Forum Topic

Another Cyclist Hit in Chiswick

Read today on OneChiswick that another cyclist - possibly jumping the lights in Chiswick - was hospitalised at the weekend. So much for safer cycling due to CS9.  And see below:-https://singlefile.org/london-is-about-to-have-an-explosion-in-cycling-deaths/?fbclid=IwAR3GCXCQ2PJWXj5N8ViNcd7rNV_I-xCtAF342529RZo6vRPVmZOCm5wg1ck

Claire Moran ● 1981d66 Comments

I was driving this morning up a residential road which is narrowed by cars parked on both sides. A car was coming the other way and there was just room for the two of us to pass. Then a cyclist appeared out of nowhere at high speed and hurtled through the tiny gap between us, clipping my wing mirror as he did so. He's another one who's going to be in hospital soon.

Susan Kelly ● 1981d

5-6 police around CHR / Chicwick lane this evening. Stoping,chatting,doing name check on radio and issuing fines. Yes,they were after cyclists going through red and not only from the cycle lane but the outside of the car lane. Could be on the back of what you posted reguards cyclist being hit A few were caught out and fined. One car allso turned from chiswick lane into the bike lane and given the time of evening could have been very dangerous.

Julian Pavey ● 1981d

Seen that singlefile site come up a couple of times in the last couple of days. It's either a masterful trolling site or the chap running it has a chip on his back about cyclists that can be seen from space. See his page about what to do if you (a cyclist) is in a crash: https://singlefile.org/you-just-had-a-crash/Also all the data on that page is 6 years old...

John Hannon ● 1981d

Australian guy. Seems to have his finger on the London pulse. He posted some of the first detailed information about LCC’s Simon Stills.

Russell Pearson ● 1981d

From OneChiswick just now:-  ·Car turned right into Brackley Road at Metro Bank and collided with cyclist travelling West on the cycleway. Fortunately, the ambulance arrived quickly and he was able to walk to the ambulance after a few minutes following treatment. The sooner this dangerous cycleway is scrapped the better!

Claire Moran ● 1981d

That sounds like very poor driving to me.

Ken Munn ● 1981d

I have read somewhere that there was an increase in accidents when cycle lanes were introduced in Denmark and Holland a couple of decades ago.It took a while for people to get used to themFrom what I remember whilst travelling in Germany,when turning  right from a main road into a side street,pedestrians and cyclists have priority. NB -pedestrians have priority over cyclists.Personally I prefer the dropped -kerb ,low speed,considerate form of traffic management as parts of K&C have eg. Sloane Square and High Street Ken.The bus/cycle lanes seemed to work so why prioritise cyclists  over everyone else ?If they don't know how to deal with traffic (ie don't be daft and cycle up alongside a lorry in its blindspot so you don't know if it's turning left),get a Cycling Proficiency test as many cyclists used to.

Ben Gemmingen ● 1981d

There was similar accident at that spot a couple of years back before the Cycleway so it may not be a relevant factor.The issue of who has priority in these situations has come up before. If a car signals to turn left and a cyclist is approaching from an inside lane should the cyclist give way? My view is that the cyclist should because a car also should (but doesn't always) give way in a similar situation. This has been discussed before and nobody, to the best of my recollection, came up with the definitive answer. Confusion about what the rules actually are may be contributing to the number of accidents.

Francis Rowe ● 1981d

It's been reported that the cyclist was travelling west on the cycle lane and the car was turning right into Brackley Road. If that was the case, the driver would be responsible for the collision as the cyclist had right of way.

Tom Pike ● 1981d

It's all very well a possibly injured cyclist saying it was their right of way ;perhaps they might have considered that the driver ,not being used to cycle lanes (as per my post about Holland and Denmark)did not see them and would therefore proceed with caution .

Ben Gemmingen ● 1981d

The driver wouldn't have had right of way with or without the cycle lane. If you do turn right across traffic into the path of an oncoming bike or car, you can't then blame them for not exercising caution.

Tom Pike ● 1981d

I'm not blaming either,all I mean is that when I cycle I'm aware that I am vulnerable so try to make sure that drivers see me and if I'm not sure they have,give way as I will come off worst in any collision.Ie. self-preservation.

