- 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
Greenwich Foot Tunnel (licensed CC BY-ND 2.0 on Flickr by Jamie Moore).jpgCouncillor calls for anti-bike barriers to prevent “dangerous” cyclists “zooming across” foot tunnel
A Tower Hamlets councillor last week claimed that there has been a surge in “illegal” and “increasingly dangerous” cycling through Greenwich foot tunnel, amid calls for any measures which would allow cyclists to ride in the tunnel – which forms part of National Cycle Route 1 – to be subject to a “rigorous” health and safety assessment.
Another member of the council 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”.
Over the past few decades, with the development of the financial district centred on Canary Wharf, London’s north-south Greenwich tunnel 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).
> Isle of Dogs fury that cyclists may be allowed to ride through Greenwich foot tunnel
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 last year 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 two years ago, 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.
> Greenwich foot tunnel bike commuters face months of carrying bikes up stairs
The proposals once again came under the microscope in a meeting of Tower Hamlets Council last week, as Tory councillor Golds claimed that 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, the News Shopper reports.
“The Greenwich Foot Tunnel is a major issue and major problem,” Gold told the council. “The issue here is the growth of illegal cycling in the foot tunnel which is increasingly dangerous.
“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.”
Golds also singled out the “irritating little Deliveroo pop-pop-pop bikes shooting through the tunnel and trying to shoot people out of the way”.
“It’s not acceptable,” he said.
Labour’s Abdal Ullah echoed the Conservative councillor’s point, and claimed that, thanks to cyclists, the tunnel was “difficult and dangerous” for those with children.
“Some think they’re not breaking the law by only putting their foot on one pedal and zooming through. They think they’re being clever. It is still breaking the law,” he said.
Ullah then called for barriers to be put in place inside the tunnel to prevent “dangerous” cycling.
“If we put barriers along our path, hopefully Greenwich will follow suit in putting up barriers that would stop people zooming across from one end of the tunnel to the other,” he said. “So I would really urge that we, as a council, write to the relevant people in Greenwich and say, look, meet us halfway.
“It’s not an attack on cyclists,” said the councillor, whose father sustained fatal injuries when he was hit by a competitor at the London Triathlon in 2009, with organisers IMG Events subsequently fined £300,000 for health and safety breaches.
“Although one killed my father, I have no grudges against cyclists. But it is dangerous, especially now with more and more people wearing headphones that you can’t hear the noise. You can’t hear the bell.”
> Children take to the barricades to save School Street
Another Labour councillor, Mufadeen Bustin, said that while views in her Island Gardens ward were split on allowing cyclists in the tunnel, she believes that the “joy” of using the tunnels is “taken away when a cyclist whizzes past, almost knocking you over”.
However, Green Party councillor Nathalie Bienfait argued that Golds’ motion and the subsequent discussion gave “unhelpful airtime to the false narrative that cyclists are fundamentally irresponsible and lawless”.
She added: ““There is no safe north-south route for cyclists or pedestrians east of Tower Bridge. The Greenwich and Woolwich foot tunnels are used daily by hundreds of commuters who are, for the most part, respectful of the safety of pedestrians.
“The idea that cyclists are fundamentally unsafe for pedestrians is simply untrue and has to be challenged.
“Enforcement of byelaws prohibiting cycling in the tunnel is definitely important, but the protection of a quick and convenient route is something that I would like to support.”
> Anti-LTN candidate elected mayor despite five-year ban for "corrupt and illegal practices"
Despite Bienfait’s plea, Kabir Ahmed, a member of Lutfur Rahman’s Aspire party and Tower Hamlets’ cabinet member for regeneration, dismissed the idea that by criticising “dangerous” cyclists in the Greenwich foot tunnel, the council was attacking everyone who rides bikes.
“I think this is a serious issue,” he said. “I’m quite surprised how a motion regarding dangerous cyclists zooming across pedestrianised areas suddenly becomes an attack on all cyclists. That’s not the case.
“If cycles need to be taken, they can walk with the cycles in their hand and carry it along just like all the other pedestrians.
“Now for me, it feels like the shoe is on the other foot because so many times we’ve had support regarding LTNs and blaming all drivers for dangerous driving and bad drivers. And now the shoe is on the other foot. We’re talking about dangerous cyclists running people over.”
Following the discussion, Tower Hamlets’ councillors voted to pass Golds’ motion calling for health and safety checks in the tunnel.
After obtaining a PhD, lecturing, and hosting a history podcast at Queen’s University Belfast, 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
- wtjs 3 sec ago
It wouldn't work at all where wtjs lives...
- Sriracha 16 min 46 sec ago
Pretty sure AI could skim through hours of footage in a few seconds to identify suspicious events. Of course someone in authority has to care in...
- chrisonabike 24 min 43 sec ago
Bonsai samurai? Or is it just a case of "they seem to get smaller every year"?
- IanGlasgow 1 hour 27 min ago
Sorry to see Endura struggling. They're based in Linvignston, not Edinburgh, which puts them very close to where I grew up....
