Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Re: The hopelessness of Greenwich Foot Tunnel

93 views
Skip to first unread message

Judith

unread,
Oct 22, 2012, 6:14:50 AM10/22/12
to
On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 09:23:41 +0100, Bertie Wooster <be...@wooster.invalid.com>
wrote:

>And my good friend Anthony Austin is interviewed...
>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-20017827
>
>Greenwich Cyclists warned Greenwich Council this would happen if they
>didn't properly project manage the works.


Spot the knob at 49 seconds getting on his bike, just after the "No Cycling"
notice.

Is that another of your good friends?

I see it is called a "Foot Tunnel" - any idea why?

Do you know if cyclists are actually breaking a by-law by cycling and what the
penalties are? How does one go about reporting them?

It looks like a bit of pedestrian/citizen action is required

(uk.legal added)

--

Bertie Wooster's real name is Tom Crispin.
He uses the name Bertie Wooster so that people involved with
Young Lewisham and Greenwich Cyclists and John Ball primary school
can't see what a tosser he is.

Bertie Wooster

unread,
Oct 22, 2012, 6:20:25 AM10/22/12
to
On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:14:50 +0100, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk>
wrote:

>On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 09:23:41 +0100, Bertie Wooster <be...@wooster.invalid.com>
>wrote:
>
>>And my good friend Anthony Austin is interviewed...
>>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-20017827
>>
>>Greenwich Cyclists warned Greenwich Council this would happen if they
>>didn't properly project manage the works.
>
>
>Spot the knob at 49 seconds getting on his bike, just after the "No Cycling"
>notice.
>
>Is that another of your good friends?
>
> I see it is called a "Foot Tunnel" - any idea why?
>
>Do you know if cyclists are actually breaking a by-law by cycling and what the
>penalties are? How does one go about reporting them?

You could try dialling 999.

Mrcheerful

unread,
Oct 22, 2012, 6:31:59 AM10/22/12
to
Judith wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 09:23:41 +0100, Bertie Wooster
> <be...@wooster.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> And my good friend Anthony Austin is interviewed...
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-20017827
>>
>> Greenwich Cyclists warned Greenwich Council this would happen if they
>> didn't properly project manage the works.
>
>
> Spot the knob at 49 seconds getting on his bike, just after the "No
> Cycling" notice.
>
> Is that another of your good friends?
>
> I see it is called a "Foot Tunnel" - any idea why?
>
> Do you know if cyclists are actually breaking a by-law by cycling and
> what the penalties are? How does one go about reporting them?
>
> It looks like a bit of pedestrian/citizen action is required
>
> (uk.legal added)

There is a bye law specifically prohibiting the riding of bicycles through
the greenwich foot tunnel.
The relevant acts are dated 1855, 1897 and 1903 and called :
The Thames tunnel (greenwich to Millwall) Act 1897 and the Metropolis
Management act 1855. One or both of these were updated in 1903.

Section 3 States: No person shall ride a bicycle, tricycle or other vehicle
in the tunnel.

Above taken from 'The Metropolitan Traffic Manual' by Carrol Romer






Judith

unread,
Oct 22, 2012, 6:47:21 AM10/22/12
to
On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:20:25 +0100, Bertie Wooster <be...@wooster.invalid.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:14:50 +0100, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 09:23:41 +0100, Bertie Wooster <be...@wooster.invalid.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>And my good friend Anthony Austin is interviewed...
>>>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-20017827
>>>
>>>Greenwich Cyclists warned Greenwich Council this would happen if they
>>>didn't properly project manage the works.
>>
>>
>>Spot the knob at 49 seconds getting on his bike, just after the "No Cycling"
>>notice.
>>
>>Is that another of your good friends?
>>
>> I see it is called a "Foot Tunnel" - any idea why?
>>
>>Do you know if cyclists are actually breaking a by-law by cycling and what the
>>penalties are? How does one go about reporting them?
>
>You could try dialling 999.


Sorry - I was hoping for a sensible comment.
- I had forgotten how stupid you are.

Odd - there is about ten seconds of footage of "cyclists" in the tunnel - and 2
out of the six in the tunnel are cycling.

Is that typical - 33% - or is it usually more?


