Forum Topic

Average bus speeds fall below 9mph

Interesting update from Ross Lydall in the Evening Standard on this huge problem for London.https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/bus-speeds-london-slow-9mph-tfl-sadiq-khan-assembly-b1261821.htmlThe speed across Hounslow was 8.84mph in October of this year compared to 9.4mph for the 2023/24 financial year. You might expect October to be lower than the annual average but across London the report shows that bus speeds are falling and, as a result so are passenger numbers.The operators say most delays are caused by road works but a government minister is admitting that LTNs and cycle lanes have been a factor in the slowdown.The issue is more acute now with tube fares up again meaning that more people might be forced to consider the bus even though it might increase their travel time. The council had come up with quite an imaginative scheme to restore some of the lost bus priority on Chiswick High Road but all seems to have gone quiet on that. Hopefully this latest data will release funding to try and reverse this trend.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 29d155 Comments

"The CPZ isn't there to control traffic flow - it's to allow people to be able to park near where they live when they return home"Nope. LBHF stated the change in CPZ was also about traffic flow. So again, you have to get through a pinch point to a very short street of two lanes. Street clutter? The sign was there. E-bikes are everywhere. And I use them daily. Address clutter correctly. This is not that. There is no prevailing trend. The time plate needed to be there. It still needs to be there. Again, you keep ignoring that LBHF personnel are referencing the Glenthorne time plates themselves. Confusion wasn't the problem. Now it is. Sorry, what is the difference between a double yellow and the current time restrictions exactly?You're welcome to file a FOI request yourself. But you know and I know "majority" means nothing without context. No context has been given.I've no interest in your apology, Andrew. It's clear we disagree and it's clear you have an agenda: car bad. No matter what. Okay for councils to penalize drivers. No matter what.

David Lesniak ● 1d

I couldn't find information about the numbers of residents expressing support for and against extending both the hours and days that restrictions operate in CPZ Zone A on the council website.So what are the numbers? Ask the council David, and if they don't play ball and supply them, you could then do a freedom of information request so they have to provide them.I have no doubt that there was a majority who voted in the consultation to bring in the increased restrictions.Why am I so sure? Firstly, residents nearby, in the Olympia area "overwhelmingly" voted in March 2015 for restrictions in their six nearby CPZs to be extended.https://www.lbhf.gov.uk/councillors-and-democracy/consultations/olympia-parking-zones-consultation-outcome-and-next-stepsYes Zone A is a mix of domestic residences and businesses, so not exactly like Olympia (https://www.hammersmithsociety.org.uk/olympia-update-3/) but it is pretty close to the CPZs in Olympia, it's got a lot of go-to places in the environs of Hammersmith Broadway, so it was quite likely to be experiencing some degree of parking stress in the evenings and on Sundays, so I'd expect residents in Zone A might have similar feelings to those who voted in the extensions to the six CPZs near Olympia.And a second reason, I really don't think LBHF would have gone ahead with expanding the restrictions if there had been a majority voting against this.Prove that I'm wrong about there being more residents who answered the consultation and supported the new restrictions compared to those who expressed opposition  David, and I will gladly apologise to you on this forum.Why is the access to Beadon not further restricted? What, beyond the 08:30-23:00 restrictions that are the default times for the whole zone? What a ridiculous question - they don't need to be extended any further. I'm sure all the businesses in Lyric Square would really love you if you campaigned to have double yellow lines on Beadon Road. The residents who voted for the restrictions don't live on Beadon Road, and are more interested in what is happeing in the streets they live in, so why would they be somehow placated if Beadon Road was restricted 24/7?"The pinch point remains on Glenthorne which negates the intent of the increased CPZ." The CPZ isn't there to control traffic flow - it's to allow people to be able to park near where they live when they return home.The timeplates on Glenthorne Road are ( assuming that what I see on Google Streetmap is still valid) 7am-7pm Mon-Sat. Restrictions start earlier and finish earlier than the default restrictions in the rest of the zone. Those time plates need to be there.If the restriction on Beadon Road is 8.30am - 11pm then as I have repeatedly said, no timeplate is needed. Would have been nice if there still was one, but that would go against the prevailing trend of trying to reduce street clutter.Join the dots David. If there's a timeplate then the timeplate times apply. No timeplate - then the default CPZ times apply to the yellow line. So the restrictions on Beadon Road start later than those for the yellow lines (with adjacent timeplates) in Glenthorne Road, and they finish later.It really isn't rocket science, and anyone who has never parked before in the area shouldn't fall foul as long as they realise you can't assume you can park on a sunday on a yellow line in some boroughs these days. As I asked rhetorically, would you park your car on a yellow line in a CPZ in London at 4pm on a weekday?

Andrew Jones ● 2d

Oh please, Andrew. Connect the dots."majority of residents? Based on what? What are the numbers? Besides, we already know not "all" businesses were consulted ergo not "all" residents were consulted. It's bureaucratic blather based on....? Who knows.My point, which surely isn't rocket science, is if the intent was to placate "all" those consulted given those "overwhelming margins" why is the access to Beadon not further restricted? Why is it just Beadon? What is that actual impact of that miniscule measure going to be?I'd suggest familiarizing yourself with the conditions on Glenthorne. In places it is two lanes, in others one but then again two given the bus lane time restrictions. That goes back to one lane on Sundays when single-yellow parking narrows it back to one. So you have a one-lane road giving way to the two-lanes on Beadon. Pointless. The pinch point remains on Glenthorne which negates the intent of the increased CPZ."There are plenty of yellow lines all over London, and most don't have any adjacent time plates."We're talking about the precedent set by LBHF. Not to mention the reasonable expectation also created by LBHF given the multiple time plates on Glenthorne that LBHF staff then point you to.

David Lesniak ● 2d

I read the wiki page, impressive.

Janice Evans ● 3d

I'm sure it (the new restrictions) does have an impact on sustainability for high street trading in the area, and you will no doubt have far more of an idea on the impact than I have as you are an affected trader.How is extending the hours of control antagonising to the majority of residents if the majority of residents voted for increasing the hours of control?"all residents and businesses in Zone A were written to in June 2025." - this is the first time on this thread you have said that (according to the council) all businesses were supposed to have been contacted - fair enough - I'm happy to accept your claim that this didn't happen but don't accuse me of not following on and then saying (incorrectly) immediately afterwards (in a previous post of yours) that "I have said I was told "all businesses" were consulted ..." - you may have said this beforehand somewhere else, but it wasn't on this thread."Why not tighten up within the entire zone which is what is implied by the entire communication with LBHF." Not sure if this is a rhetorical question or not - but if it isn't.So what do you want David, for the new 08:30-23:00 restriction to apply to ALL yellow lines within CPZ Zone A? That's not exactly going to help trading conditions is it?Do you want two lanes of traffic being able to drive along Glenthorne Road but not be able to park there, or would you prefer there to be only one lane and the ability for visitors to park on Glenthorne Road - wouldn't that be better for trade?"Plenty of people travel from one borough to the next not expecting to be penalized for parking on a single yellow on a Sunday. And if the nearest sign says you may, why would anyone think "hold up, let's look back a half-mile to double check?""Would you park on a single yellow line on a weekday at 4pm? I doubt it. Sunday restrictions have gradually become far more widespread, and drivers need to realise that they need to be more careful about where and when they park than they used to be. For years, there have been places in London where you can only park on a yellow line between midnight and sometime in the morning. Near Westfield for many years you now couldn't park on a yellow line until 22:00, even on Sundays.I'm not so opposed to updating a existing timeplate ( I think I may even have mentioned that I said that would have been a better option, and I certainly advocated putting up some information about the changes).Why was the time plate sign there? Yes it's obvious on one level, that the time plate was there to inform people of the restrictions, but that's not what I was driving at. There are plenty of yellow lines all over London, and most don't have any adjacent time plates.This particular time plate might well have been put there because LBHF chose to have different restrictions for the yellow line on Beadon Road compared to elsewhere in the CPZ that Beadon Road is in, when the CPZ was brought in. It was brought in years ago.It might have been, because they found that loads of people were parking there during restricted hours, it might even have predated the CPZ.Or there may have been some other reason it was put there.But, the bottom line is that the time plate is no longer needed to indicate the restrictions in Beadon Road because these are (I presume) between 08:30-23:00 every day, the same as what's on the CPZ Entry Zone signs.

