Forum Topic

Chiswick High Road pavement cycling 'crackdown'

Am I the only one who is slightly perplexed about people who believe the High Road in Chiswick is blighted by pavement cycling? I can't recall the last time I saw a genuinely anti-social instance of this happening (as opposed to small children on bikes or a cyclist gently rolling their bike up to a rack).The police now seem to have nominated a PCSO to deal with the 'problem' indicating the level of seriousness they are treating it with. My suspicion is that they are responding to a section of our community whipped up by what they read in the Daily Mail or angry Facebook groups rather than actual experience of going out and witnessing it for themselves.

Francis Rowe ● 35d115 Comments

Anyway Paul,you seem to vociferously support law breaking in the form of pavement cycling.I hope you aren't an offender yourself,although it wouldn't surprise me as what you write quite often has a whiff of entitlement.

Keith Iddon ● 23d

Paul,have you some kind of difficulty when it comes to accepting facts or do you just like an argument for the sake of it? Either way,it takes up a third of the available road space so enough accommodation has been made for cyclists to not use the footpath.I do not live in Chiswck and have no idea that cars used to be parked where this now hallowed but sadly ignored by some cycle lane is now situated.Pipe,stick,smoke it.

Keith Iddon ● 23d

It was you that was moaning about "jaywalkers" earlier, despite jaywalking not being a thing in the UK.If you did want a jaywalking style law, go for it, let's have a crossing every 50 meters, and if you want them light controlled fine, as long as they go red for vehicles as soon as the "beg" button is pushed by a pedestrian.I've seen a road with a marking along the middle of it for a good stretch which means pedestrians can be expected to be found crossing the road at any point along the length of the marking and must be given priority, let's do that?Or, you can go back and live in London in 1960 when they were knocking down vase swathes of housing and historic buildings to lay a motorway pedestrian free style network inside london, you'd have loved that!They built quite a lot of it (hence we have anachronisms like the A4, a40, hangar lane, hammersmith flayover west way etc...They wanted to go even further but people realised it was nuts, and slowly the silly gyratories are being taken out and returned to public use and the flyovers are crumbling away with 20mph speed limits to protect them.As for the old bridges never build for thousands of motor vehicles, well, now two of those have given up the ghost and returned to carrying pedestrians and small person powered vehicles, which one's next?

Paul James ● 23d

>I was giving Keith the benefit of my doubt.After reading his anti cycle lane rant over two or three posts, starting with "it takes up a third of the road"?Hmmm.

Paul James ● 23d

Ha Ha Julian - you must be feeling guilty about somethingand Good Grief Steve I actually agree with you on this comment of yours!

Philippa Bond ● 24d

Yes but Philippa is 100% correct on this issue. Too many parents not controlling their kids. Too many parents allowing their kids to control them.

Steve Taylor ● 24d

One thing to take from all of this is the following. While out and about, avoid Phillipa at all costs, you will be put on the naughty step, get a lecture on everything ✔️😁

Julian Pavey ● 24d

"You think people on foot should not cross the road at rush hour?"I think in an evolving and increasingly dense city, signals should be used at all crossings. It would help with flow as well as safety and prevent supped-up e-bikes from creating unnecessary risk for everyone around them, including other cyclists.FWIW, Paul, the route in question is singular. There is no alternative. There are currently three - soon to be four - zebra crossings in less than a quarter mile. And traffic is always backed up especially at rush hour. It is stupid planning, if one could call it that.

David Lesniak ● 24d

Thank you Andrew.I am glad that you can see my point without prejudice,and for agreeing to the fact that the  cycle lane takes up to a third of the available road space.Someone else on here who has a heavily jaundiced view of anything anyone who isn't a cycling zealot says is not so even handed as your good self.Cycle by all means,but in the appropriate placde now one has been provided.

Keith Iddon ● 24d

Perhaps Paul, I was giving Keith the benefit of my doubt.My interpretation was that Keith was pointing out that the cycle lane was sufficiently wide to allow cycles to go in both directions, so there wasn't a reason why adult cyclists should use the pavement.I agree that there often used to be cars parked where the cycle lane near the George IV is and that using that space for a cycle lane rather than car parking is a good thing.

Andrew Jones ● 24d

>there is a zebra crossing. Stupidest thing at a rush hour. You think people on foot should not cross the road at rush hour?>A cyclist on a supped-up e-bike came Motor cyclist...

Paul James ● 25d

>Mark got the wrong end of the stick.Mark did not ge the wrong end of the stick."when there is a dedicated cycle lane taking up a third of the road?""Taking up a third of the road" makes it pretty clear that this is an anti cycle lane post, and then there's more after that anyway.What's more, what used to "take up a third of the road" instead of a cycle lane, was line of parked cars, but then I guess they were'nt "taking up a third of the road" like a cycle lane does in the world of a anti cycle lane poster.

Paul James ● 25d

I agree it looks like Mark got the wrong end of the stick.From my perspective it would be entirely reasonable to expect cyclists to use the infrastructure provided in preference to using the pavement illegally.It wouldn't be reasonable to compel cyclists to use the infrastructure if they would prefer to cycle on the adjacent roadway.

Andrew Jones ● 25d

You have the wrong end of the stick about what I wrote.I am complaining about when people don't use it when it is has been provided especially for them so that they are safer.They would rather use the footpath and make it more unsafe for pedestrians.The infrastructure is in place so it is only reasonable to expect all cyclists to use it.Please highlight where you think that is an unreasonable expectation.

