Forum Topic

TfL apologize Hogarth Roundabout scheme

From TfLI’m writing in connection with our consultation on proposals for road safety improvements to Hogarth Roundabout. Since launching our consultation, we have identified an error in the following statement on our website. It statedBetween January 2022 and June 2023 there were 25 slight and five serious motorcyclist collisions at Hogarth Roundabout. This statement should have said:Between July 2020 and June 2023 there were 18 slight and three serious casualties to the people involved in collisions at Hogarth Roundabout. Of the collisions recorded, six involved motorcyclists, one of which was seriousWe would like to take this opportunity to apologise for this error. However, it should be noted that Hogarth roundabout is in the top 10 per cent of junctions in London in terms of road safety risk. It also remainsrisk. It also remains the case that there is an urgent need to address this risk with changes to the roundabout. We are extending the closing date for responses to the consultation by one weekto 12 September 2024. You can find out about the proposals and have your say by visiting https://haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk/hogarth-roundabout

John Richard Todd ● 103d98 Comments

That would be really appreciated. My experience of these things is that the representatives of TfL are PR people who tend to speak from a script and have little granular knowledge of the scheme but you might be lucky and get someone who is involved at a detailed level in the plans.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 88d

Jermey, I hope to attend the last session raising further questions some of which have been generated on this thread.One will be do they intend to make the one way two way along the Mall.

Adrian Irving ● 88d

The one way restriction is already regularly ignored. It is utter nonsense to suggest a hearse could do the Burlington Lane shuffle so some access has to be provided from this direction. The council would relish the opportunity to install another fine levying camera and local access only would deal with some of the concerns of the church, residents and the George and Devonshire.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 89d

"I'd assume that, as part of this scheme, there would two way local access from Chiswick Mall to Church Street for residents and weddings and funerals tides allowing." I wouldn't bet your house on it, besides not only would the residents be peed off many people like to stroll along that stretch using the road.

Adrian Irving ● 92d

I remember that. In Wales such ninnies are called 'hambones' or 'gearies' as the "all the gear but no idea".

N V Brooks ● 92d

The ninny GOT stuck and the inevitable happen.Rude to laugh 😂😂

Adrian Irving ● 92d

Yes Robert I do know that. It's called poetic licence.My days of  tuning up twin carbs are long gone I am pleased to say.At one Spring tide I kayaked along the Mall. Why? Just because I could!I also remember some twerp testing his new 4x4 on the foreshore by the Eyot. The ninny go stuck and the inevitable happen. Rude to laugh 😂😂

Adrian Irving ● 92d

Ahem, Adrian - modern cars don't have carburettors. But flooding is still a threat on Chiswick Mall, especially at the time of the spring tides. A.P. Herbert, who lived at 12 Hammersmith Terrace, had a hilarious take on driving along Chiswick Mall when flooded. It's well worth reading: https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Rumpelheimer_v_Haddock

Robert Fish ● 92d

It's not quite that bad as you can turn right eastbound off the A4 onto Netheravon Road South although that could require a tricky negotiation through three lanes of traffic.I'd assume that, as part of this scheme, there would two way local access from Chiswick Mall to Church Street for residents and weddings and funerals tides allowing. I was surprised to read Guy Lambert's opinion in his weekly Brentford brief that he saw no issues with this plan. He is usually reasonably sensible in my view and the flaw with the proposed hairpin turn is so self-evident. There was a mention that TfL were doing some on-site testing of the turn. Did that happen and, if so, was there any feedback?

Jeremy Parkinson ● 92d

Just remembered.You could travel East in the outside lane, stop by the turning into Netheravon Road South,  wait for the West bound carriage to clear and then continue as before.The artics going to Fullers do this little dance.Looks a little dodgy to me.

Adrian Irving ● 92d

There is an alternative. Drive all the way down to Hammersmith, double back under the elevated section, turn left into Netheravon Road South, left again into Chiswick Lane South, right into Chiswick Mall ignoring the no entry sign and Bob is your uncle. WARNING Be sure to first check the state of the tide and the mobile camera isn't lurking because of you don't you could get nicked and or a flooded carburetor.It's a worry

Adrian Irving ● 92d

Have we all misunderstood this proposal? I can't believe that access to Church Street will be via such an impossibly tight double-back. Many vehicles will simply be unable to make the turn in one manoeuvre, even at very low speed. At best there will be queues back to the roundabout, as following drivers are impeded by a driver trying to make the turn, and at worst there will be accidents. Vehicles with large turning circles will probably have to start their turn from the extreme right-hand side of the SW-bound carriageway, and thus may be crossing almost at 90 degrees to the direction of following traffic.

Robert Fish ● 92d

Handbrake turn or Scandinavian flick for the winter months.

Mark Frost ● 93d

PS. If you do try it I suggest you have comprehensive insurance, airbags,seatbelt and neck brace in the not unlikely event you are hit from behind !

