Forum Topic

Motonormativity

Here is a great video explaining motonormativity and how it prevents people from seeing the vast harms that car culture causes to society. There are people on this forum who suffer extreme cases and fat too brainwashed to ever overcome their denialism but hopefully some others can learn something from this and start thinking more about how we build better worlds. 

Paul Campbell ● 211d207 Comments

I doubt if the Russians could programme a bot to make the postings that come from Silly Steve.

Richard Greenhough ● 203d

Are you a real person Steve? Or a bot from Russia. Its a puzzle as i'd rate the russians to build a better bot than a 'Steve'. Maybe Steve II will be able to grasp different opinions and react with something other than what was said in 1986

Tony Mansell ● 203d

What struck me yesterday, driving to Hampshire, was the sheer number of huge SUVs on the roads. Everyone seems to be going for the bigger, better, more comfortable and more exciting vehicles to get themselves and their families from A to B.  Small cars seem to be fading away altogether. The motor industry must be booming and long will it continue.

Steve Taylor ● 204d

Last input from me. Cue The Gnome

N V Brooks ● 204d

The new headline should either kill this thread stone dead or provoke another couple of hundred of the same old same old.I know where my money lies. Carry on.

Adrian Irving ● 205d

As explained to you Tom, almost to the point of exhaustion, I was counting cars I have clarified that I was not counting motorbikes motorcycles skateboards scooters or any other number that you want to roll in.

N V Brooks ● 205d

Nigel, you seem to be still struggling to read spreadsheets. As you obviously need help, I've highlighted the numbers below in VEH103 for total vehicles in 1963 and 1983.


You clearly misread the spreadsheet when you claimed:

"They simply were not 10 million vehicles on UK roads in 1963 and I cannot find any data source that substantiates your spurious claim. Thought that being somewhat qualified in this field of data handling you would equally find it difficult to admit when you are wrong, as you are on this occasion." 

You are simply demanding an apology to cover up your own error. 

Tom Pike ● 205d

Still no apology?Who was merely comparing the exponential rise in car ownership between 1963 and 1983 this was, without doubt, largely attributable to the removal of alternatives in terms of public transport. To bring things up to date London has the lowest per capita use of private motor vehicles of any region in the UK at around 27% which is less than half of that over the next nearest regionCars will never be eradicated completely but their use in London is tumbling.No surprise to note that the regions with the highest car use are those with the worst public transport alternatives, notably Wales which has usage over double that of London.

N V Brooks ● 205d

It’s not my invention, Nigel. Vehicles or cars per capita is used extensively in transport research as a standard measure to allow comparisons between countries.There is a very interesting and relevant highly cited paper with the same author that further counters some of the claims made on this topic.Men Shape a Downward Trend in Car Use among Young Adults-Evidence from Six Industrialized CountriesThis paper investigates trends in the travel behaviour of young adults in Germany, France, Great Britain, Japan, Norway, and the USA over the past few decades with a focus on car availability and car travel. The trend analysis relies on micro-data from over 20 National Travel Surveys from the study countries dating back to the mid-1970s. The analysis of the survey data is supplemented by official statistics on licence holding. On this basis, this paper compiles a body of evidence for changes in mobility patterns among young adults in industrialized countries over the past few decades. The findings indicate that since the turn of the millennium, access to cars, measured in terms of drivers' licences and household car ownership, has decreased in most study countries-especially for men. Moreover, average daily car travel distance has decreased in most study countries, again especially for men. In France, Japan, and most significantly in the USA, the decrease in car travel has led to a reduction in total everyday travel by young travellers. In Great Britain, the decline in car travel was partly, and in Germany fully, compensated by an increased use of alternative modes of transport.doi:10.1080/01441647.2012.736426

Tom Pike ● 205d

Vehicles per capita is the meaningless figure,it really doesn't matter how many people there are it's the number of vehicles and the road space to accommodate them. Which part of that is too difficult for you to understand Tom?

N V Brooks ● 205d

Andrew,Nigel used car numbers, 6.5 m, for 1963, and then total vehicles, 20.5 m, for 1983 to get a meaningless growth figure of 6%.My international comparison was in terms of vehicles per capita, with the UK growing at 3.2% comparable to the average 3.1% for other OECD countries over the same period. As this paper demonstrates, income is the strongest predictor of vehicles per capita. . https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856498000263

Tom Pike ● 205d

You still can’t read a simple spreadsheet. Please look at the column  “Total” for 1963 and 1983 and share with us what you find.

Tom Pike ● 205d

Ok, so I make the 1983 figure as being 2.405 times the 1963 figure, which could be achieved over 20 years if the count increased by about 4.48% every year.That's the total number of cars, so the growth in ownership as a %age of the population would be a lower average than this (assuming an increasing population).Of course, the figure for the total population might (I assume) include everyone under 17, but I'd have thought that the figure for number of people over 17 would also have increased over the 20 years.I'm not saying Tom is correct, but what figure in the end did you say the average growth was?(Willing to have my work corrected if I've made a mistake!)

Andrew Jones ● 205d

You still got the 1963 wildly wrong.Demanding an apology was justified. It won't happen, as you don't 'do' apologies do you?

N V Brooks ● 205d

As I said, you should have double checked your own calculation before accusing me of manipulating the figures and then demanding an apology!

Tom Pike ● 205d

Yes, I ballsed-up on the 1983 by including non PLG.

N V Brooks ● 205d

Nigel,Do you agree that the figure in the veh103 spreadsheet for PLG: Private Cars (Column E) in 1963 was 6,462,000 while the figure for the same category in 1983 was 15,543,000?That's certainly what I can see.

Andrew Jones ● 205d

I made the error of excluding motorbikes from 1963 and including it in 1983, thank you for pointing that out. Excluded, as I was referring to cars, the total is still over 1.5 million below your gross figure.

N V Brooks ● 205d

There is a column helpfully labelled “total” in the table that anyone can see gives just over 10 million in 1963. Indeed you used it for your 1983 figure but not your 1963 figure. Why?

Tom Pike ● 205d

I have cited the source and used  tabulated data which shows a significantly lower total than you erroneous figure. Are you including motorbikes, skateboards and unicycles?  As I said, I wasn't expecting an apology and, voila QED. It's called a mistake Tom, easy enough to apologise when you make one.

N V Brooks ● 205d

Nigel,I will give you credit for being intelligent enough to know you are being deliberately misleading rather than failing to be able to read a table and then compare like with like.The dataset we're both using, veh103, gives total vehicles as 10,336 thousand in 1963 and 20,209 thousand in 1983. You were able to easily read the second figure and I can't believe you had great difficulty reading the former. Instead you decided to use the 6,462 thousand figure for private cars and compared it to total vehicles in 1983 to derive an incorrect 6% growth rate.  Anyone can check this for themselves and see you error by looking here:https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66436667993111924d9d3426/veh0103.odsI'm not sure what you're trying to demonstrate to everyone here, other than your dogged refusal to admit when you've made a mistake.

Tom Pike ● 205d

Not wriggling at all, just admit your error.https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.publishing.service.gov.uk%2Fmedia%2F66436667993111924d9d3426%2Fveh0103.ods&psig=AOvVaw22wTLrLf-R7xWskDD22CT6&ust=1722683714239000&source=images&cd=vfe&opi=89978449&ved=0CAYQrpoMahcKEwjw-4u2mdaHAxUAAAAAHQAAAAAQBA1963 Great BritainPrivate and light goods (PLG): Total Of which PLG (cars) 6.462 Million Of which PLG (vans under 3 ½ tons) 1.092 millionGoods vehicles (all) 0ver 3 ½ tons 535,000Even including goods vehicles it's still 2,000,000 + short of your erroneous figure. I only gave growth rates from 1963 to 1983 and then quoted a doubling  from 1983-2023 without quoting growath as it  was not relevant to my original point. Surely you know the difference Tom. You can apologise at any point for your eroor, but, based on past experience, I doubt that you will and that this post will simply trigger another raft of irrelevence.

