Forum Topic

Outside M&S in the Broadway

What are the Muppets in Perceval House up to now with the barriers blocking off most crossing points? Is it part of their ''improving'' the traffic flow or maybe another way of spending some more of our council tax they claim they don't have?

Peter King ● 575d172 Comments

Nothing made up, simple facts. The blinkered, hysterical, hypocritical & farcical “views” by khan/TfL/james beggars belief.The democratic public speak & it’s ignored.I proved to you a fact & your usual tactic, cherrypick, ignore etc.Farce

Peter Yale ● 542d

All made up nonsense again Peter, other than the first one, but then you're one of the people that think I'm anti car :DI'm not anti car, I'm anti too many cars and too much driving, so is the Mayor of London, Government and our local council!

Paul James ● 542d

Well there are a few people who agree you are anti car.You constantly berate drivers, want roads & lanes closed to them.Apparently see vehicles driving down pavements all the time.Pose as a policeman  (criminal offence) to stop cars going about their lawful business.Somewhat hypocritical as you drive yourself & wont hear a bad word regarding selfish cycling Lycra luvvies

Peter Yale ● 542d

I can see you need things to be simple Peter, just black or white, but life's not like that.I'm not anti-car, I just think their use on a day to day basis by so many which is has many negative consequences needs to be massively reduced.

Paul James ● 542d

You are anti car. Simple

Peter Yale ● 542d

No you don't, you're misinterpreting and misrepresenting me.

Paul James ● 542d

I get this stuff from YOU. What YOU say & write

Peter Yale ● 542d

Do you want your mummy?I’m not making stuff up about you Paul. Stop playing the victim, which is your default position when you lose an argument.You state frequently that there are ‘too many cars’, yet when you post a video on here the traffic is light and consists of a mix of vehicles. You claim cycling is too dangerous on Uxbridge Road yet provide zero statistics to back that up. Judging by the number of bikes parked along the road other bicyclists don’t feel in danger.Cycling UK states that cycling is safe. But you don’t acknowledge that because it doesn’t fit your jaundiced viewpoint.Your solution, such as it is, involves replacing private vehicles with hire cars and bikes. Not really workable, practical or likely.I’m amazed you ever venture outside. The sky might fall on your head.

Simon Hayes ● 542d

>So you basically want no motorised vehicles whatsoever along roads>No parking. No entering  junctions or exiting.Where do you get this stuff from!? It's not me I'll tell you that! You're making it up about me.You have lost the argument so you have to make up your own that you can win.It's childish basically, with apologies to children who show much more sense and reason.

Paul James ● 542d

>You just don’t want anyone else on the road when you are out and about.Even more making stuff up about me from Simon Hayes the bully.

Paul James ● 542d

No Paul. Your constant whining and attacks on motorists is all too evident. The fact is cycling in the UK, in London, and particularly Ealing, is safer now than its ever been. Even Cycling UK admit this. From their website:‘Cycling is safer than many people think it is.In ‘normal years’ (2015-2019, GB), over a distance equivalent to 1,000 times round the Earth at its widest point:One cyclist is killed33 are seriously injured103 are slightly injuredThe figures for 2020 are: 0.70 (killed); 21 (seriously injured); 59 (slightly injured).There are around 10.4 million cycle trips for every cyclist fatality (9.4 in 2020).The general risk of injury of any severity whilst cycling is just 0.045 per 1,000 hours of cycling (0.025 in 2020).Also,The risk of being killed whilst cycling per billion miles cycled has been trending downwards since 2013, as has the risk of being seriously or slightly injured.’So, one of your own campaign groups says that cycling is safe. You just don’t want anyone else on the road when you are out and about. That’s pretty selfish.

Simon Hayes ● 542d

>You just don’t think anyone else should be allowed to.>you seem to think everyone on the road is a murderer.Making stuff up about me again Simon, you bully.

Paul James ● 542d

So you basically want no motorised vehicles whatsoever along roadsNo parking. No entering  junctions or exiting.Your not anti car though.!!!!Get real, how to you live in this world,?A bungalow as stairs are too dangerous?Plastic knives & forks for safety?Microwave only as saucepans boil water?

Peter Yale ● 542d

Paul, now you’re making things up. We know you’re not anti car when it suits you to drive one. You just don’t think anyone else should be allowed to.What you should concentrate on is bad driving, which is different to too much driving. Everyone wants better standards (and that applies to bike riders too). There are millions of drivers in this country who d never had an accident, much less one involving bicyclists. The way you go on you seem to think everyone on the road is a murderer. That’s not on.Until such time as a law is passed making private car ownership illegal, and thus treating everyone the same, you’ll just have to put up and shut up.As you well know, and some of your LCC chums have posted elsewhere, car ownership in London is declining. What’s not declining, but increasing, is the population. Those people want goods and services, most of which are delivered by motor vehicles. You just can’t seem to understand that.You really do come across as a big baby at times.

Simon Hayes ● 543d

I see this a lot.Simon calls me anti car. I'm not, I'm anti too much driving and too many cars, a totally reasonable position to hold given the consequences of there being too many cars and too much driving.But what you realise is people that go round making false accusations like I'm anti car and accusing people of such absolutism are often the absolutists themselves.It's like they are projecting their thinking onto others.

