Forum Topic

Fights Breaking out on Chiswick High Road

It's all getting a bit unpleasant on Chiswick High Road this afternoon. In the space of about a minute while walking up near the junction with Duke Road I've witness two physical confrontations. The problem appears to be that cars trying to get out of Duke Road are not being let out by drivers stuck in long queues going each way. This means they are blocking the Cycleway and there is a queue down Duke Road. Drivers behind them are getting angry, cyclists are fuming because their way is blocked and the stuck drivers are shouting abuse at the drivers not letting them in. This seems to be the main flash point but there was the angry blaring of horns all the way up and down the High Road and very slow movement in both directions. Up until now the eastbound flow of traffic had generally been okay but the Acton Lane closure has led to there being problems in both directions.

Andrew OSullivan ● 1493d49 Comments

All because the A4 has been sectioned off into one lane. There are cones but NO WORKERS. Has any anybody working on this stretch of road? Of course this, combined with all the politically inspired anti driving measures, has meant driving (and living) in Chiswick has become a worse experience. I wouldn't mind but it's all so much more polluting than before. Politicians are the cancer on our society. Hopeless, every single one of them.

Andy Jacobs ● 1493d

What's needed is a few bobbies directing the traffic.  (A joke for those who don't recognise one.) Or maybe it's time for one of our traffic-management agencies to wake up and get a grip on this shambles. Anyone want to give Katherine Dunne a call? I know some of you have her mobile number.

Bruce Hammal ● 1493d

What do you suggest she does? Whatever you think of the Cycleway, it isn't a major contributory factor to the problem. Chiswick High Road is static further up where there is no Cycleway and a big part of the problem is the wash back from Sutton Court Road. If there was no cycleway all that would be happening is that motorists would be getting to the back of these queues slightly more quickly and perhaps buses would make better progress if they had their lanes back.The only policy change I can see that would in anyway mitigate this problem is a suspension of the Fishers Lane restriction but that is a decision for Ealing Council.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1493d

"This means they are blocking the Cycleway and there is a queue down Duke Road. Drivers behind them are getting angry, cyclists are fuming because their way is blocked and the stuck drivers are shouting abuse at the drivers not letting them in"All predictable when Hounslow Council imposed LTNs, cycle lanes etc. It will get worse. Chiswick is fast becoming third world with its traffic problems. It's what the Labour Councillors wanted.

Steve Taylor ● 1493d

It took me 40 minutes to get from Fishers Lane bridge (on the Ealing side) to, well, pretty much Fishers Lane bridge on the Chiswick side yesterday. A few fancy-looking cars went under the bridge as I looked on with envy, but I suppose the price of a fine is negligible when you can afford a £100K+ Range Rover or Merc. It's probably cheaper than a tank of petrol for one of those things.

Gordon McDonald ● 1493d

There has certainly been work on the bridge on the A4 - quite a lot of the road has been dug up.  But the people turning right from SCR onto this section are also getting increasingly frustrated and horn-sounding.  Instead of one lane of cars waiting to turn, drivers are bunching up into three lanes - I think an accident is definitely on the cards.

Vivienne Cox ● 1493d

Yes a lot of honking and frustration from Burlington and Barrowgate. It is bad but I have to say this afternoon the queue didn't stretch back as far as Wavenden when I cycled past. I've often seen it much worse on my bike and in my car over the last 10 years. Whoever lives in that beautiful huge house on the corner of SCR and Barrowgate really bears the brunt.

Paul Campbell ● 1493d

And that new expensive retirement home on the other side - ugh.

Paul Campbell ● 1493d

The cycleway is a major contributor to the High Road problems, Most cyclists continue to use the pedestrian pavements and we have lost a lane from the High Road, which has an Ambulance station at one end (Goldhawk Road) and a fire station at the other; meaning that emergency vehicles need to use this road often.

