A cyclist has said he received mixed messages when he set out to ride across the Humber Bridge on Sunday – with security staff telling him that, with the footways closed, he could do so using the main carriageway, only for traffic police at the other end telling him he should not have ridden across it.
Meanwhile the owners of the bridge, which spans the Humber Estuary near Kingston-upon-Hull, who closed the footways on Saturday due to an unspecified “recent incident,” have clarified that they did so as an “emergency response” following several recent suicides.
> Humber Bridge path closed to cyclists ‘indefinitely’
While the bridge remains open to motor traffic, the 60-mile detour to access alternative crossings via bridges over the Trent and Ouse means that people who commute across it by bike or on foot cannot travel to work unless they other means of crossing, such as using their car if they have one, getting a lift from someone else, or taking the bus.
In the description to a video posted to his YouTube channel, Audax cyclist Rikki Lake said that on Saturday evening he had been planning the route of his Easter Sunday ride, including crossing the Humber, when he learnt from the Hull Daily Mail website of the closure of the bridge to pedestrians and cyclists.
“So I rang Humberside Police to clarify their position, the message was clear from them the Humber Bridge is private property we are not getting involved it’s not a police matter.
“I also rang Humber Bridge Board to clarify whether they were offering a free shuttle service across the bridge or conning off a lane on the road. Another wasted call really speaking with the controllers – clearly no-one knew what was going on.
“I showed up ready to ride across, at the ramp I was greeted by someone from security who said if you want to cross they expect you to use the main carriageway.
“So hopping over the barrier a little bit further up I did just that, half way across the bridge, a private security van caught up with me and by the end I reached the other side of the bridge I was being bothered by traffic police.
“They told me I should not have crossed, so naturally I explained how I came to cross over and then proceeded to ask what about people who bikes who commute to work? What is the Humber Bridge Board doing to secure their safety?”
Mr Lake, who in the video said he “wouldn’t recommend” crossing the bridge on the dual carriageway due to the gusts of wind he experienced while passing under its arches, added that he hopes the bridge will be reopened “sooner rather than later – I don’t want to be known as the last person to ride across it.”
In a statement, a spokesperson from the Humber Bridge Board said: “We understand closing the footways has been a controversial decision that has not attracted universal support, but we would like to reassure the public that it has been taken as an emergency response to the unprecedented and deeply troubling events at the Humber Bridge over recent weeks.
“It is no secret that there has been a spate of people – mostly young people from the local area – who have decided to end their lives at the bridge.
“Closing the footways is the most immediate and effective way to prevent further incidents of this nature, and this was our sole consideration when making the decision.
“As well as protecting emotionally distressed individuals, the measure has been implemented to protect our staff and the public.
“When these tragic events occur, our staff are the first responders and have to deal with some extremely distressing and traumatic situations. We have a duty to minimise their exposure to such incidents to protect their mental health and wellbeing.
“The Humber Bridge Board currently spends a quarter of a million pounds each year on measures designed to prevent emotionally distressed individuals from ending their lives at the bridge. Until last month these measures have been largely effective.
“However, the recent tragic events are unlike anything we have previously dealt with, and we are working closely with Public Health, local MPs, local authorities, emergency services, the Samaritans, Hull and East Yorkshire Mind and other stakeholders to fully understand them and assess the future risk. While this is ongoing, the footways must remain closed to the general public.”
The statement concluded by saying that the Humber Bridge Board is “looking at reopening access to commuters as soon as possible, to minimise disruption to those who cycle or walk to work over the Humber Bridge, and we are considering a range of measures to ensure the situation can be effectively managed once the footways fully reopen.”
Alex Holdaway, interim strategic communications manager at Sustrans, said that the sustainable transport charity’s “role as custodians of the National Cycle Network (NCN) is to care for, improve and champion a long-term vision for the future of the network.
“However, the charity only owns approximately 4 per cent of the NCN, with the majority belonging to various landowners who are ultimately responsible for their own stretch and are able to restrict access as they see fit.
“Our Network Development Manager is in touch with the Humber Bridge Board to establish what the plan is,” she added.
The Samaritans website contains advice to people who are struggling with their mental health on how they can obtain help.
The charity’s advisors can be contacted at any time on the free telephone number 116 123, or via email to jo@samaritans.org with a response time of 24 hours.
