Forum Topic

Come off it Francis, look up the dictionary definition of “carnage”.  Your use of it is pure clickbait, tabloid, culture war garbage. I’m sure right wing press would justify their use of the word too on the basis it panders to the prejudices of their gammony readers.The rest of your post is just self-pitying nonsense. Awww… is poor ickle Francis being upset by those nasty big boys?As has been the case throughout the history of C9, your posts are long on pompous pronouncements, but short on actual evidence. You claim “flawed data” but have you ever even looked at the data? Do you even know where it is available from? What exactly are the “flaws”? It appears that the only data you will accept is data that agrees with your prejudices.I’m not sure where you get the view that supporters of Cycleway 9 are opposed to changes. If you had read the last Hounslow cabinet papers on the topic you would know there are a list of proposed changes (subject to funding etc) including remodelling the Heathfield Terrace junction to closer reflect the original design and a crossing to link up with the cycle route along Fishers Lane.To these I could add, closing off Dukes Ave at the A4 and other measures to prevent ratrunning down that street. 90% of vehicles turning into Dukes Ave are driving straight through the area and if that is stopped, there may be no need for traffic lights at the junction. That would be another big improvement for people walking and cycling.

Michael Robinson ● 275d

I try to avoid hyperbole but the use of the word carnage was considered. Six cyclists were seriously injured after the initial introduction of Cycleway 9 which was double the number  for the previous five years. I would contend that this justifies the language used.It is important to remind people of this because the narrative that Cycleway 9 has made the local area safer for both cyclists and pedestrians is a highly questionable one. When this is pointed out the person doing so provokes an angry mob using ageist and irrelevant abuse and has their motives questions.Just to be clear, the recent safety record of Cycleway 9 is much better. It has been a success in terms of improving perceptions of safety as opposed to the reality which has encouraged more novice cyclists, particularly women and children to use it. There is no strong argument overall based on its safety record at this point for its removal.There is however a risk of dangerous complacency reinforced by a hysterical reaction to any perceived criticism of the existing infrastructure which is accompanied by juvenile name calling.Danger has increased on Cycleway 9 due to the rapid increase in powered cycles and a huge proliferation of delivery riders who pay little attention to road safety. Discounting this risk based on flawed data, which will always fail to capture the true picture, is a head in the sand approach. If Cycleway 9 is going to be a positive feature of local life it needs to evolve with changing circumstances but if a gang of zealots treat every criticism with the hostility to which I have been subjected to here, then enhancements will be more diffuclt to implement. As in the initial stages of the implementation they will come about because people are getting seriously hurt not because the risks of people getting seriously hurt have been recognised beforehand and action taken to prevent this happening.

Francis Rowe ● 276d

I would say categorically that C9 is not a death trap for pedestrians on Chiswick. While it is clear that the data underreports collisions involving cyclists and pedestrians, it is not going to miss fatalities.On the other hand, there is no point in pretending that a significant proportion of the local population particularly the elderly and the disabled don't find the new layout confusing and intimidating and are subject to more stress. 90% of cyclists using it take due care and consideration of pedestrians but the rest don't and as many of are riding electric powered bikes which would do serious damage if they hit someone.It may be possible to pick holes in points I made several years ago by the use of semantics and carefully chosen points of data for comparison but the fact remains that anyone predicting a significant increase in serious injuries as a result of C9 was correct. That the number of really bad collisions seems to have dropped back to what it was before the opening may be a consequence of new layouts or increased road user awareness of potential danger. Either way the Cycleway should not be seen as some sort of Grade I listed local monument which can never be changed. Rather it should evolve along with changing patterns of use and regulation. The new Highway Code confirms the place of pedestrians above cyclists in the road heirarchy and that is observed by most people riding in the centre of Chiswick. Further changes are needed to reinforce this heirarchy and saying that this isn't necessary based on flawed data is the same sort of dangerous complacency that led to the initial carnage after the cycleway was opened.

