Forum Topic

Chiswick Celebrates Return to the Status Quo

Chiswick has spoken and change has been rejected!There will be no change in Chiswick High Road and it's adjacent streets.  Those who once dreamed of save the planet type change, the daft idealists and the cyclists have all clearly thrown in the towel.  As has the Council, worn down and now knocked-out by such concerted opposition.The covid traffic and bicycle experiments of 2020-21 will all be reversed in the coming weeks and the land will go back to the same normal it's enjoyed since the war, and even before that.An area where cars can move about with freedom and park-up virtually outside their favourite shops in treasured places like Turnham Green Terrace and Devonshire Road.  There will be no extended pavement space in the Terrace for outside dining.  No more crazy ideas about one-way streets or bus diversions.  No gazebos blocking the right of way.  Just plenty of estate agents and space for both deliveries and shoppers to once again park their cars with freedom.Likewise, to the relief of the majority of shop-keepers, the blockades will soon be removed from Devonshire Road and a free flow of traffic allowed once again to breathe all its commercial advantages into the area. No more reluctant trudging on shanks's pony.  Just local customers buzzing back and forth to spend their money with a smile.The loathed C9 bicycle Lane is doomed too.  It simply holds up the traffic.  Ridiculously conceived with no public consultation, C9 does nothing for anyone.  The bicycles should all have gone on the A4 - like Chiswick drivers unanimously advised but were never heard.Smile everyone...Chiswick has been saved for posterity.

Stuart Kerr ● 1988d148 Comments

In capitalising the title you make it seem like the post was about a reunion tour by a very mediocre heavy rock band.

Anita Blake ● 1988d

Mediocre some may say but very good live even with only 'three chords'.Back on topic, these knee-jerk traffic control measures are being withdrawn everywhere. At least they didn't waste as much of our money on these as they did on Track and Trace.

N V Brooks ● 1987d

Great to see estate agents have survived, prospered even,through thick and thin.Nothing new there though, agents have been doing this for decades.

Adrian Irving ● 1987d

Common sense prevails, still living in a Democracy phew…. Back to my cycling!

Jimmy Kim ● 1987d

Stuart, obviously a lot of people will be annoyed at the rolling back of these measure, but also a lot of people will be delighted.Early on in the process I lamented the implementation of the half arsed measures as, if they were reversed, the chances of getting well thought out and planned schemes implemented was diminished.The LCC banging on about how great the current schemes are have shot themselves in the foot.If they had pushed backed and insisted on  properly thought through and planned schemes, in the long run they would have probably got them.  Instead the glibly laughed at their “Success”.If the cycle way comes out now, do you ever think the fully planned CS9 scheme will ever go in?  I doubt it.

Kieran Fox ● 1987d

So it goes like this.  Have an agenda.  Cobble together a scheme.  Persuade enough people that it’s a good one.  Ignore warnings about likely undesirable consequences.  Ignore the fact that large numbers of stakeholders have impeccable reasons to be firmly opposed to the scheme.  Insult these people.  Push on regardless.  End up with a costly mess.Haven’t we been here before?

Alastair Banton ● 1987d

Alastair, if I may, the only thing you left out was the bit about ignoring warnings of their own making. If they can't abide by the very guidance they created, how on earth was it to succeed? Yet more money down the drain. At least TfL was given another 10 days to sort out the multi-billion pound mess it got itself into. I'd blame the Mayor as well, but he says he didn't know about the first billion or so in the hole plus he won't apologize.

David Lesniak ● 1987d

Stuart, yes I use A4 regularly in preference to CR9.CR9 I find quite frustrating and confusing to use.

Chris Vessey ● 1987d

We do need a lane on the A4, but we can't go back to what was on the High Road before.There were painted "cycle lanes" that stopped where the road narrowed at the zebra crossings, forcing cyclists to push themselves out into traffic.Further along, those same painted "cycle lanes" were right in the door zone of a row of parked cars.Both of those were dangerous for cyclists.  We would have been better off without them.It's not an either/or thing.  There needs to be a lane on the A4, but there also needs to be better provision on the High Road than there was previously.The High Road needs something on either side, with the traffic.  The current arrangement just doesn't work. The Dukes Avenue lights are ridiculous.  Because you have the Eastbound cycle lane on the South side of the road, the phase for cyclists at the lights is so short that it's unusable if you want to actually get somewhere.  I've cycled along there a few times in the last few weeks, and I'm getting into the habit of using the road.  If we are going to have segregated lanes that work, there needs to be an Eastbound lane on the North side, and a Westbound lane on the South side.I'm not sure about re-opening Fishers Lane though.  That was dangerous before.  Trying to cycle through there could be a  problematic.  You could be under the bridge so it's your priority, and someone coming the other way in a car would decide to just plough on anyway. It was dangerous.I'm sure I've also seen standoffs between cars under the bridge there.  Leaving that closed might not be a bad thing, and would definitely make it safer for cyclists.  There are arguments both ways on that one, but I would probably lean on the side of leaving it closed.The other big problems at the moment are Hartington Road and Strand on the Green.  With the road by Chiswick School closed two hours a day, having Hartington Road closed is a massive problem for Grove Park residents.  If they are going to keep it, the resident's exemption needs to be extended to all Grove Park residents.For Strand-on-the-Green, all Grove Park residents also need to be exempted if it's kept.  It's ridiculous having to go up to Chiswick Roundabout and through all the traffic to get home from Brentford or Kew.  It's just adding traffic and pollution.  If they have ANPR cameras, it's not hard to compare the number plates seen with a list of residents' cars.  They are already doing it for Hartington Road.

Al Webber ● 1987d

There can be no return to the status quo because life has changed - just like there is no such thing as "normal".

Philippa Bond ● 1987d

Of course, "Status Quo" is a truncated version of the phrase. It goes on to read "status quo ante bellum", which I'm sure needs no translation for a classically  educated forum member such as we find here.I fear we have indeed been involved in a civil version - a typically internecine affair.

Bruce Hammal ● 1987d

Hi there Philippa...Earlier on I walked down Turnham Green Terrace.  It was great.  Back to normal and back to as it was before.  Cars parked bumper to bumper all the way down the west side.  And to the east, traffic waiting patiently with a few wits honking their horns for the lights to change – all the way from the top right down to Lemons and Lime and beyond.Brilliant!Can't say there was much footfall – but hey they'll soon be back.  Droves of them in their cars arriving from every corner, some from miles away.  Long live Chiswick and sod the bloody planet!You could even cross the road, squeezing in and out and in-between all the metal.  Because nothing much was moving – save for the odd cyclist, peddling quietly away and probably wondering what all the fuss was about.Outside one of TGT's most wonderful and innovative of shops, Hack & Veldt, three tiny chairs with tiny tables were squashed tight into the outside frontage – with just a few happy diners cramped-up and enjoying this local beauty spot.  Whilst a beggar was plying her trade just a few yards down nearer the bridge.  Who says life isn't great when it gets back to normal?Bayley and Sage might just as well have been Mortimer and Bennett or Durban & Alright... it was as if time had stood still for near on 40 odd years..And all thanks to Labour at Hounslow Council for having the courage and the wisdom to make this imaginative U-turn.Progress has firmly been put back to sleep...Next for chop - Devonshire Road!Can't wait..

Stuart Kerr ● 1987d

Somebody must have seen today's weather forecast and decided against embracing full-on café clulture. A bit of après-ski may be in order though.

Bruce Hammal ● 1987d

Al, A reason for the lights at Dukes Ave is the high volume of through traffic using that route for access to the eastbound A4 and cutting the corner to get to Sutton Court Rd via Barrowgate or one of the other side streets.If Dukes Ave only had local access traffic, there may be no need for traffic lights at that location at all (except maybe pedestrian crossing). Other residential side streets along CHR don't need signals other than those linked to other junctions like at Upham Park Rd and Chiswick Lane.  A 2019 traffic survey showed that almost 90% of traffic entering Dukes Ave was through traffic.

Michael Robinson ● 1987d

A measured and thoughtful post Al.

Ed Saper ● 1987d

I'm going to buy a bigger car to celebrate Stuart's news.

Simon Pedley ● 1987d

That's the spirit, Simon...It's a bit like an alcoholic mumbling to himself in a hospital bed as he awaits his second transplant...“When I get my new liver, I'm gonna treat it to a whole bottle of Jameson's – just to let it know it's in safe hands..”

Stuart Kerr ● 1987d

Stuart, you might have noticed a southbound E3, or two, trapped in that mess. The interim report showed the E3 saved up to 5 minutes southbound even before the restrictions were properly enforced. That's along the length of its route from the top of TGT along CHR and down Heathfield Terrace to the top of SCR, so including any delays on the High Road.But apparently the anecdotal evidence of people who want to drive down TGT trumps the actual measured delays of those onboard the E3. And the irony is that the interim report confirmed TGT as a "key corridor" for trips neither starting or ending locally. We've brought back the congestion and the pollution on TGT so that most people can just use it to drive through.