Keith Iddon ● 25d

It's a bit of infrastructure Keith, for anyone to use including you and perhaps your offspring.Why you and Steve have such animosity towards it is puzzling.

Mark Frost ● 25d

"It is illegal to ride a bike across a zebra crossing"The other morning I was doing deliveries near Kings Cross. Coming around St Pancras and in front of the Frick there is a zebra crossing. Stupidest thing at a rush hour. I digress. A cyclist on a supped-up e-bike came along the cycle lane and at the last minute, as I thought I was good to go, he veered across the zebra which leads directly into the station which is where he went.

David Lesniak ● 25d

You can't just excuse children whatever they do because they need to be taught and learn how to behave considerately.I've been walking along the pavement when a child has been racing along it in order to keep up with their parent (I presume) on the road!I've also had to call out to a small child hurtling towards me on a scooter whilst looking backwards to "look where you're going" only to be loudly remonstrated with by the inattentive chattering mother for doing so.  If I hadn't I might have ended up in hospital and having just recovered from a fall on a badly rocking paving stone caused by poorly remediated building work I was most definitely not going to be silent regarding the impending danger.  I said so loudly which was probably risky.There are definitely times of day that it is safer to go out and times when it isn't eg when there aren't lots of little kids coming home from school!  It's much quieter at the moment in the afternoon.

Philippa Bond ● 25d

Well that's plenty of room for all of them.Except of course the inconsiderate,entitled and potentially dangerous one's who use the footpath.

Keith Iddon ● 25d

The cycle lane does use up about a third of the width of the road (from the pavement kerb on one side to the pavement kerb on the other side) along some parts of CHR. In other places where the cycle lane is it uses up about a quarter of the width.

Andrew Jones ● 25d

Of course I haven't measure it but it has to be a third the width or almost.Especially if you factor in the ridiculous bus stop outside the old police station which had to be moved to accommodate it.Even if it's less than that,that's more than enough room to for cyclists to use it safely without obstructing pedestrians on the footpath.Don't you think that is a reasonable position to take,considering all the consideration and public expense that went into accommodating them? The cycle lane is two way as you don't seem to have seen it.

Keith Iddon ● 25d

A third of the road? Have you actually measured it? Are you talking one way cycle lanes or what?

Anne England ● 25d

Can anyone seriously justify any cyclist,bar little kids with a stabiliser on their bike who are usually accompanied by an adult,using the footpath when there is a dedicated cycle lane taking up a third of the road?Any motorist who enters this hallowed ground in their vehicle receives a fine for doing so,maybe even points on their licence.Seems some cyclists want it every which way.

Keith Iddon ● 26d

My apologies, I should have written NOT EXCEED THE SPEED LIMIT!!

Andrew Jones ● 26d

Steve, as you well know plenty of car drivers also break the law. I know two wrongs don't make a right, but it's illegal to drive a motor vehicle over 20mph in a 20 mph zone.They are supposed to STICK TO THE SPEED LIMIT!!These motorists ignore the law :)They project a self entitlement that they are above the law.Just like (some) cyclists ;)

Andrew Jones ● 26d

“ But they don't have to be ridden everywhere when they can just as easily be wheeled, eg across zebra crossings and on the pavements, when the rider rightly becomes a pedestrian. “And that’s the problem with the self entitlement these cyclists project. These cyclists ignore the law. It is illegal to ride a bike across a zebra crossing as it is to mount a pavement to cycle right up to a shop etc. They are supposed to DISMOUNT!! 

Steve Taylor ● 26d

>I know the pavements on CHR are wide, but I have to say I've never seen any cars or vans driving along them!Are you suggesting this doen't happen?

Paul James ● 26d

If the child is riding dangerously then yes - intervention would be fine and appropriate. But the emphasis should be on adults, especially those who are cycling to get somewhere rather than using the roads i.e. if someone cycles onto a pavement and continues for a few feet in a safe manner to get to where they park their bike that's ok in my book.

Andrew Jones ● 26d

“as long as children who haven't got any road confidence/ability aren't in scope.”In this modern age where parents are terrified of reprimanding their children, for fear of it causing ‘mental health’ issues, I would hope the Police would indeed reprimand any child (and their parent) if the child is seen to be riding dangerously on a pavement which could cause injury, or even just frighten, an unsuspecting pedestrian. I had an experience on the Richmond towpath along the river where I had to jump out of the way of a child on a bike. The child also got a fright I think and quickly said ‘sorry’ to which the mother rebuked the child by saying ‘don’t say sorry - you’re only a child’ !!!!!That’s the world we live in.

Steve Taylor ● 26d

I know the pavements on CHR are wide, but I have to say I've never seen any cars or vans driving along them!The problem with allowing unconfident children to ride bicycles on the pavement is that there's usually a perfectly confident adult riding alongside them.The problem with bicycles is their great attraction - that they can go pretty well anywhere!  But they don't have to be ridden everywhere when they can just as easily be wheeled, eg across zebra crossings and on the pavements, when the rider rightly becomes a pedestrian.

Peter Evans ● 26d

As long as the operation targets the worst offending cyclists/ebikers etc. absolutely no objections from me, and I'd be supportive as long as children who haven't got any road confidence/ability aren't in scope.If there is a big problem as some people are suggesting, then of course it's a good idea.If there isn't much of a problem, which is the view of others, than it will make what's already a fairly safe environment even safer.Either way, it's a win.

