Forum Topic

Richard Tate · 1/22/2023 4:35:00 PM

new.ChiswickW4.com Communtity Forum Topic posting

Another Tom Pike lie - it’s probably less than 1000 cyclists a day on C9, not the 3000 he claims

At the Chiswick Area Forum on 22 November, ‘Professor’ Tom Pike said the following (see LB Hounslow YouTube site if you want to see it) “we shouldn’t have an argument about the facts. We also shouldn’t have an argument about how many cyclists are on C9”. (He pointed to the fact that “we” have cameras along its length.) He then said, “It’s averaging about 3000, it peaks at 4000 a day. We should focus on the facts here, take the heat out of the argument and make judgements based on what is happening here in Chiswick.”So I checked his arguments. FOI responses from TfL (you can find them online eg FOI-1431-2122, FOI-1192-2122) show that the number of cyclists on C9 in Chiswick is measured by sensor 62 count line 22096 at Annandale Road. It counts cyclists going both ways.In the 12 months to 30 September, the average daily 24 hour count of cyclists on C9 was 1,636. Fact, Tom Pike, fact. Not 3000. I think this categorically proves you cannot trust anything Tom Pike says. And bear in mind, this is BOTH ways, so it will be double counting every cyclist who goes to/from work or school, or every Deliveroo rider returning for another collection. Looking at the data from TfL, the morning 7-10 and evening 4-7 peaks are similar at 26% of journeys. So one can reduce the “number of cyclists” by at least a quarter. In all likelihood, the number of individual cyclists using C9 on average each day is below 1000. That makes this one expensive £10m white elephant (notwithstanding the other economic damage it has caused to Chiswick). Also, don’t trust Paul Campbell, or Michael Robinson. When asked about the number of cyclists on C9, they post a chart which doesn’t just use count line 22096 as TfL advise, but adds in 2 other cameras on Chiswick High Road (ie not the cycle lane) - it’s noted on their chart which they carefully label “Chiswick High Road”, not C9. In other words they are deliberately inflating the number (to show a 2000-2500 average) to give the impression of more cyclists on C9 than there actually are to support their failing scheme. And they know it. TfL even describes that methodology in the stated FOI requests as “problematic”. So there you have it. Not only was Pike wrong about £10m of fines in Grove Park, but he and his friends at the London Borough of Hounslow Cycling Campaign are misleading us about the number of cyclists on C9. It’s about 1000 per day. Not 3000.

Richard Tate ● 459d94 Comments

Bill, you sound like Homer Simpson saying 'you can prove anything with facts'.While you don't have any evidence demonstrating that improvements in public transport will persuade people to give up their nice cosy private space in cars to get into a crowded bus or train which is even more crowded since free fares persuaded loads of people there was no point walking or cycling.Of course I would support expanded congestion charge / road pricing so drivers are charged for every journey depending on the time of day, type of vehicle, journey etc. However that doesn't seem to be on the cards immediately, so while you rage and rant that the world isn't exactly how you want it to be, I'll deal with it as it is.

Michael Robinson ● 457d

Michael, you repeat the same twaddle time and time again. You go to extreme examples of a couple of cities with free transporst. We already have some of the most expensive transport in Europe and fares set for another big rise. That puts people off public transport. Selective use of data and examples does not support your cause.Also more accessilbe transport, still no tube step free access in W4 and no plans. The fare scheme under Livingstone saw huge growth in public transport use and a fall in car use.You are utterly deluded if you think cycle lanes along will move the dial. They will help a bit but I suspect thats it.Thing is, we could agree, but the obsession with a single transport mode, that you and Tom use, clouds everything.I agree with for example parking restrictions. Why is Ealing opening bays in W4 for commuters? Why was Chiswick business park opening to stadium commuters? I would support an expanded congestion charge, reduce the number of vehicles and improve air quality. Would you?

Bill George ● 457d

It's odd that agree with me (though I think you mean implicit not explicit) and then claim I'm talking semantic twaddle: there are more pleasant ways to progress a discussion. I've also stated my agreement that road pricing should be an option, but for some reason you find that difficult to accept as well.And we do have figures for the modal shift at the London level from the National Traffic Survey. The share of trips made by bike rather than by car or van in London went from 4% in 2003 to 10% in 2019 and was 15% in 2021. The change since 2019 was driven more by the increase of cycling than the reduction in car/van trips.

Tom Pike ● 457d

"The best way to reduce car use would be better and more affordable public transport."No, the best way to reduce car use is make it more difficult to drive and park cars.We've been through this before... many European cities have substantially reduced public transport fares, sometimes making it free. Public transport use has gone up but this has come from:- existing public transport users making more trips- people who previously walked or cycled using public transport instead as there was no longer much of a cost advantage to walking/cyclingThere was minimal impact on driving.So measures that increase use of public transport are NOT the same as measures that reduce people driving.Measures that increase the attractiveness of public transport appeal most to the people who already use public transport so they use it more.To reduce driving, you really need 'stick' and make it more difficult and expensive to drive and park. 'Carrot' isn't very effective because driving is such an ingrained habit.

Michael Robinson ● 457d

Tom, that is semantic twaddle and you know it. Of course the bus gates and other measures are explicitly designed to hold back vehicles. The flip side of prioritising buses is reducing the number of other vehicles. Whether one thinks this is a marvellous idea or not its still factually accurate. Though the full version of CS9 as consulted upon did not rely on such measures to the same extent. TFLused to deny that they used traffic lights to restrict traffic in central London, but its explicit on CHR thats what the bus gates achieve.I am sorry but you comments are becoming silly. Also, to be clear I did not implying that bike numbers are the same. My post clearly stated that even if bike numbers were the same, the restriciton of vehicular traffic would show a relative shift towards bikes. Please stop the misleading statements, its clear you dont like to be challenged on them but tough.The really interesting data would be at a borough level to see if there really is a modal shift, not a short stretch of road. The best way to reduce car use would be better and more affordable public transport. Bike lanes may help but are not central. Also an expanded congestion charge would reduce all the commuter traffic. Why dont you support these measures?

