Forum Topic

Paul Campbell · 07/09/2022 17:32:00

new.ChiswickW4.com Communtity Forum Topic posting

Video of new Chiswick section of Cycleway 9

Here is the cyclist's view of the new section between Chiswick Lane and Goldhawk Road taken on the opening day 8th July 2022.
A sinuous thing of deliciousness retrofitted to the street space rather cleverly by the designers. Those side road treatments are what we will be getting on all the roads off Chiswick High Road between Chiswick Lane and Heathfield Terrace in the next upgrade of the temporary design to permanent. They calm the traffic, visually emphasise the priority of cyclists and pedestrians over cars turning into and from side roads and they generally just improve conditions for both pedestrians and cyclists. One day this is the design that will extend all the way to Hammersmith and will probably include the closing of Rivercourt and Weltje Roads at the A4. Plenty more of this content coming.

Paul Campbell ● 1535d160 Comments

That is an issue Not much room at the crossing and the guy's bum is hanging over the cycle lane as he bends down to his kid

Julian Pavey ● 1535d

Thanks, Paul, for memorialising these facts:1) Abandoned bus shelter cluttering the pavement2) Absence of bus shelter where there should be one3) Lack of adequate refuge for pedestrians (note the prams immediately adjacent to vehicular traffic)4) E-bikes outside authorised get-fencing cluttering pavement5) Weeds. Loads of weeds. 6) Blobs of tarmac replacing pavers but posing as sidewalk space7) Zero bike racks - not sure how that delivers promised trade8) Zero benches - not sure how that delivers promised pedestrian upgrade9) Low-hanging branches 10) Cyclist not using new cycle pathWhat you missed was a guy on an e-bike with custom super fat tires zooming along doing a delivery. If he were to smash into another cyclist, who's at fault? Him? Or the 5-year old?

David Lesniak ● 1535d

While some of the issues you raise are correct they are mainly trivial and, in some cases, nothing to do with the cycleway.I cycled up and down it today and, it was broadly a good experience although there was little traffic either pedal or motor. It may be different when there is congestion and vehicles emerging from side roads lay across the cycleway but, as Paul says, the treatment of the intersection with side roads is much improved.At the Chiswick Lane junction going west, I dismounted for a while to observe how it operates and it does seem problematic. The green phase for the left turn for cyclists coincides with a green phase for pedestrians. Also the access point for the hotel means that it is easy for cyclists to transfer back into general traffic just before the lights and it won't take long for regular users to work out you can save some time by picking which ever option is green.This is a complicated junction and it probably accounts for some of the delay in implementation.

Mark Evans ● 1535d

All very nice but in the video I counted, and this is approx cos i was going dizzy, 24 cars, 3 buses, 4 vans, 3 taxis, but only 12 cyclists, all sharing equal space, on a beautiful sunny cycling day. If that's the best we can do, what will it be like on a cold wet November day? Still, it's only money.

Stephen Gould ● 1535d

I’m sure his obsession with onesie pyjamas will explain all, soon.

Russell Pearson ● 1535d

Isn't there a lot less space dedicated to cycles than there is available to all road traffic?That's not quite 'equal space' in my book.

Andrew Jones ● 1535d

Credit to Stephen for counting. Unwittingly (because of his mistake on the % of space allocated to cycling vs. motor vehicles) he has demonstrated that just a few hours after opening the cycle lane was carrying more than its fair share of journeys on Chiswick High Road. Did somebody mention modal share? Gratifying and very encouraging.

Paul Campbell ● 1535d

I am sure that selfish cyclists like it, they are a very selfish and over proud group; for elderly pedestrians it's a nightmare. We now have two roads to cross and while the buses, lorries etc will often stop to let us cross the main road the cyclists can't be bothered; they just power-on. I have been asked to get out of the f---ing way by a women cycling on the pavement recently.

Michael Preece ● 1535d

"While some of the issues you raise are correct they are mainly trivial and, in some cases, nothing to do with the cycleway"Incorrect, Mark. They have everything to do with the cycleway as these changes were made only because of it. Add to that the incessant droning from people like Will Norman, Ruth Cadbury, LCC and HCC about how this expenditure will improve walking as well as cycling and we have abject failure to achieve the remit. Ditto the goal to create an uptick in public transit. Hammersmith now has at least four new bus shelters on their very obviously temporary cycleway. They've even removed the old ones. Chiswick has done neither. Just one example of the so-called "trivial" issues.And if you're inclined to join up the dots of TfL's very own goals, why doesn't this scheme do a damn thing to green the high street and make it more inviting to help bolster the local economies? It's their agenda. Which they've also failed to achieve. This isn't a one-note goal. Only a one-note solution. Their goal. Their solution. Their failure.

David Lesniak ● 1534d

Between Heathfield Terrace and Chiswick Lane many cyclists seem to prefer the pavement, you know the the bit of CHR for Pedestrians, or the road. Wonder why that is ?

Loraine Pemberton ● 1534d

Another cyclists squeezed past my car at the traffic lights on Acton Lane, far too close for my liking, opposite the HSBC, in order to sail through the red light. That’s a busy junction, that’s asking for trouble .

Maggie Dodge ● 1534d

I read on the Chiswick W4 web site that the dedicated cycle way runs from Kew to Hammersmith - is this true ?

Julian Smith ● 1534d

" If that's the best we can do, what will it be like on a cold wet November day? Still, it's only money."Of course it's the best they can do because the cycle path was not wanted in the first place. Money down the drain.

Steve Taylor ● 1534d

"the cyclists can't be bothered; they just power-on. I have been asked to get out of the f---ing way by a women cycling on the pavement recently."That's exactly why they are the most despised species on the planet!

Steve Taylor ● 1534d

I am thrilled to see so many motorists ignoring the ridiculous guidance to give priority to cyclists over cars turning into and from side roads. It is the most dangerous (and stupid) advice in the Highway Code for a long time. I will not permit a cyclist to undertake me so if I am going to turn left into a side road I straddle the cycle lane and indicate that I will be turning left. It's then the cyclist's responsibility to hold back and wait for be to turn.

Steve Taylor ● 1534d

"the cycle path was not wanted in the first place". If only there were fewer cars on the road, the need for a cycle path would not be as great. Not just fewer cars, car drivers obeyed the 1.5m distancing rule would also be a major aid in encouraging more people like me to get on a bike. When I left Munich to return to London I left mine behind, knowing full well how impatient and ill disciplined so many drivers on London roads are. Not all cyclists are angels but on the whole much less terrifying than motorists.

Sue Rowe ● 1534d

But, of course in Germany where cycling infrastructure is provided, in many cases its use is mandated and clearly signed. Thyere are fines for ignoring the "mandated use" signs.Would that it were the case in London

N V Brooks ● 1534d

What reason is given for not making cycle lane use mandatory? Anyone?

Maggie Dodge ● 1534d

Maggie, quite simply the hard core cyclists want cycle lanes, roads and pavements !

Loraine Pemberton ● 1534d

I would think one reason could be that it can sometimes make things more dangerous e.g. if someone was cycling from Sainsburys to Turnham Green Terrace, a good route might be along Dolman Road, right into Fishers Lane, left into CHR and then left into TGT.It really would make no sense to force cyclists to use the existing cycle lane along the CHR part of the route.Sometimes you are going to have to get out of the cycle lane anyway to get to where you want to get to, if where you are going to is not along a cycle lane.If there was a cycle lane on both the north side and the south side of CHR it might be different, but CHR isn't wide enough for that to happen, unless you have something pretty radical like narrowing the pavements (with consequent loss of trees and pedestrian space) or not allowing private motorists to access CHR. Neither of these are realistic (or likely to be popular) options.

