Forum Topic

Concerns about traffic restrictions to Weltje Road are hypocritical

Regarding the recent article on the proposed  Weltje Road traffic restrictions, having lived on the road for 32 years and recently moved to Chiswick  (to a road where A4 access is blocked)  I find the complaints about potential traffic displacement somewhat hypocritical.It is true that Weltje Road has been treated as a 3,500-vehicle-a-day rat run, gridlocked and choking on fumes for 50 years as the ONLY small residential road open to the A4 fron Hogarth Roundabout to Hammersmith Broadway, as your article rightly points out. Yet, I don’t see any of the Chiswick residents crying foul about "traffic displacement" volunteering to open up their own quiet, residential streets that have blocked access to the A4 to share the burden.  It seems they are perfectly happy to leave Weltje Road residents carrying the entire burden at the expense of their health and safety, just so their own roads stay quiet. LBHF’s scheme is a fair and proportionate solution to a dangerous and deeply unfair situation.

Maria DaCunha ● 3d39 Comments

Numbers of cyclist collisions on CHR and in fact all road users are at the lowest level for at least 15 years. Given the large increase in numbers of people cycling there is no question about the reduced risk of collision.I think there is a difference between slowing/stopping if you suspect a vehicle hasn't seen you or you think they simply may not stop vs. stopping to allow a vehicle already stopped to cross the cycle lane, so voluntarily ceding priority to the vehicle.The latter scenario can create problems for other cyclists behind or the driver who assumes everyone else will stop too.The  same thing can happen if a driver stops and waves pedestrians/cyclists across a road.  That doesn't mean a driver in another lane has seen the pedestrians/cyclists and will stop.

Michael Robinson ● 13h

I'm very surprised you are defending rubbish driving here.Highway code:Rule 182Use your mirrors and give a left-turn signal well before you turn left. Do not overtake just before you turn left and watch out for traffic coming up on your left before you make the turn, especially if driving a large vehicle. Cyclists, motorcyclists and other road users in particular may be hidden from your view.When turningkeep as close to the left as is safe and practicablegive way to any vehicles using a bus lane, cycle lane, cycle track or tramway from either direction, including when they are passing slow moving or stationary vehicles on either side.

Paul James ● 13h

>Being hit by a left turning vehicle is one of highest causes of fatalities and injuries to cyclists.There you go.And it's silly advice and wrongly assumed priority like "edging closer to the kerb to stop them coming up on your inside despite you signalling left, etc." that persists this ridulculous state of affairs.

Paul James ● 14h

Perhaps people have been following your advice and this explains the persistence of collisions at junctions on C9. Being hit by a left turning vehicle is one of highest causes of fatalities and injuries to cyclists. If you want to gamble that a motorist has a) seen you and b) is aware of the Highway Code then I hope you carry an organ donor card but please don't advise others to do likewise.I'll repeat - whether I am in a car or on a bike, if allowing a vehicle indicating to turn left ahead of me I would allow them to pass if this only meant a momentary delay. Your detailed knowledge of the Highway Code and keenness to share it with other users only puts you at greater risk and makes you more liable to experience conflict on the road.

Mark Evans ● 14h

>If you want to insist on priority in all circumstancesPeople on bikes DO have priority ni this cirecumstance.>I give way in such circumstancesI see some people on bikes doing this on CS9. I tell them people turning across the cycle track will never learn if they let them turn in on them in contravention of the highway code.

Paul James ● 14h

Not necessarily. If they haven't seen you it would be neglectful rather than aggressive but even if it was that latter why get into a conflict that physics dictates you are going to come out worse from?If you want to insist on priority in all circumstances then you make cycling a much more risky mode of travel. I give way in such circumstances not just because it is safer but because it is good road etiquette, you might be delayed a fraction of a second but you make a potentially stressful manoeuvre easier for a fellow road user. I'd do the same if I was in a car.  There are times when it is good practice for a cyclist to insist on priority e.g. when a vehicle is approaching you on a narrow road way, but this is not one of them.