Bill George ● 457d

Bill, the number of vehicles has not been intentionally restricted, rather the running times of buses has been intentionally prioritised, clearly to the disadvantage of cars who now have to wait behind them. TfL have been quite explicit in their intentions here and peak running times of the 267 have improved.When you reprioritise transport modes you can expect to see a modal shift, in this case both a reduced number of cars and an increase in bikes. A comparison to the prepandemic counts in 2018 show both of these has contributed significantly to the modal shift. There is no reason to exclude one or the other and you are simply wrong to imply that the number of bikes has remained constant.The mayor has stated his intention to take measures that will lead to a reduction of car use by 28% in London by 2030. If that doesn’t come from the carrot of preferencing other modes, it will have to come from measures whose aim is indeed to intentionally restrict car use.

Tom Pike ● 457d

Bill you can add to residents of Acton Lane residents living between there and Esmond Road in real life experience. It comes to something when you check Waze if you want to go from that area to B&Q as I have done on several occasions during 2022 and into 2023.Well done on your perseverance regarding this.

Mark Talbot ● 457d

There is a fundamental point that I will keep making to Tom even though he ignores it. CS9 may or may not be a great success. There are I would hope more cyclists. But the numebr of vehicles has been intentionally restricted by a number of measures around CHR. So of course the ratio of cyclists to vehicles will go up on the central High Road, even if the number of cyclists was the same. Tom also talks about integrity...

Bill George ● 457d

Ha ha ha. More meaningless numbers from you professor.You trot out the 3,000 when it clearly isn’t that every day. Surely you average out over a year? You just choose a higher figure and stick to it. And ratios mean nothing. As you know, people are avoiding CHR because of the eternal stop-start nature of going along there.And using percentages to try to price something is always the last resort. You cite no sources. You again quote the term ‘nationally’ , which has zero bearing on Chiswick. It’s a common trick used by you and others to try and get bigger numbers.As I have often said to you, the cycle lane is going to stay but to claim it’s creating thousands of new cyclists is plain wrong. Cycling regularly is a minority activity. You just can’t accept or understand that.

Simon Hayes ● 457d

Simon, cycle counts are close to half the number of car counts on the High Road, and comparable in the main commuting direction: 3000 bikes compared to 5,500 cars is a significant ratio, however you want to slice the numbers. And it looks like you missed that while bike use nationally fell back in 2021 after the pandemic, it grew significantly last year, up by 38% during the week compared to the previous year, and that excludes weekend leisure use. In fact we saw a higher bike level last year than in 2020 after the pandemic started.

Tom Pike ● 457d

I didn't miss it at all - I read it before it disappeared.

Richard Greenhough ● 457d

But you can’t quantify that in any meaningful way, short of asking the entire population of the area. I doubt there’s much increase in regular cycling, particularly as a commuting mode. Despite the LCC claims cycling is a minority activity.No doubt professor Pike will come up with some abstract figures that prove nothing other than he ought to spend less time on his computer.

Simon Hayes ● 457d

Tom, not sure you are in a position to talk about credibility. You clutch the limited data you have and try desperately to make a point. The facts are you only seem to have traffic counts for two periods, both with differing degrees of COVID impact, which means significant changes to travel patterns and the nature of journeys. Simple question, do you deny that travel, work and leisure behaviours changed during COVID? Yes or no? If yes then we can both agree that data for 2022 will be more informative than the data you keep repeating. It may of course support your point, but we dont know.Any resident on Acton Lane can tell you how much there is far more congestion for longer periods post the FIshers Lane closure and CS9. But in the absence of any pollution monitors there is no actual data. Traffic may use different routes depending on its origin and destination, a lot of W4 traffic is through traffic. Again, you rely on COVID era data to pretend otherwise.If traffic has miraculously disappeared across W4 and indeed other areas with LTNs and cycle lanes, then this would have to be showing in borough level traffic data. That would be interesting to see.

Bill George ● 457d

Vacuous points. You’d know all about those Pike.The desperation of yourself and others to portray the cycle lane as some huge success is frankly laughable. You must be disappointed that it’s not 10,000 a day using it. The numbers you quote all the time are very small.As usual you dismiss anyone who disagrees with your narrow viewpoint.

Simon Hayes ● 457d

It's a bit of a pointless quibble.My view from the start is that C9 wouldn't lead to a huge increase in the number of cyclists on Chiswick High Road because the lengthy traffic light phases made progress slow. This has discouraged many daily commuter cyclists who have worked out alternative routes that are quicker. Therefore measuring cycling journeys just on CHR understates the overall rise in Chiswick.However, what it has done is given more people the confidence to cycle on the high road. The number of people who have been persuaded to take up cycling or start cycling regularly should be the yardstick by which it is measured.

Mark Evans ● 457d

You didn’t miss much: RPTate made the same vacuous points: I should have used “cycle counts” rather than “cyclists” (though he made exactly the same egregious error) and I should have specified that this referred to numbers on the High Road where C9 is installed rather than just using the shorthand of C9. That’s it.

Tom Pike ● 457d

Hi Richard,I'm not sure you will get a public explanation from the forum administrators as they seem to keep the investigation of fake posters 'under wraps'.I'd suggest you email them directly asking why they are not following their own policy to delete posts by fake names and replies to these posts (in which case, this post and yours will also be deleted!)It looks like Richard Tate/RP Tate/John Roberts has joined the long list of One Chiswick sock puppets posting garbage under a false name. I'm sure there will be more.

Michael Robinson ● 457d

Curiously, a post under the name RP Tate has quickly been removed, whereas those from Richard Tate remain. Perhaps the administrators could post an explanation ?

Richard Greenhough ● 457d

Michael, I don't doubt that there are more cyclists using C9 than the riverside route (although I doubt if there are any reliable statistics for the latter) because if you are starting your journey north of the A4 it would make sense to do so. However IMHO if you are starting from Kew Bridge the riverside route to Hammersmith has much to commend it compared to C9.

Richard Greenhough ● 457d

Funny how there are always caveats about being ‘operational’. If these cyclists are so keen to use their machines to get to where they are going they will carry on regardless. Plenty use the pavements when it suits them.I’d suggest the average daily number of cyclists is somewhere between 1500-1800. As you know, but never admit, cycling is a minority activity in London and mainly one pursued for leisure. The supposed boom in cycling during the pandemic was precisely because more people had time to do it. The figures dropped dramatically as soon as real life kicked back in. There is a hardcore of dedicated cyclists who view everything through their prism of entitlement, but they are a tiny minority. And they really ought to grow up.

