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

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).

Remember that last bit when you read below.

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.

And?

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

Much longer distance.

And?

(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

Yes, I realised that after I'd pressed the send button, but thanks for the
reminder.

but its best done on the pavement to avoid annoying hooting drivers
with your slowness as there is no overtaking allowed.

Is walking through that tunnel permitted? I genuinely don't know.

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

Hardly feasible.

It's as feasible as it is for anyone else needing to carry a cargo through
the tunnel. A disabled-access taxi might be big enough. Plenty of people ride
through the tunnels in taxis. It's hardly a plutocratic solution.

(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.

Drivers are treated in the same way, to a nicety. It's a BOAT.

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.

Even more alternative provision. Thank you for that.

The alternatives, such as they are, are unacceptable.

Yes, I allowed that they probably would be.

Some of them involve effort and no expense, some effort and expense.

The best solution would be an often suggested foot/cycle bridge.

But what financial model is there?

It's notoriously difficult to get cyclists (as opposed to citizens) to pay
for any public provision they use.

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

I suspect that many/most/the vast majority are finding it difficult to summon
up as much as a sarcastic "boo hoo" for that.

On Sun, 08 Jan 2012 11:53:44 +0000, Tony Dragon
wrote:

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.

I absolutely agree with you. Cyclists are given 5* treatment on the
Woolwich Ferry - when it's running.

On Sun, 08 Jan 2012 13:31:35 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

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).

Remember that last bit when you read below.

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.

And?

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

Much longer distance.

And?

(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

Yes, I realised that after I'd pressed the send button, but thanks for the
reminder.

but its best done on the pavement to avoid annoying hooting drivers
with your slowness as there is no overtaking allowed.

Is walking through that tunnel permitted? I genuinely don't know.

Yes - I seem to recall that when a count was last made 10 pedestrians
per day walked through. That is largely because the stairwells into
the tunnel have been closed, and pedestrians have to use the entrances
designed for horse and carts, not the ones designed for pedestrians.

=====CAUTION: Wikipedia Quote=====
The two riverside shafts, built in red brick with stone dressings,
were fitted with iron spiral staircases to serve as pedestrian
entrances. They are now closed to the public (the roofs were damaged
during WWII, and the iron staircases became dangerous), and currently
the only entrance to the tunnel is via the main portals at each end
(the bases of the staircases can still be seen as you pass through the
tunnel). Pedestrian (and cycle) access is still permitted in the
Rotherhithe bore, however, the distances involved for pedestrians
increased significantly when the spiral staircases closed because
rather than just crossing the river, a pedestrian has to follow the
carriageway ramp all the way back to the surface. However, the shafts
have recently had new roofs fitted, and there are rumoured plans to
reopen the spiral staircases.
==========/Quote==========

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

Hardly feasible.

It's as feasible as it is for anyone else needing to carry a cargo through
the tunnel. A disabled-access taxi might be big enough. Plenty of people ride
through the tunnels in taxis. It's hardly a plutocratic solution.

(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.

Drivers are treated in the same way, to a nicety. It's a BOAT.

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.

Even more alternative provision. Thank you for that.

The alternatives, such as they are, are unacceptable.

Yes, I allowed that they probably would be.

Some of them involve effort and no expense, some effort and expense.

The best solution would be an often suggested foot/cycle bridge.

But what financial model is there?

It's notoriously difficult to get cyclists (as opposed to citizens) to pay
for any public provision they use.

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

I suspect that many/most/the vast majority are finding it difficult to summon
up as much as a sarcastic "boo hoo" for that.

On Jan 8, 2:25*pm, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jan 2012 11:53:44 +0000, Tony Dragon

wrote:
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.

I absolutely agree with you. Cyclists are given 5* treatment on the
Woolwich Ferry - when it's running.

Reminds me of the old Hull - New Holland ferry which is now a pub on
the river Thames.

--
Simon Mason

"Simon Mason" wrote in message
...
On Jan 8, 2:25 pm, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jan 2012 11:53:44 +0000, Tony Dragon

wrote:
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.

I absolutely agree with you. Cyclists are given 5* treatment on the
Woolwich Ferry - when it's running.

Reminds me of the old Hull - New Holland ferry which is now a pub on
the river Thames.