Ben Gemmingen ● 1981d

What if your turning right and cyclist is travelling East ?What if the driver has no idea its a 2 way cycle lane ?All very possible

Julian Pavey ● 1981d

Tom is right. There is no ambiguity about right of way if a cyclist is approaching from the opposite direction. However, as Julian says, if the driver is unaware the cycleway is bi-directional and doesn't check both ways the risk of collision grows.

Francis Rowe ● 1981d

Irrespective of which side of pro or anti CW9 you support, this accident surely demonstrates that it's a badly conceived and constructed scheme and it's dangerous for cyclists, motorists and pedestrians.

Loraine Pemberton ● 1981d

Yes. However if anything happens it's the car drivers fault.

Nicholas Beard ● 1981d

I’m sorry to hear the motorist was hurt in the collision. My thoughts go out to him / her.

Ed Saper ● 1981d

Normally I avoid CHR like the plague when driving, but yesterday, for various reasons, I had occasion to enter CHR from Chiswick Lane, park for a few minutes near the bottom of Devonshire Road, then carefully thread my way back onto CHR to get to Sutton Court Road. It was a nightmare. I have to say I've never seen such a badly-planned system of random lanes, bollards and middle-of-the-road bus stops. The whole thing is a danger to pedestrians and cyclists alike, not because of mad, speed-obsessed motorists but because of the way different road-users are travelling from different directions in lanes which constantly cross each other, the whole thing being governed by a collection  of traffic lights which may or may not be observed.

Colin Jordan ● 1981d

Claire, I rode CR9 on Sunday and witnessed bicyclists jumping lights often. Whilst I am older and clearly more sensible than these pillocks I obediently stopped at all red lights. Some were good red lights others were not !

Chris Vessey ● 1981d

The problem here and elsewhere is roads are full of metal boxes parked up or moving. You make it very dangerous for cyclists. Residential roads are made a nightmare for cyclists. Bikes were here first, the motorcar did not appear in numbers until 1970's, so please have more respect for them and keep your eyes open, keep death off the road.

Chris Vessey ● 1981d

That junction is a nightmare for all. If you have a double decker stationed on one side of the yellow box junction and another just after it, then turning right is very tricky - witnessed a near miss a couple of months back. Neither the car or cyclist doing anything wrong, but having to inch forward when you can't see around two double deckers was tricky especially when cyclists coming both ways.I believe there was also another accident at the entrance to Airedale Ave on Saturday - not sure of details, but cyclist carted off in ambulance again. That is at least 4 ambulance required in as many months. It would be interesting to know the stats for the stretch of road from Goldhawk to Turnham Green Terrace as I reckon they have increased massively since the bike lane was introduced.

J Morse ● 1981d

Ben you are suggesting the cyclist should proceed with caution but the motorist needn't. What planet are you on Carworld ?

Chris Vessey ● 1981d

Ed, that's a bit unworthy of you. In any collision in which badly thought out road design is a contributory factor, the driver is also a victim, and while the mental health impact may seem trifling compared to the physical injuries the person hit may have suffered, incidents like this can life-changing for some drivers.Worth adding that I've now seen the video of the aftermath of this incident and what actually happened remains unclear. It is only stated on the very partisan One Chiswick Facebook group that the collision involved a cyclist but none of the people saying this seem to be actual eye-witnesses. The video shows no bike near the victim.

Francis Rowe ● 1981d

Colin I am glad to hear you avoid CHR like he plague, wish everybody else would too. How wonderful that would be !

Chris Vessey ● 1981d

Chris, thank you for your appreciation, but I'm not sure that 'everybody else' avoiding CHR will be good for shops, restaurants, pubs and businesses in the area. I would much prefer to be a frequent visitor to CHR, as I have been for many years, whether on foot, by car or by public transport. Thanks to the shambolic planning inflicted on us by LBH, CHR is in danger of becoming one of those sad areas of empty shop-fronts and closed-down restaurants. If that happens, you'll get your wish: no-one will go there at all and you'll have it all to yourself.

