Forum Topic

Tree Murdered for 'experimental' cycleway.

The beautiful old tree by Chiswick Lane was murdered by vandals today.

Claire Moran ● 1756d166 Comments

Tragic to read this, but suspect the likes of Messrs Campbell, Pike, Saper will see this as an Eco Victory  🙈Sadly they forget that Plane trees absorb toxins, and producing bicycles do the opposite. Just putting another perspective on the horizon 🙏

Loraine Pemberton ● 1756d

So much for supporting climate change initiatives the damage done for cycling ironic

Jayne Thorburn ● 1756d

I fear this is what happens when traffic planners make a pig's ear out of a silk purse.

Adrian Irving ● 1756d

Ah yes but the so called ‘traffic planners’ see it as a money tree. These failed plans keep them employed when they should be collecting their P45’s.  Disgraceful murder of trees

Steve Taylor ● 1756d

Murdered by vandals? Sounds like a double criminal conviction.

Simon Temple ● 1756d

The saddest thing is they get away with it……who holds them accountable it appears no one they are all out of their depth and have no understanding of urban development for the good of the climate and residents. They would be issued their P45 in commercial world a disgrace.

Jayne Thorburn ● 1756d

What happened? It was cut down?

Simon Temple ● 1756d

This tree was sacrificed to reinstate a left-turn car lane. As OneChiswick and many on this forum demanded. Its demise is their responsibility but we can only hope that the apparent increase in awareness of the car lobby to the importance of its kin to the planet will help them to take more responsibility for their actions.

Paul Campbell ● 1756d

Fair enough. It's only one tree. Lots more around.

Simon Temple ● 1756d

Paul, your lies are legion but this is probably the biggest. OneChiswick is furious about the destruction of this tree - as one of the 'spies' on there, you know that very well. The tree was killed because of the total selfishness of people like you - the cycle brigade - who will sacrifice the elderly, blind, trees, just about anything just so you can pursue your manic desire to cycle through Chiswick when you have a perfectly good alternative along the A4. Ugh, your ruthlessness and lies really make me shudder in disgust.

Claire Moran ● 1756d

Another inane, stupid remark from one idiot Simon.

Claire Moran ● 1756d

Taken from @TfL Board papers 8December 2021. London's"main'travel modes. And cycling, London'ssmallest mode! Strikingly the 'tenfold'increase London's Cycling Czar andcycling academic suggested failed tomaterialise.•nange in demand on the main transport networks relativeequivalent period in 2019, 7-day moving average, Feb 20 - Change in cycle flow on automatic cycle counters,

Maggie Dodge ● 1756d

Err, the tree was removed to accommodate a bi-directional cycle on a stretch of road that was totally unsuitable for putting one on in the first place.

Adrian Irving ● 1756d

Some Councils are listening. Albeit possibly in the hope of getting re elected but we’ll take what we can get“Liveable Streets: Councillors remove some Brick Lane closures after 'backlash'”

Maggie Dodge ● 1756d

Dozens of trees were removed when the High Road was first widened to accommodate motor vehicles. Up to the present, many more have been removed because they interfered with the roadway or the pavement. Recently, a copse was cleared to give access to construct the walkway under Barnes Bridge. The loss of any single tree is sad, whatever the reasons. But why overlook all the other trees that have been removed, all justified by the need to improve driving or walking rather than cycling? Why should they have been any less valued, or their loss simply ignored?

Tom Pike ● 1756d

Anyone getting a Christmas Tree this year?

Edward Seaton ● 1756d

“Anyone getting a Christmas tree this year?”No.

Marie Power ● 1756d

But they were actually bred to be murdered. I think the seasonal amputation of holly might be more cruel.As for deaths to humans, who maybe deserve a mention, there were 300 fewer fatalities on our roads last year simply as there were fewer motor vehicles that cause nearly all the deaths in the first place. However, there was an increase in cyclist fatalities down in part to the dramatic increase in cycling. Around 100 cyclists a year had been dying on our roads over the recent years, but last year it spiked up to 141.It turns out that while there was a large increase in fatality rates on our mostly unprotected rural A roads, the protection that was rapidly deployed in our cities meant the fatality rate per mile there actually fell.We could rip all that protection out, and maybe save a few trees which would help assuage our guilt for our annual Christmas-tree genocide, but last year's fatalities indicates it would come at the cost of scores of cyclists lives. Even worse, if that just pushed people back into cars, we would see hundreds more lives lost on our roads.

Tom Pike ● 1756d

Tom Pike explainedquote:There were 300 fewer fatalities on our roads last year simply as there were fewer motor vehicles that cause nearly all the deaths in the first place.However, there was an increase in cyclist fatalitiesdown in part to the dramatic increase in cycling.Around 100 cyclists a year had been dying on our roads over the recent years, but last year it spiked up to 141.unquote:So that according to the above... fewer cars/more cyclists/40% more cycling fatalities IOW The greater the number of cyclists there are on the road in relation to the number of cars, the greater will be the number of cycling fatalities.Is this a "necessary sacrifice" you're willing to make then, in pursuit of your greater goal ?And presumably there must be be a tipping point*. Any idea when that will be ? michael adams* quote:the London Borough of Hounslow’s urban road network, covers a total of 432 km of roads, (1)The proposed CS9 is a 5.6 miles (9.01 km) long segregated cycle path, running from Kensington Olympia to Brentford town centre (2)unquote:So thats 9.01km out of 432km ( with LBH roads westof Brentford subsituting for all those of H&F and K&C )1 https://www.vinci-concessions.com/en/infrastructure/hounslow-road-network2 https://www.sustrans.org.uk/our-blog/news/2017/october/sustrans-lays-groundwork-for-ambitious-cycle-superhighway-9

Michael Adams ● 1756d

I'm pleased to see you effectively restating the argument for why a modal shift to cycling, which leads to fewer cars and hence fewer deaths on our roads, should be accompanied by improvements to infrastructure to better protect cyclists. If not, you are quite right to warn that an overall reduction in fatality rates will come at the expense of more cyclists killed. In fact the causality works in reverse as a safer environment leads to more people cycling. Of course such a modal shift also leads to improved air quality, lower emissions and improved health.

Tom Pike ● 1756d

Paul, this seems like a good place to ask you (again) for directions to the Chiswick parklet? You mentioned the one in Barnes as being the end all yet you never once have mentioned the same here in W4. A bit curious. You also have done a U-turn on OneChiswick. To date all you did is devalue them, painted them as insignificant. And now, suddenly, they are responsible for something??And if you were at all honest let alone cognizant of the path your own war has taken, you would know this tree was slated for removal by TfL. And approved by LBH. But neither of these traits are your strong suit.Computer says no. Sorry.

David Lesniak ● 1756d

No, neither real or a fake

Loraine Pemberton ● 1756d

Tom Pike suggested" In fact the causality works in reverse as a safer environment leads to more people cycling"You still don't get it, do you ?In your last post you explained " However, there was an increase in cyclist fatalities down in part to the dramatic increase in cycling."Which led to a 40% increase in deaths.And this is WITHOUT any improvement in infrastructure.While insofar as infrastructure goes the much heraldedCS9 accounts for only 9.01km out of the 432km of roads in Hounslow. Fair enough lets throw in the new 1 kmstretch from Hounslow West Station to the roundabout making it a round 10 km. That's 2.3% of roads in Hounslow/Hammersmith/Kensington are now supposedly being made "safe" for cyclists.Meanwhile back in the REAL WORLD Tom, and I know you don't like talking about the REAL WORLD. As is my wontsometimes, I found myself walking beside the Uxbridge Rd along Ealing Common (Northside) at 6.30 a.m this morning.Two things.First the headlights of the cars coupled with the paucity of the street lighting showed up the cycle track to a tee. And the UNDULATING SURFACE similar to much of the cycle track on the A4 between Brentford and Hounslow. None of it was ever properly compactedor rolled just ashpalt slung down and gone over witha light roller. Cyclists being treated with the customary disdain. When will you realise that you're being PLAYED ? Khan is an honourable manwho's taken on an impossible task. (Well someonehad to step up) Reconciling London's Transport needs with concerns about pollution, from people who insiston living in an overpopulated conurbation. Of course he'll embrace the cycling lobby as a relatively cheap solution while probably not actually believinga word of it. In his position who wouldn't. Whatelse is he going to do ?  2. Safety ? It was noticeable that of the cyclists pedalling away on the wet road, not the track for theaforesaid reasons, while showing a front light many were not showing a rear. As a cyclist if your rear light stops working, you'll be the last one to know.When I rode regularly before, lights were a painthe cost of batteries, bulbs often failing etc.Having to light up, to shop early due to Covid I found LED rears on eBay for £6.99 each. Alkaline batteries 1 per light are 4 for a pound in Poundland.And LED's consume much less power as it is. If you were really that concerned for the safety of your fellow cyclists rather than living in an idealistic dream world,  you might be equally concerned that none of them see fit to splash out £15 or so thus equipping themselves with TWO rear lights ideally starting one a week later  - just so as to be sure of always showing a rear light.No. First build them a new cycle track - at some pointwithin the next 100 or so years at current rates - ideally properly compacted and rolled this time. michael adams 

Michael Adams ● 1756d

The rate of cyclists fatalities per km cycled dropped overall last year because there WAS an overall improvement in infrastructure that was rapidly deployed mostly in urban areas. There was little put in on rural A roads where fatalities per km increased. Infrastructure makes a significant difference because it is deployed  where there are the most cyclists, and the most collisions. That is why while cycling has grown significantly in London, the fatality rate per km has fallen, even though most roads remain unprotected. For Hounslow, the most used route with the most collisions is Chiswick High Road.

