Forum Topic

It's not "my" data, it's the data provided by the Metropolitan police to both TfL and OneChiswick.OneChiswick provided a deliberately misleading reading of the data to claim that eleven collisions had taken place on C9 since it opened, incorrectly including collisions on the High Road well east of C9 such as at Oxford Road North. You obviously prefer their distortions to reality, but fortunately the decisions on C9 are being made on the basis of more reliable evidence than OneChiswick chooses to provide.It was decided to build C9 back in September 2019 before COVID-19, and indeed the western end at Kew Bridge has already been completed on that basis. The temporary C9 was planned and funded under the national government's scheme to rapidly increase active transport. Now, the amended C9 plan essentially reproduces the permanent scheme east of Chiswick Lane, as well as other amendments, that have together been adopted in response to both comments on and data from the scheme to date; the temporary C9 has allowed a trial to identify the most important features of the permanent scheme that need to be moved to more rapidly.Those who thought OneChiswick's JR would affect the decision to  build a permanent C9 have been hoodwinked; it was notable that their lawyer originally said that the aim of the JR was to replace the temporary scheme with the permanent one. I think a few are now realising that OneChiswick cannot be trusted, even if there's little chance of them getting their money back.

Tom Pike ● 1924d

Paul, not sure what you do for a living but I would hazard a guess it is substantially better paid and less stressful than being a bus driver and is not an occupation that suffered an extraordinary high fatality rate during the pandemic. Perhaps you should show people who perform an important public service a bit of respect?His colleagues at the garage are unlikely to be anything but supportive of him. You strike me as the sort of person that doesn't get the bus but if you were to chat briefly to one of the drivers you would get a very clear impression of what they feel about the cycleway and the loss of their bus lanes.Bus companies are less likely to be affected by the 'pingdemic' than other employers because of the appalling rates of sick pay that drivers so most of them will not turn on their app when they are working but staff absences are likely to be high at the moment so the chances are that there are lots of drivers on unfamiliar routes at the moment.Add to this the sun being directly in the eye-line of anyone driving west and the most likely explanation for this incident is design flaw rather than driver error.Your tendency to react with aggressive defensiveness to any perceived criticism of cycleway 9 is counterproductive because if clear and obvious areas of risk are not addressed their will be serious collisions at these junctions. If someone dies or is critically wounded all the jiggery-pockery with the data in the world won't save the cycleway so it is very much in your interest to treat these matters with the seriousness they deserve and lobby hard for an immediate review in what can be done to make these junctions safer.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1924d

GoFundMe has a guarantee that donors can use to reclaim their donations if they feel they were "misled" by a fundraiser.https://support.gofundme.com/hc/en-gb/articles/203604694"Misleading" relies on showing that the organisation made intentionally false statements - and as this isn't a law court, the donor would need to rely on GoFundme's discretion.Looking at the current funding page for One Chiswick, it does have a statement that is arguably false (I haven't gone through the archive):https://uk.gofundme.com/f/onechiswick-united-against-streetspace-changesFor instance:"TfL stated its “provisional” data showed collisions involving cyclists had reduced to only 2 in the first 6 months since the Temporary Cycleway’s introduction, compared to 8 in the prior year. The actual data that OneChiswick obtained from the Metropolitan Police showed 11 accidents involving cyclists on Chiswick High Road in the first 6 months of the Cycleway’s operation."We know with this statement that One Chiswick did several things:1. They included data for collisions that happened outside the C9 route.2. They used a different methodology to TFL to include collisions that involved property damage but no injuries to cyclists.3. They included obvious duplicates.4. They publicised this data after removing the locations of the accidents so as to obscure point 1 (although not on the GoFundMe page).I would say that could be interpreted as misleading.However, before disillusioned donors rush off to use the guarantee - I would suggest that if you want your money back, simply ask One Chiswick for it.  If they've got it, they may well return all or some of it.  These are local people after all - you may know many of them personally.  And, arguably, One Chiswick has done what it set out to do - make a lot of noise about the cycle way, make it and Streetspace as unpopular as possible for the Council and Labour and fight the good fight.It may well have notched up some victories on Streetspace but the cycle lane was always going to be a very long shot.Even if they won, all that was likely to do is deliver the permanent version - which I think was the assessment of One Chiswick's own legal team some months ago.