Paul James ● 543d

Dunno who Sue New is?Not been Ealing BDWY for week or so, assumed work was complete.How she got hold of someone rather than a non answer, or experiencing a high number of calls & no return, is beyond me.Especially as it’s no doubt futile works

Peter Yale ● 543d

Not antipathy, Burkester, because I’m happy for those who enjoy its monastic pleasures. But spending millions of pounds of scarce public money on things that benefit a very, very small minority (and won’t get used by the hardcore cyclists like Paul James) is irresponsible.The whole build it and they will use it line is nonsense.My point has been that London is comprised of multiple groups of people all with different needs when it comes to transport. There’s no will to balance those needs, largely because the self-obsessed onanistic at the LCC are pulling the political strings.There’s a lady who reads these threads who has campaigned for years for proper step free access to be installed across the Underground network, particularly in Ealing. That would benefit everybody, including the less able and parents with children. But it’s not ‘sexy’ enough for the investment that you bicyclists view as your birthright.One of the key issues that the likes of you and Paul and the rest of the two wheel warriors won’t acknowledge is the number of cyclists who behave irresponsibly by not wearing proper protection, ignore traffic signals, ride in pavements and all the rest of it. Like great big babies, crying and blaming everyone else for their supposed victimisation.As a point of interest, Burkey, how many cyclists have been killed or injured on Uxbridge Road in the past, say, five years?

Simon Hayes ● 543d

That explains your antipathy towards cycling , you don't ride a bike so it's a waste of money improving Road safety for those that do.

David Burke ● 543d

I thought it was that other bunch of wasters tfl, not much to choose from either of them I'd suggest.

Peter King ● 543d

Well done to tireless campaigner Sue New for getting the lights outside M&S working again after shaming the council into getting its act together.Good work Sue!

Simon Hayes ● 543d

Like most normal people I’d take one of the many buses that go along there. As I don’t cycle anywhere your question is absurd.You could have driven, of course, as you are happy to do when it suits. Although your video, which I saw last year when you posted it, doesn’t indicate any great danger to you from other road users.Did you ask your child if they wanted to cycle along there at that time of the day? Be careful Paul, your treatment of your children could verge on cruelty :)

Simon Hayes ● 543d

Would you do that with a nine year old on the road on a bike with you Simon?That was the question.

Paul James ● 543d

Well, that was pretty boring. Nobody crushed under the wheels of anything. Not even that many cars. In fact you seemed to have little problem negotiating that stretch of road at all.Plenty of bikes chained up along the side of the road, which indicates that lots of other people manage just fine too.You really ought to be less histrionic Paul. It’s not a good look for a supposed grown up.

Simon Hayes ● 543d

Plenty do? Hmm.Here is one of my "lunatic cycling videos" which demonstrates why I wouldn't.https://twitter.com/prj45/status/1442900607128375296

Paul James ● 543d

Yes. Same for an 8, 21.Share roads.  We all take precautions, that’s life

Peter Yale ● 545d

Plenty do Paul

Simon Hayes ● 545d

>Good luck, you couldn’t ask for any more safety measuresWould you ride along Uxbridge road with an eight year old?

Paul James ● 545d

You do know that plenty of roadworks aren’t being carried out to effect repairs but rather to create traffic chaos to justify further imposition of restrictions on ‘arrogant car drivers’?

Simon Hayes ● 546d

A month now and counting. Not even anyone looking like they were working there today. Bet Khan is getting his next request for a bail out ready while displaying the complete incompetence we have become used to from TFL

Peter King ● 546d

Don't be naive Philippa, tfl are on the case here. It will run and run

Peter King ● 547d

Having seen your lunatic cycling videos on Twitter it’s clear that you don’t engage in sensible or safe cycling. You even, stupidly, drag your children into it. What a shame that you bring them up to be so blinkered and dogmatic.What you and the LCC demand is way beyond reasonable. Closing off blocks of roads (now laughably called ‘climate safe streets’) isn’t reasonable when the sole reason is to allow a small number of people to enjoy a bike ride. Most residential streets in Ealing are perfectly safe to ride down as they are. You have to admit that or come up with some proper stats to support your contention. I’ve provided you with links to do so but you don’t bother, do you?Seriously, what are the casualty rates in Ealing for cyclists? Not high.Of course there are accidents, but without the report for each and every one of those you simply cannot contend that cyclists are always the innocent party.

Simon Hayes ● 547d

Good luck, you couldn’t ask for any more safety measures, that’s unless you ban all  motor vehicles..That’s never going to happen., even in your wet dreams.Then of course other hazards - pedestrians stepping out not looking.Get on like the rest of us, risk assessment & take preventative measures.

Peter Yale ● 547d

Are those lights working yet?  There were temporary ones which weren't working the other day.  So pedestrians were crossing and irritating any arrogant driver who thought they should plough on through.

Philippa Bond ● 547d

Get on with asking for cycling to be made safe for me and my kid. Yes I will thank you very much!