Tom Pike ● 1756d

Tom Pike explained" For Hounslow, the most used route with the most collisions is Chiswick High Road."Which for most people, including cyclists* more than anyone, would surely be a good reason for avoiding it and choosing an alternative route. Would it not ?Another question which will go unanswered. Natch.michael adams* One of the significant points I missed out whendescribing the benefits of cycling (which disastrouslymetamorphosed into the CYCLING CULT), exercise, mechanical efficiency, design etc was the unparalleled FREEDOM which cyclists enjoy when choosing a route from A to B. In London constrained only by the bridges over the Thames, and in West London by Holland Park.

Michael Adams ● 1756d

No

Claire Moran ● 1756d

People take the most convenient path when they cycle, just as they do when they drive, and for many that cycle the destination is the High Road itself. If they have to take less convenient routes they tend to travel less, whether it's on bike or by car. Are you suggesting that while motor vehicles continue to take the routes they consider most convenient, cyclists should take less convenient alternatives? Or should it be the motor vehicles which are involved in the vast majority of injury and fatal collisions on the High Road?

Tom Pike ● 1756d

Again, people are failing to notice that there were less cycling fatalities last year because we were all indoors and there were hardly any cars on the road!

Chris Blackwell ● 1756d

Michael Adams said ‘ When I rode regularly before, lights were a painthe cost of batteries, bulbs often failing etc.’ I suggest a sensible upright bike with integrated lights, mudguards, suspension  and luggage rack. Kind regards edward seaton

Edward Seaton ● 1756d

There were more cycling fatalities last year: 141 compared to 100 in 2019, and there were more cyclists. Fatality rates per km fell except on rural A roads where little additional protection for cyclists was provided.

Tom Pike ● 1756d

Tom Pike explained" People take the most convenient path when they cycle,"Yes "convenient" for them; given "their" state of knowledgeThus while many will invariably choose "route one", having been encouraged to do so by the likes of yourself, many others will have discovered shortcuts. Either by themselves or in numerous guides; which avoid many sets of traffic lights, major junctions, and accidentblackspots.It's almost as though you're determined that all cyclists should be encouraged, nay forced, to cycle down Chiswick High Rd. the scene of the most collisions, whether they actually want to or not.    michael adams...

Michael Adams ● 1756d

Edward Seaton suggested" I suggest a sensible upright bike with integrated lights, mudguards, suspension  and luggage rack."And when the "integrated lights" go wrong ?I was forgetting yet another BENEFIT of cycling, as was. In addition to Meccano, learning to fix just about anything on their bikes gave youngsters, mainly boysa good practical grounding in mechanical principlesand DIY. In addition ISTR reading that any suspension reduces the mechnical efficiency of the bike as some of the riders energy is being absorbed by the suspension.For me it's still a 50 yr old lightweight steel frame and  23cm tyres I'm afraid. It's CHARACTER BUILDING as well, you see.michael adams...

Michael Adams ● 1756d

I think it's best to put infrastructure on the routes cyclists choose to use, but they certainly should not be forced to use it. It's others that insists cyclists should be content to use the A4 when few of them choose to do so.As for all these short cuts for cyclists you claim I've overlooked, maybe you could help by suggesting one into central London between Holland Park Avenue to the north and Cromwell Road to the south that avoids cycling along Kensington High Street? It almost as though RBKC are forcing cyclists to take the route where there have been the most collisions, whether they want to or not. Except there's no "almost" about it!

Tom Pike ● 1756d

Tom Pike asked" As for all these short cuts for cyclists you claim I've overlooked, maybe you could help by suggesting one into central London between Holland Park Avenue to the north and Cromwell Road to the south "Well you've certainly OVERLOOKED what I posted in this very thread at 15.50 hours quote:"the unparalleled FREEDOM which cyclists enjoy when choosing a route from A to B. In London constrained only by the bridges over the Thames, and in West London by Holland Park." unquote:To repeat:  "in West London by Holland Park."HTHmichael adams

Michael Adams ● 1755d

Indeed, the freedom to choose any route between HPA and Cromwell Road, as long as it's KHS!

Tom Pike ● 1755d

Tom Pike finally acknowledged the unavoidable implication of the statement I posted at 15.50which he'd previously overlooked, in observing"Indeed, the freedom to choose any route between HPA and Cromwell Road, as long as it's KHS!"So take it up with the Trustees of Holland Park then !Insist on a cycle lane across the park. Get Sadiq Khanon board.  There's no use just moaning about it, as it clearlymeans so much to you. Take action.michael adams...

Michael Adams ● 1755d

No, a segregated cycle lane along KHS is what's required, as is indeed implied by the lack of any other route either north to HPA or south to Cromwell Road. As you feel cyclists shouldn't use main roads, it's up to you to push for an alternative if none other exists, which is clearly the case in this instance. Otherwise you appear to be willing to accept that cyclists either have to put up with long detours or face risk of injury. That looks rather like an anti cycling position, whether or not you're willing to admit it.

Tom Pike ● 1755d

Michael, my kind of cyclist. Love your posts!

Maggie Dodge ● 1755d

Tom Pike suggested"As you feel cyclists shouldn't use main roads "Clearly the concept of FREEDOM is totally alien to you. As I've pointed out more than once people are FREEto choose. If they choose to use a road with the mostcollisions, then they're perfectly FREE to do so.He then went on.." Otherwise you appear to be willing to accept that cyclists either have to put up with long detours or face risk of injury. That looks rather like an anti cycling position, whether or not you're willing to admit it."If cycling is as "enjoyable" experience as many cyclists claim, presumably including both yourselfand my self - then what exactly is there to "put up with" in taking long detours ?From the tenor of such remarks one might almost be led to believe that you personally don't actually enjoy cycling at all. That it's somethingyou simply have to "put up with"  But what's even worse, you're demanding that others should have to "put up with it" as well.michael adams ...

Michael Adams ● 1755d

Well, at least that's clear. You don't think most cyclists actually mind taking long detours so there's little need to offer them improved safety on the routes they find more convenient. I don't think that misrepresents you.So the cyclists who have died on London's streets will tend to be the more reckless and lazy individuals who risked their lives simply because they were unwilling to spend more time on long detours. Of course the drivers involved are are quite justified in taking their most convenient route, and it was really down to cyclists to avoid them.It might be worth adding that women are over-represented in cycling fatalities.

Tom Pike ● 1755d

Tom Pike suggested" Well, at least that's clear. You don't think most cyclists actually mind taking long detours"I never said that did I ? They're perfectly FREE to choose. But as I explained to you before, if cycling is such an enjoyable experience, whyshould they mind ?What "still" doesn't seem to have occured to you Tom is that *any cycle track* on route one will still subject these cyclists you're so keen to protect, to vastly more pollutants than theywould experience, should they choose a"long detour" instead.  Clearly the idea that SOME cyclists at least could actually enjoy avoiding pollutants and trafficlights on these "long detours" of yours, has never actually occurred to you. But you go ahead and keep pushing your route one solution, for all you're worth.  He then rather optimistically, suggested  "I don't think that misrepresents you."Wrong again !Snipped the customary "do as I say, or the puppy/kitten gets it" routine.Anyway don't say I never think of you, Tom. Here's one for your Christmas Present list. I hope I'm nottoo latehttps://cdctelecom.com/aidjhk-Tenths-th-Telescopic-&039;-Rectangular-31346/Test-Measurement-&-Inspection/Once you've slotted it all together I think the general idea is to stop digging when you reach 8 ft below ground level.michael adams

Michael Adams ● 1755d

Michael - I think your hitting the nail on the head.  The cycle lobby are trying to sell the joy of cycling. Yet they appear, as you point out, unwilling to go the extra mile for a quieter or more scenic route. They don’t want to take in the scenery, it’s head down, full pelt and really don’t want to deal with traffic lights. So why is C9 so special to them.with all the lights and safety issues, they’re still trying to iron out after all this time. It’s the reason it’s still temporary” because it’s not passing the safety tests.  I’d say it’s all about getting at the motorists, making life difficult where and when possible. No matter the financial cost and now the loss of a beautiful piece of nature that was also an environmentally beneficial tool. There arguments are falling apart, thanks in no small part to you.

