Forum Topic

2 WAY STREET

Does anybody know is Devonshire Road now a 2 way steet for cyclists?The signage hasn't changed?

Cormac Cullen ● 721d79 Comments

Yes it is. In the same way as 20mph streets restrict drivers to 20mph.

Paul Campbell ● 721d

No it isn’t a two way street for cyclists. Report any moron going the wrong way.

Steve Taylor ● 721d

I often see Cllr Todd cycling the wrong way along Devonshire Rd but calling him a 'moron' is unwarranted.

Michael Robinson ● 721d

I have seen him cycling the wrong way down Devonshire Road in the past, but whizzing along at 2mph is unlikely to cause much harm to anybody."Moron" overused by certain folks on this forum for sure.

Denis I. Fox ● 721d

Cycling the wrong way down a one way street is dangerous and anyone doing so is a moron and a danger to themselves. A Councillor should know better and should set an example, not break the law.

Steve Taylor ● 721d

You should raise it with the leader of the Hounslow Conservatives, peter.thompson@hounslow.gov.uk .They deserve credit for not being afraid of disciplining councillors when they trangress, as shown by the suspension of Cllr Biddolph.Perhaps you should ask for a similar suspension for Cllr Todd but I don't think you will get very far calling him a 'moron'.

Michael Robinson ● 721d

Very foolish and law-breaking would be more apposite. Not suspension material but worthy of a sound slap on the wrist.

N V Brooks ● 721d

Steve, we still live in a liberated society, where the odd song is tolerated after midnight, where the occasional high jinks are on show, especially on birthdays.Disgraceful shoplifting and dangerous, inconsiderate cycling are definitely outlawed (if not by the police).If you want to live in a sterile police state go to Singapore: it's nice there, clean, crime free, drug free, no drunks, no beggars, no morons.

Denis I. Fox ● 721d

Singapore, where a politician accepting freebies is national news and the individual in question was facing a custodial sentence unil he entered a guilty plea to a number of lesser charges. His political career is over.

N V Brooks ● 721d

I’m sure Chiswick is turning into a postmodern parody of Fahrenheit 451.

Russell Pearson ● 720d

Cllr Todd never stops at red lights either. And I mean never. So there is another thing for the forum’s reactionary conservatives to get their teeth into when they write to Peter Thompson.

Paul Campbell ● 720d

"Cllr Todd never stops at red lights either". Would love to know where your evidence and proof for that is. Is it photographic, hearsay, wishful thinking, or did you consult Mystic Meg?

Brian Coyle ● 720d

Every time I see him cycling he cycles through red lights. I see him cycling a lot because we both cycle a lot. Admittedly it is possible that when I am not there he doesn't but he does it so casually and with admirable nonchalance that I would be very surprised if he changed his ways when I am not around. He also cycles on the pavement.

Paul Campbell ● 720d

Cycling the wrong way down Devonshire Road isn't just anti-social and dangerous - for cyclists as well as others - but it's illegal, though the lack of any enforcement encourages cyclists to think that road signs for them are optional.  And it's so silly, because in this case, using the proper route is far safer, going the same way as other traffic and terminating in a nice set of protective traffic lights. What's not to like?!

Peter Evans ● 720d

No it’s not nice cycling around Annandale because it is a narrow rat run used by aggressive speeding drivers who don’t like cyclists being in their way even as they approach a red light. I quite understand why Councillor Todd regularly chooses to break the law by cycling the wrong way down Devonshire Rd but feel free to report him to the police Peter

Paul Campbell ● 720d

Not following those lessons we should have learnt and kept on practising since childhood and have been teaching our children when crossing roads to LOOK BOTH WAYS is dangerous.  As is driving or cycling so fast down any road with no thought or consideration for anyone or anything crossing or stepping out or falling or stopped or reversing ie just IN the road ahead of you.  It's wrong to think it is just YOUR road!

