Forum Topic

Casualties on CHR

Casualties reached a 12 year low on Chiswick High Road in 2023. 
What was that about a cycle lane destroying Chiswick? 

Paul Campbell ● 86d262 Comments

Don’t be silly Andrew. I would never condone a hit and run so you are being ridiculously obtuse. I do condone driving down LTNs though, because I disagree 100% with the undemocratic, if not despotic,  implementation of them by incredibly stupid people. They serve no helpful purpose.

Steve Taylor ● 63d

Yep but impossible for them to catch you.

Steve Taylor ● 63d

Why would you want to condone (if that's indeed what you are doing) the use of illegal number plates which would hinder the identification of someone driving a vehicle involved in a hit and run collision?Or are you not condoning them and if not, why bother mentioning them?Your position on identification of vehicles on the road seems a bit inconsistant to me I have to say.

Andrew Jones ● 63d

But illegal (six points /£1000).

N V Brooks ● 63d

Yes it has been made perfectly clear that LTNs cause massive pollution on arterial roads. Reflective number plates enable you to drive wherever you want to drive.

Steve Taylor ● 63d

ULEZ takes the prize. 20mph limits means that most ICE cars are running at less than peak efficiency and gmCO2/Km figures are commensurately higher. Sitting in the peripheral jams created by many LTNs is also an issue and, yws, they DO exist despite the best efforts of statisticians working the numbers to convince us otherwise. Won't only has to look at the peripheral traffic jams virtual disappearance in areas where LTNs have been removed. Cycle lanes are a moot point. I can only speak for healing where I have data and less than 2% of journeys are made by bicycle the number of journeys and distance covered has dropped off a cliff since pandemic restrictions were lifted.

N V Brooks ● 65d

London between 3,600 to 4,100 attributable deaths) were estimated to be attributable to anthropogenic fine particulate matter (PM2. 5) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2), assuming health effects exist even at very low levels. Sept 2023

Steve Taylor ● 65d

Steve misread an account of this report:https://cedelft.eu/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/03/CE_Delft_190272_Health_costs_of_air_pollution_in_European_cities_and_the_linkage_with_transport_Def.pdfIt's ranking cities by the overall cost of pollution, not the levels of pollution - see Table 1 on page 6.If you look at page 21 you'll see London isn't in the top 5 of any of the pollutants considered.

Tom Pike ● 65d

Bill, it's the most populated so would expect most polluted.

Janice Evans ● 66d

That's  fine Steve.And on behalf of every struggling elderly soul on this forum I don't reckon you've got a clue about what you're going on about.Can you explain, as simply as possible so everyone understands, where you learned that London is the most polluted city in europe.In google?

Bill Danton ● 66d

That’s OK Bill. I am aware that old folk struggle to glean info from Google. It’s all terribly confusing for them.

Steve Taylor ● 66d

"Pollution is highest in London than any city in Europe. That’s all we need to know."No, the total financial cost of pollution was highest because we live in the largest and a comparatively wealthy city. Many European cities, in the east and south, have much higher levels of pollution than London. But the point is what is happening to the levels of pollution in London and they're falling faster than elsewhere in the UK. Given that, LTNs, 20 mph speed limits and cycle lanes might deserve some credit, as well as obviously ULEZ. Traffic mileage in London has fallen significantly further than any other region in the UK, and air quality has improved with it.

Tom Pike ● 66d

An expert on forum pollution that's for sure.

Mark Frost ● 66d

I always though Sarajevo was the worst polluted by far.  But then I'm sure you know far more than me about all these things.  Are you an expert on traffic pollution?

Bill Danton ● 66d

Pollution is highest in London than any city in Europe. That’s all we need to know. The LTNs and speed bumps have made it so and cycle lanes have caused traffic chaos and increased fumes. Kahn has totally failed. Pollution KILLS.

Steve Taylor ● 66d

Pollution in London is higher but falling faster than elsewhere in the UK. There no contradiction.

Tom Pike ● 66d

“The health costs of air pollution from roads are higher in London than any other city in Europe, a study has found.”Kahn the laughing stock.

Steve Taylor ● 66d

London’s air quality continues  to improve at a faster rate than the rest of England.https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-strategies/environment-and-climate-change/environment-and-climate-change-publications/london-wide-ulez-six-month-report

Tom Pike ● 66d

Pollution massively increased on arterial roads since the LTNs appeared and caused traffic chaos. Casualties from pollution increasing due to cycle lanes and LTNs

Steve Taylor ● 66d

Cycle lane - minimal effect. much more to do with the withdrawal of dirty polluting Diesels under the ULEZ scheme.

N V Brooks ● 66d

air pollution is falling on Chiswick High Road. Next!

Paul Campbell ● 66d

I should think so, the traffic crawls along slower than people walking.  Of course if you get rid of the traffic altogether no doubt you'll get down to single figures for all categories combined. And we'll be back to the years before Victoria. Or earlier. Result! Meanwhile our air is full of the products of vehicles idling while in log jam.

V Killick ● 66d

That’s true.  I forgot about that road because I rarely use it but you are right and the last time I used it I only spotted one cyclist who actually almost ran down some tourists crossing at the lights near the main gate. The moron just sailed through the red light.

Steve Taylor ● 69d

Oh but Richmond is 'littered' from Kew through to Richmond at the a316 junction, wands as far as the eye can see at a very rarely any cyclists on it. Almost 200 parking spaces removed in an area where a shared use pavement would have been ideal.

N V Brooks ● 69d

“ Average daily numbers cycling are up 59% from 2019 to 2023 “Gosh, pretty dismal % for 4 years. So it hasn’t really taken off despite the huge cost and traffic chaos. And with cycle sales plummeting we will no doubt see these figures reduce and it will be another white elephant like the A4 and A30 to Heathrow and Priory Lane into Richmond Park. Thank the Lord that Richmond isn’t cluttered with these unused cycle lanes. (Except within the Park but that’s another story)

Steve Taylor ● 69d

And from that single act of a deranged lunatic you extrapolate that all SUV drivers are mass murderers. You really do need some serious psychiatric help Paul

N V Brooks ● 69d

Richard, Francis Rowe used the word 'carnage' to describe C9 on several occasions.Of course he was called out for silly hyperbole but when did that ever stop him?

Michael Robinson ● 69d

Nik,There was no cycle lane on CHR in 2019 - just some paint at some sections.  A temporary lane was put in at the end of 2020 then various upgrades over 2021 and 2022 with the lane in its current form being there since Jan 2023.Average daily numbers cycling are up 59% from 2019 to 2023 so despite WFH, there are a lot more people cycling during peak commuting times now that there was 5 years ago.The latest cycling numbers also show the biggest growth during commuting times for winter and spring months indicating more people commuting by bike year-round.There is a WFH factor with numbers cycling at peak commuting times being slightly higher mid week than Mon and Fri.At peak commuting times, use of C9 is 'tidal' with most flow towards central London in the morning peak and back west at the evening peak.  Between the peaks and at weekends, the flow is the same in both directions.Prior to C9, major types of collisions were cyclists being 'doored' by parked cars and vehicles entering junctions from CHR (collisions from vehicles entering junctions were considerably more common than exiting junctions).If on the cycle lane, it isn't possible to be doored, and the design of junctions has reduced the probability of collisions.

Michael Robinson ● 69d

“Do we have more people working from home now.  Just a thought??”Absolutely. Many more people working from home. And the cycle lane has caused more chaos for those using the roads

Steve Taylor ● 69d

“ assumption that every driver doesn't understand a two way cycle lane.”I believe you mean that every cyclist doesn’t understand a two way cycle lane. I would agree.

Steve Taylor ● 69d

Yes we have a problem with drivers in this country observing the priority of cyclists in any cycle lane. Sadly also in Paris which is why the SUV driver murdered a cyclist there on Tuesday. They had an altercation because the driver cut across the cyclist and then the driver pursued the cyclist and used his SUV to knock him over and then drove over him several times to crush him to death.

Paul Campbell ● 69d

"It is that it has not generated the carnage that its opponents predicted.""Carnage" is a strong word, more suited to a war zone than a suburban high street. Which opponents used that word, or is it just another of your Humpty-isms ?

Richard Greenhough ● 69d

Richard dear chap, I must apologise profusely.  It never occured to me that your Humpty-work is trying to be a funny joke. Silly of me.Are you a very busy comedy writer?Do you do it professionally?Do you do stand-up or do you prefer sitting down?

Bill Danton ● 69d

I sold my car and gone down to one car now.  I cycle in the lane now a lot. Generally like it.  I have to have my wits about me and ride with the assumption that every driver doesn't understand a two way cycle lane.  I would say if I just cycled without that mind set I would of had an accident 1 in 5/6 trips I've made.  Especially going or coming from hammersmith.  I've definitely learnt to how to brake hard to not go into the side of a vehicle!

Nik Solomon ● 69d

Yet you claim that there is carnage caused by SUVs. Poor, confused, Hampty Gnome.

N V Brooks ● 69d

20 mph.The point Nik, as I have reiterated time and time again on this very thread, was not that the cycle lane has made Chiswick High Road safer. It may have done but the data are inconclusive on that. It is that it has not generated the carnage that its opponents predicted. On that the data are conclusive.

Paul Campbell ● 69d

Bill, you seem to be lacking a sense of humour. I recommend you avoid reading Humpty's posts because without one you will suffer from doing so.

Richard Greenhough ● 69d

Well that's the name-calling, ageist, disabled-shaming, misogynistic Humpty somewhat stauffed then isn't it?

N V Brooks ● 69d

I see a very steep downward trend from 2016 to 2019.  Was there a cycle lane then.  Do we have more people working from home now.  Just a thought??

Nik Solomon ● 69d

Sorry for the delay Richard, meetings galore.Anyway  I hate to disillusion you but you're not Lewis Carroll. Or even James Joyce (see Humpty in Finnegans Wake).  So to justify your childish name-calling as you making some brilliant literary allusion is bogus.  It's also crass.  Flimsy beyond measure.More relevant there's absolutely nothing the matter with people disagreeing with one another and enjoying passionate debate.Except, as in this case, it seems not to have dawned on you that when people resort to daft name-calling they immediately lose.They lose both their credibility and the debate.

Bill Danton ● 69d

“When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less” is a famous line from Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass. Humpty Dumpty says this to Alice in a discussion about the meaning of words." "Humpty Dumpty's claim that he is the sole arbiter of the meaning of his words is often used as an example of how not to think about meaning. In general, it is widely agreed that the meaning of words is not solely determined by the speaker."Campbell has earned the soubriquet "Humpty" from many of his postings.

Richard Greenhough ● 70d

Humpty!!!Steve is clearly an oaf.  And a very childish oaf too - doubling down again and again on his own pig ignorance.Are you another oaf Richard?

Bill Danton ● 70d

AKA "The Gnome of Grove Park"

N V Brooks ● 70d

Skidmark is Steve's nickname for Paul "Humpty" Campbell.

