Greenwich Park Acts

[Tom Crispin]

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 12:35:27 -0700 (PDT), TimHenderson
<[email protected]> wrote:

>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.

What I was meaning is that cyclists seem to be excluded from a greater
percentage of roads in Greenwich Park than any other place I know.

Cyclists aren't excluded from the Hammersmith gyratory (as far as I
know) - cyclists are excluded from Bower Avenue.

>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 !

 

[JNugent]

Tom Crispin wrote:

> Cyclists aren't excluded from the Hammersmith gyratory (as far as I
> know)

They aren't.

> - cyclists are excluded from Bower Avenue.

Are they?

Perhaps bicycles are.

Perhaps not.

Perhaps both cyclists and bicycles are allowed in Bower Avenue (WTMB),
but just not in a particular configuration. After all, motorists are not
excluded from Oxford Street.

 

[[email protected]]

On Apr 22, 4:46 pm, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 agree - I think they are too easy a way out where there is a
potential conflict between cyclists and other road users. IIRC someone
posted an example of 17 of them in half a mile of cycle track.

This article http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/stop.pdf shows why
asking a cyclist to stop is equivalent to adding 100m to their
journey, because of the energy used to get back to speed again
(example is for a modest 10mph, most commuters will be faster, so a
stop will be equivalent to a greater distance penalty). I'd be pretty
impressed with anyone who could stop, dismount, wheel a bike through a
gate and remount in 5 seconds anyway.

> 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.

That's probably asking the motorist to expend more energy than a
cyclist stopping. How about a barrier which they have to get out of
their car to press a button to raise - this would be more on a par
with the irritation of a "cyclists dismount" sign. Put these at the
park gates with space for cyclists to get round, safer for everybody.

I've never seen a cyclist dismount at one of these signs - they either
ignore them if they are not mandatory, or choose a different route.

Rob

 

[Nick]

[email protected] wrote:
> On Apr 22, 4:46 pm, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 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 agree - I think they are too easy a way out where there is a
> potential conflict between cyclists and other road users. IIRC someone
> posted an example of 17 of them in half a mile of cycle track.
>
> This article http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/stop.pdf shows why
> asking a cyclist to stop is equivalent to adding 100m to their
> journey, because of the energy used to get back to speed again
> (example is for a modest 10mph, most commuters will be faster, so a
> stop will be equivalent to a greater distance penalty). I'd be pretty
> impressed with anyone who could stop, dismount, wheel a bike through a
> gate and remount in 5 seconds anyway.
>

So if you are in a hurry don't through the park.

Anyway the whole question is silly because the time you would lose going
through the gate is minuscule in comparison to the amount of time
difference taken between riding or walking through the Greenwich foot
tunnel.

>> 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.
>
> That's probably asking the motorist to expend more energy than a
> cyclist stopping. How about a barrier which they have to get out of
> their car to press a button to raise - this would be more on a par
> with the irritation of a "cyclists dismount" sign. Put these at the
> park gates with space for cyclists to get round, safer for everybody.
>
> I've never seen a cyclist dismount at one of these signs - they either
> ignore them if they are not mandatory, or choose a different route.
>

Lucky they don't just ignore them when they are mandatory ;o)

> Rob

 

[Roger Merriman]

Nick <[email protected]> wrote:

> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Apr 22, 4:46 pm, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> 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 agree - I think they are too easy a way out where there is a
> > potential conflict between cyclists and other road users. IIRC someone
> > posted an example of 17 of them in half a mile of cycle track.
> >
> > This article http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/stop.pdf shows why
> > asking a cyclist to stop is equivalent to adding 100m to their
> > journey, because of the energy used to get back to speed again
> > (example is for a modest 10mph, most commuters will be faster, so a
> > stop will be equivalent to a greater distance penalty). I'd be pretty
> > impressed with anyone who could stop, dismount, wheel a bike through a
> > gate and remount in 5 seconds anyway.
> >
>
> So if you are in a hurry don't through the park.
>
> Anyway the whole question is silly because the time you would lose going
> through the gate is minuscule in comparison to the amount of time
> difference taken between riding or walking through the Greenwich foot
> tunnel.
>
> >> 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.
> >
> > That's probably asking the motorist to expend more energy than a
> > cyclist stopping. How about a barrier which they have to get out of
> > their car to press a button to raise - this would be more on a par
> > with the irritation of a "cyclists dismount" sign. Put these at the
> > park gates with space for cyclists to get round, safer for everybody.
> >
> > I've never seen a cyclist dismount at one of these signs - they either
> > ignore them if they are not mandatory, or choose a different route.
> >
>
> Lucky they don't just ignore them when they are mandatory ;o)
>