Philippa Bond ● 720d

Cyclists frequently go illegally northbound on Prebend Gardens.The road has a blind corner, so it is particular dangerous for a cyclist.There was a collision a few months ago when the cyclist went sprawling across the road. Just badly bruised, he was lucky.The driver was left with a 2K repair bill.

Nick Jenkins ● 720d

And drivers frequently speed illegally on Prebend Gardens and do not slow on the blind corner.

Paul Campbell ● 720d

It is likely that many cyclists use Prebend Gardens unaware that a section of it is one way. There is no indication that is when you are going northbound because the signs all point the other way. It is an ideal candidate for two way cycling to be made legal on this section with better linkages added with Cycleway 9.On Devonshire Road, pedestrian priority over cars and bikes with two way operation for the latter would seem to be the best solution all round.

Mark Evans ● 720d

Devonshire Road should just be pedestrianised. There is no need for cars to drive through it. Pedestrian priority over cars in shared spaces doesn't work because there are too many sociopaths driving cars.

Paul Campbell ● 720d

Re: Prebend Gardens, you could just stick a bollard in the road under the tube line, make the section south of this two way, remove the no entry entering Prebend and the no right turn leaving Prebend.It would then be like all the other streets between Turnham Green Terrace and Goldhawk Rd in that access is either via CHR or Bath Rd/Stamford Brook Rd but would have the benefit of walking/cycling access under the tube line.

Michael Robinson ● 720d

Peter Evans is 100% correct.

Steve Taylor ● 720d

“ Cyclists frequently go illegally northbound on Prebend Gardens.The road has a blind corner, so it is particular dangerous for a cyclist.”But the morons are too blinded by their self righteousness and arrogance to even see that it is dangerous.

Steve Taylor ● 720d

So if someone on a bike was visiting, say, Urban Pantry on Devonshire Rd, your recommended route is, right on Ingress St, left on Annandale Rd, wait at the traffic lights on CHR, left on CHR, left on Devonshire Rd.So about 500m, 4 turns and one set of traffic lights, or, cycle the wrong way to a cafe they can see 30m straight in front of them?

Michael Robinson ● 720d

I would be inclined to dismount and walk the last 30 meters, but perhaps that's eccentric.

Christopher Shea ● 720d

It doesn't reflect human nature though. Millenia of human evolution means people take the shortest distance using the least physical effort.  Just look at some of the "desire line" tracks on Turnham Green where people ignore the paths because they are longer.It is worth pointing out that all the traffic restrictions on Devonshire Rd are to address issues created by motor traffic but people on bikes are expected to suffer the consequences.

Michael Robinson ● 720d

“ people take the shortest distance using the least physical effort.”So, what you are saying is that all this talk about the health benefits of cycling is all just nonsense because cyclists are, in the main, just lazy bastards.

Steve Taylor ● 720d

“but people on bikes are expected to suffer the consequences.”Why is it ‘suffer consequences’ if it is just expecting them to obey the law? And why are they suffering consequences if they have to cycle a little further? Surely the health benefits of cycling further (within the law) outweigh the inconvenience?

Steve Taylor ● 720d

I was about to suggest the same unorthodox solution for cyclists to get to Devonshire Road pastry shops from the south - get off and walk! And no, don't ride along the pavement!Whatever excuses/reasons cyclists might make or give, such as 'it's easier' or 'it's safer', the deciding factor must be what the road signs say.  Maybe they could be different, but they're not.  A red traffic light in the middle of the night when there's no other traffic about?  Stop, because that's what it says.  No debate or discussion.  If we had off-peak four-way flashing ambers like some other countries, it would be different, but we don't.  The rules of the road aren't optional!

Peter Evans ● 720d

“I would be inclined to dismount and walk the last 30 meters,”That would be the obvious and most sensible approach but perhaps beyond the comprehension of the rogue cyclists who break the law.