Mark Evans ● 1d

Priority,  not right of way, s right of way is s footpath over land.You don't think s driver blocking then turning across somebody on a bike is being aggressive?

Paul James ● 1d

Aggressively enforcing your right of way may be strictly speaking in accord with the Highway Code but is a dangerous way to travel on a bike. If a vehicle outside me signals left and I can see their rear indicator I let them turn as I can't be 100% sure they have seen me. I would do the same if I was in a car on the inside lane of a vehicle turning left.

Mark Evans ● 1d

C9 was fully upgraded in January 2023 so it is entirely appropriate to compare casualty figures in 2023 and subsequent years to the casualties prior to this.As I mentioned, there is vanishingly small probability that reduced cyclist casualties since C9 was complete is just 'luck'.  Additionally, it isn't just cyclist casualties are down, *all* road user casualties along CHR are at the lowest level for at least 15 years.  This is consistent with many other places where cycle lanes have been implemented - it improves the safety for other road users because it reduces the exposure to by far the biggest danger which is motor vehicles.You aren't correct that prior to C9 the biggest risk at Dukes Ave was from right turning vehicles.  As I have mentioned, 70% of vehicles turning from CHR into Dukes were turning left so this was the biggest risk and contributed to the most collisions.Another Francis Rowe "appears to me" is completely wrong if you think C9 on CHR is busier than the stretch out to King Street.  Actual counts in 2025 showed that C9 between Weltje and Rivercourt had 19% more cyclists than C9 at the junction of CHR/Thornton Avenue.Given your track record of your opinions being wrong, your 'hazard a guess' of the number of people going through red lights isn't even worth commenting on.  If you actually went there for several hours at peak times and recorded numbers using a pen and paper or a phone app then I might believe you but of course you won't.

Michael Robinson ● 1d

Blocking the path of another road use like this could also get you points on your licence

Paul James ● 1d

>edging closer to the kerb to stop them coming up on your inside despite you signalling left, etc.You do not get to perform a manouvre/ get priority just because you are signalling.Read your highway code please

Paul James ● 1d

"If you believe it is 'dumb luck' there haven't been more casualties at Dukes Ave, it is possible to calculate the probability of the 2023 and 2024 casualty figures along CHR occurring by chance based upon the previous 15 years of data"Not really. The current configuration has only been in place since the introduction of C9. The principle concern would be against flow cyclists being hit by vehicles turning right into  Dukes Avenue."Before C9 was implemented at Dukes Ave and at Weltje now, it isn't as if the people being injured were risking an illegal manoeuvre, they were just cycling along and were hit by the driver of a car who didn't look properly while turning into a side road"While I accept that the most obvious explanation for a collision at one of the junctions with cycleway 9 is a lack of care by the driver of a motor vehicle, without the full report we can't automatically conclude this was the case every time. For instance I did witness one minor collision on this stretch in which the vehicle was stationary across the cycleway and was hit by a bike whose rider simply hadn't noticed it.Of the seven serious injuries that are recorded here over the last couple of years only four involved a car. You might expect the ratio for slight injuries to be even lower."So even if some people go through red lights, this will still be a lot safer than a junction with large numbers of uncontrolled vehicle movements where lots of people are cycling."I'm going to hazard a guess at a third ignoring lights at Dukes Avenue so we are talking large numbers here. Also, the central section of Cycleway 9 in Chiswick appears to me far  busier than the stretch out to King Street. While there are probably more cyclists legitimately crossing the Weltje Road junction than those that ignore the lights at Dukes Avenue - the difference may not be that big.

