East London Thames River Crossings

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 19:44:56 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 17:57:09 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 10:38:15 +0100, Tony Dragon
wrote:

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 08:05:23 +0100, "Bill" wrote:

"Tom Crispin" wrote in message
...
Today the lifts to the Greenwich Foot Tunnel were closed. The nearest
toll-free alternative for cyclists is the Rotherhithe Tunnel. However,
that too was closed for northbound traffic. I think that at times like
this, Transport for London really should consider allowing northbound
cycle traffic to use the 20mph restricted Blackwall Tunnel, after all,
the Blackwall Tunnel was specifically built for pedestrian, cyclists
and horse use.
Can cyclists not use the Woolwich Ferry. I haven't been down that way for
30 years so things may have changed!!
Yes, cyclists can use the Woolwich Ferry - but only when the Thames is
fog free, the crew aren't on strike, the ferrys' aren't broke and it
is inside the ferrys' limited hours of operation. Even then there are
often lengthy delays.

Nevertheless, if you ignorethe above and the surly attitude of the
crew, the Woolwich Ferry is a delight for cyclists to use.
So the same restrictions as for cars then.
Car drivers have the alternative of the Blackwall Tunnel to travel
southbound, and the Dartford River Crossing is just half a gallon of
fuel diversion.
That's £3 + £1.50 unless the journey is done late at night.

If they charged you £4.50 to cross the Thames one way, would you consider
that fair?
If I was in a car, yes, very reasonable.
£9 for a return journey. You must be very rich to think that "very reasonable".

£4.50 one way does not imply £9 return.

Correct. But that is what it is in the instant case (£9.00 return on your
figures, except very late at night).

But I was actually asking you whether you would think a one-way charge of
£4.50 was reasonable for a bike and rider (eg, over the Dartford Crossing).

I grudgingly pay £4 one way to cross the river from Tilbury to
Gravesend, so no. I would not consider such a charge for bicycle and
rider reasonable to cross the Thames e.g., over or under at the
Dartford Crossing.

Not reasonable or not unreasonable?

You say the former but your context inescapably suggests the latter.

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 19:43:04 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

Do try to keep up. The northbound tunnel is currently closed for
refurbishment.

I meant (and it was fairly clear from the context, which mow
stretches back farther than the current works in the tunnels) why
don't you use the northbound tunnel when it is open to (effectively
motor) traffic?

1. Because I expect it would be highly unpleasant for cycling due to
the high speeds of motor traffic, especially on the haul up from the
low point of the tunnel.

Simple solution. Choose a viable form of transport - like a car.

2. The Greenwich Foot Tunnel is closer and goes to the places I want
to visit.

What a ****ing shame. Still, you get what you pay for.

3. The Woolwich Ferry and the Woolwich Foot Tunnel go to the places I
want to visit.

What a ****ing shame. Still, you get what you pay for.

4. It is not part of any defined cycle route I know about and the
north side is not well connected to the London Cycle Network.

Which was paid for by revenue from motorists - not sponging cyclists.

The Rotherhithe Tunnel, with its speed limit of 20mph is bad enough
for cyclists; the northbound Blackwall Tunnel has a speed limit of
30mph (however, with Northbound traffic now flowing through the
southbound tunnel, which usually has a speed limit of 40mph, the limit
is temporarily restricted to 20mph making it more suitable for
cycling).

Simple solution. Choose a viable form of transport - like a car.


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

Tom Crispin wrote:


Everything you say we are in full agreement about. With the tunnel
chaos between East and Southeast London yesterday I crossed the Thames
at the Woolwich Ferry. I was last onto the boat, it departed
immediately, and I was first off. Motor vehicle drivers faced a
two-hour wait for the ferry.

So, not only are you a sponger, you are a queue jumping sponger?


