Forum Topic

Thinking practically about this, even in the very unlikely event that Ruth Cadbury did raise major concerns about the safety of the Cycleway, TfL and the council are unlikely to rip out infrastructure they are still in the process of installing. The best way, in my view, to help people like Ken is to try to get the council to consider practical safety improvements to what is there. For a start the signage and other visual aids to cyclist approaching these bus islands is not great.Another point is worth making is that an electric bike was involved in this collision. These do tend to be ridden too fast by some people and it may be that it is not the bus island was the main factor here - only Ken is likely to be able to tell us.This may also be more about perception of risk than actual risk. More people, particularly inexperienced cyclists are using the Cycleway because they feel safer. The collision numbers so far aren't unambiguously confirming that they are particularly on the stretch currently closed for the upgrade.The flip side of this is that, it is clear that many elderly and disabled people obviously feel less safe with the new configuration. Ken's experience aside there have been very few reported serious collisions between pedestrians and cyclists on the Cycleway despite many predictions that there would be. Ironically, it could be that, because it feels as if it is more dangerous it ends up being safer because people take more care. However, perceptions are important and if elderly and disabled people are being discouraged from visiting the High Road, this needs to be addressed.

Mark Evans ● 1724d

Mark, thank you so much for posting here.  I’m sorry to hear you feel that writing to council is futile as it has no effect.  You are not alone in that respect.  And so much is done online now, I fear many of the most vulnerable LBH residents either never get to know about these proposals before they’re implemented or never have the wherewithal to respond, even if they wanted to.I’m tired of reading advice and platitudes about what elderly, less mobile etc people should do to overcome the difficulties this new infrastructure has caused them.  Good design means taking these difficulties into account before you make the changes, and ensuring you avoid them. I used to see an elderly gentleman who must’ve come from Duke Rd/Linden Gardens area who did his shopping on the high Rd.  He crossed the High Rd where I normally cross, near M&S, which is why I noticed him.  He had mobility problems and could take only teeny tiny steps. So his progress was slow and painstaking. But he still got about under his own steam and I respected him for that.  I used to walk ever so slowly in his wake, to give moral support when he crossed the road.  I didn’t seek to interfere and I hope he never noticed what I was doing.  The point of this example is that the central refuge was really critical to him in being able to cross.  It meant that he didn’t hold up both sides of the traffic as he crossed - there was the midpoint where one or other stream of traffic could proceed in his wake - and it gave him a break to gather his strength again before continuing.  That central refuge no longer exists.  And for whatever reason (and there may be many) I no longer see the old gentleman. But we should be seeking to encourage the elderly, the frail, those with sight difficulties etc etc to take a full part in society, and that includes shopping when and where they choose. This Active Travel policy is a con. It purports to promote cycling and walking.  In reality it’s all about cycling.  The benefits to pedestrians are only those which accrue in the slipstream of any substantial move from car to cycle use - namely better air quality. In the meantime the policy’s total focus on cycling improvements has disadvantaged many pedestrians, able-bodied or otherwise.

Marie Power ● 1720d

I did think before I typed.  MY FIL was blind and I spent a lot of time with him as did my husband. MIL was deaf and wouldn't wear her hearing aids.  He did the hearing and she did the seeing.  You don't realise how dependent couples are one another until you lose one.  When she was ill and when and after she died he needed a lot of support. However we would all have been better placed if they had both accepted more help earlier on so that they could remain more independent "but they didn't want to bother us" and of course it wasn't offered from elsewhere because they didn't seek it - although they were entitled to it.The excuse was always that they wouldn't live long enough for this that or the other but when reaching 100 isn't that unusual there is a lot of life to look forward to. When they needed someone to get their shopping and post letters etc after MIL broke her ankle we organised an Age UK person to help rather hoping that they would continue like that - but they wouldn't - and it wasn't as if it was very expensive to do so.  That is why I was pointing out that there should be some way of making sure that there can be an easy introduction/progression and easy access to the alternatives when something in particular becomes more of a challenge because you have to adjust as you go along in life. I think Comcabs and Taxicard still exist in London.  In some places there are voluntary groups who drive residents to hospital appointments. Sense of cost and value can become distorted with time. BTW we didn't move FIL as we didn't think it was fair but we also had a great deal of difficulty getting any respite when we needed it. He stayed in the flat that they moved into when he realised he was losing his sight. It was too late to change and he knew his way around it.  We would take him out in the car for a drive and he would know the roads that he cycled as a young man in the dark during the war and where each pub was and travel in his mind along with us. I've also done exactly what Marie describes when crossing roads with people I don't know.However I bet they all rode bikes when they were younger and the problem now is that pedestrians are struggling with the number of cyclists riding on the pavement as the number and speed and aggression of motorists have frightened them off the roads. Space needs to be better shared.   