Colin Jordan ● 1981d

If you think the Chiswick section is awful the take a pedal down King St.It can only be described as a collection of randomly arranged lumps of plastic punctuated by unexplained gaps, road works and one that criss crosses from side to side. Sometimes wide enough to drive a tank down other times disappearing or narrowing just enough for one bike. Judging by the state of the thing I will be amazed if Hammersmith haven't planned to get rid of it since the outset. The reality is C9 effectively runs from Goldhawk Road to Turnham Green and if H&F don't sort it out or decide to scrap it and K&C don't do a U then then the original concept is well and truly dead.

Adrian Irving ● 1981d

"incidents like this can life-changing for some drivers."Absolutely.I attended a course in Central London run by the Met on safer cycling. An articulated lorry was parked up next to a squad car. I was put in the drivers seat and believe me I couldn't see the car!Talking about this to the officer he told me that a high percentage of drivers never step foot in the cab again after a fatality.I was then tailed around Marylebone so any bad habits I had could be pointed out.Just to add, despite publicity and being open to anyone I was the only person to show up.Whilst I am on the subject, don't anyone repeat the allegation that I have been campaigning against safer cycling for three years again please. This wide spread allegation only goes to demonstrate how some folk are  just desperate to throw mud against a non existent wall in the absent of anything constructive to say.

Adrian Irving ● 1980d

Francis, I was responding to Lorraine's post:"this accident surely demonstrates that it's a badly conceived and constructed scheme and it's dangerous for cyclists, motorists and pedestrians."As far as I am aware, no motorist was physically harmed in this accident.  There's a leap to (premature) judgement that the road design is partly (or mostly) to blame for the accident - thus the call for the cycle lane to be ripped up in the interests of safety.When a car mounts a pavement and kills a pedestrian, we don't hear calls to rip up the pavements in the interests of pedestrian and driver safety.

Ed Saper ● 1980d

You dont need to be used to cycle lanes to avoid this type of collision - maybe cycling West to East direction this would be a factor - the driver would likely have hit the cyclist if it was on the main carriageway - no excuse - probably trying to race the turn

Simeon Gill ● 1980d

I live in Kew and used to go to CHR by bike,bus and car,using the shops,pubs and restaurants.Due to the congestion caused by the changes I have switched to pretty much the same shops in Richmond,such as Robert Dyas.

Peter Cozens ● 1980d

Fair enough.I have pointed out that accidents occurred here before the cycleway was built and that confusion over priority may be a contributory factor in this type of collision.Also, there is no firm evidence that this incident did involve a cyclist so it demonstrates nothing at this stage.Would would be reassuring to know is that Hounslow had a designated officer recording each collision that took place in the vicinity and doing an analysis of each one to see if the changes were indeed a contributory factor. There will be those who will claim that, even if this information was known to Hounslow they would suppress it if it tended not to support the case for retention of the scheme. The only way to counter that would be to collect as much data as possible and put it in the public domain as part of the consultation exercise.

Francis Rowe ● 1980d

"There's a leap to (premature) judgement that the road design is partly (or mostly) to blame for the accident - thus the call for the cycle lane to be ripped up in the interests of safety"Ed, this scheme goes against TfL and international best practice for cycle infrastructure. This is nothing new. As Adrian says, many have advocated for improved cycle infrastructure and simply cannot see how TfL would ignore its own advice and how LBH would let them get away with it. Especially given public monies being spent by an authority which is set to be rescued anew in a matter of days.No premature judgement. Simply an accident waiting to happen so it comes as no surprise. How many accidents or injuries or worse need to occur before TfL and LBH take notice? One? Two? Three? Hundreds?

David Lesniak ● 1980d

Completely agree, Francis. On your first point, while we don't have confirmation of the details, at face value this was down to a proper failure to observe oncoming traffic by the driver turning right. On your second, statistics will be sparse so it might be difficult to come to reach any definitive conclusions.In general there are two relevant and related effects from introducing a cycle lane: their effect on safety and their effect on the number of cyclists. Whatever the effect on safety in terms of an individual collision occurring, it is multiplied by the number of both cars and bikes to get an overall rate.It certainly looks like the bike lane is attracting more cyclists, and that in itself will tend to lead to more collisions. The observation that there are more cyclists injured in the Netherlands, but you are less likely to be injured as a cyclist are both true.

