The overwhelming response from cyclists is that the new road installations and the 10mph limit on Broomfield Hill are a hazardous intrusion which detracts from their enjoyment of riding, while delivering no additional safety measures for any other type of park user. Below is park manager Paul Richards’ response to our open letter. You can read our letter, which set out our concerns, at the end of Paul’s response. Please sign up to our monthly newsletter for further updates.

Mr Paul Harknett, Richmond Park Cyclists

29th August 2023

Dear Paul,

Thank you for providing feedback on behalf of Richmond Park Cyclists’ members on the installation of safety measures in Richmond Park.

Road safety in Richmond Park is a priority and we take the points you have raised extremely seriously.

We welcome the cycle community to the park and I wish to outline how we are expanding the scope of our investigations to address your concerns and experiences, and to share with you the areas recommended by the safety audit for further assessments.

To date, independent specialists, TMS Consultancy Road and Safety Audit Team have reviewed the pre- installation plans for the safety measures, which were designed and recently installed by our road engineers, Stantec.

The team has also now reviewed safety of the measures post-installation. Reviews were carried out during weekdays and at the weekend, and both during the day and at night. They included riding a bike through the interventions to understand the experiences of cyclists alongside the movements of different types and sizes of vehicles.

We are currently undertaking comprehensive investigations to fully understand how cyclists and other road users interact with the installed safety measures. An observation survey has been carried out over several days including weekend days to assess behaviours at the interventions. These further investigations will enable us to understand if any further modifications are required.

Following feedback, we have broadened the scope of the assessment to include cycle and pedestrian interactions on the new crossings installed on Queen’s Road outside Pembroke Lodge Car Park.

We have also investigated additional concerns raised by the equestrian community who use the stables at Holly Lodge. They are concerned that crossing Sawyer’s Hill with horses is becoming more difficult due to the high speed of some cyclists descending on the hill.

The safety audit has confirmed that the plans for the measures were safely designed, and that the measures have been safely installed, and to plan. The audit has confirmed that the measures have been constructed to specifications that allow the safe movement of cyclists (including movement alongside vehicles on the roads where traffic is permitted).

The audit has found that the designs allow for the safe movement of cyclists at road narrowing measures at Beverly Brook Bridge, Roehampton Car Park, Broomfield Hill Car Park and Robin Hood Roundabout. There are many examples of similar safety structures to the single carriageway over Beverly Brook Bridge, up and down the country: this system is already in place at Ham Gate and presents no problems. There is not sufficient width to convert any section of the adjacent footpath at Beverly Brook Bridge into a cycle slip lane. Doing so would compromise the safety of pedestrians.

Regarding the new speed limit along stretch of road between Broomfield Hill Car Park and Robin Hood roundabout specifically, this is now a traffic free route in Richmond Park - together with the stretch between Sheen Gate and Sheen Cross. These former vehicle highways have been transformed into shared cycle and pedestrian spaces – with pedestrian priority. Therefore, as for all such spaces in Richmond Park, these routes have been designated a safe speed limit of 10mph. We ask cyclists to respect a slower speed to accommodate visitors on foot of all ages and abilities.

It is also key to note that this is a deer park, home to around 600 deer. They have previously charged unexpectedly across roads, and as a result have caused cycling-related accidents. Slower speeds are therefore critical to allow braking time, particularly on hills, to prevent future accidents causing serious injury to both road users and deer.

However, taking on board your feedback, and following recommendations from the investigations, we will carry out further assessment to evaluate the placement and positioning of signage associated with the safety interventions.

Our next steps are to further follow up on your concerns by carrying out an assessment of how different road users behave at these interventions.

I hope I have reassured you that we have listened to your comments and that we are carrying out a thorough investigation into the safety of new measures in Richmond Park in response.

We will update you on the findings in due course. Yours Sincerely,

Paul Richards
Park Manager Richmond Park

***

Below is our open letter to Paul Richards:

Dear Paul

Movement Strategy Implementation

Following the meeting on Wednesday last week with yourself, Sergeant Pete Sturgess, Chris Campbell and James Heath, we are writing to set out the concerns raised at that meeting, and to clarify our suggested next steps.  While we remain supportive of the overall objective of the Movement Strategy to reduce motor traffic, the physical implementation has undermined cyclist safety and taken away cycling enjoyment without proportionately benefitting any other group of visitor, notably pedestrians. The opportunity to cycle more or less continuously (having regard to pedestrian priority and safe navigation through motor traffic), is a unique and highly valued feature to riding in Richmond Park. Unnecessarily and for no advantage to other visitor groups, but increasing danger to cyclists, riders are likely to have to come to a halt at least three times on the outer roadway. First at the foot of Broomfield Hill to negotiate the gateway before the busy roundabout area where visibility is now much reduced. Second, opposite Roehampton car park to give way to oncoming vehicles. Third by Beverley Brook bridge to avoid oncoming vehicles, either failing to give way, or because you have not provided enough space for them to pass on their journey towards Roehampton. This was not made clear through consultation, and if cyclists had been aware of the consequences, we think your support would have been substantially reduced. All this in the context of an excellent safety record of cycling in the park over many years compared to roads outside.  For various specific reasons which follow, we believe the park roads to be less safe after your works for every type of visitor. We appreciate you did not set out to add peril to the cycling visitor experience, and therefore we hope on reflection you will consider our suggestions.

