Humber Bridge path closed to cyclists 'indefinitely'

Thanks for that, it's a long time since I rode a motorcycle, nowadays I only cross the bridge by bike or if carrying large objects, by car

Gus T wrote:

6) After much politicing to reduce the the cost of the bridge crossing, which was £3.00 for cars at that time, the Government at that time wrote off the debt's of all the newly formed Tory councils but left Hull CC with their share of the debt, this enabled the cost of the crossing to be reduced to £1.50

Are you saying what I think you're saying?  That the only non-tory council was also the only one left with the debt?  Which particular government did this?

Yes, and it was the same Government that abolished Student Grants

Gus T wrote:

7) The Bridge Board and Hull CC have to fund the interest payments and repairs from the revenues raised and council tax if there is a shortfall.

I appreciate your contribution but I have to agree there's a flaw in the logic. Cars should pay because they do the most damage but surely ALL council tax payers should be able to walk and cycle across it as they are paying for it as well.

In normal circumstances I would fully agree with you, unfortunately with the increasing number of people choosing to end their lives at the bridge, the Bridge Board had to do something quickly. As I said in the beginning, they're dammed if they do and dammed if they don't.

And despite claims to the alternative, I have never seen them show any bias against pedestrians or cyclists. 

Gus T wrote:

 

 

Road traffic is the priority on the bridge because they are the ones literally paying to use it,

 

quite f*cking right the owners of motor vehicles literally pay. They are literally the ones who cause most damage....

MiddlesBROUGH.

Quite right, I got so used to calling it "the Boro" when I lived there that I added an extra O

Just to ask;

Are the barriers to entry by foot or bicycle actually unscaleable or is it a matter of a few cones and a couple of notices?

Is this an exercise in avoiding accountability in the cheapest way possible or a genuine attempt to prevent suicide deaths?

Have another look at Hull Live, having run the clickbait survey, Hull Daily Mail/Hull Live are now running a campaign for Humber Bridge Board to take action to prevent suicides. 

And being typical HDM, the picture they use showing the shared path closure is of the east side path which has been closed since 2019 because of maintenance work. Typical HDM hypocracy and low standards.

matthewn5 wrote:

I remember walking across about 5 years ago, the railings are rather low and the walkways are below the level of the roadway, which makes you feel rather vulnerable. I was glad to get to the other side and off.   

Good job we're not all alike Matt; I walked it soon after it opened and thought it was magnificent.

I grew up on the south side of the Humber and remember my mother taking me for a trip across it in late 1981 - you had to really search for your treats in those days. We meant to park up on the south side and walk across, but my mum got confused by the road signs and we ended up on the slip road so had to got across (and pay the toll) then walk across from the north side. 😂

As a teenager, it was pretty common for "sponsored walks" and the like to take place across the bridge.

I've walked and run across it many times - like you, I think it's magnificent.

The Milk Race went across it in 81 just after it was built as when I was looking for pics on it, the search terms brought up one of the Peloton just approaching. 

Woldsman wrote:

FWIW I think this will be a temporary ban, and I think it has come about because the bridge board doesn't have the resources to alter the bridge in an appropriate way.

Yes they do; it's a four lane highway, two lanes for motor traffic in each direction.  It would be simplicity itself to close two of them, one in each direction, for pedestrians and cyclists.  If I was feeling particularly generous, then only close one lane, and use the motor lane thus freed as a tidal lane changing direction with the heaviest flow.

But of course we can't inconvenience the drivers can we, only pedestrians and cyclists.

As far as I know there hasn't been a significant problem with people driving into the bridge then jumping off. There is an issue with pedestrians and cyclists. Stop being a tool and show a modicum of compassion for what is a horrible situation. 

a4th wrote:

As far as I know there hasn't been a significant problem with people driving into the bridge then jumping off. There is an issue with pedestrians and cyclists. Stop being a tool and show a modicum of compassion for what is a horrible situation. 