Michael Preece ● 1492d

Everything in your post is self-evidently factually incorrect.On the contrary the cycle lane is providing a safe way for sensible and considerate people to get around the area without adding to the gridlock, almost every single one of them is in the lane and not on the pavement and the cycle lane did not take a lane from the High Road it mainly took away a cycle lane, a handful of parking spaces, and a short temporary stretch of bus lane.When you are out and about today please personally thank every cyclist you see for they are providing a great service to everybody by not contributing to the traffic chaos.

Paul Campbell ● 1492d

I wonder how much work is being done on the roadworks this weekend? The SSE started work mid-morning and sometime before 3pm had packed up having dug a small trench. Given the chaos in the area is it too much to ask the work be prioritised. Who know if anything done today. No doubt different teams etc but still they called the work and should be able to organise. The five day closure could be much shorter if a full day of work was done. I havent been past the A4 roadworks but another post indicated little to no activity over the weekendThe front page story suggests that TFL have not only shut down the SCR southbound with a 10 second phase, but lights at Chiswick roundabout also changed to favour traffic leaving the A4. I wonder on what basis these decsions are made. If we had either an MP who showed the slightest interest or a local authority prepared to push the case, there would be an interesting discussion as to what degree W4 should be gridlocked, and local bus services left almost unusable, in order to prioritise commuter and through traffic on the A4.

Bill George ● 1492d

Speaking of being factually incorrect, Paul...1.) Not all cyclists are sensible and considerate. Oodles of drivers are sensible and considerate. Logistics and that Amazon order of yours is adding to congestion although that strike in Felixstowe might ameliorate that a bit. 2.) Almost every single cyclist in the lane? Bullsh@t. But you know that. Morons still use the pavement and CHR itself. My favourite is when they run the red light at Chiswick Lane as cars are turning on the green. I like to turn wide and pinch them a bit toward the kerb while honking to alert them of my presence. What the cycle lane did take away is a considerable amount and width of pavement making walking a nasty alternative. An unsafe alternative.3.) My personal thanks to you for growing all your veg, rearing your protein of choice, creating your own elixirs and potions for all that ails you, growing, reaping and spinning cotton so the Mrs. can whip up some threads for the kids and, I'm guessing, extruding your own rubber and smelting your own metals for all the family bikes not to mention that Jaguar is it?

David Lesniak ● 1492d

So much rubbish is being peddled about the cyle lane on CHR and its supposed merits and that all cyclists are saints.  My other post on the Forum today should offer some objectivity - a factual report by the Transport Editor of the Sunday Times!

David Kerr ● 1492d

Get rid of the C9.Reopen Fishers Lane to traffic. Take away all the restrictions in Grove Park. It really is that simple. But too obvious for our “pro cycling at all costs“ self styled “listening” council . Chiswick used to be such a lovely place to be.Now it has become a place to avoid.

Sarah Potter ● 1492d

Get rid of the C9.Reopen Fishers Lane to traffic. Take away all the restrictions in Grove Park. It really is that simple. But too obvious for our “pro cycling at all costs“ self styled “listening” council . Chiswick used to be such a lovely place to be.Now it has become a place to avoid.

Sarah Potter ● 1492d

There is bumper-to-bumper traffic all up South Parade. Was there Friday, was there yesterday, all but guaranteed to be there today. All the way down to Acton Lane, past Chiswick Park Tube, to the corner with CHR.There's no C9 there.There is bumper-to-bumper traffic all the way from the junction between CHR and Heathfield Terrace to Chiswick Roundabout. There's no C9 there.There is bumper-to-bumper traffic feeding into CHR on Oxford road North.There's no C9 there.There's bumper-to-bumper traffic on Gunnersbury Avenue, feeding into Chiswick Roundabout.There's no C9 there.Sure, let's remove C9. Let's get rid of limits, let's get rid of LTN, of restrictions, of everything. Let's allow cars outside of school, into small roads, everywhere. Who cares if cyclists get flattened like pizzas, who cares. The problems will remain. As there were prior to C9, as there have always been. Because what will remain are cars with one, or at best two, occupants.

