Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [greenwichcyclists] Re: Barriers in the Foot Tunnels

Expand Messages
  • Sally Eva
    If they cause queues at times, how about suggesting that they are a hazard and trying to get the support of the Fire Brigade Sally
    Message 1 of 27 , Aug 22, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      If they cause queues at times, how about suggesting that they are a
      hazard and trying to get the support of the Fire Brigade
      Sally

      On 22/08/2013 22:22, Bryce Kampjes wrote:
      > I agree as well and thanks Tom.
      >
      > I sent in a suggestion that they be removed to the cheap improvements suggestions back in May on the basis that they make it difficult for people with tag-alongs and child trailers. This got a polite reply from the council but no promises of more than a review and some consideration.
      >
      > Bryce
      >
      > --- In greenwichcyclists@yahoogroups.com, Dalla Jenney <dallajenney@...> wrote:
      >> I completely agree with your sentiment that these barriers make the foot
      >> tunnel tricky to negotiate for those with mobility problems. Even with a
      >> single bicycle with panniers I often find I clip my leg with a pedal at
      >> some point twisting around them (minor, I know, but quite painful!).
      >>
      >> Thanks for pursuing this: the barriers seem to be unnecessarily obtrusive
      >> and to impede legitimate users of the tunnel. They also cause small queues
      >> at busy times.
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >> On 22 August 2013 11:23, Tom Crispin <tom@...> wrote:
      >>
      >>> **
      >>>
      >>>
      >>> I have now twice asked public questions of the council about the
      >>> anti-accessibility barriers in the Greenwich.
      >>>
      >>> The first question was put to the council about ten months ago on 31
      >>> October 2012:
      >>>
      >>> ======================
      >>> Question from Tom Crispin, Plumstead [sic], to Councillor Denise
      >>> Hyland, Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Enterprise and Skills.
      >>>
      >>> I am delighted that the lifts at the Greenwich Foot Tunnel have
      >>> reopened, and the tunnel is once again accessible for wheelchair
      >>> users, people with single, double and triple buggies, those requiring
      >>> mobility scooters, pedestrians with tandem cycles, and pedestrians
      >>> with cycles hauling trailers.
      >>>
      >>> What impact do the anti-cycling barriers installed in the tunnel have
      >>> on those users, and what, if any, are the legal restrictions on
      >>> mobility scooters, and pedestrians with cycles hauling trailers in the
      >>> tunnel? (Please note that the foot tunnels are part of the National
      >>> Cycle Network Route 1, Dover to Shetland, and long distance
      >>> cyclists hauling trailers are to be expected to use the tunnel.)
      >>>
      >>> Reply –
      >>> I thank Mr Crispin for his question.
      >>> The foot tunnels are covered by bye-laws which prohibit cycling within
      >>> the tunnels. There are no restrictions on mobility scooters, wheel
      >>> chair users or people with buggies. Similarly there are no
      >>> restrictions on cyclists with trailers provided they are being pushed
      >>> through the tunnels. The barriers have been in place for a number of
      >>> months and the Council is shortly to commence a review of their
      >>> effectiveness. There are indications the barriers have had some
      >>> impact, particularly in slowing down cyclists, but that a number of
      >>> cyclists are still ignoring the bye-laws by cycling up to and after
      >>> the barriers.
      >>>
      >>> The review will assess the impact of the barriers on all users of the
      >>> tunnel – cyclists and pedestrians including those with disabilities.
      >>> It will also consider alternative ways of enforcing the bye-laws. The
      >>> recommendations flowing from that review will be shared with user
      >>> groups before any changes are implemented.
      >>> ======================
      >>>
      >>> Predictably I heard nothing more of this review, so I asked a second
      >>> question more recently on 31 July 2013
      >>>
      >>> ======================
      >>> Question from Tom Crispin, Lee, to Councillor Denise Hyland,
      >>> Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Enterprise and Skills.
      >>>
      >>> In a reply to a question from me (31/10/12 Q6) in relation to the
      >>> barriers in the Greenwich Foot Tunnel, we were informed of an imminent
      >>> review of these barriers, and the effect they have had on foot tunnel
      >>> users, especially those with special needs, i.e. mobility scooter
      >>> users, triple buggy users, pedestrians pushing cycles with loads, etc.
      >>> What was the result of this review?
      >>>
      >>> Reply-
      >>> I thank Tom Crispin for his question.
      >>>
      >>> The foot tunnels are jointly owned by Greenwich and the Boroughs of
      >>> Newham and Tower Hamlets - although managed and operated by us.
      >>> It is essential that any changes to the barriers are undertaken with
      >>> the agreement of Newham and Tower Hamlets. Officers have written to
      >>> both Boroughs with details of the review and are currently awaiting
      >>> their responses. As soon as their responses have been received the
      >>> review will be concluded and will be shared with Mr Crispin and other
      >>> interested parties. This is likely to be in September.
      >>> ======================
      >>>
      >>> It seems likely to me that no review has (or had) been carried out
      >>> prior to my submission of the second question. What further question
      >>> should I ask of the council, given that my aim is to have these
      >>> barriers to accessibility removed?
      >>>
      >>> ----------------------
      >>>
      >>> In a separate and unrelated question to the council, I learnt that the
      >>> Foxhole Underpass in Eltham, providing a safe route between the local
      >>> housing estate and Eltham bus and railway stations, was closed under
      >>> Section 69 of the Highways Act. This right-of-way existed for at least
      >>> 150 years, and there is no alternative provision. Have Greenwich
      >>> Council acted correctly by using Section 69 of the Highways Act to
      >>> stop up this right of way?
      >>> Google streetview images:
      >>> http://goo.gl/maps/6HuLb
      >>> http://goo.gl/maps/dHH7E
      >>>
      >>>
      >>>
      >
      >
      >
      > ------------------------------------
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > -----
      > No virus found in this message.
      > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
      > Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 3211/6599 - Release Date: 08/22/13
      >
      >
      >
    • <Nick.Williams@...>
      Rather than banning or trying fruitlessly to block or cycling we should be asking the Council to consider a something more radical. The tunnel is a shared
      Message 2 of 27 , Aug 29, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Rather than banning or trying fruitlessly to block or cycling we should be asking the Council to consider a something more radical. The tunnel is a shared space, and sometimes it's not practical or sensible to cycle, but other times its perfectly OK. I think we should try to encourage the Council to experiment with a sort of 'respect zone' which encourages people simply to take good care of each other i.e. cyclists cycle considerately and safely and pedestrians respect their right to do so.



        -----Original Message-----
        From: greenwichcyclists@yahoogroups.com [mailto:greenwichcyclists@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Sally Eva
        Sent: 23 August 2013 06:36
        To: greenwichcyclists@yahoogroups.com
        Cc: Bryce Kampjes
        Subject: Re: [greenwichcyclists] Re: Barriers in the Foot Tunnels

        If they cause queues at times, how about suggesting that they are a
        hazard and trying to get the support of the Fire Brigade
        Sally

        On 22/08/2013 22:22, Bryce Kampjes wrote:
        > I agree as well and thanks Tom.
        >
        > I sent in a suggestion that they be removed to the cheap improvements suggestions back in May on the basis that they make it difficult for people with tag-alongs and child trailers. This got a polite reply from the council but no promises of more than a review and some consideration.
        >
        > Bryce
        >
        > --- In greenwichcyclists@yahoogroups.com, Dalla Jenney <dallajenney@...> wrote:
        >> I completely agree with your sentiment that these barriers make the foot
        >> tunnel tricky to negotiate for those with mobility problems. Even with a
        >> single bicycle with panniers I often find I clip my leg with a pedal at
        >> some point twisting around them (minor, I know, but quite painful!).
        >>
        >> Thanks for pursuing this: the barriers seem to be unnecessarily obtrusive
        >> and to impede legitimate users of the tunnel. They also cause small queues
        >> at busy times.
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >> On 22 August 2013 11:23, Tom Crispin <tom@...> wrote:
        >>
        >>> **
        >>>
        >>>
        >>> I have now twice asked public questions of the council about the
        >>> anti-accessibility barriers in the Greenwich.
        >>>
        >>> The first question was put to the council about ten months ago on 31
        >>> October 2012:
        >>>
        >>> ======================
        >>> Question from Tom Crispin, Plumstead [sic], to Councillor Denise
        >>> Hyland, Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Enterprise and Skills.
        >>>
        >>> I am delighted that the lifts at the Greenwich Foot Tunnel have
        >>> reopened, and the tunnel is once again accessible for wheelchair
        >>> users, people with single, double and triple buggies, those requiring
        >>> mobility scooters, pedestrians with tandem cycles, and pedestrians
        >>> with cycles hauling trailers.
        >>>
        >>> What impact do the anti-cycling barriers installed in the tunnel have
        >>> on those users, and what, if any, are the legal restrictions on
        >>> mobility scooters, and pedestrians with cycles hauling trailers in the
        >>> tunnel? (Please note that the foot tunnels are part of the National
        >>> Cycle Network Route 1, Dover to Shetland, and long distance
        >>> cyclists hauling trailers are to be expected to use the tunnel.)
        >>>
        >>> Reply -
        >>> I thank Mr Crispin for his question.
        >>> The foot tunnels are covered by bye-laws which prohibit cycling within
        >>> the tunnels. There are no restrictions on mobility scooters, wheel
        >>> chair users or people with buggies. Similarly there are no
        >>> restrictions on cyclists with trailers provided they are being pushed
        >>> through the tunnels. The barriers have been in place for a number of
        >>> months and the Council is shortly to commence a review of their
        >>> effectiveness. There are indications the barriers have had some
        >>> impact, particularly in slowing down cyclists, but that a number of
        >>> cyclists are still ignoring the bye-laws by cycling up to and after
        >>> the barriers.
        >>>
        >>> The review will assess the impact of the barriers on all users of the
        >>> tunnel - cyclists and pedestrians including those with disabilities.
        >>> It will also consider alternative ways of enforcing the bye-laws. The
        >>> recommendations flowing from that review will be shared with user
        >>> groups before any changes are implemented.
        >>> ======================
        >>>
        >>> Predictably I heard nothing more of this review, so I asked a second
        >>> question more recently on 31 July 2013
        >>>
        >>> ======================
        >>> Question from Tom Crispin, Lee, to Councillor Denise Hyland,
        >>> Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Enterprise and Skills.
        >>>
        >>> In a reply to a question from me (31/10/12 Q6) in relation to the
        >>> barriers in the Greenwich Foot Tunnel, we were informed of an imminent
        >>> review of these barriers, and the effect they have had on foot tunnel
        >>> users, especially those with special needs, i.e. mobility scooter
        >>> users, triple buggy users, pedestrians pushing cycles with loads, etc.
        >>> What was the result of this review?
        >>>
        >>> Reply-
        >>> I thank Tom Crispin for his question.
        >>>
        >>> The foot tunnels are jointly owned by Greenwich and the Boroughs of
        >>> Newham and Tower Hamlets - although managed and operated by us.
        >>> It is essential that any changes to the barriers are undertaken with
        >>> the agreement of Newham and Tower Hamlets. Officers have written to
        >>> both Boroughs with details of the review and are currently awaiting
        >>> their responses. As soon as their responses have been received the
        >>> review will be concluded and will be shared with Mr Crispin and other
        >>> interested parties. This is likely to be in September.
        >>> ======================
        >>>
        >>> It seems likely to me that no review has (or had) been carried out
        >>> prior to my submission of the second question. What further question
        >>> should I ask of the council, given that my aim is to have these
        >>> barriers to accessibility removed?
        >>>
        >>> ----------------------
        >>>
        >>> In a separate and unrelated question to the council, I learnt that the
        >>> Foxhole Underpass in Eltham, providing a safe route between the local
        >>> housing estate and Eltham bus and railway stations, was closed under
        >>> Section 69 of the Highways Act. This right-of-way existed for at least
        >>> 150 years, and there is no alternative provision. Have Greenwich
        >>> Council acted correctly by using Section 69 of the Highways Act to
        >>> stop up this right of way?
        >>> Google streetview images:
        >>> http://goo.gl/maps/6HuLb
        >>> http://goo.gl/maps/dHH7E
        >>>
        >>>
        >>>
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > -----
        > No virus found in this message.
        > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
        > Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 3211/6599 - Release Date: 08/22/13
        >
        >
        >