N V Brooks ● 205d

You’re wriggling, Nigel! I’m not disputing that you used private cars numbers for 1963 and 1967. It’s that you then compared that to total vehicles in 1983 and 2023. Your growth rates were therefore simply wrong because you compared different categories, whether you are able to admit it or not!

Tom Pike ● 206d

I used the MofT figures which show that private car ownership (as I made abundantly clear) did not reach 10,000,000 until 1967. No spurious claims with the official data that I accurately quoted.

N V Brooks ● 206d

I gave you the link to the table, which are official statistics. Here it is again:https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66436667993111924d9d3426/veh0103.odsThere you will see:1963, Private cars: 6,462 thousand, Total: 10,336 thousandYou used the former figure and then compared it to the total for 1983 to get a spurious result.

Tom Pike ● 206d

Two simple data sources the second of which is a simple rebranding of the former. They simply were not 10 million vehicles on UK roads in 1963 and I cannot find any data source that substantiates your spurious claim.Thought that being somewhat qualified in this field of data handling you would equally find it difficult to admit when you are wrong, as you are on this occasion.

N V Brooks ● 206d

"With only a modest increase in population car ownership rocketed from c.6.5 million (source Ministry of Transport) in 1963 to over 20.5 million jusst 20 years later (source DfT)."As I said, you've simply misread the data: to be exact, you're mixing up registered private cars in 1963, 6.5m, with total vehicles registered, 20.5 m in 1983. You are therefore calculating a meaningless growth rate between two different measures to justify your beliefs.You really should have double-checked your own work before accusing me of manipulating data to explain the discrepancy with your own faulty calculations.

Tom Pike ● 206d

Social Trends tables from the Ministry of transport, published in Economic Trends June 1963 pp139-140

N V Brooks ● 206d

We did not hit 10 million vehicles until 1967 Tom according to the economic trends data on the Ministry of Transport archive.

N V Brooks ● 206d

You misread the figures. Look at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66436667993111924d9d3426/veh0103.ods1963: 10.4 m vehicles1983: 20.3 m vehiclesAverage growth 3.5% p.a, not 6%1963: 44.3 m population1983: 46.8 m populationAverage growth 0.3% p.aHence average increase in per capita vehicles, 3.2%

Tom Pike ● 206d

I cited the sources in my post at 18:15.I merely quoted to compound increase in registrations. If your figures equate to a different data ser then you should make this clear surely. The compound growth in vehicle registration from 1963 to 1983 was 6% per annum. Since 1983 the nett total number of registrations has almost doubled from c.20 million to c.39 million. I have zero interest in your manipulation of data sets only absolute figures.

N V Brooks ● 206d

What’s the source of your figures? You seem to be comparing the raw increase in vehicles here with the per capita increase for the OECD. The relationship between income and car ownership is well established, both between countries and within countries. Higher income groups in the UK own more cars and drive further. During COVID when only essential travel was allowed these mileage differences shrunk showing the discretionary nature of car travel for higher income groups.

Tom Pike ● 206d

Have you sent your objections to the referees yet Justin? After all that effort it seems rather pointless not to because nobody will give a toss about your opinion and you will continue to suffer being irrelevant. Let us all know how you get on. Definitely don't mention you've spent a decade campaigning unsuccessfully for the preservation of car supremacy in your neighbourhood.

Paul Campbell ● 206d

It’s always, always about the wording. Councils do consultations that deliberately exclude answer options that might dilute the result they want. It’s one of the oldest tricks in the book.What hasn’t been mentioned is that according to research by the ‘motonormatity’ goons, support for restrictions on car use falls below opposition when respondents feel that they will be directly impacted by such measures. This has certainly been the case in west London and elsewhere, hence the removal of schemes by councils in the face of concerted and organized opposition, notably in Ealing.What twits like Campbell and Robinson don’t comprehend is thar things that can be done can also be undone.

Simon Hayes ● 206d

It’s always, always about the wording. Councils do consultations that deliberately exclude answer options that might dilute the result they want. It’s one of the oldest tricks in the book.What hasn’t been mentioned is that according to research by the ‘motonormatity’ goons, support for restrictions on car use falls below opposition when respondents feel that they will be directly impacted by such measures. This has certainly been the case in west London and elsewhere, hence the removal of Achebe’s by councils in the face of concerted and organized opposition, notably in Ealing.What twits like Campbell and Robinson don’t comprehend is thar things that can be done can also be undone.

Simon Hayes ● 206d

As I have said the Swansea research is obviously flawed - at least based on how it was reported in the GCN video, let me explain why.The methodology as stated by the Swansea Professor was that they asked 2000 people a series of questions and they were wording one question in relation to cars and then effectively the same question but about something else to show people were predisposed to support car/car use.The problem with that methodology, as highlighted in the Yes Prime Minister clip I referred to, is it all depends on how you word the questions.So lets us look at the wording of the very first question (and its counterpart) referred to in the video:(Ai) If someone leaves the car in the street and it gets stolen, it's their own fault for leaving it there and police shouldn't be expected to act(Aii) If someone leaves their belongings in the street and they gets stolen, it's their own fault for leaving them there and police shouldn't be expected to actThe problem with that question is that it does not address the obvious assumptions that many people, probably most would make about both the above questions: people would assume the car was locked (the question does not specify) and also assume that the "belongings" were not on the street  securely locked in a very large and heavy container.  Then there is the fact that the questions do not address the implicit assumption that the belonging are likely to have relatively little intrinsic value (unlike a car) because we have all seen belonging left out on the street, often because the owner actually wants people to take them away and use them.So, assuming that the GCN reporting correctly reflects the actual research, my conclusion is that the first pair of questions have been worded to get the answer the researchers wanted.Now lets move onto the second pair of questions discussed in the video:(Ci) Risk is a natural part of driving and anyone driving has to accept they could be seriously injured(Cii) Risk is a natural part of working and anyone working has to accept that they could be seriously injuredAgain based on the reporting in the GCN video the 2 questions are false equivalents because they do not take into account that the people asked may well have pre-exiting assumptions/biases/understandings unrelated to car use.  We have had 2 centuries of legislation on health and safety at work. Deaths at work are very rare in the UK, last year I could find figures for there were 87 such deaths (compared to almost 1700 deaths via road accident of which nearly 800 were car occupants). There is also the fact that over 80% of people work in the service sector which is far safer than other sectors so the vast majority of people questioned would never have known of someone who was killed in a workplace accident. So rather than people being biased in favour of cars what we have is a situation where people have been told pretty much from the day they started work that a death at work was not acceptable, people are reading into the question their own biases and those biases may having nothing to do with cars or may fact be in favour of cars - the GCN reporting simply jumps to the conclusion that it is because we are biased in favour of the car without even contemplating that there might be another explanation.I suspect you would have got a completely different outcome had the questions been:(Ci) risk is an inherent part of driving therefore it is perfectly acceptable not to wear a seatbelt(Cii) risk is an inherent part of operating dangerous fast moving equipment at work (such as lathes, metal presses and similar) therefore it is perfectly acceptable to remove any safety features from that equipment.I am willing to bet the vast majority of people would answer both those questions the same way - that it is not acceptable.That brings me neatly back to the Yes Prime minister clip. when doing a survey the answers you get depends on the questions you ask

Justin Stephenson ● 206d

Save that in the UK from 1963-1983 the annual growth rate was almost double the OECD average at almost 6%.As consumer saturation was approached naturally growth slowed bit new car registrations are recovering after the pandemic and are now approaching 2019 levels.New car sales have significantly ourstripped population growth for years but the SMMT acknowledge that growth will slow.