Adrian Irving ● 93d

I passed by there this morning at 6.20am and stopped to take another look at the hairpin.I was surprised to notice it is already marked out as a turning as part of the original layout.So anyone who thinks the scheme is well planned can take a drive and navigate the hairpin for themselves.Good luck is all I can say.

Adrian Irving ● 93d

I do and would agree with what you say. Also for the first time will be accessing Church Street predominantly at the turn off by the George & Devonshire. It will be interesting to see how many drivers respect the notional priority of people crossing the road here.

Mark Evans ● 93d

Good point. I typed this whilst on the bus. Not a good idea.What I meant to say more pedestrians cross from using the subway than cross Church St.If Church St is closed then all the traffic, in and out, will be on the slip road that folk coming from the underpass will need to cross.In effect there will be more (still light) traffic on this stretch generated by traffic that would have otherwise just used the main access in and out of Church Road.A clumsy explanation I know but I hope you can see my point.

Adrian Irving ● 93d

"What the dopes don't realise is far more pedestrians will now have to cross the proposed new exit/entrance coming from out of and into the subway."Why would that be? I can see that more vehicles would be turning in at a tight angle with pedestrians emerging from the subway possibly in a blind spot but why would more people be crossing here?

Mark Evans ● 93d

I cross Church St once or twice a week on my bike with no problem at all.What the dopes don't realise is far more pedestrians will now have to cross the proposed new exit/entrance coming from out of and into the subway.It's a worry.

Adrian Irving ● 93d

It would be great to just slow that traffic!

Philippa Bond ● 93d

I thought we were told it was to reduce motorbike accidents on the roundabout?Compared with the amount of traffic in the area, the number of pedestrians crossing the end of Church Street, as against walking up and down it, must be few.  But presumably TfL can share the figures with us for the number of crossing pedestrians that they're protecting, as well as providing extra seating for them to rest their weary limbs!

Peter Evans ● 94d

The explanation given for closing off Church Street is that it will make it safer for pedestrians crossing there which is a bit daft because I doubt there has ever been a collision there given about one person a day will cross at this point and that's only because they are lost.I thought that the reason for shutting Church Street might be to confine traffic approaching for the north heading south to a single lane but two lanes have been allocated to the A316 at this point. It will be interesting to see if a specific question on why the closure of Church Street is necessary at one of the remaining public information events gets an answer.

Mark Evans ● 94d

You make a good point. The extra lane is forced to taper in so  relatively little of the entrance to Church Street is incorporated. The constraint is the subway to the west. It may be the proposal to close was just seen as a bit of incidental tidying up with a marginal benefit for junction flow but as it is the source of much of the opposition, it needs to be explained why closing Church Street is critical to the scheme.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 96d

Assuming traffic light controls on the roundabout will be retained, I can’t see why access to - and even from - Church Street can’t be maintained as it is now, assuming all four (proposed) lanes of westbound traffic will be held back. Looking at the plan, all that seems to be blocking it is a new flower bed and possibly a ‘seating area’ - from which to watch one of the busiest arterial roads in London!

Peter Evans ● 99d

Interesting idea, but might not the pedestrian and cycle subways in the middle of Hogarth Roundabout make that difficult ? And is there actually room under the flyover ?

Richard Greenhough ● 99d

They should take right hand lanes 1 and possible 2.  Straight through the middle of the roundabout and under the steel bridge.  We had one in nottingham and when at full flow and lights on green cars don't have to swerve and negotiate the round of the round about!  I see many cars veering out of lane when the are coming off the roundaboutexample: https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=http%3A%2F%2Fruddington.info%2Fnew-roundabout-schedule-revealed-jan2023%2F&psig=AOvVaw2Fw9W9bOKXsymBRmroE22f&ust=1723895730009000&source=images&cd=vfe&opi=89978449&ved=0CBQQjRxqFwoTCKCK2Jy6-YcDFQAAAAAdAAAAABAE

Nik Solomon ● 99d

As a reminder, you have three more opportunities to discuss the options :TfL is holding  in-person drop-in sessions at Hogarth’s House, Hogarth Lane, Great West Road W4:- 4pm-7pm, Tuesday 20th August- 3pm-7pm, Thursday 29th August- 3pm-7pm, Monday 2nd September

Richard Greenhough ● 99d

No,the idea has only just popped into my head but maybe I will Richard.

Adrian Irving ● 99d

Overhead gantries showing the lanes as you approach the roundabout from the east sound like a good idea, and would presumably cost much less than the current proposals. Have you suggested that idea to the TfL staff ?

Richard Greenhough ● 100d

Well, why not come up with alternative suggestions for TfL?"How about overhead  gantry signs clearly showing which lane is what? Painting them on the road is fine if but only when they aren't obscured by traffic.A footnote.This will make you laugh or cry maybe.I was talking to The chap from TfL about access for Fuller's artics. In his mind they come off The GWR into Airedale Road. Even after I corrected him he continued to mention Airedale. For those that don't know the access is via Netheravon Road South and it's not Airedale Road it's Avenue.It's all a bit of a worry is it not.

