Forum Topic

Cycle Lane Warning on Buses

I took the E3 along Chiswick High Road for the first time in a while at the weekend and noticed there is now an automatic warning issued when you alight at the Police Station bus stop.Is this new and are there similar warnings on other buses in Chiswick and across London?While it is obviously a good idea it seems unlikely that TfL would have introduced it until after there had already been a number of collisions.

Anita Blake ● 1681d85 Comments

Two injury collisions have been recorded involving pedestrians on the High Road over the period since C9 opened to the end of September. Both involved motorcyles.In the last ten years, 33 pedestrians have been injured, 12 of them seriously, and one killed in collisions on the High Road along the current length of C9. None of the collisions involved a cyclist.The disproportionate injury risk to pedestrians in terms of the number of vehicles travelling along the High Road continues to be from motorcycles, with bicycles posing by far the lowest risk of pedestrian injury.

Tom Pike ● 1681d

I came up CHR on a 267 yesterday evening and the bus was issuing warnings about the cycle lane at every stop.

Richard Greenhough ● 1681d

I think the one pedestrian killed was probably "I never forget what's her name", the elderly lady that lived in a car. She stepped out in front of a truck. The driver was exonerated.Cycling is far far safer than you are led to believe and the chances of being injured or killed are low.Scooters/ motorcycles are more in danger as they tend to be the less experienced road users who take more risks and drivers don't "see" them.Some boroughs allow motorcycles in bus lanes, others don't so scrapping bus lanes increases the risk for riders.

Adrian Irving ● 1681d

Tom, where is the data for 'injury collisions' you are quoting coming from and how are they defined?I have more than once nearly taken out a dozy pedestrian crossing the cycleway and nearly been wiped out myself by an e-bike as well as witnessing numerous low impact collisions. It is inevitable that if you are effectively asking cyclists and pedestrians to share space there will be more collisions between the two and it isn't possible that there haven't been any. The offset should be that fewer cyclists are sharing space with motor vehicles so while the number of collisions may rise they will overall tend to be less serious. At the moment the jury still seems to be out on this because the number of collisions involving cyclists on the bi-directional section between Chiswick Lane and King Street seems to have been rising before it was taken out of action. Hopefully the changes will address this issue by improving indications to cyclists and motorists at junctions.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1681d

Congratulations Tom, on winning today's prize for "Completely irrelevant waffling in answer to a genuine question"You win a sense of entitlement

Mark Warburton ● 1681d

Ditto Richard.

Adrian Irving ● 1681d

These are all the collisions reported to the police that involve an injury. Collisions that do not involve an injury, or near misses, are not included. You can find all the data at https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/safety-and-security/road-safety/london-collision-mapOf course data from less than a year of operation are not going to capture some shifts in risk, and the upgrade on the Chiswick Lane to Kings Street section will likely change the risks again. Inevitably there will also be a period of adjustment as people become more accustomed to the new layouts. However, even this limited data excludes the possibility that the injury risk to pedestrians from cyclists has increased dramatically, as some have claimed. The largest risk to pedestrians on the High Road continues to be motor vehicles, especially motorbikes.

Tom Pike ● 1681d

I actually wrote to both Hounslow and TfL suggesting this long before I heard of the collision of the blind gentleman and the e-bike (who we have not heard any more about) and I was probably not the only person who would have drawn their attention to the dream in which some people sometimes get off a bus (eg me!) and a possible helpful solution. Change is always difficult and more difficult for some people than others.  They may well have been already considering it beforehand anyway so it is unfair to think that they would wait for collisions.

Philippa Bond ● 1681d

Were the motorcycles using the cycle lane?That can be seen all the time all over the city.

David Lesniak ● 1681d

The exact location gives one collision happening in the middle of the roadway, and the other on the northern side, so neither in the cycle lane.I've seen motorbikes parked in cycle lanes, but not one actually driving along one. Apart from other bikes, the most common users I've seen have been on mobility scooters.