The issue is only with peds/cyclists because drivers don't have access.  We still don't know what the incident is that they are using as a reason to close the bridge to legitimate users; it might be a horrible situation, but we don't know.  Do they close motorways after someone has deliberately driven into a bridge as a form of suicide?

Look up: Instead, she drove to the Humber Bridge, parked her Saab in the car park, and climbed over the railings.

eburtthebike wrote:

Woldsman wrote:

FWIW I think this will be a temporary ban, and I think it has come about because the bridge board doesn't have the resources to alter the bridge in an appropriate way.

Yes they do; it's a four lane highway, two lanes for motor traffic in each direction.  It would be simplicity itself to close two of them, one in each direction, for pedestrians and cyclists.  If I was feeling particularly generous, then only close one lane, and use the motor lane thus freed as a tidal lane changing direction with the heaviest flow.

But of course we can't inconvenience the drivers can we, only pedestrians and cyclists.

With the greatest respect, your argument is at best wrong-headed.  It's clear you know little about the Humber Bridge beyond the number of lanes, so let me enlighten you and those who have liked your ill-informed comment.  

One of the reasons it was possible for the Humber Bridge to be designed to last for 120 years was that lessons were learned from the failed Tacomo Narrow bridge - opened less than 40 years before the Humber Bridge was completed.  Like you - and the designers of the Tacomo Narrow bridge - I'm not an expert on torsional vibration and aeroelastic fluttering, but suffice to say that a third of the way in to its planned service life the bridge is still standing.  This is due in no small part to construction methods that equalise the pressures above and below the suspended section of the bridge.  This makes vehicles on the carriageway especially susceptible to side winds. 

Let me relate to you an anecdote of the one and only occasion I had to drive over the Humber Bridge for work, in order to illustrate why having cyclists and pedestrians on the main deck is not, IMHO, an exercise in “simplicity itself”.  For the last few years there have been tag lanes on the toll booths at the north bank (all toll booths are at the north bank) on the outside lanes.  I followed a large lorry, the driver of which became hesitant when approaching the point of no return as he entered the tag lane.  I held back because I wasn’t sure what he was going to do next (the driver was a ‘he’, as I later discovered).  Tag lane drivers just go straight through whereas others from the inside lanes pay at the booths.  Further along they merge.  I pulled back rather than trying to overtake and squeeze in front of a slower car on the inside.  God alone knows why but not long after the lorry and a hatchback collided.  I watched the scene unfold in that slow motion sort of way that these things seem to happen as the small car spun around – with bits of it flying off in all directions – and crashed in to the central barrier facing the wrong way.  After checking the driver of the car was okay and that an ambulance had been called I, along with a woman who was driving another car, tried to sweep the debris aside with our feet.  The car’s entire rear bumper had been torn off in the collision and after I brushed it away from the eastern “footway” it blew across the two lanes like a discarded crisp packet.  The bridge wasn’t even closed to high-sided vehicles that day, but I had to lean in to the wind, before getting back in to my car and squeezing past the other vehicles (After trying unsuccessfully to secure the bumper somewhere on the bridge I stuffed it in to the boot of my car along with assorted larger broken off bits from the lorry’s lights and later took them to the nearby tip during the first lockdown.)

Mixing lorries, pedestrians and cyclists on the main carriageway is not a realistic option.  Coming from the East Yorkshire side three of my ride buddies once turned back because they couldn’t physically get past the north tower, such was the strength of the wind.  I have no idea whether the main road was closed to high-sided vehicles that particular day but, evidently, the “footway”, in the shelter of the main structure, wasn’t. 

