Forum Topic

FYI. Hammersmith Bridge

"After a very long break, it appears that the Hammersmith Bridge Task Force is due to meet again early this year. In advance of this meeting (no date for which has been published) Putney MP Fleur Anderson is hoping to show the Task Force the level of support for reopening the bridge by holding a rally on its south side.Along with the Leader of Wandsworth Council, Simon Hogg, she is  asking people to join her for a public demonstration calling for the bridge to be fully reopened to motor traffic.She hopes that a large turnout will provide a photo opportunity which can be used to show the level of local support for the full restoration of the bridge. Event attendees are asked to assemble at noon on the Barnes side of the bridge on Saturday 24 January for the photo with speakers expected between 2-3pm.Anyone intending to turn up is invited to register on Eventbrite." (Or just turn up)Extract from Barnes Bugle.

Adrian Irving ● 9d96 Comments

Francis, your selection contains a good many collision not on the A306, and that's obviously where the traffic has been significantly reduced.If you look at the cyclist casualties just on the A306 in your dataset, for the 20 years before the closure of the bridge to motor vehicles, there was 1 fatality, 10 serious injuries and 61 slight injuries. For the six years after the closure there were just two slight injuries. So the closure has led to very significant decrease in the rate of cyclist injuries own the A306. Slight injuries are down from over 3 a year to 1 every three years. And that underestimates the reduction in risk as the number of cyclists has increased significantly - the Thames screenline counts show more than a 50% increase in cyclist numbers.Your claim that crossing Hammersmith Bridge was no more dangerous when it was open to motor vehicles is not supported by the data.

Tom Pike ● 15h

Aren't you one of Francis's mates Andrew? You can see a 2018 Google Streetview image below from the location where there was a cycling fatality.  Francis ignored this because he said it wasn't on the bridge.  As far as he was concerned, it didn't matter. I know you are trying to do spin doctoring for your mate, but he didn't say "some cyclists may prefer the bridge to reopen", he said "a large proportion of cyclists [] will see having to share with vehicles rather than pedestrians as a positive"  Of course, this is classic Francis Rowe bollocks pulling opinions from his posterior with no evidence whatsoever. He certainly hasn't demonstrated crossing the bridge was "risk free". It really is perverse of you to claim prior to the bridge closing to motor traffic, a stretch of road where there was a fatality and multiple serious and minor casualties was "risk free". A comprehensive analysis of casualties for the bridge and approach roads would consider the numbers of people cycling as by definition, "risk" considers the likelihood of danger.  Casualties can go up but the risk can go down if the number of people cycling has increased by more than casualties. On Chiswick High Rd for example, since C9 was completed in Jan 2023, the number of cyclist casualties has decreased while numbers cycling have increased so there is no doubt about the reduced risk. I don't have  counts for cyclists using the bridge since the closure to motor traffic, so won't make claims about risk, unlike you and your mate.

Michael Robinson ● 15h

Good job too. As an LBHF council tax payer, I have no desire to have my council’s reserves frittered away on a project that should be funded in the same way that any new bridge would be funded.

Andrew Jones ● 16h

“Cyclist groups have some unseen influence over our councils. “This Hammersmith Bridge issue is way beyond a Council’s pay grade. It’s a matter for central government now.

Steve Taylor ● 16h

This is a misrepresentation of what he said and grossly unfair. You may have your own good reasons for disliking Francis but some of your responses to him verge on irrational and or motivated by pure spite. His suggestion was that some cyclists may prefer the bridge to reopen to traffic because they'd rather share it with motor vehicles than pedestrians. He is probably broadly right although I don't think I could go along with the claim that this would represent the view of a 'significant proportion'. What he has done though is demonstrated that cycling over the bridge was always acceptably risk free and debunked your claim of a fatality having taken place on the bridge.  Rather than ignoring the serious collisions taking near the bridge, he has shown that they have actually increased since closure which undermines your assertion that there are nothing but safe routes for anyone crossing. If you want to describe the Castelnau LTN as such that is fine but the numbers suggest it hasn't reduced cyclist safety and has created HTNs in other areas south of the river as well as a large public transport blackspot. The only benefit here seems to be a further boost to the value of the multi-million pound homes that line the road.

Andrew OSullivan ● 17h

This is a misrepresentation of what he said and grossly unfair. You may have your own good reasons for disliking Francis but some of your responses to him verge on irrational and or motivated by pure spite. His suggestion was that some cyclists may prefer the bridge to reopen to traffic because they'd rather share it with motor vehicles than pedestrians. He is probably broadly right although I don't think I could go along with the claim that this would represent the view of a 'significant proportion'. What he has done though is demonstrated that cycling over the bridge was always acceptably risk free and debunked your claim of a fatality having taken place on the bridge.  Rather than ignoring the serious collisions taking near the bridge, he has shown that they have actually increased since closure which undermines your assertion that there are nothing but safe routes for anyone crossing. If you want to describe the Castelnau LTN as such that is fine but the numbers suggest it hasn't reduced cyclist safety and has created HTNs in other areas south of the river as well as a large public transport blackspot. The only benefit here seems to be a further boost to the value of the multi-million pound homes that line the road.

