Simply put, if you think "“vehicle” means a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on a road." applies to a bicycle (as Europe does) then the 20mph limit applies to cyclists. If you think "mechanically propelled" applies just to motor vehicles then it doesn't.
Prior to 2010 the original law simply stated "vehicle" which would have, unambiguously, covered bicycles too. But it was only in 2004 when the speed limit, for all "vehicles" was reduced to 20mph in RP that it really became a problem for cyclists (30mph is easy downhill but fast people average 20mph+ for an entire lap).
The fact that cyclists are being done for 20mph+ speeding in RP means that the plod do believe that the existing regulations also apply to cycles.
You're welcome to have a conflicting opinion of the wording or meaning of the law, but that isn't going to stop you getting pulled and ticketed if the plod are there with a speed camera.
If you do get pulled for 20mph+ in RP and get ticketed, and you truly believe the law doesn't apply to cycles, then feel free to challenge it by taking it to court and get a ruling and, ideally, create a precedent.
As "blondwig" says in the comments of the page you linked to:
"
So it seems that the point is an open one. It would be possible to challenge a speeding fine given to a cyclist in one of the parks on this ground, but I don’t think it’s possible to say with any confidence that the challenge would succeed – i.e. that a bicycle isn’t a vehicle under the RPR (so that the speed limits *don’t *apply).
"
"driven or ridden" in the regulations is a key phrase; in most other legislation a motorbike is still "driven" so the "ridden" must be there to mean something.
Indeed, since the 2010 Amendment to the Royal Parks Regulations it's a bit tricky.
This thread on the CTC forum has more info:-
http://forum.ctc.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=57207&sid=cf5407f0617e575bb2e056e5ae16c9b0
Simply put, if you think "“vehicle” means a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on a road." applies to a bicycle (as Europe does) then the 20mph limit applies to cyclists. If you think "mechanically propelled" applies just to motor vehicles then it doesn't.
Prior to 2010 the original law simply stated "vehicle" which would have, unambiguously, covered bicycles too. But it was only in 2004 when the speed limit, for all "vehicles" was reduced to 20mph in RP that it really became a problem for cyclists (30mph is easy downhill but fast people average 20mph+ for an entire lap).
The fact that cyclists are being done for 20mph+ speeding in RP means that the plod do believe that the existing regulations also apply to cycles.
You're welcome to have a conflicting opinion of the wording or meaning of the law, but that isn't going to stop you getting pulled and ticketed if the plod are there with a speed camera.
If you do get pulled for 20mph+ in RP and get ticketed, and you truly believe the law doesn't apply to cycles, then feel free to challenge it by taking it to court and get a ruling and, ideally, create a precedent.
As "blondwig" says in the comments of the page you linked to:
"
So it seems that the point is an open one. It would be possible to challenge a speeding fine given to a cyclist in one of the parks on this ground, but I don’t think it’s possible to say with any confidence that the challenge would succeed – i.e. that a bicycle isn’t a vehicle under the RPR (so that the speed limits *don’t *apply).
"
"driven or ridden" in the regulations is a key phrase; in most other legislation a motorbike is still "driven" so the "ridden" must be there to mean something.
"Good luck..."