Greenwich Council has pledged to install barriers in both the Greenwich and Woolwich foot tunnels in a bid to ensure cyclists using the key commuter routes dismount, after local politicians, residents, and media outlets launched a renewed campaign attacking those who ride their bikes through the tunnels, claiming that they “go too fast”, pose a danger to families, and respond with abuse when confronted.
Responding to the complaints raised by locals using the Greenwich foot tunnel – which is used by an estimated 4,000 cyclists and pedestrians a day and forms part of National Cycle Route 1 – the Royal Borough of Greenwich Council said it recognises that “some cyclists are making pedestrians feel unsafe” and announced that it is working alongside the tunnel’s joint owner Tower Hamlets Council to improve safety, including the installation of new cycle barriers.
Over the past few decades, with the development of the financial district centred on Canary Wharf, London’s north-south Greenwich tunnel, first opened in 1902, has become a key commuting link for people who work there but live south of the Thames, given the lack of other convenient crossings in the area.
But despite forming part of National Cycle Route 1, linking Dover and the Scottish Highlands, cyclists are currently only allowed to walk their bikes through the tunnel (since 2014, bikes have been permitted on Docklands Light Railway trains, but only at off-peak times).
In 2017, Labour-controlled Greenwich Council, which is responsible for maintaining the tunnel, sanctioned plans to allow cyclists to ride through it at certain times, a proposal which requires approval from its joint owner Tower Hamlets Council, where the Aspire Party, which in 2022 controversially ripped out a school street in the borough, has the majority.
Despite electronic signs being tested in the tunnels, indicating when cyclists can use them, the scheme has faced opposition from Tower Hamlets Council, with Conservative councillor Peter Golds arguing at the time of the initial proposal that the Edwardian tunnel “was never designed for cycling”.
A user group for the tunnel was disbanded in 2021, as members expressed their frustration at the lack of progress in resolving the cycling issue, as well as problems with the tunnel’s lifts, which were installed in 2010 during a much-criticised refurbishment.
The proposals came under the microscope once again in early 2023, when Golds claimed there was “huge popular support” in the area for “rigorous” health and safety checks to be implemented before any ban on cycling in Greenwich foot tunnel is lifted.
And this week, local media outlet MyLondon has reignited the debate by highlighting the apparent concerns of residents and tourists about “dangerous” cycling in the tunnel.
> Isle of Dogs fury that cyclists may be allowed to ride through Greenwich foot tunnel
One person interviewed by the site, Shirley, a tourist who’s staying in the Isle of Dogs and visiting a friend around Cutty Sark, claimed she was subject to abuse by cyclists she reprimanded for riding through the 370m-long tunnel.
“People completely ignore the ‘no cycling’ signs,” Shirley said. “Even responsible-looking individuals cycle because everyone else is doing it! I’ve seen families almost get hit, and when you confront cyclists, they often respond with abuse.”
The MyLondon reporter also claimed that Shirley was “met with swearing” when she criticised a cyclist for riding their bike, while another pedestrian was allegedly told by one person on a bike to “mind your own business”.
That commuter, Vince Soodin, who says he knows someone who received a £100 fine for cycling through the tunnel, added: “Some cyclists go too fast, even when the tunnel is crowded. As a cyclist myself, I understand the temptation, but safety should come first. The tunnel is as narrow as a pavement, yet some ride as if it’s a road.”
“There are plenty of signs indicating that people shouldn’t cycle on this staircase and in the tunnel itself,” Rosalind Goodwin said. “However, the temptation to get through quickly often leads to people ignoring the signs. I’ve written to the Tower Hamlets Council in the past, but nothing has changed.”
Meanwhile, another pedestrian said that “with cyclists speeding and kids running around, it becomes really dangerous” in the tunnel.
“People with impaired hearing wouldn’t hear a cyclist coming, which is even more risky. Even to me, it’s unnerving to have cyclists zoom past me, causing me a lot of anxiety,” a daily commuter added.
> Greenwich foot tunnel bike commuters face months of carrying bikes up stairs
Following the story’s publication, Conservative councillor Golds took to social media to write: “I have been raising this for years on behalf of users far and wide. Why do cyclists believe that they have a right to endanger the safety of pedestrians?”
Responding to the complaints, a spokesperson for the Royal Borough of Greenwich said: “We take people’s safety extremely seriously and recognise that some cyclists are making pedestrians feel unsafe.”
“We are continuing to liaise with the London Borough of Tower Hamlets to improve safety in the tunnel. One solution is changing the byelaws, but both parties need to agree to this before we are able to move forward.
“There is a plan underway to regenerate both the Greenwich and Woolwich Foot Tunnels, including replacing the lifts, and installing barriers. A new lift servicing and maintenance contract is also currently being organised.
“CCTV monitoring is already in operation throughout the tunnel, stairs and lifts. Help points are also provided within the tunnel and are monitored 24 hours daily.”
As noted above, in January 2023 Tower Hamlets councillor Golds claimed that the “growth of illegal cycling” in the tunnel was a “major issue” and that “rigorous” health and safety checks would need to be implemented before cyclists are permitted to ride through the tunnel alongside pedestrians.
“The issue here is the growth of illegal cycling in the foot tunnel which is increasingly dangerous,” Golds said.