Simon Hayes ● 457d

Francis posted "However, the right response is not to question the bona fides of the person providing the figures but to counter with a more accurate average..."I totally disagree with your opinion here. It's common practice on this forum and the Ealing site for posters to start a conversation, for whatever reason, and never return to it. I find that frustrating and if you add to that someone illicitly posting under a false name who'll be banned as soon as the editor's online, what is the point of engaging with them?In this case, 2 or 3 false accounts have been created and additional lies propagated. I can see no value whatever in paying them any attention at all.

Phil Kay ● 458d

Ed, If Richard Tate has been banned, at least he can reasonably claim to have made the most posts ever between midnight and 3 am. It would have been a short life on the forum, but a busy one.We all now have to shoulder the moral cost of mendaciously presenting two-way traffic counts, though I'm sure Richard will still be mentally halving everything wherever it is that sock puppets go to quietly moulder away.

Tom Pike ● 458d

That’s 3,000 users. Not necessarily 3,000 separate cyclists. You ought to make the distinction. Still, piss poor return for the level of investment.

Simon Hayes ● 458d

"So is it the case that C9 in Chiswick was open for less than a quarter of 2022?"I'd need to check exact dates but it is about that. Work on the Goldhawk Rd - Chiswick Lane section was completed in July, then work on the Chiswick Lane - Heathfield Terrace section started in October, so August and September were the only 2 full months when it was open.

Michael Robinson ● 458d

So there was no discernible displacement when traffic was at 93% of prepandemic levels on both South Parade and the A4 in September 2021. 2022 won't give you much more information: traffic was at 95% of prepandemic levels nationally. But I'm sure you could offer an estimate of what the level of displacement might be when traffic returns fully to normal. I'd recommend choosing a number no more than 7% if you wish it to be considered even marginally credible, though even that's an extreme limit!

Tom Pike ● 458d

Richard, I'm certainly not going to tell you what way to get from A to B but the reality is, there have been 3000+ people using C9 on many days, and the numbers using the riverside are a fraction of that. In general, people do figure out the optimum route for their circumstances.

Michael Robinson ● 458d

So to be clear, the first lockdown was not announced until the 23rd March 2020, while in September 2021 life was still impacted by COVID. So you can post the same thing until you are blue in the face but comparing COVID impacted dates tells us very little about displacement in normal times. You know this so please stop it, its embarrassing. Of course 2022 data, when compared to pre COVID data, will tell us a great deal of the real impact of these measures.

Bill George ● 458d

It may be a little longer, but there are likely to be less stops and starts at traffic lights and pedestrian crossings, so there isn't probably too much time difference. And a quick dismount to pass the Dove isn't going to kill you. I recall I reckoned on about 40 minutes from Grove Park to Victoria.

Richard Greenhough ● 458d

Richard, the route by the river is about 1.3 miles longer than via C9. As someone who cycles to work in the City, I'd prefer not to turn a 10 mile trip into more than 11.You'd also need to get off and walk by The Dove pub in Hammersmith unless you cycled on the footpath alongside the A4 (which is highly unpleasant).

Michael Robinson ● 458d

As someone who used to regularly cycle from Grove Park to Victoria, I am intrigued by the apparent suggestion that C9 is the best route from Kew Bridge to Hammersmith. Personally my first choice would be Strand-on-the-Green/Thames Road/Burlington Lane/Pumping Station Road/Chiswick Mall/Queen Caroline Street (with linking roads and paths where appropriate). Unless some part of that route has now been blocked off to cyclists, it seems a much more pleasant route than having to negotiate CHR, cycle lane or no cycle lane.

Richard Greenhough ● 458d

Bill, to be blunt you're talking nonsense! Of course COVID has had a very significant impact; but the specific question is how much did that affect counts made between March 2020 and September 2021 on South Parade. Counts on the A4 over the same period saw a very similar change, to within a percentage point. Hence it is highly unlikely that there was any significant displacement from the High Road to South Parade between March 2020 and September 2021. No data from 2022 is going to change that conclusion.

Tom Pike ● 458d

Francis, I think your memory might be playing tricks on what you wrote earlier today!"I'm sure there were days earlier in the year when the cycleway was fully opened through Chiswick as I did take the opportunity to cycle the complete length of it."C9 was originally opened from Goldhawk Road to Kew Bridge in December 2020. The length from Goldhawk Road to Chiswick Lane was shut from December 2021 to July 2022, so C9 was fully open for just under half of 2022.So to summarise, Richard's annual figure (which I've no reason to think is incorrect) includes just cyclists on trackway of C9 (which he admits makes it impossible to directly compare to counts before C9) over a period when C9 was fully open less than half of the time. He further includes Saturday and Sundays although comparison counts are always taken on a weekday. He then halves that number to try to estimate unique bikes/cyclists.He then proclaims C9 has failed based on a number he has concocted and which cannot be compared to any other assessment of traffic ever performed. Further he claims that anyone taking averages when C9 is fully open, using weekday counts across the High Road, and stating as much, are "mendacious" and seeking to "deliberately mislead" when such averages are the standard way of calculating traffic flows.And he makes all these claims under a false name.

Tom Pike ● 458d

Tom, I think you understand the point so stop being obtuse. How do many people get to LHR, and its a general indicator of normal life vs disruption. Your inability to provide data other than for periods that were heavily impacted by COVID is a big challenge. You may or may not be right in your points but you undermine your credibility by pretending that COVID did not have a huge impact on all aspects of life including travel patterns, WFH, people's willingness to travel etc.So to be clear, I can assume by your answer there is no 2022 data available.

Bill George ● 458d

No, I think the general level of traffic on the streets is a better measure than planes in the air if you want to make a comparison.In fact while we don't have traffic counts for Hounslow, we do for counts on the A4 through Chiswick. They show that traffic for the first week of September 2021 was 94% of the traffic in the first week of March 2020, the same period as the Fishers Lane counts showed a 93% drop.And so to answer Richard's later question, yes, the A4 is also a likely displacement alternative but it would be much easier to pick up an increase against the much lower counts on South Parade, and there is simply no evidence of one occurring.

