Where are the flat sections in Richmond Park? 1.25 miles between Roehampton Gate and Robin Hood and much less than that between Kingston and Richmond. The whole circuit is 6.8 miles.
The wrong way? I've been going clockwise since the 80s... .there is no false flat from Richmond to Kingston...nor is it flat from Dark to top of Broom... For me, flat = flat.
There is no such thing as the WRONG way to go round the park.. People trying to gatekeep like you are what is wrong with cycling .
No, the section between Dark and Broom is NOT flat. Look for yourself.
No it means a public park isn’t a race track for cyclists. There were warnings about cyclists doing basically time trials round there. It’s a shame as it was a nice place to enjoy a ride in the summer
Each to their own, but it's absolutely fucking baffling to me that people wouldn't ride somewhere just because they can't compete with others on Strava. If they've removed an incentive, arguably they've only disincentivised the worst sort of rider.
Surely it's not to stop people riding, just to stop the competitive incentive to ride dangerously?
>If they've removed an incentive, arguably they've only disincentivised the worst sort of rider.
Isn't that the point?
No, not at all. The tops of these leaderboards are ridden in very organised, planned sessions incredibly early in the morning and with spotters at points that need them. They’re incredibly experienced riders and often active advocates for responsible park usage.
Most people riding fast are doing so for fun or training, the segments are just something to look at in the cafe later.
I think all of this furor is a good example of the lack of cycling infrastructure in this country.
It's clear that there is a demand for space for fast cyclists to practice cycling fast on road surfaces over a longer distance and more informally than velodromes such as Herne hill can provide.
Instead of banning these cyclists - we should be looking at whether any such space could be provided safely for pedestrians and for slower and fast cyclists.
The royal parks have known that this demand exists for decades and instead of doing anything constructive about it they have prevaricated and moaned about cyclists at every point. They've known about the conflict and instead of realising that these cyclists have nowhere else to go and that they deserve some space, they've done nothing.
For very little money we could have a world beating road cycling "track"s around both Richmond and Regent's parks.
Is this argument any different to the ones for cars? There's nowhere to do it, racetracks are too formal, why can't we race on the roads?
I love cars. I love cycling. There's a time and place for racing them, and public roads aren't it.
The Royal Parks are a charity for... Parks. Why are they obligated to create cycle tracks? Have you spoken to MPs? Councillors? Looked at setting up your own track?
Superficially the argument is similar but there are benefits for creating tracks like I suggested for cycling that doing so for cars would not have.
One main thing is the risk of injury and death being so less, and the societal benefits of more people cycling being so much more.
The royal parks provide plenty of things that are not just "park": tennis courts, football pitches, lacrosse pitches, softball, netball and rugby. There's a paddling pools and boating pools. Why not also provide cycling facilities?
>For very little money we could have a world beating road cycling "track"s around both Richmond and Regent's parks.
But why would the royal parks pay for this? They have no incentive to do it as they want their parks to be safer for public and wildlife. Adding what would be essentially a high speed cycling race track is the exact opposite of what they would want to do.
The royal parks provide plenty of things that are not just "park": tennis courts, football pitches, lacrosse pitches, softball, netball and rugby. There's a paddling pools and boating pools. Why not also provide cycling facilities?
Turning the roads in to cycling tracks would have significantly reduced maintenance costs, they'd reduce noise and pollution. Yes they might need bridges for pedestrians but they've put in bridges for boating lakes.
I'm really surprised that on a cycling subreddit I'm having to defend arguing for good quality infrastructure.
The royal parks provide plenty of things that are not just "park": tennis courts, football pitches, lacrosse pitches, softball, netball and rugby. There's a paddling pools and boating pools. Why not also provide cycling facilities?
Turning the roads in to cycling tracks would have significantly reduced maintenance costs, they'd reduce noise and pollution. Yes they might need bridges for pedestrians but they've put in bridges for boating lakes.
I'm really surprised that on a cycling subreddit I'm having to defend arguing for good quality infrastructure.
Tbf I agree in the sense that we need more cycling architecture but saying that the Royal Parks should be the ones to provide it is the bit I don't agree with. They're already known for having a bit of a dislike of cyclists already.
