Greenwich Park Acts



T

Tom Crispin

Guest
Greenwich Park has acted on the killing of Leonard Woods by Coong
Duong Voong who drove on the wrong side of the road hitting Mr Woods
head on.

They have banned cycling from The Avenue.

Cyclist prohibition signs have been errected at the foot of The
Avenue. Instead of using the road, cyclists have to use a narrow
two-way shared use cycle lane with a dangerous camber.

Photo of a cyclist riding up The Avenue 4 days before the ban was
brought in. The cycle lane can be seen on the far side of the road.
www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/level3/greenwichparkhill.html
 
M

Martin Dann

Guest
Tom Crispin wrote:
> Greenwich Park has acted on the killing of Leonard Woods by Coong
> Duong Voong who drove on the wrong side of the road hitting Mr Woods
> head on.
>
> They have banned cycling from The Avenue.


That is a bit AAT.

> Cyclist prohibition signs have been errected at the foot of The
> Avenue. Instead of using the road, cyclists have to use a narrow
> two-way shared use cycle lane with a dangerous camber.


Have they passed a bylaw or whatever to introduce this ban?
(Do they need to as it is a royal park)

> Photo of a cyclist riding up The Avenue 4 days before the ban was
> brought in. The cycle lane can be seen on the far side of the road.
> www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/level3/greenwichparkhill.html


Have they banned walking as well?.
If not, then when you get to The Avenue, get off and walk your bike up
and down the hill, still in the road. Perhaps a critical mass could be
organised, of cyclists walking up and down in the road.

Martin .
 
T

Tom Crispin

Guest
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 21:05:17 GMT, Martin Dann <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>Tom Crispin wrote:
>> Greenwich Park has acted on the killing of Leonard Woods by Coong
>> Duong Voong who drove on the wrong side of the road hitting Mr Woods
>> head on.
>>
>> They have banned cycling from The Avenue.

>
>That is a bit AAT.
>
>> Cyclist prohibition signs have been errected at the foot of The
>> Avenue. Instead of using the road, cyclists have to use a narrow
>> two-way shared use cycle lane with a dangerous camber.

>
>Have they passed a bylaw or whatever to introduce this ban?
>(Do they need to as it is a royal park)


I expect the Park has acted within the Law. I know that it would take
an act of parliament to reduce the speed limit through the park from
30mph to 20mph. As far as I can tell, banning cycles was the easy
option - and I think a great insult to Mr Woods' family as it is
victim blaming.

>> Photo of a cyclist riding up The Avenue 4 days before the ban was
>> brought in. The cycle lane can be seen on the far side of the road.
>> www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/level3/greenwichparkhill.html

>
>Have they banned walking as well?.
>If not, then when you get to The Avenue, get off and walk your bike up
>and down the hill, still in the road. Perhaps a critical mass could be
>organised, of cyclists walking up and down in the road.


Other direct action is being considered. A D-lock on the gates at St
Mary's Gate at 3.50pm, 10 minutes before they are unlocked to allow
rush hour traffic is one option.

A mass law break is another option.

The park police have a fierce reputation for fining cyclists for minor
infringments within the park. They tend to blitz certain areas of the
park. A favourite haunt of theirs is Vanbrough Park Gate where
cycling is banned, not without reason, for about 5 metres.

A map of the park can be seen here.
www.royalparks.org.uk/docs/park_maps/greenwich_park.pdf
 
M

Mark T

Guest
Tom Crispin writtificated

> They have banned cycling from The Avenue.


FFS! The mind boggles.

I've a D-lock if you need it.
 
P

Peter Fox

Guest
Tom Crispin wrote:
> Greenwich Park has acted on the killing of Leonard Woods by Coong
> Duong Voong who drove on the wrong side of the road hitting Mr Woods
> head on.
>
> They have banned cycling from The Avenue.
>
> Cyclist prohibition signs have been errected at the foot of The
> Avenue. Instead of using the road, cyclists have to use a narrow
> two-way shared use cycle lane with a dangerous camber.
>
> Photo of a cyclist riding up The Avenue 4 days before the ban was
> brought in. The cycle lane can be seen on the far side of the road.


There's an election on in London. Now's the time to make a fuss in the
media and specifically invite the Mayoral candidates to turn up to have
their photo taken with you - if they really are 'green'.