Richard Greenhough ● 70d

Who the hell is Skidmark?

Bill Danton ● 70d

“ Presented with a clear case of death caused by dangerous driving”There you go again, Al, making up stories. I certainly haven’t been presented with a clear case of death caused by dangerous driving but I’m astonished that you don’t think it’s right to be thankful when drivers aren’t hurt after being in accidents. 

Steve Taylor ● 70d

“ actually agrees with Paul's point.”As repeatedly advised I don’t read Skidmark’s posts because he catastrophises and spews nonsense and vitriol. Hence I don’t know what points he tries to make and I don’t care because I couldn’t care less what he says, thinks or does.

Steve Taylor ● 70d

Amazing.  Presented with a clear case of death caused by dangerous driving someone’s first response is to emphasise that the driver came to no harm thanks to his excellent choice of vehicle.  Keep digging Steve!

Alastair Banton ● 70d

Your crass statement actually agrees with Paul's point.

Mark Frost ● 70d

Don’t be silly. Generally no rockets except Diwali and Guy Fawkes but cattle grids in the front are good to mow down those stupid little pillar sticks on cycle lanes which can damage your car when you pull over to let emergency vehicles through.

Steve Taylor ● 70d

“it’s a no brainer when deciding on your next car.”Indeed it is.  Quite brainless.  No brain involvement whatsoever.  Even as a defensive ploy in a war zone such as Chiswick High Road. SUVs are already urban tanks so why not go further and construct a steel screen around them as added protection against the incoming rockets?

Bill Danton ● 70d

The beauty of the SUV designs is that it keeps the driver and passengers safer than a small  lightweight car, or even a normal family sedan, if involved in a collision. All too often a collision leaves the driver and passengers of an SUV relatively unscathed. It’s a no brainer when deciding on your next car.

Steve Taylor ● 70d

Like this 18 year old woman killed by a SUV driver in Newham on Tuesday? 
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/31105805/moment-teen-girl-hit-killed-car-ploughs-into-pavement/amp/

Paul Campbell ● 70d

The beauty of SUVs is that even the most moronic of pedestrians should be able to see them before they irresponsibly step into the road in front of them.

Steve Taylor ● 70d

“ Yes, there is evidence that SUVs pose a greater risk to children in pedestrian crashes compared to smaller passenger cars.”Thanks Mr Townsend. Whilst this evidence is just theoretical, I don’t think many would dispute that bigger cars could cause a greater risk to children in pedestrian crashes. However, this thread isn’t really about that. It’s about the fact that more and more people are buying SUVs because it offers optimum safety for the driver and passengers when compared to smaller lighter cars.

Steve Taylor ● 70d

“ a driver in a Land Rover Defender killing two school girls in Wimbledon last year “Quite disingenuous to use this very sad and unfortunate story of the poor woman who list consciousness and lost control of her vehicle and had a devastating accident, Tom. Sad that you stoop so low to catastrophise your point. Perhaps from your anti SUV stance you have stats of how many parents of children at the school don’t themselves drive SUVs to ensure the ultimate safety of their families and friends?

Steve Taylor ● 70d

"Children are eight times more likely to die when struck by a SUV compared to children struck by a passenger car."So what if they are struck by a van, lorry or bus ?

Richard Greenhough ● 72d

"Bottom line - no evidence of children pedestrians being killed by SUVs in London."Children are eight times more likely to die when struck by a SUV compared to children struck by a passenger car.https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022437522000810Maybe you believe children in London are uniquely protected from SUVs, although the example of a driver in a Land Rover Defender killing two school girls in Wimbledon last year suggests otherwise.

Tom Pike ● 72d

This is what ChatGPT had to say on the subject"Yes, there is evidence that SUVs pose a greater risk to children in pedestrian crashes compared to smaller passenger cars. Studies show that SUVs are more likely to cause severe injuries or fatalities when they strike children. This is due to their elevated design, which causes a different impact pattern. Children are more likely to be hit in the torso or head, rather than rolling onto the hood as an adult might. One study found that children are significantly more likely to die when struck by an SUV than by a passenger car​IIHS​Colorado Department of TransportationFor more detailed information, you can check out studies from organizations like the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and the American Academy of Pediatrics."https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/new-study-suggests-todays-suvs-are-more-lethal-to-pedestrians-than-cars

Steve Townsend ● 72d

And no evidence of children leaving a football or cricket match stepping into a road and being killed by an SUV?  Just nonsensical catastrophisation Tom?

Steve Taylor ● 72d

😭😭

Mark Frost ● 72d

The more the Twerp continues with his nonsense the more he alienates cyclists. Even the police think he is a joke and a nuisance. He should be prosecuted for wasting valuable police time.

Steve Taylor ● 72d

“We know that more than 2000 drivers are convicted in a fatal collision for even one cyclists. And yet you dismiss these figures as " ridiculous catastrophisng"!“Focus Tom. Get rid of the brain worm. We aren’t talking about fatal car collisions V cyclists. I have asked a very, very simple question about children killed by SUVs driving legally on our roads. All you can do is deflect to cyclists. The catastrophisation was by the Guardian and you supported it, hence I asked for stats/evidence which you cannot provide so the Guardian article is just meaningless catastrophisation. The journalists are of course paid to catastrophise but I thought you may be a tad above such nonsense. Apparently not because your brain worm seems to feed off the rot.  Bottom line - no evidence of children pedestrians being killed by SUVs in London.

Steve Taylor ● 73d

Steve, your double standards are at least consistent.We know that more than 2000 drivers are convicted in a fatal collision for even one cyclists. And yet you dismiss these figures as " ridiculous catastrophisng"!Your specious arguments are at least highlighting the disproportionate risks that cars, especially larger ones, pose and why measures that have proven effective in reducing those risks, such as lower speed limits and extensive camera enforcement, are so needed.

Tom Pike ● 73d

Steve's recipe:1 part personal slur2 parts poor, saggy excuse for the behaviour. Finally, top with an unimaginative insult.

Mark Frost ● 73d

Back to the point and your ridiculous catastrophisng - you have no stats of children who have run into streets and been killed by SUVs driven legally on roads  in London do you Tom?

Steve Taylor ● 73d

Erp the Twerp is a sad little man who isn’t reporting real crime. He is picks on people who are stuck in stationery traffic who may txt their family or friends  to say they are running late. Pathetic!  Or the poor woman who cut through the wrong lane for a few meters because she wanted to turn right and blocks her way and disrupts traffic for half an hour. Pathetic! 

Steve Taylor ● 74d

Man sees crime being committed and reports to Police.In any other scenario people would be pleased.It's rather like a shoplifter complaining about security guards.

Mark Frost ● 74d

As I posted less than a week ago:Annual fatality rates from driving are more than 500 times higher and conviction rates are more than 2000 times higher.25% of an annual average of 1700 road fatalities involve unlawful driving, 6% of an annual average of 3 fatalities a year involve unlawful cycling.One issue with driving is that the driver is exposed to a higher proportion of particulates, impairing cognitive function, notably reasoning and memory. No statistical study of the health effects on a large population should be generalised to make a claim about any one individual, but in your case the symptoms are at least consistent.

Tom Pike ● 74d

If only there was a way for law-breaking drivers to avoid being filmed and reported by cyclists …Anyway the majority of fines and prosecutions of law-breaking drivers resulting from video footage submitted by the public comes from drivers’ dashcams.

Paul Campbell ● 74d

Van Erp reports drivers for notoriety and income from his social media platforms.

Robert Dawbarn ● 74d

Yes of course I, and every other responsible, decent person, despise cyclists who break the law but, as usual, you miss the point entirely.  Van Erp the Twerp is just a provocateur intent on trying to disrupt people’s lives with his extreme pettiness.

Steve Taylor ● 75d

But you have no stats of children who have run into streets and been killed by SUVs driven legally on roads  in London do you Tom? Likewise a child can be innocently walking on a pavement and hit by a cyclist riding illegally. Who is the bad guy? The legally innocent SUV driver or the cyclist riding illegally on a pavement?

Steve Taylor ● 75d

You despise cyclists for their “criminal behaviour” and call a cyclist who reports drivers for their criminal behaviour a “twerp”. What do you call a hypocrite, Steve?

Tom Pike ● 75d

A child doesn’t need to leave the school playground to be killed by an SUV in London.

Tom Pike ● 75d

And of course Van Erp does cyclists in London no favours with his obsession against London drivers.

Steve Taylor ● 75d

You are absolutely correct Richard but (London) cyclists will never be treated as regular road users because they are too  arrogant and irresponsible. They are despised for their criminal behaviour.

Steve Taylor ● 75d

“ said Hickman. “It may [one day] be their children walking out of the football pitch or the cricket pitch who get run over by an SUV,”Oh dear. More nonsensical catastrophising!!  What are the statistics of children walking out of a football pitch or cricket pitch who have been run over by an SUV?  And, based on these high numbers of child fatalities what campaigns have been run to educate irresponsible parents, sports teachers, head teachers,  cricket and  football coaches to train the children to look before stepping into a road used by any vehicle and particularly a speeding cyclist which is much more  difficult to see than a SUV or bus?

Steve Taylor ● 75d

“ repeatedly stating that you feel  your family is safer in a larger vehicle, you are unable to accept that without doubt your family would be safest in a bus!”I don’t FEEL my family is safer in a larger vehicle. I know it for a FACT as does everyone else who isn’t in denial about putting their family at risk by cramming them into a small car.  I sympathise with such people who refuse to accept facts when it comes to their family’s safety. When you refer yet again to being safer in a bus you demonstrate yet again that your brain worm is growing when you are fixated on that analogy. To spell it out for your brain worm; I have never proclaimed that a bus isn’t safer (duh - why would I when my whole argument is based on the larger the vehicle, the safer). I say again for the benefit of your brain worm, this thread isn’t about safety on buses, it’s about safety of bigger cars v small cars for the driver and occupants. However, to indulge you and your bus fetish,  I provided you with my first time experience of trying the No 65 from Kingston to Richmond and it was terrible. I can add that when I was a regular commuter I used the No 9  or 33 from Barnes to Hammersmith on a daily basis.

Steve Taylor ● 75d

Oh look a cliched anti-cycling bigoted rant. Just what the thread needed. Thanks Richard.

Paul Campbell ● 75d

And with perfect timing this article arrives;“People buying the SUVs are either very selfish and do not care about anyone else on the street, or, more likely, they just do not think of those issues,” said Hickman. “It may [one day] be their children walking out of the football pitch or the cricket pitch who get run over by an SUV, and then they would be horrified.”https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/oct/12/monster-pickup-trucks-accelerate-europe-sales-rise-safety-fears

Tom Pike ● 75d

Steve, it’s ironic that after repeatedly stating that you feel  your family is safer in a larger vehicle, you are unable to accept that without doubt your family would be safest in a bus! You’re not prioritising either pedestrian safety or your family’s safety by your vehicle choice, and that’s always been evident. Nobody else calls other people “morons” as much as you do, Steve. Your choice of vehicle is most certainly not making you more tolerant, but if anything even more dismissive of those around you. There’s a consistency here in your dismissive attitude to others, whether it be their safety or their mental abilities. While you might be unable to coherently justify your choice of vehicle, it’s actually quite clear to other people why Steve Taylor has the car he has!