Andrew OSullivan ● 17h

It’s a shame that Francis ignored all the casualties on the roads leading to the bridge. He is basically saying that the fatality and casualties caused by traffic crossing the bridge doesn’t matter if they didn’t occur on the bridge itself.

Michael Robinson ● 18h

"scare mongering on the dangers of riding a bike. "To clarify;when it suits their agenda. ie. Traffic free Hammersmith Bridge.

Adrian Irving ● 19h

Another issue symptomatic of some cycling zealots is their constant scare mongering on the dangers of riding a bike.Publishing the map with no context or timescale is a prime example as it gives the false impression the bridge is a particularly dodgy stretch.What these folk don't seem able to understand that rather than promoting cycling they do the exact opposite.

Adrian Irving ● 19h

“He has no influence on Hammersmith Bridge opening to motorised traffic.”That’s good news, and will hopefully finally put to bed the oft repeated claim on this forum that Cyclist groups have some unseen influence over our councils.

Andrew Jones ● 1d

No Adrian, it is that YOU aren't worth bothering with. I'm not going to waste my time answering your questions.”Hallelujah!  Thank the Lord. Now hopefully Robinson will just cycle off into oblivion and keep all his nonsense to himself!  He has no influence on Hammersmith Bridge opening to motorised traffic.

Steve Taylor ● 1d

Whhooosh!

Mark Frost ● 1d

“ Every family I have ever spoken to agrees with me.”Nonsense!!

Steve Taylor ● 1d

“ please please stop writing such ridiculous  disinformation”Just plain fact. Try prove me wrong.

Steve Taylor ● 1d

It is a shame that Michael mislead readers* by omission into the belief that the crossing was highly dangerous. It would have been so simple  and so much better to be open from the off.A big thank you to Francis for providing the information that should have been provided in the first place. * deliberately or not.(I'll let you make your own mind up on that)

Adrian Irving ● 1d

It's pretty much a given, Paul, that Steve's post will actually counter his own viewpoint.Whats more,  Every family I have ever spoken to agrees with me.

Mark Frost ● 1d

>Low traffic moves faster than high traffic hence low traffic is always much more dangerous to cyclists using our roads.Please please please stop writing such ridiculous  disinformation

Paul James ● 1d

No Adrian, it is that YOU aren't worth bothering with. I'm not going to waste my time answering your questions.

Michael Robinson ● 1d

Low traffic moves faster than high traffic hence low traffic is always much more dangerous to cyclists using our roads. “ and ignore cycling campaigners who seem determine to stress how riding a bike could lead to your death or serious injury”It’s disingenuous to ignore people who stress that riding a bike could lead to your death and injury. Only an irresponsible moron would not stress that fact to a child (or adult) who is thinking about taking up cycling. It’s an extremely dangerous method of commuting. Most parents dread the day their child wants to cycle to school rather than walk or take a bus!

Steve Taylor ● 1d

In my experience and no doubt yours dear reader, someone who responds to a straightforward question with evasion, empty bluster and condescension is not worth taking any notice of any more than the undated map.

Adrian Irving ● 1d

Yey! I have achieved something!  Francis Rowe actually looking for data rather than simply pulling his opinions from his posterior.However Francis is ignoring that the closure of Hammersmith Bridge to motor traffic also substantially reduces motor traffic on the approach roads to the bridge.He is basically claiming that the only casualties that matter are the casualties that occur as soon as someone cycles from road tarmac to bridge decking.  But all those casualties, including a fatality, involving vehicles driving to and from the bridge? Nothing to see here, as far as Francis is concerned. He is ignoring them, even though they are directly linked to motor traffic on the bridge.The closure of Hammersmith Bridge to motor traffic has essentially turned the approach roads into a low traffic neighbourhood.  But in Francis's perverse view, low traffic is dangerous, high traffic is safe.

Michael Robinson ● 1d

Adrian,  I have no interest in providing a comprehensive analysis of casualties on Hammersmith Bridge prior to its closure to motor traffic.As I keep saying, the data is all publicly available.It serves to illustrate how useless Francis Rowe is, however  At least 4 different websites that map the casualties plus the source data and he couldn't find any of it.  Maybe he doesn't want to look because he is afraid actual evidence will challenge his prejudices.

Michael Robinson ● 1d

Michael has a bit of a tell. When he dangles some statistics which he claims supports his argument and refuses to quote the data in detail, it is always worth taking a closer look.   What you will learn that only one cyclist has been seriously hurt on Hammersmith Bridge by a motor vehicle so far this century.   Firstly, apologies for dragging up the past to anyone who was connected to anyone killed or badly hurt in any of the incidents referred to below. It wasn’t me who initially misrepresented these tragedies thus making clarification imperative.   The data on collisions ‘in the vicinity’ of Hammersmith Bridge is helpfully compiled by CycleStreets.net which aims to provide safe routes for people on bikes.   The data they use is the same STATS19 data referred to earlier by Michael. Map co-ordinates are provided so you can pin point where collisions occurred.   This shows two fatal collisions involving in the area over the last three decades. One in 2011 and one in 2022. Neither of these was actually on the bridge.  The 2011 death was on Queen Caroline Street and the 2022 was at the junction with Riverview Gardens and Castelnau.   As for collisions involving cyclists there have been ten in which serious injury resulted in the period covered by the data which appears to go back to 1999. Interestingly, the occurrence of serious injury seems to have risen since the bridge was closed with four of these collisions having taken place after 2019. That is what you would expect as there are clearly many more cyclists in the area than there used to be.   Of the six serious injuries that occurred prior to closure only one actually took place on the bridge.   The important point to take from this is that the evidence is that crossing Hammersmith Bridge is no more dangerous when it is open to traffic than when it isn’t. Hopefully this will encourage people who have switched to bikes to stick with that mode of transport when the bridge reopens and ignore cycling campaigners who seem determine to stress how riding a bike could lead to your death or serious injury and will exaggerate and distort to make a point.   If you are interested to investigate further the link to the underlying data is here.

