Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Cycle Along Wightman? Don't miss Bike Breakfast on Monday Morning
Tags for Forum Posts: traffic, wightman bridge closure, wightman road
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by AndrewAW1 on
-
I'd say that a large part of the issue for many years was that "Cyclists Dismount" signs were the lazy option when councils or whoever were too lazy to provide decent cycling provision. Cycle paths with the right of way going to cars at every junction, paths where rather than making them wider you just don't bother catering for cyclists and tell them to dismount, etc.
It's nice that they kept Wightman Road open for cycling, it's a terrible road to cycle along normally, but it's a shame that they took the easy option of not bothering to provide any access at the end.
As for John's reference to changes of law, that's not strictly true. He's referring to home office guidance from 1999 where the Home Office minister Paul Boetang issued this guidance:
"The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so. Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required."
There's still an offence of riding on the footway, just that they can use discretion. I guess there's a potential argument that it's no longer a footway with the carriageway not being there but I can't see that going through.
-
Permalink Reply by Mavic Starfish on
-
As I mentioned on another thread, i stopped using Wightman Road for my cycle commute as soon as they put up the cyclists dismount sign. Too much of a faff to walk in cleats over wet slippery hardboard and negotiate the chicanes - takes longer than 2 minutes. I agree, It's a shame that they didn't provide any access at that end for cyclists. Back to using Green Lanes but it was fun (for a week) while it lasted.
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
I feel like this has been hijacked to talk about the sign. I'm afraid that nobody gets my position on this because the don't understand the wider implications of the sign. It's put there to cover the contractor "maybe" if there is a cyclist/pedestrian incident. The wording on the sign is impolite at best and really bloody rude at worst. I notice where Westminster council put these signs they say "please" and are on a blue background. There's lots of rubbish infrastructure for cycling in the UK and where they can't even do that, they just put one of those signs.
Seeing that sign every day is a reminder that we won't get a Living Wightman, there is definitely not the appetite for it if they can just put up a sign to cover themselves.
-
-
Let's be honest John....if the sign were blue and said "please" you'd still not dismount
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
As the decision on the future of Wightman is not in the gift of Network Rail I can't see that a sign has any bearing
-
-
John, couldn't follow on from your post starting "Because they're fooled into thinking it's legal?"
On Monday morning I stood by the entrance to the temporary walkway and talked to dozens of cyclists and not one said to me that it was a problem to them. Of course some may have mentioned this to others who were around but certainly not to me.
And no, I don't find the omission of "please" in anyway offensive, just like I don't find "Keep of the grass" or "Keep to the right of the escalator" offensive.
This whole debate reminds me of a bloke who came to visit an English Hertiage property I was once doing some meet and greet work in. A sign on a 15th century table said "Do not place bags here". The bloke of course put his bag in the table and when I politely asked him to remove it he asked me if I intended to call the Police as he was a famous barrister and that the sign wasn't legally enforceable.
-
-
Having a think about this riding home, was the Barrister really such an arse? Hadn't he agreed to obey signs in the house as a condition of him being allowed in? There are laws and there are "conditions". It's just such a Nigel Farage style story I can't help but think you made it up. Anyway, without Barristers like that (they represent criminals you know!) we'd still be serfs licking the spittle off our betters' boots.
They could have put a "no cycling" sign on the footbridge. Why didn't they? Why don't they just presume that they can make a fortune hiding around a corner issuing FPNs?
-
-
Yes John, he was an arse and a bully who who thought he could show off to someone who was a volunteer (or someone he said "wasn't good enough to get a paid job" to his companion, loud enough to make sure he was heard by everyone around him). It's not made up by the way, just because it doesn't fit with your world view.
-
-
So would you dismount if the sign said "no cycling"?
-
-
I never said I don't.
-
Permalink Reply by JoeW on
-
This discussion seems to have got a bit derailed by discussion about the temporary footbridge and associated signage. Come September the bridgeworks will be finished, the temporary footbridge will be removed and there will be no signs, rude/illegal or otherwise.
The question then is what kind of road do we want Wightman to be then?
I'd like one that is a lot safer for cyclists and pedestrians alike, and healthier for residents and the kids who go to the two schools on the Ladder.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