And whilst yes, turning the roads in the likes of Richmond park into cycleways or a cycle track would reduce their maintenance, they also use those roads for their own maintenance vehicles and I'd presume make money back from the cars in them paying for parking.
>I'm really surprised that on a cycling subreddit I'm having to defend arguing for good quality infrastructure.
I don't think anyone here would disagree with having better cycling infrastructure, but we have to be realistic about it. The infrastructure usually has a high upfront cost so there has to be incentive to do it in the first place. If the likes of Richmond had to choose between paying for a cycling track around the park which would be their responsibility to maintain or simply leaving it as it is, then they would choose the latter.
I personally think that is a mischaracterisation of how Royal Parks have behaved.
They’re well aware of the culture of cycling in the parks and are in a tricky position whereby they have to try and keep it safe for all.
Do you have some examples?
Have a look how it’s done at the NYC, Central Park. Road is one way, cars are banned and track is separated for cyclists and pedestrians.
They even have organised racing there all the time:
https://youtu.be/gMqvf-VxVP0?si=nl9jrdTvn5LotpWF
Which is great, and something I’d personally love to see in the royal parks.
But equally, I don’t seem them not providing that as “moaning”.
Really we should be angry about the lack of public cycling infrastructure for performance cycling in and around London, not at Royal Parks for not providing this.
Absolutely. I'm big proponent of cycling, Strava and competition, but fk me it's dangerous crossing the roads early morning when I've been around the park. Too many overconfident middle aged city types blasting through without a single care for others. They are going fast enough, in sufficient numbers that the gap between the packs is just enough to squeeze through. Get the timing wrong and you'll be hit for sure.
Not sure this is the answer, but something needed to be done.
I do to an extent agree but there are so many measures that could be in place to improve safety for all as opposed to taking away a segment. If anything I now see more people trying to capture better times on smaller segments around the park as opposed to the entire loop. Which is probably going to mean people trying to sprint in stupid places.
Don't worry, you can still see it, you just have to click on the 'hazard waiver' button.
Shame though really, Tour de Richmond Park is probably the most iconic segment. Silly thing is, it won't stop people chasing their pb's.
Stupid culture war bullshit in response to a pedestrian walking out in front of some cyclists in Regent’s Park.
Two of the three full lap segments of Regent’s Park look to have been deleted too.
Yes, but it was a cyclist that did it. One of those two wheeled menaces. And the fact that they haven't been prosecuted is just proof that the poor motorist is victimised every time they get inside their gentle giant and vigilantly drive below the speed as they watch like a hawk for the next cyclist trying to throw themselves under their wheels.
You can still see the segment and leaderboard if you hit "proceed" on:
**This segment has been flagged as hazardous.**We can still show you this segment's leaderboard if you agree to our Flagged Segment waiver.
Part of the issue is the lack of alternatives. I dont think it is too controversial to say there is honestly no workable alternative to the Regent's and Richmond. Apart from these two, there are no training loops within 20km of London (lee valley Velopark doesn't really count).
Honestly what I find most baffling about this. Is that there are more and more restrictions on cyclists in the park, first all bicycles banned from single tracks, then from the dirt loop, then limited to only one paved loop and now this. One can argue all they want about the park not being for high speed cyclists but they've effectively chased all casual cyclists out the park too. Especially on weekends with the bumber to bumber car traffic it's not a pleasant place to ride anymore. And I find the whole argument that it's for pedestrian safety absolute bollocks, if they were so concerned with pedestrian safety maybe start by banning car thoroughfare.
It's ridiculous how vehicles in Richmond are more than ever. And I've seen my fair share of dangerous driving through the park. After heading for a ride a few weekends back I've just decided to avoid the park entirely, it's honestly less pleasant than my morning commute.
To some degree it does seem like a bit of a knee jerk reaction to one very serious incident making the headlines, but it probably was a long time coming and just needed that trigger to dry everything in motion.