Francis Rowe ● 1d

Michael, My point is the map you published is, without the perspective of time, does nothing to let a reader gauge the extent of incidents.Does it cover a month, six months, a year, six years or what? To add any meaning or relevance to the map  it is for you to provide the information not for anyone else to research your oversight.Basic stuff really.Basic stuff really.

Adrian Irving ● 1d

It's about time the sensible people took control and made the repairs necessary to open it up again to motor traffic. Can't have middle aged, white, middle class, chubby cyclists calling all the shots as they've done for the last umpteen years.

Davy Jones ● 2d

It’s not “my” map. You must have mistaken me for your nurse given you expect to be spoon fed. Why don’t you do some research yourself. You’ll be able to find at least 4 different maps showing casualty locations.If you can find even one of them you’ll be doing way better than Francis managed.

Michael Robinson ● 2d

Roads are dangerous for everyone and there are dangerous drivers who drive too fast and turn corners too when they can't possibly see around them as well as cyclists who do the same.Pedestrians are the most vulnerable and many can't just jump out of the way of out of control wheeled vehicles.

Philippa Bond ● 2d

The stats are clear evidence that cycling is extremely dangerous as a number of cyclists are just not competent to be on our roads.

Steve Taylor ● 2d

Michael, please provide the dates (start to finish) covered by your map.Thank's.

Adrian Irving ● 2d

"Michael hasn’t been able to back up his claims about collisions on the bridge so most of us will be concluding they never happened." Not my claims, Francis.  It is what the STATS19 casualty data says.  The casualties include a cyclist fatality on the bridge. You being too lazy and incompetent to do actual research, doesn't change what has actually happened.  I assume in your reference to "most of us", the "us" refers to your fellow car brains.

Michael Robinson ● 2d

Paul, the vast majority of journeys of any distance in London cannot be made without sharing road space with motor vehicles and most people commuting over Hammersmith Bridge will face far more challenging locations on their trip. You’ll be aware that the vast majority of all collisions, including those involving cyclists, take place at junctions and that statistically cycling with traffic along a straight road (or over a straight bridge) is close to riskless. Michael hasn’t been able to back up his claims about collisions on the bridge so most of us will be concluding they never happened.You are right that some people currently cycling over the bridge will choose to go back to the bus, their cars or Ubers when it reopens but I think you underestimate the culture change that has taken place in the Barnes area and many will stick with their bikes.While crossing the reopened bridge may be statistically safe, it won’t feel safe for a less confident cyclist and, sadly the sight of small children on their bikes and trikes being shepherded across the bridge will end. I’m not disputing this is a cost of reopening but it is only involves wheeling a bike the short distance across the bridge to resume the ride on the Thames Path. The benefits of reopening including a restoration of public transport access to a significant population area and an end to the traffic blight in parts of Mortlake and Putney massively outweigh any downsides. I’m sceptical of the short-term modal shift benefits that you refer to. Parents cycling with their children to school is fantastic to see but my observation is that most of these trips are an alternative to walking. Most people in Chiswick with primary school aged children live a short distance away. The benefit here is longer term – the creation of a more cycling orientated culture but it will take decades to see the full benefits of this – meanwhile we need to deal with this ‘too many cars’ issue you always refer to. The most effective and practical is more and faster buses and that includes those going over Hammersmith Bridge.If you doubt that and believe that the majority of people who need to use Hammersmith Bridge or are impacted by its closure would like to see it remain shut, organise a rally in this cause. If you get more people at it than the one this weekend, I’d need a rethink. Micheal, I’m delighted to see Paul Campbell is alive and well. Do thank him for sharing my work!

Francis Rowe ● 2d

People I’ve spoken to will definitely drive across the bridge when it opens to all traffic again. It will certainly be much better than driving through Mortlake to cross the river via Chiswick Bridge or Kew Bridge. It’s imperative that Hammersmith Bridge is opened to all traffic. Without it, London is being strangled.

Steve Taylor ● 3d

>The impression I get (which I'll admit is based on a small number of conversations) is that the people who have started, would probably not go back to driving or public transport when the bridge reopens.I strongly disagree with this too. With the reduction of motor traffic you'll get people starting to take back the streets, but let the discentivising motor traffic situation back and it'll all just go back to the way it was.