Tom Pike ● 1980d

"Would would be reassuring to know is that Hounslow had a designated officer recording each collision that took place in the vicinity and doing an analysis of each one to see if the changes were indeed a contributory factor. "The source of information is the police STATS19 report that is completed for every collision involving a person requiring medical attention that is attended by the police.If there is a fatality, I believe the borough is informed about it immediately.  For serious and slight collisions, the information is reported to the borough but I don't know the timescales.  The STATS19 report has information released publicly and other information that isn't public but I believe at least some of it can be obtained under FOI with the police assessment of the cause of the collision and other details.As you would expect, the whole process is documented in detail with definitions and codes for the various information captured by the police to assist bulk analysis of data.The public information isn't released until well into the following year as part of a GB-wide release of data from the DfT with analysis of trends etc.From the STATS19 data, from 2005-2017 a cyclist was injured on average every 5 weeks on CHR.  The absolute numbers only tell part of the story as the numbers cycling are important as well.  A road with 10 casualties in a year and an average of 1000 people cycling a day has a lower casualty rate than 15 casualties and an average of 2000.

Michael Robinson ● 1980d

If the accident involved a cyclist at the Metro Bank junction it is difficult to see how it could be anything other than the car driver's fault.However, there may be mitigating factors.  As a cyclist many years ago I was hit by a car turning right as I was going up Notting Hill (not seriously hurt but was vey shaken up).  I was minding my own business cycling to work in the City but what I did not know and could not see was that the large SUV in front of me had just stopped and waived the driver wanting to turn right through - the driver took the opportunity to turn right and I went flying over his front windscreen.Now I am not saying that this is what happened this time but it is an example of mitigating factors for the driver of the car - the driver has still committed the offence of careless driving but equally there would have been nothing the cyclist could have done to prevent the accident

Justin Stephenson ● 1980d

Out of interest is it known if the car hit the bicycle head on or the bicycle hit the side of the car?To go anywhere I have to drive across the cycle path and have to admit there have been a couple of times when I have forgotten that cyclists may be coming from the 'wrong' direction.Having done the turn many hundreds of times before C9 I am sure you can see how this can and will happen to drivers.

Adrian Irving ● 1980d

Justin, was the driver in your case convicted?

Francis Rowe ● 1980d

"As Adrian says, many have advocated for improved cycle infrastructure and simply cannot see how TfL would ignore its own advice and how LBH would let them get away with it."Ah you mean like moving the cyclists completely away from the cars like they do in other countries with a developed cycling culture. Why oh why did TfL not pursue that idea? Its almost like they did and a minority yet vocal group claimed Armageddon.How many accidents or injuries or worse you say before they move the scheme to where it was originally proposed?Hopefully not too many. Then the merry go round can start all over again and we can all look forward to threads about dogs with extendable leashes needing 8m of footway.

Tony Smart ● 1980d

"As Adrian says, many have advocated for improved cycle infrastructure and simply cannot see how TfL would ignore its own advice and how LBH would let them get away with it."Did I say that? If I did I don't recall, anyway no matter. One of the complains I had about the original scheme was it didn't go far enough into Central London. If you're going to do the job do it properly, safely, and make it worthwhile. In reality it very much now looks like C9 will end up being a short stretch of a dogs dinner between Goldhawk Road and Turnham Green.Nett benifit? Not a lot, if any.

Adrian Irving ● 1980d

No, he drove off and I was too shaken up to get the number plate. I was lucky.But the point is at the Metro Bank junction it is very easy for the accident to happen because a driver turning right has no way of seeing a cyclist travelling west if there is a line of large cars also travelling west which have stopped to allow the right turn.  It is easy to say the driver turning right should be more careful but sometimes even that would not be enough

Justin Stephenson ● 1980d

Some cycle tracks have a dotted white line which means they should stop if a car is turning left. If they dont, well it's their fault.