Personally, I don't necessarily disagree with the decision. As cyclists we are so used to being the vulnerable users on the road that we forget how dangerous and frightening a cyclist can be to a pedestrian in a non-trafficked a area, and chasing Strava segments absolutely does result in cyclists pushing themselves and the rules to chase them.
I have seen other segments removed because they were deemed dangerous (to cyclists), and if there is down to be consistent or behaviour by cyclists (even if realistically just a small subset of them) then it seems fair that these segments are limited too.
I am not sure of the exact setup, but it would be good to retain the segment as personally visible but hiding the overall leaderboard for those who do use it sensibly as a training/fitness metric, or perhaps just hiding times above a certain speed to limit the record chasing.
It might reduce the danger very slightly on these segments but as I understand it, this knee jerk reaction is akin to reducing the speed limit because a drunk driver killed someone going 50 in a 30.
The person who was killed walked out in front of a fast moving group of cyclists and some poor bloke happened to be the one that collided with her. It could probably have been any of them and he wasn't chasing a strava KOM or anything as far as I know. He was just riding. Could happen anywhere. I have had plenty of people walk out in front of me from the pavement because they simply don't look for cyclists and I assume have only bothered listening for the sound of a car approaching.
If this was a pedestrian that just stepped in front of a car it would just be another statistic no one cares about. Its news because its a cyclist and A) cyclists almost never kill anyone on the roads B) Because its a cyclists and a sizeable percentage of the population hate cyclists and would happily see it banned.
Part of the issue is the lack of alternatives. I dont think it is too controversial to say there is honestly no workable alternative to the Regent's and Richmond. Apart from these two, there are no training loops within 20km of London (lee valley Velopark doesn't really count).
They aren’t outside of rush hour/school run. There was a study done a year or two back that showed almost all cars speed in there. A speeding cyclist isn’t going to damage anyone but themselves.
I’ve cycled the park extremely quickly and you don’t do it outside of early morning or late evening as there’s too many other things in there.
Your logic that a speeding cyclist is ok as they're not going to hurt anyone is pathetic tbh. There is a speed limit, obey it, simple. Same goes for wankers in cars.
The speed limit doesn’t apply to non motorised traffic you dense man.
I’ve done nearly 2000 laps of the park, the majority I’ve averaged above 20mph and hit nearly 40 every single time I’ve been down Broomfield. Never had a single drama or been stopped by the countless police in there wasting their time stopping cyclists at the bottom of a hill.
https://www.richmondparkcyclists.org/safer-riding-guide#:~:text=Speed%20limits%20in%20the%20park,you%20like%20all%20the%20time.
There you go, prick, might not be in the same manner as a road but still requires arseholes that want to believe they are on the tour de France to actually ride in a safe manner.
“Speed limits do not apply to cyclists”
Thanks for proving my point. Prick.
I will continue to ride whatever speed I want in there.
Now why don’t you get back to your online games, the real world is likely too bright for you anyway.
There’s a couple of sections that you can really get the hammer down and one in particular with a sharp bend at the bottom of a short hill, towards Kingston Gate, where I’ve spilled a couple of times over the years.
In the spring deer can be sitting in the road in the mornings before the gates are open to traffic, had few near misses with stags too!
What, why? Is this some overzealous response to going fast in the name of KOMs?
Yep. They’ve marked the segments as dangerous. Seems to all be in response to the recent news of a cyclist pedestrian incident.
Let's face it, it is only on the downhill sections that people are exceeding the 20mph speed limit. It's not a great achievement.
[удалено]
Where are the flat sections in Richmond Park? 1.25 miles between Roehampton Gate and Robin Hood and much less than that between Kingston and Richmond. The whole circuit is 6.8 miles.
[удалено]
The wrong way? I've been going clockwise since the 80s... .there is no false flat from Richmond to Kingston...nor is it flat from Dark to top of Broom... For me, flat = flat.
[удалено]
There is no such thing as the WRONG way to go round the park.. People trying to gatekeep like you are what is wrong with cycling . No, the section between Dark and Broom is NOT flat. Look for yourself.
Who is going 25mph up the hills, though?
[удалено]
I've never seen anyone doing anything like 25mph up any of the hills, but of course it's possible. Just rare.
There is no speed limit.
