Richmond Park = Full of tossers

By being aerodynamic as frick frack diddly dack patty wack.

WAC Goldsmith

ftfy

@edscoble
@BareNecessities

It also helps if you have a lot of potential energy to convert into kinetic energy on the way down the hill. I'll be going to greggs for lunch to work on this aspect.

Already winning in that respect.

Bring on the free speed!

I don't think weight make that much of a difference, apart from aerodynamic drag.

Though I'd like to believe it does.

Someone needs to get a speeding ticket for cycling too fast and then have the balls (and money) to challenge it to see if the law really does limit cyclists to 20mph.

Speed limits within Royal Parks do not apply to bicycles: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/1194/regulation/1/made

In these Regulations– “vehicle” means a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on a road.

best that any regular RP riders get themselves in their to defend their right to paaaaaarty

Doesn't @dancing james live within the constituency that is Zac Goldsmith's?

Maybe we should just send him along to the meeting.

Doesn't @dancing james live within the constituency that is Zac Goldsmith's?

Maybe we should just send him along to the meeting.

For the lolz

The drugs might help though.

Bring on the free speed!

In these Regulations– “vehicle” means a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on a road.

Which is why I linked to: http://road.cc/content/news/95155-are-police-fining-speeding-cyclists-richmond-park-exceeding-their-authority

"vehicle” means a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on a road."
Surely, we said, that’s the exact definition of a motor vehicle so the speed limits brought in by that amendment can’t apply to bikes?
But no, said Ben, because there’s another amendment.
The definition you refer to was revoked by The Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces (Amendment) (No.2) etc. Regulations 2010, which stated the following:

1. Regulations 1(2) and 5 to 8 of The Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces (Amendment) etc Regulations 2010(1) are revoked
   
   

As a result, where the Royal Parks regulations refer to a vehicle the defined legal interpretation includes bicycles.

Yes, it's an amendment to an amendment, but that's the way the law works, with newer bits replacing older bits and the whole creaking edifice keeping lawyers in jobs.

The article goes on to discuss it further even getting Dr Hutch to cast his legal eye over it.

Always ride down hill.

The solution, as we all know, is to concrete over Richmond Park.

This would mean that there is #spaceforcycling whilst allowing anyone to take any route they wanted between any two parts of the park.

Both car drivers and cyclists can see the benefits in this.

I nominate DJ to attend this meeting

Another solution, would be to sell off part of the park for property development, and put a requirement on the developers that they increase the number of lanes of the carriageways to accommodate the increase in traffic.

I reckon 1/3 of the park for 100 affordable mansion houses should allow for a dual-carriageway to be laid over the existing road.

No, just remove the roads and re-forest it.

That's what I thought. I don't think they know what crowd sourcing means. Sounds good though. Catchy.

It's like kick starting.

Personally, I think a zoo would be good. Or an ice rink.

Last time I came up behind a police car in RP, he waved me through on the downhill section...

Those deer a fucking annoying also. They should deffo get some lights.

At least High-vis for the deer

@TommyEss

Last time I came up behind a police car in RP, he waved me through on the downhill section...

Urgh, I fucking Hate it when those pigs tell us what to do!

At least High-vis for the deer

"Hind-vis"

ChartROEse