Francis Rowe ● 1d

In the old days, there were sensible driving techniques to avoid knocking over a cyclist when you were turning left, such as seeing them in your mirror, edging closer to the kerb to stop them coming up on your inside despite you signalling left, etc.  And a cyclist seeing the car in front slowing and signalling to turn left could easily pull out and overtake it.Now there's nothing to stop cyclists coming up on your inside on the cycle track ignoring your signalling, and they aren't so easy to see in your mirror, and they can't move out to overtake you as they're trapped in the cycle lane.  Plus a left-turning vehicle now has to look out for cyclists coming the other way as well on the wrong side of the road!

Peter Evans ● 2d

I am just speculating about westbound drivers turning left on Weltje coming from the A40 but I can't think of many other sources, particularly given these drivers make up the majority of Weltje traffic. If you believe it is 'dumb luck' there haven't been more casualties at Dukes Ave, it is possible to calculate the probability of the 2023 and 2024 casualty figures along CHR occurring by chance based upon the previous 15 years of data.  It is about 2000 to 1.  If the 2025 casualty numbers are similar to 2023 and 2024 (and the provisional 2025 figures are), then the probability of chance is about 100,000 to 1. In other words, it is increasingly unlikely the reduced casualties on CHR since 2023 have occurred by luck.Before C9 was implemented at Dukes Ave and at Weltje now, it isn't as if the people being injured were risking an illegal manoeuvre, they were just cycling along and were hit by the driver of a car who didn't look properly while turning into a side road.So even if some people go through red lights, this will still be a lot safer than a junction with large numbers of uncontrolled vehicle movements where lots of people are cycling.

Michael Robinson ● 2d

Agree about the importance of slight collisions. Given that serious accidents are so rare they are probably a better guide to the likelihood of serious accidents at a junction. All of the junctions from Upham Park Road to Weltje Road have had their fair share.I'm sceptical of your speculation that traffic from the A40 will end up using Weltje Road. It's been a long time since I would have done a journey like that but, pre-SatNav I would have stayed on the Westway then taken the West Cross Route down Holland Road to join the A4. There are multiple other options including the M25, the North Circular. If drivers were using Weltje Road, this would have to be mainly SatNav related and I fear that Dukes Avenue will show up as being the fastest route. I don't think that they will go to the Gyratory which, even if it is quick, is a really unpleasant place to drive.You are probably right that, even if traffic planners go and see for themselves the inherently risky behaviour of many people crossing the Dukes Avenue junction, it can't really enter into their thinking because it hasn't translated into a noticeably high collision rate. My own view remains this is dumb luck and I fear that there might eventually turn out to be data which confirms the junction is dangerous.

Francis Rowe ● 2d

Sorry, Michael, Mr. Lesniak travels this cycleway several times a day. Some on bike. Some driving adjacent conducting daily business.Now then, it appears you are not familiar with the raised carriageway at Weltje. Twice painted with the requisite yield symbols. It's a doozie as people often scrape the undercarriage given the gradient, etc. Parents love to pull up on it, stop, let the kids out, block all manner of traffic and then move toward the A4.Now then, it appears you are not familiar with the signal between Rivercourt and Weltje. As long as remodeling is on the table, why not simply remodel this entire trio of crossings? Why not move the signal to Weltje? Why not redirect pedestrians to a newly positioned signaled crossing? The most recent iteration at Rivercourt is a joke in terms of safety. It puts kids on bikes in the path of oncoming buses with nary a barrier in sight. Is this what you campaigned for?

David Lesniak ● 2d

Sorry, I should have written "About ~1500 vehicles coming from the east"

