Forum Topic

TfL & LBH manipulating figures?

Based on the very good and balanced article on the website, TfL have claimed success for CS9 based on data collected between Feb & Apr 2021 compared to 2020.If we assume that TfL are comparing 1 Feb 2020-30 Apr 2020 with 1 Feb 2021-30 April 2021 there are 2 problems with their analysis, one big problem and one small problem.Whilst in both years they are comparing the same 3 month period the small problem is that 2020 was a leap year so there is one extra day in the 2020 data compared to the 2021 data (90 days v 89 days in 2021).  It is only just over a 1% difference so shouldn't skew the data much and hopefully TfL corrected for that (the article doesn't say).Much more importantly the period Feb-Apr 2020 was not all in lockdown (lockdown started on 23 March 2020) whereas all of the Feb-Apr 2021 was in lockdown so not even close to comparing like with like

Justin Stephenson ● 1935d134 Comments

The picture from TFL is quite obviously staged as well

Paul Fisher ● 1935d

Indeed - they must have photoshopped out the figure of Loraine standing on the pavement waving her handbag at the passing cyclists. ;-)

Richard Greenhough ● 1935d

Justin, the article is basically a copy and paste of the TfL press release.https://tfl-newsroom.prgloo.com/news/tfl-press-release-new-data-highlights-success-of-trial-cycleway-in-chiswickincluding-improved-road-safety-and-air-qualityIt refers to "between February and April 2021" so I don't know why you are bringing up 2020.  Also the figures referenced are daily so I don't see the relevance of the number of days in the month.

Michael Robinson ● 1935d

What does TfL/The Mayor all those so called in charge people want?  Obviously a wide cycle lane can accommodate several individual people but at the expense of how many hundreds of people on jammed up buses, disabled people having to use a motor vehicle, delivery drivers often in electric vehicles, emergency vehicles, hundreds  all jammed into two very narrow lanes unable to pass but pumping out femes.    Do THEY only want cyclists to exist in this brave new world?

Jennifer selig ● 1935d

The article is clearly loaded and very manipulative, the figures are astonishing low so how it can be positioned positively is a joke, good copy writing skills from a PR company. Plus of course as has already been pointed out no references to the damage coursed by the cycle lane for everyone else, political spin!

Jayne Thorburn ● 1935d

Justin makes important points about the data - although I suspect his accusation of manipulation is more hopeful than factual.The study suggests that most of the problems with the cycle lane cited by Councillor Biddolph, the local Tories and The OC aren't justified, as mentioned in the article on the front page:http://www.chiswickw4.com/default.asp?section=info&page=cyclehighway065.htm For instance:1. No-one uses or likes the bike lane (especially cyclists)."up to 2,700 cycle journeys a day were made on the new segregated route"2. The majority of people in Chiswick are against the bike lane. Small majority, 47%, in favour vs 43% against.3. The bike lane is more dangerous to cyclists. There have been fewer accidents, while they predicted there would be far more. 4. The bike lane displaced buses and held them up.There was no West Bound bus lane through central Chiswick (barely 50m), the cycle lane replaced another cycle lane and bus data shows buses were not held up.  5. The bike lane has increased vehicle pollution.The opposite - but the article does suggest data should also be collected at the Goldhawk Road end.  6. Cyclists are the "0.1%" and don't deserve dedicated infrastructure.20% of vehicle journeys on CHR during the monitored period were made by bikes.  The bike lane is not perfect.  It is not the answer to every issue we have around air quality or congestion.However, it would be great to move the debate on from: "Remove the bike lane vs Keep the bike lane" to "How can we improve it?"

Ed Saper ● 1935d

Is this the count point?https://roadtraffic.dft.gov.uk/manualcountpoints/16867

Russell Pearson ● 1935d

The most important new piece of information is the collision figures. As they come from an independent source and are not really subject to different interpretations they probably can be taken as reliable.It is probably too early to say with any certainty that C9 has made it safer to cycle in Chiswick but the numbers do suggest the worst fears (including mine) about the bi-directional nature of the cycleway have not been realised.We haven't seen any details of how exactly the increase in cycle use of 72% has been derived but even if you assume TfL and the council have cherry picked the numbers and half the increase that would still be well above the general increase in cycling during the pandemic.The claims that the Cycleway have improved air quality are baseless. There are significant number of reasons why readings at the monitoring station in the centre of Chiswick will have fallen and pollution will be significantly up on other parts of the High Road where queueing traffic has become endemic.As for the market research which shows how popular the cycleway is - it will be very interesting to see the report when it is published but as every other measure of popularity, including TfL's initial consultation and Hounslow Council's own surveys suggest overwhelming opposition, it is probably better to regard it as propaganda for now. Even the most adamant supporters of the scheme have stopped trying to claim consultation responses have been in favour and have switched to claims that they are demographically unrepresentative.The report gives a clue that an issue is emerging with bus journey times. Talk of 'tweaking' the route to help with this is intriguing because it is hard to think how they could speed buses up through the central part of Chiswick.

Paul Corcoran ● 1935d

Francis,While I agree that the fall of pollution can't be attributed to a single cause your claim "pollution will be significantly up on other parts of the High Road" is completely baseless.  Overall journey times along the High Rd haven't changed significantly and the difference in vehicle emissions between an average speed of, say, 7mph compared to 8mph isn't significant.  The Ricardo Air Quality Analysis report commissioned by Hounslow as part of the Streetspace evaluations also didn't show any increase in pollution.You can't drive your way to reducing pollution. What makes a difference is reducing the number of polluting vehicles.  Hounslow haven't done "surveys" previously.  They have done consultations which are self-selecting.  As seen from the most recent consultations, the people responding certainly weren't representative of the population as a whole but heavily skewed towards the oldest age groups.I haven't seen the methodology of the survey done, but I assume that responses were gathered from a representative sample of the population in terms of age, gender, income etc.  All standard practice for this type of survey.

Michael Robinson ● 1935d

oops sorry, Paul, not Francis, had just responded to another post from Francis.

Michael Robinson ● 1935d

When I read the headline three words immediately came to mind.MANDYRICE DAVIES

Adrian Irving ● 1935d

Has all the hallmarks of a carefully planned and then rushed out piece of propaganda. Wonder why.TfL, LBH, LCC and now Hounslow Cycling seem desperate to make it work. Not seen LCC so busy since their racism scandal. This quote is nonsensical -  “Because the climate emergency demands climate safe streets.” Maybe he added the full stop too early.

Russell Pearson ● 1935d

I'd I have thought le tout Chiswick would be happy to be at the heart of a cycling success story.No, actually I wouldn't.But slice it which ever way you wish, it's undeniable that more people are cycling through our town, and that a relatively few of them are the much derided MAMILs.