        ------------------------------------

        Yahoo! Groups Links




        ________________________________

        NOTE: This communication is sent for and on behalf of the London Borough of Newham.
        However the views expressed within it are not necessarily the views or policies of the Council. The unauthorised use, disclosure, copying or alteration of this communication and any attachments is forbidden. This communication and any attachments are intended for the addressee only and may be confidential. If this has come to you in error you should immediately permanently destroy it.
        You should take no action based on it or copy or show it to anyone and telephone the Council immediately with any issues on 020 8430 2000 or any other number provided in the communication. Please note that electronic communication is not considered a secure medium for sending information and therefore maybe at risk.
        We advise that you understand and accept this lack of security when using this form of communication with us. Although we have taken steps to ensure that this email and attachments are free from any virus, we advise that in keeping with good computing practice the recipient should ensure they are actually virus free and should run current anti-virus software. Please note that email may be monitored and checked to safeguard the council network from viruses, hoax messages or abuse of the Council's systems. Action may be taken against any malicious and deliberate attempts to infect the council network.
        The information contained in this email maybe subject to public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Unless the information is legally exempt from disclosure the confidentiality of this email and your reply cannot be guaranteed.
      • Francis Sedgemore
        ... At the risk of sounding like a killjoy for the second time in one evening, I have to say that I would be opposed to any relaxation of the cycling ban in
        Message 3 of 27 , Aug 29, 2013
        • 0 Attachment

          On 29 Aug 13, at 19:37, Nick.Williams@... wrote:

          Rather than banning or trying fruitlessly to block or cycling we should be asking the Council to consider a something more radical. The tunnel is a shared space, and sometimes it's not practical or sensible to cycle, but other times its perfectly OK. I think we should try to encourage the Council to experiment with a sort of 'respect zone' which encourages people simply to take good care of each other i.e. cyclists cycle considerately and safely and pedestrians respect their right to do so.

          At the risk of sounding like a killjoy for the second time in one evening, I have to say that I would be opposed to any relaxation of the cycling ban in the Greenwich and Woolwich Foot Tunnels. I do not see how it would be feasible to define, implement and police any such "respect zone".

          The tunnels are a severely constricted space, oftentimes with a very high density of pedestrian traffic. With such close walls and ceilings, and little light, the tunnels can be sensorily confusing, and there is no escape route when pedestrians get caught up with cyclists, and vice versa.

          There is simply not enough space for cycling alongside pedestrians. If the tunnels were completely empty of bipeds, I could see some justification for cycling, but then it should be a case of the council explicitly not enforcing the bylaw on those occasions, rather than sanctioning cycling at all times. Better to leave things as they are, in my view.

          When the tunnels are empty of pedestrians, or there are very few walking through them, I will still not cycle through the tunnels as it sets a bad example. For the same reason I always stop at red lights, even when there is no cross traffic to be seen. We should be reinforcing good behaviour, not bad.

          Francis

          -- 
          Dr Francis Sedgemore
          journalist, writer and physicist
          telephone: +44 7840 191336
          website: sedgemore.com

        • Liz Delap
          I m with Francis on all this, red lights, junctions and the tunnel. I used the tunnel last Friday and challenged cyclists who were riding (you shouldn t be
          Message 4 of 27 , Aug 29, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            I'm with Francis on all this, red lights, junctions and the tunnel.

            I used the tunnel last Friday and challenged cyclists who were riding (you shouldn't be riding here).  None got off, but none said anything rude in response.  I do believe it may make some feel a bit uncomfortable and maybe reconsider their usual practice.  Some will almost certainly not, but it could lead to a change in perception about what is acceptable.

            Kind regards.

            Liz

            On 29 Aug 2013, at 21:45, "Francis Sedgemore" <francis@...> wrote:

             


            On 29 Aug 13, at 19:37, Nick.Williams@... wrote:

            Rather than banning or trying fruitlessly to block or cycling we should be asking the Council to consider a something more radical. The tunnel is a shared space, and sometimes it's not practical or sensible to cycle, but other times its perfectly OK. I think we should try to encourage the Council to experiment with a sort of 'respect zone' which encourages people simply to take good care of each other i.e. cyclists cycle considerately and safely and pedestrians respect their right to do so.

            At the risk of sounding like a killjoy for the second time in one evening, I have to say that I would be opposed to any relaxation of the cycling ban in the Greenwich and Woolwich Foot Tunnels. I do not see how it would be feasible to define, implement and police any such "respect zone".

            The tunnels are a severely constricted space, oftentimes with a very high density of pedestrian traffic. With such close walls and ceilings, and little light, the tunnels can be sensorily confusing, and there is no escape route when pedestrians get caught up with cyclists, and vice versa.

            There is simply not enough space for cycling alongside pedestrians. If the tunnels were completely empty of bipeds, I could see some justification for cycling, but then it should be a case of the council explicitly not enforcing the bylaw on those occasions, rather than sanctioning cycling at all times. Better to leave things as they are, in my view.

            When the tunnels are empty of pedestrians, or there are very few walking through them, I will still not cycle through the tunnels as it sets a bad example. For the same reason I always stop at red lights, even when there is no cross traffic to be seen. We should be reinforcing good behaviour, not bad.

            Francis

            -- 
            Dr Francis Sedgemore
            journalist, writer and physicist
            telephone: +44 7840 191336
            website: sedgemore.com

            Page Title

            * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

            This email may contain information that is confidential, privileged or otherwise protected from

            disclosure. If you are not an intended recipient of this email, do not duplicate or redistribute it

            by any means. Please delete it and any attachments and notify the sender that you have received

            it in error.

             

            Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent

            those of TESLA, Inc. or TESLA (Europe) Ltd.

             

            TESLA, Inc. is a company incorporated in the Commonwealth of Virginia, with its registered office

            at 9201 Arboretum Parkway, Suite 120, Richmond, VA 23236-5403, USA.

            TESLA (Europe) Ltd. is a company registered in England (Registered No. 2777311), with its

            registered office at 42-43 Lower Marsh, London, SE1 7RG, UK.

             

            * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

          • Anthony Austin
            Thanks Nick and I will raise this again with council officers; perhaps we could seek to relax the ban on cycling during the morning rush hours when it s mostly
            Message 5 of 27 , Aug 30, 2013
            • 0 Attachment

              Thanks Nick and I will raise this again with council officers; perhaps we could seek to relax the ban on cycling during the morning rush hours when it’s mostly northbound cyclists.

               

              From: greenwichcyclists@yahoogroups.com [mailto:greenwichcyclists@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Nick.Williams@...
              Sent: 29 August 2013 19:38
              To: greenwichcyclists@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: RE: [greenwichcyclists] Re: Barriers in the Foot Tunnels

               

               


              Rather than banning or trying fruitlessly to block or cycling we should be asking the Council to consider a something more radical. The tunnel is a shared space, and sometimes it's not practical or sensible to cycle, but other times its perfectly OK. I think we should try to encourage the Council to experiment with a sort of 'respect zone' which encourages people simply to take good care of each other i.e. cyclists cycle considerately and safely and pedestrians respect their right to do so.

              -----Original Message-----
              From: greenwichcyclists@yahoogroups.com [mailto:greenwichcyclists@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Sally Eva
              Sent: 23 August 2013 06:36
              To: greenwichcyclists@yahoogroups.com
              Cc: Bryce Kampjes
              Subject: Re: [greenwichcyclists] Re: Barriers in the Foot Tunnels

              If they cause queues at times, how about suggesting that they are a
              hazard and trying to get the support of the Fire Brigade
              Sally

