Forum Topic

Chiswick High Road walking and cycling changes - consultation published

“Today we published our Consultation Report, to explain the outcomes of the consultation, and a report to summarise monitoring information we have supplied to the London Borough of Hounslow, who are the highway authority for Chiswick High Road.” Consultation Report (PDF 2.66MB) https://ehq-production-europe.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/1c161914cc2fd93f1289b07be1bc982133e0c777/original/1693299242/2ae59ac89d95a3742e888f8de1b21f44_chiswick-high-road-consultation-report.pdf?X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIA4KKNQAKICO37GBEP%2F20230829%2Feu-west-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20230829T095448Z&X-Amz-Expires=300&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=638441936a5538493a2d5fd46b1f16c739169a3e06182273598d5c659eee9df8



Monitoring data —
https://ehq-production-europe.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/3f4d85cabc241f7a9e6f57cd0213fd6b224f2738/original/1693299339/846aa7b6d40d64da064a886328dedeb8_chiswick-high-road-monitoring-results-report.pdf?X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIA4KKNQAKICO37GBEP%2F20230829%2Feu-west-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20230829T095853Z&X-Amz-Expires=300&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=6017d2f385a58fded77cf7b30dd09ed90287ed7ccc391c0340099e8bdb534712

Michael Good ● 621d83 Comments

There is no doubt that LBHF haven't done what the should have done at Weltje & Rivercourt.  I can dig out the numbers but the volume of traffic using those junctions is significantly higher than any other unsignalled junctions on the route.  The best solution would be to close off those roads at the A4 as no other streets between the gyratory and Hogarth roundabout have access to the A4.For those advocating the A4 as a bike route, the same issue would apply at the junctions of those streets with the A4, except worse as the traffic is travelling faster leaving the A4.'junctions remain junctions' is too simplistic. The level of risk is directly related to the volume of traffic using the junction and the highest risk and most collisions were at the junctions with the most traffic.  Cyclists are now separated from motor traffic by time and/or space at all of junctions with the worst collision record.  At unsignalled junctions the measures to slow down traffic (raised surfaces, tightening turns...) are all well established ways of improving safety (that LBHF haven't implemented properly). I will look into the change of cycle counts at the AM and PM peaks but I'd be surprised if it has not increased as well.  I know that the weekday cycle counts have a similar profile to public transport with highest use mid-week and lower on Monday and Friday.

Michael Robinson ● 618d

Michael, I'm not advocating ripping it out but if proponents pin everything on C9 reducing cyclist collisions then they are opening the door to that.The collision rate along CHR does indeed offer some encouragement but that along King Street does not even when adjusted using the most optimistic estimates for the increase in cycling. You are right that LBHF have messed it up but their attempts to put it right have not improved things. Ultimately, even though much of your journey is segregated, junctions remain junctions and that is where collisions generally occur and the bi-directional nature of the cycleway has reduced an extra level of risk that wasn't there before.If you want to quibble with my view that commuting cyclists are avoiding CHR that is fine. I have no evidence except my own changes in behaviour, what people have told me personally and on cycling messaging groups and the logic that if a journey is made slower then people will consider alternatives.If I am approaching Chiswick from the west, previously I would have just carried on along Chiswick High Road and turned up Clifton Gardens to reach Fishers Lane and North Chiswick. Now I take Chiswick Road and use Acton Lane. This route is impractical in the reverse direction because of the congestion on Acton Lane towards CHR so I use Belmont Road when heading west. Previously I would have used Fishers Lane but that risks getting caught in the very long phase at the Dukes Avenue junction.Going east I now more regularly use Bath Road/Stamford Brook/Goldhawk Road.However, what I have started doing, which I didn't do before is take journeys along CHR with less confident family members who are now cycling more regularly than they ever did. I absolutely concur that growth in this kind of usage has been massive. However, by the same token, weekday usage of C9 at commuting times has not grown by nearly as much and much of the increased use in the evening appears to be by delivery riders.C9's success has been in persuading a significant number of people to use a bike in the centre of Chiswick for the first time. The benefits of this will be cumulative and gradual because this may serve as a platform to gain confidence to cycle on all types of roads. Pretending that it is doing other things for which the data provides no support, just provides ammunition to those who want it gone.

Mark Evans ● 618d

If you look in the mirror you will see a stalker, commenting on every post from the same person, parroting the same childish insult more than 20 times.You can criticise me if I start doing that.

Michael Robinson ● 619d

And that from the Forum Snark ! Look in a mirror, Michael.

Richard Greenhough ● 619d

Wellesley Rd is either idiot drivers doing 50mph or idiot cyclists weaving about the road doing 10mph.There seems to be a general lack of awareness of people's own surroundings.