Michael Robinson ● 2d

Some comments on this Francis.- I think it is a mistake to ignore slight collisions.  The difference between slight and serious may only be chance and the number of slight collisions is a 'canary' showing issues at a location.- FYI the location of 'dots' showing collisions on maps like TfL dashboard won't be accurate to the metre, probably more like +/- 10m.  The full collision report has more detail on the movements of people/vehicles involved in the collision but this isn't available to the public.- "would closing access on Weltje Road transfer risk to Dukes Avenue?" Highly unlikely. Firstly, from surveys done in 2019, the majority of vehicles using Weltje were coming from the east, not west.  I will speculate this may be traffic coming into London on the A40 then coming off at Old Oak Rd, then Askew Rd, Paddenswick Rd, Dalling Rd, right onto King St, left onto Weltje for the A4 because this saves queuing at the gyratory. Rather than driving away from the gyratory, these drivers can suck it up and use the gyratory. Secondly, you refer to "transfer risk" but the risk at a junction with no controls over vehicles crossing the cycle lane simply isn't the same as a signal controlled junction.  It is nowhere near the same.  An argument of 'it is a bad idea to have more traffic using a junction because people jumping red lights might be in collisions' will not be one considered by highway authorities.- The changes will be implemented using an Experimental Traffic Order (not an Emergency Traffic Order) which can be in place for up to 18 months before a decision to remove or make permanent.  This was done for Rivercourt and the change became permanent in March.  It is quite right to implement the change using an Experimental traffic order because it is impossible to predict how traffic will react to a change over a wider area and in the grander scheme of things, the impacted traffic is really quite small.  About ~1500 vehicles coming from the west, about ~1200 coming from the west.  We are seeing the local Conservatives and some locals predicting doom if the changes are made but they always do this and they are always wrong.

Michael Robinson ● 2d

I had a look at the collision data in detail and can confirm what Michael says is not inaccurate.There have been three collisions involving cyclists resulting in serious injury in the vicinity Weltje Road recorded in 2024 and 2025. One of these, that took place on 05/02/2024 is shown as being a short distance away from the junction with King Street.During the same period there were another four collisions resulting in serious injury along the stretch of Cycleway 9 running between the commercial centres of Hammersmith and Fulham. The Weltje Road junction has been the scene of more serious collisions but there have been two rather than one seen at other junctions.Even if you were to include the third collision slightly further away you would be hard pressed to conclude firmly that this proved that Weltje Road was more dangerous based on the last two years. However, given that it had a spike in serious collisions after the introduction of the cycleway – there is a long term pattern here. Perplexingly these early collisions no longer appear in the data – perhaps they were downgraded following investigation.At the same time, it is also accurate to say that the centre of Chiswick has had remarkably few cyclist injuries in recent years including at the Dukes Avenue junction. While I have observed close calls at this junction on multiple occasions, people appear to have got lucky or perhaps drivers are adjusting behaviour to account for people doing something silly.The question is, would closing access on Weltje Road transfer risk to Dukes Avenue? The data that we have suggests that the former is the more inherently risky but is that just because of the number of vehicle crossings rather than anything inherent in design. It would be wrong to be complacent about the extra traffic generated by the change – in the age of Sat Nav the quickest rather than the shortest route will be chosen and, even for vehicles approaching from the north, Dukes Avenue will be the selected route rather than Chiswick Lane or Sutton Court Road.I don’t know the answer but I am pretty confident that neither LBHF or LBH do either. By using an emergency order, the need to consider these questions has been bypassed and it is an essentially a trial the success or failure of which will be determined by the number of cyclists seriously hurt at the Dukes Avenue junction. Personally I think there haven’t been injuries here due to dumb luck but the chances are about to rise significantly.Collision ID 1240494331 summary: On 05/02/2024 there was a serious collision at 10:40 at On King Street, Near The Junction With Weltje Road ... The collision involved a pedal cycle and a car, resulting in 1 seriously injured cyclist.  (The map data shows this occurring away from the junction not on it)Collision ID 1240503799 summary: On 07/04/2024 there was a serious collision at 22:09 at On King Street W6, Near The Junction With Ravenscourt Park W6. The collision involved a pedal cycle and a motorcycle, resulting in 1 seriously injured motorcyclist. Collision ID 1240509870 summary: On 11/05/2024 there was a serious collision at 14:45 at On King Street, Near The Junction With Weltje Road. The collision involved a pedal cycle and a car, resulting in 1 seriously injured cyclist. Collision ID 1250573664 summary: On 08/05/2025 there was a serious collision at 08:23 at On Chiswick High Road, 50 Metres West Of The Junction With Netheravon Road. The collision involved a pedal cycle and a motorcycle, resulting in 1 seriously injured cyclist. Collision ID 1250584783 summary: On 04/07/2025 there was a very serious collision at 19:00 at On King Street, Near The Junction With Black Lion Lane N.. The collision involved 2 pedal cycles, resulting in 1 slightly injured cyclist and 1 very seriously injured cyclist. Collision ID 1250585079 summary: On 06/07/2025 there was a moderately serious collision at 13:50 at On A315, Near The Junction With Weltje Road.. The collision involved a pedal cycle and a car, resulting in 1 moderately seriously injured cyclist. Collision ID 1250608776 summary: On 11/11/2025 there was a less serious collision at 11:25 at On Chiswick High Road, 21 Metres Junction With Homefield Road. The collision involved a pedal cycle and a car, resulting in 1 less seriously injured cyclist.