Ken Munn ● 1935d

Michael Robinson makes an important point which I had not appreciated.TfL did not compare 2021 with 2020 - flawed as that might be it would at least have been comparing the same period of the year to understand if there had actually been an increase in cycling.Instead TfL seem to have started with Feb 2021 (cold, wet and back end of winter) with Apr (Spring time).  They have no idea whether the increase in cycling is due to CS9 or whether that is what typically happens between start of Feb & end of Apr due to better weather and longer days.The data for the level of collisions is potentially highly misleading as well.  It is not clear whether they are comparing two periods of roughly equal traffic levels or whether the 2 periods, because of lock down, have very different accident rates.  Then just to exaggerate the differences they use a period of 12 months to show 8 collisions but a period of 6 months to show the smaller figure of 6 collisions.  That might be acceptable if collision rates were very stable or you might use that to hide the fact that there are other periods of 6 months with collision rates very similar to the post CS9 rate. Of course Councillor Khan has jumped on the data "This new data is evidence of how effective the trial cyclelane in Chiswick has been especially in reducing collisions".The data might show that, but it has been presented in such a misleading way that it is impossible to be sure.For me the more interesting question is why is the data presented that way: cock-up or conspiracy?

Justin Stephenson ● 1935d

No need to bring any foxes into the argument. I’m reminded more of Aesop’s frog by the every increasing tomfoolery of TfL.“An Ox came down to a reedy pool to drink. As he splashed heavily into the water, he crushed a young Frog into the mud.The old Frog soon missed the little one and asked his brothers and sisters what had become of him."A great big monster," said one of them, "stepped on little brother with one of his huge feet!""Big, was he!" said the old Frog, puffing herself up. "Was he as big as this?""Oh, much bigger!" they cried.The Frog puffed up still more."He could not have been bigger than this," she said. But the little Frogs all declared that the monster was much, much bigger and the old Frog kept puffing herself out more and more until, all at once, she burst.”

Russell Pearson ● 1935d

The data is what it is Justin.  You aren't going to get some sort of perfect exact like for like comparison which is what you seem to want.There will be further changes to the design, LB Hammersmith and Fulham will be extending the route eastbound, more people will be going back to work in central London.  All of those will change things.

Michael Robinson ● 1935d

Full blown propaganda exercise in motion. Just had a lengthy email from TfL, it concludes:“ In July 2021, Hounslow Council will decide whether it agrees to these changes, but we wanted you to know what changes could be made and what they would mean as soon as possible. We will keep you informed of our plans and we will publish more of the data we have collected over the last six months in future updates. …Thank you for your contributions so far. Yours sincerely, Fraser Macdonald Streetspace Engagement team Transport for London”

Russell Pearson ● 1935d

If one did a FOI on the Ambulance service, would that correlate with the police data? Only, there have been at about 5 accidents/collisions, whatever you want to call them, since about Feb as far as I was aware with ambulance in attendance. One outside the Metro bank junction, 2 at Airedale Avenue junction, one near Goldhawk Road on Chiswick High Road and I can't remember where the last one was - but that was in 5/6 month period in CS9. If it's such a wonderful success then none of these would have happened in the cycle lane surely as that has supposedly reduced the collisions?? Would be interesting to know exactly what the collisions were and where I suppose.

J Morse ● 1935d

"the difference in vehicle emissions between an average speed of, say, 7mph compared to 8mph isn't significant"I'm not sure that is correct. A vehicle going at 7mph rather than 8mph will overall take 12.5% longer to travel along Chiswick High Road and therefore its emissions for that part of the journey, all other things being equal, will increase by an eighth.As the increase in the average in the specific case we are talking about appears to be caused primarily by the wait at the Chiswick Lane junction westbound and the Acton Lane eastbound the in pollution is likely to be concentrated in those areas.I haven't seen the Ricardo Air Quality Analysis report but the conclusion of independent traffic consultant Steer was that comparisons were difficult to make with all the other factors at play during the pandemic. Therefore Hounslow and TfL can't make a categoric statement that the cycleway has improved air quality.

Mark Evans ● 1935d

The other day there were two rather bored looking chaps clipboards in hand sitting by the junction of CHR and Chiswick Lane.When I asked them what they were doing, "counting passing bicycles" came the reply.The question I have is how the up to 2700 figure is arrived at. Are there auto traffic counters installed or are they compiled by humans by the side of the road?

Adrian Irving ● 1935d

Anyone seen the data on the 47%/43% survey?

Mark Perry ● 1935d

I spoke to these guys, Adrian, as they availed themselves of our comfort station without buying anything. So I figured that earned me an answer or two. English was clearly not their first language. Extremely difficult to understand what they were saying. They would engage with cyclists directly. I said if they were interested to know about the impact of CS9 they would need to consult all of those using it be it walking across, driving along/past/through as well as those pedalling. Otherwise it isn't a proper assessment. I also pointed out ignoring all perspectives would be similar to ignoring someone because of the color of their skin. Their "capture" was pre-determined and severely restrictive. But, again, English was at best a second language. I mentioned the experience to Hanif Khan.

David Lesniak ● 1935d

Yes, 23 people said they liked it after a 15 minute chat with a junior aide. Based on those little chats it's been hailed a huge success!

Mandy Waters ● 1935d

"How can we improve it"Careful what you wish for, Ed.  This has been my position for years and it's gotten me loads of vitriol from cycle campaigners including, but not limited to, Twitter trolling from Paulo Campbell. ReDesign CS9 - was right there in the name. It'll be fun to watch them embrace your stance and continue (no doubt) to reject mine even though it's the same. One difference being I think the spend should improve infrastructure and the streetspace experience for everyone.

David Lesniak ● 1935d

Adrian,I understand the cycle counts are done weekly using video.I think the people by the side of the road may have been doing a survey (if they were handing out cards to cyclists at lights).  TfL people were doing that at Kew Bridge during the week.

Michael Robinson ● 1935d

Cycling was up +72% in April 2021 v February 2021....This might have more to do with the weather than the success of CS9.Met Office put April at the 2nd sunniest on record 229hours While it was also the 4th direst on record.Whereas Feb was cold, wet and dull. Storms and snow were feature.I'm actually surprised that there wasn't bigger increase in cycling.

Richard Potts ● 1935d

Thank's Michael.I realise I am speculating here but if counted by someone playing back/watching a video would it be fair to assume this is just a limited portion of a day which is then extrapolated to a full day(what ever is meant by a day in terms of hours) to then roughly arrive at a figure?Do you know where the camara/camaras are?

Adrian Irving ● 1935d

There is a lot of analysing of individual pieces of wood in this thread and not a lot of seeing the forest.The purpose of the cycle lane is to encourage people to cycle on it. That is happening with 2,700 recorded trips per day in the late winter early spring period shortly after the opening of the lane. It is working. Expect these numbers to grow substantially from their already high level. The opponents of the cycle lane feel like they are losing but the reality is they have already lost. The authorities are happy and committed to further investment in the cycle lane and that is the message they are sending with today's press release. Also implicit here is a consequence that OneChiswick's precarious JR against a temporary version of the lane is further compromised by the announcement of physical tweaks to the infrastructure. The cycle lane on Chiswick High Road is here to stay so get on your bikes and enjoy it and its extension through Hammersmith when that arrives shortly.