Tom Pike ● 75d

Maybe more time spent in quiet contemplation or reading a worthwhile book on a bus”As said one can’t have quiet contemplation in a smelly, noisy, uncomfortable bus but one does enjoy quiet contemplation listening to music driving a comfortable, safe, air conditioned car.  It’s great!  After today’s trial I can only feel sorry for those who have to uses buses for their day to day travel. It must be terribly depressing. Little wonder so many millions are claiming ‘mental illness’! And I don’t pretend that I’m prioritising my  family's safety whilst driving a safe car. I know for a fact that I’m prioritising their safety and sympathise with those who can’t afford to do likewise.  Those who can afford it, but refuse to do so to make some political statement, I hold in contempt. And I don’t label everyone as morons I only label morons as morons.

Steve Taylor ● 75d

Cycle lane? As in the singular? There are three cycle lanes in Chiswick, including the two others, formally known as pavements, which are still also used. When cyclists are treated as proper road users, being licenced and the vehicles on which they travel being identifiable and therefore accountable for ignoring red lights and using pedestrian highways, then I will agree wholeheartedly with your statement.

Richard Evans ● 75d

Oh dearie me, the Gnome of Grove Park drives a WankPanzer but won't own up to it. What a sad apology for whatever he purports to be.

N V Brooks ● 75d

Steve's "quest for knowledge" has encountered the insurmountable obstacle of his crushing ignorance.

Paul Campbell ● 75d

There are parts of the UK where a car is a virtual necessity for day-to-day travel, but London isn't one of them. Rather it's clear that convenience and comfort is actually more important than safety to you. That's fine, but you can't then pretend that you're prioritising your family's safety in choosing to drive. And given your readiness to label everyone else as morons, I'm not convinced your choices are leading you to a stress-free life either. Maybe more time spent in quiet contemplation or reading a worthwhile book on a bus rather than raging at those around you as you drive around London would result in you having a more tolerant attitude towards the rest of humanity.

Tom Pike ● 75d

“If your families safety was paramount you’d insist they take public transport rather than drive them anywhere.”With every utterance you come across as being more and more silly, Tom. You know very well that we are debating safety for drivers and passengers of SUVs versus small, lighter cheap cars but you are now so desperate that you bring public transport into the equation. Very silly as public transport has not been part of this thread. Buses and other public transport is an entirely different subject but for the record I can confirm that our family’s quest for knowledge and our spirit of adventure, excitement, exploration and travel precludes us from using public transport for remote places we explore in Cornwall, Devon, Northumberland, Scotland and across Europe. Perhaps when we are old and decrepit we’ll have to resort to taking a smelly, germ invested, uncomfortable, bus and endure the stench of urine while being sheepled to overcrowded places we don’t want to go to, but I very much doubt we’ll lower our standards to endure that misery.  The next time you see a family in a safe SUV, have a look at the smiling happy faces and then when you see a bus try to find just a single passenger that doesn’t look totally miserable. Life is too short but you go ahead and enjoy your closeted, allegedly, safe life and I’ll enjoy mine knowing that I’m doing the best for my family’s safety while you may be content to risk your’s. PS. I took a train from Barnes to Kingston today ( first time I have tried it) and it was fine. Quite pleasant in fact. However, I decided to return to Richmond by bus (to try it out) and it was disgusting. Crowded, smelly, noisy and very, very slow. Not for me; never again. Much more pleasant, comfortable and stress free to go by car. The car is King.

Steve Taylor ● 75d

I think it's all about priorities.  If there is the capability to design additional safety for pedestrians into all motor vehicles it should be made mandatory. If you want a large SUV that’s ok, but the compromise you have to make is that it is designed to maximize not only passenger but also pedestrian safety and if that means a lower bonnet, so be it.  With commercial vehicles it should be all about pedestrian safety.The idea of restricting/banning SUVs is not practical.  How do you define what should be restricted? I mentioned earlier SUV's can be designed to be safer, Audi Q6 e-tron, 5*, Pedestrian Safety 81%.  If restrictions are to be made, how about basing them safety rating, irrespective of vehicle type.

Kieran Fox ● 75d

Well it certainly takes a very foolish internet troll to confess their sins to their targets. You're starting to make Steve Taylor look smart and witty.

Paul Campbell ● 76d

"Good that you are outing yourself as an internet troll though ...."Takes one to know one.

Richard Greenhough ● 76d

Responding to your foolish and embarrassing posts isn't taking your bait. Once again you flatter yourself and fail to observe what is really happening. Good that you are outing yourself as an internet troll though ....

Paul Campbell ● 76d

And yet you always rise to the bait.......

Richard Greenhough ● 76d

Don’t flatter yourself. You don’t wind me up. You’re far too irrelevant and boring to elicit any kind of emotional response.

Paul Campbell ● 76d

While I take your point that SUVs often have higher bonnets than strictly necessary, where does that put the majority of vans, lorries and buses in the pedestrian danger ratings ?

Richard Greenhough ● 76d

Not frustrated at all, Humpty. I enjoy winding you up, and you fall for it every time. How foolish you are.

Richard Greenhough ● 76d

Indeed you do have an obsession.And I am greatly enjoying frustrating you by the simple method of not telling you what car I drive. How foolish you are.

Paul Campbell ● 76d

"At last we finally got to the bottom of why Steve was arguing so strenuously and incoherently for SUVs. It’s because he is a SUV driver."And yet you refuse to confirm or deny that you drive "a big one".

Richard Greenhough ● 76d

At last we finally got to the bottom of why Steve was arguing so strenuously and incoherently for SUVs. It’s because he is a SUV driver. I suspect the same is true of others who have submitted their entry for next year’s Nobel Prize for Physics like Kieran.It’s about time SUVs became taboo.

Paul Campbell ● 76d

“But hey, you go ahead and risk the lives of your loved ones and I’ll sleep easy knowing I am doing my best to keep my family as safe as I possibly can.”No you’re not.  If your families safety was paramount you’d insist they take public transport rather than drive them anywhere.  You’re not going to get a safer vehicle on a road than a bus - that really is not going to come off worse in a collision with any car you might drive. Off road, a train or the tube is much safer than driving. Sorry to disturb your sleep, but you’re clearly not prioritising your family’s safety, or anyone else’s, with your transport choices, thought that should have been obvious a while ago.

Tom Pike ● 76d

I am arguing that in an accident involving an SUV and a lightweight small car the family in the small car is likely to suffer more injury or even death than the family in an SUV.  But hey, you go ahead and risk the lives of your loved ones and I’ll sleep easy knowing I am doing my best to keep my family as safe as I possibly can. Looking at SUV sales I am confident that 360 million people agree with me which equates to 40% of global sales.

Steve Taylor ● 76d

No it was said on here they don't  want to take polluting cars off roads, they want to fine as many as possible to raise funds

Janice Evans ● 76d

“ Steve, the purpose is to raise funds as we were told.”No, the purpose is to deter non compliant vehicles from being driven in London. The fee is punitive but it is so ridiculously low that many will just pay it and continue to pollute London with Mayor Kahn’s blessing. He is in effect telling these people that’s it’s perfectly ok to pollute as long as they pay a minimal fee. They are buying their legal right to pollute and Kahn is ultimately to blame for allowing it.

Steve Taylor ● 76d

I realise I did you a disservice, Steve. You're not arguing that there are more deaths because SUVs are heavier than other cars. Rather, it's because the other cars are lighter than the SUVs. And to think I called your earlier arguments nonsense!

Tom Pike ● 76d

“That would mean that drivers who drive such large cars are more likely to be negligent or drunk.”No, no, no. Your statistics are clear that the majority of these accidents are caused by male drivers under 25 either drunk or under influence of drugs. That hardly fits with the demographic of SUV drivers who would normally choose to buy a larger car if they have families they want to keep as safe as possible. There are no SUVs listed in the top ten purchases for males 25 and under. 

Steve Taylor ● 76d

“So you want a more stringent measure than we currently have, the complete banning of more heavily polluting vehicles from London. That's clearly a much larger restriction on movement than is currently in place.”Spot on Tom. Surprised you don’t agree considering over 4000 deaths a year are caused by air pollution. I wouldn’t mind if high particulate EVs were also banned within the M25

Steve Taylor ● 76d

“ That's every motor vehicle, Steve, whether it's diesel, petrol or electric.”Don’t be so silly, Tom. You know very well from the flow and progression of this thread that we are talking about non ULEZ compliant vehicles

Steve Taylor ● 77d

Game set and match Tom.

David Burke ● 77d

"As already proved, the deaths are negligible and there is no evidence to suggest that those deaths were specifically caused because of the vehicle size."No, you have offered no proof, just nonsensical arguments. The Economist article shows the total number of deaths in a collision increases dramatically as the mass of the largest vehicle increases. But correlation in statistics does not equal causation. Here the laws of physics provide a clear causal relationship - as the mass of cars becomes larger, their energy increases proportionately, and the larger energy released in a collision will increase the risk of a fatality. There is therefore a clear causal link between the higher risk of fatalities seen in a collision and vehicle mass. You even accepted this yourself when you compared the relative risks of being in a Fiat 500 compared to a much heavier vehicle!"They could have been caused by driver negligence / inexperience drunk driving etc or by pedestrian negligence, lack of concentration, stupidity etc."Despite the rational argument above, which is generally accepted as being the most likely cause, let's consider if you might be correct. That would mean that drivers who drive such large cars are more likely to be negligent or drunk. Your argument is that the cars are no less safe, but their drivers tend to be positively dangerous. That's a useful identification, as it means restricting such cars will greatly benefit the safety of everyone else.Either way you lose, Steve, whether you accept the rational argument that larger cars tend to be more dangerous or stick with your claim that their drivers tend to be more dangerous. "Hence my view that every polluting vehicle should be taken off the road."That's every motor vehicle, Steve, whether it's diesel, petrol or electric. Electric vehicles, because of their larger mass, release more fine tyre particulates. They do pollute less than petrol and diesel, but they still pollute. So if "every polluting vehicle should be taken off the road", that's the end of the motor vehicle.

Tom Pike ● 77d

Now you’re just being very silly Tom. I’ll spell it out because you clearly have a brain worm about deaths caused to pedestrians by SUVs. As already proved, the deaths are negligible and there is no evidence to suggest that those deaths were specifically caused because of the vehicle size. They could have been caused by driver negligence / inexperience drunk driving etc or by pedestrian negligence, lack of concentration, stupidity etc. The deaths caused by air pollution caused by vehicles runs to over 4000 per annum. Hence my view that every polluting vehicle should be taken off the road. It’s logical and doable. It’s not logical or doable to ban SUVs and it won’t make any difference to lives saved. The SUV saves the lives of its drivers and occupants. It’s a no brainer. The SUV is here to stay. High Polluting cars aren’t  here to stay. They have had their day and Kahn should man up and ban them if he cares about London and the environment but he is a hypocrite.