N V Brooks ● 206d

I’m not playing with any numbers: that’s simply the per capita number of vehicles to allow international comparisons. Of course the overall growth in cars will be a product of both the per capita ratio and population growth.Given that very different countrites follow a similar trajectory in terms of vehicles per capita and income per capita means it is unlikely that the removal of alternatives was a significant, let alone the only, factor.

Tom Pike ● 206d

Well that's simply playing with numbers Tom. Compound growth of 3.2% would have resulted in a figure of c.12.59 million in 1983 not the 20million + recorded by the DfT, Of course growth in %age terms will slow as saturation is reach. You may wish to check your sources for the 1963-1983 data which was solely the rsult of the removal of alternatives.

N V Brooks ● 206d

The UK’s growth in car ownership was not obviously driven by train cutbacks.  Between 1960 and 2002 the annual rate here was 3.2% compared to 3.1% for France and 3.1% for the OECD average.  In fact car ownership is primarily driven by income levels, responding slowly at first but then accelerating before slowing down and saturating at 70 to 85% per capita.  As a related but separate point Steve is quite wrong to suggest the younger generation are embracing driving. We had the highest proportion of 17 to 20 year-olds with driving licenses back in 1993, with 48%. That has been dropping since then to 35% in 2019 and 27% in 2022, just over half that of 30 years before. Driving has already had its heyday.

Tom Pike ● 206d

Tom can validate this but the real accelerator (no pun intended) for privaye car ownership and the need to build roads to accommodate them was the backlash from the  Beeching report which closed 4.500 miles of lines and 2.500 satations.With only a modest increase in population car ownership rocketed from c.6.5 million (source Ministry of Transport) in 1963 to over 20.5 million jusst 20 years later (source DfT).Proof, if any were needed that, given the choice, the car was the conveyance of choice and that growth, albeit slower, continues.

N V Brooks ● 206d

“What idiots don’t understand is that roads are here to stay. Not just for cars - which will be around for a very long time - but public transport and commercial traffic. Those poor, persecuted cyclists will still have to wait to have it all their own way!“Absolutely. Only the three fanatics on this forum who live in a dream world. They just can’t accept that it isn’t going to happen this century. They can dream on and post silly wish lists but it doesn’t sink in. Continually stating that black is white, doesn’t make it so.

Steve Taylor ● 206d

Wouldn't happen in Hanwell, cyclists have a dedicated cycle path and they sometimes use it!

N V Brooks ● 206d

Imagine the scenes of a cyclist gets his wheel stuck in a tram track…which did used to happen of course.

Simon Hayes ● 206d

When a 427 (as was) broke down outside The Viaduct pub it caused traffic chaos from the morning rush hour until early afternoon. That was a simple bus recovery.

N V Brooks ● 206d

As long as it isn't a BMW.......

Richard Greenhough ● 206d

Of course, I was being sarcastic because of the slower amongst us who appear to think that tram recovery would be simply impossible on the Uxbridge Rd because it is like no other location on thousands of km of tram network there is in the world.It may not surprise you to know that Mercedes Benz make the type of tram recovery vehicle you have described.  Other manufacturers may too.

Michael Robinson ● 206d

Michael, I was thinking more of a road vehicle with rubber tyres approaching the broken-down tram along the line of rails and hauling it back to an access point. Hardly rocket science, and certainly not witchcraft.

Richard Greenhough ● 206d

Ah, the good old days. What else would the simpletons like to bring back from that period? No votes for women perhaps? High infant mortality? Maybe some large factories with dangerous work practices? Coal fire smog?Pretending everything could be just like the good old days with silly pictures is really scraping the barrel. They’ve run out of ideas.What idiots don’t understand is that roads are here to stay. Not just for cars - which will be around for a very long time - but public transport and commercial traffic. Those poor, persecuted cyclists will still have to wait to have it all their own way!

Simon Hayes ● 206d

That's crazy talk Richard. That would mean one tram pushing or pulling another tram - how could that ever happen? That would mean fitting the trams with couplings specifically for this and they aren't going to do that, are they?And if the power is down completely, manufacturers are never going to make diesel powered recovery locomotives and vehicles, are they?  Who would buy one of those?Its witchcraft and magic, I tell you.

Michael Robinson ● 206d

Being called thick by a bogtrotter,,🤣🤣🤣

N V Brooks ● 206d

The route was meant to be shared with cars Richard with 'tram priority' at pinch points. There is still bus priority at Hanwell Bridge. If a tram broke down the traffic build up would prevent recovery. You could recover from the other track but the nearest practical location for a crossover point assuming recovery by tram unit, as happens in Croydon, is around three miles east.  Hanwell is one of the easier of the pinch points from which to recover. All largely academic now given the housing developments en route.

N V Brooks ● 206d

As I've said Nige, you are so thick it is pointless trying to explain things to you but if you google "how to recover a broken down tram" or similar expressions, you will find lots of very technical, very nerdy information on the range of solutions available which will vary depending on the tram network and technology.  Please don't limit yourself to English, you can translate the phrases into French, German and lots of other languages to see how they do it in tram networks in non-English speaking countries too.The fact that you think the Uxbridge Rd is the most difficult place in the world for a tram despite there being hundreds of tram networks in densely packed urban environments all over the world is further evidence that you are a very long way from being the sharpest tool in the box.

Michael Robinson ● 206d

Nigel, what would prevent the recovery vehicle approaching a broken-down tram along the line of rails and towing it back to  a place of greater access ?

Richard Greenhough ● 206d

Route not root. Damned voice recognition software

N V Brooks ● 206d

Keep your feet dry Boggy. If you had any knowledge of the root that the tram was supposed to take you would know that had it broken down at any of the pinch points it would not have been possible to reach it with a recovery vehicle. Nevermind, let's not let the facts get the way of your stupidity. What exactly were the qualities that led the LCC to select you as their borough representative? I find it hard to see any at all

N V Brooks ● 206d

That’s correct Janice. And there was little risk of pedestrians being mowed down by cyclists riding on those pavements.

Steve Taylor ● 206d

No old enough o remember the trams but remember the trolly buses well, especially their propensity to always 'de-pole' near a café

N V Brooks ● 206d

Yes, Nige, I know that the scheme was abandoned. This forum gives an insightful glimpse into "Nige's World". A world where his racism isn't racism, where his stupidity isn't stupid and where it is impossible to fix a faulty tram. Of course, it bears no relation to the real world but given ignorance is bliss, racist Nige is supremely happy living in his own little racist world.

Michael Robinson ● 206d

Oh Boggy, get your peat shovel out and deal with pile of shit that you post here. What a total embarrassment to the LCC. The Uxbridge Road tram scheme was abandoned in 2007 in favour of limited stop express buses and Crossrail. Even the most committed Velovile would know that.

N V Brooks ● 206d

Not if there is a failure, as has been common in Croydon. Most Of the Croydon tramway has parallel access points to facilitate repair and/or recovery. At least five points on the Uxbridge to Shepherd's Bush route, now well-served by the Hybrid SL8 that would make a light rail solution a non-starter.

N V Brooks ● 206d

Racist Nige lives in his own special world where he thinks his racist abuse isn't racist and narrow streets and faults with trams are impossible issues to solve despite there being narrow streets and tram networks in literally hundreds of cities globally.As I said, to the carbrained, some things are impossible to comprehend.

Michael Robinson ● 206d

"However, the A4 lends itself to a tramway always has done and always will do."I don't think you quite understand the way a street tramway is supposed to work, Nigel. In general it is supposed to serve shopping streets, which the A4 most definitely is not. The Wolverhampton end of the Birmingham tramway system manages quite well with traffic lights to hold up motor vehicles at pinch points while the tram passes, and I am sure something similar could work on the Uxbridge Road.

