Forum Topic

‘Redesigned’ CS9 views

I had a look at the designs for the proposed “temporary” CS9.  Let’s be realistic, if it goes in it will not come out.I’m not sure why it is described as temporary and not the fully implemented CS9?  I guess funding or legal reasons?It does look a lot better than the temporary solution.  I can see it encouraging younger riders, families and people just riding for pleasure.But, I would also guess it will not appeal to the “serious” riders, commuters etc.  The people that want to get from a to b in the quickest time.What that means for traffic, who knows?  Will there be more accidents, as you will probably have cyclists on CS9 and both main lanes?As CS9 becomes more popular I also think this will force more riders onto the main lanes.But I think the right group has been prioritised.If I’m waiting to cross the cycle lane with my children the “casual” riders are always careful, they stop at crossings, they ensure their kids are riding carefully.What I would add for the first couple of years at least is regular attendance by PCSOs that can stop and fine cyclists for breaking the law.It wouldn’t take long to change the habits of the few jumping lights, riding off the road onto pavements to avoid lights, not stopping at zebra crossings etc. if fines were being dished out.It would also help with the acceptance of this change if everyone has to stick to the rules.Finally I would suggest a law change that allowed children under a certain age to legally scoot/ride on the pavement.I still don’t think CS9 is suitable for younger children.Comments on a postcard 😊

Kieran Fox ● 1923d56 Comments

Kieran - the existing experimental scheme has generated little if any modal shift nor has it produced any measurable improvement in air quality. There is only one monitoring site along the whole road for heaven's sake.Now that lockdown has ended we can perhaps look forward to a time when public transport becomes a less scary option. Is there not a good chance that some commuter cyclists will then revert to public transport particularly in the bad weather and when the mornings are dark and the evenings draw in.The evidence that modal shift will occur gradually is all pre-pandemic. We live in a different world.  The new proposed scheme is aimed at improving vehicle journey times and does virtually nothing tangible for cyclists. Changes to set backs as junctions could have been made a decade ago. But TfL did not consider them high priority.

Cllr Sam Hearn ● 1923d

I’ve been held up as a cycle, climate, safe road hater by some posters so i wanted to raise this again.  These are some of my thoughts on the CS9 redesign.  Anyone what to add their views?

Kieran Fox ● 1915d

I would also guess it will not appeal to the “serious” riders, commuters etc.  The people that want to get from a to b in the quickest time.Hi Kieron. I think the language here is part of the problem and probably has been from the start. I think you will find many people who support the scheme are just wanting the opportunity to access their local area by whatever mode they choose. It may be by car, bus, foot or bike. At the moment only three of those modes are accommodated.  The whole framing mechanism behind schemes that accommodate cycling is often pretty poor. Sometimes people think you are telling them to sell their cars and become sports cyclists. People think you are telling them the need to become effortful and as a result they become defensive. Every time Loraine for example asks Paul if he has sold his car I cringe. She just doesn’t get it on any level.  I suppose it doesn’t help that folks supporting schemes (including me) often bang on about the health benefits of cycling but its so much more than that.  Chiswick has an opportunity to become a very accessible place for everyone and this can have great economical, social and environmental impacts.The a to b into the city is important of course but for local people who cycle it’s not the primary focus of what they want the function of the street to be.Will serious riders use the road instead? Some will and some won’t and those that do will be keeping pace with the cars anyway. There is too much focus on perceived speed, law breaking, lycra and not enough on just providing opportunity.

Tony Smart ● 1915d

Just because Cllr Hearn repeats his same nonsense in his blog, Nextdoor and the forum does not make it true.He claims there hadn’t been modal shift but vehicle counts show cyclists are 20% of vehicles on CHR. Is Cllr Hearn claiming this has always been the case? Previous counts show that the proportion has increased.He claims there hadn’t been a measurable improvement in air quality but the data from the air quality measurement station on Chiswick High Rd shows there has been. His claim is nothing more than a lie.Now he can add his attempts to stop C9 to the lengthening list of his failures as a politician.

