You are reading a single comment by @NotThamesWater and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
My theory is that the majority of hassle in the park comes from
Different model use in shared spaces:
- People on bicycles and people in cars, on the roadway
- People on foot and people on bicycles, on the Tamsin trail
The default, as ever, is that it is the people on bicycles that are the problem, whereas the truth is probably closer to it being the people that are the problem, irrespective of how they move around.
- People on bicycles and people in cars, on the roadway
NotThamesWater-
It's weird, because if you're walking around Richmond Park generally, you're not going to notice how much traffic there is on the road - the place is pretty big and the speedy cyclists perceived to be the problem are only interested in doing laps, so they stick to the Park's main road. So aside from the moment your average pedestrian wishes to cross the road into the park's interior, how is the amount of traffic even an issue?
The_Kindness_of_Trees
It's human nature to spread out and use up as much space as possible, especially if it's a novelty that you can walk 'where the cars used to go'. I agree with @will_s in that banning cars completely would make it far worse for cyclists wishing to do laps on the road.
My theory is that the majority of hassle in the park comes from motorists who are using it as a short cut to get from A to B and they're annoyed at being 'held up' by cyclists.
The majority of people who have parked up and wandered around (walkers, runners, cyclists, twitcher-botherers, etc) have less of a sense of urgency to get through the park when arriving/leaving (there are, of course, exceptions).
One of the best ideas I can think of is to have some system of tickets or ANPR cameras and barriers at each gate that charge a small fee for exit except:
This allows free use of the park but charges for people using it as a cut through.