Francis Sheehan ● 1492d

Indeed Francis. But there is also the fact that additional road closure and the impact of CS9 have jointed served to reduce overall road capacity in W4 and also capacity at a number of key junctions. Traffic is concentrated onto fewer routes often with no exit, so that the area becomes effectively sealed in a permanent jam. Current roadworks may be extreme but the problem is now the area is more vulnerable to the periodic lockdowns we have always suffered. The only 'fix' some offer is even more road closures and more bike lanes on remaining routes, which will only exacerbate the current problems unless the volume of traffic itself is addressed.The problem as you rightly note is too many cars, most of them being through traffic. Until there is the political courage to reduce the number of cars driving into London, then there is little hope. CS9 will not see a modal shift for these journies. But an expanded congestion charge and more affordable public transport would do.

Bill George ● 1492d

"I like to turn wide and pinch them a bit toward the kerb while honking to alert them of my presence."You know this behavior is reprehensible? What gives you the right to use a 1 tonne+ vehicle to intimidate a cyclist?

Andrew Tierney ● 1492d

Paul, I do not often agree with you but you are right about the retirement home, I much preferred the faded elegance of the huge Victorian/Edwardian home that stood on that site.But then again LNH planning department is determined to ensure that all vestiges of architectural merit in that area of Chiswick are torn down and replaced with modern mediocrity and blandness (see the old Garthowen site on corner of Barrowgate and Garth Rd)

Justin Stephenson ● 1492d

Chiswick is like living in an open prison. but on the other hand there is more freedom of movement in an open prison.ex Chiswick policemen and women take note.

Bernard Allen ● 1492d

Hi Bill, I agree up to a point with your line here: "The problem as you rightly note is too many cars, most of them being through traffic. Until there is the political courage to reduce the number of cars driving into London, then there is little hope. CS9 will not see a modal shift for these journies. But an expanded congestion charge and more affordable public transport would do."On one side, more affordable public transport would be great. Considering the incredible contribution London makes (£3k per person/year in net contribution) to the rest of the UK, it is incredible that TfL is starved for cash and has to rely on fares for almost 3/4 of its budget compared to less than 40% for Hong Kong to name one place). But the problem of too many cars would remain, even if fares were low and TfL somehow realised it's 2022 and step-free access MUST be provided. The problem, in my opinion, is that for a modal shift to occur the mentality of most car users ought to change. I'm not talking about those making deliveries, or those who have mobility issues and find it hard/impossible to walk/cycle/climb stairs. I'm talking about those who are wealthy and can afford the big cars that we're seeing all around Chiswick and beyond: the big Volvos, the SUVs, the Mercs, or the Rolls Royce of the muppet who, early this morning, missed me by a few metres when he threw a thick crystal glass out of his window into the parapet on Putney Bridge. I don't see many poor Londoners driving around; but I had colleagues and bosses who drive - drive! - from Hammersmith to Old Street, from Fulham to Moorgate. I had a boss who insisted on having a car and on driving it from Mayfair to our office near the Old Street roundabout. Just because of status. And it didn't matter that they paid an absolute fortune, or that it took them ages, or that I beat them to the office! They had.to.drive. How much freer would our roads be if these journeys were made in other ways?

Francis Sheehan ● 1492d

The moans about PT are really just another red herring from the car lobby. We have  SWT, Overground, Underground and a multitude of buses in Chiswick. We are in zones 2 and 3. Many of the people doing the moaning have freedom passes and cost isn't an issue. Many of the people who drive are wealthy as you say and do so because they view PT as beneath them and they genuinely do prefer to sit for far too long in their private vehicles carting around two armchairs, a sofa, a heating / air conditioning unit, stereo system etc. etc. And as Tom Pike has demonstrated to Bill several times, many of the car journeys here are local ones that originate in and end in Chiswick. Lots of them are substitutable. The habit is so deeply ingrained over decades that it does require things to change to shift it and give people the push to develop healthier habits for themselves and society.

