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 ● 24d129 Comments

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 ● 24d

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 ● 24d

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 ● 24d

... 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 ● 24d

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 ● 24d

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 ● 24d

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 ● 24d

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 ● 24d

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 ● 24d

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 ● 24d

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 ● 24d

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 ● 24d

😁😯 Maybe he has 44 signatures from pupils

Julian Pavey ● 24d

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 ● 24d

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 ● 24d

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 ● 24d

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 ● 24d

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 ● 24d

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 ● 24d

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 ● 23d

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 ● 23d

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 ● 23d

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

Michael Robinson ● 23d

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 ● 23d

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 ● 23d

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 ● 23d

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 ● 23d

"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 ● 22d

>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 ● 22d

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

Paul James ● 22d

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 ● 22d

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 ● 22d

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 ● 22d

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 ● 22d

>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 ● 21d

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 ● 21d

>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 ● 21d

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 ● 21d

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 ● 21d

Visitors to this site will no doubt have seen the front page story about the petition regarding the Weltje Road plan. If not, the link is here - only takes seconds to fill in, and it could prevent a whole heap of misery for those of us who use this route on a regular basis. Remember the majority of those living on Weltje Road are against the proposed changes, and for those who aren't, maybe spare a thought for those living on Chiswick Lane, who already have to put up with queuing traffic and congestion every day. Displacing traffic is not the answer. https://www.hounslowconservatives.uk/weltje-road

Mark Edwards ● 18d

Seems to me the environmental impact of, say, 1/4 of a data center will wipe out any potential gain from a measure such as this.Increasingly LTNs seem pointless. Worse, clueless.LBHF will also shunt the traffic to its own already over burdened one way system. So it shoots itself in the foot which seems an odd choice.

David Lesniak ● 18d

>...and it could prevent a whole heap of misery for those of us who use this route on a regular basis.I, along with many others travel past Weltje Road on a regular basis and the change will vastly improve the junction for us.It doesn't go far enough mind you, the road should be blocked off to motor vehicles at A4 end of it, as has been done on other streets like it.

Paul James ● 18d

>LBHF will also shunt the traffic to its own already over burdened one way system. So it shoots itself in the foot which seems an odd choice.Restricting through motor traffic from unclassified roads is not a zero sum game.

Paul James ● 18d

The Chiswick Conservative's petition will be completely ignored by LBHF.  It is purely performative and its main purpose is to gather email addresses for the Conservative's mailing list.If the Conservatives are that concerned about traffic on Chiswick Lane they could propose opening up Airedale or Homefields as a route to the A4 but of course they won't do that.

Michael Robinson ● 18d

"Remember the majority of those living on Weltje Road are against the proposed changes"Not at all surprised that some people living there would be opposed, but how do you know it to be true that the majority of those living on Weltje Road are opposed?There was a petition or similar where 44 residents in Weltje Road said they opposed the change, but how many residents are there in Weltje Road? Property numbers go from 1-64, but most (all?) of those will have more than 1 resident per property, and some properties will be split into multiple flats I'd guess. And, if it was found a majority of residents were in fact supportive of the changes would you support the changes? I suspect the answer might be that you wouldn't.

Andrew Jones ● 18d

Mark, on re-reading my last assumption about you comes across as a little aggressive, my apologies, as far as I'm concerned you speak a lot of sense on many topics.I do genuinely wonder whether it is indeed true that the majority of residents on Weltje Road are opposed to the changes - if they are, then LBHF should look at other ways of improving the safety of the junction at the Kings Street end.

Andrew Jones ● 18d

I'm sceptical about the claim of "44 residents on Weltje Rd" as I've heard there have been a lot of complaints from Weltje Rd residents to LBHF about the traffic along the road.There are certainly 44 people who have signed the petition because it is listed on LBHF website.  It is now closed so there was hardly a massive response to it.Over 5 times more people signed a petition about a car rental company using parking bays on Ravenscourt Rd and over 30 times more people want a lido in Ravenscourt Park.The Chiswick Conservative's petition will get exactly nowhere with LBHF but I suppose they have got to be seen doing something to the people who are complaining about inconvenience driving, no matter how ineffectual it is.

Michael Robinson ● 18d

If the closure of Weltje Road results in significant traffic moving to use Chiswick Lane, Dukes Avenue or SCR to access the A4, has any modelling been done on how well those roads would cope with extra traffic?Those of us who live on or close to SCR know that it can easily be overwhelmed by traffic which backs up to the Town Hall (or further).  When, as is usually the case, Duke's Avenue is parked up on both sides the traffic can be bad and only works if drivers coming from opposite directions are willing to be sensible rather than anti-social.  As for Chiswick Lane I have always found that to be a dangerous road, not at the junction with SCR, but at the junction where traffic from the A4 flyover bleeds off

Justin Stephenson ● 18d

No, there won’t have been modelling done.  I think you are totally overestimating what traffic modelling can do and it certainly won’t be used tomeasure the impact on roads over a mile away in a different borough.Most traffic using Weltje is coming from the east so those drivers will just need to suck it up and use the gyratory.

Michael Robinson ● 18d

>If the closure of Weltje Road results in significant traffic moving to use Chiswick Lane, Dukes Avenue or SCR to access the A4, has any modelling been done on how well those roads would cope with extra traffic?The old classic....There is no problem, the road is quiet, there isn't an issue with too much motor traffic on it why add restrictions for motor traffic?...... if the road is restricted for motor traffic there will be massive queues of displaced traffic on other roads...

Paul James ● 18d

"If the Conservatives are that concerned about traffic on Chiswick Lane they could propose opening up Airedale or Homefields as a route to the A4 but of course they won't do that." I don't think you have thought that one through.Homefield doesn't end by the A4 so you would have to bulldoze though people's homes and across Homefield Playing Fields to create access.Airedale has a subway at point you suggest and a crossroad half way down to so again a non starter.Netheravon, that you must have forget, also has a subway  and a dual cycle/pedestrian path at the point of access to the A 4.Also, importantly, you haven't taken into account many more cars crossing the cycle lane without traffic lights into the roads you mention thus creating another hazard just like the one in Hammersmith.