Richard Greenhough ● 206d

Sorry Richard but the will WAS there. What wasn't there was the loss of a listed bridge, a parade of ships and a,IIRC and a four year construction project. It can't happen now as the relief road through West Ealing originally destined to take either the tram or a re-routed Uxbridge Road now has almost 900 new homes built on it.

N V Brooks ● 206d

Sorry, Nigel, but those were matters that could have been solved if the will and support for the Uxbridge Road tram had been there. The fact that very few Londoners could remember the tram systems of a century ago meant that it attracted higher levels of opposition than would have been the case if they had been more familiar with the benefits of street tramways.

Richard Greenhough ● 206d

Unless tens of millions of pounds, if not more, are spent on rebuilding Hanwell Bridge, rebuilding the area around The Mall and the compulsory purchase. of all of the properties where the road is already one lane in each direction to permit the construction of passing places then the tram on Uxbridge Road will never happen. However, the A4 lends itself to a tramway always has done and always will do.

N V Brooks ● 206d

Look Boggy you insinuated that the Uxbridge Road tram scheme had failed due to the  "carbrained" Iat did not it failed for practical reasons in that traffic could not be rerouted and there was no practical solution to clearing a broken down tram. How lucky the people of the London Cycling Campaign must be to have such an utter blinkered pillock as their local representative. Now away with you.

N V Brooks ● 206d

Racist Nige demonstrating yet again that he has an incurable case of carbrain on top of his incurable bigotry and ignorance.Suggest you visit the tram networks in dozens and dozens of European cities and even some UK cities and they have no issues with streets narrower than Uxbridge Rd.However the carbrained are unable to comprehend this.  It is like trying to explain calculus to a pigeon or statistics to Adrian Irving.

Michael Robinson ● 206d

Good to see that you agree with the 'motonormativity' premise.  Many people are so conditioned by an environment built around cars that they cannot comprehend anything else and object to anything that changes the status quo.

Michael Robinson ● 206d

The Uxbridge Road scheme failed for totally practical reasons. Pinch points at Southall Broadway, Iron Bridge, Hanwell Bridge,at the westernmost end of The Mall and at the junction with Crown Street Acton could not be designed out meaning that, with no passing points, a single tram failure would bring the tramway to a halt. Great idea, totally the wrong location.  But worry not Boggy your prejudice around cars and drivers shines through. LCC must be ecstatic to have you as their local ambassador promoting the benefits of cycling. Is calling people 'carbrained' part of an official strategy?

N V Brooks ● 206d

The Uxbridge Road tram system was an excellent idea that did not come about (so far!) at least partly because Londoners had no memory of using a tram, other than those on the Croydon system, and could only see the negative effects.People who have grown up using street trams are used to safely getting on and off them. One of the issues with the bus islands in CHR is that few passengers had used anything similar before and non-regular users of the routes are still taken by surprise finding themselves having to run the gauntlet of speeding cyclists before accessing the pavement proper.

Richard Greenhough ● 206d

There was a proposal for a tram system in the early 00s along the Uxbridge Rd from Southall to Shepherds Bush and that attracted all the same objections as cycle lanes.The carbrained don't differentiate between trams or bikes and will just object to anything that re-allocates road space away from private cars.

Michael Robinson ● 206d

"...thousands of cities in the world have phased out trams over the last 50 years..."Very much a Silly Steve sort of comment. Phasing out of tramway systems was fashionable in the first half of the twentieth century, but since then they have made a comeback. Birmingham, Manchester, Newcastle, and Sheffield all have new tram systems, and Leeds is hoping to follow suit shortly. San Francisco not only has its historic cable cars, but also a modern street tramway system. Lisbon was one of those cities that had enough sense to retain its tram network, as was Vienna, plus various other cities in central and eastern Europe. Paris has a new and expanding tram system.

Richard Greenhough ● 206d

People had to go out there was no internet and streets were safer.

Janice Evans ● 206d

CHR did have tram tracks until the early 1930s - originally horse-hauled under West Metropolitan Tramways until 1901 and then electrified under London United Tramways.

Richard Greenhough ● 206d

“ before the road widening this length of the High Road had a much more active street life. “Yes of course it did because people rarely ventured out of their areas except for special occasions and holidays and only well off people had cars. When cars were cheaper and available to more people it was sheer delight to venture out and explore the world outside the bubble. That excitement to have freedom of movement hasn’t waned which is why more and more youngsters are getting Drivers Licences so they can get out there and explore and visit new places. It’s called progress and the car is now King of the Road and it will stay that way.

Steve Taylor ● 207d

There have been five injury collisions between pedestrians and cyclists at bus-stop islands in the last three years in London. There have been no injury collisions at any bus-stop island compliant with TfL design guidance.  Over the same period, 11,400 pedestrians were injured in collisions with motor vehicles, with 126 killed. Crossing a road to get to a bus stop, with or without Steve McQueen driving by in a Mustang, is far more dangerous than crossing a cycle path.

Tom Pike ● 207d

What an utterly, and typically, disingenuous reply to my question! Tom's photo must have been taken before WWI. Your comment was about the number of trees removed for the construction of the cycle lane. If you don't know the number, how do you justify the comment? You seem to believe that in a post-truth world any lie or outrageous claim can be made with no sense of shame.

Robert Fish ● 207d

It looks like we lost nearly half the trees along this stretch of the High Road, comparing the London Tree Map with the original avenue. A higher proportion were lost further west. 

Tom Pike ● 207d

“ the same arrangement for tram routes all over the world as it is very common to have 'island' boarding for trams in the road  rather than kerbside board“Yes and all over the world it has been recognised as extremely dangerous - hence thousands of cities in the world have phased out trams over the last 50 years to make way for cars. It’s called progress as much as it’s still quite quaint to see trams in some cities like Melbourne and San Francisco.  Personally I prefer to see Steve McQueen burning it up in a Mustang.

Steve Taylor ● 207d

It's also evident that before the road widening this length of the High Road had a much more active street life. We don't need to imagine hard how to build a better world when we can see what we previously had, and then lost.

Tom Pike ● 207d

“ How many trees have been removed on CHR?”I don’t know, Bob. I rarely go to Chiswick. But you can count the trees in the photos provided by Tom if you like. Pretty obvious that trees have been removed.

Steve Taylor ● 207d

I don't know if CHR had tram tracks along it or if this was a trolleybus which had conventional wheels but was powered from overhead lines.A self-powered bus is a lot more flexible than a trolley bus however a tram provides a lot more capacity and could have replaced many buses along CHR.Those complaining about bus stop bypasses seem to have missed that there is the same arrangement for tram routes all over the world as it is very common to have 'island' boarding for trams in the road  rather than kerbside boarding.

Michael Robinson ● 207d

It's apparent from the original photo that more than twenty trees were felled from avenue along both sides of the High Road to accommodate its widening for motor vehicles. Many of what remained would have had their root structures compromised.Seven tress were felled on the High Road in just the last fifteen years, nothing to do with C9, but Steve is apparently unmoved by the loss of all of these tress. It's odd, as Steve otherwise recognises the damage to air quality caused by motor vehicles, and its effect on all our health.

Tom Pike ● 207d

"Just so sad that the cycle lanes have caused the removal of so many trees". How many trees have been removed on CHR?

Robert Fish ● 207d

Fascinating Tom. And this picture is the same in different ways absolutely everywhere. The prioritisation of car dominance over people has been relentless, never-ending and always done without any consultation. In the future people will look back on the the post-war period where we reshaped our towns and cities for the convenience of drivers with bewilderment.

Paul Campbell ● 207d

Not a single Penny Farthing either

Paul Fisher ● 207d

Note what seems to be a tramcar in the historic photo, although it is difficult to see the overhead lines. The decision to remove the tramlines along CHR was short-sighted.

Richard Greenhough ● 207d

Indeed. It’s called progress. With car sales booming the movement of cars had to be prioritised. It’s not going to change in your lifetime. Just so sad that the cycle lanes have caused the removal of so many trees without consultation. Disgraceful!