Basil Finnis ● 619d

It is quite understandable why your opinion should be ignored Richard.  You are just a creepy stalker who hangs around this forum for the opportunity to parrot the same childish insult again and again (19 times, now? 20?)If you want to be treated seriously then try growing up.

Michael Robinson ● 619d

If you try and sweep issues under the carpet, then nothing gets done about them.Regarding your statement 'C9 has failed to make cyclists safer', from the collision data presented in the report, C9 along Chiswick High Rd is clearly safer than previously.The improvement would be even greater based upon collisions per cyclist km (see... there are reasons for calculating the cyclist km...)

Michael Robinson ● 619d

Once again Humpty chooses to ignore the opinions of other cyclists and airs his own prejudices. I doubt that the LCC needs advice from him either. Incidentally, I was an advocate of segregated cycle lanes long before he started posting on this forum.

Richard Greenhough ● 619d

The cyclist involved in the incident on Chiswick High Road was outside the cycle lane.The LCC does not need advice on effective cycle campaigning from the old men on this forum who base their view on what is best for entire populations on their own personal experiences and prejudices. Cycle lanes are being built across London because cyclists get killed by motor vehicles. Every death puts more pressure on the authorities to deliver protected cycle infrastructure. I fully understand why people who are implacably opposed to proper protected cycle lanes are so intent on silencing campaigners.

Paul Campbell ● 619d

Based on press reports of the Battersea tragedy it bringing up in this context seems to serve little more than a foolish attempt to portray someone you disagree with as heartless. This borders on projection.The victim in this terrible accident was turning left at the north end of the bridge but was hit by a lorry also turning in the direction of Fulham without the driver knowing she was there. There was a similar but thankfully non-fatal incident at the Chiswick Lane junction which demonstrates the point that risk remains on C9 at unsegregated junctions.It's really not clear what Mr Campbell is seeking to achieve by constantly bringing up distressing instances of cyclist injuries and death. It can only serve to discourage people from using a bike and draws attention to the fact that C9 has failed to make cyclists safer. While I have some discomfort with Mark Evans's acceptance of more cyclist injuries as a price worth paying for boosted levels of cycling due to changed perceptions, at least what he says has some logic.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 619d

"You can't argue with stupid."And yet people still argue with you, Humpty, despite your total inability to listen to anyone else's opinions.

Richard Greenhough ● 619d

"Indeed, I would suggest that children walking to school and having to cross C9 could be at greater risk than those cycling along main roads without segregated cycle lanes."I wouldn't argue with people who repeatedly resorts to childish name-calling anyway but I am certainly not going to argue with anybody who would write something as crashingly stupid as that sentence. You can't argue with stupid.

Paul Campbell ● 619d

No arguing with you, is there, Humpty ? I cycled about two miles each way to school at the age of 12 and shared the roads with HGVs and buses. I also cycled daily from Chiswick to Victoria before the creation of C9. Yes, there were hazards - many of them caused by careless pedestrians rather than drivers of heavy vehicles who generally took great care to avoid cyclists. Indeed, I would suggest that children walking to school and having to cross C9 could be at greater risk than those cycling along main roads without segregated cycle lanes. Yes, there are road junctions that need improvement, and I don't doubt that the one at Battersea Bridge is amongst them. On my regular cycling route from Chiswick to Victoria I identified those junctions that were most risky and took especial care when crossing them. Anyone cycling - whether on a segregated lane like C9, on a main road, or on a residential road - needs to fully concentrate on what is going on around them and anticipate potential hazards. That is basic self-preservation. And yet you see cyclists using their mobile phones while in motion.....

Richard Greenhough ● 619d

It would be very dumb to advocate 'rip it out' because two junctions in a neighbouring borough haven't been implemented to the original design.You might as well say 'rip it out' because Kensington and Chelsea haven't implemented ANY protected cycle lanes along the route. A view of 'unless it is everywhere it should be nowhere' is just dumb.While data over a longer time period is needed for increased confidence, the collision figures presented for C9 along CHR are very encouraging. Indeed, it is a clear message to LBH&F that if they did things better, they would have fewer collisions in their borough.If the collision rate factored in the increased use of the lane, the reduction in collisions would be even more impressive.If you don't like the way the cycle count data is presented, then you can get the source data yourself and present it however you like.The source data for the annual survey is available from https://cycling.data.tfl.gov.uk/ and this does back to 2015.The source data from the cameras on CHR is available from the FOI section of the TfL website.  This data is available until the end of 2022 and if you want the most recent data, just submit another FOI.'cycle kilometres' is hardly new.  Cycle kilometres, or vehicle kilometres is a standard way of providing normalised data, just look at any report from the DfT. You speculate that "I'm sure what they would have found is that commuting cyclists are now avoiding Chiswick High Road" So what road are they using then?Cycle counts on the A4 are only a few hundred a day, so 10% or less of those on CHR.Graphing cyclist counts on CHR clearly shows weekday 'tidal' peaks AM eastbound and PM westbound for commuting into and back from central London.  The impressive aspect of C9 is the high usage during interpeak hours and at weekends as well.  This traffic isn't 'tidal' but balanced in both directions, implying local use.If you don't believe this, just look at the source data.