there is signs telling one to get use the footpath over a narrow bridge
on the way to Hounslow, the fact that the footpath is very narrow and
bikes with paniers might well fill the footbath from metal fence to
wall, seems to have missed them.

i'm not conviced that the sign has much in the way of legal standing
though.

> > Rob

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

 

[dkahn400]

On Apr 23, 10:38 am, Nick <[email protected]> wrote:

> Lucky they don't just ignore them when they are mandatory ;o)

"Cyclist Dismount" signs, as opposed to "No Cycling" signs, are never
mandatory.

--
Dave...

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 07:22:57 +0100, Tom Crispin
<[email protected]> wrote:

>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.

Here are a couple of photos:
www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/thepark/p4230001

The "no cycling" signs are on both outer gate posts, the one of the
left is partially concealed by the pedestrian's head.

I conceed that you'd have to be pretty thick to interpret the no
cycling signs to mean cyclists are not welcome through the vehicular
gate. Yet I find it equally unbelieveable that the park chose to use
non standard cycling prohibition signs.

A closer photo of the left pedestrian entrance and the two vehicular
entrances.
www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/thepark/p4230002

You can probably just make out some painting on the tarmac on the left
pedestrian entrance. It says, "No cycling". The board on the main
left vehicular entrance reminds car drivers of the 30 miles per hour
speed limit, and excludes coaches and caravans, and trade vehicles
unless on park business.

 

[David Hansen]

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 18:05:01 +0100 someone who may be Tom Crispin
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>Here are a couple of photos:
>www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/thepark/p4230001
>
>The "no cycling" signs are on both outer gate posts, the one of the
>left is partially concealed by the pedestrian's head.
>
>I conceed that you'd have to be pretty thick to interpret the no
>cycling signs to mean cyclists are not welcome through the vehicular
>gate. Yet I find it equally unbelieveable that the park chose to use
>non standard cycling prohibition signs.

Do the signs they have used mean anything? They obviously don't mean
no cycling as the no cycling sign doesn't have a line through it, as
<http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/Signsandmarkings/index.htm?IdcService=GET_FILE&dID=96192&Rendition=Web>
shows.

Is there a problem cycling through the vehicle gates?


--
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

 

[Colin McKenzie]

dkahn400 wrote:
> "Cyclist Dismount" signs, as opposed to "No Cycling" signs, are never
> mandatory.

Transport for London have done their best with red signs reading
"cyclists must dismount" around A40 roadworks. It is possible that
these are enforceable under some catch-all clause, but I haven't
checked. (Yes, I disobey them).

Colin McKenzie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at
the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as
walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

 

[PK]

"David Hansen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Do the signs they have used mean anything? They obviously don't mean
> no cycling as the no cycling sign doesn't have a line through it, as
> <http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/Signsandmarkings/index.htm?IdcService=GET_FILE&dID=96192&Rendition=Web>
> shows.
>

>
>
> --
> 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



Interesting to note the internal inconsistency in the signage set shown:

eg

No cycling = cycle in a red circle

No right turn = right turn in a red circle with red diagonal bar


the latter is the more generally used for general prohibition signs eg no
smoking


I think the "cycle with bar" format is more likely to be understoood by a
non motorist

pk

 

[David Hansen]

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 08:52:23 +0100 someone who may be "PK"
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>I think the "cycle with bar" format is more likely to be understoood by a
>non motorist

I fail to see the distinction between motorists and non motorists.

Yes, the former are supposed to study and keep up to date with the
Highway Code, but the evidence is that many don't. (Obviously in
this particular case the keeping up to date bit isn't really
applicable as the signs have not changed for along time.) I suspect
that there is little or no difference in the understanding of road
signs between motorists and non motorists.