Steve Taylor ● 207d

The video makes a very valid point about how streets have been repurposed to prioritise cars. In our case the pavements were squeezed and many trees cut down in the process. In particular, we saw rounding of the corners for vehicle flow and putting in barriers to keep pedestrians off the roadway. Of course this was all done without any consultation. 

Tom Pike ● 207d

I've long believed that when bigots form online collectives like OneChiswick their accumulated IQ is actually only equal to that of the least intelligent member. They then proceed to encourage each other to shamelessly reveal and indeed revel in their ignorance in all of their online activity. I'll have to think of a name for the phenomenon. It is the only possible explanation for there never having been any sign of anybody intelligent in any of these pro-car movements.

Paul Campbell ● 207d

Glad to see you on your normal erudite form Boggy m'boy, welcome back. Keep those feet dry.

N V Brooks ● 207d

Ah, Nige, the thick as pig excrement racist.If you added together the brain cells of Nige, Justin, Steve, well you’d be able to count them on the fingers of one hand.

Michael Robinson ● 207d

“it also relied on research from Swansea which was clearly fundamentally flawed”I don’t read posts by Cambell so don’t know about any video but I read some respondents replies and have a good laugh when he is always proved wrong. Always have a bigger laugh when Robinson tries so hard to defend him. I always consider Justin to have a calm, measured and intelligent response to all posts on this forum irrespective of the subject and yet again he has proved that Cambell has posted utter rubbish. Regarding the cyclist injured in Shepherds Bush  I am extremely pleased that the police made a point in stating that the bus driver was not arrested which indicates that he/she was not to blame but the accident emphasises the point that cycling is extremely dangerous in London and explains why so many responsible parents are not allowing their children to cycle in urban areas.

Steve Taylor ● 207d

Keep digging, good to see Boggy back

N V Brooks ● 207d

No you didn't. You wouldn't have remained as ridiculously and humiliatingly  ignorant and prejudiced if you had watched the video.

Paul Campbell ● 207d

I both watched it and commented upon it. Liar.

N V Brooks ● 207d

The paper was published in the International Journal of Environment and Health, a fully refereed journal.https://www.inderscience.com/jhome.php?jcode=ijenvhAs Justin Stephenson believes that the paper was "fundamentally flawed",  clearly, he must write to the journal editor-in-chief and editorial board with his comprehensive criticism of the research methods used together with his academic credentials in the field to establish his credibility.The contact details of the referees used by the journal are in the link provided - please be sure to let the chiswickw4 forum know the response you receive.Of course, I am assuming that you have a more academically rigorous criticism than a link to a 1980s sitcom on youtube.  You'd look like a complete muppet if that was all you had.

Michael Robinson ● 207d

Well done for actually watching the video. That promotes you to the top of the remedial class above Nigel, Simon and Steve. But wait. Are you a scientist Justin? Have you produce peer-reviewed studies? Do you understand the process and the rigour involved?Assuming the answer to all those question is "yes" then do you disagree with the critical observation that our urban environment has been built to convenience driving at the expense of pedestrians? Nevermind cyclists.

Paul Campbell ● 207d

Having now watched the youtube video I thought it made a lot of good points but sadly it also relied on research from Swansea which was clearly fundamentally flawedSwansea researchers crafted a survey of ordinary people which "proved" that we were pre-programmed in favour of the car.  The only problem was that the questions were obviously loaded to give the result the researchers wanted.  For a better explanation of why such surveys are unreliable I refer everyone to the wonderful Yes Prime Minister episode on bringing back National Service  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahgjEjJkZks&t=144sSadly this level of manipulation is all too common on both sides of the debate

Justin Stephenson ● 207d

I mean really John they are all just happily proving the original point of the post for me and bringing it back to the top of the forum every time they do. 

Paul Campbell ● 207d

You're bleating like a snowflake Steve. Clearly too soft to take a proper collision. 

John Hall ● 207d

More evidence of how dangerous cycling is - especially at night! “ A cyclist has received possibly life-threatening injuries after being involved in a collision with a bus on Uxbridge Road in Shepherd’s Bush.”

Steve Taylor ● 207d

“ The post you cite was clearly tongue-in-cheek and designed to raise the blood pressure of anyone who doesn't have the common sense, or is too blinded by petty malice”Well, Mr Fish may think that his little friend was extremely funny to post about mowing down elderly and disabled pedestrian’s on his £3000 bike, just as he may think it was funny for him to post about his kids targeting a pensioner in a beige suit walking in Chiswick Park where he thinks his kids should cycle on paths without being hindered by old pedestrians. When his little friend does indeed injure or kill a pedestrian, I wonder how a Judge would view such postings of arrogance towards elderly pedestrians and whether the Judge would see them as the extreme arrogance of the man. The is surely enough evidence on this forum to present an excellent profile of the self righteousness, selfishness, arrogance, ageism and bigotry?

Steve Taylor ● 208d

You’ve made the right choice. It’s just a pity you hadn’t done it much earlier to save yourself another embarrassing visit to the Chiswick forum and further degradation of your already highly questionable character.

Paul Campbell ● 208d

Oh dear, how sad, seek help you wholly insignificant little man.Those who find your posts will see who is lying. Give my regards to Boggy.My work here is done. Liar exposed and all the squirming now only confirms it. Have fun squirming, I wont be reading the drivel

N V Brooks ● 208d

As we have now established that you have no evidence to support your increasingly unhinged accusations, I guess you are just left with the hope that people will take the word of a proven racist for the truth?  Anybody doubting whether you are a racist can just type elderly into the search forum. I am more than comfortable to be subjected to abuse from a proven racist and liar.

Paul Campbell ● 208d

Yes, cyclists must be devastated because cycling has become incredibly dangerous with more and more cars using arterial roads and cramping cyclists who are breathing more vehicle fumes. Extremely unhealthy mode of transport.

Steve Taylor ● 208d

Here's a friendly tip. Remove head from bottom and search for his other ageist and disabled shaming posts. There were a number relating to equality of access to public transport. Paul, may call me a racist, aged, infirm or whatever. I am not, nor have I ever veen a liar. The post I referenced was not one in isolation. Anyone who thinks it, ironic, tounge in cheek or humourous is to be pitied .

N V Brooks ● 208d

“ All road users are bad road users whether they are in a car, cycling or going by foot.”Not all but some!  However, proportionately cyclists are the worst road users by far because they believe they can break the law with impunity. The ones with slightly more brain cells are fast realising that cycling is becoming more and more dangerous and undesirable because there are more and more cars on the roads who will never surrender their road superiority and never abdicate the road kings throne. Responsible parents are actively discouraging their children to cycle on London’s roads.

Steve Taylor ● 208d

Terrible news for those who thought that they might spend it on some half-decent joined-up cycle infrastructure or getting the ruddy Elizabeth Line running reliably.

N V Brooks ● 208d

Let me make it perfectly clear - I'm neither a cyclist nor a mate of Paul's. I'm a non-aligned forum curtain-twitcher who's distinctly unimpressed by your splenetic outbursts. It's pathetic that your justification for calling Paul an aged-, disabled-shaming pillock rests on that wind-up post of 1.12.22. It would be better if you hadn't brought it up, because it just reveals the poverty of your argument and the resentment that consumes you.

Robert Fish ● 208d

Great news for the people campaigning to reduce the harmful effects of car dominance on London’s roads. 😚

Paul Campbell ● 208d

You’re lying Nigel. Which is a shame considering how much you despise liars. Self-loathing is another affliction in the long list that you are suffering.

Paul Campbell ● 208d

Another lie. Easy enough to find your ageist, disabled shaming posts by entering the term 'elderly' in forum search, as I did.  You are delusional about there being collusion and an anti-Campbell cabal. It speaks volumes about your obsession and paranoia. I would counsel you to seek professional advice.

