Cycling through the Blackwall Tunnel
Tom Crispin
banned.
I now no longer believe this is the case for the Northbound tunnel.
The Blackwall Tunnel opened in 1897. A year earlier the Government of
the time turned its back on road safety and repealed the law that
required that motor vehicles be preceded by a man waving a red flag.
It is highly unlikely that bicycles were banned from the Blackwall
Tunnel at that time, having been built for horse drawn carriages and
pedestrian use.
Currently the signs for the southbound tunnel are clear and
unambiguous, cycling is prohibited.
www.britishschoolofcycling.com/blackwall/blackwall5.jpg
www.britishschoolofcycling.com/blackwall/blackwall6.jpg
www.britishschoolofcycling.com/blackwall/blackwall7.jpg
But northbound it is less clear.
Cycling is certainly prohibited for much of the A102 between the Sun
in Sands roundabout and Tunnel Avenue.
www.britishschoolofcycling.com/blackwall/blackwall0.jpg
But at the point where Blackwall Lane (A2203) merges with Blackwall
Tunnel approach there is no evidence that cycling is banned.
www.britishschoolofcycling.com/blackwall/blackwall1.jpg
www.britishschoolofcycling.com/blackwall/blackwall2.jpg
Indeed, there is a shared use footway alongside Tunnel Approach, with
ramblers happily walking alongside the road.
www.britishschoolofcycling.com/blackwall/blackwall3.jpg
There is even a footway and useful steps leading into the tunnel
entrance, and no evidence at all that pedestrians or cyclists are
banned from the northbound tunnel.
www.britishschoolofcycling.com/blackwall/blackwall4.jpg
Normally this would interest me little. Having cycled through the
Rotherhithe Tunnel with a 20 mph speed limit and one narrow lane in
each direction, and discoved how hideous that is for cyclists, I would
have little intent of cycling through the northbound Blackwall Tunnel
with its 30mph speed limit and two northbound lanes.
However, Greenwich Council intend to close the Greenwich Foot Tunnel,
used by 250 cyclists an hour at peak times, for up to 18 months, and
have no intention of laying on an adequate replacement free ferry
service. The DLR will not permit cycles on their trains. London's
Mayor, the bumbling Boris Johnson has not shown any interest at all in
the plight of Londoners wanting to cross the Thames at Greenwich.
http://mqt.london.gov.uk/mqt/public/question.do?id=26105
http://mqt.london.gov.uk/mqt/public/question.do?id=25955
http://mqt.london.gov.uk/mqt/public/question.do?id=25956
http://mqt.london.gov.uk/mqt/public/question.do?id=25957
In order to put pressure on the Mayor of London and Greenwich Council
to re-think their strategy towards the needs of cyclists while the
Greenwich foot tunnel is closed it may be necessary to organise a peak
hour mass bike ride through the northbound Blackwall tunnel. This
would clearly demonstrate the inconvienience motorists would face for
up to 18 months if 250 cyclists an hour at peak times were forced to
divert to the Blackwall Tunnel. The Mayor of London and Greenwich
Council may then decide that it is in everyone's interests to lay on a
free and adequate ferry service for cyclists at Greenwich, or to allow
cyclists to use the DLR by providing a couple of extra coaches.
It would be good to know for certain that cycling through the
northbound Blackwall Tunnel is legal.
mileburner
"Tom Crispin" <kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote in message
news:4dp295dd7j40c20gg...@4ax.com...
>
> It would be good to know for certain that cycling through the
> northbound Blackwall Tunnel is legal.
For these kinds of routes, I am beginning to think that it might be worth
having an ak-47 slung over the shoulder, just in case we meet drivers like
judith. It might make them *THINK* before they try their super-silly passes.
JNugent
> In order to put pressure on the Mayor of London and Greenwich Council
> to re-think their strategy towards the needs of cyclists while the
> Greenwich foot tunnel is closed it may be necessary to organise a peak
> hour mass bike ride through the northbound Blackwall tunnel. This
> would clearly demonstrate the inconvienience motorists would face for
> up to 18 months if 250 cyclists an hour at peak times were forced to
> divert to the Blackwall Tunnel. The Mayor of London and Greenwich
> Council may then decide that it is in everyone's interests to lay on a
> free and adequate ferry service for cyclists at Greenwich, or to allow
> cyclists to use the DLR by providing a couple of extra coaches.
Or they might just decide to leave you on the north side of the river to find
your way back via Rotherhithe Tunnel or Tower Brige.
"...free and adequate ferry service for cyclists at Greenwich"
You don't ask for much, do you?
BTW: Isn't the Woolwich Ferry free?
NM
wrote:
>
> It would be good to know for certain that cycling through the
> northbound Blackwall Tunnel is legal.
Get on the Woolwich free ferry you lazy git, it's only just up the
river.
Tom Crispin
Yes - but it is six miles downstream from Greenwich.
We have been through this argument before. The Greenwich foot tunnel
is 408 yards long, about a quarter of a mile (I know you like imperial
measurements).
To cycle from Greenwich to Woolwich and then over on the ferry and
back to Island Gardens would be a 12 mile diversion, or somewhat more
than 48 times the straight line distance.
You seem to have difficulty accepting that you have to drive around a
gyratory system on the A40 and provided this link.
<http://tinyurl.com/l2dptp>
Tom Crispin
wrote:
It's down the river not up - 6 miles downstream.
I'd have little problem with using the Woolwich ferry if the tunnel
closure was just for a day or two... But 18 months!
NM
wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 10:51:30 -0700 (PDT), NM <nik.mor...@mac.com>
OK it's downstream if you want to be pedantic about it and I don't
think its 6 miles from the Blackwall as claimed by another poster.
Rob Morley
"mileburner" <mileb...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> For these kinds of routes, I am beginning to think that it might be
> worth having an ak-47 slung over the shoulder
Wrong choice of weapon, I think - something like an MP5 might be more
suitable.
Judith M Smith
<kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
<snip>
>It would be good to know for certain that cycling through the
>northbound Blackwall Tunnel is legal.
I'll tell you how to find out
Cycle through it at rush-hour a couple of times.
--
Latest DfT Figures: Passenger casualty rates by mode Per billion passenger kilometers:
Killed or seriously injured: Pedal Cyclists : 527 Pedestrians 371
All casualties: Pedal Cyclists : 3494 Pedestrians : 1631
Which is more dangerous?
NM
wrote:
Google makes it 3.6 miles along the south bank, it's less on the north
side, nowhere near 12 mile diversion you mention.
Steve Firth
> Greenwich Council
Tssk, surely only a Greenwich trendy would be interested in what they
have to say?
Tom Crispin
wrote:
>On 23 Aug, 18:51, Tom Crispin <kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge>
Oh yes - that would be via the treacherous Woolwich Road/A102
junction.
www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23694509-details/Tributes+to+cyclist+killed+in+hit-and-run/article.do
The Thames Cycle route from Greenwich to Woolwich, avoiding the deadly
junction is six miles.
Tom Crispin
<judith...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 17:45:51 +0100, Tom Crispin
><kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>
>>It would be good to know for certain that cycling through the
>>northbound Blackwall Tunnel is legal.
>
>
>I'll tell you how to find out
>
>Cycle through it at rush-hour a couple of times.
It may yet come to that.
I think that a peleton of 12 would be sufficient for safety.
Bod
What is a "peleton"?
Bod
Marc
JNugent
> JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>> In order to put pressure on the Mayor of London and Greenwich Council
>>> to re-think their strategy towards the needs of cyclists while the
>>> Greenwich foot tunnel is closed it may be necessary to organise a peak
>>> hour mass bike ride through the northbound Blackwall tunnel. This
>>> would clearly demonstrate the inconvienience motorists would face for
>>> up to 18 months if 250 cyclists an hour at peak times were forced to
>>> divert to the Blackwall Tunnel. The Mayor of London and Greenwich
>>> Council may then decide that it is in everyone's interests to lay on a
>>> free and adequate ferry service for cyclists at Greenwich, or to allow
>>> cyclists to use the DLR by providing a couple of extra coaches.
>> Or they might just decide to leave you on the north side of the river to find
>> your way back via Rotherhithe Tunnel or Tower Brige.
>> "...free and adequate ferry service for cyclists at Greenwich"
>> You don't ask for much, do you?
>> BTW: Isn't the Woolwich Ferry free?
> Yes - but it is six miles downstream from Greenwich.
That's only relevant for some journey origins and destinations, and
irrelevant for many others.
> We have been through this argument before. The Greenwich foot tunnel
> is 408 yards long, about a quarter of a mile (I know you like imperial
> measurements).
But you aren't allowed to cycle through it anyway. It's a *foot* tunnel.
Miles and yards are what road distance is measured in in the UK. There is no
sign of that changing. Sorry if you don't agree and/or want to be seen as
dismissive of tradition.
I suppose you also want old ladies locked up for asking for a pound of
carrots, and green grocers for not correcting them, eh?
> To cycle from Greenwich to Woolwich and then over on the ferry and
> back to Island Gardens would be a 12 mile diversion, or somewhat more
> than 48 times the straight line distance.
But that's what you should be doing anyway (if you want to cross the river),
isn't it?
> You seem to have difficulty accepting that you have to drive around a
> gyratory system on the A40 and provided this link.