Judith

unread,
Oct 22, 2012, 6:49:02 AM10/22/12
to
On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:31:59 +0100, "Mrcheerful" <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
Excellent : do you know if penalties are defined and imposed?

GB

unread,
Oct 22, 2012, 7:07:01 AM10/22/12
to
On 22/10/2012 11:49, Judith wrote:

>> There is a bye law specifically prohibiting the riding of bicycles through
>> the greenwich foot tunnel.
>> The relevant acts are dated 1855, 1897 and 1903 and called :
>> The Thames tunnel (greenwich to Millwall) Act 1897 and the Metropolis
>> Management act 1855. One or both of these were updated in 1903.
>>
>> Section 3 States: No person shall ride a bicycle, tricycle or other vehicle
>> in the tunnel.
>>
>> Above taken from 'The Metropolitan Traffic Manual' by Carrol Romer
>
>
> Excellent : do you know if penalties are defined and imposed?
>

If the penalties are specified in an act from 120 years ago, it could be
something fixed in monetary terms, which would now be tiny in value
given the effect of inflation.

Are you sure that these old acts weren't repealed by The Local Law
(Greater London Council and Inner London Boroughs) Order 1965?

Mrcheerful

unread,
Oct 22, 2012, 7:03:41 AM10/22/12
to
As the original states 'forty shillings' I imagine there must be a modern
update to bring it up to modern standards.
If the cyclist refuses to give name and address to a constable's
satisfaction then it is an arrestable offence.

from :
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=D2QpfWW5YUAC&pg=PA88&lpg=PA88&dq=greenwich+tunnel+bye-laws&source=bl&ots=pT6hmXLkDO&sig=FxbKAMMVZCnlqApLuQLeXCR66MA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=EB6FUNmgL8TX0QXB54GABQ&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=greenwich%20tunnel%20bye-laws&f=false

various wordings were updated in 1965
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1965/540/schedule/I/made?view=plain


Mrcheerful

unread,
Oct 22, 2012, 7:44:02 AM10/22/12
to
Reworded in places certainly.

Where is a legal eagle when you need one?


Judith

unread,
Oct 22, 2012, 8:16:42 AM10/22/12
to
On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 12:44:02 +0100, "Mrcheerful" <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
Making the coffee?

Bertie Wooster

unread,
Oct 22, 2012, 11:33:38 AM10/22/12
to
On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:47:21 +0100, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk>
wrote:

>On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:20:25 +0100, Bertie Wooster <be...@wooster.invalid.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:14:50 +0100, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 09:23:41 +0100, Bertie Wooster <be...@wooster.invalid.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>And my good friend Anthony Austin is interviewed...
>>>>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-20017827
>>>>
>>>>Greenwich Cyclists warned Greenwich Council this would happen if they
>>>>didn't properly project manage the works.
>>>
>>>
>>>Spot the knob at 49 seconds getting on his bike, just after the "No Cycling"
>>>notice.
>>>
>>>Is that another of your good friends?
>>>
>>> I see it is called a "Foot Tunnel" - any idea why?
>>>
>>>Do you know if cyclists are actually breaking a by-law by cycling and what the
>>>penalties are? How does one go about reporting them?
>>
>>You could try dialling 999.
>
>
>Sorry - I was hoping for a sensible comment.
> - I had forgotten how stupid you are.
>
>Odd - there is about ten seconds of footage of "cyclists" in the tunnel - and 2
>out of the six in the tunnel are cycling.

Most odd. I counted 17 cyclists, 12 walking with their bikes, 4 riding
them and one scooting.

>Is that typical - 33% - or is it usually more?

Yes - it's fairly typical. Cycling rates tend to drop when there are
lots of pedestrians using the tunnel, and rise when there are fewer
pedestrians.

Mrcheerful

unread,
Oct 22, 2012, 11:43:24 AM10/22/12
to
5 out of 17 breaking the law is still very near a third of the cyclists.


Bertie Wooster

unread,
Oct 22, 2012, 12:37:58 PM10/22/12
to
Yes.

Dave - Cyclists VOR

unread,
Oct 22, 2012, 1:29:59 PM10/22/12
to
Much lower rate of law breaking than on the roads then?