Adrian Irving ● 100d

Well, why not come up with alternative suggestions for TfL?  I remember that A4/S Ealing junction became much less of a problem and caused less congestion and danger once lane markings were painted on the junction years before the re-phasing.  Before that the junction was often blocked with a single line of traffic wanting to go further in several different directions and fast non-turning traffic from behind made manoeuvreing difficult.I think James may be right about lane changing. Is the problem the more vulnerable motorcyclists weaving through heavy through traffic that may be waiting to see which of the choices of exits from HR is the most congested before deciding.  The pavement is shared cycle and pedestrian there.  Making the turn into Church Street rather than just turning off down the A316 seems to surprise the roaring racing horde waiting for the lights to change.  Traffic lights on a straight stretch of road seem to  encourage competition and lack of consideration.

Philippa Bond ● 100d

The same "one of the worst 10%" argument was used to rephase lights on the roundabout where the A4 meets South Ealing Road.Rubbish given one serious collision involving,yes, a motorcycle in the previous five years as was pointed out to TfL by both LBH and individual ward councillors. It took TfL over a year to effect a simple partial re-phasing and reduce the chaos that they created with the original 'safety improvements'.

N V Brooks ● 100d

Although Mr Taylor's pronouncements can usually be quite easily challenged with some facts, in this case he may well be right.The Hogarth Roundabout has an almost complete absence of pedestrians and cyclists crossing and traffic generally moves through it quite a low speed. Therefore the number of serious collisions is very small and, even on these there is a question mark on the way the data is collected. TfL have identified motorcyclists as the most vulnerable type of road user at this junction but the one serious injury documented of this type of road user appears to have been self-certified and occurred at the junction at the opposite side from where these changes are proposed.Quite how TfL have come to rank this as one of the top 10% junctions in London in terms of risk remains a mystery as they, as far as I can tell, have not explained how they came to the conclusion. It can't be based on collision risk because as someone has already suggested, the A4/Sutton Court Road junction has a far worse record and nothing decisive has been done here.

Mark Evans ● 100d

“ How on earth would you be able to do that? Chiswick awaits.”Having used it quite regularly when we lived in Chiswick, then using it daily to drive out west and return from Castelnau over Hammersmith Bridge and then over Chiswick Bridge, when Hammersmith Bridge was closed, I consider myself to be a ‘frequent flyer’ when it comes to Hogarth junction using all slip roads and coming from all directions. I have yet to witness any accidents. Hence I believe the junction is intrinsically safe for drivers with full UK licences.  Nobody seems willing to confirm if the motor cyclists involved in the the reported accidents were in fact inexperienced L plate riders!!!!

Steve Taylor ● 100d

"I can, however, confirm that Hogarth Junction is intrinsically safe and requires no ‘modification’."How on earth would you be able to do that? Chiswick awaits.

Mark Frost ● 100d

Having followed this articulate and well-informed discussion with some interest, it is prefectly obvious to me that this proposal is not really about road safety or congestion relief: it won't reduce congestion because this results largely from downstream blocking of the A316 and/or the A4. And if it did reduce congestion then traffic speeds would be higher and accidents more frequent and more serious. HR is probably one of the highest density traffic flow points the country, and the accidents per vehicle tiny in proportion. And as for the "oblique-acute-hairpin" turn into Church Street, surely not one of TFL's finest suggestions....

John Armstrong ● 100d

An angle of turn greater than 90 degrees is an 'obtuse' angle.Not sure where 'oblique' comes in the scheme of technical terms, as I think that just means anything that isn't a right angle. A 'hairpin turn' probably best describes what's being proposed, being 'a bend in a road with a very acute inner angle, making it necessary to turn nearly 180° to continue on the road.'

Peter Evans ● 100d

Quite so James. I mentioned it only because the implication by the TfL bloke was somehow being oblique made the "U bend"  less of a hairpin. Can I call it hairpin? Is that OK or must we call it oblique ?Whatever you want to call it it's bloody tight!

Adrian Irving ● 100d

Adrian, an oblique turn is any turn that is not a right angle. The turn from Burlington Lane into Church Street is both oblique and acute. At 168 degrees, and very very tight, I can see delivery lorries having to reverse up a few times to make the turn. And this is at a point where vehicles have already started to accelerate along A316 and then suddenly find themselves having to come to a halt almost without warning: perfect recipe for accidents. I'm amazed it is presented as being an improvement on the current design. Further, vehicles turning from Roundabout to A316 will use indicator to make that left turn and keep indicator on to turn into Church Lane; following drivers will have to be exceptionally alert to realise that the driver in front is about to make a very slow, sharp left turn.

James Petri ● 101d

“ due to an intrinsically unsafe junction design which has been in place for decades ”I don’t read Cambell’s posts because he has a reputation and history of spouting unadulterated nonsense to fit in with his extremely selfish personal agenda. I can, however, confirm that Hogarth Junction is intrinsically safe and requires no ‘modification’.