Tom Pike ● 1987d

And to think, this trailed the day before NHS statistics on a major uptick in obesity-related hospital admissions. What a laugh!

Ken Munn ● 1987d

I ditched my car a few months ago after someone crashed into it and wrote it off whilst it was parked on my quiet little avenue. I’ve rather enjoyed the challenge of getting everywhere using muscle movement, with the odd zip-style car hire thrown in here and there. I should perhaps now but a service utility vee-hicle for my trips to Devonshire Road to buy little things. I’ll need parking so let’s hope they move all those ugly continental-style dining tables that blight the tarmac vista and they can get rid of all those ghastly markets that spoil a good drive.

Edward Seaton ● 1987d

You might want a refresher course on parking from David Kerr. He rather generously parked his Audi across two loading bays on Devonshire Road last weekend while he took brunch, demonstrating that there's never enough parking space in Chiswick.Those table have to go!

Tom Pike ● 1987d

Yes the traffic report shows what the Councillors and car addicts of Chiswick denied: TGT is a through-road for traffic coming to and from Shepherds Bush and the A4. Chiswick’s car lobby is rolling out the red carpet for Westfield.

Paul Campbell ● 1987d

Indeed, can I have 2 puddings?DessertsRhubarb crumble soufflé, rhubarb ripple ice cream Bitter chocolate tart, dulce de leche ice creamCreme caramel, golden raisins and warm madeleines Blood orange sorbetCheeseGorwydd Caerphilly, Brightwell Ash and Gorgonzola Dolce

Russell Pearson ● 1987d

Councillor Biddolph 20/6/2020:The council must stop claiming that Turnham Green Terrace is a “through route”. It is a B road, a local road for local people that takes residents from one part of the ward they live in to another, and from one Chiswick ward to the next.Phase 1 interim report by Steer consultants, May 2021: It can be seen that before the scheme was implemented, Turnham Green Terrace was a key corridor for trips to places outside the local area. It appears that it was used by trips travelling between areas to the north-west (such as Acton) and the east (such as Hammersmith) or south. Another desire line appears to be between the north-east (around Shepherd’s Bush) and the west (such as Chiswick Roundabout).

Tom Pike ● 1987d

We should be thankful that Labour councillors like Steve Curran and Guy Lambert have listened to the Tories and acted accordingly in TGT.  Now they must do likewise for Devonshire RoadIf it wasn't for our wonderful Conservative Councillors like Joanna Biddolph and Sam Hearn, the voices of our Devonshire Road shopkeepers would never have been heard.  Forget Labour and Green Party nonsense like pollution levels, climate change, bikes and outside eating they cry - just bring back the cars.Nobody wants a Devonshire Road packed full of people enjoying themselves.  What's needed is a free flow of traffic with plenty of parking space for locals to draw-up outside in their car and drop-off whatever they need to drop-off.  Or even pick-up 

Stuart Kerr ● 1987d

Yes, Cllr Biddolph said that Turnham Green Terrace wasn’t a through route but Google Maps, Apple Maps, Microsoft and Waze said it was.

Michael Robinson ● 1987d

Unfortunately closing the road to through out - of - area  traffic was also a big pain in the ar** for the locals. Tricky one isn't it?

Bruce Hammal ● 1987d

There's certainly a balance, but achieving the right one is not helped by misrepresenting the source of the traffic.This is not an isolated example. Councillor Biddolph also said:“The council must stop claiming that Devonshire Road is a "rat run". Traffic is light because it’s a road to nowhere else, it’s a road to here – to our homes in the Glebe Estate, to the alphabet roads, to the river, back to the High Road, to our friends’ homes right here in Chiswick."In contrast the report says:"It can be seen that before the scheme was implemented, Devonshire Road was a key conduit for trips to cut through and access places within and outside the local area. The majority of vehicles using Devonshire Road were frequently routed via Chiswick High Road and Turnham Green Terrace; these routes connected south using the A316 (toward Richmond and Twickenham). Trips also appear to have originated from the north-east (around Shepherd’s Bush) and the east (such as Hammersmith) or south."The council is more likely to find a reasonable balance on the basis of independent advice informed by data rather than misleading claims unsupported by evidence.

Tom Pike ● 1987d

Quite right Stuart.  The OC is just getting started:- cancel the open air markets which take up valuable parking spots from and/or block local retailers.[Real complaint from The OC / CTF]- reopen roads to cars and remove pavement / street dining which make the streets too busy with families / kids on trikes and take away valuable parking spots.[Real complaint from The OC / CTF]- remove zebra crossings on CHR which allow pedestrians to hold up the flow of traffic.[Real complaint from The OC]- revisit the role of buses on CHR.  They are barely used by mainly poor people (can't afford cars) and many are just passing through on their commute, so of no benefit to local traders.  Why do they need their usually empty dedicated lanes? It would be more appropriate if they were routed via the A4.  [Taking the exact arguments against cyclists and discovering how easily they can be applied to buses!]

Ed Saper ● 1987d

I think the idea is to bring people with you,  sell the idea,  figure out how it can work for all.  Reducing congestion and air pollution is something everyone wants.  So why have the majority of people advocating this in Chiswick alienated so many others?  This thread is a good example why.

Kieran Fox ● 1987d

Stuart -Best to get your facts straight when politicizing, don't you think?Hack & Veldt sadly didn't benefit from the recent measures. The size and placement of their tables has absolutely nothing to do with these measures being put in place nor revoked. In their location, it is as it has always been. I was pleased to see they did squash tables on the pavement a few months back since they have no other option available. No hospitality venue on TGT did what those on DR did. The pavement in front of their shop has always been very narrow. We first met the owner at a planning meeting when LBH was still on Lampton. She was there representing herself at a hearing to put one small, narrow bench outside her shop which has since been replaced by the tables. Why must businesses in Hounslow go to such extreme lengths to do what other businesses can do elsewhere automatically?If the Old Market space is being used in a flexible manner, so should other street real estate be. Why not develop a model where businesses can utilize street space when the commute is over? On TGT and DR, let them set up outside at night. On the High Road, let them use the cycle lane for seating. It does absolutely nothing after about 7pm.

David Lesniak ● 1987d

Ed, a few posts back you were the one bemoaning businesses on Prince of Wales and Devonshire Mews not being included in the recent survey. You advocating for owners, suppliers and presumably customers accessing premises by car.Square your circle.

David Lesniak ● 1987d

What defines a car addict ? So many of the cycling zealots own cars, or they have a car in the family. Presumably that means there are times when they find a car useful, why doesn’t that apply to others? Please stop referring to those that don’t or can’t cycle as anti cyclists, why call us that ?

Maggie Dodge ● 1987d

David, you tend to get the wrong end of the stick on things because you only skim posts and make assumptions about what people are saying or thinking, often wrong, and then go in on the attack! For instance, I actually looked at the survey data from the CTF. You haven’t! Prince of Wales Terrace businesses were consulted in the survey.  I’ve never advocated they be included because they already were. So when I asked, quite neutrally initially,  why DM businesses weren’t consulted, it was in the context of why they’d surveyed POWT but not DM. In the same thread you said that I thought that all businesses were “feckless idiots” because I’d suggested the people visiting Devonshire Road to visit, shop or work might be consulted on the changes. I said no such thing of course.However, you went on to say that the mantra “the customer is always right” was quite inaccurate, so it is pretty clear that you were projecting and that the “feckless idiots” you refer to are the customers which is why that particular constituency also shouldn’t be asked their opinions.

Ed Saper ● 1987d

Maybe people think you are anti cyclist because you keep calling them zealots and part of various imagined conspiracies against car drivers?Or maybe it is the frequent cliched jibes at their clothing, their rudeness, their aggression and the constant demands that individual cyclists on this forum apologise on behalf of all cyclists that make people think The OC is anti cyclist?Or perhaps it is because The OC’s main aim is to remove a cycle lane that makes some think you are anti cyclist?

Ed Saper ● 1987d

Ed what’s a car addict , you missed that question

Maggie Dodge ● 1987d

“ Please stop referring to those that don’t or can’t cycle as anti cyclists, why call us that ?”You missed your own question!

Ed Saper ● 1987d

Those lights don't work for cyclists at the moment though.  The phase for cyclists is far too short.  I don't see how that can be fixed with a bi-directional lane on the South side.  The EB lane needs to be on the North side.

Al Webber ● 1987d

I’m sorry you gave me quite a long reply. I can promise you I am not anti cyclist. I’ve lost track of how many times I’ve said it. I am happy to share the road with cyclists and give them space. Could you acknowledge that or will you dismiss it as others do. No one ever acknowledged when I say this. What I’m against is the cycle lane, cycling on pavements. Young children cycling on main roads etc. They are separate issues. Can you explain why the title cycle zealot bothers you but car adddicts doesn’t, or does it ? and will you take issue with Paul? I hope you’ll respond to each of my points. Thanks

Maggie Dodge ● 1987d

"What I’m against is the cycle lane, cycling on pavements. Young children cycling on main roads etc."So what's left for young cyclists? You oppose them cycling anywhere!

