Forum Topic

cyclists

Front page of Forum, Richmond Park.

Barbara Stevens ● 1131d33 Comments

That perhaps falls within the saying:  "Little knowledge is a dangerous thing."

Ivonne Holliday ● 1131d

Obviously the male motorists are too fearful even to report being harassed.

David Ainsworth ● 1131d

Shocking behaviour by those cyclists who clearly think they own the road and the park and are self-entitled enough to try and police it themselves through intimidating behaviour. Absolute losers.

Jo Amadi ● 1131d

Waiting for Richard to ride past on his hobby horse.Bad cyclists, verbal attacks on lone females which hobby horse will he ride on this one?

Andy Pike ● 1130d

Perhaps they have attacked his wife Jane, who drives up there just to go walkies.

Barbara Stevens ● 1130d

Every form of transport has its idiots, cycling is no different in that regard. Only a fool would think that all cyclists were completely virtuous.It's a shame that a small minority of people spoil things for the majority, but that seems to be the way in lots of areas of life.

John Kettlekey ● 1130d

How tedious it is to have to explain, yet again, that I deplore bad behaviour by cyclists, as by all road users. But it seems the hard of understanding need, one more time, to have it spelled out to them. Got it yet, Andy?

Richard Carter ● 1130d

"On Wednesday, the Royal Parks Police account posted on X that it had stopped a driver doing 58mph on Sawyers Hill, a 20mph zone. It wrote: "The driver, who already had 6 points on his licence, was stopped and reported.""Poor chap was probably driving so fast to make sure no cyclist banged on his car roof, not realising that as a man, not a "lone female", they wouldn't dare to harass him. That must be it.

David Ainsworth ● 1130d

I did not see this (well, I am not a fan of Twitter or X) but that speeding is beyond appalling and unforgivable.  Being very rude, what a brainless prat!!!! I do, however, find your last comment not very nice.  The reference to "lone female" is misplaced and mocking the article on PutneySW15.  I really wish EVERYBODY understood that we are all allowed to enjoy Richmond Park, be it by driving or cycling.  Nobody, but nobody, has the exclusivity of the Park.  And we should all respect each other.  And by that I mean everybody!

Ivonne Holliday ● 1130d

"The reference to "lone female" is misplaced and mocking the article on PutneySW15."Surely the cyclists' behaviour is equally wrong whether the motorist is male or female?

David Ainsworth ● 1130d

Ivonne have you actually read the front page. Only it is all on there.

Barbara Stevens ● 1130d

Seems female drivers on their own or with children are being targeted targeted.

Barbara Stevens ● 1130d

This aggressive male behaviour needs to be called out for what it is. It is doubtful if they would have behaved the same if the car was driven by a large male.This is basically no different to gang culture where they see the park as their turf.Unlike other pro-cycling countries the UK seems to embrace the idea that cyclists should follow zero rules.We need to get more people walking and cycling and using public transport. To do that we need to make transport safe. Unfortunately we have a long way to go with no political party offering solutions.

Ed Robinson ● 1130d

"This aggressive male behaviour needs to be called out for what it is. It is doubtful if they would have behaved the same if the car was driven by a large male."Really? Do you believe that aggressive cyclists don't attack cars driven by male drivers? Do you also believe that aggressive male motorists only attack female cyclists? Do you think that cyclists can always notice the sex of a car driver? Perhaps there are fewer male drivers going to the school and the stables. Or perhaps they do not report the attack. The attackers may be ignorant thugs, but that does not prove that they must also be sexist cowards.

David Ainsworth ● 1130d

The report makes clear that they were being attacked solely for being in a car.Do aggressive male cyclist go around attacking males for just being in a vehicle? Not that I have seen. Have you?

Ed Robinson ● 1130d

"The report makes clear that they were being attacked solely for being in a car.""solely for being in a car"And yet you wrote previously:-"It is doubtful if they would have behaved the same if the car was driven by a large male."Anyway, perhaps you can point me to where "the report makes clear that they were being attacked solely for being in a car."

David Ainsworth ● 1130d

David that's what the article is about the women being in a car. It's not a one off, the Police have been notified. Why would would a man thump a woman on the head and spray water over her. Obviously she was in a car they don't think these women should be allowed down certain roads in the park.

Barbara Stevens ● 1130d

Barbara the actions of these men are despicable. But you should note that no one has been banged on the head or had water sprayed on their person. You do tend to stretch a point into inaccuracy at times.The report says cyclists have banged on the cars and sprayed water on the cars.

Andy Pike ● 1130d

"Why would would a man thump a woman on the head and spray water over her."Show me the text where it says that, please."Obviously she was in a car they don't think these women should be allowed down certain roads in the park."They don't think any motorists should be allowed down certain roads in the park at the weekend. But some motorists are given permits to do so. These cyclists are mistaken in their understanding and have no right to enforce the regulations.