Ed Saper ● 1923d

There are a few people all to willing to write this off as driver error as it will avoid having to properly consider the matter.It may well have been but there is to be an investigation and hopefully the outcome of that will be made public. It probably isn't too much of an assumption that due to the pingdemic drivers are being switched to routes they aren't familiar with.There is a broader question about the lack of respect that bus drivers and bus users receive. There is a kind of patrician disdain for them among many at the moment. Whether Margaret Thatcher actually said anyone riding a bus over the age of 26 was a failure or not there are many today who have this view. Mark Evans has pointed out some interesting figures about bus use on Uxbridge Road from Ealing Council and they could indicate that 80% of people travelling up and down Chiswick High Road are on a bus.The debate has become dominated by a relatively small number of people who use bikes. They tend to be articulate middle class professionals who are well organised and lobby effectively. Bus users have no organisation like the London Cycling Campaign possibly because nobody believes there is great kudos from travelling by bus but also because the demographics of bus users is less skewed towards people who are good at getting their point of view across.Policy is ultimately being formed by a man who claims to make models of buses and did dictate the design of the disastrous new Routemasters which have cost Londoners a huge amount of money and will do little to improve the transport network in the long term. He now seems to have lost interest in buses but remains a passionate advocate for cycling and is ensuring that funds remain available for schemes although in a way that results in them being implemented in a hurried and haphazard way.I'd be quite happy to see Cycleway 9 stay if it is shown that it has actually led to a big increase in cycling and made things safer. Only carefully selected data has been release by TfL so far which makes it unclear whether it has boosted the number of people on bikes and the data on collisions provides no ammunition for either side of the argument.The other condition for it remaining has to be that it is not causing delays for the majority of people that use the High Road - i.e. bus users. The changes proposed for the next iteration of the scheme acknowledge what every one who has ridden on a bus so far this year is well aware of - that buses are being delayed by this scheme. TfL haven't shown us any data but the numbers must look bad. That doesn't mean that this isn't a problem that can't be fixed and maybe the changes will do that. If they do and good data is provided on the safety and popularity of the scheme then it will be hard to argue against removing it.Anyone seeing the Dominic Cummings interview can only have concluded that Boris Johnson remains Prime Minister only while his poll numbers remain good. The circumstances that have conspired to put him in this position are changing and his popularity is already dropping sharply. The sheer incompetence of the way the pingdemic is being handled confirms the impression that Cummings gave of the way the government is being run at the moment. As soon as Johnson looks like an electoral liability the Tories will dump him and Javid and Gove will face off for the leadership. This will also herald a more rational approach to the way that transport is funded and schemes implemented under the Johnson regime won't get away with justifying their existence by carefully selected numbers issued in a press release. If they can't provide hard evidence that they are delivering benefits they will go.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1922d

I obviously used fewer frames, but I counted everything noting whether traffic was nose to tail. As I wanted to compare with DfT counts, I looked from 6 am to 6 pm. Free-running traffic during the night will boost the proportion of motor vehicles.The problem with removing frames with stationary traffic is that this is likely at peak periods when bike counts will be higher as well, so that will lead to a systematic undercount of moving bikes against stationary traffic. The issue of speed is a critical one, and can swing things substantially either way. I've certainly noticed I generally make more rapid progress down the High Road by bike on C9 than the cars, though that's just a single data point.We can compare actual counts and proportions from the DfT at this point. The bike counts from 2017 showed:8-9 am: 1379-10 am: 68and that was 8% of all traffic.281 bikes were counted yesterday over the same period from 8:20 to 9:20 am. The corresponding weighted average for 2017 comes to 114.  Assuming other traffic hasn't changed significantly, that increases the proportion of bikes to 20%, identical to the the figure given by TfL. The cam counts over this period yesterday (which was free-runing except for the last shot with 3 cars) gives 7 bikes, 2 buses and 16 other vehicles, or 28% bikes with a large sampling error of ±10%. That's consistent with both TfL's proportions and yesterday's counts at the same time, assuming the motor traffic is similar to 2017. Of course people can claim bias in any of those measures, but the fact that three completely separate observations give an answer consistent with a 20% proportion of bikes provides some confidence that this number is likely to be a reasonable estimate.

Tom Pike ● 1921d

On the issue of relative speeds first, I would agree that in the central section of Chiswick if the main road is congested and you are lucky with the lights you can proceed much more quickly on a bike than in a car.However, this would not apply on the section near the Prebend Garden junction. I have excluded period of congestion. I am no boy racer but can go at a fair pace and even before C9 I would anticipate being over taken by general traffic along this stretch. With C9 it is necessary to proceed with a bit more caution because of the potential for traffic emerging from the side roads.Therefore I would say categorically that the use of static frames as a means of measurement would not understate the number of bikes.Making the count from 6am to 6pm will increase the proportion of bikes. Traffic flows fall sharply outside those hours particularly for bikes. However, as the level of traffic at these hours is so low it isn't going to make a huge difference to the overall proportions.The camera archive provides the opportunity to definitive answer the question about traffic breakdown that sitting outside a cafe for an hour or other random sampling can't.I'm quite confident that my count for a single day which gave a proportion of 9% was reasonable and the methodology removed any chance of undercounting bikes. However, it is one day, it was exceptionally hot and there may have been other factors that distorted the numbers.If you are unconvinced pick a number of days, do a count from 6am to 6pm following a methodology of your choice (there are 240 frames in a day half of which are more or less empty and you can probably discount another 20-30 as being unclear so it only takes about 15 minutes per day).Then let us know what number you come up with. I'm quite happy to accept that my 9% is unrepresentative if several other robust data points suggest it is.

Mark Evans ● 1921d