--
Peter Fox
 
On Apr 20, 9:38 pm, Tom Crispin
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Greenwich Park has acted on the killing of Leonard Woods by Coong
> Duong Voong who drove on the wrong side of the road hitting Mr Woods
> head on.
>
> They have banned cycling from The Avenue.
>
> Cyclist prohibition signs have been errected at the foot of The
> Avenue. Instead of using the road, cyclists have to use a narrow
> two-way shared use cycle lane with a dangerous camber.


there are similar signs at Blackheath Gate now. They are on the
outermost gateposts so it is difficult to interpret them as meaning
anything other than no cycling through the out pedestrian portals
(especially since the No entry signs that apply to the vehicle exit
portal are affixed to the gateposts on either side of that portal.
Nobody was out enforcing anything in the park and commuters were using
the road as normal this morning

best wishes
james
 
On Apr 20, 10:48 pm, Tom Crispin
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 21:05:17 GMT, Martin Dann <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >Tom Crispin wrote:
> >> Greenwich Park has acted on the killing of Leonard Woods by Coong
> >> Duong Voong who drove on the wrong side of the road hitting Mr Woods
> >> head on.

>
> >> They have banned cycling from The Avenue.

>
> >That is a bit AAT.

>
> >> Cyclist prohibition signs have been errected at the foot of The
> >> Avenue. Instead of using the road, cyclists have to use a narrow
> >> two-way shared use cycle lane with a dangerous camber.

>
> >Have they passed a bylaw or whatever to introduce this ban?
> >(Do they need to as it is a royal park)

>
> I expect the Park has acted within the Law. I know that it would take
> an act of parliament to reduce the speed limit through the park from
> 30mph to 20mph. As far as I can tell, banning cycles was the easy
> option - and I think a great insult to Mr Woods' family as it is
> victim blaming.
>

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/legRes...iveTextDocId=2838259&PageNumber=1&SortAlpha=0
is the The Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces Regulations 1997 which
backs up the rules here http://www.royalparks.org.uk/cycle/index.cfm.

They are amended by
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/legRes...tiveTextDocId=921910&PageNumber=1&SortAlpha=0
(Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces (Amendment) Regulations 2004).

Cyclists can use any park road (somewhere vehicle access is currently
allowed) or designated area but they must also comply with any
direction from a constable or authorised sign.

Interestingly I had been under the impression that a new statute was
required to var y the speed limit but it appears that it could be done
with a statutory instrument

best wishes
james
 
D

David Hansen

Guest
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 08:43:55 +0100 someone who may be Peter Fox
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>There's an election on in London. Now's the time to make a fuss in the
>media and specifically invite the Mayoral candidates to turn up to have
>their photo taken with you - if they really are 'green'.


Indeed. Are not the three main candidates trying to out green each
other?


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
 
T

TimHenderson

Guest
On 20 Apr, 21:38, Tom Crispin <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Greenwich Park has acted on the killing of Leonard Woods by Coong
> Duong Voong who drove on the wrong side of the road hitting Mr Woods
> head on.
>
> They have banned cycling from The Avenue.
>
> Cyclist prohibition signs have been errected at the foot of The
> Avenue. Instead of using the road, cyclists have to use a narrow
> two-way shared use cycle lane with a dangerous camber.
>


I am surprised ! I thought the Royal Parks and Mark Camley , the CEO
for the last couple of years , were changing their culture in favour
of bike use in the Parks. Snippets from google :

http://www.royalparks.org.uk/press/current/press_release_97.cfm

Mr Camley said Thursday's ride would provide an "invaluable
opportunity" for the Royal Parks to look at existing cycle paths,
consider the need for additional cycle paths and identify priority
areas for improvement, with key policy makers.

"With more commuters looking for alternatives to the car or public
transport, now is the right time to look at the routes that go through
the parks, whether they are in the right place and whether there needs
to be more."

We also have to think carefully about the wants and needs of cyclists
and those of other park users," Mr Camley said.

"The best way to understand the concerns of cyclists and other park
users is by cycling through the parks and seeing the issues first
hand. That is why we are all getting on our bikes today rather than
being stuck behind a boardroom table." Mr Camley said.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12 June 2006 The Bike Show Resonance 104.4FM

Mark Camley has been Chief Executive of the Royal Parks Agency for
just over a year and is convinced more can be done to make the Royal
Parks work for cyclists. I talk with Mark about the issues he’s facing
in making this happen, and then go for a ride around Hyde Park and
Kensington Gardens with Ruth Holmes, a landscape management officer at
the Royal Parks with special responsibility for cycling.

