- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Greenwich Foot Tunnel (The Diving Journo)“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
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”.
Ryan joined road.cc in December 2021 and since then has kept the site’s readers and listeners informed and enthralled (well at least occasionally) on news, the live blog, and the road.cc Podcast. After boarding a wrong bus at the world championships and ruining a good pair of jeans at the cyclocross, he now serves as road.cc’s senior news writer. Before his foray into cycling journalism, he wallowed in the equally pitiless world of academia, where he wrote a book about Victorian politics and droned on about cycling and bikes to classes of bored students (while taking every chance he could get to talk about cycling in print or on the radio). He can be found riding his bike very slowly around the narrow, scenic country lanes of Co. Down.
Latest Comments
- EM69 5 min 52 sec ago
Never ceases to amaze me how much these projects cost, who's building it? Fat Tony?
- eburtthebike 6 min 38 sec ago
An improvement on the BBC's normal reporting, saying that the cyclist was struck by the van, not "....in collision with..." The BBC are getting...
- Cayo 17 min 48 sec ago
Flippin' cars, they're a menace to society! 🙄
- Steve K 22 min 27 sec ago
A white almost middle aged friend of mine reckons he got less fit and put on weight when he played loads of golf (mainly because of the 19th hole)...
- eburtthebike 32 min 5 sec ago
This is mostly good news, with most people finally realising that we need to get past the great car culture of the 20th century. I'm sure that...
- chrisonabike 1 hour 17 min ago
Yes... all this is good. And I agree that the Cycle to Work scheme is ... wonky, and has massive gaps....
- Rendel Harris 1 hour 25 min ago
Outside Starbucks?
- NPlus1Bikelights 2 hours 10 min ago
You just hamster them, one in each cheek.
- FionaJJ 2 hours 26 min ago
Notable that one of the big objections was that the pedestrian crossing would inconvenience drivers, and lead to them (through no fault of their...
- perce 3 hours 2 min ago
Let's apply the same to drivers - the roads will be nice and quiet then.
Add new comment
94 comments
How many pedestrians have actually been injured by cyclists following a collision in the tunnel?
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 "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 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...
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 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?
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.
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).
<pedant>Not necessarily - there could be e.g. two people doing 27.5mph, etc.</pedant>
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 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 - 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).
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.
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.
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
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?”
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 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-antw...
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.
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.
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..
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.
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
Women and cyclists, eh? They're mental.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w
"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 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.
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 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 ?
Pages