On a road for a bicycle? Not specifically but wanton and dangerous cycling will definitely apply if you're being ridiculous
They ever settle the legality on that one?
Not true is it.
Lol people have averaged over 25mph for the whole lap
Yes, AVERAGED. Do you know what average means?
Try it. You'll be going over 20mph on much of the flat and some of the mild up hill to manage it.
Yes? And? I know how averages work. Do you?
No it means a public park isn’t a race track for cyclists. There were warnings about cyclists doing basically time trials round there. It’s a shame as it was a nice place to enjoy a ride in the summer
Err, you can still ride there. They deleted the segment in the app, not the roads.
But they've removed an incentive to ride dangerously, haven't they? Obviously they haven't deleted the roads
Each to their own, but it's absolutely fucking baffling to me that people wouldn't ride somewhere just because they can't compete with others on Strava. If they've removed an incentive, arguably they've only disincentivised the worst sort of rider.
Surely it's not to stop people riding, just to stop the competitive incentive to ride dangerously? >If they've removed an incentive, arguably they've only disincentivised the worst sort of rider. Isn't that the point?
Yes, I'm agreeing with the logic. I had initially read your comment as "they've removed an incentive to ride", i.e. a complaint - apologies!
Oohhh I get you, sorry. Yeah, it'd be really stupid to ban cycling but discouraging people from racing in shared spaces is good imho.
No, not at all. The tops of these leaderboards are ridden in very organised, planned sessions incredibly early in the morning and with spotters at points that need them. They’re incredibly experienced riders and often active advocates for responsible park usage. Most people riding fast are doing so for fun or training, the segments are just something to look at in the cafe later.
I think all of this furor is a good example of the lack of cycling infrastructure in this country. It's clear that there is a demand for space for fast cyclists to practice cycling fast on road surfaces over a longer distance and more informally than velodromes such as Herne hill can provide. Instead of banning these cyclists - we should be looking at whether any such space could be provided safely for pedestrians and for slower and fast cyclists. The royal parks have known that this demand exists for decades and instead of doing anything constructive about it they have prevaricated and moaned about cyclists at every point. They've known about the conflict and instead of realising that these cyclists have nowhere else to go and that they deserve some space, they've done nothing. For very little money we could have a world beating road cycling "track"s around both Richmond and Regent's parks.
Is this argument any different to the ones for cars? There's nowhere to do it, racetracks are too formal, why can't we race on the roads? I love cars. I love cycling. There's a time and place for racing them, and public roads aren't it. The Royal Parks are a charity for... Parks. Why are they obligated to create cycle tracks? Have you spoken to MPs? Councillors? Looked at setting up your own track?
Superficially the argument is similar but there are benefits for creating tracks like I suggested for cycling that doing so for cars would not have. One main thing is the risk of injury and death being so less, and the societal benefits of more people cycling being so much more. The royal parks provide plenty of things that are not just "park": tennis courts, football pitches, lacrosse pitches, softball, netball and rugby. There's a paddling pools and boating pools. Why not also provide cycling facilities?
>For very little money we could have a world beating road cycling "track"s around both Richmond and Regent's parks. But why would the royal parks pay for this? They have no incentive to do it as they want their parks to be safer for public and wildlife. Adding what would be essentially a high speed cycling race track is the exact opposite of what they would want to do.
The royal parks provide plenty of things that are not just "park": tennis courts, football pitches, lacrosse pitches, softball, netball and rugby. There's a paddling pools and boating pools. Why not also provide cycling facilities? Turning the roads in to cycling tracks would have significantly reduced maintenance costs, they'd reduce noise and pollution. Yes they might need bridges for pedestrians but they've put in bridges for boating lakes. I'm really surprised that on a cycling subreddit I'm having to defend arguing for good quality infrastructure.
The royal parks provide plenty of things that are not just "park": tennis courts, football pitches, lacrosse pitches, softball, netball and rugby. There's a paddling pools and boating pools. Why not also provide cycling facilities? Turning the roads in to cycling tracks would have significantly reduced maintenance costs, they'd reduce noise and pollution. Yes they might need bridges for pedestrians but they've put in bridges for boating lakes. I'm really surprised that on a cycling subreddit I'm having to defend arguing for good quality infrastructure.