Tom Pike ● 1681d

"In the last ten years, 33 pedestrians have been injured"So that is 3.3 injuries per year which means a typical year would see 3-4 injuries, and if there have been 2 injuries since the end of September (i.e less than 5 months) that means a full year of C9 operating if the injury rate continued at the same level we would have just under 5 injuries in that 12 months period.Technically that would mean that the high road with C9 operating is more dangerous for pedestrians but that is subject to the two obvious caveats that we only have a few months of data for CHR with C9 and the other thing that needs to be taken into account is whether the High Road is being used by more or less vehicles and pedestrians than in the previous years.I think a lot more analysis would be needed (and more time and therefore more data as to how CHR works with C9 in operation) before we could say with any degree of confidence that CHR with C9 is more (or less) dangerous than CHR without C9

Justin Stephenson ● 1681d

Sorry Tom but if you put a cycle lane through an area where there are lots of pedestrians and make it bi-directional the injury risk is necessarily going to increase dramatically.The data you are using will tend to understate injuries involving cyclists and pedestrians because they usually be more minor and are less likely to be reported to the police because an insurance claim is less practical.As I said the offset to this is that the Cycle lane aims to reduce the chance of much more serious injuries involving cyclist and motor vehicles. Whether it is achieving this we aren't going to know until the new design has been operating for several months.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1681d

It's not applicable to all bus routes that run by a cycle route with the bus islands & it's also not a policy change communicated within TfL (or if it is, they haven't told the people who deal with complaints, etc), so one can only imagine that it is in response to incidents.

Mark Warburton ● 1681d

Phillipa, can you tell us more about the collision between the blind person and the e-bike?

Francis Rowe ● 1681d

It was a one-off post made on here by someone who claimed to have had a contretemps with an e-bike when getting off a bus.  I don't believe we heard any more although Julian tweeted the details to Ruth Cadbury. So we don't actually know if it was for real or not.

Philippa Bond ● 1681d

The announcements were introduced in 2018 as a result of consultation about bus stop bypasses with vulnerable groups. They were in use elsewhere when  C9 was still being designed. https://therantyhighwayman.blogspot.com/2021/10/floating-bus-stops.html?m=1

Tom Pike ● 1681d

Plenty of motorbikes and illegal e-scooters using the cycle lanes, Tom. All you have to do is open your eyes.

David Lesniak ● 1681d

Tom, I couldn't find the reference to the announcements being introduced in 2018 in the link you provided although I may have missed it due to skim reading. I did see where 'The Ranty Highwayman' recommends that they be used but no confirmation that they actually were.I've only noticed the announcements recently on buses in Chiswick but I'm not a daily bus user and tend to listen to podcasts while on buses so may they may have been there for a while but certainly not since 2018.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1680d

Buses, trains and underground trains all seem to have some sort of messaging systems you can hear and see nowadays.  It is mostly a great improvement on my youth although I wonder whether Piccadilly line trains still tell you whether you are going towards Ealing Common or Heathrow after the doors have closed and you can't get out.

Philippa Bond ● 1680d

Standing at the westbound Bus Stop near the Metro Bank in yesterday's heavy rain..it was not an attractive idea to wait on the Bus Stop Island to wait for the 91H when the bus shelter was just across the two-way cycle path. So I took shelter.A nightmare and panic occurred when the bus suddenly arrived..with the rain not helping one's vision..left and right..and leaping over the puddles. What a nightmare.

Jim Lawes ● 1680d

Friends who use apps on their smartphones used to stay with us in the cafe at lunchtimes until they could see that the bus was approaching on their phones.  Not me - I didn't have one.It's always difficult in the rain but aren't there eventually going to be bus shelters (hopefully with planting on top)?

Philippa Bond ● 1680d

Don't think you missed anything Jeremy, the blog post suggests from the point of view of the writer that the announcements be introduced, but, crucially, doesn't reference them actually being introduced by any transport authority.Travelling on buses on CS7, which also has island bus stops, whilst I will freely admit that I tune out a lot of background noise of announcements (something that TfL have rightly been criticised for), I don't ever recall hearing/seeing a warning to watch out for cyclists as I alight.