Adrian Irving ● 18d

"I think you are totally overestimating what traffic modelling can do"What an incredibly odd thing for you to say, Michael. You're always citing "research" and "modelling" including by Rachel Aldred. Finally, finally, you get it. It's about lived experience and flexibility and easy open access which accommodates contingency in the blink of an eye.As for both you and Paul, you seem to ignore the fact that Weltje is one-way where the other roads you mention are two-way roads. You also have no clue from what direction people approach Weltje. Fact is, they approach it from both east and west. I do so love that Paul wants to seal off Weltje entirely. Making it a two-way street and thus compound the issues at the intersection.

David Lesniak ● 17d

Not everyone is as ignorant of facts as you are, Mr Lesniak.I have traffic survey results done by TfL at every junction on Cycleway 9 from Olympia to Brentford.  This counted vehicles entering and leaving each junction and if the vehicles turned left or right while entering or leaving (or straight on at some junctions).Vehicles only enter at Weltje and 56% of those entering were going westbound and made a left turn while the remainder were going eastbound and made a right turn.So the majority of vehicles using Weltje and turning left had driven straight past the route to the gyratory at Glenthorne Rd. Presumably the driver thought going by Weltje might save them a minute.  As I said, those drivers can just use the gyratory.

Michael Robinson ● 17d

Plenty of room for an exit at the end of Airedale, the subway is hardly a major issue and while they are at it, open up access to Chiswick Lane at Beverley Rd.Yes of course that would increase the numbers crossing the cycle lane at Airedale but the Conservatives don't care about cycle safety, convenience to drivers is the most important thing to them.

Michael Robinson ● 17d

> I do so love that Paul wants to seal off Weltje entirely. Making it a two-way street and thus compound the issues at the intersection.In what way would massively reducing the number of people in or on motor vehicles using this road compound the issues at the junction?Also, have you noticed how people using a shortcut will often do it in a hurry, often resulting in inconsiderate and careless driving?By making it so the only people accessing the street in motor vehicles are going to and from properties on it (mostly residents), this effect s mitigated too.

Paul James ● 17d

It isn't really helpful to simplify the arguments down to parody particularly when you are misrepresenting them. The number of vehicles going along Weltje Road is accepted fact. There are between 2,000-3,000 on a daily basis.The two main questions are, will displacing them make the cycleway safer for cyclists and will the extra traffic cause further congestion on key bus routes. I've expressed my scepticism on the former point earlier in this thread but we'll only know the true situation a year or so after the changes are made. On the issue about extra congestion, there is already a problem with journey times particularly for the 190 and traffic delays have been rising along Chiswick High Road according to the latest data I have seen. What hasn't been presented is any actual evidence that the Rivercourt Road closure has caused any measurable extra traffic or reductions in bus speeds along Chiswick Lane, CHR and King Street. I suspect it hasn't because TfL seems to have withdrawn its objection to the Weltje Road closure.

Francis Rowe ● 17d

>The two main questions are, will displacing them make the cycleway safer for cyclists Again, restricting access to motor vehicles to a road or street is not a zero sum game, see hammersmith bridge for an example of that.And wrapped up in your statement here is something many seem not to get.Making places feel safe to use for people not in cars means more people not in cars, plenty examples of that.

Paul James ● 17d

"Conservatives don't care about cycle safety"Hard evidence to back up this extraordinary claim please.There may or may not be room but what you are advocating is large volumes of extra traffic crossing two uncontrolled cycle/pedestrian paths, over  blind crossroads and destroying a LTN to boot. Something very similar but worst to what you are saying is dangerous in Hammersmith.Perhaps a more balanced response from you Michael should have been;Thanks for pointing out the  obvious pitfalls Adrian, I can now see my idea is ridiculous and doubly dangerous.Heyho.

Adrian Irving ● 17d

Francis,FYI for more precise numbers on Weltje Rd usage, from an April 2023 survey done over 14 days, the maximum was 3300 vehicles, minimum 2200 and average 2700.  This is well in excess of government guidelines of a maximum of 2000 uncontrolled vehicle movements across a cycle lane.  This isn't a 'fixed' maximum as highway authorities assessment may be it should be even lower based upon numbers of cyclists (and surveys show about 4500 average daily cyclists between Weltje and Rivercourt)This survey didn't cover vehicle turning movements but from a previous one that did, as I have mentioned, 56% of vehicles using Weltje were westbound turning left.You claim "TfL seems to have withdrawn its objection to the Weltje Road closure". What objections are those? Can you provide any evidence of TfL objections or are you just making this up?I have heard there have been 'robust' discussions between TfL and LBHF with TfL saying in effect, "Why the f*** aren't you doing anything?" as the casualties at Weltje have mounted up.Restrictions of vehicles using Weltje will be TfL's preferred measures. In theory, a new signal controlled junction could be implemented at Weltje but that would be veto'd by TfL buses because of the additional delay plus it would be less effective than simply substantially reducing the volume of vehicles crossing the cycle lane.  Plus reducing volume of vehicles reduces risk to pedestrians given Weltje is between 2 schools.

Michael Robinson ● 17d

Do your own math, Paul.How would you make it two-way?There have been plenty of near misses at Rivercourt Road when that was converted to two-way.

David Lesniak ● 17d

You're right, Michael, I don't have the inside track on misinformation from TfL.Be that as it may, you say 56% which leaves 46% turning left. So let's just go ahead and - with margin of error and who knows what on the day the survey was "taken" let alone when it was taken - call it a draw.I'm not sure why vehicles turning left would then proceed to the gyratory. Unless you forgot something and need to circle back. Using Weltje would save time. That's a no brainer.Otherwise you force vehicles to the stupid intersection at Studland Street then the bit on Glenthorne nearly all of which is controlled by zebra crossings. Mornings are already difficult when school is in session and the gyratory often backs up on Beadon which backs up on to Glenthorne and so on. Gridlock is a common occurrence. It can take 10 minutes sometimes to get out of the Lyric goods yard up to the gyratory. What's that, 100 meters? If that.