Michael Robinson ● 1915d

For many the most important issue is the bad impact of the cycle lane on public transport and pedestrians. It seems that the council have no regard for them. Why should cyclists have priority; surely pedestrians and users of public transport are as important. It is notable that when I cross the High Road, buses and motorists pause and wave me across; but cyclists on the cycle path accelerate aggressively and wave me away. On the whole, many cyclists are much worse than motorists' at least on our High Street.
I am a pedestrian

Mike Preece ● 1915d

"I still don’t think CS9 is suitable for younger children."I'll answer the last part first....come take a look at C9 during the school run!  No, not the part that goes through central Chiswick that everyone obsesses over, the bit down by Kew Bridge :-)It is busy with parents and kids on bikes - and numbers are growing (anecdotally - although I think they did a spot survey recently as I was handed a card).I feel perfectly safe on there with my 8 and 5 year old.You'll see lots of kids from Chiswick heading to Strand On The Green and Kew Green over the bridge. Most "pro" or commuter cyclists use the C9 lane (a few stick with the roads) but when you get to the bridge you tend to find the kids go on the path and the faster cyclists stick to the road so they don't need to weave and bob around pedestrians.  What I've seen with my own kids and those on the route is that people grow in confidence fairly quickly - for instance, the vast majority of cyclists, including kids, will cycle down Wellesley Road (the bit after the bridge) and not use the pavements, despite sharing it with vehicles.I realise no-one cares about our end of Chiswick (half joking!), but that's what the permanent C9 looks like and it is quite safe for kids.The temporary bit through the centre isn't as good.  It is wands not curbs (easy for a 5 year old to slip into oncoming traffic!), there are lots of junctions where cars can appear and might not expect to see a small cyclist and then there's the pedestrians who wander in and out or dash through gaps in traffic.Totally fine with an experienced 8 year old.  Doable with younger kids under close supervision, and easier going westbound because you're hugging the pavement and there's a decent gap.  I expect the permanent versions will be safer and kids can cycle with more confidence, but it will be more challenging due to the various junctions and just more people.  Not sure if you need a law change for cycling on pavements - police aren't enforcing it for anyone (why force any inexperienced cyclist onto a dangerous multi lane road that's been designed for cars not bikes?), and are you really going to fine a mum cycling with two young kids on the pavement?I suspect you're trying to find a middle ground - OK, let's have a bike lane, but we'll subject cyclists to a zero tolerance regime of fines for any and all infractions to ensure they follow the same rules as drivers and to stamp out what many pedestrians and drivers view as anti social behaviour - and if they complain....well....that's how it works in Amsterdam, so be careful what you wish for!  Sure - why not, if it wins hearts and minds from moderates such as yourself.  Plenty of cyclists are appalled at the behaviour of some - and I just think it is daft to cycle at night on a road wearing black, without any lights!You'll have a problem fining those mums on the pavement taking their kids to school - the pavements act as a safety valve for the negligible amount of safe cycling infrastructure - zero tolerance might end up with the council putting in yet more cycle lanes!

Ed Saper ● 1915d

"I am a pedestrian"Is there anyone who isn't a pedestrian?!

Ed Saper ● 1915d

Is there anyone who isn't a pedestrian?!A brilliant point, Ed.So why, then, is the pavement being reduced, restricted and made worse by these schemes? One would think as an active mode of transit, it would be improved if not down right celebrated. If you follow the link Paul provided to the LBHF Safe Cycle Pathway scheme, it mentions urban greening, benches and widened pavements. Why is that not the case in Chiswick? Seeing that we are all pedestrians as you say.

David Lesniak ● 1915d

TonyWhat's cringe-worthy is the hypocrisy of some cyclists who bang on about evil cars yet own one themselves !

Loraine Pemberton ● 1915d

"Is there not a good chance that some commuter cyclists will then revert to public transport particularly in the bad weather and when the mornings are dark and the evenings draw in."Why?  They will have discovered that cycling is quicker, cheaper, and also more pleasant than being crammed into a train like sardines.

Al Webber ● 1915d

I don't know many people who do that.

Tony Smart ● 1915d

Again, a great cue, David. Of course if no pavement can be used, and no roadway either, as it might impact bus times, then there is no room for any bike lanes, let alone the one each side you are “encouraging” the councillors to support, and would take even more space. You’re doing some of your best work corralling them down this design cul-de-sac.

Tom Pike ● 1915d

The only evil car I know is Stephen King’s one!

