Forum Topic

Is Chiswick Cycleway viable if Safe Cycle Highway closed?

Those clinging to the notion that the number of cyclists hurt on the laughably named Safe Cycle Highway on King Street was too small to be statistically relevant must surely now need to reconsider their position. With six people seriously injured in 9 months it has to be admitted the scheme is very flawed.The failure to invest in a tin of blue paint for the Weltje Road junction could ultimately result in some sort of corporate legal responsibility for Hammersmith and Fulham Council but in the short term they have to make some quick decisions.There seem to be two ways to go here. Firstly close access to the A4 from Weltje Road which, if had been done previously would have meant three fewer cyclists being badly hurt. Or abandon the project altogether. With Active Travel funding being cut there may simply not be the funds to make the Safe Cycle High safe and the council has good reason to fear law suits for negligence if it leaves it as it is.If Hammersmith and Fulham go for the second option, that has to raise questions about the Chiswick section of the cycle highway. The cost benefit of having such a short stretch seem not to stack up even if Hounslow proceed with the Brentford section they says they are about to start soon. There hasn't been the carnage on this section that there has on King Street but what would remain may not be deemed viable.

Francis Rowe ● 1288d111 Comments

Francis,The author of the article is clearly unaware of the LBH&F decision to make the cycleway permanent (it was previously under an experimental traffic order) and TfL has provided funding "for improvements to crossing points and junctions which are scheduled to be undertaken in the current financial year".The current implementation hasn't implemented any of the design features originally consulted upon for junctions at Weltje and Rivercourt Rds.  This has been raised by LCC to both LBH&F and TfL.LBH&F has recognised this as they say "upgrades are currently being developed, such as those at the Rivercourt Road and Weltje Road junction" and "improve traffic management on Rivercourt Road and Weltje Road, including traffic reduction measures to improve safety in the area, traffic access restrictions and changes from one-way to two-way traffic flow whilst maintaining access and servicing for properties."So that means closing both Rivercourt and Weltje at the junctions with the A4 and change both roads to two-way with access at King St.  That will substantially reduce vehicles crossing the cycleway and I think residents on both streets will welcome becoming a Low Traffic Neighbourhood and not being rat runs any more as well.It is good the article highlights the design issues to keep the pressure on LBH&F for rapid action but the article is out of date as it doesn't reference the cycleway has been made permanent by LBH&F and TfL has provided funding to address the known problem junctions.

Michael Robinson ● 1288d

It is very helpful to have the editor of CW4 and Francis work with the Evil Cycling Lobby to get Rivercourrt and Weltje closed at the A4. Thank you! I knew that eventually we'd find common ground and the antis would come over to the dark side.

Paul Campbell ● 1288d

Active travel funding cut. How very worrying for the cycling lobbyists. You might have to start living in the real world again.

Simon Hayes ● 1288d

Oh dear another know-all who hasn't twigged that London's active travel budget is funded under the TfL arrangement with govt and is lovely, tight and secure. Love the local Onesies getting all excited about fewer cycle lanes in Birmingham.

Paul Campbell ● 1288d

Ah, but it’s not all secured is it. As you know, there are any number of London schemes that don’t have funding and probably never will. Dream on, loser.

Simon Hayes ● 1288d

You clearly haven't read the March TfL board documentation on the Healthy Streets programme.  Funding is secured up to and including the 24/25 financial year.Local projects covered by this funding are construction of C9 between Kew Bridge and Brentford, construction to upgrade section along Hammersmith Rd to Olympia, detailed design for section between Brentford and Hounslow and in LBH&F cycle lane between Holland Park roundabout to Wood Lane.

Michael Robinson ● 1288d

If this section is now permanent then somebody needs to tell H&F because their page on the project suggests that it is still implemented under an ETO.https://www.lbhf.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/safer-cycle-pathway/safer-cycle-pathway-faqsI suspect the people badly injured on this Cycleway will be quite indifferent to the technical status of the project and the kind of traffic order than has enabled it.The problem with shutting Weltje Road access is that vehicluar traffic heading to the A4 has to cross the Cycleway at some point and far more would then use Chiswick Lane which has already been the scene of one serious accident and you may just be transferring the problem.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1288d

A bit of blue paint and raised junction at Weltje would be a start, failing that let’s close Chiswick lane and be done with it?! Now there’s an idea, maybe SCR too?It makes sense that traffic should be routed along the A4 rather than CHR / King St yet some want to restrict the access at Weltje to do that.

Michael Good ● 1288d

I'm sure LBH&F will be updating their website soon.Chiswick Lane is a signal controlled junction so cyclists get a green when left and right turning traffic on CHR is held on red, and vice versa.  Weltje Rd doesn't even have the design features originally consulted upon - bike lane offset from road, raised table before lane, build outs to tighten turning radius.  LBH&F haven't upgraded these junctions in the way LB Hounslow did on their section of the route during 2022.

Michael Robinson ● 1288d

The report suggests that the indentation of the lane, which would be required for the raised table to be in front of it, was not possible because of the position of the trees by the junction. The principle that trees can go to enable the Cycleway has already been established by Hounslow at the Chiswick Lane junction, so Hammersmith and Fulham could follow that example.Although, the Chiswick Lane junction is signalised it is only safer to the extent that cyclists use it in the way that it is designed. Many, quite legally, choose to circumvent the long wait for the cyclist phases by staying in the general traffic lanes. A high proportion, I'd say at least a quarter from the number that pass me when I am dutifully waiting on my bike at the junction, ignore the red phase for cyclists.Although the percentage of serious injuries per journey may fall if Weltje Road closed, it would transfer the risk to Chiswick Lane and it is likely that the number would rise there. One council would be transferring its safety problem to another and Hounslow would have little choice but to object. It may well be that they have already done so which is why the closure of Weltje Road was not incorporated into the design despite the LCC pointing out the dangers.I can find no record of Hammersmith and Fulham making the 'Safe Cycle Pathway' permanent but whether it is or not is irrelevant as this is just an administrative technicality. For once in this very complicated story we have some data which nobody can disagree on the implications. This section of the Cycleway is unsafe. Something needs to be done and that probably means either closure or a radical rethink of the design to be implemented as quickly as possible. The nature of the traffic order which enables the scheme makes no difference to this imperative.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1288d

"the nature of the traffic order which enables the scheme makes no difference"Yes it does. LBHF cabinet approved making the scheme permanent on Friday. They are now fully committed to upgrading it and their decision paves the way for LBH to confirm the scheme is permanent and continue with its extension out west. It makes all the difference. The only question remaining now is who will be the Hiroo Onoda of Cycleway 9 and it is good to see Francis and Jeremy throw in a couple of late bids for the honour.

Paul Campbell ● 1288d

Really Jeremy, you and Francis love to indulge in your own wishful uninformed speculations.
Below is the design for Weltje originally consulted upon. Note the raised cycle lane before cars cross it, the lane offset from the road and the build outs to tighten the turning radius.
The current implementation has none of these as LBH&F hasn't upgraded the original temporary design, as Hounslow have done.
The documentation regarding making the lane permanent (which you haven't been able to find) references improvements to junction design and closing Weltje and Rivercourt at the A4.
I'm willing to bet that Hounslow won't object.

Michael Robinson ● 1287d

Good as very important to keep this road open for cars.

Mark Talbot ● 1287d

I'm not speculating Michael, the minutes of the 2017 design meeting show that the trees were a barrier to indenting the cycleway. That may have been disregarded in the later designs but clearly has influenced what has been actually implemented. H&F seem to have determined that a temporary scheme shouldn't involve chopping down mature trees, but as I said, Hounslow has proved that you can.It's a bit unreasonable of you to castigate me for not finding documentation showing the King Street section of Cycleway 9 is implemented under a permanent traffic order and then not give a reference to it. Would you be so kind, I still can't find any reference online including on the sections of the H&F web site that deals with this. As far as I can see the council has yet to publish the results of the consultation into the Safe Cycle Pathway which was held at the end of last year.I would accept that you have better insight into what Hounslow might and might not object to but they will have a hard time explaining accepting a closure of Weltje Road to the residents of Chiswick Lane. To be clear I'm not myself arguing against this - if the cycleway is to be made safer, this may be the only option. If Hounslow and TfL agree then it would be quick and easy to implement and something does need to be done urgently.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1287d

The designs are from over 18 months after the June 2017 meeting referred to in the cw4 article.  You and they are placing too much importance on this meeting.I think you should look a bit harder on the LBH&F website rather than expect to be spoon fed. Anyway, I get a chuckle out of seeing what your next speculation will be.If the residents on Chiswick Lane object to Weltje being closed, then perhaps Hounslow should consult on opening up access to the A4 at Airedale or Netheravon. I wonder how that would be received...

Michael Robinson ● 1287d

These cycle lanes are dangerous, unsafe, poor lighting, silly rainbow stripes add to the colossal chaos of too many lines, confusing road tax paying motorists - Someone needs to take this up to the highest legal level on health & safety grounds and get these silly cycle lanes removed before there are more unnecessary & avoidable accidents.