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton, of Lancaster
University, wrote in an interim assessment of the Understanding Walking
and Cycling study. "For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail
to see its purpose, and have no interest in integrating it into their
lives, certainly on a regular basis."

Bertie Wooster

unread,
Oct 22, 2012, 1:55:50 PM10/22/12
to
Yes. My observations are that 66 - 75% of motorists ignore red traffic
signals, and according to the SafeSpeed website, 57% of drivers ignore
the 70mph limits and 58% of drivers ignore the 30mph limits.

Dave - Cyclists VOR

unread,
Oct 22, 2012, 2:36:43 PM10/22/12
to
What a shame all those traffic light & speed cameras don't agree with you.

The 6,000 + speed cameras only caught 5% of the motoring public.

Peter Turtill

unread,
Oct 22, 2012, 3:46:57 PM10/22/12
to
On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:31:59 +0100, "Mrcheerful"
<g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>There is a bye law specifically prohibiting the riding of bicycles through
>the greenwich foot tunnel.
>The relevant acts are dated 1855, 1897 and 1903 and called :
>The Thames tunnel (greenwich to Millwall) Act 1897 and the Metropolis
>Management act 1855. One or both of these were updated in 1903.
>
>Section 3 States: No person shall ride a bicycle, tricycle or other vehicle
>in the tunnel.
>
>Above taken from 'The Metropolitan Traffic Manual' by Carrol Romer

There are also similar laws about cycling or even driving on Footpaths
(as opposed to footways, pavements etc) but nobody enforces the laws
and even if you take a complaint to the police it will not result in
action against anyone. LA are as guilty as most where I live as they
have even built car parks on Footpaths:-)

pete

Partac

unread,
Oct 22, 2012, 8:18:32 PM10/22/12
to


"Bertie Wooster" wrote in message
news:nu1b88t0j6j2anlc7...@4ax.com...
What, all in the Greenwich foot tunnel? After all, this is what the thread
is all about. Or did you decide to bring in some completely irrelevant info
to provide a smokescreen(as usual)?

jnugent

unread,
Oct 23, 2012, 12:21:56 AM10/23/12
to
All specified fine amounts were re-valorised and standardised some
decades back. That penalty will now be interpreted in court as a "a fine
not exceeding £nnnn on the standard scale".

Bertie Wooster

unread,
Oct 23, 2012, 2:16:29 AM10/23/12
to
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 01:18:32 +0100, "Partac" <any...@tiscali.co.uk>
wrote:
No, it was plankwit who started talking about the road instead of the
foot tunnel.

Dave - Cyclists VOR

unread,
Oct 23, 2012, 3:47:38 AM10/23/12
to
Comprehension skills failing you again Cwispie?

It is perfectly clear to anyone but a retard, that " Much lower rate of
law breaking than on the roads then?" refers to cyclists. So you
introduced roads & motorists.

M Wicks

unread,
Oct 23, 2012, 1:44:30 PM10/23/12
to
On Oct 23, 7:16 am, Bertie Wooster <b...@wooster.invalid.com> wrote:
> plankwit

Tell me, what do you say to pupils at your primary school who have
been name-calling? Do you perhaps tell them that it is immature and
unacceptable? If so, don't those things also go (to a far greater
extent) for a middle-aged adult, especially one who (god help us) is
charged with educating the next generation?

M Wicks

unread,
Oct 23, 2012, 1:45:58 PM10/23/12
to
On Oct 22, 11:49 am, Judith <jmsmith2...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:31:59 +0100, "Mrcheerful" <g.odonnel...@yahoo.co.uk>
I think we need URC/URCM's best Lee-gal mind to answer that one.
Mine's an espresso.

M Wicks

unread,
Oct 23, 2012, 1:46:46 PM10/23/12
to
On Oct 22, 8:39 pm, Peter Turtill <recent:turt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:31:59 +0100, "Mrcheerful"
>
Aren't you the person Judith doesn't like?

Tony Dragon

unread,
Oct 23, 2012, 2:50:02 PM10/23/12
to
Lets think about that, according to you only one third (aprox) of
motorists stop at red lights, if that was true there would be thousands
of collisions every day at light controlled junctions.
As that is not the case your observations must be wrong.

