Nasty scenes and cold takeaway food as tempers flare over Tower Bridge cycling ban

The sad thing is, mixing cyclists and pedestrians is a bad idea. Sounds like the ban on tower bridge has a reason - rather like parts of Paradise Circus in Birmingham.

Realistically its blindingly obvious some times that riding through is simply daft - even where cycling is allowed. You shouldn't need signs, rules or enforcement, just a bit of common sense and respect for other people.

Delivery people - I understand your frustration, but aren't you behaving in exactly the same way as "white van man" or indeed some taxi firms that have been commented on in this forum - barging along with a complete disregard for anyone and anything around you?

Signs in the wrong colour and format read Cyclists Dismount - an advisory message and one which is deprecated to the extent that DfT manual no longer shows this as the wording for Diagram 966 (white letters on blue rectangle)

There is however no need to put up No Cycling signs (Diagram 951) which require a traffic order to make this enforcable, as the route is the footway - the part of the highway dedicated for the use of traffic on foot, and the law in the form of Section 72 Highways Act 1835 prohibits riding or driving of carriages or beasts on a footway. Bicycles were defined as carriages, for the purpose of the 1835 and subsequent acts in 1888, with case law going back to 1878.

What is missing, for the avoidance of doubt, is clear signage that the route beyond the signs is a footway as defined by 1835 Highways Act, and the offence (Section 72) of riding or driving a carriage on a footway may be prosecuted for those riding or driving same on this footway. 

I remember when I was doing my motorbike lessons. I was stopped with my instructor discussing a junction when 2-3 local teens came screaming up the road trying to do wheelies on mopeds and jump the speed ramps. Lady driving the other way actually stopped to ask my instructor what he was going to do about it! He politely asked why, exactly, it was anything to do with him.

Anyway, the point is that while I agree that "collective responsibility" is a bit of an odd one, as I share no more responsibility for cyclists than I do for other motorbike or car users, I don't see any harm in being polite, courteous and obeying the rules if it helps the common good - especially if there is the potential of a fine at stake.

Going back to the motorbike, I do find that cars behave differently around me depending on what I'm wearing. For example, if I'm in the one-piece power ranger suit and tinted visor, cars ahead of me visibly move to the left of the lane, check mirrors more often and even drop back a bit from the car in front of them - there's an expectation that I'm going to ride like a hooligan and scream past at the first opportunity. That never happens if I'm in 2-piece textiles with the high-viz jacket and clear visor, so there's clearly a perception about certain types of motorcyclist based on the actions of others.

It doesn't take much to extrapolate from that to say that motorists will form the same views about me on a bike based on the actions of some other cyclists - you'll always remember the ones you had a run-in with, but never the hundreds you didn't.

@Duncann

True, nobody knows what Dan really meant and its filtered through some journo anyway. So no point harping on him in particular.

But

"it isn't endorsing that prejudice to note that it exists."

Isn't quite true. It _is_ endorsing it if one's reaction to it is to decide some imaginary 'we' therefore has to behave better, or give the impression that it's 'our' job to police the bad 'uns.

You note the prejudice exists and point out that those who hold those views are failing at logic. You don't pander to them, you point out how dumb they are being.

(And get on with pushing for things that might actually help, like changing the physical environment and putting restrictions on car use.)

TFL should have reserved one side for cyclists the other side for pedestrians. It would have been a great opportunity to get people out of their cars and on bikes as it would save a lot of time.

Another lost opportunity.

Collective responsibility is already out there. You can't put that genie back in the bottle.

If the rules say no cycling - then don't cycle.

If the rules say - no driving whilst on your mobile - then don't do that.

Everyone sticks to the rules and the world is a better place. 

We don't have sympathy for Dominos drivers who justify speeding as the only way to deliver on time do we ?  Same with the cycle food people.  Its tough. The bridge is closed. There will be delays. Live with it. 

This collective responsibility argument needs more discussion.

I agree that this idea that my actions paint a good / bad name for other cyclists is utter rubbish.

I am responsible for my actions only. 

As cyclists we should reject this notion robustly at all times, give it no credence, adn as posted previously counter anyone that brings it up.

The truth is, if cyclists never ran a red light, never weaved in and out of traffic, rode on a pavement etc etc. our actions would still be seen as unacceptable to the mass media and its puppets. 

These indiscretions are merely the media and wider populations vessels for justifying their prejudice, not the cause of it. 

