Forum Topic

Michael Robinson and co are victims of the Cycling Cult whose main beliefs are thesea) Because cycling exercises the largest muscle groups and is rotary in nature and so doesn't impart shock tothe joints it's amongst the best form of exercise.  Trueb) The bicycle itself, the wire spoked wheel in particular is a model of engineering design and represents one of the most efficient machines ever made. Truec) Bicycles are an ideal form of transport being relatively cheap to produce and cause no pollutionTrued) Riding bicycles safely in town requires 100% concentration and alertness all the time, ideally along pre-planned routes. And so provides mental exercise as well. Truee) And this is without the exhilaration factor which comes from riding downhill very fast. Ideallywearing a helmet as recommended by helmet manufacturers. Not that a helmet will necessarily save you from ending up in a wheelchair. So conditionally true Conclusion. Clearly because of a,b,c,d,and e everyone should be already riding bicycles. Just like we do. False not everyone is capable of satisfying d) for a start.f) Well maybe not old people either, (cue link to octagenerian cyclist somehere), people with mobility difficulties, people with impaired vision (cue link to blind cyclist somewhere )*but we don't really care  about them". In fact we never ever mention them at all. Ever !No instead we Cult members concentrate on cars and how polluting and dangerous they are as compared with bicycles. The politicians are worried about pollution as well.The thing about living in a democracy is that in the end the voters only have themselves to blame. One easy way for politicians of all parties to "solve" the pollution problem is to suggest everyone rides a bicycle instead*. Ably supported by members of the cult. Who do actually believe it.And like the cult totally ignoring, in fact making things worse for people in category f)  And then. when pollution stays the same, the politicians call all turn round and say - well you didn't all get on your bikes like we told you, todid you? We even built you new cycle tracks as well. So it's all your own fault !Basically this is amongst the biggest a*** covering exercises of all time michael adams* Which in the short term can often make localised pollution far worse       

Michael Adams ● 1763d

Susan Engel is correct. Hounslow council not only said it intended to make a new traffic order for the current works, but the cabinet also approved the policy document which included the fact that the council would make a new traffic order for these new "trial" measures for this "experimental" scheme. I've cut and pasted the pertinent paragraphs and given the link to the full document below. So, the question remains: where is the traffic order required to do this work?  Extract from the cabinet paper of 20th July 2021 seeking cabinet's approval for:Making a new ETO (C9 2021) to trial a range of measures resulting from data and responses to C9T as outlined below (2i-vii). These measures will be located on Chiswick High Road, between Goldhawk Road and Heathfield Terrace (see Appendix B) and will include the following features:i.  Waiting and loading restrictions are experimentally lifted on some sections of side roads to test the benefits of increasing informal provision for loading/unloading and pick up/drop off.ii. the loading bay outside No.160 Chiswick High Road operates as a taxi- rank between 9pm and 3am to assess the benefits of better taxi provision in the area.iii. Reinstate two traffic lanes (including the left turn only lane) at the Chiswick Lane junction for westbound traffic to assess whether this has the effect of reducing congestion and improving bus journey times. This will require the carriageway to be slightly widened and the footway to be slightlynarrowed. The works would also require the loss of a tree adjacent to the Chiswick Lane junction which is proposed to be replaced.iv. Reinstate the eastbound bus lane between Holmfield Road and Netheravon Road to assess whether this has the effect of improving bus journey times. This will require the carriageway to be slightly widened and the footway to be slightly narrowed.v. Reinstate the westbound bus lane between Airedale Avenue and Netheravon Road traffic to assess whether this has the effect of improving bus journey times. This will require the carriageway to be slightly widened and the footway to be slightly narrowed.vi. Provide additional areas on side roads between Chiswick Lane and Heathfield Terrace for taxis to drop off and pick up passengers to test the usefulness of reducing the distances passengers would need to travel to a taxi.vii. Introduce bus stop shelters on all bus stop islands to test the benefits and assess any disadvantages of the provision of better waiting spaces for bus users.The full cabinet paper is here: https://democraticservices.hounslow.gov.uk/documents/s170146/CEX545%20C9%20and%20Temporary%20C9%20-%20Cabinet%20Report.pdfAll papers relating to the "trial" and "experimental" C9T are here including the proposed amended design which is currently being carved into the Chiswick streetscene which will also result in the removal of a handsome tree:https://democraticservices.hounslow.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=571&MId=12224&Ver=4