“We constantly get issues of families going through the foot tunnel and suddenly finding people coming towards them, shooting through at speed on bicycles, frequently blowing whistles to expect people to get out of the way.”
Another member of the council, this time from Labour, also called for barriers to be installed along the path to stop cyclists “zooming across from one end of the tunnel to the other”.
However, Green Party councillor Nathalie Bienfait argued that the discussion only served to give “unhelpful airtime to the false narrative that cyclists are fundamentally irresponsible and lawless”.
88 thoughts on ““Why do cyclists believe that they have a right to endanger pedestrians?” Council promises to install anti-bike barriers in foot tunnel, as locals and politicians claim “speeding” cyclists are “almost hitting” families and “abusing” pedestrians”
I’m afraid I have to side
I’m afraid I have to side generally with the antis on this one, even though I will ride through early on Sunday mornings when it’s completely empty. Just about every time I’ve walked my bike through at busy times recently there have been multiple instances of twats on Lime bikes* bombing through the crowds at 20mph+ (for those who don’t know the tunnel it slopes very significantly down towards the centre so decent speeds are quite easy to reach), seemingly enjoying the thrill of treating pedestrians as slalom obstacles. The tunnel simply is too narrow to be shared at busy times, though it’s a shame they didn’t continue with the experiment of allowing cyclists to ride at quiet times, that worked well in the brief time it was in operation.
*Extra kudos for the pricks who leave the bikes actually in the tunnel rather than bothering to take them up in the lift, adding to the congestion.
Indeed- sometimes the answer
Indeed- sometimes the answer is “it really isn’t suitable because history”.
The problem in the UK is that’s our default position. And for active travel the conversation stops there. What we should be asking is a) “is there demand”, if so b) “why is there demand?” and c) “if there is reasonable demand OR this would unlock more active travel, how do we make that provision?”.
In the case of cycling we seem swift to apply (a) negatively e.g. “There are few cyclists cyclists ergo no demand for cycling, ergo there will be no demand and making provision would be a waste of money”.
Alternatively we get to (b) and then say any demand is not reasonable – “but cycling is just recreational – we can’t make expensive provision of valuable space for the hobby of a tiny few”. That or “but criminal youth will use it”…
River crossings and tunnels *are* expensive and London somehow hasn’t found cash (Silvertown tunnel cough cough). In the past though even the UK has examples of making such cycling provision e.g. further North. (Of course, back then cycling was today’s driving…)
Certainly other places have managed historically (also here), as well as more recently.
Ferries are an option other places have chosen (spectacular example here), I imagine that’s not cheap either though.
chrisonabike wrote:
Certainly would be a lot cheaper than the proposed Rotherhithe – Canary Wharf foot/cyclebridge which was slated to cost £250M and scrapped when it reached a projected £450M (after they’d spent over £10M on consultations of course). There is a ferry alternative a little farther up from Greenwich currently run by Thames Clippers but it’s £3.65 each way, which certainly isn’t going to encourage kids and casual riders to stay out of the tunnel, and somewhat destroys the fare-saving selling point of commuter cycling.
Greenwich foot tunnel was OK
Greenwich foot tunnel was OK till about 30 years ago. Then cyclists started racing through it. It took another 15 years for Woolwich to become mad. Definitely something to do with numbers of housing units closer to River leading to more people on two wheels using them. Now, terrifying for any pedestrians who are not sprightly. I take walking poles, hold them horizontal or pointed straight at cyclists. I’m 69 and cycle hundreds of miles on race position bikes
You seem to have a lot of
Greenwich foot tunnel was OK till about 30 years ago. Then cyclists started racing through it. It took another 15 years for Woolwich to become mad. Definitely something to do with numbers of housing units closer to River leading to more people on two wheels using them. Now, terrifying for any pedestrians who are not sprightly. I take walking poles, hold them horizontal or pointed straight at cyclists. I’m 69 and cycle hundreds of miles on race position bikes
You seem to have a lot of bees in that bonnet, and regard yourself as above the law.
Hmm… ferries:
Hmm… ferries:
From here (question to the Mayor of London) says (including over a million passengers in “river tours”) London had (2021/22) 5.3 million passengers carried (River Bus + River Tour + Woolwich ferry).
Meanwhile (2015) the 6 ferries across the Ij in Amsterdam (free) carry 45,000 people per day.
Those are not comparable – the history, size of cities (London much bigger), pattern of development and transport flow requirements are completely different. Particularly since the Ij doesn’t have bridges in the main city and the two tunnels are just for motor traffic.
What it does indicate is that it’s clearly possible to provide a high-capacity transport service across a fairly large body of water dividing an urban area. (Again caveat – the Amsterdam ones all have a terminus near the central station).
Given how London is it’s probably still bridges that would be the way.
Perfectly good Ferry at
Perfectly good Ferry at Woolwich. At least 3 in 5 cyclists in Greenwich and Woolwich foot tunnels are maniacs – totally independent of demography: maniac middle aged ladies, well behaved young males in hoodies. I have 40+ years using the tunnels and seeing the degeneration of cycling behaviour. I used to take off my cleated shoes and walk. When they had staff in lift, I’d ask permission to cycle at walking pace so joggers would overtake me.
