Why are they allowed to block Cycle Route 1 and the Thames Path?

On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 15:32:22 +0000, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:


stupid ****



--
An oft-repeated lie is still a lie.

On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 21:28:11 +0000, Judith wrote:




Porky,





--
An oft-repeated lie is still a lie.

On Jan 7, 9:24 pm, Phil W Lee wrote:
=

I a motorway a public highway? I ask because there are restrictions on
who may use a motorway.

No, it's a "special road".

It pretty much has to be, as it is barred to (afaict) EVERY class of
road user that would have an irrevocable right-of-way over a public
highway.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The only road around here that I am banned from riding on is the Humber
Bridge but then it does have two shared use paths and is free, whereas car
drivers pay £3.
The cycles paths also stay open when it gets too windy for the cars - poor
babies.

--
Simon Mason

On Jan 7, 1:37*pm, Dave - Cyclists VOR
wrote:
On 07/01/2012 13:01, Bertie Wooster wrote:









On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 23:24:09 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

This has been going on for years now, various luxury-flat developers
and others have been blocking the path in the vicinity of the London
Dome and it seems to be getting worse with yet another blockage
actually by the Dome itself.

Is the path owned by various landowners or does it belong to the
general public? What is the point in having a National path that is
frequently blocked? If they did the same to the same extent to
motorists on roads there would be an uproar.

On the Sustrans website the route around the dome is shown as a dotted
alternative with no explanation but the TfL maps (2004) show it as a
solid line.

Greenwich Cyclists discussed this issue (yet again) at their meeting
on Monday. NCN 1 has been completely closed off, with no signed
diversion, overnight Monday to Friday, since April 2011.

I asked a public question about this at the Full Council Meeting on 4
December. The council responded that a diversion would cost £11,000
per week to run, and the cost was prohibitive.

Very sensible. *No point wasting public money on a tiny minority who
only account for 2% of journeys.

What about all the walkers who also use the Thames Path? I suppose, as
usual, you believe the only people who should count are in cars and
the rest are your 'tiny minority'.

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

On Jan 7, 10:04*pm, JNugent wrote:
On 07/01/2012 21:19, Phil W Lee wrote:









Bertie :
Phil W wrote:
Is it not past time that the case was taken to the magistrates court
as the public highway is clearly "out of repair"?
(Crown court is only necessary if they dispute their liability to
maintain it, which would be difficult if they are already conducting
works on it!)
The magistrates, when finding that it is indeed out of repair, must
then make an order forcing the council to put it back into repair in a
reasonable time.
Highways Act 1980 s56
A guide can be found he
http://www.iprow.co.uk/gpg/index.php/Section_56_Process
Bridges and tunnels do form part of the highway.
s328(2). Meaning of 'highway'
(2) Where a highway passes over a bridge or through a tunnel, that
bridge or tunnel is to be taken for the purposes of this Act to be a
part of the highway.
And it seems that although they have the poser to do the works under
s66(3), s66(8) requires them to pay damages to anyone who sustains
damage due to the works carried out under that section.
It may also be worth pointing out that the authority has clearly
failed in it's duty under s175A, in that it has failed to have regard
to the needs of disabled and blind in executing works.
All good points, except possibly the last. One of the reasons for the
extensive works is to install a 24 hour lift service. The orignal
lifts were only operated 7am to 7pm and needed an operator.
I'm mainly referring to the complete absence of any alternative
provision.

So far from there being a "complete absence of any alternative provision",
there is in fact plenty of alternative provision. Whether it is fully
acceptable and available at the price the user prefers to pay is another
question (and not much to do with the topic).

For instance, a cyclist who had wished to walk/carry his bike through the
Greenwich *Foot* Tunnel can divert via Tower Bridge (on the bike). Or he can
divert to Dartford and use the Thames Crossing there. He and his machine will
apparently be carried in a motor vehicle across the bridge or through the
tunnel at no charge to himself, ie, at the expense of toll-paying users of
the Crossing.

Or he can use the Rotherhithe or Blackwall Tunnels on the same basis, except
that he will have to contract and *pay* for carriage in a motor-vehicle (just
like other users of those tunnels).

Alternatively, and bearing in mind that many users might not be prepared to
pay for safe carriage, they could - as long as it is between certain hours of
the day - use the Woolwich Ferry, free of charge.

So let's recap on the alternative provsions:

(a) Tower Bridge, as a cyclist, FOC.