Joanna Biddolph ● 1763d

You don't need a law degree to know that it is technically illegal for Hounslow to proceed with work until the relevant traffic order has been issued. However, it is very much a de minimis breach of the law which is unlikely to have any implications and probably is due to a sensible desire to get contractors to do the work while they are available at a time of acute labour shortage. As a number of people have observed TfL seem to be accelerating a number of projects at the moment possibly to make their accounts look better (or worse if you like) when they go to negotiate with the government. A squeeze on labour just as we go into the Christmas holidays is going to cause everyone problems - oh and it looks like we are in for a spell of bad weather which will delay all these projects!As for bus islands, I don't think we can take the musings of 'The Ranty Highwayman' as authoritative. He runs a consultancy which is presumably hoping to get contracts to build these sort of things so he is always going to say they are kosher.However, in principle they appear to be perfectly legal. Hounslow is not the first to introduce them and they have been operating in some boroughs from before the pandemic. Looking at some that have been introduced there doesn't seem to be any agreed set of guidelines but Hounslow's are by no means the worst.I'm on the High Road no more than twice a week but in the last month or so I've seen two low impact collisions between cyclists and pedestrians which seem to have resulted from confusion about right of way by the bus island. One of the shop owners nearby assures me that these type of collisions are commonplace to the point of being a daily occurrence. Tom Pike will say this is just anecdote but statistics are of limited use if the data they are based on is comprehensive. Data on minor injuries sustained near the bus islands is not being collected.If you accept the instances of collisions involving people without visual impairment is already high then it necessarily follows the risk is even more elevated for the partially sighted. The RNIB accepts the need to encourage active travel and seems to acknowledge that bus islands might have to be tolerated to allow cycle lanes to be introduced. Looking at comments they have made on bus islands elsewhere on things such as kerb height, tactile paving and signage, the Chiswick bus island seems to fall well short of their ideal. This may be a function of Cycleway 9 being temporary and done on a limited budget which has meant Hounslow was unable to design to the highest specifications with regard to making their bus islands accessible to the blind. The problem going forward is that, given TfL's current situation the £70million plus that the permanent cycleway was going to cost (which will be much higher now) is unlikely to be included in the next funding package given to TfL by the government so the temporary route, with all its deficiencies, may turn out to be the one we are stuck with.

Francis Rowe ● 1763d

The section here: Reinstate two traffic lanes (including the left turn only lane) at the Chiswick Lane junction for westbound traffic to assess whether this has the effect of reducing congestion and improving bus journey times. This will require the carriageway to be slightly widened and the footway to be slightlynarrowed. The works would also require the loss of a tree adjacent to the Chiswick Lane junction which is proposed to be replaced.I can't see this helping much at all as the other issue causing west bound bus delays is entirely down to the removal of the bus lane down King Street. Traffic is backed up on King Street so badly these days, it is often stationary around Ravenscourt Park and often the Polish centre. As soon as two cars wanting to turn right into Goldhawk Road wait for a gap in eastbound traffic, all traffic trying trying to come West is stuck behind them, and  even if you get one numpty trying to turn right but not going into the yellow box, you've had it. The only way to improve the bus journey's will be to re-instate the bus lanes down King Street - but they're gone forever now by the looks of the mess they are creating, all for a cycle lane that many don't obey the rules of.As for bus stop islands - i could rant for hours on these. So badly designed. Not once, when i have got off a bus and crossed at the zebra when a cyclist has approached, have they stopped, they either mount the pavement or screech around you. Now, I don't blame the cyclists in the most part as it is a bonkers design for everyone concerned, pedestrians and cyclists alike. I wish the High Road could go back to how it was and if Hounslow want to play with roads and cycle lanes, why don't they put them in Hounslow and muck that up instead?