Andrew Jones ● 3d

I can’t remember what program it was on as we have Radio 4 burbling on in the kitchen quite a lot. I just heard a well spoken, articulate women talking about the decay of London and the damage done by Kahn so I  pricked up my ears and gathered that it was a speech about contesting Kahn in the next mayoral election which I thought a bit strange as the election a long way to go. At first I thought it may be a Conservative or even a Lib Dim talking. It may have been one of those times when Radio 4 interrupts normal programs to take you live to an important speech!?  However, if you google ‘Laila Cunningham Speech’ you will get dozens of links taking you to her speeches on YouTube etc.Her wiki page  is quite impressive considering her career and being a mother to 7 children (5 of her own). Being a Muslim woman I’m sure she’ll appeal to many women across our diverse city. Who knows!!  When the time comes I’ll vote for whoever I think can correct the total mismanagement of London’s transport, crime, environment and economy we have endured for 10 years.

Steve Taylor ● 3d

I’d never heard of Laila Cunningham until today, so you were a day ahead of me.I just found it odd that you were advocating voting for someone who is a reform candidate given your previous comments about your support ( or rather lack of support) for reform.Glad to hear you still don't support reform, and I'll make a point of trying to listen to her speech ( or interview?) on Radio 4 - what radio 4 programme was she on yesterday? Today? World at One?

Andrew Jones ● 3d

An article in this week's NY Post described this very thing happening within the Republican base. Ardent right-wing voters opting for Gavin Newsome (D) over J.D. Vance (R) because the former is "chad" while the latter is "fat."On social media it's known as looksmaxxing.No surprise to me this demographic of people choose "chad" as it implies sexual prowess and the ability to attract a partner. The very thing that fuels the incel community often roped into the rhetoric.

David Lesniak ● 3d

It's clear, Andrew, you think it okay for a council to antagonize visitors and residents and you've no clue how this has a negative impact on the sustainability for high street trading.In an email from someone at LBHF (I'd name names because they are public servants and as such, they are public, but I also know people get a bit touchy about it) he states ""all residents and businesses in Zone A were written to in June 2025." This suggests physical mail. But no. None was received by any of us. Not sure why if that detail was omitted in the thread should be of any significance, but you do you, Andrew. Carry on,. It then goes on to say how 85% of those voted requested longer controls. Nothing to back that up. Could have been so people for all we know. Wouldn't be the first time a council has abused the consultation protocol/results/purpose. Plenty of examples out there. Have a look see for yourself."Having signs showing different times is exactly how you are meant to inform a driver in a CPZ that a different time restriction on a yellow line applies"Precisely the point, Andrew. LBHF did that for years on Beadon. Things changed. The signage did not. It got removed instead. yet oddly, the repeater signs on Glenthorne remained despite the so-called 85% wanting tighter restrictions. Why not tighten up within the entire zone which is what is implied by the entire communication with LBHF. Surely reducing traffic to a single lane on Glenthorne on a Sunday is adding to the problem. This is what the existing time plates allow for.Why, Andrew, are you so opposed to updating a pre-existing timeplate to allow for a clear indication of what to do and what not to do given the circumstances changed? Plenty of people travel from one borough to the next not expecting to be penalized for parking on a single yellow on a Sunday. And if the nearest sign says you may, why would anyone think "hold up, let's look back a half-mile to double check?""Who knows why that time plate was originally put there years ago? I don't - do  you?Please, Andrew. You embarrass yourself with this. It's completely obvious why the time plate was installed.

David Lesniak ● 3d

“ Glad that one's clear Steve.”Come now, Andrew, you’re not that thick, surely?I’d never heard of Laila Cunningham until yesterday when I picked up part of her speech on Radio 4. Her views on London and her vision and ideas on how to tackle the immense problems caused by Kahn are extremely appealing. It was only towards the end of the speech that I realised she was a Reform member and I read up about her on Wikipedia. I don’t support Reform but she certainly appears to be an amazing woman.  Read, learn, digest and be amazed.

Steve Taylor ● 3d

Hopefully she would attract the Muslim vote which the inarticulate Kahn has relied on to keep him in office. Her plans for improving London and getting traffic moving again are what will attract many voters fed up with the utter disasters caused by Kahn. She is articulate, intelligent and well educated.

Steve Taylor ● 3d

Mayor, she would have a lot to do it's not far off, she is not well known yet.

Janice Evans ● 3d

His head has been turned by this new wonderwoman Janice.

David Burke ● 3d

Does that mean you have tired of Kemi Steve.

Janice Evans ● 3d

I put the name in google, she's very beautiful.

Janice Evans ● 3d

I have said I was told "all businesses" were consulted yet no proof of that has been provided.When did you say this David? Time and date of posting would be sufficient.I do recall you writing the below:Apparently the CPZ was recently changed. This after a "consultation." I mentioned that none of us here at the Lyric were consulted.and They "consulted" but funnily enough cannot prove that they did. When I learned not even the theatre personnel were made aware, a sensed a rotting rat carcass somewhere.but this is the first time I can recall you mentioning "all businesses".The council has repeatedly contradicted itself by saying look at the signs both at the CPZ entry and also on Glenthorne. Those signs contradict themselvesIt depends what you mean when you say contradict themselves.I totally accept that the signs on Glenthorne Road may show different times to the times shown on the CPZ Zone entry signs.So what? Having signs showing different times is exactly how you are meant to inform a driver in a CPZ that a different time restriction on a yellow line applies.Let's for a moment put ourselves in the shoes of a person who hasn't been parking in Beadon Street for years like yourself, and has driven there for the first time ever.What do they find? There is a yellow line on the road. They ask themselves, can I park here legally? There are no time plates anywhere along the yellow line that they are contemplating parking on, so, in a CPZ that means that the times on the Zone Entry signs apply. Now, if you are not sure what those times were you can either look to park somewhere else, or you can take a chance and hope that no restrictions apply.You keep saying that LBHF removed a time plate that they deemed necessary. The timeplates on Glenthorne Road are necessary to indictate the restrictions on the yellow lines there are different to the times on the CPZ Entry Zone signs. If the restrictions on Beadon road are the same as the CPZ Zone Entry times then a time plate isn't necessary.Who knows why that time plate was originally put there years ago? I don't - do you?You are the one who finds contradiction where there isn't any.

Andrew Jones ● 3d

"I can state categorically that I don’t support Reform and I don’t know of any of their members except Farage, Tice and Anderson." "Anyone who says I support Reform is a blatant liar."Steve Taylor 15/12/25 17:57:00"Laila Cunningham for Mayor."Steve Taylor 07/01/26 13:15:00https://order-order.com/2026/01/07/reform-announces-laila-cunningham-as-london-mayoral-candidate/So you don't support reform, but you do advocate a reform candidate for London Mayor. Glad that one's clear Steve.

Andrew Jones ● 3d

Laila Cunningham for Mayor. She’ll get London motorised  traffic moving again and prosecute irresponsible cyclists and e-bike riders. She’ll get buses moving and get rid of LTNs and unused cycle lanes.  She’ll stop shoplifting and anti social behaviour and reduce knife crime and crime against women and girls. She’ll do everything the current inarticulate mayor has failed to address over almost 10 years.