David Ainsworth ● 1130d

As the Parks Police have said, "This behaviour is not acceptable and has caused upset, anxiety and fear," and no one here would disagree with that. But let's put it in perspective: the police are also reported in the piece on the front page as saying that "We have had *several* [my emphasis] reports from female motorists..." So, deplorable though this behaviour is, it doesn't exactly appear to be happening on a large scale; perhaps it's time to tone down the outrage a little.

Richard Carter ● 1130d

Andy, I was making a point. You should know by now I come out with stupid things.

Barbara Stevens ● 1130d

I think it is important to point out the following from the article:Title:  Incorrectly believe permit holders not allowed to use closed roads2nd and 3rd paragraphs:"Although some roads in the park are closed to general traffic, certain vehicles are authorised to use them – including park staff, volunteers, students, residents and service vehicles. The police said the alleged incidents followed male cyclists incorrectly believing the female drivers were not allowed to travel on the roads.Royal Parks Police tweeted on 2 October, “We have had several reports from female motorists who are authorised to drive on the closed roads in Richmond Park of abuse and harassment, including banging on the vehicle and throwing water over the car, by male cyclists, as they believe incorrectly that they are not authorised."I do not think the article said at any point the behaviour was widespread in the whole of the Park; the word "several" can be interpreted as a few or a sufficient number of reports to make it concerning.  The behaviour pattern was shown by male cyclists when female drivers were using closed roads but having authorisation to do so. Whether male drivers suffered the same outbursts, I do not know. It is important to note that some people do have the authorization to use closed roads, be they park staff, volunteers, students, residents and service vehicles.It is obviously a point that not many people know and turn to abuse or violence when they believe somebody else is at fault.  Not very good.

Ivonne Holliday ● 1129d

Problems seem to occur when motorists and cyclists share the same road. But there is a cycle path in Richmond Park. Why don’t cyclists use it?

Steven Rose ● 1129d

"But there is a cycle path in Richmond Park. Why don’t cyclists use it?"They are permitted to use the road, including the weekend when motorists are not permitted to use it (with exceptions). "Problems seem to occur when motorists and cyclists share the same road."Why don't the motorists use the A3 or the Upper Richmond Road West, and avoid creating problems on the park road?

David Ainsworth ● 1129d

> Why don't the motorists use the A3 or the Upper Richmond Road West, and avoid creating problems on the park road?That argument doesn't really apply here. The people using the closed roads in the park have a permit to do so, and are doing so because they have some reason to do so. The "closed" roads are generally no through routes, so they're not trying to take a short-cut. The ballet school isn't on URR or the A3, you need to actually go into the park to drop-off or pick-up your child.The problem is the culture war that has been created between cyclists and motorists. Partly fuelled by the anti-motorist lobby (of which some cyclists are quite vehement members), but mostly fuelled by the anti-cyclist brigade who are mostly motorists.It's a shame that people can't just share the roads (and paths).If there was a greater Police presence in the park there would probably be less vigilantism. The idiots that are currently harassing people would speak to a Police officer and be told "It's ok. That car is using the roads in the park because it has a permit and a valid reason to do so. Move along now."A lack of visible enforcement leads to increased vigilantism.And, for what it's worth, the few times I did use the Tamsin trail on a bike (slowly, and with a young one in a child seat) I had several people shout at me to "Use the road! Get off the path! The path is for pedestrians!".

John Kettlekey ● 1129d

"> Why don't the motorists use the A3 or the Upper Richmond Road West, and avoid creating problems on the park road?That argument doesn't really apply here. The people using the closed roads in the park have a permit to do so, and are doing so because they have some reason to do so. The "closed" roads are generally no through routes, so they're not trying to take a short-cut. The ballet school isn't on URR or the A3, you need to actually go into the park to drop-off or pick-up your child."The argument was being applied to a general question from Mr Rose. It was a general answer, not meant to apply to the cyclist attack on cars which actually had permits."The "closed" roads are generally no through routes". Indeed but the report seemed to be based on attacks which happened on Sawyers Hill which is not normally a no through route. It runs through from Richmond Gate to Roehampton Gate, and is a closed road on the weekend only. There are alternative routes in this case, so Sawyer's Hill could stop being a through route. (I doubt that it will).

David Ainsworth ● 1129d

The path around Richmond Park is designated for both  cyclists and pedestrians. The stretch from Roehampton Gate to Richmond Gate is actually paved, making it suitable even for racing bikes. I have cycled there myself. I can’t understand why anyone would wish to risk his own safety by cycling on a narrow road which is not wide enough to accommodate a bike, a car and an oncoming car at the same time.

