Rye Lane cycle lane confusion and danger

[Applespider]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> Understood Rendel!

>

> I think given what has happened in the last three

> months bicyclists are going to have to accelg

> finding safer alternative routes if they cant

> cross these bridges safely. It's for the greater

> good.

I suspect the barriers will be added to most bridges at which point alternative routes will be somewhat hard to find for cyclists. There's no other way for us to cross the Thames. On some bridges now, there are more bikes than cars at rush hour so perhaps we'll all have to think of the greater good and I hope most drivers will try to be more patient and avoid squeezing by riders on these narrower lanes. A sign or two like the use in roadworks to remind any others might be useful. Many of the pavements are also busy so even dismounting to cross isn't going to be easy.

I was looking at the segregated path on Vauxhall Bridge and thinking that the little kerb isn't going to stop anyone determined to cross it and I am not sure it's wide enough for those concrete blocks. It is a pity that the barriers weren't put on the outside as rendel says. Then again, these are apparently a tactical solution so perhaps anything more permanent will have a bit more thought. It's worth the LCC calling it out as a danger just to ensure whoever is deciding on future plans is aware.

[edhistory]

ianr Wrote:

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

> The Southwark public notice announcing the Rye

> Lane plans is available at

> http://www.2.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/3

> 116/frequently_requested_traffic_orders. The

> actual TMOs are attached to the response to

> https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/en/request/traffic_

> management_orderplan_for. Or is the actual

> cycleway later than 2010?

Thanks for these leads, Ian.

I'll follow them up at the weekend.

I may even find out which Southwark Council employee was responsible.

[Annasfield]

Those barriers on London Bridge sit in the cycle lane. They cut have put them on the pavement given how wide it is.

[rendelharris]

I must say (sorry a bit off topic) that I can't really see the point of them anyway - the last two outrages have taken place partially on bridges so we must protect the pavements on bridges...there are many other areas of London with large vulnerable crowds, unless it's planned to barrier all pavements in the centre of town it has a whiff of stable door and bolted horse to me.

[Annasfield]

If you've ever crossed London Bridge between 8 and 9 on a weekday morning you might understand why.

[rendelharris]

I have, frequently. I've also walked down Whitehall, around Trafalgar Square, through Bank etc at that time where there are just as many targets. I'm not trying to complain about efforts to keep us safe, I'm just saying I think any psychopath will simply go elsewhere and you can't wall off all of London's busy pavements.

[Applespider]

Rendel, I cycled over Vauxhall Bridge today to find the concrete blocks have appeared over the weekend. And they are in the segregated cycle lane. You couldn't make it up.

[BrandNewGuy]

And on Blackfriars Bridge, the northbound bus stop is now cut off from the road by the new barrier and is closed. Presumably permanently.

[rendelharris]

Yes, rode over both Blackfriars and Vauxhall bridges yesterday and noted the ludicrous siting of the barriers inside the cycle lanes. The new entrance and exit bollards are absurd too, to stop even the narrowest car getting through (say a Smart ForTwo) they could still be 150cm apart, they're much closer than that. The most ridiculous setup is at the north end of Blackfriars, where three massive boat-shaped bollards have been dumped in the centre of the cycle lane with two more either side, with just enough space for one cyclist going in either direction. That must be chaos in rush hour, anyone tried it?

I know we have to protect against attacks, but this is way over the top and, it seems to me, pointless, defending the bridges on the basis that they've been used before. I mean, I rode over Westminster Bridge on Saturday, yes now an attacker can't get at pedestrians on the bridge, get over the bridge and there were massive crowds in Parliament Square with nothing to stop them being mown down. Similarly, they can't get at pedestrians on Vauxhall Bridge, on Sunday they could have gone on a few hundred yards and found massive unprotected crowds waiting to get into the India vs SA game at the Oval.