Tom Pike ● 458d

Maybe my memory is playing tricks on me but I have a distinct recollection of cycling from Chiswick Lane to Kew Bridge earlier in 2022 unimpeded by any closures just to test it out.So is it the case that C9 in Chiswick was open for less than a quarter of 2022?

Francis Rowe ● 458d

"..the main parallel route, South Parade.."So not the Great West Road, then ? I think that if I was intending to drive from, say, Chiswick Lane to Power Road, I would be more inclined to use the A4 than CHR (or South Parade) at the moment.

Richard Greenhough ● 458d

Tom, once again we are using COVID period data to try and understand current conditions. LHR traffic in Sept 21 was still only one third of Sept 2019 traffic, a good indicator of the ongoing disruption to normal life and normal travel patterns. You choose to ignore this as it doesnt suit your narrative. As for Hounslow, it would be interesting to see actual data for the last few months, and the same for other boroughs. That may start to tell us something. Do we have that?

Bill George ● 458d

“ So what happens when finally one is correct ?”And the people using pseudonyms in their wasted and misguided efforts to stop all of this happening and whoever writes the laughably self-important "press releases" for the group formerly known as OneChiswick will need to find some new hobbies.

Paul Campbell ● 458d

Traffic in London at the time of the South Parade count in September 2021 was at 95% of prepandemic levels. The average of the South Parade counts was at 93% of prepandemic levels. It therefore showed no sign of displacement:https://www.ealing.gov.uk/info/201176/cycling/2915/fishers_lane_closure_to_motor_traffic_except_busesHounslow's traffic counts are down but I wouldn't want to claim you can isolate the effect of measures on the High Road from that - it's dominated by the A4 and M4. That's why local counts are needed.

Tom Pike ● 458d

“ So what happens when finally one is correct ?”The network gets built out even more:- construction from Kew Bridge to Brentford should begin soon- construction from Brentford to Hounslow should be 2024 depending on funding- there are gaps to be filled across Kew Bridge, across the A4 to S Chiswick, across the A4 to Boston Manor Rd- there is a gap going to central London in RBKCAs the network grows, use will grow.Asking what the final goal is, is like asking what the final goal of the road network. There will always be changes, improvements. Even in the Netherlands with an extensive cycling network, they are continually upgrading older sections.

Michael Robinson ● 458d

So what happens when finally one is correct ?Start all over again ?Whats the final goal in all of this?

Julian Pavey ● 458d

Tom, do you really need a traffic count to tell you that measures such as bus gates and road closures that restrict the number of vehicles have indeed restricted the number of vehicles? The model shift at a borough or London level is not just important its fundamental. If its not hapening at that level then its not happening at all, journeys are just being moved around.Also, can you point me to the most recent data for South Parade that shows traffic is down? The Steer report showed the COVID impact, nothing else.If as you claim that traffic across W4 is down, then this should begin to show in borough level data. As we know that a lot of the traffic is through traffic.

Bill George ● 458d

Francis, I haven't confined my data to anything other than when C9 was open through Chiswick: you must have picked you way around the roadworks as the stretch from Chiswick Lane to Goldhawk Road opened on July 9.

Tom Pike ● 458d

That's the point Francis, it wasn't fully open at any point in 2022 prior to late July so the August and September data is all that is available for the lane being fully openThen for 2021, when C9 was open on CHR, C9 along King St wasn't open. Availability of a continuous routing linking both will clearly affect numbers plus changes were made to sensor countlines given the construction.

Michael Robinson ● 458d

Thanks for that Tom but it doesn't answer the question I asked.You have confined the data to whole months which happen to be those with the best weather. I'm sure there were days earlier in the year when the cycleway was fully opened through Chiswick as I did take the opportunity to cycle the complete length of it. So what was the daily average across the year for the days that it was open?

Francis Rowe ● 458d

Bill, while there is no doubt that modal shift at the Borough and London level is important, you won't be able to understand the effect of any measures on one road without looking at the counts on it. After all, if the measures caused a modal shift towards cars, then they would have to be reconsidered.You time and again ignore the fact that measures of traffic on the main parallel route, South Parade, also show levels there are down, so any displacement will be rather limited.

Tom Pike ● 458d

I'm looking forward to seeing the counts for Sep 2023 when the cycle lane is officially permanent and has been open for 6 mths+. It's a great start and I'm expecting it to just keep getting better.

Paul Campbell ● 458d

Francis, you have overlooked that you have already been given the answer. The average weekly bike count on the High Road in September, the most recent month when C9 was fully open and outside of the holiday period, was around 3000. To be precise, if you use the sum of bike counts on count lines 22082, 22096 and 22097 at TGT as recommended by TfL in FOI-2044-2223, you get a weekday average of 3049 counts for September. During that time 85% of the counts were on the C9, that's the numbers from 22096 over the total from all three count lines.For completeness, for the three months after the cyclepath around Hammersmith gyratory opened, the average weekday counts, with the proportion on C9, were:July: 2848, 84%August: 2953, 85%September: 3049, 85%These are clearly pretty consistent values. As Michael correctly points out, we won't get comparable counts with C9 fully opened until March or so, at which point we will be able to track the changes from these values.Over the same period the car counts, with the proportion of bikes in comparison were:July: 5851, 49%August: 6526, 45%September: 7018, 43%This reflects the effect of displacement from the roadworks on the A4 starting in August, but as you can see approaches close to 50% before then.

Tom Pike ● 458d

Tom, this is getting ridiculous. Its not just about speed but the volume of vehicles is explictly restricted on one particular stretch of road. So most of these vehicles now use alternative routes. It tells us nothing about overall modal shift which would need data at a minimum over a borough or indeed London level.

Bill George ● 458d

"Michael, you can't give people homework every time they raise an issue with you" Yes I can Francis. I'm not at you or anyone else's beck and call when it comes to providing analysis from this data set. If you want to pay me, then I can discuss rates ;) (this type of work is around junior business analyst level) As I've said, I see little value in extensive analysis of historical data anyway given there has been 2 months (Aug 22, Sep 22) of data when there hasn't been construction on the lane and there have been changes in the counting technology and positioning since 2021. Additionally, what I produce doesn't matter. TfL/ Hounslow officers will be providing their own analysis to decision makers which will include counts and other factors regarding the lane. Here are some graphs from a quick analysis of the data in the latest FOI. Make of this what you will.