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 19:03:09 +0100, Tom Crispin
wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 17:55:56 +0100, JNugent
wrote:
Tom Crispin wrote:
The northbound Blackwall Tunnel opened to horse, pedestrian, cycle and
motor traffic in May 1897. There is a sign at the south end of the
northbound tunnel, no cycling except mopeds.
http://www.britishschoolofcycling.co...blackwall8.jpg

However, on the main approach to the Blackwall Tunnel, once clear of
the section which used to be motorway, there is no indication of a
bicycle ban:

That doesn't matter. If cycling is prohibited on the part that usedto
have motorway status, then since that is the only approach you are
describing, the tunnel cannot be reached without passing a sign that
prohibits cycling.

There are at least two distinct ways to appoach the northbound
Blackwall Tunnel without passing a cycling prohibition sign.

As a matter of interest, have you ridden northbound through the northbound
tunnel?
If so, did anyone try to stop you?

I've done the Rotherhithe southbound and it wasn't bad, though I couldn't
maintain 20 (which would have removed any excuse for trying to overtake
me) on the upslope.

Colin McKenzie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the
population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

Colin McKenzie wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 19:03:09 +0100, Tom Crispin
wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 17:55:56 +0100, JNugent
wrote:
Tom Crispin wrote:
The northbound Blackwall Tunnel opened to horse, pedestrian, cycle
and motor traffic in May 1897. There is a sign at the south end of
the northbound tunnel, no cycling except mopeds.
http://www.britishschoolofcycling.co...blackwall8.jpg

However, on the main approach to the Blackwall Tunnel, once clear
of the section which used to be motorway, there is no indication
of a bicycle ban:

That doesn't matter. If cycling is prohibited on the part that
usedto have motorway status, then since that is the only approach
you are describing, the tunnel cannot be reached without passing a
sign that prohibits cycling.

There are at least two distinct ways to appoach the northbound
Blackwall Tunnel without passing a cycling prohibition sign.

As a matter of interest, have you ridden northbound through the
northbound tunnel?
If so, did anyone try to stop you?

I've done the Rotherhithe southbound and it wasn't bad, though I
couldn't maintain 20 (which would have removed any excuse for trying
to overtake me) on the upslope.

So you rode through a tunnel knowing in advance that your inefficient,
unviable form of transport would delay tax paying motorists?

What a ****ing ****bag.


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 21:55:34 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 19:44:56 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 17:57:09 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 10:38:15 +0100, Tony Dragon
wrote:

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 08:05:23 +0100, "Bill" wrote:

"Tom Crispin" wrote in message
...
Today the lifts to the Greenwich Foot Tunnel were closed. The nearest
toll-free alternative for cyclists is the Rotherhithe Tunnel. However,
that too was closed for northbound traffic. I think that at times like
this, Transport for London really should consider allowing northbound
cycle traffic to use the 20mph restricted Blackwall Tunnel, after all,
the Blackwall Tunnel was specifically built for pedestrian, cyclists
and horse use.
Can cyclists not use the Woolwich Ferry. I haven't been down that way for
30 years so things may have changed!!
Yes, cyclists can use the Woolwich Ferry - but only when the Thames is
fog free, the crew aren't on strike, the ferrys' aren't broke and it
is inside the ferrys' limited hours of operation. Even then there are
often lengthy delays.

Nevertheless, if you ignorethe above and the surly attitude of the
crew, the Woolwich Ferry is a delight for cyclists to use.
So the same restrictions as for cars then.
Car drivers have the alternative of the Blackwall Tunnel to travel
southbound, and the Dartford River Crossing is just half a gallon of
fuel diversion.
That's £3 + £1.50 unless the journey is done late at night.

If they charged you £4.50 to cross the Thames one way, would you consider
that fair?
If I was in a car, yes, very reasonable.
£9 for a return journey. You must be very rich to think that "very reasonable".

£4.50 one way does not imply £9 return.

Correct. But that is what it is in the instant case (£9.00 return on your
figures, except very late at night).

But I was actually asking you whether you would think a one-way charge of
£4.50 was reasonable for a bike and rider (eg, over the Dartford Crossing).

I grudgingly pay £4 one way to cross the river from Tilbury to
Gravesend, so no. I would not consider such a charge for bicycle and
rider reasonable to cross the Thames e.g., over or under at the
Dartford Crossing.

Not reasonable or not unreasonable?

You say the former but your context inescapably suggests the latter.