E6toSE3 wrote:
You’re not seriously promoting that as a good alternative for those cyclists wanting to cross from Greenwich to the Isle of Dogs, are you? It’s a 12km (minimum) round trip either on horribly dangerous roads or very dodgy paths that are definitely unsafe after dark.
E6toSE3 wrote:
This is an interesting observation. So bad behaviour could come from anyone regardless of age, how they look? And when you were younger cyclists behaved properly and had respect?
What do you put it down to – would you say it’s the disc brakes, the carbon frames or the worrying increase in number of gears?
Sarcasm aside “cyclists” are both a small fraction of the population (and in London they were a smaller fraction say 20 years back) AND in the UK are almost certainly a somewhat “selected” population (the fit and the brave, and yes some wayward youth, crims who can’t afford a moped and recently a bunch of food delivery folks in the grey economy).
As you’ve suggested in another post numbers are important. As the numbers of people cycling change (hopefully continuing to increase – well, if they do so significantly) we’ll probably see a change in “cycling culture” (getting handwavy here…) *. As you mention elsewhere – what “worked” previously (only because very few or no cyclists, and probably fewer people all told) will become problematic. If we’re smart we’ll change that to cope (although – again to avoid doubt – in this case it seems it needs both “no cycling” in the tunnel AND “provide for cycling demand here”).
* Somewhat trivial example – I remember time back doing a tour down through England and then across on the ferry to The Netherlands and onward. Each day through England the (rare) cyclists we met would at least give us a wave and a greeting (even – bizarrely – some folks racing). In NL we continued, waving or greeting folks riding in our best (awful) Dutch. Normally to no reply or a strange look. “What rude people” we thought – until we realised that we weren’t among “cyclists”. It would be like beeping and waving to every other car passing in the UK…
I’ve fond memories of cycling
I’ve fond memories of cycling up from Mottingham, through Eltham and onto Greenwich before making the most of a deserted foot tunnel’s slope and onto what used to be the derlict end of Millwall. I doubt it was as much fun for those few pedestrians we may have come across it can’t be more than 3 meters wide. So, I too am with those wishing to ensure cyclists walk their steeds through the foot-tunnel; the clue’s in the name I suppose.
Woolwich foot tunnel was
Woolwich foot tunnel was better for about 10 years longer. Now at least as bad, not least since it’s much narrower and longer
There’s no need to install
There’s no need to install extra barriers in the foot tunnel, the amount of dumped Lime bikes down there already act as ones!
Fully agree with you unfortunately. Just a shame there isn’t a cycleable crossing for miles and the nearest one is Tower Bridge which is nasty.
I’d also add that there’s also plenty of derestricted delivery e bikes that use the tunnel at all times of the day, often at speed.
I assume the Silvertown tunnel will have no provision for cyclists…
no theres no provision in the
no theres no provision in the tunnel, just a proposed bike carrying bus, as cycling through would be banned like Blackwall, still only cost 2.2billion to build eh.
Yes. Brand new motor vehicle
Yes. Brand new motor vehicle infrastructure costing a fortune, but no room for a cylists.
I agree. I use to use the
I agree. I use to use the Woolwich tunnel daily (usually carrying the bike on the stairs with borken down lifts), in the early mornings and evenings it’s frequently empty or just 1 or 2 people. I cycled it, but slowed down when passing people giving them a wide berth. No one ever complained. (the woolwich tunnel is significantly longer and much less used than Greenwich) If there are more than a couple of people and especially families, I’d walk. Greenwich foot tunnel even more so as this is much busier.
Sounds good. Being close
Sounds good. Being close-passed by a bike when you’re on foot isn’t a lot less irritating than being close-passed by a car when you’re cycling.
“Irritating”? Well there’s
“Irritating”? Well there’s something we can test. Connect up some people cycling and some people who walk to gripeometers, heart rate meters etc. and see.
I would guess that:
There might be a similar reading (in gammons) for “irritation” on the gripeometer (“bloody drivers / cyclists”).
The HRM will show occasional “startle” responses for pedestrians encountering unexpected cyclists (“came out of nowhere”) – and vice versa. According to my anecdata I expect that should quickly decline (although the gripeometer will probably remain high – “far too fast” / “they could have killed me!”).
The HRM will show a consistently higher heart rate for cyclists in heavy traffic / being passed by fast vehicles. Close passes by motorists may lead to the dial getting close to the “cardiac-arrest-zone” with a sustained high heart rate while the cyclist contemplates the fact they still exist but might not over the next five to ten minutes…
Trash. Greenwich and Woolwich
Trash. Greenwich and Woolwich foot tunnels can be terrifying for pedestrians. Pedestrians include toddlers with parents, pushchairs with parents also minding another child, people with crippling injuries si they can’t skip out if the way, pregnant women, hard if hearing, partially sighted. I’ve used both tunnels for 40 years, sometimes daily sometimes less often. As cyclist (take off cleated shoes and walk) and pedestrians. Son had to get a car to bring pregnant wife then grandson from Woolwich to us in Beckton. I became ashamed of being called a cyclist.
Only today, walking back home on Well Hall Road, huge cyclist came straight at me in middle of pavement while road is perfectly safe to ride (I do it regularly, I’m 69). At least 3 in 5 cyclists by my count are reckless maniacs totally oblivious of Highway Code, manners, other people
That … wasn’t my point (see
That … wasn’t my point (see e.g. my reply to Rendel) – it was highlighting the false equivalence of cyclist to pedestrian equals car to … well, any vulnerable road user.