David Lesniak ● 17d

Three schools, Michael. Signalize Weltje. Simple. It would allow cars to pass as opposed to just sitting there idling while the kids run amok crossing King Street often no where near a crossing and/or waiting for cyclists.

David Lesniak ● 17d

... plus, I forgot to mention, do you think the TfL people who manage the major road network actually like vehicles emerging from a minor side road onto a high speed multi lane road?They hate it. As far as possible they want vehicles to use junctions they can manage and control.If TfL was responsible for Weltje, it would have been closed years ago.

Michael Robinson ● 17d

>while the kids run amok crossing King Street often no where near a crossing and/or waiting for cyclists.Simple answer to that, no lights required.

Paul James ● 17d

Michael, my recollection was that very early in the design process of Cycleway 9 it was minuted at a meeting that TfL objected to restrictions Weltje Road. It is likely that you would have been the source of such information, and if so I have clearly misremembered or misunderstood.However, TfL is not a monolith and while some parts of it may have been very much in favour of restrictions, others, particularly those running the buses may not.If parts of TfL were not against this move then it is a mystery why it has not happened until now. I can't believe that it was sloth from LBHF who have been very keen to introduce camera enforced restrictions across their borough having realised that a resident exemption means they are not hugely unpopular but raise lots of money.When there was a spate of very serious collisions at Weltje Road back in 2023, then I don't think too many people would have argued that the restriction was necessary. Instead the decision was made to do Rivercourt Road first, which had seen far fewer collisions.It would be interesting to hear why you think it was done in this way but it looks to me that this was a compromise so that the impact on traffic delays could be assessed before both roads were restricted. There appears to be no evidence that Rivercourt Road had much of an impact and therefore a consensus has been reached that Weltje Road should be closed.

Francis Rowe ● 16d

Dear MichaelFollowing sent to the editor.Dear Madam/Sir,I am unable to access the Forum on your website due to a technical issue, and the same problem is affecting my neighbour, Dr Angela Aramburo, a paediatric consultant. We therefore respond directly to your article dated 23 August 2026.We were extremely surprised to read that Mr Janman claims to have gathered 44 Weltje Road residents opposing an LTN. With respect, who in their right mind would welcome approximately 3,000 cars and lorries passing through their road every single day? Weltje Road has around 80 residents, and we have spoken to the vast majority. They agree that an LTN is not only sensible but urgently needed. We have already provided the Council with names and addresses for verification.Dr Aramburo has made it clear — both to you and to the Council — that the health implications for children exposed to constant vehicle fumes on Weltje Road are severe. There are hundreds of children attending the two schools located directly on this road. Their wellbeing must come before political posturing.We cannot understand why Mr Janman and his Conservative colleagues insist on turning this into a political issue. Are they suggesting that minor delays for their Chiswick supporters outweigh the health of hundreds of children on Weltje Road? Shame on you.As stated in my previous letter of 23 August 2026, traffic redistributes naturally, and responsible motorists choose alternative routes. I understand that Mr Janman and his associates are preparing a petition against an LTN for Weltje Road. Meanwhile, there are rumours that residents are preparing a petition to open one of the Chiswick roads leading to the A4. It appears Mr Janman and his friends may be undermining their own position.In conclusion, for the sake of the children and residents of Weltje Road, politics must stay out of this. Health and safety should come first.Yours faithfully, A. (Nassos) Mouzouropoulos.Weltje Road resident

Athanasios George Mouzouropoulos ● 16d

'This is well in excess of government guidelines of a maximum of 2000 uncontrolled vehicle movements across a cycle lane.'..which suggests that this was not a sensible place to install cycle lanes.

Peter Evans ● 16d

There is another resident requesting restrictions because of the excessive through traffic on Weltje whose contribution has landed near the top of the thread.

Philippa Bond ● 16d

Yes, it is very likely there have been a variety of views expressed by different TfL people over the 10+ years that C9 has been in development.Most recent information I have heard was TfL have been pleading with LBHF to do something as the collisions increased.The implementation of C9 along King St went in as "temporary" infrastructure during Covid.  I can understand that "temporary" implementation won't be ideal but I can only speculate why LBHF have taken so long to upgrade this and why the timing & phasing ended up the way it did.  Documentation published by LBHF in 2023 when they made C9 permanent refers to looking at additional measures at Rivercourt and Weltje but they have taken over 3 years.Maybe they were just hoping that there wouldn't be many collisions.  Maybe they were scared of the reaction of drivers.  Some councils won't do anything they think might be controversial for 6-12 months prior to elections.

Michael Robinson ● 16d

It is the other way around. A residential street with high volumes of rat-running traffic beside a cycle lane should either be signallised or closed.As an example, with Cycleway 9 along the S Circular, Hounslow closed off Wellesley Rd completely and restricted Stile Hall Gdns in one direction in order to eliminate and substantially reduce vehicles crossing the cycle lane.I appreciate that the 'carbrained' may struggle to comprehend this concept, but with the restrictions at Weltje, the safety of cyclists on C9 is being treated as a higher priority than the convenience of drivers using Weltje. For those who claimed the A4 should have been the primary cycle route, all this would do is move the problem from one end of the street to the other.

