Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [greenwichcyclists] Re: broken lift and cycling forbidden by the Cutty Sark

Expand Messages
  • Mark Etherington
    ... That implies that Sustrans knows about the issue, but it doesn t make clear whether the cycling ban has any legal basis. Mark
    Message 1 of 41 , May 8, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      It's interesting that if you look on the Sustrans online map (http://www.sustrans.org.uk/map) it gives the following information:

      > At the request of Greenwich Council, cyclists to dismount through Cutty Sark Gardens

      That implies that Sustrans knows about the issue, but it doesn't make clear whether the cycling ban has any legal basis.


      Mark


      On 1 May 2012, at 23:48, Julian Dobson wrote:

      > I've asked the Sustrans regional manager whether they have records of any agreements made when route 1/4 were created. I'll send and information I receive.
      >
      > On 1 May 2012, at 22:19, Tom Crispin wrote:
      >
      >>
      >> The law I think you are referring to is Section 72 of the 1835
      >> Highways Act.
      >>
      >> "If any person shall wilfully ride upon any footpath or causeway by
      >> the side of any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of
      >> foot passengers; or shall wilfully lead or drive any horse, ass,
      >> sheep, mule, swine, or cattle or carriage of any description, or any
      >> truck or sledge, upon any such footpath or causeway; or shall tether
      >> any horse, ass, mule, swine, or cattle, on any highway, so as to
      >> suffer or permit the tethered animal to be thereon; every person so
      >> offending in any of the cases aforesaid shall for each and every such
      >> offence forfeit and pay any sum not exceeding [level 2 on the standard
      >> scale], over and above the damages occasioned thereby."
      >>
      >> Cutty Sark Gardens is not a footpath or causeway by the side of the
      >> road, so is not included under Section 72. It is also debatable
      >> whether lawmakers of the time intended to include cycling which would
      >> have been a marginal activity. To them "ride" would almost certainly
      >> have only been used in respect of horses.
      >>
      >> Tom
      >>
      >> On Tue, 1 May 2012 20:32:19 +0100 (BST), you wrote:
      >>
      >> >I always thought the area around the Cutty Sark was pavement and as such cycling is forbidden unless there is specific signage to say it is allowed, for example a blue circle showing a bike alongside pedestrians.
      >> >
      >> >Whether or not it is sensible to have shared cycling is frankly irrelevant. Until it is shared use and signposted as such I really don't understand any failure to comply with regulations. I must also say that there seems to be quite a bit of ignoring of road rules by cyclists in Greenwich, as an example I think a casual visitor would struggle to recognise that King William Walk is a one way street given the number of times I've seen it used park-bound by cyclists.
      >> >
      >> >M
      >> >
      >> >
      >> >________________________________
      >> > From: woodrz <rob.z.wood@...>
      >> >To: greenwichcyclists@yahoogroups.com
      >> >Sent: Tuesday, 1 May 2012, 20:13
      >> >Subject: [greenwichcyclists] Re: broken lift and cycling forbidden by the Cutty Sark
      >> >
      >> >
      >> >
      >> >Ah at last - I've been trying to find out about this for some days now. Mornings (8-8:15) seem to be thug free, but afternoons seem to involve people in hi viz jackets shouting at people. I have looked for signs, flyers etc explaining matters with no success. I felt particularly concerns when one yesterday yelled across the concourse and when ignored I heard him clearly say "Get him Gal (Garry??)" - unnecessarily intimating for people with no apparent authority IMHO. Any additional information would be gratefully received...
      >> >
      >> >I would have thought the number of people that head the for the Tunnel from the park or Blackheath would surely justify a sensible shared use route from the Markt entrance. I too special notice on Monday - if the enter from the south west "corner" you are presented with the paved "garden" looking a lot like an extension to the road, which is a positive encouragement to ride in. Similarly the inclusion of the speed hump at the entrance to the lift shaft rather enforces the impression that riding is excepted up to the doorway.
      >> >
      >> >--- In greenwichcyclists@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Craven" <stephen@...> wrote:
      >> >>
      >> >> Liz and I had a quick word about this today while down at CSG. The original
      >> >> plan for the Gardens included a signed east-west cycle route (start of Route
      >> >> 4) although the rest of the area would remain "no cycling". We suggest the
