Greenwich Park, the most cyclist unfriendly of all the Royal Parks has
struck again by excluding tandems, recumbents, kiddie trailers and
touring bikes from the cycle path connecting eastern side of the park
to central Greenwich.

www.cig.canon-europe.com/a?i=7pkaLVDpp7

On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 21:08:45 +0100, Tom Crispin wrote:

> Greenwich Park, the most cyclist unfriendly of all the Royal Parks has
> struck again by excluding tandems, recumbents, kiddie trailers and
> touring bikes from the cycle path connecting eastern side of the park
> to central Greenwich.
> 
> www.cig.canon-europe.com/a?i=7pkaLVDpp7

'excluding' is too harsh.

'restricting' is more like it.  Bikes can, after all, be lifted over
obstructions; the gates just restrict such travel to those inclined to do
the lifting.

Tom Crispin wrote:
> Greenwich Park, the most cyclist unfriendly of all the Royal Parks has
> struck again by excluding tandems, recumbents, kiddie trailers and
> touring bikes from the cycle path connecting eastern side of the park
> to central Greenwich.
> 
> www.cig.canon-europe.com/a?i=7pkaLVDpp7

Find a mother with a tandem buggy to complain!

Tom Crispin wrote:

> Greenwich Park, the most cyclist unfriendly of all the Royal Parks has
> struck again by excluding tandems, recumbents, kiddie trailers and
> touring bikes from the cycle path connecting eastern side of the park
> to central Greenwich.

> www.cig.canon-europe.com/a?i=7pkaLVDpp7

(...which shows a railed chicane - almost a "kissing-gate" - arrangement 
protecting a little-more-than-average-sized doorway in a solid brick boundary 
wall of about two metres high, the only sightlines being directly through the 
doorway itself, and very restricted until one has passed through the doorway.)

Do you think cyclists should be encouraged or allowed to go straight through 
that doorway/gateway at normal cycling speed? Or, really, at any cycling 
speed greater than walking pace?

If you don't (and I assume you have the common sense not to), how would you 
prevent that practice and thereby protect pedestrians using or even simply 
passing that entrance?

On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 22:33:11 +0100, JNugent
 wrote:

>Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>> Greenwich Park, the most cyclist unfriendly of all the Royal Parks has
>> struck again by excluding tandems, recumbents, kiddie trailers and
>> touring bikes from the cycle path connecting eastern side of the park
>> to central Greenwich.
>
>> www.cig.canon-europe.com/a?i=7pkaLVDpp7
>
>(...which shows a railed chicane - almost a "kissing-gate" - arrangement 
>protecting a little-more-than-average-sized doorway in a solid brick boundary 
>wall of about two metres high, the only sightlines being directly through the 
>doorway itself, and very restricted until one has passed through the doorway.)
>
>Do you think cyclists should be encouraged or allowed to go straight through 
>that doorway/gateway at normal cycling speed? Or, really, at any cycling 
>speed greater than walking pace?
>
>If you don't (and I assume you have the common sense not to), how would you 
>prevent that practice and thereby protect pedestrians using or even simply 
>passing that entrance?

Why does it have to be about prevention.  Surely it would make more
sense to allow cyclists safe access to the park.

Tom Crispin wrote:

> JNugent  wrote:
>> Tom Crispin wrote:

>>> Greenwich Park, the most cyclist unfriendly of all the Royal Parks has
>>> struck again by excluding tandems, recumbents, kiddie trailers and
>>> touring bikes from the cycle path connecting eastern side of the park
>>> to central Greenwich.
>>> www.cig.canon-europe.com/a?i=7pkaLVDpp7

>> (...which shows a railed chicane - almost a "kissing-gate" - arrangement 
>> protecting a little-more-than-average-sized doorway in a solid brick boundary 
>> wall of about two metres high, the only sightlines being directly through the 
>> doorway itself, and very restricted until one has passed through the doorway.)

>> Do you think cyclists should be encouraged or allowed to go straight through 
>> that doorway/gateway at normal cycling speed? Or, really, at any cycling 
>> speed greater than walking pace?
>> If you don't (and I assume you have the common sense not to), how would you 
>> prevent that practice and thereby protect pedestrians using or even simply 
>> passing that entrance?

> Why does it have to be about prevention.

I assume that was meant to be a question.

Please re-read what was written above.

Do you think cyclists should be encouraged or allowed to go straight through 
that [relatively narrow] doorway/gateway at normal cycling speed? Or, really, 
at any cycling speed greater than walking pace?

The range of possible answers is really quite limited:

(a) "Yes",
(b) "No" or
(c) "I don't know".

> Surely it would make more sense to allow cyclists safe access to the park.

Safe from what?

"JNugent"  wrote
> Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>> JNugent  wrote:
>>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>>>> Greenwich Park, the most cyclist unfriendly of all the Royal Parks has
>>>> struck again by excluding tandems, recumbents, kiddie trailers and
>>>> touring bikes from the cycle path connecting eastern side of the park
>>>> to central Greenwich.
>>>> www.cig.canon-europe.com/a?i=7pkaLVDpp7
>
>>> (...which shows a railed chicane - almost a "kissing-gate" - arrangement 
>>> protecting a little-more-than-average-sized doorway in a solid brick 
>>> boundary wall of about two metres high, the only sightlines being 
>>> directly through the doorway itself, and very restricted until one has 
>>> passed through the doorway.)
>
>>> Do you think cyclists should be encouraged or allowed to go straight 
>>> through that doorway/gateway at normal cycling speed? Or, really, at any 
>>> cycling speed greater than walking pace?
>>> If you don't (and I assume you have the common sense not to), how would 
>>> you prevent that practice and thereby protect pedestrians using or even 
>>> simply passing that entrance?
>
>> Why does it have to be about prevention.
>
> I assume that was meant to be a question.
>
> Please re-read what was written above.
>
> Do you think cyclists should be encouraged or allowed to go straight 
> through that [relatively narrow] doorway/gateway at normal cycling speed? 
> Or, really, at any cycling speed greater than walking pace?
>
> The range of possible answers is really quite limited:
>
> (a) "Yes",
> (b) "No" or
> (c) "I don't know".

You are not a barrister cross examining a defendant.

>> Surely it would make more sense to allow cyclists safe access to the 
>> park.
> Safe from what?

I suppose he means safe from unecessary danger, for everyone in the area of 
the gate.

Mike Sales

On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 22:50:15 +0100, Tom Crispin wrote:

> Why does it have to be about prevention.  Surely it would make more
> sense to allow cyclists safe access to the park.

Indeed it would, Tom. However, it would appear very unsafe for cyclists 
to go through that gateway while mounted: the sight-lines are appalling, 
with no way to see who's obscured by the wall and about to step into the 
opening...

Perhaps that is one place where cyclists should be a compelled to 
dismount? I hasten to add that I am no great fan of compulsory anything...

-- 
Regards
Alex

http://www.badphorm.co.uk/

On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 22:08:34 +0000, Alex Potter wrote:

> Perhaps that is one place where cyclists should be a compelled to
> dismount?

Or perhaps the council should improve the access to the park from that 
location? That would be my preferred solution.

-- 
Regards
Alex

http://www.badphorm.co.uk/

"JNugent"  wrote in message 
news:pIOdnVsagKPONlzVnZ2dnUVZ8sbinZ2d@pipex.net...
> Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>
> Do you think cyclists should be encouraged or allowed to go straight 
> through that [relatively narrow] doorway/gateway at normal cycling speed? 
> Or, really, at any cycling speed greater than walking pace?
>
> The range of possible answers is really quite limited:
>
> (a) "Yes",
> (b) "No" or
> (c) "I don't know".

You seem to have overlooked the most appropriate answer:

(d) "who cares, the questioner's a prat."

_ wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 21:08:45 +0100, Tom Crispin wrote:
> 
>> Greenwich Park, the most cyclist unfriendly of all the Royal Parks has
>> struck again by excluding tandems, recumbents, kiddie trailers and
>> touring bikes from the cycle path connecting eastern side of the park
>> to central Greenwich.
>>
>> www.cig.canon-europe.com/a?i=7pkaLVDpp7
> 
> 'excluding' is too harsh.
> 
> 'restricting' is more like it.  Bikes can, after all, be lifted over
> obstructions; the gates just restrict such travel to those inclined to do
> the lifting.

Not if you've got a kid in a trailer.  The speed bumps of the cycling world.