Francis Rowe ● 2d

I find the sympathies and  focus on the residents of Weltje road a bit strange... it always has been a street that people live on that is clearly an access route to the M4. Used to work  with a bloke who lived there in late 90's and when I asked why,  as the the traffic was bad ( at peak times ) he said " Because its cheap and gets quick access to the M4". Im not sure anything has changedReality is if Hammersmith/Hunslow and the National Highways had any gumption they would put a direct access road at the end of Chiswick lane onto the  M4 eastbound and lop off a scrubby corner of homefields park - which no-one ever uses - the existing loop under the bridge is not fit for anyone's purpose

Tim Garfoot ● 2d

Just to add to the point about likely impact of closing Weltje on other roads, I have 2019 traffic surveys done at all junctions along the C9 route.The proportion of eastbound/right turn to westbound/left turn into Weltje was 44% and 56% respectively.If traffic patterns haven't changed, then the majority of traffic using Weltje was coming from east of Weltje, not west.  That's why I think a lot of this traffic will be coming from the north.  The impact on Dukes Ave a mile away is likely to be minimal.In 2019 the proportion of traffic entering Dukes Ave from CHR was 30% eastbound/right turn and 70% westbound/left turn.

Michael Robinson ● 3d

It's kinda interesting that some people's suggestions to improve safety have been "paint" and "look out" while in reality, the biggest improvements in safety are from removing or reducing the cause of the danger in the first place - motor vehicles.It illustrates the dual standards involved with safety in working environment and safety in the roads.  If there was a dangerous machine in a factory then an approach of putting some paint on the floor and asking people to look out wouldn't be acceptable but on the roads, it is the first thing some people suggest.  So they start with the least effective measures rather than the most effective.

Michael Robinson ● 3d

Francis, I don't have stats readily to hand for cyclist casualties at Dukes Ave prior to C9 but the number of cyclist casualties caused by west bound drivers turning left from CHR into Dukes Ave was significant.  This is a classic "left hook" collision.  Closure of Fiahers Lane also improved safety as it reduced the number of drivers slaloming across CHR to turn left into Dukes Ave.Even if C9 was 'with flow' direction the number of vehicles crossing the lane at Weltje is far in excess of government guidelines for safety.I certainly wouldn't rely on collisions being reported in the media to assess the level of safety.  Only a small number are ever reported and it is purely by chance if they are, such as someone takes a photo or the entire road is closed.I don't there will be much impact on Dukes Avenue.  My guess is a lot of traffic using Weltje is coming off the A40 at Old Oak Rd then heading down Askew Rd and using Weltje to get onto the A4 in order to avoid Hammersmith gyratory.LBHF has said over 90% of vehicles using Weltje are from outside H&F so it looks like they do have ANPR information on driver registration.  Maybe they would release anonymised information for a FOI if anyone was interested enough to pursue this (not me).