Michael Robinson ● 458d

"And at the risk of you claiming I'm being mendacious I'm willing to give a weekday average count of cars of around 5000 to 6000 for the same period, though you'll probably claim that is also a deliberate lie and demand an apology for that as well!"Tom - that's a complete lie - it isn't 5000-6000 cars.Many of these so called "cars" are in fact Ubers and Black Cabs plying their trade in Chiswick and surrounding roads. Many do multiple trips in a single day, often within the same hour. You cannot count them as separate cars.Other "cars" belong to commuters who drive in and drive out by the same route, so you're at least double counting those.And as we well know, many cars are driven by local residents to get a coffee, a newspaper, take the dogs for a walk, drop off / pick up the kids from school and take them to clubs after school, doing the big shop at Sainsburys, dropping off a sofa or bookcase and so on. They could make 6 trips a day - which would count as 12 individual cars by your methodology, which is hopelessly flawed, and as Dickie Tatorship points out, utterly mendacious. And whatabout the cars driven by paid actors funded by the Russians to ruin Chiswick and undermine our economic ability to support war in Ukraine? Just because there's no evidence for them doesn't mean we shouldn't count them, does it?Rather than there being 5000-6000 individual cars, a reasonable assumption is that there are less than 300 being driven in Chiswick on any given day.Fact.

Ed Saper ● 458d

Michael, you can't give people homework every time they raise an issue with you. I'd be really interested to know the answer to the above question but don't have the time to work it out myself. I can't see another explanation why a passionate advocate for the cycleway like your self, who expends a lot of time and effort defending it, would not provide this particular piece of key information other than it doesn't tend to support your case. Happy to be proved wrong.If you are correct about people participating with fake names then you are also right that it undermines their credibility somewhat but the facts remain the facts so perhaps best to stick to those rather than speculating.

Francis Rowe ● 458d

Bill, modal shift comes about precisely because of the change in the differential preference, and these measures have been designed to achieve that change in preference.Hence on the High Road there is no doubt that a combination of bus gates and in-line bus stops have both given preference to buses and meant that cars now have to travel at similar speed. Similarly the introduction of C9 has promoted a growth particularly in daytime cycling. Both of these measures have produced a differential preference away from car use on the High Road.

Tom Pike ● 458d

Tom, as you know, this is in part at least drive by the various methods that restrict non bus traffic through the central stretch of CS9. I cant really follow the numbers discussed on this thread, so maybe CS9 is driving a huge growth in cycling or maybe its not, but you cant claim some kind of modal shift when one type of transport has explicitly been reduced. Which is the same reason air quality, as recorded by the one monitor in W4 also shows the impact of.

Bill George ● 458d

In September bike counts were around half of car counts on the High Road.

Tom Pike ● 458d

"Richard", this is actually quite funny! You say that it is mendacious to equate cyclists to cycle counts. But surely you are being just as mendacious when you use a cycle count as representing a count of bicycles passing a particular point, which surely it must. That is unless a cyclist uses a different bike each time they go past a certain point. In fact I'm willing to bet that often the same cyclist is counted along the High Road on different days, and that's surely at least double counting, if not more likely much worse. But I didn't claim to be presenting a count of unique cyclists, or indeed bikes, that use the High Road, but rather the standard number which is used in all considerations of traffic flow. And I'm quite willing to repeat the fact that the September weekday average count of cyclists on the High Road was close to 3000, and that the daily counts peaked at just under 4000.And at the risk of you claiming I'm being mendacious I'm willing to give a weekday average count of cars of around 5000 to 6000 for the same period, though you'll probably claim that is also a deliberate lie and demand an apology for that as well!

Tom Pike ● 458d

Ha ha ha. The classic deflection. Cycling numbers in London are minuscule compared to population. You guys like to throw in the biggest numbers you can think of to support your theories.Rachel Aldred research at its best.What the Elizabeth line numbers show is where transport investment in the capital really should be going.

Simon Hayes ● 458d

A Conservative councillor in Ealing made the news in the past when they used a fake name to post on the Ealing version of this website:https://www.mylondon.news/news/local-news/ealing-councillor-faces-calls-resign-5972251The website administrators could have been on shaky ground from a data protection point of view releasing the IP address of the poster showing they had multiple identities. A check on IP addresses is relatively easy to get around anyway.A social media website like NextDoor is more stringent checking identities before allowing people to post.

Michael Robinson ● 458d

Here is the relevant section from the code of conduct of the forum. Whoever is behind the pseudonyms Tate, Roberts, Riley, Mabbutt, Culpath, Soze (and it is clearly the same person) is a serial abuser of the forum's code of conduct. The site moderators do not follow their own policy of removing posts and replies to those posts when somebody has used a pseudonym. And the continuous creation of pseudonyms by the same person makes a mockery of the site's registration of new users. Many people will see little point in continuing to use the forum if the site administrator shows so little interest in upholding the code of conduct so that people are allowed to hide behind anonymity to defame people using their real names. "Take Responsibility - Use Your Real NameUnlike many other forums you are expected to use you real name. Use of "handles" or nicknames is not allowed. You should supply your full name as requested on registration. Postings made in pseudonyms will be removed as will any replies to those postings.You are responsible and liable for all your activities while participating in the Forum. Remember, you are responsible for anything you say or post."

Paul Campbell ● 458d

Richard, I have reported it to forum moderators. I have previously reported other posters with similarity to "Richard Tate" and for some reason, they no longer appear on this forum. Funny that.

Michael Robinson ● 458d

There was news last week that the Elizabeth line is averaging more than 3.5M passengers a week."Richard Tate" will be shocked to know this includes people using the line in both directions going to and from work. Clearly according to his logic, TfL should be asking each person individually if they have used the line before then excluding them from the figures if they have.

Michael Robinson ● 458d

Don’t you feel disappointed that the numbers are so low? Surely there should be thousands per hour using that expensive piece of infrastructure?