"Tom Crispin" <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote in message 
news:c743c45p95ir4hlk6s1psbe790tmgfhstv@4ax.com...
> Greenwich Park, the most cyclist unfriendly of all the Royal Parks has
> struck again by excluding tandems, recumbents, kiddie trailers and
> touring bikes from the cycle path connecting eastern side of the park
> to central Greenwich.
>
> www.cig.canon-europe.com/a?i=7pkaLVDpp7

I suggest speaking to the local Disability Discrimination Officer, the one 
employed by the same council that wasted their money putting the new 
barriers in.

JNugent wrote:

> Do you think cyclists should be encouraged or allowed to go straight
> through that doorway/gateway at normal cycling speed? Or, really, at
> any cycling speed greater than walking pace?

But this is slower than walking pace.  You can reduce speed without making 
it ludicrously difficult to get a bike through.

~PB

On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 22:08:34 GMT, Alex Potter
 wrote:

>On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 22:50:15 +0100, Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>> Why does it have to be about prevention.  Surely it would make more
>> sense to allow cyclists safe access to the park.
>
>Indeed it would, Tom. However, it would appear very unsafe for cyclists 
>to go through that gateway while mounted: the sight-lines are appalling, 
>with no way to see who's obscured by the wall and about to step into the 
>opening...
>
>Perhaps that is one place where cyclists should be a compelled to 
>dismount? I hasten to add that I am no great fan of compulsory anything...

Cyclists are compelled to dismount by bylaw.  And those cyclists who
do cycle through have to do so at a very low speed - they have to due
to the situation the other side of the gate and the roadside railings
alongside a narrow pavement.

Why should certain classes of cyclists be excluded from using that
entrance?

On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 22:11:31 GMT, Alex Potter
 wrote:

>On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 22:08:34 +0000, Alex Potter wrote:
>
>> Perhaps that is one place where cyclists should be a compelled to
>> dismount?
>
>Or perhaps the council should improve the access to the park from that 
>location? That would be my preferred solution.

It is not under council control.  The Royal Parks seem to be a law
unto themselves - I understand that Andy Burnham is the minister in
charge.

On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 22:57:39 +0100, JNugent
 wrote:

>Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>> JNugent  wrote:
>>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>>>> Greenwich Park, the most cyclist unfriendly of all the Royal Parks has
>>>> struck again by excluding tandems, recumbents, kiddie trailers and
>>>> touring bikes from the cycle path connecting eastern side of the park
>>>> to central Greenwich.
>>>> www.cig.canon-europe.com/a?i=7pkaLVDpp7
>
>>> (...which shows a railed chicane - almost a "kissing-gate" - arrangement 
>>> protecting a little-more-than-average-sized doorway in a solid brick boundary 
>>> wall of about two metres high, the only sightlines being directly through the 
>>> doorway itself, and very restricted until one has passed through the doorway.)
>
>>> Do you think cyclists should be encouraged or allowed to go straight through 
>>> that doorway/gateway at normal cycling speed? Or, really, at any cycling 
>>> speed greater than walking pace?
>>> If you don't (and I assume you have the common sense not to), how would you 
>>> prevent that practice and thereby protect pedestrians using or even simply 
>>> passing that entrance?
>
>> Why does it have to be about prevention.
>
>I assume that was meant to be a question.
>
>Please re-read what was written above.
>
>Do you think cyclists should be encouraged or allowed to go straight through 
>that [relatively narrow] doorway/gateway at normal cycling speed? Or, really, 
>at any cycling speed greater than walking pace?
>
>The range of possible answers is really quite limited:
>
>(a) "Yes",
>(b) "No" or
>(c) "I don't know".

The question is daft.  Can you really imagine anyone being able to
cycle through this gate above anything other than walking pace?
www.britishschoolofcycling.com/photos/gate

>> Surely it would make more sense to allow cyclists safe access to the park.
>
>Safe from what?

Ridiculous contraptions.

Tom Crispin wrote:
> Greenwich Park, the most cyclist unfriendly of all the Royal Parks has
> struck again by excluding tandems, recumbents, kiddie trailers and
> touring bikes from the cycle path connecting eastern side of the park
> to central Greenwich.
> 
> www.cig.canon-europe.com/a?i=7pkaLVDpp7

Excellent news. A victory for the vulnerable pedestrian :)

Mike Sales wrote:
> "JNugent"  wrote
>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>
>>> JNugent  wrote:
>>>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>>>> Greenwich Park, the most cyclist unfriendly of all the Royal Parks has
>>>>> struck again by excluding tandems, recumbents, kiddie trailers and
>>>>> touring bikes from the cycle path connecting eastern side of the park
>>>>> to central Greenwich.
>>>>> www.cig.canon-europe.com/a?i=7pkaLVDpp7
>>>> (...which shows a railed chicane - almost a "kissing-gate" - arrangement 
>>>> protecting a little-more-than-average-sized doorway in a solid brick 
>>>> boundary wall of about two metres high, the only sightlines being 
>>>> directly through the doorway itself, and very restricted until one has 
>>>> passed through the doorway.)
>>>> Do you think cyclists should be encouraged or allowed to go straight 
>>>> through that doorway/gateway at normal cycling speed? Or, really, at any 
>>>> cycling speed greater than walking pace?
>>>> If you don't (and I assume you have the common sense not to), how would 
>>>> you prevent that practice and thereby protect pedestrians using or even 
>>>> simply passing that entrance?
>>> Why does it have to be about prevention.
>> I assume that was meant to be a question.
>>
>> Please re-read what was written above.
>>
>> Do you think cyclists should be encouraged or allowed to go straight 
>> through that [relatively narrow] doorway/gateway at normal cycling speed? 
>> Or, really, at any cycling speed greater than walking pace?
>>
>> The range of possible answers is really quite limited:
>>
>> (a) "Yes",
>> (b) "No" or
>> (c) "I don't know".
> 
> You are not a barrister cross examining a defendant.

What makes you say that?

>>> Surely it would make more sense to allow cyclists safe access to the 
>>> park.

>> Safe from what?

> I suppose he means safe from unecessary danger, for everyone in the area of 
> the gate.

In which case - assuming he means that - he has what he wants.

Pete Biggs wrote:

> JNugent wrote:

>> Do you think cyclists should be encouraged or allowed to go straight
>> through that doorway/gateway at normal cycling speed? Or, really, at
>> any cycling speed greater than walking pace?

> But this is slower than walking pace.  You can reduce speed without making 
> it ludicrously difficult to get a bike through.

I agree.

At the same time, I wonder whether even measures designed to do that would be 
totally effective.

Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 22:57:39 +0100, JNugent
>  wrote:
> 
>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>
>>> JNugent  wrote:
>>>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>>>> Greenwich Park, the most cyclist unfriendly of all the Royal Parks has
>>>>> struck again by excluding tandems, recumbents, kiddie trailers and
>>>>> touring bikes from the cycle path connecting eastern side of the park
>>>>> to central Greenwich.
>>>>> www.cig.canon-europe.com/a?i=7pkaLVDpp7
>>>> (...which shows a railed chicane - almost a "kissing-gate" - arrangement 
>>>> protecting a little-more-than-average-sized doorway in a solid brick boundary 
>>>> wall of about two metres high, the only sightlines being directly through the 
>>>> doorway itself, and very restricted until one has passed through the doorway.)
>>>> Do you think cyclists should be encouraged or allowed to go straight through 
>>>> that doorway/gateway at normal cycling speed? Or, really, at any cycling 
>>>> speed greater than walking pace?
>>>> If you don't (and I assume you have the common sense not to), how would you 
>>>> prevent that practice and thereby protect pedestrians using or even simply 
>>>> passing that entrance?
>>> Why does it have to be about prevention.
>> I assume that was meant to be a question.
>>
>> Please re-read what was written above.
>>
>> Do you think cyclists should be encouraged or allowed to go straight through 
>> that [relatively narrow] doorway/gateway at normal cycling speed? Or, really, 
>> at any cycling speed greater than walking pace?
>>
>> The range of possible answers is really quite limited:
>>
>> (a) "Yes",
>> (b) "No" or
>> (c) "I don't know".
> 
> The question is daft.  Can you really imagine anyone being able to
> cycle through this gate above anything other than walking pace?
> www.britishschoolofcycling.com/photos/gate

Easily.

Do you have another question?

>>> Surely it would make more sense to allow cyclists safe access to the park.

>> Safe from what?

> Ridiculous contraptions.

In what way are they dangerous?

I mean as apposed to other physical means of controlling traffic (bollards, 
raised kerbs, traffic lights, etc)?

