Forum Topic

Below is interesting re Stats on C9T - comments  ?

"A Freedom of Information Request  has revealed there has been no increase in the number of cyclists using Chiswick High Road  now compared to 2018 before Temporary Cycleway C9T was built.It does get used but mainly during weekday morning and evening commuting rush hours in good weather.These figures comes from TfL’s own cameras monitoring C9T either side of the junction with Turnham Green Terrace.Many thanks to John Balmond for this information"Anyone got anything to say  ?

Loraine Pemberton ● 1748d36 Comments

When you consider the woeful design, woeful construction, dangerous junctions and extended journey times I am surprised the number hasn't gone down.I now avoid CHR by taking side roads when cycling.

Adrian Irving ● 1748d

Well most people who use the high road on a multi day basis will know the cycle lane is pretty empty outside midweek rush hour hrs. Dont let any stats say otherwise or we are all blind. My fear was it would be dangerous. I have to say that the cycle lane is not as dangerous as i thought it would be. But given outside rush hour its empty and now more alterations and money going down,im not completely in favour. But then i do think it can be a benefit to more people in summer months only. Is it worth the money for what we have on offer ? Im in two minds

Julian Pavey ● 1748d

It's already been covered. The two cameras used to derive those counts, 22096 and 22081, give numbers from the cycle lane, not the roadway, where about 30% of cyclists ride.

Tom Pike ● 1748d

Tom Pike explained" The two cameras used to derive those counts, 22096 and 22081, give numbers from the cycle lane,One set of figures is from 2018, two years before any cycle lane was built.Possibly what you mean to say, is that the earlier figure gives the figure for CHR before the CL wasbuilt, while the latter figure gives the figurefor the CL alone with 30% of cyclists continuingto use CHR ? michael adams

Michael Adams ● 1748d

Anyone got anything to say  ?.Thank you Lorraine.Yes, I do have something to say, as you ask.Get rid of this waste of space on Chiswick High Road.I will cycle, with or without a cycle Lane, Preferably without a cycle Lane.

PATRICK MULHALL ● 1748d

Just thinking about your comment Julian, "not as dangerous as I thought it would be".  Can I assume you are talking as a cyclist, because I think there have been comments from pedestrians crossing the High Road and of course the wonderful floating bus stop. Also I still see some motorists coming out of TGT taking it a bit wide and having to correct themselves. Those dangers won't go away until the cycle lane does.  That poor old tree found it lethal too.

Maggie Dodge ● 1748d

"Can I assume you are talking as a cyclist" No, I do not cycle or very rarely I can say that some people may find it a little daunting,i don't and my fear of it being dangerous has not materialized for most. For me, that is pedestrians or cyclists on cyclists.  "because I think there have been comments from pedestrians crossing the High Road and of course the wonderful floating bus stop" Who? Where?  Don't count here or those on twit-a- doo as it does not represent any large numbers.

Julian Pavey ● 1747d

That’s not what I meant to say, that’s what I said!

Tom Pike ● 1747d

OK I promise in future to proofread before hitting the submit. Even i am finding my wording confusing  😁

Julian Pavey ● 1747d

Don’t worry, Julian, that wasn’t in response to you.  But good practice anyway!

Tom Pike ● 1747d

Tom Pike explained" That’s not what I meant to say, that’s what I said!"What you said was" It's already been covered. The two cameras used to derive those counts, 22096 and 22081, give numbers from the cycle lane, not the roadway, where about 30% of cyclists ride."But if there were 30% of cyclists riding in the roadway in both 2018 and 2021, then a reduction of 15 cyclists riding in the cycle lane over the same period, as per your figures above and as claimed by Mr Balmond, would appear to be correct.michael adams...