              On 22/08/2013 22:22, Bryce Kampjes wrote:
              > I agree as well and thanks Tom.
              >
              > I sent in a suggestion that they be removed to the cheap improvements suggestions back in May on the basis that they make it difficult for people with tag-alongs and child trailers. This got a polite reply from the council but no promises of more than a review and some consideration.
              >
              > Bryce
              >
              > --- In greenwichcyclists@yahoogroups.com, Dalla Jenney <dallajenney@...> wrote:
              >> I completely agree with your sentiment that these barriers make the foot
              >> tunnel tricky to negotiate for those with mobility problems. Even with a
              >> single bicycle with panniers I often find I clip my leg with a pedal at
              >> some point twisting around them (minor, I know, but quite painful!).
              >>
              >> Thanks for pursuing this: the barriers seem to be unnecessarily obtrusive
              >> and to impede legitimate users of the tunnel. They also cause small queues
              >> at busy times.
              >>
              >>
              >>
              >> On 22 August 2013 11:23, Tom Crispin <tom@...> wrote:
              >>
              >>> **
              >>>
              >>>
              >>> I have now twice asked public questions of the council about the
              >>> anti-accessibility barriers in the Greenwich.
              >>>
              >>> The first question was put to the council about ten months ago on 31
              >>> October 2012:
              >>>
              >>> ======================
              >>> Question from Tom Crispin, Plumstead [sic], to Councillor Denise
              >>> Hyland, Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Enterprise and Skills.
              >>>
              >>> I am delighted that the lifts at the Greenwich Foot Tunnel have
              >>> reopened, and the tunnel is once again accessible for wheelchair
              >>> users, people with single, double and triple buggies, those requiring
              >>> mobility scooters, pedestrians with tandem cycles, and pedestrians
              >>> with cycles hauling trailers.
              >>>
              >>> What impact do the anti-cycling barriers installed in the tunnel have
              >>> on those users, and what, if any, are the legal restrictions on
              >>> mobility scooters, and pedestrians with cycles hauling trailers in the
              >>> tunnel? (Please note that the foot tunnels are part of the National
              >>> Cycle Network Route 1, Dover to Shetland, and long distance
              >>> cyclists hauling trailers are to be expected to use the tunnel.)
              >>>
              >>> Reply -
              >>> I thank Mr Crispin for his question.
              >>> The foot tunnels are covered by bye-laws which prohibit cycling within
              >>> the tunnels. There are no restrictions on mobility scooters, wheel
              >>> chair users or people with buggies. Similarly there are no
              >>> restrictions on cyclists with trailers provided they are being pushed
              >>> through the tunnels. The barriers have been in place for a number of
              >>> months and the Council is shortly to commence a review of their
              >>> effectiveness. There are indications the barriers have had some
              >>> impact, particularly in slowing down cyclists, but that a number of
              >>> cyclists are still ignoring the bye-laws by cycling up to and after
              >>> the barriers.
              >>>
              >>> The review will assess the impact of the barriers on all users of the
              >>> tunnel - cyclists and pedestrians including those with disabilities.
              >>> It will also consider alternative ways of enforcing the bye-laws. The
              >>> recommendations flowing from that review will be shared with user
              >>> groups before any changes are implemented.
              >>> ======================
              >>>
              >>> Predictably I heard nothing more of this review, so I asked a second
              >>> question more recently on 31 July 2013
              >>>
              >>> ======================
              >>> Question from Tom Crispin, Lee, to Councillor Denise Hyland,
              >>> Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Enterprise and Skills.
              >>>
              >>> In a reply to a question from me (31/10/12 Q6) in relation to the
              >>> barriers in the Greenwich Foot Tunnel, we were informed of an imminent
              >>> review of these barriers, and the effect they have had on foot tunnel
              >>> users, especially those with special needs, i.e. mobility scooter
              >>> users, triple buggy users, pedestrians pushing cycles with loads, etc.
              >>> What was the result of this review?
              >>>
              >>> Reply-
              >>> I thank Tom Crispin for his question.
              >>>
              >>> The foot tunnels are jointly owned by Greenwich and the Boroughs of
              >>> Newham and Tower Hamlets - although managed and operated by us.
              >>> It is essential that any changes to the barriers are undertaken with
              >>> the agreement of Newham and Tower Hamlets. Officers have written to
              >>> both Boroughs with details of the review and are currently awaiting
              >>> their responses. As soon as their responses have been received the
              >>> review will be concluded and will be shared with Mr Crispin and other
              >>> interested parties. This is likely to be in September.
              >>> ======================
              >>>
              >>> It seems likely to me that no review has (or had) been carried out
              >>> prior to my submission of the second question. What further question
              >>> should I ask of the council, given that my aim is to have these
              >>> barriers to accessibility removed?
              >>>
              >>> ----------------------
              >>>
              >>> In a separate and unrelated question to the council, I learnt that the
              >>> Foxhole Underpass in Eltham, providing a safe route between the local
              >>> housing estate and Eltham bus and railway stations, was closed under
              >>> Section 69 of the Highways Act. This right-of-way existed for at least
              >>> 150 years, and there is no alternative provision. Have Greenwich
              >>> Council acted correctly by using Section 69 of the Highways Act to
              >>> stop up this right of way?
              >>> Google streetview images:
              >>> http://goo.gl/maps/6HuLb
              >>> http://goo.gl/maps/dHH7E
              >>>
              >>>
              >>>
              >
              >
              >
              > ------------------------------------
              >
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > -----
              > No virus found in this message.
              > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
              > Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 3211/6599 - Release Date: 08/22/13
              >
              >
              >

              ------------------------------------

              Yahoo! Groups Links

              ________________________________

              NOTE: This communication is sent for and on behalf of the London Borough of Newham.
              However the views expressed within it are not necessarily the views or policies of the Council. The unauthorised use, disclosure, copying or alteration of this communication and any attachments is forbidden. This communication and any attachments are intended for the addressee only and may be confidential. If this has come to you in error you should immediately permanently destroy it.
              You should take no action based on it or copy or show it to anyone and telephone the Council immediately with any issues on 020 8430 2000 or any other number provided in the communication. Please note that electronic communication is not considered a secure medium for sending information and therefore maybe at risk.
              We advise that you understand and accept this lack of security when using this form of communication with us. Although we have taken steps to ensure that this email and attachments are free from any virus, we advise that in keeping with good computing practice the recipient should ensure they are actually virus free and should run current anti-virus software. Please note that email may be monitored and checked to safeguard the council network from viruses, hoax messages or abuse of the Council's systems. Action may be taken against any malicious and deliberate attempts to infect the council network.
              The information contained in this email maybe subject to public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Unless the information is legally exempt from disclosure the confidentiality of this email and your reply cannot be guaranteed.

            • Sally Eva
              I always stop at red lights and have a rest. When the lights change I cycle away slowly because that s how I cycle and motorists want me to be law-abiding
              Message 6 of 27 , Aug 30, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                I always stop at red lights and have a rest. When the lights change I cycle away slowly because that's how I cycle and motorists want me to be law-abiding

                Sally

                On 29/08/2013 21:45, Francis Sedgemore wrote:

                On 29 Aug 13, at 19:37, Nick.Williams@... wrote:

                Rather than banning or trying fruitlessly to block or cycling we should be asking the Council to consider a something more radical. The tunnel is a shared space, and sometimes it's not practical or sensible to cycle, but other times its perfectly OK. I think we should try to encourage the Council to experiment with a sort of 'respect zone' which encourages people simply to take good care of each other i.e. cyclists cycle considerately and safely and pedestrians respect their right to do so.

                At the risk of sounding like a killjoy for the second time in one evening, I have to say that I would be opposed to any relaxation of the cycling ban in the Greenwich and Woolwich Foot Tunnels. I do not see how it would be feasible to define, implement and police any such "respect zone".

                The tunnels are a severely constricted space, oftentimes with a very high density of pedestrian traffic. With such close walls and ceilings, and little light, the tunnels can be sensorily confusing, and there is no escape route when pedestrians get caught up with cyclists, and vice versa.

                There is simply not enough space for cycling alongside pedestrians. If the tunnels were completely empty of bipeds, I could see some justification for cycling, but then it should be a case of the council explicitly not enforcing the bylaw on those occasions, rather than sanctioning cycling at all times. Better to leave things as they are, in my view.

                When the tunnels are empty of pedestrians, or there are very few walking through them, I will still not cycle through the tunnels as it sets a bad example. For the same reason I always stop at red lights, even when there is no cross traffic to be seen. We should be reinforcing good behaviour, not bad.

                Francis

                -- 
                Dr Francis Sedgemore
                journalist, writer and physicist
                telephone: +44 7840 191336
                website: sedgemore.com

                No virus found in this message.
                Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3211/6620 - Release Date: 08/29/13


              • zenboy11
                Thoroughly agree. I always stop at red lights too, and walk my bike through Greenwich Tunnel. However, I am frequently overtaken by selfish and impatient
                Message 7 of 27 , Aug 31, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  Thoroughly agree. I always stop at red lights too, and walk my bike through Greenwich Tunnel. However, I am frequently overtaken by selfish and impatient cyclists. How can they be persuaded to walk their bikes through the tunnel too? This includes scooting along with one or two feet on one pedal.

                  Perhaps a regular but random posse of Greenwich/Newham council people and/or [transport] police doing instant fines at both ends of the tunnel - just as there is for fare dodgers on the tube and train? Initially that would be a real money earner.

                  Does the legislation include fining for cycling through the tunnel? If so, there should be. Also Transport Police should be involved.


                  From: Francis Sedgemore <francis@...>
                  To: greenwichcyclists@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 9:45 PM
                  Subject: Re: [greenwichcyclists] Barriers in the Foot Tunnels




                  On 29 Aug 13, at 19:37, Nick.Williams@... wrote:

                  Rather than banning or trying fruitlessly to block or cycling we should be asking the Council to consider a something more radical. The tunnel is a shared space, and sometimes it's not practical or sensible to cycle, but other times its perfectly OK. I think we should try to encourage the Council to experiment with a sort of 'respect zone' which encourages people simply to take good care of each other i.e. cyclists cycle considerately and safely and pedestrians respect their right to do so.

                  At the risk of sounding like a killjoy for the second time in one evening, I have to say that I would be opposed to any relaxation of the cycling ban in the Greenwich and Woolwich Foot Tunnels. I do not see how it would be feasible to define, implement and police any such "respect zone".

                  The tunnels are a severely constricted space, oftentimes with a very high density of pedestrian traffic. With such close walls and ceilings, and little light, the tunnels can be sensorily confusing, and there is no escape route when pedestrians get caught up with cyclists, and vice versa.

                  There is simply not enough space for cycling alongside pedestrians. If the tunnels were completely empty of bipeds, I could see some justification for cycling, but then it should be a case of the council explicitly not enforcing the bylaw on those occasions, rather than sanctioning cycling at all times. Better to leave things as they are, in my view.

                  When the tunnels are empty of pedestrians, or there are very few walking through them, I will still not cycle through the tunnels as it sets a bad example. For the same reason I always stop at red lights, even when there is no cross traffic to be seen. We should be reinforcing good behaviour, not bad.

                  Francis

                  -- 
                  Dr Francis Sedgemore
                  journalist, writer and physicist
                  telephone: +44 7840 191336
                  website: sedgemore.com





                • Sally Eva
                  More constructively, campaign for a more cycle friendly crossing -- presumably above ground. Where are most of these cyclists going? Sally
                  Message 8 of 27 , Aug 31, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    More constructively, campaign for a more cycle friendly crossing -- presumably above ground. Where are most of these cyclists going?

                    Sally

                    On 31/08/2013 13:50, zenboy11 wrote:


                    Thoroughly agree. I always stop at red lights too, and walk my bike through Greenwich Tunnel. However, I am frequently overtaken by selfish and impatient cyclists. How can they be persuaded to walk their bikes through the tunnel too? This includes scooting along with one or two feet on one pedal.

                    Perhaps a regular but random posse of Greenwich/Newham council people and/or [transport] police doing instant fines at both ends of the tunnel - just as there is for fare dodgers on the tube and train? Initially that would be a real money earner.

                    Does the legislation include fining for cycling through the tunnel? If so, there should be. Also Transport Police should be involved.


                    From: Francis Sedgemore <francis@...>
                    To: greenwichcyclists@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 9:45 PM
                    Subject: Re: [greenwichcyclists] Barriers in the Foot Tunnels

                  • Dalla Jenney
                    ...or another tunnel? If it sloped gently down then up, cyclists could presumably freewheel the whole thing perfectly with no stairs or lifts. (May be a
                    Message 9 of 27 , Aug 31, 2013
                    • 0 Attachment
                      ...or another tunnel?  If it sloped gently down then up, cyclists could presumably freewheel the whole thing perfectly with no stairs or lifts. (May be a little ambitious).

                      Most cyclists are going to work and back, I think.  At commuting times, cyclists significantly outnumber walkers and I reckon there are 8-10 in every lift at peak times (lift running continuously).