Steve Taylor ● 101d

I don't believe in appealing to the better nature of velomaniacs and I certainly don't believe in their ability to see let alone obey signage.

Richard Greenhough ● 101d

Um my support of LTNs and protected cycle lanes is all about changing road space to make it safer and better for people. I don't believe in appealing to the better nature of motorists and I certainly don't believe in their ability to see let alone obey signage. 

Paul Campbell ● 101d

Paul's assumptions here appear to be that away from Hogarth Roundabout every collision is the responsibility of an irresponsible car brain motorist but on the roundabout they are due to an intrinsically unsafe junction design which has been in place for decades but now needs to be replaced with the upmost urgency to save further carnage.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 101d

Does anyone know how the HR statistics compare with those of the Sutton Court Road junction?

Mrs Janet Porter ● 101d

My observations of driving Westbound at HR are that nearside lane moves faster than central and outside lanes in the final 300 yards.  This gives an incentive for A4/M4 headed drivers/riders to move ahead in central and outside lanes in the 1/3 mile+ before HR and then in the last 1/3 mile move into the nearside lane BECAUSE by then it is the fastest moving lane AND allows last-second decision making as to whether to move back into central lane should conditions change to incentivise that.  Accidents often happen when last second decisions are changed.  But are those accidents so damaging? If at low speeds, less so.  But at higher speeds...? But the proposals are, in my estimation, to make the nearside lane travel even faster than at present (to help move A3 bound traffic long faster).  Should that be the case then the proposals will incentivise the speeders heading for M4 to move into the nearside lane even moreso than at present; presumably they know that this is a likelihood).  Perhaps this is acceptable if the inevitable accidents are at a slow enough speed as to be categorised as minor accidents. But the unknown is motorbicycle riders higher acceleration at medium speeds putting them in danger in the proposed layout.  I could go on...but what do the experts think the likely outcome will be once motorbicycle riders work out what works out best for them?

James Petri ● 101d

No Jim of course not. Nothing is guaranteed. That is why professional engineers design roads and not people who like driving on them and don't like change. Of course they examine the collisions and look at the current road layout and consider designs to reduce danger. This is why they re focused on the top 10% most dangerous junctions in London. Anybody who wants to question the professionalism of the TfL engineers is free to go and talk to them at the drop-in session. From the one I attended people in Chiswick are definitely not shy about showing their ignorance.

Paul Campbell ● 101d

Humpty, as I mentioned in my post "Statistics", some collisions on the roundabout would happen whatever the road layout, due to driver inattention. Without examining details of the causes of each collision then only bone-headed people can state categorically that there is a road safety issue there. Its bonkers to propose spending a significant amount of public money without a reasonable degree of certainty that doing so would reduce the number of accidents.

Richard Greenhough ● 101d

I have not studied the accident statistics. If the current proposals were already in place before the 18 month period when there were 21 casualties, can anybody state categorically that none of these accidents would have occurred?

Jim Currie ● 101d

I have not studied the accident statistics. If the current proposals were already in place before the 18 month period when there were 21 casualties, can anybody state categorically that none of these accidents would have occurred?

Jim Currie ● 101d

Mark, you continue to spread misinformation even when you have been proven to be wrong. So now we know it’s not a mistake. That means it’s deliberate and it is disinformation. Why are you doing that? Why is this so important to you that you feel the need to lie on social media about people being hurt in collisions?

Paul Campbell ● 101d

The only bone-headed insistence is from people who are trying to erase the record of collisions on the roundabout so they can pretend there isn’t a road safety issue in order to prevent a few people having to slightly alter their private car journeys. It’s bonkers that they don’t think people can see how transparent and callous they are being.

Paul Campbell ● 101d

You haven't looked then.On the TfL collision dashboard I can see 3 serious and about 15 slight depending where you draw the line.As I've mentioned, co-ordinates on the collision report may not reflect the exact location of the collision. Also, you seem to think that collisions involving slight injuries should be completely ignored. Detailed analysis of these may reveal common causes indicative of a design issue and it is just luck of the draw if this design issue results in a collision with a slight or more serious injury.

Michael Robinson ● 101d

From my motorcycling experience in and around the Captial one very easy, cost free thing that could be done in a flash is to  allow motorbikes in the bus lanes throughout London.At the moment we have a ridiculous situation where you can  be riding legally in one Borough only to cross into another and be banned from using bus lanes.Bonkers.

Adrian Irving ● 101d

The more responses I read on this thread, it becomes apparent to me that the apparently bone-headed insistence that black is white when it comes to the collision data from Michael and Paul is not some sort of quixotic attempt to save the extra lane for the A4 but a carefully contrived campaign to stir up opposition to a scheme which they actually vehemently oppose. If so, bravo to them both on a job well done.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 101d

I'm still haven't seen any details of a serious collision of any kind which took place near the A316 junction on the south side of Hogarth Roundabout over the last four years. In the absence of this there is no case for road widening and the extra traffic that this would bring to the area.