      >> >> group's policy should be to ask for the E/W route to be more clearly signed,
      >> >> and the "no cycling" policy on the rest more clearly indicated so there's no
      >> >> misunderstanding. Hopefully "no cycling" would not be enforced during quiet
      >> >> times of day when few pedestrians are around.
      >> >>
      >> >> Stephen
      >> >>
      >> >> ----- Original Message -----
      >> >> From: "Roger Stocker" <rgstocker@...>
      >> >> To: <greenwichcyclists@yahoogroups.com>
      >> >> Cc: <lewishamcyclists@yahoogroups.com>
      >> >> Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2012 9:26 AM
      >> >> Subject: RE: [greenwichcyclists] broken lift and cycling forbidden by the
      >> >> Cutty Sark
      >> >>
      >> >>
      >> >> Can I suggest involving Len Duvall in this? He was very helpful in getting
      >> >> Deals Gateway sorted.
      >> >>
      >> >>
      >> >>
      >> >> Regards,
      >> >>
      >> >>
      >> >>
      >> >> Roger
      >> >>
      >> >>
      >> >>
      >> >> _____
      >> >>
      >> >> From: greenwichcyclists@yahoogroups.com
      >> >> [mailto:greenwichcyclists@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Francis Sedgemore
      >> >> Sent: 28 April 2012 08:21
      >> >> To: greenwichcyclists@yahoogroups.com
      >> >> Subject: Re: [greenwichcyclists] broken lift and cycling forbidden by the
      >> >> Cutty Sark
      >> >>
      >> >>
      >> >>
      >> >>
      >> >>
      >> >> In answer to Andrew Beswetherick, yes, Greenwich Cyclists have raised the
      >> >> issue before with the borough council, with zero response let alone success.
      >> >> The last time I raised it was I was when I was stopped a couple of years ago
      >> >> by a vague LBG official backed up by two most apologetic police constables.
      >> >> At the time I questioned their action, pointed out the inconsistency and
      >> >> lack of proper decision making in the (non) policy, and was told that an
      >> >> official response would follow.
      >> >>
      >> >> Needless to say, no response was forthcoming. I guess it's time to revisit
      >> >> the matter, this time in the form of an official question in council.
      >> >>
      >> >>
      >> >>
      >> >> Francis
      >> >>
      >> >>
      >> >>
      >> >> --
      >> >>
      >> >> Dr Francis Sedgemore
      >> >>
      >> >> journalist and science writer
      >> >>
      >> >> www.sedgemore.com
      >> >>
      >> >>
      >> >> On 28 Apr 2012, at 00:42, Julian Dobson <julian@...> wrote:
      >> >>
      >> >>
      >> >>
      >> >> Hi Andrew
      >> >>
      >> >>
      >> >>
      >> >> I've asked for guidance from Sustrans on this, as they put in the routes in
      >> >> conjunction with Greenwich Council.
      >> >>
      >> >>
      >> >>
      >> >> On 26 Apr 2012, at 21:58, Andrew Beswetherick wrote:
      >> >>
      >> >>
      >> >>
      >> >>
      >> >>
      >> >>
      >> >>
      >> >>
      >> >>
      >> >> I had a discouraging journey home tonight.
      >> >>
      >> >>
      >> >>
      >> >> The north lift was not in service and on exiting via the working south lift
      >> >> all cyclists were told to dismount as no cycling is allowed by the Cutty
      >> >> Sark (gardens?). Many cyclists were ignoring or trying to quickly cycle away
      >> >> from the 2 greenwich officials dressed in their brand new high viz jackets.
      >> >> I tried to explain to them that people have always cycled to the foot tunnel
      >> >> (hundreds use this route each day) and it is unreasonable for the council to
      >> >> forbid cyclists from cycling on a cycle route. It looks like they will
      >> >> continue to try to prevent cycling by the tunnel. How does the council think
      >> >> it can encourage cycling if this route is obstructed and cyclists are made
      >> >> to walk?
      >> >>
      >> >>
      >> >>
      >> >> Have Greenwich cyclists raised this issue with the council before? How can I
      >> >> complain about it most effectively?
      >> >>
      >> >>
      >> >>
      >> >> Many thanks for your help.
      >> >>
      >> >>
      >> >>
      >> >> Andrew
      >> >>
      >> >
      >> >
      >> >
      >>
      >
      >
      >
    • Mark Etherington
      ... That implies that Sustrans knows about the issue, but it doesn t make clear whether the cycling ban has any legal basis. Mark
      Message 41 of 41 , May 8, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        It's interesting that if you look on the Sustrans online map (http://www.sustrans.org.uk/map) it gives the following information:

        > At the request of Greenwich Council, cyclists to dismount through Cutty Sark Gardens

        That implies that Sustrans knows about the issue, but it doesn't make clear whether the cycling ban has any legal basis.