Paul Campbell ● 1935d

I don't know where the cameras are.Hounslow have also done video surveys to count cyclists or pedestrians.  One at Dan Mason Drive was 7am to 7pm.  One at Staveley Rd was 24 hrs.Image recognition tech is pretty smart these days so the video may just be run through software to do the counts with some manual checking.

Michael Robinson ● 1935d

That would be up to 2,700 (not per day) which doesn't mean much as it could be far lower than that on average.I think it is not unreasonable for a fuller explanation on how the count is arrived at if only to reinforce the success of C9.Anyone happy to oblige?

Adrian Irving ● 1935d

Thank's again Michael.

Adrian Irving ● 1935d

"Anyone happy to oblige?'You're asking in the wrong place. Direct the question to TfL and, maybe, LBH.

Ken Munn ● 1934d

I will Ken as no one seems to know or want to say here.

Adrian Irving ● 1934d

E-mail sent Ken. Thank's for the tip.

Adrian Irving ● 1934d

https://roadtraffic.dft.gov.uk/manualcountpoints/168672008?

Russell Pearson ● 1934d

Those are DfT counts Russell.  They do them annually all over GB.  Sometimes automated, sometimes manual, sometimes they don't actually do a count and estimate a figure based upon trends elsewhere.Local authorities and TfL do their own counts when required, separate from the DfT.

Michael Robinson ● 1934d

So I thought. To which do we rely, and on what basis? Or put another way, which has a political axe to grind.

Russell Pearson ● 1934d

DfT counts are done in a single day each year.  Caution is needed if they are estimated because sometimes there are pretty big changes if they have been estimated for several years and then an actual count is done.  Horses for courses with the data.  DfT counts are for big picture overall national trends.

Michael Robinson ● 1934d

> DfT counts are done in a single day each year.  Caution is needed if they are estimated because sometimes there are pretty big changes if they have been estimated for several years and then an actual count is done.  Horses for courses with the data.  DfT counts are for big picture overall national trends.TfL & LBH manipulating figures?

Russell Pearson ● 1934d

Found it, 48 people surveyed, they are having a laugh ….https://ehq-production-europe.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/df0ed0fd7df718a8d88025bee579f0b25239d2f8/original/1625657517/d56193e7e1aaebddbc3fce4f33dba541_C9_CommConvos_EngReport_FINAL.pdf?X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAIBJCUKKD4ZO4WUUA%2F20210709%2Feu-west-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20210709T213943Z&X-Amz-Expires=300&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=69e5a33e34fd402e208cbb98225e3ab24df48dc328b0421ab50c81452aa708bf

Mark Perry ● 1934d

Many months ago someone suggested downloading the cycling data for outer London to see how much cycling had increased. So I downloaded the data and I thought it showed the opposite. Hopefully someone can provide a link to the 2021 data to see if the trends of 2020 are repeated or if the changes were just seasonal.  Since 2015 the data has been recorded in a similar way each year. A “Day” is two days. On day one they record from 2pm to 10pm in both directions, then on day two they record 6am to 2pm in 15 minute slots. Some years they do it the other way round, but in 2019 it was done over 4 days on the High Road. The first days data was recorded as wet and was incomplete and was finished over 3 days the following week. The data is normally collected in May or June, but in 2020 was recorded in September so may have just been a seasonal increase. 2017 – 2307 – 22/23 May 2018 – 2178 – 4/5 June 2019 – 2114 – 4/11/12/13 June 2020 – 2762 – 9/10 September 2021 – 2700 – July??

Colin Potter ● 1934d

Looks like they based this rather large piece of propaganda on feedback from 48 carefully selected people too.Who did the work?

Russell Pearson ● 1934d

You definitely shouldn’t believe what you read on OneChiswick Russell.

Michael Robinson ● 1934d

What's your evidence for that, Paul?

Mark Deacon ● 1934d

On here, post from Mark. Are you saying this figure of 48 is incorrect, and were you in the 23 people who said they liked it?

Russell Pearson ● 1934d

It’s more fun if the Chiswick Onesies keep claiming this.

Michael Robinson ● 1934d

How we count cyclists is a mystery as they are not all in the cycle lane andno registration.However think many cycle rather than use transport or share a car etc., due to Covid so for those fit enough a good alternative.

Janice Evans ● 1934d

How we count cyclists is a mysteryWe should get a digital counter like the one on embankment which even has its own twitter account.  Just hope if one is installed its not vandalised given the track record of the area of late.

Matthew Swain ● 1934d

A direct comparison is possible between the proportion of cyclists, 20%, in April this year and the 15% for the DfT daily counts in April 2018. That’s a one third increase in the proportion cycling. I expect the raw numbers to be published.I don’t think the article is right to state that the survey results contradict an earlier survey by LBHF - I don’t know of any such survey. There was a recent survey of RBKC residents which included 1000 respondents and showed overall support for the bike lane along Kensington High Street. ICM conducted it and made the full results public. I’d also expect the C9 survey showing 47% support to be made public too.

Tom Pike ● 1934d

Michael do please correct me if I’m wrong, I might well be, but that’s how I read it? A tiny subject group https://ehq-production-europe.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/df0ed0fd7df718a8d88025bee579f0b25239d2f8/original/1625657517/d56193e7e1aaebddbc3fce4f33dba541_C9_CommConvos_EngReport_FINAL.pdf?X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAIBJCUKKD4ZO4WUUA%2F20210709%2Feu-west-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20210709T213943Z&X-Amz-Expires=300&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=69e5a33e34fd402e208cbb98225e3ab24df48dc328b0421ab50c81452aa708bf

Mark Perry ● 1934d

That overlong link does't even work.

Carl Wynne ● 1933d

Thanks Mark, I cited your post. The Militant Cycling Lobby are up in arms about the exposure that only 48 people were asked. Wonder why.

Russell Pearson ● 1933d

Hardly my fault that it’s “overlong” but having tried to find and repost the link from the original press release it no longer seems to be available.Again very happy to put my hands up if I’m wrong …

Mark Perry ● 1933d

Always worth downloading copies as some organisations change press releases when they’re caught with pants down. Might be cached.

Russell Pearson ● 1933d

Well ignoring smart arse / lack of comments I’m pretty sure that I am correct, I am also sure that the link giving further details of the survey no long seems to be available on the press release.It was 48 people.Anyway (and either way, )I have emailed the TfL press office for clarification.