Michael Robinson ● 16d

Wow, worth repeating as it's easy to miss.Dear Madam/Sir,I am unable to access the Forum on your website due to a technical issue, and the same problem is affecting my neighbour, Dr Angela Aramburo, a paediatric consultant. We therefore respond directly to your article dated 23 August 2026.We were extremely surprised to read that Mr Janman claims to have gathered 44 Weltje Road residents opposing an LTN. With respect, who in their right mind would welcome approximately 3,000 cars and lorries passing through their road every single day? Weltje Road has around 80 residents, and we have spoken to the vast majority. They agree that an LTN is not only sensible but urgently needed. We have already provided the Council with names and addresses for verification.Dr Aramburo has made it clear — both to you and to the Council — that the health implications for children exposed to constant vehicle fumes on Weltje Road are severe. There are hundreds of children attending the two schools located directly on this road. Their wellbeing must come before political posturing.We cannot understand why Mr Janman and his Conservative colleagues insist on turning this into a political issue. Are they suggesting that minor delays for their Chiswick supporters outweigh the health of hundreds of children on Weltje Road? Shame on you.As stated in my previous letter of 23 August 2026, traffic redistributes naturally, and responsible motorists choose alternative routes. I understand that Mr Janman and his associates are preparing a petition against an LTN for Weltje Road. Meanwhile, there are rumours that residents are preparing a petition to open one of the Chiswick roads leading to the A4. It appears Mr Janman and his friends may be undermining their own position.In conclusion, for the sake of the children and residents of Weltje Road, politics must stay out of this. Health and safety should come first.Yours faithfully, A. (Nassos) Mouzouropoulos.Weltje Road resident

Paul James ● 16d

Paul James, Hanwell resident. It’s really got nothing to do with you has it?But you do like to stick your oar in on the cycling echo chambers all the time. Perhaps there would be fewer cycling collisions if riders followed the rules if the road, or even demonstrated that they understand them. No tears shed when one of you gets hurt or injured due to your own stupidity.And of course you are happy for motor vehicles to convey friends, relatives and deliveries to your homes. What a bunch of hypocrites you are.

Simon Hayes ● 16d

A few observations on this letter:It is difficult to know how the views of the residents of Weltje Road break down on this issue but there is clearly support for both sides of the argument. 100% of the residents made the conscious decision to move to the road with the current arrangement in place.For families with children on the road you would presume that they would not have moved there if there were any pre-existing breathing difficulties. The level of traffic on Weltje Road currently is matched by lots of roads in the area with a high number of residential units. If there were to be exceedances in air pollution they would be at the southern end where air quality will already be very poor because of the A4.The argument about the schools appears to be ill-founded. They are on King Street which already has a much higher level of vehicle movements. There are not 'hundreds of children on Weltje Road' who will be helped by this closure.Ultimately, closing this road will only disperse traffic outside other people's homes on roads that already have higher levels of traffic than Weltje Road. It is here where the risk of exceedances is greatest. This 'think about the children' plea is really a 'think about our children but don't worry about others'.On the notion that there are rumours that Chiswick residents are lobbying for a reopening of one of the roads - am I right to conclude this is a total fabrication? If so we probably need to treat some of the other claims in the letter with caution.There is only one good argument for closing Weltje Road and that is the persistent occurrence of serious collisions at the junction involving cyclists. It seems to me overdue that  LBHF are trying to deal with this and entirely sensible to introduce the measure as and experimental one. My concern would be that a council which is suffering under the new Fair Funding arrangements and is desperate for revenue will predetermine the results of what is essentially a trial. If it proves to be the case that the incidence of collisions is merely transferred to other junctions and bus journey times along Chiswick High Road, King Street and Chiswick Lane rise have risen even further, then the restrictions should be removed. This should be made explicit when they are introduced. We have not seen any update on impact of the Rivercourt Road restrictions but the Hammersmith Society for one is claiming that they have slowed our buses further - it would be better if a full study on this issue was published before Weltje Road was closed.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 15d

Where is this road in Chiswick that is blocked off from entering the A4? I can only think of Harvard Hill and that’s blocked for all . Weltje Rd W6 residents will still have access to A4.Once this scheme starts the traffic on King St, Studland St, Glenthorne Rd, will be a nightmare.

Paul Brown ● 15d

Can you explain why you think Studland Street and Glenthorne Road will be negatively affected?

Jeremy Parkinson ● 15d

I presume that if Weltje Road was closed to non LBHF residents, a not insignificant proportion of the regular users would the Studland/Glenthorne route to get to the A4.

Andrew Jones ● 15d

From a previous traffic survey, more than half the vehicles using Weltje Rd are travelling westbound and turning left.These vehicles are likely have driven south along Dalling Rd, then rather than turn left into Glenthorne Rd to the gyratory, instead they are turning right into King St then left into Weltje for the eastbound A4.  Probably because the driver thinks that is a faster route than the gyratory.So with the restrictions at Weltje, these drivers will just need to turn left at Glenthorne to the gyratory rather than drive past it.  I can't see why there would be much impact to Studland.Restrictions of traffic *always* result in predictions of doom, chaos, gridlock, which invariably never happen.  Weltje Rd had a maximum of ~1600 vehicles daily coming from west and east.  That is far too many vehicles to be crossing a cycle lane and far too many vehicles for a narrow residential street, but it isn't very significant for the principal road network in Hounslow and H&F and the streets which are intended to carry higher volumes of traffic.

Michael Robinson ● 15d

Studland would only apply to eastbound vehicles which are less than half of the vehicles currently using Weltje.For the eastbound vehicles it will depend where they are coming from if they use Chiswick Lane for the A4 or continue east along King St for the gyratory.

Michael Robinson ● 15d

Any traffic heading over Hammersmith flyover will now have to go via the roundabout.

Paul Brown ● 15d

Michael, you prove your ignorance yet again.Simply watch what happens with the schools.Kids get dropped off on all sides of the intersection. Then they get collected in the same manner in the afternoon. Many cars pull in to Weltje, stop, let the kids out, then proceed to the A4. These schools attract many kids from outside the area so parents/carers are unlikely to know about the changes. This will then impact any movement on King Street as many are likely to be forced to idle on King, drop the kids, then proceed to the gyratory (via Studland - you know, the street you don't think will be impacted) or to Chiswick Lane. My favorite is when people pull in to drop kids off at Ravenscourt Prep (you know, the school you were ignorant of) and then back out on to King Street to be on their way.As for the letter, I agree with others, you knew this when you moved in. More interesting to me would be why now? If it's about increased traffic, when did that start? Why? Because if you shunt this traffic elsewhere, it's proof positive the evaporation the holy cycle evangelists promise never materializes. And all that happens is a bunch of nimbys pushing traffic off their streets to other streets. So as long as your kids are safe, other kids don't matter.

