem to other park users and the managers are trying to do something about it.

There's some similarity to the "I know my rights" anti-20mph zone motorists and green lane wreckers IMHO.

I know where you're coming from, but 8mph is silly.  15mph might be more reasonable; we're not talking about 1.5 tons of metal that can mow down other road users without any personal risk to its driver, but a cyclist who stands to lose as much as whomever he hits.

[clarion]

Parks Police are very evident, even driving across grassy areas on some parks/commons.  I saw they have a Dog Unit.  Why on earth do Parks Police need a Dog Unit?

[Access Legal Guy]

It's a status thing!

[Biggsy]

I suppose it's too complicated to impose a speed limit just when cyclists are within a certain distance of pedestrians.  That's what is actually needed because too many cyclists don't account for the possibility of a ped promptly popping perpendicularly to avoid a pooch poop. (I do apologise).  Then 15 or even 8mph can still be too fast on a narrowish path.

[Jurek]

Why on earth do Parks Police need a Dog Unit?

To make sure that dogs do not get up to no good.