please empty your brain below

It takes time and manpower to erect these barriers. Blackfriars got its barriers later than Waterloo and Westminster. So Southwark may get them later.

I guess the bridges are seen as particularly vulnerable because the pavements are relatively unobstructed by street furniture, and they are long straight stretches of road. Also, and there are no doorways or other refuges for pedestrians.

No doubt in due course the bus lanes will be widened and the stops relocated.
There's no need for barriers on Southwark Bridge, because unless you know the area very very well it's impossible to actually find it while drIving a vehicle. It's cunningly concealed in a near-impenetrable maze of twisty streets and one-way systems.
Your site better than any newspaper​
Surely a small gap could have been added to allow access to the front doors of a bus at a minimum.

And, even if the gap stretched from front to middle doors (sorry Borisbuses) then it would be impossible to manoeuvre through at any sort of speed.
They may replace the continuous barriers with bollards at regular intervals (as per railway stations), although I'm not sure if there is enough 'ground' underneath the pavement to secure the bollards.

The next soft target will no doubt be people queuing outside an event, or a bus stop.
Just like at the airports, terrorists win yet again.
Shutting the stable door . . .
Not only does narrowing the cycle lane on Waterloo Bridge make it more dangerous for people on bikes, but the barrier is obviously the wrong side of the lane. Cyclists are now more vulnerable to ALL sorts of rogue motorists, not just those with terrorist murderous intent.

This whole schemme smacks of 'we must do something' & 'we've done something.'

Clearly it'll also be impractical to protect the whole road network from errant motorists.
It's a shame these have been introduced as there's been a welcome move to removing street clutter and it's improved the feel of quite a few areas. I suppose for the short term at least it's the right thing to give people a bit more confidence but I suspect a determined terrorist will just choose a different target instead.
It's certainly sad to see but at least they have acted swiftly and in good faith (so to speak) and the brutal truth is that people are particularly vulnerable on a bridge as there is nowhere else to go. We're going to have to get used to this stuff...
as I said in a comment on a recent dg post, after a fatal bombing in Victoria in the early 80s all litter bins were removed from public places. Now they have re-appeared, even in stations. These bridge barricades give reassurance and have been installed very quickly. But if bombers wish to attack, they have so many options that the authorities will always be one step behind with their preventative measures.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't....

It's a tad unfair to blame the authorities for not having magicked up an absolutely perfect solution overnight for every bridge in London. The most important thing was to implement some basic protection rapidly using existing materials and methods.

Having achieved this, it will then be the appropriate time to consider all sorts of tweaks and improvements that will deliver the best balance of security, convenience and aesthetics for all bridge users. We also have to recognise that not every eventuality can be covered, and that standing up to terrorism will always involve some degree of risk.

However, a flurry of angry, expletive-laden tweets is not the best way to start.
The kerbs on Southwark Bridge look a bit like Vehicle Containment Kerbs? Might be protected already.
Thanks for this, and the links in the closing line.
My own reaction, put into words, was this: "I've just been reading about the post-attack installation of new barriers across some of London's bridges, to reduce the chances of vehicles being able to mount the pavement.
Some of these bridges already have Cycle Lanes, and that is where some of these barriers have been placed. Because (it doesn't take a genius) the strip between the pavement and the vehicular lanes is really about the only practical place to put them.
It crossed my mind for about a second that any further reduction in usable roadspace would probably result in even less room for filtering on a motorbike. I shrugged and figured there was nothing to do but accept it.
Gotta say, it did Not enter my thoughts to start complaining about it.
For these cyclists it did
"If we have to have security barriers can we at least put them where they might slow & inconvenience VEHICLES down not cyclists? Just an idea"
"Why is it OK that cyclists pay the price (safety/time/convenience) when it's drivers causing the problem, threatening peds & cyclists alike?"
"Cyclists have complained that new security barriers on London’s bridges make roads less safe for them, just hours after they were installed to protect pedestrians from terror attacks."
Sigh"
@ Ken - the stop area has to be big and unencumbered to ensure that wheelchair users can board / alight via the centre door. Drivers also have to be able to get close enough to align the bus against the curb for effective ramp deployment. Depending on the frequency of routes the bus stop may have to be at least two buses long. This easily creates an open space that a vehicle could access.

I'm not as confident as Timbo that stops will be resited. TfL has form for closing stops deemed to be "unsafe" regardless of how far people are left to walk to the nearest stop. As bridges are now clearly "unsafe" don't expect to see bus stops on bridges or their approaches. That will prove problematic but it's going to take some real pressure to get anti terror measures removed in the short to medium term. Goodness knows what this has done to the planned TfL cycle lane works on Westminster Bridge. I suspect they'll have to be completely redesigned.