Ed Saper ● 1915d

TonyI think you are right about how these schemes have been framed and thus perceived. CS9 was reviewed, consulted on, redesigned, and approved.  They changed the emphasis when they removed the ‘super’ bit from its description.  Focus is not on a cycle speedway through town, but on improving the high street for all and trying to make it safer to travel.  All of which I think is a good idea.Personally, I think this can be achieved, but (this is my view, not backed up with any data) I don’t think CS9 will help reduce motor vehicle traffic or pollution, just potentially move it.  But I still think encouraging bike use, improving local facilities, and making the street safer is a good thing so I’m happy it got approval and will eventually be deployed.The temporary cycle lane does not achieve these aims.  But let’s imagine the council had not tried to say that it would (I know the following would never happen).  What if they have come out and said that the temporary cycleway would not be great.  It is not CS9, it will be rushed and lots of mistakes will be made.  But if they don’t do it now, they will not get the extra money on offer.  If they do get this now it will reduce the cost of deploying CS9 and save the council money to improve/spend on services.  So, stick with it for 12/24 months of pain and remember CS9 is the goal and they will be saving money on the long run.

Kieran Fox ● 1915d

EdThat’s fair, I haven’t seen CS9 in action around Kew bridge.  I’m only really focusing on the temporary scheme on the high street.  When CS9 is implemented and bedded in I might have a different view on its safety for younger children.  Mine are 3 and 5.  The 3-year-old is still scooting, and the 5-year-old is riding a bike, but is still easily distracted.  That might be our teaching methods rather than her lack of attention though.  I don’t think she is ready for interaction with other bikes on the cycleway yet.I think a law change would just make it clearer that children are allowed on pavements on bikes.  They could implement a few rules then so they can start thinking about them before they move onto the road (I know parents do this already, but rules wouldn’t be a bad thing).  It would also stop disgruntled pedestrians shouting at kids and parents to get their kids off the pavement.I also read on here, that 90% are in favour of against these schemes.  I think that is wrong.  I think 95% people will be in favour or against different aspects of each scheme but just don’t get involved.  4% participate in the debate about what they think and enjoy discussing it.  But I think 1% spout a lot of vitriolic, aggressive, sarcastic nonsense (both for and against the schemes) and some of it descends into potential/actual criminality.  They want to paint people with different views than theirs as the enemy and if you call them out on this you get attacked.  It makes no sense as I don’t think it helps them further their goals.  By the way I’m not suggesting you are in the 1% (I’m sure you don’t care what I think but this isn’t aimed at you), but I think everyone that reads these pages know who they are apart from the 1%, they will have no idea.Personally, I sometimes see a post, and it’s like a scab, I must pick at it.  I have to learn to leave it alone and let them heal naturally.

Kieran Fox ● 1915d

I don't think there was any doubt that compromises were made with the temporary scheme, but even with those it was a step in the right direction and opened up future funding to move towards the permanent scheme. As it is, we have seen a significant drop in pollution on the High Road, and evidence of a modal shift to cycling. The threatened retail disaster on the High Road hasn't happened, quite the opposite, and jewel heists by cyclists that so concerned our councillors have so far been very limited. However, more time is needed to be confident of all these outcomes!But there's not huge disagreement here.

Tom Pike ● 1915d

It amazes me how people actually believe that cyclists account for 20% of vehicles on the High Road. A simple head count at any time of day would disprove that immediately. The suggestion that 1 in 5 vehicles is a bike is nonsense! My personal experiences with the cycle lane include: Cars heading toward me in the cycle lane because of bad signage at the end of TGT. Cars pulling out of side roads and blocking the lane. Non existent drainage leading to deep puddles — great for windsurfing though. Cyclists totally ignoring red lights (as per usual) only now it's more dangerous for them as cars turning left have an even bigger blind spot. The cycle lane crossing over the High Road outside Waitrose — there is a 2sec gateway before the traffic behind you gets a green light too. Delivery mopeds parking in the cycle lane. People walking in the cycle lane. People stepping off the bus islands without looking, especially when wearing earbuds. Not enough bike racks. Cyclists, pedestrians and motorists blaming each other for their own idiocy. And so on.

