Forum Topic

Devonshire Road Speed Limit

Devonshire Road is back open to cars from today thanks to the Chiswick Conservatives’ campaign. Planters and flowers have mostly gone except the green bike lock ones which has to be glued down to stop them being moved by people who didn’t like them. Expect they will be wrenched out shortly. Herbs and sweet peas are already in the bin.What’s the speed limit on Devonshire Road anyway, 20mph or 30mph? (9 or 13 metres per second)

Edward Seaton ● 1917d57 Comments

"What’s the speed limit on Devonshire Road anyway, 20mph or 30mph?"20 mph

Richard Jennings ● 1917d

Was the whole experiment worth all the fuss and bother then or will 'will lessons be learnt'?.Lessons like, oh I don't know, God gave us two ears and one mouth for a reason perhaps.

Adrian Irving ● 1917d

Oh please, Ed. Maybe lay off the pot shots and open your eyes and ears a bit.Traders had a say.Residents had a say.Hounslow listened (imagine that!).Plus it was all temporary.For whatever reason, all the bike planter thingies on the east side are gone and most on the west side are.Multiple disabled bays on the west side have been newly designated as have parking spaces on the east. No outdoor dining space has been removed. It should be noted some venues never had it which made advocacy like yours a bit thin.

David Lesniak ● 1917d

Correction, ' lessons will be learnt'.Fishers Lane next?

Adrian Irving ● 1917d

Fishers Lane next definitely. It was an experiment,a lot or people suffered. Some cyclists used it occasionally. It was a bad idea. Lots of money raised to spend on putting things right now.

Maggie Dodge ● 1917d

Ed, at least you praised ALL the Conservative Councillors on getting Devonshire Road accessible to everyone 😉That's unlike your Flower Market colleague, Karen Liebreich, who on her Twitter account, @kareninagarden, heaped her praise onto only Cllr Biddolph and not to all the Conservative Councillors.Ed, once again many thanks  for setting the record straight - good work !

Loraine Pemberton ● 1917d

Another vote for 'Fishers Lane next' - the sooner the better.

Mark Edwards ● 1917d

Oops, my comment about 'your Flower Market  colleague' I believe is incorrect. I apologise.

Loraine Pemberton ● 1917d

Interesting article in the Chiswick Calendar. It appears that the new scheme is not being universally celebrated. Not everybody loves Dry Cleaning World after all. Judging by the tone of her questions least of all Cllr Biddolph who appears quite dismayed by any restrictions for vehicles despite residents telling the Council they want fewer vehicles on the road and despite 70% of responses to her survey of traders opting for stricter restrictions on vehicles than the now defunct version of the scheme contained. Devonshire Road residents I have spoken to in the past few weeks (both in Homefields and Turnham Green Wards) are very annoyed that the Chiswick Councillors did not canvass their opinions and suspect it was because they favoured the vocal minority in the Glebe Estate who support the policy to preserve the hegemony of the car in Chiswick. All grist for the mill for next May's elections.https://chiswickcalendar.co.uk/devonshire-rd-reopened-to-vehicular-traffic/?mc_cid=c9477e64f0&mc_eid=78cff87a6bThis is another six month trial. Very good news that there will be permanent enforcement cameras because those Vinoteca tables will not be popular if Glebe Estate residents continue to speed down the narrow road after 5pm as they were doing yesterday evening.In the meantime don't forget to buy shares in dry cleaners, luxury rug shops, osteopaths and pet shops. The boom time is here but it may only last six months.

Paul Campbell ● 1917d

What a shame the experiment is being reduced to evenings when one of the most successful parts of it was the weekend daytime footfall. I wish they’d extended it to allow more hospitality to use the road and pedestrianised all weekend to allow for the markets and other commerce. Credit where credit is due - Councillor Biddolph fought hard to reverse the changes before they became too established or popular. The survey she told us on here she conceived, designed and even hand delivered was a large part of that. When it didn’t quite get the predetermined outcome she wanted, she just misrepresented the results. Of course other councillors, including Sam Hearn, are also preeminent in the “parking not people” pro car and anti “militant” cycling lobby.However, there is fault on the council for this. They should have worked harder to make Devonshire Road a showcase for the success of PeopleFirst and Business First policies. The reactionary right has won this one. However, they usually find themselves on the wrong side of history - eventually progress happens.