Andrew Jones ● 26d

“This becomes a vicious circle because then they read alarmist newspaper reports or posts on social media”So you are saying that it’s wrong of the police to take action as reported or was it wrong of this Forum to report the issue on the Leader Page? Or are you saying it’s a malicious attempt by some nasty forces to scare old people into staying at home? And why do you think local businesses are supporting the Police action if they don’t see it as a problem? Surely scaring pedestrians from the High Street pavements would reduce business? Are you just in denial of the problem as you were about Biden having dementia? “Officers say the crackdown has received strong backing from residents and businesses, and they are committed to keeping up the momentum.The operation targeted cyclists “police have pledged to maintain high visibility enforcement along Chiswick High Road following a recent operation that saw fines issued and bicycles seized for unlawful use.The operation targeted cyclists riding on pavements, a persistent issue that poses risks to pedestrians—particularly children, older residents,”

Steve Taylor ● 26d

Francis, people just go elsewhere or change habits so they feel safer, things can happen anywhere though, most of my firiends and family no longer go out of an evening, they meet up lunch time instead but like to go where they can park and not have to rush, they like to be home before dark.

Janice Evans ● 26d

Has anybody got any stats for KSIs on Chiswick High Road caused by :- motor vehicles on the pavement- bicycles on the pavement?

Paul James ● 26d

Janice, I think you are right but let's not forget while these people are moaning they may be also genuinely fearful. As they get older (and it will happen to us eventually as well) the lose confidence and that can translate into inertia and staying home. This becomes a vicious circle because then they read alarmist newspaper reports or posts on social media which convinces them they are only really safe in their own home.Panic about migrant crime, shoplifting, mobile phone muggers and pavement cycling means that a significant proportion of the population aren't going out as much and aren't spending money in shops and restaurants.I know from experience with older relatives that, once they have made their mind up about something, they aren't going to be changing it. But for those generations yet to enter senior citizenship we must hold fast to the truth that our town and our city offer joys and attractions that massively outweigh the risk of going out, despite what people we don't know on social media say.

Francis Rowe ● 26d

Hopefully those areas which are a particular problem with cyclists dangerously not following the rules will be pointed out to the police.Today I made a rare trip down Regent Street only to find a lime bike being ridden down the pavement.  I think it was being ridden on a shortcut to the other side of Regent Street and a parking area.  Even with the now wider pavements it was busy.

Philippa Bond ● 26d

Think a lot of people who did moan about it no longer use the High Street.

Janice Evans ● 27d

It is interesting how this becomes a microcosm of the London crime debate. People who don't live in the area tell us we have a massive problem and get cross when we suggest that isn't the case because they have seen videos on the internet.Nobody is denying that sometimes people ride on the pavements in Chiswick High Road in an anti-social manner but at the same time I go onto the High Road several times a week and haven't seen anything remotely concerning for months. To suggest it is a major problem is delusional.

Mark Evans ● 27d

Outwitted, once again, by the genius mind Mogden debating society.

Mark Frost ● 27d

“ Who should I be looking out for, slaloming down the high road”What a stupid question. But I’ll answer it for you. I wouldn’t be too worried about the slaloming morons on the high road because if they get hit by a car or truck, tough! The  idiots should be riding on the unused cycle lanes although if they want to risk their lives duelling with cars and trucks that’s their problem.It’s the morons riding on the pavements unlawfully who are the huge problem.

Steve Taylor ● 27d

I usually go to Chiswick on Monday afternoons and regularly see cyclists,often whilst gazing at their phone,weaving in and out of pedestrians on the footpath.No deliveroo or any of that pizza delivery nonsense,jut pillocks on wheels.

Keith Iddon ● 27d

Lycra clad loonies, mountain bikers, Lime criminals, casual Cleo's or deliveroo? Who should I be looking out for, slaloming down the high road Steve?

Mark Frost ● 27d

The irresponsible cyclists are adept at weaving in and out of unsuspecting pedestrians. They don’t care how crowded the pavements are.

Steve Taylor ● 28d

Exactly Mark, I would imagine most of the offenders are picking up from restaurant or supermarket. No point going far on a pavement as I've noticed it's full of people walking slowly.

Mark Frost ● 28d

If you push someone over causing them injury that's assault and you would be liable to prosecution, it would be irrelevant that they were cycling on the pavement. The only exception would be if you could show you or someone with you was being put in danger by their actions and the push was defensive.Andrew's passive response is the right one. I do however remain perplexed about these claims of pavement cycling on Chiswick High Road. It is difficult enough as a pedestrian if you want to move slightly more quickly than the general flow of foot traffic. On a bike it would be almost impossible even without people proactively blocking you.

Mark Evans ● 28d

I often wonder if I 'stand my ground' in front of a pavement cyclist, or 'accidentally stumble' into them in such a way that they fall off and hurt themselves, might I be held responsible for their injury? Is 'serves you right for being there' an adequate defence?!

Peter Evans ● 28d

The answer is not to jump sideways. Avoid eye contact with the cyclist on the pavement or turn your back on them — they will stop if there isn't a clear way past. It's been quite a while since I encountered anyone cycling on the pavement on Chiswick High Road so maybe I'm not the only one doing this.

Andrew OSullivan ● 29d

A lot of people cannot suddenly jump sideways to avoid the selfish cyclists with no regard for pedestrians - and that is if they see them and they aren't approaching from behind.

Philippa Bond ● 29d

“If some, particularly families, choose to switch to the wide pavements when there aren't many pedestrians that is understandable.”No it’s not understandable - it’s illegal. However, the ones I witnessed in Kew Road weren’t families with kids. They were irresponsible cyclists riding illegally on pavements whilst the adequate cycle lanes were devoid of use.