Philippa Bond ● 1720d

Hello, long-time lurker, first time poster!I'm a commuter from Chiswick into Central London (used to be 3-4 times a week, in these Covid times only once a week), and I cycle to work. In addition to that I like riding in my own spare time. From the perspective of someone doing 3/4,000km on my bike I'd say that the CS9 is better than nothing but not exactly the best solution for a cyclist. I should also point out I've got a driver's licence, but I rarely drive in London (don't own a car).From my experience, having lived and cycled in Belgium and Denmark, the cycleway has some significant flaws, first and foremost the fact that it's bi-directional (?) whilst being on one side of the road only. That's almost unheard of in the two countries I was referring to; in Copenhagen, where I normally go, I think I've seen such an arrangement in streets that are on-way only for vehicular traffic. I don't know why TfL insists on doing this - they must have their reasons! - but it makes it a massive pain to join the CS9 if coming from the north (the turn from Turnham Green Terrace for instance) and I guess it's disorienting for drivers.Then there's the stoplights. I don't quite understand why, say at the junction where Outsider Tart is, you need a specific stoplight turn for bikes. Everywhere else in the world cars turning give way to bikes, then make a turn. I've seen it done in Los Angeles and if they can get their head around it there... The other stoplight that doesn't make quite a lot of sense is the one by Artisan.The new extension on King's Road Hammersmith is puzzling as well. At some point there's a 90 degrees turn from the left hand side to the right hand side of the road (when coming towards Chiswick) which obliges you to stop, turn your head 90 degrees back, check that there's no traffic and then go. I know people should look, but it's all too easy not to and... bam. The "floating bus island" that draws so many complaints here is something I get. When I travel through Chiswick I see way too many fellow cyclists not stopping at the zebra crossings, but at the same time I just see too many bus passengers throwing themselves across the road. I know for a fact that if a bus is approaching a stop, at least one passenger won't look both ways (or at all) before crossing.The other option besides the floating bus island might be safer for pedestrians but, for cyclists, it would mean crossing the path of a bus pulling out into the bus stop. The A4 towards Heathrow has that design and it's dangerous. It's hard to check behind your back on certain types of bikes and, believe me, the new hybrid/electric buses are quiet. All in all I'm glad the cycleway is there - not having it would mean a situation like Kensington, or Chelsea, where I'm constantly cut in by cars, there's lots of vans and vehicles parked on the kerb and where I've had accidents in the past - but I think that it could've been better. As for cyclists not stopping at the zebra crossing, perhaps the police ought to stop a few and have a conversation. A few months ago I jumped a red light in Kensington; it was 10PM, late from work, tired and I will admit I didn't see the light. The road was also very empty. I was then stopped by two young Met officers who told me that the week before they had to notify the family of a man killed doing what I did. As the father of two girls it made me think. No cyclist wants to die and I think that no cyclist wants to crash into people like Kenneth as they cross the road...

Francis Sheehan ● 1711d

Adrian Irving quoted a report which concluded thus" Despite this, many people are put off cycling because they think it's unsafe:"Or more to the point, that's what they tell researchers.Which is then used by cycle lane advocates as justifying expenditure on cycle lanes, as cycle lanes make people feel safer.*However* what alternatives are given in the survey as to why people chose not to cycle ?Only poor people ride bicycles ?I think not somehow, as who would admit to not wanting to look poor ?Riding a bicycle makes people look stupid ?Who would ever admit they could ever be made to look stupid ?Riding a bicycle is unsafe ? Yes yes riding a bicycle is unsafe ! I'll go for that one ! Definitely !Who but an idiot would ever admit that the *real* reason they would never ride a bicycle is becauseit mighty make them look *poor* or *stupid* ?The two things in life which if not white and Ab's, people do their best to avoid at all costs."The proof" ?A few days ago I happened to mention bike mirrors and the fact I'd fitted a mirror to my commuter bike, a discreet black mirror, over 40 years ago.Read up all the literature it all says the samething. In traffic certainly, a bike mirror is a definite safety aid. The guy didn't want to know despite commuting every day.The Hounslow Cycling Campaign publishes load of photos of happy smiling cyclists with their bikes. Not one with a mirror. And the entire case against this proven safety aid for all cyclists?"A mirror would make me look stupid."michael adams   

Michael Adams ● 1706d

“I can’t help but notice a pattern here” [ie  ignoring the real experiences of people versus the brook-no-opposition, nanny-knows-best, dogmatic approach favoured by LBH].Spot on, David.  But not just confined to LBH sadly.  I’m watching a similar approach in East Oxford at the moment - incidentally another Labour stronghold but I’m not sure it’s a feature of any particular party, more perhaps a feature of a local or National party that has an unassailable position politically.  At least until the next elections.  East Oxford is imposing LTNs and introducing cycle Quickways and Quietways which will impact both on car drivers and pedestrians.  There is nothing in this for pedestrians.  Oxford, like Cambridge (another city with a higher-than-average proportion of cyclists) long since ceased to discourage cyclists and e-scooters (legal and illegal) from using  pavements, shopping malls and pretty much anywhere you can ride a bike or a scooter.  I’ve even seen scooters ridden inside supermarkets. Pedestrians are cannon fodder. The “consultation” exercises repeatedly throw up evidence from disabled, frail, and more vulnerable people who say they are already frightened to venture out, and that the proposals will make their life worse, or from professional and non-professional carers who say their life is made more difficult - and the time spent with those for they are caring foreshortened - by the measures proposed or already introduced.And yet the paper which is going to the Oxford city council cabinet this week airbrushes these issues in its Equality Impact assessment.  The assessment is superficial and dismissive of concerns.  Part of the pattern.  If it doesn’t fit the answer that you want, ignore or obfuscate it. Council officers and councils are not serving their constituents by doing this.  They are merely propping up the current one-size-fits-all dogma.

Marie Power ● 1704d