Accident on the hill in Greenwich Park

Urban Roadie

I saw some poor soul wedged under a Ford Ka this morning on the hill in Greenwich Park, just before 8am.

Looked like he/she had been taken out with a U Turn.

The Police were in attendance.

Does any one know any more?

saveswalking

I was diverted by the police at the top of the hill this morning (8.10 ish) and was told that there had been an 'accident'. I could see a number of ambulances/police/fire engines and firemen working under a grey car (Ka?) that was swung over onto the path on the right as you go down the hill .I'm just praying its not what I nearly witnessed yesterday morning where an impatient driver decided that the queue of traffic was too much and just swung out (3 point/U turn) to go back up the hill and nearly took out the cyclist in front of me as we flew down on the right of the traffic. :x
I really hope its not as bad as it looked

sw

Rich158

I ride through Greenwich Park at least 3 times a week and that doesn't surprise me. It wouldn't be the first time, car drivers are a bloody menace on that stretch, generally it's parents dropping kids off, and then doing a u-turn to avoid going through the centre of Greenwich, which means they cross the pavement on both sides of the road and teh bike lane!!!!!!!!!!

Part of the problem is the speeds you can reach down the hill. I regualarly hit 30mph, and have topped out at 42 on a clear road. The cars just don't expect you to be going that fast. I think it's time I kept my speed down, that's the second one in as many months.

artaxerxes

Yeah that hill is on my commuting route and the average speed down the hill for cyclists seems to be 30mph or higher. The traffic was really bad yesterday so I went down the right hand side, but a lot slower and with my front light on.

There is a cycle path next to the road, but it is littered with wet leaves has a slippery cobble stone border between the patch and the road, plus pedestrians tend to stray onto the path.

I think from now on I will go as close as possible to the ambient car traffic speed, even if it annoys cyclists behind me.

SJLcp

I was also very shocked to see the emergency services trying to extract the cyclist (female I think) from under the car. It was clearly a very serious accident and I really hope she is alright!

Last year I witnessed the aftermath of another cycling fatality on the same hill and am aware of at least one other. Its stating the obvious but this stretch of road is really quite dangerous. The cycle lane is to be avoided because of pedestrians and dogs, the road is covered with wet leaves at the moment and queuing cars on a hill encourage cyclists to overtake thus exposing themselves to u-turners.

I think that this time I am going to join Greenwich cyclists and do something to campaign to get this road closed to cars! Its just crazy having a busy road. Furthermore, its a 30 limit which is totally inapproriate for the environment of a park.

Rich158

I'll join you SJLcp, the more of us that campaign for that stretch to be closed to cars the better. It's a pity that stretch is so dangerous as it's a lovely end to my commute every morning. Cycling through the park makes the efoort invloved n getting there seem worthwhile.

What makes matters worse is that at least one colleague of mine has had repeated warnings for cycling along one of the paths to a side gate, and now faces a lifetime ban from the park if caught again. Other entrances now also have gates installed to make it as difficult as possible for bikes. It's about time the park police targeted dangerous driving rather than minor infringements by cyclists.

saveswalking

I'm just trying to work out what makes this stretch of road 'dangerous' . Its just another road with motor traffic on it after all - the only difference being that it goes through a park. True there is the the speed that cyclists can reach when going down but tragically a cyclist was killed last year cycling up the hill
Greenwich Cyclists campaign to ban motor traffic through the park but it seems the Royal Parks have their own 'laws' that don’t necessarily follow those from outside.

sw

Rich158

It's idiot motorists combined with the speed of the cyclists that make this stretch so dangerous.

Car drivers seem to think they can execute a U turn without indicating, as traffic coming up the hill is generally non existant, and the road appears wide enough, especially when there are no kerbs and a nice wide path. Combine this with cyclists generally hitting 20mph plus, even the little old ladies hit this sort of speed, and you have a recipe for disaster.

Nobody uses the bike lane as it's generally inhabited by runners/dogs/pushchairs/kids.

saveswalking

http://www.bikeradar.com/forum/viewtopi ... c&start=15

and from the Greenwich Cyclists July 2007 monthly meeting ...