Maggie Dodge ● 1755d

It seems cycling is an incredibly dangerous pastime. I suggest you all get yourself a car or walk. All your problems solved.  🤷‍♀️

Maggie Dodge ● 1755d

Sadiq Khan along with all London politicians are faced with a near impossible task. Attempting to reconcile London's Transport needs with public concern about pollution. The tubes are packed to capacity, the roadsare packed to capacity (admittedly CS9 doesn't help) but in the absence of massive Central Govt investmentin public transport, or road pricing based on both need and ability to pay, what else can they do ? Discourage motoring as much as possible, and encourage people to cycle instead. However while politically expedient, this is totally unrealistic. It simply isn't going to happen. Both because people simply can't be forced to ride bicycles, more especially in winteror in the rain; while nationally it would lose votes hand over fist.  However locally, spurred on by London's particular predicament, its been seized on by a group of cycling "visionaries" who have mesmerised local politicians with their dream of a sustainable future. "Their hour is come". At least until the next election or some tragic accident; which their opponents will doubtless quickly seize on. The degree of naivety being shown is quite astonishing; while arguments don't really come into it at all. You'dprobably get more sense arguing with a speak your weight machine.michael adams 

Michael Adams ● 1755d

You might have some basis for the narrative you present thirty years ago, but it would have been been a poor prediction of what has actually happened subsequently.I’m not sure how you’ve failed to notice that car use is dropping while cycling is increasing in London. Bikes now outnumber cars on the roads of the City. Along the High Road the fraction of bikes has been climbing and  is now one third. Of course there are those who nevertheless claim there are never any cyclists on the cycle lanes and even less in winter! Actually bike usage does drop by 20% but car use drops too as people simply travel less when it’s colder and darker. It’s interesting to note that the same people who claim there are no cyclists are  also the ones who claim bikes are somehow an existential threat to everyone else. So I’m afraid your comments are both rather badly out of date and quite irrelevant.

Tom Pike ● 1755d

All our problems solved?Nobody can dispute that if everyone who cycled instead drove, emissions would rise, congestion would get worse and deaths on the roads increase.

Tom Pike ● 1755d

Tom Pike explained" You might have some basis for the narrative you present thirty years ago"and..." Actually bike usage does drop by 20% but car use drops too as people simply travel less when it’s colder and darker"You might have had some basis for that narrative saySEVENTY years ago Tom, but since that time believe, it or not of most cars have been fitted with HEATERS. So cold in winter simply isn't a problem any more.It's maybe no wonder that you're *so* confused at times.I personally have no interest at all, in what other people may or may not claim about cyclist numbers. I only know that cycling will never ever again become a dominant mode of transport. In the end the publicare far more likely to accept the inevitable, that nuclear power generation will be needed to satisfy a far larger proportion of our energy needs than at present. Powering electric vehicles ranging from juggernauts to escooters. All fitted withnoise generators to render them far safer than at present. Its funny how your *mates at LBH* never made that a *stipulation* before authorising a trialof escooters, is it not ? But of course that would require real political vision and long term financial commitment not a politically expedient cop out done on the cheap pandering  to the fantasies of a group of deluded visionaries      Sorry, you were saying ? Oh yes..." So I’m afraid your comments are both rather badly out of date and quite irrelevant."Didn't you ever wonder why, when you rode past them while waiting at the traffic lights on Chiswick High Rd in the middle of winter, with snow on the ground, the occupants of cars didn't seem to be wearing gloves, overcoats, or scarves although they were mainly just sitting around doing nothing ?Has your present arrived BTW ? You must already be downto around 5ft below ground level, at a guess.michael adams... 

Michael Adams ● 1755d

“I personally have no interest at all, in what other people may or may not claim about cyclist numbers. I only know that cycling will never ever again become a dominant mode of transport.”I can understand why some people choose to ignore any evidence that challenges their personal beliefs, but that’s usually the attitude of a religious fundamentalist, not an ex-scientist.And you are literally an ex-scientist if you are no longer willing to change your views in the light of the evidence!  Bikes are already the dominant mode of road transport in the City, and that’s now also true along the Embankment to Westminster and over Blackfriars Bridge and spreading north along the roads into Camden and Hackney. In some hourly counts on the High Road there are already a comparable number of bikes and cars. You can of course choose to cling to your beliefs, but the rest of London is moving on.

Tom Pike ● 1755d

Driving from Sheen to Wimbledon last night in heavy traffic I was astounded to see how many moronic cyclists there were riding without lights and ducking and diving between buses and trucks. Are these people just thick or do they have a death wish?  I am surprised that more of these morons aren’t crushed to death.

Steve Taylor ● 1755d

This is why I get fed up with the likes of Tom Pike, constantly going on and on about fatalities. Must keep, cyclists safe! and we need more measures to penalise drivers and keep cyclists safe! and we need to close more roads to keep cyclist safe.  When are cyclists going to do their bit to keep themselves safe ! Now they are cutting down mature wonderful trees that were good for the environment to, guess what, keep cyclists safe. For an experimental cycle lane that may well come out when they realise it still doesn't work and cyclists prefer the road and the pavement as they always have. This is all about having a go at motorists, even though many of them have cars, perverse or what.

Maggie Dodge ● 1755d

“an experimental cycle lane that may well come out when they realise it still doesn't work and cyclists prefer the road and the pavement as they always have.”I think your hopes there are misplaced, as we now have months of bike counts on the High Road that show that cyclists prefer using the bike lane over the roadway.And I’m surprised to see you joining Steve in blaming cyclists for the injuries and deaths they suffer. It’s women who are disproportionately bearing the brunt, and who you both feel are undeserving of any protection.

Tom Pike ● 1755d

Tom Pike suggested" I can understand why some people choose to ignore any evidence that challenges their personal beliefs"I'm so sorry to disappoint you, but it seems to have escaped your notice that of your examples, all but CHR are restricted to *a very limited demographic and socio-economic grouping*. Of which quite possibly you happen to be a member yourself.And so aren't applicable generally, in any meaningful sense at all.  So its back to the drawing board with that one as well I'm afraid.5ft 3inmichael adams... 

Michael Adams ● 1755d

Have you noticed how they seem to work in shifts ?Campbell does a couple of days and then disappears,then Saper, and then Robinson and now its Pike'sturn. In between times they're probably sent for some R&R and re-indoctrination. Conducted in an old portakabin parked somewhere in Hounslow perhaps.michael adams

Michael Adams ● 1755d

In fact the protected cycleways which have led to cycling dominating travelIn the City also lead to a higher proportion of women cycling. The two obviously go together!It was therefore very good to see Cycle Sisters, who promote cycling for Muslim women, at the opening of the new Hounslow West cycle lane last week. I think we both agree we want to see more people feeling able to cycle, not just a narrow demographic. Protected cycle lanes encourage just that.

Tom Pike ● 1755d

Tom Pike suggested" In fact the protected cycleways which have led to cycling dominating travelIn the City also lead to a higher proportion of women cycling. The two obviously go together!"Er no. More women work in the city to start with. Crowded public transport is always more uncomfortable for women, for obvious reasons, and when coupledwith restricted parking they have few other options except for expensive taxis.  As it happens even before the age of cars, women were cycling pioneers embracing the new sense of FREEDOM it gave them. Protected cycleways most likely have very little to do with it, when you come to think about it.As it happens around 50% of the cyclists I saw heading Eastwards along Uxbridge Rd yesterday morning in the dark - along the road not on the undulating cycle track, were women.You've done your best Tom, not that much worse than any of the others anyway. But you're now down to 5ft 6in, Very soon it will be too deep for you to climb out unaided.michael adams 

Michael Adams ● 1755d

I think you might be confusing yourself in your zeal to win the argument. So now you are saying cyclists in the City are not in the narrow demographic you claimed just a couple of posts ago, one that included me presumably because I am male, but rather a broad cross section of those that work in the City including women, which clearly doesn’t refer to me. I’m pleased you’ve noticed more women cycling locally. Counts on the High Road also show  an increase.

Tom Pike ● 1755d

You lost. Get over it.

Edward Seaton ● 1755d

Michael, kids and work get in the way sometimes. Also, the battle for C9 is largely won. So not a lot of point replying to paranoid conspiracists or anti-science reactionaries or you. I thought Steve raised an interesting point about cycling without lights at night. They are morons. I’d support fixed PCNs to tackle that.

Ed Saper ● 1755d

Yes we have won. Not just Cycleway 9 but plenty more besides. Prolific posting from the losers isn't going to alter the outcomes.