Of course fear is an emotion – it is in the terrified.
But that’s a minefield because of course part of fear can be the unusual / unknown. Cyclists are less familar to us. And perhaps people assume that people are killed every day by cyclists rather than maybe one or two a year (from, I don’t know, headlines in “reputable media” about “deadly cyclists”)?
Maybe it seems more “personal” – that big man on a bike is coming right for me?
On the flip side we’ve desensitised ourselves (somewhat) to motor vehicles. Despite ample evidence of both threat from them and the reality that while yes – even simply falling over after colliding with another pedestrian can injure or kill – heavier, faster vehicles are far more likely to do you more damage.
It’s also easy for any of us to diminish the other’s experience “…road is perfectly safe to ride…”
Regardless, we shouldn’t be building in conflict between vulnerable road users (this tunnel would seem an example as I agreed with Rendel – just too narrow and if it has a gradient that’s going to have people speeding up).
In general if we can fix things to be convenient for people to do the right thing that would seem to be the way forward.
Not just irritating.
Not just irritating. Terrifying for pregnant women, folk with pushchairs, hard of hearing, partially sighted, anyone not sprightly
I have to agree with the
I have to agree with the general sentiment: it’s too narrow, especially with the restricted height, for cyclists to mix with pedestrians. It’s simply not designed for that, and there’s no way the existing structure could be made to work that way.
There should be a river crossing suitable for cycling in that area: a bridge would seem best, as I don’t think tall ships really need to go any further west. But the absence of one doesn’t mean it’s ok to act dangerously and antisocially in the foot tunnel.
Brauchsel wrote:
Much as I agree with you, unfortunately I suspect somebody is making a pretty penny off substantial ships going further up the river; it seems rare these days to cross over Tower Bridge or London Bridge without seeing some massive cruise liner tied up next to HMS Belfast, something I find offensive for aesthetic, environmental and respect reasons. Also, as I mentioned in another email on this thread, the Rotherhithe ped/cycle bridge was abandoned when the costs soared to £450 million so…I think the best we can hope for would be a free ferry service similar to – though obviously not as big as – the ferries down in Woolwich. Personally I would be happy with that, perhaps childishly I always enjoy a ride that involves a boat crossing as well.
Brauchsel wrote:
By measurement it probably *isn’t* too narrow – 3m is normal for a shared path of 500 pedestrians and 500 cyclists peak hour (LTN 1.20). And this is approx 2.5m with outward sloping walls reaching 2.75m. That is margnal, but far better than a lot of places still being built.
The comments above consist in large part furious kneejerking, wedge issue mongering (Peter Golds was excellent holding Lutfur Rahman to account before see Conservativehome.com passim; here he is being populist).
However the entrances and exits are a huge problem, which the Councils are ignoring.
Closure at Peak Hours to cycles *may* be appropriate; making it more difficult for mobility aids to block cyclists is neither acceptable or legal.
The required solution is a reconsideration at network level to move the majority of cycle traffic somewhere else by attracting it there. AFAIK there is not decent cycle crossing east of Tower Bridge; one is required.
The place I would start, if nothing new is to be built, would be to remove traffic from the Rotherhithe Tunnel and make it active tarvel only. The new Silvertown Tunnel is close by and has ample capacity for the extra.
Once upon a long ago, the
Once upon a long ago, the tunnels had staff in the lifts (about early 1990s). But, even back then, staff were forbidden from challenging cyclists due to fear of violence (which was real).
When I first used them in
When I first used them in 1982 or so the lift operators were glad to have a passenger, particularly the Woolwich tunnel, with the end of shipping in the Royal docks use was absolutely minimal and noone raised an eyebrow about cycling through them.
“claimed she was subject to
“claimed she was subject to abuse by cyclists she reprimanded for riding through the 370m-long tunnel.”
One man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist. My experience of riding on a shared path is that the vast majority of us just get along, there is a vocal minority that have started to use the sarcastic “you’re welcome” as they think that calling, chasing and finally grabbing their out of control dog warrants praise. I wonder what form her reprimand took and why she felt entitled to issue it. I wonder whether said cyclist felt that they were being verbally abused.
EDIT: I also think that Strava should prohibit shared paths being included as segments.
people can always flag
people can always flag segments they think are wrong or creating dangerous riding behaviour.
Youd never be able to prohibit shared paths as segments IMO as GPS accuracy is only around 15metres and there are plenty of shared paths alongside roads youd never be able to separate the two.
stonojnr wrote:
It’s more accurate than that, surely? I know it can go veering off but if I look at an out and back ride on the Strava map it generally shows which side of the road I was on.
In any case it’s irrelevant for the foot tunnel as there’s no GPS reception under the Thames!
You may get better accuracy
You may get better accuracy from your GPS, but the public free version is only guaranteed to within 15m, and can be degraded further in times of crisis.
Here’s a perfect example was I cycling on the shared path, green dotted line, or in the road ?
I’m only using free versions,
I’m only using free versions, maybe because I’m in London the additional locating readings taken from mobile masts and Wi-Fi outlets gives me better accuracy?