Mark Perry ● 1933d

Mark, maybe try this email for the TfL Engagement Officer:elinorthomas@TfL.gov.uk

David Lesniak ● 1933d

Here we go …“ There is scant evidence of independent research, only the Cycleway 9 (Streetspace) ‘Community Conversations’ Engagement report for which TfL provide a link. In this community engagement TfL engaged with 48 people – yes, forty-eight – so if it claims 47% in support of the scheme, that is just 23 people in support of the scheme, who might, or might not live in Chiswick.” http://www.chiswickw4.com/default.asp?section=info&page=cyclehighway065.htm

Mark Perry ● 1933d

So what would the increase in the number cyclists have been (as opposed to the proportion of cyclists) when comparing April 2018 with April 2021 and how does that compare with the general increase in outer London?

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1933d

TfL have really set back the cause of the Cycleway in what has been an incredibly cack-handed attempt to make claims about the scheme which are falling apart after the most basic scrutiny.Leading with the bogus claim that cycling was up 72% has focused attention on what the actual change in cycling patterns have been and as far as I can see from this thread there is some evidence it hasn't really increased much at all.My own observation is that cycling has increased significantly due to C9 and it may be that the counts are not including cyclists who choose to remain on the main road as I often do (because my ultimate direction of travel is north).

Mark Evans ● 1932d

As I recall an eminent contributor claimed the public wanted Hammersmith Bridge closed to motor traffic. Proof positive was put forward by way of a survey.Turns out the actual number of folk that responded this way was around 45 or was it around 60, either way it was vanishing small.Trust goes hand in hand with transparency.For my money, trust fell off the bridge, plopped into the river and was last seen five miles south of the Isle of Wight.Such a shame.

Adrian Irving ● 1932d

It appears TfL may have crossed over from spin, the presentation of your case in the best possible light, to outright mendacity where they have published figures which they know to present an inaccurate picture of the situation.My view remains that the collision figures remain key and what we don't have at this stage is a like for like comparison between the TfL figures and the ones supplied by OneChiswick. It could be that OneChiswick are working on a different basis in including damage and collision where there was a slight injury whereas TfL has only considered serious injuries when making their claim that the number of collisions are down. As the former has published full details of the data they are working on and there is clearly an increasing trust issue about any statement made by TfL the latter need to be completely transparent on this matter particularly. Lying about the true situation in order to save the cycleway would be totally reprehensible if not criminal.

Paul Corcoran ● 1932d

The body politic is rotting from the head down. Having a proven liar as Prime Minister gives TfL permission to do things like this piece of chicanery. Whenever a local resident is told that we are experience traffic like never before and unprecedented delays on buses they will always point to some statistic that shows us we are wrong. Anyone tempted to believe they weren't making these up only needs to look at this latest escapade to be disabused.

Anita Blake ● 1932d

Talking of which, I couldn't help but notice the significant amount of motorists using Devonshire Road yesterday that were incapable of understanding basic signage.

Carl Wynne ● 1932d

All these claims are unravelling -call me naive, but the Mayor is obviously a politician, while TfL is supposed to be a public body, not a partisan political entity. How do they keep driving a narrow political agenda (based on dodgy data), and how do they get civil servants to back it all up? Is it all due to Boris?

Russell Pearson ● 1931d

Having started this thread I have enjoyed reading the many contributions.It is utterly clear that TfL have been caught out with an extremely misleading press briefing, statistics that are at best dubious and in some cases appear to be outright lies.If they are going to deliberately mislead the public, they could at least do so with a bit more guile and intelligence.This sort of idiocy by press release does not advance the debate about how our local roads should be organised

Justin Stephenson ● 1931d

While the Prime Minister's distant relationship with the truth probably does contribute to making this kind of behaviour from public officials less noteworthy he may be more directly responsible.The government recently announce an extra £100 million of TfL's budget was to go towards Active Travel. What isn't clear is whether that money can be spent on unwinding schemes that have proven to be mistakes. It is not so hard to believe that with Andrew Gilligan whispering in his ear Johnson told the Department for Transport not to fund remediation of the previous schemes and to give less of the next tranche of funding to any local authorities who didn't persist with schemes.This would create a double whammy for TfL and Hounslow Council if C9 was scrapped because they would have to pay to make it good out of their own coffers and would see an interruption in the grant funding they were receiving which would increase deficits and in TfL's case make it harder for them to reach cost reduction targets. That might explain the whiff of desperation in the tone of the  press release from TfL.

Paul Corcoran ● 1931d

Paul, you claim that OneChiswick have published “full details of the data. You might want to take a closer look.The Onesies claim a “175% increase” but the only way they get this figure is including collisions not on the C9 route.The chiswickw4 article includes a screenshot of a spreadsheet.  The information shown in Column F “Location Description” doesn’t show what is in the original FOI. The original shows collisions at Oxford Rd North, Power Rd, and other locations nowhere near C9. Either this screenshot was provided  by OneChiswick or the editor of this website did it himself.It really is an inept attempt at hiding information. It isn’t the first time OneChiswick has tried this. Margie Frew, admin of OneChiswick FB group made a hamfisted attempt to hide the apology of Maggie Dodge on this forum. And then there were the attempts to explain vandalism as the work of squirrels and foxes.Despite what Paul Corcoran thinks, 5 pieces of information  in a FOI isn’t “full details of the data”. A actual police collision report for a collision between 2 vehicles with a casualty has approximately 100 pieces of information collected by police. The Onesies don’t have this data so can’t make claims about the specific location, if it was on roadway or cycleway, and cause of collisions.For another, example of misinformation, the Onesies also claim that TfL’s figure of majority 47% local support for C9 comes from just 23 people. Several months ago some people on the OneChiswick FB page reported that they had been contacted by a market research agency for a survey on C9. Russell Pearson even commented on it.  The Onesies appear to have completely forgotten about this survey. Instead they think the figure of 47% support of C9  came from a interview a TfL did with 48 people. It didn’t. The C9 survey was a representative sample of 2000 people in the area done by a market research agency. The survey agency is a member of the market research society, unlike Cllr Biddolph and her survey.So for both collision data and claims about the survey, someone in OneChiswick came up with dodgy data and a nonsense supposition and some people were so desperate to believe it, they swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

Michael Robinson ● 1931d

At least Mark Evans said he would be “very happy to put my hands up if I’m wrong …”Can TfL expect similar apologies from One Chiswick? It’s rather ironic that they were happy to make accusations of TfL misrepresenting data, while they were clearly misrepresenting the data from their own FOIs. A correction from One Chiswick would also be in order.

Tom Pike ● 1931d

Apologies to Mark Evans: it was Mark Perry who said that!

Tom Pike ● 1931d

Is that Mk I or Mk II?

Ken Munn ● 1931d

This has all been great entertainment over the past few days but the highlight has been the people who announced their participation in the survey on social media eagerly throwing themselves off the cliff after the other lemmings. Priceless.