Paul James ● 3d

Also Francis, I see your post that the best way to increase numbers cycling is force people to share with buses and trucks has made it onto X.  Makes a change from the nazis on there, I suppose.

Michael Robinson ● 3d

(and for the record, I think one of the best places to look for modal shift is promoting/making safe cycle lanes and routes for people taking kids to school/young adults riding on their own to school etc... not the only one, but one that would help reduce the silly, damaging and unsustainable amount of cars on our roads)

Paul James ● 3d

Yet more completely carbrained fact-free anecdotes Francis.The largest increase in numbers on C9 since 2019 have been at peak commuting times.  Clearly these are people who prefer cycling separated from traffic.  The people who were happy commuting with traffic would have been doing it anyway prior to C9 being built.A factor behind increase in numbers using C9 is increased numbers commuting during winter and adjacent months indicating more people commuting by bike year-round.  This is driving up overall annual averages. I don't recall seeing many delivery riders at 8am in the morning when C9 is at its busiest.  People commute using hire bikes too so I don't see why you are dismissing this.It a classic car brained objection that if cycling infrastructure isn't everywhere, it shouldn't be anywhere.Your perfunctory search for casualty data is typical.  I'm not your nanny, spoon feeding you information.  When you invariably can't be bothered finding out facts it give me some minor amusement to point out your car brained statements.Your use of ChatGPT is a good demonstration of garbage in, garbage out. Police record casualties in a statistical record called STATS19.  Source data is all available on DfT website plus I'm aware of at least 3 different websites, one run by TfL that map the data.The string of casualties along Hammersmith Bridge and approach roads prior to 2019 gives a lie to you claim this was "least challenging".

Michael Robinson ● 3d

>because they offer the greatest chance of modal shift.I don't ge this. Are you saying there is a vast number of people who currently don't cycle but drive/get public transport just waiting to become your vehicular cyclists such as your friend who wants to cycle "as fast as possible".I strongly disagree.

Paul James ● 3d

Michael, while 'the fast and the furious' as you call them are only a sub-set of cyclists, they are perhaps the most important one because they offer the greatest chance of modal shift.There seems to have been a significant switch to cycle commuting in the Barnes community as a result of the closure of the bridge to buses and cars. The impression I get (which I'll admit is based on a small number of conversations) is that the people who have started, would probably not go back to driving or public transport when the bridge reopens. These cyclists as well as the legions of delivery riders seem to be neutral or positive about sharing the bridge with traffic.You are quite right that there are many clever routes on the north side of the bridge that can allow you to cycle for most of your journey in roads with limited traffic. But for a large number of destinations it is impossible to totally avoid busy roads and junctions and crossing the bridge along a straight line of traffic would be one of the least challenging parts of many daily journeys.I am also not going to quibble with your point that segregated cycle lanes can encourage many people to use a bike who might otherwise have done so. How much of the growth of use of the number of people riding along CHR is down to this as opposed to the explosion of bike deliveries and e-bike hire as well as people forced off buses by their increasingly slow pace is something we can only guess at but there will also be 'fast and furious' cyclists who have abandoned using the High Road because their progress was significantly faster before the changes.You are right that my research on collisions on Hammersmith Bridge was not robust. I couldn't recall any ever having taken place (and as an occasional user of this route I would have been mindful of this) and I Googled and asked ChatGPT for any further information and it couldn't find any. If there have been cases of cyclist injuries on Hammersmith Bridge prior to its closure please do share. However, don't, as you often do when you claim to have data or evidence, give a vague reference and tell me to go and find it for myself. When you do this, I don't think I'm alone in concluding the purported evidence doesn't actually exist or doesn't support your point on closer inspection.

Francis Rowe ● 3d

"The perceived safety benefit for them is negligible given that, when you cross the bridge to the north, you emerge onto some of the busiest roads in London."You really are demonstrating your lack of knowledge Francis.  After crossing the bridge northbound, there is a virtually traffic-free route to link up with C9 via Bridge Avenue (route C57 on TfL Cycle map).  Or if heading towards Fulham, an easy route into the low traffic neighbourhood area to the West of Fulham Palace Rd that extends down to Bishops Park. Through traffic here has long been blocked by a variety of junctions closed to motor traffic but passable on a bike (route C34 on TfL cycle map)

Michael Robinson ● 7d

You never disappoint when it comes to providing a carbrained perspective on cycling Francis.Provision of cycling infrastructure isn't for the minority 'fast and the furious' who are happy being sandwiched between a bus and a truck but for everyone else who isn't.The large increase in numbers cycling since C9 was completed is testament to that.You are also mischaracterising people commuting by bike as being obsessed about speed.  If you did any commuting by bike, you would see there is a wide range of cyclist speeds. People simply settle into the speed that they find comfortable.  The great thing about commuting by bike is  journey times are very predictable.  Some people may be faster, some people slower, but each individual's journey time is very consistent.As for "As far as I am aware there was never a serious collision between a pedal bike"... Of course you aren't aware because I am pretty confident that you have never bothered to look at it.  Par for the course, relying on your bias and prejudice is far more comforting that actually doing work to find out facts.If you did actually did research into collisions, you would see there have been a few dozen cyclist casualties on the bridge and on the approaches to the bridge, prior to 2019.