> <http://tinyurl.com/l2dptp>
I say that totally unnecesary and vexatious diversions such as that are
wrong, especially when the route via Angel Street is still available. There
is no good reason for that diversion. Angel Street is not closed and is not
being rebuilt. And thus, I'm not asking for a new route to be built or
operated at the expense of others.
Some difference.
JNugent
To be clear - this *is* the *foot* tunnel you're talking about?
JNugent
Google Maps suggests a distance of 3.8 miles from the Woolwich Road junction
on A102 to the Ferry (south side).
And 3.4 miles between the analagous points norfadariver.
Mind you, it's more from the Greenwich Foot Tunnel, whih may have been what
he meant.
Phil Cook
>I have always assumed that cycling through the Blackwall Tunnel was
>banned.
>
>I now no longer believe this is the case for the Northbound tunnel.
>
>The Blackwall Tunnel opened in 1897. A year earlier the Government of
>the time turned its back on road safety and repealed the law that
>required that motor vehicles be preceded by a man waving a red flag.
>It is highly unlikely that bicycles were banned from the Blackwall
>Tunnel at that time, having been built for horse drawn carriages and
>pedestrian use.
>
>Currently the signs for the southbound tunnel are clear and
>unambiguous, cycling is prohibited.
>www.britishschoolofcycling.com/blackwall/blackwall5.jpg
>www.britishschoolofcycling.com/blackwall/blackwall6.jpg
>www.britishschoolofcycling.com/blackwall/blackwall7.jpg
>
>But northbound it is less clear.
>But at the point where Blackwall Lane (A2203) merges with Blackwall
>Tunnel approach there is no evidence that cycling is banned.
>www.britishschoolofcycling.com/blackwall/blackwall1.jpg
>www.britishschoolofcycling.com/blackwall/blackwall2.jpg
The prohibition sign would be further back at the entry to the slip
road.
From the south there is a no entry except buses sign from Tunnel
Avenue to the Tunnel Approach
But at the slip from Blackwall Lane to the Tunnel Approach there
doesn't seem to be a sign. There is a round sign on the footway there
just at the point you leave Blackwall Lane but it is facing the wrong
way and in the one view that would reveal what it is saying there is
an articulated tanker making the turn blocking the Google-cam. :-(
>
>Indeed, there is a shared use footway alongside Tunnel Approach, with
>ramblers happily walking alongside the road.
>www.britishschoolofcycling.com/blackwall/blackwall3.jpg
>
>There is even a footway and useful steps leading into the tunnel
>entrance, and no evidence at all that pedestrians or cyclists are
>banned from the northbound tunnel.
>www.britishschoolofcycling.com/blackwall/blackwall4.jpg
Those steps are for the emergency footway, there is no way onto them
along the road. Under the arch in the gatehouse there is no footway.
The other entry to the tunnel has a cycle ban. Go on google maps
streetview and come at the tunnel from the north by Tunnel Avenue
heading south past the gatehouse building you have to go round a
"roundabout" to get into the tunnel. The big square prohibition sign
does not include cycles but carry on past it at the point you come
onto the northbound Tunnel Approach there is a cycle prohibition sign
with an "except mopeds" qualification.
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"
Adrian
sounding much like they were saying:
>>"...free and adequate ferry service for cyclists at Greenwich"
>>
>>You don't ask for much, do you?
>>
>>BTW: Isn't the Woolwich Ferry free?
> Yes - but it is six miles downstream from Greenwich.
It's in the London Borough of Greenwich.
Tom Crispin
<J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>> JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>>>> In order to put pressure on the Mayor of London and Greenwich Council
>>>> to re-think their strategy towards the needs of cyclists while the
>>>> Greenwich foot tunnel is closed it may be necessary to organise a peak
>>>> hour mass bike ride through the northbound Blackwall tunnel. This
>>>> would clearly demonstrate the inconvienience motorists would face for
>>>> up to 18 months if 250 cyclists an hour at peak times were forced to
>>>> divert to the Blackwall Tunnel. The Mayor of London and Greenwich
>>>> Council may then decide that it is in everyone's interests to lay on a
>>>> free and adequate ferry service for cyclists at Greenwich, or to allow
>>>> cyclists to use the DLR by providing a couple of extra coaches.
>>> Or they might just decide to leave you on the north side of the river to find
>>> your way back via Rotherhithe Tunnel or Tower Brige.
>
>>> "...free and adequate ferry service for cyclists at Greenwich"
>>> You don't ask for much, do you?
>>> BTW: Isn't the Woolwich Ferry free?
>
>> Yes - but it is six miles downstream from Greenwich.
>
>That's only relevant for some journey origins and destinations, and
>irrelevant for many others.
Possibly - but for those commuting by bicycle from Bromley, Lewisham,
Greenwich, Lambeth and Southwark to London's Docklands, including
Canary Wharf, the closure of the Greenwich Foot Tunnel will cause
considerable inconvinience. A free shuttle ferry service would go
some way to lessening that inconvienience.
>> We have been through this argument before. The Greenwich foot tunnel
>> is 408 yards long, about a quarter of a mile (I know you like imperial
>> measurements).
>
>But you aren't allowed to cycle through it anyway. It's a *foot* tunnel.
It is called the Greenwich Foot tunnel. I never cycle through it, but
there is some doubt as to whether the cycling prohibition is a legal
prohibition or a voluntary code. As a public highway there needs to
be a specific by-law to prohit cycling, and I have not yet seen any
evidence that such a by-law exists.
>Miles and yards are what road distance is measured in in the UK. There is no
>sign of that changing. Sorry if you don't agree and/or want to be seen as
>dismissive of tradition.
I have no problem at all using inches, feet, yards, miles, fathoms,
furlongs, leagues, chains, or whatever, and I feel that I have already
proved that in an earlier thread.
>I suppose you also want old ladies locked up for asking for a pound of
>carrots, and green grocers for not correcting them, eh?
Absolutely not.
>> To cycle from Greenwich to Woolwich and then over on the ferry and
>> back to Island Gardens would be a 12 mile diversion, or somewhat more
>> than 48 times the straight line distance.
>
>But that's what you should be doing anyway (if you want to cross the river),
>isn't it?
No. Cycling may be prohibted in the Greenwich Foot Tunnel, but
bicycles and cyclists are most certainly welcome.
>> You seem to have difficulty accepting that you have to drive around a
>> gyratory system on the A40 and provided this link.
>> <http://tinyurl.com/l2dptp>
>
>I say that totally unnecesary and vexatious diversions such as that are
>wrong, especially when the route via Angel Street is still available. There
>is no good reason for that diversion. Angel Street is not closed and is not
>being rebuilt. And thus, I'm not asking for a new route to be built or
>operated at the expense of others.
I have no indepth knoweldge of that gyratory system, but I do know
that the London Cycling Campaign wishes all such gyratory systems to
be removed.
>Some difference.
Tom Crispin
So travelling from Leeds to York is no distance because Leeds is in
Yorkshire?
Tom Crispin
wrote:
You do it again - suggest that I live in Greenwich. We have been
through this before.
Adrian
sounding much like they were saying:
>>> Greenwich Council
>>Tssk, surely only a Greenwich trendy would be interested in what they
>>have to say?
> You do it again - suggest that I live in Greenwich. We have been
> through this before.
Ah, well if you DON'T live in Greenwich, the closure of the tunnel there
is less of an issue, surely? After all, it's much less of a detour to get
to the Woolwich ferry.
JNugent
> JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>> JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>>>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>>>> In order to put pressure on the Mayor of London and Greenwich Council
>>>>> to re-think their strategy towards the needs of cyclists while the
>>>>> Greenwich foot tunnel is closed it may be necessary to organise a peak
>>>>> hour mass bike ride through the northbound Blackwall tunnel. This
>>>>> would clearly demonstrate the inconvienience motorists would face for
>>>>> up to 18 months if 250 cyclists an hour at peak times were forced to
>>>>> divert to the Blackwall Tunnel. The Mayor of London and Greenwich
>>>>> Council may then decide that it is in everyone's interests to lay on a
>>>>> free and adequate ferry service for cyclists at Greenwich, or to allow
>>>>> cyclists to use the DLR by providing a couple of extra coaches.
>>>> Or they might just decide to leave you on the north side of the river to find
>>>> your way back via Rotherhithe Tunnel or Tower Brige.
>>>> "...free and adequate ferry service for cyclists at Greenwich"
>>>> You don't ask for much, do you?
>>>> BTW: Isn't the Woolwich Ferry free?
>>> Yes - but it is six miles downstream from Greenwich.
>> That's only relevant for some journey origins and destinations, and
>> irrelevant for many others.
> Possibly
No. Definitely.
> - but for those commuting by bicycle from Bromley, Lewisham,
> Greenwich, Lambeth and Southwark to London's Docklands, including
> Canary Wharf, the closure of the Greenwich Foot Tunnel will cause
> considerable inconvinience. A free shuttle ferry service would go
> some way to lessening that inconvienience.
There is no such thing as a free ferry service. There is such a thing as a
ferry service whose cost is borne by others (whose number may or may not
include the user). Indeed, there is one available.
>>> We have been through this argument before. The Greenwich foot tunnel
>>> is 408 yards long, about a quarter of a mile (I know you like imperial
>>> measurements).