On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 01:18:52 +0100, JNugent
 wrote:

>Tom Crispin wrote:
>> On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 22:57:39 +0100, JNugent
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>>
>>>> JNugent  wrote:
>>>>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>>>>> Greenwich Park, the most cyclist unfriendly of all the Royal Parks has
>>>>>> struck again by excluding tandems, recumbents, kiddie trailers and
>>>>>> touring bikes from the cycle path connecting eastern side of the park
>>>>>> to central Greenwich.
>>>>>> www.cig.canon-europe.com/a?i=7pkaLVDpp7
>>>>> (...which shows a railed chicane - almost a "kissing-gate" - arrangement 
>>>>> protecting a little-more-than-average-sized doorway in a solid brick boundary 
>>>>> wall of about two metres high, the only sightlines being directly through the 
>>>>> doorway itself, and very restricted until one has passed through the doorway.)
>>>>> Do you think cyclists should be encouraged or allowed to go straight through 
>>>>> that doorway/gateway at normal cycling speed? Or, really, at any cycling 
>>>>> speed greater than walking pace?
>>>>> If you don't (and I assume you have the common sense not to), how would you 
>>>>> prevent that practice and thereby protect pedestrians using or even simply 
>>>>> passing that entrance?
>>>> Why does it have to be about prevention.
>>> I assume that was meant to be a question.
>>>
>>> Please re-read what was written above.
>>>
>>> Do you think cyclists should be encouraged or allowed to go straight through 
>>> that [relatively narrow] doorway/gateway at normal cycling speed? Or, really, 
>>> at any cycling speed greater than walking pace?
>>>
>>> The range of possible answers is really quite limited:
>>>
>>> (a) "Yes",
>>> (b) "No" or
>>> (c) "I don't know".
>> 
>> The question is daft.  Can you really imagine anyone being able to
>> cycle through this gate above anything other than walking pace?
>> www.britishschoolofcycling.com/photos/gate
>
>Easily.
>
>Do you have another question?

Have you tried it?  I haven't.  I have always had to dismount before
cycling on the pavement.

>>>> Surely it would make more sense to allow cyclists safe access to the park.
>
>>> Safe from what?
>
>> Ridiculous contraptions.
>
>In what way are they dangerous?

I said "ridiculous" not "dangerous".

>I mean as apposed to other physical means of controlling traffic (bollards, 
>raised kerbs, traffic lights, etc)?

On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 21:08:45 +0100, Tom Crispin
<kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:

>Greenwich Park, the most cyclist unfriendly of all the Royal Parks has
>struck again by excluding tandems, recumbents, kiddie trailers and
>touring bikes from the cycle path connecting eastern side of the park
>to central Greenwich.
>
>www.cig.canon-europe.com/a?i=7pkaLVDpp7

excellent news - are other vehicles allowed in it?

perhaps they want it to be a park for people to enjoy rather than a
fast cut through or practice race track for cyclists.

I've dropped them an e-mail and congratulated them - I suggest that
other responsible cyclists  do the same.



--   

If you're going to make snide insinuations about the author,
as you undoubtedly did, then you can fuck right off. (Guy Chapman)
If you are going to make accusations about someone, then you need to
be able to substantiate when asked to. (Judith Smith)

On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 21:42:08 +0100, Marc wrote:

> Find a mother with a tandem buggy to complain!

Can a wheelchair get around the barriers? <g>

peter

On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 22:57:39 +0100, JNugent
 wrote:

>Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>> JNugent  wrote:
>>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>>>> Greenwich Park, the most cyclist unfriendly of all the Royal Parks has
>>>> struck again by excluding tandems, recumbents, kiddie trailers and
>>>> touring bikes from the cycle path connecting eastern side of the park
>>>> to central Greenwich.
>>>> www.cig.canon-europe.com/a?i=7pkaLVDpp7
>
>>> (...which shows a railed chicane - almost a "kissing-gate" - arrangement 
>>> protecting a little-more-than-average-sized doorway in a solid brick boundary 
>>> wall of about two metres high, the only sightlines being directly through the 
>>> doorway itself, and very restricted until one has passed through the doorway.)
>
>>> Do you think cyclists should be encouraged or allowed to go straight through 
>>> that doorway/gateway at normal cycling speed? Or, really, at any cycling 
>>> speed greater than walking pace?
>>> If you don't (and I assume you have the common sense not to), how would you 
>>> prevent that practice and thereby protect pedestrians using or even simply 
>>> passing that entrance?
>
>> Why does it have to be about prevention.
>
>I assume that was meant to be a question.
>
>Please re-read what was written above.
>
>Do you think cyclists should be encouraged or allowed to go straight through 
>that [relatively narrow] doorway/gateway at normal cycling speed? Or, really, 
>at any cycling speed greater than walking pace?
>
>The range of possible answers is really quite limited:
>
>(a) "Yes",
>(b) "No" or
>(c) "I don't know".
>
>> Surely it would make more sense to allow cyclists safe access to the park.
>
>Safe from what?


cyclists using it as a high speed cut-through or a practice racing
circuit?

--   
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,the two are
incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 23:20:19 +0100, "burtthebike"
 wrote:

<snip>

>You seem to have overlooked the most appropriate answer:
>
>(d) "who cares, the questioner's a prat." 


I didn't see you ask a question.


--   
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,the two are
incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 23:49:39 +0100, Tom Crispin
<kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:

<snip>


>>> Surely it would make more sense to allow cyclists safe access to the park.
>>
>>Safe from what?
>
>Ridiculous contraptions.


I thought you said  recumbents wouldn't be able to get through.

Seems sensible to me.

--   
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,the two are
incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 07:00:45 +0100, Tom Crispin
<kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:

>On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 01:18:52 +0100, JNugent
> wrote:
>
>>Tom Crispin wrote:
>>> On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 22:57:39 +0100, JNugent
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> JNugent  wrote:
>>>>>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>>>>>> Greenwich Park, the most cyclist unfriendly of all the Royal Parks has
>>>>>>> struck again by excluding tandems, recumbents, kiddie trailers and
>>>>>>> touring bikes from the cycle path connecting eastern side of the park
>>>>>>> to central Greenwich.
>>>>>>> www.cig.canon-europe.com/a?i=7pkaLVDpp7
>>>>>> (...which shows a railed chicane - almost a "kissing-gate" - arrangement 
>>>>>> protecting a little-more-than-average-sized doorway in a solid brick boundary 
>>>>>> wall of about two metres high, the only sightlines being directly through the 
>>>>>> doorway itself, and very restricted until one has passed through the doorway.)
>>>>>> Do you think cyclists should be encouraged or allowed to go straight through 
>>>>>> that doorway/gateway at normal cycling speed? Or, really, at any cycling 
>>>>>> speed greater than walking pace?
>>>>>> If you don't (and I assume you have the common sense not to), how would you 
>>>>>> prevent that practice and thereby protect pedestrians using or even simply 
>>>>>> passing that entrance?
>>>>> Why does it have to be about prevention.
>>>> I assume that was meant to be a question.
>>>>
>>>> Please re-read what was written above.
>>>>
>>>> Do you think cyclists should be encouraged or allowed to go straight through 
>>>> that [relatively narrow] doorway/gateway at normal cycling speed? Or, really, 
>>>> at any cycling speed greater than walking pace?
>>>>
>>>> The range of possible answers is really quite limited:
>>>>
>>>> (a) "Yes",
>>>> (b) "No" or
>>>> (c) "I don't know".
>>> 
>>> The question is daft.  Can you really imagine anyone being able to
>>> cycle through this gate above anything other than walking pace?
>>> www.britishschoolofcycling.com/photos/gate
>>
>>Easily.
>>
>>Do you have another question?
>
>Have you tried it?  I haven't.  I have always had to dismount before
>cycling on the pavement.


are you trolling?

I'll bite - there was me thinking that pavements were for pedestrians.




--   
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,the two are
incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 23:31:06 +0100, Tom Crispin
<kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:

>On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 22:08:34 GMT, Alex Potter
> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 22:50:15 +0100, Tom Crispin wrote:
>>
>>> Why does it have to be about prevention.  Surely it would make more
>>> sense to allow cyclists safe access to the park.
>>
>>Indeed it would, Tom. However, it would appear very unsafe for cyclists 
>>to go through that gateway while mounted: the sight-lines are appalling, 
>>with no way to see who's obscured by the wall and about to step into the 
>>opening...
>>
>>Perhaps that is one place where cyclists should be a compelled to 
>>dismount? I hasten to add that I am no great fan of compulsory anything...
>
>Cyclists are compelled to dismount by bylaw.  And those cyclists who
>do cycle through have to do so at a very low speed


Ah - I think we are getting there - cyclists are compelled to dismount
by law - but you say that some cyclists break  this law.