Mark Evans ● 101d

Tracy, I understand why it is convenient to your argument to ignore this statement from TfL mentioning three serious casualties but it isn't making it more convincing:"Between July 2020 and June 2023 there were 18 slight and three serious casualties to the people involved in collisions at Hogarth Roundabout."There is no evidence that emergency vehicles will be delayed in accessing Church St and Chiswick Mall so I have no reason to be concerned.Yes the changes are in the interests of motorcycles but not exclusively. They are also in the interest of the other victims of road danger at the roundabout. the TfL person's statement to you is accurate but your interpretation of it is self-evidently wrong.On the contrary I admire your honesty in stating that you are happy to accept at least one serious casualty every year in order to avoid drivers having to slightly alter their private car journeys to and from three streets in a LTN in Chiswick.

Paul Campbell ● 101d

Dear Paul, There is no mention of any 'casualty' in the self-reportedly 'serious' accident that happened at the Dorchester Grove junction of Hogarth Roundabout in May, 2023. Neither you, nor I, know what caused it or, indeed, why it was logged as 'serious'. Furthermore, it happened on the opposite side of the Hogarth Roundabout from TfL's proposed works. So I'm not really sure why you think I am being heartless. But even if it were by the Church Street junction, I would still argue that a balance must be struck between the lives of motor cyclists (or, indeed, other vehicles on the roundabout) and the lives of local residents. Would you not be even slightly troubled if TfL's proposed works delayed emergency vehicles en route to Church Street and Chiswick Mall (perhaps racing to a stroke or heart attack patient, or a fire)? On the motorcycle focus issue, the TfL person who volunteered that changes were in the interests of 'motorised two-wheeled vehicles' (not a phrase I'd use, so you can be sure I didn't plant it in his brain) was the man who actually wrote the brief for it.  To me, he seemed a very professional person and not someone just there to humour the likes of me.

Tracey Logan ● 101d

As possibly the only contributor to this thread who has been involved in a traffic accident at Hogarth Roundabout, I would mention the following : I was travelling eastbound on the A4, stopped at the roundabout on a red light, and a Ford Consul went into the back of my car, bending the rear panel and smashing all the rear lights. This was in or around 1975, so I am not totally sure of the detail, but memory suggests that the Ford driver and I agreed to sort it out privately, so there were no police reports or insurance claims and he paid personally for the repairs to my car. Fortunately I did not suffer from whiplash. The incident was caused by inattention by the Ford driver, and the only change to the junction layout that would have prevented it would have been the removal of the traffic lights, which is not going to happen. Our accident would therefore have not been included in any accident statistics for the junction, unless we had been unable to reach agreement privately to repair the damage.My point is that not all incidents will be included in the statistics, and those that are may be caused by things that no tinkering with the layout will prevent. Therefore to justify expensive changes to the junction layout, each reported incident ought to be examined and identified whether a layout change would be likely to have prevented it happening.

Richard Greenhough ● 101d

Mark, why are you spreading misinformation? Is it deliberate or have you made a mistake?

Paul Campbell ● 101d

Statistically it’s not dangerous.

Steve Taylor ● 101d

If Hogarth Roundabout is really as dangerous as they say why not put up Accident Black Spot signs as interim measure? The new ones are highly effective at alerting all road users and could be up and running by 5pm this afternoon. The new ABS signs are brilliant so why not use them pro tem?

James Petri ● 102d

Absolutely, but TfL have a sound record for doing exactly the opposite as best evidenced locally by the rephasing at South Ealing Road/ A4, Chiswick roundabout, Kew Bridge, Hoovers junction, Perivale. Traffic chaos after they meddled.

N V Brooks ● 102d

"the discovery that no serious collisions have taken place over the last four years at the A316 junction" You just need to look at the collision data to see that isn't true. Additionally, it is a mistake to assume that action is only taken for serious or fatal casualties.  An accumulation of less serious injuries at a location may be a "canary" indicating issues with road design. A collision resulting in a slight injury compared to a serious injury may just be a matter of luck. (by the way, you can't assume the casualty locations shown on the map are accurate to the metre, they are probably correct within +/— 10m)

Michael Robinson ● 102d

Think we are at the point of arguing about semantics and if you are utterly determined in your view that the OCPS's FoI game is not up to scratch, then past experience suggests, nobody is going to be able to talk you down.Whether or not the data could have been obtained more straightforwardly, would you not concede that the discovery that no serious collisions have taken place over the last four years at the A316 junction is an important contribution to the debate on this road widening project?

Mark Evans ● 102d

“ Once the level has fallen to a factor below the target level, further safety investment is very rarely made”It would be an unnecessary expense and disruption. It reeks of TfL trying to create jobs for themselves.  Time and money would be better spent on traffic light phasing to get traffic actually moving in London and not preventing it / delaying it.