Ed Saper ● 1917d

"The reactionary right has won this one"Wrong Ed, the majority won !

Loraine Pemberton ● 1917d

"The reactionary right has won this one" vs "Wrong Ed, the majority won !"The two statements aren't incompatible - the reactionary right can be in the majority....although I doubt it in this case."reactionary" - opposed to change, traditional, opposing political or social progress or reform.Those who just have deeply held convictions that "Chiswick should just go back to the way it was" and cyclists and clean air campaigners should just put up with it - they may not think of themselves as reactionary, but they are.  And "right" referring to the "right wing" - the conservative, traditional and reactionary side, often the opposite of the progressive and "left wing" side.I realise that "reactionary right" is tautological, but I was using the first word to emphasise the extremism of many on your side of the fence, which I'll briefly summarise as:- Pro-car- Feeling of entitlement to exclusive use of all roads- Climate dismissal verging on outright denial- Animosity to other road users that challenge your entitlement, along with insults (e.g. "latex louts" and I recall someone came up with "spandex saps" on here :-)- Anti-expert and anti any data that might challenge strongly held opinions along with a predisposition towards conspiracies (e.g. militant cyclists control the council)- Acceptance of, if not support of, direct action including vandalism against measures that challenge car supremacy (e.g. arson against planters, vandalism with oil, graffiti and destruction of traffic counters)Not everyone on the reactionary right will fit all of the above, but most of them will, and all it takes is most of them :-)

Ed Saper ● 1917d

I don't often post on this forum but I do like to correct errors. I fought hard to reverse the changes because they were wrong (very badly thought-through and clearly with a single issue in mind) and because so many people (traders and residents) said so.  Any changes must be based on greater understanding of what is needed, why, how and by whom - not one single issue.  The survey I conducted, through the Chiswick Shops Task Force, tried to do that and indeed exposed the complexities to anyone wanting to see them.  The analysis made it clear that there was scope for compromise and a keenness to compromise.  That opportunity has been missed.Yes, I conceived the idea to survey all traders but it's not exactly pioneering to consult fully, even if it's extremely rare in LBH.  I don't know what you mean by "designed" unless you mean that it wasn't cobbled together on the back of an envelope (it wasn't) but was carefully considered to reflect concerns and options (it was).  What is wrong with "even" hand delivering them?  In fact, I first sent it by email.  Several business owners then asked for it on paper and it was logical to drop it off so of course I did.  Would posting it have been different or better?  Or should I have said: "no, I've emailed it to you, print it yourself"?  I wanted responses from as many businesses as possible so I was keen to make it easy for all to reply.  Emailing it and hand-delivering it to those who wanted it on paper made sense; I am often on Devonshire Road. Next, "the predetermined outcome" you say I wanted ... what predetermined outcome?  It was a survey of traders with only one outcome - answers given by traders.  They were analysed not by me but by a market research professional.  In another comment, I am criticised for not surveying residents.  The survey I conducted was specifically for traders but when sending it to LBH I stressed the need to consult residents as the next step.  After all, as I keep saying, Devonshire Road is a complex road; residents' views must be taken into account and, yes, those residents include residents of Devonshire Road, Prince of Wales Terrace and the Glebe Estate.  The original changes were problematical for residents; the new scheme is, too.  As the analysis was done by a market research professional, not me, I'm surprised about any accusation of "misrepresentation".  The analysis was published and distributed and can be seen by anyone who wishes to see if the responses have been correctly represented.  Here it is again: https://www.chiswickgunnersburyconservatives.org.uk/news/devonshire-road-first-survey-adhering-market-research-society-guidelines-reveals-while-overThe changes have not been reversed.  They have been modified into yet another badly thought-out scheme that misses the mark in many ways and I have already had complaints about it and, of course, read about others.  I'm asking for improvements.What makes this all so disappointing - yet another opportunity missed by LBH to get it right - is that after my survey was published, consultants commissioned by LBH surveyed residents and traders face-to-face (is face-to-face better or worse than "even" hand delivering?).  They also met me.  The outcome of that has not been published.  Why can't we decide for ourselves if their survey has been represented or misrepresented in the new scheme?  I can't believe that the new muddle is the result of the responses they received; they seemed to me to have understood the complexities very clearly, and recognised the willingness for compromise, and these new changes don't meet them.  The fact is that this new version is full of peculiarities that have created more division and anger - on the road and in our community.  It could have been so different.  Ultimately, all businesses on Devonshire Road deserve our keen support.  The range is so diverse and so very different from anywhere else, we are lucky to have it and all who do business on it.  Talk of boycotting it - as has been said on Twitter today - is absurd grandstanding.