It seems cyclists are bearing the brunt of new measures when it's cars that have done the damage - I haven't seen a single preventative measure to slow or check cars on the road. If they were sensible and effective of course one would be obliged to support them, however inconvenient, but they seem to me ill thought out, kneejerk measures which will have little if any real effect on public safety.

I've written to TfL about this, will post if any worthwhile response is forthcoming.

[Abe_froeman]

The difference between the bridges and places like parliament square is that the traffic lights all around parliament square, the oval etc, and all the associated traffic congestion make it impossible to get a car up to the sorts of lethal speeds the terrorists managed to achieve on Westminster and London Bridges.

To say that the barricades will have "little if any real effect on public safety," is nonsense. Let's see how many more terrorists attacks are carried out in London by driving a car across a bridge and into a crowed of pedestrian. I think you know that it simply won't happen ever again because of these measures.

[Beulah]

^I rode over Blackfriars Bridge this morning during rush hour - was total chaos.

The queue backed up almost halfway.

There was some ex-squaddie fat head - City of London PCSO type - near the gates at the northern end who was there to presumably make sure no-one was hurt - he was just shouting at everyone.

Made me wonder what would have happened if the terrorists had used a bicycle instead of a van - perhaps all cycling would be banned?

Vehicular traffic is completely unaffected.

I get the need to protect people but this is poorly thought out, poorly executed and actually puts more people in danger of being hurt IMO.

[rendelharris]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> The difference between the bridges and places like

> parliament square is that the traffic lights all

> around parliament square, the oval etc, and all

> the associated traffic congestion make it

> impossible to get a car up to the sorts of lethal

> speeds the terrorists managed to achieve on

> Westminster and London Bridges.

>

> To say that the barricades will have "little if

> any real effect on public safety," is nonsense.

> Let's see how many more terrorists attacks are

> carried out in London by driving a car across a

> bridge and into a crowed of pedestrian. I think

> you know that it simply won't happen ever again

> because of these measures.

Yes, quite possibly there won't be another attack on the bridges ? there'll just be an attack elsewhere. There are plenty of places where tourists gather that it would be possible to get up to a killing speed, especially with modern cars which accelerate so fast. On Sunday morning, for example, Westminster Bridge and Whitehall were almost devoid of traffic but there was still a large crowd, it wouldn't take much for a terrorist to work out the optimum time for an attack. When I say they will have little if any real effect on public safety I'm not claiming that the measures themselves are ineffective, I'm simply saying that attackers will select different targets: these sort of murdering psychopaths are hardly going to say oh dear, we can't make an attack on the bridges any more, let's call the whole thing off, are they?

And even if having barriers on the bridges is absolutely essential to public safety, there's still no reason for them to take away provision from cyclists when far more sensible and just as safe alternatives (which, incidentally, wouldn't inconvenience motorists at all) are available.

[rendelharris]

Beulah Wrote:

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

> ^I rode over Blackfriars Bridge this morning

> during rush hour - was total chaos.

> The queue backed up almost halfway.

> There was some ex-squaddie fat head - City of

> London PCSO type - near the gates at the northern

> end who was there to presumably make sure no-one

> was hurt - he was just shouting at everyone.

> Made me wonder what would have happened if the

> terrorists had used a bicycle instead of a van -

> perhaps all cycling would be banned?

> Vehicular traffic is completely unaffected.

> I get the need to protect people but this is

> poorly thought out, poorly executed and actually

> puts more people in danger of being hurt IMO.

Thanks for the information, I haven't sent my email to TfL yet so I will include that.

[BrandNewGuy]

Beulah Wrote:

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

> ^I rode over Blackfriars Bridge this morning

> during rush hour - was total chaos.

> The queue backed up almost halfway.

> There was some ex-squaddie fat head - City of

> London PCSO type - near the gates at the northern

> end who was there to presumably make sure no-one

> was hurt - he was just shouting at everyone.