Steve Taylor ● 30d

I am 89 and do not read the gutter press, but was almost mown down outside Còte last week by two cyclists riding with complete disregard for pedestrians.Perhaps the PCSO is not such a bad idea.

David carhart ● 30d

I think the technology to implement a road pricing scheme as you describe largely exists already so the barrier to implementation isn't tech - it is political will.You can see how a simple urban planning idea like LTNs or "15 minute cities" gets turned into a conspiracy theory about people being trapped in their area or banned from visiting other areas, so the factions who stir this up will have a field day when it comes to "spying" or "control" and as usually happens, governments will be scared off.Yes, people voluntarily submit to being tracked and monitored by large corporations every time they use their phone or do something online but I still see a gap between that and a government mandate.The cheap and simple bollard that treats everyone the same and is usually 100% effective still has a lot of advantages.

Michael Robinson ● 30d

Kew Road isn't in Chiswick. Although it has segregated cycle lanes for much of its length, there are a couple of pinch points where cyclists are asked to mingle with the very heavy traffic on the road. If some, particularly families, choose to switch to the wide pavements when there aren't many pedestrians that is understandable.

Mark Evans ● 30d

The junction is probably always going to have the highest level of collisions because it is has a high number of various vehicle types crossing each others path.I'm not suggesting removing signals here rather taking out the cyclist phase westbound but leaving the signal at the north end of Dukes Avenue. I don't think junctions can be designed on the basis that people ignoring red lights deserve what they get. Many of the people jumping the lights are gig economy workers who are under pressure to make deliveries and would lose money if they waited at every red light.Some cyclists would still jump the light at the junction but far fewer because the wait phase would be much shorter.As for a lack of data that the current configuration is dangerous, there may be few reported collisions over the last couple of years but just go an observe it for 15 minutes at a busy time. You'll get the point.Closing Dukes Avenue to ratrunners has been looked at and, I would guess has been ruled out due to the impact on the E3 and 272 which are already struggling.

Mark Evans ● 30d

Davy,If there is a review to potential removal of LTNs following a change in who is in power, then I imagine that residents who live in the LTNs will have a strong voice and input into what happens.There were some proposed LTNs in Ealing that got pushed back by opposition from residents who didn't see the need, but in other places, councils e.g Tower Hamlets have tried to remove existing LTNs and been pushed back https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce3kkven14noSchemes that continue to be unpopular will get removed, but a full scale roll back - very unlikely I reckon.

Andrew Jones ● 31d

"The point about cameras is councils are setting themselves up in perpetuity for the ongoing costs to replace, upgrade, maintain them plus costs for associated power and comms"Yes, you are correct assuming ( and this is the big if, in my book) that in 5-10 years time, LTNs will still be enforced via cameras.Your comment about physical barriers that were put in place 10-20 or more years ago made me think.When these barriers were put in, there wasn't the technology readily available at an affordable cost to enforce adherence in another way.I expect in 5-10 years there will be some form of road pricing and I can imagine that when you are driving a car, you will be allowed to drive into an LTN but it will cost you - £10? £20? You don't want to pay? You don't enter the LTN, or if you do want/need to go to a location in the LTN, you will need to enter via one of the designated "free" entry points.All these options will be offered by in-car technology.There are areas in London that don't have CPZs but they are further out - I can't think of anywhere in LBHF, RBKC or Westminster that isn't covered by a CPZ or other type of Parking Area where parking indefinitely doesn't need to be paid for during on weekdays.If you think it's not going to happen, well maybe it won't, but think anbout where we were ten years ago AI wise and how much the technology has developed in those 10 years.

Andrew Jones ● 31d

'once a scheme is in and the initial inevitable complaints have died down, a council is unlikely to "poke the bear" and propose changes as that will just stir up a new round of complaints.'Utter LCC twaddle. LBH Labour Councillors might be taken in with such twittery, but not the rest of us. Let's see what happens once labour are voted out and we can poke the bear, and the fat lad who feeds him

Davy Jones ● 31d

Quite a few cyclists using pavements today instead of using the cycle lanes  and also a few totally moronic ones jumping red lights in Kew Road.

Steve Taylor ● 31d

I'd agree that once a scheme is in and the initial inevitable complaints have died down, a council is unlikely to "poke the bear" and propose changes as that will just stir up a new round of complaints.Exemptions based upon CPZ permits may work in an area covered by CPZs with little off-street parking but in areas that don't have CPZs or have more off-street parking, residents will need to do the paperwork.The point about cameras is councils are setting themselves up in perpetuity for the ongoing costs to replace, upgrade, maintain them plus costs for associated power and comms and 'back-end' systems the cameras connect to plus additional staff costs to deal with the inevitable appeals from people who believe they have been fined incorrectly plus enforcement costs for staff to chase unpaid fines (unless they decide to ignore the latter).Physical infrastructure is largely 'fit and forget' with the exception of looking after trees or planting if these have been installed.

Michael Robinson ● 31d

Quite a few cyclists using pavements today instead of using the cycle lanes  and also a few totally moronic ones jumping red lights in Kew Road.

