Ed - for someone I understand to be trained in the sciences you seem very loose with facts and appear to have drunk the Cllr Dunne kool aid (who did most last summer to spread the falsehoods you now state, while obfuscating the fact that it was actually the Council's cycle collision data that was falsified, presumably since she knew this to be the case).So unlike you, I went back and looked at the evidence, namely the "Council Meeting" you refer to, which was the Oversight Committee meeting on 13 July 2021. Let me explain. The original TfL press release (9 July) said the following: "Provisional data from the Metropolitan Police also suggests that it is now safer to cycle along Chiswick High Road than before the cycle lanes were introduced. In the 12 months before TfL introduced new temporary cycle lanes to Chiswick High Road, there were eight collisions involving a cyclist, while in the six months since TfL introduced the temporary scheme, there have been two such collisions." There is no mention of TfL referring to part of CHR. So it strikes me that the original One Chiswick response was justified in pointing to a higher number of collisions (along the whole of CHR) that were in the Police data. TfL then clarified at the Oversight meeting 13 July that it was actually referring only to the part of CHR where the segregated cycle lane was put in. (There was not to my knowledge any clarification of this beforehand, by TfL or LBH.) That's fine, but it is wrong to say One Chiswick falsified their data - they simply responded to TfL's press release.Second, at 2h55m when Cllr Biddolph speaks, she does not refer to any number of collisions, but says she has "different figures" for the "accident statistics".So, I think Ed, you owe not only Cllr Biddolph an apology who did not appear to "promote falsified data", but also OneChiswick, who appeared to have calculated their data in good faith as a response to TfL and LBH. But moreover can we rely on the cycle collision data TfL and LBH provided?TfL claim there were two cycle collisions involving injury, along its length, in the first six months of the Cycleway's operation, and so do LBHounslow in their approval of C9 - it is in all the Cabinet Papers - you can look, as they are online. But if you look at the Police data at the time, there were at least 4 in this period (perhaps 5, but it looks like one was entered twice, so let's say 4). So where is the difference? It comes in TfL not having ratified a cycling collision involving injury at the end of April and another in June. So they simply didn't include them. So to say that "in the six months since TfL introduced the temporary scheme, there have been two such collisions" is most definitely, factually false, since they have only measured at a maximum a 4 month (and a bit) period from the start of the cycleway in December 2020 - not 6 months. The TfL representative at the Oversight committee on 13 July confirmed this methodology. I hope Ed, you can see the implications of these facts. By claiming only 2 collisions in 6 months, TfL could claim a pro rata reduction from 6 in the prior 12 months. Had it used the 4 (or 5) accidents shown in the 6 months by the Police data, it could not claim a pro rata reduction in its press release.So in conclusion, it appears that TfL has misrepresented the safety of C9 in its press release and Hanif Khan and the officers of LB Hounslow have misrepresented it in the papers provided to Cabinet for its approval.If that's not misconduct in office, I'm not sure what is?We look forward to reading your apologies.
Amanda Smith ● 1648d