                      On 31 Aug 2013, at 14:48, Sally Eva <bobsallyeva@...> wrote:

                       

                      More constructively, campaign for a more cycle friendly crossing -- presumably above ground. Where are most of these cyclists going?

                      Sally

                      On 31/08/2013 13:50, zenboy11 wrote:


                      Thoroughly agree. I always stop at red lights too, and walk my bike through Greenwich Tunnel. However, I am frequently overtaken by selfish and impatient cyclists. How can they be persuaded to walk their bikes through the tunnel too? This includes scooting along with one or two feet on one pedal.

                      Perhaps a regular but random posse of Greenwich/Newham council people and/or [transport] police doing instant fines at both ends of the tunnel - just as there is for fare dodgers on the tube and train? Initially that would be a real money earner.

                      Does the legislation include fining for cycling through the tunnel? If so, there should be. Also Transport Police should be involved.


                      From: Francis Sedgemore <francis@...>
                      To: greenwichcyclists@yahoogroups.com
                      Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 9:45 PM
                      Subject: Re: [greenwichcyclists] Barriers in the Foot Tunnels

                    • zenboy11
                      We can do that too, but in the meantime we have to live with the current tunnels thus need to have all cyclists obeying the rules and not being a nuisance to
                      Message 10 of 27 , Aug 31, 2013
                      • 0 Attachment
                        We can do that too, but in the meantime we have to live with the current tunnels thus need to have all cyclists obeying the rules and not being a nuisance to other users, including other cyclists.

                        A more cycle friendly crossing would be great, but it will also cost a great deal of money given the width of the Thames, and there are substantial engineering challenges. 

                        We could also suggest a cycling-only tunnel running alongside the current one. Also very costly.


                        From: Sally Eva <bobsallyeva@...>
                        To: greenwichcyclists@yahoogroups.com
                        Cc: zenboy11 <zenboy11@...>
                        Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2013 2:48 PM
                        Subject: Re: [greenwichcyclists] Barriers in the Foot Tunnels



                        More constructively, campaign for a more cycle friendly crossing -- presumably above ground. Where are most of these cyclists going?

                        Sally

                        On 31/08/2013 13:50, zenboy11 wrote:


                        Thoroughly agree. I always stop at red lights too, and walk my bike through Greenwich Tunnel. However, I am frequently overtaken by selfish and impatient cyclists. How can they be persuaded to walk their bikes through the tunnel too? This includes scooting along with one or two feet on one pedal.

                        Perhaps a regular but random posse of Greenwich/Newham council people and/or [transport] police doing instant fines at both ends of the tunnel - just as there is for fare dodgers on the tube and train? Initially that would be a real money earner.

                        Does the legislation include fining for cycling through the tunnel? If so, there should be. Also Transport Police should be involved.


                        From: Francis Sedgemore <francis@...>
                        To: greenwichcyclists@yahoogroups.com
                        Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 9:45 PM
                        Subject: Re: [greenwichcyclists] Barriers in the Foot Tunnels





                      • Sally Eva
                        That s really why I asked where everyone was going. The alternatives are the cable cars, the Woolwich Ferry and the Rotherhithe, I guess Sally
                        Message 11 of 27 , Aug 31, 2013
                        • 0 Attachment
                          That's really why I asked where everyone was going. The alternatives are the cable cars, the Woolwich Ferry and the Rotherhithe, I guess

                          Sally

                          On 31/08/2013 15:16, zenboy11 wrote:
                          We can do that too, but in the meantime we have to live with the current tunnels thus need to have all cyclists obeying the rules and not being a nuisance to other users, including other cyclists.

                          A more cycle friendly crossing would be great, but it will also cost a great deal of money given the width of the Thames, and there are substantial engineering challenges. 

                          We could also suggest a cycling-only tunnel running alongside the current one. Also very costly.


                          From: Sally Eva <bobsallyeva@...>
                          To: greenwichcyclists@yahoogroups.com
                          Cc: zenboy11 <zenboy11@...>
                          Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2013 2:48 PM
                          Subject: Re: [greenwichcyclists] Barriers in the Foot Tunnels



                          More constructively, campaign for a more cycle friendly crossing -- presumably above ground. Where are most of these cyclists going?

                          Sally

                          On 31/08/2013 13:50, zenboy11 wrote:


                          Thoroughly agree. I always stop at red lights too, and walk my bike through Greenwich Tunnel. However, I am frequently overtaken by selfish and impatient cyclists. How can they be persuaded to walk their bikes through the tunnel too? This includes scooting along with one or two feet on one pedal.

                          Perhaps a regular but random posse of Greenwich/Newham council people and/or [transport] police doing instant fines at both ends of the tunnel - just as there is for fare dodgers on the tube and train? Initially that would be a real money earner.

                          Does the legislation include fining for cycling through the tunnel? If so, there should be. Also Transport Police should be involved.


                          From: Francis Sedgemore <francis@...>
                          To: greenwichcyclists@yahoogroups.com
                          Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 9:45 PM
                          Subject: Re: [greenwichcyclists] Barriers in the Foot Tunnels





                          No virus found in this message.
                          Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                          Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3222/6626 - Release Date: 08/31/13


                        • Dalla Jenney
                          If there are police to spare I would think they would do more good finding and fining drivers on their phones and getting the uninsured/unlicensed/dangerous
                          Message 12 of 27 , Aug 31, 2013
                          • 0 Attachment
                            If there are police to spare I would think they would do more good finding and  fining drivers on their phones and getting the uninsured/unlicensed/dangerous drivers off the road.  On my residential street on Monday a bin lorry driver was backing his large truck round a blind corner whilst on his phone.  

                            Out of interest, what is wrong with considerate slow scooting in the foot tunnel when conditions allow? 

                            On 31 Aug 2013, at 13:50, zenboy11 <zenboy11@...> wrote:

                             

                            Thoroughly agree. I always stop at red lights too, and walk my bike through Greenwich Tunnel. However, I am frequently overtaken by selfish and impatient cyclists. How can they be persuaded to walk their bikes through the tunnel too? This includes scooting along with one or two feet on one pedal.

                            Perhaps a regular but random posse of Greenwich/Newham council people and/or [transport] police doing instant fines at both ends of the tunnel - just as there is for fare dodgers on the tube and train? Initially that would be a real money earner.

                            Does the legislation include fining for cycling through the tunnel? If so, there should be. Also Transport Police should be involved.


                            From: Francis Sedgemore <francis@...>
                            To: greenwichcyclists@yahoogroups.com
                            Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 9:45 PM
                            Subject: Re: [greenwichcyclists] Barriers in the Foot Tunnels




                            On 29 Aug 13, at 19:37, Nick.Williams@... wrote:

                            Rather than banning or trying fruitlessly to block or cycling we should be asking the Council to consider a something more radical. The tunnel is a shared space, and sometimes it's not practical or sensible to cycle, but other times its perfectly OK. I think we should try to encourage the Council to experiment with a sort of 'respect zone' which encourages people simply to take good care of each other i.e. cyclists cycle considerately and safely and pedestrians respect their right to do so.

                            At the risk of sounding like a killjoy for the second time in one evening, I have to say that I would be opposed to any relaxation of the cycling ban in the Greenwich and Woolwich Foot Tunnels. I do not see how it would be feasible to define, implement and police any such "respect zone".

                            The tunnels are a severely constricted space, oftentimes with a very high density of pedestrian traffic. With such close walls and ceilings, and little light, the tunnels can be sensorily confusing, and there is no escape route when pedestrians get caught up with cyclists, and vice versa.

                            There is simply not enough space for cycling alongside pedestrians. If the tunnels were completely empty of bipeds, I could see some justification for cycling, but then it should be a case of the council explicitly not enforcing the bylaw on those occasions, rather than sanctioning cycling at all times. Better to leave things as they are, in my view.

                            When the tunnels are empty of pedestrians, or there are very few walking through them, I will still not cycle through the tunnels as it sets a bad example. For the same reason I always stop at red lights, even when there is no cross traffic to be seen. We should be reinforcing good behaviour, not bad.

                            Francis

                            -- 
                            Dr Francis Sedgemore
                            journalist, writer and physicist
                            telephone: +44 7840 191336
                            website: sedgemore.com





                          • zenboy11
                            Considerate slow scooting does not exist - it is always inconsiderate fast scooting in my experience.  Motorists should be randomly but regularly caught and
                            Message 13 of 27 , Aug 31, 2013
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Considerate slow scooting does not exist - it is always inconsiderate fast scooting in my experience. 

                              Motorists should be randomly but regularly caught and fined too for inconsiderate and potentially lethal behaviour.

                              I'd also like to see some motorcyclists booted out of the advance boxes for bicyclists as they often cram up the space, particularly during evening peak hour. As an example the one eastwards from Tooley Street at Tower Bridge Road intersection, very close to Boris's office.


                              From: Dalla Jenney <dallajenney@...>
                              To: "greenwichcyclists@yahoogroups.com" <greenwichcyclists@yahoogroups.com>
                              Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2013 3:42 PM
                              Subject: Re: [greenwichcyclists] Barriers in the Foot Tunnels



                              If there are police to spare I would think they would do more good finding and  fining drivers on their phones and getting the uninsured/unlicensed/dangerous drivers off the road.  On my residential street on Monday a bin lorry driver was backing his large truck round a blind corner whilst on his phone.  

                              Out of interest, what is wrong with considerate slow scooting in the foot tunnel when conditions allow? 

                              On 31 Aug 2013, at 13:50, zenboy11 <zenboy11@...> wrote:

                               
                              Thoroughly agree. I always stop at red lights too, and walk my bike through Greenwich Tunnel. However, I am frequently overtaken by selfish and impatient cyclists. How can they be persuaded to walk their bikes through the tunnel too? This includes scooting along with one or two feet on one pedal.

                              Perhaps a regular but random posse of Greenwich/Newham council people and/or [transport] police doing instant fines at both ends of the tunnel - just as there is for fare dodgers on the tube and train? Initially that would be a real money earner.

                              Does the legislation include fining for cycling through the tunnel? If so, there should be. Also Transport Police should be involved.


                              From: Francis Sedgemore <francis@...>
                              To: greenwichcyclists@yahoogroups.com
                              Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 9:45 PM
                              Subject: Re: [greenwichcyclists] Barriers in the Foot Tunnels




                              On 29 Aug 13, at 19:37, Nick.Williams@... wrote:

                              Rather than banning or trying fruitlessly to block or cycling we should be asking the Council to consider a something more radical. The tunnel is a shared space, and sometimes it's not practical or sensible to cycle, but other times its perfectly OK. I think we should try to encourage the Council to experiment with a sort of 'respect zone' which encourages people simply to take good care of each other i.e. cyclists cycle considerately and safely and pedestrians respect their right to do so.

                              At the risk of sounding like a killjoy for the second time in one evening, I have to say that I would be opposed to any relaxation of the cycling ban in the Greenwich and Woolwich Foot Tunnels. I do not see how it would be feasible to define, implement and police any such "respect zone".