That’s fair enough, I suspect
That’s fair enough, I suspect that one has to be a paid up Strava user to be able to take advantage of that function, no?
I was also thinking about a specific path which is not close to a road, so a little short of thinking on my side. The easiest solution would be for people to not ride/drive/walk like dickheads.
No excuse for dangerous or
No excuse for dangerous or antisocial cycling, but I strongly suspect some people ‘subject to abuse’ were not in danger and were dishing it out in the first place.
I’ve got a neighbour who every now and then tells a story about being on the receiving end of abuse, but as soon as she gets into the details it’s apparent that she was rude to them first. She’s just one of those people who likes to put people right before they’ve done anything wrong.
The obvious issue in this case is that the tunnel is not fit for the needs of today’s commuters. Providing an alternative crossing is the only meaningful solution, but expensive. But even in the photo that shows someone cycling, they are taking up less space than the person pushing their bike. The pedestrian is overtaking the slower moving bike pusher, and needs to step into the other side of the walkway, which has space because the person is on their bike.
It’s a shame that not all cyclists can be trusted to cycle at walking pace, or to get off when it’s busy or if they catch up with groups of slower moving pedestrians etc. As if often the case, it’s the anti-social minority that makes it harder for everyone.
There’s a psychodynamic
There’s a psychodynamic instinct to go faster in tunnel type situations. Same happens on motorways in fog. It takes a conscious act of will rooted in knowledge of the instinct to fight it in yourself, let alone other people.
Decades ago, in car with my wife driving in fog on M4. I said ‘Slow down’ a few times. She didn’t hear. I shouted & swore. She said, ‘Don’t swear’. But I had her attention, got her to slow down. Explained about the instinct. Kept reminding her to go slow. She totally lost rationality. We see similar in foot tunnels with cyclists
Some and cyclists, eh? They
Women and cyclists, eh? They’re mental.
E6toSE3 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w
no need for barriers just
no need for barriers just install chicanes made out of bollards so pedestrians can be safe and wheelchair users aren’t excluded from a public space.
This really isn’t hard to solve if you’re actually looking for a solution..
Car Delenda Est wrote:
Chicanes normally are barriers.
But given what they put on the Thames Path, Greenwich will have no problem with breaching national guidelines that Tower Hamlets do.
I have to go through it three
I have to go through it three times a week, and it’s terrible. The lifts are slow, so I end up carrying the bike up and down the stairs, and it’s several hundred metres of walking. 90% of cyclists (another made up statistic) hate the tunnel. It’s atrocious that they’re not providing a way for the hundreds of cyclists who need to cross the river every day to cycle.
It doesn’t look like
It doesn’t look like somewhere I’d cycle through (although we have the usual point that a cyclist walking their bike through is taking up more room than one riding…).
Yes … but you also have to
Yes … but you also have to factor in pedestrians (and other cyclists) will try to keep more distance between them and a rider (the faster they’re riding).
Like any “shared-use” this is density-dependant. It *can* work where there are very few of either mode. If there are enough of either mode it “works” by exclusion (eg. simply can’t cycle through a massive crowd).
Looks like there’s often heavy pedestrian use and “tunnel” (cyclists move away from walls, there’s a gradient apparently). Not suitable for sharing it seems.
Here’s a shared tunnel which seems to work – but flat and wider (not much though – 4.3m apparently). Looks a lot brighter, and supposedly a 5km/h speed limit for cyclists, which the post observes is ignored!
https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2019/03/13/the-scheldt-tunnel-in-antwerp/
brooksby wrote:
Generally a sound caveat but it doesn’t really apply in this instance as the tunnel is divided into two lanes and people pretty much stick to them so unless the walking cyclist is going significantly faster or slower than the general flow of pedestrians they don’t come into conflict.
Will we ever get a question
Will we ever get a question (from a non-cyclist) such as:
“Why do drivers believe that they have a right to endanger people and waste millions in taxes due to NHS, disruption/economic and police investigation costs?”
Ah, “No Cycling”, in
Ah, “No Cycling”, in otherwords, if you’re on a disability adapted cyclist “Tough luck, cross somewhere else”. I don’t have a disability myself but it pisses me off that people in power ignore those that do.
Boopop wrote:
To be honest I would imagine very few disabled cyclists use the foot tunnel because at least 50% of the time one or the other of the lifts is out of action – I believe the late lamented heavymetalhandcyclist made a number of complaints about this, regarding it – quite rightly – as a failure by the council to fulfil their statutory access obligations.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Oh I hadn’t thought of heavymetalhandcyclist in a while. 🙁 He helped me apply some pressure to get some barriers replaced with a bollard on a local cycling track, making it more accessible. RIP
How many pedestrians have
How many pedestrians have actually been injured by cyclists following a collision in the tunnel?
I started to think about how
I started to think about how isn’t “almost hitting” the same as “not hitting” and therefore “no harm / no foul”.
But then I realised that that argument is the same as motorists saying that a close pass is absolutely fine as there was no contact.
I don’t know what to think, now…
Per my other comment on
Per my other comment on “terrified” – the feeling is up to the person feeling it, though from outside it’s easy to dismiss this (“nonsense – I do it every day…”)
OTOH on a more objective level motor vehicles are just more dangerous.