Andrew Jones ● 1534d

I’m not sure I like that answer 😂The whole purpose, I thought, for the imposition of the cycle lane was cyclists’ safety. It has always been the case that cyclists have to leave cycle lanes from time to time:? so they’ll likely just demand more and more, equally imperfect, that they won’t be compelled to use , for the same reason. Really I still think that cyclists should have stuck to using existing cycle lanes, back streets and whatever route they felt safest using. if the worst that would happen was a bit of a detour. C9 is still being tweaked and discussions continue. Doesn’t this prove it’s an expensive mistake ? ?

Maggie Dodge ● 1534d

Cant you cycle along the cycle path and get off and cross he road and get back on your bike to go down tgt.I know,cycle over the crossing.Someone did that on the zebra outside the george and mounted pavement on thursday evening. Considering i was about to cross but slightly blinded by an arctic stopped at the zebra he recieved the F'ing get off the pavement from me when mounting the pavement. He did get off but gave me the finger about 5 ft away in anger. Lucky for him that is all he did in his burst of anger.

Julian Pavey ● 1534d

Steve, is it you who admitted riding a motorbike at way above the speed limit? And now you're admitting aggressive behaviour by blocking cycle lanes and not following the "guidance". Aren't you just proving why a dedicated cycle lane might be required? I guess that wasn't your intention.

Nora Watkins ● 1534d

We rode it today from TGT to Hammersmith, it's a wonderful provision for cyclists and and we saw many other users. To the person who commented there are only 12 cyclists - it's a 2 min video a so grossed up that's 360/hour or 3600 over 10 hours. Seems pretty popular to me compared to the 10 or so people on here who complain about it ;)

David Ewen ● 1534d

The maths is correct but that is on a fine sunny day at what looked to be a relatively quiet time for traffic generally.I would expect during rush hours to see a few more cyclists and during wet days a lot fewer cyclists. We need proper data for a least a year of how many people are using C9 before making a decision as to how popular it is

Justin Stephenson ● 1534d

Sure, but this video is by no means evidence of low usage.

David Ewen ● 1534d

Yep. That was me, Nora. However, my speeding on a motorcycle certainly doesn’t warrant a cycle lane. Why would it? My motor cycle speeding on a motorway has nothing to do with cyclists. Also my turning left without waiting for cyclists undercutting me on the cycle lane in no way suggests that cycle lanes are necessary. Quite the contrary. It suggests that cycle lanes are dangerous and made more so by the morons who decided that cars turning left should give way to cyclists going straight! Not gonna happen!

Steve Taylor ● 1534d

“ When I left Munich to return to London I left mine behind, knowing full well how impatient and ill disciplined so many drivers on London roads are.”That’s good. If only there were more like you. It’s fantastic that wannabe cyclists are getting the message and thinking twice about it.

Steve Taylor ● 1534d

It shows a lack of concern about other road users, that's why I mentioned it. How do you feel about the rules about pedestrians having right of way while cross the road? Is that also something else you ignore?

Nora Watkins ● 1534d

Reading your rabid posts against cyclists makes Paul Campbell's seem reasonable in comparison.

Andrew Jones ● 1534d

Can you confirm whether you consider it safe? It was sold as being needed for its safety aspect for nervous cyclists and children. Now the excuse for not using it seems to be that’s it’s not safe. Or there are better alternatives .As a non cyclist I’m a tad confused

Maggie Dodge ● 1534d

Yes it's safe, you feel safer and more relaxed, separated from the other traffic.

David Ewen ● 1534d

But others disagree. It’s the reason given for not using it 🤷‍♀️

Maggie Dodge ● 1534d

"Yes it's safe, you feel safer and more relaxed, separated from the other traffic."Yet many are too scared to use it!!??

Steve Taylor ● 1534d

If you want to get from Chiswick to Hammersmith on a bike without stopping, the best route is still on the A4. No pedestrians or, if there are occasionally, ride past them on the grass verge.If you want to go to CHR for shopping on a bike, then why not become a pedestrian for the difficult bits? Walk your bike. Cross by the zebras on foot. This isn't possible with a car but with a bike you have that ability to negotiate roads as either a cyclist or a pedestrian and, really, would it take you much longer?

Vivienne Cox ● 1534d

Hi Maggie, I haven’t ridden a bike for a few years - chiefly because a) my last bike was stolen and I worry about security and b) because I live in a small flat and it was always awkward when I did have a bike.I’d love to cycle the cycle route to give a more informed opinion, but, FWIW, here are my thoughts.I don’t think the cycle lane is intrinsically unsafe, but as I mentioned previously there are journeys I can imagine being easier to undertake without using the cycling lane. The other thing I’d like to say is different people feel differently about how safe/unsafe something feels.I have friends who are experienced drivers who just won’t drive in London - they say it’s just too busy.There will be some people who find the segregation from motorised traffic the cycle lane offers reassuring, and others who prefer to not be confined to a narrow stretch of roadway with less experienced cyclists.

Andrew Jones ● 1534d

So Andrew, there seems no clear answer as to whether the cycle lane was worth all the money and continued disruption to the motorists, bus passengers and pedestrians, including the elderly and less able. I note what you say about motorist not wanting to drive in London. Has anyone suggested spending millions and disrupting the lives of all Londoners to try to make motorists more comfortable . Then tweaking it if it’s not quite right and spending more money? Sounds crazy doesn’t it? People have bent over backwards to assist cyclists, blocking roads, removing bus lanes etc etc bike hangars, secure bike storage in shopping areas. Whilst making driving and parking harder and more expensive. Seems the cyclist definitely have disproportionate influence

Maggie Dodge ● 1533d

Some have asked if CS9 is better than riding on the street. I know full well that this is a loaded question, for those who are asking it are the ones for whom every problem in the world stem from the 'evil cycle lobby'. Still, here's my response as a cyclist.YES IT IS SAFER.Not having to go through the Chiswick Roundabout, or the Hammersmith gyratory, undoubtedly is a lifesaver. No ifs, no buts. When a car and a bike collide, the cyclist often dies. End of. This cycleway eliminates the need for bike and vehicles to 'mingle' in two of the worst spots in West London and boy am I glad that it's the case. Especially when there's people around like our Steve Taylor who's made no qualms about not wanting to respect the Highway Code (and similar rules that are in place throughout much of the developed world... the UK has been an outlier for a long while on this).

Francis Sheehan ● 1533d

Was there ever consideration of how to deal with Chiswick Roundabout and Hammersmith gyratory, that didn’t involve the miles in between, Chiswick High Road, for instance, where it causes the most inconvenience to everyone who isn’t a cyclist? When can we expect a crackdown on pavement cycling that risks injury to pedestrians, including the elderly, children and the less able. Also red light jumping which risks collisions between cyclist and ten ton chunks of metal also known as motor vehicles, which cyclists should rightly be wary of?

Maggie Dodge ● 1533d

“If you want to go to CHR for shopping on a bike, then why not become a pedestrian for the difficult bits? Walk your bike. Cross by the zebras on foot. “You are joking aren’t you!!?? When do you ever see a cyclists dismounting in order to adhere to the law, let alone as a common courtesy to others!! It’s just not in the DNA in London.