As I've said before, doffing your cap will get you exactly no where. 

Stick to the rules of the road because they are the rules of the road... nothing more, nothing less. 

Do not feel you have to apologise or feel bad because of anyones actions other than your own. 

Lots of hostiltiy about cyclists using the pavement.

Really inconsiderate of those organising the works not allocate a bit of space for cycling to at least roll across at a reduced speed.

Personally I find it easier to stay riding at walking pace or less, even amongst loads of pedestrians,

for example on Regent's Park Broadwalk or Regent's canal at weekends, BUT it's not something I choose to do as a means of getting somewhere easily.

Cycling as I have for 50 years, including with my daughter (now ten) as a passenger when she was small, I have always found it easier to ride, than to get off and push, and especially when space is  reduced - you don't take up so much room for pedestrians - and certainly with a child on the back it's a lot easier.

But then, I advocate for all inclusive cycling, something the article above and the Evening Standard articles (though I've not yet seen them) seem to overlook.

Surely there is no arguement here? Cycling is banned on the bridge. 

There is no middle ground, there is no 'I need to get to..' It is banned.

We as cyclists (a collective?) want protection by laws but then argue laws dont apply if it doesnt suit us. 

I would of thought that the users of this site are keen, competent and experienced cyclists that should be representing the best of what cycling is about and this should mean reflecting the best practices in cycling. I would suggest that this means not trying to defend cyclist breaking the law.

And i for one do not want to come on here and see such vile and disgusting comments aimed at me or anyone else who is expressing their opinion. I agree with the above comments that there needs to be a mute button or banning process.

"Nasty scenes"?

What language is this? Is Road.cc turning into a rag?

Silly question: if the walkways on Tower Bridge are currently mobbed with pedestrians and cyclists - who on earth allowed somebody to set up an obstruction to all (disguised as a caramelised nut vendor) in the middle of the chaos?

Yeah, can we ban free speech while we are at it?

It's going to be a very long three months... 

"The middle-aged man in a black lycra jacket and denim shorts shouts: “It’s none of your business,” "

fine him for cycling, then fine him again for the shorts.

Acrion to be taken against ubereats and simlar taking orders which necesitate cycling over the bridge in order to be delivered.

Why can't everyone just be nice to each other?

Even minging nuts sellers.

I very rarely use Tower Bridge, but if I walk over will anyone object if I throw that flippin' peanut stand in the Thames? It seems like a reasonable solution to me.

The blind 90 degree corners around the two main towers make the pavements wholly unsuitable for two-way cycling, let alone mixing with pedestrians, gongoozlers, smartphone zombies and peanut hawkers. These repair works are essential for the long-term preservation of a landmark. Delivery cyclists who think the rules don't apply to them, just because they are making money, can do one.

It would have been possible to dedicate one side for one-way cycling for a couple of hours during each peak commuting period (presumably going north in the morning and south in the evening would have benefited the most people.) However, there probably would have been just as much conflict, because plenty of people wanting a selfie with the sunset or sunrise in the background would have ignored signs saying bikes only, to get their shots. But I'm pretty sure the Standard wouldn't have covered that.

Any point in commenting that another current thread on this very site has degenerated into a purile stereotyping of Audi drivers?

As to collective responsibility, it's utter nonsense. I cannot be held responsible for the actions of others. Be they riding bicycles, driving the same brand of car or chosing to wear the same colour socks as me today. However just like the divots making stupid comments about Audi drivers, a lot of non cyclists have a deeply entrenched stereotype opinion of us (cyclists, collectively) based on the stupid actions of a few and the deranged scribblings of third rate newspaper hacks who are at the bottom of the barrel of minorities it is still acceptable to insult.

Whilst I don't accept collective responsibility for the actions of others I find no contradiction in promoting 'good' cycling by which I mean taking a stand against the pavement cycling, red light jumping, litter dropping, unlit arsehats who infest our roads and waste the Police resources* that as far as I am concerned would be better spent catching and making life miserable for people who pose more serious threats, especially to myself as a cyclist, such as mobile phone using drivers and the unlicensed and uninsured operators of motor vehicles.

*If enough people complain via the right channels then eventually even the Police have to respond to anti social behaviour.

@zanf - plain and simple, your post is just offensive. Perhaps you need to get out and ride more!

The Stanard have been loving this, it's been there top story for nearly a week now.  It's like rolling news coverage of a terror attack or something. 

Dan sounds like a laugh.