Paul Campbell ● 1931d

You are right - they should apologise it was an incredibly dim thing to do. If OneChiswick want the council and TfL to be held to high standards they should do the same.Both the more partisan sides of the debate seem unwilling to present genuinely informative data on the issue but want to outdo each other with claims about massive percentage increases. This makes it very difficult for the rest of us to reach genuinely informed conclusions.I've looked at the spreadsheet and by my reckoning there were seven collisions in the first six months of C9s operation involving cyclists (or a scooter in one case) along the route. I've excluded one collision on Homefield Road which may have been a duplicate report on the same incident. I don't know whether the figure of eight  given for the previous six months by TfL is calculated on a comparable basis but if it is there is no strong argument either way that C9 has made the High Road safer or more dangerous.

Paul Corcoran ● 1931d

It was foolish of OneChiswick to manipulate the data in such a clumsy way.

Carl Wynne ● 1931d

Not sure what I was going to put my hand up to accept if I was wrong but I would hope that would be my standard operating practice whatever it was.Agree with Paul and Carl. OneChiswick had an open goal with trust having been undermined in the the council and TfL. All they had to do was present the data in a truthful and transparent way. Both sides are guilty of carefully selecting statistics and presenting them in a way which aims to boost their case but has little relation with the truth.

Mark Evans ● 1931d

Well said Mark.

Carl Wynne ● 1931d

Sorry, Mark, it was indeed Mark Perry.However, this is not about statistical treatment of the data; reasonable people can disagree on that matter. It's about the deliberate misrepresentation of the raw data itself. One Chiswick attempted to undermine trust in the Council and TfL by falsely claiming accidents that clearly occurred off C9 were on the cycleway, and then clumsily hiding their misrepresentation of the actual data.Michael was quite right to post a warning that OneChiswick are not a reliable source of facts.

Tom Pike ● 1931d

'Michael was quite right to post a warning that OneChiswick are not a reliable source of facts.'If only he had warned us about TfL and Hounslow Council!While I agree with the frustration that people feel about the way this data has been presented do we know on what basis TfL made their calculations for collisions particularly did they also include the whole of the High Road?

Francis Rowe ● 1931d

Well you can easily look it up using the data that OneChiswick misused and manipulated.

Carl Wynne ● 1931d

  Conclusion to all these riveting  merry go round threads  I may end up with concussion reading them.   They really have become bookable head banging events

Julian Pavey ● 1931d

Correct Julian. We need somebody willing to make 17 random posts in 20 minutes to knock it down. I don't know why I bother really, I don't have a car or a cycle.

Carl Wynne ● 1931d

Tom - I've looked at the OneChiswick statement and it's undoubtedly correct.  There were 11 accidents on Chiswick High Road and the dates tally with the first 6 months of the cycleway's operation.  They didn't claim that accidents occurred on the stretch over which the cycleway is in operation, though many of them did (6 I think) - far more than the 2 TfL imlpy in its statement.  So, I don't think OneChiswick has anything to apologise for. It's factually correct.  As a cyclist, I'm more concerned as to why TfL are misrepresenting the safety of cycling along Chiswick High Road. I think it's their data that now needs interrogating. And since you claim to be a cycling campaigner, I'm rather concerned that you don't see that either?

Mark Deacon ● 1931d

"They didn't claim that accidents occurred on the stretch over which the cycleway is in operation."Yes they did: "The OneChiswick group dispute this number saying that during the six months of operation a Freedom of Information request to the police which was responded to this week has shown there have been 11 collisions involving cyclists on C9."They then hid the locations that included Oxford Road North, Power Road and Chiswick Park. Which of the other collisions in the FOI occurred on C9 or the main roadway requires further data, but there is no doubt that One Chiswick were deliberately misleading in their claim that there were 11 collisions on C9.

Tom Pike ● 1931d

Whilst the MCL split hairs, hares and possibly endless other pedantic nonsense, what is actually Gilligan up to now?

Russell Pearson ● 1930d

Btw, lemmings don’t do that, it’s a myth created by Disney. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/white-wilderness/Priceless

Russell Pearson ● 1930d

Is this an official press release from the Lemmings spokesperson who was one of the minority respondents to the survey? Priceless.

Paul Campbell ● 1930d

OK I think where the collision data is concerned both TfL and OneChiswick have been caught out with very clumsy statistical manipulation One Chiswick have included collisions which are not on C9, or at least not on the CHR part of it.  TfL have compared a 12 month period with a 6 month period - that is a classic deliberate misuse of stats and that assumes the figures TfL use are accurate which has been questioned.This really does not help the debate about whether C9 has improved or not cyclist & pedestrian safety.  What we need is a comprehensive list of collisions on C9 (which for these purposes includes at junctions to ensure we get all collisions) both pre and post implementation of C9.  Both the pre and post figures need to cover the same time period be it 6 months or longer and then the data needs to be adjusted to reflect the number of cycle journeys actually taking place.I am probably going to be attacked by both sides of the debate for this but I do think we need a minimum of 12 months data both pre & post C9 to be able to draw any reliable conclusions

Justin Stephenson ● 1930d

This was covered quite informatively in the scrutiny meeting tonight.OneChiswick did use figures for the entire length of Chiswick High Road  and the FOI has "raw" data from the police which hasn't yet been validated and is subject to change.  For example, there appears to be some duplicates in the FOI.  TfL use validated data from the police and stand by their figures.I agree with you that 12 months before vs 6 months after isn't ideal.  The TfL person said they would normally look at data over a 3 year period.As someone who has looked at collision data for Chiswick High Rd, the official stats aren't available to the public until the year after although local authorities will have access to them before that.  There is also a lot of additional detail in the collision reports that wasn't contained in the OneChiswick FOI, meaning it isn't really possible to draw conclusions just from the FOI data.

Michael Robinson ● 1930d

"motorists using Devonshire road"Yes, Carl, they were all accessing something.

David Lesniak ● 1930d

The general public can only form opinions based on the information that they have been allowed to see. Although the FoI data appears to have been misused by OneChiswick it does give a bit more clarity as how C9 has helped with safety.On the assumption that collisions can't be uncollided then the number of incidents on C9 in the first half of this year was seven. This compares to eight in the previous six months. You can't base any firm conclusions on these figures so anyone stating that C9 is dangerous or C9 has made cycling safer has no basis for their claim. While there does seem to be an emerging pattern of the centre of Chiswick seeing fewer collisions and the junctions with side roads seeing more this needs to be confirmed by more data.

Paul Corcoran ● 1930d

Accessing DR to buy, collect, deliver, get to Capital  Motors or even get home - now there's a notion, why would anyone want to do that ? 😉

Loraine Pemberton ● 1930d

'The general public can only form opinions based on the information that they have been allowed to see.'The public generally seem to form opinions based on what commentator they choose to believe, rather than objective information they have been allowed to see. That's the whole basis of the media industries. public relations consultants, lobby groups, political campaigns, etc.Worth putting down a marker, too, that collisions should be measured per bike journey, rather than as an absolute figure.As to collisions at junctions, bear in mind that most junction treatments at the moment are sub-optimal because of the temporary nature fo the current C9 installation. The full scheme had more elaborate treatment of junctions to obviate some of the problems.