The question in this case is whether cyclists understand the signs,
whether they are a motorist or not. My guess is that most cyclists
over the age of say 14 do understand the signs, though they may
claim not when challenged.

There is also the question of why officials put up the wrong signs
for what it appears they intended. Perhaps they are just
incompetent, or perhaps they do realise that the signs are
meaningless and this is yet another empty gesture.


Can anyone answer my question, "Is there a problem cycling through
the vehicle gates?"

ISTM that cycling through the vehicle gates is what any competent
cyclist should do in most circumstances.

It also seems to me that there is no problem at all with people
cycling through the pedestrian gates, provided that they do so at
walking pace as part of the pedestrian traffic. Wheeling a bike
through the pedestrian gates would inconvenience pedestrians far
more than cycling through. There is more conflict because cyclist
plus vehicle is much wider than cyclist on vehicle. If some cyclists
have been riding through the pedestrian gates too quickly then
action should be taken against them.



--
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

 

[David Hansen]

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 02:05:52 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be
[email protected] wrote this:-

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

I don't. I suggest that officials should have a similar attitude.
Otherwise they will probably make fools of themselves when
challenged in the courts. There is a gentle stream of officials
finding this out the hard way.

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

I am with those who made the comparison with motorists. Expecting
cyclists to get off their vehicles, push them for a while and then
get back on them shows that cyclists are untermensch as far as
officials are concerned, no matter what they may claim in press
releases and usenet postings. I haven't yet seen a case where
motorists are expected to push their vehicle through a narrow
stretch of road where there could be conflict with pedestrians, for
example the vehicle gates of this particular park.

If there has been a problem with some cyclists riding through the
pedestrian gates at high speed and causing conflict with pedestrians
then there are a number of ways of dealing with this.

A ban on riding through criminalises those who ride through at a
sedate speed causing no real conflict with pedestrians. It also
increases conflict with pedestrians, because it looks like cyclist
plus vehicle would prevent another pedestrian passing through at the
same time while cyclist on vehicle plus pedestrian could probably
pass through at the same time.

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

What is the bad behaviour you claim you will not be an apologist
for?


--
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

 

[Roger Merriman]

Colin McKenzie <[email protected]> wrote:

> dkahn400 wrote:
> > "Cyclist Dismount" signs, as opposed to "No Cycling" signs, are never
> > mandatory.
>
> Transport for London have done their best with red signs reading
> "cyclists must dismount" around A40 roadworks. It is possible that
> these are enforceable under some catch-all clause, but I haven't
> checked. (Yes, I disobey them).
>
> Colin McKenzie

noticed one the other day in hounslow heading south from the cross roads
with the warren on it, as you go over the narrow railway bridge.

the sign reads, "bridge unsuitable for cyclist, please cross and use
footpath" for one the footpath is narrow and has stone wall one side and
metal fence the other, so that if i tryed to walk my bike across with
it's two paniers i'd be less than popular with folk, trying to squeeze
past.

the other point is the road seems to mostly be a line of traffic i
really can't see how even the slowest of bikes would cause any slow
down.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 08:30:56 +0100, David Hansen
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 18:05:01 +0100 someone who may be Tom Crispin
><[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>>Here are a couple of photos:
>>www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/thepark/p4230001
>>
>>The "no cycling" signs are on both outer gate posts, the one of the
>>left is partially concealed by the pedestrian's head.
>>
>>I conceed that you'd have to be pretty thick to interpret the no
>>cycling signs to mean cyclists are not welcome through the vehicular
>>gate. Yet I find it equally unbelieveable that the park chose to use
>>non standard cycling prohibition signs.
>
>Do the signs they have used mean anything? They obviously don't mean
>no cycling as the no cycling sign doesn't have a line through it, as
><http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/Signsandmarkings/index.htm?IdcService=GET_FILE&dID=96192&Rendition=Web>
>shows.
>
>Is there a problem cycling through the vehicle gates?