Joanna Biddolph ● 1917d

I'll agree with one thing you said - boycotting is not the right thing to do - most of the businesses are just caught in the middle of a dispute and are trying to make a living for themselves and their families.But I'll disagree with almost everything else!  The main failure of the survey was not asking the businesses about the existing access restrictions.You told me on this forum that the current arrangements could not continue for "various reasons".Even if it wasn't feasible to keep the current arrangements (and it probably was), you can still ask stakeholders what they think of them.Instead, you offered one option to reverse the changes completely and another 5 options of further pedestrianisation.That's 1:5 - and when you presented the results the pro pedestrianisation group were not grouped together, but split over multiple options which allowed you to misrepresent it as a strong majority in favour of reversing all the changes when it probably showed the opposite.Not just that - it created real confusion about what people were "voting" for - many assumed the pedestrianisation was what we had right now.Can I ask who Charlotte Daly is?  Her name is on the report as the author, she's a freelance market research consultant and a member of One Chiswick who is vocally anti-LTNs on social media.Is Charlotte the independent market research professional who you say independently analysed the data and made the survey "compliant" with the Market Research Society guidelines?Don't you think there's an issue with a survey designed and hand delivered by someone who is strongly against the Streetspace experiments and the data is then analysed and published by someone who is a member of a group set up for the sole purpose of lobbying against the same?

Ed Saper ● 1917d

Three key questions at the end of your post, Ed. We're all waiting impatiently for answers.

Robert Fish ● 1917d

Joanne never said independent Market Research Professional. What's the problem?

Andrew Jones ● 1917d

This hole is coming on!

Carl Wynne ● 1917d

"Joanne never said independent Market Research Professional. What's the problem?"Joanna said "They were analysed not by me but by a market research professional."This implies an independent and hands off approach done to a professional standard.In another post Joanna said:Topic: Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Chiswick voted for Sadiq KhanPosted by: Joanna BiddolphDate/Time: 23/05/21 19:03:00"Yes, I did commission a third party to make sure the survey was MRS-compliant.  That person put the survey into a much more accessible and easy to use format; analysed the responses; and provided bullet point headings to summarise the analysis.  That person is an experienced professional market researcher working for a well-established agency that is a member of the Market Research Society (MRS).  The brief was to ensure the survey and its analysis were MRS-compliant and I was assured that it was."Quite apart from whether this statement is misleading (was the survey done by the agency, was the market researcher actually working for the agency?), it omits, if it is the case, that it was a member of One Chiswick that analysed the data.And when it comes to misrepresenting data in order to deliberately mislead, One Chiswick has form.* *Accident data manipulated in order to increase the number of cyclist collisions.