Perhaps that is why they are now being effectively barred.

This seems very sensible. 
--   
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,the two are
incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 09:02:54 +0100, judith 
wrote:

>On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 07:00:45 +0100, Tom Crispin
><kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 01:18:52 +0100, JNugent
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Tom Crispin wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 22:57:39 +0100, JNugent
>>>>  wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> JNugent  wrote:
>>>>>>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>>>>>>> Greenwich Park, the most cyclist unfriendly of all the Royal Parks has
>>>>>>>> struck again by excluding tandems, recumbents, kiddie trailers and
>>>>>>>> touring bikes from the cycle path connecting eastern side of the park
>>>>>>>> to central Greenwich.
>>>>>>>> www.cig.canon-europe.com/a?i=7pkaLVDpp7
>>>>>>> (...which shows a railed chicane - almost a "kissing-gate" - arrangement 
>>>>>>> protecting a little-more-than-average-sized doorway in a solid brick boundary 
>>>>>>> wall of about two metres high, the only sightlines being directly through the 
>>>>>>> doorway itself, and very restricted until one has passed through the doorway.)
>>>>>>> Do you think cyclists should be encouraged or allowed to go straight through 
>>>>>>> that doorway/gateway at normal cycling speed? Or, really, at any cycling 
>>>>>>> speed greater than walking pace?
>>>>>>> If you don't (and I assume you have the common sense not to), how would you 
>>>>>>> prevent that practice and thereby protect pedestrians using or even simply 
>>>>>>> passing that entrance?
>>>>>> Why does it have to be about prevention.
>>>>> I assume that was meant to be a question.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please re-read what was written above.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you think cyclists should be encouraged or allowed to go straight through 
>>>>> that [relatively narrow] doorway/gateway at normal cycling speed? Or, really, 
>>>>> at any cycling speed greater than walking pace?
>>>>>
>>>>> The range of possible answers is really quite limited:
>>>>>
>>>>> (a) "Yes",
>>>>> (b) "No" or
>>>>> (c) "I don't know".
>>>> 
>>>> The question is daft.  Can you really imagine anyone being able to
>>>> cycle through this gate above anything other than walking pace?
>>>> www.britishschoolofcycling.com/photos/gate
>>>
>>>Easily.
>>>
>>>Do you have another question?
>>
>>Have you tried it?  I haven't.  I have always had to dismount before
>>cycling on the pavement.
>
>
>are you trolling?
>
>I'll bite - there was me thinking that pavements were for pedestrians.

Exactly - that's why I have to dismount.  Did you think that I was
technically incapable of making a sharp turn at low speed on a
bicycle?

The only possible consequence of the barrier is to exclude certain
classes of cyclist (and pedestrian) from accessing the park via that
gate.

On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 08:56:44 +0100, judith 
wrote:

>On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 22:57:39 +0100, JNugent
> wrote:
>
>>Tom Crispin wrote:
>>
>>> JNugent  wrote:
>>>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>
>>>>> Greenwich Park, the most cyclist unfriendly of all the Royal Parks has
>>>>> struck again by excluding tandems, recumbents, kiddie trailers and
>>>>> touring bikes from the cycle path connecting eastern side of the park
>>>>> to central Greenwich.
>>>>> www.cig.canon-europe.com/a?i=7pkaLVDpp7
>>
>>>> (...which shows a railed chicane - almost a "kissing-gate" - arrangement 
>>>> protecting a little-more-than-average-sized doorway in a solid brick boundary 
>>>> wall of about two metres high, the only sightlines being directly through the 
>>>> doorway itself, and very restricted until one has passed through the doorway.)
>>
>>>> Do you think cyclists should be encouraged or allowed to go straight through 
>>>> that doorway/gateway at normal cycling speed? Or, really, at any cycling 
>>>> speed greater than walking pace?
>>>> If you don't (and I assume you have the common sense not to), how would you 
>>>> prevent that practice and thereby protect pedestrians using or even simply 
>>>> passing that entrance?
>>
>>> Why does it have to be about prevention.
>>
>>I assume that was meant to be a question.
>>
>>Please re-read what was written above.
>>
>>Do you think cyclists should be encouraged or allowed to go straight through 
>>that [relatively narrow] doorway/gateway at normal cycling speed? Or, really, 
>>at any cycling speed greater than walking pace?
>>
>>The range of possible answers is really quite limited:
>>
>>(a) "Yes",
>>(b) "No" or
>>(c) "I don't know".
>>
>>> Surely it would make more sense to allow cyclists safe access to the park.
>>
>>Safe from what?
>
>
>cyclists using it as a high speed cut-through or a practice racing
>circuit?

Impossible.  There is absolutely no way that a cyclist could approach
the gate from either side at high speed and get through the opening
without crashing.

On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 09:05:37 +0100, judith 
wrote:

>On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 23:31:06 +0100, Tom Crispin
><kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 22:08:34 GMT, Alex Potter
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 22:50:15 +0100, Tom Crispin wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why does it have to be about prevention.  Surely it would make more
>>>> sense to allow cyclists safe access to the park.
>>>
>>>Indeed it would, Tom. However, it would appear very unsafe for cyclists 
>>>to go through that gateway while mounted: the sight-lines are appalling, 
>>>with no way to see who's obscured by the wall and about to step into the 
>>>opening...
>>>
>>>Perhaps that is one place where cyclists should be a compelled to 
>>>dismount? I hasten to add that I am no great fan of compulsory anything...
>>
>>Cyclists are compelled to dismount by bylaw.  And those cyclists who
>>do cycle through have to do so at a very low speed
>
>
>Ah - I think we are getting there - cyclists are compelled to dismount
>by law - but you say that some cyclists break  this law.

Yes.

>Perhaps that is why they are now being effectively barred.
>
>This seems very sensible. 

Would you approve of double gates on motorways to prevent motorists
from speeding by ensuring that they have to get out of their cars,
close the second gate to release the lock on the first gate, open the
first gate, drive into the space between gates, close the first gate,
open the second gate, and then drive off?

Besides, enforcing compliance of no cycling on the pavement outside
the park is beyond the remit of the park authorities, and possibly
beyond the powers of the Royal Parks' Police.



Don't you think that it would make more sense for the park authorities
to create a safe route into the park for cyclists to access the cycle
routes just yards either side of the barrier?  An alternate gate or
widening of the present gate.

Tom Crispin wrote:

> JNugent  wrote:
>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>> JNugent  wrote:
>>>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>>>> JNugent  wrote:
>>>>>> Tom Crispin wrote:

>>>>>>> Greenwich Park, the most cyclist unfriendly of all the Royal Parks has
>>>>>>> struck again by excluding tandems, recumbents, kiddie trailers and
>>>>>>> touring bikes from the cycle path connecting eastern side of the park
>>>>>>> to central Greenwich.
>>>>>>> www.cig.canon-europe.com/a?i=7pkaLVDpp7

>>>>>> (...which shows a railed chicane - almost a "kissing-gate" - arrangement 
>>>>>> protecting a little-more-than-average-sized doorway in a solid brick boundary 
>>>>>> wall of about two metres high, the only sightlines being directly through the 
>>>>>> doorway itself, and very restricted until one has passed through the doorway.)
>>>>>> Do you think cyclists should be encouraged or allowed to go straight through 
>>>>>> that doorway/gateway at normal cycling speed? Or, really, at any cycling 
>>>>>> speed greater than walking pace?
>>>>>> If you don't (and I assume you have the common sense not to), how would you 
>>>>>> prevent that practice and thereby protect pedestrians using or even simply 
>>>>>> passing that entrance?

>>>>> Why does it have to be about prevention.

>>>> I assume that was meant to be a question.
>>>> Please re-read what was written above.
>>>> Do you think cyclists should be encouraged or allowed to go straight through 
>>>> that [relatively narrow] doorway/gateway at normal cycling speed? Or, really, 
>>>> at any cycling speed greater than walking pace?
>>>> The range of possible answers is really quite limited:

>>>> (a) "Yes",
>>>> (b) "No" or
>>>> (c) "I don't know".

>>> The question is daft.  Can you really imagine anyone being able to
>>> cycle through this gate above anything other than walking pace?
>>> www.britishschoolofcycling.com/photos/gate

>> Easily.
>> Do you have another question?