J Morse ● 1763d

Advance warning! David Kerr or other OneChiswick supporters should stop reading now because they will be shocked with the information that bus stop bypasses have been implemented for decades all over the world and there is extensive research and design guidance.  Here is one in London. It gets even worse.  This website has examples of over 50 bus stop bypasses in London. https://floating-bus-stops.tumblr.com But it isn't only London, examples can be found all over the world.  Here are Manchester, Brighton, Vancouver, Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden
Here is an x-rated video showing the carnage of bus stop by-passes in the Netherlands.  https://youtu.be/i-SKoUqcoUw Under no circumstances should people read monitoring reports, research and design guidance.  These carry the risk that prejudices and lack of knowledge may be contradicted by facts and evidence. https://ww3.brighton-hove.gov.uk/sites/brighton-hove.gov.uk/files/Lewes%20Road%20-%20November%202013%20Monitoring%20Report.pdf https://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/sites/cycling-embassy.org.uk/files/documents/ppr730_bus_stop_bypass_main_report_v1.pdf https://content.tfl.gov.uk/new-cycle-infrastructure-monitoring-report.pdf https://trl.co.uk/uploads/trl/documents/PPR855%20-%20Bus%20Stop%20Bypasses%20-%20Surveys%20of%20Pedestrians%20and%20Cyclists.pdf https://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/sites/cycling-embassy.org.uk/files/documents/Floating_bus_stop_report.pdf https://content.tfl.gov.uk/bus-stop-design-guidance.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/951074/cycle-infrastructure-design-ltn-1-20.pdf https://www.dropbox.com/s/c7gqoatzk8lq31j/Oxford%20Road%20Trial%20Bus%20Stop%20Evaluation%20Report.pdf?dl=0

Michael Robinson ● 1763d

Michael Robinson" Yes, Michael, how very insightful of you to think #that safety of a cycle lane is determined by a single photograph"I'm certainly "insightful" enough to recognise that the "single" photograph is a composite of "seven" bike lanes which feature only "two" cyclists.As to your reference to "extensive" research and the page full of links which you expect people to read - you know as well as I do, that this a standard evasion and obfuscation tactic. No student would expect to attend a tutorial and present their tutor with a page of links - "its all on there" - without being shown short shrift. Same as a with a lecturer" there's a list of links on the board copy them all down and I'll have new ones for you next week.""In your own words, please"The problem here is getting blind people and people with mobility issues from the pavement on one side of a bi directional cycling track to the other side, with bicyles passing up and down all the time. As you yourself lose no time in pointing out.So what are the general principles, to which all this research, with which you are so familiar, point to ?Barring bridges at every bus stop the only solution I can think of is pedestrian operated traffic lightswith barriers across the cycle lane at every bus stop, which is clearly impractical and open to abuse.So in your own words, what are the general principlea which you've been researching yourself ? Clearly you think there's something which others have missed. So what is it please ?    michael adams

Michael Adams ● 1763d

Joanna Biddolph explained"Coincidentally, this report and video popped up in my Twitter feed today..."Courtesy Google translateQUOTE:This is what happens when a blind man wants to cross: "It's absurd"A large proportion of the blind and partially sighted have bad experiences when crossing the road. Traffic users still too often ignore the white stick, which leads to life-threatening situations. That is why today, on the Day of the White Stick, attention is drawn to this group.No less than 77 percent of blind and partially sighted people have ended up in an unpleasant situation because someone ignored their white cane when crossing the street. That this quickly goes wrong became clear when WNL took to the streets with the blind Fenna Corstanje. At the first zebra crossing, the stick is pushed out of her hand by a cyclist racing past.The moment Costanje has to cross is always exciting. “It's absurd, it does hold you back. That's ridiculous, because I just want to go everywhere."'Just stop'Costanje therefore calls on traffic users to pay extra attention. “Cyclists should certainly stop at the zebra crossing,” says Costanje.“Whether or not there is a traffic light, you just have to stop.”People should also take more account of the visually impaired on the sidewalk. “What is very annoying is that you have to slalom over the sidewalk. Entire mountains of bakfietsen and planters are there.”By: Tom JanssenEND QUOTEhttps://wnl.tv/2019/10/15/dit-gebeurt-er-als-een-blinde-wil-oversteken-het-is-absurd/And it should maybe be pointed out that the 77% only applies where the blind or partiallysighted were themselves aware of an "unpleasantsituation". It seem quite possible that such situations - dangerous situations say, could also arise without the blind person even being aware of them michael adams