Ken Munn ● 1930d

That's a rather negative view of everyone else Ken and I don't think it should be used as an excuse for not letting people see the information they need to make an informed decision. There is a small sub set of people at each extreme of this debate who seek to weaponise data but in the middle there is a much larger group who would like it to be used to reach the best possible decision.You are right that any assessment of collisions should ultimately take account of the number of bike journeys. What was the change in bike use between the last six months of 2020 and the first six months of this year?I'm not really comfortable with your logic as it represents a big gamble for cyclists. If the increased number of collisions is not a result of inadequate signage but inherent in the design then making the route 'permanent' will mean there will be many more collisions before that becomes apparent.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1930d

It was apparent at the Oversight and Scrutiny Committee yesterday that there is a stark disparity in the professionalism and credibility of the transport professionals and the Chiswick Conservative Councillors who purport to represent Chiswick but actually just behaved like ill-tempered spokespeople for OneChiswick, repeating their deliberate misrepresentations and uninformed mistakes and channeling their empotive response to the news that the cycle lane is being upgraded under a new ETO which restarts the 18 month clock on consultation. The Chair had to repeatedly intervene to stop inappropriate rants and unfounded allegations against the integrity of officers and Councillors. Victoria Lawson, the Executive Director of Environment, Culture and Customer Services also had to object to the conduct of the Councillors which she clearly found distasteful and inappropriate in the context of the meeting. Only Councllor Hearn managed to maintain a degree of professionalism and that elicited one of the most informative responses from the TfL representative regarding the history of collisions on Chiswick High Road and its classification as a high priority for intervention to make cycling safer. Although it didn't stop him repeating his own mistakes about TfL's modelling for the original CS9. At least he did so in a calm manner.If you don't believe me then watch a recording and judge for yourself. You may as well just put Margie Frew and David Lesniak in the room and cut out the middlemen.

Paul Campbell ● 1930d

You present a false equivalence. One Chiswick published deliberately misleading data. In contrast, TfL explained at the council meeting last night how the cyclist injury numbers had been extracted, using collisions on the route of C9, and will be providing this data to our local councilors. To his credit, Councillor Hearn thanked TfL for their openness and honesty. Baselessly impugning the integrity of people you disagree with is corrosive to a functioning democracy. It’s also notable that no apology has been forthcoming from One Chiswick. The fall from eight cyclist injuries last year to two in the first sixth months of this year is encouraging, but hardly conclusive. The probability of such a fall occurring by chance is over 20%. We need more data to draw more confident conclusions, but certainly there’s no evidence that C9 has resulted in increased injuries for cyclists, or pedestrians.The more significant point, and one not made by TfL, is that the eight injuries last year were significantly above the average in previous years. This is most likely down to larger numbers of less experienced cyclists using the High Road during the pandemic: we saw a more balanced gender mix and a higher proportion of cyclists outside peak commute hours on the High Road in last September’s cyclist counts. The lower injury numbers this year are therefore likely from a more vulnerable cyclist mix. Many of the modifications to C9 are driven by the need to further improve safety. The improved treatment at side roads has proven to be particularly effective in reducing collision risk. These are not gambles, but rather well considered changes based on large-scale studies.The real gamble now would be to rip out the bike lane and hope for the best, given the shift in the demographics of those cycling along the High Road, but that’s exactly what One Chiswick want to do.

Tom Pike ● 1930d

Tom: that is a fair and balanced post and I completely agree with your interpretation of the collision stats (especially ignoring OneChiswick!) - it really is too early to tell, we probably need at least 12 months data which would then need to be analysed based on collisions per 1000 or 10,000 bike journeys so see if there has been any meaningful change in bike safety.The only aspect which I disagree with you, is the idea that TfL have been open and honest.  They have not been, comparing a 12 month period with a 6 month period is not open and honest it is deliberately manipulating statistics to produce a desired result or it is incompetence.  That our esteemed Council immediately jumped on the statistics to "prove" how much safer C9 was means they either did not understand the statistics and the limitations of TfL's manipulation or, like most politicians, they did not care that the analysis was clearly improper as long as it produced the result they had already decided was the "right" result

Justin Stephenson ● 1930d

There is an unavoidable issue with any estimate of the frequency of relatively rare events that reducing the period of data makes the estimate inherently less reliable. For example you're not going to get a reliable estimate of the frequency for an event that occurs once a week by looking at a day of data. On average six times out of seven you will see nothing and maybe assume the event never occurs, while the seventh time you might estimate the rate as once a day. Both would be very unreliable estimates.It's therefore better to use a longer period to provide a more reliable baseline. Statistically, if there are on average eight injuries a year, an estimate based on six months of data is going to have a 50% error, while a year of data will reduce the error to 35%, still large but significantly reduced. This is worth a lot more for rare events than comparing equal periods in getting a reliable estimate of a change in injury rates.It is not fair to suggest TfL were being dishonest, or deliberately manipulating data to get a desired result by using a year rather than six months prior to the opening of C9 to make a baseline estimate. They were achieving an improved baseline rate by extending the prior period of records compared to what you suggest is a fairer comparison of equal six-or twelve-month periods.In fact if injury rates had say tripled rather than halved, TfL would be negligent in waiting for twelve rather than six months before reporting the increase as a cause for concern.

Tom Pike ● 1930d

There is no false equivalence - both sides are playing silly buggers with the numbers. TfL claimed the figures showed the cycleway had made things much safer, OneChiswick claimed it had made things more dangerous. Glad to see you now agree with the more measured analysis by members of this forum that the claims of neither side are justified.The most egregious example of data manipulation from TfL is their use of a figure of 72% for the increase in the number of cyclists using carefully select months to maximise the percentage. What most people would like to know, simply as a point of information rather than to make an argument either way, is what has been the increase in the number of cyclists on Chiswick High Road for the first six months of this year compared with previous years and how this change compares to general trends in outer London.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1929d

There is some limited data on this posted earlier on this thread by Colin Potter which I believe comes from the Department for Transport which shows that there was a big increase in cycling when they measured in 2020 (September) compared to previous years  with a daily rate of 2762. This would be above the claimed figure of TfL of 'up to' 2700.Any data for the period of the pandemic has to be treated with caution as there are so many factors at play and personally I am sceptical that the cycleway could have had no impact on the number of people cycling as my observations suggest it has increased. This of course could be just an result of cyclists being more visible because they are now segregated but I don't think so.Even if cycling on CHR hasn't increased it doesn't mean that C9 is a failure as some cycling traffic could have been displaced as the route is now slower for cyclists because of the extra phases. So overall the route could still have increased the number of people cycling even if the number using it is the same as the previous year.