Paul James ● 547d

Exactly so get on with it.Same as any part of life, not cause massive disruption to the majority

Peter Yale ● 547d

No I'm not Paul you just need to be honest for the very first time in your life and accept that you are a minority of one supporting a minority interest. Anyone reading these threads would take moments to realise that you are vehemently car but in reality a nasty little hypocrite who chooses to drive himself while seeking to deny others that privilege.Now kindly go forth and multiply.

N V Brooks ● 547d

Peter, please stop it. Yes some do, but I am VERY road aware but my trips on my bike ARE NOT SAFE ENOUGH even though I have spider senses for danger.Neither are yours and I want them to be.

Paul James ● 547d

They already can do that.Cyclists need to learn a lot more road awareness

Peter Yale ● 547d

Nigel, you're making stuff up about me again to suit yourself.

Paul James ● 547d

No, you simply want a minority interest group, cyclists, to have their travel infrastructure subsidised, both financially and in terms of consequent inconvenience,to obscene levels by denuding budgets that would benefit the wider travelling public like bus service enhancement and footpath repairs. Let's face it you are a nasty selfish little man who should be recognised as nothing other than self-serving. Other forum users please take note this is Mr James true agenda, a self-serving isolationist fantasist.

N V Brooks ● 547d

>I'm fully supportive of active travel if it benefits more than  minority interest group.That's the idea though Nigel.Only a very tiny amount of journeys are made on a bike, it needs to be more, but that won't happen if we don't spend the money making it safer.These new cycle lanes aren't for people like me who already cycle, they are for people who would WANT to cycle but don't for quite understandable reasons!E.g. people that want to, should be able to cycle the WHOLE length of uxbridge road in total safety, so much so they can do it with a five year old. Nobody would do that at the moment, not even me.Getting it yet?

Paul James ● 547d

No one gives a damn how many of the luvvies cycle.I don’t like the road space given over at the detrimental cost to drivers.Cyclists need to be registered & pay their way for all the infrastructure. All those half wits who jump red lights, slalom down pavement, cycle wrong way, can be held accountable like motorists.Yet they are not, dictate & shout & moan most

Peter Yale ● 547d

Their own actions yes, but you're trying to say they are also responsible for the actions of others if those actions lead to cyclists being hurt or injured.

Paul James ● 547d

I realise quite how much time I have wasted on this forum trying to engage with a half wit. Time to move on which will no doubt please you as you are now free to people your fantasies here and on Twitter to your fellow minority interest group members.

N V Brooks ● 547d

Over the top again. Of course cyclists, like all road users, are responsible for their own actions are you denying that Paul? To do so exposes you for the fool that you are.

N V Brooks ● 547d

>Cycling is as safe as cyclists choose to make it.Disgusting from you Nigel as usual. You're trying to say (without saying it explicitly) cyclists injured and kill whilst cycling we're personally responsible for their injuries or demise, and by extension, simply for being there.

Paul James ● 547d

What I am denying, or objecting to vociferously Paul is the expectation of profligate expenditure to mollify the incessant whining of people like yourself. You obsession with cycling as a panacea for all transport problems borders on the pathological. You really do need to seek help. Cycling is as safe as cyclists choose to make it.

N V Brooks ● 547d

>No one is denying anyone the right to cycleYou are Nigel, and people like you, railing against changes to help make cycling feel safe.People do this precisely because they DON'T want to see more people cycling.

Paul James ● 547d

Need to cycle is wrong. Should be want to & for a number of reasons they are being bullied into having to.It is not always possible for a number of reasons.People NEED & want cars

Peter Yale ● 548d

No one is denying anyone the right to cycle. The jutifiable objection is the amount of money being spent to pander to a minority (less than 5% of journeys even afterv £Millions spent) form of transport and the disruption to other road users including buses (Brentford is seeing a well used bus lane ripped out to replace it with a cycle path).Spend the millions on buses and pavements to see real benefits.

N V Brooks ● 548d

I think you will find that more people are going to need to cycle to get around as they won't be able to afford to go by car or even own a car (car ownership has been reducing).  Just because you can't and won't doesn't mean that younger generations should be denied the option.

Philippa Bond ● 548d

You ignore anything that doesn’t meet your narrow viewpoint.The Adrienne Road restriction is barely in Southall and isn’t really an LTN, certainly compared to the others put in around the borough.How are you getting on persuading your neighbours to have their roads closed? Charity starts at home Paul.

Simon Hayes ● 548d

There literally was an LTN installed in Southall and it's still there.Not counting all the old ones too.I'll ignore all the other nonsense in your post!

Paul James ● 548d

Paul, you are so boringly predictable.When you get too old to ride a bike you’ll be the first one to demand to be driven around.The fact that you can’t back up any of your arguments with factual evidence rather undermines what you say. Yes, Ealing Council and others were lobbied extensively by the LCC before the May elections. More cycling infrastructure demanded rather than, say better facilities for other sports (such as reopening Gurnell for example). And even that doesn’t satisfy.The LTN experiment in Ealing failed miserably by every measure. Even yhe dodgy data was disowned afterwards. Peter Mason, who is not a cyclist, is acutely aware of the fate that befell Julian Bell (who was a cyclist) so has to tread very carefully. If he upsets key demographics, particularly in Southall (where no LTN was installed) he’ll be done for.Even Sadiq Khan, who definitely isn’t a cyclist, knows that motor traffic isn’t going away. It’s why he wants ULEZ expansion and ultimately road pricing, too much of a cash cow for him. Yes, it might cost more tobdrive, but people still will, in their millions.And you should look at yourself before labelling others.