Michael Robinson ● 7d

>for whom speed is paramount - commuters and delivery riders.Speed is paramount, come on, do you know what this sounds like?>Even though the dilineation is clear, pedestrians do often seem to wander in the cycle lane and a friend who crosses the bridge daily to get to Charing Cross says they can be a menace and, as a result, he has to moderate his pace. Your friend needs to take a chill pill, his attitude to cycling is not doing him, or anyone else, any good.It's not the pedestrians that are the menace to him by the sounds of it, sounds like the otehr way round to me.

Paul James ● 7d

The only type who would be unreservedly happy with the return of motor traffic would be ones for whom speed is paramount - commuters and delivery riders. The perceived safety benefit for them is negligible given that, when you cross the bridge to the north, you emerge onto some of the busiest roads in London.Even though the dilineation is clear, pedestrians do often seem to wander in the cycle lane and a friend who crosses the bridge daily to get to Charing Cross says they can be a menace and, as a result, he has to moderate his pace. For the time being, planters seem like a very good idea.I have no argument if you say that the current ride is better than the bone shaking experience it used to be back in the day and a good job has clearly been done on the resurfacing. The concern would be that, if the bridge was required to carry motor vehicles again, the flexibility needed between sections of the bridge would lead to the surface becoming uneven again.On the electric shuttle services, I think Julian is probably right about this - the subsidy needed to sustain it would be too large.

Francis Rowe ● 7d

“ In my view the council should go one better and make the segregation more appealing with planters.”So, in your view, where should cars and buses go!

Steve Taylor ● 7d

Paul, I can see you don't agree with much of what I say but but can't identify any sort of counter argument. The vast majority of conceivable cycle journeys of any length will involve some interaction with traffic so it is reasonable to assume the vast majority of cyclists are able to cope with this interaction. I don't think you have thought through your point about children learning to cycle. Those little ones crossing the bridge will be learning to ride on the riverside paths. It'll be a minor annoyance if they have to dismount on the bridge but that will only be a small part of the length of the walk. Additionally, not everyone who visits the river at the weekend lives close to the Thames and you'll regularly see in the parking nearby families unloading bikes from their cars to go on a ride together.

Francis Rowe ● 7d

I'm not sure that most cyclists would genuinely prefer to be in traffic behind cars when a dedicated cycle lane is an option. I bike over it regularly and the changes that now separate pedestrians from cyclists with a raised section and markings do a good job of pedestrians / bikes not having to get in each others way; it's a delight to cross. Here's a photo for anyone who's not been recently:https://share.icloud.com/photos/05aWk3OpMQlPeVpO9ED20XqNQ In my view the council should go one better and make the segregation more appealing with planters. They should also look at electric shuttle services for elderly / disabled / families and integrate it with Oyster payment. All doable and probably very cost effective.

Neil Roberts ● 7d

It’s not necessary to teach children to cycle over Hammersmith Bridge. I taught my daughter to cycle from the Red Lion in Castelnau down to the towpath and along to Hammersmith Bridge and beyond and then back towards Putney Bridge  It was perfect and also taught her the importance of showing total respect to walkers, something which is badly lacking from cyclists these days!!  They seem  intent on wanting to control roads, cycle lanes, footpaths and pavements with total disrespect for all others.

Steve Taylor ● 7d

Oh dear, and how do people get to the bridge without negotiating all sorts of road hazards on the way?Francis, you are wasting your time ‘debating’ with Paul. He’s spent years bleating the same stuff on the Ealing forum. He’s one of those weirdos who really can’t understand how the majority of people live.

Simon Hayes ● 7d

>I appreciate that, when or if Hammersmith Bridge is fully reopened to motor vehicles the heart warming sight of small children on their bikes making their way across Hammersmith Bridge as part of a weekend riverside walk with their parentsI wouldn't appriociate that. Those small children on their bikes making their way across Hammersmith Bridge as part of a weekend riverside walk with their parents are learning to cycle.I'm guessing next your going to say they should learn to cycle in the park Francis, without saying how they get there.

Paul James ● 7d

> You are correct that, like the majority of cyclists,By the "majority of cyclists" you mean those who are already  sort of OK cycling in traffic with its associated hazards and danger, bit of a self selecting group there Francis.>commuting cyclists who are the most important for modal shift.I very STRONGLY disagree with that, given your idea of cycling seems to be taking primary and riding in and alongside motor traffic.

Paul James ● 7d

There is no need for inverted commas Paul, I wouldn't ever describe myself as a keen cyclist but I am someone who has regularly used this mode of transport for decades. You are correct that, like the majority of cyclists, I am fine with cycling in traffic and its associated hazards and danger.I appreciate that, when or if Hammersmith Bridge is fully reopened to motor vehicles the heart warming sight of small children on their bikes making their way across Hammersmith Bridge as part of a weekend riverside walk with their parents will end and the structure will become a coldly practical part of our transport infrastructure. Less confident cyclists will have to push their bikes for 200 yards.My view is that a large proportion of cyclists (keen or otherwise) who use the bridge regularly for non-leisure purposes will see having to share with vehicles rather than pedestrians as a positive (as they will be able to go faster) or as neutral as they don't perceive any extra risk.  As far as I am aware there was never a serious collision between a pedal bike and a motor vehicle prior to closure. If you look at the cost benefit for various types of transport of reopening then you would have to say it is positive for bus users, positive for private vehicle users, neutral for pedestrians and arguably neutral for all cyclists and definitely positive for commuting cyclists who are the most important for modal shift.