Steve Taylor ● 720d

"The rules of the road aren't optional!"Tens of millions of drivers would disagree with you.

Paul Campbell ● 720d

Peter,I'd suggest taking a step back from "rules is rules" and take a look why rules have been put in place in the first place.All too often, it is to address issues created by car drivers or for the convenience of car drivers and everyone else is expected to suffer.Devonshire Rd is a classic example.  It was made one way to stop cars rat-running along it as a bypass route to CHR then it was decided it couldn't be two way for cycling because cars needed to park on both sides so there wasn't enough space.On the latter point, I'd suggest that should be re-examined.  Just because some traffic engineer 30 years thought there wasn't space ago doesn't mean it is true.  Several boroughs have done systematic reviews of one way streets for two way cycling and have concluded that it was perfectly possible and changed the signage.  There aren't hard and fast regulations for deciding a street can have two way cycling.  It depends on a range of factors.A street being used 'de facto' while not 'de jure' for two way cycling may be an indication this is the case.

Michael Robinson ● 720d

“All too often, it is to address issues created by car drivers or for the convenience of car drivers and everyone else is expected to suffer.”Yes, good, brilliant; that’s the way it is. Suck it up. The reasons for the laws are not your concern even though they may p you off. Tough! Just accept that the convenience of car drivers is paramount. The car is King and every government around the world knows that because economies rely on the motor industries. Cyclists are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Rogue cyclists breaking the law must be punished. Full on!

Steve Taylor ● 720d

"The rules of the road aren't optional!"Having been shouted at by a policeman in the USA for walking across an empty road when the pedestrian sign was on red, I wonder what would happen if the pedestrian crossing signs were enforced here ? Probably a revolution !

Richard Greenhough ● 720d

“ Having been shouted at by a policeman in the USA for walking across an empty road”Yep I had similar experience. American policing is incredible and they seem to have an over abundance of cops. We are sadly lacking in law enforcement.

Steve Taylor ● 720d

You can’t cross the road in the wrong place but you can carry a gun! Strange place the USA!

Peter Evans ● 720d

"and it's two-way trafficOn a one way streetAll the voices in the airAre stuck on repeatIt's a two-horse raceIn a one-horse townLike a house of cards"I don't know what Status Quo were smoking back in the day but I'd say off it if I was you.

Adrian Irving ● 720d

“ The rules of the road aren't optional!”Precisely!  And cyclists breaking the rules will always come off second best.

Steve Taylor ● 719d

Bullies should never be allowed to get off best.

Philippa Bond ● 719d

Full pedestrianisation is a non-starter. It has been considered before and has no real backing - not from the council, residents or businesses. The practical challenges should be obvious not least the resulting diversion of traffic accessing the Glebe Estate through the already struggling Duke Road and that it would close off the road to cyclists both ways.Pedestrian priority would, in my view deliver more or less everything that most people want to see. A better shopping environment, two way travel for cyclists and access for deliveries and local residents.

Mark Evans ● 719d

Full pedestrianisation s most certainly not a non-starter and it has much support now among traders who are despairing at the present situation. It always had support from residents. Duke Road is not the only way in an out of the Glebe Estate but it could certainly use LTN measures to prevent the rat running that seems to be increasing.Pedestrian priority in shared space does not work because of sociopathic drivers who mistakenly believe they own the roads.

Paul Campbell ● 719d

Which Devonshire Road traders want full pedestrianisation?I don't think any residents of Devonshire Road support full pedestrianisation because they are concerned about access and deliveries. If you broaden 'residents' out to anyone in Chiswick I guess you are technically correct that you and one or two others would support it but nobody who will have to deal with the practical day to day consequences will do.Rat running in the area occurs down Dukes Avenue not Duke Road - that is a another issue entirely.The research on pedestrian priority on shared road space doesn't bear out your worst fears. What work has been done indicates that there are more collisions but because of the reduction in road speeds they tend to be minor and serious collisions are vanishingly rare therefore they fact a positive contribution to road safety.