David Lesniak ● 15d

It is no coincidence that the increase in traffic on Weltje Road follows the closure to through traffic of nearby Rivercourt Road. Some travellers may decide to use alternative forms of transport when roads are closed off but most simply find other routes. One of the key issues here is that although Councils are required to consult with neighbouring councils when changes in road layouts could have cross-boundary impacts, the London Borough of Hounslow (LBH) have not been consulted. LBH Traffic Officers are reportedly not amused at this unprofessional behaviour by their colleagues at LBHF.Incidentally ALL residents of LBHF will continue to be able drive down Weltge Road because LBHF has the technology and chooses to implement it wisely. In LBH only the residents of that Ward can access by car an LTN on the proscribed routes. It is not clear whether this is because LBH does not have the technology, or it enjoys collecting millions of pounds in fines, or because of a fixation on promoting 'active' travel.The issue of children's lungs has already been raised on this thread, and it has already been noted traffic banned from one road simply diverts to another. The air quality problem moves around it is not removed. I would like to add that nearly a quarter of the new vehicles registered in London last year were all electric vehicles and that this proportion is likely to increase. Air quality is improving and will improve regardless of road closures.    Objectors to inserting a two way cycleway along Chiswick High Road / King Street were concerned about the sheer number of junctions with busy side streets that it would cross. It is therefore a "having-your-cake-and-eating-it" argument for members of the cycle lobby to complain that there are "far to many vehicles crossing [the] cycle lane".Also, not to be too insensitive, but it was always intuitively obvious that (even with revised road layouts) if more people were encouraged to cycle on busy London streets that there would be more serious injuries and deaths of cyclists. Hard to accept I know but true. London is not Milton Keynes.

Sam Hearn ● 15d

Sam, you claim:"Objectors to inserting a two way cycleway along Chiswick High Road / King Street were concerned about the sheer number of junctions with busy side streets that it would cross. It is therefore a "having-your-cake-and-eating-it" argument for members of the cycle lobby to complain that there are "far to many vehicles crossing [the] cycle lane".""The cycle lobby" is simply pointing out government guidance contained in Department for Transport Local Transport Note 1/20 "Cycle Infrastructure Design" published 27 July 2020.  The document has a foreword from the then Minster of State, Conservative MP Chris Heaton-Harris.Clearly the cycle lobby is so all-powerful that the last Conservative government was under their thumb as well.The objectors for the cycle lane along Chiswick High Rd didn't appear to understand that the plans had well established methods to ensure safety at junctions.  So at Chiswick Lane, Dukes Avenue for example, there are signals to separate cyclists from turning vehicles.  At Wellesley Rd and Stile Hall Gardens, motor traffic was completely or partially blocked, therefore reducing the volume of traffic crossing the cycle lane to below recommended maximums.All other junctions on C9 along Chiswick High Rd had traffic levels well below recommended maximums so it wasn't necessary to put in signals or reduce traffic volumes crossing the lane.  There were measures to further improve safety like raising the cycle lane above carriageway to slow vehicles.The issue with Weltje is that up to now, LBHF did *nothing*!The contrast between LBHF and Hounslow can be seen in the reduction in collision stats along CHR since C9 was fully completed in Jan 2023. Casualties for all road users in 2023 and 2024 are at the lowest level for at least 15 years.  2025 stats haven't been officially released yet but the provisional data shows no increase from 2023 and 2024. Given the increase in cycling numbers over this time, there really is no doubt about the improvement in safety.Sam is just an example of someone who got everything wrong.  He was wrong when he claimed the cycle lane along CHR would increase pollution, he was wrong about increase in casualties, he was wrong to claim it wouldn't be popular.He will be remembered as someone on the wrong side of history.

Michael Robinson ● 15d

Jeremy, The problem with a position of "you knew what it was like when you moved there" is this is basically saying that residents should never seek to improve their street under any circumstances, ever.  It is saying that the state of a street when someone moves in should exist for perpetuity.That is clearly a bonkers position given the number of changes to streets that have been made as a result of campaigning by residents. I could list dozens in Chiswick alone.I don't have historical data for traffic on Weltje but it is possible that SatNavs have made a difference to the traffic levels and changed it from a route only known to people with local knowledge to drivers being directed there because google thinks they might save a minute.It is also incorrect to state that the only consideration is cyclist safety. There are lots of examples of streets which have been closed or restricted to through traffic and there have been no cycle lanes. Like every street which has been closed off in Chiswick prior to C9.  All of those were to address residents' concerns.If a restriction is wanted by most residents and it improves cyclist safety, then that's a win-win.  OK, it isn't a win for drivers who used the street as a rat-run but they are the lowest priority.FYI the Rivercourt restrictions were made permanent in March.

Michael Robinson ● 15d

If Hammersmith residents are the only folk to have free passage through the Straits of Weltje Road then let's impose a blockade across Chiswick Lane for all except Hounslow residents.Ridiculous?  I agree but not too different to what's proposed by the lovely  people in Hammersmith.

Adrian Irving ● 15d

While I agree with your point in general, I don't think it is credible for someone to buy a home on a road and then demand restrictions on the basis that living there is a threat to the health of their children. I haven't seen any figures showing usage of this road is growing and air quality will be slowly but steadily improving because of reduced emissions from newer motor vehicles. I strongly suspect air quality readings at the north end of the road would show Weltje Road being a bit better than King Street but deteriorating at the south end where much of this could be attributed to the A4. The air quality argument is a zero sum game or worse if traffic flows are diverted to roads where exceedances are more common.The safety of cyclists is the most compelling argument for the restrictions. The views of residents are important but they appear to be diverse and the views of residents of roads that will see extra traffic also need to be considered.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 15d

LBH already fines any LBFH resident who drives into either Hartington Road or Staveley Road from the A316 (Great Chertsey Road), and has blocked access from the A316 into the stretch of Burlington Lane between Chiswick House Grounds and Chiswick School.