Carl Johns ● 1287d

The solution is simple, stop any non cycles from using the road and institute a wall down the middle, with a lexus lane for the monied...  That'll be the next wave...  But not till they have priced off the majority of the population off the road by requiring all to drive all electric.  These greens should be ashamed of themselves for encouraging slavery in africa, have you seen the source of cobalt in the Congo?  How it is mined?

Bob Roberts ● 1287d

Michael, I spent some time looking at the H&F website to get confirmation that this stretch of the Cycleway has already been made permanent. I can find numerous reference which suggests it hasn't. So, please, could you provide me a link which will confirm what you are saying?I'm surprised that you down play the importance of the earlier design meeting. It shows two very important things. Firstly that the LCC, quite rightly were highlighting the dangers of the junction and secondly, a commitment to repaint the surfaces was never kept to. It was never going to be possible to implement the later permanent designs in full for a temporary scheme but people's lives seem to have been put at risk due to an unwillingness to buy some paint.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1287d

Jeremy, Weltje and Rivercourt Roads take about half the traffic of Chiswick Lane, and most of that traffic is heading to or from the east: they’re very much used a cut through to avoid the gyratory, not as an alternative to Chiswick Lane.LBH have already earmarked these roads as being in one of their clean air neighbourhoods, and as with the South Fulham CAN the aim will be to restrict through traffic on such cut throughs.  In addition, if you look at the collisions on the A4 itself, there’s a cluster at these streets, which is hardly surprising as entry and exit require a large changes in speed.There are multiple strong arguments beyond their highly disproportionate contribution to collisions involving cyclists as to why their anomalous use as routes between the A4 and King St is likely to be ended, and the decision to make C9 permanent is a likely catalyst.  And I can’t resist commenting that Francis has an unerring ability to forecast the demise of C9 just as quite contrary decisions are being made. In this case the decision of LBH to make C9 permanent should leave little doubt now that we will be seeing a permanent cycle route stretch from at least Brentford to Kensington.

Tom Pike ● 1287d

Paint is no panacea at such junctions. Research based on collisions at large numbers of such junctions in the Netherlands shows that cycle-path offsets and tables are effective, but just painting junctions red actually increases the risks of accidents as it reaffirms cyclists feeling of priority (which they have)  more than it signals to drivers that they have lost priority. Fortunately the funding has been secured to upgrade these junctions. Indeed it was a condition of the TfL settlement that all cycling provision should conform to LTN1/20 standards, which the original plan does.

Tom Pike ● 1287d

Bob Roberts, I agree with your post.The liberals are so easily brainwashed by the media into believing those who oppose are crankpots, missguided and trouble makers. The science is out there but not on the fake MSM like Sky, BBC, ITV, CNN, NBC etc..etc... .where the millionaires of Chiswick are easily manipulated by the media. North Korea do exactly the same only more severe; here, it's an easy ride but the objective of brainwashing the masses is exactly the same fake news pumped out by the TV and print and social media. Social media, on the other-hand, has opened up the pandoras box in exposing the swamp that control our every move.  The people who have to mine the Cobalt, are amongst the worlds poorest working in conditions so dangerous, you wouldn't wish it on your enemy. The mining of Cobalt if far more damaging to the atmosphere than the current energy we use. Do the tree huggers, who got electric cars, really care about the thousands who slave in these mines? Women/girls carrying their baby's on their backs in knee deep mud for 18hrs a day, ought to be ashamed of themselves. Honestly, the "hoitie toytees" don't really care because the MSM don't report it, so it can't be important mentality. God have mercy on our souls.

Carl Johns ● 1287d

I saw the worst red light jump yet, last week on CHR.One dad with 2 little kids on the back, plus a young son on his own bike behind. Didn't break stride.Incredible.

Nick Jenkins ● 1287d

That's nothing. I saw a cyclist with a chainsaw going down the Old Market Place and across the rainbow crossings, cutting down the trees as they went. But then a passing motorist saved them all. 

John Hall ● 1287d

The Old Market place doesn’t exist

Bernard Allen ● 1287d

"I think you should look a bit harder on the LBH&F website..."What a tw*ttish thing to say.

Phil Kay ● 1287d

The location of recorded collisions clearly shows that the main cause for people being injured when cycling on C9 is drivers ignoring they have lost priority when crossing C9 at unsignalled intersections.Hence the location of collision injuries was concentrated at the side roads between Goldhawk Road and Chiswick Lane until the junctions there were upgraded. Now it is on the side roads along King Street. This also shows that proper infrastructure significantly reduces the risks - drivers can not be relied on to pay due attention without it. This is not just a local insight, it is exactly what was also found in the Netherlands. In an ideal world drivers would be paying attention to more vulnerable road users without such infrastructure, but such a hope is unrealistic. If we want the safer cycling that encourages more people to leave their cars behind, we need to spend on the infrastructure that will deliver that safety. That's why London's so far ahead in the proportion cycling compared to the rest of the country.

Tom Pike ● 1287d

"Weltje and Rivercourt Roads take about half the traffic of Chiswick Lane, and most of that traffic is heading to or from the east: they’re very much used a cut through to avoid the gyratory, not as an alternative to Chiswick Lane."Given that the A4 goes roughly east/west I would have thought that all the traffic is either "heading to or from the east"!Leaving that small detail aside, your comment does raise by implication, a few important questions:1.  If some of the traffic currently using those roads diverts to Chiswick Lane, can Chiswick Lane cope? Or to be strictly accurate what level of increase in use of Chiswick Lane would cause that road to fail to cope? The last few times I have used Chiswick Lane there have been some large traffic jams.  Also the Chiswick Lane junction with cars coming off the Chiswick flyover is a notoriously dangerous junction. 2. What are the motivations of people trying to avoid the Gyratory? Depending on the answers this may inform as to whether forcing more people to use it is a good idea.  If the answer is simply they are trying to save a couple of minutes in journey time irrespective of how busy the Gyratory is, then send them to the Gyratory, however, if the answer is that Gyratory is already so congested at peak times that avoiding it becomes a necessity then a rethink may be required

Justin Stephenson ● 1287d

I do hope you are deliberately misunderstanding my point! To reiterate, very much the majority of traffic turning into Weltje is heading east on King St and similarly turns east out of Rivercourt onto King St. Such traffic hardly makes much of a detour to take the gyratory down to the A4 instead.  Far from important, any marginal difference that the closure of these two roads might make to Chiswick Lane is already much less than the effect of the significantly reduced traffic on the High Road.

Tom Pike ● 1287d

Closure of those two roads will , obviously, lead to significantly more traffic on Chiswick Lane.It won’t be “marginal” and even if it was that’s more than enough to overload an already busy road with tailbacks along CHR and king street.C9 has made a minor issue at the junction significantly worse, let’s try some better signage etc first.

Michael Good ● 1287d

Closing Weltje and Rivercourt will actually improve the less bad cycle route on the A4 shared use path.Cars turning into Rivercourt without indicating is the single biggest problem with that route.You will be able to go from Hogarth Roundabout almost to Hammersmith gyratory without a single junction.  Much safer as the vast majority of incidents happen at junctions.It's also much, much faster without all the junctions and lights.It's a pity that LCC talked TFL and the councils into building it on teh High Road in the first place.

Al Webber ● 1287d

Tom, fair minded folk on this forum will recognise that didn't actually predict that C9 was about to close but that the current level of serious accidents meant that the King Street section might have to be shut if nothing can be done to stop the high level of accidents. By your logic I am also predicting that Weltje Road access will be shut.You are making a huge assumption about fault here and, as far as I am aware, none of these collisions have resulted in prosecutions or convictions so no conclusions can be reached about causes other than the design of junctions is deficient. On the subject of my predictions, I along with many others, argued before this cycleway was introduced, that a bi-directional operation along a road with lots of side-entries would be inherently dangerous. This has now proven to be the case to the extent that you are arguing that what has been put in is not proper infrastructure.It may well be that better junction treatments implemented by Hounslow between Goldhawk Road and Chiswick Lane have reduced collisions in these areas but, as you have pointed out to me in a different context, the cycleway was closed in this section for a significant part of 2022. What you seem to be arguing that serious injuries that might have occurred there have somehow moved further east and therefore were unavoidable. This is obvious nonsense.Your argument that paint on roads is dangerous is a new one. Is this now the consensus in academic community or is this just one piece of outlying non-peer reviewed research that just happens to suit your argument at this time? If the academic consensus is actually that painting the junctions on King Street blue would have increased not decreased accidents, why is most cycle infrastructure being implemented with different colour surfaces and why are you not demanding that local authorities stop putting councils at risk.Your claim that improvements to make these dangerous junctions safe is obviously good news although it is surprising no announcement has been made on the subject and LBHF did not take the opportunity to point this out when questioned for the article instead of just repeating a bland statement about reviewing the situation.I presume, funding being in place and the list of injured cyclists growing longer by the month, work on these junctions will be expedited. Are you able to share a start date for the work and will the new design require the removal of any more mature trees by these junctions?