Steve Taylor ● 1533d

Dearest Maggie,It's very clear from even a cursory glance at your posting on this website that you don't like cyclists. It's not for me to ascertain why, and to be really honest it's not like I'm dying to do so. But the fact is that people cycle in London. People will continue cycling in London. And it is in the wider interest of the community that we avoid them dying. You and others on this forum have made it abundantly clear that you don't lose sleep on that (cite for instance that "oops" thread about the collision in Richmond Park, or the bullying to the poor forumer who suffered a broken hip in Grove Park), but last year there have been 10 killed cyclists in London. 989 have been seriously injured.Think about it. Ten people died. Nine-hundred and eighty-nine have had to spend time in an hospital. Source: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/cyclist-death-road-crash-accident-numbers-london-b1008566.htmlI know one of them, hit by a turning taxi in East London. The cab didn't signal, invaded his lane, sent him flying and hit the kerb. The poor bloke suffered a crack in his vertebrae, a fractured arm and a mild concussion. He was off work for weeks. I ride to work because I find it weird (and expensive, and slow, and inconsiderate to others) to drive, and because it's cheaper than the Tube. Many, around me, do the same because of cost. On my commute into work I see all sorts of people who ride bicycles as they can't afford the extortionate prices for buses and trains and Tube here in London. The guy I mentioned earlier, the one used as bowling pin, is a cleaner in my office. You, and many on this forum, harp on and on about cyclists jumping red lights or riding on the pavement. And, sure, they happen. And, sure, they should be disciplined about it. In your view cyclists are some sort of marauding horde of raiders descending on London's streets, terrorising the elderly and scaring the young. How come, if this is the case, there were 10 cyclists killed in London last year? How come, if cyclists are such a threat, 989 have been seriously injured? The truth is that cyclists are much more likely to be a victim of inconsiderate motorists. Of people too busy chatting, calling, checking the sat-nav, doing their make-up or simply not giving a toss while behind the wheel. I see every day people who have clearly found their driver's licence in an Easter Egg. I also see dumb cyclists, but the difference is that if I crash into one of them I don't really hurt myself. If I didn't break for the woman who decided that she could turn into Brackley Road with her Volvo without indicating or turning her eyes up from the dashboard I'd be in hospital, or in a funeral's home.If there weren't cases like this, if cars and vehicles were driven properly and with care, if it wasn't the norm for morons to overtake on Chiswick Bridge or Kew bridge 10cm away from me while revving up... Then we wouldn't need bike lanes. But alas this is the situation. I know full well this is a waste of bytes and time, for you have demonstrated time and again that your (supposed) inconvenience outranks everything else, but here it is.

Francis Sheehan ● 1533d

FrancisYou're clearly a thoughtful and considerate cyclist, so would you please explain that now C9 is now fully operational why so many cyclists still persist in using the pavements and quite a few of them very aggressively if Pedestrians are in their way ?

Loraine Pemberton ● 1533d

I've just cycled back from Hammersmith on the newly opened sections for the first time and there was a cyclist coming the other way every few seconds. On South Parade there were more bikes than cars. This will only grow over this summer, so I'm sorry but the anti's will lose this argument. I don't buy the argument CS9 is unsafe, or only for inexperienced cyclists. On days I cycle into work in the City, I can get there in 50 minutes, not in lycra, stopping at every light including those on CS9 and the protected cycle ways that go 80% of the way to the City now, on a bike with only one gear, and make it in 50 minutes the same as by tube. The extra 10 minutes saved by taking to the main road or to be a dick and jump lights really is not worth it, to be less safe.

John Hall ● 1533d

Brilliantly put, Francis *applause*

David Ewen ● 1533d

I'm not familiar with arguments suggesting it's unsafe and I can't see how it can be considered so - I've ridden a bike in London for years and it seems very safe to me. Also it is getting a high level of usage from cyclists, if the video and my own experience on Sunday are anything to go by, so I guess anyone who thinks it's unsafe must be in a small minority and has possibly been overthinking it a bit.

David Ewen ● 1533d

Francis, no mention of Pedestrians and their safety - why is that ?

Loraine Pemberton ● 1533d

Don't worry Lorraine, I'm sure Councillor Biddolph will soon have erected a memorial to all the drivers, pedestrians and cyclists maimed and killed on CS9 since it opened!

John Hall ● 1533d

Loraine, thank you for not reading my post. "You, and many on this forum, harp on and on about cyclists jumping red lights or riding on the pavement. And, sure, they happen. And, sure, they should be disciplined about it. "

Francis Sheehan ● 1533d

No mention of anyone but cyclists! Typical and that gets a round of applause 👏

Maggie Dodge ● 1533d

Mr Hall, yet another of your unpleasant posts.

Loraine Pemberton ● 1533d

As expected, it was a waste of time. Still, gave me something to do while the new Power BI report was compiling...

Francis Sheehan ● 1533d

A longer video starting in Shepherds Bush taking in C9 from the gyratory to Heathfield Terrace.

Michael Robinson ● 1533d

We’ll done Maggie. When some old folks start karking it later this week in the heatwave you can be proud to have opposed what is just a small part of the solution.

John Hall ● 1533d

In the real world more than 50 people have enjoyed riding their bike safely along the cycle lane in the time that it takes one of the small number of anti-cycling frothers on this forum to type a post whining about it. It's time to ignore them. There is no opposition to the cycle lane any more. They've lost. Bigly.

Paul Campbell ● 1533d

Nice video, shows how pleasant and safe it is to use!

David Ewen ● 1533d

John, partly inspired by your post I have timed my morning commute to the City via the newly opened cycle lane over the last two mornings vs. A4 path to Hammermsith.Amazingly both ways took 44 mins from home to work. I think the priority for cyclists over side roads makes more of a difference to the speed of the journey than is immediately obvious. Weltje and Rivercourt in particular where on the A4 path they are often tricky to negotiate. And yes I stopped at the lights but Chiswick Lane to the Gyratory is a very smooth run.

Paul Campbell ● 1532d

Wonder if a local womble will be posting motorway videos next, to either make a cheap political punt about how busy they are, or even how popular they are?

Russell Pearson ● 1532d

I think the poster was hoping for a bit more enthusiasm.

Maggie Dodge ● 1532d

Thanks Paul.I'm a total fan of the cycleway.I've recently switched from driving to Holland Park to cycling, mainly because of CS9.

Simon Pedley ● 1531d

Let’s hope that’s continues in the bad, come, wet weather, because the cycleway is for life , 24/7 - 365 days a year. So it really does need more people using it. Bearing in mind how badly affected non cyclists are. Or do we only care about cyclists these days?

Maggie Dodge ● 1531d

"I've recently switched from driving to Holland Park to cycling, mainly because of CS9"What was wrong with the 94 bus?

Francis Rowe ● 1531d

Yes it's terrible, a dozen anticyclists being forced to whine 24/7 on an online forum.

John Hall ● 1531d

Traffic evaporation in action Simon. Well done! You can calculate your savings in fuel and depreciation and channel them into guilt-free purchases of bike gear.

Paul Campbell ● 1531d

Maybe it depends where you live in Chiswick as to how convenient a 94 is?

Andrew Jones ● 1531d

Oh, the humanity! Let's remember the real victims here - car drivers who have to share a road with pedestrians and cyclists and the measures introduced to stop them killing and maiming so many of them. Thoughts and prayers, Maggie.

Ed Saper ● 1531d

"What was wrong with the 94 bus?"In cycling parlance "loss of momentum" ie too slow !

Loraine Pemberton ● 1531d

PC: "Traffic evaporation in action Simon [Pedley]. Well done! You can calculate your savings in fuel and depreciation and channel them into guilt-free purchases of bike gear".The benefits aren't just financial, or (the equally obvious) increased fitness .Many drivers don't appreciate that they are exposed to much greater pollution while sitting in their car than other people:"Research of the university of Hasselt... ... pointed out that when traveling, people are exposed to 2 to 5 times the air pollution in comparison to when staying at home. The highest concentrations were measured for car drivers and passengers of both cars and busses. The concentrations to which people were exposed when moving on foot or by bike were about 50% lower." https://www.irceline.be/en/documentation/faq/who-is-most-susceptible-to-urban-air-pollution-pedestrian-cyclist-car-driver-or-bus-passenger-why"Who dealt it, smelt it!"