Steve Taylor ● 4d

Andrew, it seems to me you haven't followed along.I have said I was told "all businesses" were consulted yet no proof of that has been provided. Clearly that would be easy to prove had it happened. And, as I have said repeatedly, nor did the management team at the Lyric Theatre know anything about it either.The council has repeatedly contradicted itself by saying look at the signs both at the CPZ entry and also on Glenthorne. Those signs contradict themselves. Beadon had a timeplate. Glenthorne still has multiple time plates to which I have been directed. So really, what is someone supposed to do with that amount of confusion?You'll have to ask LBHF personnel why they do what they do. This particular curious and tenacious person asked multiple people multiple questions. Would an uncurious person have persevered to get a PCN cancelled? Nah.You can't have it both ways. You say LBHF could have done better and then you say they are reasonable. I disagree. They didn't consult as represented.They removed a time  plate they themselves deemed necessary.They did not notify anyone of the change except by issuing a PCN - a lovely temporary sign would have been nice alerting the public to new conditions.They repeatedly point to a sign saying the sign applies until such time as they decide that maybe it doesn't. Today. Or maybe alternate Thursdays. In months with and "R."Why make something that was ridiculously clear so confusing now? I think LBHF can do better and be more transparent. You accept mediocrity and contradiction.

David Lesniak ● 4d

So you accept there may have been a consultation about the changes, admitedly one that looks like it didn't approach businesses in the area. I expect I would feel peeved about this if I was in your position."Doesn't explain why four LBHF people have referred us to said signage." - Agreed - of course it doesn't.You have mentioned that (four) LBHF people have referred you ( and others I think) to said signage in Glenthorne Road, but you have provided no additional context as to what they said when they referred you to this signage. So what did they say? Was it for example that you can park in Glenthorne Road, because there are time plates there specifically stating you can? And there aren't any in Beadon Road, so therefore you can't?Or maybe they said something different. But surely they said something as well when they referred you to the signage in Glenthorne Road - if they didn't then yes, there is no explanation why you were referred to this signage, but then a curious person might have asked what is the relevance of signage in another nearby road to enforceable restrictions i n Beadon Road.  I've no direct connection with LBHF by the way - though I am a resident ( in CPZ I) but you are presenting a one sided view of these changes and portraying yourself as a put upon victim of nefarious activities by LBHF, whereas from my POV,  LBHF have acting in a mostly reasonable manner after the scheme was implemented, though there was quite a lot of things that could have been done better as far as consultation and informing people of changes goes.

Andrew Jones ● 5d

For those here who aren’t familiar with Paul James I suggest looking at the EalingW5 site where he’s been posting his claptrap for years. He’s a classic case of someone who knows very little and understands even less.He’s not Campbell, who thankfully has disappeared to X. But he is a cycling nut job who has no inclination to see why his views really are those of a very rabid minority.His usual MO is to post some nonsense. When challenged on it he gets defensive, obfuscates and diverts down some pointless meander (as he’s done here) and then ignores anyone he disagrees with. He rarely, if ever, backs up any claim with a verifiable fact, preferring to use his personal ‘observations’ as truth. For a good laugh check out his X account where he posts hilarious videos of his confrontations with evil car drivers, much to the embarrassment of his son who seems to be dragged out on bike rides with him.His favourite refrain is ‘too many cars’, yet when asked what would be an acceptable number of cars on the road he goes strangely silent.

Simon Hayes ● 5d

Copilot, on why some people like to try and make out different accounts are the same person."Community politicsIn tight‑knit forums, factions form.Accusing someone of having multiple accounts is a way to:undermine an opposing groupdelegitimise support for an ideaframe the other side as manipulativeIt’s basically a social weapon.ProjectionIronically, the people who make these accusations are sometimes the ones who have used multiple accounts before.They assume others behave like they do."

Paul James ● 5d

"a consultation ending June 11th was planned (and presumably undertaken)"And yet you have six people at the Lyric who had no clue. An LBHF premise, at that. And that's just one building."This is why I said that the time plates in Glenthorne Road are irrelevent as to what the restrictions on Beadon Road might be"Doesn't explain why four LBHF people have referred us to said signage.

David Lesniak ● 5d

PS The only other thing to say is that normally when Councils use their discretion to cancel a correctly issued PCN, they usually qualify it at the end saying that their decision shouldn't be considered to be a precedent, and they wouldn't necessarily cancel a PCN in similar circumstances.So, it's worth mentioning that you know that other people who have fallen foul of the changes have had their PCNs cancelled, but you can't tell the council they have to act in the same way.

Andrew Jones ● 6d

Hi David,Found this on lbhf website which suggests a consultation ending June 11th was planned ( and presumably undertaken).https://haveyoursay.lbhf.gov.uk/parking-zone-aTime plates adjacent to yellow lines only apply to continuous yellow lines, and (AFAIK) you only need to have one of them alongside a yellow line for the restrictions on the time plate to be applicable to the whole continous yellow line.However, if the yellow line is interupted by something else e.g. a parking bay, a section of double yellow line, then the restrictions for the yellow line the other side of the interuption are determined by a new time plate, NOT the one on the previous bit of yellow line. If there is no timeplate next to the new yellow line, then the restriction times on the entry signs at the CPZ boundary apply to this new yellow line - This is why I said that the time plates in Glenthorne Road are irrelevent as to what the restrictions on Beadon Road might be. There isn't a continuous uninterupted yellow line that goes all the way from Glenthorne Road to Beadon Road.Glad that you are trying to help others get their PCN's overturned and are stopping people parking - I'd do the same.

Andrew Jones ● 6d

All LBHF had to do was put up a sign, temporarily or otherwise, that the regulations had recently changed. They did not. They "consulted" but funnily enough cannot prove that they did. When I learned not even the theatre personnel were made aware, a sensed a rotting rat carcass somewhere.Beadon is part of the one-way system. You have to pass numerous timeplates on single-yellow lines on Glenthorne to access Beadon. As of yesterday, the count is up to four of LBHF personnel referring me to the signage on Glenthorne. As someone related it to me, a council officer "fobbed them off" to the signage on Glenthorne. It boggles the mind.Agreed about Hounslow. That said, when new LTNs were put in place word on the street was LBH was cancelling PCNs as a gesture to the public things had recently changed. Hammersmith did nothing of the sort. This was 2/3 weeks after the timeplate signage was removed. So clearly still a new set of circumstances.I regularly parole the street on Sundays. There and a small stretch at the top of Hammersmith Grove where the same thing is occurs. I approach anyone parking and tell them they shouldn't and why and share specific contact info if they have received a PCN. I mention mine was cancelled and they should refer to a precedent being set that PCNs are being cancelled.

David Lesniak ● 6d

Hi David,Thanks for the clarification.Ridiculous that LBHF didn't inform businesses inside CPZ Zone A of changes to parking restictions. Also very disappointing that there weren't any signs showing that restrictions had changed.It would have been relatively easy to update the sign. I assume from what you are say that on Glenthorne Road there are timeplates adjacent to yellow lines, and they show restrictions different to the normal controlled times which are now 08:30-23:00 every day.They are however, irrelevant to what restrictions now apply in Beadon Road - not really sure what point LBHF are trying to make by referring you to this signage.I hope the churchgoers find somewhere else nearby to park so they won't get anymore PCNs and I also hope that the council are as understanding with them as they were with you as far as cancelling already issued PCNs goes.I doubt you would find Hounslow as accomodating in cancelling what on the face of it appears to have been a correctly issued PCN. If all LBHF were they were about was extracting money they would have simply told you to pay up or take it to an adjucator, and ( unless you could provide the adjudicator with a photo of an in situ CPZ entry plate still showing the old times, your appeal would have been rejected. Have you put up a sign in your premises letting people know restrictions have changed? I know it's not your responsibility to do so, but I'm just curious.

Andrew Jones ● 7d

Yes, Andrew, the sign across from the Fulai supermarket was deemed necessary by Hammersmith for years. I've spoken to people who have parked there for 20 years when they attend church. And now they are getting PCNs.Why was the sign removed and not updated? Simple. To raise money.As mentioned, none of us here in the Lyric Theatre building were notified. So LBHF failed to inform even the theatre management of this change. A change that came at peak theatre season with the panto and Father Christmas shows running.Three separate LBHF people (one councillor, two staff both in parking) referred me to signage on Glenthorne. That timplate signage allows for parking on Sundays. So really, if they can't sort their own crap, why are people penalized for it?