Steve Taylor ● 77d

Steve, the purpose is to raise funds as we were told.

Janice Evans ● 77d

Even that marginal improvement in safety from being the largest car on the road will disappear in your utopia of everyone driving massive cars. The only way to keep ahead is to get an even larger car, and meanwhile the deaths of vulnerable road users will just climb further. Again, it's clear you have no actual interest in improving the safety of pedestrians.

Tom Pike ● 77d

So you want a more stringent measure than we currently have, the complete banning of more heavily polluting vehicles from London. That's clearly a much larger restriction on movement than is currently in place.And the point remains, you think such measures are justified when people face the consequences of poor air quality from disproportionally polluting cars driving into London  but for some reason think a similar restriction is unacceptable when the same people face the consequences of increased deaths and injuries from disproportionally large cars driving into London.As I said, your position is incoherent.

Tom Pike ● 77d

“ fully accept the state intervening to lower pollution levels. I'm sure most drivers who pay a ULEZ penalty to travel into London think that their families would benefit more if the driver chose how to spend that money rather than having to give it to TfL.”No, you misunderstand my views on ULEZ. I would much prefer that no owners of non compliant cars were given the option to drive in London by simply paying a small fee. That’s a nonsense. I would prefer that non compliant cars were not allowed within the M25 under any circumstances. I would like to see all non compliant vehicles dispatched to the scrap heap. Owners of such polluting cars have had a decade to get their act together and stop polluting our air. To allow them to continue to pollute our city by simply paying a few pounds is just ridiculous.

Steve Taylor ● 77d

“ that would make it more than 12 in total.”It clearly means 12 x SUVs are in collisions with 12 x small cars. From the 12 SUVs only one occupant dies but 12 die in the small cars. Thus proving that SUVs are safer but it doesn’t really need proof. It’s pretty obvious just by looking at the cars which is going to be the safer option. Volvo X90 or Nissan Micra ?

Steve Taylor ● 77d

No, your vision is of a dystopian future where people just have to get bigger and bigger cars in an arms race of marginal protection.In fact not everyone can or want to join that race, and we know where that race lthen leads, to the level of road fatalities seen in the U.S. That would increase the number of people killed on UK roads by a factor of five.What's odd is that you fully accept the state intervening to lower pollution levels. I'm sure most drivers who pay a ULEZ penalty to travel into London think that their families would benefit more if the driver chose how to spend that money rather than having to give it to TfL. But claiming to act in your family's interests doesn't give you a license to harm others, whether it be by driving a car that disproportionately pollutes thereby leading to the premature deaths of others or driving a car whose disproportionate size means increased fatalities for everyone else in a collision.You just don't have a coherent set of values on dealing with the damage cars do.

Tom Pike ● 77d

"No it didn’t say that. It said 12 killed in other vehicles  They are referring to two vehicle accidents / collisions not SUVs involved in accidents with pedestrians."You're correct, that would make it more than 12 in total.

Tom Pike ● 77d

Personally I have no interest in owning an SUV, just saying they are not that large inside floor space I wouldn't know about the weight of them butmore height which is better for the dogs.

Janice Evans ● 77d

“The Economist article showed that for one life saved inside the vehicle, it came at the cost of 12 killed in other vehicles”Which obviously implies or begs the question that if the 12 killed in smaller cars could have been saved if they too were travelling in SUVs?

Steve Taylor ● 77d

“any marginal improvement in safety inside a larger car comes at the cost of reduced safety for everyone else.”Thank you. Finally, after going around in circles with your nonsensical Orwellian suggestions,  you admit that larger cars are safer for occupants. Hence sales of SUVs are  booming because all sensible people purchasers of a new vehicle will agree that safety of drivers and their passengers is paramount. If you can afford to buy a safe SUV it why risk your family’s lives by cramming them into something like a Fiat 500 where even a low speed collisions could cause them to be crushed due to the limited leg space etc.?  Why would you do that if you can afford to offer your family more protection?

Steve Taylor ● 78d

Silly me.

Mark Frost ● 78d

“ the Economist article showed that for one life saved inside the vehicle, it came at the cost of 12 killed outside.”No it didn’t say that. It said 12 killed in other vehicles  They are referring to two vehicle accidents / collisions not SUVs involved in accidents with pedestrians.

Steve Taylor ● 78d

Put driving safely to one side for a moment, every road user should be doing this. Let's take the example of a child running into the road without looking. Car's should be designed to give the child the best possible chance of survival. Legislation on vehicle safety standards is about political will.  People do lots of antisocial things, smoking in a public building for example, but with legislation it was banned. SUV's can be designed to be safer, Audi Q6 e-tron, 5*, Pedestrian Safety 81%, for example, not good enough, but moving in the right direction. So, if it is possible, make it compulsory.

Kieran Fox ● 78d

An earlier article highlighting the risk is here:https://etsc.eu/concerns-over-loopholes-allowing-american-pickup-trucks-to-bypass-safety-and-environmental-regulations/More of these on our roads would rapidly unwind the reduction in pedestrian and cyclist fatalities we’ve seen as well as push up the deaths of vehicle occupants overall.For the largest cars in the road in the US, the Economist article showed that for one life saved inside the vehicle, it came at the cost of 12 killed outside.

Tom Pike ● 78d

"Cars "must get 90%+ Euro NCAP rating for pedestrians before it can be sold."Unfortunately not."Correct - as per this article from last week's Sunday Times (behind a paywall) :https://www.thetimes.com/uk/transport/article/coming-to-the-uk-aggressive-ram-trucks-that-duck-safety-rules-czsnjrz0rThere is definitely a case for banning vehicles like that on the UK's roads.

Richard Greenhough ● 78d

I agree, a higher frontal profile is definitely associated with higher fatality rates. But high bonnets very much go with the SUV look, and SUVs are definitely on average heavier than other cars. Here are the worst pedestrian rating of the cars tested in the last two years by NCAP:Jeep Avenger: 3*, 59%,Dacia Duster: 3*, 60%Hyundai Kona: 4*, 64%Cars "must get 90%+ Euro NCAP rating for pedestrians before it can be sold."Unfortunately not."SUV manufacturers should be forced via legislation to design to the highest safety standards for both pedestrians and passengers.... If building an SUV with a low bonnet would increase pedestrian safety, why would you not do that?"Well, they are not, and manufacturers design cars to make a profit, not because they're safer for pedestrians. As Steve and Jane have made clear, they have no interest in choosing a car because it will be safer for others, or driving more slowly because their choice means they pose a larger risk to others. Yes, manufacturers  should be "forced via legislation" to produce safer cars, and those who have already chosen less safe cars should be "forced via legislation" to drive more safely. Otherwise the rest of us have to face a higher risk of being injured or killed because of the selfish choices of others.

Tom Pike ● 78d

That's the basic physics that people feel compelled to deny for some reason - the mass of the vehicle amplifies its energy in a collision. The question is why are people so compelled to try to rewrite the basic laws of physics? It's a pretty impressive level of denial.

Paul Campbell ● 78d

Ok.  But that's more of a weekend car.

Kieran Fox ● 78d

No?https://images.app.goo.gl/DJ5BLWegrHLiYH948

Alastair Banton ● 78d

I'm not sure the death rate is just about size and weight necessarily.  I read that potentially it was more to do with the height of the front of the vehicle. SUV manufacturers should be forced via legislation to design to the highest safety standards for both pedestrians and passengers. For example, it must get 90%+ Euro NCAP rating for pedestrians before it can be sold. If building an SUV with a low bonnet would increase pedestrian safety, why would you not do that? It's just a matter of style. Nobody would advocate spikes on the front of the car, just because they looked good.

Kieran Fox ● 78d

They have a bit more height, the inside I would say is smaller than an Estate car, but they have off road tyres which makes them look larger.

Janice Evans ● 78d

Mark, they are not commercial vehicles.

Janice Evans ● 78d

"..this will be the time it penetrates the dense mass of their brains"As opposed to large empty egg-heads ?

Richard Greenhough ● 78d

You demonstrate my point beautifully. HGV, heavy, goods, vehicle.

Mark Frost ● 78d

No they are just cars, my sister has one for transporting her dogs, anduses a Suzuki as a run around.

Janice Evans ● 78d

The Economist recently till a detailed look at this: "Too much of a good thing: Americans love big cars but new analysis suggests they kill more people than they save"
And indeed the US bow has the highest fatality rates on its roads of any developed country:

Tom Pike ● 78d

Some of these SUVs should be red classified as HGVs and have asupplementary test applied.

Mark Frost ● 78d

I remember when I passed my test, the instructor congratulated me and then joked that I’d promptly forget everything he’d taught me.

Andrew Jones ● 78d

"It’s a necessity because the UK driving standards are fast slipping to third world norms."Because of automated camera enforcement, people are actually complying more with speed limits and that's why pedestrian and cyclist casualties are falling.Your desperate attempts to ascribe this drop in pedestrian deaths to larger cars is complete nonsense. Yes, cars are getting larger, but car occupants are getting no safer as any marginal improvement in safety inside a larger car comes at the cost of reduced safety for everyone else. Rather than appeals to drivers' better natures, it's hitting them in the wallet with fines that's actually ensuring our roads are getting safer for pedestrians and cyclists. Thanks to physics, a 1% reduction in speed compensates for a 3% increase in car mass as far as the safety of cyclists and pedestrians are concerned.

Tom Pike ● 78d

Other people were taking the test for them and think this has been a problem for many years, someone once asked me to do it and I refused.

Janice Evans ● 78d

I don’t disagree with you although it seems they are taught one way to pass the test and then once they have passed the third world driving styles take over.

Steve Taylor ● 78d

If UK driving standards are fast slipping so much perhaps it's time to make the driving test harder, and retest drivers every 10 years to check their standards are still the same as they were when the passed in the age of higher driver standards.That way EVERYONE will be safer. Buying larger, safer(sic) cars is simply treating one of the symptoms but not addressing the causes.

Andrew Jones ● 78d

Oh good grief. Perhaps when Elon Musk gets you to Mars you can advocate totalitarianism, mass surveillance, and repressive regimentation of people but here on planet Earth that ain’t gonna happen. People will continue to buy larger, safer cars because it keeps their families safe. Larger cars are fast replacing smaller cars and there is no stopping it. It’s a necessity because the UK driving standards are fast slipping to third world norms. Even Driving Instructors are encouraging their pupils to drive aggressively.