> Have you tried it?  I haven't.  I have always had to dismount before
> cycling on the pavement.

Your attempt at disingenuity is unconvincing. If you cannot imagine a cyclist 
either cycling on a footway or cycling at inapproriately-high speed through 
that (pedestrian) entrance, you can't get out much.

>>>>> Surely it would make more sense to allow cyclists safe access to the park.

>>>> Safe from what?
>>> Ridiculous contraptions.

>> In what way are they dangerous?

> I said "ridiculous" not "dangerous".

<wearily>

You said that cyclists should be "safe" from them. In what way is that one 
dangerous? If it isn't dangerous, why does anyone need to be kept safe from it?

On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 10:06:44 +0100, Tom Crispin
<kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:

<snip>


>>>>Do you have another question?
>>>
>>>Have you tried it?  I haven't.  I have always had to dismount before
>>>cycling on the pavement.
>>
>>
>>are you trolling?
>>
>>I'll bite - there was me thinking that pavements were for pedestrians.
>
>Exactly - that's why I have to dismount.  Did you think that I was
>technically incapable of making a sharp turn at low speed on a
>bicycle?
>
>The only possible consequence of the barrier is to exclude certain
>classes of cyclist (and pedestrian) from accessing the park via that
>gate.


You used the phrase : "I have always had to dismount before cycling on
the pavement."

No what do *you* think that that means?


Does it mean you always have to dismount before you carry out another
action?

What would that other action be?


--   
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,the two are
incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 10:11:27 +0100, Tom Crispin
<kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:

<snip>

>>>> Surely it would make more sense to allow cyclists safe access to the park.
>>>
>>>Safe from what?
>>
>>
>>cyclists using it as a high speed cut-through or a practice racing
>>circuit?
>
>Impossible.  There is absolutely no way that a cyclist could approach
>the gate from either side at high speed and get through the opening
>without crashing.


Yes - because they have put the gate there.

If the gate wasn't there would cyclists be able to use the park as a
cut through or practice cycle track?  Did they perhaps do so?

Now the gate is there - has it stopped them carrying out those
actions?

--   
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,the two are
incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

Tom Crispin <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:

> On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 09:05:37 +0100, judith 
> wrote:
> 
> >On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 23:31:06 +0100, Tom Crispin
> ><kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
> >
> >>On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 22:08:34 GMT, Alex Potter
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 22:50:15 +0100, Tom Crispin wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Why does it have to be about prevention.  Surely it would make more
> >>>> sense to allow cyclists safe access to the park.
> >>>
> >>>Indeed it would, Tom. However, it would appear very unsafe for cyclists
> >>>to go through that gateway while mounted: the sight-lines are appalling,
> >>>with no way to see who's obscured by the wall and about to step into the
> >>>opening...
> >>>
> >>>Perhaps that is one place where cyclists should be a compelled to 
> >>>dismount? I hasten to add that I am no great fan of compulsory anything...
> >>
> >>Cyclists are compelled to dismount by bylaw.  And those cyclists who
> >>do cycle through have to do so at a very low speed
> >
> >
> >Ah - I think we are getting there - cyclists are compelled to dismount
> >by law - but you say that some cyclists break  this law.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> >Perhaps that is why they are now being effectively barred.
> >
> >This seems very sensible. 
> 
> Would you approve of double gates on motorways to prevent motorists
> from speeding by ensuring that they have to get out of their cars,
> close the second gate to release the lock on the first gate, open the
> first gate, drive into the space between gates, close the first gate,
> open the second gate, and then drive off?
> 
why are you playing with the troll do you like the mud?

lots of the royal park gates, one can only just get a standard bike
though, if your bike is not you'll struggle.
 

> Besides, enforcing compliance of no cycling on the pavement outside
> the park is beyond the remit of the park authorities, and possibly
> beyond the powers of the Royal Parks' Police.
> 
> 
thats a poor argument, if the gate opens out on to a pavement, there's
no earthly reason why they should make it easy to ride though or even
make it possible, there are valid arguments to be made against the parks
but this is not really that great.

> Don't you think that it would make more sense for the park authorities
> to create a safe route into the park for cyclists to access the cycle
> routes just yards either side of the barrier?  An alternate gate or
> widening of the present gate.

since it opens on to a pavement are sure it's not pedestrian only?

roger
-- 
www.rogermerriman.com

On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 11:41:35 +0100, judith 
wrote:

>On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 10:11:27 +0100, Tom Crispin
><kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>>>> Surely it would make more sense to allow cyclists safe access to the park.
>>>>
>>>>Safe from what?
>>>
>>>
>>>cyclists using it as a high speed cut-through or a practice racing
>>>circuit?
>>
>>Impossible.  There is absolutely no way that a cyclist could approach
>>the gate from either side at high speed and get through the opening
>>without crashing.
>
>
>Yes - because they have put the gate there.
>
>If the gate wasn't there would cyclists be able to use the park as a
>cut through or practice cycle track?  Did they perhaps do so?
>
>Now the gate is there - has it stopped them carrying out those
>actions?

There's a map of greenwich park here:
www.royalparks.org.uk/docs/park_maps/greenwich_map.pdf

The cycle route through the park is marked by a red dashed line.

This image highlights the location of the barrier with a blue circle.
www.britishschoolofcycling.com/photos/gatemap

There is a possible conflict with pedestrians for a few yards.  It
would not be beyond the wit of human engineering to allow cyclists
unrestricted access to the park cycle route and road network outside
the park.

Here are some further examples of the unfriendliness of Greenwich Park
towards cyclists:
www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/why
www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/bower

NEWS@wodger.demon.co.uk (Roger Merriman) writes:

>> Besides, enforcing compliance of no cycling on the pavement outside
>> the park is beyond the remit of the park authorities, and possibly
>> beyond the powers of the Royal Parks' Police.
>> 
>> 
> thats a poor argument, if the gate opens out on to a pavement, there's
> no earthly reason why they should make it easy to ride though or even
> make it possible, there are valid arguments to be made against the parks
> but this is not really that great.

It's a digression.  The problem is not that cyclists are forced to
dismount at the gate (if this even is a problem), the problem is that
they're aparently forced to carry their bikes over their heads just to
get to the gate.


-dan

Daniel Barlow  wrote:

> NEWS@wodger.demon.co.uk (Roger Merriman) writes:
> 
> >> Besides, enforcing compliance of no cycling on the pavement outside
> >> the park is beyond the remit of the park authorities, and possibly
> >> beyond the powers of the Royal Parks' Police.
> >> 
> >> 
> > thats a poor argument, if the gate opens out on to a pavement, there's
> > no earthly reason why they should make it easy to ride though or even
> > make it possible, there are valid arguments to be made against the parks
> > but this is not really that great.
> 
> It's a digression.  The problem is not that cyclists are forced to
> dismount at the gate (if this even is a problem), the problem is that
> they're aparently forced to carry their bikes over their heads just to
> get to the gate.
> 
> 
> -dan

unless any one knows better, looking at the map, your not suposed to be
on bike around Maze Hill Gate. so questions of this makes life difficult
for bikes is some what mute, more impornatly they do seem a tad tight
for pushchairs. not impossible but certinaly a pain.

roger
-- 
www.rogermerriman.com

On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 12:35:32 +0100, Daniel Barlow 
wrote:

>It's a digression.  The problem is not that cyclists are forced to
>dismount at the gate (if this even is a problem), the problem is that
>they're aparently forced to carry their bikes over their heads just to
>get to the gate.

Yes, thanks for defining the real issue.  I was getting lost in the
mists caused by the trolling.

Apologies to all.

Tom Crispin <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:

> On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 11:41:35 +0100, judith 
> wrote:
> 
> >On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 10:11:27 +0100, Tom Crispin
> ><kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >>>>> Surely it would make more sense to allow cyclists safe access to the
park.
> >>>>
> >>>>Safe from what?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>cyclists using it as a high speed cut-through or a practice racing
> >>>circuit?
> >>
> >>Impossible.  There is absolutely no way that a cyclist could approach
> >>the gate from either side at high speed and get through the opening
> >>without crashing.
> >
> >
> >Yes - because they have put the gate there.
> >
> >If the gate wasn't there would cyclists be able to use the park as a
> >cut through or practice cycle track?  Did they perhaps do so?
> >
> >Now the gate is there - has it stopped them carrying out those
> >actions?
> 
> There's a map of greenwich park here:
> www.royalparks.org.uk/docs/park_maps/greenwich_map.pdf
> 
> The cycle route through the park is marked by a red dashed line.
> 
> This image highlights the location of the barrier with a blue circle.
> www.britishschoolofcycling.com/photos/gatemap
> 
which gate do you mean? your photos link to maze hill gate or at least
you've titled it so, but you've circled vanbrugh gate.
 