Chris Blackwell ● 1915d

I'd agree with you on a lot of that.  As it is at the moment, the cycle lane has a lot of issues.You didn't mention that it's extremely slow as well because of the traffic light phasing.  The junction at Dukes Avenue by the Catholic church is ridiculous.The A4 is still the least bad route if you want to get anywhere East of Netheravon Road from where I live.  At gentle speeds, dodging the pedestrians and low hanging branches on that is less bad than the High Road.If I was still commuting into Central London on my road bike at a higher speed, the main carriageway on the A4 is actually the safest option.  You do need to be able to maintain 20mph or so for that though.

Al Webber ● 1915d

My only 'moan' was that cyclists were not using the lane, if children are using it during school terms that's good but as it pushes fast cyclists ontothe road agree with another post on here that suggests it should be clearthat children can use the pavements then more fast cyclists can use the lane.  Also some don't like 2 way cycle lanes so could be another reason the fast cyclists use the road.  was there not room for a lane on the path one side and one on the road the other side.

Janice Evans ● 1915d

'Cars pulling out of side roads and blocking the lane' is what often happens with slow moving urban traffic, even when there isn't a cycle lane. It's part of the normal give and take of urban driving that motorists seem able to deal with. For cyclists to expect their onward progress to always be unencumbered is unrealistic.And for the desired 'modal shift', any apparent increase in cycling needs to be matched by fewer cars, or they could just be moving away from public transport.  I have to say that, with the prevailing pandemic disruption, any traffic measurements could easily be misleading and inconclusive and shouldn't be the basis of long term decisions.

Peter Evans ● 1915d

Making the cycle track two way on one side of CHR - perversely the side away from the facilities most people want to get to - has required the hugely complex traffic light regime that many people complain about and which reduces the progress of all users to a crawl for much of the day. It also requires exposed diagonal crossings for cyclists to access the two way track, and introduces uncertainty among all road users as to which direction things are likely to come from. For a facility like this to be used and welcomed, it needs to be a lot simpler and understandable.

Peter Evans ● 1915d

If there is less pollution on the High Road, it is likely caused by less traffic due to the pandemic.  That will change.  And it has absolutely pushed traffic and pollution into surrounding streets that didn't have such high levels before, including South Parade.

Claire Moran ● 1915d

The diagonal crossing at Goldhawk Road will be removed when the bike lane is extended along King St.Bike lanes along both sides of CHR would require even more changes to signals.At Turnham Green Terrace and Goldhawk Rd there would need to be additional stages to hold left turning motor traffic while cycles got a green for straight on.The cycle signal stage at Dukes Avenue could possibly be removed if there were measures to reduce traffic using Dukes Avenue.  At the moment it is a rat-run to the A4 and SCR bypassing the lights at CHR/Heathfield Terrace.  If it was residential and access traffic only, signals may not be needed at this junction at all.

Michael Robinson ● 1915d

Dukes Avenue is no more a 'rat run' than any other convenient way of getting from one place to another.  By all means make a case for closing it for whatever reason, but don't by implication insult and demean those who presently and entirely legitimately use it.  As you outline, putting in a dedicated cycle track isn't the end of it, as a greatly increased level of protection and restriction has to be included as part of the deal, which even some cyclists find frustrating. Previously, cyclists flowed with the main traffic and responded to the same traffic signals, but now many more permutations of vehicle and pedestrian movements need to be accommodated, such that people increasingly witness static traffic at a set of lights and ask 'why is nothing happening!'

Peter Evans ● 1915d

A rat-run is a commonly used phrase to describe "a minor, typically residential street used by drivers during peak periods to avoid congestion on main roads."If you don't like it, tough really, it is in common usage.  Why use 16 words when 2 will do.In a 2019 traffic survey, 87% of traffic using Dukes Ave was driving straight through between CHR, A4 or SCR without stopping,  Through traffic was about 2,500 vehicles and local traffic only about 350 (7am to 7pm).  With only local traffic, no signals may be needed at that junction at all.The differing signal arrangements for pedestrians, cycles and motor vehicles are nothing different from other countries with high cycle flows.  They may even have additional signals specifically for buses or trams.  People get used to it.

Michael Robinson ● 1915d

"It amazes me how people actually believe that cyclists account for 20% of vehicles on the High Road. A simple head count at any time of day would disprove that immediately. "Guess what, that's exactly what TfL have done, and DfT before them. Cyclists came to 15% of traffic in 2018 (DfT) and 20% in 2021 (TfL). The trafficCam at Goldhawk Road also gives an estimate of around 2000 cyclists a day, based on images taken every 6 minutes.So what evidence can you offer to show that all the above is "nonsense"?