As DG correctly says these ramps merely move the problem elsewhere. There are endless opportunities for people to use vehicles to mow down other people. The alternative is that every road is fenced off and that's completely impractical. The other is to close vast swathes of the road network and that's equally impractical. There are no easy answers.
Proabably the people designing and implementing these new barriers are perfectly aware that they are largely symbolic. But this was a case where something had to be done, just to avoid the (irrational) public outrage which would have resulted if nothing whatever had been done.

Thanks, DG, for exploring and documenting the outcome. In the circumstances, it seems to me that the authorities have hit an appropriate compromise midway between doing nothing and doing too much.
I'm not sure those end barriers will keep out a motorcycle on the sidewalk.
I don't think it's possible to keep out a motorcycle from anywhere, but they would be less damaging and easier for pedestrians to avoid than a larger vehicle.

I would hope that these are soon replaced by something permanent and more in keeping. Rows of bollards as at stations would work and I would guess there's enough space underground for the foundations as at least one of these bridges had conduits beneath the traffic lanes to power trams. Alternatively a barrier between the cycle lane and the traffic lane would also protect cyclists, so giving a real benefit even if the security benefit is zero (which we can't know as it's impossible to tell what might have happened if these measures hadn't been put in place).

I imagine Southwark bridge will get something similar as even though it's difficult to find when driving someone intent on committing an atrocity will take the trouble to do so. The approach from the south is used as a coach park so large vehicles can access it if they know how.
None of this inconvenience is any defence against a £4 kitchen knife from Lidl.
@PC the final paragraph of your comment pretty much dovetails with the reply I put to the post on 6 June, ie. 'There did actually used to be metal railings over London Bridge, but they probably wouldn't have stopped the attack from occurring, just might've made it happen somewhere else.'

I actually am a motorcyclist. As such, I'm all too aware of scooters and (motor)bikes currently being used for criminal purposes around the Capital, from street robbery to raiding shops to nicking other motorbikes. It can't be avoided that their speed and agility makes them all-too-suitable for that sort of thing.
However... as an "instrument of terror"... it's probably fortunate that they would be relatively ineffective, to the point of being 'unfit for purpose.'
You might as well barrier all roads. Vehicles can drive anywhere and everywhere.

Those fat black barriers on the entrance to bridges just look too secure and looks like a security zone. Is that how people want to portray London?

And shouldn't barriers be placed on the pavement to not conflict with the current traffic such as cyclists and buses.
I'm very uneasy about this. It's a victory for the Tangos.
A few hundred yards of high profile bridges have been 'protected'. That leaves about 10,000 miles of other roads in London to be barricaded.
You're just as dead if someone squidges you on a 'low profile' bit of road.
The bus stop on the south side of Blackfriars Bridge remains open (or at least it did on Friday evening). Whilst the flag sign has a "bus stop closed" cover over it, the stop has been moved within the existing bus stop box on the road and a temporary bus stop sign placed on the footway at the southern end of the box.

dg writes: Agreed. But two of the other bus stops on the bridge, one in each direction, have been closed.

The lack of protection at the south side of Tower Bridge does seem odd. Is it because the majority of visitors approach from the north or via the staircases which are generally protected?
As someone that has worked on planning and zoning drawings, I can assure you these barricades are only the first, temporary solution. The esthetically desirable solution requires more time and money and lane closures. The city will fix the problem in a more reasoned way but doing nothing until then would be irresponsible. Show some patience. Its not easy making existing infrastructure safe and pretty at the same time. And certainly not on the time line those that would do us all harm would prefer. Also, its possible that "intercepted threat intelligence" may have lead city leaders to step up protections on these bridges.
Whitehall had a more permanent setup installed a few years back - it did indeed take time but frankly some parts of it look rather elegant, an actual enhancement to the street.

Vauxhall bridge also had barriers added a few days ago, but in a possible cost-cutting measure it only has them on the eastern pavement (at least for now); the other side has simply been closed to pedestrians.

I suspect something loosely comparable will be installed on the likes of Oxford Street & Regent Street.
Sorry, I'm a bit late, but Southwark Bridge has now had measures put in place: streamlined barriers at each end of the cycle lanes, and concrete blocks filling in the gaps that used to exist in the barrier separating the cycleway from the road.










TridentScan | Privacy Policy