Ed Saper ● 1917d

Ed, your quibbles about the provenance and the methodology of the report may have some validity and so we probably can't take it as providing a definitive answer to what the precise state of opinion is among the business community on the street. That said there is no evidence available whatsoever that a majority of shops support the changes and some pretty strong alternative sources that confirm that most would have preferred to go back to the original situation. I can only offer personally the conversations I have had with four of the business owners managers in the area three of whom wanted the scheme to be completely scrapped and one of whom wanted to keep it but said it was bound to go because of the strength of opposition on the road.You talk as if it was quite straightforward that the measures were the progressive option and have unfairly described people who aren't keen as the reactionary right. That's a comical distortion although not quite as ridiculous as claiming the changes were making an important contribution to fighting climate change as some have done.It is perhaps important to step back and try and remember what the potential benefits of the scheme were and what the social cost of implementing it have been.I've taken great pleasure on sunny days over the last few years eating and drinking out on Devonshire Road but than is something I have been doing for the last twenty. There were more options when the restrictions were in place and fewer vehicles going by but it would be wrong to say the nature of the street was totally transformed rather it attractions were enhanced.As far as residents were concerned the relatively small number of people who live on Devonshire Road will probably have been pleased with the changes but the far larger number on roads such as Duke Road, Glebe Street, Brackley Road and Swanscombe Road who have seen an appreciable increase in traffic are unhappy with the changes. The extra road mileage generated also suggests that if climate change is your overriding concern then you should support reopening.The trade off is therefore more traffic going past people's home for more eating and dining in what are generally not particularly cheap restaurants and cafes. Maybe things have changed but resisting the prioritisation of the demands of the wealthy over the rest of the population was never considered reactionary in my day.The problem with the way this has been done is that the unspoken assumption has been that it would be a price worth paying if the businesses that relied on customers who parked, needed more access for deliveries or got a significant amount of their business from Glebe Estate residents stopping on their way home were to close and Devonshire Road became primarily an eating and dining street.These business pay rates, will have signed leases, will have substantial loans in many cases so in the best of times it would not be fair to attempt to make a fundamental change to the way parking and loading operates on the road on which they operate which would seriously harm their business. To do in the current situation which has presented unprecedented challenges really shows contempt on behalf of the council.This is ancient history now and we have a compromise which by its very nature means that hardly anyone will be happy with it but it does give a chance to work towards a solution that retains some of the positives of the scheme while mitigating the harms. The alarmist claims about markets not being able to operate have proven untrue because they were always able to apply for Temporary Event Notices. Whatever its flaws Jo Biddolph's report helped us get to this point and you perhaps reflect on that.

Francis Rowe ● 1917d

"Whatever its flaws Jo Biddolph's report helped us get to this point"That's right, but we're not talking about "flaws" but a survey designed to get a particular result by two "members" of OneChiswick, but presented as unimpeachably professional and independent.  Devonshire Road was a tipping point - quite a small change to access (cars could still drive in and out after all), but when combined with lots of other small changes led to quite a big result.The balance of the roadway was shifted from being "cars first" to "people first" and people came - from all over.  For many of the people celebrating the removal of the planters, this isn't about Devonshire Road at all. This is about "Fishers Lane next definitely", C9 and the ULEZ - using this "victory" to reverse all the other changes that have shifted the balance away from car dominance.  And that's the big debate - those on the progressive side see over use of cars as an issue - the air pollution, the congestion, the impact on health, the toxic environment inside schools, the deaths and injuries to pedestrians and cyclists - issues that impact all of us regardless of wealth.Ultimately, London will be a cleaner, safer city where more people will walk or cycle and we all drive a bit less in less polluting cars. But to get there we need to overcome the objections of those who frustrate any and all progress as they have a vested interest in the status quo.

Ed Saper ● 1917d

Ed, that is how the members of our local fringe pressure group including the Chiswick Conservative Councillors salve their consciences. They convince themselves that opposing each and every individual scheme to reallocate road space away from cars is consequence-free for road safety, health and the environment. They falsify the trade-off between driver privilege and impact on those greater goods as inconsequential by mocking the idea that any single road change or cycle lane could make any difference, insult the intelligence of those who support such ideas and categorise them as effete wealthy elites detached from the reality of how real people live their lives. They attribute conspiracy theories to them such as there has always been a secret intention to evict much-loved traders from their businesses and replace them with purveyors of champagne, caviar and croissants. They ignore every study, every expert and all evidence that shows that it is the accumulation of these schemes that makes remarkable positive differences to society, public health, economic prosperity and the environment. They tune in to shock jocks and jump on every clickbait article in the MSM to hoover up the uninformed opinions and misinformation they crave to reinforce their prejudices.It is a deliberate self-delusion that is vital to maintaining the construct of their self-image as good moral citizens. But let's say it how it is - these people are anti-safer streets, pro-pollution and pro-global warming.More injuries, illnesses and deaths from dangerous roads and pollution and ever-increasing emissions contributing to global warming are the unavoidable consequences of their pro-car campaigns being successful. These people are not the good moral citizens they are so desperate to believe they are. But it is now marginally easier to hoy several bags of dirty washing out on Devonshire Road so every cloud.

Paul Campbell ● 1916d

"Hoy"? Your roots are showing Mr C.