Mark Evans ● 719d

I don't think that it would be sensible for me to name the traders who want full pedestrianisation do you? But they are now complaining that the Council did not go ahead and do it despite them hiding behind the complaints of the ones who have sold or are closing their businesses.Yes Devonshire Road residents wanted full pedestrianisation. They know that does not exclude access and deliveries. This is why Councillor Biddolph kept complaining that the Council needed to listen to the residents of the Glebe Estate and not just those on Devonshire Road. Glebe Estate residents can be trusted to support the Councillor's car supremacist views because they continue to flout the evening restrictions after 6pm as they feel entitled to use Devonshire Road as they please. Rat running does occur on Duke Road. Usually when there are westbound queues on the A4 and CHR during evening rush hours. That is when the queue to the High Road extends a couple of hundred metres back down the road. Rat running is worse on Dukes Avenue because it is persistent at all times of day throughout the week.Please share this research on pedestrian priority in the UK that tells residents and customer of businesses on Devonshire Road that they can look forward to more drivers hitting them with their cars and rest assured it shouldn't result in too serious an injury if they support your plan.

Paul Campbell ● 719d

Mark,This report from 2018 says the Department of Transport imposed a moratorium on creation of 'shared space' schemes.  Have you got more recent information if this ban is still in place or if there are updated guidelines?https://www.transportxtra.com/publications/local-transport-today/news/58499/shared-space-projects-suspended-by-government/The issue raised by visually impaired groups is they simply don't trust drivers to respect priority and guide dogs can't read signs to say if they need to wait for a car or if they have 'priority'.  The guidance may have been changed so that these types of schemes must have some sort of kerbing  to delineate roadway  from footway and of course, once a roadway is marked, drivers will claim it as their own.

Michael Robinson ● 719d

"Rat running is worse on Dukes Avenue because it is persistent at all times of day throughout the week". Rat-running northbound has decreased since the construction of the cycleway. The longer wait at the lights puts the rat-runners off, and dribbling the lights via the Bourne Place cut-through no longer works, because they can't turn right at the top of Duke Road.

Robert Fish ● 719d

Yes I see that Robert. It’s bad southbound though. The Barrowgate Road rat run to avoid the Heathfield Terrace lights and queues on Sutton Court Road

Paul Campbell ● 719d

All that would be a first, Campbell actually considering the wishes of the retailers on Devonshire Road. I thought you were the person Campbell who named and shamed them on X. What a dreadful hypocrite.

N V Brooks ● 719d

It is interesting that you think that highlighting traders openly displaying OneChiswick’s “Hounslow Council is Destroying  Chiswick” posters in their shop windows is shaming them. So you agree that the posters are shameful? Me too. Glad we agree on something.

Paul Campbell ● 719d

Yes, indeed. There's more southbound traffic, but nothing like the queues in the other direction that there used to be when the A4 was jammed.

Robert Fish ● 719d

A nice additional benefit from the cycle lane

Paul Campbell ● 719d

I presume this report follows on from reaction to the changes made in South Kensington among others. In these schemes the purpose was not simply pedestrian priority but the removal of pavements and the complete blurring of the differential between space for vehicles and pedestrians.Each can form their own views about how this is working by walking from South Ken station to Hyde Park. Personally I like it but can fully understand why people with impaired vision might feel uncomfortable with it and why the Department for Transport felt obliged to act.However, the potential drawbacks of this scheme would not apply on Devonshire Road where it is unlikely that funding would be available to bring the road surface up to the level of the pavement. Therefore there would still be a delineation between road and footway with paint and signs being used to indicate pedestrian priority. This sort of scheme exists in town centres across the country and, as far as I am aware, there is no bar on councils introducing them.On the available research, most if not all relates to European countries other than the UK but the conclusions seem to be pretty consistent - more minor collisions, fewer serious ones. Whatever the impact of pedestrian priority, reduced speed limits are likely to have this effect.Full pedestrianisation seems to me a classic example of the 'perfect' being the enemy of the good. It would probably mean the end of cycle access either way and with deliveries still allowed, the experience for pedestrians wouldn't be that much different to what it is now. Pedestrian priority would boost footfall by a similar amount, retain access to the Glebe Estate for residents and allow cyclists to travel both ways. It seems to me this would give everybody more or less what they want.