Much longer distance.

(b) Dartford Crossing, as a passenger and goods, FOC.

Much longer distance.

(c) Rotherhithe Tunnel, as a passenger and goods, full economic cost (like
anyone else using that route).

Its possible to cycling in this tunnel amid all the traffic fumes but
its best done on the pavement to avoid annoying hooting drivers with
your slowness as there is no overtaking allowed.

(d) Blackwall Tunnel(s), as a passenger and goods, full economic cost (like
anyone else using that route).

Hardly feasible.

(e) Woolwich Ferry, as a passenger and goods, FOC.

You don't seem to know much about this. It is perfectly possible to
use the Woolwich Ferry if you don't mind dismounting and being treated
as a second class road user.

Yet someone or other says there is a "complete absence of any alternative
provision".

It truly takes all sorts.

You can also cross using the DLR with a folding bike.

The alternatives, such as they are, are unacceptable. The best
solution would be an often suggested foot/cycle bridge.

Meanwhile the blockages of the Thames Path route seem set to continue
indefinitely.

Doug.

On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 22:52:33 -0800 (PST), Doug
wrote:

On Jan 7, 10:04*pm, JNugent wrote:
On 07/01/2012 21:19, Phil W Lee wrote:









Bertie :
Phil W wrote:
Is it not past time that the case was taken to the magistrates court
as the public highway is clearly "out of repair"?
(Crown court is only necessary if they dispute their liability to
maintain it, which would be difficult if they are already conducting
works on it!)
The magistrates, when finding that it is indeed out of repair, must
then make an order forcing the council to put it back into repair in a
reasonable time.
Highways Act 1980 s56
A guide can be found he
http://www.iprow.co.uk/gpg/index.php/Section_56_Process
Bridges and tunnels do form part of the highway.
s328(2). Meaning of 'highway'
(2) Where a highway passes over a bridge or through a tunnel, that
bridge or tunnel is to be taken for the purposes of this Act to be a
part of the highway.
And it seems that although they have the poser to do the works under
s66(3), s66(8) requires them to pay damages to anyone who sustains
damage due to the works carried out under that section.
It may also be worth pointing out that the authority has clearly
failed in it's duty under s175A, in that it has failed to have regard
to the needs of disabled and blind in executing works.
All good points, except possibly the last. One of the reasons for the
extensive works is to install a 24 hour lift service. The orignal
lifts were only operated 7am to 7pm and needed an operator.
I'm mainly referring to the complete absence of any alternative
provision.

So far from there being a "complete absence of any alternative provision",
there is in fact plenty of alternative provision. Whether it is fully
acceptable and available at the price the user prefers to pay is another
question (and not much to do with the topic).

For instance, a cyclist who had wished to walk/carry his bike through the
Greenwich *Foot* Tunnel can divert via Tower Bridge (on the bike). Or he can
divert to Dartford and use the Thames Crossing there. He and his machine will
apparently be carried in a motor vehicle across the bridge or through the
tunnel at no charge to himself, ie, at the expense of toll-paying users of
the Crossing.

Or he can use the Rotherhithe or Blackwall Tunnels on the same basis, except
that he will have to contract and *pay* for carriage in a motor-vehicle (just
like other users of those tunnels).

Alternatively, and bearing in mind that many users might not be prepared to
pay for safe carriage, they could - as long as it is between certain hours of
the day - use the Woolwich Ferry, free of charge.

So let's recap on the alternative provsions:

(a) Tower Bridge, as a cyclist, FOC.

Much longer distance.

(b) Dartford Crossing, as a passenger and goods, FOC.

Much longer distance.

(c) Rotherhithe Tunnel, as a passenger and goods, full economic cost (like
anyone else using that route).

Its possible to cycling in this tunnel amid all the traffic fumes but
its best done on the pavement to avoid annoying hooting drivers with
your slowness as there is no overtaking allowed.

Transport for London are trying to ban hand bikes from the Rotherhithe
Tunnel. It is hot news on the Southwark Cyclists Yahoo! group.

(d) Blackwall Tunnel(s), as a passenger and goods, full economic cost (like
anyone else using that route).

Hardly feasible.

(e) Woolwich Ferry, as a passenger and goods, FOC.

You don't seem to know much about this. It is perfectly possible to
use the Woolwich Ferry if you don't mind dismounting and being treated
as a second class road user.

