London Fixed-gear and Single-speed

Originally Posted by a lawyer

Just off the top of my head, as I don't have immediate access to an updated version of the Road Traffic Act 1988, I'd call your attention to section 29:

It's arguable that a group of 60 or more cyclists cycling together would be failing to have reasonable consideration for other persons using the road. If it were Scotland, you'd face a host of common law offences too, from breach of the peace to mobbing. I can't comment on what the English equivalents would be though. You could also have section 163(2) and (3): a person riding a cycle on a road must stop if required to do so by a constable in uniform, and commits an offence if he does not do so.

More interestingly, I thought there might be Park byelaws but it transpires that Richmond Park is a Royal Park and so it's regulated by secondary legislation instead, which is helpful as it means HMSO publishes the Regulations: The Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces Regulations 1997. They were amended in 2004 to reduce the speed limit in Richmond Park to 20 mph.

I call your attention to Regulation 3 (acts prohibited in the park), in particular:

• Reg. 3(1) (intentionally or recklessly interfering with the safety, comfort or convenience of any person using a Park in accordance with these Regulations)
• Reg. 3(9) (failing to comply with any direction for the regulation or control of... (a) horses or pedal cycles... given by a constable or by a notice exhibited by order of the Secretary of State)
• Reg. 3(10) (using any pedal cycle... in any manner that endangers or is likely to endanger any person)
• Reg. 3(16) (failing to comply with a reasonable direction given by a constable to leave a Park or any part thereof)

Regulation 3(9) is a constable's authority under the law to give directions for the regulation or control of pedal cycles. Compare this with regulation 3(16) which has to be a reasonable direction. Interestingly, the Regulations only give power to demand your name and address (reg. 5), so the police must presumably be intending to rely on sections 29 and 163 of the Road Traffic Act which allow arrest if you fail to supply that information, if I remember correctly.

On balance, I'd say the facts you described give rise to potential breaches of section 29 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, as well as the general regulation 3(1) and the more specific regulations 3(9) and (10) of the The Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces Regulations 1997, with potentially regulation 3(16) thrown in for good measure.

Breach of the RTA are punished under the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988: Schedule 1 lays out the maxima, but the relevant ones are section 29 offences (level 1 i.e. £200) and section 163 offences (level 3 i.e. £1,000). I was struggling to find out how breaches of the Royal Parks Regulations were punished, but it's done under the Parks Regulation Act 1872 and the Parks Regulation (Amendment) Act 1926, section 2(1) of which provides that contravening the Regulations is an offence against the 1872 Act and is punishable by a level 1 (£200) fine.

I thought they'd moved the fines levels up, but I can't see anything to show this. Anyway, have fun...! The 'just off the top of my head' bit is now wrong, as I had to log in to various things to pull up the pre-1987 legislation.

Originally Posted by a lawyer

RTA 1988 s. 30(1) covers cycling while under the influence of drink or drugs. It provides that:

which is a rather less stringent test than motorists having to have less than a certain proportion of alcohol in blood. There's always still the general offences of dangerous cycling and careless and inconsiderate cycling (ss. 28 and 29) too. I've not been able to find any reported cases of prosecutions for cycling while under the influence, but the odds are that they wouldn't make it into the law reports anyway.

Originally Posted by Velocio

Any other legal clarifications that we know to these kind of assumptions/questions?

Originally Posted by tynan

One other royal park thing . . . .

The Boardwalk in Regents is open to cyclists (as from August last year/08) until early 2010.

Little advertised, many won't know.

Originally Posted by not4sale

What happens at the end of early 2010 then ?

Originally Posted by tynan

Yeah, the fine is £300 now (and not the £200 set in 1988) - the money (the fine) goes directly to the coffers of the Queen - plus you will need to pay the court costs if (when) you lose.

The royal family are, of course, cunts and should, in the nature of their remit, give the parks over to the tide of need of the day.

Originally Posted by tynan

One other royal park thing . . . .

The Boardwalk in Regents is open to cyclists (as from August last year/08) until early 2010.

Little advertised, many won't know.

Originally Posted by Clever Pun

I was under the impression there isn't a speed limit for cyclists unless it is specifically mentioned. a blanket 20mph is only motorised vehicles no?

Originally Posted by tynan

One other royal park thing . . . .

The Boardwalk in Regents is open to cyclists (as from August last year/08) until early 2010.

Little advertised, many won't know.

Originally Posted by fudge

Does anyone know which part of the RTRA or RTA (or even Highway Code) refers to giving way / priority to pedestrians?

Specifically, is there anything that relates to giving way on a piece of road that has no crossing, and is not a turning?

Originally Posted by fudge

Thanks for that. Am I right in thinking that there is not general requirement to give way, other than where specified?

Originally Posted by PinkGottiMobbs

I read in the LCC magazine last night that traffic wardens will now be able to get the police to remove bikes looked up to street furnitre. Is this correct?

Originally Posted by charlie_lcc

No, it's not going to happen. We had a great victory in the House of Lords committee. They threw out 20% of the whole bill thanks to the work of some volunteer legal experts. Story here:
http://www.lcc.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=1299
Picture shows Lucy's new Veloheld from Velorution.

Originally Posted by mashton

BMMF has a funny story about dropping a cycle-copper on the boardwalk.

That is all.

Originally Posted by charlie_lcc

Pedestrians have priority at zebra crossings, at light controlled crossings if they began crossing during a green phase and at road junctions when they are going in the direction of the major road.
If you hit or almost hit a pedestrian while cycling on a road you could be prosecuted for dangerous or reckless cycling, or manslaughter. Under common law pedestrians have the right to use the queen's highway except where there is a prohibition (Motorways, tunnels etc). It is always a good idea not to run into pedestrians, especially the deaf/blind ones who are texting while plugged into an ipod while crossing the road.

****
In the Royal Parks the 20mph speed limits apply to cyclists, soon they will have the power to issue fixed penalty notices, that means you are more likely to be done but you will have a lower fine and will not have to pay court costs.

Originally Posted by TheBrick(Tommy)

Some interesting example in this case law thread, worth reading if just to see the points of vulnerability.

http://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=39282.0

Originally Posted by hippy

Originally Posted by hippy

I haven't been reading much MT (sorry Bill) but this caught my eye. I'm glad there's justice in the world every now and then.

Originally Posted by Mrlemon

I especially liked the typo at the end.

Great article Billiam!

Originally Posted by Buffalo Bill

:-) it's not compulsory! Glad everyone liked it, I heard the story and thought it should get a much wider airing.