Michael Robinson ● 3d

At least with Netheravon, Airedale or Beverley, the road closures were actual closures, with built-up kerbs, bollards, and even a hedge across the road. Everyone knew what the deal was - the road was closed!  Now we have all kinds of confusing and some would say intentionally misleading arrangements where road 'closures' remain apparently open to traffic, but with cameras clocking up money-making infringements. As for the accidents at the cycle track end of Weltje, if they became worse after the cycle track was installed, that suggests the problem is with the cycle track and not with the previously safe road.

Peter Evans ● 3d

As it happens I walked past this junction this morning and took a moment to watch for a few minutes.As a motorcyclist I was trained ALWAYS to look back over your shoulder when making certain manoeuvres to ensure safety.What stuck me this morning was not one cyclist did this. Not one. All sailed through  as though the junction didn't exist.Motorists coming from Chiswick have a clear view of C9 before turning into Weltje Rd  however approaching from  Hammersmith a driver needs to be aware of cyclists approaching from behind who may be tricky to see or in a possible blind spot. The same applies to most turning where C9 is immediately adjacent to traffic.What I am saying is all users, drivers and cyclists, need to pay extra attention at these junctions if they don't want to end up as a statistic.

Adrian Irving ● 3d

I made an error earlier saying that the risk to cyclists at the Dukes Avenue junction came from eastbound motorists turning left - that of course should have been right.I'm sad to learn that the number of serious injuries to cyclists at Weltje Road has continued. People did warn that this was a risk with bi-directional cycle routes. Hopefully the fact that the collisions after 2023 weren't reported in local media is an indication at they were at the lower level of serious. The numbers are still too low to say with any confidence that the Weltje Road junction is considerably more dangerous than the Dukes Avenue one.My guess would be that a disproportionate amount of traffic looking to get onto the A4 and needing an alternative to Weltje Road will choose Dukes Avenue. Both Chiswick Lane (Hogarth Roundabout) and Sutton Court Lane will involve substantial waits at lights. The risk here is that you are simply transferring the problem from on junction to another.

Francis Rowe ● 3d

😁😯 Maybe he has 44 signatures from pupils

Julian Pavey ● 3d

Mark, a different paint scheme and rumble strips by junctions and island bus stops was one of my suggestions to the original consultation so I agree more could have been done.

Adrian Irving ● 3d

They narrowed Weltje Rd itself but the collisions happen on the cycle lane before entering Weltje Rd.  Narrowing Weltje Rd is good for pedestrians walking along King Street but does nothing to stop vehicles hitting cyclists cycling by Weltje.The casualty figures show there was no improvement with 5 cyclist casualties (2 serious) in 2024 and 4 cyclist casualties (2 serious) in 2025 provisional data.  3 months of 2026 provisional data also show 2 cyclist casualties at Weltje.The "safety in numbers" point doesn't explain why the casualty rate at Weltje is so much more than any other junction along the route and this is because the volume of motor traffic crossing the cycle lane at Weltje is so much more than any other junction not protected by signals. The data on collisions is from police reports and the summary information is all publicly available so it is blatantly obvious the number of collisions at Weltje is considerably higher than everywhere else. The volume of traffic was known for Weltje and every other junction on the route before there was a single metre of cycle lane built and I can't explain why LBHF did nothing while Hounslow put in signals or restricted traffic at the high traffic junctions in their borough.

Michael Robinson ● 3d

LBHF did remodel the Weltje Road junction after the initial spate of injuries.https://www.chiswickw4.com/default.asp?section=info&page=cyclehighway090.htmAlthough more could have been done including a different paint scheme at the junction, as far as I am aware there haven't been any serious collisions here since this work was done (although Michael suggests there was one in 2024). My own view is that the bigger contribution to safety here has been the sharp increase in usage of the Cycleway particular by dockless hire bikes, e-bikes and delivery riders compared with 2023. Safety in numbers.If there has been a continuing record of injuries at the junction, LBHF should be publishing the data it has on this to avoid the same accusations that TfL faced when it released spurious safety statistics to justify the A4 widening scheme by Hogarth Roundabout.