Sam Hearn ● 15d

Adrian, London Boroughs are required to define their 'Borough Principal Road Network' which are the roads intended to carry higher volumes of traffic as this is linked to funding from TfL/government for highways.The A316 Chiswick Lane is in LB Hounslow Borough Principal Road Network.On the other hand, Weltje isn't part of LB H&F Borough Principal Road Network.Perhaps you'd like to campaign for Hounslow to remove the A316 Chiswick Lane from the Borough Principal Road Network?That would allow Hounslow to implement traffic restrictions on the A316 Chiswick Lane.  I think they'd also need to apply to re-classify the road so it would no longer be part of the A316.There is nothing stopping you campaigning for this Adrian. Sure, some people will object and say "it was like this when you moved here" , but you don't need to listen to them!Why don't you contact the Chiswick Conservatives and ask them to do a petition?  That will surely work!

Michael Robinson ● 15d

Jeremy, whether you think it is credible or not for residents to complain about the negative impacts of traffic doesn't really matter.  Residents on a street have the advantage of being able to vote for their local councillors, unlike 90% of the drivers along Weltje who according to LBHF, are from outside the borough.Also, the views of residents on other roads may not need to be considered. Boroughs have defined their principal road network which are the roads intended to carry higher volumes of traffic.It may surprise some of the posters on this thread that Weltje isn't part of the LBHF principal road network, to be ranked alongside King St, Goldhawk Rd or Fulham Rd.So people living on a street which is acting as an unofficial relief road or bypass to the principal road network can complain on that basis.People living on a street which is on the principal road network have a much weaker cause for complaint about traffic  because the road is intended to carry higher volumes of traffic.Of course, they can always campaign to remove their street from the principal road network and ignore people like you saying "it was like this when you moved there".

Michael Robinson ● 15d

You haven't grasped what I was saying. I am not claiming that people don't have the right to lobby for improvements in the area in which they live.However statements like "Dr Aramburo has made it clear — both to you and to the Council — that the health implications for children exposed to constant vehicle fumes on Weltje Road are severe" does beg the question why someone with children who believes that to be true would purchase a home in that street. The point I am trying to make is that advancing arguments like this is counterproductive. Of course people in favour of the scheme have every right to advance them but they are unwittingly highlighting some of the arguments against it. The only one that is clear cut is the cyclist casualties so they would be better advised to focus on that rather than opening up debate on issues which aren't necessarily going to help their case.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 15d

As I said Jeremy, what you think doesn't matter.I've seen correspondence from a LBHF Cllr and they say the scheme "responds directly to concerns repeatedly raised by residents, schools and parents about traffic volumes, road safety, air quality and quality of life".So they will be justifying the scheme based upon those factors whether you like it or not.

Michael Robinson ● 15d

Oh dear Michael, you must read and comprehend what I have actually written and respond if you must but don't twist them to suit your purpose.It fools no one but yourself. I clearly said the idea was ridiculous and was written partly with tounge in cheek.Coming back to a couple earlier points.I am still waiting for hard facts to back up  your claim " Conservatives don't care about cycle safety"I can't help but think this was yet another unbalanced outburst based on no more than opinion .Also I was surprised  when you sneered at my post about cyclists crossing Weltje Road without looking.Let me ask you, would you cross on foot a busy junction without looking?If not what is so different if you are on a bike?

Adrian Irving ● 15d

I don't flatter myself that anything I say hear will have any outcome on the decision and neither should you. I don't see any prospect of LBHF not going through with this and I don't disagree with the move anyway.This does not stop me commenting on the case being made for the restrictions which amounts to the argument - my kids are suffering from pollution therefore the traffic should be moved to affect someone else's kids.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 15d

Well Adrian, if you look at the article that started this thread, there are quotes from 2 Conservative Cllrs referring to inconvenience to drivers but nothing about cyclist safety and if you look at their petition, it’s all about inconvenience to drivers and not a single reference to cyclist safety.If they cared, surely they would mention it?And just like the Conservatives don’t care about cyclist safety, I don’t care about your anecdotes.

Michael Robinson ● 15d

As I've said before and elsewhere, if the authorities feel the need to close a road for safety or environmental reasons, then please physically close it. That makes it much simpler for everyone, without the confusion of some traffic being seen to enter an apparently open road while others aren't allowed to, policed only by difficult to read notices on poles and hidden cameras on posts. In this case, the answer would seem to be to put a barrier/pavement/hedge across the A4 end of these roads as has been done elsewhere nearby in the past. Simples!

Peter Evans ● 15d

Agree.

Janice Evans ● 15d

Agree too.Implement the ETO for 18 months. If, after 18 months the reason for putting in the ETO ( need to reduce danger and accidents on C9 as far as I can tell) is still present, then shut Weltje Road to all traffic.

Andrew Jones ● 15d

So when you write; "Conservatives [collective noun] don't care about cycle safety" you don't mean what you wrote, you just want to accuse two individuals of not caring based on the fact they didn't mention cyclists in the article.Michael, maybe you should think through the potential legal consequences before making such unsubstantiated accusations conflated from nothing at all."I don’t care about your anecdotes." Really? I think you do.A lot.

Adrian Irving ● 14d

Firstly I should say I have some sympathy for the blighted residents of Weltje Rd however if we look at the issue in the round there are substantially more residents that will be affected by diverted traffic than there are in Weltje.Dorchester Grove, Chiswick Lane,(with two Nursery Schools) Chiswick High Road and King Street.

Adrian Irving ● 14d

"potential legal consequences" ???? Oh FFS what planet are you on...Anyway, I look forward to another press release from the Conservatives with the number of people who have signed their petition and the response they got from LBHF...