Simon Hayes ● 458d

Francis,I am perfectly entitled to question the bona fides of this person given the similarity of the posts to several previous now vanished posters and the track record of fake names used by others on this subject.I have reported "Richard Tate" to the website administrators for investigation. Previously I have reported other now vanished names: "John Roberts", "Chris Soze", "David Riley", "Amanda Smith" and several others.Maybe you haven't noticed, but there is a pattern of bad faith behaviour with people using fake names on this forum.Given this poster is starting from a position of bad faith, they should be treated as such.If you look at the thread started by "John Roberts", you will see I did post a graph of cycle counts from the TfL data and used September 2022 for a month when the lane was in full operation. Given the lane then shut for construction the following month, I don't see any point looking at figures again until March assuming completion of works by February.If you wanted to check the numbers yourself, the FOIs are on the TfL website. I didn't submit the FOIs for the data. I suspect it was done by an opponent of Cycleway 9 who found that they didn't provide the result they wanted. Hence "Richard Tate" tortuous attempts to come up with the smallest figure they can.

Michael Robinson ● 458d

Francis, that’s precisely the reason I gave the September weekday average as it’s the first full month outside of holiday period when C9 was fully operational after the gyratory cycle path opened.And well spotted! It’s the 267.

Tom Pike ● 458d

It’s worse than you think, Michael. It’s not just me but every traffic count from TfL, DfT, all the traffic engineers and transport experts, they’ve all been lying all these years because they haven’t followed the Robert-Tate methodology. Meanwhile if he cared to look at the data, he would see that indeed weekday cycle counts on the High Road averaged around 3000 a day in September, and the highest daily count was just under 4000 on the day of the train strike in June. He’d also see cycling has grown most in the daytime period compared to previous counts.But despite his frenetic overnight activity, something tells me that Richard Tate is not going to be around for much longer.

Tom Pike ● 458d

You are right to call into question the validity of presenting an annual average during a period when the cycleway was close for a significant period of time. However, the right response is not to question the bona fides of the person providing the figures but to counter with a more accurate average based on days when there is full operation.Also Tom claims that the Cycleway has reduced the travel time of the 270 bus which may be true but would be very impressive if so as it runs from Putney Bridge to Mitcham not crossing the river at any point. It could be that there are complex issues at play here that people without a PhD in maths don't understand or perhaps the good professor isn't a regular user of local buses.

Francis Rowe ● 458d

As it is a CW4 rule that posters use their real names, if you think some names are made up, you should report it to the site's moderators.

Richard Greenhough ● 458d

“Who are your sock puppets, Michael? Mao Tse Tung? Kin Jong Il? This list could go on but I won’t…”Just so I’m clear Dickie, you are alleging that the leader of North Korea is not a real person, but in fact a sock puppet for Hounslow Cycling? Can I ask - the World Economic Forum - is that a front for the LCC?

Ed Saper ● 458d

A couple of weeks ago a Onesie sock puppet calling themselves “John Roberts” posted about the Telraam traffic counter with a stupid point about cyclists going in both directions. Nothing has been seen from them since.Now another fake name “Richard Tate” is making the same stupid point about the TfL counts.Not only that, they think there is relevance to cycle lane counts when half of the cycle lane was closed.Supporters of Cycleway 9 can be very grateful opponents like John Roberts / Richard Tate are so clueless.

Michael Robinson ● 459d

P.S. Do you accuse everyone that disagrees with you to be a sock puppet so as to stifle debate you don’t like. Who are your sock puppets, Michael? Mao Tse Tung? Kin Jong Il? This list could go on but I won’t…

Richard Tate ● 459d

Well that’s quite a rant. Clearly not a happy man to be challenged, which suggests some latent insecurity. My data is correct. You fail to address the point of the thread, which is the truthfulness of statements about the number of people using C9. London Borough of Hounslow Cycling Campaign and/or it’s members, which you head, provides misleading and/or inaccurate data. And that includes one of your recent answers on this forum.

Richard Tate ● 459d

Justin. First I can assure you that all my data is correct, sourced from TfL. The whole point of this thread is that you cannot say the same about Tom Pike’s, the reasons for which, and his errors, I have explained in detail.I agree more data the merrier. And hence why I used 12 months data to take out seasonality. Even when I cherry picked data I still couldn’t make Pike’s 3000 and 4000 claims. He is clearly inflating the numbers of cyclists using C9. That was my motivation for this thread - to correct misleading and false statements and to put the truth out there. Now it’s late and I really have to go to bed, so I am signing off from this thread. There really is nothing more for me to say. You choose who to believe, but I can sure you the right choice is me! (And I feel I have evidenced this.)

Richard Tate ● 459d

Russell. Nothing fake in any of my data, I can assure you. Only Mr Pike’s, hence my motivation for starting this thread - the truth.

Richard Tate ● 459d

Tom. It’s Richard. I don’t know who John is. I am not obsessed with proving its 1000 cyclists. I am only interested in the truth. Maybe you are like Tom Cruise’s character in A Few Good Men. As Jack Nicholson put it “you can’t handle the truth”.I’ve just looked up the Telraam thing you mention. From what I read you clearly have form in misleading people, as to sum up that post you used that data to claim 3000 cyclists when it suited you and dropped it when you didn’t. I hope your professional research has more integrity than that. I think the issue here is that people want honesty about what is going on, not biased, fiddled numbers that support a partisan cause. You have blotted your copy book in that regard. People should question every statement you make. And as long as you continue to present biased misleading data (especially with the authority you purported to have at the area forum) people will call you out on it. What I don’t get is why you do it? Do you think you’re cleverer than other people and they won’t notice? That’s clearly not the case as you’ve been pulled up on it not just by me but by others before (who you pretend all to be some John bloke - I bet you wring your hands that he’s better looking than you, too).Now, it’s really getting rather late, and time I retired from this thread.

Richard Tate ● 459d

Tom. I didn’t just half the number. You talked about the number of cyclists per day, and while I accurately compared a real, unbiased 2 way number (1636 average over 12 months) with your false one (3000) for the cycle count, I also noted that if one was counting actual cyclists (as you quoted), it is likely that they would make an outward and a return journey. That is common sense, not halving the number to show you were lying. I dint need to do that. I am not making comparisons with numbers previously using the High Road. I am correcting your (deliberately?) false statement at the Chiswick area forum that C9 traffic now averaged 3000 per day (it does not) and peaks at 4000. Please see my other response which demonstrates that these numbers are wrong and inflated, even if one tries to cherry pick the data. So I think what is apparent here is that I very much want to engage on the data, but to do so honestly and without bias, which you seem unable to do.