Steve Taylor ● 78d

Yes, if some drivers really want to drive larger cars, then maybe they should be willing to have speed controllers installed to compensate for the increased risk they pose to pedestrians. These controllers could reduce their speed appropriately below the limits for other vehicles so that they pose an equivalent risk. I think that's a fairer approach than just adding a surcharge to the VED as wealthy drivers aren't deterred by such petty financial concerns. After all, Range-Rover owners in London are apparently willing to pay more than £5000 a year for insurance.HGVs already have to have speed limiters fitted due to the larger safety risks they pose depending on their weight, so the legal principle is already established. There's no reason that other heavier motor vehicles that pose a larger risk shouldn't be proportionately treated in a similar way.

Tom Pike ● 78d

I think we have made several attempts to explain such basic laws of physics to people on this forum before but maybe this will be the time it penetrates the dense mass of their brains.

Paul Campbell ● 78d

As has been mentioned before, it's basic physics, Paul. The risk of a pedestrian being killed in a collision is approximately proportional to the power released in a collision, not simply the energy, so it increases at around the speed cubed times the mass.Extensive data has shown that at 23 mph there's about a 10% chance of being killed in a collision by a car. At 32 mph it's around 25%. So replacing 30 mph limits by 20 mph limits more than halves the risk of pedestrian fatalities.And assuming car mass scales with engine size, a car with a 2500 cc engine should increase the risk of a fatality in a collision by 67% compared to a car with a 1500 cc engine, not far away from the 48% increase seen for cars with more than 2500 cc compared to those with less than 1500 cc engines.Those who are actually interested in reducing pedestrian casualties should be strongly advocating for both speed reductions and smaller cars. Of course replacing a car trip with a bike trip is even more effective in reducing the fatality risk to pedestrians due to both the reduced mass and the lower speed.

Tom Pike ● 78d

Slowing cars down and fining and prosecuting law-breaking drivers makes streets safer! Who knew .....We should do much more of this.

Paul Campbell ● 78d

"Might it not also be true that an injury that resulted in a fatality in 2002 would not necessarily result in a fatality in 2022 due to advances in medical treatment, imaging and hence better outcomes?"

The proportion of pedestrians killed in a collision varies, but it has certainly not steadily reduced over time. In 2004 1.92% of collision resulted in a fatality. In 2022 it was 1.99%.

"Precisely. Cars are more sophisticated, safer, smart braking systems etc etc. hence we have seen both fatalities and serious injuries to pedestrians HALVE between 2004 and 2022 despite people walking more."

The rate of pedestrian injury collisions has dropped, but if you're hit by a larger-engined cars your risk of being killed is still significantly higher, nearly 50% higher for a car over 2500 cc compared to below 1500 cc. And if improved car safety technology was the reason for these reduced death rates, then the people who most benefit should be those inside a car. The introduction of airbags, for example, has no effect on the injury and fatality rates for pedestrians and cyclists, just car occupants. But in fact car occupants have seen very little improvement in fatality rates in the last ten years compared to both pedestrians and cyclists. 

These improvements have therefore not come about mainly because of improved car safety technology, but because cars are going slower, especially in urban areas where most collisions with cyclists and pedestrians take place. The risk of pedestrian or cyclist death in a collision drops hugely as collision speeds are reduced, much faster than for car occupants. It's notable that while pedestrian and cyclist fatality rates have dropped by about a third over the last ten years, penalties for speeding have just about doubled. And the largest drop in pedestrian and cyclist fatalities has been in London, with the widespread introduction of 20 mph limits.

Tom Pike ● 78d

Precisely. Cars are more sophisticated, safer, smart braking systems etc etc. hence we have seen both fatalities and serious injuries to pedestrians HALVE between 2004 and 2022 despite people walking more.

Steve Taylor ● 78d

Might it not also be true that an injury that resulted in a fatality in 2002 would not necessarily result in a fatality in 2022 due to advances in medical treatment, imaging and hence better outcomes?While pedestrian traffic may have increased over a particular period, plenty of other things will have changed over the same period as well.

Andrew Jones ● 78d

Steve, that certainly doesn't prove that a collision with a larger car reduces the risk of a fatality. There are all kinds of other changes that have taken place, including the lowering and better enforcement of speed limits. To test the effect of car size you need to look at the proportion of collisions that result in a pedestrian death as a function of the size of the car.STATS19 provides the engine capacity of the car involved for most collisions. For the period from 2014 to 2018, there were 898 single-pedestrian deaths involving a single car where the engine capacity was recorded out of 57,161 total collisions. Splitting the engine capacity into three bands, the proportion of fatalities was:<1500cc: 1.42%1500 - 2000cc: 1.58%>2000cc: 2.08%A pedestrian collision with a larger-engined car, above 2000 cc, had a 46% higher probability of resulting in a pedestrian death compared to a smaller-engined car below 1500 cc.The numbers are here: https://actionvisionzero.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/AVZ-PedestrianCasualtiesUKRoads-LinkBetweenEngineSizeRiskofFatality-15Jul20.pdf

Tom Pike ● 79d

Hi Tom,I know I said I wasn’t going to contribute again on this topic for a month, but this is just asking for information and not arguing/disagreeing with an entrenched point of view so I’m happy to consider I haven’t just done a complete u-turn (legal or illegal 😊)What are the relevant figures/percentages?I’m quite happy to have my suspicions rebuffed in the face of verifiable evidence!

Andrew Jones ● 80d

Tom, isn’t it obvious, even to you, that if pedestrian traffic has increased by 6% you can expect a proportionate increase in fatalities and injuries.

Steve Taylor ● 80d

Table 2: Casualty rates of pedestrian casualties by severity per billion miles walked, GB: 2004 to 2022Year Killed Serious Slight All2004 54 808 1,924 2,7862005 55 779 1,876 2,7102006 53 725 1,672 2,4512007 54 743 1,721 2,5172008 47 703 1,605 2,3562009 40 626 1,475 2,1412010 34 630 1,530 2,1942011 37 636 1,487 2,1602012 36 656 1,450 2,1412013 33 580 1,362 1,9742014 37 603 1,439 2,0802015 34 569 1,376 1,9782016 35 517 1,310 1,8632017 36 494 1,271 1,8012018 34 495 1,129 1,6572019 35 485 1,119 1,6402020 24 302 704 1,0302021 26 362 822 1,2102022 27 406 898 1,331

Steve Taylor ● 80d

Casualty rates per mile travelledThe pedestrian casualty rate has fallen for all severities in 2022 compared to 2004.The overall casualty rate decreased by 52%. The fatality rate decreased by 51% compared to a 50% reduction for serious injuries and a 53% reduction for slight injuries.So the increased sales of SUVs contributed to the decrease in pedestrian casualty rates.

Steve Taylor ● 80d

"while I suspect you are correct insofar that the cyclist might be more likely to have broken the law prior to (e.g. ignoring a stop signal) or be breaking the law when (e.g. riding on a pavement when illegal) the fatality happened/was caused, you seem to be dismissing any connection with car drivers breaking the law being the cause of the fatality."Your suspicion is incorrect. The proportion of drivers convicted of breaking the law in a fatality collision is four times that of a cyclist. In fact if a cyclist is convicted, which only happens once every few years,  it always makes the news. In contrast as there are hundreds of motorists convicted of driving unlawfully every year, only the most egregious cases get reported on the press.

Tom Pike ● 80d

Oh, it's taken me a long time to suck me back into a conversation like this, but really, what a load of s**t!"it could be argued that cars killing pedestrians are normally accidental whereas cycles killing pedestrians are normally because the cyclist is breaking the law"It depends on how you define "accidental" but extremely few pedestrian fatalities whether caused by car or cycle aren't "accidental".And, while I suspect you are correct insofar that the cyclist might be more likely to have broken the law prior to (e.g. ignoring a stop signal) or be breaking the law when (e.g. riding on a pavement when illegal) the fatality happened/was caused, you seem to be dismissing any connection with car drivers breaking the law being the cause of the fatality.Speed Kills doesn't just apply to cycles.The statement "far more pedestrian fatalities are caused by car drivers driving within the law than are caused by cyclists cycling within the law" is likely to be true, but is about as useful as what you have written.In a month's time I might write something again, in the meantime, I'll continue to watch how everyone continues to stay with their unchangeable entrenched views.

Andrew Jones ● 80d

As I said earlier, 25% of an annual average of 1700 road fatalities involve unlawful driving, 6% of an annual average of 3 fatalities a year involve unlawful cycling.There is no separate breakdown for unlawful driving involving just pedestrian fatalities, but there is no reason to think the proportion would be greatly different.There is no support for you specious argument that cyclists involved in a fatal collision with a pedestrian are more likely to have acted unlawfully than the much larger number of drivers involved in such collisions, quite the opposite. Of course pedestrians also very often have responsibility in such fatal collisions, but that's beside the point.It's very well established that the risk of serious injury and death is greatly increased if a pedestrian is struck by a large SUV rather than a smaller car, whatever the responsibility for such a collision. Your claims to the contrary are nonsense, for example:"Also important to note that between 2021 and 2022, pedestrian traffic (distance walked) INCREASED by 7%.  By your theories you would expect to see more fatalities but this didn’t happen. Knocks the hell out of your assertion about SUVs causing more deaths."In fact between 2021 and 2022, pedestrian fatalities increased by 7% while pedestrian traffic (distance walked) increased by 6%. If you're going to cite statistics, you do need to read them properly!

Tom Pike ● 80d

Tom, where do you get your figures for convictions as  “about 20% of the total of 1600 such deaths each year.” ?? In 2022,  385 pedestrians were killed by motorists in the UK. Most  motorists were not convicted.  The most common contributory factor was ‘pedestrian failed to look properly’ “Between 2004 and 2022 fatalities are down 43% at the same time when sales of SUVs increased substantially!!! “.  So Tom is quite wrong to assume SUVs are to blame. Also important to note that between 2021 and 2022, pedestrian traffic (distance walked) INCREASED by 7%.  By your theories you would expect to see more fatalities but this didn’t happen. Knocks the hell out of your assertion about SUVs causing more deaths. Young male drivers under the age of 25 are four times more likely to be involved in a car accident  involving pedestrians than drivers aged 25 or older.  Again - not your average SUV driver!! The 3 most common contributory factor assigned to pedestrians were ‘failed to look properly’ followed by ‘pedestrian careless, reckless or in a hurry’ and ‘failure to judge vehicle’s path or speed. Pedestrian traffic and reported casualtiesIn 2022, 385 pedestrians were killed in Great Britain“Between 2004 and 2022:* fatalities were down 43% from 671 to 385* serious injuries (adjusted) decreased by 42%* pedestrian traffic (distance walked) increased by 16%Averaged over the period 2018 to 2022:* an average of 8 pedestrians died and 109 were seriously injured (adjusted) per week in reported road collisions* a majority of pedestrian fatalities (57%) do not occur at or within 20m of a junction compared to 46% of all seriously injured (adjusted) casualties* nearly three in five (58%) of pedestrian fatalities were in collisions involving a single car* 29% of pedestrian fatalities occurred on rural roads compared to 12% of all pedestrian casualties* 58% of pedestrian killed or seriously injured (KSI) casualties were male    * the most common contributory factor allocated to pedestrians in fatal or serious collisions (FSC) with another vehicle was ‘Pedestrian failed to look properly’. “You can hardly blame this on SUV drivers. Those KSI’s would have happened irrespective of whether the driver was operating a mini or a SUV.