                              The tunnels are a severely constricted space, oftentimes with a very high density of pedestrian traffic. With such close walls and ceilings, and little light, the tunnels can be sensorily confusing, and there is no escape route when pedestrians get caught up with cyclists, and vice versa.

                              There is simply not enough space for cycling alongside pedestrians. If the tunnels were completely empty of bipeds, I could see some justification for cycling, but then it should be a case of the council explicitly not enforcing the bylaw on those occasions, rather than sanctioning cycling at all times. Better to leave things as they are, in my view.

                              When the tunnels are empty of pedestrians, or there are very few walking through them, I will still not cycle through the tunnels as it sets a bad example. For the same reason I always stop at red lights, even when there is no cross traffic to be seen. We should be reinforcing good behaviour, not bad.

                              Francis

                              -- 
                              Dr Francis Sedgemore
                              journalist, writer and physicist
                              telephone: +44 7840 191336
                              website: sedgemore.com









                            • Bob Walkden
                              ... There have been 2 or 3 of Her Majesty s rozzers there on at least 2 evenings in the last week or so, tapping on miscreants windows and wagging their
                              Message 14 of 27 , Aug 31, 2013
                              • 0 Attachment
                                On 31 Aug 2013, at 16:08, zenboy11 <zenboy11@...> wrote:

                                 

                                Considerate slow scooting does not exist - it is always inconsiderate fast scooting in my experience. 

                                Motorists should be randomly but regularly caught and fined too for inconsiderate and potentially lethal behaviour.

                                I'd also like to see some motorcyclists booted out of the advance boxes for bicyclists as they often cram up the space, particularly during evening peak hour. As an example the one eastwards from Tooley Street at Tower Bridge Road intersection, very close to Boris's office.

                                There have been 2 or 3 of Her Majesty's rozzers there on at least 2 evenings in the last week or so, tapping on miscreants' windows and wagging their fingers at them. 

                                Their constabulary presence also seemed to cause a lot of cyclists to screech to a halt at the stop line when they might otherwise have continued, presumably unaware of the redness of the lights.

                                B




                                From: Dalla Jenney <dallajenney@...>
                                To: "greenwichcyclists@yahoogroups.com" <greenwichcyclists@yahoogroups.com>
                                Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2013 3:42 PM
                                Subject: Re: [greenwichcyclists] Barriers in the Foot Tunnels



                                If there are police to spare I would think they would do more good finding and  fining drivers on their phones and getting the uninsured/unlicensed/dangerous drivers off the road.  On my residential street on Monday a bin lorry driver was backing his large truck round a blind corner whilst on his phone.  

                                Out of interest, what is wrong with considerate slow scooting in the foot tunnel when conditions allow? 

                                On 31 Aug 2013, at 13:50, zenboy11 <zenboy11@...> wrote:

                                 
                                Thoroughly agree. I always stop at red lights too, and walk my bike through Greenwich Tunnel. However, I am frequently overtaken by selfish and impatient cyclists. How can they be persuaded to walk their bikes through the tunnel too? This includes scooting along with one or two feet on one pedal.

                                Perhaps a regular but random posse of Greenwich/Newham council people and/or [transport] police doing instant fines at both ends of the tunnel - just as there is for fare dodgers on the tube and train? Initially that would be a real money earner.

                                Does the legislation include fining for cycling through the tunnel? If so, there should be. Also Transport Police should be involved.


                                From: Francis Sedgemore <francis@...>
                                To: greenwichcyclists@yahoogroups.com
                                Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 9:45 PM
                                Subject: Re: [greenwichcyclists] Barriers in the Foot Tunnels




                                On 29 Aug 13, at 19:37, Nick.Williams@... wrote:

                                Rather than banning or trying fruitlessly to block or cycling we should be asking the Council to consider a something more radical. The tunnel is a shared space, and sometimes it's not practical or sensible to cycle, but other times its perfectly OK. I think we should try to encourage the Council to experiment with a sort of 'respect zone' which encourages people simply to take good care of each other i.e. cyclists cycle considerately and safely and pedestrians respect their right to do so.

                                At the risk of sounding like a killjoy for the second time in one evening, I have to say that I would be opposed to any relaxation of the cycling ban in the Greenwich and Woolwich Foot Tunnels. I do not see how it would be feasible to define, implement and police any such "respect zone".

                                The tunnels are a severely constricted space, oftentimes with a very high density of pedestrian traffic. With such close walls and ceilings, and little light, the tunnels can be sensorily confusing, and there is no escape route when pedestrians get caught up with cyclists, and vice versa.

                                There is simply not enough space for cycling alongside pedestrians. If the tunnels were completely empty of bipeds, I could see some justification for cycling, but then it should be a case of the council explicitly not enforcing the bylaw on those occasions, rather than sanctioning cycling at all times. Better to leave things as they are, in my view.

                                When the tunnels are empty of pedestrians, or there are very few walking through them, I will still not cycle through the tunnels as it sets a bad example. For the same reason I always stop at red lights, even when there is no cross traffic to be seen. We should be reinforcing good behaviour, not bad.

                                Francis

                                -- 
                                Dr Francis Sedgemore
                                journalist, writer and physicist
                                telephone: +44 7840 191336
                                website: sedgemore.com









                              • zenboy11
                                Laura Trott, Olympic medal cyclist, agrees that there are rogue cyclists about who should end their nefarious ways. She wants to have safety helmets made
                                Message 15 of 27 , Sep 1 12:28 PM
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Laura Trott, Olympic medal cyclist, agrees that there are rogue cyclists about who should end their nefarious ways. She wants to have safety helmets made compulsory too as her sister, also a professional cyclist, survived an accident because she was wearing one.

                                  I'm sure Laura would agree that cyclists should not cycle through the Greenwich Tunnel either *:) happy

                                  http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/they-weave-inbetween-buses--and-people-wonder-why-they-get-hit-olympic-winner-laura-trotts-attack-on-rogue-cyclists-8791153.html?origin=internalSearch



                                  From: zenboy11 <zenboy11@...>
                                  To: "greenwichcyclists@yahoogroups.com" <greenwichcyclists@yahoogroups.com>
                                  Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2013 4:08 PM
                                  Subject: Re: [greenwichcyclists] Barriers in the Foot Tunnels



                                  Considerate slow scooting does not exist - it is always inconsiderate fast scooting in my experience. 

                                  Motorists should be randomly but regularly caught and fined too for inconsiderate and potentially lethal behaviour.

                                  I'd also like to see some motorcyclists booted out of the advance boxes for bicyclists as they often cram up the space, particularly during evening peak hour. As an example the one eastwards from Tooley Street at Tower Bridge Road intersection, very close to Boris's office.


                                  From: Dalla Jenney <dallajenney@...>
                                  To: "greenwichcyclists@yahoogroups.com" <greenwichcyclists@yahoogroups.com>
                                  Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2013 3:42 PM
                                  Subject: Re: [greenwichcyclists] Barriers in the Foot Tunnels



                                  If there are police to spare I would think they would do more good finding and  fining drivers on their phones and getting the uninsured/unlicensed/dangerous drivers off the road.  On my residential street on Monday a bin lorry driver was backing his large truck round a blind corner whilst on his phone.  

                                  Out of interest, what is wrong with considerate slow scooting in the foot tunnel when conditions allow? 

                                  On 31 Aug 2013, at 13:50, zenboy11 <zenboy11@...> wrote:

                                   
                                  Thoroughly agree. I always stop at red lights too, and walk my bike through Greenwich Tunnel. However, I am frequently overtaken by selfish and impatient cyclists. How can they be persuaded to walk their bikes through the tunnel too? This includes scooting along with one or two feet on one pedal.

                                  Perhaps a regular but random posse of Greenwich/Newham council people and/or [transport] police doing instant fines at both ends of the tunnel - just as there is for fare dodgers on the tube and train? Initially that would be a real money earner.

                                  Does the legislation include fining for cycling through the tunnel? If so, there should be. Also Transport Police should be involved.


                                  From: Francis Sedgemore <francis@...>
                                  To: greenwichcyclists@yahoogroups.com
                                  Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 9:45 PM
                                  Subject: Re: [greenwichcyclists] Barriers in the Foot Tunnels




                                  On 29 Aug 13, at 19:37, Nick.Williams@... wrote:

                                  Rather than banning or trying fruitlessly to block or cycling we should be asking the Council to consider a something more radical. The tunnel is a shared space, and sometimes it's not practical or sensible to cycle, but other times its perfectly OK. I think we should try to encourage the Council to experiment with a sort of 'respect zone' which encourages people simply to take good care of each other i.e. cyclists cycle considerately and safely and pedestrians respect their right to do so.

                                  At the risk of sounding like a killjoy for the second time in one evening, I have to say that I would be opposed to any relaxation of the cycling ban in the Greenwich and Woolwich Foot Tunnels. I do not see how it would be feasible to define, implement and police any such "respect zone".

                                  The tunnels are a severely constricted space, oftentimes with a very high density of pedestrian traffic. With such close walls and ceilings, and little light, the tunnels can be sensorily confusing, and there is no escape route when pedestrians get caught up with cyclists, and vice versa.

                                  There is simply not enough space for cycling alongside pedestrians. If the tunnels were completely empty of bipeds, I could see some justification for cycling, but then it should be a case of the council explicitly not enforcing the bylaw on those occasions, rather than sanctioning cycling at all times. Better to leave things as they are, in my view.

                                  When the tunnels are empty of pedestrians, or there are very few walking through them, I will still not cycle through the tunnels as it sets a bad example. For the same reason I always stop at red lights, even when there is no cross traffic to be seen. We should be reinforcing good behaviour, not bad.

                                  Francis

                                  -- 
                                  Dr Francis Sedgemore
                                  journalist, writer and physicist
                                  telephone: +44 7840 191336
                                  website: sedgemore.com













                                • Jamie Willoughby
                                  Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad
                                  Message 16 of 27 , Sep 1 12:37 PM
                                  • 1 Attachment
                                  • 62 KB


                                  Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad


                                  From: zenboy11 <zenboy11@...>;
                                  To: greenwichcyclists@yahoogroups.com <greenwichcyclists@yahoogroups.com>;
                                  Subject: Re: [greenwichcyclists] Barriers in the Foot Tunnels
                                  Sent: Sun, Sep 1, 2013 7:28:03 PM

                                   

                                  Laura Trott, Olympic medal cyclist, agrees that there are rogue cyclists about who should end their nefarious ways. She wants to have safety helmets made compulsory too as her sister, also a professional cyclist, survived an accident because she was wearing one.

                                  I'm sure Laura would agree that cyclists should not cycle through the Greenwich Tunnel either *:) happy

                                  http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/they-weave-inbetween-buses--and-people-wonder-why-they-get-hit-olympic-winner-laura-trotts-attack-on-rogue-cyclists-8791153.html?origin=internalSearch



                                  From: zenboy11 <zenboy11@...>
                                  To: "greenwichcyclists@yahoogroups.com" <greenwichcyclists@yahoogroups.com>
                                  Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2013 4:08 PM
                                  Subject: Re: [greenwichcyclists] Barriers in the Foot Tunnels



                                  Considerate slow scooting does not exist - it is always inconsiderate fast scooting in my experience. 

