Forum Topic

Silent Majority

See front page. A good man who is correct. It's just a handful of people who rage against traffic calming and making the local environment better for residents.

Carl Wynne ● 2257d58 Comments

Self-interest

Jeffrey Cope ● 2257d

Totally incorrect.  From the people I know including those who are on NextDoor it is absolute fury, disgust with the councils involved and revolt. Totally high-handed, autocratic decisions which will spell the end for businesses in Chiswick.  Fine if that's what you want, but if you want somewhere with no shops or businesses and a rural idyll, just move to the country.

Claire Moran ● 2257d

All traffic calming is going to do is cause more pollution and stress ..Its London for Chrissake not the Welsh hills...and all leftys and extinction rebel nutters should head there.Acton lane this evening was a joke wait till winter.

Mick Collins ● 2257d

This is an extraordinary article based on one man's assertion - and it is completely at odds with the reality. It is easy to invoke a 'silent minority' for anything, especially in a time of Covid, when the Chiswick Area Forum cannot meet and when protest meetings in St Michael's Church Hall can't be organised.My neighbours are overwhelmingly opposed to these proposals: I am only aware - so far -of one person who favours them. If our democratic institutions were functioning normally, none of this would be happening. Our councillors have the instincts that you would expect of politicians. If they thought there was anything like a 'silent majority' for these proposals, they would not be opposing them as vehemently as they are doing. I find it extraordinary that the W4 editor commissioned this piece. It should have been returned to the writer with a demand for more research and a thorough rewrite.

Brendan McCarthy ● 2257d

You never know, in the times we find ourselves in, with a lot media scare tactics and miss information from central government.I also find it goes against the general consensus that residents that I have spoken to, are against the measures that have been installed in local Chiswick RoadsWho's to say that  Anahita Hossein-Pour - Local Democracy Reporter, is, a real reporter and not someone working for another agency. Maybe neighborhood net can vouch that this person is who they say they are. 

Bernard Allen ● 2257d

She seems to work for a website called My London, where she is described as "a local democracy reporter to cover Ealing, Hillingdon and Hounslow".I doubt she knows Chiswick well. She would have been well advised to have chased several sources, rather than to have based her piece on one man's assertion.The W4 piece also appears in My London.

Brendan McCarthy ● 2257d

...anyway the OP doesnt believe it either methinks...Post and get the popcorn ready style. :)

Mick Collins ● 2257d

ChiswickW4.com doesn't comment on posts but from front pages is a pretty far left supporter.

Claire Moran ● 2257d

https://www.enfieldindependent.co.uk/news/18074559.enfield-low-traffic-plans-provoke-angry-backlash/  not hard to find "inundated with complaints" said council official ..all over the country...

Mick Collins ● 2257d

I am not on Nextdoor as I don't like the fact that you have to reveal so much about where you are posting from, but a friend who has signed up says the reaction to these closures are incandescent (against).

Claire Moran ● 2257d

Regardless of the biased article which seems to be pushing a very undemocratic notion that minorities' voices are not going to be heard.well, despite that, I've heard today that SILENCE IS VIOLENCEActually a blind PR stunt is even worse.

Adam Pycz ● 2257d

The Silent Majority of one person on the front page here admits to having a mental condition ever since being in an earthquake in  Nepal, doesn't seem that relevant to closing roads in Grove Park!

Jennifer Selig ● 2257d

Reading the article it is obvious that this is just this bloke's opinion as there is no evidence to say that what he said has any bearing in reality.Perhaps the features  editor of the site agrees with him.

Keith Iddon ● 2256d

In fact the article is as much about him as anything else.

Keith Iddon ● 2256d

Ad hominem attacks on him only serve to strengthen his argument.For the record I think he is probably right. It is highly likely that for most people living in the area the reduction of through traffic is an attractive proposition. However it would only represent a marginal improvement to their quality of life and so they wouldn't have strong feelings on it, hence their silence.On the other hand if you are unlucky enough to live on a road which is going to see more not less traffic or you have a job which requires you to drive to work each day and these changes add 15 minutes to your journey at each end you will be hopping mad. For this reason, even if a majority were in favour of the scheme it wouldn't necessarily validate it.As for dingbat theories about this site's far left, pro-cycling agenda, anybody making such claims is embarrassing themself. Just recently they have published articles with the headlines 'Liveable Neighbourhood Scheme - A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing' and 'South Chiswick Being Made Unliveable Say Councillors'. An attempt is being made to report the range of views on this issues. That both sides of the debate are accusing the site of bias is suggestive that they are getting the balance right.We seem to live in an age in which having a nuanced view on anything is not acceptable. Facebook in particular, being such an echo chamber, has made people utterly convinced that every view they hold is 100% right because they only hear from those that agree with them. This has led to the preposterous situation in which both the left and the right want to dismantle the BBC because it gives a platform for people to express views they don't agree with. This attitude is a cancer that is eating away at our democracy and it is disappointing to see it rear its ugly head at a local level.