>> But you aren't allowed to cycle through it anyway. It's a *foot* tunnel.
> It is called the Greenwich Foot tunnel. I never cycle through it, but
> there is some doubt as to whether the cycling prohibition is a legal
> prohibition or a voluntary code.
Ah... like there was "some doubt" about whether one is allowed to cycle
through the Blackwall Tunnel northbound (but not, apparently, southbound),
you mean?
Who has these doubts, apart from your good self? Are you sure there aren't
"some doubts" about whether bikes are banned from motorways as well?
> As a public highway there needs to
> be a specific by-law to prohit cycling, and I have not yet seen any
> evidence that such a by-law exists.
That's an interesting thought with potentially wide application: using one's
ignorance of fact to assert that things cannot (or need not) be as presented.
Do you habitually park (motor vehicles) on double yellow lines on the
(equally reasonable) basis that you can't possibly have seen all the evidence
that all the necessary local authority orders exist? Ditto for speed limits?
>> Miles and yards are what road distance is measured in in the UK. There is no
>> sign of that changing. Sorry if you don't agree and/or want to be seen as
>> dismissive of tradition.
> I have no problem at all using inches, feet, yards, miles, fathoms,
> furlongs, leagues, chains, or whatever, and I feel that I have already
> proved that in an earlier thread.
But in this country, distance (for travel purposes) is not measured in
inches, feet, fathoms, furlongs, leagues or chains. So they don't matter.
IOW, they're about as relevant as metres or kilometres.
>> I suppose you also want old ladies locked up for asking for a pound of
>> carrots, and green grocers for not correcting them, eh?
> Absolutely not.
Good. So miles and yards it is. And pints for beer and milk.
>>> To cycle from Greenwich to Woolwich and then over on the ferry and
>>> back to Island Gardens would be a 12 mile diversion, or somewhat more
>>> than 48 times the straight line distance.
>> But that's what you should be doing anyway (if you want to cross the river),
>> isn't it?
> No. Cycling may be prohibted in the Greenwich Foot Tunnel, but
> bicycles and cyclists are most certainly welcome.
>>> You seem to have difficulty accepting that you have to drive around a
>>> gyratory system on the A40 and provided this link.
>>> <http://tinyurl.com/l2dptp>
>> I say that totally unnecesary and vexatious diversions such as that are
>> wrong, especially when the route via Angel Street is still available. There
>> is no good reason for that diversion. Angel Street is not closed and is not
>> being rebuilt. And thus, I'm not asking for a new route to be built or
>> operated at the expense of others.
> I have no indepth knoweldge of that gyratory system, but I do know
> that the London Cycling Campaign wishes all such gyratory systems to
> be removed.
Take a look at it some time. It is there for no good reason whatever. You
can't actually say that about all "roundabouts on the streets".
JNugent
Is a shire county* stretching from coast almost to coast the same sort of
thing as a London borough measuring a few miles from end to end?
[* More accurately, a large shire county, two separate large metropolitan
agglomerations and a free-standing unitary authority city, plus any I've
forgotten.]
JNugent
> %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
>> Tom Crispin <kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>>> Greenwich Council
>> Tssk, surely only a Greenwich trendy would be interested in what they
>> have to say?
> You do it again - suggest that I live in Greenwich. We have been
> through this before.
He didn't suggest that at all. In fact, he was paying you the arguable
compliment of implying that you are not a Greenwich trendy.
JNugent
> Tom Crispin <kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge>:
>>>> Greenwich Council
>>> Tssk, surely only a Greenwich trendy would be interested in what they
>>> have to say?
>> You do it again - suggest that I live in Greenwich. We have been
>> through this before.
> Ah, well if you DON'T live in Greenwich, the closure of the tunnel there
> is less of an issue, surely? After all, it's much less of a detour to get
> to the Woolwich ferry.
Perhaps he lives in New Cross or Deptford?
Adrian
they were saying:
>> Ah, well if you DON'T live in Greenwich, the closure of the tunnel
>> there is less of an issue, surely? After all, it's much less of a
>> detour to get to the Woolwich ferry.
> Perhaps he lives in New Cross or Deptford?
Then it's a minor miracle his bike's not been nicked.
Tom Crispin
This one:
www.britishschoolofcycling.com/blackwall/blackwall8.jpg
It is possible that the sign has been put up in ignorance, certainly
the "except mopeds" bit seems to be ignorant. But I now know that it
is possible to cycle through the Blackwall Tunnel without passing any
cycling prohibitied signs.
The Thames cycle path emerges onto the Blackwall Tunnel Approach at
the driveway on the left of this photo.
www.britishschoolofcycling.com/blackwall/blackwall9.jpg
There are no cycling prohibition signs between there and the tunnel
entrance.
If cycling through the northbound tunnel is prohibitied (and for
cycling to be prohibited at some stage a traffic regulation order
would have had to be passed) being able to cycle through the tunnel
without passing a notice prohibiting cycling is a strong mitigating
argument.
It is also possible to cycle through the southbound tunnel without
passing a prohibition notice. Just get onto the Northern Approach via
the subway on the left of this photo.
www.britishschoolofcycling.com/blackwall/blackwalla.jpg
Tom Crispin
<J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>There is no such thing as a free ferry service. There is such a thing as a
>ferry service whose cost is borne by others (whose number may or may not
>include the user). Indeed, there is one available.
So the Woolwich Free Ferry should be renamed the Woolwich "whose cost
is borne by others" Ferry?
Or perhaps you knew what I meant by a free ferry service?
>>>> We have been through this argument before. The Greenwich foot tunnel
>>>> is 408 yards long, about a quarter of a mile (I know you like imperial
>>>> measurements).
>
>>> But you aren't allowed to cycle through it anyway. It's a *foot* tunnel.
>
>> It is called the Greenwich Foot tunnel. I never cycle through it, but
>> there is some doubt as to whether the cycling prohibition is a legal
>> prohibition or a voluntary code.
>
>Ah... like there was "some doubt" about whether one is allowed to cycle
>through the Blackwall Tunnel northbound (but not, apparently, southbound),
>you mean?
>
>Who has these doubts, apart from your good self? Are you sure there aren't
>"some doubts" about whether bikes are banned from motorways as well?
>
>> As a public highway there needs to
>> be a specific by-law to prohit cycling, and I have not yet seen any
>> evidence that such a by-law exists.
>
>That's an interesting thought with potentially wide application: using one's
>ignorance of fact to assert that things cannot (or need not) be as presented.
>
>Do you habitually park (motor vehicles) on double yellow lines on the
>(equally reasonable) basis that you can't possibly have seen all the evidence
>that all the necessary local authority orders exist? Ditto for speed limits?
As far as I know, double yellow lines have no force in law unless
there exists appropriate signage.
>>> Miles and yards are what road distance is measured in in the UK. There is no
>>> sign of that changing. Sorry if you don't agree and/or want to be seen as
>>> dismissive of tradition.
>
>> I have no problem at all using inches, feet, yards, miles, fathoms,
>> furlongs, leagues, chains, or whatever, and I feel that I have already
>> proved that in an earlier thread.
>
>But in this country, distance (for travel purposes) is not measured in
>inches, feet, fathoms, furlongs, leagues or chains. So they don't matter.
>IOW, they're about as relevant as metres or kilometres.
>
>>> I suppose you also want old ladies locked up for asking for a pound of
>>> carrots, and green grocers for not correcting them, eh?
>
>> Absolutely not.
>
>Good. So miles and yards it is. And pints for beer and milk.
If you're buying, I'd rather have a litre of beer.
Tom Crispin
<J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>> Adrian <tooma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Tom Crispin <kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> gurgled happily,
>>> sounding much like they were saying:
>>>
>>>>> "...free and adequate ferry service for cyclists at Greenwich"
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't ask for much, do you?
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW: Isn't the Woolwich Ferry free?
>>>> Yes - but it is six miles downstream from Greenwich.
>>> It's in the London Borough of Greenwich.
>>
>> So travelling from Leeds to York is no distance because Leeds is in
>> Yorkshire?
>
>Is a shire county* stretching from coast almost to coast the same sort of
>thing as a London borough measuring a few miles from end to end?
And Greenwich is a London Borough which includes Abbey Wood,
Blackheath Standard, Charlton, Eltham, Greenwich, Kidbrooke,
Mottingham, Shooters Hill, Thamesmead and Woolwich.
JNugent
> JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>> There is no such thing as a free ferry service. There is such a thing as a
>> ferry service whose cost is borne by others (whose number may or may not
>> include the user). Indeed, there is one available.
> So the Woolwich Free Ferry should be renamed the Woolwich "whose cost
> is borne by others" Ferry?
Is it actually called that? On maps, it is termed the Woolwich Ferry. Not
that it amounts to anything other than a nitpick by your good self.
Do you still search in vain at the newsagent's shop for the Manchester Guardian?
> Or perhaps you knew what I meant by a free ferry service?
Yes - you meant an entirely new one across the river on a new route, with
substantial capital and revenue costs (not the least of which would be the
building of at least two new adequate piers).
>>>>> We have been through this argument before. The Greenwich foot tunnel
>>>>> is 408 yards long, about a quarter of a mile (I know you like imperial
>>>>> measurements).