Mark Warburton ● 1680d

That's interesting.As it stands, there doesn't seem to be any example of an active cycle lane warning on any route in London other than those on Chiswick High Road. Of course, there may be some but they seem to be rare. Have announcements been put in place for the new Hammersmith bus islands?

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1680d

What a state of affairs that we have to have announcements about exiting from a bus which are predominantly used by the elderly and disabled that they might get run over by a cyclist just because they dismounted from a bus. It is utterly appalling. Law suits are waiting.

Claire Moran ● 1680d

There are calls for removal of cycle  lanes quite often. Currently one in Scotland that’s considered a death trap. Never known health and safety thrown out so often just to replace it with another sometimes bigger safety issue. The world’s  gone crazy

Maggie Dodge ● 1680d

These aural warnings on buses have been introduced to deal either with actual or perceived risk. If actual risk, why have we designed an infrastructure which has increased risk for pedestrians, the most vulnerable road users in the new Highway Code hierarchy? And why are we putting an onus on bus users (including the less physically able) to mitigate that risk? Under the new hierarchy of road users, cyclists should be looking  out for (more vulnerable) pedestrians, no? Maybe we should have more warnings for the cyclists to slow down and give way when they approach bus stops? If perceived risk, why have we created an infrastructure which makes bus users feel less safe? We should be encouraging public transport use as it  has the capacity to move many more people efficiently from A to B than cycling does - certainly at the moment.  And all at a time when TfL is strapped for cash and desperately needing revenue.Active Travel is a con for pedestrians.  It is supposed to be about cycling and walking but to brigade two quite different activities together like this is, at best, a lack of understanding, at worst a deliberate obfuscation.  In reality the whole policy is focussed only on cycling while pedestrians (who are still the majority - we all have to walk at some stage) are ignored. I guess some of this has to do with the fact that cycling lobbies are now very effective.  “Living Streets” (used to be called the Pedestrians Association) on the other hand seems to have a very low profile.

Marie Power ● 1679d

These announcements were used before C9:"A bus stop bypass involves routing the cycle track behind the bus passenger boarding area to maintain the separation of people cycling from motor traffic. These are an important safety feature of segregated cycle routes, including the proposed CS4 and CS9."On buses servicing bus stops with bypasses, audio announcements and visual alerts remind passengers that they are getting off the bus onto a bus stop where there is an adjacent cycle nearby. The alerts also encourage passengers to use the marked crossings points."https://ehq-production-europe.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/7c94be39907c50bf2dd2d59bb74ea5c6c628dfbf/original/1632907752/484701e9e0f143f77a60bc5859b88ffe_bus-stop-bypass-information-1.pdf?X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAIBJCUKKD4ZO4WUUA%2F20220216%2Feu-west-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20220216T153610Z&X-Amz-Expires=300&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=36d50559662ee254431f58de5753ed788e2e6c75d0f93fd9ecb041e8702b7500

Tom Pike ● 1679d

So the announcements are devised to deal with actual rather than perceived extra risk then.

Marie Power ● 1679d

So are you saying that it is Standard Operating Practice for TfL to introduce announcements for stops on bus bypasses? Is it possible to have one other example of where this happens just to confirm Chiswick isn't unique?

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1679d

It is change that can be problematic for people and it is more difficult for some than for others.  Pedestrians quite rightly complain about cyclists particularly those cycling fast on the pavements... Cyclists complain about the dangerous, fast and aggressive driving of motorists on the roads and motorists just seem to complain about everything.  A fairer reallocation of space is needed for everyone!

Philippa Bond ● 1679d

The announcements were introduced as a result of a consultation with representatives from vulnerable groups, not because of actual incidents. For context, bus bypasses have been around for at least fifteen years, well before C9 was even proposed.