Paul Corcoran ● 2256d

I agree with every word of what Paul has said and it needed saying.

Alison Howard ● 2256d

How can you describe what has been written on here as an attack of whatever sort on him?

Keith Iddon ● 2256d

noisy minority more like.Anyone who's seen the chaos emerging on the goldhawk road/king street ravenscopurt road area know its just a continual "council-keep--the-job-and-find-the-funding" scheme..we were promised traffic nirvana with "traffic calming, then adding speed humps, then 40 mph, then 30 mph., now 20 mph- all brought in sequeetially at huge cost  and congestion while they take three months to dig up a road and change something, againWalked again down their yesterday - counted 5 escooters (all illegal) on the pavement. three cyclists on the pavement, not one using the protected lane- traffic all the way back to king street from GH road - and of course canny drivers /waze users are using the back double of ravenscroft gardens to cut the carnage out- these ridiculous arrangments force THROUGH traffic onto side roads and create even more congestion and pollution - this clown thats being quoted is a classic one-eyed view of his personal problem being fixed as its now someone else's...Chiswick will be the same once the holiday crowd return-0 blocked and overrun with peiople trying back streets to avoid the queues

Tim Garfoot ● 2256d

London is an area of arteries and veins. Blocking them will kill it.

Steve Taylor ● 2256d

Certainly in other parts of the borough- and yes they do exist - the reaction has been one of puzzlement and then anger at the arbitrary way the roads to be 'access only' were picked out. Daft justification  for this such as protecting local businesses when three prominent roads are 100% residential naturally gets right up people's noses. You know just occasionally local people do know their areas better than some traffic bod looking at a map in an office somewhere. Of course if you happen to live in one of these chsoen roads life is much better for you up to a point, but traffic will out, and someone else will get it and the attendant, jams and pollution and downright inconvenience.Perhaps councils should just bloody listen to people before they go off at a tnagent just because the government is handing out the dosh, so many of them come up with these schemes just to fit the cirteria to get the money, irrespective of whether or not they are effective.

Vanessa Smith ● 2256d

Just because the article mentioned only one person, we should not make the forum thread about this one person.Is there a silent majority in favour of the road closures? I suspect on Harvard Hill there is, maybe also on some other streets.The important thing is not just to look at each individual road closure in isolation but also about the cumulative effect.  Closure of Fishers Lane makes sense to me, just not at the same time as closing TGT to through traffic.My concern, as someone who lives just off Sutton Court Road, is whether the cumulative effect of the changes will lead to more traffic down SCR and Duke's Avenue.  Pre-lockdown SCR was a glorified car park most Friday afternoons, as traffic slowly comes back to close to pre-lockdown levels will SCR become a car park more often, even most of the time?

Justin Stephenson ● 2256d

Hello Justin why does the closure of fishers lane make sense to you?

Mick Collins ● 2256d

Yesterday about 5:30pm I walked home headed west from Lyric Square. It took a few minutes, but then I noticed traffic was bumper to bumper. Turns out it was at a virtual standstill all the way up to Goldhawk Road which was also bumper to bumper all the way up to the mini roundabout by the pub. Ditto CHR from Chiswick Lane headed east coming toward Goldhawk. Gridlock. Perhaps now would be a good time to publicly thank all those in favor of these closures who insist on keeping blinders tightly in place ignoring not only the inconvenience but the idling motors stopped in traffic of their making.Which is worse: those in favor of changes creating this increase in pollution or those who would like a more thoughtful integrated solution to minimize it?

David Lesniak ● 2256d

The 'silent majority' wants you and all these poor folks you were passing by, on their bikes.I appreciate there are several fit, strong Tough Mudder types able and even enjoying riding in a weather like today, carrying their stuff, paperwork, laptops, shopping, even children. But is it really the only way of living in a city? And should it be enforced on others, especially those less able?