Mark Evans ● 717d

Share the research then. What you are failing to understand is that British drivers do not care for pedestrian priority so there would be no real change to the street and no increase in footfall from your impractical plan. If you think that British drivers care then just watch the Glebe Estate drivers flout the restrictions in the evening. And watch how fast they drive through the street.Your solution suits drivers and nobody else. As usual.

Paul Campbell ● 717d

You sure all those drivers are ‘British’? Share your research.

Simon Hayes ● 717d

Fairly simple solution in Kensington: No entry on one way streets except bikes.  There's no contraflows or road markings on many roads — more details. This could work fine for Devonshire and normalise what everyone is doing already.

Ed Saper ● 717d

Mark, what does "signs being used to indicate pedestrian priority" actually mean? I don't see any 'pedestrian priority' signs listed in the official DfT manual of traffic signs so I assume it is purely informational and can't be legally enforced - other than all road users are required give way if it will avoid a collision. I used to work near a pedestrianised street in Islington called Exmouth Market.  Checking the street signs there, it does refer to a 'Pedestrian Zone'  — but it also bans motor vehicles between certain times so 'pedestrian zone' is purely informational. Looking at another street, Orford St in Walthamstow, they also ban motor vehicles between certain times.  It is on a bus route so buses are permitted.  The other end of the road has 'No Entry Except Cycles'. Of course, showing examples elsewhere will just invite responses from the "you can't have nice things" crowd saying "This isn't Islington/Walthamstow/Any other location in the world, this is Chiswick...".

Michael Robinson ● 717d

So now Ed wants to normalise criminality. Nice one. Let’s just normalise cyclists breaking the law. And hey, if so many motorists are now killing pedestrians and it’s becoming ‘the norm’ why not just normalise it? Sick!!

Steve Taylor ● 717d

Ah, Exmouth Market home of the late lamented Clark's Pie Shop. Best apple piesand mincemeat pies in London. Did you ever use the Cinnamon Leaf? A regular haunt when I worked on Farringdon Road.

N V Brooks ● 717d

Michael, are you suggesting the sign at Exmouth Market does not conform to the official DfT manual ? I guess that for motorists the most important part is enclosed in the red circle, while delivery drivers need to read the small print and come back during the permitted hours. Pedestrians can enjoy a traffic-free street (apart, presumably, from cycles) throughout the working day, hence "Pedestrian Zone". I recall that Exmouth Market was similarly car-free in the 1970s, so although the sign is new, the principle has been in place there for at least half a century, and the shops and other businesses there have had plenty of time to adapt. Bringing in a new Pedestrian Zone in Devonshire Road against the wishes of businesses set up there is a different matter.

Richard Greenhough ● 717d

No, the 'No Motor Vehicles' sign is official and can be enforced.  The 'Pedestrian Zone' signage is purely informational.I wasn't sure what Mark Evans was proposing hence my question to him but would suggest that only informational signage like 'Pedestrian Zone' or 'Pedestrian Priority' is pointless and there needs to be restrictions that can actually be enforced, such as the 'No Motor Vehicles' shown for Exmouth Market and Orford Rd.I don't think there has been any street where pedestrianisation has been proposed where shopkeepers haven't objected.  When it was implemented  in Orford Rd in 2015, they carried a coffin down the street claiming it would be the 'death of the street'.  Funnily enough, the street has gone from strength to strength and the people who once objected are objecting no more.  It just shows that shopkeepers may not be the best judges of urban planning.Why not pedestrianise Devonshire Rd then you can comment in 50 years about how it has gone.