Richard Cathcart ● 1531d

"Who dealt it, smelt it!"Good point. Did you know that it is impossible to pedal and pass wind at the same time?The benefits to the individual who chooses to cycle instead of drive more journeys are varied and multiple. And of course they are also benefitting everybody around them by not polluting and not contributing to traffic congestion. Never mind the massively reduced risk they present to the safety of other road users. It's a win/win that multiplies with every individual like Simon who changes their travel habits because great infrastructure like this has been provided to enable and encourage them to do so.

Paul Campbell ● 1531d

I could take issue with almost everything you said. Cyclists are not saints. They can be a danger, jumping lights and riding on pavements. LTNs, created for cyclists, by cyclists, cause extended journey times for others, and therefore more pollution. The cycle lanes create congestion too. There only so much you can carry on a bike, even a cargo bike, so depends on what you need to carry as to whether it’s appropriate. There’s a chance your bike, possibly expensive may be stolen. The weather of course comes into the equation, for the less hardy. Remind me of the benefits ?

Maggie Dodge ● 1531d

Using Ed's example of hyperbole, I'll mention here cyclists stab people. Of course we could try to have an actual conversation about things that change the community, but where's the fun in that?

David Lesniak ● 1531d

"Cyclists are not saints." No, they're just people going from A to B — and they don't cause pollution or congestion, that's down to cars.

Ed Saper ● 1531d

I don't post on here much, because really, what's the point - mostly I come on here when I'm a bit bored and I want a little chuckle at the comments. 'Cycling has no benefits' has truly delivered on that front this afternoon, with an honourable mention going to the runner-up, 'cyclists stab people'. Honestly ;)

David Ewen ● 1531d

I think the point is whether there are benefits or detriments to other people . Cyclists tend to be only concerned about cyclists. To heck with the rest/ majority of the population. No one seems to want to address that , so I’ll bring it up from time to time

Maggie Dodge ● 1531d

First, it seems nonsensical, and a bit rude even, to say that cyclists don't care about anyone else, though if you have some data to prove that, I'm all ears. If we're going to talk about detriments to other people, arguments of selfishness and detriment to others apply multiple-fold to motorists - with pollution from cars proven to shorten lifespan and cause multiple health problems, London motorists jumping amber and sometimes red lights, 40 pedestrians a year in UK killed by motorists mounting the pavement, to name but 3 issues. I just think it's amusingly myopic that all your focus is on the relatively harmless bike, and none on the impact of the car. Surely if you are really concerned about detriment to others, start with cars? They are way worse than bikes. (And yes I do have one by the way, but tend to use bike or public transport in London.)

David Ewen ● 1531d

Every single time somebody uses a bike instead of a car they are providing a massive service to society. There should probably be a scheme where you get Queen's honours on a scale for the number of times you do it, culminating in a damehood or a knighthood for say 100,000 bike trips. Cycle campaigners should be made peers of the realm when they succeed in getting cycleways like this one put in.

Paul Campbell ● 1531d

> Cycle campaigners should be made peers of the realm when they succeed in getting cycleways like this one put in.If a doddery old Lord Lickspittle had done the job, he might have made a better job of it.

Russell Pearson ● 1531d

A FOI request confirmed the budget for this roughly quarter mile section was £3.3 million.Chuck in typical overspend/underestimate of twenty percent, Then sprinkle say an extra half a million for the original temporary path then you have a total spend just short of four and a half million.Let me repeat that, circa four and a half million. Quarter of a mile.

Adrian Irving ● 1531d

"Let me repeat that, circa four and a half million. Quarter of a mile."The average cost of a fatal road accident is £2m, and a serious accident nearly £0.25m. https://www.statista.com/statistics/322862/average-cost-of-road-accidents-and-casualties-in-great-britain-uk/The estimated social cost of air pollution in London is over £10 billion per year.Obesity costs the NHS over £6bn per year and 38% of London's 10 and 11-year olds were classed as overweight or obese when leaving primary school in 2017/18.Congestion costs the London economy over £5bn per year and around 2/3 of car trips made by Londoners each day could be cycled in under 20 minutes. So if a cycle lane helps to reduce obesity, air pollution, congestion and serious or fatal road accidents then it is worth the investment. Or you could spend £2bn on a 1 mile road (the Silvertown tunnel - £500m per 1/4 mile) and pretend that cyclists are responsible for air pollution, congestion and road accidents - and I hate to give Maggie ideas, but make cyclists responsible for childhood obesity as well while you're at it.

Ed Saper ● 1531d

When do you use your car then Paul? You won’t get a medal until you give it up. Stop flying. You know , stop being a hypocrite !

Maggie Dodge ● 1531d

Regarding road safety you obviously know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

David Burke ● 1531d

Reply to Mr.Irvine

David Burke ● 1531d

Oh Ed. No one believes all that obesity rubbish. There was a great picture of LCC members recently, almost all round bellied chaps. Your mistake is to assume, or pretend to assume, that anyone who doesn’t cycle, doesn’t exercise You’re not stupid are you? you just like to spread a false narrative with your mates. What do they say? 80% of cyclists also drive. Funny that.

Maggie Dodge ● 1531d

There are many studies that show that the return on investment in cycle infrastructure far outstrips investment in roads. And the old men shouting at clouds would be appalled if they found out how much is spent on roads. Cyclists are basically the Marvel superheroes of the real world.

Paul Campbell ● 1531d

If you look at the itemised works relating to that cost, most of it isn't directly concerned with constructing the cycle lane: Some of it benefits car and taxi users (left turn filter lane, drop off/pick up points), some, bus users (bus shelters, bus lanes) and some, pedestrians (zebra crossing move). There are only 2 points that relate directly to cyclists. I guess you would say that a lot of this would not have been necessary without the cycle lane, even so it doesn't seem an unreasonable amount given the amount of work to re-instate or improve on facilities for all road users and people would rightly moan even more if this money wasn't spent to do that. I've ridden a bike in London on and off for 40 years and for the huge majority of that time there has been no expenditure or prioritisation at all for cyclists in London, so this spend is long overdue in my view. The itemised list from the FOI request is below :)'Request for the budget and costs incurred for completion of the seven bullet points you set out: • Reinstate a left-turn filter lane at the junction of Chiswick Lane and Chiswick High Road to improve traffic flow and bus journey times • Introduce eastbound and westbound bus lanes between Holmfield Road and Netheravon Road to improve bus journey times • Install shelters at bus stops between Chiswick Lane and Heathfield Terrace • Introduce more pick-up and drop-off points for taxis and other vehicles between Chiswick Lane and Heathfield Terrace • Make changes to side road layouts to make cyclists more visible to vehicles • Relocate the zebra crossing near Linden Gardens slightly to the west to make pedestrians more visible to vehicles • Install more signs and road markings to make the cycle lanes more visible.'

David Ewen ● 1531d

MD: "When do you use your car then Paul? You won’t get a medal until you give it up. Stop flying. You know , stop being a hypocrite!"No pro-cycling advocate that I know, including Mr. Campbell, is proposing that cars should be banned - for many drivers and purposes, there is no realistic alternative.Rather the pro-cycling lobby merely suggest that unnecessary car usage should be discouraged, and cycling encouraged instead (also public transport and walking).As a matter of principle, do you agree or disagree with that stance?

Richard Cathcart ● 1531d

Ha Does that include money invested in cameras to widen the ULEZ zone for the fact it brings in large sums of money,money they are desparate for. Strangely camera investment is not available for other reasons. You would think its to stop people driving and get us to net zero.