Michael Adams ● 1762d

"extensive research and design guidelines informed by that research that you clearly haven't bothered to read"How sad is it that I enjoy a bit of Michael Robinson contortion with my morning coffee?Many of us have actually read the extensive research and design guidelines published from all manner of sources and shared by all manner of folk. Interesting to note CS9/C9/C9_3.0 or whatever the f*ck its called this week in no way adheres to the safety guidelines you yourself cling to Michael. Oh the irony.But your sophomoric bullying reminds me of when I was a kid. I had an aunt and uncle, no children, who travelled the world. My uncle used to challenge his nieces and nephews with questions they couldn't possibly know the answer to given their age and life experience. Rather than teach them kindly, he would hold it over us as if we were idiots (a bit like you). In short, he was a pompous ass. Instead of engaging with people and sharing your knowledge, you choose to degrade people for their supposed ignorance on matters where you contradict yourself. And while you like to demand how private people have spent their money, I do wonder if your able to answer the same question put to you especially since the LCC and HCC use public money to bully others. Publicly funded campaigns are held to a specific standard which you repeatedly ignore. So there's that. But again, you're a walking contradiction posing as a righteous superior being. Sidenote: Pity TfL and LBH couldn't find it in their hearts to wait until January to begin this next phase. Instead, they chose to destroy CHR at the height of the holiday season. Narrowing sidewalks to the point where businesses are unable to display their wares let alone have them seen from a distance not to mention two people unable to pass one another while out and about. It truly doesn't get more selfish.

David Lesniak ● 1762d

Tom Pike suggested..." In the absence of any evidence of actual risk, the suspicion must be that that bus islands are being scapegoated by opponents of cycle lanes."Clearly it hasn't occurred to you, that the reason there have been no accidents in those locations maysimply be because vulnerable people are avoiding them ?Just as quite possibly many vulnerable people choose to stay at home, isolated, apart from the Sainsbury delivery driver rather than risk going out into an increasingly hostile environment. What with scooters bicycles, and now even bus stops which put their lives at risk "as they see it". So I doubt they figure in your, or anyone else's statistics either, for that matter.  Or perhaps you can come up with an answer to thesimple, straightforward question which your colleague Michael Robinson has yet to answer. If cycle lanes are as popular as you both claim, or at least will be at some point in the future- let's not quibble about that one - with a steady progression of cyclists progressing up and down the bi-directional cycle lane -How is a blind or vulnerable person standing on the pavement on one side of a bi-directional cycle lane, supposed to cross that cycle lane safely andreach the pavement on the other side ?A bridge, a tunnel, levitation, what exactly ?The statistics you quoted suggest one of three things.a) Very few if any vulnerable people any longer choose to use those bus stops.b) Very few cyclists use that cycle trackc) both a) and b) are false. Otherwise the statistics would be meaningless as they stand. Implying that of all the many cyclists who use those cycle lanes every day, every single one of them comes to halt as soon as they see a blind or vulnerable person alight from a bus. Or maybe many simply whizz round them, scaring the life out of them ? I doubt there aremany statistics for those little incidents either somehow.michael adams

Michael Adams ● 1762d

The NFBUK does not support floating bus islands connected by Zebra crossings - they are not necessarily against all floating bus stops.Nor is the NFBUK against cycleways, in fact they strongly support segregation of traffic, particularly separating bicycles from pedestrians.Where it is not possible to put a bus stop on the pavement next to the road, the NFBUK has proposed that instead of the raised Zebra crossing, the floating bus stop is integrated with a puffin crossing which stops all traffic and allows bus passengers to cross to either side of the road.Kew bridge was recently reengineered to remove the shared pavement / cycle way on the west side, reduce the pavement width and add a 4th lane for traffic.This has pushed the cycle traffic to the East pavement which is now connected by cycle lanes north (C9) and south, and has led to an increase in cycling traffic, a great deal of that school traffic in the mornings and evenings, including large cargo bikes carrying kids.If we were to take on board the NFBUK's proposals in full, that would involve the conversion of at least one lane of traffic to a cycle lane, installation of a floating bus island and an additional puffin crossing on the bridge. Pedestrians would benefit from segregated walkways on both sides of the bridge, cyclists would benefit from additional capacity and a segregated cycle lane, bus passengers, including those with disabilities, would benefit from a dedicated bus stop free of cycle traffic as well as a dedicated crossing....what's not to like?I'm sure similar measures could be put in place on CHR - and the cycleway extended to Chiswick roundabout all with the integrated bus island / puffin crossings preferred by the NFBUK. 

