Mass protest calls for Battersea Bridge to be made safer for cyclists

Oldfatgit wrote:

For those of us outside of the M25... what makes this bridge so dangerous? The article mentions junctions... but not why they are problematic. The bridge itself can't be dangerous as its unlikely to be made of RAAC, so why is there such a risk as opposed to other bridges?

It's very narrow for a start, much more so than other bridges nearby: two double deckers or HGVs can only just pass each other so the risk of cyclists being squashed increases. The pavements are fenced off from the roadway with cast iron railings so if a situation develops there's nowhere to bail out. Because of the narrowness of the gap between the two lanes of traffic it's nearly impossible to progress except by filtering up the inside of the lane; some cyclists do this really stupidly, going up the inside of buses and HGVs when there's no chance of seeing ahead to know if they're going to move, equally many motorists will pull in to the side sharply when there's a large vehicle in the oncoming lane without looking or warning. It's always jammed at rush hour so lots of phone users who drift in towards the edge of the road or make sudden accelerations to catch up on the WhatsApp gap. The junction at the northern bank is a sharp and cramped right angle for vehicles turning left from/onto the embankment, any large vehicle has to take up both lanes to make the turn and get very tight to the pavement; I believe this is what has caused most of the KSIs for cyclists as they've been trapped by left-turning HGVs. There's no ASZ on the Chelsea Embankment to give protection to cyclists turning left onto the bridge; there is one for cyclists turning left off the bridge but it is always blocked by cars and the police have zero interest in enforcing it (even though there's a specific "occupying cycle box" offence to tick on the Met's video submissions form I've given up sending them ASZ footage as they have never taken action). Just to add to the fun the double red lines on both sides have been repeatedly repainted without the old lines being burned off first so they are now a good 30 mm proud of the road surface and as dangerous as tramlines, in the wet there's a permanent risk of losing the back wheel on them. It's a nightmare, frankly, used to ride over it with Mrs H in the mornings but realised I was constantly on edge listening for an accident behind me, now we go over Albert Bridge a couple of hundred metres downriver which is wider, has a safer junction at the end and has width and weight restrictions due to its fragility (it's the one that famously has notices at each end telling soldiers to break step when crossing) so no HGVs.

That's comprehensive! It seems as if it was never designed to cope with the size and number of today's motorised vehicles.

Also, that whereas various hazards have already been identified, understood and repeatedly flagged up, powers that be are knowingly tolerating their daily occurrence (mobile phone use, ASL infraction). If a fatal accident occurred in industry, and the same pattern of lackadaisical H&S was discovered to have prevailed, directors would go to jail.

Sriracha wrote:

If a fatal accident occurred in industry, and the same pattern of lackadaisical H&S was discovered to have prevailed, directors would go to jail.

Absolutely, or imagine if there was one particular spot of London, just a few square metres, where people were regularly murdered or badly beaten up and the police just shrugged their shoulders and suggested that maybe people should avoid the area, it would be a huge scandal, yet throw cars into the mix and it's just accepted as the price you have to pay.

It was built in the era of the horse

Thanks Rendel, much appreciated.

So, as per the norm in the UK, we are insting on using infrastructure that predates modern transport methods and deeming it suitable.

Sounds like it's unsatisfactory for all users ...

Oldfatgit wrote:

So, as per the norm in the UK, we are insting on using infrastructure that predates modern transport methods and deeming it suitable.

Spot on, trying to squeeze enormous wankpanzers into gaps designed for a hansom cab. Madness.

Rendel Harris wrote:

Spot on, trying to squeeze enormous wankpanzers into gaps designed for a hansom cab. Madness.

"The Landau: the wankpanzer of Victorian streets". Coming to a transport museum info display soon!

They value people driving more than they value people's lives.

Particularly RBKC.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Or do they value people driving around more than they value people's lives?

Oh, oh I know the answer to this one - yes.

I agree and the approach that is suggested would be exactly what the HSE would insist upon in any environment where the impact of the operations leads to such a significant loss of life. The fact that this situation is not subject to a public enquiry is scandalous in of itself. Unfortunately cars are more important than people in the eyes of the leaders in question who haven’t got the confidence nor conviction to right these wrongs. Vote them out!

ymm wrote:

I agree and the approach that is suggested would be exactly what the HSE would insist upon in any environment where the impact of the operations leads to such a significant loss of life. The fact that this situation is not subject to a public enquiry is scandalous in of itself. Unfortunately cars are more important than people in the eyes of the leaders in question who haven’t got the confidence nor conviction to right these wrongs. Vote them out!

Exactly. I'm well on board with voting out the ineffective leaders, but it seems that most politicians wish to be seen as motorists' friends (more likely friends with oil/motor industry figures). Highlighting the damage caused by motorised traffic isn't popular with people that are desperately trying to sell as many vehicles as possible (as demonstrated by the considerable advertising spend of the motor industry).

hawkinspeter wrote:

...people that are desperately trying to sell as many vehicles as possible (as demonstrated by the considerable advertising spend...

paradoxically, all the ads show the car bowling along empty roads, or pulling up to park on the deserted kerb of a swanky metropolitan hotel. It's as if they were ashamed of their own success.

I suspect their analysis would be that currently the majority is by motor vehicle, so that wins. But that ignores where we need to get to, which is to reduce motor vehicle use.

To be honest I've always wondered whether it is realistically doable. Then I visited Basel, and I saw the future. Almost no cars, in a major city. Now they do have a million trams, a serious amount of trams, seven-carriage trams, and they go uphill too (this is Switzerland). They're everywhere, all the time. And so are the bikes, trikes, ebikes, cargo bikes, kid-carrier e-trikes, the whole spectrum. And almost no cars. It can be done.

Not just a radical idea but inexpensive. How much would a few 'road closed to motor vehicles' signs actually cost TfL?