The Woolwich Ferry is a joy to use.

My concern was that during the extensive periods between 9pm and 6am
there was no viable crossing of the Thames for cyclists below Tower
Bridge. That hadn't happened since 1902.

Yet someone or other says there is a "complete absence of any alternative
provision".

It truly takes all sorts.

You can also cross using the DLR with a folding bike.

The alternatives, such as they are, are unacceptable. The best
solution would be an often suggested foot/cycle bridge.

Meanwhile the blockages of the Thames Path route seem set to continue
indefinitely.

Yep.

On 08/01/2012 06:41, Doug wrote:
On Jan 7, 1:37 pm, Dave - Cyclists
wrote:
On 07/01/2012 13:01, Bertie Wooster wrote:









On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 23:24:09 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

This has been going on for years now, various luxury-flat developers
and others have been blocking the path in the vicinity of the London
Dome and it seems to be getting worse with yet another blockage
actually by the Dome itself.

Is the path owned by various landowners or does it belong to the
general public? What is the point in having a National path that is
frequently blocked? If they did the same to the same extent to
motorists on roads there would be an uproar.

On the Sustrans website the route around the dome is shown as a dotted
alternative with no explanation but the TfL maps (2004) show it as a
solid line.

Greenwich Cyclists discussed this issue (yet again) at their meeting
on Monday. NCN 1 has been completely closed off, with no signed
diversion, overnight Monday to Friday, since April 2011.

I asked a public question about this at the Full Council Meeting on 4
December. The council responded that a diversion would cost £11,000
per week to run, and the cost was prohibitive.

Very sensible. No point wasting public money on a tiny minority who
only account for 2% of journeys.

What about all the walkers who also use the Thames Path? I suppose, as
usual, you believe the only people who should count are in cars and
the rest are your 'tiny minority'.

They aren't whinging....



--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

On 08/01/2012 06:52, Doug wrote:
On Jan 7, 10:04 pm, wrote:
On 07/01/2012 21:19, Phil W Lee wrote:









Bertie :
Phil W wrote:
Is it not past time that the case was taken to the magistrates court
as the public highway is clearly "out of repair"?
(Crown court is only necessary if they dispute their liability to
maintain it, which would be difficult if they are already conducting
works on it!)
The magistrates, when finding that it is indeed out of repair, must
then make an order forcing the council to put it back into repair in a
reasonable time.
Highways Act 1980 s56
A guide can be found he
http://www.iprow.co.uk/gpg/index.php/Section_56_Process
Bridges and tunnels do form part of the highway.
s328(2). Meaning of 'highway'
(2) Where a highway passes over a bridge or through a tunnel, that
bridge or tunnel is to be taken for the purposes of this Act to be a
part of the highway.
And it seems that although they have the poser to do the works under
s66(3), s66(8) requires them to pay damages to anyone who sustains
damage due to the works carried out under that section.
It may also be worth pointing out that the authority has clearly
failed in it's duty under s175A, in that it has failed to have regard
to the needs of disabled and blind in executing works.
All good points, except possibly the last. One of the reasons for the
extensive works is to install a 24 hour lift service. The orignal
lifts were only operated 7am to 7pm and needed an operator.
I'm mainly referring to the complete absence of any alternative
provision.

So far from there being a "complete absence of any alternative provision",
there is in fact plenty of alternative provision. Whether it is fully
acceptable and available at the price the user prefers to pay is another
question (and not much to do with the topic).

For instance, a cyclist who had wished to walk/carry his bike through the
Greenwich *Foot* Tunnel can divert via Tower Bridge (on the bike). Or he can
divert to Dartford and use the Thames Crossing there. He and his machine will
apparently be carried in a motor vehicle across the bridge or through the
tunnel at no charge to himself, ie, at the expense of toll-paying users of
the Crossing.

Or he can use the Rotherhithe or Blackwall Tunnels on the same basis, except
that he will have to contract and *pay* for carriage in a motor-vehicle (just
like other users of those tunnels).

Alternatively, and bearing in mind that many users might not be prepared to
pay for safe carriage, they could - as long as it is between certain hours of
the day - use the Woolwich Ferry, free of charge.

So let's recap on the alternative provsions:

(a) Tower Bridge, as a cyclist, FOC.

Much longer distance.

But cycles are so efficient and always win commuter challenges.


(b) Dartford Crossing, as a passenger and goods, FOC.