Tom Pike ● 1679d

It’s not just a fairer allocation of space that’s needed it’s a safer allocation of space.  At the  moment pedestrians are put at extra risk by all other forms of  transport - cars, cyclists, e-scooters, whatever.  There is no safe space for pedestrians and the pedestrian’s lot is being made riskier eg by bus islands.  I get frustrated by the trotting out of the “change is difficult” argument, frankly.  The essence of good design is to anticipate problems and design out risk as far as you can,  not to make it worse.  That would certainly make change more palatable for many.

Marie Power ● 1679d

From twitter in 2018:Caspar Hughes@countcaspargh·Apr 4, 2018: I noticed that announcement on the 25 when I used it on Good Friday. When did they start?1cycleoptic💙💚@cycleoptic·Apr 4, 2018: been a few months.

Tom Pike ● 1679d

"The essence of good design is to anticipate problems and design out risk as far as you can,  not to make it worse."Perhaps if you started a started a small fire in Pudding Lane, then London's streets could be re-designed for the 21st century, rather than the 17th, which is the last time the designers had a clean sheet to work with. Quite simply, most of London's roads are simply not wide enough to provide adequate space for all users, hence the need to compromise.

Richard Greenhough ● 1679d

I agree.  Reverse engineering in a centuries-old city like London is well-nigh impossible.  Which is why you should think twice before you design an infrastructure which will impact most adversely on the most vulnerable section of the community.

Marie Power ● 1679d

"The essence of good design is to anticipate problems and design out risk as far as you can,  not to make it worse"Marie is absolutely correct.Instead we have trial and error and experiments.

David Lesniak ● 1679d

Uber have been issuing warnings now about cycle lanes when getting out of their cars when the journey is nearly completed

Paul Fisher ● 1678d

Thanks for clearing that up Tom.In an attempt to find the answer for myself I checked if the announcements were given on City Mapper because I know some partially sighted people use that as a means of navigation on public transport. The announcements aren't on it. I plan to contact them to encourage them to add them (presumably this is data that TfL can provide). If other people did this it would be great.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1678d

I don’t think you mean reverse engineering: that would require a coherent design of a city’s transport infrastructure in the first lane. London’s has been a continuous work in progress. There was no consultation or research a hundred years ago when the pavements were drastically narrowed and scores of trees removed from the High Road to try to improve the flow of motor traffic. Since that time hundreds of vulnerable people have been injured and many killed in collisions with motor vehicles on the High Road, and the annual toll from pollution is very significant. In contrast, the safety record of bus bypasses, with their design informed by extensive research and consultation, is very good, and there have been no injury collisions at them on the High Road. In fact the two pedestrian injuries have been recorded since C9 opened are below the annual averages.Engineering design should be based on evidence, and that evidence is quite clear that motor vehicles pose the largest threat to the most vulnerable.

Tom Pike ● 1678d

'there have been no injury collisions at them on the High Road'This seems to me highly unlikely having witnessed several close shaves and been personally involved in one. What you mean is that there have been no reported collisions which is down to thankfully most collisions between pedestrians and cyclists being quite minor. The way data is collected on this at the moment is deficient for the purposes of reaching any firm conclusions.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1678d

“Instead we have trial and error and experiments” All at huge costs

Maggie Dodge ● 1678d

"is quite clear that motor vehicles pose the largest threat to the most vulnerable."Tom, what is absolutely clear is that currently the greatest risk to Pedestrians, vulnerable and others, are the great number of cyclists who persist on cycling on pavements.Again I extend my invitation to meet at HT and CHR junction between 7am and 8am Monday to Friday,so you can do a count of cyclists on pavements and cars on pavements. However, I should point out that I've yet to see any cars using the pavements.

Loraine Pemberton ● 1678d

"There was no consultation or research a hundred years ago when the pavements were drastically narrowed and scores of trees removed from the High Road to try to improve the flow of motor traffic."Was that when the tramlines were taken up ? Since then it has been downhill all the way.

Richard Greenhough ● 1678d

Yet you have just posted from the same "deficient" database to suggest the risk to cyclists along C9 has increased. You can't have it both ways!