                                  Motorists should be randomly but regularly caught and fined too for inconsiderate and potentially lethal behaviour.

                                  I'd also like to see some motorcyclists booted out of the advance boxes for bicyclists as they often cram up the space, particularly during evening peak hour. As an example the one eastwards from Tooley Street at Tower Bridge Road intersection, very close to Boris's office.


                                  From: Dalla Jenney <dallajenney@...>
                                  To: "greenwichcyclists@yahoogroups.com" <greenwichcyclists@yahoogroups.com>
                                  Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2013 3:42 PM
                                  Subject: Re: [greenwichcyclists] Barriers in the Foot Tunnels



                                  If there are police to spare I would think they would do more good finding and  fining drivers on their phones and getting the uninsured/unlicensed/dangerous drivers off the road.  On my residential street on Monday a bin lorry driver was backing his large truck round a blind corner whilst on his phone.  

                                  Out of interest, what is wrong with considerate slow scooting in the foot tunnel when conditions allow? 

                                  On 31 Aug 2013, at 13:50, zenboy11 <zenboy11@...> wrote:

                                   
                                  Thoroughly agree. I always stop at red lights too, and walk my bike through Greenwich Tunnel. However, I am frequently overtaken by selfish and impatient cyclists. How can they be persuaded to walk their bikes through the tunnel too? This includes scooting along with one or two feet on one pedal.

                                  Perhaps a regular but random posse of Greenwich/Newham council people and/or [transport] police doing instant fines at both ends of the tunnel - just as there is for fare dodgers on the tube and train? Initially that would be a real money earner.

                                  Does the legislation include fining for cycling through the tunnel? If so, there should be. Also Transport Police should be involved.


                                  From: Francis Sedgemore <francis@...>
                                  To: greenwichcyclists@yahoogroups.com
                                  Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 9:45 PM
                                  Subject: Re: [greenwichcyclists] Barriers in the Foot Tunnels




                                  On 29 Aug 13, at 19:37, Nick.Williams@... wrote:

                                  Rather than banning or trying fruitlessly to block or cycling we should be asking the Council to consider a something more radical. The tunnel is a shared space, and sometimes it's not practical or sensible to cycle, but other times its perfectly OK. I think we should try to encourage the Council to experiment with a sort of 'respect zone' which encourages people simply to take good care of each other i.e. cyclists cycle considerately and safely and pedestrians respect their right to do so.

                                  At the risk of sounding like a killjoy for the second time in one evening, I have to say that I would be opposed to any relaxation of the cycling ban in the Greenwich and Woolwich Foot Tunnels. I do not see how it would be feasible to define, implement and police any such "respect zone".

                                  The tunnels are a severely constricted space, oftentimes with a very high density of pedestrian traffic. With such close walls and ceilings, and little light, the tunnels can be sensorily confusing, and there is no escape route when pedestrians get caught up with cyclists, and vice versa.

                                  There is simply not enough space for cycling alongside pedestrians. If the tunnels were completely empty of bipeds, I could see some justification for cycling, but then it should be a case of the council explicitly not enforcing the bylaw on those occasions, rather than sanctioning cycling at all times. Better to leave things as they are, in my view.

                                  When the tunnels are empty of pedestrians, or there are very few walking through them, I will still not cycle through the tunnels as it sets a bad example. For the same reason I always stop at red lights, even when there is no cross traffic to be seen. We should be reinforcing good behaviour, not bad.

                                  Francis

                                  -- 
                                  Dr Francis Sedgemore
                                  journalist, writer and physicist
                                  telephone: +44 7840 191336
                                  website: sedgemore.com













                                • Francis Sedgemore
                                  Gosh, I imagine that Miss Trott also has a view on the Syria crisis. Someone tell Mr Cameron. I would also urge the noble and blooded Sir Bradley to counsel
                                  Message 17 of 27 , Sep 1 1:14 PM
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Gosh, I imagine that Miss Trott also has a view on the Syria crisis. Someone tell Mr Cameron. I would also urge the noble and blooded Sir Bradley to counsel his young colleague, and warn her about being taken for a ride by my colleagues in the fourth estate.

                                    Mandatory helmets for pedestrians now! "En gåhjelm er en go' hjelm."

                                    http://bit.ly/1fsA8BF

                                    Francis

                                    On 1 Sep 13, at 20:28, zenboy11 <zenboy11@...> wrote:

                                    Laura Trott, Olympic medal cyclist, agrees that there are rogue cyclists about who should end their nefarious ways. She wants to have safety helmets made compulsory too as her sister, also a professional cyclist, survived an accident because she was wearing one.

                                    I'm sure Laura would agree that cyclists should not cycle through the Greenwich Tunnel either 

                                    http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/they-weave-inbetween-buses--and-people-wonder-why-they-get-hit-olympic-winner-laura-trotts-attack-on-rogue-cyclists-8791153.html?origin=internalSearch

                                    -- 
                                    Dr Francis Sedgemore
                                    journalist, writer and physicist
                                    telephone: +44 7840 191336
                                    website: sedgemore.com



                                  • zenboy11
                                    Gosh, if Ms Trott s sister had taken any notice of your view on helmets, she d be dead!! ... Gosh, if Ms Trott s sister had taken any notice of your view on
                                    Message 18 of 27 , Sep 1 3:21 PM
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Gosh, if Ms Trott's sister had taken any notice of your view on helmets, she'd be dead!!




                                      From: Francis Sedgemore <francis@...>
                                      To: greenwichcyclists@yahoogroups.com
                                      Sent: Sunday, September 1, 2013 9:14 PM
                                      Subject: Re: [greenwichcyclists] Barriers in the Foot Tunnels



                                      Gosh, I imagine that Miss Trott also has a view on the Syria crisis. Someone tell Mr Cameron. I would also urge the noble and blooded Sir Bradley to counsel his young colleague, and warn her about being taken for a ride by my colleagues in the fourth estate.

                                      Mandatory helmets for pedestrians now! "En gåhjelm er en go' hjelm."

                                      http://bit.ly/1fsA8BF

                                      Francis

                                      On 1 Sep 13, at 20:28, zenboy11 <zenboy11@...> wrote:

                                      Laura Trott, Olympic medal cyclist, agrees that there are rogue cyclists about who should end their nefarious ways. She wants to have safety helmets made compulsory too as her sister, also a professional cyclist, survived an accident because she was wearing one.

                                      I'm sure Laura would agree that cyclists should not cycle through the Greenwich Tunnel either 

                                      http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/they-weave-inbetween-buses--and-people-wonder-why-they-get-hit-olympic-winner-laura-trotts-attack-on-rogue-cyclists-8791153.html?origin=internalSearch

                                      -- 
                                      Dr Francis Sedgemore
                                      journalist, writer and physicist
                                      telephone: +44 7840 191336
                                      website: sedgemore.com







                                    • Peter May
                                      Good luck to Ms Trott, I too have a view on the compulsory wearing of helmets, based on the fact that I survived serious head injury, or worse, because I was
                                      Message 19 of 27 , Sep 1 3:28 PM
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Good luck to Ms Trott, I too have a view on the compulsory wearing of helmets, based on the fact that I survived serious head injury, or worse, because I was wearing one when knocked off my bike.  My cycling is not impaired or made worse by the wearing of a helmet.  Ms Trott views are just as valid as anyone else, and if she did have a view to the solution of the Syrian crisis, I think that would be just as valid to express as well, after all every other bugger seems to have something to say about it.

                                        Sent from my iPad

                                        On 1 Sep 2013, at 21:14, Francis Sedgemore <francis@...> wrote:

                                         

                                        Gosh, I imagine that Miss Trott also has a view on the Syria crisis. Someone tell Mr Cameron. I would also urge the noble and blooded Sir Bradley to counsel his young colleague, and warn her about being taken for a ride by my colleagues in the fourth estate.

                                        Mandatory helmets for pedestrians now! "En gåhjelm er en go' hjelm."

                                        http://bit.ly/1fsA8BF

                                        Francis

                                        On 1 Sep 13, at 20:28, zenboy11 <zenboy11@...> wrote:

                                        Laura Trott, Olympic medal cyclist, agrees that there are rogue cyclists about who should end their nefarious ways. She wants to have safety helmets made compulsory too as her sister, also a professional cyclist, survived an accident because she was wearing one.

                                        I'm sure Laura would agree that cyclists should not cycle through the Greenwich Tunnel either 

                                        http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/they-weave-inbetween-buses--and-people-wonder-why-they-get-hit-olympic-winner-laura-trotts-attack-on-rogue-cyclists-8791153.html?origin=internalSearch

                                        -- 
                                        Dr Francis Sedgemore
                                        journalist, writer and physicist
                                        telephone: +44 7840 191336
                                        website: sedgemore.com



                                      • Francis Sedgemore
                                        The point is that articles such as the one featuring Laura Trott are examples of link-bait journalism. They are designed to provoke arguments, and there is no
                                        Message 20 of 27 , Sep 1 3:42 PM
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          The point is that articles such as the one featuring Laura Trott are examples of link-bait journalism. They are designed to provoke arguments, and there is no place for considered debate based on evidence.

                                          Trott is an outstanding athlete, but she is no more qualified to speak on matters outside of athletic cycling than is anyone else. But the point of articles such as this is to elevate the celebrity, and give undue authority to their pronouncements. I'm just glad to see that many of the commenters below the line give this approach short shrift.

                                          The evidence for the efficacy of BS Standard cycle helmets is in the scientific literature, and on balance it is weak. Anecdotal evidence is of no worth in epidemiological studies or health and safety policy development.

                                          When Bradley Wiggins made similar statements concerning cycle helmets, he was roundly criticised for it, with much of the criticism considered and constructive. Wiggins realised his mistake, and backed down.

                                          Francis

                                          On 1 Sep 13, at 23:28, Peter May <peter540819@...> wrote:

                                          > Good luck to Ms Trott, I too have a view on the compulsory wearing of helmets, based on the fact that I survived serious head injury, or worse, because I was wearing one when knocked off my bike. My cycling is not impaired or made worse by the wearing of a helmet. Ms Trott views are just as valid as anyone else, and if she did have a view to the solution of the Syrian crisis, I think that would be just as valid to express as well, after all every other bugger seems to have something to say about it.

                                          --
                                          Dr Francis Sedgemore
                                          journalist, writer and physicist
                                          telephone: +44 7840 191336
                                          website: sedgemore.com
                                        • Dalla Jenney
                                          Apologies for this lengthy reply. Francis does it so much more succinctly! Laura Trott is a professional cyclist, not an academic. Her knee jerk emotional
                                          Message 21 of 27 , Sep 2 3:28 AM
                                          • 0 Attachment

                                            Apologies for this lengthy reply.   Francis does it so much more succinctly!