Paul Campbell ● 1755d

Tom Pike" I think you might be confusing yourself in your zeal to win the argument. So now you are saying cyclists in the City are not in the narrow demographic you claimed just a couple of posts ago, one that included me presumably because I am male..."Whereas what I *actually posted* was" all but CHR are restricted to *a very limited demographic and socio-economic grouping*.Nowhere does that exclude women and the socio-economic grouping I was referring to, specifically includes *professionals* of the type who work in the City and elsewhwere.If you Tom, wish to continue to make a complete fool of yourself in *your* zeal to win an argument, then you are of course perfectly free to do so.For myself I am truly beginning to feel uncomfortablein being seen to be taking advantage of someone in this way.Anyway 6ftmichael adams

Michael Adams ● 1755d

I’d say the tree lost !  Paul Campbell you’ve been saying C9 would be made permanent so many times. It’s still temporary/experimental and that because  they can’t make it work. Smug is never a good look

Maggie Dodge ● 1755d

"Expemental"The OP was right to put the word in inverted commas. Let's face it C9 is staying and always was staying. It's unstoppable.The temporary version has been a disaster from start to finish and should never been laid down.(Yes, I know Tom it was orders from above)With all the information of wonderful working cycle lanes droned on about from here to Timbuktu why do we have to put up with "experiments". Surely it wouldn't have been that difficult to come up with the best route and just get on with it.(Yes Tom, I do know there was one)Instead we have had to suffer months and months of roadworks, a bodged together temporary path and more public money wasted.Just get it sorted!

Adrian Irving ● 1755d

“Professionals” hardly describes “a very limited demographic and socio-economic grouping”.  That’s the majority of the people who work not just in the City but in the whole of the rest of London, and in particular Chiswick!So when you claimed that the reasons for the observed increase in cycling “aren’t applicable generally, in any meaningful sense at all” that would be apart the rest of London, and certainly Chiswick.

Tom Pike ● 1755d

And if you join the London Cycling Campaign now they seem to have an offer of free bike lights!

Philippa Bond ● 1755d

The LCC - I read about people letting their membership go because of the way the organisation is going.

Maggie Dodge ● 1755d

Shame that LCC/HCC don't offer free cycling proficiency tests as well.

Loraine Pemberton ● 1755d

Tom Pike explained"“Professionals” hardly describes “a very limited demographic and socio-economic grouping”.  That’s the majority of the people who work not just in the City but in the whole of the rest of London, and in particular Chiswick!"It doesn't include children, teenagers, retired people, cleaners, shop workers, factory workers, bus drivers, cab drivers, non-working mothers a practice frowned on in some religions as you're clearly unaware, postmen, milkmen petrol pump attendants but apart from those groups and a few others I could doubtless think of, given the time, no you're right the whole of London consists of nobody but working professionals. Oh I was forgetting another group who don't qualify asprofessionals are people who dig holes in the road. Anyway keep up the good work !6ft 6inmichael adams

Michael Adams ● 1754d

https://www.hounslow.gov.uk/info/20053/transport/1985/cycling_in_hounslowFree cycling training - your tax dollars at work Loraine.

Ed Saper ● 1754d

Unfortunately it's the residents and businesses of Chiswick who have lost with many traders on the verge of going out of business as several have posted on here because of this lunatic white elephant.  It will be sad to see the decline of a once lovely High Road, sacrificed to some mad mantra.

Claire Moran ● 1754d

“non-working mothers a practice frowned on in some religions as you're clearly unaware”Happy to concede your point: I’m not aware of any religion that frowns on mothers who choose not to work. But assuming you might be confused on this issue, Cycling Sisters are Muslim women who see no contradiction between their religion and cycling.

Tom Pike ● 1754d

Where did you read about this Maggie?

Andrew Jones ● 1754d

There was a lady on the Acton forum, some time back, saying she was cancelling her membership. Another chap on Twitter. There were responses in agreement. There are letters on Twitter today between the LCC and various Councils confirming the collaboration between them. This unfair influence explains why the majority of residents in some areas are being ignored

Maggie Dodge ● 1754d

Thanks for the reply Maggie.

Andrew Jones ● 1754d

"I’d support fixed PCNs to tackle that"Small niggle, Ed. You need to support making lights and hi-vis wear compulsory prior to issuing a PCN for contravention. So we'll put you down for increasing regulations on cyclists to make the whole of the road network safer for every single user regardless of method. If I'd try that, I'd be lambasted for being anti-roses or some such nonsense. Can't wait to see how your colleagues pounce on you. Pay attention, everyone...Oh Paul and Tom, still waiting on the evidence of the new Chiswick parklets.

David Lesniak ● 1754d

My FIL remembers as a child being stopped by the police for not having lights on his cycle.  Just as cars are stopped (or should be) for no lights cycles should be.  More effort on reflective non forgettable cycling kit too.  Motoring organisations lobby too for the interests of some of their members as do charities and not everybody agrees with all of them either.  Who before this had heard of NFBUK which seems to  be bigger in the US?

Philippa Bond ● 1754d

Riding without lights on your bike at night is already illegal, and police can and do fine cyclists with a £50 PCN. I’ve seen this done in an organised way on Shepherds Bush Green, combined with giving out free lights. The parklet was in Barnes, not Chiswick, where they are removing parking spaces on the High Street where footfall is at a five year high despite the closure of Hammersmith Bridge. This is being founded by the Barnes Community Association: “Whilst all high streets need some parking, and we recognise that a number of retailers oppose the loss of parking bays immediately outside their shops, the future is about creating attractive shopping parades that will draw people in and encourage them to dwell and spend money. We know that many businesses and residents support our view. The parklet is a very good example of this.  Case studies from across London suggest that parklets increase business profits by up to 30%.”Looks like there’s a good case for having some parklets in Chiswick.

Tom Pike ● 1754d

And great to see demand for parklets from the traders. The Overton window has shifted in the past two years. All the traders need to do is ask their local Councillors to lobby the Council for them to replace parking spaces with parklets. And if and when the Councillors say "no" because of some misguided and outdated notions about the value of maximising parking to businesses then the traders know who to go to when they want progress and change to happen in Chiswick.

Paul Campbell ● 1754d

Ed, if my tax £'s were at work then cyclists, other than young children, would  stop using our pavements  !

Loraine Pemberton ● 1754d

How nice to learn that cyclists riding without lights or/and on the pavement can be stopped and fined. I suggest that someone capable of doing this be placed on the pavement alongside the roadworks between Chiswick Computers and the first available bus stop going westwards. Two were closed, so I had to walk a long(for me) way at 4.15 last Friday, in the dark, and mostly on narrow pavements. Sensible cyclists would dismount and walk their bikes in such circumstances, but I saw only one do this. Others preferred to brush against me or come riding right up to me, several with no lights. My cries of 'You Fool' did not deter them, but I eventually made it to a working bus stop. Once on the bus, I noted many users of the cycleway riding in total darkness. Are these people mad? suicidal? immortal? Answers from the Three Wise Men would be welcome.

Arnold Saxton ● 1754d

They’ve spent a few Euros on a segregated cycle lane to help get cyclists, including young children, off the pavements. Just need more of them now.

Ed Saper ● 1754d

"It had been determined that under the original design there had been increased delays as westbound traffic was getting stuck behind vehicles wishing to turn left. This resulted in queues which often stretched back to King Street and was causing delays to bus services which were also being impacted by the removal of bus lanes which are now being partly restored."Don't you just luv it, they are trying to make out that the penny has just dropped. Even to the  casual observer it was obvious from the start that the loss of the left filter would be a huge mistake and that the railroad 'design' of tC9 was never going to work on this stretch.Hounslow must of known this yet still ploughed ahead. Idiots.

Adrian Irving ● 1754d

"Sensible cyclists would dismount and walk their bikes in such circumstances, but I saw only one do this."Yep about one in a hundred cyclists are sensible. The vast majority are either arrogant or moronic.

Steve Taylor ● 1754d

https://www.bikeability.org.uk/about-cycle-training/cycle-training-for-children/and adults and maybe even dogs (well maybe not).I've tried to draw attention to these for ages.The more people who attend the better the understanding of today's cycle training will be eg take the lane.  You cannot depend on car drivers in their large boxes to give you the room they should and you are entitled to on the road.

Philippa Bond ● 1754d

Not too different to car drivers then.

Sue Rowe ● 1754d

Percentage wise, I’d say the cyclists have it 😂

Maggie Dodge ● 1754d

99% of the 400-500 pedestrians killed every year in the U.K. are killed by motorists. And you want to ban cycling because of the danger to pedestrians. And you want to remove a cycle lane which segregates pedestrians from cyclists. The incredible thing is that you have so many supporters, including local Councillors, who subscribe to the same absurd unreality.