Tom Pike ● 1678d

Nice piece of mansplaining there, thank you.  I know what I meant.  Engineering design may well take a narrow view and be based just on evidence. But good design will also take account of potential outcomes and the law of unintended consequences, yes?  I maintain what I said about risk too.

Marie Power ● 1678d

“The announcements were introduced as a result of a consultation with representatives from vulnerable groups, not because of actual incidents. “Back to perceived risk, then.  Still not good.

Marie Power ● 1678d

Nor, Tom, can you compare over 100 years of data to the past year on CHR.  But do keep trying.

David Lesniak ● 1678d

Please go ahead and explain for yourself what you meant by reverse engineering - it wasn't the normal usage.Of course engineering design incorporates risk assessment, and that itself will be based on evidence, with a margin for unforeseen factors. Bus bypasses have been used for many years with no evidence of increased pedestrian injury rates, while there's extensive evidence of the risks to cyclists from unsegregated traffic. I don't think anyone would support ignoring the evidence and doing nothing to minimise the known risks in order to avoid some speculative risks that have not actually materialised.

Tom Pike ● 1678d

I don’t believe any further explanation is needed.  What I said was perfectly understandable, even if it mightn’t quite pass muster in engineering circles.But thank you for clarifying that the aural warnings were introduced as a result of perceived risk from vulnerable groups.  There’s clearly not a meeting of minds here so perhaps we could agree to disagree and move on?

Marie Power ● 1678d

Tom, just to go back to the data on this, you keep on asserting that there have been no increase in injury rates due to bus islands. What you mean is that there have been no significant increase in reported injury rates. Most injuries resulting from collisions by bus islands will be relatively minor and or will tend not to be reported because there is no legal obligation to do so unlike a collision with a motor vehicle. Also in a significant proportion of cases the cyclists may have departed the scene.More proper research is needed before firm conclusions can be reached but for the time being what is indisputable is that the perception that they are dangerous remains among the disabled, particularly the partially sighted, and the elderly.Given that bus islands are here to stay, the only way forward is to make them as safe as possible. One solution could be to make the area between the bus stop and the pavement over which a cycle lane crosses a pedestrian priority area. The new Highway Code effectively does this anyway but signage to this effect would encourage most cyclists to slow down and assume a pedestrian may step in front of them as they pass.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1675d

There are no injury collisions reported between pedestrians and cyclists in the last ten years on the High Road, so saying there has been “no significant increase” gives rather a misleading impression.Any assessment of the relative risks has to go with the data to make informed choices. It’s difficult to justify directing limited resources on perceived risks rather than tackling actual risks.I think you might have overlooked that there are raised marked zebra crossings between the pavement and the bus islands.

Tom Pike ● 1675d

So do you actually believe there has not been a collision between a cyclist and a pedestrian resulting in some injury over the last decade?

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1675d

No, all we can say is that none have been reported, but slight injuries are significantly under reported. Comparing the police reports with the national travel survey, pedestrian injuries are under reported by a factor of 3, and cyclist injuries by a factor of 7.

Tom Pike ● 1675d

Perhaps they are designing the bike route using Agile methodology:Agile practices include requirements discovery and solutions improvement through the collaborative effort of self-organizing and cross-functional teams with their customer(s)/end user(s),[2] adaptive planning, evolutionary development, early delivery, continual improvement, and flexible responses to changes in requirements, capacity, and understanding of the problems to be solved.

Will Watson ● 1675d

Who knew trail and error is now called something else?