It was chaos yesterday afternoon too. I was on a 45 bus that took 20 minutes to crawl from Southwark Station to the bridge. Got out, walked and caught the 45 ahead of the one I was on.

[taper]

I went over Blackfriars this morning. As Beulah says, utter chaos. Three light changes to get through. It seems fine at the south end.

[edhistory]

Is it legal to block a cycle lane?

Did Mr Khan order these changes?

[Penguin68]

The intent of terrorism is to disrupt and dismay. To change the way of life for ordinary people. If you consider what is happening to our roads, what already happens at airports and what we can take on board planes and so on, it is difficult to argue that the terrorists are not succeeding. True, we are far more p*ssed off than terrified, but we are definitely disrupted. The only good things are that an intent to create internal hatreds has only had a muted success - although the extent to which Brexit is a terrorist achievement would be an interesting one to argue..

[rendelharris]

taper Wrote:

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

> I went over Blackfriars this morning. As Beulah

> says, utter chaos. Three light changes to get

> through. It seems fine at the south end.

That's the other daft thing - they've blocked off the left turn onto the sliproad for the Embankment for the sewage works or whatever it is they're doing (which are going to take over a year, apparently - I wrote to ask if they couldn't have just left a small cycle lane open but no reply) but left the lights as if it's still open! As I don't usually cross at rush hour I get off and push over to the new, "temporary" cycle lane on the north side of the road, it's quicker than waiting for the lights. TfL, having given us unprecedentedly good new provision, seem hellbent on taking as much of it away as possible.

[taper]

Best thing to do I thing. Get off, walk, remount.

[rendelharris]

Just for information:

Dear Mr Harris

Thank you for your online form of 12 June about the security barriers that have been installed on Vauxhall, Westminster and Blackfriars Bridge.

I'm sorry for our delay in responding to you.

The Metropolitan Police has installed barriers to increase security on London's busiest bridges. We are working with them to ensure that these barriers affect cyclists as little as possible and facilitate safe pedestrian access, while ensuring the security of all road users.

I understand that Blackfriars Bridge has been raised as a particular issue as the restriction on cyclists is quite severe and cycling groups have become involved. I have passed your concerns for each of the bridges to our teams working with the Police.

Please be assured we will investigate if any improvements can be made.

Thanks again for contacting us. If there?s anything else we can help you with, please reply to this email. Alternatively, you can call us on 0343 222 1234 and we?ll be happy to help you.

Kind regards

Serena Richardson

Customer Service Adviser

Transport for London Customer Services

[Annasfield]

Rye Lane is getting worse. Not helped by the signage being covered in stickers.

[OutOfFocus]

I don't cycle much, not least because I am stressed by pedestrians walking in front if me eyes buried in a mobile. Then they complain that it's my fault for cycling on "pavement".

If i could find a way that avoided Rye Lane and the bit near Peckham Library.....

[jimbo1964]

I dread cycling along Rye Lane. I try to mostly go along Bellenden Road.

[Abe_froeman]

Cycling along Rye Lane is fine as long you go at an appropriate speed and obey the traffic lights. The buses manage to pass through there without colliding with pedestrians but invariably you see angry impatient cyclists overtaking buses on the pavement / oncoming cycle path at speed on both sides of the road.

This morning I was overtaken by 7 cyclists whilst stopped at the red light atvthe Primark end of the bus lane, all of whom had to avoid pedestrians crossing on a green man.

[zerkalo]

There is a short survey on Southwark Cyclists website about the impact of the Rye Lane closure for those who may want to fill in.

https://southwarkcyclists.org.uk/your-experience-of-the-rye-lane-closure/

Cycling on Rye Lane is getting worse every day. The designated cycle path is absolutely not fit for purpose for cyclists and pedestrians alike. Too many temporary traffic lights and buses further down make it an unpleasant cycling experience. Using Bellenden Road instead is an option but I find that it only really works well when heading north into town due to the one-way system.