Nicholas Beard ● 1980d

Justin, haven't you slightly contradicted yourself there having earlier said that a collision near the Metro Bank junction would necessarily be the driver's fault?A driver given that he or she is relatively safe in a metal box should always have the primary duty of care in situations like this but, as you rightly point out there is an elevated risk if cycle traffic is passing static motorised traffic on the inside.In your accident, the driver was clearly guilty of leaving the scene of the accident but was he necessarily totally at fault? You say the SUV was obstructing your view therefore wouldn't it have been partly your responsibility to ensure that it was safe to proceed before doing so?Although in most cases in which a car collides with a bicycle there is likely to be an element of blame on the motorist, some of the new configurations in Chiswick would provide mitigation for drivers.

Francis Rowe ● 1979d

"You say the SUV was obstructing your view therefore wouldn't it have been partly your responsibility to ensure that it was safe to proceed before doing so?"Unless there are markings indicating otherwise, the vehicle (bike of car) going straight on has the right of way, while the vehicle  turning right across the traffic should give way. Whether or not one vehicle going straight on might choose to yield, it is still the responsibility of the person turning right to yield to any other traffic travelling straight on with the right of way. There is no difference whether any of the vehicles involved is a car or a bike.If there is a give-way marked across the roadway or cycle lane, then that changes the priority."...some of the new configurations in Chiswick would provide mitigation for drivers."Where did you have in mind?

Tom Pike ● 1979d

Welcome back, Tony. It's been a while. Curious you suddenly pop back in.As you know, TfL guidelines for such a cycle route call for a minimum of intersections with side roads. Ditto the Dutch guidelines held by you and others as the cycling bible. TfL also bases their guidelines on Dutch precedent. Yet they decided to put CS9 in the worst possible location with the most intersections especially when compared to an A4 alternate. The TfL design maximizes the probability for injury. Flawed design will do that. You know all that. But good for you for trying to have a go.

David Lesniak ● 1979d

Right of way is probably the wrong term to use here - it is vehicle priority. This is only meant to indicate in what order traffic should proceed and doesn't override the need to use the road with care. If there are two lanes of traffic and the vehicle in the front of one lane indicates to a vehicle turning right it should proceed then the convention would be that the vehicles in the other lane should do like wise. If the vehicle in the other lane is a bike and a collision occurs the notional priority that the bike had would not be the deciding factor as to who was at fault.

Paul Corcoran ● 1979d

In a nutshell they didn't see one another in time.People look but do not see. The RAF teaches their flight crew to see and it's worth teaching yourself to do the same.For example you take photo of the person you want but don't see the rubbish bin in the background.

Adrian Irving ● 1979d

That's a rather dodgy convention for two reasons: the other drivers or cyclists would not be aware there had been any indication that the right-turning vehicle had been given permission by one driver to proceed; it goes against the Highway Code that says specifically that a flashing light should not be taken as permission to proceed.

Tom Pike ● 1979d

Why is it that some sensible, intelligent and probably rational people cannot see that the fragmented C9 with its numerous junctions and feeder roads is dangerous for all road and pavement users  ?

Loraine Pemberton ● 1979d

It seems that there are some drivers in Chiswick who could do with sitting their test again instead of making up "conventions" to excuse poor driving. And please could drivers who regularly and knowingly fail to look both ways when crossing the cycle lane to exit or enter their road just hand their licence in and let competent drivers chauffeur them when they need to use a car?

Paul Campbell ● 1979d

Certainly Paul,But is it remotely possible that the cyclists who crash red lights, cycle on the wrong side of the road and on pavements stop doing so ? Merely a polite request.

Loraine Pemberton ● 1979d

Absolutely Paul, anyone knowing failing to look both ways before proceeding are idiots however that's quite different to  people that momentary forget.But you know that don't you.

Adrian Irving ● 1979d

I don’t blame any cyclist using the pavement because they don’t feel safe on a road.

Ed Saper ● 1979d

Same outcome for the victim(s) and the same social media trail to prove the incompetence and guilt of the driver.

Paul Campbell ● 1979d

Moving on, Paul would you say that cyclists should always use a protected cycle way when one is available rather than mixing with traffic?

Adrian Irving ● 1979d

Don't cyclists feel safe on their expensive cycle Lane ? You know the space  taken from roads and bus lanes  ?

