Forum Topic

TWO NEW WEBSITES FOR CHISWICKIANS

We appear to be spoilt for choice. Two websites have now appeared. The drama! Arts Ed will probably research this and put it on at the Chiswick Playhouse in 20 years’ time. There is www.OneChiswick.com for a touchy-feely website alleging destruction, division and catastrophe in Chiswick and inviting donations for a campaign to rip up the segregated bike path that children now use. And now there is www.OneChiswick.org which Jeremy Vine tweeted ‘logs the abuse so people who thought they were not identifiable have to take responsibility for their words, which are now publicly searchable.’OneChiswick group rules are apparently 1. Be Kind and Courteous and 2. No Hate Speech or Bullying. You should be warned that these rules are apparently flouted. There’s more than one reason OneChiswick’s posters are blue.

Edward Seaton ● 2092d166 Comments

Edward, while some of things that have been said on Facebook Groups and Twitter are pretty appalling you have to consider that you yourself might be part of the problem rather than part of the solution.Only in the last week you have likened people who differ in your views of the cycleway to those that opposed the abolition of slavery . This was inflammatory and offensive and appears to be based on the mistaken assumption that none of those you are in discussion with are black.For some time now you have been more than willing to raise the temperature of this debate by suggesting that anyone who questions your vision for safe-cycling is prioritising their own convenience over road safety and therefore has blood on their hands.Although, as an educated man, your views are more elegantly expressed than those of the minority of headbangers that pollute the One Chiswick Facebook group, they contribute just as much to the febrile atmosphere that has developed online over local transport issues.It is easy to win an argument in your own mind, if you see yourself as the protector of children's lives and your adversaries as callous, lazy SUV driving sociopaths. However, this is not the way things are, rather the issues at hand are complex and nuanced and it is unlikely that easy solutions are available. Perhaps, you could start by seeing people who disagree with you as being decent individuals who are just as committed to improving the place where we live as you believe yourself to be. If you then listen carefully to what they have to say you might just find some of them have a point.

Francis Rowe ● 2091d

Indeed Francis, the shame of the appalling fiasco is that it has polorised the community and raised heckles on all sides Its rather pathetic and childish the need to go to such lengths to undermine all opposition.Edward's comparison to slavery was one of the most extreme and embarrassing imaginable. The fact that intelligent people cannot lose their blinkers and are so set in this us vs them mentality is a concern. I am sure there are plenty of unpleasant comments from our friends in lycra. The lovely Ken described all opponents to the CHR schemes as 'fatties'. Paul C called for a boycott of all shops that dared to put a poster in their window. I am sure that is the tip of the iceberg.Most of us are pedestrians, public transport users, car drivers and cyclists, we do not fixate on one mode. We need schemes that are indeed sustainable and above all put public transport first. Such schemes need to be comprehensive, not just unqualified councillors drawing lines on maps.

Paul Green ● 2091d

Good advice that should be followed.Discussion on this board about the issue is generally relatively civilised and fact based when compared to the childishness and vitriol that appears on Facebook and Twitter. The notion that one side is responsible and the other blameless is preposterous - the worst elements on both are as bad as each other.

Felicity Caborn ● 2091d

The new website just adds to the problem. Is the creation of this new website to make people aware or just to prop up the other sides ideals. Possibly expect a third with the same intent Possibly even expect your remark and slavery to be included with your photo Edward.

Julian Pavey ● 2091d

Felicity, I think this highlights the effect of echo chambers. While there are some on OneChiswick asking for moderation, mostly the invective feeds on itself, and notably the moderators themselves have failed to act. The quotes we are seeing are the result of this unfettered feedback.At least here if someone says something way out of line, it is very often contested. And while I agree nobody should claim to be blameless, I don't think there is an equivalence of bad behaviour even here. A general suggestion for more civility would be if posters refrained from calling others "liars" just because they disagree with what has been written.

Tom Pike ● 2091d

“Discussion on this board about the issue is generally relatively civilised”..That's tosh Felicity.And Tom's being typically restrained. Over the past six months I've read copious posts from the likes of Michael Robinson and Tom Pike, most of which (possibly exclusively) concentrate on plain facts, albeit facts as they perceive them to be.  Delivered in straightforward fashion without personal abuse.They've invariably been met with a level of ad-hominem attack that's varied from the mild to the plain ridiculous.  On the mild side accusations of “myopia”,  “swivel-eyed” and "liar" have been so over-cooked on W4.com,  I'd officially declare them cremated.

Stuart Kerr ● 2091d

Indeed Tom, its probably not helpful if people keep posting biased and myopic views that stretch facts and credibility to the limit. Just yesterday you were telling us that CS9 had given us extra bus lanes and shorter bus journey times, then it transpired you were referring to the full version of CS9 for which there is no budget and currently not timeline. Even then there is a significant net loss of bus lanes, which I am sure you now but choose to pretend otherwise.Apparently also the closure of Fishers Lane had transformed the journey times on the 272, which only goes to show that you don't actually use local buses.When challenged about any of your views, such as traffic evaporation, you refuse to answer and post on something else.

Paul Green ● 2091d

Stuart, not all of us can aspire to your impossibly high standards of courtesy and consideration for other's feelings. Tom is right. The development of these echo chambers is having a really pernicious effect on our society not just here but in the UK. People invaded the Capitol Building because they weren't likely to engage with anybody who was going to tell them it was a bad idea. I value the contributions of Tom and Michael because, although I disagree with much of what they say, they provide a challenge to my preconceptions.

Felicity Caborn ● 2091d

Not like you to stoop to sarcasm.Anyway, we agree.  "Tom is right".

Stuart Kerr ● 2091d

Interesting Stuart, that despite you lecturing us all on your high standards (which when it suits you don't choose to apply to your many postings that include personal attacks), you still cannot stick to a straight response.

Paul Green ● 2091d

"And now there is www.OneChiswick.org which Jeremy Vine tweeted ‘logs the abuse so people who thought they were not identifiable have to take responsibility for their words, which are now publicly searchable"Jeremy Vine. Abuse. Identifiable. Responsibility.Clear as day irony is lost on Ed Seaton.

David Lesniak ● 2091d

I was under the impression that Jeremy Vine (and other presenters who took up engagements by the BBC) had ben instructed to stay away from expressing personal opinions on contentious subjects.

Bruce Hammal ● 2091d

Perhaps, Bruce.But Ed was waxing poetic about public searches. One doesn't have to work too hard to drum up evidence of invective hurled by Jeremy Vine. Not to mention those that supported it. Like Ed. These folks are just as accountable for perpetuating it. A bit like Republicans giving Marjorie Taylor Greene a standing ovation even though she supported assassinating Nancy Pelosi.Make of it what you will.

David Lesniak ● 2090d

That, David, takes unquestioning loyalty to a whole new level! I watch what is happening to  Republicans with my jaw dropping ever closer to my chest where I fear it will stay. The only good news is that Trump has quit his membership of the Screen Actors Guild before they could throw him out.

Bruce Hammal ● 2090d

That's a demonstrably false equivalence. It's on public record that the only death threats, in this case to local councillors, were made be an opponent of the LTN's: "The council members who agreed this most pathetic changes which has increased pollution, ruined businesses and KILLED PEOPLE RE EMERGENCY VEHICLES NEED SHOOTING. I AM HAPPY TO PULL THE TRIGGER. They are the biggest imbeciles ever. I think it’s time to find out who and where these imbeciles live.”And the response by Marlene Johnson, one of the leaders of OneChiswick, was rather worse than applause of the Republicans to Marjorie Taylor Greens, it was to suggest where to get the addresses of the councillors.Following advice from the police, the council removed the councillors' home addresses from their website.

Tom Pike ● 2090d

Are any of them in the Screen Actors  Guild?

Bruce Hammal ● 2090d

Tom, what is your obsession with this. Some people post stupid things on social media, its wrong but it happens everywhere. Get over it. I have been sworn at and on one occasion threatened for asking cyclists not to ride at me on pedestrian crossings or going through a red light, but I don't think all cyclists are idiots and even those individuals are probably perfectly civil in other settings.We have Jeremy Vine claiming on social media that the residents of Chiswick are actively harassing cyclists on CS9. What an idiot.How about introducing some objectivity and balance in your posts. You recently claimed that CS9 will bring more bus lanes, knowing full well that the permanent version of CS9 that apparently you were referring to has no budget or timeline. Even then there is a net major loss of bus lanesYou also claim that closures on TGT and Fishers Lane improved running of the 272 and E3. Again, utter rubbish. The new light phasing and loss or road space means both directions on CHR are slower for the E3. Plus we now have Acton Lane closed again, so queues are even worse.If TGT was still closed today, we had have gridlock, queues and congestion, with traffic facing 2 mile diversions. The structural problems on the Acton Lane will likely continue and at some point may even need a fuller rebuild.Please find some balance and acknowledge the needs and interests of others, especially those that don't live on quiet roads with no additional traffic, or in nice easy walkign distance of TGT and the High Road, or those for various reasons not able to cycle.

Paul Green ● 2090d

Tom, don't think that any sensible person is going to dispute that the death threat post on One Chiswick is the the worst example of abuse that this issue has generated.However, if the rhetoric on one side of the debate is more ill-considered than the other that doesn't mean the latter becomes acceptable.The point I was trying to make to Edward is that if you raise the temperature of the debate a consequence is going to be an increase in abuse.It doesn't have to be anything as offensive as the slavery comparison. Jeremy Vine himself needs to reflect how his rather binary view of this issue contributes to the disagreements becoming more bitter. He has consistently characterised people with reservations about this scheme as opposed to safe-cycling measures in principle and motivated by the self interest of marginal improvements to their journey times.It is a long way from misrepresenting your opponents' views to death threats but it is a first step. Mr Vine might reflect that a better way to calm things down would be to express himself more cautiously rather than provocatively cataloguing the worst abuse from people who disagree with him while ignoring that from those who share his views.