Francis Rowe ● 277d

Francis, I’m not conflating anything: it was your confused wording that did that by defining the stretch “between King St and Chiswick Lane” as meaning King St and Chiswick High Road up to Chiswick Lane. Your precise claim was that we would see an increase in serious injuries to pedestrians due to the cycle lane on the High Road. Serious injuries are defined as needing medical attention, usually through hospitalisation and generally reported by the emergency services, and are therefore much more reliably reported compared to slight injuries, whether caused by collisions with cars or bikes. You instead now conflate the two to avoid the fact that serious injuries to pedestrians have fallen. The most likely reason for that is firstly the increased number of cyclists on the cycle way has not created the risk to pedestrians you claimed while you ignored that a decreased number of cars on the carriageway would have decreased the risk. You then conflate my comment that the upgrade to the cycleway between Chiswick Lane and Goldhawk Road was an issue with reducing the collisions on that stretch with the effect of the surface treatment at Weltje:  I specifically said that has not had an effect on the statistics because they don’t cover the period after that work!There was no dangerous complacency in the comments in 2019 that the scheme as proposed at that time would not result in an increased rate of injury to either cyclists or pedestrians.  What could not have been anticipated is that a temporary version would be rushed in because of the pandemic and then only partially upgraded.Despite this, the current rate of injuries to both cyclists and pedestrians is now lower than in 2019, with nearly twice the number now cycling along the whole stretch of C9 from Heathfield Terrace to the Gyratory. I certainly did not predict that we would see such a large increase in cycling.It’s a shame you can’t admit that what your claim that more pedestrians would be seriously injured was wrong, but rather more important that such claims were ignored for the wellbeing of pedestrians and cyclists.

Tom Pike ● 278d

You have conflated two separate safety issues here: the increased risk to pedestrians of putting a cycleway in an area with high footfall which has happened in the centre of Chiswick and the inherent risk of a bi-directional cycleway on a road which has lots of side entries as has happened between Chiswick Lane and King Street.In the first case it is dangerously complacent to conclude that there is no issue with pedestrian injuries on CHR because of a lack of reports. The chances of incidents of this nature being logged are very small as, unlike for those with motor vehicles, there is a less compelling reason for those involved to stop at the scene and no need to report for insurance purposes. Unlike motorists, cyclists are unidentifiable so people are discouraged from making a report to the police. (Note I am not making an argument for the daft idea of cyclist registraton here, just pointing out how its lack impacts collected data).A near miss or a light impact contact between pedestrian and cyclist on the High Road is something you have a good chance of witnessing if you make a walk of any decent length along the High Road when it is busy. Higher impact collisions are not rare, I saw a few months back an elderly man sprawled on the cycleway requiring assistance to get back to his feet after apparently being clipped by a delivery rider. This incident did not make it into the data.The other issue is the bi-directional nature of the cycleway which did initially see a huge surge in the number of serious collisions. While it is a relief to hear that these have tailed off, I remain highly sceptical that the largely cosmetic changes to junction treatments have been the chief factor in this improvement. Increased cyclist and driver awareness of dangerous junctions such as Weltje Road and Rivercourt Road have led to changes in behaviour. Whether, the reduction in the number of very serious injuries is a lull or a permanent state of play remains to be seen.The cold hard fact that you seem willing to address is that I and others who told you that there might be an increase in the number of people seriously injured after the implementation of the Cycleway were correct. You might want to make a case on the technicality that some of these people were badly hurt on King Street rather than CHR but once again that risks the kind of dangerous complacency that got us into this situation in the first place.The relatively good safety record of C9 over the last year weakens any argument to remove it on the grounds of risk but that does not mean that it should continue to be subject to detailed scrutiny. Denying that a problem of pedestrian/cyclist conflict exists in central Chiswick based on a flawed interpretation of data is the same complacent attitude to risk that resulted in the initial carnage in this area particularly for cyclists. The next step should be a relook at the design in the town centre to take account of changes to the Highway Code since implementation as well as the rise of powered cycles and the proliferation of delivery riders.

Francis Rowe ● 278d