As a measure of how wide of the mark your thinking is you might compare the closure of the "footways" with the failed attempt by Highways England to enforce a TRO relating to a stretch of the A63 - including the part of it which runs underneath the Humber Bridge - that would have made it off limits to cyclists.  To my knowledge there was no one locally more vociferous than the then curate of St Helen's church in Welton.  His case - he would have been prevented from using the roundabouts to cross the A63 from his home on one side to the church on the other - was one cited by Cycling UK in their successful appeal against the TRO.  The same cyclist, now a vicar elsewhere, made this remark when pressed to give his thoughts about the Humber Bridge ban:

"Unless there is a culture shift in our country to support people in depression, distress and loneliness, and to change the narrative that "life isn't worth it" we'll not see an end to heartbreaking incidents like these."

and

"When Highways England wanted to ban cycling on the A63 because "cyclists can't keep up" we led a successful Cycling UK campaign to overturn that. The Humber Bridge is private property, I'm not sure what cycling access we could claim to have a right to."

So even he doesn't think that this is a fight to take up.    

Re: "But of course we can't inconvenience the drivers can we, only pedestrians and cyclists".  In fact drivers, and motorcyclists and moped riders are routinely inconvenienced for reasons of safety – as they were just this weekend.  Whenever there is a high wind drivers of specific classes of motor vehicles are made to go around the Humber.  Of course, motorists are much more able to do this than cyclists, and whenever there is the notification that "high-sided and wind-vulnerable" vehicles are prohibited a tweet with this graphic is meant to be sent out: 

https://twitter.com/HumBridgeNews/status/1376379199418679298/photo/1

Frustratingly, the bridge board hasn’t even mentioned the ban on the news section of its web site, and there hasn’t been any further information given out by the board on Twitter.  However, these words were spoken by presenter Leanne Brown on BBC Look North’s 10.20 bulletin last night:

“Managers at the Humber Bridge say they want to open its footpaths as soon as possible after closing them completely on Saturday.  They say they took the decision to close the walkways as an emergency response to unprecedented and deeply troubling events over recent weeks, and that the measure has been implemented to protect staff and the public.” 

Something, I don’t know what either, needs to be done in the long term. 

As cyclists it sometimes feels as though the world is against us.  Perhaps in this instance we should consider that this might not be the case. 

Woldsman wrote:

eburtthebike wrote:

Woldsman wrote:

FWIW I think this will be a temporary ban, and I think it has come about because the bridge board doesn't have the resources to alter the bridge in an appropriate way.

Yes they do; it's a four lane highway, two lanes for motor traffic in each direction.  It would be simplicity itself to close two of them, one in each direction, for pedestrians and cyclists.  If I was feeling particularly generous, then only close one lane, and use the motor lane thus freed as a tidal lane changing direction with the heaviest flow.

But of course we can't inconvenience the drivers can we, only pedestrians and cyclists.

With the greatest respect, your argument is at best wrong-headed.  It's clear you know little about the Humber Bridge beyond the number of lanes, so let me enlighten you and those who have liked your ill-informed comment.  

One of the reasons it was possible for the Humber Bridge to be designed to last for 120 years was that lessons were learned from the failed Tacomo Narrow bridge - opened less than 40 years before the Humber Bridge was completed.  Like you - and the designers of the Tacomo Narrow bridge - I'm not an expert on torsional vibration and aeroelastic fluttering, but suffice to say that a third of the way in to its planned service life the bridge is still standing.  This is due in no small part to construction methods that equalise the pressures above and below the suspended section of the bridge.  This makes vehicles on the carriageway especially susceptible to side winds. 

Let me relate to you an anecdote of the one and only occasion I had to drive over the Humber Bridge for work, in order to illustrate why having cyclists and pedestrians on the main deck is not, IMHO, an exercise in “simplicity itself”.  For the last few years there have been tag lanes on the toll booths at the north bank (all toll booths are at the north bank) on the outside lanes.  I followed a large lorry, the driver of which became hesitant when approaching the point of no return as he entered the tag lane.  I held back because I wasn’t sure what he was going to do next (the driver was a ‘he’, as I later discovered).  Tag lane drivers just go straight through whereas others from the inside lanes pay at the booths.  Further along they merge.  I pulled back rather than trying to overtake and squeeze in front of a slower car on the inside.  God alone knows why but not long after the lorry and a hatchback collided.  I watched the scene unfold in that slow motion sort of way that these things seem to happen as the small car spun around – with bits of it flying off in all directions – and crashed in to the central barrier facing the wrong way.  After checking the driver of the car was okay and that an ambulance had been called I, along with a woman who was driving another car, tried to sweep the debris aside with our feet.  The car’s entire rear bumper had been torn off in the collision and after I brushed it away from the eastern “footway” it blew across the two lanes like a discarded crisp packet.  The bridge wasn’t even closed to high-sided vehicles that day, but I had to lean in to the wind, before getting back in to my car and squeezing past the other vehicles (After trying unsuccessfully to secure the bumper somewhere on the bridge I stuffed it in to the boot of my car along with assorted larger broken off bits from the lorry’s lights and later took them to the nearby tip during the first lockdown.)