Steve Taylor ● 80d

"So as well as causing far more fatalities, 100 times higher than cyclists, drivers are convicted at a much higher rate, about 1000 times higher."These were underestimates. In fact annual fatality rates from driving are more than 500 times higher and conviction rates are more than 2000 times higher. 25% of an annual average of 1700 road fatalities involve unlawful driving, 6% of an annual average of 3 fatalities a year involve unlawful cycling. Your perspective needs some serious shifting, Steve!

Tom Pike ● 80d

Steve, you’re on roll! After saying it’s nonsense to claim anyone is shifting the blame, you do exactly that with a specious argument!  Hundreds of drivers involved in a fatality collision are convicted every year, about 20% of the total of 1600 such deaths each year. Collisions involving cyclists cause far fewer deaths, and even fewer convictions. There were no deaths in 2022, one in 2021 and four in 2020. The last cyclist to be convicted in such a fatality was in 2017. So as well as causing far more fatalities, 100 times higher than cyclists, drivers are convicted at a much higher rate, about 1000 times higher.

Tom Pike ● 80d

"That from the man who refuses to answer the question of what size of motor vehicle he drives."Why do you care? Everyone knows that the Troll is a hypocrite and now a non-entity! Ignore the Troll. Asking it questions makes it feel important.

Steve Taylor ● 80d

" with some car drivers trying shift the blame for pedestrian deaths to cyclists."That's just nonsense, Tom. No everyone accepts that cyclists kill pedestrians as do cars. Nobody is shifting blame but it could be argued that cars killing pedestrians are normally accidental whereas cycles killing pedestrians are normally because the cyclist is breaking the law.

Steve Taylor ● 80d

Yes Tom - Steve and Jayne unwittingly but very helpfully epitomise the SUV buyer and driver. We know this and it is why cycle lanes, LTNs and more punitive charges for SUVs and other vehicles that are damaging to society are being implemented. We tried for 50 years to ask the Jaynes and Steves of the world to be nicer and more ompassionate people and it didn't work. So now we do things differently.

Paul Campbell ● 80d

Well you've got a clue to fuel your obsession with me and what car I drive then ....

Paul Campbell ● 80d

"Isn't it entirely obvious that people who buy SUVs do not give a second's thought to other people or society?"That from the man who refuses to answer the question of what size of motor vehicle he drives.

Richard Greenhough ● 80d

Paul, actually quite helpful that Steve and Jayne admit that they give no thought to the risk to pedestrians when buying a car. They also have both stated they don’t believe 20 mph limits reduce casualty rates when the evidence is quite clear that they improve pedestrian safety.    There’s a lot of hypocrisy on this, with some car drivers trying shift the blame for pedestrian deaths to cyclists. At least Steve and Jayne are honest that they don’t care, and find it amusing if anyone did.

Tom Pike ● 80d

“Consider also that the pedestrian casualty numbers are minuscule compared to the number of SUVs on the road and there is no evidence to suggest that a pedestrian wouldn’t be ‘as dead’ if hit by a mini compared to being hit by a Range Rover. Dead is dead!”That’s a nonsense statement. The point is that the risk of being killed when in a collision with a small car is much less than with a large SUV.

Tom Pike ● 80d

Isn't it entirely obvious that people who buy SUVs do not give a second's thought to other people or society?

Paul Campbell ● 80d

I agree with Jayne. Hardly anyone looks at a car and thinks,gosh,dont fancy my chances being a pedestrian with that driving around my neighbourhood. Think il buy a smaller safer friendly car that will keep the local walkers happy. I appologise in advance if you have been a causualty of such happenings,but its about what you want out of a car when you buy it.

Julian Pavey ● 80d

“ it is odd that you think it's quite reasonable for a car buyer to ignore that their choice of vehicle will significantly affect the risk to pedestrians”Why is it odd? What evidence do you have to suggest that the majority of people choosing a new vehicle stop and think about the fact that their choice of car may affect the risk to pedestrians?  Consider also that the pedestrian casualty numbers are minuscule compared to the number of SUVs on the road and there is no evidence to suggest that a pedestrian wouldn’t be ‘as dead’ if hit by a mini compared to being hit by a Range Rover. Dead is dead!

Steve Taylor ● 80d

Steve, given your professed concerns about injuries to pedestrians, it is odd that you think it's quite reasonable for a car buyer to ignore that their choice of vehicle will significantly affect the risk to pedestrians. Being hit by a large SUV doubles the risk of a pedestrian fatality. And the overall effect is not safer roads, but quite the opposite.You are clearly an advocate of car drivers caring only for themselves and their immediate family, if they have one, even if such a narrow view means that more motorists and passengers as well as pedestrians are killed, as the experience in the US demonstrates. Overall fatalities of car occupants there increased from 21k to 25k in the last ten years, while pedestrian deaths are 83% higher than their lowest point in 2009. At least you've made it very clear that your concern for pedestrians is not your prime consideration.

Tom Pike ● 80d

Absolutely Jane but I don’t think Tom is deliberately trying to wind me up. He is just obsessed with irrelevant, worthless stats. If he’s trying to wind me up he is failing miserably because I just see him as being very silly on this particular subject.

Steve Taylor ● 81d

"Arthritis is not a valid excuse for bigotry and hatred."No-one said it was, Humpty. So what is your excuse ?

Richard Greenhough ● 81d

Think Tom is deliberately winding you up Steve 😂😂😂 such a mad conversation no one buys any vehicle with a thought that they may injure a pedestrian. People choose vehicles for a whole myriad of reasons based upon their circumstances, simple.

Jayne Thorburn ● 81d

No Tom. You are just being silly. SUV buyers aren’t buying their safe vehicles deliberately thinking that they are buying something knowing that it may kill pedestrians any more than a Fiat 500 buyer would be thinking about deaths they may cause if a pedestrian stepped out in front of them. You seem to be saying that everyone buying a car should have a conversation with themselves about whether to buy a SUV or a Mini based entirely on the assumption that a pedestrian may step out in front of the vehicle and consider the chance of survival of the pedestrian. And of course negating the injuries which his family may suffer if in a SUV versus a Mini. Quite ridiculous, Tom.

Steve Taylor ● 81d

Steve, you are  directly making the point that SUV buyers don’t feel any responsibility for pedestrians! Your comment that they simply ignore that they are responsible for many more deaths and injuries of pedestrians is hardly a justification!

Tom Pike ● 81d

Thank you for proving my point Sue. Arthritis is not a valid excuse for bigotry and hatred.

Paul Campbell ● 81d

Goodness me what a lot of bile. I can't cycle because I have arthritis. The cycle lane slows my bus journey. A nuisance, but, hey. What really makes me hate cyclists is the number who cycle at speed on the pavement when they are just a few metres from the cycle lane. One the other day actually said 'get out of my f**king way or I'll run you over.' Guess that might have been you?

Sue Lewis ● 81d

Duh! Yes of course SUV motorists are most interested in the preservation of their own lives, and the lives of their families and other passengers. That’s why they buy expensive ‘safer’ cars. When making their purchases they don’t actually decide to buy the vehicle thinking ‘I’m buying this vehicle because I know some pedestrians may be injured”. That would just be ridiculous to assume! Unlike cyclists who ride on pavements with the full knowledge that their irresponsible, illegal action may cause death or injury to others. They are the irresponsible villains, not people who buy SUVs to keep their passengers safe.

Steve Taylor ● 81d

What I said was “SUV drivers are taking on the mantle of those early motorists, happily driving what they believe are status symbols despite their vehicles disproportionately cause injury and deaths to others.”There’s a huge amount of evidence that SUVs are more deadly to pedestrians, for example:https://www.wired.com/story/tall-truck-suv-hoods-pedestrian-deaths/Just like the early motorists armed with revolvers, SUV motorists are most interested in the preservation of their own lives rather than those they hit.

Tom Pike ● 81d

What evidence is there that more SUV drivers are killed than drivers of small saloons or estates? Comparatively speaking that is.

Steve Taylor ● 82d

“ Motorists, who at that time were generally rich, were reviled by those who were left, if not knocked down, spluttering in their dusty wake.”How the tides have turned. Now, the car is King and it’s the cyclists who are reviled by those who are knocked down or those who suffer near misses.

Steve Taylor ● 82d

We’ve been here before, Steve. Here is a sending up of the attitude of motorists dating back to 1908:“How frustrating, how thoroughly disheartening it is that these pigheaded, obstructive villagers, whose hens, dogs and sometimes children I mow down, fail to appreciate that I represent Progress and universal happiness. I intend to bring them these benefits in spite of themselves, even if they don’t live to enjoy them!”Motorists, who at that time were generally rich, were reviled by those who were left, if not knocked down, spluttering in their dusty wake. The hatred was such that motorists were advised to carry revolvers to defend themselves after they hit anyone from the angry crowds that would gather, and were even given dispensation to flee the scene of an accident as long as they reported it later. SUV drivers are taking on the mantle of those early motorists, happily driving what they believe are status symbols despite their vehicles disproportionately cause injury and deaths to others. They do indeed designate status, but not quite the one their drivers intend.

Tom Pike ● 82d

I've seen better applications to replace Freddie Flintoff on Top gear. Must try harder.

N V Brooks ● 82d

Cycle casualty numbers increase when there are more cyclists. Anyway, your obsession with large cars demonstrates that you are really not interested in pedestrian safety. Pedestrian fatality rates in the US  are at their highest for forty years thanks to the increasing size of the cars on US roads.

Tom Pike ● 82d

SUVs are crap as well as dangerous. They are driven by people with no imagination, aesthetic sensibility or appreciation of engineering. There is a better car for every reason somebody uses to buy a SUV.

Paul Campbell ● 82d

Yes just more evidence that cycling is so dangerous and why more and more people take to their SUVs and why cycle sales slump. “ The number of bicycle deaths in the United States has been increasing in recent years, and in 2022 it reached an all-time high: “Nobody can dispute that cycling is getting more and more dangerous although it’s generally accepted that a high proportion of the deaths are down to the stupidity of the cyclist.

Steve Taylor ● 82d

That's a good point Tom, the psychology is interesting.

Mark Frost ● 82d

And all the space for extra safety features doesn’t work.  The US, with the largest cars, has a far higher fatality rate on its roads than any western European country. Even Russia now has a lower fatality rate. It’s not a dissimilar phenomenon to gun ownership. Many Americans claim having a gun makes them feel safer, but gun murder rates are far higher than in Europe.