Francis Rowe ● 2090d

Don't mess with the Vine!Remember what he did to the motorist. He knows all the right people in the media and will not hesitate to  roast you in public.This is what I wrote at the time.date/Time: 30/10/19 16:30:00I lost all respect for Vine back in 2016 when he splashed his story and video about his run in with a motorist all over the media for days and days. Worse still the Old Bill arrested the woman within hours of the incident, then she was prosecuted and jailed.During the incident, instead of cooling things down Vine knew this would make a great story and played up to the lady.I know she was serving a suspended sentence and she was abusive but let's be honest, if this happened to you do you thing the police or media would be even slightly interested.Vine now says he is sorry things went so far. Bit late to be sorry matey.

Adrian Irving ● 2090d

Vine is self serving and self righteous.

Steve Taylor ● 2090d

"He knows all the right people in the media and will not hesitate to  roast you in public." Sorry, that should have read; He knows all the right people in the media and did not hesitate to roast someone in the past.(Got to keep the legal guys at bay)

Adrian Irving ● 2090d

Francis, your initial premise is incorrect, that somehow the most extreme posts of some of those who oppose LTN's or cycle lanes is a response to those in favour of them. The reason why the language is so ugly on OneChiswick is the exact opposite - it's because they mostly just egg each other on. There are very few who counter such postings, and that in itself does not reflect well on the rest, the vast majority, who are members.

Tom Pike ● 2090d

How old is Jeremy Vine? this is childish in the extreme.  I wouldn't mind but he's got what he wanted, a cycle lane for him and his three mates.  Oh will he sue me for that comment.

Maggie Dodge ● 2090d

On 16/5/19 @ 10.03am Jeremy Vine said:-"Unusually I'm in a car going to Radio 2."Hypocrite or what ?

Loraine Pemberton ● 2090d

I didn't say what you are suggesting I did. Self-reinforcing echo chambers on both sides are extremely pernicious. That doesn't mean that anything said outside those echo chambers has no consequences.

Francis Rowe ● 2090d

Loraine.In another thread you posted the following:"And yes there is a lot of good news for those of us who believe that cars need to play a less dominant role in transport in the future."Oh the sheer hypocrisy or have you given up your car Paul ?I replied to your post and wrote:Are you suggesting that only those who don't have cars are entitled to believe that cars need to play a less dominant role in tramsport in the future without being accused of hypocrisy Loraine?Or does the hypocrisy only manifest itself is they express their belief?You never replied, I guess perhaps because you didn't spot or read my post.In your last post, you quoted something that Jeremy Vine said nearly two years ago, and then asked if he was a hypocrite, in a way that suggested to me that you believe he is a hypocrite.Ignoring the personalities for a second (I personally wouldn't argue with or dispute anyone who says that Jeremy Vine can come across as sanctimonius at times, but that's not the issue here),do you believe that anyone who makes use of a car is a hypocrite if they express support for schemes where cars play a less dominant role in transport? That's what it seems like to me, judging by those two posts of yours that I've quoted.

Andrew Jones ● 2090d

AndrewDon't you think the sanctimonious Mr Vine has double standards ? So what that I used his quote from then, you think he's changed since 2019 ?Yes cars should play a less prominent part in our transport infrastructure BUT not to the detriment and costs to businesses and those who really need to use vehicles be they for private or business use.Paul Campbell is a prolific contributor of many social media sites who robustly and often obnoxiously castigates those who have objected to C9, because it's dangerous to all Road and pavement users. CHR is not the place for C9, yes cycleways do have a place in our transport infrastructure, but not along CHR.No I didnt spot your response, but honestly Andrew how can anyone be so vociferous, aggressive and insulting about those who've voiced there concerns about C9, yet drive as well - that's  called having your cake and eating it.You're entitled to your views as I am to mine. A pound to a pancake Jeremy Vine is still using corporate cars to get him from A to B, if I'm  wrong I apologise in advance.FYI, my primary mode of transport is walking, and using my car a very much a secondary mode of transport with approximately 2,000 miles a year.Andrew, what are your views on C9 in its current 'temporary' location, safe or not safe for Pedestrians, Cyclists and all other road users  ?

Loraine Pemberton ● 2090d

Again, you are creating a false equivalence. It's the echo chambers on one side that are leading to by far the most extreme statements, including death threats to councillors in Hackney as well as Hounslow. If you read back your own posts, you will see that your calls for moderation are predominantly directed at one side. Death threats are recognised as hate speech, for very obvious reasons. The appropriate response is not to ask the other side to moderate themselves. It is to call the hate speech out for what it is. OneChiswick.org does exactly that.

Tom Pike ● 2090d

Unlike a prominent member of OneChiswick, I don't think Jeremy Vine has threatened to murder somebody.

Carl Wynne ● 2090d

No idea Carl, I've certainly never even thought about making such a threat, much less made one.Mind you I doff my cap at your sniping, guess that's from your military background 😉

Loraine Pemberton ● 2090d

Did I say you? No I didn't.

Carl Wynne ● 2090d

Tom, I don't think you can suggest that because there are no reports of people with your views threatening to kill people then there isn't a problem. A friend of mine who lives in another area of London, and doesn't really have a strong view on these matters, posted on social media about an ambulance being delayed by a road barrier put up by the council. A cyclist replied that it wasn't a problem because the paramedics could have just wheeled a gurney to pick up the patient. As a health worker she knew this was nonsense and said so at which point there was a pile on from the cyclists' mates who got very offensive, questioning her integrity and threatening to contact her employer. She said the profiles of these people indicated that they were all professional people. This cult like behaviour seems to occur on both sides but perhaps there are no death threats from the cyclists' side because they have jobs where that sort of thing gets you fired?

Anita Blake ● 2090d

Dollars to donuts, Anita, if it was this cyclist or his/her family who suffered or died as a result of a delay in wheeling a gurney they would hold the London Ambulance accountable. How dare it take so long to respond to an emergency.The other day I saw an ambulance whizzing through the cycle lane outside the shop. Question is, with no licensing or age limit required, do you think young school children will know to pull over to allow the emergency vehicles to have right of way?EMTs are trained and monitored on response time. Do you honestly think, in the heat of the moment, they will have a natter in the driver's seat about where best to stop so they can roll out the gurney for a block or more when there is cardiac arrest or stroke at the destination?

David Lesniak ● 2089d

Anita, the overwhelming evidence is that LTN’s improve health outcomes. That is why hospitals have been pushing for them. In Southwark, Guys and St Thomas charitable trust are actually helping funding them: https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/guys-st-thomas-charity-ltn/?cmpredirectPollution is causing the premature deaths of thousands of Londoners. But a comment on OneChiswick (more accurately 5%Chiswick!) that “London has always been bad for traffic and pollution, people shouldn’t move here and moan” goes unchallenged by its other members. We now have monitoring data on the new LTN’s that show traffic levels significantly reduced traffic levels in LTN’s without a corresponding increase on the roads around them. In fact one of the strongest predictors of support for LTN’s ( which are already supported by more than 2 to 1 of Londoners  in all the surveys to date) is having a school-age child.

Tom Pike ● 2089d

Tom, I'd like to think that if a anti-C9 person posted that people who wanted to keep the scheme were like people who wanted to keep slavery or if a prominent opponent created a website which recorded online abuse by backers of the cycleway then I would have condemned them for intemperance and hypocrisy.I did condemn the death threats made to councillors in the strongest terms at the time and said on this forum on 13 November "Why are you reticent in naming them? They deserve to be shamed." Both sides of this debate are consistently using inflammatory invective on social media. It clearly gives the pro-cycleway side a moral advantage that they have not crossed lines that opponents of the scheme have but this doesn't mean anything they say should be immune from criticism as you appear to be suggesting.

Francis Rowe ● 2089d

"We now have monitoring data on the new LTN’s that show traffic levels significantly reduced traffic levels in LTN’s without a corresponding increase on the roads around them."When was this data collected and analysed  - during the Covid-19 pandemic  ?

Loraine Pemberton ● 2089d

The balance of online abuse, both elsewhere and on this forum, is very different to the balance of your own criticisms of it, including this post. I don’t think we need to wait for hypothetical websites before making a judgement on that score, Francis.

Tom Pike ● 2089d

There’s been separate assessments of the LTN schemes introduced both before and during the epidemic. They showed the same pattern of large falls in traffic inside the LTNs with little change in the roads around them.

Tom Pike ● 2089d

I'm not sure why I am getting a lecture on LTNs. My point was not against them but the behaviour of some of their supporters. My friend did not have an opinion either way about them in principle - she doesn't drive or cycle. She just raised a point which she knew was causing concern to paramedics working in the area. When she pointed out that some of the reasons given why the ambulances being delayed wasn't a problem were nonsense she got attacked by a group of men with no professional qualifications in the field telling her that she didn't know what she was talking about and threats to report her to her employer.I'm sure there are equally appalling examples of interactions in which opponents of LTNs were involved but that doesn't excuse what happened to my friend.

Anita Blake ● 2089d

No Tom, that is grotesquely untrue and you should know this. There is no evidence the LTNs improve health. Indeed the recent fresh inquest into the death of child in London some years ago for the first time highlighted the role of air pollution. What is notable is that the mother of this child is a vocal opponent of LTNs, as these divert traffic onto already very busy and congested roads, adding to pollution there. This is simply unacceptable. It is very notable that you and your fellow campaigners live on quiet roads that do not suffer this effect. Apparently its OK for other though.It is absolutely staggering that you continue with such crazily biased and blinkered perspectives. Clean air need to be an ambition for all. We are seeing more and more developments on busy roads, and with the death of retail more roads will see even more residential developments on town centers. Just look at the western end of High Road, where there are numerous new apartment blocks, but where the bus gate intentionally creates long queues of traffic. And the new eastbound light phasing creates long queues back from the High Road junction with Heathfield Terrace, a junction that recently flowed freely. This is creating pollution where people live.Stop the lies.