Steve Taylor ● 102d

A perfectly acceptable level of incident as a ratio of traffic movements. You will never engineer out all risk unless you ban all traffic. Even Network Rail engineer in an acceptable incident level based on MPM (Millions of Passenger Miles). Once the level has fallen to a factor below the target level, further safety investment is very rarely made

N V Brooks ● 102d

You are still deliberately ignoring the other serious collisions and following your own false premise that this is only for motorcyclists. It is not. The TfL people attending the drop-ins are well trained to humour the attendees and are prepared for random and irrelevant questions but I am sure they were still surprised and amused by the contributions of Chiswick people as Chiswick is definitely special. So I take it your view is that one serious casualty per year is acceptable collateral damage to avoid people having to slightly alter their private car journeys to access three streets in a LTN. It’s very brave of you to go on record with that along with the local vicar but I’m glad somebody has finally done so.

Paul Campbell ● 102d

“ Personally, I would say that one self-reported 'Serious' collision over four years is insufficient grounds for the disruptive and potentially hazardous works proposed by TfL.”Of course it is. And one would need to question the motive behind the ‘self-reported ‘  accident. These proposed works are simply not warranted.

Steve Taylor ● 102d

Paul, in addition to the focus on motorcycles in the consultation, I was also told this by TfL's Andy (?) Mackay at Saturday's Drop-In event. You mak an interesting point about the level of risk we are prepared to accept for one population versus another. A useful comparator is that of NICE (National Institutes for Clinical Excellence), which rations drugs/treatments on the basis of QALYs (Quality of Life Years). I wonder what TfL's methodology is for deciding on the deliverables for a project liks theirs for Hogarth Roundabout? At TfL's Drop-In event Mr Mackay did not know, but cited the organisation's ambition for zero accidents in the future. But of course not all accidents are caused by street design or furniture (eg. traffic lights). Sometimes it's drunk driving, road rage, reckless driving, etc. TfL can't control for everything.Personally, I would say that one self-reported 'Serious' collision over four years is insufficient grounds for the disruptive and potentially hazardous works proposed by TfL.

Tracey Logan ● 102d

I think you have just proven my point Mark about the scheme being about more than motorcycles, although you have studiously avoided answering the critical question. Again how many serious casualties are people willing to accept so they don't have to alter their private car journeys to three streets in Chiswick in a LTN? One per year? Five per year? One every five years? I think people won't answer this question because they realise that it will make their arguments against the scheme appear to be immoral. This is not a complex moral dilemma.TfL state the Hogarth Roundabout is in the top ten % of dangerous junctions in London. Making Hogarth Roundabout safer doesn't mean they are not making other junctions safer too. They have just finished a scheme at Holborn which generated far greater outrage and resistance than this and they are used to dealing with the inevitable backlash from motorists of making roads safer for all users.

Paul Campbell ● 102d

You should read the request and how it was worded.They ask for:"All road traffic accident data associated with the Hogarth roundabout or roads associated with that roundabout held by TfL for the period from 2020 to the date of the receipt of this request. ""All road traffic accident data associated with the right hand turn across the A4 Great West Road main carriageway into Netheravon Road South held by TfL from 2004 to the date of this request. "+ other stuff.So their FOI absolutely did contain blanket queries for information they could have got themselves.

Michael Robinson ● 102d

You should read the request and how it was worded. The purpose was to identify which data was being used to assess the roundabout as dangerous not as a blanket query to find out what data was available.

Mark Evans ● 102d

The consultation documents say, "We are proposing changes that will make the junction safer for all road users, but especially motorbikes who are particularly at risk here."The problem is that it is emerging that there haven't been any serious collisions of any kind at the A316 junction over the last four years so the question isn't how many collisions are people to willing to accept but why aren't TfL prioritising the scores if not hundreds of other junctions across London which have a worse safety record.

Mark Evans ● 102d

"Wouldn't it be ridiculous if this whole £2m project was based on something entirely un-related to the road infrastructure?"  £2m? You'll be lucky if it isn't near double that. TfL are estimating £2.9m to "upgrade" the short cycle path over Hammersmith Bridge. This being on top of the previous perfectly safe last upgrade. Go figure.

Adrian Irving ● 102d

"the stated reason for TfL's proposals for the Hogarth Roundabout is to improve road safety for motorised two-wheeled vehicles"I don't think that is true. They highlight motorcycles as vulnerable road users but they refer to all collisions.The proposed changes do not prevent sick people getting to the doctor or hospital and that is the kind of fearmongering that is just going to get people het up and angry when they discover the decision-makers will not take such comments seriously. As I said this is really simple - how many serious collisions are people willing to accept as collateral damage so they don't have to take an altered route into and out of three quiet streets in Chiswick that are already in a LTN? Why is nobody prepared to answer that question?

Paul Campbell ● 102d

The OCPS could have got the same information by going to the source police data on the DfT website or any of at least 3 websites that I'm aware of that provide an interface to search the data.So they took 2-3 weeks to get information they could have got themselves straight away and did this at taxpayer expense rather than spending their own time to do it.Maybe they didn't know that the information was already publicly available.As an ex-copper, Cllr Todd certainly knows it is available because I've previously heard him refer to one of the websites for searching the info related to casualties at a different location.