Ed Saper ● 1754d

Do they really have many supporters? Isn't is just the same old 3 or 4 making lots of noise on CW4.com? Certainly 99% of the posts come from the same 3 or 4 people. Hardly seems like a groundswell of opinion. Maybe they're all just the same person anyway with multiple pseudonyms.Go out in the real world and it's hard to find people who don't support the cycle lane.

Simon Pedley ● 1754d

That's right. And even rarer are the oddities who think that there is any chance of it not being here to stay.

Paul Campbell ● 1754d

"Answers from the Three Wise Men would be welcome."Arnold, are you referring to Messrs Pike  Seaton and Campbell ? 😉

Loraine Pemberton ● 1754d

"Oddities" ?Charming as ever, not to mention inaccurate, very few people object to C9, just the fact that so many cyclists fail to use it and prefer the pedestrian pavements...

Loraine Pemberton ● 1754d

"Small niggle, Ed. You need to support making lights and hi-vis wear compulsory prior to issuing a PCN for contravention."No I don't.  "So we'll put you down for increasing regulations on cyclists to make the whole of the road network safer for every single user"Yes.  There needs to be a genuine benefit and not just an attempt by activists to discourage cycling (e.g. all cyclists to wear number plates)."If I'd try that, I'd be lambasted for being anti-roses or some such nonsense."Probably, because your motive in promoting road safety is to try and shoehorn it into your campaign against cycling and the cycle lane.I suppose you could try out being constructive and straightforward - see how that works out for you :-)

Ed Saper ● 1754d

"very few people object to C9, just the fact that so many cyclists fail to use it and prefer the pedestrian pavements"Wow - OK Loraine.  I agree.Where I think you have the most issues is actually at the end of the cycle lane where it meets Heathfield Terrace.There's a lot of cycle parking on the pavement there, so you're going to get more bikes on the pavement in that area.Also, there's the crossing to the park, so you're going to get kids and parents cycling across that to cut through the park rather than being on the road / Quietway or pavement where all the bus stops are.At the end of the cycle lane there's a really long and pretty pointless light - you get some cyclists just ignoring it to turn left, others cutting the corner off.There are a few solutions - the most obvious but longer term one is to extend the cycle lane to Gunnersbury.I suspect something will be done about the light phasing to allow a left turn.But in the spirit of finding common ground - where cyclists cut the corner by mounting the pavement and at speed, they should get a PCN.  I'm not suggesting that we fine cyclists who use the pavement to get to the cycle parking.  Or fine cyclists who are nervous / new / with kids avoiding the road, or fail to dismount when crossing to the park and are being safe or considerate, even if they annoy you.  If there's a cycle lane they should be using it or the road as that's usually safer for them and pedestrians.

Ed Saper ● 1754d

I think even some local cyclists are against the High Road cycle lane and would prefer the A4 option.  Chiswick High Road is not the right place for this bi directional cycle lane, it is not working regardless of all the tweaks. The loss of the bus lane is a disaster and the floating bus stop an abomination.  I don't care how many others there are.  I've seen videos of others where cyclists are passing at ridiculous speeds. Just because it's not a one off doesn't make it ok.  I am not against cycle lanes where they work.  Along the Great West Road they're great although again many cyclists don't use them, the reason given was that it was faster on the road. I'm sorry to keep repeating myself but cyclists are never satisfied.

Maggie Dodge ● 1754d

There are only four morons on this thread in favour of the cycle lane. All sensible people can see that it is a death trap.

Steve Taylor ● 1753d

What a disgrace, and then what some have dubbed the ‘BBC Club’ mount what looks like a very well coordinated social media campaign (again) to say ‘it’s nothing to do with the cycle lane’ and then even have the cheek to blame motorists. All wearing a bit thin that trolling game. Good to see W4 put things right in their article.

Russell Pearson ● 1753d

90 year old Chiswick High Road tree chopped down so that drunk cyclists don't bump into it? You'd think cyclists were deft enough to cycle around the old tree and not daft enough to crash into it wouldn't you?  http://www.chiswickw4.com/default.asp?section=info&page=cyclehighway074.htm

Bobbie Carnegie ● 1753d

"Looks like there’s a good case for having some parklets in Chiswick"Interesting you say this, Tom. I've said this many times in the past. Funny you never glommed on to that then but you do so now without having ever once supported improved public realm especially for pedestrians. No doubt you came down hard on me then as being anti-cinnamon or whatever your method of choice was for the day.

David Lesniak ● 1753d

Oh please, Paul. I've said this from ages ago.You might recall ReDesign CS9. You might also recall we are now on version 2.0 if not 3.0 which by definition indicates it has been redesigned. Interesting it is still being called temporary. So that means another iteration is pending. Now I do wonder what we'd have and how much less it would have cost if we all had amended the design initially. FWIW, I had come up with a plan called the Green Mile with a necklace park running the length of the High Road with new green space and a segregated cycle lane that could be easily adjusted by using a kit of parts akin to the TfL kit of parts used for parklets elsewhere. I had also developed a plan for parking to be provided but also to be phased out and converted into other purposes as and when it was required. It included increased charging points for electric vehicles, better bus stops (no islands) and improved loading zones. But you, Paul, and others came down with your typical vitriol. And now you want to be lauded for espousing parklets???

David Lesniak ● 1753d

"Probably, because your motive in promoting road safety is to try and shoehorn it into your campaign against cycling and the cycle lane"Maybe wean yourself from the Kool Aid, Ed. I've campaigned for redesigning the cycle lane. You may note that is precisely what is happening now. For the second or third time. Apologies for being able to see the forest through the trees but its my cross to bear. As far as the law is concerned, you can't issue a PCN if there is no contravention. If lights and hi-vis wear aren't mandatory no way a PCN can be issued.

David Lesniak ● 1753d

It’s good to hear your voice supporting the reallocation of parking space to usage that better supports local retail. After all, it was the removal of roadway outside your premises many decades ago that allowed you to spread out across the pavement. But you’re mistaken to say I haven’t mentioned this before. I wrote over a year ago when Devonshire Road first restricted motor vehicles:“there's already a couple of new tables outside Vinoteca, but the idea is make the vacated parking spaces more suitable for outside dining by putting in "parklets" or decking. It is very common on the continent. The same can be done on TGT. In both cases it's reallocating space from vehicles to pedestrians.”While Devonshire Road has moved in the right direction, it’s still not fully realised it’s potential, but it looks like there’s a growing consensus on the direction of travel:“The BCA consultation showed that 69% of residents support the removal of parking in the High Street to bring wider benefits.  61% of the 364 residents and businesses who responded to the Council’s consultation supported the proposals. Only 27% indicated that they drive to the High Street. The remaining 73% wanted improvements for pedestrians and cyclists.”

Tom Pike ● 1753d

Lights are mandatory when cycling at night, and PCNs are already issued

Tom Pike ● 1753d

There’s advice to wear high viz but no legal mandate. Feels like the motor lobby want to dictate what cyclists should wear and have an excuse for dishing out fines to discourage cycling. Wouldn’t work with the bike rental model and would be unenforceable.

Ed Saper ● 1753d

Tom Pike explained" Lights are mandatory when cycling at night, and PCNs are already issued "Again "totally" missing the point.If cyclists are *stupid* enough to think they can ride around at night on a bicycle withoutany lights, what makes you think they won'tbe doing similarly *stupid* things, while riding around on the 422km of roads in Hounslow not yet by cycle superhighways ?michael adams*Anyone who imagines such cycling *stupidity* isconfined to unintelligent people should try walkingaround Oxford or Cambridge City centres. Exceptin those places its a part of tradition. Hereits being actively encouraged, "We're saving the  planet, Innit ?"

Michael Adams ● 1753d

David said lights weren’t mandatory so no PCN can be issued. Tom corrected that point. You missed the point.

Ed Saper ● 1753d

Ed Saper accused me thus (added exclamation marks)"You missed the point [!!!}" Au contraire !The point is that in order to make *stupid* cyclists do a *sensible thing*, which any sensibleperson would do anyway, it's necessary to pass a law.But in order to stop *stupid* cyclists doing thecountless other *stupid* things they all do, endangeringboth their own lives and that of others it wouldbe necessary to pass literally *hundreds* of laws;none of which it it would be possible to enforcein the first place.Only yesterday when on foot I saw  a *stupid* cycliston a side road approach a tee juction with another side road at speed. Intending to turn left he moved to the right so as to take the corner at speed. I happened to know that despite appearances to the contrary, the road he rode into is relatively busy with cars. Say with one every 30 seconds doing 20mph and more. Had there been a car coming in either direction he would have been toast.He looked old enough to have a wife and children and was probably just "popping out " to the shops round the corner for Sunday morning stuff.As a result of his selfish stupidity, not only potentially would he have left a widow and children, he would have provided the driver of that car withthe traumatic experience of killing someone, somethingfor which he was in no way responsible. While being a witness I would have felt it my duty to hang around for half an hour with some bloke spread all over the road. Trying very hard not to look, and leave me with an image I would never forget.But no law was broken there Ed.There are sill 422km of "unsafe" roads in the LBH of Hounslow alone, where such things could happen any day of the week. And this is what happens when you encourage stupid*people to ride bicycles. And please don't give me the training stuff with the links. Cycling training is regarded as such a priorityin the UK that it's left in the hands of charities to operate in co-operation with local councils.And people like matey above wouldn't attend unless forced in any case. Their stupidity will only become apparent when they end up in hospitalor on a slab. Another supposed "victim" to feature in somebody's statistics.michael adams* Stupidity which, as explained previously, is not limited to any specific socio-economic group....