David Lesniak ● 1675d

But really when you say 'none have been reported' there is a risk of implying none have happened so it is best avoided. The islands installed by H&F look better than the Hounslow ones not merely because of the shelters because the latter were done on the cheap. I don't believe everything is being done that reasonably could to maximise safety - signs for pedestrian priority around the islands would be a quick and easy way of significantly reducing the risk of collision and increasing the feeling of safety that vulnerable groups have about this kind of configuration.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1675d

The collision figures can only be based on reports. It would be strange to avoid mentioning a null return in any category - it's important information.A zebra crossing is a clear marking of pedestrian priority. More signage creates visual clutter making it more difficult to quickly assess information as well as obstructing the footway. There has been a lot of research done specifically on bus bypasses in this regard:  https://trl.co.uk/publications/bus-stop-bypasses-pedestrians-and-cyclists-surveyhttps://trl.co.uk/Uploads/TRL/Documents/TfL%20Cycling%20trials/ppr730_bus_stop_bypass_appendices_v1.pdf

Tom Pike ● 1675d

How many of the bus islands in this study were next to bi-directional cycle lanes?

Francis Rowe ● 1675d

In the second study, two of the six sites were on CS6 along Blackfriars, a two-way cycle lane:"It should be noted that in the video study the Blackfriars Road sites had the lowest numbers of interactions between pedestrians and cyclists."

Tom Pike ● 1675d

Tom,Do you actually do any work for IC ? You're one of CW4's most prolific contributors ! And all during working hours ? Hmmmm...

Loraine Pemberton ● 1675d

You are rather overestimating the effort required to find actual evidence. In the absence of evidence, continuously repeating the same old mantras can only get increasingly tedious for all concerned.

Tom Pike ● 1675d

Quick question, Tom, are pedestrians crossing perpendicularly to the cycle way on the bridge, or are they always parallel?Also wondering about the width of the entirety of CS6 vs CS9 as well as the context within a high road environment especially since CS6 is known to be primarily for commuting.

David Lesniak ● 1675d

I'm only familiar with the one actually on the bridge and the lack of interaction between pedestrians and cyclists may be down to relatively few people choosing to walk across Blackfriars Bridge. Given that the bus service is likely to be mainly used by office workers there would be a lower proportion of vulnerable users that for the stops in Chiswick so I'm not sure it tells us much about risk at the local stops.

Francis Rowe ● 1674d

Francis, the two-way cycleway stops studied were in Southwark, not on the bridge.  Stop SA is described as busy: it's just up from the Cut and serves Southwark tube station. In the survey, 91% stated not having a disability compared to 89% for London as a whole. David, the cycleway studied was 4 m wide, rather than the 2.5 m for C9 at the bus islands. There's a zebra crossing for bus passengers and they have to cross the cycleway to access the pavement.The busier SA bus bypass has been there since 2016 and there's been no reported collisions between pedestrians and cyclists.

Tom Pike ● 1674d

So, Tom, we really can't compare the performance of a CS and a CS-lite as you attempt to do.A 4-meter wide piece of cycle commuting infrastructure that stands alone is quite a different animal to a 2.5-meter piece rammed down the middle of a residential high road environment intended for poodlers and your kids.

David Lesniak ● 1674d

That infrastructure hardly stands alone. CS6 extends up to the City. Of course it's possible to claim any comparison is invalid because nothing is perfectly matched. However, do you think the risks to pedestrians are higher from pootlers (if not poodlers) and kids in Chiswick than from City commuters cycling through Southwark?

Tom Pike ● 1674d

Tom, you've used the phrase 'no reported collisions' again. Even you accept the dubious proposition that this means no actual collisions you have to accept the CHR bus island context is unique and the apparent good safety record of something with the same name gives no cause for complacency. I still think the best solution would be explicit pedestrian priority round these islands on C9. On C6 you have Hoxton hipsters looking to get to their jobs quickly so they are unlikely to give way but C9 seems more pitched at leisure usage and family groups who would be more than happy to.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1674d

It's for Everyone!  It just seems to me that a lot of people need to read the Highway Code and to also take note of the Laws which are referenced in it eg not overtaking the first stationary vehicle at a zebra crossing!Teaching to the test is a dangerous waste of time!

