Forum Topic

You called out "Hounslow Cycling" in the subject line, but Hounslow Cycling were not quoted in the article.  It is fair to say there is no love lost between you and Michael which is why you tried to associate him with the false charge that he blamed the police for cyclists running red lights - which the LCC spokesperson didn't say, of course.  Perhaps you rely on people being lazy or not having access to a firewalled newspaper site and thought you could get away with your standard bullsh1t?  The LCC spokesperson said:"All road users, including cyclists, should obey the law at all times."And went on to say:"The best way to substantially reduce loss of life and life-changing injuries on London’s roads is to crack down on dangerous and illegal driving."If you can't tell from the context that they are talking about dangerous and illegal driving by motorists then it is no surprise that you get the wrong end of the stick so often.There were "115,584 casualties of all severities in 2020, down by 25% from 2019" which is correlated with the 21% reduction in traffic.  If you want fewer road deaths, particularly fewer pedestrian casualties (down by 32%) then fewer vehicles driving less is the best way to achieve it.https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-annual-report-2020/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-annual-report-2020The number 1 danger to pedestrians is not cyclists, obviously.  In fact, pedestrians knocking into each other (excluding altercations) led to the deaths of 4 times as many people as cyclists (12 vs 3 per average per year, SOURCE: nomisweb.co.uk).  Perhaps you should campaign for mandatory license plates for pedestrians?!You oppose measures to segregate cyclists from motor vehicles and pedestrians, which would make both cyclists and pedestrians safer because you don't care about pedestrian safety and you certainly don't care about cyclist safety.  Oh, and thanks for bringing my kids into this, arsehole.  What if I had said:"With luck it won't be your shop window getting a brick through it.  Fingers crossed".  You would take that as a threat, right?

Ed Saper ● 1634d

"How my any kids have been poisoned and knocked over by cars in Chiswick in the last decade?"I don't know how many kids have had slight to serious injuries from cars in the last 10 years in Chiswick.Looking at the Nomis data for London for 8 years (2013-2020), there were 81 children (U14) killed as pedestrians by cars and 67 killed as pedestrians by heavy vehicles (buses, lorries etc.).  There were a further 31 kids (U19) killed on their bikes in London traffic accidents.  The question - how many have been poisoned by car exhausts over the last decade in Chiswick - is easier to answer: 100%.The harm varies according to the exposure, but one of the most dangerous sources is diesel car exhausts idling outside schools - whether a traffic jam or from parents doing the drop offs.  This Unicef document points out that due to children's respiratory systems, lower height or being carried in a buggy, they are more exposed to toxic air than adults.  https://downloads.unicef.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/UUK-research-briefing-The-toxic-school-run-September-2018.pdfReducing children's exposure to pollution means accepting some inconveniences to how and where people can drive: the ULEZ reduces levels of diesel pollution, LTNs reduce pollution on local walking routes and school streets reduce pollution directly outside and inside schools.For those of you who claim to prioritise older people and demand that school streets are removed (i.e. Maggie), the outcome is more kids exposed to dangerous levels of pollution, which is why I described Maggie as "selfish" for refusing to accept any limitation on where she can pollute.  Of course, older people have a lifetime of exposure to toxic air which increases the risk of cancer, stroke and dementia, and they're particularly at risk on nice sunny days when traffic pollution builds up.  Around 20 people die prematurely per year in Chiswick from air pollution - and I'm willing to bet that all of them would have preferred to have had the chance to die old. 

Ed Saper ● 1633d

Dear sir,You request further detail on the accident report form which I am now happy to furnish. At approximately 10:45 pm on the aforementioned day, I was traveling by bike in a westerly direction on Chiswick High Road at considerable speed to deliver a significant number of pizzas to your client. At some point my load shifted, causing my bicycle to veer out of the cycle lane and into the “wands” marking the boundary, inflicting lacerations to my shins as I was propelled into the roadway. I’m pleased that by luck no motor vehicle intercepted my unanticipated path that now directed me straight to the kerb of a bus “island”. I decided my best course of action was to hang on.As my front tire hit the kerb, I received a considerable reactive force between my saddle and the tenderest part of my anatomy, but could only feel thankful that the substantial weight of my load prevented my being propelled over the handlebars. I regret I received no words of consolation from the surprisingly large crowd on the “island” for the hour of the evening who seemed rather more intent on pointing out my absence of any identifying marks. Having passed through my hostile audience at some speed, I was propelled off the kerb the other side of the “island”, and on landing on the roadway my saddle imparted a second impact to the already tenderized portion of my anatomy. At that point my load shifted a second time, causing my bicycle to veer back into the cycle lane, though only after my shins suffered a second set of contusions from the “wands”. I think at that point the considerable pain may have caused a momentary lapse of concentration. I can find no other explanation for continuing my progress through a red light causing other vehicles to take evasive action. While I am pleased to say I was able to complete delivery to your clients, I have little recollection of any further details.  I hope this account provides justification for my request for one day’s sick leave before I hope to gingerly take to the saddle again.

Tom Pike ● 1633d

The lights on Dukes Avenue, together with those on Heathfield Terrace, and even more so those at the junction between King St and Goldhawk Rd, are beyond useless. I stop at them because I have to, but in my experience of cycling and driving on many continents and many countries I can't remember other countries where a junction has to have separate flows for vehicles turning off the junction, especially small ones like the ones in this example. It's not too much to ask drivers turning off CHR and into Dukes Avenue, for instance, to give way to the cyclists or pedestrians crossing Dukes Ave. It's the way it's done, for instance, on the Continent and I haven't seen legions of people being flattened like pizzas because of that. Might help speeding up the traffic flow since we'd simplify quite a bit the flow of stoplights. I'd also wager that it might help reducing accidents. For instance, in my commute to/from work I encounter about 27 stoplights (there or thereabouts). There are days, like Monday last week, where I had fifteen reds in a row. Like, one after the other. Stopping at the lights is no big deal when you drive, but when you run or cycle it really breaks up the flow of things and, especially for cycling, puts you back in the thick of traffic (which is where accidents or close call happens). As I stopped at every single light I saw plenty of people not doing that: cyclists, sure, and plenty of pedestrians. 99% of jaywalks or red lights being jumped went fine and here's the issue. Eventually you'll find the intersection where the traffic light is REALLY needed, and you'll be run over. It's a well-researched problem, where we start filtering out overabundant stimuli.If we had a bit more of an intelligent approach to how traffic lights are setup, allowing pedestrians to cross Dukes Avenue while the lights are green for CHR, then we limit the overabundance of stops and reduce the risk. And police the infractions where are really required.

Francis Sheehan ● 1632d