Forum Topic

Statement from Prime Minister released today

‘I know many people think that cycling and walking schemes simply increase car traffc on other roads. But there is now increasing evidence that they do not. We sometimes think of traffc as like water: if you block a stream in one place, it will fnd the next easiest way. Of course some journeys by car are essential, but traffc is not a force of nature. It is a product of people’s choices. If you make it easier and safer to walk and cycle, more people choose to walk and cycle instead of driving, and the traffc falls overall.’I support councils, of all parties, which are trying to promote cycling and bus use. And if you are going to oppose these schemes, you must tell us what your alternative is, because trying to squeeze more cars and delivery vans on the same roads and hoping for the best is not going to work.And as the benefts of schemes increase over time, what opposition there is falls further. That is why schemes must be in place long enough for their benefts and disbenefts to be properly evidenced.Almost exactly six years ago, in east London, we began the frst of the transformational low-traffc neighbourhood schemes I funded as mayor. There was intense controversy: hundreds of protestors carried a golden coffn to symbolise the “death” we were supposedly causing to the local shops. But the council stuck it out, thank goodness. Now, the local shops and cafes have never been busier, air quality is up, opposition to the LTN has evaporated, and so has some of the traffc.’Why are Chiswick Conservatives so out of touch with their leadership?

Edward Seaton ● 1914d16 Comments

'If you make it easier and safer to walk and cycle, more people choose to walk and cycle instead of driving, and the traffc falls overall.’Why is it then that having spent God alone knows how much money and caused so much angst in local areas over cycleways and LTNs, that cyclists aren't mandated to use cycle lanes/paths where they exist?

Vanessa Smith ● 1913d

Vanessa, Exactly, because they don't anymore than they stop at the cyclist red / amber lights and pedestrian crossings and my real favourite are the cyclists who veer off the right side of the road onto on coming traffic or onto the pavement, I've yet to see cars doing the same.But the really shabby aspect of this illegal behaviour is that the Police do nothing ! Not a level playing field, outrageous.

Loraine Pemberton ● 1913d

Cycle lanes don't always go in the direction that the cyclist wants to go.  If you want to take a turning off the cycle lane you don't want to have to cross more lanes than you have to.

Philippa Bond ● 1913d

With rights come responsibilities and whilst they are not required to be registered and are effectively unregulated,many cyclists will continue to act just as they please, whilst always claiming the moral high ground.

Keith Iddon ● 1913d

'Cycle lanes don't always go in the direction that the cyclist wants to go.  If you want to take a turning off the cycle lane you don't want to have to cross more lanes than you have to.'That may be the case - BUT - I am personally sick and tired of seeing cyclists riding on dangerous roads - the A316 - springs to mind - and a lot of that does have a cycle track. Yet idiots insist on trying to belt along in heavy traffic. Similarly the lack of use of the ridiculous bollarded track that runs down Twickenham Rd. that holds up emergency vehicles trying to access West Middlesex Hospital, and the cycle tracks around Whitton Dene and Mogden Lane.

Vanessa Smith ● 1913d

Given that Boris and the Tory government are enacting policies to encourage “the C word”, who are the local anti mob going to vote for? At some point the local Tories are going to wake up that their policies to resist new and remove existing cycling infrastructure aren’t that popularRight now the only major “normal” party (ie not UKIP) that seems to be anti-LTNs and cycle lanes is the Liberal Democrats. As strange as it seems, they seem to be perfectly placed, at least locally, to capture the climate dismissing, cycling hating mob who aren’t quite racist enough to go to UKIP.

Ed Saper ● 1913d

'As strange as it seems, they seem to be perfectly placed, at least locally, to capture the climate dismissing, cycling hating mob who aren’t quite racist enough to go to UKIP.'What a load of nonsense. What the majority of us complaining about cycleways and LTNs want is just some bloody consultation. We have had these dubious schemes foisted on us, leading to traffic jammed up for long periods, ambulances being delayed whilst blue lighting people to hospital and the inappropriate closure of some local roads. Then having had to see all the twerps who this is supposed to be for, who can't be arsed to use the blasted facilities specifically provided for them!There may well have been areas across the borough where these schemes would have worked, and worked well, and local people are probably the best ones to ask as they know their areas best. But, no, we get some fanatical 'one size fits all' plans dreamed up, mainly by officers who don't even know the areas, without any thought for the effects on others who may not be able, or want, to cycle. As for making things better for pedestrians, if the bonkers scheme around South St. Isleworth is anything to go by, pedestrians will be taking their safety in their hands.