Paul Green ● 2089d

To be clear, though I don’t know the exchange your friend had, of course it’s right to raise legitimate concerns about emergency access. But the overall context of the overwhelming health benefits of LTN’s should also be recognised.The man who made the death threats to Chiswick Councillors was employed, and the strongest abuse and actual physical threats is in general very one sided (including oil poured on a cycling route in Ealing). I don’t think your friend’s exchange can be taken to be representative of the overall balance.

Tom Pike ● 2089d

Tom, there are no demonstrable heath benefits of LTNs. We have had them in various forms for 30 years, so lets see the evidence? Yes its good to get people out walking and cycling, but as part of a coherent plan that does not put cycling ahead of public transport. Forcing traffic onto a handful of heavily congested routes cannot be the answer.Many people on this forum, myself included, have been verbally abused and threatened by cyclists. I dont think they are bad people, but it happens. Some car drivers can also be ignorant and aggressive. But lets not take the moral high ground here and pretend one side is somehow better. Again, drop your obsessive and myopic blinkers.

Paul Green ● 2089d

Guys and St Thomas hospital charity gave £250,000 to fund local LTNs because they recognised the health benefits to local deprived communities. Are they liars too?

Tom Pike ● 2089d

"There are no demonstrable heath benefits of LTNs. We have had them in various forms for 30 years, so lets see the evidence?"- Large increases in active travel: 115 mins more walking a week and 20 mins more cycling in LTN's. https://doi.org/10.32866/001c.17128- Significant drops in car ownership and usage in LTNs. https://doi.org/10.32866/001c.17128 - Substantially improved road safety:  70% reduction in LTN's and no negative impact on boundary road. https://doi.org/10.32866/001c.18330 - Reduction in street crime: 18% over 3 years. https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/ftm8d/- No negative impact non emergency response, unchanged within LTN's and slightly faster on boundary roads. https://doi.org/10.32866/001c.18198

Tom Pike ● 2089d

All a bit sad. Hopefully the .org and fake Twitter account is just some kid with issues. Maybe it’s an adult with a personality disorder hiding behind the content? Needs to get some help pdq in any event and to stop stirring up discord. Responsible adults in the media and other professions, really ought not be cheering them on.

Russell Pearson ● 2089d

All they are doing is repeating actual OneChiswick comments which I agree are rather sad. Why are OneChiswick sponsors hiding by the way?

Carl Wynne ● 2089d

Actually they’re cherry picking some angry posts from locals who joined a private Facebook group. There’s around 1700+ in the group. Might as well damn all of ChiswickW4 based on the posts of the more outlier contributors here.

Russell Pearson ● 2089d

It's quite a bit worse than we see here. And very rarely do those comments get contested, unlike on here. It's an even less representative cross-section of W4 compared to this forum, which is hardly surprising as it's attracted less than a 5% proportion of W4 who feel most strongly against the schemes.

Tom Pike ● 2089d

There are aren't just a few though. Don't forget the absolute tool who threatened to shoot councillors and the site sponsor who helpfully told him where to find their addresses.

Carl Wynne ● 2089d

Interesting reading the attached analysis of LTNs in Ealing which basically says that they are worse for the environment.The main findings from the study are:1. Boundary road mileage up by 2.1 million miles2. Internal road mileage down 0.735 million miles annually3. Combined vehicle miles up by 1.3 million miles annually4. Petrol/Diesel up by 44,000 gallons annually5. Motoring hours up by 66,000 hours6. Boundary road CO2 emissions up by 730 tons annually7. Internal road CO2 emissions down by 280 tons annually8. Combined roads CO2 emissions up 450 tons annuallyThis analysis does not take into account congestion from the increased volume of vehicles on the perimeter roads.A link is here:https://oneealing.co.uk/co2-and-costs-analysis/

David Riley ● 2089d

I took a turn in the sunshine yesterday, down the Avenue to Turnham Green Terrace and along the High Road.All seemed rather pleasant.  Even the queue outside the wonderful fish shop didn't quite reach the choccy shop.  And the new cycle lane looked to be settling-in nicely.  No sign of lycra-clad speed merchants but plenty of slow moving locals and old codgers making use of the safety it brings.  I took a look at the neat bus islands too.  And couldn't for the life of me begin to see what the  problem about them actually was.  Unless, that is, one was deliberately searching hard to invent a problem.  Oh well...I then strolled down to David's Outsider Tart  with a thought of a real American coffee and a tasty nibble in the sunshine.  Alas it was closed that lunchtime – but  I was a bit shocked nay dismayed to see his gazebos had gone.  Britain really must wake-up to all the realities of climate change.  Our summers are far warmer than before, we get more heat-waves, we even make wine almost as well as the French.  Our coffee shops and our restaurants need to reflect this change and cater for outdoor dining - because that's what the British public now expect.  A lot more of the best of Southern Europe right here in places like Chiswick.  Surely it won't be that many months before smart gazebos, increasingly spring-up on London pavements and become a permanent feature wherever we have wide open and sufficiently wide pavements - such as you find around Outsider Tart.Lots more change in the pipeline...I hope more people can embrace it..

Stuart Kerr ● 2089d

Yes, I walked past Outsider Tart and saw the gazebos weren't there anymore. I hope they return in due course.I can accept that right now they might encourage people to congregate under cover which doesn't tie up with the social distancing that the powers that be are promoting.I also saw that the 'seats' alongside Outsider Tart had tape on them to discourage sitting. I assume that's David's work, and if so, well done David for doing the right thing and putting public health above personal business.

Andrew Jones ● 2089d

Maybe they take them down at night in case of burglary or random yobs.  Some gazebos I've seen on-line go up and down in 2 minutes...  Hope that's the case..

Stuart Kerr ● 2089d

Stuart -I'm sorry for your confusion. We at Outsider Tart are open everyday from 8am until about 5pm as that's when the street goes quiet. Oddly we still get people looking at the empty dining room and asking if we are open. At this point it just makes us laugh. Sometimes we're downstairs in the kitchen sorting things out.One example: the council still owes us £8200 in grant money. We have been chasing it for one month. No date in sight. Takings in the sector are down about 80% this lockdown and we are no exception. Dunning them is no fun to say the least and that gets relegated to the depths below.For extra shits and giggles yesterday we had to deal with two tire punctures with a string of deliveries lined up in central and east London - Welling to be exact. As for the gazebos I am happy to report we prevailed with the council. They agreed to call off their enforcement and to sort paperwork the likes of which they admit doesn't quite exist. We will be working with them in due course to bring the gazebos back as and when we are able. When the third lockdown was imposed, government prevented mingling and gathering and specifically asked the public not to meet a friend, sit outside and have a coffee. At that point we opted to remove the gazebos to that end.And a digression on oat milk: of late catering suppliers have had difficulty stocking it. When asked why the barista grade wasn't being stocked with trade being depressed and forced to pivot to take away, we were told stock of this product was being diverted to retail outlets. Odd, given the very point of it is to supply those in the trade. So I dug a little and tried Googling "Oatly boycott" out of utter curiosity. Little did I know they recently sold a chunk of their business to Blackstone in the states, a private equity firm. The CEO of Blackstone is a major Trump donor and supporter. Always has been. So to those folks who get annoyed when we say we don't have oat milk lately, one reason was we couldn't find it at several suppliers and the other now is paying 40% more to line the pockets of Trump supporters. I think not. Alas, there is no competitor that has a similar product.

David Lesniak ● 2089d

Actually Loraine, I don't feel Jeremy Vine has double standards. I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't find myself singing from his hymn book and it would surprise me if there weren't views of his that I would take issue with. That said, I don't see that him going somewhere by car makes him a hypocrite. And if you are going to paint someone as a hypocrite, surely you can do better than referring to something nearly 2 years ago?And yes, I will agree with you that some of Paul's comments have been aggressive and insulting. If I was ever going to call someone a 'cycling zealot' then Paul's name would spring to mind. But even so, I don't consider that having a car (and using it) makes Paul a hypocrite for holding and expressing his views. I don't like the way he sometimes expresses his views but I don't consider them hypocritical. You touched on the crux of the issue (about cars) in your post."those who really need to use vehicles be they for private or business use."How many drivers really need to use vehicles ...?Undoubtedly there are plenty who do, and equally there are plenty who believe they do, but actually don't. Getting the balance right is essential.I promise I'll answer your question about what I think about the cycle lane, I'm not avoiding it, it's just that I want to put down what I think correctly.

Andrew Jones ● 2089d

Ah – that's very good news on the gazebos David..I'll be back soon..

Stuart Kerr ● 2089d

Thanks David, interesting that Tom has no response to this actual data, rather than his unsubstantiated claims. Indeed, this would seem to completely refute his claims. He refuses to engage when cornered, but soon pops up elsewhere with more spurious claims.This afternoon there is over a mile of eastbound traffic stuck from before the business park to TGT, lots of buses queuing too. Strange that Tom told us that the 272 journey times were transformed by removing traffic from a 50 yard stretch of Fishers Lane, they cant get anywhere near at the moment. Hounslow and TFL told us traffic would improve once CS9 was open and lights adjusted... hmmm.So well over a thousand locals enjoy the pollution outside their homes from traffic queues. Bet you dont have that problem in Bedford Park Tom?