Mark welcomes all comments and suggestions from park users, and says
he reads all his email personally:

[email protected]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think I will send an email to Mark alerting him to the thread -
perhaps, like the St. Matthew's Academy affair, we may get a response!

Incidentally, I am sure Mark would welcome contributions to

http://www.justgiving.com/markandmilly

(not that any donation might be construed as bribery....)

Tim
 
T

Tom Crispin

Guest
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 12:34:38 -0700 (PDT), TimHenderson
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 20 Apr, 21:38, Tom Crispin <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>> Greenwich Park has acted on the killing of Leonard Woods by Coong
>> Duong Voong who drove on the wrong side of the road hitting Mr Woods
>> head on.
>>
>> They have banned cycling from The Avenue.
>>
>> Cyclist prohibition signs have been errected at the foot of The
>> Avenue. Instead of using the road, cyclists have to use a narrow
>> two-way shared use cycle lane with a dangerous camber.
>>

>
>I am surprised ! I thought the Royal Parks and Mark Camley , the CEO
>for the last couple of years , were changing their culture in favour
>of bike use in the Parks. Snippets from google :


[Snip]

I may have made a mistake.

The no cycling signs erected either side of the main park entrances at
St Mary's Gate and Blackheath Gate may only refer to the pedestrian
entrances either side of the vehicular entrances.

It still means that cyclists *must* dismount to enter or exit the Park
legally by St Mary's Gate outside the weekday rush hour.

That said, I do not think that the no cycling signs are legally
enforceable. They have a diagonal red line through them which could
be interpreted to mean *end of cycling prohibition*.
 
M

Martin Dann

Guest
Tom Crispin wrote:
>
> That said, I do not think that the no cycling signs are legally
> enforceable. They have a diagonal red line through them which could
> be interpreted to mean *end of cycling prohibition*.


Can you supply a picy of these signs?
 
T

Tom Crispin

Guest
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 23:56:38 GMT, Martin Dann <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>> That said, I do not think that the no cycling signs are legally
>> enforceable. They have a diagonal red line through them which could
>> be interpreted to mean *end of cycling prohibition*.

>
>Like this?
>
>http://www.directa.co.uk/site/scripts/product_browse.php?product_id=3694


Yes, but without the wording.

>I suspect they may not be enforceable, but given your description of the
> local police, I think they would fine you anyway.


Yes, they probably would.
 
On Apr 21, 10:06 pm, Tom Crispin
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 12:34:38 -0700 (PDT), TimHenderson
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On 20 Apr, 21:38, Tom Crispin <[email protected]>
> >wrote:
> >> Greenwich Park has acted on the killing of Leonard Woods by Coong
> >> Duong Voong who drove on the wrong side of the road hitting Mr Woods
> >> head on.

>
> >> They have banned cycling from The Avenue.

>
> >> Cyclist prohibition signs have been errected at the foot of The
> >> Avenue. Instead of using the road, cyclists have to use a narrow
> >> two-way shared use cycle lane with a dangerous camber.

>
> >I am surprised ! I thought the Royal Parks and Mark Camley , the CEO
> >for the last couple of years , were changing their culture in favour
> >of bike use in the Parks. Snippets from google :

>
> [Snip]
>
> I may have made a mistake.
>
> The no cycling signs erected either side of the main park entrances at
> St Mary's Gate and Blackheath Gate may only refer to the pedestrian
> entrances either side of the vehicular entrances.
>
> It still means that cyclists *must* dismount to enter or exit the Park
> legally by St Mary's Gate outside the weekday rush hour.


Since the entrances in question are pavement I am not sure this
represents a change or is unreasonable

> That said, I do not think that the no cycling signs are legally
> enforceable. They have a diagonal red line through them which could
> be interpreted to mean *end of cycling prohibition*.


The "no Cycling" plate below helps clear up the ambiguity. TBH I
think that querying the intended meaning of vienna convention
prohibitory signs with a strikethrough is splitting hairs

best wishes
james
 
On 21 Apr, 22:06, Tom Crispin <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 12:34:38 -0700 (PDT), TimHenderson
>
>
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On 20 Apr, 21:38, Tom Crispin <[email protected]>
> >wrote:
> >> Greenwich Park has acted on the killing of Leonard Woods by Coong
> >> Duong Voong who drove on the wrong side of the road hitting Mr Woods
> >> head on.

>
> >> They have banned cycling from The Avenue.