--
Simon Mason

Hardly, you had to pay to go on the British Rail ferries

On Jan 8, 1:31*pm, JNugent wrote:
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).

Remember that last bit when you read below.

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.

And?

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

And?

(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

Yes, I realised that after I'd pressed the send button, but thanks for the
reminder.

but its best done on the pavement to avoid annoying hooting drivers
with your slowness as there is no overtaking allowed.

Is walking through that tunnel permitted? I genuinely don't know.

Yes its permitted.

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

It's as feasible as it is for anyone else needing to carry a cargo through
the tunnel. A disabled-access taxi might be big enough. Plenty of people ride
through the tunnels in taxis. It's hardly a plutocratic solution.

The point I wish to emphasise is that cyclists, unlike motorists, are
made to dismount, thus becoming a pedestrian, and are made to adopt
alternative means of transport.

(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.

Drivers are treated in the same way, to a nicety. It's a BOAT.

No drivers are not made to dismount and cyclists are herded into a
confined space after dismounting.

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.

Even more alternative provision. Thank you for that.

IF you have a folding bike.

The alternatives, such as they are, are unacceptable.

Yes, I allowed that they probably would be.

Some of them involve effort and no expense, some effort and expense.

The best solution would be an often suggested foot/cycle bridge.

But what financial model is there?

The same financial model as roads, from general taxation.

It's notoriously difficult to get cyclists (as opposed to citizens) to pay
for any public provision they use.

They pay proportionately out of their own taxes like other taxpayers.
Pedestrians also get precincts without contributing directly don't
they?

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

I suspect that many/most/the vast majority are finding it difficult to summon
up as much as a sarcastic "boo hoo" for that.

Well it affects walkers too and they are a relatively large and
important group.

"Thames Path

The Thames Path is the most walked path in the country and it is
largely due to the efforts of the Ramblers that it was opened as a
National Trail in 1996. It extends from the Thames' source at Thames
Head in the Cotswolds through beautiful countryside and fascinating
urban areas past Oxford, Henley, Windsor and Greenwich to end at the
Thames Barrier near Woolwich. The riverside path has now been extended
further east via Woolwich and Erith and can now be followed to its
confluence with the River Darent near Dartford..."

http://www.innerlondonramblers.org.uk/walksideas.html

Why do you think it is OK to ignore the needs of minorities, just
because a lot of people have mistakenly decided to use cars as their
primary mode of transport?

-- .
World Carfree Network.
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 23:16:54 -0800 (PST), Doug
wrote:

On Jan 8, 1:31*pm, JNugent wrote:
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).

Remember that last bit when you read below.

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.

And?

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

And?

(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

Yes, I realised that after I'd pressed the send button, but thanks for the
reminder.

but its best done on the pavement to avoid annoying hooting drivers
with your slowness as there is no overtaking allowed.

Is walking through that tunnel permitted? I genuinely don't know.

Yes its permitted.

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

It's as feasible as it is for anyone else needing to carry a cargo through
the tunnel. A disabled-access taxi might be big enough. Plenty of people ride
through the tunnels in taxis. It's hardly a plutocratic solution.

The point I wish to emphasise is that cyclists, unlike motorists, are
made to dismount, thus becoming a pedestrian, and are made to adopt
alternative means of transport.

(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.

Drivers are treated in the same way, to a nicety. It's a BOAT.

No drivers are not made to dismount and cyclists are herded into a
confined space after dismounting.

I am not convinced that cyclists do have to dismount. It is certainly
more comfortable if you do. There are at least 10 areas, each large
enough for 5 - 10 cyclists, where cyclists can go during the ferry
crossing. Each have excellent views up and down the river as the ferry
crosses the Thames.

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.

Even more alternative provision. Thank you for that.

IF you have a folding bike.

The alternatives, such as they are, are unacceptable.

Yes, I allowed that they probably would be.

Some of them involve effort and no expense, some effort and expense.

The best solution would be an often suggested foot/cycle bridge.

But what financial model is there?

The same financial model as roads, from general taxation.

It's notoriously difficult to get cyclists (as opposed to citizens) to pay
for any public provision they use.

They pay proportionately out of their own taxes like other taxpayers.
Pedestrians also get precincts without contributing directly don't
they?

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

I suspect that many/most/the vast majority are finding it difficult to summon
up as much as a sarcastic "boo hoo" for that.