Michael Robinson ● 102d

Paul, the stated reason for TfL's proposals for the Hogarth Roundabout is to improve road safety for motorised two-wheeled vehicles, hence my review of such accidents. Only one such 'Serious' collision occurred over four years (Jan 2020-Feb 2024). Because it was self-reportedly 'Serious', with no detail, I would argue that it is unreliable grounds for TfL's proposed changes.For such a major project it is important to balance the risk of road accidents harms against the risk of worse harms to other road users and those living nearby (eg. sick people needing to get to the doctor or hospital). Only then can we trust that TfL have taken the local context seriously. My initial review of their plans and response to the OCPS's Freedom of Information Request suggests they have not really understood the local context.

Tracey Logan ● 102d

Hi Mark,I just went through TfL's collision statistics from 2020-2024 on the Hogarth Roundabout and there were nine over that period, eight of them 'slight', between motorbikes and cars. Police were present on only four out of those nine occasions. In one police report the location makes no sense ('Hogarth Roundabout, Junction of Devonshire Road and Burlington Lane'), so it is hard to judge from this about the impact of road layouts. The rest were self-reported. with minimal detail, of which the only 'Serious' collision had no detail at all except that it happened on Saturday 6th May, 2023, at 4pm when road conditions were wet due to rain. Apparently it happened at the junction of Hogarth Roundabout and Dorchester Grove. All other collisions (eight over four years, half self-reported) were thankfully 'Slight' and so not as worrying at one might think at first. Although of course any collision is an unhappy experience. I do think we need some balance here, when deciding whether or how to act on such statistics. It's not just the cost of major public works like those TfL plan, but also the huge inconvenience to road users whose journeys are already lengthened by Hammersmith Bridge's closure and other road works on the A4. Then there is the potential harm of difficulties faced by emergency vehicles in accessing sick residents in Old Chiswick, or even the indignity of a wedding procession or funeral cortege queuing up to access TfL's proposed sharp and narrow turn off the Hogarth Roundabout past the George & Devonshire into Church Street (let's hope that plan works, apparently they'll be testing it with an ambulance this Friday night). Nightmare all around, causing potentially dangerous congestion.

Tracey Logan ● 102d

Surely now it has to be acknowledged that this looks pretty thin. The OCPS should be congratulated for digging out this information rather than the lofty sneering we've seen from some. I've tracked down their FoI request and it is worded in a way to catch all the safety related data making it likely that some in the public domain would be included so the attempt to make them seem inept is pretty baseless.If TfL had accessed the police data as part of its analysis it would have been caught in this net. I haven't had a chance to look at all the documents released by TfL but they mainly seem to be generic ones about their commitment to safety with very little specific to TfL. It is probably reasonable to assume that to unlock the funding pot that is going to pay for this, the proposers had to justify it on safety grounds but that the criteria for approval were quite loose and they were never anticipating the kind of detailed scrutiny local residents were going to undertake.

Mark Evans ● 102d

What about the serious collisions that did not involve a motorcyclist? Are people really saying that a serious collision every year is a reasonable price to pay to avoid having to alter a very small number of local car journeys?Like I say I very much doubt Fullers would be willing to state that in public at least.

Paul Campbell ● 102d

Thank you Michael. Police did not attend the only 'Serious' collision between a motorcycle and car anywhere near the Hogarth Roundabout between Jan 2020 and Feb 2024. It was entirely SELF-REPORTED with NO details other than the time and date and weather conditions (daylight & raining) and that it happened at the junction of Hogarth Roundabout / NR Dorchester Grove.ps. apologies for capitals which are used for emphasis, not to offend.

Tracey Logan ● 102d

The Police STATS19 report completed for a casualties on the roads does have further information about the collision including details of drivers, casualties, movement of vehicles and police assessment of cause.  This information is available to TfL/local authorities but isn't released as part of public STATS19 data.The form completed by police is here:https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60d0cc548fa8f57ce4615110/stats19.pdf

Michael Robinson ● 102d

Sorry, here's the link to check out TfL's accident data:https://foi.tfl.gov.uk/FOI-1123-2425/HOGARTH%20RB%20NODE%20168%20HOGARTH%20LANE_BURLINGTON%20LANE%20JAN%202020%20TO%20FEB%202024_Redacted.pdf

Tracey Logan ● 102d

Yes and the really interesting thing about the one 'serious' incident' involving a motorcyclist - actually between Jan '20 and Feb '24 - is that it was self-reported with no details about how it occurred (e.g. which directions they were going, were they changing lanes, who hit who first). Check it out here, entry no.21, 6th May, 2023.  Wouldn't it be ridiculous if this whole £2m project was based on something entirely un-related to the road infrastructure?