- mdavidford 3 hours 8 min ago
I dunno - seems like it's coming round on a regular basis...
- Rich_cb 4 hours 50 min ago
The mistake is to focus on the US....
- chrisonabike 5 hours 1 min ago
I mean it seems silly to complain in detail when we're firmly in the territory in the UK of "you will have to live with this the rest of your life ...
- eburtthebike 7 hours 33 min ago
I thought students were supposed to be intelligent?
- whosatthewheel 7 hours 44 min ago
She will serve "no more than a half", so 3 years and 4 months and she is walking free. And with the practically non-existent road policing it's...
- hawkinspeter 9 hours 29 min ago
I was wondering if other countries used some kind of anti-copying technology. One type would be to use something like an RFID chip embedded into...
Add new comment
39 comments
A pretty rational opinion...considering...
“It’s not an attack on cyclists,” said the councillor, whose father sustained fatal injuries(link is external) when he was hit by a competitor at the London Triathlon in 2009, with organisers IMG Events subsequently fined £300,000 for health and safety breaches.
“Although one killed my father, I have no grudges against cyclists. But it is dangerous, especially now with more and more people wearing headphones that you can’t hear the noise. You can’t hear the bell.”
My friend was in the way of a mobility scooter, but she couldn't hear as she's deaf.
Can't rely on bells, especially if you don't know pedestrians can't hear or have poor reactions.
I used to live near the Greenwich tunnel and never had a problem walking. It's only about 4 minutes at a typical walking speed (3mph). As much time can be spent waiting for the lifts - I usually use the steps.
Cyclists "sharing space" are terrifying for vunerable pedestrians like my doddery and partially sighted members of my family - cycling on footways, should be limited to wheeling.
The full interpretation of "No Cycling" surely means a total ban of having one with you - you're not even allowed to carry a Brompton!
Rather than the negative "No Cycling," I think the signs in the tunnel should be changed to a positve: "Walk Cycles," then people will find it easier to do what's needed. Too often we use negative logic when making a point, assuming others know what we are are thinking of as the positive version - it's not always obvious to everyone.
It will be interesting to see if the Councillor gets his barriers past the 2010 Equality Act.
I guess they could use a Mansfield-style PSPO.
Or a return to the old system of refusing bikes access to the lifts if they have been "whizzing" of "zooming" inconsiderately.
As I understand it, FOGWOFT ( Friends of Greenwich and Woolwich Foot Tunnels ) spent years trying to arrange with Greenwich, Tower Hamets and Newham to arrange for considerate cycling to be allowed in the Greenwich and Woolwich foot tunnels but were unable to persuade all three councils to amend the necessary by-laws. At one stage there was a trial arrangement with green and red lights indicating when cycling was permitted and when not. In my view this could have worked well with considerate cycling permitted in quiet periods but not at busy times. It's very sad to see the negative attitude of Tower Hamlets.
As I said somewhere below, that trial arrangement worked brilliantly in my experience, cyclists were almost 100% compliant with the signage and pedestrians felt more empowered to ask people not to cycle if the red signs were lit. I remember even sending an email to Greenwich Council transportation department congratulating them on introducing such a good solution and if I recall correctly they replied that they were pleased with how well it had gone and they were hoping to make it permanent… then it disappeared, never to be seen again. I'm not sure what happened but I fear it was probably the age-old story of 1000 people saying they are happy with something being trumped by three people saying that they were almost run down by a cyclist.
If they could get on with building the Rotherhithe to Canary Wharf bridge (for pedestrians and cyclists) there won't be so much need for cyclists to use the foot tunnel. But TfL don't have the money at the moment and Canary Wharf group seem to be against the idea for some reason.
Last I heard the bridge proposal had been definitively scrapped as too expensive at £450 million plus (after they had spent over £10 million on feasibility studies of course) and they were looking into the potential of a free electric ferry service across the river, which sounds great but I haven't heard anything recently, that was over a year ago.
What would the cost be of a second tunnel for cycles next to the existing one?
£450 million sounds like London prices by a London authority. That's a significant chunk of the cost of the Channel Tunnel.
Up here, on our East Midlands Mainline direct-to-London railway station, you have to get on the train and go 20 miles to Nottingham and back to cross to the other platform. That has been the position since 1994.
£450m is a typical Khan BS used to scupper the proposal.
There is already a Rotherhithe Ferry, but Friends of Khan (=Uber) charge £4.60 one way.
Compare and contrast with Amsterdam, where the ferry link to Noord runs non stop and is free.
Having cycled through the foot tunnel for several years, my observation is that most people who cycle through are careful when there are lots of pedestrians around. There are always the minority of cyclists who behave inappropriately but I have never seen a collision of any sort.
And then there are the pedestrians who ignore the line in the middle of the tunnel ...
And those who litter ...
I notice LBTH councillors don't seem to mind their law breaking
In general, their proposals will most likely penalise those who behave appropriately and probably increase danger as cyclists attempt to navigate barriers or whatever clever infrastructure they erect to deter the undeterable
Says a lot about how our society views active travel when the conversation is entirely about pedestrians and cyclists fighting over the scraps rather than about expanding the infrastructure to meet demand like it would be with literally any other form of transport.