Michael Robinson ● 619d

No your comments on safety for cycling rely on ignoring the facts and evidence.  Most deaths occur at major junctions not side road junctions and C9 provides the separation and protection required to eliminate that danger. You should contact the family of the 27 year old woman killed in Battersea Bridge three weeks ago and tell them about your views on over emotional pleas about safety. Tell them that the cycle campaigners who have been warning about the threat to life on that bridge and at the junction with Chelsea Embankment for the past 20 years were wrong and the risk to her was vanishingly small. Like it was for the other women who have been killed in the area. Those deaths are statistical blips and people should just keep quiet about them in case they put off other women from cycling. LCC is wrong to plan a cycle protest to highlight the dangers, the number of fatal and serious collisions on the bridge and in the area and embarrass the politicians who have quite deliberately failed to take action to protect people. And you should tell the parents of 12 year olds that want to cycle to school with their friends that they are wrong about it being dangerous for them to cycle on main roads with HGVs, buses etc. the danger is all in their head.

Paul Campbell ● 619d

Cycling in a straight line along a road even with dumper trucks buses and buses steaming past you is safe. The chances of being involved in an accident is vanishingly small.Busy roads however can be very intimidating, even for relatively experienced and segregation gives lots of people encouragement to cycle when they might otherwise not.Over emotional pleas about saving lives are counterproductive because exaggerating the risks of cycling is a surefire way to reduce the number of people using a bike.The hard fact is that if cyclist injuries are the sole benchmark you want to use to measure the success of C9, then it should be ripped out today. Serious injuries are up significantly if you look at the whole length and not just the Chiswick section. Arguing that this is down to bad initial design makes a big assumption and if you really believe that the laughably ineffective changes made by LBHF at Weltje Road have significantly reduced risk then you are deluded.It needs to be acknowledged that most collisions occur at junctions and C9 generally is not segregated at junctions therefore overblown claims for its ability to reduce injuries are baseless. In fact it almost certainly has increased the number of collision and will continue to do so because of its bi-directional nature.This is not necessarily a reason to rip it up. I wasn't a supporter of it going in but the cost of removing it will be almost as much as putting it in in the first place so it is perhaps better to focus on its benefits.There is no doubt that it has increased the number of people cycling in the area. Although statistically it may not be safer  the chances of you becoming involved in a serious accident have not risen by that much. On the other hand it is far less intimidating than it used to be.Although TfL coming up with this new 'cycle kilometres' measure to claim 47% growth smacks of desperation, I still think there is a positive story to tell about C9. They give precious little detail of how this number is derived and, even if it is accurate, it only shows growth comparing two periods when the cycleway was operating which will probably be down to how often it was actually fully open during these periods.The 23% growth compared to 2019 may seem unimpressive but this masks a much stronger unlying growth. It is a shame that TfL didn't bring in an independent consultatant do produce the monitoring report rather than publish their own very unconvicing version. I'm sure what they would have found is that commuting cyclists are now avoiding Chiswick High Road but continuing to use other routes because progress is slower. However these delays are a necessary part of segregation and many of the people now using it are not journey time sensitive. As they also are increasingly new or born again cyclists there is an appreciable net benefit to C9.As this success depends on the cycleway not being intimidating, it could be undone by undue tolerance of misuse by people on powered bikes and scooters so the council should be looking at more enforcement on this matter.

Mark Evans ● 619d

The space left by drivers on their phones not noticing traffic is moving is called the 'WhatsApp Gap'.

Michael Robinson ● 619d

Possibly but possibly not. You've stumped me there.Who knows,it's a question well beyond my capability to give you the answer you deserve.I'm sure Tom could help you though.

Adrian Irving ● 619d

.....and no.

Adrian Irving ● 619d

Yes

Adrian Irving ● 619d

I disagree, Sarah.I live in Chiswick, I cycle 100+km/week,  I’m not a member of the Cycle Lobby and though I think C9 could’ve been done better, I think it’s a great improvement over what was there before and what’s around elsewhere.Just today, in Brentford, I had one  close scrape because there were 4 cars parled on the local “cycle lane” (basically a bit of painted tarmac) and the car behind me overtook me while cutting my way as I was signalling that I had to move right due to “my” space being occupied by those cars. This happens daily where the lane is not segregated.Also, thanks to C9 I no longer have to go through Chiswick Roundabout, where I was once victim of a hit and run. I have no doubts that plenty of bad accidents have been avoided in Chiswick thanks to the lane.