> There is a possible conflict with pedestrians for a few yards.  It
> would not be beyond the wit of human engineering to allow cyclists
> unrestricted access to the park cycle route and road network outside
> the park.
> 
they may well prefure to encourage "commuting" cyclists to take a
differnt route, as they tend to be fairly fast,

much in the same way Richmound park is plainly unhappy with being used
as commute by X number of cars.

> Here are some further examples of the unfriendliness of Greenwich Park
> towards cyclists:
> www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/why
> www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/bower

roger
-- 
www.rogermerriman.com

On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 13:36:31 +0100, NEWS@wodger.demon.co.uk (Roger
Merriman) wrote:

>Tom Crispin <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 11:41:35 +0100, judith 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> >On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 10:11:27 +0100, Tom Crispin
>> ><kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>> >
>> ><snip>
>> >
>> >>>>> Surely it would make more sense to allow cyclists safe access to the
>park.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Safe from what?
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>cyclists using it as a high speed cut-through or a practice racing
>> >>>circuit?
>> >>
>> >>Impossible.  There is absolutely no way that a cyclist could approach
>> >>the gate from either side at high speed and get through the opening
>> >>without crashing.
>> >
>> >
>> >Yes - because they have put the gate there.
>> >
>> >If the gate wasn't there would cyclists be able to use the park as a
>> >cut through or practice cycle track?  Did they perhaps do so?
>> >
>> >Now the gate is there - has it stopped them carrying out those
>> >actions?
>> 
>> There's a map of greenwich park here:
>> www.royalparks.org.uk/docs/park_maps/greenwich_map.pdf
>> 
>> The cycle route through the park is marked by a red dashed line.
>> 
>> This image highlights the location of the barrier with a blue circle.
>> www.britishschoolofcycling.com/photos/gatemap
>> 
>which gate do you mean? your photos link to maze hill gate or at least
>you've titled it so, but you've circled vanbrugh gate.

Stephen's photos are indeed labelled as Maze Hill Gate, and the gate
does indeed open onto Maze Hill - however, Maze Hill Gate is about
300m downhill from the photos' location, which is of Vanbrugh Park
Gate.

>> There is a possible conflict with pedestrians for a few yards.  It
>> would not be beyond the wit of human engineering to allow cyclists
>> unrestricted access to the park cycle route and road network outside
>> the park.
>> 
>they may well prefure to encourage "commuting" cyclists to take a
>differnt route, as they tend to be fairly fast,

There is no entrance to the park on the east side which links to a
permitted cycle route through the park.

>much in the same way Richmound park is plainly unhappy with being used
>as commute by X number of cars.
>
>> Here are some further examples of the unfriendliness of Greenwich Park
>> towards cyclists:
>> www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/why
>> www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/bower

On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 13:25:48 +0100, NEWS@wodger.demon.co.uk (Roger
Merriman) wrote:

>Daniel Barlow  wrote:
>
>> NEWS@wodger.demon.co.uk (Roger Merriman) writes:
>> 
>> >> Besides, enforcing compliance of no cycling on the pavement outside
>> >> the park is beyond the remit of the park authorities, and possibly
>> >> beyond the powers of the Royal Parks' Police.
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> > thats a poor argument, if the gate opens out on to a pavement, there's
>> > no earthly reason why they should make it easy to ride though or even
>> > make it possible, there are valid arguments to be made against the parks
>> > but this is not really that great.
>> 
>> It's a digression.  The problem is not that cyclists are forced to
>> dismount at the gate (if this even is a problem), the problem is that
>> they're aparently forced to carry their bikes over their heads just to
>> get to the gate.
>> 
>> 
>> -dan
>
>unless any one knows better, looking at the map, your not suposed to be
>on bike around Maze Hill Gate. so questions of this makes life difficult
>for bikes is some what mute, more impornatly they do seem a tad tight
>for pushchairs. not impossible but certinaly a pain.

It is unhelpful that the photo album labels the gate as Maze Hill
Gate.  It is Vanbrugh Park Gate.

_  considered Fri, 05 Sep
2008 20:36:10 GMT the perfect time to write:

>On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 21:08:45 +0100, Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>> Greenwich Park, the most cyclist unfriendly of all the Royal Parks has
>> struck again by excluding tandems, recumbents, kiddie trailers and
>> touring bikes from the cycle path connecting eastern side of the park
>> to central Greenwich.
>> 
>> www.cig.canon-europe.com/a?i=7pkaLVDpp7
>
>'excluding' is too harsh.
>
>'restricting' is more like it.  Bikes can, after all, be lifted over
>obstructions; the gates just restrict such travel to those inclined to do
>the lifting.

So it's only the physically disabled who are excluded?
I'd think it comes under the heading of "causing an obstruction", and
should be investigated by the police as such.
-- 

There are 10 types of people in the world - those who understand binary and those who don't!

JNugent  considered Fri, 05 Sep 2008
22:33:11 +0100 the perfect time to write:

>Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>> Greenwich Park, the most cyclist unfriendly of all the Royal Parks has
>> struck again by excluding tandems, recumbents, kiddie trailers and
>> touring bikes from the cycle path connecting eastern side of the park
>> to central Greenwich.
>
>> www.cig.canon-europe.com/a?i=7pkaLVDpp7
>
>(...which shows a railed chicane - almost a "kissing-gate" - arrangement 
>protecting a little-more-than-average-sized doorway in a solid brick boundary 
>wall of about two metres high, the only sightlines being directly through the 
>doorway itself, and very restricted until one has passed through the doorway.)
>
>Do you think cyclists should be encouraged or allowed to go straight through 
>that doorway/gateway at normal cycling speed? Or, really, at any cycling 
>speed greater than walking pace?
>
>If you don't (and I assume you have the common sense not to), how would you 
>prevent that practice and thereby protect pedestrians using or even simply 
>passing that entrance?

Do you think that cyclists could get through that dorrway at anything
more than walking pace anyway, given the fact that there are railings
clearly visible on the other side of it?

Can anyone think of any good reason for the perpetrator of this
monstrosity not to be prosecuted for causing an obstruction?
-- 

There are 10 types of people in the world - those who understand binary and those who don't!

On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 14:58:45 +0100, Phil W Lee
<phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:

<snip>

>So it's only the physically disabled who are excluded?
>I'd think it comes under the heading of "causing an obstruction", and
>should be investigated by the police as such.


Then why don't *you* make the  formal complaint to the police?


--     
There is plenty of evidence that motorists feel a need to portray 
cyclists as an "out group" and thus exclude themselves from the class 
(Guy Chapman)
And that evidence is where? (Judith Smith)

On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 15:04:24 +0100, Phil W Lee
<phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:

<snip>

>Can anyone think of any good reason for the perpetrator of this
>monstrosity not to be prosecuted for causing an obstruction?


No I think it it is an excellent idea - why don't *you* take out a
private prosecution aginst them?

(The phrase - "what a knob" - springs to mind)

--     
There is plenty of evidence that motorists feel a need to portray 
cyclists as an "out group" and thus exclude themselves from the class 
(Guy Chapman)
And that evidence is where? (Judith Smith)

Tom Crispin <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:

> On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 13:36:31 +0100, NEWS@wodger.demon.co.uk (Roger
> Merriman) wrote:
> 
> >Tom Crispin <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 11:41:35 +0100, judith 
> >> wrote:
> >> 
> >> >On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 10:11:27 +0100, Tom Crispin
> >> ><kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
> >> >
> >> ><snip>
> >> >
> >> >>>>> Surely it would make more sense to allow cyclists safe access to the
> >park.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>Safe from what?
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>cyclists using it as a high speed cut-through or a practice racing
> >> >>>circuit?
> >> >>
> >> >>Impossible.  There is absolutely no way that a cyclist could approach
> >> >>the gate from either side at high speed and get through the opening
> >> >>without crashing.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Yes - because they have put the gate there.
> >> >
> >> >If the gate wasn't there would cyclists be able to use the park as a
> >> >cut through or practice cycle track?  Did they perhaps do so?
> >> >
> >> >Now the gate is there - has it stopped them carrying out those
> >> >actions?
> >> 
> >> There's a map of greenwich park here:
> >> www.royalparks.org.uk/docs/park_maps/greenwich_map.pdf
> >> 
> >> The cycle route through the park is marked by a red dashed line.
> >> 
> >> This image highlights the location of the barrier with a blue circle.
> >> www.britishschoolofcycling.com/photos/gatemap
> >> 
> >which gate do you mean? your photos link to maze hill gate or at least
> >you've titled it so, but you've circled vanbrugh gate.
> 
> Stephen's photos are indeed labelled as Maze Hill Gate, and the gate
> does indeed open onto Maze Hill - however, Maze Hill Gate is about
> 300m downhill from the photos' location, which is of Vanbrugh Park
> Gate.
> 
ah that makes sence, and makes the complaints more legitmate.