Paul Green ● 2089d

Hello Andrew"How many drivers really need to use vehicles ...?Undoubtedly there are plenty who do, and equally there are plenty who believe they do, but actually don't. Getting the balance right is essential."Completely agree that getting the balance right is essential, however we have gone from one extreme to bordering on another extreme, lead by passive-aggressive bullies.Let me explain where I'm coming from, despite now having often and painful late onset problems from a serious childhood illness, I try and walk everywhere and there are numerous Forumers who also have mobility problems, I'm sure you are aware who they are, but they still not only want but actually need the freedom of how they get from A to B to live a less restrictive and fulfilling life, yet a hard core of cycling Aficionados, male and especially female, continually provide links to mobility bike websites - not exactly empathetic. Indeed when I posted some months ago I needed my car to take my dogs to Medivet at Chalkers Corner one of the prolific cycling campaign Forumers actually told me to change my Vet to a local one that I could walk to ! Seriously are we now living in a non democratic society ? Yes I do find it hypocritical that the hard core cycling proponents on here want a cycling infrastructure, which they now have, yet they preach to us that cycling is the only way forward and we should take it up, yet quite a few of them also own cars - is that not having their cake and eating it ? Not much difference between that and hypocrisy imho. Thursday I had to take my car to Paul at Capital Motors, when I went to collect it a few hours later I pulled out Paul's yard onto Prince of Wales Terrace, a one way street, stopped at DR, looked left then right and a cyclist in lycra doing at least 20mph was hurtling down DR the wrong way screamed at me to "get out of the f**king way"... I eventually got on to CHR and had to do an emergency stop due to an eastbound cyclist suddenly pulling across to the south side of CHR- no warning, no hand signal. I then got to the CHR / HT junction and both vehicle and cyclist Traffic Lights were red, yet 2 cyclists rode straight through. C9 has been built at expense to us all and the minority of cyclists who do use it continue to contravene road traffic rules, but just as bad they also the pavements - why is that ?"I promise I'll answer your question about what I think about the cycle lane, I'm not avoiding it, it's just that I want to put down what I think correctly."Whenever you're ready, but suggest you stand and observe cycling behaviour at the junction of CH9 and HT both east and westbound, if people want to cycle fine by me but don't have an infrastructure built and then either not use it and just as bad abuse it.Andrew, I'm signing off here now and if you do reply I probably wont be able to respond until Monday.Stay healthy and safeLoraine

Loraine Pemberton ● 2089d

Thanks Loraine for your considered reply and your sign off. I will pop over to CHR/HT on monday if the weather isn't awful because I know that you've mentioned cycling on the pavement round there a few times.Hope you have a good weekend, and yes likewise, stay health and safe.Andrew

Andrew Jones ● 2089d

The OneEaling analysis is not based on the actual data from after the LTN was introduced, but traffic counts in a 2018 report. Their analysis relied on assuming that drivers were very lazy and would rather drive up to two miles than walk 400 yards after the LTN was introduced. On that basis OneEaling then estimated a 187% increase in traffic.But we now have the actual traffic counts after the LTN opened as part of Ealing's interim assessment of the LTN. It showed traffic on the boundary of the LTN down 18% in the morning peak from 7 to 10 am and 5% from 7 am to 7 pm.OneEaling's initial analysis was very unlikely to have been correct, as I commented when it first came out. In fact we now have the data that shows just how far off it was. It's notable that OneEaling have neither amended nor withdrawn their incorrect analysis in the light of the actual data after the LTN was introduced. The results in Ealing are in line with the published results from other LTN's introduced in London that show significant drops in the traffic inside the LTN without the increases on the perimeters that their critics mistakenly predicted.

Tom Pike ● 2089d

The new "OnChiswick.org" website is just plain petty.  I have no problem with the content of the website but the name with the obvious deliberate intent to confuse with the original OneChiswick website is just pathetic.Threats of violence have no place in society, no matter how fervently you disagree with someone, violence or the threat of it should be condemned.Fortunately this website in general tends to be a bastion of reasonable civilised debate. For example on a different thread Tom Pike and I had an entirely polite discussion about what the research into LTNs actually concluded - we did not agree, but we disagreed politely.As both a motorist and a cyclist (fair weather only thought) I found the level of debate about LTNs and cycle lanes generally depressing.  All too many posters being locked into their own echo chambers and even when they start from a moderate position they rapidly retreat into the more extreme variants of whatever side of they debate they support.My own view is, I hope, more nuanced.  I am happy to support well designed schemes that have the support of the residents most effected, that actually co-ordinate with public transport and do not clearly result in traffic displacing into other residential streets. I happen to think that LBH is basically incapable of that level of planning and it seems to me that LBH has also consider each scheme completely separately from other schemes so that there is no consideration of the cumulative effective of all the schemes.  Even with that criticism there are 2-3 schemes that are definitely good schemes that I support even if they inconvenience me personally

Justin Stephenson ● 2089d

https://democracy.wandsworth.gov.uk/documents/s77681/20.337 Transport Action Plan.pdf

David Riley ● 2088d

Aren't falls in traffic counts more likely to be due to lockdown restrictions than the LTNs?

Mark Evans ● 2088d

Hi Justin,  Other than “petty” being an unfortunate beginning, I agree with much that you write.  With the exception of your overview that  “this website in general tends to be a bastion of reasonable civilised debate”.  I'll return to that in a bit.Your separate overview that this forum debate is “depressing” is certainly one I share.  Although 'beached' cum 'going nowhere' would probably better describe it.  And no amount of “nuanced” opinion such as you offer is going to pacify this throng.  Opposite opinions remain fixed and will likely stay that way until others in power decide which projected outcome or which parts of any projected  outcome will eventually prevail.You may well be right in your dismissive view of Hounslow Council. - that it is “incapable” of delivering these various schemes within an integrated package that works across the board.    I wouldn't knowWhat I do know is that it was on this W4 platform that Hounslow Council, its leader Steve Curran and several Councillors like Guy Lambert were pilloried to smithereens for months and thoroughly demonised.Since when a few of the main W4 forum culprits have belatedly realised that their non-stop personal abuse was about to backfire - so have now either gone quiet or taken a different approach in a cynical effort to reclaim the moral high ground.Which partly explains why I have posted, at least twice, my personal view ,  that the OneChiswick campaign with its prominent headline that Hounslow is Destroying Chiswick, was a somewhat cheap and certainly divisive pitch, a blatant effort to capture a populist vote.Which is also why (in my own view) the second satirical website was well justified as an effective means to rebalance the picture.So where are we at?There are no amount of sub-texts to this very important public debate.  Climate change, air pollution, retail shopping, obesity and exercise, disabled folk, public transport, bus routes, bus stops, pedestrianisation, near death experiences, gazebos and on and on..However the root issue is simple.  It is a challenge to the right of everyone qualified to own a motor car in a busy township like Chiswick - and expect to use it locally for whatever reason.  And to park it very close to any destination.  A debate between those who treasure the free use of their motor car - confronting those who would prefer far fewer cars and far more bicycles on our local roads.Everything else (including all the silly anecdotes) is a distraction. I applaud you Justin that you can see good in some of the schemes being tried, even though they would inconvenience you personally.  As I wish others would also consider widening their own view to include an urban  futurescape far beyond the status quo.I'm a dreamer and a moderniser, not for the sake of it (I don't even ride a bike) but because I look around and am sure Chiswick can do far better than what it's got.

Stuart Kerr ● 2088d

A OneChiswick member posted yesterday that Sadiq Khan and Hounslow Council ‘need stringing up.’An incitement to lynching. It received 13 ‘thumbs up’ from OneChiswick members.

Edward Seaton ● 2088d

Mark, that's a valid point, though traffic in London had pretty much returned to pre-COVID levels last Autumn. And on that particular point David's link to the Wandsworth report provides a very useful dataset as they counted traffic over three months before, during and after the brief trials of three of their LTN schemes. That provides traffic levels within a few weeks of each other so you can better isolate the effect of their LTN's. Here are the plots for the overall changes in traffic as a percentage, with the before counts normalised to 100%:

Overall traffic fell during the operation of the LTN's, returning close to the previous levels after the trials were ended.

Wandsworth also took pollution measurements of NO2 using diffusion tubes in September which covered two weeks before and after the trails ended. Diffusion tubes are not used at official pollution monitoring stations as they are considerably less reliable, but they are cheap. However, there is an official pollution monitoring station on Tooting High Street, on the perimeter of the LTN's, providing levels of the most harmful particulate pollution as PM10's. These increased from an average of 15 before to 32 µg/m^3 after the trials ended in September, which might indicate that the LTN's had dramatically reduced particulate pollution on their perimeter before they had been ended.

However, if you compare to the nearest background monitoring station at Barnes, the difference only increased from 3 to 4 µg/m^3, essentially no change. This shows how important it is to remove pollution backgrounds to see any real effect, and that's not possible with diffusion tubes. Overall the Wandsworth data shows that while LTN's reduce traffic significantly overall, they did not lead to an increase in pollution on their perimeter. This is right in line with the other published research I listed above.

It is a triumph of politics over evidence that these LTN's were removed before seeing if they were actually working. However, it has provided us with more data on the effectiveness of LTN's, so Wandsworth's loss should at least be to other borough's gain.

Tom Pike ● 2088d

Sounds to me that your trying to encite more devision I just read that and im not to entirely sure it was that. Ive come accross that wording many times over the years but not entirely posted in the context to hang someone as a direct threat. Think it was in context to a council being useless and Khans name followed. Need hanging? Need stringing up? Never come accross that before edward or are you on that mission to expose all and everything.