N V Brooks ● 208d

You didn’t find that post Nigel. You can’t follow one post to another on a single thread. You can’t remember what you said yesterday even though you wrote it here in this thread. You can’t find that. One of your equally humourless velophobic associates gave the old post to you. I know very well that there are a bunch of you wasting your retirements colluding off this forum against the dreaded cyclists, licking each other’s wounds and nurturing your misplaced but finely tuned sense of collective victimhood every time we beat you.  Don’t deny it. Don’t lie.

Paul Campbell ● 208d

As I said, my working exposing an aged disabled shaming pillock is done, thank you for compounding it along with your little mate Bob the Halibut.  What do you mean I couldn't find a post from December 2022 that's the one I posted. Oh no, not another life in the Grove Park gnome. Keep digging, loving the squirming. As Bugs Bunny** would say, "what a maroon".  ** thought that I would keep things at your level 🫢

N V Brooks ● 208d

Robert, their outrage at posts like that is precisely the intended result. Them then trying to use such posts to discredit me when they are unable to backup their false accusations is a gift beyond my expectations. And I think it is pretty obvious at this stage that Nigel does not have the faculties to find a post from Dec 2022 so it is even more delicious that there is a discussion going on in the background between the local velophobes and that is the best they can do. Pigeon chess does have its upsides from time to time.

Paul Campbell ● 208d

The post you cite was clearly tongue-in-cheek and designed to raise the blood pressure of anyone who doesn't have the common sense, or is too blinded by petty malice, to realise that.

Robert Fish ● 208d

Mark, I thought that he might refresh himself with his own tear. As to shade, as he has been basking in his own glory, witness the 'look at me and what I have done' posts, then a day or two of parching sun should present him with no challenge. It's fun watching the squirming though.🤗

N V Brooks ● 208d

Surely Nigel, You should have offered some water or shade, anything, even condolences.

Mark Frost ● 208d

I’m sure that most forum readers are intelligent enough to see that you have proven that you make false accusations even if you are unable to understand this yourself. Well done!

Paul Campbell ● 208d

Let other forum users be your judge. My work here in exposing an hypocritical liar is done. Thank you for yor help in making is so terribly easy.

N V Brooks ● 208d

Yes I haven't denied making that post. I've denied saying what you falsely accused me of. I've been parodying the irrational fears and moral panic of velophobes for years and I am more than happy to admit it.  I'll take this as an admission of defeat. Thank you.

Paul Campbell ● 208d

Poor little dear, you believe that there is an anti Campbell collective, that's a shame you poor sensitive little soul. I think you might find that people just don't like liars. You made that odious post and no amount of lies and deflective denials can change that.

N V Brooks ● 208d

That doesn't say what you falsely accused me of saying does it? A reminder as you don't seem to be able to remember things from one day to the next: you said that I had claimed that the elderly and disabled who needed to drive cars are the problem. Keep searching. The efforts from the anti-Campbell collective to prove me wrong are pretty pathetic so far.

Paul Campbell ● 208d

Stay hydrated, I was passed earlier by a chap who looked in hi last legs and who was absolutely dripping.

N V Brooks ● 208d

He will probably still be repeating it in 2922.

Janice Evans ● 208d

01/12/22 10:48:00 to save you looking it up. As I said, you need a good memory to be a liar Campbell.

N V Brooks ● 208d

2022 not, obviously, 2922.

N V Brooks ● 208d

Remember writing this back in December 2922, Campbell?"My bike is fabulous. More expensive than £3k but it is versatile so well worth it: not only can it mow down the elderly and the disabled......"

N V Brooks ● 208d

Yes but the basic laws of physics ensures that there is no equivalence between them.Lights are motonormative by the way. They exist because of motor vehicles.

Paul Campbell ● 208d

Today maybe hot but cycling is lovely with just enough breeze to keep me cool.So far I have to slam my brakes on at a roundabout when a lady in some yellow car decided she could get round before I came from her right (she couldn't) and then have to take evasive action in the c9 bike lane when some idiot cyclist for no apparent reason decided to cycle towards me in the wrong lane.Then there was the approximately 75% of cyclists on my journey who decided that red lights did not apply to them.Bad road users are bad road users whether they are in a car, cycling or going by foot.

Justin Stephenson ● 208d

It's an interesting video. I don't find the comparison between driving and smoking/loud music that useful, people see smoking and loud music as optional personal activities carried out for enjoyment, but travel as a requirement. I understand that travel does not have to be by car. At the end there was an interesting point brought up. Why do people drive in the first place? It’s not just for the sake of driving, it’s a means to an end and often the easiest option. If policy makers focused on the most effective ways to get people out of their cars, which in my opinion would be first, better and more connected public transport, second better and safer pedestrian infrastructure and then third better and safer cycling infrastructure. As a family we use our car when public transport increases our journey time dramatically, as they said in the video, we end up choosing the easiest option.

Kieran Fox ● 208d

Why don't you quote the post from that thread where you think I said that elderly and disabled people who need to drive are the problem Robert? You seem quite confident.

Paul Campbell ● 209d

“3 in 4 Hounslow Residents support LTNs”.  That wasn’t difficult.

Robert Dawbarn ● 209d

Yes I am very aware that it is indeed impossible for people who are resistant to the reality of the harms caused by motonormativity to engage. But their engagement is not required for positive change to continue.

Paul Campbell ● 209d

Paul, it's impossible to engage, it's your way or the highway, excuse the pun.

Janice Evans ● 209d

Apparently it's going to kick in at £190.00 and then rise progressively to match ICE cars of similar value. My mistake, apologies.

N V Brooks ● 209d

Even his little mate 'Boggy', who at least had flashes of humour, seems to have deserted him.

N V Brooks ● 209d

A very interesting article on the smoking bans on trains and the history. Thank you!

Steve Taylor ● 209d

“ You're wrong Steve, smoking in carriages was prohibited before the Kings Cross fire.”Thank you.  I stand corrected with humility!

Steve Taylor ● 209d

“ As expected, this thread has served merely as a provocation and an invitation to childish insults and name-calling.”Bob, you aren’t compelled to read the posts. I never read anything from Cambell  because he is a self opinionated, very selfish, idiot. However, I read some of contributions and replies from others and always have a good laugh because it’s easy enough to glean that the village idiot is making a fool of himself over and over again. He used to have one friend called Robert Fish but even that friendship has waned because Robert is frustrated by the sheer stupidity and arrogance of Cambell.

Steve Taylor ● 209d

You're wrong Steve, smoking in carriages was prohibited before the Kings Cross fire.https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/articles/30-years-ago-today-smoking-banned-in-londons-tube-trains-12238/

Andrew Jones ● 209d

“ It then went the other way round and eventually smoking was prohibited in all carriages.”Only because of the Kings Cross fire disaster!!

Steve Taylor ● 209d

“ but I chose smoking not because smoking is like driving but because you choose to see driving as some sort of human right which is exactly what people used to say about smoking not caring about the impact on the lives of others”As I said. - stupid analogy became most never said smoking was a human. There have always been many places where smoking was banned and people accepted it. People have for decades recognised that smoking is bad for health and have observed and respected ‘no smoking’ areas and places willingly and without malice.  You won’t see the same courteous obedience from car drivers this century. The motor vehicle will take us into the next century safely and comfortably.