>
> >> Cyclist prohibition signs have been errected at the foot of The
> >> Avenue.  Instead of using the road, cyclists have to use a narrow
> >> two-way shared use cycle lane with a dangerous camber.

>
> >I am surprised ! I thought the Royal Parks and Mark Camley , the CEO
> >for the last couple of years , were changing their culture in favour
> >of bike use in the Parks. Snippets from google :

>
> [Snip]
>
> I may have made a mistake.
>
> The no cycling signs erected either side of the main park entrances at
> St Mary's Gate and Blackheath Gate may only refer to the pedestrian
> entrances either side of the vehicular entrances.
>
> It still means that cyclists *must* dismount to enter or exit the Park
> legally by St Mary's Gate outside the weekday rush hour.
>
> That said, I do not think that the no cycling signs are legally
> enforceable.  They have a diagonal red line through them which could
> be interpreted to mean *end of cycling prohibition*.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


The Avenue remains in use to all cyclists. As suggested by James the
signs are designed to deter cyclist using the pedestrian gates, which
leads to conflict with pedestrians. I find it dispiriting when
cyclists revert to discussions about what is and is not legally
enforcible when they are trying to save the 5-10 seconds it takes to
dismount. As an advocate for cyclists I will not be an apologist for
bad behaviour. Pedestrians have priority in the parks.
 
On Apr 22, 10:05 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On 21 Apr, 22:06, Tom Crispin <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 12:34:38 -0700 (PDT), TimHenderson

>
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >On 20 Apr, 21:38, Tom Crispin <[email protected]>
> > >wrote:
> > >> Greenwich Park has acted on the killing of Leonard Woods by Coong
> > >> Duong Voong who drove on the wrong side of the road hitting Mr Woods
> > >> head on.

>
> > >> They have banned cycling from The Avenue.

>
> > >> Cyclist prohibition signs have been errected at the foot of The
> > >> Avenue. Instead of using the road, cyclists have to use a narrow
> > >> two-way shared use cycle lane with a dangerous camber.

>
> > >I am surprised ! I thought the Royal Parks and Mark Camley , the CEO
> > >for the last couple of years , were changing their culture in favour
> > >of bike use in the Parks. Snippets from google :

>
> > [Snip]

>
> > I may have made a mistake.

>
> > The no cycling signs erected either side of the main park entrances at
> > St Mary's Gate and Blackheath Gate may only refer to the pedestrian
> > entrances either side of the vehicular entrances.

>
> > It still means that cyclists *must* dismount to enter or exit the Park
> > legally by St Mary's Gate outside the weekday rush hour.

>
> > That said, I do not think that the no cycling signs are legally
> > enforceable. They have a diagonal red line through them which could
> > be interpreted to mean *end of cycling prohibition*.- Hide quoted text -

>
> > - Show quoted text -

>
> The Avenue remains in use to all cyclists. As suggested by James the
> signs are designed to deter cyclist using the pedestrian gates, which
> leads to conflict with pedestrians. I find it dispiriting when
> cyclists revert to discussions about what is and is not legally
> enforcible when they are trying to save the 5-10 seconds it takes to
> dismount. As an advocate for cyclists I will not be an apologist for
> bad behaviour. Pedestrians have priority in the parks.


To be fair, Mark, I think the signs are a little ambiguous and the
discussion has been based largely on the assumption that they could
have implications for the use of the Park roads by cyclists. Apart
from Tom's pupils, I gueds most of the correspondents are either
commuters who would be using the vehicle gate or are not local but
tending to focus on that aspect.

I don't disagree with priority for pedestrians, especially in a park.
Thanks for giving us teh clarification on the signs

best wishes
james
 
I

Ian Smith

Guest
On Tue, 22 Apr, [email protected] <> wrote:
>
> I find it dispiriting when cyclists revert to discussions about
> what is and is not legally enforcible when they are trying to save
> the 5-10 seconds it takes to dismount.


I disagree - cyclists dismount is the most pernicious of the attacks
on cycling as a serious form of transport. I have never in my life
seen a facility for motorists requiring that they switch off their
engines and push their chosen vehicle across junctions, through
gateways and the like.

Cyclists dismount is absolute proof that those 'designing' the
abomination still think bicycles are toys, not transport.

Occasionally (conceivably in this particular situation) the sign is
used where cyclists should not be cycling anyway - but that itself is
an ill begat to us by the idiots and their cycle 'facilities'. If
they had not sowed the doubt as to whether cycling on a pavement is
allowed or not with their silly white lines, it would be quite
straightforward - bicycles belong on the road, or dedicated tracks
clearly intended and marked.