Francis Sheehan ● 619d

Ha ha Basil. But once you start noticing drivers on their phones on CHR there is no going back. It is endemic. You know every time you are waiting behind a a driver who does not move off when the light turns green? 100% guaranteed to be looking at their phone. Every time.

Paul Campbell ● 619d

I've never seen anyone driving a phone along the High Street? I'll look forward to seeing that.

Basil Finnis ● 619d

That was aimed (rather badly) at you and your straw man comment Adrian.

Nora Watkins ● 619d

As the saying goes,  it takes one to know one.

Nora Watkins ● 619d

It is simple: cycling on main roads with HGVs, cement-mixers, skip lorries, scaffolders' trucks, buses and distracted phone drivers IS dangerous for children, older people, people with disabilities and people using a variety of bikes including cargo bikes, incumbents, trikes etc. That is why most of those people don't do it. They're not wrong in thinking it is dangerous for them because it really is dangerous for them. And then a protected cycle lane goes in and miraculously they all appear and complacent men find themselves no longer in the overwhelming majority of cyclists on Chiswick High Road.

Paul Campbell ● 619d

Adrian, would you agree that:'People banging on about how dangerous walking on Chiswick High Rd is only goes to reinforce this falsehood and discourages people visiting Chiswick High Rd.' ?

Michael Robinson ● 620d

Paul, on dear again I see I have to explain in simplistic terms for you.Perception is what people imagine to be the case not always the reality.People banging on about how dangerous cycling is only goes to reinforce this falsehood and discourages people riding.Did you not read what I said about more infrastructure which will encourage more to saddle up? Yes of course you did but as my mother used to say, "some people can start an argument in an empty room".Do feel free to keep in touch though if that's what fills you day.

Adrian Irving ● 620d

Nope. Actual physical protection especially at junctions from HGVs, skip lorries, cement-mixers, scaffolding trucks, massive HGVs, distracted phone-drivers provides actual safety not a perception of safety to cyclists. Exhibit A  - pre-cycle lane CHR and Chiswick Lane junction westbound. Cyclists have to move across the left filter lane to take up a position in the right hand lane to go straight on. This wasn't a perceived danger for a 12 year old or an 80 year old on a bike - it was an actual danger. Post-cycle lane - cyclists have their own dedicated lane and light to take them across the junction with no interaction with motor  vehicles.Exhibit B - junction of CHR and Goldhawk Road eastbound. Pre-cycle lane cyclists had to move across a left hand filter lane to take up a position in the right hand lane. Ditto the actual danger wit Exhibit A and ditto the exclusionary nature of cycle provision on CHR. Post-cycle lane - cyclists breeze straight through the junction entirely separated from motor traffic.Exhibit C - Hammersmith Gyratory. Well it should be obvious how big a game-changer that is for inclusive cycling especially westbound from Hammermsith Road to King St. It really requires no explanation for anybody who is being remotely rational.These are three of the biggest examples of how Cycleway 9 massively enhances the actual physical safety of cyclists and why diversity and cycle numbers are increasing all the time.

Paul Campbell ● 620d

"Although it may actually not be safer statistically, it is perceived as being safe and has encouraged more families and more women to cycle along the High Road." Spot on Mark. Perception is the only reality in people's minds so if you want to encourage more people to get on a bike you need to not only build infrastructure but also change the exaggerated perception that cycling is very dangerous.

Adrian Irving ● 620d

The 47% increase still reflects the change in the number of cyclists.This figure is based upon counts at two locations of video survey cameras on CHR so my assumption is they average the counts and multiply by the distance between the locations to get cyclist km.  The length of Chiswick High Road hasn't  changed so the 47% increase is because of increased numbers of cyclists.The 23% figure is from TfL annual cycle count survey which is done on a single day.  I've explained elsewhere but this survey is done for ~600 locations across outer London and has been done since 2015 so the objective is to understand long term trends and relative numbers between locations.Also, the cycle lane was partially closed on the day this survey was done in 2022.On the collisions, while more data is always useful, the numbers show that properly designed cycle lanes reduce the number of casualties.  The issue in Hammersmith was because LB Hammersmith and Fulham didn't upgrade two junctions to reflect the proposed permanent design and even now these junctions don't reflect the permanent design.  LB Hounslow did do these upgrades properly.