> >> There is a possible conflict with pedestrians for a few yards.  It
> >> would not be beyond the wit of human engineering to allow cyclists
> >> unrestricted access to the park cycle route and road network outside
> >> the park.
> >> 
> >they may well prefure to encourage "commuting" cyclists to take a
> >differnt route, as they tend to be fairly fast,
> 
> There is no entrance to the park on the east side which links to a
> permitted cycle route through the park.
> 
It's not a area i know but looking at the way Bushy and richmound park
are used, people often use them to by pass a road etc they don't like
even if it's longer.

> >much in the same way Richmound park is plainly unhappy with being used
> >as commute by X number of cars.
> >
> >> Here are some further examples of the unfriendliness of Greenwich Park
> >> towards cyclists:
> >> www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/why
> >> www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/bower

roger
-- 
www.rogermerriman.com

On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 21:08:45 +0100, Tom Crispin
<kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:

>Greenwich Park, the most cyclist unfriendly of all the Royal Parks has
>struck again by excluding tandems, recumbents, kiddie trailers and
>touring bikes from the cycle path connecting eastern side of the park
>to central Greenwich.
>
>www.cig.canon-europe.com/a?i=7pkaLVDpp7


A couple of questions:

The photographs are clearly labeled "Greenwich Park Maze Hill Gate" -
ie it is the gate known by that name - it is not just a gate which
opens on to Maze Hill.

There is another gate which is known as  Vanbrugh Park
Gate.

www.royalparks.org.uk/docs/park_maps/greenwich_map.pdf

Vanburgh Park Gate is the gate at the end of the permitted cycle route
as shown on the map

You say that the photograph of the gate is actually at Vanburgh Park
Gate.

Are you sure that you haven't got the gates mixed up - I note that one
of the other photos
http://www.cig.canon-europe.com/ph/AIG/wDwlbZQ2po0L1iXx0503ks3kskXL0003kskXLHFLwmq0a.jpg

clearly says "No Cycling" - most odd at the start of the path which is
labeled "Cycling Permitted" on the map. 

I wonder if you have accidentally got the gates mixed up?

(As an aside  - a good snap of a cyclist ignoring the No Cycling sign
there)


--   

If you're going to make snide insinuations about the author,
as you undoubtedly did, then you can fuck right off. (Guy Chapman)
If you are going to make accusations about someone, then you need to
be able to substantiate when asked to. (Judith Smith)

On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 17:02:38 +0100, judith 
wrote:

>Are you sure that you haven't got the gates mixed up

Absolutely positive.

Phil W Lee wrote:

> JNugent :
>> Tom Crispin wrote:

>>> Greenwich Park, the most cyclist unfriendly of all the Royal Parks has
>>> struck again by excluding tandems, recumbents, kiddie trailers and
>>> touring bikes from the cycle path connecting eastern side of the park
>>> to central Greenwich.

>>> www.cig.canon-europe.com/a?i=7pkaLVDpp7

>> (...which shows a railed chicane - almost a "kissing-gate" - arrangement 
>> protecting a little-more-than-average-sized doorway in a solid brick boundary 
>> wall of about two metres high, the only sightlines being directly through the 
>> doorway itself, and very restricted until one has passed through the doorway.)

>> Do you think cyclists should be encouraged or allowed to go straight through 
>> that doorway/gateway at normal cycling speed? Or, really, at any cycling 
>> speed greater than walking pace?
>> If you don't (and I assume you have the common sense not to), how would you 
>> prevent that practice and thereby protect pedestrians using or even simply 
>> passing that entrance?

> Do you think that cyclists could get through that dorrway at anything
> more than walking pace anyway, given the fact that there are railings
> clearly visible on the other side of it?

No, you must be absolutely right. After all, who ever heard of a cyclist 
doinfg anything as outrageous as cycling along a footway or using a 
pedestrian entrance? It's unthinkable.

The Royal Park authorities clearly must have a screw loose, taking such 
elaborate precautions against a problem which you assure me cannot possibly 
exist.

Or something.

> Can anyone think of any good reason for the perpetrator of this
> monstrosity not to be prosecuted for causing an obstruction?

No.

Greenwich Police Station is is Burney Street, just off Royal Hill, SE10. 
You'll need to know that.

On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 20:36:47 +0100, JNugent
 wrote:

>Phil W Lee wrote:
>
>> JNugent :
>>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>>>> Greenwich Park, the most cyclist unfriendly of all the Royal Parks has
>>>> struck again by excluding tandems, recumbents, kiddie trailers and
>>>> touring bikes from the cycle path connecting eastern side of the park
>>>> to central Greenwich.
>
>>>> www.cig.canon-europe.com/a?i=7pkaLVDpp7
>
>>> (...which shows a railed chicane - almost a "kissing-gate" - arrangement 
>>> protecting a little-more-than-average-sized doorway in a solid brick boundary 
>>> wall of about two metres high, the only sightlines being directly through the 
>>> doorway itself, and very restricted until one has passed through the doorway.)
>
>>> Do you think cyclists should be encouraged or allowed to go straight through 
>>> that doorway/gateway at normal cycling speed? Or, really, at any cycling 
>>> speed greater than walking pace?
>>> If you don't (and I assume you have the common sense not to), how would you 
>>> prevent that practice and thereby protect pedestrians using or even simply 
>>> passing that entrance?
>
>> Do you think that cyclists could get through that dorrway at anything
>> more than walking pace anyway, given the fact that there are railings
>> clearly visible on the other side of it?
>
>No, you must be absolutely right. After all, who ever heard of a cyclist 
>doinfg anything as outrageous as cycling along a footway or using a 
>pedestrian entrance? It's unthinkable.
>
>The Royal Park authorities clearly must have a screw loose, taking such 
>elaborate precautions against a problem which you assure me cannot possibly 
>exist.
>
>Or something.
>
>> Can anyone think of any good reason for the perpetrator of this
>> monstrosity not to be prosecuted for causing an obstruction?
>
>No.
>
>Greenwich Police Station is is Burney Street, just off Royal Hill, SE10. 
>You'll need to know that.

The Royal Parks are policed by Royal Parks Operational Command Unit, a
branch of the Metropolitan police service fully funded by the Royal
Parks Agency.  This funding agreement gives them a conflict of
interest.

As I said before, the Royal Parks seem to be a law unto themselves.

My name isn't Phil Lee  considered Sat, 06 Sep 2008
00:01:42 +0100 the perfect time to write:

Nothing of any consequence, as it couldn't even identify itself.

Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 20:36:47 +0100, JNugent
>  wrote:
> 
>> Phil W Lee wrote:
>>
>>> JNugent :
>>>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>>>> Greenwich Park, the most cyclist unfriendly of all the Royal Parks has
>>>>> struck again by excluding tandems, recumbents, kiddie trailers and
>>>>> touring bikes from the cycle path connecting eastern side of the park
>>>>> to central Greenwich.
>>>>> www.cig.canon-europe.com/a?i=7pkaLVDpp7
>>>> (...which shows a railed chicane - almost a "kissing-gate" - arrangement 
>>>> protecting a little-more-than-average-sized doorway in a solid brick boundary 
>>>> wall of about two metres high, the only sightlines being directly through the 
>>>> doorway itself, and very restricted until one has passed through the doorway.)
>>>> Do you think cyclists should be encouraged or allowed to go straight through 
>>>> that doorway/gateway at normal cycling speed? Or, really, at any cycling 
>>>> speed greater than walking pace?
>>>> If you don't (and I assume you have the common sense not to), how would you 
>>>> prevent that practice and thereby protect pedestrians using or even simply 
>>>> passing that entrance?
>>> Do you think that cyclists could get through that dorrway at anything
>>> more than walking pace anyway, given the fact that there are railings
>>> clearly visible on the other side of it?
>> No, you must be absolutely right. After all, who ever heard of a cyclist 
>> doinfg anything as outrageous as cycling along a footway or using a 
>> pedestrian entrance? It's unthinkable.
>>
>> The Royal Park authorities clearly must have a screw loose, taking such 
>> elaborate precautions against a problem which you assure me cannot possibly 
>> exist.
>>
>> Or something.
>>
>>> Can anyone think of any good reason for the perpetrator of this
>>> monstrosity not to be prosecuted for causing an obstruction?
>> No.
>>
>> Greenwich Police Station is is Burney Street, just off Royal Hill, SE10. 
>> You'll need to know that.
> 
> The Royal Parks are policed by Royal Parks Operational Command Unit, a
> branch of the Metropolitan police service

<snip>

Fuck, you're lucky you don't get a bullet in the head for hopping over 
barriers then.