Bruce Hammal ● 1916d

Eating ‘al fresco’ for me, is nowadays more often than not a takeaway sausage roll from Gregg’s, but I can understand the need for our local “Hooray” Henries to want something a bit posher. Why not make the road a denizen of rich gourmets at the weekend, and also have the odd special event where they can buy porcelain bric-à-brac parrots, or whatever excites them?

Russell Pearson ● 1916d

Poor Russell, re-igniting a culture war to attempt to hide the pathetic inadequacy of the Survey and its "independent" reviewer. I actually thought you were better than that.

Carl Wynne ● 1916d

I thought that Francis put together a good argument.  It was well written and covered some interesting points.  Ed, Paul, you really should hope that the majority of the middle ground don’t read your comments.  It seems you suggest that people that don’t agree with aspects of the schemes are, was it ‘haters’.  I think I’m middle ground, you would probably disagree.  But I don’t think you are doing your ‘group’ any favours.  Paul, I know I’m not your dad, or line manager, so I will not suggest you change your behaviour.

Kieran Fox ● 1916d

What about the cherry trees?You should post on the forum more or do you just not like being held to account?

Stewart Jones ● 1916d

Quite right. I'm glad you remembered. If you oppose all and every instance of any attempt to reallocate road space away from cars, join fringe pressure groups and sign absolutist petitions to reverse every measure, support Cllr Biddolph and vote for the Chiswick Conservatives then you are anti-safer streets, pro-pollution and pro-global warming. Argue about aspects of schemes, campaign for changes to make them better, while supporting the general move to restrict cars, don't join fringe pressure groups, sign binary and absolutist petitions or vote for the Chiswick Conservatives then congratulations you are in the middle ground.If in doubt then you know which side you are on and it isn't the same one that the good morally responsible citizens are on. You are on the side of the people who rig surveys to preserve the hegemony of the car no matter what cost it exerts on society.

Paul Campbell ● 1916d

Uh oh. This is definitely the time to ask the "useful idiots" to scream "OCD" and "misogyny".

Paul Campbell ● 1916d

Would you consider yourself a member of a fringe group Paul?

Kieran Fox ● 1916d

"Ed, Paul, you really should hope that the majority of the middle ground don’t read your comments.  It seems you suggest that people that don’t agree with aspects of the schemes are, was it ‘haters’."We have a Chiswick resident whose garden was vandalised - she was in The Telegraph for setting up the Flower Market and has an MBE - awful abuse, nasty article in the Daily Mail and false accusations that she'd done it herself in order to defraud people  - the people who did that are below the pale in my opinion and my definition of a "hater".I believe she was "outed" and named on this forum by members of the One Chiswick group so as to encourage others to abuse her.  That feels quite hateful to me.Why? Oh, because the group felt they were the real victims as people pointed the finger at their supporters on the basis that their "hateful" rhetoric inspired it.What sort of a person would be so incensed by the idea that a traffic counter would undermine their campaign against low traffic neighbourhoods that they would take a list of all the locations (helpfully published the day before in the One Chiswick Facebook group) and systematically vandalise them?  Perhaps someone who really hates low traffic neighbourhoods?I didn't use the term "haters" in my earlier post - but, yes, I believe that vandalism, faking data, manipulating surveys and abusing people for holding different opinions or just their mode of transport and clothing - all in the cause of removing a bike lane (seriously?!) justifies your moniker of "haters".If you feel that my calling this out makes me as bad or worse and I've alienated you to the point where you would throw in your lot with those I've described above on a point of principle, then I'm disappointed with that outcome obviously.

Ed Saper ● 1916d

It is pretty poor. The stuff the majority say on the One Chiswick facebook group pretty much sums up their attitudes to others. Really against change in any form and some often post wishing harm to others. Not great.