Francis Rowe ● 1287d

Indeed, particularly as it looks like Jeremy is right and the King Street scheme is implemented under an Experimental Traffic Order. If this is the case Michael Robinson needs to apologise and admit his error. People have focused on Chiswick Lane as taking the burden if Weltje Road is closed but the biggest impact is like to be on Dukes Avenue. Access to the A4 there does seem to be a bit of anomaly and the most obvious conclusion as to why it has been left open is to relieve pressure on Sutton Court Road. If Dukes Avenue becomes the primary way to get on the A4 to go east when travelling from Chiswick High Road that means far more eastbound vehicles will turn left at the eastbound junction. The phase for cyclists here is very long and a large proportion of them possibly over half, ignore it and I have witness close calls twice with vehicles turning right into Dukes Avenue. It seems to me inevitable that if you direct A4 bound traffic this way you are just going to be moving cyclists casualties from Weltje Road to Dukes Avenue.

Andrew OSullivan ● 1286d

Francis, you specifically speculated that the length of C9 through Chiswick might no longer be viable, not just that the King St section would be shut, as you are now trying to claim.If a pedestrian was hit on a zebra crossing, it would be reasonable to assume that most likely the driver was at fault: the pedestrian has priority and the driver should have given way. Similarly if a cyclist is hit on the cycleway by a vehicle entering or exiting a side junction, it is reasonable to assume the driver is at fault: the cyclist has priority and the driver should have given way.I said that back in 2019 on this forum that a bidirectional cycle route without mitigation would be expected to increase the accident rate at unsignalled side junctions, but that setting back the cycleway and introducing  a raised roadway would mean an overall reduction. That was based on the published research by Schepers and he was kind enough to confirm my understanding of his work when I contacted him.  It was his research that concluded that blue paint had no effect and red paint actually increased the risk of collision at side junctions.In fact the collision data on the High Road is consistent with Schepers' research: we have seen the marked increase in collision injuries at the unsignalled side roads on C9 without mitigation that carry the largest amount of traffic: Weltje and Rivercourt Roads. In comparison, since the stretch from Chiswick Lane to Goldhawk Road has been open with the full C9 design, with not coincidently exactly the mitigation that Schepers recommended, there have been no collision injuries reported on that stretch. In contrast there have been multiple injury collisions on King St over the same period. I never claimed the "obvious nonsense" that collision injuries somehow migrated eastward - that's your own construction!Given C9 has been made permanent by LBHF, the full plans were consulted on prior to the pandemic and funds have been already allocated for the upgrade, I would expect work to start soon but I'm not aware of an exact start date. I do know that the full plans don't show the removal of any trees, though.

Tom Pike ● 1286d

Traffic on the High Road, both east and west of Chiswick Lane, is well down on prepandemic levels: closing Weltje and Rivercourt is not going to provoke gridlock there. LBHF put signage on the side junctions, but drivers evidently ignored them.

Tom Pike ● 1286d

OK. I'll put the local Car Brain Trust out of its misery with the link:http://democracy.lbhf.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=76494&Opt=0Recommendation to make scheme permanent made on 6th March. Call-in on decision to make the cycle lane permanent expired 9th March (where were the Conservatives? Too busy campaigning against ULEZ in Heston West I guess). Recommendation approved 10th March.Ta da.When Dukes Avenue is eventually closed at the A4 I'll expect the habitual incredulity and demands for apologies when the cyclists have outwitted the drivers yet again. 

Paul Campbell ● 1286d

Tom, it is true that I raised the question of the viability of the Chiswick section if the King Street section has to be closed due to safety concerns due to the rising number of injuries to cyclists. No predictions were made.Even if you are correct in your assumption that the driver is always at fault in these collisions, this will offer little comfort to the injured cyclists. Either there is something about the Cycleway on King Street that causes driver behaviour to suddenly deteriorate or there is a flaw in the design.From what you say, your scepticism on the value of surfaces differentiated by colour is indeed based on one piece of research. Am I right in concluding the view that blue surfaces have no effect is not shared by TfL, Hounslow and LBHF traffic engineers?When you say C9 has been made permanent in Hammersmith does that mean that hard infrastructure has been put in or that it is now been implemented by a non-experimental traffic order? Assuming the design posted earlier is what is going to be implemented that may mitigate the problem, we will have to wait and see. This presumably means closing Weltje Road has now been ruled out?Although the trees will have been saved, as I read the map it will mean the loss of a pedestrian refuge in front of the West London Free School which I can see some people being unhappy about. What about the other junctions? Although half the serious injuries have occurred there, the remainder still equal the total that occurred in the same area over the previous five years.I genuinely hope you are right about these mitigation measures at Weltje Road being fully funded and that work is about to start. Do you share my bafflement that LBHF chose not to mention this when asked for a comment on the growing number of cyclist injuries at these junctions?

Francis Rowe ● 1286d

I have posted the link to Friday's decision to make the cycle lane permanent above. Now you can knock yourself out reading the accompanying papers. As I'm feeling particularly helpful this morning I post below the commentary on immediate further improvements from the main reportImmediate: As referred to in Recommendation 4 Increase the visibility of the cycle path by adding additional surface markings and signage on the cycle track and road surface. Introduce a new zebra crossing on King Street near the Weltje Road junction to create a safe crossing for students and residents. Improve visibility at junctions by adding new surface dressing and/or kerbing. Progress measures in conjunction with local stakeholders to improve traffic management on Rivercourt Road and Weltje Road, including traffic reduction measures to improve safety in the area, traffic access restrictions and changes from one-way to two-way traffic flow whilst maintaining access and servicing for properties.  The following measures are being considered to address safety concerns and issues raised through collision data analysis and engagement. All of the below are subject to further investigation, road safety audits and discussion with TfL and other key stakeholders:o Narrowing the junctions of Rivercourt Road and Weltje Road and implementation of crossing changes. Review measures that will reduce entry and exit speeds and increase awareness for drivers.o Reducing traffic volumes by introducing access restrictions on Rivercourt and Weltje Road and enabling two way traffic to maintain access.o Possible changes to bus stop near to the junction of Rivercourt Road to improve sight lines.o Surveys to consider the impact of trees on visibility and sight lines.o Introduction of new controlled crossings on King Street near to Rivercourt and Weltje Roads.o General decluttering to improve visibility to and from side roads.o Resurfacing and relining of side roads

Paul Campbell ● 1286d

Thank you. So to be clear here, the scheme is not permanent but LBHF is proposing to make it so and a statutory consultation will be necessary before a traffic order is issued.From what you have posted it remains unclear whether A4 access is to remain at Weltje Road or not. Do you know either way?

Francis Rowe ● 1286d

No, the scheme is now permanent. An Experimental Traffic Order does not need further consultation to make it permanent as the ETO process itself is sufficient to make a decision (which came into effect last week)

Michael Robinson ● 1286d

"it remains unclear whether A4 access is to remain at Weltje Road or not. Do you know either way?"The frog boiling strategy is ineffective if you tell the frogs their ultimate fate too early in the process.

Paul Campbell ● 1286d

You’ve obviously never taken a stroll along Chiswick lane from 4-6pm of an evening, often tailed back to CHR southbound.Overall traffic may be down but not at that time of day on Chiswick Lane it isn’t, ditto 7.30-8.30am.

Michael Good ● 1286d

A clear answer would be nice in this case. I said at the start, I thought closing Weltje had to happen if the cycleway was to remain open on King Street.

Francis Rowe ● 1286d

I've done enough work for the local car lobby today.

Paul Campbell ● 1286d

Al, you are guilty of the same tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory nonsense of some of the other posters on this forum if you think LCC determines where cycle routes are built.If you bothered to read the documentation from when the cycle routes were planned, you would see that Hounslow's objective was to *link* town centres in the borough, not bypass them.  Commuting only represents a minority of trips in London and employment patterns in Hounslow are such that commuting into central London is very much a minority activity.Historically numbers of cycling along the A4 have always been tiny compared to CHR because there is nothing on the A4 and it is a noisy, polluted traffic sewer.  It doesn't matter what is done to the A4, there will always be more people cycling on CHR/King St because that is where the amenities are.Another advantage of the cycle lane along CHR and King St is it is "self advertising" in that people will see others cycling and think "I could do that".  When you cycle on the A4, nobody sees you except the drivers whizzing past at 40mph, almost all taking journeys that wouldn't be replaced by cycling.You have forgotten the ridiculous 'cycle through the petrol station' junctions on the A4 footpath.