Tom Pike ● 1987d

4/5 year old should not be on a road , they can ride in parks and on the pavement. They are not old enough to deal with the unexpected. An adult cycling in front, behind, or by their side is not able to assist if they get in trouble, as I witnessed recently. Are you happy to see a 4/ 5 year old should in the main road? Do you think cycle zealot is inappropriate but car addict is ok?

Maggie Dodge ● 1987d

Morning David...Good to see you paying attention.  I knew all that btw.So you continue in distracting attention from your wretched involvement in last week's Daily Mail spread. Still looking to twist. Nah - let's stick.Saturday's two page spread “Cycle Wars” in the Daily Mail is what David is trying to avoid.  Yesterday I managed to locate a copy.  It's a carefully and craftily re-written piece by experienced hack, Mark Edmonds – obviously picking up from the Mail on-line version which I couldn't read because of my  advert blocker.The on-line story included (I think) Julian Pavey's controversial 2019 cartoon about mobikes being blown-up on Chiswick High Road.  MOBIKES was far and away the biggest story in town all that year.  They were littered on pavements all over town and forum records contain numerous threads and hundreds and hundreds of angry moans from posters. But critically, in mid-2019, cycle lanes and LTN's were NOT on anybody's agenda.So late last week, the question on many W4 lips was how on earth did Julian's mobike cartoon find it's way onto a story 2 years later about “Cycle Wars”. How on earth could anyone make such a connection?  I'll tell you something for nothing – there isn't a journalist in the world who could get back through our forum records to discover mobikes, scream “eureka” - and re-plant it into this new Mail story.Anyway (can't be bothered to look back and find) I'm sure I recall David Lesniak late last week informing the forum that Julian's image was “in the public domain” and therefore, how on earth the Mail got hold of it, was a complete mystery.Cut to Saturday's Mail:-A photo of an explosion on a Chiswick pavement is captioned as follows:-    “Crude attack: An animated video of a missile destroying a Chiswick bakery whose owner opposes road closures.”Cut back to 2019 and Julian's cartoon video:-As I remember, that video blew up mobikes NOT a bakery.  Is my memory wrong?  Tell me dear readers.  Anyway, I do remember David took huge offence.  And I do remember he was told by many of W4's finest that the video was not aimed at either him or Outsider Tart.  But he'd have nothing of that and pressed on seeking his own form of justice/revenge.Cut forwards to this Saturday's Daily Mail spread:-And I quote:-   “David Lesniak knows better than most how unhinged some pro-cycling campaigners have become.The owner of the Outside Tart Bakery and cafe on Chiswick High Road has been a vocal opponent of the new measures.  A crude animated video posted online by one such campaigner shows a heat-seeking missile being launched, flying into the sky above Chiswick and landing on Mr Lesniak's bakery.  The business is destroyed, disappearing into a hole in the ground.“This is not engagement in debate, Mr Lesniak told the Mail.  It is harassment and bullying.  We need to hold these people to account.”OK that's it!Time you came clean and explain exactly what happened from start to finish – or apologise to Julian Pavey for being a highfalutin precocious tart .. one or the other..

Stuart Kerr ● 1987d

I think a protected cycle lane is just what's required to give more people of all ages  the confidence to travel under their own steam rather than be ferried around by car.Yes, there are cycling zealots, but they do little harm. A car addict who insists on using it for the shortest of trips when they are quite capable of active transport is contributing to pollution, emissions and congestion, as well as much more probably causing injury and death.

Tom Pike ● 1987d

So cycling zealots exist. What I witnessed was a very young child leaving the supposed safety of the cycle lane, turning in to a side road which is where the problem was evident. If another cyclist approached from the opposite direction on the bi directional cycle lane would the young child panic? move in the wrong direction ? Wobble? Someone tried to justify it by saying they were obviously practicing. Should a child practice on a main road rather than the park as was always thus? This is why it feels like some cyclists are too invested in their right to cycle. If you want such a young child to learn to cycle on the High Road, then the parent should consider walking by their side . It seems to me cyclists are as addicted to their bicycle as some car owners are accused of being addicted to their car.The problem is short journeys by car can be explained by a multitude of explanations, all of which are listed endlessly and ignored. Presumably the distance a 4/5 year old can be expected to cycle is walkable by the average adult, but they choose to put the child in a unnecessarily dangerous situation

Maggie Dodge ● 1987d

practising      (to) practise    (the) practiceI blame the misspelling everywhere by NHS England and Hounslow Council.

Anne England ● 1987d

Maggie, you are quite correct. People who don't ride bikes simply are not cyclists. They should not be referred to as anti-cyclists. When I was cycle time trialling I needed a car to get to events which could be anywhere from say Cheshire, Blackpool, Lands End, John O'Groats, Brighton and more local races on the A4 in Berkshire. I certainly do not deny anybody their right to have a car, they just clutter up all our streets, rather like litter.

Chris Vessey ● 1987d

Hi Kieran,I'd have hoped you'd realised by now that I completely agree with you.When it comes to the majority of good people of Chiswick, as much as they're fond of cyclists and fully aboard issues like air pollution, greenhouse gases and  a wee crisis on planet earth – the free use of their motor car is their number one priority.  The ace of trumps.They should have been consulted about these changes.  As should the shopkeepers involved.I can't speak for Grove Park because I hardly know which street is which.  But I can now understand that the changes in TGT, Devonshire Road and Fishers Lane have completely kiboshed all those local motorists needing no nip in there and nip off there and park up here and pick up the carrots from there and drop the kids off wherever.  As it also bamboozled all those thousands of other drivers from far and wide, used to whizzing through Chiswick en-route to somewhere else.These were LTN's too far.As is the loathed and now doomed cycle lane.  For goodness sake, it holds up the traffic!  So is has to go.And massive thanks to our brave Tory councillors for their efforts.  With hearty slaps on the back of Labour chaps like Steve Curran, Hanif Khan and Guy Lambert,  for climbing down from the high moral ground and listening to the facts.  The car has won the day and all will soon be back to normal and well in Chiswick.If you've children Kieran, they'll one day thank you for this.  Along with the vast majority of this local community - for the great fight you've all put up to save this lovely suburb from destruction.When they grow up they might well leave Chiswick alongside most of our young - and take their bicycles to live in places like Peckham and Hackney.  But they'll surely understand what's been accomplished here and bless your vision, as a relieved W4 is safely returned to the status quo.Stagnation is key..Evolution is for nutters...

Stuart Kerr ● 1987d

Somebody who uses regularly uses their bike for local trips, like John Todd, is not an addict. It's a very sensible transport choice. Under the same circumstances, choosing a car to make the same trips would be to ignore the damage your choice causes to everyone else.

Tom Pike ● 1987d

So I take it you can’t counter my argument. One day you may  be big enough to admit you’re wrong. I may not live that long though so, adieu .

Maggie Dodge ● 1987d

Maggie, I think what you're saying is that parents taking their kids to school on a bike are putting them in danger because of their addiction to cycling?That they "choose to put the child in an unnecessarily dangerous situation".Is your preference that school drop offs revert to being a scrum of double parked cars in a haze of exhaust fumes?  Does that align with your pro car / anti cyclist and now child friendly agenda?  Have you considered that those of us choosing not to use our cars to take the kids to school are doing other drivers a favour by not clogging up the roads so they can go about their daily journeys - whether that's delivering packages, tradesmen visiting customers or just driving 300m to the corner shop?

Ed Saper ● 1987d

Stuart,  the infamous video showed missiles landing on the sidewalk next to a row of bikes and not on the local businesses on the CHR corner which at the time as featured in the video were a tile shop and that pizza concept store that sold fresh pizzas ready for the oven.How things escalted to where they did beats me and I was suprised to see it mentioned in the the article you cite, perhaps I shoudnt be.

Matthew Swain ● 1987d

Active transport is certainly good for the health, so you might have a point there. I really hope Stuart is not right, and we don't have to wait another generation for change. The Council needs to look carefully at the age profile of those objecting to these changes and make choices that both represent the whole community and take into account future generations.

Tom Pike ● 1987d

I’m saying cyclist might consider walking in order to be  beside a young child learning to ride a bike. I think you’ve gone off at a tangent, possibly to avoid replying to a perfectly good point. I’m not sure you answers my other points either but I’m not allowed to respond otherwise I’m deemed as aggressive. Let’s not bother , things to do 👍

Maggie Dodge ● 1987d

Whoever sets up their new fitness business in Devonshire Road, where everyone can sit down in the middle of the road, eat large French dinners and lose weight, get fit, save the planet, all in one feast, will be on to a winner. As they used to say at the BBC, trebles all round.

Russell Pearson ● 1986d

"Yes, there are cycling zealots, but they do little harm."Save to the well-being of those who don't either fit their narrow agenda or even propose age profiling when looking at changes to infrastructure.Actually your suggestion, as indeed it was yours, that "The Council needs to look carefully at the age profile of those objecting to these changes"  smack of the totalitarian approach of the more 'militant' members of the LCC - two wheels good, four wheels bad; damn the old and disabled..