Much longer distance.

But cycles are so efficient and always win commuter challenges.


(c) Rotherhithe Tunnel, as a passenger and goods, full economic cost (like
anyone else using that route).

Its possible to cycling in this tunnel amid all the traffic fumes but
its best done on the pavement to avoid annoying hooting drivers with
your slowness as there is no overtaking allowed.

Ah, so bicycles are too slow to be a viable form of transport then?


(d) Blackwall Tunnel(s), as a passenger and goods, full economic cost (like
anyone else using that route).

Hardly feasible.

But cycles are so efficient and always win commuter challenges.

(e) Woolwich Ferry, as a passenger and goods, FOC.

You don't seem to know much about this. It is perfectly possible to
use the Woolwich Ferry if you don't mind dismounting and being treated
as a second class road user.

But bicyclists are second class road users.

Yet someone or other says there is a "complete absence of any alternative
provision".

It truly takes all sorts.

You can also cross using the DLR with a folding bike.

The alternatives, such as they are, are unacceptable. The best
solution would be an often suggested foot/cycle bridge.

Good idea. I suggest you have a whip round at the next CM to pay for
it. Or do you think someone else should pay for it?

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

On 08/01/2012 08:36, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 22:52:33 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Jan 7, 10:04 pm, wrote:
On 07/01/2012 21:19, Phil W Lee wrote:









Bertie :
Phil W wrote:
Is it not past time that the case was taken to the magistrates court
as the public highway is clearly "out of repair"?
(Crown court is only necessary if they dispute their liability to
maintain it, which would be difficult if they are already conducting
works on it!)
The magistrates, when finding that it is indeed out of repair, must
then make an order forcing the council to put it back into repair in a
reasonable time.
Highways Act 1980 s56
A guide can be found he
http://www.iprow.co.uk/gpg/index.php/Section_56_Process
Bridges and tunnels do form part of the highway.
s328(2). Meaning of 'highway'
(2) Where a highway passes over a bridge or through a tunnel, that
bridge or tunnel is to be taken for the purposes of this Act to be a
part of the highway.
And it seems that although they have the poser to do the works under
s66(3), s66(8) requires them to pay damages to anyone who sustains
damage due to the works carried out under that section.
It may also be worth pointing out that the authority has clearly
failed in it's duty under s175A, in that it has failed to have regard
to the needs of disabled and blind in executing works.
All good points, except possibly the last. One of the reasons for the
extensive works is to install a 24 hour lift service. The orignal
lifts were only operated 7am to 7pm and needed an operator.
I'm mainly referring to the complete absence of any alternative
provision.

So far from there being a "complete absence of any alternative provision",
there is in fact plenty of alternative provision. Whether it is fully
acceptable and available at the price the user prefers to pay is another
question (and not much to do with the topic).

For instance, a cyclist who had wished to walk/carry his bike through the
Greenwich *Foot* Tunnel can divert via Tower Bridge (on the bike). Or he can
divert to Dartford and use the Thames Crossing there. He and his machine will
apparently be carried in a motor vehicle across the bridge or through the
tunnel at no charge to himself, ie, at the expense of toll-paying users of
the Crossing.

Or he can use the Rotherhithe or Blackwall Tunnels on the same basis, except
that he will have to contract and *pay* for carriage in a motor-vehicle (just
like other users of those tunnels).

Alternatively, and bearing in mind that many users might not be prepared to
pay for safe carriage, they could - as long as it is between certain hours of
the day - use the Woolwich Ferry, free of charge.

So let's recap on the alternative provsions:

(a) Tower Bridge, as a cyclist, FOC.

Much longer distance.

(b) Dartford Crossing, as a passenger and goods, FOC.

Much longer distance.

(c) Rotherhithe Tunnel, as a passenger and goods, full economic cost (like
anyone else using that route).

Its possible to cycling in this tunnel amid all the traffic fumes but
its best done on the pavement to avoid annoying hooting drivers with
your slowness as there is no overtaking allowed.

Transport for London are trying to ban hand bikes from the Rotherhithe
Tunnel.

Excellent idea, good for them.


It is hot news on the Southwark Cyclists Yahoo! group.

(d) Blackwall Tunnel(s), as a passenger and goods, full economic cost (like
anyone else using that route).

Hardly feasible.

(e) Woolwich Ferry, as a passenger and goods, FOC.