Michael Robinson ● 620d

You may not like reading about the deaths on the A315 and south circular and the many other collisions that have changed people's lives but they along with the natural desire line linking town centres are the reason why Cycleway 9 now exists. Sadly we often have to wait for people to die before there is political will to do what is very obviously required to protect cyclists and make it a more inclusive and accessible form of daily transport in London.

Paul Campbell ● 620d

Yet another complete waste of time and money. 100% of Chiswick businesses and  residents could tell you that this is all a complete dangerous hot mess and you would still ignore us. The LCC’s organised email response is priceless but utterly predictable.. Probably about three of themactually live in Chiswick. These surveys are utterly pointless.

Sarah Potter ● 620d

The 47% increase number is for 'cycle kilometres' not number of cyclists and compares two periods when the cycle lane was open.The 23% increase is probably more representative but it would have been nice to see this put in the context of changes in cycling rates across London over the same period.However, it must be remembered that Cycleway 9 actually slows the progress of cyclists along the High Road in both directions so a proportion of regular commuters are choosing different routes. This means that the 23% number will significantly understate the actual boost to cycling numbers in the area. I cycle less on the High Road than I used to because I find alternative routes quicker and the linkages with C9 aren't great but I am not cycling less overall.On safety, you can't reach any firm conclusions from the collision data but this just covers the western stretch in Chiswick. If you combine it with the eastern stretch in Hammersmith, serious collisions have risen so the Cycleway has not made cyclists safer. Overwraught arguments based on the previous dangers of cycling are easily dismissed and counterproductive. Exaggerating the risk to cyclists only serves to discourage more people getting a bike.This, to me has been the clear success of Cycleway 9. Although it may actually not be safer statistically, it is perceived as being safe and has encouraged more families and more women to cycle along the High Road. The number of children cycling to school remains relatively small but changes in behaviour like this need time to take hold and gain momentum.One thing that might set this back is the increased use of the cycleway by ebikes some of which don't appear to be appropriately speed limited. Have these race past you can be intimidating even for an experience cyclists and this risks undermining the cycleway's value as a place where people feel safe.

Mark Evans ● 620d

Nope Richard, I don't hang around the forum like a creepy stalker waiting for a particular person to post then jumping in with some crass comment that only you appear to find funny.Is David Lesniak your role model?

Michael Robinson ● 620d

The report uses cyclist counts from 2 different surveys.  The one showing a 23% increase from 2019 to 2022 is from the TfL annual cycle survey which covers ~600 locations in outer London. This survey is done on a single day in May or June (except 2020 when it was done in September because of Covid).The purpose of this survey is to understand long term trends and relative differences between locations. As it is done on a single day you can expect statistical variation and when it was done in June 2022, a section of the cycle lane was closed for construction.  2023 data hasn't been released yet.The other survey that showed a 47% increase from 2021 to 2023 uses cameras located at 2 locations along Chiswick High Rd.  TfL have released previous source data from the cameras in response to FOI requests (which appear to be from an opponent of the bike lane looking for reasons to attack it, but instead showing how well it was used...) No doubt they will be submitting another request soon...The periods shown in the collision data are when the lane was actually open and not closed for construction.

Michael Robinson ● 620d

Gawd, I would hate to see it ripped up and have to put up months of disruption. AGAIN.So, if the cow jumped over the moon and it was to be scrapped what could we convert it into?Suggestions?

Adrian Irving ● 620d

Why bother posting when you know it’s a done deal as you so proudly state in the face of more and more criticism illustrated in the consultation?Quite frankly I’m past caring and just looking forward to Friday new plate day. Lots of new petrol cars being registered and fewer electric.

Mark Talbot ● 620d

The safety data does not include unreported collisions before the cycle lane either. Like how hospital data and morgues don’t record all the nearly injuries and deaths caused by cyclists. The nearly wards are packed before and shortly after a new cycle lane is installed but they empty about 18 months later.

Paul Campbell ● 620d

I am a regular cyclist and a regular car user, a bus user and my preferred method of going to the shops is walking.The report is interesting, but also confused in places and use statistical tricks to show things in a better light.For example, it is true that cycling has increased by 23% since 2019 but according to their own figures the cyclist count has decreased in the last year.  That might be a statistical blip or it might be a longer term trend - without data for the next couple of years we cannot tell either way.Similarly on collisions the report uses 12 month periods up to the start of the scheme and then uses 3 month periods (for the final period that looks to be the most up to date figures possible).  We really need much longer term data before we can say whether there has been any change to safety, although it does look as though from Dec 2020 to Oct 2022 there was no change in safety (and even here there is a gap in the data and no reason for that gap).  Of course the other problem with the safety data is that it only deals with recorded collisions, it does not include unrecorded collisions (typically those that result in no injuries) or near misses that might scare the living daylights out of a pedestrian.  We simply have no idea whether that type of incident has increased or not.Then there are the stats for bus journey times - I particularly liked the phrase " Eastbound buses on Chiswick High Road are on average less than one minute slower per kilometre travelled compared to journey times in 2019", it sounds so minor until you consider that 59 seconds is "less than one minute" and in 2019 the speed was under 4.5 minutes per km so we could be talking about a 25% reduction in speed!  In fairness the latest figures show (last 3 months) show a much small speed reduction to the point that it is under 5% and again I would argue that we need longer term data to see whether that is maintained or not.