>>>> But you aren't allowed to cycle through it anyway. It's a *foot* tunnel.
>>> It is called the Greenwich Foot tunnel. I never cycle through it, but
>>> there is some doubt as to whether the cycling prohibition is a legal
>>> prohibition or a voluntary code.
>> Ah... like there was "some doubt" about whether one is allowed to cycle
>> through the Blackwall Tunnel northbound (but not, apparently, southbound),
>> you mean?
>> Who has these doubts, apart from your good self? Are you sure there aren't
>> "some doubts" about whether bikes are banned from motorways as well?
>>> As a public highway there needs to
>>> be a specific by-law to prohit cycling, and I have not yet seen any
>>> evidence that such a by-law exists.
>> That's an interesting thought with potentially wide application: using one's
>> ignorance of fact to assert that things cannot (or need not) be as presented.
>> Do you habitually park (motor vehicles) on double yellow lines on the
>> (equally reasonable) basis that you can't possibly have seen all the evidence
>> that all the necessary local authority orders exist? Ditto for speed limits?
> As far as I know, double yellow lines have no force in law unless
> there exists appropriate signage.
Indeed. But it wasn't signage you were arguing about, was it? It was the
necessary "by-law" you said might not exist.
You said:
"I have not yet seen any evidence that such a by-law exists".
Nothing to do with signage.
>>>> Miles and yards are what road distance is measured in in the UK. There is no
>>>> sign of that changing. Sorry if you don't agree and/or want to be seen as
>>>> dismissive of tradition.
>>> I have no problem at all using inches, feet, yards, miles, fathoms,
>>> furlongs, leagues, chains, or whatever, and I feel that I have already
>>> proved that in an earlier thread.
>> But in this country, distance (for travel purposes) is not measured in
>> inches, feet, fathoms, furlongs, leagues or chains. So they don't matter.
>> IOW, they're about as relevant as metres or kilometres.
>>>> I suppose you also want old ladies locked up for asking for a pound of
>>>> carrots, and green grocers for not correcting them, eh?
>>> Absolutely not.
>> Good. So miles and yards it is. And pints for beer and milk.
> If you're buying, I'd rather have a litre of beer.
Such poverty of ambition. In France, they'd call it two pints.
Adrian
they were saying:
>> Or perhaps you knew what I meant by a free ferry service?
> Yes - you meant an entirely new one across the river on a new route,
> with substantial capital and revenue costs (not the least of which would
> be the building of at least two new adequate piers).
Never mind the fact that the cost would dwarf that of the tunnel works, I
even wonder whether it would be open by the time the foot tunnel was
completed and re-opened.
>>> Good. So miles and yards it is. And pints for beer and milk.
>> If you're buying, I'd rather have a litre of beer.
> Such poverty of ambition. In France, they'd call it two pints.
No, they'd call it "quatre biers".
NM
wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 11:08:42 -0700 (PDT), NM <nik.mor...@mac.com>
>
> The Thames Cycle route from Greenwich to Woolwich, avoiding the deadly
> junction is six miles.
Google says it's 3.6 miles if you walk, you must be going a long way
round.
JNugent
> JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>> Adrian <tooma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Tom Crispin <kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge>:
>>>>>> "...free and adequate ferry service for cyclists at Greenwich"
>>>>>> You don't ask for much, do you?
>>>>>> BTW: Isn't the Woolwich Ferry free?
>>>>> Yes - but it is six miles downstream from Greenwich.
>>>> It's in the London Borough of Greenwich.
>>> So travelling from Leeds to York is no distance because Leeds is in
>>> Yorkshire?
>> Is a shire county* stretching from coast almost to coast the same sort of
>> thing as a London borough measuring a few miles from end to end?
> And Greenwich is a London Borough which includes Abbey Wood,
> Blackheath Standard, Charlton, Eltham, Greenwich, Kidbrooke,
> Mottingham, Shooters Hill, Thamesmead and Woolwich.
We all know that Londoners simply cannot comprehend the size of Great Britain
north of Watford and west of Maidenhead (and that even some adopted Londoners
affect the same ignorance out of a desire to conform), but please, accept my
honest assurance that be it ever so big in your opinion, the London Borough
of Greenwich is absolutely *dwarfed* by Yorkshire (or The Yorkshires and York).
Tom Crispin
My bike storage facility at home is used as an example of good
security by the Design again Crime Research Centre.
www.bikeoff.org/design_resource/DR_facilities_examples_residential_Lewisham.shtml
JNugent
> JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com>:
>>> Or perhaps you knew what I meant by a free ferry service?
>> Yes - you meant an entirely new one across the river on a new route,
>> with substantial capital and revenue costs (not the least of which would
>> be the building of at least two new adequate piers).
> Never mind the fact that the cost would dwarf that of the tunnel works, I
> even wonder whether it would be open by the time the foot tunnel was
> completed and re-opened.
>>>> Good. So miles and yards it is. And pints for beer and milk.
>>> If you're buying, I'd rather have a litre of beer.
>> Such poverty of ambition. In France, they'd call it two pints.
> No, they'd call it "quatre biers".
Probably not if they know you're British and they can speak some English. The
French aren't daft. They know how highly the metric system is esteemed over here.
Adrian
sounding much like they were saying:
>>>>>> BTW: Isn't the Woolwich Ferry free?
>>>>> Yes - but it is six miles downstream from Greenwich.
>>>> It's in the London Borough of Greenwich.
>>> So travelling from Leeds to York is no distance because Leeds is in
>>> Yorkshire?
>>Is a shire county* stretching from coast almost to coast the same sort
>>of thing as a London borough measuring a few miles from end to end?
> And Greenwich is a London Borough which includes Abbey Wood, Blackheath
> Standard, Charlton, Eltham, Greenwich, Kidbrooke, Mottingham, Shooters
> Hill, Thamesmead and Woolwich.
Exactly. It's not a huge area.
Oh, and you forgot New Eltham and Plumstead. And that's just bits of the
borough that I used to live in - probably others, too. Wish I could
forget 'em so easily.
Judith M Smith
Filth publishes so much of his personal information and details,
either voluntary or involuntary, on the internet, he is amazed that
normal people do not do so themselves
He therefore assumes that if a particular location is associated with
you in any shape or form, then that must be where you live.
He makes Chapman look almost sensible.
(He is quite stressed at the moment with job security - so please give
him a bit of slack)
--
Latest DfT Figures: Passenger casualty rates by mode Per billion passenger kilometers:
Killed or seriously injured: Pedal Cyclists : 527 Pedestrians 371
All casualties: Pedal Cyclists : 3494 Pedestrians : 1631
Which is more dangerous?
Tom Crispin
<J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>Yes - you meant an entirely new one across the river on a new route, with
>substantial capital and revenue costs (not the least of which would be the
>building of at least two new adequate piers).
Greenwich Pier and Masthouse Terrace Pier are already owned by
Transport for London.
Thames Clipper have already said that they would run the service. They
would expect to be paid, but Greenwich Council are already going to
save a considerable amount of money by not having to pay for the lift
operators, four of whom are always on duty, one each side at Greenwich
and one each side at Woolwich.
A Thames Clipper has a crew of three. The only modification they
would make is to remove some of their seats to allow space for
bicycles in the cabin.
>>> Good. So miles and yards it is. And pints for beer and milk.
>
>> If you're buying, I'd rather have a litre of beer.
>
>Such poverty of ambition. In France, they'd call it two pints.
I'll go for that... Cheers!
Tom Crispin
>JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like
>they were saying:
>
>>> Or perhaps you knew what I meant by a free ferry service?
>
>> Yes - you meant an entirely new one across the river on a new route,
>> with substantial capital and revenue costs (not the least of which would
>> be the building of at least two new adequate piers).
>
>Never mind the fact that the cost would dwarf that of the tunnel works, I
>even wonder whether it would be open by the time the foot tunnel was
>completed and re-opened.
Fool.
Piers, already owned by Transport for London, already exist on both
banks of the Thames.
The demand of a replacement ferry service is not unreasonable. They
lay on a free ferry service when Tower Bridge is closed for more than
a few hours.
The cost of the Tunnels' refurbishment is �11.5 million. An eighteen
month charter of a Thames Clipper, including crew, would be about
�500,000. The greater cost of operating the piers would be marginal.
Tom Crispin
<J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
Indeed. And that has what relevance to the point I made?
Steve Firth
> On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 19:01:26 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
> wrote:
>
> >Tom Crispin <kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
> >
> >> Greenwich Council
> >
> >Tssk, surely only a Greenwich trendy would be interested in what they
> >have to say?
>
> You do it again - suggest that I live in Greenwich.
Really? Where did I do that?
> We have been through this before.
Indeed we have. You making an incorrect assertion then refusing to admit
it. I'm sure that the pattern will be repeated.
Steve Firth
> Greenwich is a London Borough which includes Abbey Wood,
> Blackheath Standard, Charlton, Eltham, Greenwich, Kidbrooke,
> Mottingham, Shooters Hill, Thamesmead and Woolwich.
You seem to know a lot about Greenwich. One might almost think too much
for someone who doesn't live there.