Adam Pycz ● 2256d

Its narrow, not particularly pedestrian friendly or cyclist friendly basically an obvious accident risk.Making it pedestrian and cyclist only (and yes I do mean that, no buses or emergency vehicles) also improves safety at the kiddies playground beside it.However, as it is/was one of three north/south routes from Acton to Chiswick, it really does not make sense to close 2 out of the 3 ... unless of course you are a Hounslow Councillor.Then as we discover today there will be absolutely no enforcement of the traffic restrictions I have to ask what exactly was the point of this road closure?

Justin Stephenson ● 2256d

Then as we discover today there will be absolutely no enforcement of the traffic restrictions I have to ask what exactly was the point of this road closure?None whatsoever save to establish a track record' of spending central government cash should another tranche be made available. The closures have, by any reasonable measure, been disastrous and difficult to justify should the criteria for success need to be both stated and measured.

N V Brooks ● 2256d

Fair enough Justin thing is another view so what re accident blackspot  drivers have negotiated it for years yes a pain in the bum to get through at rush hour but so what?...

Mick Collins ● 2256d

After being away at a relatives for August I have returned to utter chaos on South Parade the 94 buses are now immersed in back to back traffic where cars are being trapped in between the buses at the bus stop & on coming traffic it’s the worse mess I have witnessed as a resident in over 40 years here. It was a rat run before now it’s in comprehendible staggeringly insane amount of traffic in the garden suburb Jonathan Carr himself would be utterly disgusted by this noise & pollution between tgt & Chiswick pk st. Who’s ‘genius’ idea was this!? I’m going to go live on social media networks to outline this utter failure.

Arnie Devi ● 2256d

Is he related to Paul Campbell of similar anti car views?

Russell Pearson ● 2256d

I have no idea. But how someone with no discoverable track record of involvement in our community suddenly pops up, looking into his heart to divine the wishes of an entire community, and this becomes the lead story on W4, certainly begs some questions.

Brendan McCarthy ● 2255d

Silently fustrated at the lack of cyclists on the road since the road traffic measures have been attempted.:)

Jimmy Kim ● 2255d

Speaking of Paul Campbell...am I the only one noticing that the usual array of cyclists and quiet street-ists are all missing from every single one of the related threads?

David Lesniak ● 2255d

Obviously just a self-centered, selfish person disinterested in the plight of the wider community.

Steve Taylor ● 2255d

Perhaps they've all been using words beginning with c or f...

Claire Moran ● 2255d

On Twitter yesterday, a Labour councillor Cllr Katherine Dunne from the Syon ward (@katherinedunne) responded to someone who objected to the article on Mark Campbell on the W4 front page. "Our consultation found a majority in favour of our streetspace measures. Not everyone HAS to use a motor vehicle and those who do still can."Councillor Dunne's remarks call into question the integrity of what is supposed to be an ongoing consultation. I greatly suspect it has been fixed. There is no real check on whether people are who they say they are - and, crucially, on where they live. On the Harvard Hill closure for instance, the only people who are really affected are those who live in a small group of W4 3 postcodes. For anyone else the issue is secondary to the point of abstraction.My worry is that certain pressure groups, which are grossly unrepresentative and little represented in our Chiswick community are attempting to skew the research, by encouraging their members around London and further afield to take part. We must insist that the research is honest - and that it screens out the participation of non-locals. I greatly fear that this won't happen.

Brendan McCarthy ● 2255d

Stockpiling popcorn for the next instalment when you all see the approved plans for the new CW9. They’re live now so check ‘em out.

Paul Campbell ● 2255d

Don't worry they have always said they support safe cycling. It was all about the pavement wasn't it? Let's see.

Tony Smart ● 2255d

Please stop saying safe. Safer maybe, but safe implies there is no danger and will only encourage a false sense of security.

Adrian Irving ● 2255d

"They’re live now so check ‘em out"Care to share, Paul?Only the chosen few in W4 are part of the inner circle. Just not the majority as it should be. Kinda goes to the point about Katherine Dunne not being transparent.And yet still you're silent on all the recent goings on. Interesting...

David Lesniak ● 2255d

Me and the rest of the Silent Majority use Google.

Paul Campbell ● 2254d

There is a lot of it about. Just like the Brexiteers who cannot respond to any post regarding Brexit.

Stewart Jones ● 2254d

CW9 in with no pavement space lost and so no trees removed.There will always be compromises - after all the biggest loss of pavement and trees on the High Road was due to the widening the carriageway to accommodate more motor vehicles. The temporary implementation does allow this particular balance to be judged in operation.

