Recently, announcements have appeared by DHP gates regarding the enforcement of no cycling and dogs on leads.  Can anyone shed any light why this has happened?  

Views: 6644

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

This is great news!  Common sense prevails - I look forward to using Duke's Head Passage once again.  Many thanks to everyone who worked with The Royal Parks to get the ban overturned.  

Unfortunately, whilst a good outcome for the cyclists, for the dog walking community not so much. 

For all of us who still would like some common sense and community back in the passage (and who've not already seen it on the twitter...) attached is an  'Ode to DHP' ...

Attachments:


jen said:

Unfortunately, whilst a good outcome for the cyclists, for the dog walking community not so much. 

For all of us who still would like some common sense and community back in the passage (and who've not already seen it on the twitter...) attached is an  'Ode to DHP' ...


Indeed as someone who mostly uses Bushy Park and Thus Dukes Head, on a bike. I generally prefer dogs I meet off the lead, most dogs are bright sensible animals. And frankly most of the time the Dukes has such low footfall I don't see the point in draconian rules

A footnote to the Duke’s Head Passage re-opening to cyclists: the Sustrans Feasibility Study has finally been published on the Richmond Council website. The report provides a useful summary of the issues as ventilated at the time, and some interesting recommendations for structural improvements (which I won’t hold my breath for), but it’s a pity there was so much faff over “two reported incidents of ‘near misses’ between pedestrians and cyclists” (p.2).

Suggest folks download a copy to wave at Royal Parks if they ever get the hump again.

Thanks

There are 2 issues

1) The pedestrian priority sign that RP actually used does not show a bicycle at all unlike those in the Sustrans report.

2) RP have put a "no cycling in Woodland Gardens" sign outside the entry to Dukes Head Passage. Is this a deliberate attempt to confuse ?

Matt D said:

A footnote to the Duke’s Head Passage re-opening to cyclists: the Sustrans Feasibility Study has finally been published on the Richmond Council website. The report provides a useful summary of the issues as ventilated at the time, and some interesting recommendations for structural improvements (which I won’t hold my breath for), but it’s a pity there was so much faff over “two reported incidents of ‘near misses’ between pedestrians and cyclists” (p.2).

Suggest folks download a copy to wave at Royal Parks if they ever get the hump again.

I’m not sure I’m that worried about the woodlands gardens, it in many ways make sense so people know before entering the first gate.

in terms of the signage again it seems fine, realistically most using it will be local, it’s not a touristy sort of route. And there are far more misleading signs such as the no Cycling ones in Richmond Park say.

Paul Luton said:

Thanks

There are 2 issues

1) The pedestrian priority sign that RP actually used does not show a bicycle at all unlike those in the Sustrans report.

2) RP have put a "no cycling in Woodland Gardens" sign outside the entry to Dukes Head Passage. Is this a deliberate attempt to confuse ?

Matt D said:

A footnote to the Duke’s Head Passage re-opening to cyclists: the Sustrans Feasibility Study has finally been published on the Richmond Council website. The report provides a useful summary of the issues as ventilated at the time, and some interesting recommendations for structural improvements (which I won’t hold my breath for), but it’s a pity there was so much faff over “two reported incidents of ‘near misses’ between pedestrians and cyclists” (p.2).

Suggest folks download a copy to wave at Royal Parks if they ever get the hump again.

There is at least one Cycle Routes book that includes DHP. RP want to avoid admitting that the passage is used by cyclists.

The same "locals will know" argument could be made more strongly about Woodland Gardens.

Roger Merriman said:

I’m not sure I’m that worried about the woodlands gardens, it in many ways make sense so people know before entering the first gate.

in terms of the signage again it seems fine, realistically most using it will be local, it’s not a touristy sort of route. And there are far more misleading signs such as the no Cycling ones in Richmond Park say.

Paul Luton said:

Thanks

There are 2 issues

1) The pedestrian priority sign that RP actually used does not show a bicycle at all unlike those in the Sustrans report.

2) RP have put a "no cycling in Woodland Gardens" sign outside the entry to Dukes Head Passage. Is this a deliberate attempt to confuse ?

Matt D said:

A footnote to the Duke’s Head Passage re-opening to cyclists: the Sustrans Feasibility Study has finally been published on the Richmond Council website. The report provides a useful summary of the issues as ventilated at the time, and some interesting recommendations for structural improvements (which I won’t hold my breath for), but it’s a pity there was so much faff over “two reported incidents of ‘near misses’ between pedestrians and cyclists” (p.2).

Suggest folks download a copy to wave at Royal Parks if they ever get the hump again.

Overall our campaign has been a success in reversing the cycling ban. And while it took over a year for TRP to see sense, they did ultimately listen to the overwhelming community view. The omission of the standard blue cycling signs is confusing for 'non-local cyclists' (as the locals know the story). And confusion, or lack of clarity, ultimately

impact safety. 

Paul Luton said:

There is at least one Cycle Routes book that includes DHP. RP want to avoid admitting that the passage is used by cyclists.

The same "locals will know" argument could be made more strongly about Woodland Gardens.

Roger Merriman said:

I’m not sure I’m that worried about the woodlands gardens, it in many ways make sense so people know before entering the first gate.

in terms of the signage again it seems fine, realistically most using it will be local, it’s not a touristy sort of route. And there are far more misleading signs such as the no Cycling ones in Richmond Park say.

Paul Luton said:

Thanks

There are 2 issues

1) The pedestrian priority sign that RP actually used does not show a bicycle at all unlike those in the Sustrans report.

2) RP have put a "no cycling in Woodland Gardens" sign outside the entry to Dukes Head Passage. Is this a deliberate attempt to confuse ?

Matt D said:

A footnote to the Duke’s Head Passage re-opening to cyclists: the Sustrans Feasibility Study has finally been published on the Richmond Council website. The report provides a useful summary of the issues as ventilated at the time, and some interesting recommendations for structural improvements (which I won’t hold my breath for), but it’s a pity there was so much faff over “two reported incidents of ‘near misses’ between pedestrians and cyclists” (p.2).

Suggest folks download a copy to wave at Royal Parks if they ever get the hump again.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

© 2017   Created by Matt D.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service