The Blackheath vehicular gates are locked between 6am (park opening
time) and 7am. The Queen Mary Gate, which has similar restrictions on
cycling through the pedestrian entrance, has the vehicular gates
locked between 10am and 4pm weekdays and all day at weekends.

 

[dkahn400]

On Apr 24, 12:49 pm, [email protected] (Roger Merriman) wrote:

> the sign reads, "bridge unsuitable for cyclist, please cross and use
> footpath" for one the footpath is narrow and has stone wall one side and
> metal fence the other, so that if i tryed to walk my bike across with
> it's two paniers i'd be less than popular with folk, trying to squeeze
> past.

If that's the one I think it is you are then expected to continue
along a service road for another 100 yards or maybe a little more
after the hill, then cross at a zebra crossing to get back to your
place on the road. You have to admit the road designers have really
thought this one through on our behalf.

I've long been tempted to have a sticky sign made up in the same font
and colours with the wording subtly changed to something like "Narrow
bridge, unsuitable for wide vehicles. Do not overtake cyclists". That
should avoid any supposed conflict.

It's about here. <http://preview.tinyurl.com/3vk8b7>. The marked
route is from the dismount signs to the pedestrian crossing where you
are supposed to rejoin the road. In fairness I expect the traffic
engineer thinks you will ride the last section along Rodney Road
rather than walk, and then either dismount again to cross the road or
ride illegally across the zebra. The footpath is very narrow along the
bridge. There is not room for a cyclist pushing a bike to pass someone
with a pushchair for example.

--
Dave...

 

[Ian Smith]

On Thu, 24 Apr, David Hansen <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 02:05:52 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be
> [email protected] wrote this:-
>
> >I find it dispiriting when
> >cyclists revert to discussions about what is and is not legally
> >enforcible

....

> >As an advocate for cyclists I will not be an apologist for bad behaviour.
>
> What is the bad behaviour you claim you will not be an apologist
> for?

Having teh gall to actually know what the law is, I think, when you
should be tugging your forelock and thanking 'im kindly for allowing
you the privilege of going into his park.

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

 

[Mark T]

dkahn400 writtificated

> I've long been tempted to have a sticky sign made up in the same font
> and colours with the wording subtly changed to something like "Narrow
> bridge, unsuitable for wide vehicles. Do not overtake cyclists". That
> should avoid any supposed conflict.

That's a great idea.

A few of these <www.gmcc.org.uk/main/?p=64> have appeared at the sides of
roads. <innocent voice> I have absolutely no idea who is responsible for
putting them there </> but it is certainly NOT the council.

Hasn't stopped the council claiming credit for 'em. Twice


p.s. If you do do it, don't get caught.

 

[Roger Merriman]

dkahn400 <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Apr 24, 12:49 pm, [email protected] (Roger Merriman) wrote:
>
> > the sign reads, "bridge unsuitable for cyclist, please cross and use
> > footpath" for one the footpath is narrow and has stone wall one side and
> > metal fence the other, so that if i tryed to walk my bike across with
> > it's two paniers i'd be less than popular with folk, trying to squeeze
> > past.
>
> If that's the one I think it is you are then expected to continue
> along a service road for another 100 yards or maybe a little more
> after the hill, then cross at a zebra crossing to get back to your
> place on the road. You have to admit the road designers have really
> thought this one through on our behalf.
>
got to wounder what they where thinking, really do.

> I've long been tempted to have a sticky sign made up in the same font
> and colours with the wording subtly changed to something like "Narrow
> bridge, unsuitable for wide vehicles. Do not overtake cyclists". That
> should avoid any supposed conflict.
>

heh!

> It's about here. <http://preview.tinyurl.com/3vk8b7>. The marked
> route is from the dismount signs to the pedestrian crossing where you
> are supposed to rejoin the road. In fairness I expect the traffic
> engineer thinks you will ride the last section along Rodney Road
> rather than walk, and then either dismount again to cross the road or
> ride illegally across the zebra. The footpath is very narrow along the
> bridge. There is not room for a cyclist pushing a bike to pass someone
> with a pushchair for example.
>
or any wide bike, full paniers such would not be easy to pass. certinaly
the best i've seen so far in the flesh.

> --
> Dave...

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com