Ed Saper ● 1762d

Safety for everyone is paramount.  "Full stop."I don't see how someone who has campaigned for so long against infrastructure designed to improve cyclist safety can criticise anyone for not considering the safety of others - not with a straight face anyway.Pedestrian groups, including the NFBUK, advocate for improved safety for pedestrians.  They don't expect cyclists to be any less safe but nobody is expecting them to advocate for cycling safety - that's not their mandate or job.  Cycle groups represent cyclists and prioritise cyclists - it is not their mandate to represent the interests of other groups - but no-one wants pedestrians to be any less safe.There is a growing consensus that on main roads, traffic should be segregated - dedicated space for vehicles, bikes and pedestrians.  On minor roads, through traffic and speeds should be reduced to encourage more people to walk or cycle.While safety is important (paramount even), there are also issues such as air pollution, CO2 emissions and congestion which would be mitigated if more people walked or cycled, so making roads safe, convenient and attractive enough to encourage modal shift for short journeys is prioritised.Groups which campaign to remove segregated cycle ways (which also take bikes off pavements to the benefit of blind pedestrians) to return roads to the exclusive use of vehicles reject these arguments and do not believe improving cyclist safety is an important enough consideration to justify sharing road space or tolerating safety features that impede their journeys.  Yes, the views of the NFBUK should be considered - and they are consulted on designs and have their say.  They obviously don't endorse the current designs and they've said that all zebra crossings should be replaced with Puffin crossings or similar.  Their suggestions, if implemented, would require bus stops to be moved to align with existing road crossings or new crossings added.  It isn't just blind pedestrians who would benefit - all pedestrians using a floating bus stop would be able to cross safely to either side of the road and drivers would benefit from fewer pedestrians crossing the road outside designated crossings.  Some cycling groups may not like additional controlled crossings and may believe the zebras are sufficient.  Some groups representing pedestrians, including blind pedestrians, agree.  This is a debate about how infrastructure is implemented and made to work for everyone.  It is a shame it is sometimes hijacked by a fringe who want to make roads less safe for those they consider illegitimate.  You might say this inconsiderate minority believe "safety for others is irrelevant. Full stop."

Ed Saper ● 1761d

Ed Saper explains "Cycle groups represent cyclists"Er no. They only represent "some" cyclists and what proportion of actual cyclists that is, has never really been established.And then went on to elaborate..." and prioritise cyclists "Nowadays, *that much* is certainly true.Previously groups like the CTT while they only ever represented a small percentage of cyclists many of whom possibly only joined for the 3rd Party Insurance as the mag wasn't much to write home about, did in fact represent cyclists; much as do the RAC and AA represent the interests of motorists.However they never claimed they were saving theplanet as well. Which in fact is now the justification for making cycling "safer" for people. Many of whom never really wanted, and never really will want, to ride bicycles in the first place. And others, who shouldn'tbe encouraged to ride a bicycle under any circumstances. Or certainly not anywhere near public roads. For their own safety as much as for anyone else's.*"Safer" at the expense of others who now find themselves "competing" for the same pavement space which they formerly didn't need to do.Just what vulnerable people have always neededwhen it comes to pavement space - a bit more "competition" to keep them on their toes and prevent them becoming complacent.So "safety" ?  Quote: Almost two thirds of cyclists killed or seriously injured were involved in collisions at, or near, a road junction Unquote:https://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs/advice-services/road-safety/cyclists/cycling-accidents-factsheet.pdf "However not all junctions adjoin major roads. One of the major hazards in my experience are cars, vans andlorries parked on corners on side roads effectively turning them into blind corners. In a situation where too many cyclists, totally oblivious to the danger they represent, cycle past blissfully unaware.  michael adams  * Saying which, IMHO, reserving parks, for limited periods, for the exclusive use of vulnerable riders, or people learning to cycle is something to be encouraged.