Richard Tate ● 459d

Tom, you really are one, aren’t you? Trying to obfuscate and bluster around the fact that you have been providing misleading data, rather than addressing the facts and the truth. I actually thought you had put the Oct, Nov and Dec FOI requests in to TfL, since they are all linked and the last one is a vain attempt to get them to agree to add count lines 22097 and 22082 as you did in the chart which Campbell and Robinson both posted previously, endeavouring to mislead by representing the inflated cycle count as C9. (However, I agree that it is a fair to compare the total Chiswick High Road count to earlier CHR counts, but I’m not doing that here.)You then say, “But that is no excuse for "Richard" to post an innumerate rant, halving numbers when he feels it makes his point, and making accusations of mendacity with no foundation.”First I did not “rant”. Just because you don’t like the truth doesn’t mean you should insult it’s bearer. Second, it was definitely not innumerate. The cycle count on C9 in Chiswick for 12 months to 30/9/22 averaged 1636 per day, counting both ways, east and west. That’s a fact. Involving numbers. It’s not innumerate. Do you disagree with it? My assumptions afterwards are also perfectly sensible. When I cycled to school and work I returned every day by the same route. That’s what most people do. I’m sure you’d agree.. Therefore, if one wishes to identify the number of cyclists using C9, it would be a reasonable assumption to halve the number (which would be 818 per day). (Note that is a reasonable assumption based on logic, not “halving numbers when he feels like it”, as you accuse me of doing.) Now I know that some cyclists may not go back the same way, but that will be a small minority, therefore, it is a reasonable guess that the number of individual cyclists may be around 1000. Please tell me where my facts or assumptions are wrong. You won’t as they aren’t. Third, I have not made accusations of mendacity without foundation. Do you deny saying C9 was being used by 3,000 cyclists a day? If you do, you should probably ask YouTube to take down the footage of you doing so. You misled (and I suspect that was deliberately so) the Chiswick Area Forum on 2 counts: a) using the word ‘cyclists’ instead of more accurately saying ‘cycle count’. b) using a figure of 3000 as an “average” and 4000 as a peak. Let me correct you. I have provided the 12 month figure of 1636, which I believe is the best basis, since it removes seasonality. However, even if you look at only the most recent monthly data (September, a back to work month with good weather), the average is not “about 3000”, it is 2,545, and there were only 3 days in the entire month when the count was over 3000. As for a peak of 4000, that’s wrong too. It was 3,194. Even if one cherry picks the data, you were still wrong. So, far from making “accusations of mendacity with no foundation”, it is found that you did indeed mislead the entire Chiswick Area Forum with your numbers. Will you be apologising?

Richard Tate ● 459d

Julian. Let me assure you, my figures are correct. The cycle count going both ways on C9 in Chiswick averaged 1,636 per day in the 12 months to 30/9/22. The data is downloaded from TfL’s website. Someone, not me (I actually thought it was Tom Pike) requested them in a FOI. You can find them easily enough on Google. The assumptions I use to say it’s 1000 cyclists per day is mine, but if the two way count is 1636, why wouldn’t that be 818 cyclists going out and coming back?As for Dad’s army, the responses of Robinson, Pike, Saper et al (where’s Campbell gone?) reminds me more of Cpl Jones’ view of the Nazis: “They don’t like it up ‘em!”

Richard Tate ● 459d

“ The earlier reference to less than 1000 cyclists per day is certainly misleading.”David - it is not. Let me explain why it is a fair estimate. The average cycle count on C9 (TfL count line 22096) per day in the year to September 30, 2022 was 1,636 cycle journeys per day. That is fact. Not “Tom Pike fact”. Actual fact from TfL. And it is journeys both east on C9 in Chiswick and west.Now here are my assumptions. The data is split out by hour (Google it on TfL to see). The 7-10 am count comprises 26% of the total count. That is people ‘going to work/school etc’. By pure coincidence 4-7pm is also 26%. This will be people ‘returning from work/school etc.’ my assumption is that these will largely be the same people. In which case, when one comes to consider the number of actual cyclists using C9, they should not be double counted. This would reduce the count to 1,227. Now, given that most people who cycle somewhere usually cycle back by the same route, I suggest this is a massive underestimate of double counting. Hence why I am confident in saying that it is probably less than 1000 individual cyclists a day using C9 in Chiswick, on average, over the year. By all means challenge my assumptions, but I think they are reasonable and the conclusion is fair. And I do believe I have been working with better data than you, as I have used 12 months of cycle count, thereby eliminating seasonal biases (unlike Tom Pike, of course).

Richard Tate ● 459d

I don’t know about David Kerr, but I can assure you my data is correct. The average cycle count per day on C9 in Chiswick in the 12 months to 30 September 2022 was 1,636 cycle journeys per day, counting both east and west journeys. All you can do it seems, Michael, is cast aspersions that the data is wrong, just as Tom Pike did about the £7.8m of fines on Staveley Road, which turned out to be correct, too. I agree we need more data to draw conclusions, but this is firm, evidential data from TfL so please don’t dismiss it simply because you don’t like it. It is a fact, and as Tom Pike said at the Chiswick Area Forum, we should all agree on the facts. If you think the number is wrong, please provide the evidence to correct it. You won’t, because you can’t. You know as well as I do that the number, from TfL’s official count for C9 is correct. It just isn’t what you want to hear, is it?

Richard Tate ● 459d

Thank you for not making fun of my parents in not thinking through my name fully.The average cycle count per day on C9 in the 12 months to 30 September was 1,636. That is going both ways east and west. That is a fact not a fake argument. My hypotheses and assumptions about over 600 of these journeys being made by the same cyclist is, I think a reasonable one - do you not usually return by the same route as you took to your destination? You are welcome to disagree with that, but I think that my argument is good, based on the fact that 26% of journeys are in morning rush hour and 26% in the evening rush hour, and 19% are after 7pm, which will be Deliveroo mainly coming and going. But I grant you it is an estimate of the number of actual cyclists, as opposed to journeys. What do you think the number is if you believe my argument is fake?

Richard Tate ● 459d

Justin, while I agree more data is needed to draw conclusions, if you look at the data there already, David Kerr can’t even add it up and calculate an average correctly.