Mixing lorries, pedestrians and cyclists on the main carriageway is not a realistic option.  Coming from the East Yorkshire side three of my ride buddies once turned back because they couldn’t physically get past the north tower, such was the strength of the wind.  I have no idea whether the main road was closed to high-sided vehicles that particular day but, evidently, the “footway”, in the shelter of the main structure, wasn’t. 

As a measure of how wide of the mark your thinking is you might compare the closure of the "footways" with the failed attempt by Highways England to enforce a TRO relating to a stretch of the A63 - including the part of it which runs underneath the Humber Bridge - that would have made it off limits to cyclists.  To my knowledge there was no one locally more vociferous than the then curate of St Helen's church in Welton.  His case - he would have been prevented from using the roundabouts to cross the A63 from his home on one side to the church on the other - was one cited by Cycling UK in their successful appeal against the TRO.  The same cyclist, now a vicar elsewhere, made this remark when pressed to give his thoughts about the Humber Bridge ban:

"Unless there is a culture shift in our country to support people in depression, distress and loneliness, and to change the narrative that "life isn't worth it" we'll not see an end to heartbreaking incidents like these."

and

"When Highways England wanted to ban cycling on the A63 because "cyclists can't keep up" we led a successful Cycling UK campaign to overturn that. The Humber Bridge is private property, I'm not sure what cycling access we could claim to have a right to."

So even he doesn't think that this is a fight to take up.    

Re: "But of course we can't inconvenience the drivers can we, only pedestrians and cyclists".  In fact drivers, and motorcyclists and moped riders are routinely inconvenienced for reasons of safety – as they were just this weekend.  Whenever there is a high wind drivers of specific classes of motor vehicles are made to go around the Humber.  Of course, motorists are much more able to do this than cyclists, and whenever there is the notification that "high-sided and wind-vulnerable" vehicles are prohibited a tweet with this graphic is meant to be sent out: 

https://twitter.com/HumBridgeNews/status/1376379199418679298/photo/1

Frustratingly, the bridge board hasn’t even mentioned the ban on the news section of its web site, and there hasn’t been any further information given out by the board on Twitter.  However, these words were spoken by presenter Leanne Brown on BBC Look North’s 10.20 bulletin last night:

“Managers at the Humber Bridge say they want to open its footpaths as soon as possible after closing them completely on Saturday.  They say they took the decision to close the walkways as an emergency response to unprecedented and deeply troubling events over recent weeks, and that the measure has been implemented to protect staff and the public.” 

Something, I don’t know what either, needs to be done in the long term. 

As cyclists it sometimes feels as though the world is against us.  Perhaps in this instance we should consider that this might not be the case. 

Thank you for your fascinating anecdotes.

Sorry, did I say fascinating?  I meant verbose, tedious and irrelevant.

If I can try to dredge some sort of meaning from your endless trivia, I think you are saying that because you once saw a collision between two vehicles on the approach lanes, any cyclist riding there would die.  You might not have noticed but collisions between motor vehicles occur on all roads, but cyclists aren't banned from them.

Then you wander off into another sideshow about another road entirely and some religious officer which you apparently think proves your point; it doesn't.

And finally (!) you tell us what we already know; that no reason has been given for the closure.