> As an advocate for cyclists I will not be an apologist for
> bad behaviour. Pedestrians have priority in the parks.


Do you force the same point of view on the motorists? I see little
evidence of that ('motorists get out and push' at all the gates would
almost certainly make it safer for pedestrians negotiating them).

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
 
M

Martin Dann

Guest
[email protected] wrote:
>
> The Avenue remains in use to all cyclists.


That is ok then.

As suggested by James the
> signs are designed to deter cyclist using the pedestrian gates, which
> leads to conflict with pedestrians.


Yes, cyclists should not be in conflict with pedestrians, most people on
this group agree with that. So why the shared use path next to The
Avenue? Does this not confuse the issue.

I find it dispiriting when
> cyclists revert to discussions about what is and is not legally
> enforcible


Although I have not seen the signs, from Tom's description they are
ambiguous, implying a ban on cycles using the avenue.

when they are trying to save the 5-10 seconds it takes to
> dismount.


Like e.g.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/September2007.htm

Would a sign along the lines of "Cyclists please give way to
pedestrians" be far better?


As an advocate for cyclists I will not be an apologist for
> bad behaviour.


Good.

> Pedestrians have priority in the parks.


And so they should, if I were to cycle in Greenwich park, I am sure I
would give them priority.
 
T

Tom Crispin

Guest
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 02:05:52 -0700 (PDT),
[email protected] wrote:

>The Avenue remains in use to all cyclists. As suggested by James the
>signs are designed to deter cyclist using the pedestrian gates, which
>leads to conflict with pedestrians. I find it dispiriting when
>cyclists revert to discussions about what is and is not legally
>enforcible when they are trying to save the 5-10 seconds it takes to
>dismount. As an advocate for cyclists I will not be an apologist for
>bad behaviour. Pedestrians have priority in the parks.


Thanks for the reply.

There is no argument that in a park pedestrians have absolute priority
at all times. The problem is that the ambigutity of the signs at the
main road entry points into Greenwich Park is that motorists may feel
that they have priority over cyclists. Only last year a cyclist was
killed by a motorist on the wrong side of the road as the cyclist rode
up The Avenue slowly. 8 months before that fatality I had warned the
Park Manager that the cycle lane alongside The Avenue was dangerous
and would not be used by any sensible minded cyclist.

The Royal Parks - especially Greenwich Park - is the most cyclist
unfriendly place I know.

Take a look at this photo:
www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/bower

The road is wide, with clearly defined wide footways on either side.
It is the perfect road to teach young children how and where to
position themselves on a road before they progress to real roads in
real traffic conditions. It is also the perfect space for adults and
children who cannot ride a bike to learn.

If you open this 6mb pdf document:
www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tss/trafficsigns.pdf
You will see on page 36 a sign that could easily be used on that road.
"Child cycle training". If cycling really does need to be banned from
Bower Avenue, and I really cannot think of a good reason why it should
be, make an exception for cycle training. After all, park regulations
sensibly allow any child of ten years or under to cycle anywhere in
the park, regardless of signage. Why not publicise that, and why not
extend that regulation to accompanying adults, cyclists over 10 years
of age with a registered disability and a companion?

And what about this?
www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/why
Do you really expect a majority of cyclists to dismount at that point?

If a motorist reverses their car into a passing cyclist who hasn't
dismounted, does that sign make the cyclist negligent?

Would you consider a sign, "End of road - motorists get out and push"
to be reasonable?
 
T

TimHenderson

Guest
On 22 Apr, 17:59, Tom Crispin <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 02:05:52 -0700 (PDT),


>
> The Royal Parks - especially Greenwich Park - is the most cyclist
> unfriendly place I know.
>
>


I think that is a bit over the top from my experience. I find the Hyde
Park path between Round Pond and Hyde Parker corner the highlight of
my trip when I commute to the West End. I find it much friendlier than
the Hammersmith gyratory ! But I'm not as familiar as you with
Greenwich Park.

Thanks to Mark for clarifying that the Avenue is still open to bikes.
And I he hope he stays on board with the thread to comment on the
signage issues. I wonder whether the Parks prefer non-standard
instruction signs in dark green to emphasise that they are a park and
not Hammersmith gyratory. I think I'd like it better that way than
lots of intrusive red and white. But then maybe there could be more
dialogue as to what the signs have written on them. I couldn't think
of better guys than Tom and his kids to be involved in it !