Steven Rose ● 1129d

> The path around Richmond Park is designated for both  cyclists and pedestrians. The stretch from Roehampton Gate to Richmond Gate is actually paved, making it suitable even for racing bikes. There's a nominal 10mph speed limit on the Tamsin trail (the actual legality of which is a contentious matter but let's pretend it applies). That's useless for the majority of people who want to ride a bike in the park. It's only really suitable for parents with small children, or adults who want to pootle gently.And why should people have to use the path when there is a perfectly good road to use? It's wider, it's a nicer surface, there are fewer pedestrians to deal with, etc.> I can’t understand why anyone would wish to risk his own safety by cycling on a narrow road which is not wide enough to accommodate a bike, a car and an oncoming car at the same time.If car drivers drove to the standards they should drive to (from their training/test and the highway code) it's about as safe as it possibly could be. The road is perfectly wide enough if cars give enough time and space when overtaking. If you're a driver and you don't understand this then consider some refresher training, or do us all a favour and consider handing your license in and stopping driving.Nothing is risk free, more people die in cars each year than on bikes but no-one applies the same fear to driving.

John Kettlekey ● 1129d

> The argument was being applied to a general question from Mr Rose. It was a general answer, not meant to apply to the cyclist attack on cars which actually had permits.I know that, but some people on here are a little hard of thinking and will probably try to throw it back in your face.> "The "closed" roads are generally no through routes". Indeed but the report seemed to be based on attacks which happened on Sawyers Hill which is not normally a no through route.Sure, but it mentions that the drivers were using closed roads and had a permit to do so, so I'd assumed it was someone using Sawyer's Hill at the weekend when it is normally "closed". I think we're saying the same thing.I remember seeing someone drive around the closed barrier at the Richmond Gate end of Sawyer's Hill last time I was in the park, but then I just assumed they were either allowed to do so (knowing that some people live/work in the park and do have access) or that they were just another entitled person who assumes the rules don't apply to them. At no point did it cross my mind to accost their vehicle for doing so. I'd leave that for the Parks Police who do, occasionally, patrol those roads.

John Kettlekey ● 1129d

I was unaware that there is a 10mph speed limit on the path. Where is this advertised?  But I was not arguing that cyclists should not be allowed on the road. I merely suggested that it is safer to stick to the designated cycle path.  In general I think that accidents and unpleasant confrontations can be avoided if motorists and cyclists are kept separate.

Steven Rose ● 1129d

The history of the Tamsin trail is interesting. It is very much designed for leisure, not for commuting and faster cyclists.  I hadn't realised it was such a recent feature of the park (https://www.frp.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/6_Final_50th_anniversary_booklet_full_copy.pdfCycle PathFor some time the creation of a new cyclepath around the Park had been underdiscussion. The Friends were keen that thepath should not be a convenient alternativeto the road for cyclists using the Park as acut-through, and proposed that it be keptindirect and as near as possible to theperimeter wall. Additionally, it was felt thatpriority should be given to pedestrians usingthe pathway, and they recommendedprohibiting mountain bikes to emphasisethis. They also advised caution with regardto any archaeological findings which mightbe damaged in laying the track over existingancient pathways. Funding for the pathcame from a significant private donation,and The Richmond Park Charitable Trust wasformed in 1993 to administer the funds andkeep them exclusively for the Park.The cycleway, called the Tamsin Trail, wasunder construction for a number of yearsand was officially opened in September1997 by celebrity Jerry Hall and PeterBeckwith, Chairman of the Trust, afterwhose daughter the Trail is named. TheFriends remained concerned that ashared path was problematic, if notdangerous. However, althoughproblems exist, the Tamsin Trail is avery successful addition to the Park.In particular, it has reduced off-trackcycling in the area it covers

Alan Sherman ● 1129d

> I was unaware that there is a 10mph speed limit on the path. Where is this advertised? There's a 10 in a red circle sign on most of the wooden posts along the trail. Otherwise it's not advertised particularly well.> In general I think that accidents and unpleasant confrontations can be avoided if motorists and cyclists are kept separate.Unfortunately there isn't the space or money to build a new road network dedicated purely to motor vehicles that goes everywhere. So they'll just have to put up with the existing motorway network (which is dedicated to motor vehicles) and continuing to cede priority to slower moving and more vulnerable road users like pedestrians and cyclists on more local roads.I take it some people think it's madness to "risk" cycling on UK's roads but the statistics show that the slight population-wide increase in risk of death at the hands of a distracted motorist is vastly outweighed by the health benefits of cycling. Completely understand if it's not for you.

John Kettlekey ● 1129d

"..outweighed by the health benefits of cycling"We need to get more people walking and cycling.We need to understand and address issues that are preventing this.It is really difficult to see a way forward in a high crime city such as London.

Ed Robinson ● 1129d