N V Brooks ● 1986d

Hi Matthew..Precisely.  Julian (as a video maker) landed his missile via telescopic sights straight onto a pile of MOBIKES bang in the middle of the pavement and well away from Outside Tart.David's original hissy-fit was contrived, prissy and completely out of order.  Far worse, he didn't have the guts to apologise and climb down.  This latest twist takes the biscuit.Don't let this Daily Mail escalation beat you.  It's pure David Lesniak.

Stuart Kerr ● 1986d

The objections to the traffic measures are massively skewed by age, with those aged over 60 at least 12 times more likely to object than those under 30.The council has an equal duty of care to everyone, including by age and disability.

Tom Pike ● 1986d

You used to need a man with a flag walking in front of cars for safety reasons - if that were proposed to day it would feel quite "anti car".Maggie proposes that adults should walk next to children on bikes for safety reasons and criticises parents who put their kids in unnecessary peril by allowing them to cycle in bike lanes.  But bridles at the suggestion she might be "anti-cyclist".

Ed Saper ● 1986d

Small children on bikes in bike lanes is fine if riding as a family group or supervised otherwise riding carefully on the pavement with a walking parent/guardian is surely more sensible.

N V Brooks ● 1986d

Hold the horses Stuart. Chiswick has not been preserved in aspic yet. While the OC and Councillors have been popping the champagne corks at the prospect of SUVs jostling for a handful of parking spaces on TGT while 600 cars pile through the street in just one hour of the day (200 an hour during the period when they weren't allowed to) to get to Westfield a bit quicker, I thought I'd take a closer look at the reports and the numbers. Maybe the Steer reports are perhaps not quite as supportive of Chiswick's car lobby as they might at first appear. If anything they support much more radical measures to manage and restrict through-traffic in Chiswick and show that support for the OC is evaporating even faster than the false claims that schemes increase pollution, congestion and delay emergency services. Below is a breakdown of the opposition numbers by scheme following a six month consultation period and following a year of daily noisy protests from the Chiswick Councillors and OC, a constant barrage of links to the consultation on local social media platforms and non-stop email spamming to mobilise oppositon. In short:Over 10,000 people who signed a petition have disappeared and have not opposed any schemes in the consultation.The most opposed scheme is Turnham Green Terrace. But only 5.7% of Chiswick's population opposes the scheme.More people voted for Ruth Mayorcas (1,250) in a single ward election at the last Council elections than have opposed any of the other schemes in Chiswick. Fishers lane got closest but with a shortfall of 227 to Ruth's vote.Less than one third of OneChiswick's membership opposes any of the schemes other than TGT and Fishers Lane.Every scheme other than TGT is opposed by less than 2.3% of Chiswick.The average attendance at Torquay United in the Vanarama National League is higher than the number of opponents to every scheme apart from Turnham Green Terrace.Turnham Green Terrace: 2,582 responses; 92% opposed = 2,375; 65% respondents over 45 (plus 14% too coy to say); 70% respondents white or white British (plus 24% too coy to say)Fishers Lane: 1,124 responses; 91% opposed = 1,023; 64% over 45 (plus 13% too coy to say); 70% white or white British (plus 23% too coy to say)Devonshire Road: 659 responses; 86% opposed = 567; 69% over 45 (plus 17% too coy to say); 68% white or white British (plus 27% too coy to say)Harvard Hill: 248 responses; 62% opposed = 154; 66% over 45 (plus 15% too coy to say); 74% white or white British (plus 23% too coy to say)Dan Mason Drive: 200 responses; 64% opposed = 128; 60% over 45 (plus 18% too coy to say); 71% white or white British (plus 9% too coy to say)Wellesley Road: 170 responses; 62% opposed = 105; 64% over 45 (plus 16% too coy to say); 70% white or white British (27% too coy to say)Duke Road: 137 responses; 89% opposed = 122; 60% over 45 (plus 21% too coy to say); 60% white or white British (34% too coy to say)Stile Hall Gardens: 99 responses; 67% opposed = 66; 62% over 45 (plus 16% too coy to say); 69% white or white British (plus 25% too coy to say)Bus Lane Hour extensions - I've added this because, despite the bus lanes in question being on the other side of the Borough, the concentration of responses came from the special and mobilised opposition in Chiswick who seem to feel that any loss of car pivilege must be fought against (it's a bit of a litmus test for how seriously the Council should take these numbers): 73 responses; 88% opposed; 53% 45 or over (24% too coy to say); 62% white or white British (33% too coy to say).So given that the report shows reduction of traffic in and around schemes and therefore a reduction in all the external costs of traffic, no increases in pollution, far too many vehicles travelling through Chiswick's minor roads and a tiny minority of opposition, I really can't see how the Council can possibly conclude that we need to keep feeding a handful of Chiswick car addicts over-representing an older and whiter demographic than the Borough norms and put aside our concerns about climate and public health nevermind all the fun that is being had on Devonshire Road. Say "no" to the fun-stealers.

Paul Campbell ● 1986d

Hi Stuart,This maybe TLTR, it would be so much easier to have this debate in the pub.Although I guess you will not believe me,  I don’t have any objection to cycle lanes or low traffic neighbourhoods.I have two children 5 and under, they both cycle and scoot virtually everywhere, but always on the pavement  while I walk with them.I’m not sure how old I would start to ride on the cycleway with them, maybe 10 (Maybe never as it is currently deployed).I would guess we use our car 3 or 4 times a month, but would use it more if needed.It seems to me,  purely from walking around Chiswick that the cycleway is badly deployed.It’s difficult to cross with children, both cars and bikes seem less likely to stop.There seems to be more congestion on the high street.Although we live in the Glebe estate,  the LTNs have not had much impact.But I know (a small number) of people living in Grove Park  and they don’t like the changes.They are paranoid about visitors, deliveries etc.But…The group advocating the current measures seem to think they have the moral high ground.That the new measures are all working and that anyone saying otherwise are car loving planet haters that are destroying the world for future generations.I’m not sure what my children will think of me in the future.But what about the children of the pro group?Will they look at their parents in the future and ask them why they could not if have been more conciliatory?Why they didn’t try to work through some of the issues people had with the scheme in 2021?Will they blame them for the schemes being ripped out and that they now have to wear hazmat suits to go to the shops?Or are the pro group completely blameless because they love the planet and their children more than everyone else?It’s a quandary.

Kieran Fox ● 1986d

Paul, I'll refer you to my response to Stuart above,  but I thought this bit particularly applied to you and your cohorts.You seem to think you have the moral high ground.That the new measures are all working perfectly and that anyone saying otherwise are car loving planet haters that are destroying the world for future generations.I’m not sure what my children will think of me in the future.But what about the children of the pro group?Will they look at their parents in the future and ask them why they could not if have been more conciliatory?Why they didn’t try to work through some of the issues people had with the scheme in 2021?Will they blame them for the schemes being ripped out and that they now have to wear hazmat suits to go to the shops?Or are the pro group completely blameless because they love the planet and their children more that everyone else?It’s a quandary.

Kieran Fox ● 1986d

That's not a response to the facts Kieran. That's just culture war nonsense. I'm not interested in it and that's why I always ignore your pleas to get me involved in an argument about it. I'll debate the facts but not who or what you happen to like or dislike.

Paul Campbell ● 1986d

"Culture war nonsense"?Early shots in this nonsense surely posted by the poster who claimed "I really can't see how the Council can possibly conclude that we need to keep feeding a handful of Chiswick car addicts over-representing an older and whiter demographic". I think hypocrisy is the word I seek.

N V Brooks ● 1986d

Hmm… I wasn’t looking for a response Paul, they were rhetorical questions, I was just expressing an opinion.But as for “Culture war nonsense” 😊 good one.  Let me pull a couple of quotes from your last post “Keep feeding a handful of Chiswick car addicts”, “Put aside our concerns about climate and public health never mind all the fun that is being had on Devonshire Road. Say "no" to the fun-stealers.”Although they were rhetorical questions your response seems to provide answer enough.It is always someone else hey Paul, never you.  Keep ignoring those pleas and fighting the good fight.

Kieran Fox ● 1986d

Good to talk Kieran.And I do appreciate much of what you say.  And pretty much all of your general outlook on all this stuff.Can I just say this..I do NOT doubt that some of these changes could (and perhaps should) have been better prepared.  And maybe better researched.However..  change is always tough.  And when it's tough because it needs tweaking then, sure as hell, tweak.And when it's tough because bits need development and minor alteration then, sure as hell, alter.All I really know, is that when it comes to our planet and the next generation there really does have to be change.  Forget the tweaking.  Massive change!Evolution must happen.  That's how mankind survives.  And if being pro-evolution equals the High Moral Ground then all I can say is that it always has been – right at the very summit.  The motor car is a marvellous creation.  I spent donkey's years enjoying its delights.  But I tell you this Kieran..  in a London suburb like this, the use of the motor car needs tweaking.  Bigtime tweaking!So this morning our lovely TGT is a total mess - somewhere between a car-park and a traffic jam.  And that's all it will ever be from now on.  For generations.The changes need here were very major.  Hounslow politicians needed to be brave.  Very brave.  They needed incredible vision and foresight. Instead they buckled under the OneChiswick pro-car campaign. That is a local tragedy.  But a tragedy that keeps a whole lot of people very happy.Which I totally understand and accept.