Julian Pavey ● 2088d

It’s your interpretation that I am trying to incite division. Actually I’d much prefer a civil discourse about active travel measures. People can make up their own minds about OneChiswick. They present a civilised public image and produce posters they ask people to display, whilst receiving backing from publicly-elected local councillors. Behind the scenes their discourse is often unpleasant and sometimes violent and threatening. In my view it is of legitimate public interest. The full quote for context is‘All this has been done to make Chiswick and environmentally friendly area and to make people want to come and enjoy the lovely walks and areas to cycle with your children. What a load of bo...cks. Hounslow Council need stringing up along with Khan and his bandit mates Chiswick and a lot of London will be completely no-go areas soon with businesses going to the wall.’

Edward Seaton ● 2088d

That is your interpretation allso on this one quote. You are putting it against other quotes and coming to one overall conclusion. I could say that about 5 of you have publically hounded publicly-elected local councillors for a few years now becasue they have a view you dont agree with. Your answer is they are publically elected serving us. Does that make it compeletely acceptable. I would say no based on agenda. People can make up their own minds up

Julian Pavey ● 2088d

Took me ages to find it. Pretty weird when people spend all day stalking a private Facebook group for the odd sardonic comment so they can repost it to get a self righteous buzz. Mix of Peeping Tom and Poison Pen. Not a good hobby.

Russell Pearson ● 2088d

In truth its not about death threats and being shocked Russell,its all about us and them. Winning an argument in whichever way but some unfortunately take it a bit further. Welcome to social media,nothing new on that front They have all been at it for ages. The good,the bad and the sometimes dam right ugly

Julian Pavey ● 2088d

"Odd sardonic comment"?So now we've had threats of shooting and lynching councillors from those opposing the traffic changes in Chiswick. I really hope this is not representative of all of London. And I hope your response is not representative of the acceptability of making such threats from others who oppose these measures."They have all been at it for ages."No they haven't.My earlier hope is obviously misplaced. Not a single member of OneChiswick, including the councillors who are members thought they should counter such a death threat to their fellow councillors. In fact as Ed said, 13 members actually "liked" it.

Tom Pike ● 2088d

Oh give it a rest "They have all been at it for ages." Whinging in both directions for the last 2 years whatever the level of attack. Get over it,its one against the other. If something is of a direct threat then either the law or the platform deals with it. Not the otherside constantly tweeting to get the upper hand in a pathetic argument.

Julian Pavey ● 2088d

I don't think this data allows any categoric statements to be made. It is likely that the biggest impact on traffic count is changing travel patterns due to the health emergency. This is going to mask the actual impact of the LTNs. The increase in September will be partly to returning schools. It is a fundamental problem with the way these trials have been introduced that we won't really have any clean data in which we can confidently isolate the impact of the LTNs during the trial period. Each side of the argument is always going to be able to successful qualify and claims put by the other.

Mark Evans ● 2088d

“ An incitement to lynching.”Calm yourself

Mark Perry ● 2088d

If you compare the traffic in the Wandsworth LTN's to the average for London as a whole at the corresponding times, it was 98% before the trial, 73% during the trial and then 92% after. So the drop with the LTN's can't be explained by the overall changes in traffic patterns due to the health emergency.There is no fundamental problem in assessing the effects of LTN's. Rather all the studies of traffic counts show a consistent pattern in Wandsworth and in other London boroughs that overall traffic drops with the introduction of LTN's.

Tom Pike ● 2088d

How strange, I thought  publicly elected local councillors were railroading these appalling  and dangerous schemes through against the wishes of the majority in Chiswick

Claire Moran ● 2088d

Don't think you can reach any conclusions from using general traffic across London. For a realistic comparison you would need to compare with a similar residential area which has not had an LTN.Also traffic counts are the wrong number to look at. Nobody would dispute that LTNs would tend to reduce the number of journeys made. The key number is km travelled.

Mark Evans ● 2087d

Tom, again the simple question. If LTNs across London lead to falling traffic, and we had these measures for 30 years, why has traffic not fallen. In some cases number of vehicles has fallen (other cases it has not), but what has not fallen is congestion. This is not officially measured and is the gaping hole at the centre of your traffic evaporation argument. WE do have bus speed data from TFL and its been falling steadily every year, despite numerous measure to help buses. So this is a really good measure of congestion Again, as you dont use buses you dont care. Nor are you a trade person or business that needs vehicles for deliveries or to get to clients, nor someone who needs to use a vehicle for other reasons. Piecemeal solutions dont work, otherwise we would not need to keep closing more roads. By your argument we should also close the A4? Would that work?

Paul Green ● 2087d

"How many drivers really need to use vehicles ...?"Well the same could be asked of cyclists! Getting the balance right is essential.I am a car driver, motor cyclist and cyclist although I gave up my company car last October and walk more. Cycling (for me)  is for enjoyment and exercise but I don't REALLY NEED to cycle. If I really need to use a car I borrow my wife's little eco friendly car. Those who cycle to work from Chiswick could no doubt use pubic transport. Those who cycle maniacally in lycra through Richmond Park for exercise etc etc could also think about all the indoor cycling programs and all the equipment available. It could be argued that cycling is purely for enjoyment. Well, many motorists drive around purely for enjoyment too. Some people love to drive around in the comfort of their cars listening to music etc. Why are those people being denied their rights of enjoyment purely to cater for the enjoyment of the cyclists to ride three abreast blocking the roads?

Steve Taylor ● 2087d

"For a realistic comparison you would need to compare with a similar residential area which has not had an LTN."What do you think the before, during and after counts are? They are comparing exactly the same neighbourhood before the LTN is applied, during its operation, and after it was closed, all within a few weeks. You think it's just coincidence that while traffic was rising slowly in the rest of London, it dropped by over 20% while the LTN's were operational and then rose again afterwards? In fact past data shows car counts trends in Wandsworth follow very closely those of London as a whole, to within 1% over the last five years. So you are looking at a 20 sigma event!"Also traffic counts are the wrong number to look at. Nobody would dispute that LTNs would tend to reduce the number of journeys made. The key number is km travelled."But I'm glad you're not disputing that the traffic counts fell.  If there are fewer cars on the roads at any one time, then the total distance driven can be expected to have fallen. In fact the DfT use precisely these traffic counts to work out the total mileage we drive.

Tom Pike ● 2087d

Looks like the net is closing in...

Russell Pearson ● 2087d

We already know who's been wielding the "poison pen" as you choose to call it - their names are by their own words.

Tom Pike ● 2087d

Was it one of the Hounslow Cycling activists up to mischief, setting up an anonymous site. One who has a little bit of form in these things...and who has been caught out before.

Russell Pearson ● 2087d

OK, so someone who exposes abusive language is mischievous while those who wrote it should be supported? Would it be better if such language went unchallenged?

Tom Pike ● 2087d

One who cherry picks comments and then anonymously posts them as indicative, is a Troll. Does Hounslow Cycling support this type of activity - Michael Robinson outlines campaign tactics here, but did he simply forget dirty tricks?  I guess you are the Tom mentioned at the end.https://www.lcc.org.uk/articles/cw9-takes-another-big-step-forward

Russell Pearson ● 2087d

"Would it be better if such language went unchallenged?" To most who read twitter on this its a game of point scoring,nothing more nothing else. Seems to me the start of this thread and the added text is just that. But no person is going to admit such,thats chucking in ones hand

Julian Pavey ● 2087d

Not a member of HCC, but my views are well known.I'd say if you're happy for your words to be shared with 1700 other people, you should be prepared for them to be known publicly, whether it be on a large Facebook "private" page or within a Nextdoor local group, and even more if they are abusive.It's hardly a defence to say they were cherry picked - of course they were, and abusive language should be called out if it is used anywhere. Usually moderators intervene, but not on OneChiswick. If this leads to them challenging such language in the future, then that would be a step forward.

Tom Pike ● 2087d

“ looked left then right and a cyclist in lycra doing at least 20mph was hurtling down DR the wrong way screamed at me to "get out of the f**king way"... I eventually got on to CHR and had to do an emergency stop due to an eastbound cyclist suddenly pulling across to the south side of CHR- no warning, no hand signal. ”Yep, par for the course and standard practice for the Lycra brigade to bully and abuse people as they swarm across London. Despicable behaviour!

Steve Taylor ● 2087d

RussellSo I think what we are deducing from your post is that what you are saying is that Edward Seaton's original post implying that it was odd that two websites had been produced by chance at the same time is not correct.Going back to the original post Edward Seaton should have said that the OneChiswick.com site is a genuine site, and that OneChiswick.org is a fake site designed to impersonate the OneChiswick.com site and to mislead and incite.  And that someone (Was it Edward? Or is it Tom?) has specifically done this with that aim, and that further others were in the know that this was intended. 

David Riley ● 2087d

The site hardly misleads - it states exactly what it is upfront:"OneChiswick in their own words. All content on this website consists of quotes from OneChiswick members and information from public websites."They are both genuine sites, but only one of them is accessible to everyone.Nextdoor took down the posts on their site once they heard about them. In contrast, the OneChisiwck moderators do not appear to have taken any action.

Tom Pike ● 2087d

Now that is even more confusing, you don't mention whether it is .com or .org that you are referring to.  Looked at the OneChiswick.com site which provides a variety of information.Then there is the 2nd website OneChiswick.org, which provides some info.  Edward Seaton mentions both in his first post.  From the way Edward presented it, it reads clearly that the .Com site was produced first and the .Org site then appeared, by chance later.Assuming that sequence is right the .Org site seems seems intent on trying to impersonate the .Com site above deliberately and put a different spin on things.Perhaps it would help if someone could say which one was created first?  And then explain why the 2nd one was created?  Why are the fonts the same, the site names the same except for .com or .org, the front page layouts the same?  Would be helpful to know who created it?  Was it Edward or Tom.  Are these two of the same people in the list from the article that Russell Pearson shared earlier.

