Forum Topic

I see the usual LCC trolls and their lackeys are out in force to discredit the people of Chiswick. An honest summary of the lively meeting is as follows:It was very upsetting hearing how fearful many people in Chiswick feel about the cycle lane and cyclists behaviour. An  important point that came across loud and clear last night was the strength of feeling and distress the whole cycle lane, as well as the new proposals, has caused/would cause to local residents. It was very upsetting to hear so many people’s accounts of their stressful experience of chiswick whether it’s getting on and off buses, having to alter where they get off to avoid a floating bus stop, attempting to cross the road, the dangers of crossing at the Dukes Avenue junction, the fear people are feeling that they could be seriously injured or lose their lives, and the difficulties they’re having just doing something as basic as getting their shopping. Time and time again individuals described how cyclists are running red lights constantly, not stopping at junctions, riding on the pavements and verbally abusing people, even young children. The most upsetting accounts were from the four or five blind people who attended with their guide dogs or carers, of how their lives in Chiswick have been adversely affected and limited and how they are being excluded from their own community after having lived here for many years. The lady with the guide dog at the front explained how her dog would not be able to tell if a cycle lane was on the pavement as there would be no kerb. For this reason alone the proposal should be scrapped. (And it would be just as dangerous if the cycle lane were built into a channel on the pavement). It is totally outrageous that the net zero and cycling zealots have reduced daily life in Chiswick and many other towns to one of misery and fear. The word used by that lady to describe how she and other blind people are feeling about Chiswick High Road is ‘dread’. Dread.  Where is our humanity? Where is common sense?  A motion was drawn up at the conclusion of the meeting stating that the proposal to put C9 on the pavement starting at the Catholic Church should be scrapped. The proposal is abhorrent to the church congregation as well as to the majority of chiswick residents. It is an abomination and the council should  hang their heads in shame.

Lynda Fisher ● 7d

Michael, as I am familiar with your inflexibility on minor points such as this I won't argue the toss. Can we just say that the cycleway is being built on what used to be a pavement?

Where do you get the information about the low profile kerbs and different materials to be used? These are important details which need to be shared and fears could be allayed if there was a better general understanding of the plans. The designs I've copied at the end of this post are the only ones I've seen and they make no mention of the enhancements you refer to. Is there an updated design or are you being given more information than the general public?

I've seen footage taken of what people at Tolkington Lodge had to say about their experience of visiting Chiswick. I was unaware that they were unable to use the first two bus stops eastbound after Chiswick Lane and felt forced to travel on to Turnham Green using this stretch of pavement (or not!) on the south side to get to shops. There is no point relitigating the floating bus stops as the Cycleway would have been impossible without them but I think we should concede the point that there was a strong view that partially sighted people feel this latest proposal further excludes them from the area. 

The council needs to show that absolutely everything that could be done has been done for this part of our community and that accessibility has not been treated as a box to tick but there has been a gold standard approach to design in this regard.

As I've said before, I think this is a good proposal and the problems are not insuperable. If designs exist that show that the challenges have been properly addressed we should be being told about them. It was very concerning that the council did not send anyone to this week's meeting. If there was a positive story to be told, then you would not expect the absence of a single officer to mean that it wasn't told.

A limited consultation with officers committed to plans that are already drawn up is going to make mistakes. These mistakes could hit certain sections of our community very hard. They will probably not result in the project not achieving its broader objectives so overall if the chance is missed to reduce the harm it causes to some, it will be a missed opportunity.