…BUT we have desensitised ourselves to motor vehicles to a remarkable, if imperfect extent. And equally the presence of people on bikes is far less “familiar” than times past. Plus “cyclist” now comes with a whole bunch of negative associations (thanks meeja / some folks angling for people they can now freely hate because other avenues attract censure).
I think much of the ongoing
I think much of the ongoing concern about cyclists (while there can be genuine issues / conflict) is a manifestation of “fighting over scraps“. In a few places (mostly London?) there has been a small increase in the number of cyclists *. So more conflict (or more salience – and more sharing of stories of conflict?).
Ultimately I think this will go away if cycling as transport becomes normalised – simply because that’s what happened elsewhere **.
Further – I just don’t think that can happen without realising that we need proper provision with sufficient capacity for separate cycling and walking spaces. Which generally resolves the issues ***. (Exceptions are where e.g. pedestrians are likely to dominate – narrow city centres – or both modes will be sparse and pedestrians even sparser e.g. between towns / villages in the countryside).
* Not to be dismissive, but relative to “before” this may be significant – “cycling doubles – from 2 to 4 cyclists!”. Relative to somewhere with mass cycling? We’re still not really on the scale.
** On what evidence I’m aware of…
*** Even “but crossing the cycle path with all those bikes whizzing by”. I’d suggest this is another argument for not raising limits to speed and power assist on cycles. Yes, some cyclists (and those in velomobiles) can already get up to well over 20mph, but (measuring places) the average without assist is lower, and compatible with safe “informal crossing” – keeping everyone moving efficiently. And adding lots of power means you could then be run over by something massive…
brooksby wrote:
That’s a very fair point and one I hadn’t really considered much; I suppose the difference is that the cyclist who almost missed the pedestrian would most likely if they had made contact have given them a bruise or possibly an abrasion (not in all cases, obviously, as we know from the rare but tragic deaths of people hit by cyclists), whereas if the car that almost misses the cyclist makes contact it most likely will give them broken limbs or worse.
Why is the default assumption
Why is the default assumption of a car hitting a cyclist that the car must be doing 50mph more than the cyclist and completely mowing them down? But a cyclist hitting a pedestrian is only going slightly faster and just brushes them. In London a car cant even get to 20mph so eveyone claims.
Ive been ‘hit’ by cars twice and both time the injury i sustained was from falling to the ground, same injurys as if id been thrown off by a pothole. A cyclist clipping a ped can throw them to the ground, thats the same injury.
Why as cyclists do we insist on dismissing the risk to peds as acceptable in order to prevent inconvenience to cyclists?
STATO wrote:
It’s a reasonable question although at this point some statistics would be appropriate – i don’t have ones with enough detail.
First – I as a cyclist don’t insist on dismissing risk to peds. We should be providing suitable infra for both modes (just like anywhere they have actually succeeded in seriously increasing cycling).
We should also understand appropriate risk levels. (There seem to be lots of “could have killed me” and “terrifying” stories but yet the casualty numbers are still very low.) In general cyclists are less risk than motor vehicles. They are “new” (in numbers) and have different characteristics than cars (and BTW we should get rid of illegal electric motorbikes already!).
The problem is for generations we have literally dismissed the actual casualty numbers while minimising space for other modes in order to prevent inconvenience to motorists.
Later as we were concerned about the death toll we started reducing the risk BUT by reducing convenience for peds and cyclists in order to prevent inconvenience to motorists. (move the vulnerable road users out of the way). So that’s the background.
“Not the same” of course because pedestrians don’t tend to be going at say 12+ mph when hit by cars also moving above walking pace. Pedestrians tend to “fall over”, cyclists to “fly off”.
And whichever way you look at the collision – as energy or momentum exchange – isn’t there a mass term involved? That will be at least ten times as large for motor vehicles as for cyclists.)
As for “can’t get to 20mph” Im not sure about that but certainly the *average* vehicle speed is very low. But that is mostly because motor vehicles tend to be stationary for periods waiting at lights or a junction and then rapidly accelerate to whatever speed, maintain that then stop again.
chrisonabike wrote:
Exactly the problem, when you have a congested city drivers tend to absolutely unleash the second they get onto an open stretch or into the back streets where there are no traffic lights. Despite his name STATO doesn’t appear to have a very good grasp of statistics, if the average speed is 20 mph that means for every person crawling along at 5 mph in a traffic jam somewhere else there’s someone doing 35 mph. Also doesn’t appear to understand the difference between being hit by 100 kg at 20 mph and 2000 kg at 20 mph (note for STATO, it’s 7,800 Newtons, 100 kg at 20mph = 200n, 2000kg at same speed 8,000n).
Rendel Harris wrote:
<pedant>Not necessarily – there could be e.g. two people doing 27.5mph, etc.</pedant>
mdavidford wrote:
STATO wrote:
Why are you claiming that is my default assumption when I have said nothing of the sort? I was at pains to say that we all know that cyclists hitting pedestrians can have tragic consequences, and I have in no way dismissed the risk to pedestrians as acceptable, in fact if you look at my other posts in this thread I am all in favour of people not cycling in the tunnel. Perhaps you need to read a little more carefully before going off on one.