Sadly one of the things that you seem unable to comprehend is how small
a geographic area it covers. It's not far from being an equilateral
triangle a mere 10km to a side. The parish that I live in is a square 13
miles to a side. It has a population of less than a thousand. Perhaps,
if you can't take in the relative scale and the difference in population
density[1] you shouldn't be punting away with bizarre views about the
use of the bicycle as a mode of transport.
I tire of the Londoners who think that the world doesn't exist outside
their foetid cesspit.
[1] No, really, you can't and you've provided the evidence.
JNugent
> The demand of a replacement ferry service is not unreasonable.
Any estimate of the cost, and the revenue?
> They lay on a free ferry service when Tower Bridge is closed for more than
> a few hours.
What?
From which piers?
How many lorries does it carry? How many cars, coaches and buses?
And why bother? All they have to do is suspend the "congestion" tax and let
traffic use London Bridge instead.
> The cost of the Tunnels' refurbishment is �11.5 million. An eighteen
> month charter of a Thames Clipper, including crew, would be about
> �500,000. The greater cost of operating the piers would be marginal.
OK, there's an estimate of the cost (likely to be significantly under-stated,
as is the way of these things).
Any idea of the revenue to offset against it?
JNugent
You implied that the distance from Greenwich to Woolwich (a trifling few
miles, especially for a congestion-scorning vehicle like a bike) was
comparable to the distance from Leeds to York.
Had you forgotten already?
Tosspot
> On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 18:14:01 +0100
> "mileburner" <mileb...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> For these kinds of routes, I am beginning to think that it might be
>> worth having an ak-47 slung over the shoulder
>
> Wrong choice of weapon, I think - something like an MP5 might be more
> suitable.
I've had a go with an M-16, they're quite fun, if not quite so portable.
Tom Crispin
<J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>> Indeed. And that has what relevance to the point I made?
>
>You implied that the distance from Greenwich to Woolwich (a trifling few
>miles, especially for a congestion-scorning vehicle like a bike) was
>comparable to the distance from Leeds to York.
In that case your reading comprehension is severely lacking.
I implied that implying that the distance between Greenwich and
Woolwich is insignificant because Woolwich is in the London Borough of
Greenwich is like implying that the distance between Leeds and York is
insignificant because Leeds is in Yorkshire.
I agree that the scale is different.
Doug
wrote:
of options for crossing the river below Tower Bridge, where they don't
even have to step out of their cars, the situation is very different
for cyclists. Closing the Greenwich tunnel just makes matters even
worse, especially as it is part of Cycle Route One, even though it
requires riders to dismount. As always, cyclists are grudgingly
treated as an inconvenient afterthought by the authorities, despite
their irritating greenwash and safety campaigns involving victim
blaming.
--
Car Free Cities
http://www.carfree.com/
Carfree Cities proposes a delightful solution
to the vexing problem of urban automobiles.
Adrian
saying:
> I think the main point here is that while motorists have a wide range of
> options for crossing the river below Tower Bridge, where they don't even
> have to step out of their cars
No, they don't.
Blackwall Tunnel.
Woolwich Ferry.
Dartford Bridge.
> the situation is very different for cyclists.
Indeed it is.
Crispin claims bikes can be taken through the Blackwall tunnel.
Bikes can be taken through the Greenwich foot tunnel.
Bikes can be taken on the Woolwich Ferry.
Bikes can be taken across the Dartford Bridge.
Bikes can be taken on the East London Line.
So cyclists have more options than car drivers.
Oh, and it's almost certainly quicker to cycle from Greenwich to the
Woolwich Ferry then back to the Isle of Dogs than to drive, most of the
day.
> Closing the Greenwich tunnel just makes matters even worse,
I'll agree that it's an unfortunate coincidence that the East London Line
closure overlaps for some of the tunnel closure, but - ffs - it's really
not that big a deal.
> As always, cyclists are grudgingly treated as an inconvenient
> afterthought by the authorities, despite their irritating greenwash and
> safety campaigns involving victim blaming.
Indeed. Perhaps if you lightened up on the victim blaming and greenwash,
you might be taken a bit more seriously?
Adrian
sounding much like they were saying:
>>> Perhaps he lives in New Cross or Deptford?
>>Then it's a minor miracle his bike's not been nicked.
> My bike storage facility at home is used as an example of good security
> by the Design again Crime Research Centre.
> www.bikeoff.org/design_resource/
DR_facilities_examples_residential_Lewisham.shtml
Sorry, you VOLUNTARILY blocked off the majority of the light ingress to
your living room?
JNugent
> Tom Crispin <kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>> JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>>>> Indeed. And that has what relevance to the point I made?
>>> You implied that the distance from Greenwich to Woolwich (a trifling few
>>> miles, especially for a congestion-scorning vehicle like a bike) was
>>> comparable to the distance from Leeds to York.
>> In that case your reading comprehension is severely lacking.
Clearly not.
>> I implied that implying that the distance between Greenwich and
>> Woolwich is insignificant because Woolwich is in the London Borough of
>> Greenwich is like implying that the distance between Leeds and York is
>> insignificant because Leeds is in Yorkshire.
>> I agree that the scale is different.
Then you must also agree that your "point" was irrelevant, since all London
boroughs are quite small compared to Yorkshire and remarking that two places
are within the same borough is merely another way of showing that they are
close to each other.
> I think the main point here is that while motorists have a wide range
> of options for crossing the river below Tower Bridge, where they don't
> even have to step out of their cars, the situation is very different
> for cyclists.
No, it isn't. Cyclists don't have tp step out of cars either.
> Closing the Greenwich tunnel just makes matters even
> worse, especially as it is part of Cycle Route One, even though it
> requires riders to dismount.
Hang on...
Isn't requiring cyclists to dismount in a tunnel reserved for pedestrians
(for whom you and TC so obviously have so much scorn) the equivalent of
drivers having to "step out of their cars" after all?
Doug
> Doug <jag...@riseup.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
> > I think the main point here is that while motorists have a wide range of
> > options for crossing the river below Tower Bridge, where they don't even
> > have to step out of their cars
>
> No, they don't.
>
> Blackwall Tunnel.
> Woolwich Ferry.
> Dartford Bridge.
>
> > the situation is very different for cyclists.
>
> Indeed it is.
>
> Crispin claims bikes can be taken through the Blackwall tunnel.
>
roads where cyclists are banned but not motorists
>
> Bikes can be taken through the Greenwich foot tunnel.
>
>
> Bikes can be taken on the Woolwich Ferry.
>
space out of the lane.
>
> Bikes can be taken across the Dartford Bridge.
>
>
> Bikes can be taken on the East London Line.
>
>
> So cyclists have more options than car drivers.
>
dismount or walk while motorists do not even have to leave their cars.
>
I assume you accept that a dismounted cyclist is transformed into a
pedestrian, in the same way that a motorist who leaves a car is?
>
>
> Oh, and it's almost certainly quicker to cycle from Greenwich to the
> Woolwich Ferry then back to the Isle of Dogs than to drive, most of the
> day.
>
fact is that motorists have far more accessible routes across the
river than cyclists
>
> > Closing the Greenwich tunnel just makes matters even worse,
>
> I'll agree that it's an unfortunate coincidence that the East London Line
> closure overlaps for some of the tunnel closure, but - ffs - it's really
> not that big a deal.
>
>
> > As always, cyclists are grudgingly treated as an inconvenient
> > afterthought by the authorities, despite their irritating greenwash and
> > safety campaigns involving victim blaming.
>
> Indeed. Perhaps if you lightened up on the victim blaming and greenwash,
> you might be taken a bit more seriously?
>
care or that it matters in the slightest.
Adrian
saying:
>> > the situation is very different for cyclists.
>> Indeed it is.
>>
>> Crispin claims bikes can be taken through the Blackwall tunnel.
> On the face of it no.
You're claiming that Crispin is lying?
>> Bikes can be taken through the Greenwich foot tunnel.
> Only on foot
So what?
>> Bikes can be taken on the Woolwich Ferry.
> Where the riders are made to dismount and are crammed into a small space
> out of the lane.
So what? They cross a damn sight quicker, since they don't have to join
the queueing system.
>> Bikes can be taken across the Dartford Bridge.
> In a trailer only.
So what? Oh - and cyclists don't have to pay to cross Dartford, unlike
car drivers.
>> Bikes can be taken on the East London Line.
> But not in the rush hour.
So what? It's during the rush hour that the car is at it's least viable
due to higher journey times.
>> So cyclists have more options than car drivers.
> No they don't.
Yes, they do.
> In many cases they cannot just cycle across and have to dismount or
> walk while motorists do not even have to leave their cars.
So what?
> I assume you accept that a dismounted cyclist is transformed into a
> pedestrian
Indeed.
> in the same way that a motorist who leaves a car is?
Odd, I thought a motorist - even when on foot, on a bicycle or on a bus o
or (especially) sat in a court building as a jurist - was always a
motorist? Are you being a trifle inconsistent, Duhg?
B'sides, I think you might find it's illegal to push a car - or even a
motorcycle - through the Greenwich Foot Tunnel or onto a train.
>> Oh, and it's almost certainly quicker to cycle from Greenwich to the
>> Woolwich Ferry then back to the Isle of Dogs than to drive, most of the
>> day.
> If you contribute to time wasting congestion that is your problem. The
> fact is that motorists have far more accessible routes across the river
> than cyclists
Repeat a lie enough times...