^^^^That asshole isn't me^^^^ wrote:
> My name isn't Phil Lee  considered Sat, 06 Sep 2008
> 00:01:42 +0100 the perfect time to write:
> 
> Nothing of any consequence, as it couldn't even identify itself.

So nothing's valid unless it is endorsed by an identified person? 
Interesting concept...

^^^ Nope, you're a DIFFERENT asshole, right? ^^^  wrote:

> ^^^^That asshole isn't me^^^^ wrote:
> > My name isn't Phil Lee  considered Sat, 06 Sep 2008
> > 00:01:42 +0100 the perfect time to write:
> > 
> > Nothing of any consequence, as it couldn't even identify itself.
> 
> So nothing's valid unless it is endorsed by an identified person? 
> Interesting concept...

One could reasonably ask why you are scared of anyone attributing to you
your own views.

Cheers,
Luke


-- 
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

Ekul Namsob wrote:
> ^^^ Nope, you're a DIFFERENT asshole, right? ^^^  wrote:
> 
>> ^^^^That asshole isn't me^^^^ wrote:
>>> My name isn't Phil Lee  considered Sat, 06 Sep 2008
>>> 00:01:42 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>>>
>>> Nothing of any consequence, as it couldn't even identify itself.
>> So nothing's valid unless it is endorsed by an identified person? 
>> Interesting concept...
> 
> One could reasonably ask why you are scared of anyone attributing to you
> your own views.
> 
Not really, no. Just as you lightly obfuscate your own name, I choose to 
do likewise. I'm certainly not anonymous - my given name's been bandied 
about several times in the past. But I work in a sensitive occupation, 
some of my views aren't those my employer would probably approve of, etc 
etc etc.
The point I was trying to make is: a valid viewpoint is a valid 
viewpoint, irrespective of who posts it. I've noticed that the topic 
about the child mowed down on the footpath by a moron cyclist has 
received scant attention from the mouth-breathers here, a fact not 
unconnected to the person who posted it :)

Tom Crispin wrote:
> Greenwich Park, the most cyclist unfriendly of all the Royal Parks has
> struck again by excluding tandems, recumbents, kiddie trailers and
> touring bikes from the cycle path connecting eastern side of the park
> to central Greenwich.
> 
> www.cig.canon-europe.com/a?i=7pkaLVDpp7


Being honest there are only very few people this will make a difference 
to, good or bad. In reality it is just another example of a public body 
pissing away money on a token gesture.

On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 20:52:40 +0100, Nick 
wrote:

>Tom Crispin wrote:
>> Greenwich Park, the most cyclist unfriendly of all the Royal Parks has
>> struck again by excluding tandems, recumbents, kiddie trailers and
>> touring bikes from the cycle path connecting eastern side of the park
>> to central Greenwich.
>> 
>> www.cig.canon-europe.com/a?i=7pkaLVDpp7
>
>
>Being honest there are only very few people this will make a difference 
>to, good or bad. In reality it is just another example of a public body 
>pissing away money on a token gesture.

No - it's more than that.

Great strides have been made in the local area in getting these
monstrosities removed from cycle routes.  So much so that NCN21, the
Waterlink Way, allows free off road cycling from Greenwich, through
the heart of Lewisham without the need to dismount until the route
passes into Bromley.

Greenwich Park persistently refuse to co-operate with local cycling
groups to give cyclists reasonable access.  Following the death of a
cyclist in the park last year, killed head on by a motorist driving on
the wrong side of the road, the park has imposed tougher and tougher
restrictions on cycling.

Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 20:52:40 +0100, Nick 
> wrote:
> 
>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>> Greenwich Park, the most cyclist unfriendly of all the Royal Parks has
>>> struck again by excluding tandems, recumbents, kiddie trailers and
>>> touring bikes from the cycle path connecting eastern side of the park
>>> to central Greenwich.
>>>
>>> www.cig.canon-europe.com/a?i=7pkaLVDpp7
>>
>> Being honest there are only very few people this will make a difference 
>> to, good or bad. In reality it is just another example of a public body 
>> pissing away money on a token gesture.
> 
> No - it's more than that.
> 
> Great strides have been made in the local area in getting these
> monstrosities removed from cycle routes.  So much so that NCN21, the
> Waterlink Way, allows free off road cycling from Greenwich, through
> the heart of Lewisham without the need to dismount until the route
> passes into Bromley.
> 

Where does it go. I ride that way everyday.

> Greenwich Park persistently refuse to co-operate with local cycling
> groups to give cyclists reasonable access.  Following the death of a
> cyclist in the park last year, killed head on by a motorist driving on
> the wrong side of the road, the park has imposed tougher and tougher
> restrictions on cycling.

I've not noticed any restrictions but then like most people I don't read 
the signs. I'm always at a bit of a loss as to why anyone apart from 
kids or people using the foot tunnel would want to cycle in Greenwich park.

On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 22:01:04 +0100, Nick 
wrote:

>Tom Crispin wrote:
>> On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 20:52:40 +0100, Nick 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>>> Greenwich Park, the most cyclist unfriendly of all the Royal Parks has
>>>> struck again by excluding tandems, recumbents, kiddie trailers and
>>>> touring bikes from the cycle path connecting eastern side of the park
>>>> to central Greenwich.
>>>>
>>>> www.cig.canon-europe.com/a?i=7pkaLVDpp7
>>>
>>> Being honest there are only very few people this will make a difference 
>>> to, good or bad. In reality it is just another example of a public body 
>>> pissing away money on a token gesture.
>> 
>> No - it's more than that.
>> 
>> Great strides have been made in the local area in getting these
>> monstrosities removed from cycle routes.  So much so that NCN21, the
>> Waterlink Way, allows free off road cycling from Greenwich, through
>> the heart of Lewisham without the need to dismount until the route
>> passes into Bromley.
>> 
>
>Where does it go. I ride that way everyday.

If broadly follows the Ravensbourne from Cutty Sark Gardens, along
Deptford Creek, crossing the A2 at Deptford Bridge into Brookmill
Park.  Then a short section on the pavement and into Lewisham Town
Centre, crossing the A20 at Toucan lights into the park between the
river and the new housing estate.  There is a short section on side
roads, which is due to be upgraded to off-road, into Ladywell fields.
It goes under the South Circular Road at Catford Bridge and along a
narrow park to Bell Green, where it leaves the Ravensbourne and
follows the River Pool.  Past Lower Sydenham Station, Kent House
Station, Clock House Station, Elmers End Station into South Norwood
Country Park.

The NCN21 continues mostly off road to Gatwick Airport and then to
Eastbourne.  I have cycled the section Gatwick to Greenwich and reckon
it's 80 - 90% off road.  The bit from South Norwood Country Park to
Greenwich is a continental standard quality cycle route, apart from
the Lewisham - Ladywell section and the road crossing at Bell Green.
Both of these sections are due for major upgrade.

>> Greenwich Park persistently refuse to co-operate with local cycling
>> groups to give cyclists reasonable access.  Following the death of a
>> cyclist in the park last year, killed head on by a motorist driving on
>> the wrong side of the road, the park has imposed tougher and tougher
>> restrictions on cycling.
>
>I've not noticed any restrictions but then like most people I don't read 
>the signs. I'm always at a bit of a loss as to why anyone apart from 
>kids or people using the foot tunnel would want to cycle in Greenwich park.

Greenwich Park provides an excellent link from the south to the
junction of NCN1, NCN4 and NCN21, all long distance cycle routes.

The Lower Road (from Greenwich to The City) is a major commuter route
for cyclists, and broadly following the Thames has no major roads
joining from the North other than the hideous Rotherhithe Tunnel
roundabout.