Petition: Greenwich Park Cycle Paths
May 13, 2009 by Rob Powell
Reason Provided By Petition Proposer
“My own pet peeve at the moment is cyclists in Greenwich Park not using the cycling path, but cycling along the road instead which is very dangerous for car drivers (well, and the cyclists themselves). Greenwich Council is considering reducing the speed limit from 30mph to 20mph for safety reasons but instead I wish they would just enforce the use of the cycle path for cyclists”
Petition
"We the undersigned call on the Royal Parks Agency to ensure that cyclists use the designated cycle lane in Greenwich Park rather than the road."
IF you agree with this petition, please use the petition form below. If you wish to comment on this petition without signing it, please use the comments form at the bottom of the post.
brian glover,
Along with hundreds of others I was stopped by the police recently for using the "cycle path" during road works.
Was told by an officer this was to redress the ethnicity balance in stop & search figures!!!!!
J. Clarkson,
Increase the speed limit too.
The cycle path is not really a cycle path because it’s always full of pedestrians. I’d rather cycle on the road and have a lower chance of mowing people down.
[Reply]
Is the petitioner talking about the path on the hill? Could she explain why?
[Reply]
Hi tom – updated the post with the reason provided.
[Reply]
Cycle path use should be optional. Roads are not the property of drivers – the highway code covers information for motorists, cyclists, pedestrians and even horse riders. If drivers feel that they have to drive slower and with more caution when cyclists are using the road then this is a good thing.
In many ways I’m amazed that the current speed limit is as high as 30mph. On some side roads in the area it’s already 20mph.
[Reply]
Although it is the very sad death of a cyclist that may have prompted the idea of a 20mph speed limit it is long overdue. A 30mph limit on a hill in a park where children are playing is far too high anyway, cyclists or no cyclists.
Even though I am a cyclist myself I am actually worried about cyclists on the footpath on the hill because some seem to go so fast. Pedestrians don’t always notice cycle paths and a shared path is dangerous on a hill. I would like to see a petition requesting that cyclists going down the hill cycle on the road and that cyclists going up the hill have a cycle path on the footpath to the east side of the road. I always cycle up hill on the road because I don’t feel there is enough space on the west side cycle path for downhill cyclists and pedestrians. The path on the west side should just be for pedestrians and the path on the east side (which is wider) should have an uphill cycle path.
I would also like to see alternative uphill routes for cyclists perhaps using some of the less steep paths that cut across towards Maze Hill. The current route is too steep for many cyclists.
[Reply]
Come on, this is hardly serious. It’s a park, full of tourists, kids and dog walkers. I’m amazed that cars are allowed to drive through it so the idea that cyclists should be cleared off the road is outrageous.
Moreover, there is no law, bylaw or even Highway Code guideline that states cyclists must use a cycle lane if there is one. And, as others have stated, cycle lanes that are not seperated from pedestrian pathways are routinely used by pedestrians, making shared use highly dangerous for the most vulnerable of road users – pedestrians.
And the idea that cycling on the road is “very dangerous for car drivers” … I struggle to take the author seriously.
[Reply]
What’s this got to do with Greenwich Council, by the way?
[Reply]
Hi Darryl, the petitions aren’t exclusively aimed at the council. This one, which I don’t think is going anywhere but at least gave the proposer the chance to see they’re pretty isolated in their opinion, was aimed at the Royal Parks Agency.
[Reply]
I understand the OP, though. It’s very irritating having to drive over injured pedestrians or cyclists and can damage your bumpers or paintwork.
Anyone who regularly crosses that road should also realise that the green light for pedestrians at the Pelican Crossing is only advisory.
[Reply]
I feel I must clarify my original comments as I am surprised at people’s responses. The way *some* cyclists drive along the road through the park is extremely dangerous and while I recognise that it is not all cyclists that do so, on more than one occasion I have seen very near misses because a cyclist decides to overtake the queue of traffic by whizzing past the right-hand side of cars , having to swerve back in when a car comes the other way. As a driver, I don’t want to be responsible for the death of a cyclist driving irresponsibly. Banning cars altogether in the park isn’t a viable solution because of the traffic problems in Blackheath / Greenwich making this an essential through route. It is, however, feasible to enforce safe cycling (and driving). I recognise the majority of cyclists are sensible and it isn’t my intention to have a general rant at cyclists – by the contrary, I only wanted to highlight an issue that I think is very important. It’s only a matter of time before someone is seriously hurt again on this road…
[Reply]
there’s a really simple solution to your problem Leah – get out of your car and ride a bike. there’s even less excuse to drive your car through a park than to plonk an olympics in it.
there’s another simple solution to your “concern” about cyclists’ safety – drive slowly and watch where you are going. many car drivers fail to do both of these things.
you seem to have a very bizarre idea of what is, and what is not dangerous. I see car accidents, fatalities, serious incidents every day (one occurred 100 metres from my house last week, possible fatality), yet the *prospect* of a casualty makes you wish for cyclists to be banned from a road. your priorities are whacked.
[Reply]
Leah – you might also want to read some of the practical objections raised to your “problem”. Those pesky pedestrians. I suppose they should be banned from pathways also – maybe corralled into a small corner so that cars should be protected from their dangerous presence also?
[Reply]