Philippa Bond ● 1674d

You are just choosing to misinterpret "no reported collisions" as meaning "no collisions" to set up a strawman! The fact remains that pedestrians on both the High Road and Blackfriars are reporting injuries from motor vehicles, not bikes, at these locations. It is odd to focus on an unreported possible threat to pedestrian safety at the expense of tackling the actual cause of the  real, reported injuries pedestrians are suffering  at these locations.As for pedestrian priority, what do you think a zebra crossing represents?

Tom Pike ● 1674d

“As for pedestrian priority, what do you think a zebra crossing represents?”Sounds as if you know, Tom.  Would be good if more cyclists cottoned on.  Then maybe pedestrians wouldn’t need to be told to cross the cycle lane with caution.

Marie Power ● 1674d

In business agile working is closely monitored and mistakes are not allowed to progress very far at all, as soon as they look as if they are a threat to the business they are rightly stopped.  And errors are paid for by the business.  When it comes to councils, mistakes are not monitored by anyone and we taxpayers pay.  Very different.

Claire Moran ● 1674d

"Mind the gap. Mind the gap between the train and the platform".Madness. Cancel trains and / or platforms.

Paul Campbell ● 1674d

Well as you've used the Tube as an example, I'm not saying that it is the most well-designed piece of transport going.  But let's not forget the age of the Tube.  C9 was designed within the last two years.  Surely we've learned a little in the interim?

Marie Power ● 1674d

Tom, these points have been made before and I thought you had conceded that 'no reported collisions' doesn't mean no collisions. Collisions involving motor vehicles are nearly always reported because the injuries tend to be more serious, the driver will be insured and is easily identifiable by a registration plate. Collisions involving cyclists tend not to be reported because the injuries tend to be more minor, the cyclist will not be insured and is not easily identifiable and can ride away from the scene with little prospect of any consequences.I am not arguing for licensing or registration for cyclists which I would agree is daft but saying that your use of the data to argue that a particular piece of infrastructure is definitely safe is unsound.On the point about zebra crossing and pedestrian priority - if you take the time to watch people getting off the bus on Chiswick High Road you'll observe that most do not actually use the zebra but just walk in the most direct way to their destination. The new Highway Code doesn't really make it fully clear who has priority if a pedestrian steps off a bus and is immediately at the kerb. Is he or she waiting to cross at that point? If so they would have priority? If not they should stop for cyclist but may not because they are not paying attention or don't expect cyclists to be coming from both directions.What I am suggesting is that signs should remove the ambiguity at the bus islands by confirming that people alighting from the bus have priority and indicating that cyclists should reduce speed when approaching. The reduction in travel time for cyclists would be minimal and safety for all would be increased significantly.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1673d

Sorry, Tom. I think the risks that are inherent in this scheme - and those that have been ignored by TfL tossing its own guidance to the wind - are a far greater risk to your kids in Chiswick. They are far more prone to bolting here and there when walking or cycling in and around the numerous intersections. Alas the wider commuting cycle lane cannot be compared with the narrower one serving the families in Chiswick. You're the one promoting this scheme for your kids. And yet you don't seem to care what might happen to them.

David Lesniak ● 1673d

"It just seems to me that a lot of people need to read the Highway Code"Philippa - how do you propose that get done? One group is required to by law. The other is not. Suggestions?

David Lesniak ● 1673d

Far from conceding the point, I actually provided the evidence that injuries of all types are under reported!The highest under-reporting of injuries is by cyclists themselves, and their injuries are most likely to be from collisions with cars, so I don't think your assumptions are correct. Pedestrian injuries are the least under-reported, though still less than one third of injuries are reported, again mainly from cars.There is no ambiguity: pedestrians at a zebra crossings have priority, and if they choose to cross elsewhere away from a junction, they do so at their own risk. It is exactly the same on cycleway or road but for some reason you think there is a specific issue for a cycleway while in fact the vast majority of injuries involve collisions with cars on the roadway.