Mark Evans ● 1929d

The best estimate of the injury rate is that it has halved since C9 opened. But we can’t say with confidence that this reduction might be by chance, given the low number of injuries, though there’s an 80% chance it’s down. It is perfectly valid to say C9 has probably made cycling safer based on these figures.In contrast One Chiswick clumsily misrepresented data to try to claim it had made it more dangerous, an analysis which has no basis. I don’t see how you can say claiming C9 is now safer, which is probably correct, is equally as egregious.But I do agree the 72% increase from February to April is rather meaningless as a single figure. For context there’s about a 20% seasonality in the  quarterly Embankment cycle counts, so a 72% increase is rather larger than can be explained by the weather and more likely represents increasing uptake of cycling. When the Embankment cycle lane opened there were a couple of years of high growth in cycle numbers. It’s reasonable to think we’re seeing a similar response on C9.I also agree it would be good to see a more direct comparison. I think daily counts are available for Embankment, so it’s possible to compare for those two months. National cycling rate estimates are also available.

Tom Pike ● 1929d

The DfT national cycling figures are available*, and show that levels in the first six months of this year were a third lower than for the date of the September count of last year, 10/9/20. There's been a rather smaller drop in comparison on the High Road, indicating comparative growth. Nationally cycling grew by 21% between February and April this year, compared to the 72% increase seen on the High Road, again showing significant comparative growth.*https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/transport-use-during-the-coronavirus-covid-19-pandemic

Tom Pike ● 1929d

Tom, could I respectfully ask you to stop using the 72% figure which you have conceded is meaningless?

Paul Corcoran ● 1929d

That between February and April cycle numbers increased by 72% on the High Road while they increased by 21% nationally tells us that there has been significant additional growth in cycling on the High Road. I appreciate that you might prefer not to hear that statement, but that's rather different from the statement itself being meaningless.TfL can be fairly criticised for not providing sufficient context to understand the significance of some of the numbers they publish. Air quality is one area: it's possible to make a better comparison by looking at the difference between a particular monitoring station and a background level to minimise the effects of weather. TfL tend to publish instead the raw pollution levels.In this case TfL can be criticised for not providing a comparison that actually provides a more robust basis for evaluating the effects of C9 on cycling numbers.

Tom Pike ● 1929d

On Radio London a bloke was talking about C9T and said an article in the Evening Standard quoted 2700 users a day. Below is the extract."Transport for London said the number of people cycling on the segregated lanes in Chiswick High Road had increased by 72 per cent between February and April, to 2,700 journeys on weekdays"I am confused. The way it reads implies that this figure reflects a daily use on weekdays. If that is correct then that's fantastic and goes towards justifying the project.It could also read as 2700 in total for the whole of weekdays.The article on W4 reads up to 2700 a day. Which, if any, is correct?

Adrian Irving ● 1929d

It's the daily count, as the original TfL press release makes clear:"The data shows that cycling along the trial route has increased by 72 per cent on weekdays between February and April 2021. Up to 2,700 people a day are cycling along the route, including children and families. Cycling is  now  a major form of transport for people in the area and around 20 per cent of the ‘vehicles’ using the road  during  the day  are  bikes."    

Tom Pike ● 1929d

So to be clear the 'up to 2,700 a day figure' is below the 2,762 daily measurement taken in September 2020 before the cycleway opened and the 72% is not comparing usage before and after but the lowest month since it opened with the highest month since it opened?

Anita Blake ● 1929d

Thanks Tom but "up to" can be misleading.I am sure you would agree a daily or weekly average would make for a clearer picture.This could be demonstrated by way of a graph. Weeks against numbers.Is still no one  able to clearly explain the way the numbers are counted? Is it a camara, a guy with a clipboard and counter or Mystic Meg? Who knows.I have asked TfL but no response.

Adrian Irving ● 1929d

Thanks Tom but "up to" can be misleading.I am sure you would agree a daily or weekly average would make for a clearer picture.This could be demonstrated by way of a graph. Weeks against numbers.Is still no one  able to clearly explain the way the numbers are counted? Is it a camara, a guy with a clipboard and counter or Mystic Meg? Who knows.I have asked TfL but no response.

Adrian Irving ● 1929d

Sorry about the double posting. I blame the cat not that we have one.Coming back to the, quote "up to" figure it it a little like saying the temperature in August get up to 35 degrees rather than quoting the average which is 21 degrees.Publishing the average figures would be so much more transparent and presumably support the project.As I have said before, transparency and trust go hand in hand.

Adrian Irving ● 1929d

"The data shows that cycling along the trial route has increased by 72 per cent on weekdays between February and April 2021. Up to 2,700 people a day are cycling along the route, including children and families. Cycling is  now  a major form of transport for people in the area and around 20 per cent of the ‘vehicles’ using the road  during  the day  are  bikes."    Does that include cyclists illegally using pavements  ?

Loraine Pemberton ● 1929d

Here's an idea Loraine - why don't you walk along the cycleway. Sounds like it would far less dangerous for you to do that than continually having near misses with pavement cyclists.

Ken Munn ● 1929d

But Ken, why would I, Fifi and Barney want to take up valuable cycling space from 2,700 ardent cyclists  ?Surely Pedestrians want to use pavements without hindrance from cyclists and e-scooters and you cyclists want to use the expensive cycle lane ?

Loraine Pemberton ● 1929d

Lol. Seriously though Loraine, if you think there are too many cyclists on the pavement, maybe you should support safe cycle lanes?The current Government is throwing everything it can at getting people to walk and cycle more, and we're likely to end up with a fair number of wobbly new cyclists wanting to go nowhere near a bus or tipper truck, and ending up on the pavement.One of the things I've noticed is how often the cycleway is used by kids and families.  I understand that you want all cyclists off the pavements - young kids as well - so this actually helps you.Yes - I know there's another way....making it the law that kids have to walk their bikes or have them confiscated, or just making it so hostile for them and their parents on the pavement that they stay home or drive.But that strategy hasn't worked so far and there's no reason to think it will start coming good now.So - get the kids off the pavements.  Support the cycle lane Loraine!

Ed Saper ● 1929d

Ed, after long observation I think Loraine's point is that some cyclists are genetically programmed to ride on the pavement come what may, and that a huge percentage of those rejoice in seeing her out and about with her ankle biters and are constrained to gratuitously hurtle and veer in her general direction.

Ken Munn ● 1929d

Comparing CHR to the Embankment is a little misleading.  Cyclists on the Embankment are mostly commuters, cyclists on CHR are a mixture of people doing their shopping, going for coffee, getting some exercise but crucially a far smaller percentage of them are commuting to work.  You are comparing apples to pears.Also please stop defending TfL for the deliberate deception (or incompetence) on the collision figures - comparing a 12 month period to a 6 month period is a classic piece of statistical lying, it is no different to presenting 2 graphs where you have changed the axis of one of the graphs.  You do not need to defend TfL, you and I both agree that OneChiswick numbers should be ignored as utterly wrong and that we need longer term data before we can reach any definite conclusions, I am even willing to accept that it is currently more likely than not that C9 has made cycling a bit safer on CHR.  However, collision data is a bit like pharmaceutical trial data - if you rush in to declare a result (in these case C9 makes cycling safer) there is a massive risk of missing important side effects and/or overstating the effects you were looking for.