David Lesniak ● 7d

It's called brainwashed Chris 😉

Janice Evans ● 8d

i really doubt they are one and the same ( unless Paul Campbell has really taken some strong meds)

Andrew Jones ● 8d

Mr James does seem a lot like that other Paul that used to be on this place a lot. Same politics, structure, language and arguments.Are they related, or ever been seen in the same room together?

Chris Smith ● 8d

I presume you might be referring to the time plate opposite the Fulai Supermarket that you can see on google maps?True it would have been more reassuring to anyone parking there to have updated and retained the sign in situ, but the vast majority of yellow lines in CPZs have no timeplate next to them, so the removal of the sign simply makes this yellow more like most other yellow lines in CPZs.My personal preference is that there should be time plates next to yellow lines only if the restricted hours are different to those on the CPZ entry signs, and also that warning signs are put up advising people of changes in restrictions for maybe a month or two.I am surprised that as a business operating in Lyric Square you weren’t informed of the changes in times of parking restrictions that were voted for by the residents of CPZ A, and duly implemented.At least you got your PCN cancelled.What nearby signage did LBHF refer you to by the way? In the absence of a time plate the only relevant signage about whether you can park on a single yellow line is the signage at Entry points to the CPZ (AFAIK).

Andrew Jones ● 8d

Paved areas are only good for one thing and negative for one thing. Outdoor eating and drinking is a positive in the summer months. Crime is a negative all year round. Westminster has crime hot spots, Leicester Square and Chinatown, followed by Charing Cross/Embankment. All 3 are far higher than other parts. Except Oxford Street, which has 3 high hot spots on it. OXFORD STREET/BOND STREET OXFORD STREET/OXFORD CIRCUS OXFORD STREET/TOTTENHAM CT ROAD Wait until its paved,and the crime numbers will rocket

Julian Pavey ● 8d

Paul, thriving High Streets have parking all along them with some free parking, Hillingdon is a good example as all the High Streets there are very busy, no shops boarded up.

Janice Evans ● 9d

Sorry, Paul.Oxford Street and Oxford are tourist attractions in a way the average high street will never be. It always amuses me how context is lost in these discussions.Oxford Street benefits from a density of population serviced by multiple public transport options. Not to mention public parking scattered around. All of that delivers footfall to said pedestrian amenity current or proposed 24/7 or thereabouts. Footfall comprised of national and international tourists, workers and residents.Oxford also has public parking scattered around. As a university town it will also operate under different circumstances and draw different types of businesses than the average high street given the demographic again including many tourists.Chiswick has one tube line servicing it, a few buses and zero public parking (neighboring Hammersmith and Brentford have spiffy new public parking). It has an influx of people on some Sundays, but that's it. Let's call them local tourists. Even then we see businesses closed because they've determined market customers aren't their customers nor is it worth the expense to try and get them. That comes from experience. Something I'm guessing you don't have.Hounslow has a pedestrianized section. It goes dead about 7pm. And that's with public parking all around. Before getting up on that soapbox, try learning a bit more about how urban environments and demographics influence and impact trade. Of course we should also mention the continued increase in online shopping and delivery, but that's so obvious that's like me saying "hey, Paul, have you seen your nose?"

David Lesniak ● 9d

>Interesting article in Times about businesses returning to Oxford Street, as they expect it to be pedestrianized.Another one about Oxford itself, which recently got rid of parking and introduced a congestion charge.What if the poeple insisting high streets need cars and drivers are wrong, and not just wrong, cars and drivers are what's adversly impacting high street trade?https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/25732270.oxfords-high-street-booming-bucking-national-trend/

Paul James ● 9d

Interesting article in Times about businesses returning to Oxford Street, as they expect it to be pedestrianized.

Christopher Shea ● 9d

Andrew, there was a time plate next to the single yellow.It was removed.Why remove it when the timings changed? They spent more money removing it versus simply updating it. LBHF itself determined a time plate was necessary. It set the precedent. It then also directed me to nearby signage that contradicted its own new regulations. Three council representatives did this. Clearly they are confused themselves.I am not the only victim of this exploitation.

David Lesniak ● 12d

Correct

Julian Pavey ● 12d

It's a 'no-brainer'

Janice Evans ● 12d

Julian is (I think) talking about a PCN issued for entering a zone that is restricted, so nothing to do with parking in the example he gave. There has been an LTN introduced near QPR’s ground recently without much local notification, and it’s schemes such as these where I would hope that LBHF would exhibit some degree of leniency if people appeal.Thinking about it, Westminster Council also once cancelled a PCN that was correctly issued, as they accepted I’d made a genuine mistake and selected the wrong vehicle from my list when I was paying for parking.Hounslow on the other hand, I had to take my appeal all the way to the adjudicator who agreed that on balance my account was very believable and that Hounslow hadn’t bothered to undertake some fairly simple checks that their PayByPhone system was correctly working on the day in question.I do accept that parking at a retail park tends to be less fraught than working out when you can park for free in Chiswick.

Andrew Jones ● 12d

“ I fully expect the PCN to be cancelled on appeal.”I suspect that most people just don’t want the hassle of appealing when one thinks they have parked legally only to be confronted with a big yellow sticker on the windscreen when they return to their car. Much easier to avoid the High Street and go to Retail Parks to enjoy stress free shopping with free parking. David’s story about trying to deal with ‘Mark’ is clear evidence of the aggro one receives when dealing with jobsworth officialdom!! Who needs it!!

Steve Taylor ● 12d

>Paul, most people moving around London also drive.There is a LOT of driving in London, far too much in my opinion.This amount of car use comes with many negative consquences for people who need to drive and those not driving or being driven, pollution, congestion, excess road deaths and injuries to name a few.Compared to people moving around by not driving though (bus, train, cycling walking) it's a tiny tiny tiny amount, yet here we are talking about it as if it's the only thing people do day to day, like you can't go to the shosp without driving there.

Paul James ● 13d

Paul, most people moving around London also drive.

Janice Evans ● 13d

Well, someone I know got a PCN for entering a no-go zone. Given the circumstances and what Andrew has said, I fully expect the PCN to be cancelled on appeal. Otherwise, watch the front page

Julian Pavey ● 13d

>The problem being people are not made aware of the changes, so they willgo elsewhere.When you say people, you mean drivers? Because at any one time the number of people using a car in london is miniscule compared to people moving around NOT using a car...

Paul James ● 13d

The problem being people are not made aware of the changes, so they willgo elsewhere.

Janice Evans ● 13d

The restrictions about parking on single yellow lines when you are in a CPZ are actually pretty straightforward.If there are time plates next to the yellow line, then the times specified on the time plate apply.If there are no signs, then the CPZ zone times apply.The upside of not needing timeplates next to every single yellow line is that there is less street clutter and less council money needed to pay for signs and poles to put the signs on.The downside is that you need to be aware of the times that apply for the Zone you are in, and you only see these when you pass the CPZ Zone entry signs.David fell 'victim' to the restrictions changing without him being aware of this. I'm pleased that his PCN was cancelled, even though legally there was no requirement for LBHF to do so ( as far as I can see from scanning through his post).My experience with LBHF officers has always been a reasonable one, indeed I have had a PCN cancelled on an occasion when it was issued entirely correctly and LBHF were under no obligation to cancel it. Not all council officials are arrogant.

Andrew Jones ● 13d

Indeed. And it’s not about one’s reason to live in London - it’s simply about the fact - as advised by Janice - that Retail Parks are doing way better than High Street retailers because people can park for free for unlimited time and have a stress free shopping experience. People aren’t interested in having experiences and arguments with arrogant council officials about unclear parking restrictions as described by David. Much easier to drive to Kew Retail Park than to suffer the stress of finding parking in Chiswick especially when shopping for heavier or bulky items. Hence High Street shops closing as footfall reduces. You are also less likely to have to dodge e-scooters and irresponsible cyclists when shopping in Retail Parks.