Tom Pike ● 1915d

"Chipster run" instead of "rat run"?

Ed Saper ● 1914d

Didn’t traffic very quickly return to pre pandemic levels because people shunned buses and tubes? So there’s not less traffic, just less pollution?

Ed Saper ● 1914d

Do these counts include people on buses?

Peter Evans ● 1914d

Do these counts include dogs riding bicycles? 

Ed Saper ● 1914d

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-58009784I'm sure the die hard cycling Aficionados  are probably aware of this, but then again maybe they don't

Loraine Pemberton ● 1914d

Why are you surprised. Your bitterness is unbelievable and posting things like this does nothing but show your uneducated opinions are fuelled by nothing more than good old fashioned spite.Try reading about all these people killed and then come back and have a go.https://visionzerolondon.wordpress.com/latest-pedestrians-and-cyclists-deaths-in-london/Even has pictures for you. You won't care. Its not in your backyard and these pedestrians were not killed by cyclists.You really need to change your narrative as you just come across as petty and pathetic.

Tony Smart ● 1914d

So what evidence can you offer to show that all the above is "nonsense"? The evidence of my eyes. Stand on Chiswick High Road at any time of day and count the number of cyclists compared to the number of cars. Simple.

Chris Blackwell ● 1914d

lol

Tony Smart ● 1914d

Thanks, yet again Tom, for another of your pointless swipes.Still, the issue remains: LBHF can do more with less width than LBH can. So I'll ask again knowing full well you will not have an answer nor can you fathom one: why is the pavement being reduced, restricted and made worse by these schemes? One would think as an active mode of transit, it would be improved if not down right celebrated. If you follow the link Paul provided to the LBHF Safe Cycle Pathway scheme, it mentions urban greening, benches and widened pavements. Why is that not the case in Chiswick?Wriggle all you want. Attack all you want. You can't ignore the truth try though you might.

David Lesniak ● 1914d

Keep selling the impossible dream to our Councillors: not an inch of pavement, not a foot off the roadway, and cycle lanes down both sides of the High Road with all the space that frees up!Do you truly think LBHF are going to implement their cycle lanes on that basis?

Tom Pike ● 1914d

Don't get pissed at me, Tom.If LBHF can figure out a way to implement a Safer Cycle Pathway along its main artery that includes improving the pedestrian experience and greening and urban design, surely surely Chiswick and Hounslow can do the same. You're the one trying to sell us all a sh*t scheme. I just don't buy it is all. I think it can be better.Of course we could go down that whole A4 path and you can all pile on me but that would be ridiculous given LBHF is executing precisely that. So again, clearly there is merit. So much so money is being spent on it. Do you DARVO LBHF for being anti this, that and the other? I'm also willing to bet you don't send them outdated StreetView pics to make a "point."

David Lesniak ● 1913d

We can get a good feel for the proportions of vehicle use by looking at the traffic cams stills from Goldhawk Road.I have only looked at one day comprehensively and came up with a proportion of 9% of cyclists across the day. I tried to neutralise and possible biases against cyclists when calculating that number e.g. if the cctv image was obscured by sunlight so I think it is reasonably accurate for that day. Anyone who disputes the number is welcome to repeat the process.The proportion of cyclists may be slightly higher for central Chiswick and I do think that there has been a significant increase in cycling in the area but the issue for TfL is that these numbers would suggest there are 100 people travelling along Chiswick High Road by bus for every one by bike on current bus loadings.Therefore the revised proposals have done everything possible to rebalance the original scheme to reduce the disadvantage it currently provides to bus users which has to make it a substantial step forward. Bus shelters on bus islands, the return of a left filter at Chiswick Lane and the partial reinstatement of some bus lanes will hopefully speed up buses again and make the service viable for more people.

Mark Evans ● 1912d

Given we both get counts of around 50 cyclists from 7 am to 7 pm, which translated to about 2000 cyclists, your 9% proportion would imply 22,000 total vehicles, which is significantly above previous DfT counts for this location. Hence you are likely overestimating the flow of motor vehicles which depends critically on their average speed in images which contain more of them. At that those times speeds will be lower, and certainly below the unimpeded speed of the cyclists. A factor of 1.5 to 2 error in your estimate of motor vehicles would not be unreasonable.