Simon Hayes ● 548d

Stop playing the victim you silly little man. That you lack the capacity or ability to develop an argument is not my problem. Like many, I am fully aware of the arguments being put forward and I'm fully supportive of active travel if it benefits more than  minority interest group. Paul let's just leave it there. You cycling utopia is not going to happen especially with such Draconian cuts to council budgets. Get over it and get used to it. You, in 10, may wish to Google how much more more effective walking is in terms of return on investment. You can do this using Google Paul if you need a tip. In the meantime I'll leave you to happily play the victim and post something ludicrous on Twitter to appease your fanboys.

N V Brooks ● 548d

Nigel. You'll never be convinced.Bullies such as yourself and Simon are ranting into a void. You may think you've won in Ealing but that's only because you don't know where the finish line is. Have you noticed the announcements coming from the council recently? I'm sure you probably have :)That you're both so abusive and nasty speaks volumes about the position you find yourselves in I say.Do use google to find thousands of other articles that back up investment in car free transportation returning money in spades in a way that investment in better roads more even more cars never ever will.

Paul James ● 548d

No, but they will listen to the sound of the empty coffers which will no longer be able to support minority transport groups and their ever more bizarre fantasies.What I don't understand are those people who post links that do not support their wild assertions and then who lack the basic intelligence to defend or develop their position when the inadequacy of their argument is questioned.

N V Brooks ● 548d

Ah, thankfully Nigel nobody is listening to people such as yourself on this, especially not most of London Council's!

Paul James ● 548d

Hardly.The first report is largely based on an unrepresentatively small New Zealand survey and to extrapolate the benefits of this to a city which has a population almost twice that of New Zealand is, at best, misleading.%he author of the second report himself question whether the benefits drawn from the data are accurate as they vary vastly from any acceptable deviation, so I think we can park that until the data is fully analysed.The third report is of interest but, in isolation not something upon which one could or should base policy especially as the basic premise alludes to the doubling of ridden miles in the first year of the pandemic. This dataset, in isolation is now discounted even by the LCC.The last report, despite its age is of far wider interest showing the significant returns on improving walking routes over and above other investments. Wee lit level pavements and pedestrian prioritisation will deliver far more benefit to a much broader audience at a lower cost. Who says so? 5he Department of Transport.s

N V Brooks ● 548d

Google is cobblers, not factI saw a promo for Axl Rottweiler dog food 69pAbsolute pish

Peter Yale ● 548d

Google is your friend.https://phys.org/news/2022-05-investing-outweighs.htmlhttps://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/how-investing-cycling-makes-sense-and-makes-moneyhttps://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-government-invest-338-mln-pounds-boost-cycling-walking-england-2021-07-29/(notice the government call it an Investment)https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/877511/cycling-and-walking-business-case-summary.pdf

Paul James ● 548d

I'm entirely onboard with the principle that buses should be prioritised over cars. Bus lanes are critical and should be introduced wherever possible.  That would, for me necessarily mean never removing them to make way for a cycle lane and argue strongly against the introduction of bus islands which discourage more vulnerable users of buses such as the elderly or disabled. The test for viability of cycle infrastructure has to be that its introduction causes no significant delay to the general flow of traffic on roads which are served by buses otherwise it will inevitably be counterproductive.

Gordon Southwell ● 548d

It will be interesting to see how long it takes for local authorities to wake up to the fact that minority intrests like cycling will not get them re-elected in isolation and, let's be honest, most councillors are primarilly interested in perpetuting thier time on the gravy train. The number of recipients of social care and their 'touch points' with local authorities will far outweigh the number of cyclists and woe betide those who affect the extent and delivery of social care provision by demanding cash for vanoty transport programmes.

N V Brooks ● 548d

It will go quiet from Paul now. Always happens when he can’t bacj up his arguments.Interesting that he wants bus lanes and bus gates. They are going to remove a bus lane in Brentford to accommodate a.....cycle lane! Genius.

Simon Hayes ● 548d

The pot of cash available Peter  to local authorities will soon mean that such vanity projects will swiftly be discarded to meet far wider social care obligations.

N V Brooks ● 548d

Thank you Paul.However an article over a decade old which deals with how information is intrepreted hardly addresses my simple request for a source which supports your statement that "money spent on cycling is an INVESTMENT ".  The link you published does not support this.If you cannot find a relevant, peer reviewed, sourse to support your assertion then please simply say so.