Francis Rowe ● 7d

We regularly see these delivery cargo bikes now.  They have brake lights on the back which is goid because of their heightt and the difficulty for following traffic to see the road in front.https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/168062507085?var=0_ul%5Bgb%5D&&var=0&mkevt=1&mkcid=1&mkrid=710-53481-19255-0&campid=5339130999&toolid=20006&customid=EAIaIQobChMIpZL5r6KNkgMVgIODBx1zMCviEAQYASABEgJJ7PD_BwE%7C0AAAABB8tfL1HmNJ_b8VYumf__izpacBn3%7CCj8KCQiAmp3LBhDhARIuAKG92Ip5ZYbDjx3fFb3hXd-4Nzc1e3XF6LZRxPlp8JwXGa03mO-PWlZy7jSEQRoCuhU&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIpZL5r6KNkgMVgIODBx1zMCviEAQYASABEgJJ7PD_BwE&gbraid=0AAAABB8tfL1HmNJ_b8VYumf__izpacBn3&wbraid=Cj8KCQiAmp3LBhDhARIuAKG92Ip5ZYbDjx3fFb3hXd-4Nzc1e3XF6LZRxPlp8JwXGa03mO-PWlZy7jSEQRoCuhU&adtype=pla&gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=23253160203&gbraid=0AAAABB8tfL1HmNJ_b8VYumf__izpacBn3

Philippa Bond ● 7d

(Francis, sorry!)

Paul James ● 7d

Frances, you seem to be one of these "keen cyclists" who are fine with cycling in traffic and putting up with the associated hazards and danger, but don't consider many others (including those who simply don't cycle becuase of it) are not.This is well worth a watch about that type of cyclist, do you recognise this attitude toward cycling here?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRPduRHBhHI

Paul James ● 7d

On the question of a 'hostile environment' for cyclists created by a return of traffic, I'd make the following points.Firstly the closure of the bridge to traffic seems to have boosted significantly the number of commuting cyclists due to the lack of bus routes across the river. I used to cross the bridge fairly regularly by bike years before the closure. If you maintained the control position it was a safe journey. There was never queueing traffic on the bridge because vehicles were coralled at either end by lights. The main risk was the very uneven surface which made it a bumpy ride.Since the resurfacing and reopening to pedestrians and cyclists I haven't cycled over the bridge but I have observed frustration from cyclists at pedestrians wandering across their lanes. I believe if you surveyed cyclists who were using the bridge to get to work or for a non-leisure journey, a significant proportion would say they'd prefer to share the bridge with vehicles rather than pedestrians as it enables them to move faster.

Francis Rowe ● 7d

When you don't know why people are crossing in the first pplace (and don't just to get to the other side me) how can you work out where more investment in public transport and infrastructure input is needed elsewhere?  It's crazy everyone trying to go into and through London in order to just go out again.We've stopped driving to the Putney area because it's easier to go by tube now  it's also faster and the pavements are lovely and flat and trip-free now.  If traffic drives over those pavements they won't be and the situation change.We've walked over Hammersmith Bridge but it would be difficult with a lot of luggage and would need planning ie finding a cargo bike.  There are roadworks in Kew which have been causing congestion around there but most people travelling around there surely check their route before they go?The Lizzie line has also changed a lot of journeys.

Philippa Bond ● 7d

Well you don't disguise is very well Steve.

Mark Frost ● 7d

What makes you think they do?

Steve Taylor ● 8d

I was also cycling on Chiswick High Road almost daily 20 years ago there were only certain times of day you were on your own (which can still happen now). The bus lanes enabled much quicker progress and I use it less these days as alternative routes are now faster than using the cycleway. That's just a personal preference and there is no denying that even allowing for the explosion of delivery riders, the arrival of e-bike hires and the general increase in cycling, there has been a meaningful increase but it is totally false to claim cycling was a rarity beforehand.

Mark Evans ● 8d

Why do drivers think that their time is more valuable than cyclists?

Philippa Bond ● 8d

>As for other bridges being surrendered, was it, that's completely daft.Kew Bridge, they narrowed the west pavement, prohibted cycling on it and added a motor vehicle lane. More space for more cars basically, less (and more hazourdous) space for cycling and pedestrians.> People [] have found the alternative and routes take longer and thus there is more congestion and more pollutionI know you might want it to be as simple as that, but it's not as simple as that."As with the Ealing report, this is a simplistic approach. Given the person's long opposition to LTNs and their role as a journalist, it would be reasonable to suggest that they know full well how simplistic this is. There is no discussion about the origin and destination of trips, or where traffic might reassign at the network level."https://therantyhighwayman.blogspot.com/2026/01/its-not-as-simple-as-that.html

Paul James ● 8d

“  New bridge? They (and you) want the current bridge just reopened to motor traffic, which would recreate the hostile environment for cycling across it.”Now you are just being obtuse! OBVIOUSLY they would apply some modification to cater for buses, motorists, pedestrians and cyclists. I assume they would still want to limit bus traffic to only one bus each way on the bridge at any time and I assume they wouldn’t revert to double decker buses as in the past ie the No 9, 33 and 27 if I recall correctly. Who knows. If the bridge is sufficiently strengthened perhaps that would be possible again.

