“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 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 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 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.

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.

Being hit by a bar end or brake handle at 10 mph or more, backed by 80 kg or so of bike and cyclist can cause real damage! Fear of such a collision is well justified and a cycling ban, particularly in the much shorter Greenwich tunnel is not unreasonable.

What are the chances of being hit by a car in the Greenwich foot tunnel?

Dnnnnnn wrote:

What are the chances of being hit by a car in the Greenwich foot tunnel?

It depends- how big are the lifts?

Well yes, being hit by a bike is better than being hit by a car in the same way that being hit by a car is usually better than being hit by a lorry. Personally, I prefer not to be hit by anything...

If we want people to take our safety as cyclists seriously we do have to take the safety of others seriously too. Otherwise people might have some vague point when they give us grief. 

mctrials23 wrote:

If we want people to take our safety as cyclists seriously we do have to take the safety of others seriously too. Otherwise people might have some vague point when they give us grief. 

Most people who give cyclists grief will do so regardless of how much cyclists, in general take care around them.

But in any case, avoiding the possibility of someone giving you grief seems like pretty poor motivation for treating people with respect and caring about their safety - you ought to be doing that just because it's what a decent human being would do.

Brauchsel wrote:

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.

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:

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.

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.

"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 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 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. Terrifying for pregnant women, folk with pushchairs, hard of hearing, partially sighted, anyone not sprightly

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:

Ferries are an option other places have chosen (spectacular example here), I imagine that's not cheap either though.

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 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

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:

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 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:

Perfectly good Ferry at Woolwich.

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:

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.

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 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 better for about 10 years longer. Now at least as bad, not least since it's much narrower and longer