Tom Pike ● 1912d

Tom, as I've said previously, I cycle this section regularly enough to say with confidence that even a relatively quick cyclist will progress more slowly than a motor vehicle most of the time in the section covered by the camera. I've excluded from the analysis frames in which there is queueing traffic because this may mean cyclists are obscured. Because of this relative speeds are likely to mean the proportion of cyclists has been overstated.I deliberately didn't try to extrapolate the data from the video images into a daily count estimate for the High Road because I don't see how you could do this in a robust manner. Therefore no estimate is made of this number.

Mark Evans ● 1912d

The point is that your proportion is not consistent with previous counts of motor vehicles. You can choose to ignore this or consider what might explain the discrepancy.

Tom Pike ● 1912d

I don't think I am able to explain the discrepancy but I don't know the methodology used for the other counts. I'd say with some confidence that analysing the video archive footage is a robust way to measure proportion of vehicle types.Any comparison of data during the pandemic is going to be problematic and likely to yield unexpected results. The proportion of cyclists may not be as high as expected for a number of reasons. My best guess is that there has been a greater fall than expected in cycling to commute. Partly this will be displacement as CS9 has slowed journey times on this section of CHR but there is a lot of anecdotal evidence that cycle commuting has been reduced more than other form of transport by WFH as cycle commuters tend to have jobs that have shifted from primarily being company office based over the last 18 months.A commuting cyclist can take ten journeys a week along his or or regular routes whereas leisure cyclists may only take one or two.It may be that there will be a shift back to cycle commuting when lockdown restrictions ease but possibly not back to peak levels. Looking at proportions by vehicle type and absolute numbers may understate any success that C9 has had and provide a reason for removal if the data is unconvincing. The key number for C9 in my view would be the growth in the number of individuals cycling on the route which a casual observation suggests is up significantly.

Mark Evans ● 1911d

Loraine - no-one would dispute that there are dangerous cyclists, just as there are dangerous motorists, dangerous pedestrians and dangerous dog walkers. However, they are a tiny minority, for the simple reason that in a collision, whether with a pedestrian or a lorry, the cyclist is at risk of serious injury. My colleague was cycling along at a reasonable speed when a car driver opened their door directly in front of her, she hit it, went over the handlebars and cracked her helmet, and has suffered from subsequent aches and pains ever since. If she hadn't been wearing a helmet the consequences could have been far worse.

Richard Greenhough ● 1911d

RichardI've often posted on here that breaking the law  through dangerous road use, be it a Motorist, Cyclist or Pedestrian should be punished.I'm dorry to hear  about your colleague.

Loraine Pemberton ● 1911d

Video footage is used regularly to count traffic, but if you use stills, it’s necessary to make assumptions about the speed of vehicles to derive a flow. I think your assumptions of motor speeds are overestimates and that is why you are getting unfeasibly large vehicle counts. There is a simple way to  confirm this using the known number of buses travelling along the High Road as a “meter”. 960 buses are scheduled along this stretch of the High Road in total from 7am to 7pm, 480 each way. There is a bus stop eastbound after Netheravon Road which will delay buses, and a separate bus lane. However, westbound there is a single lane and no bus stops, so the westbound buses can be used to “meter” the flow of all westbound motor vehicles, and that total doubled up to get the two-way flow. There is no need to estimate any speeds. Last Monday, I count nine westbound buses on that stretch, and 150 motor vehicles in total. That gives 8000 westbound motor vehicles which we can double to get total flow of 16000 a day, a little below the 18000 of the last DfT counts. The previous Monday there were eight buses out of 133 total vehicles, giving a two-way flow of 15960, so good agreement between the two Mondays.On those two days there were 55 and 50 cyclists seen both ways on that stretch, but only 100 of the 120 images were unobscured. Using the 10s period to cover the unimpeded distance up to Netheravon gives a total count estimate of 2160 and 2376, and a cycling proportion of 12% and 13%. That compares to the 8% proportion for the last manual count, or a 50 or 60% increase in cycling’s modal share.We got hourly bike counts in the High Road last September and they show that numbers are very similar to prepandemic levels during the peak commuting hours. The growth was in off peak numbers. Given the increased proportion of WFH, that implies of those who are commuting in were already choosing to travel by bike.