N V Brooks ● 548d

Yes TfL/council Ealing & Hounslow 2 I know of & experience, have totally ballsed up traffic.People need & want cars, look beyond your blinkers

Peter Yale ● 548d

Here's a link for you on this Nigel!http://archive.boston.com/news/science/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/

Paul James ● 548d

Please cite your sources Paul.  An investment in something that benefits a tiny minority is money wasted that could be better spent elsewhere to deliver wider benefit

N V Brooks ● 548d

>but you can't do this without also punishing the far higher number of people who will be travelling on buses.Eh?Increase bus priority over cars.More bus lanes, better handling of bus lanes and buses at junctions, more bus gates.TfL have been doing it for years!https://content.tfl.gov.uk/svd-brochure.pdf

Paul James ● 548d

No doubt evidence from the Rachel Aldred school of data.Yes, Paul, how do you quantify the return on investment in cycling infrastructure? At what point does the cost benefit outweigh the massive expenditure? At least with roads you can see commercial vehicles using them. Then there’s the construction vehicles the council is so fond of. Etc, etc.

Simon Hayes ● 548d

While I would agree wholeheartedly that well designed cycle infrastructure is an investment that can yield high returns for everyone there is no such thing as government spending on 'motoring'. Roads are a vital part of our infrastructure and as we speak goods and services that make your life sustainable are being delivered on them and they are enabling economic activity that pays for the health and education for the nation. They also carry the most affordable and sustainable form of transport for longer journeys in the capital — buses. To starve them of investment because they also are used by a form of transport of which you disapprove of , private motoring, would be counterproductive. I welcome the council's attempts to boost active travel and improve facilities for cyclists. However, if policy is based on the dogma of traffic evaporation, the belief that traffic will disappear if motor vehicle journeys are made more difficult, then it is doomed to failure. Some may feel it is a good thing to punish car drivers who they believe are making unnecessary journeys, but you can't do this without also punishing the far higher number of people who will be travelling on buses.

Gordon Southwell ● 548d

How so??

Peter Yale ● 548d

Plenty of evidence to show that money spent on cycling is an INVESTMENT and returns money, where money spent on motoring is a black hole that EATS money.

Paul James ● 548d

All reasoned and sensible postings.Shame that the (VERY) minority and (VERY) overly vocal Cycling Lobby can only come up with vitriol, denial and excuses ........ 😁

Rosco White ● 549d

As a lifelong Cyclist I am frankly almost embarrassed to go out on my bike any more.Cycling has become a lawless skill less show of disrespect for civility and common sense.And that mindset has been encouraged. It's not unique to here. A trip last month to Amsterdam has shown that the once civil,calm way of cycling has also become some sort of wilful disrespect movement.It comes down to the total lack of responsibility and the creation of empowerment to people with a streak of disobedience that is now considered acceptable.Training is not uniform or thorough enough, and way down the list of priorities,Safe diligent and spacially aware cyclists are in a minority, and as I have found over a few years most certainly not welcome in the hierarchy of the LCC.They do not speak for me and I thoroughly resent the assertion that they speak for all riders.There are loads of simple improvements that can be made to make cycling safer and more practicable, and it has to start with mandatory training and certification and enforcement of public roadworthy machines.But such basic common sense as well as simple schemes are shouted down and it's all about showboating and to be seen on the global stage. Even if it's a half baked disaster.I always dreamed about improvements and things designed in when developments come along but that's never really happened, but what we have now merges on insanity and complete arrogance.So sad but what get is what we deserve, as apathy permits this mentality to propagate.

Raymond Havelock ● 549d

Thank you Bettina (if I may). The seasonal drop off in numbers was both expected and predicted along with the rise in those without lights or high visibility clothing. It makes the expenditure on this noisy minority even more difficult to justify.

N V Brooks ● 549d

I am neither a motorist nor cyclist so speak as an independent. Speaking as an ex economist, it transpires that a small fortune is being spent on cyclists with little or no return. Surely when so much is spent on them it’s not unreasonable to hold them to account in the same way as motorists. E.g. MOT, licence, insurance, etc. I have noticed a large drop off of late now that the rains have come and the dark mornings so clearly it is mainly a seasonal pursuit.A great relief for me since cycling along the Pitshanger Lane pavement at speed is always a favourite of theirs. Unfortunately my osteoarthritis is now at the stage where I cannot guarantee I will be able to jump out of their way.

Bettina Margaret Thwaite ● 549d

For the sake of transparency the busiest cycle route in Waltham forest, Cycleway 23, now has a 120% increase, over six years, to 4.7% of all trips in that area. That's 95.3% still made by other means after all that investment

N V Brooks ● 550d

I disagree, they deserve exactly the same respect as every other road user.  No special passing distances and, if they cannot deal with other traffic that they may encounter then they should not be on the road like any other incompetent user.

N V Brooks ● 550d

That sums up how selfish & demanding cycling zealots are.Want it all their way.Millions of £££££ spent on infrastructure, causing congestion & pollution to the majority., for which they don’t contribute Not prepared to pay & be regulated - as Mr Hayes says, mot, license. This in turn means they can flout any Highway Code rule with impunity.So until that happens they deserve little respect

Peter Yale ● 550d

Doubled SINCE 2016.