Julian Pavey ● 1531d

ULEZ = polluter pays. A basic tenet of net zero. It is a very straightforward investment case. It's like the shield protecting Asgard but not as lethal.

Paul Campbell ● 1531d

"No one believes all that obesity rubbish."Well Maggie, I have peer reviewed studies that show a plausible link between driving and obesity, studies that show the negative correlation between active travel and obesity and you....you have a photo of an overweight cyclist.Good luck with that :-)

Ed Saper ● 1531d

I beg to disagree (with Maggie).I don't think there is anything inherently hypocritical about someone who promotes infrastructure for cyclists also having (and using) a car.That doesn't of course mean that such a person isn't a hypocrite, only that it doesn't automatically follow. It would be down to how they use their car as to whether they are a hypocrite.

Andrew Jones ● 1531d

Well, my post obviously touched a nerve, insults and super heros!If you cared to look, you would find no anti cycling or cycle lane persay posts from me but plenty about the its poor design and execution.BTW, if you must stoop to insults do try and get my name right.

Adrian Irving ● 1530d

My point is always that they have a car and use it, when they choose. I just want the same right. There seems to be an assumption that because I don’t cycle then I must be driving short journeys. That I need to change . Change what? Who know how much as a car owner I drive compared to a car owner, who also owns a bike? Theres an assumption that those who don’t cycle don’t exercise l. Where are the cheap/free gyms to encourage people who don’t want to cycle but want to exercise. Lots of money spent on stopping drivers getting where they need to drive to in the shortest time/distance possible. Lots of money on pro cycling initiatives. Why the obsession with cycling? It’s a minority activity, can be dangerous according to the cycle lobby. Let’s see some money spent on other initiatives to get people fit. Let’s ban cycling from parks to keep our children safe from cyclists. Acton Green has too many cyclists including cargo bikes.

Maggie Dodge ● 1530d

Well Maggie, there are Hounslow-funded leisure centres like Brentford Fountain, New Chiswick Pool etc, and lots of open air exercise gear appearing in parks - and in the parks themselves you can go for a free healthy walk or run, though I suspect I had better not get you started on runners. Average speed of traffic in London hasn't really changed for over 40 years, despite cycling lanes being a relatively recent thing, so maybe the thing stopping you getting somewhere quick is... the other motorists?

David Ewen ● 1530d

Runners, do I have a problem with them? Fountain Leisure Centre has been accused of being dirty almost from day one. Lack of investment in cleaners or upkeep, I'm not sure what the problem is. Chiswick Pool, I think they've made it difficult to get there, and its hardly free is it? Where is the local exercise equipment in parks locally, I only visit Acton Green on a regular basis and I don't think there is any there. Where my daughters live at least two parks have got new free exercise equipment, so I think they are rolling it out across the borough. How can anyone deny the cycle lane slows traffic and causes congestion. Its removed a lane and people queue up behind buses. The bus gate on the High Road caused people to rat run. Fishers Lane would be my preferred route to the High Road but that's out, so I queue up on Acton Lane made busier by the closure of Acton Lane.

Maggie Dodge ● 1530d

I never saw any sign of dirt when I took my daughter there on a regular basis - have you been yourself? New Chiswick Pool (very nice place, also offers a gym and exercise classes) has a small car park and the E3 stops outside so I am not sure why it's so hard to get to. There is free outdoor exercise gear in Southfield Rec and South Acton Park. Southfield Rec also has tennis courts and regular football played there, and distance markers for runners round the perimiter path. In Acton there are 2 low cost private sector gyms (PureGym and Kiss) and the newly refurbished Acton Pool which also has a gym and classes. Back in Chiswick, there is Rocks Lane offering football and tennis... need I go on? Seems like there is loads of provision for those not on two wheels.On your point regarding congestion, in pre-C9 days, CHR has always been congested, often to the point of gridlock when problems on the North Circ or A4/M4 knock on to the local traffic. Cars can easily create congestion all by themselves without any help from a modest bike lane. I suspect you will never accept the nevertheless true fact that roads are paid for by all taxpayers and are a common resource for all, not just motorists. It doesn't therefore seem unreasonable that in a few strategic areas some budget and space is allocated to users who aren't drivers. At an educated guess, a huge majority of roads in London don't have any cycling provision and never will, so you still have all that to yourself. Except for all the other motorists getting in the way, of course.

David Ewen ● 1530d

Was your post at 14/07/22 07:58:00 and commencing: "My point is always that they have a car and use it etc" a reply to my previous question to you?For if it was, it really doesnt address it, in fact doesn't even come close.So I will repeat my question, which is a sinple "Yes/No"RC: "Rather, the pro-cycling lobby merely suggest that unnecessary car usage should be discouraged, and cycling encouraged instead (also public transport and walking).As a matter of principle, do you agree or disagree with that stance?"

Richard Cathcart ● 1530d

> Cyclists tend to be only concerned about cyclists. I've cycled with many people who clearly care deeply about their community and others, some of them doing incredible work in many different ways to be part of their community and the people in it, whether it's cycling related or not.This is just nasty and dismissive from you Maggie Dodge.

Paul James ● 1530d

Maggie, you call Paul a hypocrite because he has a car and promotes cycling infrastructure. Pure and simple. Forget all the other baggage you've mentioned below, it's you calling Paul a hypocrite just because he has a car that I take issue with.Someone who has a gun isn't automatically a 'bad' person. But if they go round randomly shooting other people then they are a 'bad' person. It's an extreme analogy I know, and I'm not in any way likening cars to guns.I was shocked to read that just 2 miles of road/tunnel is expected to cost £2Bn ... maybe we could spend a little less on building roads for motor vehicles in this country and divert THAT money on other initiatives like you mentioned.PS PLease don't take me as some sort of apologist for Paul, he has come up with some rich ridiculous stuff e.g. his promotion of a boycott of those businesses who put up anti-cycle lane posters a few years back, and the way I think he deliberately winds some people up in a way I think demeans him.But having a car and promoting cycling isn't hypocritical by itself - it's how you use the car that's the key thing.

Andrew Jones ● 1530d

I should have said the cycle lobby, I apologise. Dismissive? When discussing the cycle path on the High Road, how often do the cycle lobby take the concerns of anyone else seriously. Floating bus stops. Buses held in traffic. Elderly trying to cross the road. These concerns aren’t dismissed they’re ignored.Where’s the comment to showing concern. I must have missed them.. oh someone said we need to relearn how to cross the road. That was helpful.

Maggie Dodge ● 1530d

"Forget all the other baggage you've mentioned below"Sorry that doesn't make sense! I was referring to some of the content of your post of 07.58 and it was below (on my screen) when I was composing my reply, but of course it's actually higher in the thread, rather than below my reply.

Andrew Jones ● 1530d

MD: "... someone said we need to relearn how to cross the road. That was helpful."If you're as good at dodging the traffic as you are at dodging a question, then I'm sure you'll be all right. Anyhow I try to be a charitable soul, so I'll give you another chance to answer mine from earlier, namely: RC: "Rather, the pro-cycling lobby merely suggest that unnecessary car usage should be discouraged, and cycling encouraged instead (also public transport and walking).As a matter of principle, do you agree or disagree with that stance?" (A simple Yes/No answer will suffice.)

