Forum Topic

Probably reasonable to assume that the changes will have something to do with the forthcoming ULEZ implementation and may include some sort of enforcement equipment although this stretch of the A4 remains exempt.TfL seem to be anticipating a big increase in traffic on the North and South Circulars. Kew Bridge has been widened to accommodate this taking space away from cyclists and pedestrians which, bemusingly, has not brought a peep from the most vocal pro-cycling groups.It does seem strange because the one part of C9 which was well designed and provided a clear benefit brings you down to Kew Bridge but the option to progress further has been severely constrained. Continuing on by bike across the bridge seems to almost be actively discouraged and is poorly signed.It seems likely that the initial impact of the ULEZ will be to reduce traffic on the A4 which could be good news for Chiswick unless there is an offsetting increase in congestion on the north circular.I've noticed recently that if I'm approaching Chiswick from the west and my final destination is north of the High Road my SatNav is directing me up the A406 and then along Bollo Lane presumably to avoid the artificially created queue at the bus gate near Acton Lane. If Chiswick Roundabout and the North Circular are both congested that does raise the danger of eastbound queues on CHR stretching back to the roundabout. What they would do if this happens is anyone's guess but they would have little choice but to allow more of the queuing traffic into central Chiswick creating a logjam at the pinchpoints there.The good news could be that the new Sutton Court Road lights might be acting as a safety valve to relieve pressure on the High Road when this happens. Otherwise the tailbacks from Sutton Court Road will meet the tailbacks on Chiswick High Road.That TfL are doing this work now probably also means a decision has been taken either way on C9. On balance it is more likely that they have already decided to get rid because keeping it would create the risk that pollution increases on Chiswick High Road when the ULEZ is introduced.

Paul Corcoran ● 2001d

"Drivers are simply sick and tired of being held to account for every single movement on the roads."It isn't just cyclists who get in the way of your car, but pedestrians crossing the road too.The UK doesn't have Jaywalking laws which were partly designed to move some of the legal liability for an accident from a car driver to the pedestrian if they're not on a crossing.  The history of jaywalking laws is interesting because they were a result of a lobbying campaign by the auto industry to prevent restrictions on speed to safeguard pedestrians who were being killed in increasing numbers.https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-historyThe article above makes the point that roads existed before cars and were for everyone to use and enjoy.Jaywalking laws and the campaigns to shame pedestrians were designed to remove them from the roads they used to enjoy and reserve them exclusively for motor vehicles.We've debated on a number of threads now where I've argued that a few car drivers have an unjustified entitlement to roads which are a public good and demand, as you sometimes do, that other road uses and users are illegitimate (e.g. cyclists don't pay for roads).The exact balance of how roads are used is up for debate - our government (local and national) believe that roads should be shared safely between pedestrians, cyclists, cars, public transport and commercial vehicles, and given the other car generated externalities of air pollution and congestion, they would like more short journeys done by non-car modes.In the UK (like the USA pre 1920), it is still the duty of a car driver to take due care not to hit a pedestrian or cyclist, even if they're not at a crossing or where you expect (or want!) them to be.  That's partly because a car is the larger and heavier vehicle - the driver isn't going to be hurt in a collision, but the other road users likely would be.

Ed Saper ● 1996d

It's okay, Ed. I know you don't get the concept of balance and flow.Pedestrians control rush hour. I don't get that. With the push of a button traffic comes to a halt. Worse, with one step, one mindless step, cars are forced to slam the brakes while pedestrians mosey along at a glacial pace. Including on the A40. I find that bizarre. But then again, in the states we consider vehicular flow part of the solution to minimize traffic and pollution. We like a good right on red with flow to keep things moving as opposed to idling away for ages. Right on red was implemented during the 70's as a proven means to reduce fuel consumption. Here those types of measures are simply ignored. Here it seems to me signalized crossing is better than complete chance when trying to control movement.Escalators aren't necessary. But you know what would help, elevators at TG tube and any other non-accessible station. But Paulo knows this. I do like a bit of jaywalking, I must say. I find it inane to push the button when no cars are present. Wait. And then cross on the green - again no cars present. Instead I like to push the button. Look both ways, of course. Then cross. Then, while walking away, I like to time how long it takes before I hear the beeping. Then I like to stop, turn around, and watch the traffic come to a halt while absolutely no one is at the crossing. Jaywalk and let traffic move more smoothly? Or stop it for no reason? The other day on the A40 eastbound traffic came to a complete stop for the pedestrian crossing. Yet there was no one there to cross. Surely technology has come far enough to avoid this scenario. Isn't that what the green wave is supposed to be about?

David Lesniak ● 1995d