                                            Laura Trott is a professional cyclist, not an academic.  Her knee jerk emotional response is wholly understandable but it is not evidence based.  


                                            Cycle helmets were first marketed after a compressible polystyrene inner liner was invented for insertion inside hard motorcycle crash helmets. This inner liner was then used (without the rock hard outer motorcycle helmet shell) for cyclists without any efficacy testing.

                                            The theory is they absorb shocks by compressing on impact.  

                                            It takes reasonable energy to compress polystyrene, it takes very little to snap it (try this at home).

                                            In a high impact crash (almost any collision involving a motor vehicle), cycle helmets often shatter.  A helmet in pieces causes well meaning (but ignorant) people to hypothecate that “the helmet saved his/her life.”  In fact, the helmet failed if it shattered (shattering absorbs a negligible amount of impact energy) whereas wearing the helmet may have increased the chance of having the accident in the first place (see below).  


                                            Rather than the helmet having “saved her life”, the chances that Emma Trott’s helmet afforded her any significant protection when hit by a car are remote (see the data below on large studies). It probably shattered. Even if it didn't shatter, the amounts of kinetic energy around when hit by a car at any speed are orders higher than any cycle helmet can absorb.


                                            Moreover, Dr Ian Walker, a professor of traffic psychology, has found helmets to be counterproductive.

                                            He found that for cyclists wearing a helmet, motorists got 8-9cm closer than they did when not wearing one.  

                                            Here is some real life data:

                                            • There is no evidence that helmets have reduced the likelihood or severity of head injuries among whole populations of cyclists.

                                            • Helmet promotion (and especially compulsion) reduces cycling and the health benefits of cycling. Less cycling increases risk for those who continue to cycle, whether they wear helmets or not.

                                            • The greatest risks of serious injury associated with cycling come from inappropriate motor vehicle use and poor cycling behaviour. Institutionalising the idea that wearing a helmet is necessary for safe cycling diverts attention from more important actions to prevent crashes happening in the first place and results in victim-blaming when crashes do occur through no fault of the cyclist.

                                            • Head injuries to pedestrians and motorists are much more numerous than head injuries to cyclists. If helmets are effective in reducing head injuries then, logically, they should be mandated for motorists and pedestrians before cyclists. This is especially true for motorists as you could make them wear heavier, safer helmets (like motorbike ones) that actually work - just like racing drivers wear.


                                            Rodgers studied 8 million cases of injury or death to cyclists in the USA over 15 years - the largest survey of its kind ever undertaken. He found no evidence that helmets had reduced head injury or fatality rates. Indeed, he concluded that helmeted riders were more likely to be killed (this may be due to increased neck twisting injuries when wearing a helmet).

                                            Kunich analysed cyclist fatalities in the USA and concluded that there was no evidence that cycle helmets were effective in reducing deaths.

                                            In 2001, the US Consumer Product Safety Commission reported that although helmet use had risen over a decade from 18% to 50% of cyclists, head injuries had also gone up by 10%. There was no clear evidence that cycle use had increased.

                                            An analysis of cyclist and pedestrian fatalities in Canada from 1985 to 2003 showed that trends for both modes were similar and the number of deaths fell in both cases. However, although cycle helmet use had grown from virtually zero to 50% over the period, there was no detectable impact on cyclist fatalities compared with pedestrians.


                                            In 2009, an international review of the literature for the Department for Transport concluded that there was no reliable evidence that cycle helmets have resulted in a lower risk of head injury for cyclists.


                                            Nowhere in the world has an increase in helmet use resulted in a fall in head or brain injuries relative to cycle use.


                                            As we are trading personal anecdotes, my cousin was hit by a woman driving through a red light, and suffered permanent brain damage.  Had he been wearing a helmet, some may claim that he might have avoided such a serious injury (possibly true if he had been wearing a motorbike helmet, unlikely if it was a light cycle helmet).  He was a pedestrian so nobody at the subsequent court case determining the level of personal injury damages tried to argue that he was contributorily negligent through not wearing a walking helmet.  Had he been on a pedal cycle instead of on foot, I would hate to think that his damages might have been reduced below what he needed for his care on the basis he had not been wearing a mandatory (useless) helmet and so was automatically held to be contributorily negligent.  This would be the legal result of helmet mandation.  


                                            Let’s not allow a sportswoman to determine our social and legal policy in an area that (should) rely on research, legal impact, scientific studies and evidence, no matter how fast she rides her bicycle and no matter how much sympathy we have for her that her sister was injured when hit by a car.  Let’s concentrate on stopping cars knocking down cyclists (and pedestrians) in the first place.


                                            If you want to wear a helmet, then go ahead. Personally, having reviewed the scientific literature, I choose not to - not walking, not cycling, not driving.


                                            On 1 September 2013 23:42, Francis Sedgemore <francis@...> wrote:
                                             

                                            The point is that articles such as the one featuring Laura Trott are examples of link-bait journalism. They are designed to provoke arguments, and there is no place for considered debate based on evidence.

                                            Trott is an outstanding athlete, but she is no more qualified to speak on matters outside of athletic cycling than is anyone else. But the point of articles such as this is to elevate the celebrity, and give undue authority to their pronouncements. I'm just glad to see that many of the commenters below the line give this approach short shrift.

                                            The evidence for the efficacy of BS Standard cycle helmets is in the scientific literature, and on balance it is weak. Anecdotal evidence is of no worth in epidemiological studies or health and safety policy development.

                                            When Bradley Wiggins made similar statements concerning cycle helmets, he was roundly criticised for it, with much of the criticism considered and constructive. Wiggins realised his mistake, and backed down.

                                            Francis



                                            On 1 Sep 13, at 23:28, Peter May <peter540819@...> wrote:

                                            > Good luck to Ms Trott, I too have a view on the compulsory wearing of helmets, based on the fact that I survived serious head injury, or worse, because I was wearing one when knocked off my bike. My cycling is not impaired or made worse by the wearing of a helmet. Ms Trott views are just as valid as anyone else, and if she did have a view to the solution of the Syrian crisis, I think that would be just as valid to express as well, after all every other bugger seems to have something to say about it.

                                            --
                                            Dr Francis Sedgemore
                                            journalist, writer and physicist
                                            telephone: +44 7840 191336
                                            website: sedgemore.com


                                          • zenboy11
                                            It s better to have a helmet shatter on impact, rather than your head. I came across an accident scene on Lower Road a few weeks ago, and the policeman in
                                            Message 22 of 27 , Sep 2 4:48 AM
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              It's better to have a helmet shatter on impact, rather than your head.

                                              I came across an accident scene on Lower Road a few weeks ago, and the policeman in charge (an accident specialist) told me a car had collided with a bicyclist who was quite badly injured because he had landed on his head and was not wearing a helmet. He said that most times when a cyclist falls off his/her bike due to a collision s/he usually falls on his or her head, so he strongly advises wearing a helmet simply for that reason.

                                              Forget all about the intellectual analyses, look at the practical and actual events. Helmets save lives and brains.

                                              There was a Bell Helmet ad which said: "If you have a £10 head, buy a £10 helmet". IMHO if you do not have the nous to wear a helmet when cycling, you have a £0 head. And you won't find out until you have your helmetless "accident" because of which you are either dead or have severe brain damage.

                                              You are wrong, Dalla Jenney, and I hope no one takes your or Francis Sedgemore's ignorant "advice". The studies you quote remind me of the ones which said that smoking was not harmful.

                                              Use your brains while they are intact, not uselessly splattered on the road because of an accident when not wearing a helmet. You only have one head, you know.


                                              From: Dalla Jenney <dallajenney@...>
                                              To: "greenwichcyclists@yahoogroups.com" <greenwichcyclists@yahoogroups.com>
                                              Sent: Monday, September 2, 2013 11:28 AM
                                              Subject: Re: [greenwichcyclists] Barriers in the Foot Tunnels




                                              Apologies for this lengthy reply.   Francis does it so much more succinctly!

                                              Laura Trott is a professional cyclist, not an academic.  Her knee jerk emotional response is wholly understandable but it is not evidence based.  

                                              Cycle helmets were first marketed after a compressible polystyrene inner liner was invented for insertion inside hard motorcycle crash helmets. This inner liner was then used (without the rock hard outer motorcycle helmet shell) for cyclists without any efficacy testing.
                                              The theory is they absorb shocks by compressing on impact.  
                                              It takes reasonable energy to compress polystyrene, it takes very little to snap it (try this at home).
                                              In a high impact crash (almost any collision involving a motor vehicle), cycle helmets often shatter.  A helmet in pieces causes well meaning (but ignorant) people to hypothecate that “the helmet saved his/her life.”  In fact, the helmet failed if it shattered (shattering absorbs a negligible amount of impact energy) whereas wearing the helmet may have increased the chance of having the accident in the first place (see below).  

                                              Rather than the helmet having “saved her life”, the chances that Emma Trott’s helmet afforded her any significant protection when hit by a car are remote (see the data below on large studies). It probably shattered. Even if it didn't shatter, the amounts of kinetic energy around when hit by a car at any speed are orders higher than any cycle helmet can absorb.

                                              Moreover, Dr Ian Walker, a professor of traffic psychology, has found helmets to be counterproductive.
                                              He found that for cyclists wearing a helmet, motorists got 8-9cm closer than they did when not wearing one.  
                                              Here is some real life data:
                                              • There is no evidence that helmets have reduced the likelihood or severity of head injuries among whole populations of cyclists.
                                              • Helmet promotion (and especially compulsion) reduces cycling and the health benefits of cycling. Less cycling increases risk for those who continue to cycle, whether they wear helmets or not.
                                              • The greatest risks of serious injury associated with cycling come from inappropriate motor vehicle use and poor cycling behaviour. Institutionalising the idea that wearing a helmet is necessary for safe cycling diverts attention from more important actions to prevent crashes happening in the first place and results in victim-blaming when crashes do occur through no fault of the cyclist.
                                              • Head injuries to pedestrians and motorists are much more numerous than head injuries to cyclists. If helmets are effective in reducing head injuries then, logically, they should be mandated for motorists and pedestrians before cyclists. This is especially true for motorists as you could make them wear heavier, safer helmets (like motorbike ones) that actually work - just like racing drivers wear.

                                              Rodgers studied 8 million cases of injury or death to cyclists in the USA over 15 years - the largest survey of its kind ever undertaken. He found no evidence that helmets had reduced head injury or fatality rates. Indeed, he concluded that helmeted riders were more likely to be killed (this may be due to increased neck twisting injuries when wearing a helmet).
                                              Kunich analysed cyclist fatalities in the USA and concluded that there was no evidence that cycle helmets were effective in reducing deaths.
                                              In 2001, the US Consumer Product Safety Commission reported that although helmet use had risen over a decade from 18% to 50% of cyclists, head injuries had also gone up by 10%. There was no clear evidence that cycle use had increased.
                                              An analysis of cyclist and pedestrian fatalities in Canada from 1985 to 2003 showed that trends for both modes were similar and the number of deaths fell in both cases. However, although cycle helmet use had grown from virtually zero to 50% over the period, there was no detectable impact on cyclist fatalities compared with pedestrians.