I think that’s fair. If
I think that’s fair. If someone gets a fright then it’s not nice, whether it’s from a bike or a lorry, and while we can talk about why some think a close pass from a bike is as frightening as a close pass from a lorry, it’s not right to dismiss the concern*.
I would say that a close pass from a large vehicle can be enough to cause the cyclist to fall off, with resulting significant injury. I’d say it’s less likely that a close pass from a cyclist will cause a pedestrian to fall and injure themselves.
* Exception for the woman campaigning against segregated bike lanes near bus stops on the news the other day who was on a very wide pavement, but stood right next to a bike lane with her back to the direction of traffic, then did a dramatic jump and clutched her heart when one whizzed past her. It would be like standing on the kerb next to a dual carriageway then getting angry at the anti-social lorry drivers making it an unpleasant experience.
Not dismissing the concern –
Not dismissing the concern – but addressing it. Addressing it however shouldn’t always simply mean “people are concerned, so ban the concerning thing”.
It’s much harder of course to a) interact with people and understand where the concern is coming from b) devise a solution which addresses both the concern and the reasons why people are doing something which concerns others c) convince people to give the new solution a try d) … and continue to monitor the situation so corrections can be made as necessary.
I’d say it’s “all things” e.g. there’s a “making infra fit for demand” (seems this tunnel is not suited to the demand for cycling – so in this case separate provision of some kind should be available) AND education (people are desensitised to motor traffic but possibly over-concerned about cycling).
This always makes me think of the responses to “people are being hit crossing the road”. Do we put up barriers to stop people crossing? Make crossing the road informally illegal (“jaywalking”)? Install a signallised crossing every half-mile? Divert pedestrians up and over a bridge / down an underpass? Consider whether we should have a through route for traffic here (or consider reducing the speed / volume of traffic)?
Meanwhile – here are people using an under-river tunnel without fear or inconvenience (because cycling and walking are completely separate). And another one (because there are separate walking and cycling areas).
I recall commuting in the
I recall commuting in the 2000’s with the manned lifts. I walked through with my bike as the lads knew who did/ didnt and I chatted with them. It was also empty. Since the 2012 olympics cycling has shot up and this is brilliant. However that tunnel was a death trap and I felt sad that so much entitled lycra were PB’ing with zero F’s given for folks in the tunnel and when challenged were so rude. Each year the cycling in london has got worse and worse and worse. No helmets, no lights, earphones in, no signlinng, traffic ping pong, red lights – F these. The world is a lot more selfish now and I side with people wanting to stop cycling through the tunnel. If you need to get to the Wharf and your’re a cycle warrior. GO over tower bridge and get your miles in. That or Walk the tunnel.
In my experience the issue
In my experience the issue isn’t lycra warriors but e bikes which make the tunnel an awful place, especially the derestricted ones that can go at a rapid speed. It’s especially bad when one of the lifts aren’t working and the Lime bikes just get dumped in the tunnel.
Death trap? What’s the body
Death trap? What’s the body count? Same old “blame cyclists” lyrics.
Issue as always is that some people can’t behave responsibly.
When I use the foot tunnel, I will ride – fast if it’s clear, slowly if there are pedestrians about and walk if it’s rammed. And I don’t appreciate the library prefects who tell me what to do.
But I can see politicians point: in such a confined space, irresponsible behaviour- riding too fast for the circumstances or deliberately walking in front of cyclists to prove a point – needs to be sanctioned or prevented
macbaby wrote:
Only one of those is breaking the law, and it’s not pedestrians. You’re actually saying that pedestrians who walk in front of cyclists who are choosing to break the law are the ones who should be sanctioned? If there are pedestrians about, just obey the law and walk. I don’t obey the law if the tunnel is completely clear but I’m not so arrogant to think that I get to judge if there are pedestrians about what level of concentration makes it acceptable for me to keep on riding, I just get off and walk. It’s 320 metres, it will cost you three minutes out of your day, are you really so busy and important that you can’t afford that?
macbaby wrote:
Sorry, duplicate post for some reason.
I’ve got the solution. Once
I’ve got the solution. Once the Silvertown tunnel is built the Rotherhithe tunnel should become a dedicated cycling tunnel. It has cycle superhighways at either side of it already so will be easy to integrate into existing cycling infrastructure.
The Rotherhithe tunnel is over 100 years old and frankly isn’t fit for purpose given how wide modern cars are. Remind anyone of another tunnel? Once it’s become a cycling tunnel they can strictly enforce no cycling in the Greenwich foot tunnel and put in barriers to their hearts content.
The cars will have the Blackwall tunnel and Silvertown tunnels so will be well served.
As an aside, as bikes are legal in the Rotherhithe tunnel, anyone actually ever tried cycling in it? I did once and I’m not sure that my lungs will ever recover.
Joe Totale wrote:
I used to ride through it occasionally on Sunday mornings when it was quiet. It was fun and seemed fine – although you don’t really know how much of what you’re breathing in. Pretty much anything larger than a car is prohibited these days, though, and exhaust emissions are much better than they used to be, so I don’t think I’ve harmed myself too much.
I’ve never cycled through the
I’ve never cycled through the Rotherhithe Tunnel but I did go through it many times on my motorbike and that was scary enough. I stopped even driving through it years ago.
It’s not really fit for purpose with regard to motor vehicle traffic and yes, I think converting it to a cycling link might be a good idea.