>> > Closing the Greenwich tunnel just makes matters even worse,
>> I'll agree that it's an unfortunate coincidence that the East London
>> Line closure overlaps for some of the tunnel closure, but - ffs - it's
>> really not that big a deal.
> It is if you are a cyclist.
If you're a cyclist, you could... CYCLE...? Novel idea, I know. Sorry.
I'll shut up.
After all, unless you're going FROM the centre of Greenwich TO the
southern tip of the Isle of Dogs (in which case, surely leaving the bike
at home and taking the DLR a couple of stops would be more convenient?),
you'll find that the detour becomes a much smaller percentage of the
overall journey.
Lewisham to Plaistow is 6.5 miles (plus tunnel) via Greenwich or 8.5
miles via Woolwich.
Lewisham to Bethnel Green is 7.5 miles (plus tunnel) via Greenwich or 8
miles via Tower Bridge.
Or is the bicycle really that unrealistic as road transport that an extra
half mile becomes such a major problem? No, thought not.
>> > As always, cyclists are grudgingly treated as an inconvenient
>> > afterthought by the authorities, despite their irritating greenwash
>> > and safety campaigns involving victim blaming.
>> Indeed. Perhaps if you lightened up on the victim blaming and
>> greenwash, you might be taken a bit more seriously?
> Who by, you, a motorist who disparages cyclists in general?
Have you forgotten what you wrote so quickly? No, dear, the "authorities".
> As if I care or that it matters in the slightest.
So why the hell do you whinge about it so much?
Mr Benn
news:tpv295luiheokqv74...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 18:21:32 +0100, JNugent
> To cycle from Greenwich to Woolwich and then over on the ferry and
> back to Island Gardens would be a 12 mile diversion, or somewhat more
> than 48 times the straight line distance.
Take the train or bus like everyone else. Why are some people so damned
awkward?!
NM
wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 23:15:51 +0100, JNugent
>
> <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
> >Yes - you meant an entirely new one across the river on a new route, with
> >substantial capital and revenue costs (not the least of which would be the
> >building of at least two new adequate piers).
>
> Greenwich Pier and Masthouse Terrace Pier are already owned by
> Transport for London.
>
> Thames Clipper have already said that they would run the service. They
> would expect to be paid, but Greenwich Council are already going to
> save a considerable amount of money by not having to pay for the lift
> operators, four of whom are always on duty, one each side at Greenwich
> and one each side at Woolwich.
Are you suggesting that Greenwich Council sack the workers, pay their
redundancy then re hire again in eighteen months? an unlikely course
of action IMO.
>
> A Thames Clipper has a crew of three. The only modification they
> would make is to remove some of their seats to allow space for
> bicycles in the cabin.
That won't happen, ask the railways to make bike spaces on rush hour
trains, then you can let the train take the strain. Snowballs chance
in hell.
NM
> saying:
>
> > I think the main point here is that while motorists have a wide range of
> > options for crossing the river below Tower Bridge, where they don't even
> > have to step out of their cars
>
> No, they don't.
>
> Blackwall Tunnel.
> Woolwich Ferry.
> Dartford Bridge.
You forgot Rotherhithe Tunnel
Adrian
saying:
>> > I think the main point here is that while motorists have a wide range
>> > of options for crossing the river below Tower Bridge, where they
>> > don't even have to step out of their cars
>> No, they don't.
>>
>> Blackwall Tunnel.
>> Woolwich Ferry.
>> Dartford Bridge.
> You forgot Rotherhithe Tunnel
I did indeed - which is also available to cycling cyclists on bicycles.
My apologies.
Brimstone
What about tri and quad cycles?
NM
>
> > Bikes can be taken on the Woolwich Ferry.
>
> Where the riders are made to dismount and are crammed into a small
> space out of the lane.
I regularly use the Woolwich Ferry on my motorcycle where we are
crammed into the same small space you mention (I find it adequate BTW)
this has multiple advantages, first you jump the queue to get on,
certain to get the next ferry regardless of how many cars are
queueing, next you are first off on the other bank.
A win win situation yet as a cyclist you still moan about it.
Steve Firth
> Lewisham
<snork> That Greenwich trendy Douglas Bollen lives in Lewisham, doesn't
he?
Steve Firth
> Sorry, you VOLUNTARILY blocked off the majority of the light ingress to
> your living room?
I'm left with this feeling that all Lewisham residents are barking mad.
Steve Firth
> Because they're cyclists, and must be allowed, nay sponsored, to do whatever
> they like, where and whenever they want to do it.
Although this stupidity pales into insignificance compared to the
insanity of the free transport provided for bicycles at the Dartford
Crossing.
Adrian
they were saying:
>> Because they're cyclists, and must be allowed, nay sponsored, to do
>> whatever they like, where and whenever they want to do it.
> Although this stupidity pales into insignificance compared to the
> insanity of the free transport provided for bicycles at the Dartford
> Crossing.
You'd rather see some silly sod wobbling his way glacially up the QE
bridge in a strong side wind?
JNugent
> %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth):
>>> Because they're cyclists, and must be allowed, nay sponsored, to do
>>> whatever they like, where and whenever they want to do it.
>> Although this stupidity pales into insignificance compared to the
>> insanity of the free transport provided for bicycles at the Dartford
>> Crossing.
> You'd rather see some silly sod wobbling his way glacially up the QE
> bridge in a strong side wind?
Can't see that it should be treated differently from any stretch of motorway.
It'd be reasonable to charge him the equivalent of a local taxi fare between
the relevant two junctions, surely?
Isn't that what a pedestrian would have to pay? They'd either have to thumb a
lift (a cyclist would need to thumb one with a certain-sized vehicle, of
course) or get a taxi (ped) or "man and van" (bike/s).
Say a tenner (index linked)? Split if there's more than one on the journey?
Keitht
> Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>> In order to put pressure on the Mayor of London and Greenwich Council
>> to re-think their strategy towards the needs of cyclists while the
>> Greenwich foot tunnel is closed it may be necessary to organise a peak
>> hour mass bike ride through the northbound Blackwall tunnel. This
>> would clearly demonstrate the inconvienience motorists would face for
>> up to 18 months if 250 cyclists an hour at peak times were forced to
>> divert to the Blackwall Tunnel. The Mayor of London and Greenwich
>> Council may then decide that it is in everyone's interests to lay on a
>> free and adequate ferry service for cyclists at Greenwich, or to allow
>> cyclists to use the DLR by providing a couple of extra coaches.
>
> Or they might just decide to leave you on the north side of the river to
> find your way back via Rotherhithe Tunnel or Tower Brige.
>
> "...free and adequate ferry service for cyclists at Greenwich"
>
> You don't ask for much, do you?
>
> BTW: Isn't the Woolwich Ferry free?
I thought you were the one who didn't like going out of thier way while
getting from A to B.
--
Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.
Adrian
they were saying:
>>> Although this stupidity pales into insignificance compared to the
>>> insanity of the free transport provided for bicycles at the Dartford
>>> Crossing.
>> You'd rather see some silly sod wobbling his way glacially up the QE
>> bridge in a strong side wind?
> Can't see that it should be treated differently from any stretch of
> motorway.
Most motorways have a reasonably viable non-motorway alternative route.
The closest alternative to Dartford is the Woolwich ferry.
JNugent
I don't. Does anyone? Should anyone?
But with river crossings (as with sea crossings) there's not a lot of room
for discussion, is there? Fact of life, etc.
If it's of any consolation to you, I'm sure you've encountered many bridges
where motor traffic is banned.
JNugent
> JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com>:
>>>> Although this stupidity pales into insignificance compared to the
>>>> insanity of the free transport provided for bicycles at the Dartford
>>>> Crossing.
>>> You'd rather see some silly sod wobbling his way glacially up the QE
>>> bridge in a strong side wind?
>> Can't see that it should be treated differently from any stretch of
>> motorway.
> Most motorways have a reasonably viable non-motorway alternative route.
> The closest alternative to Dartford is the Woolwich ferry.
True. Especially the bit about "most".
But does that make a difference?
Keitht
>
> My bike storage facility at home is used as an example of good
> security by the Design again Crime Research Centre.
> www.bikeoff.org/design_resource/DR_facilities_examples_residential_Lewisham.shtml
A man who has everything - an indoor bike shed ;-)
Steve Firth
It does have entertainment possibilities.
Mostly I wonder how the poor little dears managed before the crossing
was built. I don't see it as some right for cyclists to have access to
all crossings over/under the Thames.
Keitht
> Rob Morley wrote:
>> On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 18:14:01 +0100
>> "mileburner" <mileb...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> For these kinds of routes, I am beginning to think that it might be
>>> worth having an ak-47 slung over the shoulder
>> Wrong choice of weapon, I think - something like an MP5 might be more
>> suitable.
>
> I've had a go with an M-16, they're quite fun, if not quite so portable.
Why the fixation with guns?
What is wrong with a pannier full of caltraps?
No nasty 'bangs' until after they are deployed.
Easy to make.
One-handed operation.
'stealth' delivery method by hole in bottom of pannier.
Once empty - pannier is not a smoking gun.
If it wasn't for the CCTV it would be more fun to plant things like the
'claymore' mine the day before and ust trigger them after you've passed
them.
Ah sod it!
Don't mess about anymore.