It has also developed a self-help app that enables users to “Keep track of how you’re feeling, and get recommendations for things you can do to help yourself cope, feel better and stay safe in a crisis.”
44 thoughts on “Humber Bridge staff tell cyclist he can ride across it on main carriageway … police at other end tell him he can’t”
Ignoring the closure itself
Ignoring the closure itself (and whether you would cycle over it), there are no cycling signs at both ends, I assume therefore that they are in force and legal.
They are, however, quite poorly placed as they appear attached to signs placed in the cycle lanes themselves.
From what I can see they are
From what I can see they are also significantly after the point at which you would have joined the carriageway naturally, and as a dual carriageway, you are not allowed to do a u-turn, are you meant to simply stop and stand there ? Or walk over, there is no sign for “No Pedestrians”
bendertherobot wrote:
If they are on private property, and not the public highway, what legal force do they actually have?
mdavidford wrote:
That’s a very good question, I wonder whether there’s a public right of way (PROW) across the bridge, if there is then a landowner cannot prohibit access without obtaining a temporary closure order, and without one cannot legally enforce prohibition signs.
Is a bridge owner really a
Is a bridge owner really a landowner? He may allow you to access the land at both ends, but not the bridge joining it.
Having looked this up (the
Having looked this up (the definitive maps for East Riding and North Lincs) it seems that there is no PROW across the Humber Bridge and as such (by my understanding) the owner can legitimitely prohibit access on a whim. Of course it could be very difficult for them to prevent you from accessing the cycle way even if they’ve barriered it off and posted security guards, whilst you’d be trespassing they cannot use more than reasonable force to eject you, so if you’re determined you could probably still use the bridge and if the guard manhandled you that could be viewed as being beyond reasonable force and you could claim compensation.
Additionally, the “private” road across the bridge (it’s not a highway) is subject to standard road traffic regulations by virtue of it being accessible by the public. This would appear to mean that the police have authority on it and that cycling prohibition signs are enforceable.
Smiffi wrote:
If the sign is enforcable, that means cycling is prohibited – but there’s no sign prohibiting pedestrians. I wonder if we’ll see locals choosing a 45 minute walk, in favour of a 60 mile detour.
This closure (combined with another nearby) only added about mile and a half onto people’s journey: https://www.readingchronicle.co.uk/news/19169916.desperate-reading-residents-caught-dangerous-attempts-cross-kennetside-path/
“and this was our sole
“and this was our sole consideration when making the decision.”
Hear that folks? They don’t actually care about the extreme inconvenience they are causing people. People regularly throw themselves in front of trains. We don’t shut down the rail network do we……..?
False equivalence, the
False equivalence, the railway industry goes to considerable lengths to limit the number of suicides on their network by restricting access to certain locations, such as like what is happening here with the Humber bridge, training staff to spot people in distress, redesigning stations and working with organisations like the Samaritans or national suicide prevention alliance to carry out national campaigns like the there is always hope campaign , in the past year alone nearly 1500 interventions have been carried out by railway workers.
There’s a remarkable lack of empathy on display in some of these comments to this subject, we are talking about saving peoples lives by this action and preventing the devastating impact that suicide has on families & friends and even the people who have to deal with the aftermath & not every suicide attempt is successful either,people can be left with horrific injuries.
So yes not being able to ride a bicycle across a bridge is utterly of secondary importance to trying to save those people at the moment and needs to take a back seat whilst the bridge authority comes up with a workable solution.
But the point people have
But the point people have been trying to make is that we’re not talking about saving people’s lives – all we’re talking about is moving the issue somewhere else, where someone else will have to deal with it. If anything, the publicity this has generated is just likely to encourage more attempts.
Publicity created by cyclists
Publicity created by cyclists not seeing the bigger picture.
The Humber bridge is not the first bridge to have encountered this issue, but the action theyve taken is well researched and backed by case studies & suicide prevention groups into what the effect of it achieves, and all their data indicates this does result in lower suicide rates overall. Its believed it creates enough of a pause in the impulse,simply by removing the availability,to enable an effective intervention to take place.
Does it completely solve the problem no,that’s a conversation that ought to shame politicians that it even needs to be had with them that they need to do more and provide better services for peoples mental health. But until that happens what theyve done at the Humber bridge is an effective prevention method.
But now they need to come up with the effective solution for pedestrians & cyclists to use the bridge safely.