Steve Taylor ● 14d

Paul, was on Boxing Day news, probably sky cannot remember.

Janice Evans ● 14d

>And what is your evidence as such? Dunno about you, but I live in a city like London because I like to be close to lots of stuff (shops, restaurants, museums, doctors etc...) and not to have to drive to get to it.

Paul James ● 14d

“ no doubt towns in London like Chiswick and Ealing have VERY different dynamics from those outside the larger cities”And what is your evidence as such?

Steve Taylor ● 14d

The reason you don’t see cycle jams is because most of them jump red lights.

Madeleine Hazard ● 14d

>Well it's official, Retail Parks did better than High Streets this yearDid you get this from here?It's UK wide, and no doubt towns in London like Chiswick and Ealing have VERY different dynamics from those outside the larger cities, like actual buses and local trains etc...https://www.retail-insight-network.com/news/uk-retail-parks-footfall-february-2025/?cf-view

Paul James ● 14d

Steve is absolutely correct.Local councils are oblivious to their part in the destruction of High Street trade. What they fail to realize again and again is how High Streets compete with retail parks and malls. The latter curate the offer and are in control of the experience from the moment a customer arrives. The former are completely clueless to this part of the equation. Arriving and staying and leaving shouldn't be a crap shoot for those looking to spend time and money whatever the reason. Councils punish people for doing so while retail parks and malls are very clear about what you can expect. One is user friendly. The other is not.Case in point:Every Sunday, after doing deliveries, I have parked on the single yellow line on Beadon Road. Next to the sign stipulating hours. About a month ago, I got a PCN for doing the same thing I - and many - have done for years. I noticed the sign was gone. In fact, there are no signs on Beadon. So I contacted LBHF and corresponded with the guy who oversees parking. A guy named Mark. The conversation went on and on and on and on. Apparently the CPZ was recently changed. This after a "consultation." I mentioned that none of us here at the Lyric were consulted. Mind you the Lyric is inextricably linked with LBHF and theatre management are always in contact with various people from LBHF. Mark then said the appropriate signage was a half mile away. He then also directed me to signs on Glenthorne which is down the hill and around the corner. His colleague repeated his words. Me being me, I counted the signs on Glenthorne. Sixteen. All stipulating site-specific conditions. I asked Mark why he's telling me to reference signs when the sign with the information that was there was removed as opposed to updated which it should have been. They have been issuing tickets relentlessly. It is now a revenue trap. Change the CPZ all you want. But you must inform the public in a way that the council itself has demonstrated. A reasonable expectation that, as on all adjacent streets, site-specific signage will inform effectively, easily, fairly, openly. Sixteen signs versus zero. Sorry, the computer says no.Mark said it was good for business to change the CPZ. Just prior to seasonal influx? With panto at the Lyric catering to families visiting? No. False. I said it is not beneficial to any business nor visitor to create a hostile environment which is precisely what they have done. I don't care how much money you have, if you get a PCN it leaves a bad taste and you're less likely to visit for fear it will happen again. Especially when there is nothing to indicate what you've done is a contravention. So the annual panto now has an added punitive component.I also mentioned to Mark the sheer irony that he expected people to park, do a quick Google followed by a deep dive into the minutia of parking regulations on one street when they know precisely what to do on several streets mere meters away. In the end the PCN was cancelled. It should never have been issued in the first place. When possible, I have taken to speaking with people perplexed by the PCN on their windshield. I tell them how to go about getting it cancelled mentioning there is precedent.Note to LBHF: when you mess with business, business will mess with you.

David Lesniak ● 14d

But they were so obsessed with making life difficult for motorists that they were unable to even think about the obvious fact that they were killing off High Street  business and causing traffic chaos at the same time. People don’t need such angst. Much easier to drive to Retail Parks to enjoy leisurely, stress free shopping with FREE parking as a bonus. Good bye High Streets!

Steve Taylor ● 15d

Yes we said the High Streets would suffer, also the shops we used slowlyclose down.

Janice Evans ● 15d

Entirely predictable when so much parking has been removed from High Streets to make way for unused cycle lanes!

Steve Taylor ● 15d

Well it's official, Retail Parks did better than High Streets this year, notsurprised as many I know don't like pedestrianised High Streets and theylike to park near to the shops,  just as a few of us have been saying.

Janice Evans ● 15d

“Try driving or riding into a wall and tell me, after you've come out of hospital (if you were lucky)”Only an imbecile would try driving into a wall at any speed.

Steve Taylor ● 19d

“I’d have thought the widespread application of 20mph speed limits would have some impact on the average speed of buses. Even if there’s no traffic or cycle lanes to get in the way”Totally agree!

Steve Taylor ● 19d

>only 20mph"only 20mph"Try driving or riding into a wall and tell me, after you've come out of hospital (if you were lucky),and tell me it was "only" 20mph...

Paul James ● 19d

I’d have thought the widespread application of 20mph speed limits would have some impact on the average speed of buses. Even if there’s no traffic or cycle lanes to get in the way, the maths would suggest that if you’re repeatedly going from a standstill to only 20mph and then back to zero, you’d be hard pressed to reach an average speed of anywhere near 10mph and probably much less.

Peter Evans ● 19d

“If you're talkinng about people pushing it when there is no traffic at all, who's it slowing down?”Duh!!  Yes I am talking about the imbeciles who press the button when there is no traffic at all - obviously!!  I suppose it doesn’t occur to those imbeciles pushing the button that once they have crossed the safe and traffic free road, the lights stay red for long enough to unnecessarily stop traffic which has since appeared. Thus the imbeciles have unnecessarily disrupted traffic flow. That surely must be the brain of a 3 to 7 year old? The Highway Code no doubt expects a modicum of simple common sense rather than a zombie approach to life!

Steve Taylor ● 19d

>Only an imbecile would press the button to stop traffic unnecessarily. Calling anybody choosing to follow advice in the highway code and not cross when the red man is showing an imbecile?In what sense are you using that word? In medical terms, "imbecile" refers to a person with moderate to severe intellectual disability, typically characterized by a mental age of three to seven years. This condition results from biological failures in brain structure, leading to delays in mental development and impaired intelligence. The term is considered outdated and offensive in modern usage, but historically, it indicated a level of mental retardation that is worse than "moron" but above "idiot". What's more if there is traffic, you would push the button to stop it right, I mean that's what the crossings are for.If you're talkinng about people pushing it when there is no traffic at all, who's it slowing down?

Paul James ● 20d

“ many pedestrian traffic lights have placebo buttons for pedestrians which do nothing until the lights change according to a preset pattern.”That’s an urban myth. You have no evidence of that!

Steve Taylor ● 20d

If placebo buttons, why spend the money to install?Also imbecilic is the design of some intersections where you wait for a light to change, make the turn, only to be confronted by another light not in sync. Dumb. The lack of a dedicated turn signal? Being allowed to turn on a red when clear? Those would keep traffic flowing especially as the population of London grows. Interesting the jaywalking video mentioning how people are the cause of all reactions around them. That goes for any road user. Like the selfish cyclists on their phone adjacent to the actual cycle lane, the guy seated on an e-unicycle going along the A40 and/or the guy on the e-unicycle who essentially falls backwards to slow down and, as mentioned, people crossing with noise-cancelling headphones and no eyes looking around. The cause of many incidents isn't always the people immediately around you. And yes, all manner of driving also imbecilic. I think behavior and common sense are all to often the cause of many issues but often ignored or addressed. Piled e-bikes anyone?

David Lesniak ● 20d

'..pedestrians shouldn’t be pushing the buttons at traffic lights.. It is imbecilic and unnecessary as it causes traffic delays.'As we discussed earlier, many pedestrian traffic lights have placebo buttons for pedestrians which do nothing until the lights change according to a preset pattern.