Michael Adams ● 1753d

The discussion was about enforcing the rules on cyclists carrying lights after dark.I'm in favour - I agreed with Steve that they were morons because they're invisible on the roads.I don't know Tom's position, but he's pointed out that it is a legal requirement and there has been some enforcement in the past - it sounds like he's in favour, but I'll let him clarify.David suggested that there is no enforceable law on lights and linked it to high viz for some reason.  I'm not sure exactly what his point was, but I think he's mistaken.  He can clarify if he thinks that's unfair.  Yes - sometimes we need laws to get people to do sensible things - like wear seat belts, not use a phone while driving, not drive at unsafe speeds, ensure their car is properly maintained or carry lights on their bikes after dark.

Ed Saper ● 1753d

Excellent post by Michael Adams.  Every day I see dozens of *stupid* cyclists on the roads and pavements whilst I come across *stupid* car drivers only on occasion. Plenty of selfish or 'doddering' drivers but they are not necessarily endangering their own lives or the lives  of others.

Steve Taylor ● 1753d

Let's do an eensy weensy fact check, shall we Tom?The removal of the roadway predates us. What allowed us to spread out across said pavement was the COVID-related licensing fee structure. Using the pavement as we do now would be cost-prohibitive with LBH's punitive licensing fees. As I've said before, aimed at folks like you, if you're so steadfast at promoting and perpetuating outdoor dining, you better get your sh*t together and lobby Hounslow for continued license fee reductions. They have a proven track record of ignoring local traders. Without reduced license fees, all of us will be sunk. But you never seem to connect the dots on this kinda stuff. For a doctor, I've always found that odd. In broad strokes, we paid £100 initially last year. LBH increased it this year because it could (anyone surprised?) but come next September when the current regulations expire, there's no telling. In 2019, we would have paid £3000 for the same amount of space. I thought maybe you'd like some facts to mull over. If you need any comparison to other boroughs let me know. LBH is the outlier. Devonshire Road was and remains the result of COVID regulations. Pity you forgot that.Given the 73% wanting improvements for pedestrians and cyclists, I do so wonder why you are never part of that cohort interested in pedestrian improvements.

David Lesniak ● 1753d

Ed, Ed, Ed, Ed, Ed.Please provide an example where a PCN is issued when advice is contravened. You're the one wanting to issue PCNs. Something I agree with. But to get one, one must contravene the law.Feels like you're grasping at straws. You mentioned hi-vis and lights. You want to dictate what cyclists should wear. I say amen to that. After all, motorists can't drive at night without their lights on now, can they? Some idiots do, but that is in direct violation of the law. When last we checked, wearing hi-vis clothing doesn't discourage cycling. It promotes safety, but it doesn't discourage people. So that's a bit thin, to say the least. Again, you brought up fines. Odd you don't want to own that now. Ooops.As we have seen with e-bikes and e-scooters, GPS tracking can and does work as does adding registration numbers to the vehicles. Again, your claim is thin. And lazy. Only a matter of time before parity across all users will be in place. So what we're left with is someone who can't afford a bike but can rent one is tagged by GPS and accountable for using vehicle number XYZ, but you, with millions of new pounds lining your pockets are somehow unable to pay for necessary GPS and reg numbers lest you be discouraged from cycling? Do I have that right?

David Lesniak ● 1753d

Ed, do us all a solid and provide the pertinent information with respect to cyclists using lights at night being mandatory. Whilst at it, include the bit about cyclists not using the pavements.

David Lesniak ● 1753d

Ed Saper explained" Yes - sometimes we need laws to get people to do sensible things - like wear seat belts, not use a phone while driving, not drive at unsafe speeds, ensure their car is properly maintained or carry lights on their bikes after dark."Except there happens to a very *big* difference in your examples there.Riding without lights in the dark has always been recognised as being a very *stupid* thing to do. Right from when they were first invented, and then ridden after dark, bicycles were first fitted with acetylene lamps. Because on all moving vehicles, from trains to bicycles people have always seen the need for lights after dark. Except for the *truly stupid*.Whereas - quite sensible people were driving around in motor cars for 60 years before *anyone*bar eccentrics anyway, saw any need for seat belts. First because there were no statistics,and second because seat belts wouldn't preventyou from having an accident, only save you from the worst consequences of one. But then most people reason, incorrectly admittedly, on not planning on having any accidents in the first place. Candles in the wind and all that.As to phones, potentially there are in fact far worse sources of distraction, animated James O'Brien conversations on the radio, talkative passengers who can't be ignored as is possible on the phone "sorry I'm losing the signal", fast tempo music which has been shown experimentallyto affect drivers speed.While above a certain basic level, mainly brakes and lights the need for a lot of car maintanance is totally unnecessary supported as it by manufacturers routine service intervals designed mainly to protect *them* from warranty claims. Not all of it, but a lot of it,  michael adams

Michael Adams ● 1753d

My point isn't whether there are more *stupid* cyclists than *stupid* drivers.It's that in *encouraging* more people to ride bicycles, more especially people who might not have wanted to ride them otherwise, all that's doing isputting an additional percentage of *stupid* cyclistson the road.That fact that even the most *stupid* cyclists will be protected from themselves, and made to feel *safe* by riding up and down from Brentford to Olympia every day past the tree stumps on CS9, will be of littleconsolation to the other *stupid* cyclists who beingencouraged, supposedly by their example, and feeling similarly *safe*, will launch themselves onto the remaining 420km of roads in LB Hounslow. Only to then possibly suffer the consequences of their own stupidity.michael adams     

Michael Adams ● 1753d

Steve Taylor explained" Every day I see dozens of *stupid* cyclists on the roads and pavements"People who ride on pavements are mostly "yobbos", not necessarily *stupid*. Yobbos are generally anti-social. Whereas *stupid* people are just *stupid*; usually simply lackingin basic common sense. As I pointed out before, years ago no  self-respecting yobbo would be seen dead on a bicycle. The least they would aspire to would be a stolen motorbike. Bicycles were strictly for poor people.And then for various reasons bicycles became "respectable" among all classes of people and lost their stigma. Which was obviously good news for yobbos and drug dealers intent on making a quick getaway.A subject proponents of CS9 studiously seek to avoid, for fairly obvious reasons. michael adams... 

Michael Adams ● 1753d

'At night your cycle MUST have white front and red rear lights lit. It MUST also be fitted with a red rear reflector (and amber pedal reflectors, if manufactured after 1/10/85). White front reflectors and spoke reflectors will also help you to be seen. Flashing lights are permitted but it is recommended that cyclists who are riding in areas without street lighting use a steady front lamp. Law RVLR regs 13, 18 & 24'Hi-vis clothing is recommended but not compulsory, cycling on the pavement is not permitted, while the use of dedicated cycle facilities is not obligatory.

Peter Evans ● 1753d

Michael Adams made the very good and not all *stupid* point:"Whereas - quite sensible people were driving around in motor cars for 60 years before *anyone* bar eccentrics anyway, saw any need for seat belts."So that would be the period 1923 to 1983 - halcyon days for motoring.It is a very good thing they didn't have road casualty statistics during that period.It would be inconvenient if there were, because it might show that road casualties were at their highest peace time level around the mid 60s with, just speculating, nearly 8,000 killed and around 350,000 injured, despite a smaller population and far fewer people having driving licenses or cars.Makes you wonder why drink driving legislation was introduced in 1967 if there were no recorded deaths, injuries and every driver drove sober and sensible?Today we have around 1,500 people die on the roads and circa 150,000 injuries - a lot less than the nonexistent statistics from yesteryear.  Imagine how few we'd have if we didn't have seatbelt laws, drink driving laws or 20mph speed limits and relied on Michael's assurance that all drivers are quite sensible and wouldn't do anything *stupid* unlike those *stupid* *yobbo* *cyclists*.