Michael Robinson ● 1286d

"it looks like Jeremy is right"See, there is your mistake right there Andrew.  Jeremy being unable to find information on the LBH&F website doesn't mean he is right, it just means he isn't very good at looking for information.I had thought that it would be somewhat obvious to look for decisions under the "Councillors, committees and decisions" section of the website but it looks like it wasn't that apparent.Re: Dukes Avenue, from a previous traffic survey, about 90% of vehicles entering Dukes Avenue from CHR are driving straight through the area, most to the A4 but also some to Barrowgate and Sutton Court Rd trying to 'jump the queue' on SCR.Closing off this rat-run would mean that the volume of traffic using Dukes Ave could be reduced to the extent that signals aren't needed at the CHR junction, which would be an improvement for pedestrians and cyclists.Keeping a purely residential street open as.a 'relief route' to access an urban motorway no longer applies as a valid justification.Having said that, I don't expect anything to be done about this for several years as there is something to be said for leaving things to settle down rather than yet more changes.

Michael Robinson ● 1286d

Francis, you are overlooking that the number of casualties is dependent on the risk at a junction and the number of cyclists and vehicles at the junction. The number of cyclists along the length of C9 doesn’t vary much, but the number of vehicles using a side junction does and Weltje and Rivercourt have the most traffic of any unsignalled junction on C9. You don’t need to make any assumptions about differing driver behaviour along C9 to understand the distribution of injury collisions.You must have noticed that no treatment of side junctions on C9 uses any paint.  TfL keep abreast of research and Schepers work is recognised as the authority in this area. The full scheme on King St uses similar treatments at all unsignalled sideroads.  You have given multiple reasons over the years which at least you felt were convincing enough to share as to why C9 was never going to be built or would be ripped out if it was. None has come to pass.

Tom Pike ● 1286d

If it needs a side of A4 (paper, not the road!) to list the changes needed to upgrade the Hammersmith two-way cycle track to make it 'safe', then maybe the whole thing wasn't such a good idea.  As others have discussed, there are many confusions inherent in a two way cycle track, for drivers, cyclists and pedestrians, which are unlikely to be removed by yet more elaborate road engineering.  For example, eastbound King Street traffic wanting to turn right into Weltje Road is unlikely to ever get a reliably clear view of eastbound cyclists coming up behind them on the far side of the road, as they'll be out of their mirror view and potentially obscured by westbound traffic. As an aside, wouldn't it be safer for cyclists if they close Weltje and Rivercourt Roads at the King Street end rather than the A4 end?  Residents might not like this, but I can't seen them liking their roads being made two-way with the concomitant loss of parking.

Peter Evans ● 1286d

The notice for the decision was published on 06/02/2023.I wonder what the LBH&F Conservatives view was? Despite the cycleway programme being initiated under a Conservative Mayor, the Conservatives have a history of opposing cycling to appease their elderly, gammony supporters.So did they decide that it wasn't worth opposing any more and no point calling-in the decision for a review? Or, were they 'asleep at the wheel' and didn't notice the advance notice of the decision being published?

Michael Robinson ● 1286d

"You have forgotten the ridiculous 'cycle through the petrol station' junctions on the A4 footpath."That's still less bad than the High Road route."When you cycle on the A4, nobody sees you except the drivers whizzing past at 40mph"Cars very rarely whizz past at 40mph because of traffic.  Quite often you overtake the cars on your bike.Whatever arguments you come up with, you can get from Hogarth Roundabout almost to Hammersmith Broadway with very few junctions (plus the petrol station).  It's a lot quicker, and it's a lot safer because of the lack of junctions.The pollution is bad on the High Road, and King Street as well, and you will be breathing it in for longer, and you will be breathing more heavily from all the effort from getting up to speed from all the stopping and starting you will have to do.As for your arguments about commuting, if commuting isn't a major issue, why are the roads so clogged during the morning and afternoon rush hours?You have your own very specific viewpoint about how things should be done, and you are ignoring anything that doesn't fit your ideas.  You don't speak for me, or for a very large number of cyclists in London.Before all the usual anti-cycling crowd jump on my comments, a lot of you are even more wrong than Michael.  We have to reduce the number of cars on the road.  It's the only way to fix our air pollution problems.  Michael is wanting to go about it the wrong way, but at least he wants to move things in the right direction.

Al Webber ● 1286d

Al, your problem is that because you have a preference for a route that happens to go past where you live, you think that everyone else must be the same as you.  The numbers cycling along CHR compared to the tiny numbers along the A4 demonstrate that you are wrong.People taking other modes of transport to visit CHR are more likely to switch to cycling when they see others cycling there.  As I said, the route is 'self advertising'.  The only people who see cyclists on A4 are drivers and it doesn't matter what speed the cars are going past on the A4.  The point is that drivers on the A4 are unlikely to switch their journey to cycling.  You are also wrong about pollution.  CHR pollution has been steadily dropping since 2019 and is below EU thresholds for NOx and particulates.  The A4 is way above these thresholds.  This isn't a surprise given there is almost 10 times more motor traffic on the A4 compared to Chiswick High Rd.  I know the facts don't fit your view of the world but you really are poisoning yourself more by cycling alongside the A4.If you look at patterns of employment in Hounslow, the further west you go, the more people work in Hounslow itself.  A 20+ round trip cycling into central London isn't viable for all but a few.  That is why Hounslow strategy was to link town centres so people can visit them by cycling, not bypass them for the benefit a small number of long distance commuters.You can't get away from the fact that cycle routes should be built where people want to go.  People want to visit the amenities along CHR and King St.  Nobody wants to visit the A4 because there is nothing there.The numbers of people cycling on CHR and particularly the increase in daytime and weekend numbers speak for themselves.  People have already made their decision with their choice of route.

Michael Robinson ● 1286d

Just to add Al, you can attack me personally all you like, that doesn't change the fact that a cycle route linking town centres has been the objective of the Hounslow transport strategy for 10+ years.  I can only assume that you have never actually read the documents produced for the transport strategies to understand why that is the case.  The transport strategies and plans for routes aren't arrived at based upon a few people's personal preferences, but using where people live, work and want to visit.

Michael Robinson ● 1286d

Tom, you are horribly over-complicating this in an attempt to try and convince people there isn't a problem. There were three cyclists seriously injured on this stretch of road in five years and then six seriously injured in nine months after a bi-directional cycleway was introduced. The only rational conclusion is that the bi-directional cycleway as it is currently designed, is the reason.I hope your statistical sophistry doesn't convince anyone that something radical doesn't need to be done and done quickly. If that involves closing Weltje Road and chopping down trees then so be it because we have been very lucky not to have had a fatality among those serious collisions.I remember asking you when this was first proposed how many serious accidents you would be prepared to see happen before you accepted that the broad concept of putting a bi-directional cycleway along a road with so many side entries was dangerous and you didn't answer. We now know the answer is over six. As LBHF appear to have ruled out removing the cycleway despite the injury toll then we should all support doing what it takes to make it safer but, if that fails to achieve the desired outcome, then you should stop defending the indefensible.

Francis Rowe ● 1286d

Indeed, we should all do what it takes."Sorry,I just didn't see you" is often the first words after an accident.Drivers are fallible, not super heros, so cyclists could help themselves by making themselves as visible as possible. Lights, high viz could have avoided an unknown number of collisions.

Adrian Irving ● 1286d

Francis, that collisions are a product of the risk and the vehicle numbers is the completely standard approach. It is clearly a more appropriate way to analyse the risk of collisions than your suggestion that drivers in Hammersmith are more prone to collide with cyclists. And of course there is a problem on King St, and I have given the reason as to why we are seeing it. In fact I think the upgrade to the original plan should happen as soon as possible, and there are good reasons to close Weltje and Rivercourt roads to traffic as well, and not just to improve safety at those junctions. But why do you think it is necessary to chop down trees when that is not in any plans?I don't think the concept of bidirectional cycleways is inherently dangerous, but it does need mitigation if there is significant traffic at unsignalled side roads - I stated that four years ago. Injury collisions on the stretch between Heathfield Terrace and Chiswick Lane are down on the previous levels and there a much lower volume of traffic crosses C9 at unsignalled junctions. You are now resorting to misrepresenting my views, but it's your analysis that has been at fault, whether or not you can comprehend why.