Tom Pike ● 82d

“ Largely (so to speak), cars have got bigger because of safety advances: knowledge from laboratory testing and legislation have required more airbags and bigger crumple zones to protect occupants in the case of a crash.On top of that, we have an insatiable appetite for the body shape that seems to offer more safety than the others, alongside giving a nod to our growing passion for outdoor adventure and exercise: the mighty SUV.This chunky body shape, which adorns everything from the dinky Renault Captur to the huge Volvo XC90, accounts for most car sales, well above those of estates, saloons and hatchbacks.Look at Ford ditching the Fiesta recently (sob), to replace it with… yes, a small SUV with a raised ride height and chunky styling: the Puma. Even that venerable name plate has been reimagined as a boxy SUV.”

Steve Taylor ● 82d

It is odd, Steve, that what you previously described as a "death trap" after three years has no reported deaths, or even slight injuries.Meanwhile pedestrians are continuing to be injured by motor vehicles on the roadway and yet you are still unable to identify the main threat to pedestrians.

Tom Pike ● 82d

Oh I am confident that cycle campaigners who have lobbied successfully for Cycleway 9, the South Chiswick LTN and the closure of Fishers Lane to motor vehicles have done a great deal more to secure the great boost in cycling numbers in Chiswick than the manky old velophobes who have tried and failed to stop them.

Paul Campbell ● 82d

I spread no "narrative of hate" Campbell, I simply detest veloviles and those who, like you, fantasise to support their narative. Actually, you and your ilk and simply objects of derision with absolutely no sense of perspective. You have done more to harm cycling uptake than thousands of velophobe drivers.  Just a nastly little 'man'.

N V Brooks ● 82d

“ drivers are annoying and deadly?”Just your perception, Micky. But if you believe it - tough! Suck it up because drivers aren’t going to go away no matter how much you bleat on about it. 😂

Steve Taylor ● 82d

“ numbers of people cycling on CHR increased by 59% from 2019 to 2023”So people, like Jim,  will have seen a massive increase of aggressive, irresponsible cyclists having tumbles and hurting themselves but those incidents are not recorded in any statistical data.

Steve Taylor ● 82d

Yes true. Annoying and deadly.

Paul Campbell ● 82d

"Cyclists are annoying."Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings......

Richard Greenhough ● 82d

Takes one to know one.

Richard Greenhough ● 82d

Shouldn't that be, drivers are annoying and deadly?

Michael Robinson ● 82d

Precisely. Cyclists are annoying. Drivers are deadly.

Paul Campbell ● 82d

Robert, it's all a pointless argument, all seem to lack common sense.

Janice Evans ● 83d

Seeing incidents everyday, yes, Janice. But seeing accidents involving cyclists and pedestrians, of the sort that Jim describes (with blood appearing!), rarely, if ever. I live less than 200 metres away from the High Road, and I'm there almost every day. I've never seen such an accident. But I've often been appalled by the readiness of cyclists to go through red lights, or by their reekless cycling on the pavement. Perhaps, because we feel threatened, or at least annoyed, by cavalier cyclists, we overestimate the probability of an accident as a pedestrian. Motorist angst is something else - it seems to derive from jealousy at the allocation of "their" road space to undeserving "lawless" cyclists. And all this talk about the danger to pedestrians is just a cover-up for that angst.

Robert Fish ● 83d

You and Maggie are a pair of obsessive weirdos.

Paul Campbell ● 83d

Definitely got something to hide......a case of severe hypocrisy perhaps ?You should have worn your helmet.

Richard Greenhough ● 83d

It is also worth pointing out that from the TfL annual cycle survey, the numbers of people cycling on CHR increased by 59% from 2019 to 2023.A more comprehensive analysis of the collisions involving cyclists would 'normalise' the data by calculating a figure for casualties per cyclist km or similar to reflect that the numbers of people cycling had increased over the period.

Michael Robinson ● 83d

Does it? Why on earth do you think I would wish to share anything personal with hateful people who pursue personal vendettas against me like you and Maggie? Mind your own business and grow up.

Paul Campbell ● 83d

And yet again, you dodge the question regarding your motor vehicle. This implies that you have something to hide.

Richard Greenhough ● 83d

Robert, I'm sure we all see incidents every day wither either cars or cyclists, we are not going to take details are we unless it involves us.

Janice Evans ● 83d

Sorry, Jim, but your reaction to Paul Campbell's post was way over the top. Your accounts of the incidents were very generic, and short of location and other details. Paul's suspicions may have been wrong, but to call him vile for questioning your accounts of them is wholly unjustified, and shows an over-precious sense of self-worth.

Robert Fish ● 83d

Robert it isn't true that the data doesn't support a firm conclusion. Tom is right to say that it doesn't support claims that the cycle lane has made CHR safer AND he is right to say that it confirms that the local catastrophists predictions of mayhem and slaughter of the innocents by bike were much overblown.

Paul Campbell ● 83d

I wish bike-hating bigots didn't exist. The world would be a much better place without them. Imagine if the most velophobic Councillors had put as much effort into doing constructive things for Chiswick has they have in failing to oppose safer streets for children. Yes it was a bike-hating bigot who suggested I drive a large vehicle. Maggie Dodge - about your level of intelligence and emotional maturity so I'm not surprised it stuck in your memory.

Paul Campbell ● 83d

"I don't care about the views of bike-hating bigots. Nobody who matters does. They are irrelevant."No, Humpty, you don't care about the views of anyone who has the temerity to disagree with you. There are many levels of views regarding bicycles from those like you who think cyclists can do no wrong via those who think there is room for improvement in cyclists' behaviour to your "bike-hating bigots", although in reality the latter only exist in your imagination. You have frequently dodged answering the question of what sort of motor vehicle you drive, although someone did suggest it was a large one. If you carry the sort of maniacal behaviour you display on-line with you when behind the wheel, then it is likely that you are one of the angry, incompetent, law-breaking drivers you complain about. You should have worn your helmet.

Richard Greenhough ● 83d

Data don't stop injuries, actions do.

Janice Evans ● 83d

How can you say that Tom is twisting the data? He himself made the same point about the inadequacy of the local data to support a firm conclusion. But what about when you look at data from further afield? Are you ignoring that?

Robert Fish ● 83d

I don't see the point in counting incidents if you know it's happening thenstop it, remove cyclists from pathways, that will stop the complaints, it's not rocket science.

Janice Evans ● 83d

It is the people who moan about cycle lanes and LTNs who do not care about the safety of children. Horrible people.

Paul Campbell ● 83d

I never read skidmark Campbean’s posts because I found in the past that he spews vomit inducing vitriol and hatred.  I am laughing my head off at the excellent responses from Richard though because he has obviously hit a raw nerve with Skidmark and it seems that Jim has hit home with his observation that Skidmark is just a vile thing. Janet sums it up nicely too. Who cares what the vile thing thinks or says or does. Oh I forgot - the other Irish guy whose name escapes me. Nobody else gives a toss. Skidmark is working his way to having a stroke or worse because he can’t stomach the fact that nobody cares about him.

Steve Taylor ● 83d

I don't care about the views of bike-hating bigots. Nobody who matters does. They are irrelevant. The data prove that.

Paul Campbell ● 83d

Tom, I refer you to my original post in which I expressly stated that any trend could equally be ascribed to a couple of lucky years.No matter how you twist the data, the simple fact is that we do not have enough evidence on CHR to come to any conclusion as to whether casualties are actually declining (as opposed to having a lucky year or two). The position is also complicated by the fact it only refers to official reported casualties, as other posters have pointed out there are non-reported incidents which do lead to minor injuries but which are not in the figures - we simply have no idea whether there has been any increase or decrease in non-reported injuries.  My guess, and I freely admit it is a guess, is that non-reported injuries have probably increased and oddly this is a good thing because it means any incidents were at lower speeds than in the past and therefore any injuries did not require medical attention - but I have no way of proving that it is merely a hypothesis.All I am saying is that a single year with only 10 reported injuries on CHR is great but we need up to 5 years of pretty consistent data before we can definitely conclude that CHR has become safer.

Justin Stephenson ● 83d

Jim, of course unreported incidents are not in the statistics - how could they be? But there is no reason to think that such incidents went unreported both before and after C9 opened, or that the incidents that are reported are not a reasonable reflection of the overall risk. In fact given the rather dubious claims that the vast majority of pedestrians are against C9, you might expect if anything an increase in reported incidents to try to prove a point but so far not a single collision has been reported on the cycleway. Then again, I suppose that might be explained by most pedestrians being supportive and suppressing reporting any collisions. If the risk really had increased significantly, and there certainly are many more cyclists, there has to be an explanation as to why we are not seeing more reported collisions. Indeed the numbers are clear that the predictions of a massive increase in pedestrian injuries on C9 have simply failed to be realised in the absence of a single reported collision. That doesn’t mean that other collisions never occur, just that personal accounts are not representative of the overall picture.

Tom Pike ● 83d

"Well they do because they talk to me."Perhaps you ought to see about having a hearing aid fitted ? Clearly you are not capable of hearing any viewpoint that disagrees with your prejudices.

Richard Greenhough ● 83d

Then you really don't care about anyone's safely. END OF

Janice Evans ● 83d

I couldn't care less about it. It's a non-issue. Cope.

Paul Campbell ● 83d

If you had any influence surely you would remove cyclists from pathways, might stop many objecting to cyclists.

Janice Evans ● 83d

Well they do because they talk to me. So tough luck

Paul Campbell ● 83d

Don't think so.

Janice Evans ● 83d

Who cares what I think?Ha ha. The people making the decisions to allocate funding and install cycle lanes and LTNs so that our roads are made safer for all the people who choose sustainable and heathy forms of transport and don't like being hit by angry, incompetent, law-breaking drivers.

Paul Campbell ● 83d

No the people spreading hate against cyclists on this forum are not doing it because they are concerned about the local environment. They are doing it because they are hateful people with uninformed prejudices. And some of your precious local Councillors are the worst of them all. The cycle lane has proven all of the haters wrong. And they really hate that too. And I will continue to take great delight in rubbing their noses in it. Especially the Councillors who wanted to prevent children cycling safely to school.

Paul Campbell ● 83d

Who cares what you think, some people don't like being hit by bikes, get over it.

Janice Evans ● 83d

Humpty - I have no qualms about treating you in the manner which you deserve. Your grasp of reality seems to be getting looser and looser by the day, along with your idiosyncratic use of the English language.  You are directly responsible for spreading narratives of hate against people who do nothing wrong but are concerned about the local environment and the best way to integrate different forms of transport. You make unjustified attacks on hard-working local councillors who have the temerity to think rather deeper about matters concerning their constituents than you seem able to do. Now go back to reading your Daily Telegraph and wipe the foam off your mouth.

Richard Greenhough ● 83d

Jim is a velophobe who has been involved in perpetuating a narrative of demonisation against cyclists and is continuing it on this thread. He is as contemptible as you, Taylor and Brooks. All of you are directly responsible for spreading narratives of hate against people who do nothing wrong but choose to travel in a healthy and sustainable way and who want to do it safely without the threat of hate-filled motorists smashing their vehicles into them and their children. I have no qualms about treating all of you in the manner which you deserve. I'm not here to influence you or garner your support. I don't need it. I'm here to mock you and express my disgust for people like you who wallow in your hate in this cesspit of a forum and others like it on Facebook. Every child riding their bike on Cycleway 9 is a thorn in the eye of Jim and I am very pleased about it.