Ed Saper ● 1753d

Ed Saper posted" and relied on Michael's assurance that all drivers are quite sensible and wouldn't do anything *stupid*"I never made such an assurance.And I would thank you to stop putting words in my mouth.I said that before the 1960's, nobody saw any need for seat belts to be fitted, never mind made compulsory in ordinary cars. Which is true.If you can produce any evidence to the contrarythen produce it.Furthermore I never mentioned drink driving.I used to think Ed, that you were simply well meaning but misguided.You have now *misrepresented* my posts so oftenthat I'm beginning to suspect malicious intent.If you wish to allay that suspicion might I humbly suggest that you discuss my posts with somebodyelse ? So that between you, you can elicit their*actual meaning* and not what you would likethem to mean for the purposes of your argument,before responding any further ?michael adams

Michael Adams ● 1753d

"I said that before the 1960's, nobody saw any needfor seat belts to be fitted, never mind madecompulsory in ordinary cars. Which is true."Definitely not true."In 1946, Dr. C. Hunter Shelden opened a neurological practice at Huntington Memorial Hospital in Pasadena, California. In the early 1950s, Shelden made a major contribution to the automotive industry with his idea of retractable seat belts. This came about from his care of the high number of head injuries coming through the emergency room.[6] He investigated the early seat belts whose primitive designs were implicated in these injuries and deaths."

Will Watson ● 1753d

Will Watson corrected me thus"Definitely not true"I stand corrected. How could I have possibly forgotten Dr. C. Hunter Shelden of the Huntington Memorial Hospital in Pasadena, California ? Let alone the the designers of the earlier inferiorbelts ?Rest assured, its wikipedia every time for me from now on.Although I bet Ed, Pike and one or two others will be kicking themselves, that they didn't get in there first  michael adams...

Michael Adams ● 1752d

Oh dear Michael.I said the rather uncontroversial:" Yes - sometimes we need laws to get people to do sensible things - like wear seat belts, not use a phone while driving, not drive at unsafe speeds, ensure their car is properly maintained or carrylights on their bikes after dark."You disagreed and said that only eccentrics saw the need for seat belts:"quite sensible people were driving around in motor cars for 60 years before *anyone* bar eccentrics anyway, saw any need for seat belts" (you didn't mention the 1960's, but that's the least of your confusion).You also disagreed and said that there are worse distractions than using a mobile phone:"As to phones, potentially there are in fact far worse sources of distraction, animated James O'Brien conversations on the radio, talkative passengers who can't be ignored..." etc.You further disagreed and said that rules to maintain cars were largely unnecessary:"above a certain basic level, mainly brakes and lights the need for a lot of car maintanance is totally unnecessary"You even appeared to disagree that we need lights for bikes because only truly stupid people would do that - or maybe you were agreeing, you seem confused:"on all moving vehicles, from trains to bicycles people have always seen the need for lights after dark. Except for the *truly stupid*."So you are being rather contrary about things that most sensible people agree on - laws to improve road safety tend to improve road safety and cut injuries and deaths.You maintain that drivers are "quite sensible people" and have no need for these laws.  But that cyclists are *stupid* - and I don't think you have a wider point than that, you just like saying it.I mentioned the drink driving laws and the appalling road safety statistics from the 1960s as evidence that such laws are required to keep everyone safe - particularly from *stupid* motorists who drink and drive their poorly maintained cars while using a mobile and not wearing a seat belt.  Oh - and the same laws that govern lights on bicycles are applied to cars - and of course are mainly intended for the *truly stupid* motorists who don't turn their lights on when driving.

Ed Saper ● 1752d

Ed Saper explainsquote:" You even appeared to disagree that we need lights for bikes because only truly stupid people would do that - or maybe you were agreeing, you seem confused:""on all moving vehicles, from trains to bicycles people have always seen the need for lights after dark. Except for the *truly stupid*."end quote:Confused ?How exactly?You didn't take my advice did you ? And show it to somebody else before posting.As to *stupid* cyclists I suggest you out the check the career of W.O."Bill" Hamilton one of the most gifted evolutionary biologists of the last century. It was his work that Dawkins popularised in the "Selfish Gene", Hamilton was equally famous around Oxford for careering around on his bicyle at full speed, had numerous accidents, and went through a car windscreen at one point. This was put down to eccentricity on his part although I doubt whether any of the drivers of the cars saw it in quite that way.However it was only subsequently when he refused to adopt a cycling helmet that some of his colleagues deemed him *foolish* anyway.When in fact the opposite was the case. The very fact that he'd survived so many accidents indicatedthat helmets weren't quite as indispensible as was claimed. He eventually died of a disease caught on a field trip.As to seat belts its been suggested that as a result of *risk compensation* drivers wearing seat belts drive faster and take greater risks - at the expense of cyclists and other road users.You can look that one up as well. So that's your homework for tonight settled.michael adams   

Michael Adams ● 1752d

Getting back to 'the tree' what happened to it after it was chopped? Did it end up as a table and chairs and such or a craved rood screen in the local church? Just wondering.

Bobbie Carnegie ● 1752d

Craved? That would have been rude. 'Carved' of course...

Bobbie Carnegie ● 1752d

It would only have been rude surely, if a local vicar craved a carved rood screen, simply so as to stay out of sight of his parishioners.michael adams...

Michael Adams ● 1752d

..outdoor café tables?

Peter Evans ● 1752d

I’m sure cyclists got first dibs. It’s theirs to do  with as they see fit obviously

Maggie Dodge ● 1752d

Chop it up, season it and stick it in the fire.

Simon Temple ● 1752d

trees absorb huge amounts of carbon dioxide and when the tree is cut and burned, the carbon dioxide is released back into the atmosphere. ... Wood burning stoves are particularly bad in an urban location because the CO2 released will not be absorbed because of a lack of trees. 🤷‍♀️

Maggie Dodge ● 1752d

The "doubts" you expressed about climate change when it due to emissions from motor vehicles seem to have disappeared. Wood burning stoves are particularly bad in urban locations because of the particulate pollution they release, like cars, that damage the health of more people, not because their emissions won't be absorbed by nearby trees.

Tom Pike ● 1752d

Tom  what form of heating do you have in your home and workplace  ? How eco friendly is it ?

Loraine Pemberton ● 1752d

Thanks for bringing up this important point. We burn exclusively trees that have been cut down because they are in the path of a cycle lane. Now you mention it, I think that might explain a lot!

Tom Pike ● 1752d

Good one, Tom. Nary a one of us noticed you completely avoided answering Loraine's question. Nor have any of us noticed this is your usual tactic. We're all just too stupid to pick up on your strategy, such as it is.

David Lesniak ● 1751d

On the day two killers were found guilty of the murder and manslaughter of a young child,  you feel it's appropriate to use the word murder to describe the removal of a tree.  This post is tasteless.  Stop shouting at each other,  it's always the same old people with this topic.

Nora Watkins ● 1751d

Hello ~ Are there any youngsters on here that might balance out 'Bloody Nora's' eldist assertion? Hello...ellooo...llooo...ooooooo

Bobbie Carnegie ● 1751d

"Wood burning stoves are particularly bad in urban locations because of the particulate pollution they release, like cars,"Errr no - not like cars at all.. Far, far worse!!!"“New wood burning stoves, billed as more environmentally friendly, still emit 750 times more tiny particle pollution than a modern HGV truck, a report has shown."

Steve Taylor ● 1751d

"We burn exclusively trees"That is quite disgraceful to be polluting the environment. Do you not know about global warming and burning wood?

Steve Taylor ● 1751d

Pike still hasn’t explained by he is burning trees dig up in CHR in his wood burning stove. In fact he hasn’t explained why he even has a wood burning stove in this day and age when they are known to be such extremely high pollutants!  He is a bit like Bojo. One rule for him and one rule for the rest of us. Sickening when he purports to support cycling for ‘environmental reasons’ ‘!!!

Steve Taylor ● 1750d

I think Tom and Paul keep a dossier on some of us.  They have our comments filed away ready to bring them out when they think it might come in handy . Must have too much time on their hands. My views on climate change are something you keep bringing up but I don't think they're of any interest to anyone but you.

Maggie Dodge ● 1750d

Ah yes. One of the three Chiswick anti car fanatics has confirmed that the tree was killed so to make way for a temporary cycle lane and so that he could burn it in his wood burning stove!! Obviously hasn't a clue about the impact of wood burning stoves on the environment which is allegedly at least three times more than cars."Wood burning at home now biggest cause of UK particle pollution"  - The Guardian.

Steve Taylor ● 1750d

He may have been joking Steve?I suspect a ban on wood burning stoves is coming, fire pits and bonfires also* - at least in Greater London and in built up areas.I don't know what impact that will have on jobs - as well as chimney sweeps / stove maintenance skilled workers, there's also wood and stove retailers.  The alternative is ethanol stoves, but they don't give out much heat I think.  *Do charcoal BBQs give out particulates?