Loraine Pemberton ● 1979d

Nor do the police:"London's roads present unique challenges, not least of which is the sheer number of drivers, cyclists and pedestrians who use them, therefore their approach may vary from other areas of the country.“The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of the traffic, and who show consideration to other pavement users."Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required."Association of Chief Police Officers, 2014

Tom Pike ● 1979d

Ed, for me cycling on a pavement is the last resort. There are numerous occasions when this has happened to protect myself from reckless motorists of which there are thousands upon thousands, and probably many more than that !

Chris Vessey ● 1979d

Don't you think that car drivers have a duty to drive responsibly, respecting other road users including pedestrians and cyclists?

Carl Wynne ● 1979d

Carl, I was cycling through Twickenham, Heath Road today in the bus lane and this female motorist jumped out of this junction driving across me to turn right. Utterly negligent. They just don't seem to care as if we cyclists are down the bottom of the pecking order. Well I have news for them !

Chris Vessey ● 1979d

Nice backtrack.So would you prefer it separated from the road or not?That is considered best practice on any road over 30kph.You want to go one step further and have it separated on both sides of the road? Brave!

Tony Smart ● 1979d

In an ideal world yes but it depends on the design and if it is inclusive. Plenty of narrow cycle lanes / tracks out there which means you cannot overtake. If a cycle lane is narrow its only as good as its slowest cyclist. If it is successful in attracting a wider demographic of user then the downside will be the sportier cyclists resorting to the road. It is why with the explosion of ebikes, escooters and more women and children looking to cycle we need over 2m in effective widths to ensure the facility is inclusive and facilitates growth. That is effective width so you cant include the first couple of hundred mm either side of a kerb.You want at least half a metre buffer from the traffic too. Ideally more and landscaped. At least 1m if you are going to have parking outside the bike lane. Answer to the question is cyclists should ideally use a protected cycleway if its big enough and does not place them in a position where they can't get to where they want to go.Won't always happen just like cars won't always go where they should be either. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_Cw0QJU8ro

Tony Smart ● 1979d

Adrian, this upsetting news item sadly supports your post:_https://www.mylondon.news/news/west-london-news/i-hospital-hooked-up-machines-20682227?utm_source=mylondon_newsletter&utm_campaign=mywestlondon_newsletter2&utm_medium=email

Claire Moran ● 1979d

No backtrack, Tony. Just facts about TfL not following its own guidelines. Which I'm guessing is why you're asking about with flow cycle lanes on both sides. I've seen this in action in Islington of late. No real separation other than wands and adjacent to parking along the length. Works better than this crap.But as I've said many times all along (you know, when dodging dodgy bullets from folks like you) what's needed is a complete rethink of our urban patch. Not some slipshod ill-conceived retrofit installed under cover of COVID.

David Lesniak ● 1979d

"I don’t blame any cyclist using the pavement because they don’t feel safe on a road"Ed, given the trajectory of this debate locally, if we still see people cycling on the pavement using the excuse of not feeling safe (let's be honest, its a bit of a get-out-of-jail-free card) and we know TfL didn't follow its own guidelines to build safe cycle infrastructure, surely surely people still cycling on the pavement is evidence of TfL failure. We have heard countless times infrastructure such as this is primarily to encourage those less confident to use it. How many times have we heard about all your kids, some of whom are oddly stuck at 11 years old, needing this for safety. And then if it doesn't get used we hear about needing to use the pavement for safety. Which equates to the cycle lane not being safe. Which equates to poor design and implementation. The rhetoric continues in lieu of proper evaluation. If we follow the current logic we have "yay, more cyclists" but "boo, the cycle lane isn't safe." That won't end well as we have already seen.

David Lesniak ● 1979d

Thank you Tony, although my question was addressed to Paul it is good to get a comprehensive answer.

Adrian Irving ● 1979d

David, not every road has a cycle lane and sometimes the lanes are little more than scuffed paint - ignored by HGVs and parked on by vans and cars. My 8 year old’s school run includes some pavement cycling, some shared pavements, some quietway road cycling and the Kew end of CS9. We go on the pavement on CHR because there is no cycle lane down this end. Maybe there will be by the time he’s 11 :-)

Ed Saper ● 1979d