If any of that was actually
If any of that was actually true, surely they’ve been negligent in not closing it long ago, or indeed, ever having it open in the first place, instead of closing it as a knee-jerk reaction to the recent events? The impulse is still going to occur – it’s just that it’ll happen on a different bridge, or in a different way.
Awavey wrote:
You mean like platforms, where a large number of people attempt? The jubilee line has been able to sort this out by fencing the platform from the line – I’m not aware of this being attempted in many mainline stations
such as like what is happening here with the Humber bridge, training staff to spot people in distress, redesigning stations and working with organisations like the Samaritans or national suicide prevention alliance to carry out national campaigns like the there is always hope campaign , in the past year alone nearly 1500 interventions have been carried out by railway workers.— Awavey
That is absolutely fantastic, and I genuinely applaud these initiatives and policies
Speaking s someone who has suffered from severe clinical depression in the past, I can assure you that closing off public rights of way does not save the lives of those suffering from acute mental illness……
It’s not even sticking plaster, and is more about not having to put up a fence or train their staff as you mentioned before.
The illness doesn’t go away cos I can’t access a particular bridge.
It is reasonable to expend for fencing or other safeguards. It is not reasonable to prevent access to daily essential journeys indefinitely.
[Edit] FFS, 200 people have attempted suicide since it opened in 81, with only 5 survivors.
They care so much about saving lives that this is their best idea, in 40 f*cking years and 195 deaths
And which part of that
And which part of that involves shutting down services so people can’t travel? And let’s get real here it’s still pretty easy to throw oneself in front of a train because it’s practically impossible to stop. And it’s not about empathy it’s about being told one ONE thing was considered before closing an important transport link and not the effect it would on people’s ability to live their lives and and get to their place of work or where ever. Completely unacceptable if you ask me. Funny how it’s only been closed to bikes and not cars. Apparently if you’re in a car you’re too important to be stopped from going about you business.
Well they do halt services
Well they do halt services and close stations if its absolutely necessary, but upto you whether you also want to believe if all that were true or not.
And it is about empathy because the decision was taken solely to try to save peoples lives & whilst it cant be the permanent solution, it would be totally wrong to delay or reverse that decision, till a proper alternative was in place.
Bungle73 wrote:
If six people in one month had killed themselves at one railway station I think some steps might be taken, which is more of an equivalent to this sad instance.
Woud that include shutting
Woud that include shutting down the station and stopping people from being able to travel? I don’t think so.
Bungle73 wrote:
Indefinitely too…
So the cyclist phoned bridge
So the cyclist phoned bridge and police knowing there was going to be issues, yet still CHOSE that route? Not doing us cyclists any favours I reckon.
meursault wrote:
The police told him they had nothing to do with it and he couldn’t get any response from the Humber Bridge Board, so he showed up and was told he could ride across on the carriageway, then got hassled. Sounds pretty reasonable to me.
Yes, but there was obviously
Yes, but there was obviously an access issue, or he wouldn’t have phoned either to check.
meursault wrote:
And as he couldn’t get a clear answer, he showed up to check in person and was told he could cycle across. What’s wrong with that?
meursault wrote:
What alternative route do you suggest that he should have taken?
Also, what possible difference does it make to me whether or not some other cyclist goes one route or another?
It says he is an audax
It says he is an audax cyclist. Any other route?
Well maybe he didn’t fancy
Well maybe he didn’t fancy riding an Audax that particular time though the issue is going to be more pronounced for commuters that don’t want to have several hours and miles added to their journey.
hawkinspeter wrote:
I had to leave for work at ten o’clock at night half an hour before I went to bed…
Most Audaxers usually plan a
Most Audaxers usually plan a route to get set length distances and for safety check-ins an supply stops etc. Assuming he stuck to his route still after the Humber he was doing a loop of the estuary anyway of 126miles (looking on Strava.) He tried to find out the situation and was told nothing. Rather then let his original planning go to waste he decided to check out the situation personally and was told yes you can cross on the carriageway. I would suggest he probably had some backup route anyway if they said no. But they didn’t. So why is this the cyclists fault?
The Dartford crossing of the
The Dartford crossing of the Thames doesn’t allow bikes to use either the bridge or the tunnels but does provide a means for cyclists to cross https://www.gov.uk/dartford-crossing-bike maybe the operators of the Humber bridge should consider offering a similar service?