David Riley ● 2087d

No, not them. Nor A local celebrity - someone accused him of subterfuge on Twitter and he quite rightly took umbrage.

Russell Pearson ● 2087d

Oh okay.So if the original site was the OneChiswick.com one, why are these chaps Edward and Tom promoting the OneChiswick.org site? Are Edward and Tom working for or with the creator?  Did they know that this .Org site was going to happen?  Did others know about it in advance?  Are they also trying to mislead?

David Riley ● 2087d

The original post is a bit dramatic, bringing children in to the discussion. I”There is www.OneChiswick.com for a touchy-feely website alleging destruction, division and catastrophe in Chiswick and inviting donations for a campaign to rip up the segregated bike path that children now use.  I’m not sure how many children are using the cycle lane on the High Road.  I’ve not personally seen any.

Maggie Dodge ● 2087d

The original post is a bit dramatic, bringing children in to the discussion. I”There is www.OneChiswick.com for a touchy-feely website alleging destruction, division and catastrophe in Chiswick and inviting donations for a campaign to rip up the segregated bike path that children now use.  I’m not sure how many children are using the cycle lane on the High Road.  I’ve not personally seen any.

Maggie Dodge ● 2087d

It's a rather sad attempt to corner the last available emotive card in the caring game. Unfortunately the genuinely disadvantaged - particularly the elderly and disabled - barely registered on the scale when throwing together this chimera, and the oversight may well prove its undoing when faced with the reality of an unbiased courtroom.

Bruce Hammal ● 2087d

There had apparently been quite a flurry of activity on Twitter before Edward brought it to our attention on this forum. I only commented here in response to a response. But it only takes a quick look to see that the aim of OneChiswick.org is self evident. It is to highlight the abusive language that went unchecked on OneChiswick.com and similar comments made elsewhere by its members. I don't think anyone for a second "mistakes" OneChiswick.org as having the same aims as OneChiswick.com.

Tom Pike ● 2087d

"I’m not sure how many children are using the cycle lane on the High Road.  I’ve not personally seen any."Should have gone to SpecSavers. Or visited Barnard Castle.

Ken Munn ● 2086d

Comparisons over time for the same area at the moment are an unsound basis for reaching any firm conclusion because the overriding factor in what will be happening with traffic at the moment will be the lockdown. In the case you have cited in Wandsworth the trial ran through the summer and then was suspended in September. If there were schools in the vicinity of the LTN could possibly provide a better explanation of the increase.A crude traffic count is only going to give a very limited picture of the impact of LTNs and a fall does not necessarily confirm that there are fewer cars on the road at any given moment. Vehicles will have had to travel further to get to the count points because of access restrictions and this increase will not be captured. Also  it is difficult, if not impossible at the moment to capture the impact of displacement. Traffic that may have entered the LTN area before may be avoiding it but there is no net gain if it is just going somewhere else.All the data provided so far shows is that the LTNs reduced the amount of traffic passing certain points which could have always been assumed to be an inevitable impact of traffic restrictions. It comes nowhere near to proving the LTNs worked.In saying this I am not arguing against LTNs. I think they are a broadly positive initiative and increasingly necessary given the increasing sophistication of SatNav devices. My point would be that this is exactly the wrong time to be implementing them because unusual traffic conditions make it impossible to reach a firm conclusion on their efficacy. Thus far during the pandemic across London these schemes seem to have been introduced with regard to political expediency (in wards generally held by opposition councillors) and with an eye on their revenue potential. This has caused a huge amount of justified hostility to some LTNs and has damaged the brand. They should not be introduced by ETOs in the way they are being done at the moment but more slowly and permanently with proper consultation so that the benefits to the communities they are meant to serve are demonstrable.

Mark Evans ● 2086d

I take it this is you Ken. Do you think the fake site is a good way for LCC and Hounslow Cycling to manage campaigns?https://www.lcc.org.uk/articles/cw9-takes-another-big-step-forward

Russell Pearson ● 2086d

Now I am more confused, as I think you are saying this is all by chance.  By chance there was a flurry of twitter activity and it was by chance that two websites with the same names (except for the .com and .org), similar layouts and fonts were produced, by chance at the same time. and Edward happened to come across them by chance, at about the same time by chance without any prior knowledge of their existence.That would be a remarkable set of "by chance" events.It is important to establish which one was produced first, and which one was produced 2nd? Also why and by whom?  From what Edward said originally it did seem clear that OneChiswick.com was produced first and OneChiswick.Org was produced 2nd that .Org was designed to impersonate the .Com one.  As in this was not by chance.From an earlier post it was said that neither Edward or Tom produced the .Org one but could be aware of who did.Was it one of the people named in the article referred to earlier, as in one of:"I’d like to thank Ed, Jeremy, Ruth, Karen, Rebekah, Tran, Tom, Kieran, Michiel, Nick, Casey, Paul, Darren, Angela, Les, Matt, Beta, Laura, James, Winston, Ken, Alzbeta, Will, Brian, Tim, Simon, Peter, Chris and I’m sure I’ve left out some people so apologies in advance." - Michael Robinsons article - 6 Sept 2019 for the London Cycling Campaign.And are many of the above, simply the 1st names of people in this article produced by Bridget Osborne:https://chiswickcalendar.co.uk/letter-to-transport-secretary-grant-shapps/Would be helpful to know if one of the above produced the .Org website if that was as Edward said produced 2nd. If so who it is and then perhaps we can ask them why it was produced and if it was all by chance.

David Riley ● 2086d

RussellI saw that Tom had posted earlier which was confusing, so asked the below above in response to Tom Pike.  From what you are saying the .Org site might be fake and Ken produced it or knows who did?Post to Tom (at 8:53)"Now I am more confused, as I think you are saying this is all by chance.  By chance there was a flurry of twitter activity and it was by chance that two websites with the same names (except for the .com and .org), similar layouts and fonts were produced, by chance at the same time. and Edward happened to come across them by chance, at about the same time by chance without any prior knowledge of their existence.That would be a remarkable set of "by chance" events.It is important to establish which one was produced first, and which one was produced 2nd? Also why and by whom?  From what Edward said originally it did seem clear that OneChiswick.com was produced first and OneChiswick.Org was produced 2nd that .Org was designed to impersonate the .Com one.  As in this was not by chance.From an earlier post it was said that neither Edward or Tom produced the .Org one but could be aware of who did.Was it one of the people named in the article referred to earlier, as in one of:"I’d like to thank Ed, Jeremy, Ruth, Karen, Rebekah, Tran, Tom, Kieran, Michiel, Nick, Casey, Paul, Darren, Angela, Les, Matt, Beta, Laura, James, Winston, Ken, Alzbeta, Will, Brian, Tim, Simon, Peter, Chris and I’m sure I’ve left out some people so apologies in advance." - Michael Robinsons article - 6 Sept 2019 for the London Cycling Campaign.And are many of the above, simply the 1st names of people in this article produced by Bridget Osborne:https://chiswickcalendar.co.uk/letter-to-transport-secretary-grant-shapps/Would be helpful to know if one of the above produced the .Org website if that was as Edward said produced 2nd. If so who it is and then perhaps we can ask them why it was produced and if it was all by chance."

David Riley ● 2086d

The aim of OneChiswick.org is quite clear: to make public the abusive speech on OnChiswick.com and by its members elsewhere. Of course it wasn't produced "by chance".

Tom Pike ● 2086d

Why bother unless it’s part of a dirty tricks campaign? Many people joined the Facebook group just to have a right old moan. Their outbursts in a private group were then shared in fake site, purporting to be OneChswick. Very underhand. Is that just?

Russell Pearson ● 2086d

To make public those sorts of comment - absolutely! Abusive behaviour thrives when people turn a blind eye to it. Hopefully make these comments public leads to people moderating their language and not making threats against others. As has been said before, echo chambers are pernicious in the way they exacerbate extreme speech.

Tom Pike ● 2086d

So clarity on the fact none of this appears to be "by chance" and from what has been said the original website was OneChiswick.com and then another site, defined as fake, was produced called OneChiswick.org.So why are Edward and Tom promoting the OneChiswick.org site if it is fake?  Do they know who produced it?

David Riley ● 2086d

Why set up an anonymous site made to look like the real one? Why use such underhand tactics? Surely Hounslow Cycling’s campaign playbook for activists should be to be open and transparent.

Russell Pearson ● 2086d

I suspect they know. Someone once created a fake right wing Twitter account to generate mischief. All came unstuck when it was obvious only the fake one could have seen some of the postings shared elsewhere. Could they be related?

Russell Pearson ● 2086d

Nothing underhand - OneChiswick.org is quite upfront about its aims, and they're commendable.I'd say, by their deeds you shall know them. I don't know who's actually behind any number of websites and twitter handles, but I can form a judgement about a site or tweeter without knowing that. In this case, I'd like to congratulate the person who put it together.

Tom Pike ● 2086d

'Do you think the fake site...'It's not a fake site, it's a real one. From a quick look it's simply pointing out the Trumpian-style prejudice of those who have organised themselves to oppose active travel* in Chiswick. A worthwhile task, or not, depending on a) your point of view and b) whether or not you're quoted on it.As for LCC campaigns, nothing to do with me, guv'nor. I'm just a not-very-active member.*Incidentally, The Times has just carried an article about research by Harvard and UCL which claims to have established that deaths from pollution particulates are approximately twice as many as previously estimated. I'd link it but it's behind a paywall. (ends)

Ken Munn ● 2086d

Ahhhhhhhrgh!!!!This “poison pen” branch of an important debate takes forum pedantry to a new level.Utter rubbish.  With a capital “R”.Asking banal rhetorical questions posing as real questions is a blatant and senseless waste of human life.Here's an apposite question.  Is this a sign of lockdown mania among one or two inmates?