Tom Pike ● 1911d

Richard, just as dangerous cyclists are the minority, so is the cohort of dangerous drivers. Yet the entire insurance industry is based upon the behavior of this subset of drivers. You also mention your colleague wearing a helmet. By choice.It would seem to follow if the minority is forming the rules and regulations of the entire group for the benefit of everyone's safety and accountability, cyclists would be required to wear helmets, demonstrate proficiency by passing a test and be insured. Dare I say, perhaps there should be an age restriction as well especially with the advent of e-bikes and e-scooters.

David Lesniak ● 1911d

By your logic, David, pedestrians and dog walkers should also be required to have third-party insurance cover. Premiums would be higher for anyone who admitted to carrying on walking while doing things with a mobile phone.

Richard Greenhough ● 1911d

I'm sure you've made those posts Loraine, but you do also have a habit of highlighting those occasions when cyclists are in the wrong (as in your previous post where you highlighted a cyclist who had killed a 72 year old pedestrian).Have you ever originated (rather than just agreed with) any criticism of a car driver/drivers on this forum without mentioning cyclists at the same time?

Andrew Jones ● 1911d

I can only repeat that I have excluded frames in which there is queueing to avoid the risk of undercounting obscured cyclists. Therefore in all the frames included traffic is flowing. As a cyclist would tend to stay in frame longer than a car or a bus in flowing traffic the only over-estimate will have been of bikes but probably not by much. As I have excluded queueing traffic the chances are I have under-estimated the number of motor vehicles.I agree that static numbers for cyclists pre to post pandemic probably obscures an underlying increase because of the WFH factor. This may have been further distorted by slower commute times since C9 was opened.

Mark Evans ● 1911d

Judging the traffic as “flowing” is not enough to estimate the actual number of vehicles passing a point. The bus counts are both consistent and definitive in setting an accurate meter for the traffic and don’t require any subjective judgement of whether the traffic is free running from a video still. All that required is to count the number of buses and the total number of vehicles up to a fixed point, in this case Netheravon Road, and multiply the ratio of all vehicles to buses by 480 to get the total westbound flow.

Tom Pike ● 1911d

I think Tom’s meter suggestion is a good addition to the method that helps to bring the results into line with the more accurate spot counts. There may be software that can automatically count cars, buses and bikes from photos - so you could get an automated rough estimate of modal share on a daily basis.

Ed Saper ● 1911d

And surely we should all wear helmets on our cars too no?Head trauma is the number 1 cause of death in a car accident.

Tony Smart ● 1910d

That would be silly Tony - car occupants are already well protected and quite capable of assessing risk. Mandatory helmets for drivers and passengers would be an unwelcome intrusion into our lives.However, pedestrians struck by cars are highly likely to suffer traumatic head injury, so it would make more sense for pedestrians to wear helmets.Fewer TBIs among car-struck pedestrians may reduce insurance premiums for all drivers.  Win win. 

Ed Saper ● 1910d

Thought those counters knew the approx. weight of a vehicle and knew if it was a bus, van, car etc., or is that only in America.

Janice Evans ● 1910d

'I think Tom’s meter suggestion is a good addition to the method that helps to bring the results into line with the more accurate spot counts.'The methodology I have used is not perfect but there is a danger of over-complicating this issue. The fact that we have an archive of CCTV stills taken at regular intervals over the course of a day gives us an opportunity to have a good stab at an estimate of the proportion of vehicle types travelling up and down Chiswick High Road. I'm not aware of 'more accurate spot counts' being available but it isn't really sensible to argue with photographic evidence. It really is a simple way to answer at least one question about C9 usage levels.

Mark Evans ● 1905d

The DfT do spot counts very close to this location. The last one was in 2017 and gave 1467 bikes and 17593 motor vehicles giving a cycle modal share of 7.7%. Using the buses as meters for motor traffic, and 10s for the cycle travel time across the field of view from Netheravon I get a pretty consistent 11% cyclist modal share for 6 Mondays from April to August: the spread is just +/-1%. So that gives a 44% increase in cyclist modal share compared to the last estimate before C9 opened, not far from the 33% increase in cyclist modal share for the central portion.

Tom Pike ● 1905d