Tony Smart ● 1916d

Just to go back to the original post there are a number of points that need to be considered.Firstly, is speeding actually an issue on the retail stretch of Devonshire Road? I can't recall ever seeing a car reaching a particularly high speed before or after the restriction.Secondly, what difference does the restriction make either way? A driver who is going to ignore the speed limit will also ignore an access restriction.From what I'm told many Glebe Estate residents learned fairly quickly that if there was no white Serco van on the road you could drive up without concern and if there was you simply pulled up where you could to demonstrate that you required access.They will probably continue to do that until the ANPR cameras are introduced at which point there may start to be even more serious issues with traffic on the roads that have been suffering with displacement particularly in the evening rush. It seems to me inexplicable that local access was not given to Grove Park residents.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1916d

Ed.  I don’t agree with any of the actions you have outlined.  They are all obviously wrong.  But on this forum I seem to see more posts from the group in favour on implementing CS9, LTNs etc. without questioning them, and most of these posters don’t accept any suggestions that mistakes could have been made.  It’s as if any admission or suggestion of problems with the schemes are not acceptable and if you do suggest there are issues, then you are classed as, and I quote “anti-safer streets, pro-pollution and pro-global warming”.  I don’t believe in the “he said this”, so it justifies my comments argument.  The debate seems to being dominated by the fringe.  Same question to you Ed as I asked Paul, do you consider yourself as part of a fringe group?

Kieran Fox ● 1916d

You are a member of OneChiswick Kieran. You are kidding yourself if you believe that places you in the middle ground. You only ever challenge the views of people who are pro-safer streets anti-pollution and anti-global warming on this forum. You are a member of a fringe pressure group and you never challenge your fellow members. When people do that they are expelled from the group.I have two memberships: British Cycling and Kew Gardens Friends. Fringe I will readily admit but not pressure groups by any stretch of the imagination.Your bias shines through in every post. You remembered that I will not take advice on my posts from you but you forgot that I did mention how I have shared views on how schemes can be improved with the Council. You have also forgotten how I explained to you how mainstream all of these schemes are and how they have the support of the national and local authorities. Cllr Biddolph believes that only "cycling zealots" would want contraflow cycle lanes when they are commonplace in London and even in the City of Westminster, a Consrvative led Borough.You belong to a group whose sole existence is to pressure the Council into reversing every single scheme that restricts cars and reallocates road space.Not modify or make better. Reverse for unfettered driving. People who question or challenge schemes are not anti-safer streets, pro-pollution and pro-global warming but you are. As are all your fellow members of OneChiswick. You obviously don't like it but it is an unavoidable consequence of your membership. same for anybody who chooses to vote for the Chiswick Conservatives next year and everybody who signed the petition in November.It is heart-warming that more than 90% of Chiswick's population does not think like you.

Paul Campbell ● 1916d

Sorry full disclosure - I forgot that I am also a Founding Member of Chiswick Cinema. Enjoying the efforts of the usual suspects to construct a mini-culture war about that as well.

Paul Campbell ● 1916d

I remember someone did a basic count of posts about C9 and put it into a pivot table - I think LP was the most prolific poster then (circa 2018)!  I suspect the balance is fairly equal on this forum and perhaps weighted more heavily to the antis on Nextdoor and Facebook.I hadn't realised you were a member of OneChiswick.  You obviously don't agree with any of the hate rhetoric against cyclists that is regularly posted on the OneChiswick board, although perhaps you sympathise with some of the sentiments if not the language and maybe feel the cyclists perhaps bring it on themselves a bit?I'm sure you thought that a One Chiswick member showed some poor judgement when she helpfully pointed out how someone could look up the home addresses for certain councillors - in reply to a far right fanatic who had just made threats to kill the same councillors.Compared to them, you probably think you're middle of the road, quite sensible and reasonable.And from your vantage point, someone who thinks there needs to be a rebalance in road usage between cars and other forms of transport (i.e. the policy of the current Tory government) or thinks we should try and do something about air pollution and the climate must be some sort of left wing fringe loon!  I can see that Paul's echoed these sentiments and I'll agree - OneChiswick is a fringe and reactionary group that has sailed dangerously close to the line of enabling violence, property damage and anti social behaviour.  I realise you have no interest in my subscriptions to The Times, Economist or Private Eye, let alone my National Trust membership - you want to get to the meat of it - which "militant" cycling groups do I belong to?  I hate to disappoint, but none.  I only use a bike to beat the traffic and get some exercise.  I wouldn't even have considered myself a "cyclist" - my mode of travel isn't integral to my identity - but on this forum there is sometimes a (strictly metaphorical!) gun to your head to choose a camp. 