IED pointed at roof of tunnell, flood the fucker*!
(once posted will be waiting for the sound of black helicopters overhead)
*Why the IRA never got to the Grand Union Canal where it goes over the
North Circular I'll never know*
Ace
>Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>>
>> My bike storage facility at home is used as an example of good
>> security by the Design again Crime Research Centre.
>> www.bikeoff.org/design_resource/DR_facilities_examples_residential_Lewisham.shtml
>
>
>A man who has everything - an indoor bike shed ;-)
Commonly known to the rest of the world as a garage.
JNugent
Not that particular one.
Keitht
> they like, where and whenever they want to do it.
>
>
thus speaks a mug who fell for 'a car gives you freedom' adverts ;-)
Judith M Smith
<kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
<snip>
>The cost of the Tunnels' refurbishment is �11.5 million. An eighteen
>month charter of a Thames Clipper, including crew, would be about
>�500,000. The greater cost of operating the piers would be marginal.
Imagine the outcry :
Headline:
�1,000 a day added to the cost of the refurbishment of the Tunnels.
Story:
It was announce today that the cost of the refurbishment of the Thames
Tunnels has leapt an unnecessary 4% in order to accommodate a handful
of lazy cyclists.....
--
Latest DfT Figures: Passenger casualty rates by mode Per billion passenger kilometers:
Killed or seriously injured: Pedal Cyclists : 527 Pedestrians 371
All casualties: Pedal Cyclists : 3494 Pedestrians : 1631
Which is more dangerous?
Keitht
>
>
> You forgot Rotherhithe Tunnel
anyone who has used Rotherhithe knows it is not a tunnel but the
entrance to hell. (seems like it anyway, whether cycling or driving)
JNugent
> NM wrote:
>>
>>
>> You forgot Rotherhithe Tunnel
>
> anyone who has used Rotherhithe knows it is not a tunnel but the
> entrance to hell. (seems like it anyway, whether cycling or driving)
Come on... Bermondsey isn't *that* bad.
Steve Firth
> > Can't see that it should be treated differently from any stretch of
> > motorway.
>
> Most motorways have a reasonably viable non-motorway alternative route.
> The closest alternative to Dartford is the Woolwich ferry.
The Dartford crossing is not a motorway crossing.
and
BrianW
> Tom Crispin <kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
> > Lewisham
>
> <snork> That Greenwich trendy Douglas Bollen lives in Lewisham, doesn't
> he?
Yes, but he's not the same Doug who posts to these groups. Honest.
Adrian
they were saying:
>> > Can't see that it should be treated differently from any stretch of
>> > motorway.
>> Most motorways have a reasonably viable non-motorway alternative route.
>> The closest alternative to Dartford is the Woolwich ferry.
> The Dartford crossing is not a motorway crossing.
Nobody said it was.
> and
>
> http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=5RSwfFNgxw8
The Forth road bridge is considerably flatter than Dartford.
Steve Firth
Brimstone
Since the bridge is not a motorway there is no good reason that pedestrian
and bicycle access could not have been provided.
Tom Crispin
wrote:
>On 24 Aug, 00:06, Tom Crispin <kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge>
>wrote:
>> On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 23:15:51 +0100, JNugent
>>
>> <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>> >Yes - you meant an entirely new one across the river on a new route, with
>> >substantial capital and revenue costs (not the least of which would be the
>> >building of at least two new adequate piers).
>>
>> Greenwich Pier and Masthouse Terrace Pier are already owned by
>> Transport for London.
>>
>> Thames Clipper have already said that they would run the service. They
>> would expect to be paid, but Greenwich Council are already going to
>> save a considerable amount of money by not having to pay for the lift
>> operators, four of whom are always on duty, one each side at Greenwich
>> and one each side at Woolwich.
>
>Are you suggesting that Greenwich Council sack the workers, pay their
>redundancy then re hire again in eighteen months? an unlikely course
>of action IMO.
I have been told that Greenwich Council will be redeploying the lift
operators during the period that the tunnel is closed. After the
refurbishment, and once passenger operated lifts are installed the
lift operators will be offered jobs monitoring the CCTV and patrolling
the tunnels.
>> A Thames Clipper has a crew of three. �The only modification they
>> would make is to remove some of their seats to allow space for
>> bicycles in the cabin.
>
>That won't happen, ask the railways to make bike spaces on rush hour
>trains, then you can let the train take the strain. Snowballs chance
>in hell.
It was Thames Clippers who said that they would remove some of the
seats.
Steve Firth
And apparently he's not known to Crispin and they don't both attend
Greenwich Cyclists and Doug Bollen, vegan, 76 years old, electric
scooter rider, quondam (one assumes) cyclist and car hater is no
relation to "Doug", vegan, 76 years old, electric scooter rider and
quondam (one assumes) cyclist and car hater. Neither are either Douglas
or Tom right on Greenwich trendies with the usual urban "green" fallacy
agenda no matter how much they actually post about being urban car
hating cyclists who stuff their hovels^W homes with bicycles and who
rattle on about Greenwich to the exclusion of almost any other borough
of London. No siree, no Bob.
Tom Crispin
wrote:
>I think the main point here is that while motorists have a wide range
>of options for crossing the river below Tower Bridge, where they don't
>even have to step out of their cars, the situation is very different
>for cyclists. Closing the Greenwich tunnel just makes matters even
>worse, especially as it is part of Cycle Route One, even though it
>requires riders to dismount. As always, cyclists are grudgingly
>treated as an inconvenient afterthought by the authorities, despite
>their irritating greenwash and safety campaigns involving victim
>blaming.
I broadly agree, but would not put it in such strong terms.
Would you be up for a protest bike ride through the Blackwall Tunnel
during the morning peak if Greenwich Council and the Mayor of London
refuse to lay on a suitable alternative for cyclists while the
Greenwich Foot Tunnel is closed?
Tomorrow between 6pm and 7pm, Caroline Pigeon, Chair of the GLA
Transport committee is visiting the Greenwich Foot tunnel with Cllr
Chris Maines from Lewisham, and Cllr Paul Webberwood from Greenwich to
familiarise themselves with the problem. I'll be there too to have my
voice heard.
Tom Crispin
>Doug <jag...@riseup.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>saying:
>
>> I think the main point here is that while motorists have a wide range of
>> options for crossing the river below Tower Bridge, where they don't even
>> have to step out of their cars
>
>No, they don't.
>
>Blackwall Tunnel.
>Woolwich Ferry.
>Dartford Bridge.
>
>> the situation is very different for cyclists.
>
>Indeed it is.
>
>Crispin claims bikes can be taken through the Blackwall tunnel.
I am not convinced about that.
>Bikes can be taken through the Greenwich foot tunnel.
Not when it is closed for refurbishment.
>Bikes can be taken on the Woolwich Ferry.
Only between 6.10am and 8pm Monday to Saturday and 11.30 - 7.30
Sundays.
>Bikes can be taken across the Dartford Bridge.
The delay waiting for a patrol car with a trailer can be considerable.
>Bikes can be taken on the East London Line.
The East London Line is closed and is not due to reopen through the
Brunel's Thames Tunnel until February 2011. I am unsure of what their
cycle policy will be.
>So cyclists have more options than car drivers.
No.
>Oh, and it's almost certainly quicker to cycle from Greenwich to the
>Woolwich Ferry then back to the Isle of Dogs than to drive, most of the
>day.
:-)
>> Closing the Greenwich tunnel just makes matters even worse,
>
>I'll agree that it's an unfortunate coincidence that the East London Line
>closure overlaps for some of the tunnel closure, but - ffs - it's really
>not that big a deal.
Adrian
sounding much like they were saying:
> Would you be up for a protest bike ride through the Blackwall Tunnel
> during the morning peak if Greenwich Council and the Mayor of London
> refuse to lay on a suitable alternative for cyclists while the Greenwich
> Foot Tunnel is closed?
>
> Tomorrow between 6pm and 7pm, Caroline Pigeon, Chair of the GLA
> Transport committee is visiting the Greenwich Foot tunnel with Cllr
> Chris Maines from Lewisham, and Cllr Paul Webberwood from Greenwich to
> familiarise themselves with the problem. I'll be there too to have my
> voice heard.
Their first question will be to ask how many cyclists use the Greenwich
foot tunnel currently? Do you know?
Adrian
sounding much like they were saying:
>>Bikes can be taken on the Woolwich Ferry.
> Only between 6.10am and 8pm Monday to Saturday and 11.30 - 7.30 Sundays.
Outside of which times it's not available to cars, either, of course. As
I distinctly recall, having arrived at the northern end just after 7.30 a
few times when I was studenting around Woolwich.
>>Bikes can be taken on the East London Line.
> The East London Line is closed and is not due to reopen through the
> Brunel's Thames Tunnel until February 2011. I am unsure of what their
> cycle policy will be.
Everything I can find says "Summer 2010". Most of London Overground's
network is fine for bikes, with some "not during rush hour" stretches;
most being "not recommended during rush hour".
JNugent
Was there any when the Crossing consisted solely of first, one tunnel, and
then later, two tunnels?
The bridge was added in order to expand capacity with the completion of M25
to the tunnel portals, not in order to cater for a swelling demand from
cyclists or pedestrians (who are still catered for at Gravesend, BTW).