Vanessa Smith ● 1913d

"I know many people think that cycling and walking schemes simply increase car traffic on other roads. But there is now increasing evidence that they do not"No that is not entirely true.  The evidence is that SOME of the traffic displaced from one road by cycling and walking schemes displaces to other roads and SOME evaporates.  The proportion which evaporates depends on the scheme and its measurement is controversial (there are short term, medium term and long term effects which are not all the same).How much evaporation is enough is even more controversial than the actual measurement!  Pro-cycling lobby maintains that any evaporation is enough and the anti cycling lobby maintains that all but the most extreme of evaporation is not enough to justify the inconvenience.I am not going to enter that debate but I will say that in the majority of schemes they only work long term if they have the support of the local community

Justin Stephenson ● 1912d

Amusing article in the Speccie about Boris’s “eco obsession”Seems there’s worry that Farage has his finger on the pulse of voting sentiment. He was on GB News talking about what he calls “Richmond Greens” - people in £2 million pound houses who like to spout off about how the rest of us should live. Farage reckons these ‘particular type of Greens’ have taken over No. 10. Old school Tories are increasingly disgruntled.Worth a readhttps://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-danger-of-boris-johnson-s-eco-obsession

Russell Pearson ● 1912d

From the title I thought this was about his wife's pregnancy!

Simon Temple ● 1912d

That's just the rag for educated nazis!

Basil Finnis ● 1912d

Once again, you win the Godwin’s Law prize Basil.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Russell Pearson ● 1912d

Vanessa said: "That may be the case - BUT - I am personally sick and tired of seeing cyclists riding on dangerous roads - the A316 - springs to mind - and a lot of that does have a cycle track. Yet idiots insist on trying to belt along in heavy traffic"To say the A316 is dangerous to cycle on is wrong.  It's perfectly safe, and I've done it lots of times.Also, the "cycle lane" along the A316 is a complete joke.The bit near Chiswick is shared use with pedestrians.  It's very narrow, and there are tree branches hanging down at head height.  In the autumn it's covered in slippery leaf mulch.  Coming down off the bridge over the railway, there is a significant slope.  At the kind of speeds you do down there on a bike, it's just not safe.Once you get beyond the South Circular junction, there are so many interruptions in the "cycle lane" that it is unusable.  Between that junction, and the roundabout to go into the centre of Richmond, I think I counted 23 side junctions where you have to give way on a bike.  If you stay on the road, you only have to give way once at the roundabout at the Sandycombe Road junction.All of those side roads make that lane unsafe, as well as very slow.  Cars sometimes turn in without indicating.  It's a similar situation to Rivercourt Road on the A4 shared path near Hammersmith.  I had a very near miss there year or two ago when a car turned in on me without indicating.  The traffic is normally continuous, so you have to rely on drivers indicating.  If you wait for a gap to cross, you would never cross.  There are multiple junctions on that stretch of the A316 that carry that risk.  As well as being a lot quicker on the road, I honestly believe you are safer on the road at that location.  Beyond Richmond towards Twickenham isn't as bad, but the surface on the shared use pavement is awful, and you feel like you are getting shaken to bits.  That stretch is actually reasonably safe - although there are still unpredictable pedestrians and dogs - but it's really not nice to ride. Cyclists are legally entitled to be on the road.  You do need to use your common sense.  I wouldn't use the road there if I was pootling along at 8mph, but at a decent speed it's an absolute no brainer to use the road.  It's a lot quicker, and it's definitely safer on the section by the railway bridge, and probably safer on the other section with all the side roads interrupting the "cycle lane".

Al Webber ● 1912d

So how many children has he fathered?

Stewart Jones ● 1911d

Lots. He may end up resigning to spend more time with them at this rate. The pressure from his own party is mounting.“ It’s a good idea to encourage cycling or walking, when possible, but there are better methods that minimise disruption and consult the community. One adviser even named on Twitter the councils that dared to remove schemes “prematurely”  – like some Stalinist official listing enemies of the people – while future transport funding for those authorities has been threatened. “In fact, these councils, some of them Labour, should be congratulated for having the common sense to listen to locals, and not the polling commissioned by the Government that claims public support. Local referendums should be held in areas immediately transformed by an LTN.“ The Government has to consider the real-world costs of its schemes and what they will do to the lives or finances of people who have backed the Tories forever or broken with the Labour Party, against the weight of family history, to lend them their support. If it does not listen to those voters now, it will hear from them later, at the ballot box.That adviser was Andrew Gilligan, the former Labour Party member, controversial journalist and Boris’ London mayoral cycling commissioner who is now the Prime Minister’s transport adviser even though he has no experience or qualifications in transport other than being a proponent of cycling. Gilligan has named on Twitter the London councils, including  Conservative run Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea and Wandsworth and Labour run Ealing and Harrow, who have stopped installing LTNs and threatened their funding.  Councillors are democratically elected; advisers like Gilligan are not. Gilligan and his allies in Government must go and the Government must start listening to democratically elected councillors, to local residents and to traditional Tories.”https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2021/08/01/government-has-stopped-listening-traditional-tories/

Russell Pearson ● 1911d

If course they have stopped listening. They oppose pretty much anything progressive and act as if climate change is nonsense.

Tony Smart ● 1911d