Stuart Kerr ● 1986d

Kieran, "That the new measures are all working perfectly and that anyone saying otherwise are car loving planet haters that are destroying the world for future generations."I think you are guilty of the exact offence you are accusing others of, caricaturing the views of those you oppose, and hardly helpful to the "conciliatory" approach you claim to support. But I have to admit that's pretty mild compared to the worst injections of toxicity into this debate. We have had death threats to councillors that support these measures reported to the police, but dismissed by a councillor who opposes the measures. We have had the factual misrepresentation of effects of the schemes both in terms of pollution and traffic by councillors who oppose it.We have seen a constant stream of personal abuse overwhelmingly from the opponents of the schemes.  We have had the deliberate misrepresentation by a leading opponent of these schemes of his concocted harassment as coming from and representative of the "unhinged pro-cycling campaigners" when we all know that isn't the case.We have had opponents of these schemes making baseless accusations of fraud against people supportive of active travel.Maybe I am being one sided, so I'd be happy to be corrected if there are more serious instances I've missed.  And maybe you are right, and it really is down to those who want to give these schemes a chance, imperfect though they are, to be rather more conciliatory.

Tom Pike ● 1986d

I agree with what you are saying Stuart.Things have to change, but the approach that has been taken is not achieving the desired outcome.Do you now give up, or do you aim for a more inclusive approach that has a chance of succeeding?

Kieran Fox ● 1986d

Sorry, Ed. I guess I was busy trying to square your circle.On one hand you get upset businesses who need vehicular access weren't consulted. On the other you think their access should be limited. You can't have both. You appear happy to impose restrictions on some businesses, just not those on the Mews. So if you want to minimize business input, why on earth are you carping on that business input isn't sought? Either Chiswick traders with premises matter or we don't. Seems you only want it to matter on one specific street. Hence if traders are to be disregarded/ignored/cancelled/tarnished/whatever it seems  their input is valueless to you. Per that logic, what does it matter what businesses on DM have to say? That's where feckless idiots comes into play. You mentioned both PoW and DM. They go together.Thank you for assuming I haven't looked at the survey.

David Lesniak ● 1986d

Hah..This isn't up to me or any one of us.And it's not a question of giving up.  All the power is with the politicians.  And the Hounslow conservative politicians have clearly persuaded the leading Labour group that the motor car should win the day.TGT was the big one. The major disaster.The rest will soon follow. Anyway – it's funny in a sad sort of way.  Animals evolve again and again in order to survive.  Change anything.  Grow wings, feet to walk on, fins with which to swim.  Whilst all we can do in Chiswick is celebrate we can once again buzz about everywhere in a motor car.Sure as god made little apples, the young of W4 will all fly far far away..

Stuart Kerr ● 1986d

Tom this is not a one way street, both sides are to blame.  But if the end of this episode is that the schemes a ripped out what has been achieved?You have given a list of the "Pro Car group" negative actions.  Could a list of "Pro Bike Group" negative actions be produced?I never see balanced arguments.You often provide detailed statistical based arguments for change.Can you honestly say that when you analyse the data, if you wanted to, you couldn’t provide arguments against change?The point I have been trying to make,  albeit clumsily,  is that changes do need to be made and some have, but due to their approach I find it difficult to relate to the "Pro Cycling Group".My comment "The new measures are all working perfectly and that anyone saying otherwise are car loving planet haters that are destroying the world for future generations” was exaggerated to make a point.  But that is how it feels.The pro group are alienating people that in general agree with their aims if not their methods.

Kieran Fox ● 1986d

Hi Stuart -Seems your knickers are twisted. Hope it doesn't hurt too much.Perhaps if you understood better how Met Police works, you'd know it wasn't us who issued the caution. We brought a public example of what qualifies as hate-related online bullying and they, by ticking boxes, followed the protocol. During the process, the officer in charge called to bring me up to speed. He mentioned this wasn't the first time Julian found himself in a predicament. Interesting to note, Jeremy Vine did the same thing as I did but using his GoPro which he deliberately shared. I simply clicked on a forum thread one day and found a video. As mentioned, I contacted many people, including our MP, to gauge how I could/should respond. All weighed in with reporting it. So there's that nugget you like to ignore (again). In the end JV blathered something about just wanting an apology. So he gets to pursue the law, but I don't? Ah yes, that makes no sense whatsoever. Also interesting to note, at no time did anyone offer an apology to me nor to our business. Including Julian's representation, assuming he had some which I believe he did. Nor was it Met Police protocol.But hate speech and bullying is something I've had to deal with my entire adult life. From a young age I've had to process morons saying things like "hissy" and "prissy" to quote you knowing you'd rather say worse. So when a line is crossed, as it has been many times, sometimes what's necessary is to remind people where the line is. And to push back as is my right, as the law states.Looked at another way, if some bloke fondled your partner repeatedly but said it was all in good fun, how would you react? The dynamic is identical. But again, that's simply down to the law being what it is.Just two more things. One is this response from Tom Pike which super fits in this thread:"We have had death threats to councillors that support these measures reported to the police, but dismissed by a councillor who opposes the measures (uh, the video was a form of death threat which, get this, was reported)We have had the factual misrepresentation of effects of the schemes both in terms of pollution and traffic by councillors who oppose it.We have seen a constant stream of personal abuse overwhelmingly from the opponents of the schemes (hissy, prissy ring a bell, among myriad other examples posted by you and others aimed at me)We have had the deliberate misrepresentation by a leading opponent of these schemes of his concocted harassment as coming from and representative of the "unhinged pro-cycling campaigners" when we all know that isn't the case (concocted?)We have had opponents of these schemes making baseless accusations of fraud against people supportive of active travel."Poor things. Poor victims. My how they've suffered. Oh wait, that's right, a video showing a bomb exploding in front of our shop (and no, it wasn't aimed at the Mobikes) is simply meant to be funny. How on earth could that be construed as harassment, I wonder. And then there's this bit from Sadiq Khan, who started his End The Hate initiative for online bullying precisely at the time of the video:A rise in extreme propaganda and online abuseFake news, spreading disinformationAll of this dividing us rather than uniting usIt’s on all of us to tackle this problemSocial media companies, governments, politicians, the media and youLet’s work together to end this hateIt’s time to act on hate speechYou're Mayor. Your vote. His agenda. Adopt it. Make your vote matter.

David Lesniak ● 1986d

Tom, why keep on about age, most younger people don't need a car yetbut they will when they are older 😉

Janice Evans ● 1986d

"Both sides are to blame."I didn't claim anyone was blameless, but that the most egregious examples of toxicity I listed suggests that the blame here is very much weighted towards those that oppose these measures. If you have examples that redress that balance, this is the time to mention them."Can you honestly say that when you analyse the data, if you wanted to, you couldn’t provide arguments against change?"The arguments against change are simply not supported by the data we've seen to date, and neither by the conclusions of the broader published work in this area. Of course that does not mean that the measures so far are the best that can be done, as clearly they are not. The BBC shifted their approach to covering climate change as the scientific evidence became overwhelming. A false equivalence when it comes to such matters is not scientifically justified and prevents an accurate portrayal of the issues.

Tom Pike ● 1986d

Maggie, I find it rather condescending of you when you say "I am happy to share the road with cyclists and give them space". What would happen if you were not happy to share the road with cyclists. The law is the law and you MUST share the road with them. It is not our right to use the road, it is a privilege remember and we must all follow the rules of the road or face heavy penalties for not so doing.

Chris Vessey ● 1986d

Tom, your response seems to confirm what I was pointing out.You first state that you didn't claim anyone was blameless.  But you then go on to say that "They" are so much worse than "Us".  I didn't say I had a list of examples from "Them",  but I'm sure many on here could.You then advise that there would be no way to analyse and present the relevant data to show any negative impact of LTNs or Cycleways. Really?  No possibility?It just confirm my view of lack of balance.  This leads to no consensus and achieving very little.

Kieran Fox ● 1986d

In the beginning was the Mobike, and the Word was with the Mobike, and the Word was Mobike.. Hi David -  I'm neither your judge or your jury.  Rather, just one of many local  “outsiders” still struggling and perplexed to know why on earth you originally brought this about.And why on earth you saw fit to re-visit your ridiculous mistake and parade it once again in Saturday's Mail.  Which you still ignore.Only you and you alone could explain how you ever got to see Julian's video as a hate crime specifically targeted at you.Yes, I hear yo say that you spoke about it to Ruth Cadbury and a few others – but equally I simply don't understand how Ruth and these others advised you to take it to the police.Whether you showed the video to them or not – I cannot imagine ANYONE with a grain of intelligence would reach the conclusion that you claim they did. Maybe you told Ruth about it without showing the video.  Maybe Ruth didn't have her glasses on.  All I know is this part of your explanation makes no sense whatsoever.  If I ever get to meet Ruth Cadbury I'll certainly seek answers to quite a few questions.Meanwhile I'd still like to ask again, how did YOU draw the conclusion that you'd been the victim of a hate crime and been personally attacked?And also ask again how you could ever have thought that?  It's patent nonsense.  Nobody went anywhere near you or your shop.  It was a dead-accurate, crystal clear, satirical video attack on MOBIKES on the pavement.OK.  Beyond that - why drag it all back, especially to a scumbag Mail journalist?And finally, do you regularly feel that you're a victim?  Is there a clue in the name of your coffee house?