Tony Dragon

unread,
Oct 23, 2012, 2:52:52 PM10/23/12
to
On 23/10/2012 07:16, Bertie Wooster wrote:
Those are your words, you brought up motorists into this thread.

Bertie Wooster

unread,
Oct 23, 2012, 3:03:20 PM10/23/12
to
Indeed, but only after Plankwit asked for a road v foot tunnel
lawbreaking comparison.

Bertie Wooster

unread,
Oct 23, 2012, 3:06:19 PM10/23/12
to
Not at all.

Casual observations at the A2212/A20 junction indeed confirm that 2-3
motor vehicles pass lights which are not green every phase.

Judith

unread,
Oct 23, 2012, 3:22:40 PM10/23/12
to
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 20:06:19 +0100, Bertie Wooster <be...@wooster.invalid.com>
Oh dear - Crispin's usual logic.

Firstly he says that 75% ignore *red* lights - and then he changes his story to
lights "which are not green".

He is really not bright.


--

Bertie Wooster's real name is Tom Crispin.
He uses the name Bertie Wooster so that people involved with
Young Lewisham and Greenwich Cyclists and John Ball primary school
can't see what a tosser he is.

Dave - Cyclists VOR

unread,
Oct 23, 2012, 3:29:14 PM10/23/12
to
Wriggling again? My comment was clearly about cyclists breaking the law
on the roads.

You are either stupid or malicious. I'll apply Hanlon's Razor.

Tony Dragon

unread,
Oct 23, 2012, 3:55:17 PM10/23/12
to
And how many have stopped at the red light using your 'casual observations'?

Tony Dragon

unread,
Oct 23, 2012, 4:31:07 PM10/23/12
to
Would you like to point out where 'motorists' are mentioned?
Your reply is awaited.

Peter Turtill

unread,
Oct 23, 2012, 7:58:55 PM10/23/12
to
That prat is in my killfile. I know him as Anthony Bournes, long time
troll who thinks I shagged his wife.

pete

Clive George

unread,
Oct 23, 2012, 8:53:08 PM10/23/12
to
On 24/10/2012 00:58, Peter Turtill wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:46:46 -0700 (PDT), M Wicks
>> Aren't you the person Judith doesn't like?
>
> That prat is in my killfile. I know him as Anthony Bournes, long time
> troll who thinks I shagged his wife.

Was she worth it? :-)

Peter Turtill

unread,
Oct 23, 2012, 9:15:01 PM10/23/12
to
It was just a few fivers while I killed time if I remember correctly
but there again I am not sure if it actually was his wife as one
Bangkok bride looks the same as another to me.

pete

Judith

unread,
Oct 24, 2012, 7:31:27 AM10/24/12
to
On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 02:15:01 +0100, Peter Turtill <recent:tur...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Surely you mean "one Bangkok child looks the same as another to me"


I've had sex with 13 14 15 year olds and in this country too not
Bangkok. I see no problem with it personally if they can understand
what their bodies are telling them. It is taken for granted in some
parts of the world I can tell you.
(Peter Turtill 9 September 2005)

Judith

unread,
Oct 24, 2012, 7:31:57 AM10/24/12
to
On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 00:58:55 +0100, Peter Turtill <recent:tur...@gmail.com>
wrote:

<snip>


>>Aren't you the person Judith doesn't like?
>
>That prat is in my killfile. I know him as Anthony Bournes, long time
>troll who thinks I shagged his wife.
>
>pete


No, no no, - the only thing you ever shagged were underage girls

I've had sex with 13 14 15 year olds and in this country too not
Bangkok. I see no problem with it personally if they can understand
what their bodies are telling them. It is taken for granted in some
parts of the world I can tell you.
(Peter Turtill 9 September 2005)


Are you still observing and filming the doggers?:


I have a pair of Prinz 10x50's that do work better than the naked eye
in dusk conditions but I need much better than that so I can use them
in complete darkness when there is no moon.
pete
12 May 2005

Dave - Cyclists VOR

unread,
Oct 24, 2012, 1:27:02 PM10/24/12
to
We should make Cwispie sit on the naughty chair....

Dave - Cyclists VOR

unread,
Oct 24, 2012, 1:28:46 PM10/24/12
to
Cwispie doesn't understand big numbers. Once he runs out of fingers &
toes he is lost.
0 new messages