Tracey Logan ● 102d

"Why are people having to do FoI requests to find out this data? "Because the Old Chiswick Protection Society didn't appear to know that collision data is all in the public domain anyway so their FoI request was unnecessary.TfL could probably have rejected their FoI request and just told them to refer to the source data.  It is Police data anyway, not TfL.The Police don't make all information from a casualty report public and TfL/local authorities will have access to some of  this, but asking the police for this data in a FoI will probably be rejected.

Michael Robinson ● 102d

I wasn't going to go into some of the details of what I discussed at the consultation for fear of being told by another poster that what do I know, TfL know best.Well,quite a lot more as it turns out having used the junctions thousands of times since passing my driving test in the late Sixties. One example is the proposal to narrow the slip road into Burlington Lane which I was told was to prevent drivers overtaking one another. Fact is they don't, they merge. OK you get the occasional nutter whose house must be on fire but generally it works fine as it is. When I pointed out motorcyclists would still be able to overtake but less safety (due to less space) they said that was a fair point.however I was wrong on one point. It's not a U bend turn into Church Street from Burlington, it's an oblique turn. An 168 degree or there abouts turn sounds fairly U bendy to me but I have to admit I stand corrected. It's oblique....apparently.

Adrian Irving ● 103d

Does sound like another ill conceived TFL scheme like the phasing of traffic lights at the Windmill Road Great West Road junction in Brentford. Ostensibly this was done to stop a high number of casualties. Two minor injuries in five years is not high number four stop the re-phasing caused traffic chaos in Brentford and the Western end of the Chiswick roundabout for months.Even LBH Councillor Guy Lambert was unable to get TfL to satisfactorily justify this waste of money

N V Brooks ● 103d

It seems this proposal is unjustified and will cause unnecessary disruption to traffic as well as being a waste of taxpayer money. People should complete the survey and object to the scheme.

Steve Taylor ● 103d

"What is your point John?"John's point was to provide information to local residents. You seem to have used it as an excuse to have another pot at a hard-working local councillor. Yet another example of your scrambled-egg brains. You really should have worn your helmet.

Richard Greenhough ● 103d

Why are people having to do FoI requests to find out this data? TfL should have been transparent with the data. Given that a proportion of collisions will always be down to the idiocy of road users rather than junction design, TfL should be giving full details to make their case.

Mark Evans ● 103d

The Freedom of Information request by the OCPS showed that the serious collision involving a motorcyclist occurred at the junction with the roundabout at the north i.e. away from the Church Street and A316 junction.Given the harms the widening of the road and closure of Church Street action will cause, there is no sustainable argument based on evidence provided, that the proposals are justified. If you accept claims that there is also no boost to junction capacity from these changes, then the case for this plan falls apart.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 103d

And it needs to be clarified if the motorcyclists involved in the accidents had full  UK Licences.

Steve Taylor ● 103d

"Between July 2020 and June 2023 there were 18 slight and three serious casualties to the people involved in collisions at Hogarth Roundabout."Another question is, of the three serious casualties how many collisions were involved? It could be one, two or three.Again, 18 slight could all be accounted for in a smaller number of collisions.Clarification would be helpful.

Adrian Irving ● 103d

“Not wishing to sound callous but on average one serious casualty per year with only one involving a motorcyclist in the three year period doesn't seem like a bloodbath to me.”Totally agree.

Steve Taylor ● 103d

What is your point John? Hopefully just an administrative correction.And hopefully not that 21 casualties in 18 months, of which three were serious, means that there is less justification to improve road safety at the roundabout even if that entails some minor inconvenience for drivers living on three streets in Chiswick? Because obviously that would appear to be quite a callous position for Chiswick's Conservative Councillors to take and not one, I am sure, that either Asahi or Fullers would endorse if they care about their ESG credentials.

Paul Campbell ● 103d

As a motorcyclist I think the stats are meaningless if the accidents aren’t qualified by stipulating if the motorcyclist had a full licence or was riding with L Plates.  Every day I see L plated delivery motorcyclist breaking the law and riding dangerously with no respect for cyclists, pedestrians or motorists. I am surprised there aren’t more fatalities.

Steve Taylor ● 103d

"Between July 2020 and June 2023 there were 18 slight and three serious casualties to the people involved in collisions at Hogarth Roundabout. Of the collisions recorded, six involved motorcyclists, one of which was serious"Not wishing to sound callous but on average one serious casualty per year with only one involving a motorcyclist in the three year period doesn't seem like a bloodbath to me.I am a driver and was a motorcylist for many years and must have used the roundabout literally thousands of times.It's true you need to keep your wits about you and anything that can be done to clarify lane direction would be welcome. It's all to easy for a driver to find themselves in the wrong lane for the exit they want so having to make a late change.What's missing from the email is the total number of collisions which include ones without injury. This would help give the overall picture.

Adrian Irving ● 103d

Have we got a trustworthy motorcyclist on the forum to comment. Some fairly worrying statistics there, I do hope it's not that awful practice of filtering.

Mark Frost ● 103d