Next time someone brings up the eternal Heathrow expansion I'll be sure to switch the conversation to the Tower Hamlets tunnel expansion.
Oh dear, looks like the anti-cycling bingo card is going to have to be made bigger, much bigger.
I had never heard of the Aspire Party, so I googled it and was not suprised to read on Wikipedia
"Tower Hamlets First was established by Lutfur Rahman on 18 September 2013. Formerly the Labour leader of Tower Hamlets council, Rahman had been elected as Mayor in 2010. The party stood candidates in the 2014 Tower Hamlets Council election,[5][6] where it won 18 out of 45 seats, becoming the second-largest party on Tower Hamlets Council and the fifth-largest political party out of all London borough councils. The party was suspended in 23 April 2015, after an election court report that found Rahman "personally guilty of 'corrupt or illegal practices' or both" with the party labelled as a "one-man band".[7] The party was removed from the list of political parties maintained by the Electoral Commission on 29 April 2015.[8]
Following the dissolution of Tower Hamlets First, the majority of former party members established the Tower Hamlets Independent Group (THIG) to co-ordinate activity on the council. Six members subsequently left the Tower Hamlets Independent Group to form the competing People's Alliance group.[9] The remaining THIG councillors then became Aspire.[citation needed]"
There's plenty more.
It's an absolute scandal that Rahman was ever allowed to stand in an election again after being found personally guilty of corrupt and illegal practices. He was struck off as a solicitor for life, as one would expect, it's quite absurd that he was only banned from standing for public office for five years.
Rahman is pretty much single-handedly responsible for the Govt deciding to bring in voter ID.
Or is he a convenient scapegoat if too many people realise that it's equivalent to voter suppression? More specifically to put a barrier in the way of younger people voting as they are less likely to vote for the Tories which is a tactic that the Republicans in the U.S. are trying by raising the minimum voting age to 21.
Fair enough. However, pretty much all recent cases of voter fraud - where someone pretends to be a registered voter, or votes several times - have been (allegedly) connected to him.
deleted
Sounds a bit like the 'people's front of Judea' v's 'the Judean people's front'
One of the better things done by Eric Pickles - whom some on here may not like.
Has Tower Hamlets ever been run by other than crooks in the last 15 years, except when the Council was suspended?
It's interesting that the Tory Peter Golds is a spearhead against cycling - he did some really good work holding Rahman and his cronies to account.
That plays into my belief that the Conservatives are preparing to use LTNs and Active Travel as a wedge issue in some places, especially South East Nimbyland.
Aargh! Beetlejuice!
Preparing?! Some places?!
I don't want to get party political - although some Conservatives are loudly and proudly anti in a big way no main party is particularly "keen" on cycling that I'm aware of (Greens possible exception?). The cynic says it's just a convenient "don't really care" issue for most politicians. It's mostly handy to attack an opponent with if they do something positive. You can always spin it as "favouring the few vs. the many" or "good idea but it not right for here or now" or just "blocking progress, the cars and endangering pedestrians". Or - more rarely - can be leveraged positively for "green points" or "soft / local good news" stories without much cost.
eg In my area it's the Tory County Council who are promoting active travel work, and local Ashfield Independents (ex-LibDems) who are weaponising it as a wedge issue ("spend the money on potholes").
Could the pedestrians wear hi-viz and helmets, so they can be seen and safe?
That implies if there's a speeding hi Viz approaching, one must leap out of the way.
Er... How so?
It's always "zooming" isn't it? To be fair zooming can be problematic.
I assume that using Teams is acceptable though.
Regardless what you use it eventually leads to Discord
Some think they’re not breaking the law by only putting their foot on one pedal and zooming through. They think they’re being clever. It is still breaking the law
It's curious, this insistence that the letter of the law must be strictly observed by cyclists, Or Else!, yet motorists going through red lights or using handhelds while driving is condoned by the police and the general public on the grounds that 'everybody does it'.
https://upride.cc/incident/t90jdt_audiwithcaravan_rljatspeed/
This isn't about motorists so why use them to defend an argument in this instance?
Too narrow for pleasant and efficient cycling AND walking? Important route for cycling? Just build another tunnel! (It's what we'd do for motor vehicles if things get busy...)
If there are very few pedestrians (maybe the tunnel is long?) and not *too* many cyclists then both can co-exist. Just designate this a cycling tunnel with (as is always the case) pedestrians permitted, like they do in the Dutch countryside. If we just can't sort it out (now) maybe have certain times where it's one mode only?
This is pretty much exactly what happened with the trial scheme some years ago: it can be very busy with pedestrians, particularly in the summer months. The trial scheme installed sensors which identified the amount of traffic and the signs would flash up either "cyclists dismount" or "cycle with caution". It worked absolutely fine and as far as I could see (I go through there a couple of times a week in the summer, probably) created almost 100% compliance.
Pages