You don't seem to know much about this. It is perfectly possible to
use the Woolwich Ferry if you don't mind dismounting and being treated
as a second class road user.

The Woolwich Ferry is a joy to use.

My concern was that during the extensive periods between 9pm and 6am
there was no viable crossing of the Thames for cyclists below Tower
Bridge. That hadn't happened since 1902.

Oh what a shame.

Yet someone or other says there is a "complete absence of any alternative
provision".

It truly takes all sorts.

You can also cross using the DLR with a folding bike.

The alternatives, such as they are, are unacceptable. The best
solution would be an often suggested foot/cycle bridge.

Meanwhile the blockages of the Thames Path route seem set to continue
indefinitely.

Yep.

Thats what happens when you are sponging freeloaders.


--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

On 08/01/2012 06:52, Doug wrote:
On Jan 7, 10:04 pm, wrote:
On 07/01/2012 21:19, Phil W Lee wrote:









Bertie :
Phil W wrote:
Is it not past time that the case was taken to the magistrates court
as the public highway is clearly "out of repair"?
(Crown court is only necessary if they dispute their liability to
maintain it, which would be difficult if they are already conducting
works on it!)
The magistrates, when finding that it is indeed out of repair, must
then make an order forcing the council to put it back into repair in a
reasonable time.
Highways Act 1980 s56
A guide can be found he
http://www.iprow.co.uk/gpg/index.php/Section_56_Process
Bridges and tunnels do form part of the highway.
s328(2). Meaning of 'highway'
(2) Where a highway passes over a bridge or through a tunnel, that
bridge or tunnel is to be taken for the purposes of this Act to be a
part of the highway.
And it seems that although they have the poser to do the works under
s66(3), s66(8) requires them to pay damages to anyone who sustains
damage due to the works carried out under that section.
It may also be worth pointing out that the authority has clearly
failed in it's duty under s175A, in that it has failed to have regard
to the needs of disabled and blind in executing works.
All good points, except possibly the last. One of the reasons for the
extensive works is to install a 24 hour lift service. The orignal
lifts were only operated 7am to 7pm and needed an operator.
I'm mainly referring to the complete absence of any alternative
provision.

So far from there being a "complete absence of any alternative provision",
there is in fact plenty of alternative provision. Whether it is fully
acceptable and available at the price the user prefers to pay is another
question (and not much to do with the topic).

For instance, a cyclist who had wished to walk/carry his bike through the
Greenwich *Foot* Tunnel can divert via Tower Bridge (on the bike). Or he can
divert to Dartford and use the Thames Crossing there. He and his machine will
apparently be carried in a motor vehicle across the bridge or through the
tunnel at no charge to himself, ie, at the expense of toll-paying users of
the Crossing.

Or he can use the Rotherhithe or Blackwall Tunnels on the same basis, except
that he will have to contract and *pay* for carriage in a motor-vehicle (just
like other users of those tunnels).

Alternatively, and bearing in mind that many users might not be prepared to
pay for safe carriage, they could - as long as it is between certain hours of
the day - use the Woolwich Ferry, free of charge.

So let's recap on the alternative provsions:

(a) Tower Bridge, as a cyclist, FOC.

Much longer distance.

(b) Dartford Crossing, as a passenger and goods, FOC.

Much longer distance.

(c) Rotherhithe Tunnel, as a passenger and goods, full economic cost (like
anyone else using that route).

Its possible to cycling in this tunnel amid all the traffic fumes but
its best done on the pavement to avoid annoying hooting drivers with
your slowness as there is no overtaking allowed.

(d) Blackwall Tunnel(s), as a passenger and goods, full economic cost (like
anyone else using that route).

Hardly feasible.

(e) Woolwich Ferry, as a passenger and goods, FOC.

You don't seem to know much about this. It is perfectly possible to
use the Woolwich Ferry if you don't mind dismounting and being treated
as a second class road user.

Funny every time I have been near the Woolwich ferry, the cyclists have
not joined the queue but have cycled up to the front before getting on
the ferry.
Hardly being treated as a second class user.


Yet someone or other says there is a "complete absence of any alternative
provision".

It truly takes all sorts.

You can also cross using the DLR with a folding bike.

The alternatives, such as they are, are unacceptable. The best
solution would be an often suggested foot/cycle bridge.

Meanwhile the blockages of the Thames Path route seem set to continue
indefinitely.

Doug.