Michael Robinson ● 14d

All of those streets are in the principal road networks defined by LB Hounslow and LBH&F therefore are intended for higher volumes of traffic. (Dorchester Grove is part of the A316).If residents on those roads want to campaign to their council to remove the roads from the principal road networks and put in measures to restrict traffic then they can do so.Also, I don't know how much you drive Adrian but if you do, I assume that you refuse to drive your car on any of the streets you listed because of sympathy and solidarity with the residents there.

Michael Robinson ● 14d

I love it when Michael et al shoot themselves in the foot:"he was wrong about increase in casualties"Michael, your main point regarding the Weltje proposal is to reduce the increase in casualties to cyclists.Seems to me, Sam Hearn is right. Again.But why now? Has the traffic increased? If so, when? Why? Does it correlate to other road closure measures (yes, is the answer)? Why hasn't so-called evaporation occured? More deliveries. More Uber drivers. Wayve and Waymo yet to come.

David Lesniak ● 14d

Too many cars, too much driving,  not enough people willing to support those that want to do something about it.

Paul James ● 14d

Just one more thing Michael.Anecdotes describe second hand reports, the sort of info you might pick up in the pub.My post was what is called an eye witness account. The sort of thing a journalist would report or presented as evidence in a court.In short a report that lays out the facts first hand.

Adrian Irving ● 14d

Well Adrian, there are a variety of different definitions of "anecdote", one of which is "an account which supports an argument, but which is not supported by scientific or statistical analysis."Maybe come back when you have some statistical analysis because I'm really not interested in your witterings and anecdotes.

Michael Robinson ● 13d

Again with the platitudes Paul which ignore the complexity of this but if you think the issue really is that simple I presume you would support the total closure of Weltje Road which some are now advocating.The potential problem with Michael's points about principal roads etc. is that they also tend to be the ones that buses run on and if the downward trend of bus speeds caused by local routes continues and only a fraction of passengers switch to motor vehicles you will end up with more cars and more driving.As no report seems to have been done on the outcome of the Rivercourt Road access restrictions, I dipped into the TfL data on bus routes in the area. I didn't spend too long on this but the picture that was emerging that there has been further deterioration of local bus routes meeting minimum standards of timeliness including the 190.However, this deterioration did not markedly pick up when the Rivercourt Road restriction was introduced rather a steady decline had already commenced before that point and it continued. I'm not sure I can reach any firm conclusion based on this but it might explain why TfL is apparently keen now on the Weltje Road access restrictions. Hopefully that means they have something else up their sleeve to deal with the slowing of local buses.

Francis Rowe ● 13d

> I presume you would support the total closure of Weltje Road which some are now advocatingI said much earlier on in this thread that it should just be totally blocked off at the A4 end so the only motor vehicles being driven along it are going to or from properties on it.We could go further and reclaim the A4 for housing/parkland/nature reserve in my book, other cities have done this with great success, reducing pollution to near zero and greatly enhancing quality of life for people that live in the area.

Paul James ● 13d

(and finally rejoin Weltje roads from whence they were torn asunder at the behest of the motorheads in government that ripped loindon up trying to install a series of motorways inside it)

Paul James ● 13d

Sorry Paul but you have completely disconnected from reality.

Francis Rowe ● 13d

"All of those streets are in the principal road networks defined by LB Hounslow and LBH&F therefore are intended for higher volumes of traffic. (Dorchester Grove is part of the A316)"Exactly, already much higher volumes of traffic.I am sure it is no comfort to the residents of two way Dorchester Grove that they are part of the A316 when they are slap bang next to NINE LANES of  both slow and fast moving traffic day and night.I sure people living there would leap at the chance of moving to a one way street like Weltje.

Adrian Irving ● 13d

>Sorry Paul but you have completely disconnected from reality.You think having the A4 rip Chiswick and hammersmith in half and continuing to do so was/is a good idea?

Paul James ● 13d

" There are none so blind that will not see"

Adrian Irving ● 13d

I remember after the Fisher Lane bridge closure, the evidence of our own eyes of lines of slow moving traffic in Acton Lane was questioned for not matching 'the data'.  It turned out that one car crossing the detector cable every twenty seconds did not represent the free flow of moving vehicles we'd been been assured was happening, but a nose-to-tail queue of vehicles inching slowly forward - as we had 'witnessed with our own eyes and reported anecdotally'!

Peter Evans ● 13d

Paul, use a brain cell. If there's one to spare.How would people/goods get in and out of London?In and out of Heathrow?Your "idea" would mean no buses, no cabs, no lorries. No merchandise, no food. Not even cycle deliveries. Nor medication for those mentally challenged.

David Lesniak ● 13d

"You think having the A4 rip Chiswick and Hammersmith in half and continuing to do so was/is a good idea?"Given that it takes much of the through traffic away from King Street and Chiswick High Road, yes.

Richard Greenhough ● 13d

When I observed a while back that I thought static traffic had become a more common site in the centre of Chiswick a number of people ridiculed the suggestion and pointed to data which showed that the number of vehicles using the High Road had fallen.Later new data was published that showed the there had indeed been significant increases in delays along the High Road and a reduction in average traffic feeds despite fewer vehicles using it.Neither statistical or observational evidence is perfect and rarely give us more than part of the overall picture. If you use them to make a case for a preconceived point of view it devalues them. If you recognise their limitations and approach with an open mind, you might get closer to understanding what is actually happening.

Francis Rowe ● 8d

What was this "new data was published " Francis?I seem to remember there was some data that you did incorrect calculations by averaging averages or something like that...

Michael Robinson ● 8d

That sounds like bullshit to me Peter.What does "it turned out" mean? Can you provide any proof of your claim?