Paul Campbell ● 1492d

I read Luxembourg are going to introduce free travel everywhere on PT. Germany is doing a train ticket for €8 per month. We should do the same here.

Nicholas Beard ● 1492d

Can you imagine any UK government doing something like that?

Basil Finnis ● 1492d

No. We've been told no handouts. And Germany has a national rail network and takes profits from its investments in our privatised rail network to fund subsidies like this. Taking back control .....Sensible countries didn't privatise rail or water. They saw the opportunity for British taxpayers to fund a cheaper and better service for the customers in their countries.

Paul Campbell ● 1492d

Sorry, Andrew, I see nothing reprehensible about obeying the law and the traffic signal allowing me to move through the light legally.Wasn't me who ran the red light and opted not to use the cycle infrastructure you all demanded be put there for your own safety.Plus you might notice the central island now forces cars further toward the north curb. That, too, is down to safe cycle infrastructure design (flaws).

David Lesniak ● 1491d

"what will remain are cars with one, or at best two, occupants"I take it Francis is unable to see the lorries on the road delivering his bike. And groceries. And mail. And medication. Those new jumpers for his girls. A little somethin' somethin' for the Mrs. I could go on but better to stay myopic as Francis chooses to be.

David Lesniak ● 1491d

"I don't see many poor Londoners driving around"Apparently Francis can determine the financial status of all Londoners. IMHO he should give central government a bell to help them sort things out. Otherwise all that talent goes to waste.

David Lesniak ● 1491d

Spot on, Arriva buses, German Railways etc.

Nicholas Beard ● 1491d

Dear David,"I take it Francis is unable to see the lorries on the road delivering his bike. And groceries. And mail. And medication. Those new jumpers for his girls. A little somethin' somethin' for the Mrs. I could go on but better to stay myopic as Francis chooses to be."May I point you to my post where I wrote: "I'm not talking about those making deliveries, or those who have mobility issues and find it hard/impossible to walk/cycle/climb stairs"? Also, with regards to your other post where you are making snarky comments regarding my judgement on whether poor Londoners drive cars or not. I'm voicing my opinion in what I hope is calm, measured way. I'm basing my opinion on what I see around myself. The examples of bad driving I mentioned yesterday included only expensive cars: BMWs, Mercedes, one Rolls Royce. The cars I see queuing around Chiswick aren't cheap either. You might agree or disagree with what I write: fine. I'm here to dialogue, to exchange opinions, not to descend into a childish tit-for-tat. If you're unwilling, or incapable, of doing it then may I politely suggest you find other people to try and pick virtual fights with? Because if that's what you're selling, I ain't buying.

Francis Sheehan ● 1491d

“The problem, in my opinion, is that for a modal shift to occur the mentality of most car users ought to change” not offensive at all.

Maggie Dodge ● 1491d

Load off tosh Sounds like you have been reading the daily mail headlines. Spot on ? Got any facts and figures ? on propping up DB from roughly 2% operating profits in the uk over to DB which has been running at a loss. Given that part of that 2% profit has to be reinvested i doubt it could prop up very much.