Stuart Kerr ● 1986d

Keiran, If you are not aware of any items that I missed as similarly toxic contributions, then it's difficult to see how you can regard the blame as equally shared. But if others have examples that both of us have missed, then of course they can share them and I will readjust my take accordingly.And you are misrepresenting what I posted, hardly a path to the conciliation you claim to want. I said that the arguments against change were not supported by the data to date, not that the data showed there were are no negative impacts of these measures. There will be costs and benefits for any scheme, and certainly ways that they can be improved to better achieve their aims.    I'm afraid if this convinces you of a lack of balance on my part, then it suggests you are more interested in presenting a false equivalence than seeking consensus.

Tom Pike ● 1986d

CV:"The law is the law and you MUST..."Does that also apply to Cyclists on pavements ?PS. I understand that young, learner cyclists need to use the pavements.

Loraine Pemberton ● 1986d

TomLet's assume that the majority of negativity has come from the opposing side as you suggest.  Sorry no, not assume,  let's state that it has so we can move forward.Does pointing this out help your cause?  If my daughter comes and tells me her brother has called her a name, do you think that makes him feel like working with her on the next Lego project?You have a goal of reducing car use, improving air quality, making changes within our environment (I assume).If you don't work with the opposition what do you think will happen?Yes, we will end up exactly where we are.  People picking sides,  irrelevant of what is good for all.  Is that the aim?If so, every step forward will be a fight, ultimately making your goals more difficult to achieve.I'm trying to be balanced, maybe I'm not achieving that, but I'm trying.Are you?

Kieran Fox ● 1986d

Indeed, I questioned his epistemology and got called a covid denier. Made me chuckle.

Russell Pearson ● 1986d

Maybe the figures of the population of Chiswick should be looked at more carefully before anyone starts blaming a certain age group. The population of Chiswick as a whole, is younger than the national average. The population of Chiswick is also older than the average, making Chiswick an older persons location.Age                Hounslow  EnglandAge 0 to 4          7.8%      6.3%Age 5 to 9          5.9%      5.6%Age 10 to 14        5.5%      5.8%Age 15 to 17        3.5%      3.7%Age 18 to 24        9.6%      9.4%Age 25 to 29        10.3%      6.9%Age 30 to 44        25.5%      20.6%Age 45 to 59        17.1%      19.4%Age 60 to 64        4.3%      6%Age 65 to 74        5.7%      8.6%Age 75 to 84        3.5%      5.5%Age 85 and over      1.3%      2.3%Mean Age            35.2      39.3Median Age          33https://www.ilivehere.co.uk/statistics-chiswick-hounslow-8113.html

Bernard Allen ● 1986d

Kieran, you can't claim to be trying to achieve some kind of balance and at the same time say what's on that list is equivalent to one child calling another a name. I'm sure as a parent you wouldn't respond to your daughter in the way you suggest if she had faced a similar level of toxicity as some of those who have voiced support for these measures.Russell, I have never called you a COVID denier. I did say you were objecting to the same statistical approaches that are used to validate the efficiency of vaccines.

Tom Pike ● 1986d

I give up Tom, you have worn me down.  You are right, I am wrong.

Kieran Fox ● 1986d

The response to the Streetspace consultations was clearly disproportionately from older people Bernard.From ONS data, the age profile for adults (over 18)  in  the 4 Chiswick wards (3 Hounslow, 1 Ealing) was:18-29: 21%30-44: 35.4%45-59: 23.4%60+: 20.2%The age profile of responses to the Chiswick Streetspace consultations was:18-29: 3%30-44: 17%45-59: 37%60+: 28%Did not give age: 15%So age groups 18-44 make up over half of the adult population but provided a fifth of the responses. This clearly shows the responses didn't reflect the adult population of Chiswick as a whole.Chiswick does have an older population compared to, say, Brentford but the difference is a few % with 17.7% Brentford adult population being over 60.

Michael Robinson ● 1986d

“ We have been asking for two way cycling on Devonshire Rd for some time and this should be put in place permanently ”Still grubbing away Michael, to keep LBH obeying your bidding?

Russell Pearson ● 1986d

Why do you have a problem with two way cycling on Devonshire Rd Russell?You and your chums in OneChiswick keep on trying to claim they aren't anti-cycling, in between posting on this forum using fake names, of course.

Michael Robinson ● 1986d

Just have a problem with a tiny sect of Militant Cycle Lobbyists, messing up Chiswick for cyclists, drivers and pedestrians. Not to mention the buses.

Russell Pearson ● 1986d

Still grubbing away Michael, to keep LBH obeying your bidding?Poor timing to insunate this given the announcement on TGT etc.

Matthew Swain ● 1986d

You’ve not seen his comments on the Steer report yet then? Perfect timing there. Lol.

Russell Pearson ● 1986d

Still wearing the tinfoil hat then Russell.Do you know who the fake Chris Soze /  David Riley is ?Funny that your OneChiswick chums piled onto the consultations for extensions to bus lanes to oppose those as well.

Michael Robinson ● 1986d

Not a Scooby doo. It’s not your Ealing mischief maker at work, yet again?!

Russell Pearson ● 1986d

Yeah, you likely haven’t been invited on the WhatsApp with Riley / Soze and the other OneChiswick people because you aren’t a Tory.

Michael Robinson ● 1986d

Bonkers stuff - old mother Riley, WhatsApp, tories. Get some fresh air old bean, sounds like you need it. 👍🏻

Russell Pearson ● 1986d

"Chiswick has spoken and change has been rejected!"are we back in the EU then?

James Roy ● 1986d

Loraine I was riding in Selwyn Avenue in Richmond today. Cars parked either side nose to tail. A delivery van stopped in the space between. I could not get through without mounting the pavement . Yes normally I would say do not ride on the pavement but when the road is FULL of metal boxes what can a good fellow do. If I could fly over these metal boxes then I would. This scenario is repeated many times by Council binmen and delivery vans. Please tell me the solution , if you have the wisdom !?

Chris Vessey ● 1986d

Loraine I was riding in Selwyn Avenue in Richmond today. Cars parked either side nose to tail. A delivery van stopped in the space between. I could not get through without mounting the pavement . Yes normally I would say do not ride on the pavement but when the road is FULL of metal boxes what can a good fellow do. If I could fly over these metal boxes then I would. This scenario is repeated many times by Council binmen and delivery vans. Please tell me the solution , if you have the wisdom !?

Chris Vessey ● 1986d

Loraine, "the rules of the road" not "the pavement"

Chris Vessey ● 1986d

Hah Anita :)

Basil Finnis ● 1986d

"It was a dead-accurate, crystal clear, satirical video attack on MOBIKES on the pavement."Met Police didn't see it that way.Stuart you still don't understand the law. Nor do you understand online bullying nor hate speech. It comes as a relief Met Police have this under control and follow the guidelines to hold people to account. If you have a bee in your bonnet, I'd suggest you ask them about it. I'd also suggest you ask our MP. Aiming your fury at me, the "hissy" "prissy" sissy (I know you wanted to say it to discredit me in some fashion, so you're welcome) does you no favors. Nor does hurling invective left, right and center at "scumbags." It actually exposes you (further) for the cad you are.Fact is my engagement with the journalist in question was pure happenstance. You'll never believe that so why bother explaining. Plus I'm still a sissy so not to be believed by your logic.As for our name, it evolved from both David's and my love for outsider art, a form of expression from those with no training in any form of artistic endeavor but most often affiliated with painting and sculpture. Not to mention we're both immigrants to this country (perhaps that sticks in your craw, too) so it seemed to fit. Plus we have also welcomed anyone and everyone no matter how unique, odd, fringe, disenfranchised they may be/feel. And here we are nearly 13 years later despite the onslaught of rhetoric such as yours. That must annoy you no end.

David Lesniak ● 1986d

Other areas are now re opening some the roads, as traffic has graduallyReturn to normal it has highlight the problem of congestion, hope they come up with a workable alternative, hybrid vehicles etc., all that money could have gone towards scrappage schemes that would havehelp remove older cars at people's own choice.

Janice Evans ● 1986d

Hybrid cars are not a long-term viable solution. Most have far larger IC engines needed to simply haul the extra weight of batteries around. They are nowhere near as green as they would have you believe. Fully electric, once the range issue has been resolved is a good interim but hydrogen fuel cell is the answer.