Brimstone
By that argument (of not improving things just because they weren't there
before) we should still be driving on cart tracks rather than motorways.
Tom Crispin
>Doug <jag...@riseup.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>saying:
>
>>> > the situation is very different for cyclists.
>
>>> Indeed it is.
>>>
>>> Crispin claims bikes can be taken through the Blackwall tunnel.
>
>> On the face of it no.
>
>You're claiming that Crispin is lying?
I have just been down to the Blackwall Tunnel. New anti cycling signs
have been installed at two of the slip roads that previously had no
signs.
www.britishschoolofcycling.com/blackwall/blackwallb.jpg
The sign above contradicts this sign:
www.britishschoolofcycling.com/blackwall/blackwall8.jpg
Which is still in place and suggests that cycling is prohibitied
unless you are on a moped with pedals and have the engine switched
off.
>>> Bikes can be taken through the Greenwich foot tunnel.
>
>> Only on foot
>
>So what?
>
>>> Bikes can be taken on the Woolwich Ferry.
>
>> Where the riders are made to dismount and are crammed into a small space
>> out of the lane.
>
>So what? They cross a damn sight quicker, since they don't have to join
>the queueing system.
I have to say that I find the Woolwich Ferry a delight to use as a
cyclist. I really appreciate the way cyclists are allowed straight to
the front of the queue, are first to alight and first to disembark.
>>> Bikes can be taken across the Dartford Bridge.
>
>> In a trailer only.
>
>So what? Oh - and cyclists don't have to pay to cross Dartford, unlike
>car drivers.
Cyclists are charged the same rate as motorcyclists, vehicle
passengers, and motor vehicle drivers 10pm to 6am.
Unlike motorcyclists, vehicle passengers, and motor vehicle drivers
they are required to wait for a patrol car with a suitable trailer,
load their bike into the trailer, and cross the bridge or tunnel in a
motor vehicle.
>>> Bikes can be taken on the East London Line.
>
>> But not in the rush hour.
>
>So what? It's during the rush hour that the car is at it's least viable
>due to higher journey times.
And it's during the rush hour when cyclists cannot cross the Thames on
the rail link. Mind you - there is a delay until February 2011 before
that would even become an option.
>>> So cyclists have more options than car drivers.
>
>> No they don't.
>
>Yes, they do.
Let's count.
Cycling is permitted across Tower Bridge.
Driving is permitted across Tower Bridge.
Cycling is permitted through the Rotherhithe Tunnel (but not advised).
Driving is permitted through the Rotherhithe Tunnel.
Cycling is banned (or discouraged) through the Greenwich foot tunnel.
Driving is banned through the Greenwich Foot Tunnel.
Cycling is banned (possibly permitted on mopeds) through the Blackwall
Tunnel.
Driving is permitted through the Blackwall Tunnel.
Cycling onto and off the Woolwich Ferry is permitted.
Driving onto and off the Woolwich Ferry is permitted.
Cycling over the QE2 Bridge or through the Dartford Tunnel is banned.
Driving over the QE2 Bridge or through the Dartford Tunnel is
permitted.
I make that three river crossings for cyclists and five river
crossings for motorists.
If you include pushing bikes through the Greenwich and Woolwich Foot
Tunnels the score is 5 - 5. If you include the fare paying off peak
travel through the Thames Tunnel from February 2011 the score goes to
6 - 5 for cyclists. If you include the fare paying Hilton to Canary
Wharf ferry the score goes to 7 - 5 for cyclists.
>> In many cases they cannot just cycle across and have to dismount or
>> walk while motorists do not even have to leave their cars.
>
>So what?
>
>> I assume you accept that a dismounted cyclist is transformed into a
>> pedestrian
>
>Indeed.
>
>> in the same way that a motorist who leaves a car is?
>
>Odd, I thought a motorist - even when on foot, on a bicycle or on a bus o
>or (especially) sat in a court building as a jurist - was always a
>motorist? Are you being a trifle inconsistent, Duhg?
>
>B'sides, I think you might find it's illegal to push a car - or even a
>motorcycle - through the Greenwich Foot Tunnel or onto a train.
>
>>> Oh, and it's almost certainly quicker to cycle from Greenwich to the
>>> Woolwich Ferry then back to the Isle of Dogs than to drive, most of the
>>> day.
>
>> If you contribute to time wasting congestion that is your problem. The
>> fact is that motorists have far more accessible routes across the river
>> than cyclists
>
>Repeat a lie enough times...
>
>>> > Closing the Greenwich tunnel just makes matters even worse,
>
>>> I'll agree that it's an unfortunate coincidence that the East London
>>> Line closure overlaps for some of the tunnel closure, but - ffs - it's
>>> really not that big a deal.
>
>> It is if you are a cyclist.
>
>If you're a cyclist, you could... CYCLE...? Novel idea, I know. Sorry.
>I'll shut up.
>
>After all, unless you're going FROM the centre of Greenwich TO the
>southern tip of the Isle of Dogs (in which case, surely leaving the bike
>at home and taking the DLR a couple of stops would be more convenient?),
>you'll find that the detour becomes a much smaller percentage of the
>overall journey.
>
>Lewisham to Plaistow is 6.5 miles (plus tunnel) via Greenwich or 8.5
>miles via Woolwich.
>Lewisham to Bethnel Green is 7.5 miles (plus tunnel) via Greenwich or 8
>miles via Tower Bridge.
Lewisham to Canary Wharf (where a lot of people work) via the Woolwich
Ferry is 10 miles.
Lewisham to Canary Wharf via the Greenwich Foot Tunnel is 3 miles.
Tom Crispin
It is.
Adrian
like they were saying:
>> The bridge was added in order to expand capacity with the completion of
>> M25 to the tunnel portals, not in order to cater for a swelling demand
>> from cyclists or pedestrians (who are still catered for at Gravesend,
>> BTW).
> By that argument (of not improving things just because they weren't
> there before) we should still be driving on cart tracks rather than
> motorways.
There is a slight additional factor to be considered, though - that of
demand.
In the '50s and early '60s, there was a fleet of specially built buses,
solely for the job of transporting cyclists through the Dartford Tunnel.
They were scrapped and replaced with trailers behind the crossing patrol
vehicles for one reason only. Lack of demand.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2274/2206717599_d3b17209b3.jpg
NM
Judging by the state of the roads around here we are still driving on
cart tracks. (We don't have a motorway in Cornwall).
Adrian
sounding much like they were saying:
> Cycling is banned (or discouraged) through the Greenwich foot tunnel.
> Driving is banned through the Greenwich Foot Tunnel.
Cyclists are permitted, with their bicycles through the Greenwich foot
tunnel (refurb closure notwithstanding)
> Cycling over the QE2 Bridge or through the Dartford Tunnel is banned.
> Driving over the QE2 Bridge or through the Dartford Tunnel is permitted.
Cyclists are permitted, with their bicycles, across the Dartford crossing.
> I make that three river crossings for cyclists and five river crossings
> for motorists.
>
> If you include pushing bikes through the Greenwich and Woolwich Foot
> Tunnels the score is 5 - 5. If you include the fare paying off peak
> travel through the Thames Tunnel from February 2011 the score goes to 6
> - 5 for cyclists. If you include the fare paying Hilton to Canary Wharf
> ferry the score goes to 7 - 5 for cyclists.
There you go, then.
> Lewisham to Canary Wharf (where a lot of people work) via the Woolwich
> Ferry is 10 miles.
> Lewisham to Canary Wharf via the Greenwich Foot Tunnel is 3 miles.
So get the sodding train.
Lewisham to Canary Wharf is 17min on the DLR (no changes) or 27min by
bicycle, according to TfL's journey finder.
Blimey, and you have a mutter at car users for being blinkered to
alternative modes of transport...
JNugent
Well, as you know, I'm all for improving road infrastructure. But that has to
be done according to a scale of priorities and with an eye kept on cost.
When the Crossing consisted solely of one or more tunnels, there was simply
no question of providing for cycling or pedestrians, any more than in similar
motorway or non-motorway high-speed road tunnels. The bridge, built by
Trafalgar House, was required in order to cater for the expansion in traffic
brought to the Crossing by the *M*25. Cycling and pedestrian demand can
safely be assumed not to be or have been sufficient to justify the
construction of a separate part of the bridge, together with all of the other
infrastructure provision that would have been necessary.
Cycling and walking are catered for in the same way as on a motorway. That
is, they isn't catered for at all, except for carriage in a vehicle. It is
not difficult to justify charging for the use of that form of public
transport. For a pedestrian, there is no question of free carriage. They'd
have to take a taxi or one of the bus or coach services which use the
Crossing (no, I don't know how that would work out; I merely mention it for
the sake of completeness).
As you know, the Dartford Crossing replaced the downstream Gravesend/Tilbury
Ferry for motor vehicles (even though it would probably still be handy). That
ferry *still runs* for pedestrians and cyclists, as does the Woolwich Ferry
upstream of the Crossing. As you would reasonably expect though, the
Gravesend/Tilbury ferry isn't free. And motor vehicles aren't allowed on it
(maybe motor-bikes).
And if being able to cross between Purfleet and Dartford <FX: rolls eyes> is
so important to cyclists and pedestrians, why not a completely separate
bridge, running more between the urban centres?