Steve Taylor ● 8d

I agree the crossing upgrades need to take into account the potential increased weight of transport and future needs of all users.It also seems to me there is no reason why this cannot be achieved and obstacles to this end overcome.Where there is a will there is a way.

Adrian Irving ● 8d

Connect the dots, Philippa. Take your time.People, including all modes of business transport and buses, have found the alternative and routes take longer and thus there is more congestion and more pollution.Francis has a point but if we believe TfL and mayoral propoganda all buses are already electric. I know that's not true. Everyone does. Except TfL and the mayor. But the concern of added weight is completely valid.As for other bridges being surrendered, was it, that's completely daft. As if previously they were dedicated frog crossings until the frog population waned and suddenly somebody somewhere thought "ah, lets let the engineered structures meant for all vehicular movement do their job." Groundbreaking.

David Lesniak ● 8d

>new bridgeNew bridge? They (and you) want the current bridge just reopened to motor traffic, which would recreate the hostile environment for cycling across it.Reopening the current bridge to motor traffic, just as it was is what the main topic is here.

Paul James ● 8d

“  it was often stuffed up with no space at all for cycling except between stationary vehicles, which is not a nice thing to do without a protected bike lane,”I used the bridge almost daily for about 9 years before it was closed and I don’t recall it being a problem for pedestrians or cyclists but your argument is totally irrelevant now because the new bridge will OBVIOUSLY cater for pedestrians and cyclists too. It is a fair solution for ALL commuters. You seem to selfishly want to exclude buses and motorists from any future plans.

Steve Taylor ● 8d

...and if you don't think providing safe space for cycling has any effect, I used to cycle thorugh Chiswick 20 years aao and I was about the only person doing it, and it was so bad I often ended up cycling on the A4 anyway, now there is a protected cycle lane there I'm often AMAZED by the number of people on bikes along with me.If you took that cycle lane away no doubt things would go back to the way it was 20 years ago and people on bikes would again become a rarity.

Paul James ● 8d

(I meant Kew bridge where I wrote Chiswick bridge above, same applies though!)

Paul James ● 8d

>The present bridge should be dismantled and moved up-river to provide a pedestrian and cycle entrance to Kew Gardens from the Middlesex bank of the river.Or just build a new bridge there for that, Chiswick bridge has been surrended to motor traffic so would be nice to have an alternative for cycling and walking.And then when they have to shut chiswick bridge due to damage by too many fast moving and heavy vehicles then we can talk about what to do about that.

Paul James ● 8d

The present bridge should be dismantled and moved up-river to provide a pedestrian and cycle entrance to Kew Gardens from the Middlesex bank of the river. We could then replace it with a purpose-built modern bridge capable of taking segregated road, cycle and pedestrian traffic with adequate clearance underneath for boats to pass at high tide. I recall being on a riverboat that scraped its cabin top while trying to pass under the bridge.

Richard Greenhough ● 8d

>and this will have no impact on walking or cycling.As it was before it was often stuffed up with no space at all for cycling except between stationary vehicles, which is not a nice thing to do without a protected bike lane, and that's before the vehciles are actualy moving, which was rare.I took a picture a while back of a sign that's still there saying no access to hammersmith bridge on aside road half a MILE back from the bridge itself which shows where the queues used to get to, and probably further, what's more all teh people in that line of cars could probably fit in just one bus.

Paul James ● 8d

It has to be opened to motorised traffic as it was before and this will have no impact on walking or cycling. What’s to discuss! Motorists, bus passengers, walkers and cyclists should all enjoy the use of Hammersmith Bridge and the convenience it enables for ALL commuters.

Steve Taylor ● 8d

>It's a stupid idea, and the number of people who would want to use it would be minimal.They should get something like this going as soon as possible really for people that need it, i.e. those unable to walk or cycle that distance.

Paul James ● 8d

>This matter won't be discussed because the situation will revert to as it was before the closure and most people would understand that.It will be discussed at official levels for sure. They've not just going to reopen it as it was without considering the impact on local walking and cycling.

Paul James ● 8d

Aren't there now cargo bikes using it?  Who hasn't found an alternative and have they made an effort to find alternatives rather than just complaining about change?

Philippa Bond ● 8d

There are lots of bridges around the world that were built before the advent of the motor car and now carry very heavy vehicles like buses.Let's be honest with ourselves here, Hammersmith Bridge will not be fully reopened for as long as a decade, by which time all London's buses will probably be electric and, consequently, a couple of tonnes heavier. An engineering solution needs to be found to cater for this change - I've not found any evidence either way that this will happen but it would severely undermine the case for reopening if the new bridge couldn't expand the capacity for bus journeys over what it was before the closure.