Steve Taylor ● 209d

Robert, the childish insults and abuse are really only coming from the people who are unwilling to engage with the seriousness of the topic because they resemble the people in the vox pops in the first minute of the video.The video is being shared widely and with politicians and it is receiving a lot of interest. I have shared it myself with local politicians in both the Red and Blue corners and received positive interest. It offers a great opportunity for politicians to make long-lasting and high impact interventions to improve the lives of their constituents, often with relatively low cost and operational complexity so it is unsurprising that we will see more of them take an active interest as the culture war dampens down.As it says in the video, once you start seeing the impact of motonormativity on the shape of our public space and the choices we make, you can never unsee it. The GCN by the way is not a pressure group. It is a global cycling channel with over 3 million subscribers and mainly covers the sport of cycling. Today's excitement is Tom Pidcock's recovery from a puncture and subsequent dramatic overtake of the home favourite to defend his mountain bike gold from Tokyo. This kind of topical video is a new and welcome addition to their content.

Paul Campbell ● 209d

Bring out your dead!

N V Brooks ● 209d

Motonormativity! I wish I'd never heard of the stupid neologism. As expected, this thread has served merely as a provocation and an invitation to childish insults and name-calling. Playground behaviour! Motorists and cyclists: a plague on both your houses.

Robert Fish ● 209d

I wasn't aware of that but thanks for the heads up.The point I was trying to make was different cars have different rates of VED, but that doesn't give a driver with a car with a higher rate of VED any more entitlement to using the road than someone who is driving a car with a lower rate of VED - so mentioning Road Tax is irrelevant.There is something wrong when the driver of a £50000+ electric car doesn't pay any VED, while someone with a ICE car that's a 10th or 5th of the price is stung with VED, so I don't oppose VED being introduced for electric vehicles.

Andrew Jones ● 209d

Because they needed an electrophoretic primer. Yes, but it's a more interesting answer than you are likely to get from the ageist disabled shamer

N V Brooks ● 209d

I've already explained why

Paul Campbell ● 209d

Why do you think that they do ?

Richard Greenhough ● 209d

I am surprised that you are able to cycle given your total lack of balance in so many areas. Perhaps a nice Pashley trike would suit you better. I used to love mine for ferrying the kids around. They do rust badly though.

N V Brooks ● 209d

How do you know that very many cyclists do not drive with patience, empathy and compassion?

Paul Campbell ● 209d

"Cyclists....drive with patience, empathy and compassion..."Some of us do. Very many do not.

Richard Greenhough ● 209d

You have the support of all the people on this forum who share your odd and unhealthy fixation with me and yet you can not find one statement to back up your false accusation. Pity the people who haven't had it as easy as me to prove when you are abusing them.

Paul Campbell ● 209d

Another lie, keep 'em coming🤗

N V Brooks ● 209d

Cyclists are the best drivers Simon because they are not diminished by motonormativity and prejudice. They are far more aware of how their driving behaviour affects other people and so they drive with patience, empathy and compassion instead of haste, rage and entitlement. It's just another of the many virtues of cyclists.

Paul Campbell ● 209d

No, as my wife and family know me well enough to know that I do not lie? Shame that you are unable to say the same isn't it?

N V Brooks ● 209d

I do hope you are more careful when out in your car, idiot Campbell.

Simon Hayes ● 209d

I hope for their sake that you haven't subjected your wife and family to your gaslighting techniques of accusing people of things they haven't said or done and then telling them they are in denial when they, well, deny it.

Paul Campbell ● 209d

"I pay £0 road tax or VED or whatever you want to call it for my car."  You may feel different when the signposted £410.00 flat VED for EV's is introduced.

N V Brooks ● 209d

I need to prove nothing. Your posts are there for all to see. Shames that you cannot remember posting them and are now in denial.

N V Brooks ● 209d

Not a stupid analogy at all.Smoking on underground trains used to be accepted (it used to be that you had one smoke free carriage and the rest you could smoke in). It then went the other way round and eventually smoking was prohibited in all carriages.There is an increasing reaction against the harm caused by cars and cyclists, whereas previously there was an 'acceptance' it was a required price to pay.I dount there are few serious commentators who believe that cyclists cause more harm than cars, in terms of adverse impact e.g. pollution, people killed/injured etc.Cars won't get banned the same way that smoking was, but the use of cars for inessential journeys will increasingly attract criticism.And what has paying road tax got to do with anything? I pay £0 road tax or VED or whatever you want to call it for my car.

Andrew Jones ● 209d

You really couldn't make it more obvious that you didn't watch the video. That's certainly a very good way to remain in denial and be perpetually confused and enraged about why people are changing the built environment and transport policies to address the harmful effects of motonormatvity.

Paul Campbell ● 209d

Not a ‘stupid analogy’.  The main point I thought I had made clear, Steve, is that people with firmly held views can modify their opinions over time as circumstances change as I have seen and experienced time and again.  I could have given loads of other examples such as female suffrage, gay rights, gay marriage etc. but I chose smoking not because smoking is like driving but because you choose to see driving as some sort of human right which is exactly what people used to say about smoking not caring about the impact on the lives of others.  And also because opposition to public smoking has become a settled majority opinion.  I hope that the same will eventually happen with regard to car use though given the hidebound motornormativity of a few people like you I can see that this might take a little while.

Alastair Banton ● 209d

So that's confirmation that you cannot prove your accusation that I said that elderly and disabled people who need to drive are the problem. And that because you cannot prove it you call me a liar. Whereas it is very easy to prove that you have repeatedly made racist comments on this forum. You don't really seem to have any sense of shame or pride in your character.

Paul Campbell ● 209d

Anyone can revisit your ageist and disabled shaming posts on the Turnham Green Tube equality of access, the bus stop access and any number of other threads. How sad that you cannot recall what you posted and which you now seek to deny

N V Brooks ● 209d

It’s a propaganda video from a pressure group, posted by someone here who happily drives his car when it suits him and thus endangers the lives of others. Clearly he’s an advocate of ‘motornormativity’ himself.Of course, not all vehicles on the roads are private cars. Plenty if lorries and buses and taxis on the roads in that video.

Simon Hayes ● 209d

Your interpretation of what I have said through the fog of your prejudices and what I have actually said are two very different things. But now you've called me a liar you've got a great chance to prove it. Go ahead.

Paul Campbell ● 209d

Yes it did, to be a liar Paul, you need a good memory. Yours appears to be failing you. A tip then, don't lie and you need not remember the lies.

N V Brooks ● 209d

Stupid analogy!  Smoking and road ownership by car users / road tax payers or cyclists injuring pedestrians.

Steve Taylor ● 209d

A very illuminating video, Paul, thanks.  I have passed it on to others.  I think people are capable of change.  I certainly know of motorists who, in the past, boasted about their loathing of speed bumps and speed limits who now understand the reality and take a more measured view.  And I’m sure we can all remember people who used to oppose restrictions on smoking and for whom smoking was an issue of human rights vs the ‘nanny state’.  Few if any of these people would want to return to the days of smoke-filled restaurants, shops, trains, offices etc.

Alastair Banton ● 209d

“ the dangers of floating bus stops, with some footage of cyclists and scooter riders hurtling along hitting pedestrians who were alighting from buses.”Indeed and totally predictable. Which brain of Britain ever thought these floating bus stops wouldn’t be death traps.

Steve Taylor ● 210d

Yes she did. It is a perfectly valid suggestion which anyone sensible would have given serious thought to as an option. That, of course, excludes car-hating velomaniacs such as yourself, who have long been divorced from any sense of reality.

Richard Greenhough ● 210d

No she didn't. It is objectively a very silly suggestion that wasn't considered by anybody sensible for even a second. Only somebody who is far too gone in motonormativity would possibly try to defend a suggestion to make pavements one way on Turnham Green Terrace. Honestly this is really funny. It is at the intersection of defending car supremacy and defending Councilor Biddolph where people lose all sense of reality.

Paul Campbell ● 210d

Humpty, you really should have worn your helmet. Cllr Biddolph seems to have taken all the relevant factors in mind before making her suggestion for TGT during lockdown, but you seem unable to consider any option that doesn't make life more difficult for drivers.

Richard Greenhough ● 210d

Nope that never happened. People who don't need to use cars for all the journeys they choose to do so are the problem. Car supremacists like yourself are the enemy of the elderly and disabled, not cyclists.