Paul Campbell ● 83d

Humpty, you come rudely piling in on people like Jim who have made polite and reasonable points. I come piling in on you after one of your vile posts. Spot the difference. You should have worn your helmet.

Richard Greenhough ● 83d

And you behave in a civilised and polite way do you? It's funny how it is the people who have the least self-awareness who object the most to people calling out their bad behaviour. Who exactly do you think cares whether Richard Greenhough supports safe cycling infrastructure or not? I certainly couldn't care less.

Paul Campbell ● 83d

Jim, don't take it to heart. Humpty Campbell has no idea of how to behave in a civilised and polite way on social media. What seems to be beyond his understanding is that any sympathy for the causes he espouses is soon destroyed by his attitudes. Personally as a cyclist I welcome improvements to make cycling safer, and also enforcement to see that they follow the rules of the road. However, Humpty's posts make it very difficult to maintain that position.

Richard Greenhough ● 83d

Humpty - You have a history of demonising anyone who disagrees with you on social media and I have nothing but contempt for people who do that.You have no evidence to contradict the data which prove that catastrophising velomaniacs who demonise motorists are stupid and vile.

Richard Greenhough ● 83d

No I won't take your word for it. You have a history of demonising cyclists on social media and I have nothing but contempt for people who do that. You have no evidence to contradict the data which prove that catastrophising velophobes who demonise cyclists are stupid and vile.

Paul Campbell ● 83d

What a vile reply Paul.Take my work for it.I have no evidence to prove anything  to you ... no photos (that would have been criticised by certain forum folk for sure) ... no ambulance reports as non were called.I was nearest to both incidents.You'll just have to believe my word.As I said. Your response was vileand I'm angry. My most angry in some 17+ years on this Forum.You should be banned.

Jim Lawes ● 83d

“I’ve seen several in recent times,those involved just untangling themselves and dusting down their dichevellment.”Totality agree, Jim. I too have seen a few especially from bikes on pavements where pedestrians are injured. On the brighter side I have witnessed a few where cyclists jump red lights and suddenly see a car or pedestrian and try to brake or swerve but lose control of their killing machine and come off. I always have a good laugh to see the obvious pain and embarrassment suffered by those morons!

Steve Taylor ● 83d

Is that right Jim? When and where exactly did you see collisions on Chiswick High Road? What dates? Who was involved? Where is your evidence? Because you see all the scaremongering from the velophobes has amounted to naught and nobody believes their lies.

Paul Campbell ● 83d

I'm sure there are many small collisions of varying sorts on Chiswick High Road and King Street Hammersmith where ambulances are not called and these cases may be omitted from the statistics quoted on this thread.I've seen several in recent times,those involved just untangling themselves and dusting down their dichevellment. Some even with blood appearing.

Jim Lawes ● 83d

I'm sure there are many small collisions of varying sorts on Chiswick High Road and King Street Hammersmith where ambulances are not called and these cases may be omitted from the statistics quoted on this thread.I've seen several in recent times,those involved just untangling themselves and dusting down their dichevellment. Some even with blood appearing.

Jim Lawes ● 83d

"For example if you take the trend from 2014-17 and project forward you could argue that 2023 should have been better than it was."Yes, we'd have a negative number of collision, which shows just how wrong it is to take a small period of data to try to make a spurious point!That's why I took the average number of casualties up to 2016 and then after, more than 100 in each case, to show that the reduction in the speed limit to 20 mph is linked to a significant reduction, 30%, in casualties. That's more than a 3 sigma reduction in statistical terms. This chimes with much larger datasets across all of London. As an aside, there's nothing "anomalous" about multiple people being injured in a single incident. It is indicates the higher risk of injury in certain collisions. The bottom line is that we can reject at this point on any statistical basis that C9 has led to a significantly larger number of casualties on the High Road. Although we are now seeing a reduction, it will indeed take a few more years to say with some statistical certainty that we've seen a drop.What we do know already is that C9 has led to a significantly higher number of cyclists on the High Road, now more than half the number of cars. And we have ample evidence from much larger datasets that such a modal shift will lead to lower number of casualties, as well as the lower pollution we're measuring on the High Road and improved health for more people. We should all be grateful that those hoping otherwise will be disappointed.

Tom Pike ● 83d

A single incident that injured 3 or 4 pedestrians would likely be caused by a motor vehicle hitting a group.OneChiswick and others predicted that the cycle lane would cause a carnage of incidents to cyclists and pedestrians.That hasn't happened, and while we may have had a lucky year, if the trend continues it would suggest that the presence of a bike lane has made the road safer for all users.This would be welcome, but not completely unexpected.  There is research to suggest that bike lanes have a traffic calming effect which reduces the rates of all collisions on the road.

Ed Saper ● 83d

The problem with the data is that, thankfully, we are dealing with pretty small numbers such that a single incident where 3 or 4 people are injured or a couple of extra accidents where 2 people are injured, completely skews the data for that year.For example if you take the trend from 2014-17 and project forward you could argue that 2023 should have been better than it was.  But the reality is that the what I described as a trend could be nothing more than a couple of lucky years.At this stage I really do not think we can read much into the data.  C9 has had several revisions in design, we probably need 5 years of stability with no anomalous incidents where multiple people are injured at the same time before we can talk about a trend and why that trend might be

Justin Stephenson ● 83d

Happy to admit when I am wrong, unlike the Veloviles.Try it John, it may improve your mood.

N V Brooks ● 85d

On the contrary this data does prove categorically that the catastrophists of the Chiswick Conservatives, OneChiswick, ReDesign CS9 and various other manic velophobes were wrong and very silly.

Paul Campbell ● 85d

Jeremy, C9 in its current form was completed in January 2023 and for the 2 years before that, at various times there were various combinations of temporary infrastructure, cycle lanes closed completely for construction and partially completed permanent infrastructure.A longer term analysis should compare 2023 and subsequent years with C9 in its permanent form to collisions prior to 2020 when there was no cycle lane but limited conclusions can be drawn from 2020 to 2022 because of the impact of Covid and the mix of different street layouts during this period.It is a mistake to assume that because CHR is safer for all users, other roads will be more dangerous to an equivalent degree. Road safety isn't zero-sum.  The point is that CHR has considerably more overall footfall and visits from vulnerable road users than other roads in the area.  The lesson from many other locations where road space has been re-allocated away from motor traffic is it reduces the exposure of all road users to the biggest cause of danger, which is motor traffic.

Michael Robinson ● 85d

While I agree that cycle networks need to be joined up, that’s an odd reason to single out C9 which already stretches from Brentford to the borough border where it continues through LBHF. It sounds like we’re both supportive of it continuing further west, as is currently under consultation, and of course filling in the missing link eastwards across RBKC, though the latter is obviously out of LBH’s hands. But even as is, from Brentford to Olympia, we’re already seeing a significant increase in cycling numbers, with each extension pushing them higher. We need more of the same!

Tom Pike ● 85d

While any data that shows fewer people getting injured on our roads is to be welcomed, it would be best to not jump to unfounded conclusions based on these numbers.The overall trend for collisions has been down over this period with serious injuries dropping by 24% in London in 2023 compared to a baseline of 2010-2013 so many streets in the capital are at a 12 year low.The 2023 number for CHR does match this trend but it is a reversal of a worrying rise in the previous two years when C9 was operating (and other areas saw reductions due to the pandemic). However, this is really too small a data pool to make any firm conclusions from.C9 needs to be looked at in its entirety and it is not clear whether these numbers include King Street where there was an alarming rise in casualties earlier in the operation of the cycleway. I haven’t heard any more recent updates and assume the number of collisions has declined but it would be complacent to assume that they will stay low just because there has been a single year with relatively few serious injuries.That said the fall to the lowest level of cyclist casualties on CHR for over a decade at a time when the number of cyclists risen significantly has to be taken as a very positive sign that C9 has helped to make the road safer for cyclists even if that can’t be said for King Street.But if Chiswick High Road is getting safer, the main reason is likely to be the reduced number of motor vehicles using it as progress along it is slower. However, this isn’t necessarily a positive if that traffic has just been displaced elsewhere (Chiswick Lane, Bath Road) and those roads have become more dangerous.As far as I can see, these numbers, while encouraging, aren’t the basis make categorical claims about C9 either positive or negative but that isn’t going to stop people doing so.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 85d

Miserable git, given it's such an obvious improvement. I know it's hard to admit you're wrong, but the writing's on the wall, welcome to irrelevance. 

John Hall ● 85d

Three years of one short stretch is hardly evidence upon which to base claims of success. Let's see how well used the completed CS9 is when it reaches from Olympia to Hounslow. I will leave the Pike/ Campbell Mutual Admiration Society to do what they do best.

N V Brooks ● 85d

Silly because like so much of the cycling infrastructure in Hounslow and Ealing it is not contiguous, it has large patches where it thrusts cyclists into the melee of passing traffic stopping almost at random in places and provision for pedestrians is poorly planned.. Ruddy silly!

N V Brooks ● 85d

You’re right, Paul.  More than three years on and C9 has not proven to be either the death trap or indeed jewel-heist extraction route that was feared. Nor has it been shunned by cyclists, quite the opposite.  Just like 20 mph speed limits and ULEZ, it’s simply proven to be a rather moderate even rather timid way to mitigate the damage caused by an over-reliance on cars in an inappropriate urban context.

Tom Pike ● 85d

I obviously read your post and then explained why there’s no basis for calling the cycle lane “silly” because it hasn’t reduced injury rates, a valid point given the context. As you make it clear that’s not why you described it as “silly”, I don’t need to apologise for giving you an opportunity to clarify your reasons for calling it so! Please enlighten us.

Tom Pike ● 85d

But it would be fair to draw a conclusion that the cycle lane has not brought the mayhem, death and destruction that the Conservative Councillors, OneChiswick, RedesignCS9 and various other irrational velophobes incessantly predicted it would since 2017? At least not yet?

Paul Campbell ● 85d

That's not what I said. Please read my post then consider your apology.

N V Brooks ● 85d

Of course the 20 mph limit has prevented more injuries - it's been rolled out along far more roads than have seen the arrival of protected bike lanes.But it would be silly to claim this proves such cycle lanes don't reduce injuries. In fact cyclist injury rates have fallen on the High Road with C9, but the casualty numbers are too low to draw any firm conclusions. However, if you look at such infrastructure over more than a mile or so of road, the reduction in injury rates is statistically significant, some 30 to 40%.

Tom Pike ● 85d

The 20mph limit has saved far more injuries than some silly ruddy cycle lane. Best evidenced by casualty reduction where there are no cycle lanes

N V Brooks ● 85d

😁✔️

Julian Pavey ● 85d

Great point Tom never t