On twitter someone mentioned
On twitter someone mentioned that when the Tyne foot/bicycle tunnel is shut (e.g. for maintenance), they run a shuttle bus through the toll road tunnel…
Something to do with the road authority (In this case the Humber Bridge Board (which is why they can close the right of way)) having a legal obligation to consider alternative routes as part of doing closures…
In this case they could close a lane and use it as a foot and cycle path… Of course that would mean inconveniencing motorists…
Both in Tyne and Dartford, the alternative routes are a fraction of the distance you have to travel here!
qwerty360 wrote:
But that would entail allowing pedestrians back on the bridge and so the suicides problem would continue; you only have to hop over a metre-high rail to go from the carriageway to the footpath and hence the edge. With six suicides in the month from March 3rd-April 3rd I do have some sympathy with the authorities here, it’s not the usual muck cyclists about because we don’t like them (see Richmond Park) but an attempt to address a tragic problem. Hopefully an effective permanent solution can be designed soon (perhaps with weatherproofing for cyclists as well, I imagine commuting across the mouth of the Humber in winter is not the most pleasant experience).
I did read elsewhere
I did read elsewhere (unconfirmed) the one of the recent jumpers landed in an area where there are works going on, the folks on the site are obviously a bit upset, by the site, as well as the safety implications to them.
I belive in the past this was an issue on the erskine bridge, when they first added high anti climb fences they wee only at the ends, to ensure that jumpers went far enough out so as not to land in gardens below (i heard that one garden had 3 “direct hits”). It was only with other significant works on strength and wind loading tht they were able to extend the fence out to the middle eventually
These situations are very unplesant for everyone, I believe we need to work very hard to reduce the number of suicides in this country, particularly in young men strangely. taking a blunt approach to the methods isn’t really addressing the bigger issue but will only really help some of those being affected by witnessing events
On the Clifton Suspension
On the Clifton Suspension Bridge, the road below it (the A4 Portway) has a concrete ‘roof’ over the section directly below the bridge (to protect the motor traffic below…).
brooksby wrote:
I wasn’t aware that the concrete tunnel was specifically to protect against suicide attempts, but there’s a net that is there for that purpose.
hawkinspeter wrote:
The roof, which creates the tunnel, is there to protect the road from falling rocks.
eburtthebike wrote:
Oh, OK <slapped wrist> I had just assumed, since it was the bit under the bridge…
hawkinspeter wrote:
When building warehouse mezanines we install drop nets beneath any edge to arrest fall without injury
The nets are only removed once the edge/fall protection is fully installed – and yes, we consider risk of suicide attempts when speccing edge-protection
Very easy solution Humber
Very easy solution Humber Bridge Board people. Just cone off one of the carriageway lanes to become a bi-directional cycle lane/footway until you sort yourselves out.
Everybody can still cross the bridge and it costs practically nothing. Or is that too much common sense?
Prosper0 wrote:
As I mentioned below, the foot/cycle path, and hence the edge of the bridge, is only separated from the roadway by a low barrier, so converting a car lane to a pedestrian/cycle path wouldn’t do anything to combat the suicide problem, which is the reason the closure has occurred.
Rendel Harris wrote:
The bridge is private and can only survive (maintenance, staff costs and servicing the almighty 1980s debt of building it) by raising revenue through tolls. A huge amount has been done recently in ensuring the tolls are low, that there’s tag systems and contactless payment to maximise the volume of traffic – particularly HGVs heading to and from the docks.
This might sound counterintuitive, but reducing truck journeys by around 60 miles is important.
All that being said the Bridge Board needs to come up with a solution for pedestrians and cyclists soon. A quick look at Strava shows people genuinely commute by bike across the bridge (Donkin) and living just to the north of the bridge my own possible routes have been halved.
DamienB wrote:
Exactly what I have been saying and been criticised for. Thank you for this.
“sooner rather than later – I
“sooner rather than later – I don’t want to be known as the last person to ride across it.” – Rikki Lake
Is this what Rikki has been up to since the heydays of having a prime time US talk show?
If it is as it was when I
If it is as it was when I lived close to that area a few years back, then it is a plain ordinary A road, so pedestrians and cyclists can use it accordingly. It is neither up to the bridge owners nor police to make up the law as they go.
It does of course bring the issue of risking the lives of those who don’t want to die V’s those who sadly, do.
A roads (any roads) can have
A roads (any roads) can have cycle prohibition orders in place. Bridge is 1 such