Steve Taylor ● 31d

"I'd suggest that most residents prefer a quiet and peaceful street over inconvenience of some car journeys for some residents. Even moreso now given falling levels of car ownership.  Obviously some of those who are inconvenienced will complain loudly, but those complaints have disappeared in areas with physical restrictions.  Cameras, fines, needing to apply for permits are a constant reminder."There's a big LTN in LBHF near Wandsworth Bridge - it's been there for some time, and the entrances to it where non LBHF resident permit holders aren't permitted are ( to my mind anyway) well sign posted. I actually doubt that the residents in that LTN would now have majority support to get rid of the Camera enforced restrictions and have physical barriers instead.I could be wrong, but, as with the physical barriers you mentioned, I think people have got used to it. For the majority of people in that LTN with cars, they park on street, so they will already have a permit, so they don't have to apply for any additional permit.The whole thing about CPZs was that they are there for the benefit of residents so they had a reasonable expectation that the area where they live isn't clogged up with non-residents parking. Camera enforcement rather than barriers gives them a similar expectation that they can carry on driving in their local vicinity without having to undertake detours, while keeping the roads free of non-residents.

Andrew Jones ● 32d

"councils have come to rely on their camera systems being ineffective and confusing and letting traffic through to maintain their anticipated income from penalty notices."I think in some cases, councils thought. that camera restrictions with exemptions would be more palatable to residents.  But what actually happens,  there is pressure to add more exemptions so the measures become even more confusing.And with cameras, they still get the same volume of complaints from people who don't like any restrictions to driving, and these complaints keep on coming because of fines, permits etc.So they would be better off putting in physical restrictions and bite the bullet about the inevitable complaints. These will go away as people get used to it and the measures are part of everyday life.

Michael Robinson ● 32d

The irony is within LBHF there are many existing LTNs using physical barriers which have been in place for many years (since the 90s?).  I'm not aware of any calls to remove them or issues with emergency services.  They are just part of the streetscape, particularly those including trees or planting.For example, on the west side of Fulham Palace Rd, there are a large number of bollards, road closures and other restrictions (some of which can be unlocked by emergency services)Also between Uxbridge Rd and Goldhawk Rd many streets have diagonal closures which stop vehicles driving between the 2 roads.  Again, I'm not aware of any calls to remove these restrictions which have been in place for decades.I'd suggest that most residents prefer a quiet and peaceful street over inconvenience of some car journeys for some residents. Even moreso now given falling levels of car ownership.  Obviously some of those who are inconvenienced will complain loudly, but those complaints have disappeared in areas with physical restrictions.  Cameras, fines, needing to apply for permits are a constant reminder.Traffic generated for access to residential streets isn't significant compared to through traffic. Hounslow and other boroughs have done surveys of this and generally less than 10% of traffic is accessing residential streets and the rest is driving through, ( because google thinks they may save a few minutes)

Michael Robinson ● 32d

As suggested, simple physical barriers are a more effective way of closing a road and less confusing than complicated camera systems with various exemptions. The trouble is that local councils have come to rely on their camera systems being ineffective and confusing and letting traffic through to maintain their anticipated income from penalty notices. I fear road safety doesn’t come into it!

Peter Evans ● 32d

Like you said, if someone is reversing towards you then warning them by horn is exactly what you should do and permitted.Actually not that silly - otherwise there would be nothing you could do about the gratuitous excessive honking of horns! (Hoping of course that common sense would prevail and honking your horn to let the driver in front know the lights have changed and they haven't noticed would be considered a "de minimis" infringement)

Andrew Jones ● 32d

I take your point Michael, but two disadvantages I see straight away with physical restrictions are the following.Firstly, physical restrictions mean emergency services can't use the route.Secondly, physical restrictions mean that residents who you could argue have more of a "right" to be using local roads to access where they reside have to go on arterial roads, increasing congestion unnecessarily.I'm not dismissing what you said about LBHF residents complaining - I've seen that on Nextdoor.

Andrew Jones ● 32d

"I never realised you must not use your horn when stationary!"A bit silly - what happens if another driver is reversing towards you while you are stationary and apparently hasn't seen you ? I suppose that is covered by "except when another road user poses a danger."

Richard Greenhough ● 32d

You're wrong about the "MUST NOT" laws e.g.Highway Code Rule 112The horn. Use only while your vehicle is moving and you need to warn other road users of your presence. Never sound your horn aggressively. You MUST NOT use your hornwhile stationary on the roadwhen driving in a built-up area between the hours of 11.30 pm and 7.00 amexcept when another road user poses a danger.http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986/1078/regulation/99/madeI never realised you must not use your horn when stationary!

Andrew Jones ● 32d

LBHF approach certainly hasn't stopped many LBHF residents complaining. Using cameras for enforcement invariably means howls of complaints about fines.There are dozens of LTNs in Chiswick using bollards, road closures etc. People have simply got used to them and probably most people don't even realise the route used to be available for motor traffic. A bollard is more cost effective than cameras which break, need upgrades, need maintenance contracts, need power and data comms.  Cameras basically need people ignoring the restriction to pay for them which is missing the point of having a restriction.A physical restriction is cheaper, more effective and people get used to it.  Some councils seem to think cameras are more palatable but the same people will complain about those anyway.

Michael Robinson ● 32d

>Motorists have to act lawfully,So do people on pedal cycles and ebikes though, so I'm not sure what's being suggested here.I think the only "MUST NOT" laws that apply to people on foot are that they are not allowed to loiter on a zebra crossing, or walk along motorways.

Paul James ● 32d

"You are obliged to follow the Highway Code and not act unlawfully exactly as motorists have to."What you've written could be read as suggesting motorists have to act unlawfully, and it could also be read as suggesting that motorists have to act lawfully.A comma or full stop after the word unlawfully, would make it clear the meaning you were intending to convey.FWIW I knew exactly what you meant i.e. Motorists have to act lawfully, but that's because I wouldn't expect you to say motorist have to act unlawfully.