N V Brooks ● 550d

The London borough of Waltham Forest are triumphant in that cycling within the borough has doubled his 2016. Yes, it now accounts for a whopping 3.3% of journeys.This has been achieved at cost of £32 million of infrastructure changes, increased pollution on the eoads to where traffic has been displaced (admitted by the council), increased journey times for other forms of vehicle, delays to bus journeys, and documented delays to emergency service vehicles. And you wonder why people do not support a massive increase in cycling. It is simply too expensive to benefit less than 5% of road users in this manner.

N V Brooks ● 550d

Much like most of your fantasies then. If cycling becomes so huge it will need to be regulated in some form otherwise there will be chaos.Do you have anything meaningful to contribute?

Simon Hayes ● 550d

None ... of ... that ...  is ... ever ... going ... to ... happen.

Paul James ● 550d

Now you're talking Mr Hayes! 👌

Rosco White ● 550d

Then there needs to be proper regulation of cyclists. Proficiency testing and some sort of licence to show that it’s been completed. That will weed out the reckless and incompetent. Compulsory insurance. Mandatory helmet wearing. Annual bike MOT to ensure it’s in proper working order.You want to be taken seriously as a mass transport mode, then you have to start behaving seriously and ALL taking responsibility for what you do. No more victimisation claims. No more spurious demands for more money and ‘better treatment’.However, your delusion that all this spending will see a massive increase in cyclists is just that, a delusion.

Simon Hayes ● 550d

Is there any chance you can just pop off and let the original thread gather proper comments?

Peter King ● 550d

I've been through this again and again. We need a massive increase in spending on cycling infrastructure.Not for the people who are cycling already, but for those who aren't yet cycling.

Paul James ● 550d

I think he must be off to see the Wonderful Wizard.

Simon Hayes ● 551d

There’s no doubt whatsoever paul sadiq james is anti car.He constantly whines, whinges about them.A total hypocrite as drives if it suits ( took ages getting a confession.Acts as a policeman, stopping - or trying to, motorists lawfully going down his road , going about their business.Wants roads taken over by cycle lanes ( which he won’t use)Ludicrous ltns which the democratic public despise & voted against.In constant denial cars are not needed & there’s no reason people can’t walk or cycle always.The cyclist zealots luvvies want it all their way & contribute nothing.Reclaim all roads with fluffy rabbits & marshmallows, blow the economy , congestion, pollution. Crazy fantasy utopia.Financed by, hold on who????No cars = no revenue, parking tickets, & a million & 1 “ traffic infringements”cyclists do as they want with impunity Etc etc etc

Peter Yale ● 551d

No Paul. You can answer the question. Do you think all the money that’s gone into ‘active travel schemes’ (many of which have been removed) would have been better spent on public transport improvements? It would certainly benefit more people than a few entitled cyclists.Although you probably want the roads painted yellow too....

Simon Hayes ● 551d

Yet more made-up stuff from you about me and what I think and do!And some abuse as well.

Paul James ● 551d

You do like the straw man phrase Paul. Do you secretly aspire to be as clever as the scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz.The debate was about alternatives to car travel, which you do virulently oppose. Your only proposal is to make everybody cycle. That’s not a solution. My proposal is that public transport funding needs to improve to ensure reliability and frequency. For some reason, despite you being ‘a bus user’ you don’t think improving access to buses and tubes is important.Moth are very warped.

Simon Hayes ● 551d

More abuse, strawmen arguments, wide of the mark accusations and anger from you. Standard!

Paul James ● 551d

Says the muppet who goes out looking for fights with car drivers. Then posts on social media accusing them of all sorts. Even drags his kids out to teach them righteous ways!Paul, you just want everything your own way. You fail to comprehend that what suits you doesn’t suit most other people. Yes, buses get blocked by traffic - which you don’t understand isn’t ‘just cars’ - but ripping out bus lanes to pander to the one percent who cycle isn’t a solution.Frankly, I don’t care what you think of me. At least I’m not a preachy, thin skinned hypocrite. It’s a wonder that you still know how to breathe!

Simon Hayes ● 551d

>The really nasty people here Paul No, Simon the really nasty people here are yourself, Nigel and Peter.Have you not read the sort of abuse you've been dishing out? It's all there, go back and have a read!

Paul James ● 551d

I'm a regular bus user.They get blocked by... too many cars...You can't have a good bus service with too many cars around Simon.

Paul James ● 551d

This is so predictably cyclic (no pun intended) as the the tame idiot moves into the permanent victim/ nasty to me mode. Life is too short.

N V Brooks ● 551d

Ooh Paul, you’re breaking my heart.You are selfish, deluded and ignorant. You can’t come up with any sensible options can you? The number of regular cyclists is minuscule and won’t increase to the levels you aspire to even if they ban all motorised vehicles in London.As I said public transport that can cope with the increased levels of passenger numbers is what should be looked at. The cost of a bus is about the same as a mile of cycle lane, but infinitely more flexible. Yet they drag their heels over replacing diesel vehicles with green ones. 2037 at the last estimate. They rip out bus lanes to allocate road space to the minority of cyclists, the keenest of whom don’t even use the lanes because it’s beneath them.The really nasty people here Paul are the cycling mafia who won’t acceot anything unless it’s exactly what they demand. Hang the rest of us. Screw business. Balls to the people on low incomes forced to travel miles to work.Can you not see that your solutions are not realistic?