Richard Cathcart ● 1530d

You are of course entitled to your opinion about me Andrew but I feel the need to correct what I see as a distortion of the truth in your post. I did not promote a boycott of businesses that put up that poster; I said I wouldn't shop in them and I did emphasise that was a personal choice. I am free to choose not to spend my money in places that are promoting a campaign that I consider to be contemptible, divisive and destructive. I maintain that position. I never suggested others should do the same. The owner of Snap Dragon agreed with me and apologised to me for a colleague putting up the poster naively while they were on holiday. The owner took it down when they got back as they supported the closure of Fishers Lane. They did not take exception to my voicing a personal choice. Other people who supported the "Hounslow Council is destroying Chiswick with a cycle lane" campaign distorted my position repeatedly to attack me personally and, by proxy, the campaign for safe cycling. And in a Trumpian way an alternative reality holds.Those people have made many mistakes along the way imho and one of their more minor ones has been to expend far too much energy collectively on trying to discredit my views on the cycle lane and reduction in use of cars in general. As if that would make any difference to anything or as if the people who are more influential in actual decision-making than me and share my views would listen to them. If you take a glance at the timeline of @mortonpeas on Twitter you will see that they are very actively engaged with a small group of like-minded people who are enraged by cycle lanes and LTNs and are riding a never-ending merry-go-round of dehumanising cyclists and personally attacking anybody who vocally supports cycling and road changes. This is their way and they are at it manically 24/7.As for deliberately winding some people up - guilty as charged! Sometimes I gather up the darts and throw them back and I enjoy it whether it demeans me or not.I thank you for your defence on the charge of hypocrisy. I think that your argument is far too nuanced for its audience to understand (they believe that people living in LTNs should be forced to relinquish the right to car ownership) and I can assure you that the people whose views I care least about are those to whom I never reply.

Paul Campbell ● 1530d

Hi Paul, it’s my recollection of events - I haven’t bothered to look back and see exactly what was said at the time and while my impression at the time was that you were telling us about all the shops that you would no longer be using I also thought you were encouraging others to follow suit. If that’s not the case, my apologies, no distortion of the truth was intended.There’s enough twisting of people’s words on this forum without me unintentionally adding to it.I support a rebalancing of the provision of road space as you can probably tell though I do consider some of what you say should happen a bit on the extreme side. Then again, some of the views of the pro-car pundits are just as extreme (IMHO).

Andrew Jones ● 1530d

That's interesting. Genuinely. What proposals that I have made would you consider to be extreme?

Paul Campbell ● 1530d

Andrew, what's a pro car pundit. Serious question

Maggie Dodge ● 1530d

Oh gosh - wasn’t expecting that! Good question though.I’ll reply tomorrow as my current attendance at the Ealing Beer Festival may not be conducive to a coherent reply.

Andrew Jones ● 1530d

Father-of-one cyclist, 29, who mowed down and killed an elderly church minister, 79, in a hit-and-run as he 'furiously' rode his bike at speed along a pavement is jailed for 12 months.

Maggie Dodge ● 1529d

Hi Maggie, Steve Taylor is a name that instantly springs to my mind.

Andrew Jones ● 1529d

I think Steve Taylor gets angry about everything.

Brian Green ● 1529d

That is not a simple Yes or No answer.Is there a link to that story? If true he needs to be banged up for longer then that. So should motorist who kill.

Brian Green ● 1529d

That’s fine, it’s your opinion. Check out ITV.com search killer cyclist in a Monmouth, should come up

Maggie Dodge ● 1529d

Awful incident. And callous behaviour by the cyclist involved.Thankfully, such serious incidents involving cyclists and pedestrians are relatively rare.

Andrew Jones ● 1529d

"I’ll reply tomorrow as my current attendance at the Ealing Beer Festival may not be conducive to a coherent reply"How's it going Andrew? I'm still intrigued as to what I have proposed that you would categorise as extreme and as equivalent to the extreme views of what you call the "pro-car pundits". Such as forced expropriation of motor vehicles from anybody living in a LTN (which would of course include somewhere in the region of 90% of residents of Homefields Ward).

Paul Campbell ● 1529d

Personally, Richard, I disagree. Look no further than your own sentence (structure). Improvement and investments made should not benefit one group (at the expense of others). Safety and encouragement is paramount for all (not just for some). By no means should safety for anyone be paranthetical. Thanks for clearing up precisely where you fall on the issue.As for me, today's issue has to do with navigating cyclists who opt to do an unannounced u-turn in front of you. And then glare at you for honking to let them know you are there which, if I'm not mistaken, is the precise law when it comes to honking. It should be said I had one motorcyclist and one cyclist do it in the span of about an hour.

David Lesniak ● 1529d

"Average speed of traffic in London hasn't really changed for over 40 years"Well that's super interesting to learn. I wonder why all that effort and expense was made to reduce the speed throughout the city. 20mph limits on CHR and the moronic 30mph limit on the A40 spring to mind. But it was fun to see a cyclist on the A40 recently headed west. I'm guessing he was surprised at the sudden terminus of the shoulder not to mention the overgrown branches. Consequence of breaking the law I suppose.

David Lesniak ● 1529d

"I did not promote a boycott of businesses that put up that poster"False.

David Lesniak ● 1529d

I've spoken with many people who care deeply about their community and others, some of them doing incredible work in many different ways to be part of their communtiy and the people in it. Sometimes I've sat with them. Sometimes walked. Sometimes been at the gym with them. Sometimes ate ice cream with them. And sometimes I've had to agree to disagree cold fries are simply not worth sharing despite how well-intentioned you might be. Being a cyclist has zero to do with it. So not sure what your point was.

David Lesniak ● 1529d

Sadly, that comment was from Paul James, an individual branded the 'cyclopath' on the Ealing Today forum such is his dislike of motor vehicles.That is, of course, save for the one that, by his own admission, he drives!

N V Brooks ● 1529d

Yes fatal accidents are rare I’m sure. However cycling on pavements and footpaths is far from rare. Aggressive language and rude gestures are commonplace, if you dare to remonstrate. My friend had a near miss today with a cyclists coming out of a turning , without due care. The cyclist apologised, my friend accepted and all was amicable. A simple acceptance of wrong doing is the way to go for all road users.

Maggie Dodge ● 1529d

David. The poster in question seemingly spends his life demonising car use but is happy to use one when it suits. It is the hypocrisy I condemn along with the fools who support it!

N V Brooks ● 1529d

After spending a bit of time looking I have to put my hands up and admit that I couldn't find anything specific, which honestly surprised me.The comment of yours that I found I most disagreed with was something about you not being bothered whether cyclists cycled on the pavement or not, which was in response to a direct question from another poster.'Extreme' is probably over egging it, but I would say the majority of cyclists shouldn't been cycling on the pavement, unless there are safety reasons for them using this approach, or if they are young children and there isn't any nearby safe and well segregated dedicated cycling route. And anyone cycling on the pavement (whether it's a shared use pavement or on one of the limited occasions when an adult cyclist might consider it safest to cycle on a pavement) should keep their speed right down.

Andrew Jones ● 1529d

Fortunately your first comment is correct.Unfortunately your next two comments are also correct, though in some limited circumstances I'd be happy with slow, respectful cycling on pavements, even if they aren't shared use e.g. Children where there is no nearby safe well segregated cycling route, or where there is a safety issue with cycling on the road. Really, it would be better if cyclists got off and wheeled their bikes, but that's like asking for all motorists to stick to 20mph limits, some will, but a lot won't. And I totally agree with your last comment about all road users accepting when they are wrong, it would make for a better atmosphere on the roads (and pavements).