Andrew Jones ● 32d

You need to check what you wrote.

Philippa Bond ● 32d

They do something like that with the LTNs in LBHF.If you are a CPZ permit holder resiedent in LBHF you can drive through the LTNs in LBHF. If you have off street parking and are resident in LBHF you need to get your vehicle registered to be able to drive through the LTNs.

Andrew Jones ● 32d

The smart way forward for LTN’s is to allow all residents within the postcode area to use all local roads. This stops commuters for using local roads as rat runs, keeps local congestion down and pollution. It’s all about balance plus of enables locals to use facility’s, pubs etc. there seems to be zero balance with everything today.

Jayne Thorburn ● 32d

>Anybody with any sense of social justice would want every LTN in the country opened because benefit very few very selfish people and they cause traffic chaos and pollution on arterial roads.Complete and total disregard for the many problems and issues caused by some drivers using back roads as a way of getting from one main road to the other.

Paul James ● 32d

Damage to pavement isn't done just by cars, Philippa.Just take a look at any deliveries on King Street. From the pubs to the banks, heavy vehicles have no choice but to mount the curb because the cycle lane removed the ability to load. That's just plain stupid design.

David Lesniak ● 32d

Anybody with any sense of social justice would want every LTN in the country opened because benefit very few very selfish people and they cause traffic chaos and pollution on arterial roads.

Steve Taylor ● 32d

>Back to the roads, can we settle on ‘shortcut’?That doesnt work. I can think of several rat runs that are longer than just sticking to the main road. Sure they _might_ be shorter time wise, as often people use them to avoid traffic jams, even if they are longer distance wise but that's not always the case either.And nobody is calling anybody a rat here. You say the use of rats as an analogy is pejorative, but rats are famously intelligent and good at getting through mazes, so I think you're being pejorative to rats.And what's more, drivers on a rat run will often be driving hurridly, we all see it, jumping give way markings as if they're not there, getting stuck in standoffs and shouting at each other, blowing horns, cutting corners etc...Anybody with any sense of social justice would want the streets being used like this to be made access only cul-de-sacs ASAP.

Paul James ● 32d

And rat-running is perfectly legal, and long may it continue. I would think that it would be mainly people with lots of time on their hands would choose not to take a short cut to avoid heavy traffic which is probably caused by LTNs imposed on other short cuts in the same area.

Steve Taylor ● 32d

A word being in a dictionary is no longer a source of authority but a record of its actual usage, even if it’s ‘wrong’ or inappropriate. See ‘Lycra lout’ at https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/lycra-loutBack to the roads, can we settle on ‘shortcut’? https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/shortcut

Peter Evans ● 32d

>There’s no such thing as the pejorative ‘rat-running’.You need to write to Collins English Dictionaryhttps://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/rat-run

Paul James ● 32d

“ There’s no such thing as the pejorative ‘rat-running’. It’s drivers using all the available roads provided for the purpose of getting from one place to another.”Well said. 100% correct!

Steve Taylor ● 32d

“ Hope that helps”It doesn’t help that you imply that it’s ok for cyclists to jump red lights as long as they take a look to make sure they aren’t flattened. So it’s ok to break the law - say walk into a bank with a gun and demand money, as long as you glance behind you to make sure Mr Plod hasn’t followed you in. My lightheaded response to your approval of law breaking could be that it’s ok for cyclists to jump red lights as long as they make sure to do it in front of a speeding truck.

Steve Taylor ● 32d

There’s no such thing as the pejorative ‘rat-running’. It’s drivers using all the available roads provided for the purpose of getting from one place to another. Should it be decided for whatever reason to close a road, then so be it, but until then, no criticism should be implied nor expressed for using it.

Peter Evans ● 33d

“ They don't have to - ”What on earth are you talking about - that motorists don’t have to stop at red lights!  Of course they do and if they don’t they are breaking the law and liable to prosecution.

Steve Taylor ● 33d

So, the first half of my sentence, Steve,  is where I agreed with you and Chris. The second half of the sentence was a lightheaded look at the consequences of jumping the lights. Hope that helps.There are plenty of drivers jumping the red at the Chiswick lane junction.

Mark Frost ● 33d

"And we all see the damage cause to on pavemnt stuff by cars."But that is just the pavement.  What you don't necessarily see is the consequential damage done to anyone who trips on the damage pavement.Some people never recover at all from a pavement fall, others are hospitalised for long periods and some of those may be unable to work, enjoy or do those things that are taken for granted like looking after their elderly parents, their sick family or their grandchildren  - perhaps stopping their parents from working.The consequences can be life-changing - and all because someone  was a bit impatient and couldn't wait a minute or two longer.  Think again before you drive over pavements the ripple effect might hit your family next time!

Philippa Bond ● 33d

"not act unlawfully as motorists have to"???They don't have to - motorists shouldn't be in so much of a hurry that they don't take more care as they are not the most vulnerable road users - even when and if they have do have right of way, while cyclists shouldn't take the risk of  unnecessarily messing  up everyone's day.

Philippa Bond ● 33d

“ if you can't wait for the light then do take some time look over your right shoulder to see what's about to flatten you.”What rubbish. If you can’t wait for the light you have no business being on our roads. You are obliged to follow the Highway Code and not act unlawfully exactly as motorists have to.

Steve Taylor ● 33d

Agreed, if you can't wait for the light then do take some time look over your right shoulder to see what's about to flatten you.