Justin Stephenson ● 620d

Pots & kettles, Michael.

Richard Greenhough ● 620d

Richard, you seem you have assumed the creepy stalker role on this forum, hanging around for one particular person then posting something to do with  'Humpty News' which wasn't funny the first time and certainly isn't funny the seventeenth (from a quick forum search).Do you not realise just how pathetic you are?

Michael Robinson ● 620d

Oh dear, another bitter and desperate failed attempt to find a stick to beat me with from the straw man.Never mind.

Adrian Irving ● 620d

Big shout out for Netheravon Road, the only road in Chiswick that mustered more than 20 people to complain about the cycle lane. It gives me no pleasure at all to imagine you all living with it at the end of your road and having to cross it very time you drive to and from your homes for the rest of your days in Chiswick because you’ve blocked all other exits to create your very pleasant LTN. Honestly none.

Paul Campbell ● 620d

No it is not a meaningless statistic. It is actually a critical one to the decision-making which will result in this cycle lane being declared permanent very soon. The cycle lane is leading to very material increases in cycling and no doubt there will be some statistics in the future that demonstrate that it is making cycling more accessible to a diverse crowd. Just the increase since its installation alone in one day outweighs the local Chiswick opposition. A thousand local Onesies and a few vehicular male cyclists crying about it was never going to change anything.

Paul Campbell ● 620d

I would like to see a similar  consultation for the Hammersmith strech. I have first hand reports of two pedestrians being hit by a bicycles, neither of which were reported.Also;"Risk to people who cycleCycling is much safer than many people think it is, and research consistently shows that the health benefits are substantial and significantly outweigh the risks. To put the risks in perspective, over a distance equivalent to cycling 1,000 times round the globe at its widest point:one cyclist is killedabout 20-30 are seriously injuredfewer than 100 are slightly injured.In fact, the casualty rate for cyclists - number hurt per billion miles cycled on public roads - has been trending downwards for the past decade or so (note that the pandemic suppressed motor travel in 2020)"From We Are Cycling UK

Adrian Irving ● 620d

Are you aware of the Brentford Dad with a young family who was killed on CHR by Dukes Avenue outside the church when cycling home and couldn’t be saved by passers-by who lifted the car off his body in the road? Are you aware of the young woman crushed to death by a HGV at Kew Bridge, the incident which prompted the local Chiswick Conservatives at the time to lobby the Mayor for a protected cycle lane? Or the many other life-changing collisions with motor vehicles that made the A315 the most dangerous road for cycling in the Borough?

Paul Campbell ● 620d

Can I ask you to provide these statistics, and show us how they prove this wrong?  I am interested to learn.

Simon Burke ● 620d

It's a completely meaningless comparison anyway.  Everyone cycling on CHR has to use the cycleway, whether they approve of it or not.  It isn't a vote in favour.I fear that most of the 'facts' and 'statistics' referred to in this discussion are of the same quality.

Simon Burke ● 620d

"There are more trips by bike on Cycleway 9 in a single day..."Where do you get statistics on that from ?

Richard Greenhough ● 620d

There are more trips by bike on Cycleway 9 in a single day than Chiswick residents complaining it about it in the consultation over six months. There are about four times as many trips by bike in a day as there are people asking for the cycle lane to be removed over six months. Of course it is a done deal and one that was never in doubt.

Paul Campbell ● 620d

As a pedestrian I don't fear car drivers but the many cyclists who don't slow down or stop when you're crossing the road at a zebra crossing or at the bicycle traffic lights. i think its time for cycle speed bumps before zebra crossings to force them to slow down!

Gareth Sinclair ● 620d

I already told you Richard. A lot more people are using the bike lane than complaining in a consultation and given it is there and being used, I think many people struggle to understand what the point of a consultation is.Over 1000 people said they think the scheme causes pollution but the air quality monitor on Chiswick High Rd doesn't care what they think.

Michael Robinson ● 620d

"Surely the Onesies wouldn't have been encouraging people from all over London and beyond to put in negative responses...?"It seems that the Velomaniacs were encouraging people from allover London and beyond to put in positive responses, and yet the results seem to have been negative.