Our concerns fall under three main headings: gate design and placement, road narrowing for the two new priority flows, and 10mph.

Gate Design and Placement

We believe the design and layout of new gates and fencing bearing signage (including roadside boxes) introduce a significant safety hazard to all users of the park. The signage attached to the posts and the new gates impairs sight lines for pedestrians, cyclists, horse-riders and motorists, especially for children who cannot see over and therefore are hidden from other users. The posts have been placed very close to the road edge so that any small deviation on the part of a cyclist  could easily result in a collision. Our concerns are compounded by the gaps being unnecessarily narrow and the posts being high, solid and sharp-edged.

We urge you to manufacture replacements for the roadside boxes from deformable materials or at least pad them/round them off, and move them well back from the road edge whilst retaining a gap sufficiently narrow so as not to allow passage of a vehicle. Also, redeploy all the new signage away from and above the road so that safer sight lines are restored, albeit through posts and rails.

Road narrowing

Two systems have been introduced at Beverley Brook Bridge and opposite Roehampton car park, each of which is problematic. Neither provides provision for cyclists. At consultation we asked for and assumed that the park would provide for safe passage for cyclists through the narrowings in both directions. In each case it would have been straightforward to do this. 

We are now concerned that, without any provision for cyclists, many riders will ride through the narrowings, ignoring the intended system of priorities - something your consultants should have foreseen. Both primary objectives - facilitating a pedestrian crossing over the bridge and calming vehicular traffic flow opposite the Roehampton Gate car park for easier pedestrian crossing - could have been achieved with room for cyclists. Instead, the scheme as implemented creates the potential for confusion, conflict and danger.   

At the Beverley Brook bridge system, the implementation has severely and unnecessarily narrowed the one-way road, creating danger to cyclists. Cyclists heading towards Roehampton will assume (as they can and do on the open road) that they can filter through the gap between oncoming traffic and the nearside kerb. Many will ride through assuming (mistakenly) that TRP would have designed this into the system as most considerate authorities would have done in today’s environment. A slip lane for cyclists headed towards Roehampton could be accommodated by reducing the overly wide new pedestrian path.  Would you make this small adjustment please?

At the Roehampton car park system you have artificially narrowed the road with white paint and a textured gravel surface. Many cyclists unfamiliar with the feature will assume you have created cycle lanes to ease the flow or use them as such anyway.  Would you please make these spaces cycling slip lanes?

10mph 

Our specific concerns relate to the stretch of road between Broomfield Hill car park and Robin Hood roundabout.

We do not recall 10mph signage on this stretch being a proposal at any stage through the consultation process and it certainly was not part of the trial. If cyclists had been aware of your intentions, they would have raised concerns (as they are now). As you are aware this proposal has been the subject of much criticism on social media, mainly, we think, because it is unnecessary and intrusive.  

Similar to our point on cyclists ignoring your priority systems, we fear many cyclists will ignore the 10mph signs. 10mph has added danger to cycling conditions as now the difference in speed between slower and faster riders is likely to increase. Over many years we have tried hard to encourage cyclists to respect the historic and, we think, sensible signs, but this proposal invites the criticism it is currently attracting and undermines compliance with speed signage elsewhere in the park. As we mentioned in the meeting, our current intention is to remove all reference to speed signage in our forthcoming Safer Riding Guide. Up until now, we have been supportive of speed signage as a guide.

You mentioned in the meeting that consistency across all royal parks was a major driver for introduction of the 10mph signage on vehicle free roads, and cited the central stretch of road in Bushy Park specifically as an example where this has been introduced. We checked following the meeting and can confirm that this is not the case as of last week.

Next steps

You mentioned that a safety audit had been conducted on the specific plans prior to their implementation. Please could you provide a copy?

Please could you clarify exactly when, by whom and in what context the decision was made to introduce the 10mph signs on the Broomfield to Robin Hood roundabout stretch of road.

We are keen to work with you to help address the current criticism directed at your implementation. We continue to believe that overall the implementation of the Movement Strategy in Richmond Park is a milestone towards the removal of through traffic for which we remain grateful. Sadly, the significant and important improvements are currently being lost in the context of a few unnecessary but fixable features which appear to many as anti-cyclist.  We know that is not your position.  We are here to help.

Sincerely,

Paul Harknett , Chris Campbell, James Heath