In my sabbatical year as a
In my sabbatical year as a motorcycle courier (2002/3) it had the nickname amongst my fellow riders of “the coffin” as in the place you are most likely to be found dead. Avoided it whenever possible, if time demands meant I had to go through there it was probably the only road in London where I felt genuinely frightened for my safety.
A guy I worked with did have
A guy I worked with did have a crash on his motorbike in the Rotherhithe Tunnel. This was a long time ago. He was lucky to survive and spent some months having a leg rebuilt.
OldRidgeback wrote:
Nasty. It was always one of my concerns riding through there that not only was I at high risk of being clobbered but also the thought of how long the emergency services would take to get to an incident in the middle of the tunnel at rush-hour.
I havent been down there for
I havent been down there for a few years; does the Woolwich ferry still run, and are you allowed on as a cyclist?
leelang229 wrote:
Yes to both. I enjoy using the Woolwich ferry but it’s not really a reasonable alternative for going to the Isle of Dogs from Greenwich or vice versa, on the Greenwich side that means either using some of the busiest and most dangerous roads in London (with some of the most ignorant drivers, I have to say) or the riverside path which is pretty shabby in places and dangerous after dark. Additionally, it’s about a 12 km trip to go around that way, fine for leisure and sport riders but a very significant and possible dealbreaking extra distance for commuters.
Rendel Harris wrote:
I have only cycled once through Greenwich, not something I wish to repeat any time soon!
I used to use the Greenwich
I used to use the Greenwich tunnel until recently and the number of arrogant people on bicycles who simply refused to walk their bikes through amazed me, whilst walking my bike through I would point out the no cycling rules and was told to f off or shut up W anchor so good luck with this latest attempt I very much doubt it will stop them.
yup…. wizzing past on +£5
yup…. wizzing past on +£5 of carbon, garmins pinging and popping up their rear ends with self importance and indignent rage that they can do what the heck they want. Zero F’s for creating a shared space. Just their own personal “I am all right Jack so F you”. Madness. No idea what makes cyclists so entitled. And this is coming from a cyclist who has commuted by bike almost exclusively since 2008 in London. Its crazy. Totally at a loss to it all. Hey ho. I just cycle safe and with respect for cyclists, cars, the highway code and of course pedestrains.
£5 of carbon? You can pay
£5 of carbon? You can pay north of 12 quid and you don’t even get wheels!
Funnily enough in my
Funnily enough in my considerable experience of using the foot tunnel the full kit expensive road bike crowd are the most likely to follow the dismount rules. The worst offenders are young lads on mountain bikes and anyone on a Lime bike or similar. Don’t let that distract you from a good old Daily Mail rant though.
I stopped usuing in 2010 and
I stopped usuing in 2010 and moved north of the river. At that time it was bankers on Carbon who wouldnt get off even if a £50 note was on the floor.
[Snip]
[Snip]
I stopped usuing in 2010 and moved north of the river.
[Snip]
You’re entire post is based on something you stopped doing nearly 15 years ago?
That makes it *totally* relevant.
He’s an obvious ‘I’m a
He’s an obvious ‘I’m a cyclist myself’ troll.
I was promenading down the
I was promenading down the Strand in a leisurely manner in my landau the other day when my coachman was forced to pull up very sharply as a hooligan on a dandyhorse shot straight across in front of me, totally disregarding the clear instructions of the peeler on crossroads duty. Scoundrel!
GWA_UK wrote:
Were you with a friend using a wheelchair at the time?
Too many years to remember
Too many years to remember walking that tunnel heading to work, but you can get some head of steam up on those slopes!
Get off and walk, only safe way to do it!
I remember when Sadiq was
I remember when Sadiq was going to build a walking and cycling bridge to Canary Wharf. Instead he built the Silvertown Motorway Tunnel and pedestrians and cyclists have to fight each other over the scraps as usual.
Carspiracy strikes again.
Carspiracy strikes again.
sounds like most drivers I
sounds like most drivers I encounter on my daily commute. Why do drivers believe they have a right to endanger cyclists. Of course everyone’s safety should be considered, but I would expect with limited funds available the priority should be on reducing the most frequent causes of serious injury and death for people just trying to get somewhere. There are thousands of videos uploaded to Operation Snap for dangerous close passes, every one of those incidents could easily have resulted in death of the cyclist and much more likely than the death of pedestrian caused by a cyclist in one of these tunnels. The vast majority of those Snap videos are disregarded by the police, but any mention of cyclists endangering pedestrians gets the Mail readers frothing at the mouth and reaching for their pitchforks.
I think that soapbox is for
I think that soapbox is for another topic.
But good of you to respect the fact that it’s all about safety.
didsthewinegeek wrote:
I disagree entirely, if a politician is going to start traducing one particular type of transport user and accusing them of putting people in danger, it’s wholly appropriate to question what that politician is doing to mitigate the dangers from the transport users who kill and seriously injure many thousands of times more people per year than the ones whom they are attacking and spending public funds to control.
Barriers that force cyclists
Barriers that force cyclists to dismount do nlt work. How about wheelchairs users? They cannot dismount, thus making the barriers a bad idea.
I’ve already seen disabled people complaining about barriers before, this is not gonna end well!