Andrew Jones ● 1529d

Thanks Andrew. It demonstrates the power of the deluge of dehumanising and demonising comments on this forum. They accumulate like grains of sand until even reasonable objective people have a distorted view of the reality. I had a good discussion with somebody (I think it was Kieran) on here once where he called me an extremist a(or words to that effect) and I went through the things that I support or have suggested in Chiswick and how commonplace they are not only in places like the Netherlands but also in places like the City and, surprise, Chiswick! I have counted over 50 traffic filters and other restrictions implemented in Chiswick long before 2017 and the consultation on the cycle lane.My comment to the serial complainer about pavement cycling wasn't meant to condone it. I was really stating that my priorities lie elsewhere, namely creating much more safe space for cycling and reallocating road space to do so. I am not interested in expending my energy on a campaign against pavement cycling was what I meant. Other people are of course free to campaign for it but I think they have tried and found that the police and the political authorities share a similar view to me. They prefer to devote scarce resources and limited time to bigger priorities too. They might do the odd sting operation once every few years when nagged enough by a Councillor but then they will go back to basically ignoring it.One thing that I do find gratifying is that the more time goes by the more mainstream the idea of reallocating road space becomes. Support for it has even grown very noticeably on this forum since the cycle lane went in and Fishers Lane was closed. The opposition was much more numerous and a great deal more vocal a few years ago.

Paul Campbell ● 1529d

https://www.facebook.com/groups/347175487282269/permalink/437563434910140/?fs=e&s=cl

Maggie Dodge ● 1528d

Dangerous, very dirty and lazy staff! - Brentford Fountain Leisure CentreBrentford Fountain Leisure Centre: Dangerous, very dirty and lazy staff! - See 40 traveller reviews, 5 candid photos, and great deals for Brentford, UK, ...fountain.leisure centre dirty from www.tripadvisor.co.uk1.0 · Review by BerkshireMatehttps://www.tripadvisor.com › Show...Overpriced and dityy - Review of Brentford Fountain Leisure Centre ...If you are just going for the gym, don't. Its dirty, the plaster is falling off the walls and there were cockroaches on the mats ! Many of the machines don't ...1.0 · Review by rachaelwilkiehttps://m.facebook.com › communityBrentford Fountain Leisure Centre | FacebookIt is very dirty and ill kept. There is rubbish in the changing rooms in the cubicles (alot of rubbish), left behind used pants, the ladies toilet had diarrhoea ...

Maggie Dodge ● 1528d

What's that got to do with the cycleway?

Basil Finnis ● 1528d

Go back to post dated the 14th to find out

Peter King ● 1528d

It's perfectly true that pedestrians may well need to re-learn how to cross the road. I do wonder if some of them have ever been taught this at all. That was always the parents job together with the help of the Tufty Club or Green Cross Code and was taken very seriously. It is well documented that children who are just bundled into cars and driven everywhere do not gain the same amount of road sense and aren't as street-wise. One reason that immediately comes to mind are the fact that some roads that are One Way for motorists are Two Way not just for pedestrians but also for cyclists - so very important to teach to always look both ways.Another is that some pavements are marked as shared for both pedestrians and cyclists.And roads and road signs change.To take umbrage at the idea of pedestrians re-learning how and where to cross the road is quite ridiculous.Everybody else has to get used to changes!

Philippa Bond ● 1528d

A Save Gurnell petition to reopen the leisure centre has now gained 1,120 signatures in five months.Gurnell Leisure Centre’s permanent closure was confirmed in August 2020 by Ealing Council, which apologised, saying its equipment is “life-expired”.Plans to rebuild a leisure centre between six tower blocks, up to 17-storeys tall, were rejected by council planning bosses in March 2021.They ruled the plans did not meet the “very special circumstances” required to build on Metropolitan Open Land.

Maggie Dodge ● 1527d

So much money found for cycling infrastructure and initiatives but“A pre-pandemic report in 2019 estimated that some 1,800 pools would shut by 2030, as the structures became too old and expensive to upgrade.However, mounting debts following the pandemic, along with soaring energy costs, mean that this number is likely to be much higher, according to Swim England, who say that every pool is potentially at risk of closure.”

Maggie Dodge ● 1527d

Thanks for highlighting the issue Maggie. I found an article that implies it might be due to the increasing cost of running these places. Sadly, 1,120 signatures in 5 months isn't a lot for an online petition. Do you have a link to it? Hundreds of swimming pools across the country are said to be at risk of closing down as a result of rising energy bills.Gyms and leisure centres have resorted to desperate measures to keep their businesses afloat, and have begun lowering pool temperatures and turning the lights down.As inflation hits a 40-year high, and with little government support to mitigate the financial pressure, pool owners fear the sector could collapse, with the cost of running a pool now expected to rise from £500m in 2019 to £1.5bn this year.

Nora Watkins ● 1527d

Nora I’m not totally sure when they mention pools, how many are Council run. The Gurnell pool is and I have read over a long period that residents desperately wanted and needed it, but Ealing Council change their mind and promises on the matter. The residents have Peter Mason , who is a fanatical cyclist to deal with, and I don’t think he’d disagree with that description. Swimming appears not as important to him as cycling. Swimming might not cut car use but it’s a life skill that should be encouraged. School swimming lessons will disappear if the pools close.

Maggie Dodge ● 1527d

Do you have any links to the campaign to keep it open? I agree that swimming is an important thing to learn as a child so we do need to give them access to lessons. I hadn't even considered that the running costs would increase so much due to the rise in energy prices (naive I know), but it's going to affect the council in all areas.

Nora Watkins ● 1527d

Nora , I’ll see what I can find. The discussion on closure was well before the current cost of living crisis I believe.

Maggie Dodge ● 1527d

You can cycle anywhere. It helps to have a pool for swimming.

Maggie Dodge ● 1527d

Maggie, you didn't mention the currently unapproved plan to refurbish and modernise Gurnell, Ealing already did a great job with Acton Pool so let's give them a chance hey. As far as I know TfL do not have responsibility for swimming pools nationwide so comparing spend on bike lanes with that on pools is nonsensical,you might equally say look at all the money spent on roads and why isn't that available for pools. On the running cost point, clearly some central govt assistance is needed in these times of huge energy price rises, let's hope the Tories pull their finger out. I think mixing up arguments about bike lanes with points about provision of just about anything else is an infinite game, if you want to play it, but ultimately 'what about the pools (or anything else)' is a weak argument as it assumes all money is allocated centrally by a High Controller and in reality it's way more devolved and complex than that, at least that's how I perceive it. Nonetheless there is lots of provision for non two wheelers and like you I sincerely hope that all of it is kept going. Cycling of course is transport not just exercise so it isn't entirely a like for like comparison.

David Ewen ● 1527d

Also how do you delete duplicate comments on this antediluvian excuse for a social media platform, I'm amazed anyone has the patience for it ;)

David Ewen ● 1527d

You can’t.

Maggie Dodge ● 1527d

What I understand is Gurnell was closed for two years and locals fought constantly to keep it . Why did they need to fight, was the Council in favour of selling it off? Peter Mason has sold off the local recycling centre. We fought that decision but he said that couldn’t afford to keep it. So no recycling , isn’t that a local much needed amenity? I bet no one had to fight for cycle infrastructure with Peter Mason, cycle lobby member, and before him the wonderful Julian Bell, another cycle lobby member. He’s the guy who had a social housing property for the use of various members of his family, for about 10 years. I thought he’d given it up, but locals in Acton think he’s still got it. As for Acton baths. I could be wrong but I think that went to rack and ruins and I think they wanted to close that at one time. Maybe they had to fight for that too. I’m not arguing with you any more. Life’s too short

Maggie Dodge ● 1527d

Googled and found thisCAMPAIGNERS said farewell to the historic leisure centre they credit with bringing their community together with a final swim before it closed for good on Sunday (December 4).But first about 75 people made their feelings known about the council shutting Acton Baths, in Salisbury Street with a public demo on its steps.

Maggie Dodge ● 1527d

Gurnell has now been closed since March 2020 – that’s over two years without our much loved and much needed facility. To raise awareness of this issue, the Save Gurnell campaign team have started a petition to the Mayor of London seeking his assistance.Please sign our petition to Reopen Gurnell Leisure Centre https://chng.it/fyQcWYRKFYGyms and leisure centres play a key role in helping people to be active and they will be crucial in our nation’s recovery from coronavirus, in addition to providing wider health, wellbeing, and community benefits. The current position is totally unacceptable.