Michael Adams ● 1747d

Michael Preece ● 1747d

"not the roadway, where about 30% of cyclists ride"Let's recap Tom's position.We need a cycleway to create a safe space for cyclists.Yet 30% of cyclists remain on the roadway which was deemed unsafe by Tom himself.Quick question: how do we all feel about a cyclist on the A4 weaving in and out of traffic as I saw yesterday morning? Safe? Unsafe? Necessary? Especially given those spiffy new cycle lanes.

David Lesniak ● 1747d

"Safe? Unsafe? Necessary?"If this was an urgent  Christmas Tree delivery to Hammersmith then obviously this was "necessary". (fairy lights and dangling baubles optional)

Adrian Irving ● 1747d

If you can keep up a resonable speed, the main carriageway of the A4 is the safest place to cycle in and East-West direction in this part of the world.  Junctions are the most dangerous place for cyclists, and there are hardly any junctions on the A4.  There are also no pedestrians stepping out in front of you without looking.When I used to commute into town I used to use it every day. I was fit then and doing a decent speed - a lot of the time I was overtaking the traffic.  It's not a road you want to be pootling along at 6 or 8 mph though.The problem is that there is no one typical cyclist.  Some are very fit, and can cruise at 20mph plus, while others pootle along at around 6mph.  One is going three times faster than the other.  There is actually a bigger difference in speed between a cyclist doing 20mph and a cyclist doing 6mph than there is between the 20mph cyclist and a car doing 30mph.Catering for all different types of cyclists is difficult.  If I'm out by myself on my bike, a lane like this is a waste of space.  If I'm with my 10 year old daughter, it's useful.What is definitely the case with this lane is that it's badly designed and there should be a lane on each side in the same direction as the traffic.  It's so bad at the moment, that I'll use the dreadful shared use path on the A4 in preference if I'm cycling gently.

Al Webber ● 1747d

David Lesniak explainedquote:" We need a cycleway to create a safe space for cyclists.Yet 30% of cyclists remain on the roadway which was deemed unsafe by Tom himself."unquote:Indeed and if Tom Balmond's figures as interpreted by Tom are correct, that there are now simply fewer cyclists being captured by the cycle lane cameras than in 2018, then for there now to be *more* cyclists using Chiswick High Road than in 2018, it would  require *more* cyclists to be using the roadway than previously.michael adams"More people ride bicyles in April than in February".A ground breaking revelation brought to you courtesy of  TfL. Which could only be the result of extensive research and data analysis, conducted by world-leading experts. Or something. https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2021/july/new-data-highlights-success-of-trial-cycleway-in-chiswick

Michael Adams ● 1747d

Was that a suppressed message from the lab?The strange case of Professor Preece and Mr Adams: a modern retelling of a Victorian classic. I think the serum may be running low at this point.

Tom Pike ● 1747d

Wouldn’t two lanes take up more space than one bidirectional lane? I think I saw that it would result in a lot more trees being removed….and you’d lose parking on both sides of the road. Wouldn’t you need bus islands on both sides as well?

Ed Saper ● 1747d

No, there are fewer on the roadway but more overall with the cycle lane.

Tom Pike ● 1747d

TomAre there any stats on the number of cyclists who consistently cycle on pavements  ?

Loraine Pemberton ● 1747d

If you look at the footage from the TfL cam at Goldhawk Road, there are very few cyclists seen on the pavement at that location, less than one a day. It will vary along the High Road.

Tom Pike ● 1747d

You make a really good point that I think is often missed. The cycle lane in its current incarnation is not for the confident/advanced cyclists - it's for the pootlers and families.I commute to work every day by bike and avoid the C9 as it's not fit for *my* purpose. I head to the river now - whilst it's a lot slower, I don't have to deal with terrible phasing on the lights, poor drainage and tree debris on the cycle lane, cars turning in and out of the side roads without checking the cycle lane and pedestrians who think the bike lane is a pavement extension...