Simon Hayes ● 551d

There you go Simon. You ask me what I think is needed, and on reply you descend into abuse, vitriol, bad faith arguments, straw man arguments, ad hominem attacks and nastiness which is typical of the approach by people such as yourself when faced with the obvious need to reduce the amount of car journeys made.Nasty Simon.

Paul James ● 551d

The lobbyists in Chiswick are currently kicking off about the police failure to prosecute more than one percent of bicycle thieves. Apparently Met resources should be put into protecting the personal property of a privileged minority rather than trying to ensure the streets of London are free from muggers, burglars, rapists and all other miscreants!The cycling issue has become intractable now. The LCC diehards won’t rest until they have forced every private car off the roads, except their own of course. They try to deny that’s the goal, but even their leader described car ownership as tyranny recently. They are all mental, simply don’t understand that they are a minority and can’t accept compromise.The idea that everything can be done on bikes is ridiculous in a city the size of London. There will be a reckoning eventually.

Simon Hayes ● 552d

Sadly, the tame idiot simply does not think things through. A bit like the cycling lobby that rejected the Great West Road as a superb direct cycle superhighway from Chiswick roundabout through to Hammersmith and beyond in favour of a poorly implemented fragmented far more dangerous for cyclists, pollution increasing CS9 running in  little pockets on Chiswick High Road and through King Street where it delays emergency service vehicles, (see the reports) buses (ditto) and deliveries to the shops (ditto)

N V Brooks ● 552d

Oh, and the thing you and the rest of the cycle zealots always ignore is public transport. Any efficient city needs a reliable, affordable and comprehensive public transport network. In London millions of people use buses and the Tube every day, unlike the minuscule numbers who cycle. It’s always been the choice of most people as the commuting method. Yet TfL seem determined to ignore components such as buses despite the Mayor being ‘the son of a bus driver’.He’s also happy to allow strikes and all other types of disruption to happen even though the economic consequences are very bad for London as a whole. Happy to blame others for what is his responsibility.Why do you not think public transport is the key to solving some of London’s perceived problems?

Simon Hayes ● 552d

But those things don’t all work Paul. LTNs particularly as was proven in the failed experiment. All the stars show that traffic just gets displaced.You eat a cycling fascist state? Nothing for people who can’t or don’t want to cycle.I want to see fewer people shoved into unsuitable areas, Paul. You either ban car ownership for all or you accept that anyone who wants to can own one. You don’t like that, then f@@@ off to China where they like that sort of controlling behaviour.As has been explained to you before, more people equals more demand. Even without cars there would be more deliveries, more demand for hire vehicles, etc. The roads will still be crowded, accidents will still happen. You just don’t like anyone not accepting your very narrow parameters for life. For someone who grizzled endlessly about Brexit you are remarkably keen on repressive measures.One day, if you live long enough, you won’t be able to cycle. Then you really will bleat about things.

Simon Hayes ● 552d

I could just about possibly live with that, as long as there was serious Enforcement and Very Heavy Fines for riding bicycles and electric scooters on footpaths meant for pedestrians.Unfortunately, ISTM that cyclists and electric scooter riders want a choice and have it both ways.

Rosco White ● 552d

>Here we go, the usual bleat. Of course, you like to drive a car when it suits you Paul, as do many other cyclists.Again, I don't want to see cars banned, just used much less than they are. You do too Simon, you've said it before.>Realistically, what do you propose?LTNs, high quality cycle tracks on all main roads, bike storage everywhere, road pricing, more companies using cargo bikes for last mile delivery, more bike hire, more electric scooter hire, more cargo bike hie, more shared car clubs, 20mph limits enforced, school streets and lots of other stuff Simon. What about you?

Paul James ● 552d

Here we go, the usual bleat. Of course, you like to drive a car when it suits you Paul, as do many other cyclists.Realistically, what do you propose?

Simon Hayes ● 552d

There are too many cars Nigel. Do you disagree? Really?

Paul James ● 552d

But Paul, your argument falls down at the first hurdle. Even if you got rid of privately owned cars, which seems to be your wet dream, you’d have to have traffic controls for the rest of the vehicles needed to keep theclubtry operating. That includes, for example, buses, lorries, vans, taxis, hire cars, motorbikes and bicycles.Are you advocating scrapping traffic lights because they were ‘invented for cars? Fatuous.

Simon Hayes ● 552d

The overwhelming majority of cyclists including very close friends and members of my immediate family who all cycle are reasoned  and open to sensible debate. It is the hypocritical self-appointed spokespeople for minority groups who is exert undue degrees of political influence which affect all those tried to travel in the borough that I find particularly troublesome in fact I find them odious as they scramble to find facts to support their narrow narrative of "two wheels good, four wheels bad". or "too many cars". If there are too many cars why do they choose to drive at all is it because it is more convenient or they simply enjoy being bloody hypocrites?

N V Brooks ● 552d

Great turn of phrase N V Brooks!  😂  👌

Rosco White ● 552d

Your original post made no reference to the automation or otherwise of traffic lights.  Just because the resident idiot now changes his terms of reference is no reason for moist Lycra among the LCC fanboys.