Richard Greenhough ● 620d

Numbers don't stack up Bill, way more people didn't leave a postcode than LCC members responding. Surely the Onesies wouldn't have been encouraging people from all over London and beyond to put in negative responses...?

Michael Robinson ● 620d

Al, facts are that numbers cycling on the A4 are a small fraction of those on Chiswick High Road.  Numbers cycling on Chiswick High Road have increased hugely since C9 was built.  From 2 different surveys, the increases were 23% from 2019 to 2022 and 47% from 2021 to 2023.I expect you will keep on banging the drum of the A4 but the reality is, nothing will be happening along it. There are far higher priority items for new investment than a parallel route only of interest to a small number of people.

Michael Robinson ● 620d

LCC members? Given they were encouraged to respond?

Bill George ● 620d

"Chiswick High Road, on the other hand, was not dangerous or difficult for cycling and never needed a cycle lane."Collision statistics prove that is wrong. The dramatic increase in people cycling since the lane was built also prove it is wrong.35% of people responding didn't provide a postcode.  Wonder why?

Michael Robinson ● 620d

I'm another cyclist who responded.  I tried to be balanced, but overall my response was negative.I try to avoid using it if possible.  I generally use the A4, or cross the High Road and use Bath road if I need to get somewhere a bit further North.

Al Webber ● 620d

I'm a cyclist.  I only cycle or walk in Chiswick.  I support initiatives that encourage cycling and reduce traffic.  I cycle all over West London and the West End, and there are many roads dangerous to cyclists which have been given no provision for safe cycling.  Chiswick High Road, on the other hand, was not dangerous or difficult for cycling and never needed a cycle lane.  The C9 is difficult to use (being on the wrong side of the road for most amenities, and having some dangerous and confusing junction arrangements), and it has made me feel unsafe, when I never did before.  I imagine it has been very costly, given how many changes have been made.  So I oppose it, and said so in this survey.In another thread someone is dismissing the consultation result because he claims it is out of line with 'facts'.  However a consultation is a request for opinions, not scientific research.  Its purpose is to get an idea of what people think of a proposal.  And the opinions shown by this one are significantly negative.  In a democratic process, steps would now be taken either to amend the proposal to win more support, or to retreat from it altogether.  But reading the TFL "Executive Summary" tells you that their decision is already made, as it mentions almost no negativity at all.  This is like elections in East Germany, which were held regularly to provide a veneer of democracy, but actually changed absolutely nothing.I found the report immensely depressing for this reason.

Simon Burke ● 620d

Flip flop flip flop flip flop flip flop flip flop.

Mark Talbot ● 621d

It's got to be tough for the local velophobes to know they were out of step with the democratically elected decision makers at council, Mayor and national level but they are just going to have to get used to it.

Michael Robinson ● 621d

Flip flop flip flop flip flop flip flop flip flop ...... shall we flip or shall we flop today to suit our cycle narative?

Mark Talbot ● 621d

C9 is a fine decision of cross-party democracy at work.  It was initiated under a democratically elected Conservative Mayor of London and Conservative/Independent Hounslow Council and continued under a democratically elected Labour Mayor and Labour Hounslow Council.  The policy of the democratically elected Conservative government was responsible for the post-Covid work.

Michael Robinson ● 621d

You seem to have a rather Trumpian view of how these things ought to work.

Richard Greenhough ● 621d

Actions actually using the bike lane speak louder than being an internet warrior.TfL haven't published the age profile of the respondents however if similar to other consultation responses in the area, they will be heavily skewed towards older age groups and certainly not representative of the overall population.Meanwhile the younger people get on with their lives and yes, I would say the majority don't give a toss about consultations, they have far more pressing issues in their lives.

Michael Robinson ● 621d

"People who use the bike lane didn't see really see the point."So you are saying that many Velomaniacs aren't interested enough to bother to take part in the consultation ? That suggests they are a pretty apathetic lot, which is not the message you like to put across.

Richard Greenhough ● 621d

Please point out where I claimed the bike lane had made air quality better?To save you the trouble looking, you can’t because I’ve never claimed this precisely because a number of factors affect pollution.On the other hand, claims that the bike lane has made pollution worse are simply not correct and can be ignored.

Michael Robinson ● 621d

The consultation is self selecting so can’t be treated as a representative sample.You don’t think a Onesie is going to respond saying they are cycling more given most didn’t cycle in the first place?The actual traffic counters have shown a 47% increase from 2021 to 2023.

Michael Robinson ● 621d

Not sure you are really answering the point, but I think you are also saying that its also the case if there are multiple factors that you cant claim the cycle lane has made pollution better? Re traffic volumes on certain roads, it would be interesting to see the dates when the data is from, some counters were in place during holidays/ roadworks. Wellesley Road has undoubtedly seen a large reduction in westbound traffic given the closure of both Wellesley and Stile Hall Gardens at the A205. This doesnt alter the question of whether traffic diverts around the bus gate.