Justin Stephenson ● 1929d

Ed 🤣As someone who ships his products abroad and in UK using all manner of non eco friendly transport, don't you see the irony and hypocrisy of your post ?

Loraine Pemberton ● 1929d

KenDo us all a favour and stop doing something you're not good at, which is pathetic sniping. Carry on sweetheart 🤣

Loraine Pemberton ● 1929d

"Also please stop defending TfL for the deliberate deception (or incompetence) on the collision figures - comparing a 12 month period to a 6 month period is a classic piece of statistical lying, it is no different to presenting 2 graphs where you have changed the axis of one of the graphs."It most certainly isn't statistical lying. It is common practice to determine baseline rates using a longer period prior to the time of a suspected change in the rate. In fact it is often best practice as it can offer a better estimate of any change in the rate. You might have missed that I did make a comparison with national cycling figures. Specifically for weekdays in April compared to February cycling increased nationally by 32%, while it increased by 72% on C9. Of course there are all kinds of reasons why there might be a difference between trends on C9 and the rest of the UK, but given the size of the difference it's reasonable to conclude that C9 was associated with the larger increase in cycling.

Tom Pike ● 1929d

Hi Tom, I'm really not sure why people are focussing on the numbers using the lane unless they are seeking to make a case for it's removal. It's clear that the cycle lane is a success and many more people are using it. It makes users safer and that is all we really need to know.I speak as one who had to leap out of the way of a driver who jumped the Goldhawk Road lights last week.

Carl Wynne ● 1929d

Loraine, I think you need to drive to the bookshop and buy yourself a new dictionary!  A post about kids cycling safely in a cycle lane and not annoying you on the pavement has little to do with international / domestic logistics or carbon footprints.So, no, I don't "see the irony and hypocrisy of [my] post" and you can use your new dictionary to look those words up.

Ed Saper ● 1929d

Well you wouldn't would you ? None so blind as those who can't see.  Never mind one day you'll understand, well we all hope you will 🙏

Loraine Pemberton ● 1929d

I would challenge you to explain your jibe, but since you’ve already retreated into meaningless clichés, I will spare your blushes.

Ed Saper ● 1929d

> I would challenge you to explain your jibe, but since you’ve already retreated into meaningless clichés, I will spare your blushes.Gosh Ed, you’ve really ‘pushed the boat out’ there. I’d spare you a change of underwear, in case you get more over excited. Might save a blush.

Russell Pearson ● 1929d

After I wrote it I realised that “meaningless cliché” is itself a cliché :-)

Ed Saper ● 1929d

On your last point, we agree that we can't be confident of the reduction in injuries until we have a longer period. However, it is reasonable to have an interim review of all the data to date to see what changes might be needed more quickly and re-introducing the left turn lane at Chiswick filter is just such a change. In fact the proposed changes to the treatment of the side roads should reduce the injury rate further, and would likely be justified if the two injuries since C9 opened both involved cars exiting or entering  side roads.

Tom Pike ● 1929d

Pathetic sniping - when that shot obviously went home.

Ken Munn ● 1928d

Tom, there are a huge amount of assumptions and wishful thinking in your argument which frankly make it unconvincing. Amid all the obfuscation one fact stands out - the amount of cyclists using Chiswick High Road since the cycle route opened has not yet reached the level measured in September 2020. Therefore any claim of 'a large increase in cycling' appears to be totally unfounded.I don't necessarily share your confidence that the new configuration at side roads will reduce injuries. There may be more signs and some extra visual clues but against this because the cycle way is moved closer to the emerging traffic the sight lines for drivers will deteriorate because of the tighter angle and they will tend to look beyond the cycleway towards general traffic.A driver crossing the cycleway under the current configuration will be more likely to check left and right but now with the cycleway set slightly apart they will be less likely to check left as they cross it. There seems now to be an acceptance that there is no evidence yet that the cycleway has made things safer and the complacent assumption that the proposed changes will remedy that is, once again, unfounded.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1928d

Looking at  national figures, which show cycling numbers fell back one third in the first sixth months compared to September last year, C9 shows comparative growth. What other assumptions and obfuscations did you have in mind?There was a large-scale study carried out by the Dutch that looked at all their collisions at side roads. They found setting back the cycleway from the street edge and putting in raised platforms on bidirectional cycleways  reduced collision rates by a factor of four. It is no coincidence that is exactly the treatment TfL are putting in.

Tom Pike ● 1928d

Quick question, Ed: if the push is to walk more, wouldn't it follow that pedestrian infrastructure would be improved to encourage that? Or at the very least, maintained? Because it seems to me if the pavement width is being reduced by more than 2/3 creating pinch points and in some cases blind corners, that's hardly an improvement nor would it encourage people to walk.

David Lesniak ● 1928d

Two-thirds is a relative term. If it is being reduced from nine metres to three, that's likely not a problem. If it's being reduced from two metres to sixty six centimetres it is.

Ken Munn ● 1928d

What a load of BS.  It is most certainly not good statistically practice to use a 12 month period with 8 collisions and then immediately highlight that there have been only 2 collisions in the 6 months after C9 became operational, that was chosen by TfL to exaggerate the effect.They could, because they had the data, have used the 6 month period before C9 became operational to compare with the 6 month period after or they could have compared the 6 month period after C9 became operational with the same period 12 months earlier or even 24 months earlier.  That would have at least provided some valid comparisons.  Of course if they really wanted to get the stats right it should have been based on collisions per 10,000 bike journeys.TfL made a choice, a choice to favour good PR for their preferred message over sound statistical comparisons.As for the comparison to national cycling statistics you really should not need me to explain to you how averages can hide a large amount of variation.  It is simply not sound statistics to compare CHR to national averages without also knowing what variations there are from local area to local area - you simply have no idea whether CHR is an outlier than can only be explained by C9 encouraging cycling or not.

Justin Stephenson ● 1927d

Full credit to Ken for assuming that the angry anti-cycling baker actually read and measured the the plans properly before declaring the end of days.

Paul Campbell ● 1927d

Wishing doesn't make it so, Paul. You'll note you're the one advocating the slicing and dicing of Chiswick into a collection of private gated communities. Some fun facts:At the Best Western the pavement goes from 7.1 meters to 2.4 meters.At British Grove it gets worse: 7.2 meters to 2.2 metersDimensions given do not specify the width of the division between the cycleway and the pedestrian path. Best guess is its another 8-12" or thereabouts.Still can't see how advocating for a better solution for all road users which includes cyclists is seen as anti-cycling. But I've sung the same tune for years and it appears Paul is deaf. But if we apply his logic, he is clearly anti-pedestrian. We already know he is anti-business.

David Lesniak ● 1927d

Of course. Always have.L stands for Liars.

Adam Pycz ● 1923d

Wondering how many others are tempted but I will be good.

Janice Evans ● 1923d