Peter Evans ● 20d

Yes, the correct way to cross a road is to cross when it’s safe to do so. Anyone with a brain could understand that. If it’s not safe to cross the road you use a traffic light or pedestrian crossing and press the button if it’s necessary to stop traffic. Only an imbecile would press the button to stop traffic unnecessarily. Unfortunately there are a lot of such imbeciles roaming UK roads which doesn’t help the traffic problems. It exacerbates them - hence in London you have the ridiculous situation of average bus speeds falling below 9mph. The reason for this is too many unused cycle lanes, especially the ones with the silly wands and moronic pedestrians unnecessarily pressing buttons to cross roads.

Steve Taylor ● 20d

Yes, the correct way to cross a road is to cross when it’s safe to do so. Anyone with a brain could understand that. If it’s not safe to cross the road you use a traffic light or pedestrian crossing and press the button if it’s necessary to stop traffic. Only an imbecile would press the button to stop traffic unnecessarily. Unfortunately there are a lot of such imbeciles roaming UK roads which doesn’t help the traffic problems. It exacerbates them - hence in London you have the ridiculous situation of average bus speeds falling below 9mph. The reason for this is too many unused cycle lanes, especially the ones with the silly wands and moronic pedestrians unnecessarily pressing buttons to cross roads.

Steve Taylor ● 20d

No,just cross when it is safe to do so.Obviously.

Keith Iddon ● 20d

So it is imbecilic to use the pedestrian crossings in the correct manner ? Just leg it across and take your chances!

David Burke ● 20d

It's interesting to hear varied experiences on pedestrianised areas. Either unpleasant due to large crowds, or Janice's account of people not visiting them at all.The pedestrianised areas I frequent the most are around Tottenham Court Road, Covent Garden, Soho, and some parts south of Oxford Street. I'd be interested to know which areas you both refer to so that I can compare. Maybe the design and layout is quite different.The pavements in Richmond are already overcrowded to the point of being very awkward and frustrating to navigate. I can't personally see how pedestrianising areas such as George Street would make it more crowded. Surely it will give shoppers more space to move around, and thus make it a more pleasant shopping and sightseeing experience?

Dominik Klimowski ● 20d

It might be inhaling all those fumes when cycling that does it.

Keith Iddon ● 20d

The point is that pedestrians shouldn’t be pushing the buttons at traffic lights when it is perfectly safe to cross the road. It is imbecilic and unnecessary as it causes traffic delays.

Steve Taylor ● 20d

For anyone genuinely interested, here is a good video about the invention of jaywalking in the USA.https://www.youtube.com/shorts/6W_s3VPMdNs

Dominik Klimowski ● 21d

In the UK, crossing on the red is not 'jaywalking'. It's not illegal per se.Even in situations where pedestrians are banned from roads, e.g. pedestrians on motorways and their slip roads, the offence a pedestrian would be commiting by walking along or crossing such a road is never legally referred to as 'jaywalking'.In other countries, some actions that would be legal in the UK are not permitted, and as you know are refered to as 'jaywalking' and (AFAIK) this is sometimes a legally valid description of an offence.But we're all being a bit picky really - it's similar to the discussion where people try to score points about whether Road Tax is a thing or not.

Andrew Jones ● 22d

>"DO NOT/SHOULD/SHOULD NOT" are strong advice, not direct laws,Yes, "do not" and "should not" both mean if you get into trouble whilst doing the thing you should not do you're not going to get much sympathy, but MUST not indicates there is a related offence for even attempting it.

Paul James ● 22d

"DO NOT/SHOULD/SHOULD NOT" are strong advice, not direct laws, but can be used as evidence in court to prove carelessness or dangerous driving if an accident happensOne would think carelessness applies to any "do not" rule.Like the other day when a woman with headphones on stepped into the roadway at the corner of Dalling and Glenthorne as opposed to using the dedicated crosswalk mere meters away. Didn't even bother to look.

David Lesniak ● 22d

>Sorry Andrew, to be clear, crossing on the red is not jaywalking?Nope.Highway code says (note do not, not MUST not). Pedestrians aren't breaking any laws when they cross on the red man."Pelican crossings. These are signal-controlled crossings operated by pedestrians. Push the control button to activate the traffic signals. When the red figure shows, do not cross. When a steady green figure shows, check the traffic has stopped then cross with care. When the green figure begins to flash you should not start to cross. If you have already started you should have time to finish crossing safely."

Paul James ● 22d

Sorry Andrew, to be clear, crossing on the red is not jaywalking?

David Lesniak ● 22d

This, ladies and gentlemen, is a classic Paul James rabbit hole. He will take you deeper and deeper in, and further away from the actual point of the thread. It seems to satisfy some basic need within him to prove something.It’s usually best to ignore him.

Simon Hayes ● 22d

>Now, about that crossing and ignoring traffic signals...and you say there is no jaywalking going on.I'll repeat myself (and others here). There is no jaywalking going on.You might think people crossing the road in the UK, not at a crossing or on the red man is jaywalking, but you are incorrect, unless you want to redfine the term?>Again, you don't get out much. This is clear.I cycle over 100 miles a week in and around London.

Paul James ● 22d

When benevolence comes a knocking.

Mark Frost ● 22d

That’s right and it would be helpful if more people would just use some common sense and cross the road, without pushing the button for a green person, when it is blatantly clear that it’s safe to do so. That would allow for more free flowing traffic which is good for everyone.

Steve Taylor ● 22d

If you came from this side of the pond David, you probably wouldn't be disagreeing with Paul so much.It's simply down to different people interpretting the word jaywalking in different ways.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JaywalkingAs an example of the subtleties and discrepancies of the laws governing pedestrian road traffic, even as a signing member of the Vienna convention, the United Kingdom does not have jaywalking laws: its Highway Code relies on the pedestrians making their own judgment on whether it is safe to cross based on the Green Cross Code.

Andrew Jones ● 22d

Yes, Paul. But I do love a bit of mansplaining.Now, about that crossing and ignoring traffic signals...and you say there is no jaywalking going on.Again, you don't get out much. This is clear.

David Lesniak ● 23d

Paul is following the lead of the BBC by deliberately editing quotes! To reiterate for him:  Pedestrianised high streets become crowded with morons on bicycles, e-bikes and e-scooters weaving their way dangerously amongst terrified pedestrians fearing for their lives.

Steve Taylor ● 23d

Yeah Paul, but not with shoppers, we want to be amongst other shoppers not people hanging around.

Janice Evans ● 23d

>My experience of pedestrianised shopping areas is that they become crowdedEr...?

Paul James ● 23d

My experience of pedestrianised shopping areas is that they become crowded and violated by cyclists and e-scooters speeding and weaving between pedestrians. Makes it very unpleasant and dangerous. Nothing nice about them at all.

Steve Taylor ● 23d

If you want your high street to feel dangerus and intimidating at night,go ahead and pedestrianise it.

Keith Iddon ● 23d

“I just think pedestrianisation takes something away from shopping areas,“My experience of pedestrianised shopping areas is that they become crowded and violated by cyclists and e-scooters speeding and weaving between pedestrians. Makes it very unpleasant and dangerous. Nothing nice about them at all.

Steve Taylor ● 23d

More fantasising from the cycling minority. Much of the problems with bus routes has been the meddling with road layouts to pander to the whims of the velomaniacs. Removing dedicated bus lanes on main routes for example.Dominik is one of those people who doesn’t seem to think through anything he says.

Simon Hayes ● 23d

Just think pedestrianisation takes something away from shopping areas,in fact I never visit any of them and talking to other people found out they also never visit them.

Janice Evans ● 23d

“ I would argue that pedestrianising the centre would do exactly that.”You could argue that, but it’s never going to happen as they are limited as to where to route traffic unless they tunnel under the town centre.

Steve Taylor ● 23d

Are we using the same definition of quaintness, Janice?I understand it as meaning a nostalgic look at simpler, more tradition times, in which case I would argue that pedestrianising the centre would do exactly that. Considering it's been a shopping destination since the 18th century, I don't see how heavy traffic passing through makes it quaint?