Tom Pike ● 1673d

Tom, hate to say this but you have effectively conceded Jeremy's point. It may well be the case that other types of collisions are underreported but if you accept that those between cyclists and pedestrians are, then it is both logical and likely that they are happening. Any collision involving a car is far more likely to be reported because a) it is likely to result in more serious injury and b) the driver has to by law remain at the scene.The point is important because it means that you can't assume these  new types of road configurations are safe. You may argue that bus islands next to bi-directional cycle ways are not new but the limited number of examples that there are in London bear little relationship to the context in Chiswick. All Jeremy is saying is that we should be belt and braces for an untested configuration. If your interpretation of the Highway Code is correct, which I think it is, that actually strengthens the case for signage indicating pedestrian priority around bus islands.

Francis Rowe ● 1673d

Tom is right. I'm misinterpreting how the new Highway Code should operate here. The point remains that people alight from the bus and cross wherever suits - to say this is at their own risk is correctly legally but the authorities have a responsibility to act where the risk is clearly apparent.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1673d

Francis, you are missing my point! At no point have I disputed that collision injuries with cyclists are under reported. All collisions injuries are underreported, with the highest level of under reporting by cyclists and lowest by pedestrians, with motorcyclists and motor vehicle occupants in between. Given the level of underreporting of collision injuries varies between a factor of three (for pedestrians) to seven (with cyclists), and a motor vehicle is most likely to be involved in both, your assertion that motorists are far more likely to stop is misplaced, though that does not mean that the motorist is at fault. The motorist may well not even be aware that an injury occurred and injuries often occur as a result of taking an evasive manoeuvre. Very often the person injured does not feel it worth reporting to the police, and that will of course be more likely the less serious the injury. You and Jeremy are both exploiting the fact that there are no recorded injuries of pedestrians at bus islands to suggest these layouts represent a unique and unquantified threat of unreported slight injuries. You are ignoring the much greater and quantified threat of serious injury pedestrians face by existing infrastructure. Shouldn't a "belt and braces" approach be better applied to locations where pedestrians are actually reported as getting injured?

Tom Pike ● 1673d

Just over 2 weeks ago I reported on here and the Police that a cyclist riding illegally on the pavement from Heathfield Terrace past Exit Here and The Lamb as we were legally coming from Bleak House Lane and the illegal cyclist hit one of my dogs. The idiot cyclist didn't stop... I had to rush 7.2 kg Barney to the Vet. Btw theres no NHS for animals !Reported to police but guess what they care as much as this illegal moronic lycra clad cyclist did...

Loraine Pemberton ● 1673d

Tom, it is nonsense to suggest that because I am raising concern about this particular issue I am guilty of ignoring other more serious issues. You could use that logical fallacy to dismiss concerns raised by anybody about anything.Making a cycle lane pedestrian priority between the pavement and a bus island would reduce both the perception and actuality of risk. This would give more vulnerable sections of the community the confidence to use public transport. The downside is that occasionally cyclists might be delayed by a few seconds. Isn't the trade off worth it?

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1672d

The fallacy is to focus disproportionately on low risks rather than other much higher risks. I'm certainly not dismissing concerns raised about any risks, quite the opposite. Motor vehicles, not bicycles, are the real danger to pedestrians.There was a similar disproportionate focus on the loss of one tree near Chiswick Lane, when a whole grove of trees was removed to allow access to build the pedestrian walkway under Barnes bridge without any attracting any adverse comment.What's clear is that some people judge anything to do with C9 to a different standard. That's not consistent with a rational concern for the safety of vulnerable pedestrians or reducing emissions. Both would benefit most from lower traffic flows along the High Road.

Tom Pike ● 1672d

“ I was hit this morning by a bike - luckily not serious- walking up to the high road on a pavement- please bikers as you have empty roads use them instead of our pavements.” (From the “Sad Staveley Rd etc” thread)Maybe we need aural warnings for pedestrians to proceed with caution on pavements too, not just when they’re crossing the cycle lane.

Marie Power ● 1670d

We definitely need a return to patience and good manners.  There is free cycle training available provided by most Councils but unfortunately many are not just monetarily poor but also time poor.  There is more everybody could do to improve the situation - worldwide.

Philippa Bond ● 1670d