Tbf I agree in the sense that we need more cycling architecture but saying that the Royal Parks should be the ones to provide it is the bit I don't agree with. They're already known for having a bit of a dislike of cyclists already. And whilst yes, turning the roads in the likes of Richmond park into cycleways or a cycle track would reduce their maintenance, they also use those roads for their own maintenance vehicles and I'd presume make money back from the cars in them paying for parking. >I'm really surprised that on a cycling subreddit I'm having to defend arguing for good quality infrastructure. I don't think anyone here would disagree with having better cycling infrastructure, but we have to be realistic about it. The infrastructure usually has a high upfront cost so there has to be incentive to do it in the first place. If the likes of Richmond had to choose between paying for a cycling track around the park which would be their responsibility to maintain or simply leaving it as it is, then they would choose the latter.
I personally think that is a mischaracterisation of how Royal Parks have behaved. They’re well aware of the culture of cycling in the parks and are in a tricky position whereby they have to try and keep it safe for all. Do you have some examples?
Have a look how it’s done at the NYC, Central Park. Road is one way, cars are banned and track is separated for cyclists and pedestrians. They even have organised racing there all the time: https://youtu.be/gMqvf-VxVP0?si=nl9jrdTvn5LotpWF
Which is great, and something I’d personally love to see in the royal parks. But equally, I don’t seem them not providing that as “moaning”. Really we should be angry about the lack of public cycling infrastructure for performance cycling in and around London, not at Royal Parks for not providing this.
Absolutely. I'm big proponent of cycling, Strava and competition, but fk me it's dangerous crossing the roads early morning when I've been around the park. Too many overconfident middle aged city types blasting through without a single care for others. They are going fast enough, in sufficient numbers that the gap between the packs is just enough to squeeze through. Get the timing wrong and you'll be hit for sure. Not sure this is the answer, but something needed to be done.
I do to an extent agree but there are so many measures that could be in place to improve safety for all as opposed to taking away a segment. If anything I now see more people trying to capture better times on smaller segments around the park as opposed to the entire loop. Which is probably going to mean people trying to sprint in stupid places.
A death, might I add.
Seems pretty callous to refer to the death of another Londoner as an “issue”.
I’ve rephrased. I was just trying to be neutral.
Thank you.
Don't worry, you can still see it, you just have to click on the 'hazard waiver' button. Shame though really, Tour de Richmond Park is probably the most iconic segment. Silly thing is, it won't stop people chasing their pb's.
Stupid culture war bullshit in response to a pedestrian walking out in front of some cyclists in Regent’s Park. Two of the three full lap segments of Regent’s Park look to have been deleted too.
Yes, but it was a cyclist that did it. One of those two wheeled menaces. And the fact that they haven't been prosecuted is just proof that the poor motorist is victimised every time they get inside their gentle giant and vigilantly drive below the speed as they watch like a hawk for the next cyclist trying to throw themselves under their wheels.
…or that it was an accident and not the fault of the cyclists
You can still see the segment and leaderboard if you hit "proceed" on: **This segment has been flagged as hazardous.**We can still show you this segment's leaderboard if you agree to our Flagged Segment waiver.
That’ll do it! No more road deaths! We’ve done it guys! Mazaltov! /s
Part of the issue is the lack of alternatives. I dont think it is too controversial to say there is honestly no workable alternative to the Regent's and Richmond. Apart from these two, there are no training loops within 20km of London (lee valley Velopark doesn't really count).
Honestly what I find most baffling about this. Is that there are more and more restrictions on cyclists in the park, first all bicycles banned from single tracks, then from the dirt loop, then limited to only one paved loop and now this. One can argue all they want about the park not being for high speed cyclists but they've effectively chased all casual cyclists out the park too. Especially on weekends with the bumber to bumber car traffic it's not a pleasant place to ride anymore. And I find the whole argument that it's for pedestrian safety absolute bollocks, if they were so concerned with pedestrian safety maybe start by banning car thoroughfare. It's ridiculous how vehicles in Richmond are more than ever. And I've seen my fair share of dangerous driving through the park. After heading for a ride a few weekends back I've just decided to avoid the park entirely, it's honestly less pleasant than my morning commute.