I will leave the answer as an exercise for the sentient reader.

On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 22:24:58 +0100, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

Tom Crispin wrote:


Everything you say we are in full agreement about. With the tunnel
chaos between East and Southeast London yesterday I crossed the Thames
at the Woolwich Ferry. I was last onto the boat, it departed
immediately, and I was first off. Motor vehicle drivers faced a
two-hour wait for the ferry.

So, not only are you a sponger, you are a queue jumping sponger?

Yes. Are you beginning to understand what a cheap, convienient and
viable form of transport the push bike is for short commuter journeys?

- no registration
- no additional tax
- extended network of roads, bridleways and paths
- door to door travel
- no additional co2 emissions
- no noise pollution
- bypass traffic congestion
- cheap
- fun
- healthy
- zero parking costs (usually)

On Jul 19, 6:45*am, Tom Crispin
wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 22:24:58 +0100, "The Medway Handyman"

wrote:
Tom Crispin wrote:

Everything you say we are in full agreement about. With the tunnel
chaos between East and Southeast London yesterday I crossed the Thames
at the Woolwich Ferry. I was last onto the boat, it departed
immediately, and I was first off. Motor vehicle drivers faced a
two-hour wait for the ferry.

So, not only are you a sponger, you are a queue jumping sponger?

Yes. Are you beginning to understand what a cheap, convienient and
viable form of transport the push bike is for short commuter journeys?

- no registration
- no additional tax
- extended network of roads, bridleways and paths
- door to door travel
- no additional co2 emissions
- no noise pollution
- bypass traffic congestion
- cheap
- fun
- healthy
- zero parking costs (usually)

Wow, a cyclist who admits that an adational tax/duty has to be paid to
enable motorists vehicles to use the public roads (for the most part)

On Sun, 18 Jul 2010, Marie wrote:
On Jul 19, 6:45*am, Tom Crispin

Yes. Are you beginning to understand what a cheap, convienient and
viable form of transport the push bike is for short commuter journeys?

- no registration
- no additional tax
- extended network of roads, bridleways and paths
- door to door travel
- no additional co2 emissions
- no noise pollution
- bypass traffic congestion
- cheap
- fun
- healthy
- zero parking costs (usually)

Wow, a cyclist who admits that an adational tax/duty has to be paid to
enable motorists vehicles to use the public roads (for the most part)

Tom didn't say that (whether or not he believes it to be true).

Here's an analogy:
There is no need to be able to speak Bulgarian to ride a bike.

This is an absolute statement of fact.

Will you now maintain that I admit (or believe) you need to speak
Bulgarian to drive a car?

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

On 19 July, 06:55, Marie wrote:
On Jul 19, 6:45*am, Tom Crispin



wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 22:24:58 +0100, "The Medway Handyman"

wrote:
Tom Crispin wrote:

Everything you say we are in full agreement about. With the tunnel
chaos between East and Southeast London yesterday I crossed the Thames
at the Woolwich Ferry. I was last onto the boat, it departed
immediately, and I was first off. Motor vehicle drivers faced a
two-hour wait for the ferry.

So, not only are you a sponger, you are a queue jumping sponger?

Yes. Are you beginning to understand what a cheap, convienient and
viable form of transport the push bike is for short commuter journeys?

- no registration
- no additional tax
- extended network of roads, bridleways and paths
- door to door travel
- no additional co2 emissions
- no noise pollution
- bypass traffic congestion
- cheap
- fun
- healthy
- zero parking costs (usually)

Wow, a cyclist who admits that an adational tax/duty has to be paid to
enable motorists vehicles to use the public roads (for the most part)

No I think he is pointing out the disadvantages of car use, which
motorists who dominate this newsgroup as well as the roads, are always
bleating on about but at the end of the day it is their personal
choice.

What particularly amuses me are those who say the government and local
councils are milking them rotten and yet they still insist on using a
car. My view though is they are actually charged for the amount of
harm motoring causes, a bit like alcohol and tobacco taxes, which of
course has nothing to do with their cherished myth that they are
paying to own and use the roads.

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to own a weapon.