Well it affects walkers too and they are a relatively large and
important group.

"Thames Path

The Thames Path is the most walked path in the country and it is
largely due to the efforts of the Ramblers that it was opened as a
National Trail in 1996. It extends from the Thames' source at Thames
Head in the Cotswolds through beautiful countryside and fascinating
urban areas past Oxford, Henley, Windsor and Greenwich to end at the
Thames Barrier near Woolwich. The riverside path has now been extended
further east via Woolwich and Erith and can now be followed to its
confluence with the River Darent near Dartford..."

http://www.innerlondonramblers.org.uk/walksideas.html

Why do you think it is OK to ignore the needs of minorities, just
because a lot of people have mistakenly decided to use cars as their
primary mode of transport?

-- .
World Carfree Network.
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

Bertie Wooster wrote:

On Sun, 08 Jan 2012 11:53:44 +0000, Tony Dragon
wrote:

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.

I absolutely agree with you. Cyclists are given 5* treatment on the
Woolwich Ferry - when it's running.

I've not used it, on a bike myself but on foot, But yes why on earth
would i want to wait with the cars on the deck? and why would the ferry
want me to? bikes not being as big or as heavy.

rather pleasent way to cross the river really.

Roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

On 10/01/2012 07:16, Doug wrote:
On Jan 8, 1:31 pm, wrote:
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).

Remember that last bit when you read below.

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.

And?

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

And?

(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

Yes, I realised that after I'd pressed the send button, but thanks for the
reminder.

but its best done on the pavement to avoid annoying hooting drivers
with your slowness as there is no overtaking allowed.

Is walking through that tunnel permitted? I genuinely don't know.

Yes its permitted.

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

It's as feasible as it is for anyone else needing to carry a cargo through
the tunnel. A disabled-access taxi might be big enough. Plenty of people ride
through the tunnels in taxis. It's hardly a plutocratic solution.

The point I wish to emphasise is that cyclists, unlike motorists, are
made to dismount, thus becoming a pedestrian, and are made to adopt
alternative means of transport.

(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.

Drivers are treated in the same way, to a nicety. It's a BOAT.

No drivers are not made to dismount and cyclists are herded into a
confined space after dismounting.

The last time I used the ferry my car was herded into a confined space.


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.

Even more alternative provision. Thank you for that.

IF you have a folding bike.

The alternatives, such as they are, are unacceptable.

Yes, I allowed that they probably would be.

Some of them involve effort and no expense, some effort and expense.

The best solution would be an often suggested foot/cycle bridge.

But what financial model is there?

The same financial model as roads, from general taxation.

It's notoriously difficult to get cyclists (as opposed to citizens) to pay
for any public provision they use.

They pay proportionately out of their own taxes like other taxpayers.
Pedestrians also get precincts without contributing directly don't
they?

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

I suspect that many/most/the vast majority are finding it difficult to summon
up as much as a sarcastic "boo hoo" for that.

Well it affects walkers too and they are a relatively large and
important group.

"Thames Path

The Thames Path is the most walked path in the country and it is
largely due to the efforts of the Ramblers that it was opened as a
National Trail in 1996. It extends from the Thames' source at Thames
Head in the Cotswolds through beautiful countryside and fascinating
urban areas past Oxford, Henley, Windsor and Greenwich to end at the
Thames Barrier near Woolwich. The riverside path has now been extended
further east via Woolwich and Erith and can now be followed to its
confluence with the River Darent near Dartford..."

http://www.innerlondonramblers.org.uk/walksideas.html

Why do you think it is OK to ignore the needs of minorities, just
because a lot of people have mistakenly decided to use cars as their
primary mode of transport?

-- .
World Carfree Network.
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

On Jan 10, 3:42*pm, (Roger Merriman) wrote:
Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jan 2012 11:53:44 +0000, Tony Dragon
wrote:

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.

I absolutely agree with you. Cyclists are given 5* treatment on the
Woolwich Ferry - when it's running.

I've not used it, on a bike myself but on foot, But yes why on earth
would i want to wait with the cars on the deck? and why would the ferry
want me to? bikes not being as big or as heavy.

rather pleasent way to cross the river really.

Roger
--www.rogermerriman.com

Indeed.
Cycles get free and priority passage on the Hull - Rotterdam ferry.

--
Simon Mason