Maybe your post was fascinating, in some dreadful, horrific way like "OMG, when's it going to end and will it ever get relevant" kind of way.

eburtthebike wrote:

Woldsman wrote:

eburtthebike wrote:

Woldsman wrote:

FWIW I think this will be a temporary ban, and I think it has come about because the bridge board doesn't have the resources to alter the bridge in an appropriate way.

Yes they do; it's a four lane highway, two lanes for motor traffic in each direction.  It would be simplicity itself to close two of them, one in each direction, for pedestrians and cyclists.  If I was feeling particularly generous, then only close one lane, and use the motor lane thus freed as a tidal lane changing direction with the heaviest flow.

But of course we can't inconvenience the drivers can we, only pedestrians and cyclists.

With the greatest respect, your argument is at best wrong-headed....

... Something, I don’t know what either, needs to be done in the long term... 

... As cyclists it sometimes feels as though the world is against us.  Perhaps in this instance we should consider that this might not be the case. 

Thank you for your fascinating anecdotes.

Sorry, did I say fascinating?  I meant verbose, tedious and irrelevant.

If I can try to dredge some sort of meaning from your endless trivia, I think you are saying that because you once saw a collision between two vehicles on the approach lanes, any cyclist riding there would die.  You might not have noticed but collisions between motor vehicles occur on all roads, but cyclists aren't banned from them.

Then you wander off into another sideshow about another road entirely and some religious officer which you apparently think proves your point; it doesn't.

And finally (!) you tell us what we already know; that no reason has been given for the closure.

Maybe your post was fascinating, in some dreadful, horrific way like "OMG, when's it going to end and will it ever get relevant" kind of way.

Okay, I'll make it simple.  Let's leave aside the certainty that even a moderate sidewind would be dangerous to cyclists and pedestrians on this particular bridge. There's a flaw in your cunning plan (and let's remember that the bridge board has brought in this - hopefully temporary - ban to prevent people from taking their own lives).  The barrier on the road is around mid thigh height.  The barrier on the "footway" is around chest height.  So anyone making their way to take their own life will have less of an effort to get off the road and slide down than they will have to climb over the footway barrier.  

Some have asked what's to prevent drivers from stopping on the bridge then taking their own lives.  As far as I can tell this has very rarely happened - if at all - but one of the things that makes this a particularly worrying trend is that many of those who have died just lately haven't been around long enough to learn how to drive. 

I want the bridge to be open to cyclists and pedestrians.  And I don't know what changes the bridge board can make in the short term to satisfy themselves that it can be made "secure" as the local paper puts it.  I just hope that at least a shuttle service for commuter cyclists and pedestrians can be put on very soon.  Leisure cyclists, runners, (dog) walkers etc will - in the short term at least - just have to suck it up, I'm afraid.  It's not like there aren't plenty of options on both sides of the estuary to keep physically and mentally fit.  

Please accept my apologies if I used too many words again.  

Woldsman wrote:

Okay, I'll make it simple.   

Please accept my apologies if I used too many words again.  

No you didn't and yes you did.

Soz.

Woldsman wrote:

Soz.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Socrati2, or Son of Socrati, or maybe Socraticlone; whatever, from the same mould of fact dodging, logic free, subject changing unbridled verbosity as the master himself.

You've made some really good points there. The wind issue is a major factor - it was almost a cliche that Viking Radio's traffic report would include that the Humber Bridge was closed to high-sided traffic because of strong winds. Bracing, but I can see how that could be a huge problem for cyclists in the main carriageway rather than protected on the footpaths/cycleways.

But I still think the Bridge authorities are being rightly criticised for not putting any thought into an alternative for those cyclists who have a need to get over the Bridge. It's a strong indication that they don't consider cycling as a means of transport.

Again, I know we are a cycling specific channel but they haven't put any thought into anyone but cars and above. Almost like they have decided that anyone crossing now needs to pay and why have to put some of that profit into supplying alternate crossing methods.