Dominik Klimowski ● 24d

A reminder of what jaywalking actually is:Jaywalking laws refer to regulations that prohibit pedestrians from crossing streets illegally. Here are some key points:Definition: Jaywalking is when a pedestrian crosses a street unlawfully, such as crossing between intersections or ignoring traffic signals. 1Legality: It is illegal in most states, and violating jaywalking laws can result in an infraction or citation. 1Penalties: Penalties for jaywalking can vary by jurisdiction, but they may include fines or other legal consequences. 1

Paul James ● 24d

>Jaywalking not a thing in the UK?>Clearly you don't get out much, PaulThere is no such thing as jaywalking in the UK, it's perfectly legal for people to cross or walk along roads wherever they want.If we had jaywalking laws in the UK, how would you get to your car if it was parked on the other side of the road?!

Paul James ● 24d

Jaywalking not a thing in the UK?Clearly you don't get out much, Paul.

David Lesniak ● 24d

Which cycle lanes do you think are unused, Steve?The ones I use and see have huge amounts of cyclists, particularly at rush hour.Maybe because they are free-flowing you don't see 'traffic jams' of cyclists they appear emptier than the rest of the road.Would you prefer to see the rest of the roads full of cars, or mostly empty?

Dominik Klimowski ● 24d

It would lose its quaintness.

Janice Evans ● 24d

I agree. Richmond would be greatly improved by being pedestrianised. The pavements are too narrow for the volume of people, and traffic just gets stuck passing through. Anyone who knows the area would not choose to actually drive through the centre anyway.

Dominik Klimowski ● 24d

“ Interesting that those on here advocating closing George Street don’t live there and probably rarely go there.”Precisely my thought because obviously it would never work. It’s a ridiculous thought and those advocating it are just morons intent on trying to wind me up so it’s good to humour the fools once in a while. The reason Richmond works so well for pedestrians and motorised traffic, and makes it the happiest place to live in London,  is the total absence of cycle lanes. Richmond also has the lowest crime rate in London and it’s a known fact that pedestrianised High Streets increase crime rates.

Steve Taylor ● 24d

What sort of visitation frequency is required to meet the 'rarely' criteria, and, as such comment?

Mark Frost ● 24d

George Street is one way and rarely has an issue with either speeding or traffic jams. It’s also a bus route, so you have to then put an alternative set of stops somewhere else.The 65 issues are more to do with the length of the route and the frequency of stops. There has been talk of splitting it in half.Interesting that those on here advocating closing George Street don’t live there and probably rarely go there.

Simon Hayes ● 24d

Richmond - George Street - is normally pretty much free flowing traffic with no traffic jams and sometimes almost devoid of traffic so easy enough to cross the street without using the pedestrian crossings. I agree that George Street would be a good one to consider pedestrianising though. It may add even more charm to the Town voted, yet again, happiest town in the UK to live in the best Borough in London. Paradise Road can get quite congested with all the buses heading to the bus station and motorists heading for Richmond Bridge.

Steve Taylor ● 24d

The last time I was in Richmond was a few years ago waiting for a 65 after watching a film at the Curzon .You would have been hard pushed to get knocked down because the traffic seemed to be at a stand still for ever. Yes a good candidate for pedestrianisation.

David Burke ● 24d

The crossing outside Richmond station has to be one of thehighest for crossing on a red man.So many peopleknow that it offers many many situations for crossing on a red man.I cross TG / CHR in all 4 crossing on red ,butonly because I know the sequence of the lightsand the traffic on red or green and direction.Obviously I look and not for everyone but quitea few do it.

Julian Pavey ● 24d

Richmond, that has to be a prime candidate for pedestrianisation. You wouldn't have to bother with them the, Steve.

Mark Frost ● 25d

>I’m suggesting that people act sensibly and don’t behave moronically like the Walking Dead!Yes, then.

Paul James ● 25d

“You’re asking that people cross the road when the red man is showing...”I’m suggesting that people act sensibly and don’t behave moronically like the Walking Dead!

Steve Taylor ● 25d

> As if jaywalking isn't a thing, Paul?It's not a thing here in the UK.It is in the USA."For years, pedestrians were essentially written out of the equation when it came to designing streets," says Tom Vanderbilt, author of Traffic - Why We Drive the Way We Do.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26073797

Paul James ● 25d

As if jaywalking isn't a thing, Paul?

David Lesniak ● 25d

>I’m merely contributing to the subject of this thread. Probable reasons!You're asking that people cross the road when the red man is showing...

Paul James ● 25d

You write this as if it's a problem?”No, keep up!  I write this in response to Julian Pavey’s post. “You're suggesting people should cross the road whilst the red man is showing? This isn't what they teach at schools”I’m not suggesting it for school children but I’m definitely (100%) suggesting it for able bodied adults who could easily cross a road without being hit by a cyclist or a motorist.  I guess we have to accept that as a Nanny State it’s a bit much for parents or schools to teach children to look left, look right then look left again, before crossing a road, as was taught for decades! I guess you are saying that parents are now telling their kids to press the button to stop all traffic irrespective of the fact that there may be no traffic. However, I am also mentioning the totally unnecessary pressing of pedestrian crossing buttons as one of the reasons bus speeds have  been reduced to under 9mph. I’m merely contributing to the subject of this thread. Probable reasons!

Steve Taylor ● 25d

>eg at Richmond station, turn red for traffic within seconds of a pedestrian pressing the button.You write this as if it's a problem? Any pelican/toucan crossing should go red for traffic imediately somebody pushes the beg button right?>All to often the button needn’t have been pressed because there is ample time for pedestrians to cross the road safely.You're suggesting people should cross the road whilst the red man is showing? This isn't what they teach at schools, and whilst it's not illegal to cross on a red man most people perfer to cross when the green man is showing.

Paul James ● 25d

However, many lights for pedestrian only crossings across London,  eg at Richmond station, turn red for traffic within seconds of a pedestrian pressing the button. All to often the button needn’t have been pressed because there is ample time for pedestrians to cross the road safely. It’s common practice for many to simply press the button without even looking up from their mobile phones to even check if it’s necessary!!  And many wouldn’t dream of quickening their pace to avoid unnecessary traffic hold ups.

Steve Taylor ● 25d

Most if not all of the traffic light buttons on CHR do nothing. They give the green man on every phase, even if no person is at the crossing

Julian Pavey ● 25d

I suspect a lot of the more complicated traffic lights along CHR have 'placebo buttons' for pedestrians, in that pressing them has no effect on what the lights actually do, other than to illuminate the 'Wait' sign!

Peter Evans ● 25d

I often wonder how the situation would improve if you took zebra crossings and push buttons out of the equation. Phasing could then be monitored and controlled by someone who knows what to do and when to do it as opposed to a 3-year old on a trike.

David Lesniak ● 26d

Traffic lights badly out of sync causing delays. Pedestrians pressing lights unnecessarily.

Steve Taylor ● 26d

What's holding up the buses? Well ... (1) that every time a bus stops to pick up passengers, because of the cycle lane, all traffic behind (including other buses) is held up while we OAPs look for our Freedom Passes(2) The timing of the traffic lights is excruciatingly long on red, to give PLENTY of time for cyclists and pedestrians(3) Vans and lorries making deliveries further hold things up

Davey Harris ● 26d

>I can certainly walk fast than a bus from Turnham Green Church to Chiswick Lane junction between 8am to 7pmWhat's slowing the buses down to slower than walking speed?

Paul James ● 26d

Probably I do - I think I was swayed by the mention of cars ( rather than vehicles) in some of the earlier posts.

Andrew Jones ● 27d

I can certainly walk fast than a bus from Turnham Green Church to Chiswick Lane junction between 8am to 7pm

Davey Harris ● 27d

I think you mean sheer number of vehicles, no?Or are we suddenly discounting all those delivery vehicles that tend to stop where they damn well please? Of course the ever upward trend of online shopping/delivery also plays a part, but why mention the obivous?