Stuart Kerr ● 2086d

A ‘genuine fake’ then Ken. Alongside the accompanying Twitter account. And the owner doesn’t even live in Chiswick.

Russell Pearson ● 2086d

Real or fake, why would you choose to have almost exactly the same name except the .com or .org and then proceed to use it to seek out post taken from the original to make fun of. Same with Twitter, is this dirty tricks?  The cycle lane is in place, and the LTNs and if they're doing a good job, what is the need.

Maggie Dodge ● 2086d

There's no commentary on the OneChiswick.org site, just the posts from OneChiswick. Not much of a trick, really.If you think the comments from OneChiswick invite derision, then that's your judgement.

Tom Pike ● 2086d

Look, at the end of the day, people ON HERE will look at both and make one's own conclusion what the reason for the new one is. Twitter is another beast, all accusing, all promoting beliefs and putting the other side down. All have fake accs flying around somewhere, all blocking and muting. My thoughts are that it is not about calling out abuse, it's about cancelling the other out. Why have a list of local cllrs. Are they throwing abuse around? (see bottom) Remember cherry gate, who were the names who congregated on here on a daily basis having a real dig at Cllr Biddulph. All cycling activists on Twitter. Cherry gate, nope, all about cycling infrastructure and the Cllr and not about cherry trees. JV tweets and someone replies "That website is astonishing!" and then JV replies "And local councillors are involved!!" I wonder, is this also a political motive? I say that people have views, I say some people are not fools PS...Edward created this thread after Jeremy Vine tweeted it out for ref ( DR )

Julian Pavey ● 2086d

Mornin' Julian..I really don't think anyone needs until the end of the day to make his/her mind up about the reason for the new one.  It's bleedin' obvious, support it or not.I'm not on Twitter.  Or Facebook.If I'm missing something do let me know in privvy..x

Stuart Kerr ● 2086d

Oh come on, Tom, they take posts from the original website, change them, mock them and make nasty comments.  You are perfectly aware of that, so drop your fake innocence pose. That they go to all that trouble just shows how scared they are of the very strong objections to the mad Chiswick scheme plus the recent  judgment. Bring on Nigel Havers, he did a great job in Kensington.

Claire Moran ● 2086d

So some clarity.  OneChiswick.com produced first.OneChiswick.Org deliberately produced 2nd, and not by chance, as confirmed by Tom, with the intention of impersonating the original site, by copying it’s logo, fonts, layouts etc, but adding some quotes and details all taken off some social media without the consent of those individuals and not clearly attributable to those individuals.The person who produced this was not Edward, Tom or Ken, but they knew about it, but the person producing this has done it before or something similar and as such knows what they are doing.  Given that Edward, Tom and Ken and others knew about it, it is possible that they knew that it was being done. its intended purpose and perhaps encouraged the producer to do it.  But that could be by chance?Fro some research as this is a deliberately fake site, according to the IT department spoken to, this would be “doxing”.  Had to look that up and according to Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia: "Doxing may be carried out for various reasons, including inflicting harm, harassment, online shaming, extortion, coercion, business analysis, risk analytics, aiding law enforcement or vigilante versions of justice."The doxing and creation of the deliberately fake site could have been been done by one of:"I’d like to thank Ed, Jeremy, Ruth, Karen, Rebekah, Tran, Tom, Kieran, Michiel, Nick, Casey, Paul, Darren, Angela, Les, Matt, Beta, Laura, James, Winston, Ken, Alzbeta, Will, Brian, Tim, Simon, Peter, Chris and I’m sure I’ve left out some people so apologies in advance." - Michael Robinsons article - 6 Sept 2019 for the London Cycling Campaign.And/or someone named in the following, or by someone known to the above or named below:https://chiswickcalendar.co.uk/letter-to-transport-secretary-grant-shapps/So would be useful to know who produced it and why others are promoting doxing.

David Riley ● 2086d

The name is known. It's on the original One Chiswick  site.

Claire Moran ● 2086d

That’s incorrect; have you looked at the website?The quotes are as written with the authors names against them. There are no comments.

Tom Pike ● 2086d

All the quotes are clearly attributed to their authors. There's nothing fake about it.

Tom Pike ● 2086d

Well apart from the name, the logo, the typography, the infringement of data privacy, the fake attribution to the group as a whole, and not to mention the accompanying sock puppet account on Twitter. Weird to see that such underhand dirty tricks tactics are so supported.

Russell Pearson ● 2086d

What comments that you consider to be nasty have been made on the onechiswickorg website that weren't lifted from the original website Clare?

Andrew Jones ● 2086d

More Rubbish!Anyway, The original site claimed right at the very top that it “Represented the clear majority of the people of Chiswick”..Like I've said previously, I didn't appreciate the original OneChiswick campaign for a variety of reasons, not far removed from that very first statement.I read it as a cheap and exaggerated claim of and for populist supremacy, which I resented.And now, I actually have no problem with the second site, seeing it simply as a quick and easy way to redress a balance.If that is acceptable?

Stuart Kerr ● 2086d

Ironically that logo looks like a rip-off of the Chiswick Cycling Club logo:

Will Watson ● 2086d

Hi Loraine,I did walk over to CHR/HT yesterday. Limited number of cyclists to form a general conclusion. The only 2 road cyclists I saw both stopped at all the cycle lane red lights, but it was pretty cold and I didn't hang around to watch any more. And there was also a cyclist cycling around in circles on the pavement outside the Lamb pub (or whatever it's called). Working today and tomorrow so might have a walk over on Thursday.Hope you had a good weekend.

Andrew Jones ● 2086d

"In the case you have cited in Wandsworth the trial ran through the summer and then was suspended in September. If there were schools in the vicinity of the LTN could possibly provide a better explanation of the increase."There are schools all over London, but traffic didn't drop in August. It kept building only starting to drop at the end of September."A crude traffic count is only going to give a very limited picture of the impact of LTNs and a fall does not necessarily confirm that there are fewer cars on the road at any given moment. Vehicles will have had to travel further to get to the count points because of access restrictions and this increase will not be captured."There was a dense array of traffic counts during this period. The fall in counts therefore corresponds to fewer cars on the roads. "Traffic that may have entered the LTN area before may be avoiding it but there is no net gain if it is just going somewhere else."  We have continuous pollution measurements on the main road along the perimeter of the LTNs. There was no increase during the period of operation of the LTN. Given that London as a whole was rising during this period, this rather suggests there was a drop in traffic oon the perimeters of the LTN, just not as large as within them."In saying this I am not arguing against LTNs. I think they are a broadly positive initiative and increasingly necessary given the increasing sophistication of SatNav devices. My point would be that this is exactly the wrong time to be implementing them because unusual traffic conditions make it impossible to reach a firm conclusion on their efficacy." As I said these trials are consistent with what was observed for previous trials, so even if you have any remaining doubts as to the trials in Wandsworth, all the other evidence supports your view that LTN's are a broadly positive initiative.

Tom Pike ● 2086d

How could OneChiswick.org be produced without the content of the vitriolic and abusive comments from Onechiswick.com? That is a very simple answer to your question.

Carl Wynne ● 2086d

Great logo Will. I do appreciate a good one.I would join but you know what Groucho Marx said.

Adrian Irving ● 2086d

Which is the sock puppet account Russell Pearson @onechiswick (August 2020) or @Realonechiswick (September 2020)?It’s certainly of legitimate public interest to open to public scrutiny a closed group that politicians actively support and encourage. Especially one that presumes to speak for the local population, as its name implies, and is fundraising to support legal action that would affect the public realm. The OneChiswick.org website simply publishes comments made by members of the group verbatim. Why should abusive comments in a group supported by local politicians not be exposed? Some of the comments if shouted at an agitated crowd gathered in the street would result in arrest.

Edward Seaton ● 2086d

Indeed Edward. Running down cyclists is really not something that should be countenanced, let alone encouraged. I''m not a cyclist by the way, I either walk or use public transport.

Carl Wynne ● 2086d

I’m a cyclist, and a driver, I don’t fetishise one form of transport over another and think an holistic plan based on agreement is the way forward.Is it really legitimate interest to create an anonymous website and Twitter account purely to launch a crusade against a local group by cherry picking some angry posts from a private Facebook group to create discord? It’s obvious mischief making. Most the people featured in the .org site are not even frequent posters to the Facebook group and are hardly representative of the 1700 + people there. All very underhand and devious, but thankfully these trolls rarely stay anonymous for long. He should have owned his views in public, rather than hiding away and then being found out.

Russell Pearson ● 2086d

Sorry, what is underhand and devious about publishing publicly expressed views? Quite rightly embarrassing for the posters but not devious. The views do not seem to have been condemned either.

Carl Wynne ● 2086d

Doing so anonymously is devious. Fair enough perhaps, if he’d done it all under his own name. He has two websites already, and his own Twitter account. Why create new ones and use the branding, name and design of his target, if not to cause discord and to foment division? I’m not going to labour it, he can troll away, just glad we know who is doing all this, that is legitimate interest.