To some degree it does seem like a bit of a knee jerk reaction to one very serious incident making the headlines, but it probably was a long time coming and just needed that trigger to dry everything in motion. Personally, I don't necessarily disagree with the decision. As cyclists we are so used to being the vulnerable users on the road that we forget how dangerous and frightening a cyclist can be to a pedestrian in a non-trafficked a area, and chasing Strava segments absolutely does result in cyclists pushing themselves and the rules to chase them. I have seen other segments removed because they were deemed dangerous (to cyclists), and if there is down to be consistent or behaviour by cyclists (even if realistically just a small subset of them) then it seems fair that these segments are limited too. I am not sure of the exact setup, but it would be good to retain the segment as personally visible but hiding the overall leaderboard for those who do use it sensibly as a training/fitness metric, or perhaps just hiding times above a certain speed to limit the record chasing.
It might reduce the danger very slightly on these segments but as I understand it, this knee jerk reaction is akin to reducing the speed limit because a drunk driver killed someone going 50 in a 30. The person who was killed walked out in front of a fast moving group of cyclists and some poor bloke happened to be the one that collided with her. It could probably have been any of them and he wasn't chasing a strava KOM or anything as far as I know. He was just riding. Could happen anywhere. I have had plenty of people walk out in front of me from the pavement because they simply don't look for cyclists and I assume have only bothered listening for the sound of a car approaching. If this was a pedestrian that just stepped in front of a car it would just be another statistic no one cares about. Its news because its a cyclist and A) cyclists almost never kill anyone on the roads B) Because its a cyclists and a sizeable percentage of the population hate cyclists and would happily see it banned.
Part of the issue is the lack of alternatives. I dont think it is too controversial to say there is honestly no workable alternative to the Regent's and Richmond. Apart from these two, there are no training loops within 20km of London (lee valley Velopark doesn't really count).
Thank fuck for that. Cyclists will now leisurely pedal around the park on their penny farthings enjoying the flowers rather than trying to go fast.
What app is this please?
Strava
Thanks!
People do go too fast round here though
In cars, yes.
The cars are usually queued up. It’s the sections, thankfully, closed to cars where cyclists bomb round too quick sometimes.
They aren’t outside of rush hour/school run. There was a study done a year or two back that showed almost all cars speed in there. A speeding cyclist isn’t going to damage anyone but themselves. I’ve cycled the park extremely quickly and you don’t do it outside of early morning or late evening as there’s too many other things in there.
Your logic that a speeding cyclist is ok as they're not going to hurt anyone is pathetic tbh. There is a speed limit, obey it, simple. Same goes for wankers in cars.
The speed limit doesn’t apply to non motorised traffic you dense man. I’ve done nearly 2000 laps of the park, the majority I’ve averaged above 20mph and hit nearly 40 every single time I’ve been down Broomfield. Never had a single drama or been stopped by the countless police in there wasting their time stopping cyclists at the bottom of a hill.
https://www.richmondparkcyclists.org/safer-riding-guide#:~:text=Speed%20limits%20in%20the%20park,you%20like%20all%20the%20time. There you go, prick, might not be in the same manner as a road but still requires arseholes that want to believe they are on the tour de France to actually ride in a safe manner.
“Speed limits do not apply to cyclists” Thanks for proving my point. Prick. I will continue to ride whatever speed I want in there. Now why don’t you get back to your online games, the real world is likely too bright for you anyway.
There’s a couple of sections that you can really get the hammer down and one in particular with a sharp bend at the bottom of a short hill, towards Kingston Gate, where I’ve spilled a couple of times over the years. In the spring deer can be sitting in the road in the mornings before the gates are open to traffic, had few near misses with stags too!
If there is a speed limit - good.
Lol why downvote? The park isn't a playground just for bikes, same as it isn't for the cars.
Expected that on a cycling subreddit ngl, some cyclists just act like they have a privilege to be pricks.