Julian Pavey ● 1491d

Francis, while you are entitled to your opinion, it is unlikely that our current traffic problems are caused by rich people in expensive cars driving badly (although I would agree with your point that their is a something of a reverse correlation between quality of road skills and cost of car).There is however a danger in thinking that measures to discourage driving are in themselves socially progressive. While it is true that the bottom decile of the population in income terms are very unlikely to own a car, drivers on London's road at any given time are likely to made up of a disproportionate amount of people on low incomes. A substantial percentage of drivers are working on deliveries or private hire drivers and many of the jobs that require a significant amount of time in an car or a van are not particularly well paid e.g. care workers, builders etc.Add to this that a high percentage of people who commute into London by car are key workers who cannot afford to buy property near where they work or in areas with good transport connections. In Chiswick nearly all our teachers, healthcare workers, firefighters and police officers don't live in the area and many drive to work.Therefore if you introduce 'stick' rather than 'carrot' measures to discourage driving, it is very difficult to avoid impoverishing those who need to drive and are just about managing at this point. The a***holes in expensive cars who drive badly are not going to stop if the cost of motoring is increased marginally.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1491d

Hi Jeremythanks for a constructive reply! So rare on this forum. I will point out that I don't have a solution to this problem; my original post in this thread was that we are, in my opinion, pointing to the wrong cause for traffic congestion [the good old C9] and that getting rid of it would not solve the problem.I totally agree with you that measures like ULEZ, or carbon taxes and so on are hitting the poorest the hardest, especially if there aren't alternatives (like cheaper fares) being offered.

Francis Sheehan ● 1491d

Julian is right - I think some of these ideas coming from a very slickly produced video circulated on social media in which lots of smug Europeans thanked us for the money they receive from rail passengers in this country. It is extremely misleading.Don't get me wrong, I think the Europeans do this better than us. They deliver modern efficient train systems in which highly subsidised fares allow people to get around at low cost.It may be however that the UK isn't really set up to deliver a system like the ones on the continent. No political party would advocate high taxes simply for transport and anyone advocating full nationalisation of rail needs to look back at the experience of British Rail. Because it was competing for funds with schools and hospitals it went through decades of chronic underfunding.We have switched to a system of user pays in this country which has resulted in very high fares but a reduced burden on the taxpayer. This has delivered levels of investment in the tracks and rolling stock which are have brough the network back up to a reasonable standard compared with other developed countries. It is far from a perfect system but it may actually be in practical terms, the only one that can now work here.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1491d

Thank you for your kind comment but I have to disagree about this forum. Although there are many people who peddle their own fixed opinions with little regards to the complexity of an issue I find there are far more people on here than other places on social media who are genuinely interested in the views of others and well informed.You are right about the ULEZ which is highly regressive in my view but I do support it because the money will ultimately go into public transport. The Mayor is being forced to implement it by a government taking the user pays principles to extremes in London because we didn't vote for them.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1491d

My humble apologies, Francis, as sometimes posts do cross upon hitting send. And yes, I had read your comment about deliveries after responding to your original comment. I do find it odd, though, that many times people have to be pinned to the wall before you get a better persepective out of them. I've found that when broad-storke comments are left to dangle unchallenged (something I believe is a strategy and technique) people often leave thinking it is fact. When it is anything but.I am more than willing and capable to engage constructively. But it has been my experience around here when asking a simple question one can get attacked often with those same broad-stroke comments. So a never-ending loop of rhetoric is often what poses for engagement.As Jeremy mentions, many in those cars you seem to despise are often carers making rounds. Or nurses getting to work. Or, perhaps, warehouse workers getting to Tool Station to dispatch your toilet, or whatever. Fact is you have no way of knowing nor are you able to assess their personal finances. Dare I say your assumptions are akin to conclusions based on gender. Or race. They are not based in delving into the specifcs with those people. And that plays to your advantage in the debate. I'll give you that. But it isn't fact. And that we all know.

David Lesniak ● 1491d

Thanks Jeremy. On the topic of ULEZ, I might be wrong but I seem to understand that whether a car is ULEZ-compliant or not basically depends on whether it is rather new (or not). But even among new cars there are big differences in terms of emissions; it feels a bit daft, if indeed that is the case, that a small car (think a Fiat Panda, or a Ford Fiesta) could be as ULEZ-compliant as, say, a big Mercedes with a powerful engine. The emissions of the two kinds of vehicles are very different, aren't they?