Tom Pike ● 1286d

If the problem is unsignalled side roads then why not make the side roads signalled?Of course it would slow down the traffic, due to more signals, but is that really a problem?I also note that some posters, not Tom, have proposed closing Weltje Road, Riverscourt and Dukes Avenue.  I may have missed an entrance but I think that would mean that the only way to access the A4 coming from the north (or turn off A4 north) from east of Chiswick roundabout to the Gyratory will be via Sutton Lane, SCR or Chiswick Lane.  Sutton Lane is only for those turning off the A4 and using Barrowgate to get to SCR to then recross the A4 either to go west or to enter Grove Park, it is completely unsuitable due to narrow roads to use it to go from A4 to CHR.  It is well known by residents close to the relevant roads that both SCR and Chiswick Lane already struggle to cope with the volume of traffic using them at certain times (Friday afternoon during school term time being always very bad on SCR) and they are notoriously dangerous roads.  The entire idea of shunting yet more traffic onto those roads is misconceived

Justin Stephenson ● 1286d

Silly Jeremy looking for information on the Safer Cycle Pathway on Hammersmith and Fulham's Safer Cycle Pathway page. I did follow your link and found a brief item about making the cycleway permanent on page 37 of the cabinet paper reports but no minutes and I couldn't track down any associated report which the cabinet papers said should have been published four days before the meeting. It seems extremely strange that such an important decision should be so hidden away and, for all the criticism they receive, I can't see either Ealing or Hounslow handling things in this way. Ealing made a big deal about making Fishers Lane restrictions permanent. It is hard not to conclude that the timing of the move as worrying numbers on injuries and collisions came out prompted it to be done on the down low. It still remains confusing whether or not this means the implementation of permanent infrastructure (i.e. concrete kerbs as opposed to rubber wands) on an experimental traffic order or the current interim scheme on a permanent traffic order. Either way H&F Council just looks downright shifty.
On Dukes Avenue, I'm not arguing against closure. As I said, it seems like an anomaly which I would presume has something to do with TfL and Hounslow being concerned about pressure on SCR. Using a residential road as a relief route is not ideal but then again residents of SCR (of which there are many more than Dukes Avenue due to the higher proportion of flats) are going to be appreciative of the authorities considering their interests. If you close Weltje Road and leave Dukes Avenue open you get the worst of both worlds with increased usage of the dangerous junction on the High Road. I suppose Hounslow Council can't really do that much if Hammersmith & Fulham do decide to do this but it will, in my view be transferring problems and risk from Hammersmith to Chiswick. I suppose it is only a backwater so they will probably feel they can let it slide.

Andrew OSullivan ● 1286d

I suppose another alternative route if the link roads are closed between the A4 and King Street is to continue into the Hammersmith gyratory.  The problem with that is that traffic now turning off the A4 into Rivercourt and aiming to go north up Paddenswick, would have to double back from the gyratory along the newly 'traffic calmed' King Street, which can't be a good idea.

Peter Evans ● 1286d

I think we can all agree that a bi directional cycle lane is a marvellous idea and causes absolutely no problems at junctions

Michael Good ● 1286d

I've had a brief look into this thread - God isn't the layout of Chiswick W4's forum awful? - and it seems that some are hellbent on ignoring the elephant in the room.The last two cyclists to be hurt in King Street were hit by cars.I too am a cyclist; I cycle Westwards, into Brentford and Hounslow, and I'll say that in Chiswick and the latter part of Brentford it's a quasi-daily occurrence that I'm not given right of way as I should. The obvious spots are on Wellesley Gardens, at the petrol station on Brentford high road, basically any junction on Bollo Lane and, frankly, across most of Chiswick High road. Car drivers will either pull up in front of me, or cut across, or simply overtake then turn, often without bothering to signal. It happens every day, and so far only good luck, a very good set of brakes, and experience in knowing that some places are hotspots has prevented me from ending up stamped on the side of a Volvo. Or an Audi.I've said it many times, I'm not a fan of the King Street cycleway, or of the fact that CS9 is on one side of the street only, but we'd still have issues like the ones mentioned on the news page if drivers don't learn that a) they need to check their damn mirrors b) they need to indicate c) they need to understand the concept of right of way

Francis Sheehan ● 1286d

The local Councils all offer cycle training including special junction training for cyvlists.  You just have to put "cycling" into your local Council's website.It has become obvious that refresher courses on the Highway Code and driving are necessary for those driving too to keep drivers up to date and to stop them falling into bad driving habits.  Waiting until the age of 70 for the reapplication isn't early or often or robust enough for such dangerous and heavy machines.

Philippa Bond ● 1286d

The local Councils all offer cycle training including special junction training for cyvlists.  You just have to put "cycling" into your local Council's website.It has become obvious that refresher courses on the Highway Code and driving are necessary for those driving too to keep drivers up to date and to stop them falling into bad driving habits.  Waiting until the age of 70 for the reapplication isn't early or often or robust enough for such dangerous and heavy machines.

Philippa Bond ● 1286d

It isn't fair to say that people are ignoring this part of the problem. However, driver negligence, confusion and irresponsibility are constants and you can't plan infrastructure on the basis that they aren't going to happen.A driver emerging from a side road across the cycleway has six potential points of danger to consider - cars on the road, cyclists on the cycleway and pedestrians on the pavement coming from both ways. Of course if they hit a pedestrian or a cyclist it will be their fault but more collisions are inevitable with this layout. Driver education can only mitigate this problem very slightly.Cycleway 9 was always likely to be less safe statistically than what went before. There is a consensus in the research that you can make cyclists safer by segregating them from traffic but there is little you can do at intersections and junctions.What Cycleway 9 does is introduce more junctions for cyclists and make them higher risk. Take for instance a journey eastbound from Chiswick Lane to King Street on the High Road. Before I could cycle along here in the general direction of traffic with no confusion over priority with vehicles emerging from side roads. The chance of being involved in a serious collision when you are cycling in a straight line with unsegregated traffic is vanishingly small. However, although it IS safe it doesn't FEEL safe because you have buses and lorries on your shoulders. In this specific stretch you also needed to move into the right hand lane to cross the Goldhawk Road junction which made the route too intimidating for less experienced cyclists and people accompanying children.When H&F describe their cycleway as the Safer Cycle Pathway this isn't necessarily Orwellian double speak. It shows that the important thing about it is that many people feel safer on it and therefore a wider range of people are cycling along the High Road. There are more women which is critical given the imbalance between cycling rates of men and women. There has also been a rise of children at Latymer and West London Free School cycling. The numbers remain quite small but this is an encouraging development. For several years I used to see a lone Latymer pupil regularly ride through Fishers Lane to get to school and felt it was sad he was the only one.The problem with the King Street section is that it was implemented very hastily. What someone who works at H&F told me was that the money was given by Andrew Gilligan on the condition that it was spent immediately because he knew he was going to be off the TfL board imminently.However, people might like to play with the numbers, the current design is demonstrably dangerous. Mitigation measures need to be put in place urgently to reduce these serious collisions.Ultimately, no matter what you do at these junctions the basic problem of the complexity of navigating through them remains and I think we have to expect a continuation of a higher level of serious collisions for cyclists even allowing for greater use. How these will ultimately fall is the safety in numbers effect in which driver awareness of the potential for there to be a cyclist at a junction is triggered by seeing cyclists. The only way that this will happen is by increasing the range of the type of people that cycle and you do that by making them feel safer which Cycleway 9 does.

Mark Evans ● 1285d

"The chance of being involved in a serious collision when you are cycling in a straight line with unsegregated traffic is vanishingly small."Sorry Mark, that simply isn't correct.  Prior to the 2019 decision on C9, myself and some others did extensive analysis of about 430 collisions involving cyclists along the route of C9 along CHR and King St (this was data going back to 2005).  This used police information on the details of the collision including direction of cyclist and vehicle and if there were turning movements.25% of collisions involved the cyclist and vehicle travelling in the same direction.  25% is not 'vanishingly small'.  In addition, 12% of collisions involved the cyclist being 'doored' by parked cars.So a segregated lane would have prevented 37% of collisions before even considering junctions.'What Cycleway 9 does is introduce more junctions for cyclists'No it doesn't.  It should be obvious that a bike lane along one side of the road means fewer junctions are passed than lanes along both sides of the road.  If you are in C9, you can't be hit by a car emerging from the junction of, say, Fishers Lane and CHR.'there is little you can do at intersections and junctions.'Again, incorrect. Protection can be based upon separation by space and separation by time.  Cycle-specific signals at the junctions of Dukes Avenue, TGT, Chiswick Lane separate cyclists and motor vehicles by time. Yes, this doesn't work if one or other vehicle run a red light but there is only so much that can be done.The lights at Dukes Avenue can be somewhat frustrating but collisions figures show this junction, and Fishers Lane, had the highest concentration of collisions along the route.  The reason there are signals here is the volume of traffic using Dukes Avenue as a rat-run to the A4.For unsignalled junctions there are several standard design approaches that can be used to reduce probability of collisions.  There is lots of research that has been done on this to actually put figures on the safety improvements compared to junctions with no design changes.The design changes have already been mentioned. Offset the track from the road to provide separation with turning traffic, put the track on a raised surface to slow down the vehicle before it crosses the track, build outs to tighten the turning radius of the vehicle to slow it down before turning and ensure it crosses the track at 90 degrees with the driver looking ahead rather than swinging into a turn at an angle.You mention vehicles emerging from side roads several times, however the biggest danger is from vehicles entering side roads.  Along CHR/King St there were *seven* times more collisions from vehicles entering side roads than emerging.  This should be obvious.  When a vehicle is entering a side road it may be doing this at speed and swinging into a turn while when emerging, it is more likely to be doing this at slow speed or from a stop.It isn't a surprise there are more collisions at Weltje which is one way from King St than Rivercourt, which is one way to King St.As has been mentioned, LBH&F have implemented none of the design measures that can reduce probability of collisions at Weltje and Rivercourt.  The report accompanying the decision to make the bike lane permanent has recognised the issue.  They now need to do something quickly.