Maggie Dodge ● 1527d

Maggie, I fear you have inadvertently hoisted yourself by your own petard. In marshalling increasingly desperate and irrelevant arguments to attack C9, which to paraphrase your inaccurate position is a hugely costly leisure facility which hardly anyone uses, you are now complaining about the closure of Gurnell Leisure Centre, which was .... a hugely costly leisure facility which hardly anyone used. See link and quotes below from 2020. Have a great day, and try not to get too overheated ;)https://www.mylondon.news/news/west-london-news/closure-ealings-dinosaur-gurnell-leisure-18756035“We have been working really hard on making sure we’ve got a really strong leisure offer across the whole borough. But Gurnell has been standing on its last legs for 10 years now, it was only meant to last for 30.”He added: “The centre as I say has already seen a considerable drop in numbers and the likelihood of it recovering sufficient numbers in such a short period of time between August and December, in the most uncertain of times just really proves to be implausible.“So the right thing to do, the only thing that we could do would be to decide to not reopen the leisure centre and instead refocus our efforts on rebuilding the centre bigger, better than before.”

David Ewen ● 1526d

I used C9 for the first time on Friday afternoon. I joined it at Kew Bridge and went all the way to Hammersmith and I must say on the whole it's very good. The only problems I came across were the food delivery people using it riding all over the place but they are like that on the road too. Also in Hammersmith once you've crossed to the other side the number of people who just walk into it without looking is a hazard too. So it's a thumbs up from me and I say that as a motorist and public transport user too.

Brian Green ● 1526d

Brian, it’s been open a while. Any idea how often you will use it, roughly ?

Maggie Dodge ● 1526d

Thanks for sharing. I took a look at the petition, it seems the pool closed due to Covid 19, and rather than re-opening it (as it was due for demolition and replacement with a new facility), has stayed closed. I understand it must be frustrating now that the planning application has been refused, but it must be quite difficult for the council to plan for this sort of thing. Particularly as swimming pools took a long time to re-open due to the constant lockdowns.

Nora Watkins ● 1526d

Use of Gurnell declined when Ealing took the decsion not to invest in structural repairs. It was extensively used daily by schools and local groups but they pulled out when cleaning was curtailed for weeks on end and it was simply a dreadful experience. The decline in numbers resulted in LBE using this as 'further evidence' to justify the closure.Allegedly the facility can only be reopened, according to Ealing Labour, by building an 'enabling development' of a tower block built over a new, smaller, pool.Even the council's own planners rejected the plans as over development and the pool remains closed.

N V Brooks ● 1526d

I've just found another article which implies it would have taken 4 or 5 million to make temporary repairs and then a longer term fix would still be needed. "Initial estimates indicate that the minimum cost required to enable the leisure centre to be reopened is circa £4-5m, however this is a very basic and temporary “sticking plaster” option which would only result in about three years of operation before more substantial investment would be required."A longer term solution would be needed in parallel with this option which could end up costing the council substantial sums of money twice over."A comprehensive refurbishment to provide a longer term operational life to the leisure centre has been estimated to cost over £18m.

Nora Watkins ● 1526d

I don't wish to detract from the CS9 debate but both the immediate repair estimtes and rebuild costs were swiftly disputed at the local elections where the emergency repair cost was estimated to be a threefold overstatement.

N V Brooks ● 1526d

At election time, electioneering is likely to have been a factor in disputing those costs. Ultimately, I prefer not to take sides when I don't really have the full story, and unfortunately the petition didn't really go into any detail.

Nora Watkins ● 1526d

I think Mr Brooks seems to know his stuff on this. Seems underfunding on pools might be the issue. All from memory but I think Chiswick pool and Acton were allowed to deteriorate and thus the huge bill to put right is the excuse for closure. Gurnell was possibly a similar situation even before Covid. I’m happy to suggest the Council play games. I think Ealing made the recycling centre in Stirling Road difficult to access during Covid, compared to other areas where I have family. Then low and behold it’s closed and being sold off. I think someone needs to check their priorities and their methods. No one will though

Maggie Dodge ● 1526d

I think you'll find that all recycling centres had restrictions due to Covid. Instructions came from Govt.I remember campaigning for swimming pools years ago. They are very expensive to build and very expensive to run and the Neo-Liberals would prefer to reduce the size of the state because they believe in low taxes. If you want cheap facilities then you need to pay taxes for them, otherwise you can expect everything to be privatised and have to pay more.

Philippa Bond ● 1526d

I have and do pay a lot of tax, on my earnings, council tax, VAT etc. Don't you?

Claire Moran ● 1526d

Absolutely correct Philippa. If you want levels of social provision and public facilities similar to, as an example, Sweden you must expect there was a taxation on a similar scale to Sweden. You cannot have one without the other.

N V Brooks ● 1526d

Perhaps people in Chiswick are so well off they barely notice how much tax of various kinds they pay. In the real world, people are struggling in the UK to afford food,electricity and are suicidal when the tax bills come in.

Claire Moran ● 1526d

It's a hideous unused mess and dangerous.

Claire Moran ● 1526d

Who wants cheap facilities? I want the Council run swimming pools maintained. They talk about active travel till the cows come home. Swimming is pretty much an essential skill, great exercise, even for the elderly or less able quite often. Why let the pools go to rack and ruin? Just maintain them on a regular basis, it’s their job. As for recycling. I monitored Stirling Road. When the booking system said they were booked up, I went there. They were not busy! The guy on the gate said “people book but don’t turn up”. Other Councils didn’t use the booking system. I believe Ealing may have taken advantage of Covid, played silly whatsits with the booking system to perhaps say it’s under used, and sold it off.There was some stupid rule that you could not walk in, so they encouraged people to Drive there, while telling us not to drive. When it closed we were told to DRIVE miles to another one. Don’t we pay for this facility in our Council Tax?

Maggie Dodge ● 1526d

Brian, it’s been open a while. Any idea how often you will use it, roughly ?To be honest with you I probably won't be using it that much as I don't live in the area anymore. I just thought I'll have a look at it as I was in the area on my bike and give it a go and see what the fuss is all about as when I saw the temporary one I thought it was bad. Don't get me started on those LTN's in the area whoever came up with that idea needs their head examined.

Brian Green ● 1526d

Couldn't agree more. Swimming is an essential skill when living in a suburban English village which is dangerously close to a river.

Tony Smart ● 1526d

F.a.o Maggie Dodge.I see that you now have 34 posts on this thread (and counting).Yet you have consistently refused to answer my simple question posed three times previously.Namely:"Rather, the pro-cycling lobby merely suggest that unnecessary car usage should be discouraged, and cycling encouraged instead (also public transport and walking).As a matter of principle, do you agree or disagree with that stance?" I can only assume that whether from being implacably pro-car, or anti-cycling, or both, you do NOT agree with it, but decline to to confirm it publicly since it would expose you for being unreasonable.But if this inference is erroneous, you can still put me right and I will happily retract.P.S. 34 posts, including one where you asked: "Why the obsession with cycling?" Self-awareness not one of your strong suits?

Richard Cathcart ● 1526d

Might be super interesting for you to learn, but it's been a well known fact for many years that average London traffic speed is very low. Used to be quoted as 12mph for Central London when I first came here and not much has changed, see link. Speed limit reductions are about reducing maximum speeds not average, to protect pedestrians and cyclists. Hooray for that. https://www.london.gov.uk/questions/2019/19767

David Ewen ● 1525d