Justin, I don't believe I could be classed as a zealot though after reading this post I'm sure some will put me firmly in that box. But I guess that's not for me to judge. However there is something to be said about reducing car journeys overall. As a simplistic level traffic jams are caused by motor vehicles, not bikes or pedestrians. Take LA for instance - miles and miles and miles of huge roads several lanes wide in both directions that are constantly jammed. Closer to home look at the M25 - no bikes are on it (or at least shouldn't be!) and yet it is colloquially known as Britain's biggest car park. As a society we can't just continue to use cars as we have in the past - something needs to change and usage needs to reduce. Building more roads or increasing capacity on existing ones in the end just creates more traffic.David,I appreciate your thanks.Your question about how I would feel if pedestrians were to walk in a cycle lane is a fair, valid and well thought point. It already happens in places today and can be quite frustrating. Surely, I hear you ask, this makes me understand the point that everyone has been trying to make to me? I can certainly appreciate the similarities but there are some differences. As I've mentioned before I'm either able to keep up with the flow of traffic if it's somewhat heavy or traffic is so light, I'm not hogging the full lane and can be easily overtaken (just for reference I seem to cycle mostly when it's the latter). Both instances should mean I'm not causing traffic to build up behind me and in both cases I'm not behaving erratically so drivers can know what to expect and can hopefully react accordingly. Perhaps it's my own blinkered view but I can't fully see what the problem is with this and no-one here so far as been able to answer that question either. But I'm not so high-minded to believe I'm infallible so more than happy to take feedback onboard. Well, apart from the obvious one: the lane exists, its mere presence is pi$$ing everyone off and so I should just bl00dy well use the damn thing! I'm afraid I refuse to back down on this one until someone comes up with a good enough reason plus, as I've said before, me and every other bike rider using the lane won't resolve the crux of the issue. Back to the earlier point about pedestrians using a bike lane. Pedestrians will generally be a lot slower than a bike and can wander around all over the place, quite often glued to their phones or listening to music, without any concept of what's going on around them. This makes them very difficult to navigate around due to their unpredictability. I know someone will pipe up that some cyclists can be exactly the same and this is true but, apart from being slow (the very reason bikes aren't allowed on motorways), they're not supposed to be and by doing so are putting themselves and others in significant danger. If you were to suggest that runners should use a cycle lane, were able to keep up with the average speed moving around them or were easily overtaken and behave as cyclists *should* on the road (i.e. don't hog the lane unless you don't wish to be overtaken, signal appropriately, don't act erratically, etc.) then I don't really see this as being a major problem. As I'm feeling quite mischievous today and plan on this being my last post on the subject let me put the cat amongst the pigeons so-to-speak and see what the reactions are to two other alternatives to the current cycle path (which, as I veer quite off-topic, was never what my intention was with this thread at all): (i) close CHR to private vehicles altogether and only allow buses, bikes and pedestrians down it's length (I can already see my image being burned in effigy at the mere hint of such a suggestion with calls for capital punishment to be swiftly returned to the statute books)(ii) return the bus lane(s?) as it was and instead segregate the existing footpaths to accommodate bikes - the popular view is that most bikes seem to be on the footpath already so why not make it official.I'm also curious to see how people react to the other thread I started earlier about the stolen bikes: how will some Chiswickians resolve their somewhat entrenched views on bikes with that of the under siege NHS and its magnificent staff? Just to clarify in case people read some flippancy into this: neither of these two threads I've started are in any way fictitious or just for sport. And with that I take my leave. I was curious to see what people's reaction would be to my initial post on this thread from Friday and, by and large it was as I had feared: most focus on the bike lane and little else of what I originally wrote. Perhaps, with hindsight, I shouldn't have mentioned the incident with the bus on CHR at all to see if that would have altered the course of the debate but I have a suspicion it wouldn't have made a significant difference. I realise that quite a few people may just read these threads without posting anything and so hopefully I've at least been able to get one or two people to think twice about the whole subject from a different perspective. Finally, just a thought for your business David though you may rather hell freeze over first than consider it... I've heard proper cyclists (and by that I mean those who are members of cycling clubs, go out cycling in groups when restrictions allow, the type that most people envisage when they think "cyclist") generally like stopping somewhere on their bike rides for cake and coffee. Perhaps you could entice some to your establishment and become a bastion of bike-tolerance within the environs of an otherwise belligerent Chiswick. Who knows? They may even converse with the locals, both sides could start to see that neither are complete monsters and so start to heal the divide.
Adam McKinnon ● 2124d