Michael Robinson ● 1285d

"As has been mentioned, LBH&F have implemented none of the design measures that can reduce probability of collisions at Weltje and Rivercourt.  The report accompanying the decision to make the bike lane permanent has recognised the issue.  They now need to do something quickly"Yes. One could harangue the Council for not acting fast enough on the recommendations of cycle campaigners going back to 2017. But I don't see it like that. We have a Council who has finally recognised the imperative to install safe cycling infrastructure. Now they are having to unlearn 60 years of car-centric road and space design and learn bike-centric design. Every step forward they take will make more issues with the roads in the Borough obvious to them and they will invest more time, energy and money in fixing those. And so it goes on. I think some of the opponents of Cycleway 9 were bright enough to realise that if they lost the battle to have it removed it was likely to be the harbinger for a new era of people-friendly street design. It's why they fought so hard and wasted so much money. See also new LTNs. There is no turning back now.

Paul Campbell ● 1285d

How ironic.At last people are waking up to the fact and admitting the temporary cycle lane steam rollered through was and still is in some sections bloody dangerous.Despite many people pointing out this as the blooming obvious a number of the usual suspects defended this dogs dinner to the death. Well not quite the death but certainly serious injury.As I said from the get go, put it in properly or not at all.Let's hope the Hammersmith section is sorted pronto before more serious injury or worse.

Adrian Irving ● 1285d

“Along CHR/King St there were *seven* times more collisions from vehicles entering side roads than emerging.”This difference highlights who is at fault in such collisions: there are equal numbers of cyclists crossing both types of junctions, and overall as many drivers exiting and entering CHR/KS at them so it must be down to a difference in driver behaviour.  Drivers slow down and pay attention when they face the direct risk of collision from another motor vehicle when they no longer have priority on entering CHR/KS. That also gives a better chance to notice people cycling. However, for the minority of drivers who ignore that people cycling have priority on C9, as there is no risk of collision with another motor vehicle when exiting onto a one-way street they will pay much more limited attention to cyclists.LBHF were obviously aware of these risks, and put signage at these junctions to emphasise that drivers needed to pay attention, but this clearly had limited effectiveness.And what’s more where drivers do take the time to pay attention at Rivercourt, traffic can back up to the A4, increasing the risk of a collision there, and indeed there is a cluster of collision injuries, several serious, seen there. There is an obvious solution that will improve safety for both cyclists and drivers at Weltje and Rivercourt.

Tom Pike ● 1285d

Well at least everyone agrees something needs to be done and done quickly. The lack of announcement from H&F is concerning.With all due respect to your undoubtedly diligent research Michael, the fact remains that the body of accumulated data on collisions show that they overwhelmingly occur at junctions. You may have been able to find some instances where this did not happen over the last 18 years but given the millions of cycle journeys that will have taken place during that time, that still doesn't show that cycling in the same direction as traffic isn't very safe. Segregation can make it safer but the issue with junctions remains and all of the bad accidents we have had so far on CHR and King Street since the cycleway was introduced have come at junctions.There were fewer junctions on the Cycleway 9 route before it was introduced and for eastbound riding they offered clear priority. Chiswick Lane used to be just a straight ride through but now your path is crossed by northbound and southbound traffic. The new layout has seen a serious collision already at this junction. Mitigation of the new design hopefully will reduce serious collisions but it would be wrong to assume that it will eradicate them. The basic problem will remain at side entries of drivers needing to be aware of six points of potential danger. If you hang your hat on the cycleway being intrinsically safer you run the risk of strengthening the case for its removal when it proves not to be.Better to acknowledge collision risk may rise in the short term and that better cycling infrastructure will ultimately reduce collisions due to there being more cyclists which means motorist learn to expect them which is what has happened in other countries.

Mark Evans ● 1285d

Mark, CHR at Chiswick Lane was never a straight run through, unless you ignored the lights! The recent collision at that Junction was to a cyclist travelling in on Chiswick Lane, not C9. The length of C9 from Heathfield Terrace to Chiswick Lane that has been open the longest has demonstrably fewer collision injuries per rider: the overall reduction of risk from segregation is greater than the additional risk from the risk at unsignalled side roads that do not carry much traffic.  The upgrade further reduces those risks.  London has seen significantly higher spending on cycling provision and has seen four times the increase in cycling compared to the rest of the country. Just stating that cycling is safe enough does not lead to an increase in cycling.

Tom Pike ● 1285d

~you run the risk of strengthening the case for its removal when it proves not to be."Latest move to pole position in the race to to be the Hiroo Onoda of Cycleway9.

Paul Campbell ● 1285d

Yes, the majority of collisions occur at junctions but there is a difference between 'majority' and your claim of practically 100%.  That's what your claim that collisions not at junctions are 'vanishingly small' means.  This appears to be based upon nothing more than your opinion with no evidence at all.  The evidence of more than 100 collisions from the 400+ recorded along CHR and King St demonstrates it is wrong."eastbound riding they offered clear priority"The record of collisions shows that 'priority' is no protection against impatient or unobservant drivers.  One of the worse locations for collisions was the junction of CHR and Fishers Lane.  This had drivers forcing their way out of a narrow junction, some turning left, some turning right, some turning right to slalom across the road to turn into Dukes Ave for the A4."Chiswick Lane used to be just a straight ride through"It wasn't westbound and this was another collision hotspot. The issue there was cyclists who naturally positioned themselves in the inside lane got 'left hooked' at the junction by traffic turning into Chiswick Lane.  Going straight ahead meant getting out of the inside lane into the outside lane.  This isn't a particularly easy manoeuvre in busy traffic.  The same applied to going eastbound at the Goldhawk Rd junction, there were a large number of collisions from eastbound cyclists being left hooked by turning vehicles.  That can't happen with the new design.I haven't yet seen analysis of the collision at Chiswick Lane but don't see how it could happen unless cyclist or driver ran a red light.Of course improved design won't eliminate collisions but years of data has shown it can reduce them compared to the existing motor-centric design.It is interesting looking at record of driver casualties from collisions on the A4 and there is a large cluster of casualties at the junction of the A4 and Rivercourt.  So turning from a 40mph 3 lane urban motorway into a narrow residential street doesn't seem to be very safe for drivers either.

Michael Robinson ● 1285d

I just read that the Hammersmith section has been made permanent with possible additional safety measures to some of the side roads. Does anyone know what they’re planning?

Nora Watkins ● 1285d

You can't give all the credit for the increase in cycling to cycle lanes.London is flat, so is easy to cycle around.  Parking costs a fortune, if you can find somewhere to park at all, and it's a nightmare to drive in.  I think the average traffic speed is around 10 or 12 mph.Driving is getting more expensive, and the Tube is expensive.  People were always going to switch to cycling, cycle lanes or no cycle lanes.

Al Webber ● 1285d

At this stage things appear unclear even after much discussion on this thread.Tom and Michael are saying that funding is in place for what would essentially be the full implementation of the original design for the Cycleway which was due to be installed pre-pandemic. That would mean kerbs rather than wands along the road and proper junction treatments at side roads.There is a remaining ambiguity about what is planned at Weltje Road and Rivercourt Road but it looks like access restrictions are being considered there which would have significant implications for Chiswick. According to Michael, Hounslow will not be objecting if this is what is being proposed.Michael and Tom are often are well informed on things like this, getting information before it is in the public domain, so generally are reliable.It remains unclear what exactly 'permanent' means. Michael says Hammersmith and Fulham Council can simply decide to decree that the traffic order that enables the cycleway on King Street has obtained permanent status. I thought that an experimental traffic order had to be replaced by a permanent order which could only be made after a consultation. However, Michael knows the minutiae of the way these things work better than most so the chances are he may be correct.The only thing I have been able to find after being offered some clues by Tom and Michael is an obscure agenda point from a Hammersmith and Fulham Council cabinet meeting which says the Cycleway is being made permanent. Despite looking on line, I was unable to find associated reports for this item even though they are supposed to be published. I have been, perhaps fairly, ridiculed for my online searching skills so it may be that these reports are in the public domain. Snippets of them seem to have been shared by those that have access to them so they do exist but at this stage may just have been given to a select few.It has been pointed out to me that 'permanent' may just refer to the nature of the infrastructure rather than the order than enables it and the new works will be enabled with a temporary order which will essentially mean the permanent scheme is a trial. I appreciated this is highly confusing.Lots of other questions still remain. Presumably if the scheme has been made permanent in an administrative sense this has been done on the basis of the consultation that was held during the trial but the report into that consultation has not been shared. What we do know is that we have seen ever increasing reports of serious injuries to cyclists on this cycleway so it seems odd timing to say the least to apparently unilaterally declare the scheme permanent. The truth of what is happening is further obscured by the apparent silence of Hammersmith and Fulham Council on the matter. There has been no announcement that I have seen and when asked by this web site by the rising toll of injuries a rather mealy-mouthed non-specific reply was given. It is hard to square this reticence with Tom and Michael's confidence that funding is in place for the desperately needed upgrades.It is very difficult at this stage to make sense of what is actually going on and this is hardly a shining example of open democracy. One possible explanation is that the council need to change the categorisation of the cycleway to permanent before the end of the financial year to enable the next stage of funding to make it permanent in reality. They appreciate the timing is terrible due to the casualty figures but have no choice if they want the money.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1284d