Francis Sheehan ● 1491d

It is not whether car is new but whether is meets Euro emission standards.Typically newer cars meet these standards older cars do not.The CO2 emissions of larger cars are greater but this pollutant is not covered by the Euro emissions standards.Euro 5 emission limits (petrol)CO – 1.0 g/kmHC - 0.10 g/kmNOx – 0.06 g/kmPM – 0.005 g/km (direct injection only)Euro 5 emission limits (diesel)CO – 0.50 g/kmHC+ NOx – 0.23 g/kmNOx – 0.18 g/kmPM – 0.005 g/kmPM – 6.0x10 ^11/km

Will Watson ● 1491d

Also CO2 while contributing to Global Warming isn't directly as hazardous to health (*) as the pollutants mentioned in the Emission standards.(*) CO2 in sufficiently high concentrations will directly result in death, even if there is plenty of O2 to breathe, but we are talking about concentrations of CO2 above 3-5%.

Andrew Jones ● 1491d

David,Don't get me wrong, but I'm pointing at the moon and you're looking at my index finger, or so it seems to me. I'll try another time to make my point.My first post was in response to Sarah's idea that removing vehicular restrictions and C9 would solve the traffic problems. I cited a number of places (Oxford road north, Acton Lane and South Parade, Gunnersbury avenue) where there is no cycle infrastructure and yet traffic is at a standstill. I could also cite, based on my experience, High Street Ken, or Hounslow. No cycle lanes (or if there are they've been used as car parks) and yet traffic is anything but fluid.The problem is that there are too many cars. Road traffic statistics show that minor road traffic has gone up 30% since the year 2000. https://roadtraffic.dft.gov.uk/regions/6 We must, in my opinion, address that point. I don't want it to be just about taxes, for they are unfairly hitting the poor, and it can't come at a disadvantage of those whose need to drive a vehicle ought to be protected (delivery drivers, those less able to walk/cycle/access non-step-free transport, and so on). By the way, this is the THIRD TIME I reiterate this point in this thread alone. Don't know how I can be clearer on this point.But, somehow - through policy, education, something - we need to reduce unnecessary journeys. And old TfL paper said that "Six in ten car trips are made for shopping, leisure and personal business purposes anda fifth for work purposes. A third of car trips are shorter than 2km"https://content.tfl.gov.uk/technical-note-14-who-travels-by-car-in-london.pdfAre all these journeys unnecessary? Do I think none of those journeys should take place? No. Nein. Niet. La. But should we, as a society, and should our governments look into whether we can reduce them? Yes, I say. Because if we can then it's an advantage to all of us, drivers included. I don't think this is controversial... or is it?