Mark Frost ● 33d

As a cyclist I have no sympathy for those who crash after running red lights. If they take that risk, the consequences are theirs. A motorist turning onto Dukes Avenue already faces a dangerous blind spot and cyclists should not be adding to that. Sadly I see this all the time, both in my car AND on my bike.

Chris Blackwell ● 33d

Prior to C9, the junction with CHR/Dukes Ave was the biggest collision hotspot for cyclists on CHR.  This was caused by traffic turning into Dukes Ave colliding with cyclists on CHR.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Closure of Fishers Lane will probably have reduced traffic using Dukes Avenue because drivers using that route would slalom across CHR to get to Dukes Avenue but traffic levels are still high enough to require signals. There is no evidence the current arrangement at Dukes Avenue is a safety issue.  Since C9 was fully upgraded in Jan 2023, the number of *all* traffic casualties on CHR is at the lowest level for at least 15 years.  Cyclist casualties are down, cycling numbers are up, so the risk in terms of injuries per cycled km will be down significantly.With the cycle-specific phase at the junction, I'd suggest that cyclists who go through this red light are at least aware of the risk.  With the previous arrangement, the casualties were cyclists 'minding their own business', cycling along CHR and being hit by turning traffic. The reason for the cycle-specific signals phase at Dukes Ave is the volume of traffic turning into Dukes Ave because the route is used by drivers ratrunning to the A4 and Sutton Court Rd. The obvious improvement is to close off the Dukes ratrun. If traffic volumes were reduced just for access, there may be no need for traffic lights there at all (or maybe just ‘on-demand’ signals for pedestrians crossing CHR)                So reducing Dukes Ave traffic levels and removing signals would be good for pedestrians, good for cycles, reduce volumes of traffic along residential streets of Dukes Ave, Barrowgate etc. maybe even provide more ‘green time’ for traffic along CHR.  The downside would be for the rat-running drivers as they would need to use Chiswick Lane or Sutton Court Rd.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         

Michael Robinson ● 33d

“I have witnessed several occasions in which a westbound cyclist went through a red and was nearly hit by car or van turning left.”And what do theses moronic cyclists expect if they go through red lights!

Steve Taylor ● 33d

“the rat-running was prevented”FACT check - rat running is legal. “example of inconvenience for pedestrians and cyclists for the convenience of drivers.”Yes it’s fantastic that drivers still rule the roads in some areas. Long may it continue!!

Steve Taylor ● 33d

Sorry meant to say "There hasn't been a serious collision at this junction due to dumb luck"

Mark Evans ● 33d

It would probably be a good idea to revisit the point of the current configuration of the lights at Dukes Avenue. The original intention was to make cyclists safer but that isn't what is happening. I don't go by this junction every day but I have witnessed several occasions in which a westbound cyclist went through a red and was nearly hit by car or van turning left. As with the Chiswick Lane junction, experienced cyclists who know the area switch between the cycleway and general traffic lanes to avoid the long wait at the lights and a high proportion of others go through a red phase on the cycle way.What would be the downside of removing the cycle phase at this junction and desegrating it at the approach so you could scrap the left turn westbound phase? There has been a serious collision at this junction due to dumb luck and it would seem wrong to wait for this to happen for it to be reassessed.

Mark Evans ● 33d

I'm afraid this happens quite often,  specially food delivery bikes . It is a problem 

Isabel Martin ● 33d

Another reference to the lights at Dukes Avenue.  A traffic survey done by Hounslow showed that 95% of vehicles turning into Dukes Ave from CHR were rat-running through the area, mainly as a short cut to the A4, and also to Sutton Court Rd, avoiding the lights at Heathfield Terrace.If the rat-running was prevented through some strategically placed barriers and other traffic restrictions, the volume of traffic using the junction would likely be reduced to the extent that traffic lights at the junction would not be needed.  Dukes Avenue would be like all the other residential streets off Chiswick High Rd that don't have traffic lights because traffic using the street is for access only, and there isn't the volume of traffic created by rat runners using a through route.The traffic lights at Dukes Ave are another example of inconvenience for pedestrians and cyclists for the convenience of drivers.

Michael Robinson ● 33d

Cyclists should obey the road laws, just as other road users should.Police should deal with people who disobey road traffic laws - it should not matter whether it is car drivers or cyclists.I have to admit that as both a cyclist and a pedestrian I had not realised that there was a big problem with people cycling on the pavement on CHR.  I do see it regularly but the cyclists are almost all going slowly and being sensible.There is a major problem with cyclists considering red lights to be an inconvenience which should be ignored.  The Duke's Avenue lights being a particular problem on my route.Increasingly I am noticing a problem with cyclists going the wrong way down Town Hall Avenue.  This is very dangerous, both for pedestrians who are looking the other way for the legal traffic and for the cyclists because when an E3 bus turns left into Town Hall Avenue there is no room for the cyclist if cars are parked up.  A serious injury to a cyclist is almost inevitable and it will be 100% the fault of the cyclist

Justin Stephenson ● 33d

Not sure criticism of St John of Todd is allowed on this forum.  I don't really blame him or other cyclists skipping the odd red light - some of the phases are interminable. Delivery riders almost never seem to stop - apart from the Ocado ones. PCSO Randles would be off with work related stress in a couple of days if they went zero tolerance on red light jumping.