Bill George ● 621d

Fair comment about my wording but equally thinking there were zero responses from people in favour doesn’t seem very realistic either.What happens in the real world is more important than internet warriors filling in a form and posting on this forum (including myself in that) and ultimately the large increase in usage and improvement in safety speak louder than opinions.

Michael Robinson ● 621d

• 31 per cent of respondents told us that they were cycling more = 69% are not.• 32 per cent told they felt it was safer to walk or cycle = 68% do not feel safer.• 27 per cent told us that they felt their neighbourhood was more pleasant = 73% did not feel their neighbourhood more pleasant.• 25 per cent told us it was easier for them to get around = 75% do not find it easier to get around.• 32 per cent told us that they felt the scheme had had a positive effect in overall terms = 68% do not feel the experiment has had a positive overall effect.Loads more in the detail of the consultation that drives a huge hole in this ill thought experiment much of which would not have been the case had a cycle lane been built along the  A4. If democracy was now at work the whole experiment would be removed and lots of red faces but this is Hounslow LA so no chance of that.

Mark Talbot ● 621d

You seem to be agreeing with me Bill. There are multiple factors behind the overall improvement in air quality. Claims that  it has got worse as a result of the bike lane can be ignored. The air quality monitoring equipment doesn’t care what they think.I’m sure you will be delighted to learn that the traffic volumes on Wellesley Rd, Sutton Lane North, Heathfield Terrace, Heathfield Gardens have declined since the introduction of the bike lane.

Michael Robinson ● 621d

True Michael but I understand where Michael (Good) is coming from and why he posted what he posted. On a casual reading I would have interpreted your post as suggesting there were no replies (in contrast to the One Chiswick supporters who ‘piled in’ or something similar)

Andrew Jones ● 621d

Its interesting that the response from Michael is two fold, firstly for several questions the response can be ignored, as people didnt have the data to respond, and secondly the cycling community saw no need to respond. On the first point, why did TFL include these questions? Not sure Michael anyone suggested pollution monitors 'every square metre'. But given the factors that have reduced traffic flow as well the removal of some diesel bus routes on central CHR, we can agree that anything other than a reduction in pollution would be a major surprise? Conversely we could deduce that areas that see more traffic now have more pollution?Why did LCC provide a template for responses if no cyclists were going to respond? So noone using the cycle lane responded?Inevitably the consultation responses will be ignored by TFL and LBH, but to dismiss all the responses that dont suit your narrative is unreasonable.THere are a lot of responses from a broad coverage of the area.

Bill George ● 621d

I said "didn't see the point" [of the consultation]. I didn't say there had been no responses.

Michael Robinson ● 621d

That’s not quite true is it Michael?

Michael Good ● 621d

Its fine to have opinions but when the evidence contradicts the opinions clearly the  evidence should have much greater weight.The Onesies piled into responding negatively to the consultation.People who use the bike lane didn't see really see the point.There doesn't need to be pollution monitors every square metre. The pollution monitor on Chiswick High Rd clearly shows how air quality has improved since 2019. This can't be solely attributed to the bike lane but it demonstrates that people who claimed pollution had got worse are wrong.

Michael Robinson ● 621d

Pesky residents having opinions, how dare they. The only publicly available pollution monitoring is on a stretch of CHR where traffic volumes have been actively reduced by road closures, bus gates and changed light phasing. It would be a shock if this monitor showed pollution hadnt gone down. THere is no public data for other locations.60% (vs 32%) say they feel less safe walking or cycing. 37% say it feels less safe to use public transport (vs 11% safer). These are pretty damning figures. I dont think you can so easily dismiss these as not suiting your narrative.Similarly 55% say traffic noise has worsened and 61% disagree that there area looks and feels more pleasant.Inevitably these stats will be ignored but should give pause for thought.

Bill George ● 621d

Nearly 2000 of the respondents say they drive less now. Great! There will be a great deal many more driving less who didn't respond. That with the increases in cycling and walking = success. We need many more cycle lanes and LTNs because they work.

Paul Campbell ● 621d

It is clear that the majority of respondents against it are wrong.  Claims that pollution has increased when it hasn't, claims that collisions have increased when they haven't, claims that numbers cycling haven't increased when they have...I trust that the decision will be based upon evidence rather than prejudiced opinions.

Michael Robinson ● 621d

I can’t wait to see what spin Dunn and co attempt to put  on this report. It is clear that the majority of respondents are against it.

Janice Jones ● 621d

https://haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk/cycleway-9

Michael Good ● 621d