Michael Adams ● 1761d

So far on this thread, no disabled user of the bus islands has actually contributed, though Patrick's testimony came very close to it. I am approaching 90, walk slowly, and use a stick, and am not very clear-sighted. I feel far more threatened by cyclists than by drivers; just last week I had a near-miss encounter with a pavement hooliganess. And don't tell me that a collision with a cyclist would not kill me. It would, either immediately or weeks later in a hospital bed (that consequence is never discussed).I do all my own shopping, as I know what I want, and it gives me some exercise, even though the return from shops is slow and painful. I use buses a lot, and cross CHR to reach the shops.I've complained here before about the bus island opposite Fisher's Lane, about the deep puddles left there after rain, and the inadequate semi-pedestrian crossing over the cycle way, covered by leaves recently, and generally ignored by cyclists. I try to look out for bikes, but can't see them clearly, so crossing is a gamble. On one occasion I had to hold up my stick and shout at a family group who showed no sign of allowing me to cross, even though I was already on the supposedly protected point. As some have said, alighting is even more risky, as there is so little room to see what is coming.Similar concerns attend using either of the nearest pedestrian crossings. Some cyclists dutifully obey the signals for them to wait, but too many don't. The crossing by Dukes Avenue has a long waiting time for pedestrians, and one can see how many cyclists don't observe the stop, even when another is waiting.What disturbs me is the refusal of some self-appointed advocates of using the cycleways without regard for how other road users (as we all are, even them) may find their daily lives adversely affected by them. Dr Pike, with his sublime reliance on statistics; Mr Robinson, a true obsessive who resorts to bullying and denigration; Mr Campbell, who seems the sworn enemy of all four-wheeled transport. Perhaps he would have approved if my late wife's funeral had employed a cargo bike and a couple of tandems to get us to the ceremony. If I one day I meet my maker having been 'mown down' by one of the fanatical fraternity, or even by a 'pootler', perhaps this message could be read at the inquest and be heeded by the zealots for whom the slogan 'two wheels GOOD, four wheels BAD' is the only mantra.

Arnold Saxton ● 1760d

There is no doubt that bus islands increase the interaction between those on foot and on bikes, and that can be threatening to those on foot. That concern informed the guidelines for bus-island design developed in consultation with support groups for pedestrians, including those with disabilities.It appears that those guidelines have been effective with no increase in collisions that have lead to injury seen at other bus islands. For example, there are no reported injury collisions at the bus islands outside St Thomas's which are important points of access for vulnerable people who attend the specialist eye unit there. In contrast, the cycle lane has led to over a 60% fall in the rate of injuries to people who take bikes along its length from St Thomas's over Westminster Bridge. Overall that considerable improvement in the safety of people on bikes has not come at the expense of reduced safety to people on foot, even if they might still feel uneasy about bikes at the bus islands. In fact in the last ten years 30 pedestrians have been injured and two killed along that stretch, all in collisions involving motor vehicles. It's clear what represents the real risk to pedestrians at this location, despite the large increase in bikes that has come with the introduction of the cycle lanes.  Perception of risk is important, but it has to be put in the context of the overall risk of any course of action. There is a real but small risk of side effects from a COVID vaccination, but that has to be set against the far higher risk from COVID itself, though some people will still feel uneasy about getting vaccinated. That does not make their concerns invalid, even though the right policy should be to encourage as many people as possible to get vaccinated.

Tom Pike ● 1760d

Tom Pike explained" Zero Vision are demanding that road deaths and injuries are eliminated."Oh dear !You see Tom all sorts of people and organisations are "demanding" all sorts of things, all of the time.For instance some people are demanding World Peace and an end to all disagreements between peopleand that we should all live in harmony.I think you can probably see the problem with that one, for a start. Laudable though it may be,Before taking any such "demand" seriously it needs to be asked. What can these people do if their demandsgo unheeded ? In this case they can do nothing sosuch a demand is essentially meaningless.Furthermore in cases where people are really in a position to make demands, a "demand" is more usuallya negotiating position. Thus if the tube drivers are "demanding" a 2% pay increase what this usually means is that eventually they'll probably settle for 1%.He then went on..."Are you asking them to cut back on their aims"Why would they want to "cut back" on their aims; which are already totally divorced from reality ?Why should they be swayed by anything anyone doesor says ? This is like saying people who demandthat we should all live in harmony could be dissuaded from their aims as a result of reading this forum.He then went on ..." We know you have doubts about taking any action to tackle climate change, but how many people do you think should die or be injured in traffic collisions..."IOW "Do as I say, or the puppy or kitten gets it"Yes very impressive I must say. michael adams...