                                              In 2009, an international review of the literature for the Department for Transport concluded that there was no reliable evidence that cycle helmets have resulted in a lower risk of head injury for cyclists.

                                              Nowhere in the world has an increase in helmet use resulted in a fall in head or brain injuries relative to cycle use.

                                              As we are trading personal anecdotes, my cousin was hit by a woman driving through a red light, and suffered permanent brain damage.  Had he been wearing a helmet, some may claim that he might have avoided such a serious injury (possibly true if he had been wearing a motorbike helmet, unlikely if it was a light cycle helmet).  He was a pedestrian so nobody at the subsequent court case determining the level of personal injury damages tried to argue that he was contributorily negligent through not wearing a walking helmet.  Had he been on a pedal cycle instead of on foot, I would hate to think that his damages might have been reduced below what he needed for his care on the basis he had not been wearing a mandatory (useless) helmet and so was automatically held to be contributorily negligent.  This would be the legal result of helmet mandation.  

                                              Let’s not allow a sportswoman to determine our social and legal policy in an area that (should) rely on research, legal impact, scientific studies and evidence, no matter how fast she rides her bicycle and no matter how much sympathy we have for her that her sister was injured when hit by a car.  Let’s concentrate on stopping cars knocking down cyclists (and pedestrians) in the first place.


                                              If you want to wear a helmet, then go ahead. Personally, having reviewed the scientific literature, I choose not to - not walking, not cycling, not driving.


                                              On 1 September 2013 23:42, Francis Sedgemore <francis@...> wrote:
                                               
                                              The point is that articles such as the one featuring Laura Trott are examples of link-bait journalism. They are designed to provoke arguments, and there is no place for considered debate based on evidence.

                                              Trott is an outstanding athlete, but she is no more qualified to speak on matters outside of athletic cycling than is anyone else. But the point of articles such as this is to elevate the celebrity, and give undue authority to their pronouncements. I'm just glad to see that many of the commenters below the line give this approach short shrift.

                                              The evidence for the efficacy of BS Standard cycle helmets is in the scientific literature, and on balance it is weak. Anecdotal evidence is of no worth in epidemiological studies or health and safety policy development.

                                              When Bradley Wiggins made similar statements concerning cycle helmets, he was roundly criticised for it, with much of the criticism considered and constructive. Wiggins realised his mistake, and backed down.

                                              Francis


                                              On 1 Sep 13, at 23:28, Peter May <peter540819@...> wrote:

                                              > Good luck to Ms Trott, I too have a view on the compulsory wearing of helmets, based on the fact that I survived serious head injury, or worse, because I was wearing one when knocked off my bike. My cycling is not impaired or made worse by the wearing of a helmet. Ms Trott views are just as valid as anyone else, and if she did have a view to the solution of the Syrian crisis, I think that would be just as valid to express as well, after all every other bugger seems to have something to say about it.

                                              --
                                              Dr Francis Sedgemore
                                              journalist, writer and physicist
                                              telephone: +44 7840 191336
                                              website: sedgemore.com






                                            • Francis Sedgemore
                                              Dalla presents presents arguments based on ballistics research which shows the limited efficacy of polystyrene cycle helmets. There is a public debate to be
                                              Message 23 of 27 , Sep 2 5:09 AM
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Dalla presents presents arguments based on ballistics research which shows the limited efficacy of polystyrene cycle helmets. There is a public debate to be had about helmets, and that is the level at which it must be pitched, technical though the subject material is. 

                                                I'm reluctant to use this local cycling group e-list to get into such a debate. What bothered me about Trott's arguments as presented in the Evening Standard, and subsequent reference to the article online and in email discussion groups such as this, is the nature of the popular debate thus far. It is based largely on rhetorical point scoring rather than substantive argument grounded on scientific evidence. 

                                                Such dumbed-down discourse serves the media interest, and not just the tabloid media. The intention is stoke the flames, and, as someone who wears both a journalist's hat and that of a cycling advocate, this really pisses me off.

                                                As it happens, I am not anti-helmet. I recommend their use by small children, who ride slowly and are learning the art of balancing on a thin rubber edge. I also recommend the use of the more robust foam cushion and polypropylene helmets by off-road cyclists. These offer a little (and I stress a little) more ballistic protection than do standard cycle helmets, but more importantly they help prevent laceration-type injuries resulting from the impact of heads against small rocks and suchlike.

                                                The LCC view on cycle helmets…

                                                "LCC believes cyclists should be able to choose whether to wear a helmet or not. This is because the evidence that helmets increase safety is inconclusive (visit www.cyclehelmets.org for more information), whereas they have been shown to reduce the number of people who cycle, which sadly increases danger to cyclists.

                                                "Helmets do not prevent cyclists from being involved in a crash, and making cycle helmet wearing compulsory is often seen as a substitute for taking concrete measures to reduce road danger - for example by improving street design and improving driver behaviour. In Holland, where they have the safest streets in the world, cycle helmets are not compulsory.

                                                "The LCC believes that promoting compulsory wearing of cycle helmets is a distraction from the real issues of road safety and responsible cycling – which LCC are actively campaigning on."

                                                That is the consensus view of an organisation which represents a broad swathe of opinion within the London cycling community. Argue against LCC policy if you will, but at least do so in substantive terms.

                                                As for LCC's campaigning, this will later today take on a very public face, with thousands of cyclists converging on Westminster as MPs get down to discussing the report of the all-party committee charged with getting Britain cycling. The ride sets off at 18:30 on Belvedere Road by Jubilee Gardens. I and a number of other southeast London LCC activists will be marshalling the ride, which is to be led by Spencer Harradine of Bromley Cyclists. If you are planning to come on the ride, please assemble on Belvedere Road at 18:00.

                                                Francis


                                                On 2 Sep 13, at 11:28, Dalla Jenney <dallajenney@...> wrote:



                                                Apologies for this lengthy reply.   Francis does it so much more succinctly!


                                                Laura Trott is a professional cyclist, not an academic.  Her knee jerk emotional response is wholly understandable but it is not evidence based.  


                                                Cycle helmets were first marketed after a compressible polystyrene inner liner was invented for insertion inside hard motorcycle crash helmets. This inner liner was then used (without the rock hard outer motorcycle helmet shell) for cyclists without any efficacy testing.

                                                The theory is they absorb shocks by compressing on impact.  

                                                It takes reasonable energy to compress polystyrene, it takes very little to snap it (try this at home).

                                                In a high impact crash (almost any collision involving a motor vehicle), cycle helmets often shatter.  A helmet in pieces causes well meaning (but ignorant) people to hypothecate that “the helmet saved his/her life.”  In fact, the helmet failed if it shattered (shattering absorbs a negligible amount of impact energy) whereas wearing the helmet may have increased the chance of having the accident in the first place (see below).  


                                                Rather than the helmet having “saved her life”, the chances that Emma Trott’s helmet afforded her any significant protection when hit by a car are remote (see the data below on large studies).  It probably shattered.  Even if it didn't shatter, the amounts of kinetic energy around when hit by a car at any speed are orders higher than any cycle helmet can absorb.


                                                Moreover, Dr Ian Walker, a professor of traffic psychology, has found helmets to be counterproductive.

                                                He found that for cyclists wearing a helmet, motorists got 8-9cm closer than they did when not wearing one.  

                                                Here is some real life data:

                                                • There is no evidence that helmets have reduced the likelihood or severity of head injuries among whole populations of cyclists.

                                                • Helmet promotion (and especially compulsion) reduces cycling and the health benefits of cycling. Less cycling increases risk for those who continue to cycle, whether they wear helmets or not.

                                                • The greatest risks of serious injury associated with cycling come from inappropriate motor vehicle use and poor cycling behaviour. Institutionalising the idea that wearing a helmet is necessary for safe cycling diverts attention from more important actions to prevent crashes happening in the first place and results in victim-blaming when crashes do occur through no fault of the cyclist.

                                                • Head injuries to pedestrians and motorists are much more numerous than head injuries to cyclists.  If helmets are effective in reducing head injuries then, logically, they should be mandated for motorists and pedestrians before cyclists.  This is especially true for motorists as you could make them wear heavier, safer helmets (like motorbike ones) that actually work - just like racing drivers wear.


                                                Rodgers studied 8 million cases of injury or death to cyclists in the USA over 15 years - the largest survey of its kind ever undertaken. He found no evidence that helmets had reduced head injury or fatality rates. Indeed, he concluded that helmeted riders were more likely to be killed (this may be due to increased neck twisting injuries when wearing a helmet).

                                                Kunich analysed cyclist fatalities in the USA and concluded that there was no evidence that cycle helmets were effective in reducing deaths.

                                                In 2001, the US Consumer Product Safety Commission reported that although helmet use had risen over a decade from 18% to 50% of cyclists, head injuries had also gone up by 10%. There was no clear evidence that cycle use had increased.

                                                An analysis of cyclist and pedestrian fatalities in Canada from 1985 to 2003 showed that trends for both modes were similar and the number of deaths fell in both cases. However, although cycle helmet use had grown from virtually zero to 50% over the period, there was no detectable impact on cyclist fatalities compared with pedestrians.



                                                In 2009, an international review of the literature for the Department for Transport concluded that there was no reliable evidence that cycle helmets have resulted in a lower risk of head injury for cyclists.


                                                Nowhere in the world has an increase in helmet use resulted in a fall in head or brain injuries relative to cycle use.


                                                As we are trading personal anecdotes, my cousin was hit by a woman driving through a red light, and suffered permanent brain damage.  Had he been wearing a helmet, some may claim that he might have avoided such a serious injury (possibly true if he had been wearing a motorbike helmet, unlikely if it was a light cycle helmet).  He was a pedestrian so nobody at the subsequent court case determining the level of personal injury damages tried to  argue that he was contributorily negligent through not wearing a walking helmet.  Had he been on a pedal cycle instead of on foot, I would hate to think that his damages might have been reduced below what he needed for his care on the basis he had not been wearing a mandatory (useless) helmet and so was automatically held to be contributorily negligent.  This would be the legal result of helmet mandation.  


                                                Let’s not allow a sportswoman to determine our social and legal policy in an area that (should) rely on research, legal impact, scientific studies and evidence, no matter how fast she rides her bicycle and no matter how much sympathy we have for her that her sister was injured when hit by a car.  Let’s concentrate on stopping cars knocking down cyclists (and pedestrians) in the first place.

                                                If you want to wear a helmet, then go ahead.  Personally, having reviewed the scientific literature, I choose not to - not walking, not cycling, not driving.  

                                                -- 
                                                Dr Francis Sedgemore
                                                journalist, writer and physicist
                                                telephone: +44 7840 191336
                                                website: sedgemore.com



                                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.