Ed Saper ● 1915d

Ed, Paul.  I joined the one chiswick Facebook group I think a bit like you applied yourself Ed to see what was posted, but I don’t class it as being a member of anything.  I must admit I haven’t really looked for a while and don’t post.  As for memberships, thanks for sharing yours, mine include Kew, The Transport Museum, Ride London and if it helps I have applied to have a bike hanger on our road as we don’t have off street parking and the bikes take up quite a bit of space.  I have  subscribed to Chiswick cinema mailing list but not joined as we have a couple of young kid so don’t get to the cinema much at the moment.  But to be clear, I also have a car.Fun to see you have done research on me Paul.  I assume that means you or someone you know is in the One Chiswick Facebook group,  does that mean you or they condone the nonsense a lot of people spout on there? If you had asked i would have told you what facebook groups I’m in.  Please don’t spread that I’m in the Man City group, but I am from Manchester, so I suppose that’s ok?I’m commenting on the posts you make here, I haven’t looked elsewhere.  I’m assuming they are the same on all channels?  I’m interested in local transport as I’ve lived here for a while, I try to take a balanced view.  But I see I have bee now classed as anti everything ‘good’. Oh well.Paul, honestly, I pick out your posts for comment on this forum that seem the most aggressive.  You may have a balanced view elsewhere, looking at the schemes and pointing out the good and bad, but I don’t see it on here.  Ed, you seem less aggressive but seem to pile in every now and then.Sorry guys,  I guess I’m on the naughty list now.

Kieran Fox ● 1915d

Jeremy, please stop trying to side track an important discussion on which Facebook Group people are in by raising pertinent points about the Devonshire Road Speed Limit - that's not what this thread is about.But as you've already gone and done it I'll follow suit. I think you have put into the open the dirty secret that the old restrictions were largely been ignored by residents. We will never know how much traffic along Devonshire Road was reduced by the restriction itself because any data collected during the pandemic is difficult to interpret but it could be that most of the reduction in traffic came from the removal of parking rather than the restriction itself.What is clear is that Devonshire Road wasn't fundamentally transformed by the restrictions - it was made a bit better for pedestrians but a lot worse for some businesses.You raise an important point about how proper enforcement going forward might make congestion on roads like Duke Road more acute. This is supposed to be a trial and hopefully the council will realise that it could be improved by giving local residents access. I don't think Grove Park residents should be included but Glebe Estate residents should. Unfortunately, even when it becomes self-evident how ANPR monitored scheme could be improved by tweaking who gets access Hounslow has shown a pattern of being unwilling to act.

Francis Rowe ● 1915d

One snag with the previous restriction was that cyclists felt increasingly at liberty to ignore the No Entry signs and cycle the wrong way down the invitingly traffic free Devonshire Road, often responding in an unfriendly manner when their error was pointed out to them.

Peter Evans ● 1915d

Why isn’t Devonshire Road made two way for cyclists? It makes obvious sense.

Edward Seaton ● 1915d

It doesn't make sense if pedestrians crossing the road aren't expecting anything to come from that direction. The alternative route isn't much longer and gives protected traffic light access to CHR and TGT. If a northbound cyclist wants to get to somewhere in Devonshire Road they can get off and walk.

Peter Evans ● 1915d

Because it's a one way street!

Helen Whitman ● 1915d

Plenty of one way streets in London with two-way cycling. Just about every one way street in the city and loads in Westminster. Devonshire Road should be two-way for cycling.

Paul Campbell ● 1915d

Doesn't need to be two way for cyclists as they can always use the pavement!  I guess the official answer to that is that cyclists only use the pavement because the road isn't two way for them. Problem is that many cyclists don't really see themselves as 'vehicles' bound by regulations, despite the battles of their ancestors to achieve such protected status. They see themselves taking advantage of the huge flexibility and freedom of a bicycle to go more or less anywhere, and they resent what they see as 'arbitrary' restrictions on their movement - such as Devonshire Road being one way, and the installation of complex facilities in CGT intended to protect them - as all traffic signage is intended to do.

Peter Evans ● 1915d

Devonshire Road is one way because it is too narrow to allow people driving cars to pass each other. Why not paint a solid line down one side and allow people who live in the Glebe Estate to cycle to its shops or the High Road? Two-way for bikes. As Paul mentions this is common elsewhere. If politicians want to be seen to be in favour of walking and cycling this is a totally obvious solution which literally inconveniences no one.