Michael Adams ● 1758d

P.P.A Tom Pike* posted as followsPaul (Campbell) is right ...Campbell is a troll. He openly boasted on this forum of deliberately irritating motorists. Nobody with the interests of cyclists at heart would want to irritatemotorists as that simply puts cyclists in more danger.Love em or hate em when walking or out on the bikeits obvious the grief motorists already have to suffersitting patiently in traffic jams or negotiatingbyzantine parking schemes at the cost of a £60 fine. Anyone boasting of adding to their woes is simplya dangerous buffoon. Plain and simple. Thus there is no P.P.A (person posting as) with Paul Campbell - an out and out troll with no real world reputation, to protect or more importantly to defame. While anyone who sides with a known troll such as Campbell is thus immediately suspect themselvesP.P.A Tom Pike (for the sake of brevity your honour, now simply Pike) then went on... quote:"A bus island right outside St Thomas’s hospital also met with initial opposition, with claims it particularly risked patients attending its specialist eye unit. In fact after initially supporting the opposition, the hospital dropped its objections, and the bus island was installed. There have been no reported collisions in the two years since it opened"unquote:The bus island in question is on Google Mapshttps://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5006491,-0.1191184,20zThe island itself is so large that its possible to takemeasurements directly from the map while the overalllayout can be seen in the satellite view.The bus island itself is 246 ft long, and 10ft wide and includes two crossings.Crucially the cycle track itself is one - directionalon the St Thomas Side of Westminster Bridge it heads Northwards on the Coade Lion side it heads Southwards.It is one-directional and is 5 ft wide.By way of contrast The bus island on the opposite side to Thornton and Mayfied Ave on CHR doesn't feature on Google Maps at all. Although its just about visible behind a caption on the satellite view. So the on the ground measurements are as followsThe island is approx 55ft long (as against 246ft) its 8ft wide (as against 10ft) and most cruciallythe bicycle track is bi-directional and is by mymeasurement anyway just under (118in) 10 ft wide.Twice as wide as the track runningalongside the St Thomas Hospital Bus Island.St Thomas's also boast another bus island on Lambeth Palace Road around the corner. This again is across from a single lane cycle track and the cycle lane in this case is even narrower at only 4ft In short there is no basis for comparison whatsoever between the bus islands outside St Thomas's and the bus island opposite Thornton and Mayfield on CHR. However without actually checking up on Pike's claim, which he had very chance to check for himself but didn't, nobody would be any the wiser.This is straight out of the Marxist Leninist playbook, quite frankly. In the cause of the revolution any misreprentation, outright lie, and underminingof opponents and critics by any means possible is not simply permitted but is obligatory"This alone could explain some of the oddities of both Pike and P.P.A Robinsons postings.The former went out of his way to accuse me of contradicting myself in respect of cars mounting pavements being reported in the press. Now his accusation, was a schoolboy howler in itself.Indicative of somebody who hadn't got the first a clue about the different types of probability; which used to be required knowledge to pass A level maths in the past. Which then presented a conundrum. Did Pike never in fact pass A level maths ? And had he passed but was  simply lying in an effort to undermine me ?  The same applies to P.P.A Michael Robinson and his composite photograph of cycle tracks. In order to show how safe bus islands were he showed seven photos of bus islands which featured two cyclistsbetween them. Here it was almost as if he was setting out to undermine his own case. As is also the case with his general manner which it seems can only serve to alienate people. One mighty almostsuspect P.P.A Robinson of sailing under a false flag.What's also interesting is that neither of these characters based solely in what they've posted on these threads, has shown any evidence of everhaving ridden or of riding a bicyle at all. When I mention the deplorable state of the A4 cycle track west of Brentford there's complete silence. While Pike seems to think that having to take detourson a bike in order to avoid pollution would be toomuch "trouble" for people who supposedly like riding bicycles.* Why the P.P.A ? I've been online now for 30 +years. In that time the first thing you recogniseare the trolls. The second thing everyone needs to recognise, is that not everyone you come across onlineis necessarily the person you think they are. Inmost cases they don;t even have to try to impersonateanyone. Their audience does it for them by Googlingthe details of the real-life person, whose name they choose to post under. It really is that simple.So that all my comments are based on material postedon this forum by P.P.A Pike and P.P.A Robinson and have no possible connection and are in no way to be seen as reflecting on the real life reputations of persons who may also happen to have the same names.In fact it could be said that its the material posted by both P.P.A's in this instance which *itself*undermines the real life reputations of these people. Assuming such exist. While Paul Campbell is still a troll.michael adams     

Michael Adams ● 1754d