        Mark


        On 1 May 2012, at 23:48, Julian Dobson wrote:

        > I've asked the Sustrans regional manager whether they have records of any agreements made when route 1/4 were created. I'll send and information I receive.
        >
        > On 1 May 2012, at 22:19, Tom Crispin wrote:
        >
        >>
        >> The law I think you are referring to is Section 72 of the 1835
        >> Highways Act.
        >>
        >> "If any person shall wilfully ride upon any footpath or causeway by
        >> the side of any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of
        >> foot passengers; or shall wilfully lead or drive any horse, ass,
        >> sheep, mule, swine, or cattle or carriage of any description, or any
        >> truck or sledge, upon any such footpath or causeway; or shall tether
        >> any horse, ass, mule, swine, or cattle, on any highway, so as to
        >> suffer or permit the tethered animal to be thereon; every person so
        >> offending in any of the cases aforesaid shall for each and every such
        >> offence forfeit and pay any sum not exceeding [level 2 on the standard
        >> scale], over and above the damages occasioned thereby."
        >>
        >> Cutty Sark Gardens is not a footpath or causeway by the side of the
        >> road, so is not included under Section 72. It is also debatable
        >> whether lawmakers of the time intended to include cycling which would
        >> have been a marginal activity. To them "ride" would almost certainly
        >> have only been used in respect of horses.
        >>
        >> Tom
        >>
        >> On Tue, 1 May 2012 20:32:19 +0100 (BST), you wrote:
        >>
        >> >I always thought the area around the Cutty Sark was pavement and as such cycling is forbidden unless there is specific signage to say it is allowed, for example a blue circle showing a bike alongside pedestrians.
        >> >
        >> >Whether or not it is sensible to have shared cycling is frankly irrelevant. Until it is shared use and signposted as such I really don't understand any failure to comply with regulations. I must also say that there seems to be quite a bit of ignoring of road rules by cyclists in Greenwich, as an example I think a casual visitor would struggle to recognise that King William Walk is a one way street given the number of times I've seen it used park-bound by cyclists.
        >> >
        >> >M
        >> >
        >> >
        >> >________________________________
        >> > From: woodrz <rob.z.wood@...>
        >> >To: greenwichcyclists@yahoogroups.com
        >> >Sent: Tuesday, 1 May 2012, 20:13
        >> >Subject: [greenwichcyclists] Re: broken lift and cycling forbidden by the Cutty Sark
        >> >
        >> >
        >> >
        >> >Ah at last - I've been trying to find out about this for some days now. Mornings (8-8:15) seem to be thug free, but afternoons seem to involve people in hi viz jackets shouting at people. I have looked for signs, flyers etc explaining matters with no success. I felt particularly concerns when one yesterday yelled across the concourse and when ignored I heard him clearly say "Get him Gal (Garry??)" - unnecessarily intimating for people with no apparent authority IMHO. Any additional information would be gratefully received...
        >> >
        >> >I would have thought the number of people that head the for the Tunnel from the park or Blackheath would surely justify a sensible shared use route from the Markt entrance. I too special notice on Monday - if the enter from the south west "corner" you are presented with the paved "garden" looking a lot like an extension to the road, which is a positive encouragement to ride in. Similarly the inclusion of the speed hump at the entrance to the lift shaft rather enforces the impression that riding is excepted up to the doorway.
        >> >
        >> >--- In greenwichcyclists@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Craven" <stephen@...> wrote:
        >> >>
        >> >> Liz and I had a quick word about this today while down at CSG. The original
        >> >> plan for the Gardens included a signed east-west cycle route (start of Route
        >> >> 4) although the rest of the area would remain "no cycling". We suggest the
        >> >> group's policy should be to ask for the E/W route to be more clearly signed,
        >> >> and the "no cycling" policy on the rest more clearly indicated so there's no