"I have been, perhaps fairly, ridiculed for my online searching skills so it may be that these reports are in the public domain. Snippets of them seem to have been shared by those that have access to them so they do exist but at this stage may just have been given to a select few."I think this may be the best example I have sign of how befuddlement begets conspiracy theories. I gave you this link:http://democracy.lbhf.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=76494&Opt=0At the bottom of this page there is another link under "Decisions".http://democracy.lbhf.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?Id=4592At the bottom of that page is a section entitled "Accompanying Documents" with links to .... accompanying documents. It is very painful spoonfeeding the increasingly confused local car lobby. Try not to dribble and concentrate on my instructions and then you too can be one of the privileged few smart enough to access the report for the decision, the consultation responses and other reports.

Paul Campbell ● 1284d

Al, London was as flat twenty years ago as it is today, and yet the proportion of trips by bike has now more than tripled.The number of car trips has dropped both inside and outside of London over that period, but only London has seen a significant increase in cycling compared to the rest of England. London has certainly seen a much larger spend in improving cycling provision compared to the rest of the country, and there is clearly nothing inevitable about cycling increasing, as the rest of the country demonstrates. And within London, where has the largest increase in cycling been seen? Bike counts for the first time overtook car counts in the City of London last year, while Kensington and Chelsea with their aversion to providing segregated cycling has seen the lowest increase of all the inner London boroughs - in fact it was the only borough to see a drop between 2015 and 2022. The evidence, both nationally and across London, rather shows that improved cycling provision is key to getting people to switch to cycling.

Tom Pike ● 1284d

There are people on this forum who will applaud RBKC for the success of their anti-cycling policies, Fewer people cycling is an excellent outcome for them.I know that Al is a veteran London cyclist so he will have seen the impact of CS3 and CS6 on cycling. Anybody who has observed what I have over the past 20 years would be very disingenuous to deny the positive impact of separated cycle lanes on both cycling numbers and the diversity of cycling in London. And now we are seeing the same impact on C9.

Paul Campbell ● 1284d

Jeremy, I had no inside track on this information - it's been in the public domain for over a week if you follow Paul's links.The major implications for Chiswick are going to be the upgrade to a safer route for those who cycle to the east (until you hit RBKC) and very likely a safer route for those who have to drive with the anticipated restrictions on Weltje and Rivercourt Roads as the traffic backing up onto the A4 was a real problem, with a cluster injury collisions on the A4.

Tom Pike ● 1284d

Thanks for that summing up Jeremy. The situation remains confusing but you have added a bit of clarity.Looks like you were correct on the traffic order point not that it is particularly material. The decision notice shows that LBHF have not suddenly deemed the scheme permanent but will be moving towards issuing a permanent traffic order which, as you have said, will require a statutory consultation. Probably a forgone conclusion but nevertheless proper process is being followed.Moving straight to a permanent order does seem to break an earlier pledge by LBHF in which they say. "The full permanent scheme is still being developed. It will only be introduced once Hammersmith & Fulham Council has heard from residents, analysed traffic and usage data and fixed any issues or problems with this latest interim scheme."As they clearly haven't fixed the problems this looks premature but the important thing is that they crack on with changes to improve safety given the ever rising injury toll and the kind of traffic order they use to do this matters not a jot.

Francis Rowe ● 1284d

" I thought that an experimental traffic order had to be replaced by a permanent order which could only be made after a consultation."No.  The consultation process has already been done using the Experimental Traffic Order. After this has completed, the highway authority can decide to make the Experimental Traffic Order permanent, remove the measures (or potentially make additional changes under a new experimental traffic order).LBH&F have decided to make the Experimental Traffic Order for the Cycleway along King St permanent.The process for any subsequent changes will depend on what they are, but they won't change the status of the cycleway.Works to remodel a junction may not need any consultation.  The council could just issue a temporary traffic order to do the works and that's it.  Changes such as closing off access, changing a street from one way to two way, removing parking spaces would need to go through a consultation process but that would just be for these changes.  It wouldn't change the status of the cycleway.The council website says "Each month, the Council publishes a list of key decisions which it is planning to take within the next 28 days" and these are listed in the "key decision list" on the council website.  There are about 50 such decisions each month and there won't be announcements for any of them unless the council PR department decides that something is particularly newsworthy. The website just gets updated with the status of the decision after the date it comes into effect.

Michael Robinson ● 1284d

Francis, have you even read the documentation produced by LBH&F?It says:"Decision will make interim safer cycle pathway on King Street (Goldhawk Road to Lyric Square) permanent.Date of decision: 05/03/2023Effective from: 10/03/2023"The decision has been made.  The Cycleway is permanent.  No further traffic orders are needed as the ETO process itself provides the means to make a scheme permanent.You and Jeremy coming up with these theories really is the blind leading the blind...

Michael Robinson ● 1284d

Cycling was increasing in the early 2000s before all the cycle lanes went in.  Driving has only got more difficult and expensive since.  The number of cyclists was always going to keep climbing.London is totally different to the rest of the country.  The distance for a commute from somewhere like Chiswick to the centre of town would put you out of the city anywhere else in the country.  Comparing with the rest of the country and saying it's because of the cycles lanes here is completely flawed because it is so different.

Al Webber ● 1284d

...just to add, the council will need to issue some further administrative paperwork to make the experimental traffic order permanent, but this isn't the same as going through another consultation process for a permanent traffic order.

Michael Robinson ● 1284d

Thanks for the links.  It's good to see that there has engagement with the issues for older people and those with disabilities.

Nora Watkins ● 1284d

You are welcome Nora. Just a shame that they let lots of cyclists respond and say they like the lane .....

Paul Campbell ● 1284d

Michael, I did read the decision report which states:" To approve the making of a permanent traffic management order for the SCP scheme along with any necessary associated highway works subject to the outcome of the statutory consultation process."Seems pretty clear cut to me but it's quite an arcane point and I'm not really sure why you are choosing this particular hill to die on other than an obstinate refusal to accept you made a minor mistake about a point of procedure.

Francis Rowe ● 1284d

Fair enough Francis.

Michael Robinson ● 1284d

Again, all of these differences between London and the rest of the country were the same twenty years ago as they are now.  So that can’t explain the much larger increase in London from the same baseline, or why RBKC has languished behind within London.Investment in cycle lanes explains both.

Tom Pike ● 1284d

AW: "London is totally different to the rest of the country.  The distance for a commute from somewhere like Chiswick to the centre of town would put you out of the city anywhere else in the country."RC: A seven mile commute by bike to the centre of London from Chiswick is just the same as a seven mile commute eg to the centre of Norwich from an outlying village.The only difference is that London offers many more public transport alteratives - Tube, bus, trams, suburban rail etc - than provincial towns and cities. (Oh and Norwich is every bit as flat as London, too!)Yet London is outpacing all of them for the growth in cycling.

Richard Cathcart ● 1284d

The traffic in getting 7 miles into Norwich won't be anywhere near as bad as the traffic in London, and you won't have to pay £30 a day to park.  It's not remotely comparable.While Norwich is flat, that doesn't apply to a lot of cities. London's lack of hills does make it easy to cycle in.  That does affect the number of people who cycle.  Somewhere like Bristol would be very different.

Al Webber ● 1284d

Scroll down to page 4 for the engagement with the disabled http://democracy.lbhf.gov.uk/documents/s123671/Appendix%201%20-%20Summary%20of%20responses.pdf    

Michael Good ● 1284d

As a disabled 73 year woman, the cycle Lane and the changes made during its construction have made crossing CHR and the roads that feed onto it an absolute hazard, whether using traffic light junction or pedestrian crossings. As for getting to and from Bus Islands that's extremely hazardous too. Imo the needs of the disabled and elderly were not taken into any kind of meaningful or practical consideration.

Loraine Pemberton ● 1284d

There were 15,445 bike journeys on CS3 yesterday by 11pm. There have been over half a million journeys on it so far in 2023. Like me you must have cycled this when it was a HGV traffic jam. Filtering through double-trailer HGVs was fun for us road warriors of course but do you really believe that the Embankment would have attracted this number of cyclists without the protected lane?