Michael Robinson ● 717d

While I know Exmouth Market, I am not familiar with Orford Road, but from the photo I would think that having buses squeeze down that narrow central strip would negate many of the advantages of the semi-pedestrianisation of the road. And presumably pedestrians would still have to beware of speeding cyclists.

Richard Greenhough ● 717d

More recently even than Orford Road traders objected to the pedestrianisation of Church St in Twickenham complaining it would reduce footfall, make their businesses inaccessible to customers, compromise deliveries. But there were enough sensible and brave traders to make their voices heard including the octogenarian owner of a travel agent who pointed out the street is 150m in length and deliveries can be walked in. Now nobody would go back to having cars on it.

Paul Campbell ● 717d

The bus (W12) is a single decker and runs every 15-20 minutes in one direction so it isn't very intrusive.

Michael Robinson ● 717d

There are numerous examples of pedestrian priority signs in the UK if you search on Google. Most of them are from picture agencies so I won't copy here but this is an example from Norwich.
As for whether they are DfT approved I don't know but the argument that they are unenforceable is not a valid one. If you were to hit a pedestrian on Devonshire Road the legal relevance of the sign is that it should have prompted you to drive with more care and attention.  It is also worth recalling that the original post on this thread related to the two way use of Devonshire Road by cyclists. There is no enforcement to stop this as there is no enforcement of people driving up the road when access is supposed to be restricted. Pedestrian priority works in other areas both in the UK and on the continent because people observe it, which is clearly more effective than having rules that may have legal backing but are generally ignored. On Ed's suggestion of just simply introducing two way operation for cyclists along the length of Devonshire Road, that may be a good idea. One reservation would be that it is a fallacy that all cyclists ignore the rules, I don't use Devonshire Road when travelling north and I believe the vast majority of cyclists would use an alternative route as well. This means that if two way access was allowed, it would become the main south north route in through Chiswick and cyclists numbers would surge. Perhaps the reason that this measure has not been considered is that it is felt this would have a negative impact on the shopping environment on the street.

Mark Evans ● 717d

A sign is unenforceable if it isn't a DfT regulated instruction, by definition.From a quick check of google maps, your example seems to be a street called Hooks Walk in Norwich, a dead end for motor traffic that appears to have exactly zero shops, cafes or other pedestrian attractions on it.Hardly a good comparison with a shopping street, is it?Why do you think that Exmouth Market, Orford Rd, Church St Twickenham felt the need to ban motor traffic rather than allow it and just put up an unenforceable sign?Interesting you seem to think that cyclists using the street in both directions would 'harm the shopping environment'.  Would this be more or less than SUVs barrelling along it?

Michael Robinson ● 716d

You've missed the point on the legality or otherwise of the signage. Perhaps if I changed the perspective — if you hit a pedestrian in your car on Devonshire Road, do you really believe your defence of the signs not being enforceable would get you a not guilty verdict? On the issue of two way movement for cyclists — once again you seem to have misunderstood or misinterpreted what I have written. I think Ed's suggestion was a good one but I was trying to work out why such an obvious and simple solution has not been put in place. One possible explanation is that cycling along this route would become so popular it might be seen as an additional disincentive to shop there. It's not a point of view I would endorse — I am just trying to explain why the council hasn't gone for two way cycling. It also could be that the most energetic cycling campaigners in the area have been tilting at windmills trying to push the impractical option of full pedestrianisation and not bothered to go for a change which would be of huge benefit to local cyclists.

Mark Evans ● 716d

Robinson usually misses the point and then refuses to reply when confronted with facts. However, back to the point regarding Devonshire Road, cyclists must be aware that it’s not a two way street for them so they are compelled to adhere to the law and not travel the wrong way when there are clear NO ENTRY signs.