3. Greenwich Park - Response to Fatality.

Anthony reported the facts that had been established from police reports and witnesses. A 53 year old male cycling uphill from the King William Walk gate had been hit by a car coming downhill performing an overtaking manoeuvre. An ambulance was called but the victim was found to be dead. Police have not made any arrests. Representatives of Police and the Park authorities had been invited to the meeting but declined to come.
Liz read out a draft resolution that had been prepared by the Committee. Most of the members present contributed to the discussion that followed. The specific points made were:
A ban on overtaking, visually symbolised by double white lines, was agreed to be the measure most likely to prevent recurrence of the same type of incident; there had already been one near miss of a similar nature in recent days. The road is not wide enough for two cars and a bike abreast. Road markings would also make it feel safer for new cyclists.
It may not be possible to get a 24/7 ban on through traffic due to the congestion it would cause (though some argued that the traffic would sort itself out) and because the Park is allegedly the subject of a Charter requiring a through traffic route to be provided, but there is no harm in trying. The daytime (10am – 4pm) and weekend restriction was introduced about 8 years ago after campaigning by local groups including cyclists. Only the emergency services have keys to the locks at the bottom gate. If a traffic ban could be introduced it may then be possible to make the southern part of King William Walk two-way again, to the benefit of cyclists.
Tom, as a teacher, takes groups of children cycling in the park. He considers both the road and the existing (west side) cycle track too dangerous for children because of pedestrians and fast downhill cyclists, and takes them on the east side footpath instead. Others added that dogs straying on to the existing cycle track add to the danger. Having a one-way uphill cycle lane on the east side and expecting downhill cyclists to use the road appears to be the safest option. The danger is both ways: cycling was banned on the narrower paths in the park after a pedestrian was killed in a collision with a cyclist about 10 years ago.
The speed limit had been 20mph and enforced by the Royal Parks Police until about 10 years ago, but since the Metropolitan Police took over it has been raised to 30mph and is not usually enforced. Reducing it to 20 again would help. Cyclists using the road would of course be expected to observe the same limit. There was some support for requesting traffic calming measures, which are usual in conjunction with 20mph zones, but the majority considered this unnecessary and possibly counterproductive to cycling safety on the hill; average-speed CCTV cameras would be a better form of enforcement.
Because it is a Royal park, any change to the speed limit would require secondary legislation in Parliament, therefore we should work with Nick Raynsford MP rather than local councillors. A similar change in Richmond Park was introduced, so the request is a reasonable one.
The route is part of LCN+ (London Cycling Network commuter route) and this strengthens the case for improving cycle safety.
The Friends of Greenwich Park once included several cyclists but no longer. They meet Park management from time to time, and if several current GC members joined the Friends it would bring cycling up the agenda. Barry Mason is understood to have met the park manager Mr Spur.
One way of publicising the campaign would be a Critical Mass style slow ride through the park but there was not much support for it. There was more support for a vigil at the site of the accident one month after the event (Thursday 26 July). That would be better as a pedestrian event to demonstrate respect rather than a cycling event, and could be the opportunity for a press photo-shoot. The police would need to be informed in advance, it must not block the road, and the victim's family should be contacted if possible.
Slight amendments were then made to the resolution in the light of the discussion and it was signed by 17 of the 25 people present. The agreed text being:

"This meeting calls for the following:
1. An extension of the prohibition on through motor traffic to include mornings and evenings.
2. In the interim, a reduction of the speed limit to 20mph.
3. A ban on overtaking and a double white line on the centre of the road.
4. A review of cycling facilities and safety, including transfer of the cycle lane to the east side of the road, making it one-way (uphill) only".

Rich158

Typical, one pedestrian gets killed in a collision with a cyclist and they ban cyclists from the smaller paths, and enforce it vigorously. At least two major incidents involving cyclists and at least one death in two years, I seem to remeber there may be more, and everyone just wrings their hands.

I don't know why I'm surprised but I am

batch78

Hate to add this point, but I feel its necessary, is there a sense of complacency by cyclists once they've entered the park, possibly taken in by the surroundings, and assuming motor traffic will behave in an equally more sedate manner?

Witnessing, as has been mentioned, old ladies (I'm assuming on uprights) and learner child cyclists may add to this sense of safety.

Either way its an horrendous situation where cyclists are killed or seriously injured and nothing constructive comes of it, regardless of fault.

Good luck to the campaigners involved.

prj45

linoue wrote:

Yeah that hill is on my commuting route and the average speed down the hill for cyclists seems to be 30mph or higher.

Have to say, going at that sort of speed down the outside of a queue of traffic is asking for trouble and is frankly not defensive riding.

I'm not saying that's what's happened here, but I do see cyclists doing ludicrous speeds in such circumstances, making all sorts of assumptions that nobody is going to turn out of the queue.

Rich158

Dooes anyone know what happened to the cyclist. From the sounds of it there'll be one less cyclist in Greenwich unfortunately

Whatever the rights and wrongs, lets not forget that some poor sod was stuck under the car.

The Chingford Skinhead

couldn't find anything on local BBC news website or a qjuick google search. Clearly it didn't lead to any traffic being held up so wasn't therefore newsworthy :roll:

Rich158

It must have been serious though, the park was still shut to through traffic that evening, so I suspect it was fatality

The Chingford Skinhead

Rich158 wrote:

It must have been serious though, the park was still shut to through traffic that evening, so I suspect it was fatality

Well, let's hope not - but as I said, nothing on the news sites that I could find

Rich158

Came through the park today, which is still closed. The car hasn't been moved, and the bike is still under it, the idiot was trying to do a 3 point turn at the bottom of the hill and took out the cyclist :evil: . Had a word with the police who were directing traffic, and they confirmed that the cyclist is stil in hospital, although the injuries are serious, and potentially life threatening

I hope whoever it is pulls through and has a speedy recovery, as I'm sure we all do

SJLcp

Did anyone hear anymore about if the cyclist involved was OK?

Urban Roadie

I could find no trace of it in the local newspapers.

Due to the lack of flowers at the spot I'm hopeful that it wasn't too serious.

Denny0612

Hello I'm new.

I was surprised to learn today that cyclists aren't allowed to ride on the bigger paths in Greenwich Park. I only discovered this when some old battleaxe told me off for cycling off the main roads. Yet, several other cyclists were enjoying the miandering park lanes as well, not to mention roller skaters, ski-skaters and so on.

When I went down the central lane several cars backed out of parking spaces without looking, causing me to swerve. I also sped past a parent that had left their baby lying flat on the path right next to the designated cyling lane.

This is loony.

I fail to see why cyclists can't ride where they like in Greenwich Path, avoiding the enclosed garden areas. Aren't we supposed to be encouraging cycling, keeping fit ? When I finished, I looked up the rules and found that under 10s can use any cycle path, only adults are banned from all lanes apart from two main roads.

Surely a 10 year old is more or at least just likely to speed or be irresponsible on a cycle than an adult?

Where's the logic in all of this?

Denny