Ed Saper ● 1750d

Steve Taylor pointed out..." One of the three Chiswick anti car fanatics has confirmed that the tree was killed so to make way for a temporary cycle lane and so that he could burn it in his wood burning stove!"I think you'll find he was being "ironical"; but obviously so.The point being that once its been established that someone makes "ironical" remarks, then it's possible for them to backtrack on statements made in the past which may subsequently appear questionable or quite simply wrong, with the  retort "You didn't really think I was being serious did you ?"This has distinct advantages over other methods of evasion. Such as suddenly lapsing into incoherence, pressing medical problems (requiring a good memory and medical knowledge to succeed), supposedly emigrating and posting under a new name. etc etcmichael adams...

Michael Adams ● 1750d

"I don't know what impact that will have on jobs - as well as chimney sweeps / stove maintenance skilled workers, there's also wood and stove retailers"Sometimes I can't believe my eyes. Ed appears concerned about jobs when it comes to chimney sweeps, etc. Oddly, this concept never once came up when the discussion threatens the global car market and the related supply chain. Ed wants to to be rid of cars but keep the delivery vehicles for his business going full-speed ahead (including planes, I should add). Could someone please help me square Ed's circle? I try to understand but if Ed's not at all concerned about jobs relating to cars/insurance/traffic engineers (you know the ones who also do cycle infrastructure) suddenly we're supposed to muster up a tear or two for his beloved chimney sweep???

David Lesniak ● 1750d

Oh, give it a rest David.

Ed Saper ● 1750d

“ Oh, give it a rest David. ”Why should he give it a rest? This is a forum and he makes excellent points. His posts are always sensible and balanced. As soon as you know you have lost the debate you want the winners to ‘give it a rest’  Yet another display of the cycling lobby arrogance!

Steve Taylor ● 1749d

Lol - that was me loosing a debate on wood burning stoves was it?  David didn't actually comment on stoves or air pollution, I think he was trying to say I supported wood stoves because I want to maintain employment of my "beloved chimney sweep" which means I'm not concerned about the jobs of traffic engineers, car insurance brokers or the global car market.It was nonsense. Bit boring as well as he's done this spiel before, which is why I told him to give it a rest.  I didn't mention travel or bikes.Well, since I've lost the debate so decisively I shall have to join you and David in your campaign to ban wood burning stoves!

Ed Saper ● 1749d

https://earth.org/road-pricing-electric-cars/One tree cut down so that a left filter lane will create more room for all those turning left. It is an offence to allow your car engine to idle when you are stationary.  So why are so many car drivers complaining about the pollution they are causing - and which many are causing unnecessarily?https://www.confused.com/on-the-road/driving-law/fines-for-idling

Philippa Bond ● 1749d

“ Well, since I've lost the debate so decisively I shall have to join you and David in your campaign to ban wood burning stoves”Well that would be a worthwhile cause and do far more for the environment than destroying the environment by advocating traffic congestion LTNs and tree destruction to pacify just a few.  Chiswick would do well by banning wood burning stoves entirely. THAT would be progress and reduce global warming.

Steve Taylor ● 1749d

Was there a left hand turn there before, I feel I should  know but I don't.  I understood it was predominantly to make way for the cycle lane.

Maggie Dodge ● 1749d

Yes Maggie their was a left filter. As things stand roughly fifteen vehicles pass green in one faze. From my regular observations the vast majority turn left into Chiswick Lane so the left filter removal should never have happened.There is now a large scale plan displayed on CHR just before British Grove showing the changes that are now in progress.It's not entirely clear but is shows a shared pedestrian/cycle pavement turning into Chiswick Lane from CHR.What fun that will be!

Adrian Irving ● 1749d

Yes indeed, it is disgareceful that so many drivers still leave their cars idling. "Is it illegal to leave your car running in your drive?The rules over stationary idling apply to public roads only, so you aren’t breaking the law if you idle in your drive, or in a supermarket car park, for example."One of our neighbours consistently leaves their diesel Range Rover idling in the drive with nobody in it. When I questioned them they said they only do it when its cold weather because they want to warm up the car before they bring their toddlers out of the house!! I tried to explain the environmental impact but they weren't interested!  With people like these there is no hope for the planet.

Steve Taylor ● 1749d

"“New wood burning stoves, billed as more environmentally friendly, still emit 750 times more tiny particle pollution than a modern HGV truck, a report has shown."

Steve Taylor ● 1749d

Makes you wonder if perhaps we should stop burning stuff for energy....wood in stoves, coal in power plants, petrol and diesel in cars and trucks....I saw the Danish report and the x750 claim - I wondered if that was under particular conditions.  The usual claim is that wood burning stoves emit 6-8 times as much PM2.5 as a truck - that may be out of date or perhaps reflect the majority of trucks on the road / real world conditions.  Either way, it is daft to be polluting so much and to do it unnecessarily - I doubt there's many / any houses in Chiswick with a wood burning stove that don't have central heating or alternatives.  A ban is likely coming - and it will most upset the middle classes (us!) who love a fire for its aesthetic and homely qualities.

Ed Saper ● 1749d

I confess we actually have a bioethanol burner in our fireplace, Ed, and not just because it's impossible to reliably source sufficient firewood from trees removed to build cycle lanes. Steve's right about particulates from wood fires, and a ban is already in place: we're in a smoke control area so nobody should be burning anything that produces smoke. Unfortunately that still means particulates from other sources, and motor vehicles in particular, are responsible for thousands of excess deaths a year in London.

Tom Pike ● 1749d

I was under the impression that wood burning stoves are allowed in smoke control areas - it is only open fires that are banned?What's the bioethanol burner like?  I thought they were more for the visuals than warmth!

Ed Saper ● 1749d

“I was under the impression that wood burning stoves are allowed in smoke control areas - it is only open fires that are banned?“That is my understanding too.

Steve Taylor ● 1748d

Yes, the ban is on having a fire that produces smoke, so you can still have an open fire, or a wood-burning stove, as long as it produces no smoke.Our bioethanol burner produces a fair amount of heat so does reduce what we would otherwise use.

Tom Pike ● 1748d

One would think with all this talk about smoke and excess death, there would be the rumblings of banning smoking and e-cigarettes. I've often wondered if the amount of smoke billowing from lungs were taken collectively what the impact on the environment would be from that source alone.As for the "give it a rest" defense, I think it speaks volumes as Steve so rightly said.

David Lesniak ● 1748d

Isn't the mobile CCTV famous for leaving it's engine running when parked up, ready to fine motorists.  Also plenty of Council vehicles are guilty of this.

Maggie Dodge ● 1747d

There are some silly comments here. The Covid virus is dangerous. I speak as a recently retired Professor of Child Health at the Medical School of Great Ormond Street Hospital. Be careful; You might be the next to catch and die

Michael Preece ● 1747d

Claire, I've just seen this thread and feel so worried about you. As some others have since alluded to please don't wander any further down South Parade from your road as the shock of seeing the "murdered" Christmas trees lying forsaken and abandoned  may be too much for your weak soul to bear.

Peter Carson ● 1730d

100% incorrect. The word murder refers to the crime of intentionally killing a person and, in most societies at least, trees as not viewed in the same regard as persons.

Peter Carson ● 1730d

Well said, Michael.

Stewart Jones ● 1730d

Don't feel too worried about Claire. It is sad that so many Xmas trees are lying forsaken and abandoned but everyone will understand that these poor young trees were planted and reared specifically for culling; to be decorated, applauded, cherished and admired. Everyone will understand that not all the culled Xmas trees will reach that status and enjoy the admiration they deserve. That is indeed sad. However, the murdered tree Claire mentions, is a different case altogether. This majestic old fella was murdered purely to appease half a dozen cyclists to build a TEMPORARY cycle track. Most decent cyclists, like myself, wouldn't have minded cycling around the tree while the temporary cycle track is in use for a few months. Hence, as shown in this thread, all decent people agree with Caire's sentiments.

Steve Taylor ● 1729d

How naïve of you to think that people who you deem to be decent unite on a single topic. Decent people allow other people to hold a different view unlike the OP who weaponises the cutting down of a tree by using such emotional language. Or attacks people in the most ridiculous and laughable way when she is challenged. But she never reads my posts so I’ll be ok.

Stewart Jones ● 1729d

That’s correct. No decent person would condone the murder of an old tree for no good reason. A  TEMPORARY cycle track is not a good reason!

Steve Taylor ● 1729d

Peter, I would worry about yourself.  You are clearly a very sick person and need to book an appointment with a psychiatrist straight away to look at your aggression and bullying issues.  Poor boy, wonder what happened to make you so unpleasant to strangers.  You are not my problem, thank goodness but you clearly have a very, very big personality issue.  Hope you get it sorted over the next year and that the experts sort you out in 2022.  Although the first step is always recognising you have a problem - you do, don't you?  I hope so for your sake. Another forum weirdo, sadly.

Claire Moran ● 1729d

Voilà!

Stewart Jones ● 1729d