Edward Seaton ● 1915d

Several other boroughs (City of London and Lambeth to name two) have done a systematic review of all one way streets in their boroughs to determine if two way cycling should be enabled.  I think in the City two way cycling is now allowed in every one way street.It is all standard stuff... assessing each street against a set of criteria and making a decision as to which of the set of possible measures could be implemented.e.g. https://beta.lambeth.gov.uk/streets-roads-transport/cycling-walking/two-way-cycling-one-way-streetsDevonshire Rd (and Cranbrook Rd) were made one way to stop cars rat-running between Chiswick Lane and Chiswick High Rd and cycling wasn't permitted because it was believed there wasn't enough space because of the parked cars (even though there are plenty of other streets with even less space).  A classic example of people not in cars being disadvantaged because of problems created by cars.

Michael Robinson ● 1915d

This would be an excellent change. It would provide a nice alternative route back into Chiswick after a trip to the river.

Mark Evans ● 1914d

It doesn’t take a lot to get on the ‘naughty list’ Kieran. Cages are easily rattled. All you need to do is join the ‘wrong’ Facebook group and the local Johnny thought police, start pointing fingers. I’m dreading what my membership of ‘Astrophotography for beginners’ might mean, and I don’t even have a telescope.

Russell Pearson ● 1914d

Michael, when were Devonshire and Cranbrook made one way?As someone who uses Cranbrook multiple times daily, I'd imagine it has far more to do with the numerous blind turns more than anything. Cyclists use it as a rat run to CHR, that I know. And boy they get pissed when they almost run right into your grille. Meanwhile, there is no room for manoeuvring one way or the other. Of course they could stay with flow on Chiswick Lane and cyclists on Devonshire could do the same by simply using Annandale. So it's a bit rich for drivers to be told they can simply go a bit further and it's not that bad - blah, blah, blah- yet cyclists can't pedal between Devonshire and Annandale getting another 50 metres or so of healthy transit. That tells me it's all about convenience and entitlement and little more.

David Lesniak ● 1914d

Is it possible not to just have our old chiswick back And just get rid of the nouveau chis eek

James Dow ● 1914d

Love the new definition of rat runners there - sorry, Chipsters :-)Have you also noticed the scourge of pedestrians taking short cuts down back streets. Why won’t they stick to their expensive dedicated infrastructure on main routes? They’ve got legs - we are all about active travel here…why shouldn’t they walk an extra 50m or so?Many of them start at their smartphones, play music or have loud telephone calls which disturb the residents. Then there are the kids who travel in packs - they are a danger to all elderly and pregnant people and car drivers. And don’t get me started on the ones that bring animals with them that poo and piss everywhere. Stop this scourge!  Ban these entitled pedestrians from using our roads as convenient rat runs! Fun fact - pedestrians pay absolutely nothing towards our roads.

Ed Saper ● 1914d

Very good, but if you're looking for the gig we've already got the original on our books. Though he isn't cheap, he's worth every penny!

Tom Pike ● 1914d

Fun fact - pedestrians pay absolutely nothing towards our roads.Just like cyclists.But if we are to believe cyclists pay tax, clearly so do pedestrians. Probably for the very same thing. We could do the whole tit for tat thing like you pay tax on bikes and pedestrians pay tax on sneakers and prams and walking sticks and a lovely pair of brogues. So not really sure what the point is there.

David Lesniak ● 1913d

I had no idea that there was a hypothecated tax on sneakers that directly funded all our pavements! Well, you learn something new every day. Let’s hope those environmental killjoys don’t stop people buying sneakers or all the pavements will be converted to cycle lanes! ***https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2020/mar/21/some-soles-last-1000-years-in-landfill-the-truth-about-the-sneaker-mountain***I know… some think pavements already are the exclusive preserve of cyclists :-)

Ed Saper ● 1912d

Sneakers? Pavements? American or British? We need consistency!

Simon Temple ● 1912d

Just throwing my trainers in the trash :-)

Ed Saper ● 1912d

I AM BOILING INSIDE NOW!

Simon Temple ● 1912d