Paul Campbell ● 210d

O, the sheer hypocrisy of the Grove Park idiot. On one hand he criticizes the elderly and disabled for being the problem in needing to use their cars and then goes for the elderly and disabled sympathy vote. Give it up you nasty little individual

N V Brooks ● 210d

This is great Richard. You are so good at unknowingly reinforcing the whole point of motonormativity. Even when forced to consider the very obvious harmful implications of prioritisation of driving over pedestrians you are incapable of doing so. Just like the Councillor. You're all so brainwashed that you actually genuinely believe you are on the side of the very people for whom you are creating daily disadvantages.

Paul Campbell ● 210d

Just think about the practicality of an octogenarian shopping on TGT having to continually get up and down the kerbs when anyone was walking the other way and they wanted to reach a particular shop.....One of the most impressive displays of Humptymativity I have seen.

Richard Greenhough ● 210d

Yes that is precisely what happened. Her suggestion was a reaction to the Council's decision to extend the pavement by removing parking during lockdown and create space for social distancing. Instead of inconveniencing some drivers the Councillor preferred to make life much more difficult for all pedestrians including the elderly and disabled  - just think about the practicality of an octogenarian shopping on a TGT with one-way pavements .....As I said the most impressive display of motonormativity I have seen.

Paul Campbell ● 210d

I suspect that Cllr Biddolph was taking into account the fact that the pavements on Turnham Green Terrace are too narrow to allow social distancing during lockdown, but of course you have to twist that to suit your own agenda. An unbeatable example of how velomaniac thinking causes problems for those just trying to help the elderly and disabled.

Richard Greenhough ● 210d

It's a great example of motonormativity and thank you for sharing it. Panicking about bus stop bypasses while blithely ignoring the ubiquity of dangers we have created in our built environment for disabled and elderly people so drivers suffer as little inconvenience as possible.Still not the best example though - that was when Councilor Biddolph suggested making the pavements on Turnham Green Terrace one way to preserve all the parking spaces during lockdown. An unbeatable example of how car-centric thinking causes problems for the elderly and disabled.

Paul Campbell ● 210d

Interesting piece on BBC Breakfast this morning about the dangers of floating bus stops, with some footage of cyclists and scooter riders hurtling along hitting pedestrians who were alighting from buses. One sight-impaired woman and her guide dog had been scared off their normal routes to go shopping. I am broadly in favour of segregated cycle lanes, but floating bus stops require the users of such lanes to be aware of other road users and to keep down their speed accordingly.

Richard Greenhough ● 210d

Quite creepy that you are driven to stalk me to see what nouns I use. Quite moronic in fact!!! But more to the point. The car is king of the roads and that will not change in your lifetime or the lifetime of this generation’s grandchildren. People are enjoying the newly designed cars more than ever as manufacturers strive to outdo each other in efficiency and comfort. We have more and more choice as new names join the race. More and more new cars on our roads as people enjoy freedom of travel.

Steve Taylor ● 210d

I had high hopes for you Steve, when I noted you had managed to source a second noun for use as an insult. I recall it was 'clown' but you seem to have reverted back to 'moron' as standard for any cycling matters.I'm sure the irony won't be lost on you that the repetative use of the word 'moron' is moronic in of itself.

Mark Frost ● 210d

Bottom line:  Cars are good. The car is king. Cars will continue to rule the roads and dominate the roads for decades to come. The motor vehicle industry is good for the economy. Road Tax is good for the economy. Waits for same old, same old moronic pedants to challenge (be silly) about the commonly accepted term ‘road tax’ which is also used on Govt websites.

Steve Taylor ● 210d

Does make you wonder if some so-called professionals who plan these junctions could even spell the word safety 😡

N V Brooks ● 210d

Shocking footage Paul.

Mark Frost ● 210d

Challenge to the forum: can anybody post a more egregious example of a flared side street junction than this? They are everywhere when you start looking so I have high hopes.

Paul Campbell ● 210d

It is a very generous and unexpected voluntary contribution.

Paul Campbell ● 210d

Are you still paying road tax Steve? Good man.

Mark Frost ● 210d

“ the 1000s of roads that serve the people who drive 1 mile in an SUV. Technically if you live in Chiswick you shouldn't have to drive in Chiswick “Driving a car  anywhere in the UK isn’t a privilege, it’s a right if you have paid road tax or have an ‘exempt’ vehicle.  Anyone who wants to drive a car for a mile or less is perfectly entitled to do so whether YOU like it or not - so get over it. Nobody is going to dictate to me when I should drive my cars or my motor cycle or my bicycle. Riding a bike on a pavement isn’t a right it’s a crime. Riding bikes two or three abreast on a road isn’t a right it’s a crime if a car is wanting to get past you.

Steve Taylor ● 210d

Really only need to go back 1000 years when average life expectancy was 28. At least it would put an end to the ageist posts.

N V Brooks ● 210d

How was it at the beginning ? Asking for a friend , he's thinking of going back.

David Burke ● 210d

Surely Tony even the worst offenders for weaponising the interests of the disabled and elderly in order to protect their own selfish and harmful driving privilege would acknowledge that once you start looking it becomes so obvious how we have built the urban environment at the expense of the very people they claim to care for.  Just one example: Compton Crescent, Fauconberg Road, Grove Park. What the heck are we thinking forcing elderly and disabled people to cross that expanse of road so that drivers can sweep into and out of a residential crescent without taking their foot off the pedal?

Paul Campbell ● 210d

P!ssing in the wind with these few on here, Paul. 99% of people agree we should all have ways of safe travel and that the 99% of the roads that are currently purely for cars is enough. The tiny and generally poor cycle network needs more attention than the 1000s of roads that serve the people who drive 1 mile in an SUV. Technically if you live in Chiswick you shouldn't have to drive in Chiswick but i guess they ( the less than 1%) will play the disabled/old person card when what they actually mean in unrestricted access for them. No right minded person would not want all people to be able to travel safely. But therein lies the problem.

Tony Mansell ● 210d

Ah, I didn’t realise GCN stands for Global Cycling Network.

Andrew Jones ● 210d

Should humans be going back to how it was from the beginning and start again? We might re-learn the purpose of who and what we are and our true direction/s in life and not where we are today where we've practically gone completely haywire.

C James ● 210d

I don’t think the Global Cycling Network is claiming that motonormativity is confined to the UK. But the impact on pedestrians and the visually impaired of flared side street junctions in the UK and the positioning of signs for drivers on narrow space for pedestrians should resonate with all but the most stubborn of car supremacists.

Paul Campbell ● 211d

Watched the video, hasn’t particularly changed my viewpoint.I believe that “motonormativity” as portrayed exists - and we’ve seen similar things in the public’s attitude to drink driving, and smoking.Don’t agree with all the analogies portrayed in the video … people don’t need to smoke in front of others, so the analogy with motorists generating pollution that affects pedestrians isn’t one I wholeheartedly subscribe to, though I don’t dismiss it out of hand - to my mind it’s a question of balance and currently the balance is too much in favour of polluting motorists.The video would be less criticised if it hadn’t had so much footage and graphics originating from locations that clearly weren’t in the uk … there was other stuff as well that detractors will focus on as well.

Andrew Jones ● 211d

As he says in the video you need a thick skin to challenge car supremacy.

Paul Campbell ● 211d

Yes, I have watched the video. It didn't cause any rethink, because I'm already convinced of the need to curb car use. But I doubt that people who are not convinced will be persuaded to rethink. You're probably just inviting more hostility.

Robert Fish ● 211d

I like the truth Robert and I despise lies and rank stupidity. Have you watched the video?

Paul Campbell ● 211d

Paul, do you seek to provoke or proselytise? If the latter, do you ever wonder whether your forum bombing might not be counter-productive?