Tom Pike ● 2254d

"Silent Majority Support South Chiswick Traffic Measures Says Resident"I have always been very fond of the ChiswickW4.com website, but it certainly worries me that they ever gave this front page incredibly misleading headline.  Fake news indeed!

Rae Lewis ● 2254d

And the original post was about what is going on specifically in 'South Chiswick' - what used to be known as Grove Park.

Rae Lewis ● 2254d

Thanks for the reply, Paul.Pity you couldn't find it in yourself to help.Pity, too, you don't have anything to say about the recent traffic chaos you support.FYI, when I Google it only the old news comes up. I know I'm just stupid and haven't a clue about how to use the interweb let alone possess a sense of humor, but surely with work set to start the people of Chiswick shouldn't have to cross their fingers in hopes of a Google top ten hit.

David Lesniak ● 2254d

TP: "There will always be compromises"Hi Tom, please list the 'compromises' that cyclists have made regarding CS9/CW9 ?If you are unable to do so, may I respectfully suggest one ? Stop cycling on pavements - please, as its so dangerous for us Pedestrians. Thank you.

Loraine Pemberton ● 2254d

Putting segregated bike lanes on both sides would be optimum for cyclists, but that takes more space from either motor vehicles or pedestrians.I don’t cycle on pavements, and I’m sure you don’t drive on them either. For some perspective, 99% of pedestrian killed by collisions on the pavement were due to drivers leaving the road - 542 deaths in the last 13 years, compared to 6 from cyclists.

Tom Pike ● 2254d

Statistics shatisshtiks... how many pedestrians have been spooked and intimidated by entitler cyclists compared to cars?

Mick Collins ● 2254d

Dismissing the fact that drivers are 100 times more likely than cyclists to kill pedestrians on the pavement...Who did you say was entitled?

Tom Pike ● 2254d

Get insured taxed and identifiable then maybe we talk..and on your foot pain thread you dont even have the common decency to thank me  for my help which sums entitled cyclists up nicely...now hobble off Paul Im done.

Mick Collins ● 2254d

You seem to have muddled up several people here, but still feel this reflects badly on cyclists for some reason.This might help provide some clarity: https://www.projectpedestrian.com

Tom Pike ● 2254d

Apologies Tom your right sadly no edit button on this steam age forum.But id rather wrestle with a polish lorry driver than a phalanx of cyclists I cannot change my views ever on this.

Mick Collins ● 2254d

No need to apologise on that particular score - I couldn't possibly take it personally! At least you are aware of your prejudices, but they are completely inverted from reality. One driver can take out a phalanx of pedestrians: Eleanor McGrath was killed, Jack Horton received serious brain damage and 13 others injured in 2009 when one driver lost control trying to "frighten" his friends, mounting the pavement and ploughing into a group of 30 teenagers in Southend at 47 mph. There are one hundred such stories of pedestrians killed by drivers on the pavement for every story of a cyclist. Those aren't just statistics and for you to then try to demonise cyclists in response is not so easily forgivable.

Tom Pike ● 2254d

https://democraticservices.hounslow.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=11684&x=1

Bernard Allen ● 2254d

I cant imagine that anybody objects to stopping Grove Park from being a rat run.  What I (and others I know) object to is the ludicrous way it is being done.  The proposals are ill thought though and will make the day to day lives of many who live here much more difficult. I am all for traffic calming but the  proposals that are coming are going to make many people's lives worse not better.

Steve Metcalf ● 2253d

P Green wrote on Temp CW9 thread:- "I can't see this elaborate installation stopping local cyclists from using the pavement, or through cyclists from using the road."Tom,you need to take off your blinkers regarding cyclists using pavements, they do and are a hazard to Pedestrians. Very little recorded by Police because atm Police do nothing to stop cyclists and people very rarely report accidents involving cyclists as they cycle off and cant be identified.You're getting your cycle Lane so you can tell your chums to use it and stay off the pavements. Thank you.

Loraine Pemberton ● 2253d

Were you yesterday a silent one ? 😎

Julian Pavey ● 2253d

I agree, there are too many lefty liberally minded people in Chiswick and if they feel closing all the access roads, etc etc... and making cycling the only form of transport then they really need to either move to a university town, Denmark, or to the Amish communities in the US where modern transport is non existent and the former two being more cycle friendly.

c james ● 2253d