N V Brooks ● 1986d

Hi David..And many thanks.  Getting to the truth of this is harder than getting a wasp to fart  - but a picture is slowly beginning to emerge.You think I'm furious?  Far from it dear chap.  The fury is all yours.You think I'm hurling invective?  It's called writing.You think I have you down as a sissy?  Not yet decided but you do scratch rather a lot.You (almost) accuse me of racist immigrant intolerance.  Got any more funny stories?  I'm married to an ex-communist Ukrainian.But I like your explanation of how you and David got Outsider Tart for a name.  It's nice.  I've spent a lifetime creating things in and around drama so I know exactly what you mean.  And creating a successful coffee house is indeed a work of art.  I applaud your success.Here's a quote from a dead Irishman about us artists:-  “The artist, like the God of Creation, remains within or behind of beyond or above his handiwork, refined, out of existence, indifferent – paring his fingernails.”That's what I'm doing here.  Just being a theatre director trying to understand a complex character from real life.  Trying to explore the depths of a prominent local man who needlessly, carelessly and quite disgracefully threw a friend of mine into the arms of the police.  I'm simply and unemotionally paring my fingernails.  Right then...You claim, in reference to Julian's video, that I don't understand hate speech.  But I do understand it David.  I also understand hate.  And I understand homophobia.  I've had three of my close gay pals beaten-up in quiet alleyways to the brink of death – if that's the sort of violent outrage you're referring to.I hope you're not.  Because any comparison of that with my pal Julian Pavey would be beyond crazy.  Out of the ballpark wrong.  Lodged deep in a world a complete stranger's hysteria.  A world of constant suspicion.  Hit first ask questions later.  I do understand that world – but the story we're discussing here isn't even in a distant galaxy – it's from outside our universe.David, you done Julian a very nasty and an inexcusable wrong.Yet still you blame others.  It wasn't me – it was them.Own it David.  It was you.  The police just ticked their boxes.  The MP just got one one badly wrong.  Whereas  YOU?    You were told by many that Julian's video had nothing whatsoever to do with either you or Outsider Tart.  And that only a determined blind man could find a connection between that video and a personal hate crime towards you and your shop (Which the video itself monumentally proves beyond any further debate)...Yet still you went ahead - and made your official complaint...carry on...

Stuart Kerr ● 1986d

If we have to wait for hydrogen fuel cell wonder how long.

Janice Evans ● 1985d

Stuart, I see you continue to get yourself into a lather.I'm no wasp, but I did just fart.Why when you write is it writing versus when others write it is highly suspect or "angry?"Thanks for confirming the sissy position. Good to know you're still on the fence. Our best guy is from Ukraine. Maybe your wife would like to meet him. But while we're on your wife, so to speak, let's use her as an example. If someone grabbed her p___y and others simply giggled and said it was a joke but she chose to do something about it and Met Police did what they would do, would you expect her to apologize for pursuing what is rightful legal recourse? Would you expect her to just get grabbed again?I know pertinent examples mean nothing to you. You've chosen to ignore the comparison with Jeremy Vine who did precisely the same thing as I did. Are you indignant about that? Are you calling for him to apologize? Nah.My grandfather was half-Irish. The other half was English. Sanderson and Hennessey to be exact.Drama. Very fitting for you.I'm sorry to hear about your friends. It's a real pity  you can't see how hate speech might lead to that. I, for one, do. And I don't tolerate it. You, on the other hand, do. I'm not hysterical. Rather I'd look at the one ranting to see if maybe he is.I didn't make a video. So it would be difficult to blame myself for it. Indeed I made a complaint. If it was truly baseless, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Sadly, as mentioned but forgotten by you, it wasn't Julian's first time at that particular rodeo. And so he got what was due. If I were hysterical and completely, utterly mis-guided in making my complaint, surely the police would have told me to bugger off. They did not.But again I ask, would you expect your wife to sit silently by if someone helped themselves to her genitals?Nah.

David Lesniak ● 1985d

.. So you now imagine Julian had you by the goolies and helped himself to a squeeze..in your dreams dear boy..I'm off out to somewhere interesting..another time if you fancy..

Stuart Kerr ● 1985d

I have a diesel car, bought under the scrappage scheme endorsed by New Labour and in 12 years have driven 48 odd thousand miles, and only 4000 in the last two years so have reduced my mileage drastically.I can't see myself driving more than 1500 miles a year in the future and do not use my vehicle every day by any means.It goes through every MOT ok, passes the emissions tests and is in a reasonably low insurance group.I would imagine it causes less pollution and environmental damage overall that an electric vehicle that drives as many miles in the same amount of time if you take into account the cobalt depletion in the ocean,the extra energy used to charge the batteries and the number of times a charge is needed to cover the same number of miles.If not less, then there's not much in it I would think.

Keith Iddon ● 1985d

Wow, I hate this analogy almost as much as I hate the language you choose to use on a public forum.Anyway, let’s go with it, to be a ‘pertinent example’ Stuart’s wife would have to report to the police, the press and her local MP that the crime was not sexually motivated but political; that the perpetrator belonged to some group or other, even if she were fully aware it wasn’t true, just so she could score a cheap point.In this ridiculous example, she’d still be the victim of a crime but her own behaviour would be inexcusable.

Kerry Chandler ● 1985d

Maybe, but if you look at the bigger picture if someone is victimised quite often in different ways, it will just take one wrong joke to be takenseriously.  Maybe call a truce and all others looklisten and learn, 'not to do it'

Janice Evans ● 1985d

This is probably the most crude and crass thing I have ever read on this forum and that is saying something. With no moderation whatsoever this place is sinking into the gutter. Stuart has done very well to rise above that level of provocation.

Paul Campbell ● 1985d

Children learn by doing things and being independent and that includes going to school on their own.  How do you practice in traffic without being in traffic?

Philippa Bond ● 1985d

Hi Paul,Yup – David's vile post is all of that and more.  But to enjoy it's true value turn it upside-down..It's David Lesniak's self-portrait.  An insight into the depths of his tortured soul.I'm calling that post “David Lesniak - East of Java”.  It's the semi-literate equal to Munch's “The Scream” - and well deserving to be hung-up on permanent display somewhere in central Chiswick.It's David's Krakatoa moment.  The moment he shows his inner torment to the outside world.  A sudden eruption of his flaming hatred pouring forth from his crater that's weirdly taken the form of a vagina.  Out of which spills a paroxysm of anger – a convulsion of pent-up fury spilling hot grey ash all over the landscape of W4.com...So far only two forum ladies have previewed this masterpiece and posted a reaction.  One hadn't a clue what she was looking at.  The other immediately recognised Lesniak's brilliant and subtly disguised p---y motif as a vagina (pussy for those less coy) and was sick on the spot.  On recovery she attempted an analysis but soon staggered away, confused yet clearly moved by the experience.It confirms one important thing – that my pal Julian Pavey was simply unlucky when, two years ago,  he dropped his mobike satire anywhere that was just a few yards too close to Outsider Tart.  How was he to know that laying in wait within was an ultra-sensitive raging furnace of a chap,  just waiting to explode and scream to all who would listen - “I'm the victim of a hate crime.”Case solved.

Stuart Kerr ● 1985d

Stuart that word has been mention on here many times in ref to Trump.

Janice Evans ● 1985d

What you should all be aware of is that any mention of weapons by textor on social media is taken very seriously in whatever form it is presented.

Janice Evans ● 1985d

Getting back to the nitty-gritty of this debate – it was only a few days ago that I cast my votes at our local elections and supported a cocktail of Labour and the Green Party.This was my vote for those few politicians who had fully grasped the significance of global warming and its threat to planet Earth.  I voted for the radical change end of the spectrum – as against the opposite end that sort of understands but still somehow thinks there's no rush.  That all will be well, come what may.It was, I believe, also a vote for the younger generations.  Those who will inherit the mess we've all created.So when the results were declared I was delighted to find myself a winner, both in London as a whole and within our three Chiswick boroughs.  Surely, I thought, the whole panoply of green issues will now take prominence.Thus I was bemused, bothered and bewildered (gobsmacked) when virtually the first decision made by our Hounslow Labour Party was to support their Tory opposition.  And begin the process of cancelling all those measures taken over the past year that were aimed at reducing the use of motor cars and supporting bicycles and pedestrianisation.Magnanimous congratulations to Cllrs Biddolph and Hearn.Turnham Green Terrace, a happy release for many, is now (to me) both a mess and a disaster. A parking lot and a traffic jam.  Back to what it was in the grey days of the 1950's and 60's.  About as futuristic as spam, spam, chips and spam... It'll take a lot for me to ever trust Labour again.Just sayin' 

Stuart Kerr ● 1984d

Some Labour Councils are well balance and very well run, perhaps theyfeel they have been a bit to demanding at Hounslow, who knows but theyhave longer to do what they feel necessary.