Jeremy Parkinson ● 6d

There are a number of points I’d like to make about this meeting and the subsequent reaction.Rory Hill said, “There was 45 mins of irrelevant floating bus stop discussion with no proper discussion about the proposal. (Unless it started at (20:45) when I had enough and realised that Cllr Biddolf had an agenda and had gathered her lackeys to be disruptive and irrelevant!”This is a misrepresentation of what occurred. The residents of Tocklington Lodge and the other lobbyists for the blind community explained their issues clearly and calmly. I’m astonished anyone who listened to them would fail to be influenced by what they said or that they wouldn’t understand the point that the floating bus stops for them were part of a wider picture into which this latest proposal fits. They clearly explained how it would further exclude them from Chiswick Town Centre.To describe them as lackeys of Cllr Biddolph is extremely disrespectful. It is a public meeting and it shouldn’t be a surprise that people with disabilities have an ability to think for themselves. What they had to say might be irrelevant to you as a sighted person but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t get a hearing.Also the characterisation of people at the meeting as disruptive is false. There was some calling out from the audience but most of those who spoke were calmly explaining the issues they had with the proposals.The meeting was much less fractious than some I have attended partly because there was near unanimity in the hall. Only a handful of people were willing to say anything positive about the scheme. This is hardly surprising in that one of the groups it is most negative for is cyclists who lose a perfectly good stretch of cycle way. Those ‘cyclists’ supporting it are merely lobbyists for the council’s interest rather than for active travel measures. The changes remove the protection of the cycleway for those ending to continue west on Chiswick High Road at Heathfield Junction and introduce the risk of a left hook which was never there before. All for the very marginal gain of not having to wait at a short phase at the Heathfield Road junction which, let’s be honest here, very few cyclists actually do.There should also be pushback against the ways in which supporters of the scheme are trying to build a false picture of those that oppose it. Despite the opinions of the local branch of the Orange Lodge, it is not a betrayal for local Catholics not to agree with something a former parish priest might or might not have said in a different context over half a decade ago. We should also be aware of people who try to discredit by ridicule. Calling the changes ‘dystopian’ might seem preposterous when written down but you get a different perspective when you are in the room with the person saying them and understand that hyperbole is being used to express strength of feeling. Also don’t be fooled by attempts to portray the people in the hall as old and unrepresentative. Anyone who has been to these Area Forums before knows that the average age can be high and this meeting actually had a much broader generational range of attendees and speakers than is normal.The council must be aware that there is no significant group of people in Chiswick, including cyclists, who would support this proposal. They say they will announce a consultation this week so we need to watch out for how they approach this and what actual leeway for changes there will be. If they are arguing that this is the same scheme that was never implemented in 2019 then it is probably already set in stone that the plans we have seen are the ones that will be implemented.

Andrew OSullivan ● 4d

There are no bus stops in the scheme.  Cllr Biddolph invited people who will object to any cycle scheme, anywhere.  Nothing stopping her doing this but you don't seem to like this being pointed out.These objectors have absolutely nothing constructive to propose.  They are absolutists who simply want the removal of cycle lanes.  "The changes remove the protection of the cycleway for those ending to continue west on Chiswick High Road at Heathfield Junction"No they don't. "cyclists who lose a perfectly good stretch of cycle way"Being "perfectly good" didn't stop Cllr Bdiddolph objecting to it back in 2021/2022.  I wish the opponents of C9 would make up their minds.  One year it is the worst thing ever, then a bit later it is "perfectly good".  One year the Catholic Church endorses plans, then a bit later the newsletter asks people to object.I think the lesson is that it doesn't matter what is proposed, there will always be a knee-jerk reaction against it from the same people."hyperbole is being used to express strength of feeling". So what.  If cycle projects only proceeded if there was no "strength of feeling" against them, then none would be build anywhere.    It doesn't matter if it is Chiswick or Hammersmith or Camden or Vancouver or Paris or Portland.  When cycle lanes are proposed, the same objections come up every time.Support for the cycle lane is demonstrated by the three to four thousand using it every day (and even more on some days) and the large increase in numbers since it has been built.Councils also need to consider support from people using the lane every day, not just the moaning of a few dozen mainly elderly residents and rent-a-complaint at an area forum, orchestrated by a Cllr who has been ideologically opposed to all cycle lanes.

Michael Robinson ● 4d