Russell Pearson ● 2086d

Tom, the array of traffic counts would have had to be on every street in the area to get an accurate picture of traffic kilometres precisely because flow will be directed in different and sometimes unpredicted ways by the LTNs. Therefore the existing data cannot be taken as a proper measure of this key metric. This presents a fundamental weakness in the available data.I don't think I explained my point clearly about traffic around the perimeter. If as a result of the LTN a journey that used to go through it from beyond the perimeter and carried on to the other side may now have been diverted away from the area altogether either by a change in driver behaviour or SatNavs. You can't dismiss this by saying traffic in London hasn't risen overall because it will be statistically insignificant in that context but it could have led to a fundamental change in the nature of traffic on those roads. Identifying these changes would require a lot of work but you can't reach firm conclusions without it.You have clearly done a deep dive into the data but as a strong and consistent advocate of these schemes your opponents are just going to dismiss it as cherry-picked. I don't think you have done that but it remains the case that we have too little data collected at a time of massive distortion to make any categoric statement about any of the recently introduced LTNs.I'm quite happy to accept that the previous generations of LTNs are working but that does not guarantee the more recent ones will too particularly given the method and circumstances of their introduction.It is impossible to assess any of these schemes during lockdown restrictions and although they shouldn't have been introduced at this time I would say that it is probably now necessary to extend the trials to see the impact during more normal conditions.In that sense Wandsworth was wrong to end their trials notwithstanding your data. I don't know if they presented traffic data to counteract your argument but the same objections would apply if they did.Presumably the main reason for rejecting the scheme was a negative local reaction. This in itself should not be a reason to scrap a scheme unless it is overwhelming. By the same token negative reaction is data in itself and it isn't supportable to dismiss it as coming from self-interested petrolheads. If solid, irrefutable data from a source that is not a committed advocate of these schemes is presented to show they are working they should proceed even if there is majority opposition but it is  impossible to collect the necessary evidence at this point.

Mark Evans ● 2085d

So OneChiswickOne.com is an official site.OneChiswick.Org is a deliberately fake site designed to impersonate, put together by someone who regularly does this and so knows what they are doing and doing it with intent.  Others knew that this was being done and are supporting and trying to promote the doxed site as being the original.The person who undertook the doxing is likely to be from:"I’d like to thank Ed, Jeremy, Ruth, Karen, Rebekah, Tran, Tom, Kieran, Michiel, Nick, Casey, Paul, Darren, Angela, Les, Matt, Beta, Laura, James, Winston, Ken, Alzbeta, Will, Brian, Tim, Simon, Peter, Chris and I’m sure I’ve left out some people so apologies in advance." - Michael Robinsons article - 6 Sept 2019 for the London Cycling Campaign.and/or on the following list in regard to the letter attached.https://chiswickcalendar.co.uk/letter-to-transport-secretary-grant-shapps/

David Riley ● 2085d

If you look up the holder of the domain name then it’s pretty clear who set the website up as it’s registered in the name of his company’

Mark Perry ● 2085d

How are you defining 'official'?

Ken Munn ● 2085d

David – you seem to have a bee in your bonnet about all this "offensive" doxing stuff  - but like too many others, you're over-egging the pudding.    I don't know if it was the chicken or the egg - but the One-Chiswick campaign definitely came first in this local theory of evolution.  In my view, discussed previously, that initial campaign was as divisive as it was deceitful.  In so many ways - but mainly in it's claim of abundant local support.My personal take on events is that this, far later, website was created simply to belittle that claim and redress the balance.  Which I reckon is both right and proper and fair-do's.  Unless you don't approve of fair balance?But thanks for bringing this oddball word “doxing” to my attention...It seems to be something to do with raking up old mud and chucking back in someone's face..Hasn't Private Eye been doxing since time began..?

Stuart Kerr ● 2085d

This is all very cloak and dagger.  If people know who created the onechiswick.org website, why don't they post it?  Is there a legal issue?  I would think if someone were prepared to create a website, and include the details of others, that is their choice, the posts were out there already.  But then to not want to identify themselves, it does seem a little disingenuous.  “Do as I say, not as I do”

Kieran Fox ● 2085d

"Hasn't Private Eye been doxing since time began..?"There's a long and honourable tradition of disclosing information in the public interest, the MP's expense scandal being an example of some local interest.Those who wrote these words clearly felt they reflected the views of the rest of Chiswick, as indeed the website name suggests. Why would they have any issues with their words being appreciated by a wider audience?Or maybe their support is not quite as abundant as they claim.

Tom Pike ● 2085d

It’s just a bloke in Ealing copying and pasting comments from a private Chiswick Facebook group into an anonymous web site. It’s trolling Tom, this isn’t going to win an award for investigative journalism. Btw, I’ve missed the Eye’s doxing websites and troll Twitter accounts, anyone point me in the right direction?

Russell Pearson ● 2085d

No awards, but still a well-known approach in journalism:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-33619045And similarly we can all reach our own opinion as to whether we agree with the sentiments, without the need for any commentary.

Tom Pike ● 2085d

That has to be one of the most patently absurd comparisons I’ve ever seen. An utter joke. What would be in the public interest would be seeing what’s in the Slack and Whatspp channels used by Hounslow Cycling - they’re mentioned in Mr Robinson’s blog where he gloats about their propaganda campaign. Do our local Brentford councillors contribute much?

Russell Pearson ● 2085d

I've no idea what's on Hounslow cycling's WhatsApp or Slack channels. I'm not a member.Hounslow cycling don't claim to represent my views. If they did, I would certainly be interested in what views they chose to convey.You can't both claim that OneChiswick represents the views of the vast majority in Chiswick and at the same time be annoyed when those views are made public!

Tom Pike ● 2085d

.. He can you know, Tom..He's doing what's known as “poxing” - when a bored twerp/nerd, with nothing better to do than make a nuisance of himself, goes around trying to generate a flame war by driving normal folk round the twist.He's also emptying this forum..

Stuart Kerr ● 2085d

"I’m not going to labour it" he said back when most people had already got bored silly. Imagine what would have happened if he had decided to labour it.

Paul Campbell ● 2085d

It's really rather simple Russell: If you don't want people to  see the abuse, threats and insults you make, don't make them in the first place.

Carl Wynne ● 2085d

This is all getting rather tedious, and a tad snarky Carl. But being as you called my name I decided to reply, might well be the last (I can already hear the shrill clink of Sherry glasses in Bedford Park)...Here’s the advice I gave to the Facebook group. If you have access to one of the peeping Tom accounts you can get a screenshot too.“ Always remember - posts on social media are as private as a postcard! Some people will do all they can to twist what’s said to score a cheap political point. So do think first before posting, even if it’s a joke, they will say it’s serious. ”

Russell Pearson ● 2085d

I have no interest in the OneChiswick.com facebook group but as I said, if people don't like posts being published, don't make them in the first place. Yours snarkily ... This tedious debate has killed this forum for normal people.

Carl Wynne ● 2085d

Wandsworth have opened consultations on reinstalling all the LTNs they took out:  https://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/the-council/have-your-say/consultations/

Tom Pike ● 2084d

Papers circulating from within the Council are that it appears that there is, and has been, so much communication between LCC and Councillors and Officers that the Council is currently refusing to answer.

David Riley ● 2082d

Anyone surprised? Anyone at all?

David Lesniak ● 2082d

...Papers circulating from within the Council are that it appears that there is, and has been, so much communication between LCC and Councillors and Officers that the Council is currently refusing to answer.The weasel words there: 'it appears that'. Almost as good as 'allegedly' or 'apparently' or 'according to'.

Ken Munn ● 2082d

Weasel words are legal words.Until proven guilty, that's how the story needs to be told lest someone like you would go for the BS libel angle.

David Lesniak ● 2081d

Why read the posts on this subject Carl? There are others. Isn’t it that simple?

Maggie Dodge ● 2081d

So it all appears that this is all part of a strategy from LCC and other similar organisations around the world given the following article.https://singlefile.org/why-are-so-many-cyclists-such-terrible-internet-citizens/

David Riley ● 2073d

https://singlefile.orgHardly a neutral witness is it?

Ken Munn ● 2073d

Let it go, Ken.All one has to do is Google something like "cycle campaign talking points" or "cycle campaign strategy" and after a few clicks you will land on sites that give people the canned rhetoric to use when posting on a forum like this. The "if someone says this choose from one of these options to respond" scenario that passes for engagement.

David Lesniak ● 2072d

I was quoting from the LCC website some time ago, picking up their apparent control of Councils on the subject of cycle lanes etc . I also brought up the word cult a few times.“ In modern English, a cult is a social group that is defined by its unusual religious, spiritual, or philosophical beliefs, or by its common interest in a particular personality, object, or goal.” I have been ripped into by many members of various cycle groups, Ken included, Jeremy Vine, Paul Campbell, Ruth Mayorcas. I think I’d hit the nail on the head .

Maggie Dodge ● 2072d

Was just checking on the web and it appears that the onechiswick.org site is no longer available.  Was there a problem with it?  Has it been taken down?The onechiswick.com one is still working.

David Riley ● 2055d

Perhaps after the Simon Still racism and doxing scandal, the LCC is wanting to distance itself from its member’s more wayward activities, and has told him to remove the site? Seems unlikely. Maybe it’s just a fault.

Russell Pearson ● 2055d

If there were any benefit from cycle lanes, LTN's and all the road closures generally, then I don't think the cycle lobby and people who for whatever reason support them, would feel the need to lie about their benefits, skew all consultations and generally bully the likes of me who point out all their lies and misinformation.  The fact that these cycle groups have influential people, The PM, The Mayor, TFL, Council Leaders, LCC, etc etc throwing their all it, is the reason they've lasted this long.  They tried another one of their dodgy consultations to try to re-open Kensington.  They have no  care for the money that is wasted, the carnage on peoples lives, they are just interested in themselves and their love of two wheels. Talking of bullying, the emergency services/ bus drivers etc are no longer staying silent. What pressure was put on them and by whom to last this long.

Maggie Dodge ● 2055d

Maggie you are always claiming everyone lies......but you don't ?????

Chris Vessey ● 2054d

Do I ?