Michael Robinson ● 8d

I know I read in some Government analysis** that Automated traffic counters (ATCs) often struggle with very low speeds, 'such as under 11mph on single carriageways', as these rates 'mimic stationary congestion rather than free-flowing traffic.' Makes sense when you think about it!** Maybe buried in https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/free-flow-vehicle-speed-statistics-guidance/vehicle-speed-compliance-statistics-methodology-notes-and-definitions-background-quality-report

Peter Evans ● 8d

I’m glad you asked Michael.The average speed and delay numbers are taken from the Department for Transport web site and is based on ArcGIS (Geographic Information System) data. They were previously made accessible by a dashboard provided by TfL which no longer seems to be available. None of the following involves any calculations made by me.What they show is that the average delay in seconds including all the Count Point IDs (6897, 36,947, 16,867, 56,697) along the length of Chiswick High Road rose from 307.7 in 2019 to 371.2 in 2024. Basically about a minute. This doesn’t sound a lot but it should be remembered that outside busier periods the change in delay would be zero so most drivers would experience a much longer time sitting in traffic.The delays seem to have been primarily caused by traffic slowing significantly in the central section of the High Road from Heathfield Terrace to Chiswick Lane (16,867) where they rose from 90.6 seconds to 157.5 seconds.This can’t be put down to one off factors such as roadworks because the delays in the previous year were even higher with the increase being over 80 seconds.There was also a rise in delays on Burlington Lane from 31.7 seconds to 55.9 seconds although Chiswick Lane remained broadly unchanged.There is partial additional confirmation of the validity of these figures from London Travel Watch which issued a report for 2024 showing that the average speed of buses in Hounslow had fallen by 9.4% over the last decade.If the evidence of my own eyes was telling me that traffic in the centre of Chiswick was getting significantly worse over that period and robust statistical evidence seems to confirm it, what choice to I have other than to conclude that this is the case?

Francis Rowe ● 7d

Nope, there is no reference there.But for several years there has been a myth/rumour circulating amongst groups opposed to traffic restrictions that data from Automated Traffic Counters can't be trusted.It's a classic example of some initial piece of information that nobody can cite then being subsequently distorted as it is passed on and applied to any or all traffic surveys no matter how they were done (roadside counters, manually, cameras...).  Obviously the people mentioning this will never have actually looked at the traffic surveys they are dismissing to see what they are actually reporting.  So we get what you have done - treating rumour and supposition as fact.I am sure Ealing will provide their surveys for Acton Lane if you ask them.

Michael Robinson ● 7d

Francis, ArcGIS is just a software application (sold by a company called Esri) which used to display data on map.Saying "based on ArcGIS data" is like saying "based upon Excel data".  Esri don't provide data for ArcGIS just like Microsoft don't provide data for Excel.So where does the data actually come from?Taking an example of one of the count points, e.g. 36947 on CHR, DfT counts for this in 2019 and 2024 are estimated, not actual, and DfT website itself has caveats about use of estimated data.If you can provide the actual source of the information then I can look at it but given your track record, I won't be trusting your interpretation.

Michael Robinson ● 7d

But I'm prepared to accept that the purpose of many traffic management schemes is to introduce delay and difficulties for motor vehicles and thus to discourage their use. So if it takes twice as long to navigate CHR, or there's a slow-moving queue in Acton Lane, or it's more difficult to get in and out of Weltje Road, then so be it!

Peter Evans ● 7d

Michael, the collection of this sort of data is never going to be scientifically accurate so nearly everything that is published could be subject to some sort of quibble. If you don't trust the government's numbers then, other than the bus data, we don't have much to tell us what is actually going on other than what appears to be the total consensus of anyone who lives, works or travels on the High Road, that is more regularly congested than it used to be.

Francis Rowe ● 6d

Michael, the collection of this sort of data is never going to be scientifically accurate so nearly everything that is published could be subject to some sort of quibble. If you don't trust the government's numbers then, other than the bus data, we don't have much to tell us what is actually going on other than what appears to be the total consensus of anyone who lives, works or travels on the High Road, that is more regularly congested than it used to be.

Francis Rowe ● 6d

Francis,You don't appear to have a clue where this data came from, if it was "the government's numbers" or from another source.  Your reference to ArcGIS was irrelevant but you didn't appear to realise this. The data could have been displayed in PowerBI, Tableau or other applications, it is the source that matters.I don't have a problem with published data, I just don't trust your interpretation.As previous example, in the past you cited DfT traffic counts but you cited estimated numbers, not actual counts.  The DfT website has clear caveats about use of estimated data.  So either you didn't read the caveats and didn't understand the data you were citing or you did read the caveats and were deliberately trying to mislead.  As I said, you have a track record.

Michael Robinson ● 6d

>But I'm prepared to accept that the purpose of many traffic management schemes is to introduce delay and difficulties for motor vehiclesThis is an interesting perspective.A school street for instance transforms the beginning of the school day, instead of dealing with cars being u-turned, driven along and parked on pavements, shouting and swearing from drivers fighting for space, teachers stressed and shouting in the chaos, and a general feeling of danger, you get kids laughing and joking as the scoot walk and wheel along the mostly car free road.But you would moan a couple of drivers are slightly put out by this instead.Hmmmm..

Paul James ● 6d

The problem is that they also slow down the buses, so drivers were going on strike because of the heat inside the buses, when buses were kept moving you got a breeze through and none of this would have happened, I'm not against cycle lanes but I am against 2 way cycle lanes which leaves buses in traffic jams, horrendous for drivers and passengers.

Janice Evans ● 6d

I suspect it's the two-way-ness of the cycle lanes along CHR that cause most of the problems.  As well as having to be alert for cyclists going 'the wrong way', they require hugely complicated traffic light permutations at several junctions, and made some previously simple manoeuvres, such as turning left into Turnham Green Terrace, far more difficult. It's clear from the behaviour of many cyclists that they find many of these arrangements too difficult to follow! Many other London locations have a simple row of protective posts on either side of the road to create cycle lanes and the jobs is done!

Peter Evans ● 6d

Camper vans and ambulances now come with solar panels on their roofs.  There are also some buses and trains with solar panels on them.  I'm pretty sure those new Boris buses were withdrawn for A/C to be added at one time because they were too hot without it although there have also been problems with fare dodging on various buses.Here's an old (December 2020) article on buses and solar panels:https://www.route-one.net/environment/solar-panels-for-coach-and-bus-what-are-the-benefits/

Philippa Bond ● 6d