Michael Robinson ● 459d

TBH I have no idea who is telling a more complete version of the truth between Tom Pike and Richard Tate for the simple reason at this stage the data is woefully incomplete.My view, which I have stated on this forum before, is that we need a lot more data, 2 or even 3 years (and normal years at that) before we can really assess what is happening with traffic. You have to allow enough time for the initial rush of enthusiasm about any road change to settle down. Couple that with the fact that on CHR, C9 seems to have been closed for road works and improvements more often than it has been fully open and I doubt we can draw any conclusions so far

Justin Stephenson ● 459d

> If you guys are so worried about your reputations (and legal position as regards slander) when making these fake arguments that you need to use fake names, have you ever considered perhaps not making up fake things? Lol 🍿. No idea what’s going on, but I do like a bit or irony. Some good arguments too, far better than the ‘shame on you’ type of sock puppetry that we normally see.

Russell Pearson ● 459d

Richard TateDick TateDictate...geddit!Some sort of paranoid riff on how the council is a dictatorship or something dumb like that.If you guys are so worried about your reputations (and legal position as regards slander) when making these fake arguments that you need to use fake names, have you ever considered perhaps not making up fake things?That's rhetorical of course. If you had real arguments and evidence you'd use your real names.

Ed Saper ● 459d

Indeed. I can see a Battle of the Sock Puppets erupting before long. Not seen my favourites for a short while, but I bet there’s a twitching thumb or two on Johnny VPN. They all need to cover their trails better.

Russell Pearson ● 459d

"Richard" or should I say "John", I'm starting to understand why you are rather obsessed with proving there are under 1000 cyclists a day. That's what you originally claimed with a flourish a week or so ago as John Roberts after completely misconstruing the 'Telraam' data . As well as being rather teased, I think you might have got banned for posting under a false name. So know you've bounced back as Richard Tate, though having looked at the better-calibrated data from TfL you realised you faced more of a challenge and hence the need to now halve the data to get under the magic 1000 cyclists a day. It's fair to say this attempt hasn't ended well either (and I get a sneaking suspicion that David Kerr might have wisely advised you in advance to abandon that as your bottom line). I am now intrigued both by you choice of name next outing, and what will be your attempted sleight of hand. But as you firmly nailed "less than 1000 cyclists" to your mast, there's little doubt about the topic heading.

Tom Pike ● 459d

Michael, I think John Balmond might have put in many of those FoIs. He certainly pored over the data, from cycle counts to bus running times, to come up with a coherent critique of C9. It is in fact very good to have data questioned from all sides and I welcome the information that these FoIs revealed, including that the peak westbound running time of the 270 service has actually improved since the deployment of C9. In comparison no comprehensive criticism of C9 has yet emerged based on these FoIs, and clearly some have found that frustrating. But that is no excuse for "Richard" to post an innumerate rant, halving numbers when he feels it makes his point, and making accusations of mendacity with no foundation. He was well advised to hide behind an alias.

Tom Pike ● 459d

"Richard", you can't just halve a number to try to prove somebody is lying when it is absolutely standard to use two way flow when discussing traffic counts on a road. I'm afraid all that does is demonstrate your bad faith. And you obviously can't make comparisons to the total number of cyclists on the High Road before and after C9 without including all the cyclists on the High Road. On that basis C9 could be claimed an overwhelming success simply because there were no cyclists on it before it was installed!You can certainly use counts on C9 to track relative usage, and that shows the highest growth in cycling corresponds to the daytime interpeak period when C9 is heavily preferred to the roadway. That demonstrates directly the success C9 has had in delivering a segregated option for many cyclists outside of the commuting period. But in the end it's clear you don't actually want to engage in the data to prove any coherent point, but would rather make bad-faith claims while hiding behind a fake account.

Tom Pike ● 459d

There is little point drawing conclusions from figures for April 2022 given most of Cycleway 9 was not operational then. I don't know if the figure you quote is correct because there is no point looking at April given the changes since then.Similarly, there is little point looking at the figures during the current construction.The figure you quote of 1,839 as a weekday average for countline 22096 in September 2022 is wrong. It is much higher than that. You need to go away and check your analysis.The DfT derived analysis comes from a survey on a single day. In 2018, it was 18 April. The DfT surveys are done for long term trends so they do the survey at a location on a similar day on some (but not all) years.So was it just a coincidence that you and "Richard Tate" were looking at the FOI data ? Was there co-ordination of your posts back at Onesie HQ?

Michael Robinson ● 459d

Can we just say that your all blooming useless at getting correct figures. Reminds me of dads army when they tried to count how many turkeys there was to see if one was missing

Julian Pavey ● 459d

The earlier reference to less than 1000 cyclists per day is certainly misleading. I believe that the TfL digital camera at countline 22096 recorded a weekday average of 1,448 in April 2022 and a higher average weekday figure of 1,839 for September 2022, and although winter figures are not to hand it is clear that an average over a whole year could be somewhere close to the lower of these two figures. However, I also understand that the DfT derived averages from 2018, on Chiswick High Road, before the cycleway, were around 1,900 per day, so it is hard to see just what all the expenditure has achieved in terms of growth in cycle use, changes in modal share and, of course, safety given earlier discussions on the Forum about the cycleway actually being less safe than the prior conditions.

David Kerr ● 459d

Oh look, fake Onesie sock puppet "Richard Tate" has appeared to follow the other fake Onesies who are too scared to use their real names.Does anyone remember "Chris Soze", "David Riley", "Amanda Smith", "Simon Culpath"...? All made a few posts then disappeared... Let's see how long "Richard Tate" lasts for.All 'Richard Tate' does is show his own incompetence:1. The trouble with using 12 months data up to September 2022 is that long sections of Cycleway 9 were a building site for more than half of this period. Not much point counting numbers using a bike lane when most the bike lane didn't exist.2. He seems to think that vehicles shouldn't be counted because they are using the road multiple times, but according to him, that only applies to cyclists, but not cars going to and from work. And as for buses... the same bus must be counted lots of time during the day.3. He claims "TfL even describes that methodology in the stated FOI requests as “problematic”" They didn't. The question asked by FOI-1431-2122 contains the word "problematic", but "Richard Tate" didn't notice that in the TfL response, they just repeated the original question text before answering it, they didn't use the word "problematic" themselves.If the Onesies are so concerned about truth, why do they post on this forum using fake names again and again and again...

Michael Robinson ● 459d