Janice Evans ● 1984d

StuartBack to what it was in the grey days of the 1950's and 60's.I don't remember any bad traffic jams and parking problems in the early Sixties.When we use to use the “Vee-Esta” Coffee bar cellar, in Turnham Green Terrace, there was approximately 10 scooters outside and no parked cars.You could park easily for the Chiswick Commercial Club, (know as the three C's)In the new shops built in front of the club there used to be a very good record shop as well as the record shop that was beside Millets on the corner of Devonshire road, where I purchased the Beatles first Please Please Me album (4th Edition) which I still got.

Bernard Allen ● 1984d

When watching old films from the time you see very little traffic on the roads, love seeing the old cars.

Janice Evans ● 1984d

BA > "I don't remember any bad traffic jams and parking problems in the early Sixties."That was before the invention of bicycles.

John Whitworth ● 1984d

Great post Bernard (and John)..  To be honest, I didn't land in Chiswick until the mid 70'sAh Lovely Janice..If you don't mind me saying, I think you rather miss the point.The thing about Green issues and fixing global warming is that it has to be done immediately.  As a matter of massive international (local) urgency.Tomorrow is already too late.Have you not been listening to David Attenborough these past few years?

Stuart Kerr ● 1984d

Stuart, glad to hear you're not giving up. You're needed! I asked Councillor Hearn, maybe a week ago, how anybody could expect to be elected Mayor with environmental policies that were rejected so soundly by the growing Green vote. He didn't respond. Maybe he thinks this is not his problem and Chiswick will always vote for a candidate who in the end prioritises car users, with the requisite level of green washing. Maybe Labour is silently agreeing, with some realpolitik that tries to then square the circle with its own (as well as the Mayor's and Government's) policies on active travel.  Meanwhile Chiswick has been voting with its feet, enjoying the new vibe on Devonshire Road, making the High Road the fastest growing cycle route in outer London, taking to the new markets on Old Market Square rather than bemoaning the loss of parking in that area. And as the Steer survey shows, we've been driving less locally, more than the rest of the Borough.Of course some of this is down to the pandemic, and it's genuinely difficult to separate how much all of these changes, certainly in the right direction, can be credited to the Council.But maybe Chiswick is actually evolving rather more than you fear.

Tom Pike ● 1984d

Let's hope w4.com has a readership beyond the borough boundaries!

Bruce Hammal ● 1984d

Stuart, we all understand the urgency and now know a need for otherideas, obviously you cannot cycle everywhere unless you are an athleteso could I suggest more buses in the bus lanes with room onboard for bikes, so you can go on long haul and take your bike with you fortravelling each end.  or if weather takes turn for worse you can opt for thebus with bike.

Janice Evans ● 1984d

Think this would get more people out of cars who are unable to cycle any great distance.

Janice Evans ● 1984d

Janice, you're a genius!Do you remember the BEA buses on their way to Heathrow towing a luggage trailer behind?QED Why not the same idea but with the trailer kitted out with cycle racks?Sounds mad, oh hang on, it is!

Adrian Irving ● 1984d

Ah, these lovely green Labour councils erecting green (actually grey) high rise monstrosities as close to Chiswick as they can possibly get with no gardens and minimal green space.  So great for the planet and local area.

Claire Moran ● 1984d

You next then Adrian, what ideas do you have....

Janice Evans ● 1984d

Not so mad: I first saw a bike rack on a bus in Berkeley, California, nearly thirty years ago. And if you think the location proves your point, they're bike racks now on 70% of US buses.

Tom Pike ● 1984d

Great Tom I think it would work, not everyone can cycle far and it would give the option of leaving car at home.

Janice Evans ● 1984d

It also reflects the dearth of public transport in the States. The bus I first saw took students from UC Berkeley to Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories, a climb of more than 1,000 ft. The bus leg of the trip was one way, as was the descent by bike.

Tom Pike ● 1984d

Yes Janice, you really are a genius.  Not always.  But quite often.Like you, I don't cycle either.  I used to.  But nowadays it's too damned scary..So I walk OR take the bus or/and the underground  OR, when going out of town,  it's either train OR hire a car.

Stuart Kerr ● 1984d

But if buses were using bus lanes it would be quicker than by car and take bike with you also many don't like to cycle in the dark so they could cycle there and bus it back, it gives more options.

Janice Evans ● 1984d

Hi Tom,Always lovely to read your analysis of this situation and I note hint hint of wary optimism for the future.As for me, I think Hanif Khan and Steve Curran have nailed their colours to the mast with the opening up of TGT to all traffic and plenty of parking.They've capitulated to popular Tory pro-car pressure...Devonshire Road traffic free - doomed.Fishers Lane traffic free (except buses) – doomedC9 Cycle path – doomeddoom-mongers – doomedmotorists - bliss

Stuart Kerr ● 1984d

Hi Stuart It will be interesting in this new hybrid working world to see whether there will actually be as many people going back to using the tubes in the same way as there were before. I had heard they were quite busy but it depends where people are getting on and off.  How long will it take before the numbers are flooding over and off the pavement again as they come out of Turnham Green station straight into the paths of those piling into the station and the irritated just driving through cars?  Or maybe they are already? I guess from the pedestrians' point of view it's a good job the traffic is pretty stationary even if it is deadly. A better the devil you know than the devil you don't scenario.  

Philippa Bond ● 1984d

Lots of people drive to cycle parks, they could bus it to cycle parks.

Janice Evans ● 1984d

Stuart -It does seem you're a bit obsessed with me and my balls. How odd.Still, if you're that upset with me, you must be utterly fuming - apoplectic - with Jeremy Vine. How do you feel about his balls?

David Lesniak ● 1984d

Well Janice what about long pole running from the back of the bus fitted with grab handles?Cyclists could dock on and off at will, they wouldn't have the fag of peddling and they can imagine they have regained use of the bus lanes.Genius, no?

Adrian Irving ● 1984d

Hi back Philippa,(sorry I missed you earlier)You're one of the leading good gals so it's always a pleasure to follow where you're at.I don't yet have a vision of the landscape you envisage.  Or how far “working from home” will settle down in the post-covid world of Chiswick.I'd guess we have more than our fair share of established consultants in the finance sector who will no longer commute to the city every day of the week.  And other important sectors.  But how much further it goes, we'll just have to wait and see.  The Chiswick “at home” population, looking for a few hours out every lunchtime, may have grown considerably.Incidentally, I know the weather recently has been lousy.  But the footfall in TGT has been quite large all winter.  Now the cars are back and the parking has returned, it's suddenly gone very quiet.  The long queues at our prime shops have shrunk to nothing.  What's that all about?

Stuart Kerr ● 1984d

In my humble opinion the best way to get people to leave their car at home is to make the alternative, ie:public transport, so cheap that it would be plain daft to drive.This would mean heavily subsidising buses (replaced with electric vehicles) and trains.There would be no need for ltns or any other such scheme, but would of course mean some long term thinking and cross party co-operation.Councils would also have to come to terms with the loss of parking/fines revenue.I believe that most comparable economies to ours have cheaper and equally or more efficient transport systems as most of them have bigger subsidies.

Keith Iddon ● 1984d

Sensible. So we rip out bus lanes instead.

Russell Pearson ● 1984d

Thanks to local heroes Hanif Khan and Guy Lambert, Chiswick locals now have every right to vroom up and down the Terrace and park-up to do their shopping.  All day long.Even a small amount of shopping can weigh a lot.  Six large Cumberland sausages, a couple of big Barnsley chops, half a black pudding and a decent sized chicken and you're probably talking five or six kilos.  Add a sack of potatoes from Lemons and Lime and you'd need a fork-lift truck if you were on foot.Soon locals will be able to do their favourite TGT shops before nipping back into their motor car and setting off en route to Devonshire Road to drop off the laundry and dry cleaning - then get back behind the wheel to go another 30 yards to get provisions from our wonderful pet shop. Then whizz back home.Not everyone can do this stuff on foot.Fret ye not good people of Chiswick..Hats off to Hanif..Normal service will be resumed as soon as possible..

Stuart Kerr ● 1983d

How odd.Stuart used "normal" in a sentence.

David Lesniak ● 1983d

Message removed

Stuart Kerr ● 1983d

See BREAKING NEWS ...  site lead story in the Chiswick Calendar..Fat good it did for the climate though...See TGT and sniff deep...

Stuart Kerr ● 1983d

https://chiswickcalendar.co.uk/chiswick-voted-for-sadiq-khan-in-the-mayoral-elections/The Conservatives thought that opposing traffic restrictions and the cycle lane was a sure vote winner. Shaun Bailey even shot a video in Chiswick on just this issue:https://www.facebook.com/ShaunBaileyUK/videos/725648408097325/"We know that 98% of the people in Chiswick disagree with these changes". Instead there was an 8% swing in Chiswick against him, and opposite the trend in the rest of London.It's undeniable that opponents of these schemes have demonstrated no electoral traction, unless it's in the opposite direction they intended.

Tom Pike ● 1983d

I think this deserves a thread all of its own gents. Prominent OC members were in that Bailey campaign video painting Chiswick as Mordor. an 8% swing is huge after all the noise and fuss of the last year.

Paul Campbell ● 1983d

Absolutely right Paul..D