Paul Campbell ● 1283d

Ms Pemberton is quite right. I am 90, deaf and losing my sight, and know that the Cycleway has made access to the High road much more hazardous than before. In particular, , the bus islands will never be safe until pedestrian access is improved. To claim that the Cycleway is now finished is untrue, as long as the short pedestrian crossings are allowed to become almost invisible through erosion, and there is no signal to cyclists to slow down. Surely the pedestrian crossings should be raised, kept visible to cyclists, ans some permanent sign installed to warn cyclists to be careful? Messages on the buses warn us passengers to take care when alighting, because of the risk posed by the Cycleway, so why not for the cyclists themselves?

Arnold Saxton ● 1283d

Arnold and Loraine's points should be taken into consideration.I'm a cyclist, I've said it plenty of times, and I've ranted at drivers plenty of times too... But that doesn't mean that every single cyclist is following the rules.Pedestrian crossings must be made more visible, and I agree even with painting "SLOW" signs before them. Police should educate/fine those who don't follow the indications. Our Councillors could push for this.

Francis Sheehan ● 1283d

"Our Councillors could push for this."Yes they could. But I guess that would be tantamount to a public declaration that they acknowledge the cycle lane is here to stay as well as mindset change to be constructive instead of critical.

Paul Campbell ● 1283d

Francis, 'slow signs' have been suggested before.  Many years back just as C9 was given the go ahead I had even suggested that a 'go slow' zone is created on the cycle lane for the busy stretch of the high road.The trouble is all these suggestions get drowned out by the screaming antis and Councilors who prefer to spend their time collecting signatures instead of working with everyone.

Matthew Swain ● 1283d

Signs would be of little use but ridging on the approach to junctions and bus stops like there are/were on some roads warning motorist to slow down before a roundabout would help and couldn't be ignored.No reason why they could not also be used a road junctions to warn motorists of the two way cycle lane.Won't happen of course.

Adrian Irving ● 1283d

You could always put in speed bumps etc to change behavior if it really is a hazard.

Matthew Swain ● 1283d

The Embankment lane is actually good.  I think that's mainly because you have the river that side of the road, which eliminates the problems you get with junctions on CHR.  You don't get cars crossing the cycle lane.There are still issues with that lane.  For instance, if you want to come up off of that lane and get onto the lane on Blackfriars Bridge, the light phasing is utterly abysmal.  It will take you a very long time.  At least that was the case last time I cycled that way, which was a while ago.  Maybe it's been improved since.The bi-directional lanes like that only really work somewhere like Embankment where you don't have the junctions on that side of the road.  Elsewhere, apart from the dangers of cars turning across them, they are incredibly slow at junctions.  That's a problem with the one on Blackfriars Bridge.  It's the problem with the one on CHR at places like the junction of Duke's Avenue.  The cycle phase just isn't long enough there.  You get what seems like 10 seconds, and then you have to wait for around 2 minutes.Then you get the bits where the lane crosses to the other side of the road, where you have to wait ages at the lights.  That also holds up car drivers when the lights do finally change for the cyclists.In most places, the bi-directional lanes just don't work.  They should be putting a lane on each side of the road.They do also need to be thinking about the routes they use.  We lived in Isleworth for a while, and I used to cycle into town from Isleworth.  There is no way I would use CHR for that route.  It's just too slow.  Whatever Michael R says about commuting not being the most important thing, the fact that we have such bad rush hours shows he is wrong on that.People also buy bikes for the commute.  If it saves them £150 per month on train tickets, then that's a big saving.  They will buy a bike for that, where they won't want to spend the money just to potter around at the weekend.  Once they have bought the bike, they will use it at the weekend, but they buy it for the commute.  That's what drives bike sales.Whatever Michael says, we need better provision on the A4 as that is by far the best route to actually get anywhere in a reasonable time frame.  The lack of junctions makes it safer as well as faster.  Most collisions do occur at junctions.That doesn't mean that we should do nothing on the High Road, but Michael pooring cold water on any suggestion that we build decent cycle facilities on the A4 is really not helpful.

Al Webber ● 1283d

Al, it really doesn’t matter what you think, there will be no schemes for cycling alongside the A4 through Chiswick anytime soon (by that I mean within the next 5 years). It isn’t on any Hounslow plans. It isn’t on any TfL plans. Not. Going. To. Happen.There is a case to improve cycling on the A4 west of Chiswick roundabout because unlike the A4 through Chiswick, there are actually businesses and housing being built there. However there are no plans for there either.So within Hounslow, the plans will be to extend C9 along the A315 from Brentford to Hounslow town centre (the construction of C9 west of Kew Bridge will be starting in 2 weeks) Then routes to link with C9 such as N to Ealing along existing bike lane on Boston Manor Rd and some other routes in the west of the borough. The focus is building out the network, not putting in parallel routes for a few long distance commuters.Did I mention already that there will be nothing done on the A4 through Chiswick ?

Michael Robinson ● 1283d

It would actually help if the LCC made some noise about getting some decent facilities on the A4, instead of rubbishing the idea. Don't you want good facilities on a faster and safer route?

Al Webber ● 1283d

According to Guy Lambert the A4 route ‘doesn’t take people where they want to go’! Those poor little cyclists.

Simon Hayes ● 1283d

Some very convincing arguments against upgrading the A4 cycleway were put forward to ensure it didn't gain credibility as an alternative to Cycleway 9.Now, we are in a situation in which it would not be an alternative but an addition. As it looks like the junctions at Weltje Road and Rivercourt Road will be closed off it would be a much more attractive option than it was.It doesn't need to be a major project at this stage - initially you could just look at resurfacing the pathways and adding signage to encourage more cyclists to use it and later deal with some of the aspects which would require spending on hard infrastructure.It is very disappointing to see this being categorically ruled out by the people who seem to have the ear of Hounslow Council and TfL on these matters. At the same time they are happy to advance frankly unworkable proposals such as a cycleway on Sutton Court Road. Sometimes I wonder if the main motivation isn't to annoy the opposite side on social media and therefore an improvement for cycling that would be  cheap and easy to implement and wouldn't require loss of road space for traffic doesn't fit the bill.

Mark Evans ● 1282d

It’s all about provoking the opposition. The very noisy minority here and elsewhere see it as a war that only they can win, regardless of cost. And truth is the first casualty, followed by reason and compromise. We know who these people are. They see any opposition, however justified or reasonable, as a threat. I was at a meeting on Wednesday evening when one of them took umbrage at something that was said because he didn’t listen properly. They simply cannot understand why everybody isn’t as fanatical as they are. It’s a cult.

Simon Hayes ● 1282d

Matthew - that is one of the suggestions in the consultation documentation which makes for interesting reading.  I don't know much about the process,  but it seemed to me from a quick look through that it's one of the things under consideration.  A face to face discussion with a group of people who actually represent those who are affected due to disabilities is much more useful way of getting feedback.  Does anyone know more about that process?  It seems to be me that it's not only the cycle lane that was getting feedback.

Nora Watkins ● 1282d

You don't get anything done in the real world with wishful thinking, Al.Funding and resources for TfL and boroughs to actually do things is finite and limited.  This applies to planning routes, detailed design then construction.Yes, it would be fantastic to have better cycling facilities everywhere but in the real world, there needs to be prioritisation and that means there will be a small number of projects 'above the line' with funding and resources and a large number 'below the line' that don't have funding and resources.Prioritisation is based upon the value of the route in terms of serving places that people live/work/want to visit plus what it would cost to implement.There is more value building out and connecting an existing network than putting in place a parallel route which would be for a small number of long distance commuters and which would take a lot of money to deliver a high quality bike lane given what is there at the moment is basically cycling on the pavement.  It would be great if TfL took out one or two lanes of traffic on the A4 to provide better cycling but I'm realistic enough to know that it won't be happening anytime soon so pointless banging head against wall asking.

Michael Robinson ● 1282d

And Michael,  this is the document I'm referring to when I say engagement.  http://democracy.lbhf.gov.uk/documents/s123674/Appendix%204%20-%20Accessibility%20Engagement%20and%20Recommendations.pdf

Nora Watkins ● 1282d

It's not just for long distance commuters.  I use it if I need to go anywhere East of Chiswick lane e.g. to Chiswick Computers to get a laptop fixed.  It's much quicker.

Al Webber ● 1282d

Al, you're not going to get a new cycle path on the A4. Why does it bother you so much when you're happily using the existing one anyway?

Paul Campbell ● 1282d

Sadly, it doesn’t matter what residents say or think about the cycleway, it will be made permanent , paint orno paint, and no matter how many cyclists continue to be seriously injured or worse. It is a done deal alas.

Sarah Potter ● 1280d

Perhaps they have real lives, friends, families , jobs etc. and are doing other things with their time as opposed to constantly campaigning for cycle lanes regardless of how much inconvenience they cause to other road users and being rude and sarcastic to people who don’t  agree with them. Sad really.

Sarah Potter ● 1280d