John Hannon ● 1747d

Tom Pike now claims" No, there are fewer on the roadway but more overall with the cycle lane."But that isn't what Mr Balmonds figures show is it ?You objected to his conclusions before, precisely *because* cameras 62,63 positioned adjacent to TGT, a central position on CHR, which showed a *decline* in the number of cyclists 2018 - 2021, showed *only* the cycle track.But if there are now *fewer* on the roadway as you claim, and *fewer* on the cycle track as Mr Balmond's figures show, how can there possibly be "more*cyclists cycling along CHR ?michael adams...

Michael Adams ● 1747d

Simply because the total number of cyclists along the High Road is the sum of numbers in the roadway and the cycle lane. I’m rather surprised you’re so confused about this.

Tom Pike ● 1747d

"The cycle lane in its current incarnation is not for the confident/advanced cyclists - it's for the pootlers and families." Hang on a minute. We were 'sold' the idea that this was going to be a cycle super highway not for pootlers and wobblers off to buy their skinny latte and croissant. I think we should collectively ask for our money back!

Adrian Irving ● 1747d

As someone who used to cycle (and no doubt will again in the future) the cycle lane on CHR hardly lives up to the rather grandiose description of Cycle Super Highway.

Andrew Jones ● 1747d

Tom Pike explined"Simply because the total number of cyclists along the High Road is the sum of numbers in the roadway"Which you claim are now lower"and the cycle lane"Which Mr John Balmond's figures show, are also lower.Don't forget that it was you yourself who insistedTom Pike explained" those counts, 22096 and 22081, give numbers from the cycle lane,"So if the figures for both the roadway and the cycle lane are both *lower* in 2021 than they were in 2018, how can the figure for Chiswick High Roadwhich is simply the sum of two, possibly be higher ?michael adams...

Michael Adams ● 1747d

There was no cycle lane in 2018!

Tom Pike ● 1747d

Tom Pike finally acknowledged what I pointedout in my original post"There was no cycle lane in 2018!"Posted by: Michael AdamsDate/Time: 11/12/21 19:25:00One set of figures is from 2018, two years before any cycle lane was built.Possibly what you mean to say, is that the earlier figure gives the figure for CHR before the CL wasbuilt, while the latter figure gives the figurefor the CL alone with 30% of cyclists continuingto use CHR ? end quoteOr what *do* you mean ?michael adams

Michael Adams ● 1747d

"and pedestrians who think the bike lane is a pavement extension..."Conversely, cyclists think pavements are  C9 extension...

Loraine Pemberton ● 1746d

TomSuggest you look at the Heathfield Terrace  / Chiswick High Road junction and the cycling shenanigans that occur on an hourly basis

Loraine Pemberton ● 1746d

There are three threads on this forum relating to cycling/the cycle lane with 260+ comments between them.  The have approx. 30 unique posters across the three threads.  I would say people are getting bored and are no longer engaging.

Nora Watkins ● 1746d

That's fine Nora.  As with all these things you can scroll on past.

Maggie Dodge ● 1746d

I'm just making an observation Maggie Dodge.  We were asked if we had anything to say.

Nora Watkins ● 1746d

Loosely related to the subject is the redesigned layout of the Kings Road/Goldhawk Road junction.From my initial observations it looks like there could be a problem.Traffic from the East wanting to turn right into Goldhawk have to wait for a gap in the traffic going east from CHR into Kings Road.If there are two or more vehicles doing this there is not enough space to pass for traffic wanting to carry straight on into CHR.Result. Congestion, which has the potential to be bad.As I say this is an initial impression but I am monitoring it.

Adrian Irving ● 1746d

Adrian -The pinch point you refer to has been an issue ever since the temporary cycle lane went in over a year ago. The right turn on to Goldhawk from Kings Street should have a filter. What's being done now will only make it worse. All traffic is reduced to a single lane at that point. Often only one vehicle gets through while traffic backs up down King Street. On many occasion I've beaten the bus walking from Hammersmith back to Chiswick.

David Lesniak ● 1746d