David Lesniak ● 27d

The LTNs obviously force more cars to use the arterial roads, also used by buses, so it stands to reason that motorised traffic will be slowed down. Remove the LTNs and you ease the traffic flow on arterial roads. The disastrous bus islands,  deemed by the government to be dangerous,  would probably have been removed if the government had sufficient funds to prop up TfL again. Hence they made the responsible decision to ban further construction. I don’t believe this is catastrophisation if lives are at stake. It’s a sensible and logical decision.  Perhaps the next government will find the funds to support total removal of them.

Steve Taylor ● 27d

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15381369/amp/Sections-UKs-major-motorways-gridlocked-quicker-ride-BICYCLE-drive-Department-Transport-reveals.htmlLTNs may well be responsible for some increases in congestion ( and hence slower buses) but I’m sure they aren’t the only factor. Sheer number of cars has to be a factor as well.Not sure if there’s any mechanism by which LTNs are partially responsible for slower speeds on motorways.

Andrew Jones ● 27d

Semantics dear boy, semantics!

Steve Taylor ● 28d

>If you are going to have a dedicated cycle facility along CHR, it's no good if it evaporates into a series of dotted linesNo good?Did you mean not good?No it's not good the cycle track evaporates there, it should be continued so it's continous.

Paul James ● 28d

Oh I remember it well, Michael.When those of us who advocated for a better design for CS9 were blasted with all manner of vitriol, we just wanted to know why the design which touted the business park as a destination didn't, in fact, get people to the business park. Anti-cycling is what it was called. Go figure.I can't wrap my head around why TfL can't get it right. Nor the mayor. Nor the various cycle campaigners. There should be consistency and continuity throughout London. TfL wouldn't change rails from one tube station to another, why all the mishmash with a new layer of infrastructure? New cycle paths in Kings Cross are painted blue. They're easy to spot. Complete segregation like in Chiswick is not. Why not paint all cycle lanes blue? Or make the cycle logo blue when a lane doesn't exist? I feel safer in Hammersmith than I do in Chiswick. At least in W6 you're adjacent to every other road user and easier to spot. In Chiswick I think the detachment creates a false sense of security for both cyclist and driver. As for connecting to Hounslow town center. That made me laugh. Why connect any town centers when the e-bike provisions are so sporadic? There is no such thing as connection now that Katherine Dunne botched her remit. And people like you, Michael, can't be bothered to advocate for actually connecting things. You can't even connect Hammersmith to Chiswick apart from one awful provider. And the Hounslow Cycle Campaign remains silent. Completely laughable. Other boroughs offer a choice of up to three providers to cover all bases. Perhaps even more.

David Lesniak ● 28d

They might be a bad idea, they aren’t a disaster.The Tay Bridge Collapse. That was a disaster.The fall of Singapore. A military disaster.But Bus islands - not a disaster.Hence why I describe your comment as catastrophisation.

Andrew Jones ● 28d

“ That’s because TfL analysis of the scheme was that it would make bus timings worse, not better, so it won’t be proceeding.”And that’s precisely why TfL analysis of schemes is rarely trusted or believed and why London traffic is chaotic and public transport unreliable.

Steve Taylor ● 28d

The original plans were for C9 to continue along the length of CHR to Chiswick roundabout then in 2015, the plans were changed for the route to be along Heathfield Terrace/Wellesley Rd because removing about a mile of protected cycle lane along CHR meant the route could reach Hounslow town centre within the allocated budget.

Michael Robinson ● 28d

If you are going to have a dedicated cycle facility along CHR, it's no good if it evaporates into a series of dotted lines when it gets to Heathfield Terrace. That's the problem with dedicated cycle facilities - maintaining the same standard of provision when the going gets difficult, such as at a roundabout or traffic lights or where the road narrows or splits, with this inconsistency exposing cyclists to more danger.

Peter Evans ● 28d

“ More catastrophisation”Mmm……. really?  Is that why the government banned further construction of the dangerous islands?

Steve Taylor ● 28d

Empty seats.Who doesn't love a vapid trope?We use the car for business. Apart from one of us driving, the other seats are empty. Or even folded down in the back.Going out on a limb, but I'm guessing we're not the only ones. Let alone parents who may just be returning home after dropping off a boatload of kids. But trope on if you must.

David Lesniak ● 28d

“ The council had come up with quite an imaginative scheme to restore some of the lost bus priority on Chiswick High Road but all seems to have gone quiet on that.”That’s because TfL analysis of the scheme was that it would make bus timings worse, not better, so it won’t be proceeding. The Acton Lane bus gate is more effective than the plans proposed by Hounslow so it stays.Some aspects of the scheme that don’t impact road layout may be going ahead (subject to funding) such as replacement of cycle lane wands with kerbing and some changes to the cycle lane at the junction of CHR and Heathfield Terrace.

Michael Robinson ● 28d

“The bus stop islands are an absolute disaster.“More catastrophisation from the reform supporting forum remoaner.

Andrew Jones ● 28d

I’m with Trump on this on Sadiq is a terrible mayor, time he goes

Jayne Thorburn ● 28d

Yes indeed, the LTNs and unused cycle lanes are choking London and slowing buses and other vehicles. The bus stop islands are an absolute disaster.

Steve Taylor ● 28d

That’s true why because all transport is being herded into the same roads lets hope we get rid of the mayor and someone none labour takes control to restore London on every level, including crime.

Jayne Thorburn ● 28d

Well, that's not happening on the E3, whose drivers mostly hurtle along at high speed ... until they reach Acton High Street where unused cycle lanes and unpoliced bad parking bring them to a standstill.

Susan Kelly ● 28d

No, there have always been drivers - this has happened since the introduction of LTNs and the cycle lands, and the reduction or removal of bus lanes. So it is solely down to that. I am still hopeful that one day (maybe with the next government) this madness will end, and the roads will be opened up again to give both drivers and public transport priority. Better for the environment too, keeping traffic moving, reducing congestion and enabling people to take a more direct route to their destination.

Mark Edwards ● 28d

Cars are NOT public transport & in a democracy who are you to even ask why someone drives a car? Socialism is killing our country cycle lanes, LTN’s and bus stops in the main road are absolutely NOT the way forward clearly.

Jayne Thorburn ● 28d

It is Anne but let's wait for Steve's reply. I suspect that as we speak he's swapping out his MAGA slippers for his wellingtons of incongruity and is on his way down here to give me what for.

Mark Frost ● 28d

Good point - very often the front passenger seat is empty too.

Anne England ● 28d

Tell me Steve, do you think the shear volume of cars, with much underused rear seats, has reached saturation point?

Mark Frost ● 28d

Yes, the built in kerbs are ridiculous and the silly wands are a hazard for cars and buses trying to move over to allow free passage for ambulances and other emergency vehicles. The wands are particularly silly where they are used on cycle lanes which are largely unused and certainly don’t need demarcation. These ill thought out designs cause the slower  speed of buses and traffic in general.

Steve Taylor ● 28d

At least the ‘silly wands’ provide a simple demarcation for a segregated cycle track which can easily be removed if required, unlike the much more expensive and ‘permanent’ installations with built-in kerbs.

Peter Evans ● 29d

I was on a bus and I watched the bus speed on my phone. It can be very interesting.

Nicholas Beard ● 29d

The "silly wands "are there to save cyclists lives.

David Burke ● 29d

It’s 100% the LTNs forcing thousands of cars onto arterial roads, which are bus routes, coupled with the buses being slowed down by unused cycle lanes with those ridiculous wands causing traffic chaos. The unused cycle lanes in Twickenham Road to West Middx Hospital create massive problems for ambulances too where buses have no room to pull over due to the silly ‘wands’.

Steve Taylor ● 29d

Where are ltns on bus routes ?

David Burke ● 29d

No LTN’s & very badly planned cycle lanes

Jayne Thorburn ● 29d

Isn't the hundreds of thousands of cars mostly with just a driver in a factor?

Paul James ● 29d