Francis Rowe ● 8d

Certainly not all the heavy buses that were using it.  Strengthening work was set back by a boat hitting it.  Times have changed but so have work patterns.

Philippa Bond ● 8d

With so many buses crossing the bridge it rather suggests to me that it needs, once again, to be an important artery for public transport carrying hundreds if not thousands of people going about there daily business.Therefore the strengthening needs to be able to cope with busses, cars, pedestrians and cyclists.No half measures.

Adrian Irving ● 8d

They should have limit it to small lightweight cars.

Janice Evans ● 9d

FYI"On average, between 1,800 and 2,500 buses crossed Hammersmith Bridge every day prior to its (recent) closure for repairs. The bridge was designed to carry a limited number of buses, with a maximum of one bus allowed at a time, but this limit was often ignored, leading to multiple buses crossing simultaneously." Source; Hammersmith & Fulham Council

Adrian Irving ● 9d

People in Barnes ride bicycles.  Maybe more than in Hammersmith.

Philippa Bond ● 9d

We are talking about a bridge that is 700ft long and open to walkers and cyclists, not open water where you need a ferry to cross.It's a stupid idea, and the number of people who would want to use it would be minimal. Most who would benefit would not get to the bridge, let alone use it. Stupid idea

Julian Pavey ● 9d

How do you know what it would make the operator?  How do you know how often it would be needed?  A ferryman doesn't just sit around doing nothing waiting for someone to ring for a ferry.  He multitasks just like most other people!

Philippa Bond ● 9d

I might just about change my mind on rickshaws if they are furry laced seats, full interior and exterior flashing disco lights and playing out loud "YMCA" until 4am Might be the safer option if crossing the bridge at 2am after a night out

Julian Pavey ● 9d

“ What was the problem with the rickshaws?  Or the microbuses that had been suggested:”The problem with this stupid idea was that it is of no use to people living in Barnes or Roehampton who need to drive their cars over the bridge to get to work or go on holiday etc.

Steve Taylor ● 9d

Paul James lives in Hanwell and has a pathological hatred of cars (except when driving one himself of course). He’s utterly brainwashed with LCC nonsense.The bridge is an important piece of infrastructure and being out of commission puts greater strain on other crossings, particularly Kew Bridge. Forget ‘cars’, it’s the thousands of business vehicles affected that is stifling the economy. Bikes don’t count as business vehicles. They are a leisure activity for most and people like Paul do get very upset when their precious infrastructure is threatened.In a properly run country the bridge would have been replaced by now. Ironically the people wailing about its historical significance don’t understand that the Victorians who built it would have torn it down the moment it was no longer fit to use.Maybe the cycling lobbyists could develop a bike powered boat to ferry hem back and forth. It would be so much more fun for them than a boring old bridge.

Simon Hayes ● 9d

Yeah, a silly idea that would make the operator just about half a week's minimum wage.Most would walk, and how much can you charge for a short trip, and how many can you take?Yep, someone's silly idea that after thinking came to the conclusion they would make twice as much money working for deliveroo

Julian Pavey ● 9d

What was the problem with the rickshaws?  Or the microbuses that had been suggested:https://www.wearepossible.org/latest-news/were-calling-on-councils-to-explore-a-car-free-transport-solution-for-hammersmith-bridge

Philippa Bond ● 9d

"I do hope it includes a discussion on what to do for the many many people that are now used to walking and cycling across it before they let the motor vehicles back."You seem unfamiliar with the bridge. This matter won't be discussed because the situation will revert to as it was before the closure and most people would understand that.

Francis Rowe ● 9d

Yes, even the inept London Mayor finally realises that it is imperative to open the bridge to motorised traffic. West London has been throttled for long enough  .  It’s unacceptable to have to drive from Barnes through Mortlake to cross at Chiswick Bridge to join the A4 when travelling to the west. Unacceptable and ridiculous!!!  I think the mayor recognises that.

Steve Taylor ● 9d

Well, I do hope it includes a discussion on what to do for the many many people that are now used to walking and cycling across it before they let the motor vehicles back.

Paul James ● 9d

There is no reason to think that it couldn't. £48 million has already been spent on stablisation and restoration, according to Hammersmith & Fulham Council, with a view to a full reopening. There don't appear to be any engineers suggesting that, with the completion of this work, the bridge would be unable to take the weight including ending the previous restrictions on the number of buses using it.

Francis Rowe ● 9d

>the rally is in support of a full reopening to motor traffic.Surely THAT bridge can't be fully reopened to motor traffic? It would be in the river in pieces within weeks wouldn't it?

Paul James ● 9d

Paul, the bridge is only open to pedestrians and cyclist currently, the rally is in support of a full reopening to motor traffic.

Francis Rowe ● 9d

How will the good people of Hammersmith get to the south side for the photos?? Have they thought this through?

Paul Scullion ● 9d

...addtionally, they're going to look a bit silly if their banners say "REOPEN HAMMERSMITH BRIDGE" as people behind them are actually using it.

Paul James ● 9d

>level of support for reopening the bridgeIt's open already, I went across it just the other day, along with a lot of of other people, going both ways, and some just standing there admiring the view.I just wish they could get some sort of micro bus service operating across it.

Paul James ● 9d