Francis Sheehan ● 1491d

Francis -Thank you for your continued perspective. I am in complete agreement with you. That said, I think there are many ways to solve - or attempt to solve - the issues. Personally I believe we are all missing the mark in many ways by focusing on cycling with blinders on. The mere mention of that gets some copying and pasting my comments and feeding them to the Twitter verse putting a target on my back. Not exactly a debate but rather a form of harassment. Childish, at that. Do I think it acceptable to be spat on when challenging someone for their behavior? No. Do I think it acceptable to be threatened online? No. Do I think it acceptable to be given the finger and told to f*ck off and then get silenced/cancelled when relating that experience? No. Do I think it acceptable to be hit over the head by a cyclist who aims at me on an e-bike? No. And yet it all persists. I mention all of that because I believe these make up the blinders firmly attached to the noses of many, including policy makers and Met Police. So the debate doesn't progress to include other issues, it stagnates and festers. I've yet to see actual urban design issues being discussed locally to help reduce car use and encourage pedestrians to walk. The detritus of a poorly planned and executed cycle way combined with things like e-bikes and scooters allowed to litter that very same cycle way does not pass muster as pedestrian improvement. And yet that is what we are told. The other thing that would reduce vehicle use is to reduce deliveries. That can be achieved in a variety of ways. One would be to make it inviting to walk down the street. But without policing ASB then that won't happen let alone increase. To make it inviting there should be plantings and benches and seats and tables - urban furniture. And yet there is none nor is any ever proposed with these incentives. So, again, where is the lure to walk? What were left with is severely reduced pavements littered with e-bikes and scooters and no place to sit and only dead weeds to look at and soil strewn about tree beds because LBH and TfL can't be bothered to address these issues in such a way to keep things tidy and pleasant to look at. And sadly, that does foster negative reactions as we've seen. Now simply look to any POPS (privately owned public space) with which the High Road competes and you will see spaces that are designed, curated and well-maintained not to mention policed albeit by a private security force. In the end, they create welcoming spaces people flock to and enjoy regardless of how they get there and what they do once there. Westfield is an example as is White City, Coal Drops Yard and the Ballymore development in Brentford. If not mistaken, I think some of the latter example has spilled over on to Brentford High Street outside of the site boundaries.And when you compare one borough to the next, you have Chiswick sandwiched between Brentford and Hammersmith, both of which have new parking facilities. I can't speak for Brentford, but in Hammersmith the parking is loaded up with charge points for electric vehicles. In Chiswick you can barely find a place on the street to charge your car. Urban movement comes in many forms and is done by many people of varied abilities. Chiswick and LBH focus on one. And therein lies most of the problem.

David Lesniak ● 1490d

That is total tosh.

Andy Jacobs ● 1490d

Many of my FIL's carers could not afford to drive a car and so cycled or used public transport or got a lift and I knew more than one teacher who used public transport and a roller suitcase for books so it sounds like you are making excuses for particular but obviously important members of society when many of them don't find personal cars necessary.

Philippa Bond ● 1490d

Philippa, please explain why then there exists parking permits for careers that can often be seen in cars parked on streets? I'm no data scientist, but you've cited only one person. Also curios why parking for teachers and medical staff is always part of the debate especially now with the cost of living crisis and dreadful pay for these vital people. Then again, maybe try the job out yourself. Cari for people all day and pedalling in the rain between visits. I'd imagine some degree of kit is involved as well. Otherwise you advocate for making the lives of these people more difficult. Walk a mile in those shoes.

David Lesniak ● 1490d

Been there done that without the pedalling.  I just don't think you should suggest that all these people have to drive all of the time because they don't.  Even if you have a permit it doesn't guarantee a space.  Whatever do you yhink people did before the advent of the car - only go out in fine weather?  Private haven't been around for that long. - not many generations - and certainly not one per person!

Philippa Bond ● 1490d

No, whatever you perceive a cyclist doing does not allow you to "pinch them a bit toward the kerb while honking".If there is an island, you wait a few seconds. These are basic driving skills.You give cyclists space. You aren't allowed to intimidate other people using your vehicle. It's not obeying the law - people get FPNs and points for far less when the footage of you doing it is submitted to the police.

Andrew Tierney ● 1490d

Don't get dragged in. This David L character is a well known bullshit merchant of limited bandwidth railing at lost causes of the-me first type it's not fair schoolyard tripe. 

John Hall ● 1490d

Philippa, here on planet Earth I'd imagine prior to the advent of the car there did not exist the profession of carers. If I'm mistaken, then they most likely rode their horse to get to your FIL's house.History tells us this role was performed by family - the women at that most likely in their aprons. Perhaps a nice high lace neckline.I'm sorry carer's behavior gets you so upset. Like many in the medical profession, and, to me, those in the educational sector who have a hard graft teaching your kids, I find these people to be angels and thus should be treated as such. Why people like you want to make their lives more difficult to suit your agenda is a mystery. I'd imagine one day they will come to wipe your ass and I'd bet you wouldn't want them to be late because they had to cycle from Essex. On a rainy day. In late January.

David Lesniak ● 1489d