        >> >> misunderstanding. Hopefully "no cycling" would not be enforced during quiet
        >> >> times of day when few pedestrians are around.
        >> >>
        >> >> Stephen
        >> >>
        >> >> ----- Original Message -----
        >> >> From: "Roger Stocker" <rgstocker@...>
        >> >> To: <greenwichcyclists@yahoogroups.com>
        >> >> Cc: <lewishamcyclists@yahoogroups.com>
        >> >> Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2012 9:26 AM
        >> >> Subject: RE: [greenwichcyclists] broken lift and cycling forbidden by the
        >> >> Cutty Sark
        >> >>
        >> >>
        >> >> Can I suggest involving Len Duvall in this? He was very helpful in getting
        >> >> Deals Gateway sorted.
        >> >>
        >> >>
        >> >>
        >> >> Regards,
        >> >>
        >> >>
        >> >>
        >> >> Roger
        >> >>
        >> >>
        >> >>
        >> >> _____
        >> >>
        >> >> From: greenwichcyclists@yahoogroups.com
        >> >> [mailto:greenwichcyclists@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Francis Sedgemore
        >> >> Sent: 28 April 2012 08:21
        >> >> To: greenwichcyclists@yahoogroups.com
        >> >> Subject: Re: [greenwichcyclists] broken lift and cycling forbidden by the
        >> >> Cutty Sark
        >> >>
        >> >>
        >> >>
        >> >>
        >> >>
        >> >> In answer to Andrew Beswetherick, yes, Greenwich Cyclists have raised the
        >> >> issue before with the borough council, with zero response let alone success.
        >> >> The last time I raised it was I was when I was stopped a couple of years ago
        >> >> by a vague LBG official backed up by two most apologetic police constables.
        >> >> At the time I questioned their action, pointed out the inconsistency and
        >> >> lack of proper decision making in the (non) policy, and was told that an
        >> >> official response would follow.
        >> >>
        >> >> Needless to say, no response was forthcoming. I guess it's time to revisit
        >> >> the matter, this time in the form of an official question in council.
        >> >>
        >> >>
        >> >>
        >> >> Francis
        >> >>
        >> >>
        >> >>
        >> >> --
        >> >>
        >> >> Dr Francis Sedgemore
        >> >>
        >> >> journalist and science writer
        >> >>
        >> >> www.sedgemore.com
        >> >>
        >> >>
        >> >> On 28 Apr 2012, at 00:42, Julian Dobson <julian@...> wrote:
        >> >>
        >> >>
        >> >>
        >> >> Hi Andrew
        >> >>
        >> >>
        >> >>
        >> >> I've asked for guidance from Sustrans on this, as they put in the routes in
        >> >> conjunction with Greenwich Council.
        >> >>
        >> >>
        >> >>
        >> >> On 26 Apr 2012, at 21:58, Andrew Beswetherick wrote:
        >> >>
        >> >>
        >> >>
        >> >>
        >> >>
        >> >>
        >> >>
        >> >>
        >> >>
        >> >> I had a discouraging journey home tonight.
        >> >>
        >> >>
        >> >>
        >> >> The north lift was not in service and on exiting via the working south lift
        >> >> all cyclists were told to dismount as no cycling is allowed by the Cutty
        >> >> Sark (gardens?). Many cyclists were ignoring or trying to quickly cycle away
        >> >> from the 2 greenwich officials dressed in their brand new high viz jackets.
        >> >> I tried to explain to them that people have always cycled to the foot tunnel
        >> >> (hundreds use this route each day) and it is unreasonable for the council to
        >> >> forbid cyclists from cycling on a cycle route. It looks like they will
        >> >> continue to try to prevent cycling by the tunnel. How does the council think
        >> >> it can encourage cycling if this route is obstructed and cyclists are made
        >> >> to walk?
        >> >>
        >> >>
        >> >>
        >> >> Have Greenwich cyclists raised this issue with the council before? How can I
        >> >> complain about it most effectively?
        >> >>
        >> >>
        >> >>
        >> >> Many thanks for your help.
        >> >>
        >> >>
        >> >>
        >> >> Andrew
        >> >>
        >> >
        >> >
        >> >
        >>
        >
        >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.