Steve Taylor ● 716d

Cycling campaigners have not pushed for pedestrianisation of Devonshire Road even though it is the easiest and most practical solution with the greatest benefits for the road. They decided to leave the traders to experience the consequences of their campaign. The road is a lost cause.

Paul Campbell ● 716d

Killing someone with your car is worse than cycling down a one-way street. 

Ed Saper ● 716d

When you say ‘pedestrianisation’ do you mean ‘with added cycling’?  In which case that’s nor pedestrianised. I know cycling is such a flexible mode of transport that riders feel they can just switch to being ‘honorary pedestrians’ when they feel like it, and cycle on the pavement or across a zebra crossing, but early cyclist fought long and hard to be legally regarded as ‘vehicles’ with all the rights and responsibilities that entails, so need to behave as such.

Peter Evans ● 716d

Vehicular cycling is out of date and its proponents are dwindling as time's winged chariot hurries near. It's all cycle lanes and LTNs now baby.

Paul Campbell ● 716d

It is not clear what advocates of pedestrianisation mean but in the majority of cases elsewhere this seems to require cyclists to dismount. This is sometimes encouraged by paving not suitable for cycling.Pedestrian priority would allow cycling to continue which is important for such a key safe route through Chiswick. How this works can be seen on the Thames Path i.e. not totally perfect but with most cyclists recognising the priority of people on foot.It would probably be worth dealing with this if the promised upgrade of C49 ever takes place. This would mean there would be a resurfacing of Windmill Road and a signalled cycle crossing to join C9 which would provide a good route from North Chiswick down to Devonshire Road allowing people to avoid the terrible Fishers Lane junction where dismounting is often the only safe option.

Mark Evans ● 716d

If someone was hit by a car on Devonshire Rd, the guilt of the driver would be determined by the facts of the case, not an unenforceable sign.Even if a car was travelling at low speed, it can't stop instantaneously so a pedestrian stepping out in front of a car could be deemed at fault for a collision.  If the car driver was observed holding a mobile phone at the time, this may not be the case.And of course, safety would be improved by removing the source of the risk in the first place rather than relying on drivers being prosecuted if they hit someone which is too late for the person who was hit.

Michael Robinson ● 716d

Cycling isn't the important factor for the success of Devonshire Road. It is a secondary concern. All of it moot because traders have followed the lead of the Chiswick Councillors and chosen to have traffic driving through the road and past their businesses instead of the increased footfall that they enjoyed during the period of the previous traffic restrictions which were occasionally enforced. Their choice. They can watch the success of places like Church Street and Orford Road with envy for the foreseeable future and should certainly not expect any help or support from cycling campaigners who have far more important and fruitful things to do.

Paul Campbell ● 716d

"..cycling campaigners who have far more important and fruitful things to do."In your case, reading the Daily Telegraph from cover to cover each day and then using a mouthwash to wash away the foam.

Richard Greenhough ● 716d

“ riders feel they can just switch to being ‘honorary pedestrians’ when they feel like it, and cycle on the pavement or across a zebra crossing, but early cyclist fought long and hard to be legally regarded as ‘vehicles’”Yes cyclists were well respected then and given every courtesy and consideration but the new generation, particularly in cities, flaunt the law and have become arrogant and quite wrongly believe they are entitled above all others. This is why they have become the most despised species and are compared with the likes of locusts and cockroaches and other invaders. It’s sad that they have given us responsible cyclists such a bad name and I can feel the animosity of motorists and pedestrians when I am out cycling.

Steve Taylor ● 716d

Travel Agents don't have deliveries.

Janice Evans ● 716d

I guess they have boxes of brochures delivered.

Richard Greenhough ● 716d

E if that means that you will not patronise Devonshire Road I am sure the local traders there will be absolutely delighted

N V Brooks ● 716d

You can download them now, although think they still opt for brochures yes.

Janice Evans ● 715d