Francis Rowe ● 34d

>And yes,from time to time I see adults cycling on the pavement of all ages.For some balance.I was riding east along Wellesley Road the other day, behind a few drivers, there was a rubbish truck heading west which had paused.Every single driver,  mounted two wheels on the pavement and drove for a good 100 meters along it, pedestrians had to step aside, this was also done at speed as I guess they didn't want to get spotted so though they would do it as quick as posslble.You'll see the same in other places, bottonm of the A4 if drivers think they can get left by mounting the pavement, and in several places in central london.And we all see the damage cause to on pavemnt stuff by cars.

Paul James ● 34d

The police will have put the issue out as they seea problem from time to time and notput out to stop cyclists because someonehas made a complaint. I also very doubt the PCSO is standing aroundwaiting for a cyclist. The policeare just making it more in the publicdomain that if you cycle on the pavement youwill be stopped if seen by a policeofficer.The PCSO in question is named as it'shis patch to patrol. But does not mean he is always going to be on CHR and notPurposely patroling for law breaking cyclists.Do adults cycle on the pavement ?Along with delivery drivers yes,they sometimes do.And yes,from time to time I see adults cyclingon the pavement of all ages.So if you read or are told about this then you need to take it onboard you could be stopped andgiven a fixed penalty notice.

Julian Pavey ● 34d

That is a question for his councillor colleagues. You could ask them if they have requested police to apply discretion and ignore anyone who looks as if they care where they were going or if they want 'zero tolerance' (even for retired Conservative councillors)I'm assuming such matters are discussed in the ward police forums and assume these are attended by the wards cllrs.

Michael Robinson ● 34d

But was he also head down and racing without looking or caring where he was going?

Philippa Bond ● 34d

"..especially when they are cycling up from behind and overtake people who can't see or hear them approaching"Didn't it used to be compulsory for cyclists to have a bell or other warning device fitted ? I tried cycling up CHR westbound on Saturday using the cycle lane and stopped at a number of crossings where the signs clearly showed a red cycle light, only to watch various delivery cyclists and the like sail straight past. A crackdown on those who ignore red lights and do not have or use a bell would be a better idea to start with than going after pavement cyclists.

Richard Greenhough ● 34d

>Yep, self entitled morons!All of them?

Paul James ● 34d

If the police had a target for pulling over cyclists who didn't stop at red lights, all they needed to do was follow Cllr John Todd.Over the years I've seen him many times on his bike along Chiswick High Rd and I don't think I've ever seen him stop at a red light.

Michael Robinson ● 34d

I spoke to a guy that was cycling on the pavement next to the cycle lane asking him why he was not using it.He said that he was scared too because of the heavy delivery bikes, boy racers and illegal high speed electric jobs bombing past him.I think he has a point and the police could better spend their time confiscating the illegals and having a word with the excessive speed merchants.

Adrian Irving ● 34d

“ I caught his eye and assumed he would slow but he accelerated directly at me meaning I needed to jump back to avoid being hit.”Yep, self entitled morons!

Steve Taylor ● 34d

I agree that there isn't a serious issue with pavement cycling in Chiswick and I walk down the High Road nearly every day. Close to half of cyclists do ignore red lights but that doesn't really bother me either as long as they are not crossing a pedestrian phase - it is at their own risk but PCSO Randles might be better employed standing by the Dukes Avenue junction where I've seen cyclists nearly being taken out by vehicles turning left on more than one occasion.He also should position himself near the bus island crossing by the Eye Studio. Many cyclists ignore it and it is safest to assume they will. Last week I was just stepping onto it and saw a cyclist approaching about 15 yards away, I caught his eye and assumed he would slow but he accelerated directly at me meaning I needed to jump back to avoid being hit.

Anita Blake ● 34d

These cyclists on the pavement - are they in the room with you right now?I walked from one Sainsburys to the other in Chiswick at the weekend because I'd gone to the wrong one for a click and collect. I didn't see a single cyclist on the pavement and I rarely do on other occasions. I did see two fairly sketchy interactions which possibly could have been drug deals. Steve doesn't live in Chiswick and, even if he does occasionally leave his facility, I doubt he rarely comes here so he can talk about facts relating to the area.

Mark Evans ● 34d

No need for the media to portray London as being infested with irresponsible cyclists riding on pavements though, because it’s a fact. I’m always surprised at the fairly large proportion of them being complete morons when they cycle within inches of shopfronts with absolutely no thought about the fact that they could run down any unsuspecting person exiting a shop. The number of e-bikes SPEEDING on pavements has increased radically over the last few months too. It’s a serious problem so it is gratifying to know that the police are finally addressing this serious crime.

Steve Taylor ● 34d

I think it is positive news that shoplifting and personal crime has obviously dropped to such a low level that police have nothing better to do than walk along Chiswick High Rd looking for people cycling on the pavement.The right wing media that like to portray London as a crime-infested hellhole will be very disappointed.

Michael Robinson ● 34d

There are people who cycle way too fast on pavements and through parks and far too close to pedestrians - especially when they are cycling up from behind and overtake people who can't see or hear them approaching.  The youngsters in Oxford have far better manners and know how to cycle slowly, know what the 'no cycling' sign looks like and also manage to walk their bikes when the signs say 'no cycling' or they are on a pedestrian only pavement.  I suppose it has only taken hundreds of years to learn.

Philippa Bond ● 34d

Yes, those on cargo bikes with children do exude a sense of self entitlement!

Steve Taylor ● 34d

Well, yesterday as I was walking on the pavement from the west towards Sainsburys, a lady on a cargo bike with child in front came out of the narrow bit of pavement between the stalls and the coffee shop such that I had to jump aside. Good job I