Mark Evans ● 3d

I assume that Mr Lesniak hasn't noticed there are signal controls at the junction of Chiswick Lane and Cycleway 9 and just ploughs through whatever colour the lights are.On the Hounslow section of C9, where there were junctions that exceeded guidelines for volumes of vehicles crossing the cycle lane, Hounslow have either added signal controls (like Chiswick Lane, Dukes Ave) or fully or partially closed the junction to motor traffic (like Wellesley Rd, Stile Hall Gardens).  So all the remaining junctions meet guidelines.  Additionally, work has been done to remodel junctions such as tightening turning radius and raised carriageways to slow vehicles down.  Something else LBHF has failed to do at Weltje.

Michael Robinson ● 3d

Just a teensy, weensy snafu with your logic, Michael (color me shocked).Given Chiswick Lane and Weltje are both on CS9, surely they then both exceed the government guidelines you're so concerned about. Or do cyclists suddenly disappear when they cross the border into Chiswick?Given Weltje traffic will be displaced to Chiswick Lane, crossings there will increase. So a situation in exceedance will now get worse. Surely that makes you livid. What's your solution?

David Lesniak ● 3d

So Adrian, are you claiming that the road network is fixed for perpetuity and no changes can be made, ever? Also residents cannot ever seek to improve their street and should accept whatever is there when they move in?If that were true, then Beverley Rd access to Chiswick Lane wouldn't have been closed off to stop traffic rat-running between CHR and Chiswick Lane.  Can I assume that you are shocked and appalled at this and will be asking for access to be opened up again so Homefields, Airedale etc. are once again short cuts for drivers.  It would be totally hypocritical of you to oppose this.  Even if it meant thousands of vehicles going past your front door.There are government guidelines for volumes of vehicle crossing cycle lanes and LBHF has known since before any cycle lanes were built that Weltje exceeded this.  Perhaps they were just hoping that nothing would happen?In contrast, for the Hounslow section of C9 along CHR which has been properly designed, the number of all casualties are at the lowest level for at least 15 years.

Michael Robinson ● 3d

I rather think you are like folk that move to the country and complain about cocks crowing or people that buy near pubs and moan about disturbance.Weltje Road has provided access long before you moved there and if we are to believe what we are told, air has quality has improved and traffic volume has fallen particularly after the Hammersmith Bridge closure to motor vehicles.Now that you have moved to a road with no access to the A4  can we assume you would agree to "share the burden" as well?As I said from day one the original design of C9 was dangerous and rushed. Frankly I  am amazed and relieved that there haven't been many more serious incidents.

Adrian Irving ● 3d

With respect, Maria, you lived on Weltje Road for 32 years. At what point did you decide you could no longer tolerate the obvious access to the A4? It's a bit like living near a pub and then complaining about the noise. Not to mention for 32 years. So it couldn't have been all that bad.That said, from the article, all people in Hammersmith who haven't registered for "permission" will receive a PCN. So even residents and businesses of W6 will not be able to use their own roads freely, easily, obviously. It's absurd. Now I ask you, Maria, having lived and used roads for 32 years, why would your neighbors of say, St Peter's Square, suddenly think they need permission to use their very own roads?What will parents doing school runs do when they drop off their kids at Latymer or the Free School among others? They will drive from whereever, drop the kids off and what, do a U-turn to get back to Chiswick Lane? Continue on through the one-way system through Hammersmith further clogging that route with those crosswalks and making an even worse mess of Beadon Road?As always, the release valve is removed. Emergency response and the speed of commerce slows again.

David Lesniak ● 3d

... additionally, for 2025 casualties, these figures are still provisional and subject to change, there were 4 cyclist casualties at Weltje, 2 serious.In contrast, 2 cyclist casualties along CHR, 1 serious.  The serious collision on CHR was between a cyclist and a motorcyclist but the summary casualty reports doesn't say if this was an illegal electric motorbike using the cycle lane.  The full casualty reports will be available to local authorities for more detailed analysis of the reasons the casualties occurred.

Michael Robinson ● 3d

Francis,This petition was organised by a Conservative activist called Tim Janman  I am suspicious of the claims that he has signatures from 44 residents of Weltje Rd as that does not align with the level of complaints about traffic that I have heard LBHF are receiving from Weltje Rd residents. Perhaps he has managed to find the residents who altruistically want their street to be used as a through route to the A4 and believe this enhances the ambience and desirability of the street.As usual, "the best of your knowledge" isn't very knowledgeable as there were 3 serious cyclist casualties in 2023 and 2024.  In contrast there were 0 along the 1.2km of C9 on CHR, which has 12 junctions.  There were more collisions of all types at Weltje than all of C9 along CHR. 2025 figures should be released officially in September.Significantly more cyclist collisions happen with vehicles entering a side road from a main road than a side road to a main road.  When entering a side road, drivers frequently swing into the turn at speed while when entering a main road, they are usually stationary or low speed.  As Weltje was a route to the A4, this made the number and severity of collisions even worse.What is the "belated improved junction design" at Weltje?  There have been no changes to the junction there.  The changes to offset the cycle lane away from the junction were done at Rivercourt, not Weltje.I can only speculate about why LBHF have taken so long to do something.  Perhaps they didn't want to do anything because they were scared it would annoy drivers but the number of casualties made it untenable.  Perhaps they were emboldened by the recent election results as Labour did well in LBHF compared to most other areas and the Conservative car-centred policies got nowhere in the polls.With the restrictions at Weltje, all other junctions along C9 will either be signal controlled or the volume of traffic crossing the cycle lane will be within guidance. Dukes Ave will be the only route to the A4 which isn't a street designated on the borough principle road network.

Michael Robinson ● 3d

Maria, if you live on Weltje Road and supported this scheme, you would have every right to condemn people who didn't live there and opposed it. However, most of your neighbours appear not to agree with the plan presumably on the basis that the access restrictions will cause more hassle than the reduction in the number of vehicles going down their road.The timing of this seems odd. After the initial carnage for cyclists at the Weltje Road junction when Cycleway 9 was introduced, to the best of my knowledge there have been no serious injuries at this junction. You can credit that to the belated improved junction design or cyclists and motorist being more aware of the risks but, whatever the reason, the reduction in injuries undermines the safety argument for these changes.Also thought needs to be given to where all these vehicles will now be crossing the cycleway. The main transfer will be to Chiswick Lane and Dukes Avenue junction. Michael has argued in the past that signalisation makes these safer and I would agree in the case of Chiswick Lane which, although disregarding of red lights is endemic, the sight lines are much better. Dukes Avenue on the other hand is clearly highly dangerous - ten minutes observation would make this apparent to anyone. I've not seen a report of a serious accident here but over the last couple of years I've seen several close shaves here. Three times while I have been waiting at the lights on my bike going west an eastbound cyclist has continued on and had to come to an abrupt halt due to an east bound car turning left. Collisions were avoided by centimetres not metres. I'm not sure directing more vehicles to this junction is a good idea.

Francis Rowe ● 3d

If the Chiswick Conservative Cllrs believe that access to the A4 is that important then they should campaign for Netheravon Rd or Airedale Ave to have access to the A4. The reaction from residents on those streets would be interesting to say the least.The other fact being ignored by the Conservatives is that Weltje traffic is being restricted for safety reasons. There have been more cyclist casualties at the single junction at Weltje than 12 junctions on Cycleway 9 along Chiswick High Rd. This is because no other junction on C9 has anywhere near the volume of traffic crossing the cycle lane that Weltje has. This volume of traffic is many times government guidelines for safe cycle route design. It is somewhat shameful than LBHF hasn’t done anything about this known issue for years but at least they are taking action now.

Michael Robinson ● 3d