N V Brooks ● 552d

Here we go"No further attempts seem to have been made at mechanised traffic control, until the growth of motorised traffic in the U.S. lead to a need to control junctions in the early 20th century."https://www.traffictechnologytoday.com/features/a-complete-history-of-the-traffic-signal.html

Paul James ● 552d

Before the modern electric traffic lights we're talking about were introduced in the UK there were TWO 'signals' (manually operated by police), one near Parliament, and later on, one on Picadilly. They didn't apply to cyclists.The modern traffic light we're talking about were invented for cars Nigel.

Paul James ● 552d

‘I’m no anti car’‘Too many cars’‘No traffic lights here Nigel.They were put there for drivers, to try and manage with the MASSIVE amounts of traffic that has piled onto this junction over the years.’As usual Paul you equate traffic with cars. Car ownership in Ealing has barely risen in 15 years, as you know. More delivery vehicles and taxis though.

Simon Hayes ● 552d

Paul, you stated that the traffic lights were introduced only to deal with cars. This is a falsehood, either deliberate or, one would hope unintentional. The lights were commonplace thirty years before car ownership but obviously not at the location you have selected for the picture. It might make you feel better as your fits your narrative but you know as well as I do that it's bullsh*t. You really cannot make yourself look any more intellectually challenged when you refused to accept facts evidence to you time after time after time. Just go away Paul and try to recover some semblance of dignity.

N V Brooks ● 552d

More people=more mechanised transport. Your next point?

Peter King ● 552d

No traffic lights here Nigel.They were put there for drivers, to try and manage with the MASSIVE amounts of traffic that has piled onto this junction over the years.Not people on bikes.

Paul James ● 552d

Oh dear, Paul. You have to conflate everything to an anti-car rant. Don’t pretend that you are not anti-car. Your every utterance contradicts that. Why, you are so anti-car you even drive one when it suits you. What a fool that makes you.The point of the original post was that the works were taking far longer than necessary and didn’t seem to be progressing. That was a fair observation. Even morons like you should understand that not completing such works promptly and properly creates problems, and costs more money.Though since these are traffic lights you might be forgiven for not recognising what they are for. After all, most cyclists don’t seem to understand that a red light means stop.

Simon Hayes ● 553d

You really are a sad little man who doesn't have the intellectual bandwidth to accept when they're wrong. Traffic lights would be there to allow pedestrians to cross the roads from the phalanx of cyclists had they been the only type of vehicle.  Red/Green semaphore crossing signals were originally on the streets of London to allow safe crossing when they were only horses and carriages, some thirty years before the advent of the car.  You would know this if you undertook even the most basic research,  I guess you did and simply chosen to lie to enable your LCC compatriots to have a little moist pants moment while they celebrate your anti car post. Good grief man try and actually think before you post please. So no, I don't get your point because it is simply factually wrong.

N V Brooks ● 553d

The lights are never being changed to benefit drivers, rather a detrimental cause, to benefit pedestrians.Extra delays & congestion/ pollution - all you tunnel visioned  eco, green zealots. As as been said umpteen times & will continue to be a fact.People need & want cars, however much you anti car radicalised cyclists shout, stamp, screamCue Owen/james double act ( or are they the same) DDD!

Peter Yale ● 553d

So you get my point then about the irony of some drivers moaning that something just for them is being repaired and replaced/upgraded and is causing more delay than they normally get there.If more of them were on a bus though rather than in a car (and most cars going through there have just a driver in), it would be less worse, so double whammy on the irony meter.

Paul James ● 553d

But they were and they have and they will be with us for decades to come, get over it.  Not at all sorry if it bursts your utopian balloon.

N V Brooks ● 553d

Nigel, if cars hadn't had been invented, neither would have traffic lights.

Paul James ● 553d

The pet idiot speaks! Of course, I should have remembered that the dedicated cycle traffic lights at many junctions simply don't exist do they? Honestly Paul if you didn't exist we would have to make you up as an object of ridicule.

N V Brooks ● 553d

So about the only point of traffic lights is to control motorised traffic, without which we wouldn't really need them, and some drivers are moaning about them being improved? :D :D :D

Paul James ● 553d

The TfL website says that there are "Temporary signals in operation for signal modernisation works" and disruption will last until "Friday 25 November 2022"It also says "Delays are possible".  Impressive under-stating of the issue!!https://tfl.gov.uk/StatusUpdates/RoadsDisruptionsFull text of this notice: [A4020,B455] The Broadway (W5) (Ealing)  MinimalFrom: Wednesday 26 October 2022To: Friday 25 November 2022Last updated 14:21 Friday 11 November 2022 : Delays are possible.Works | TfL[A4020] The Broadway (All directions) at the junction of [B455] High Street - Temporary signals in operation for signal modernisation works.List affected roads:[B455] Bond Street (W5) (All directions)Gordon Road (W5) (All directions)Grove Road (W5) (All directions)Hamilton Road (W5) (All directions)Haven Lane (W5) (All directions)[B455] High Street (W5) (All directions)Madeley Road (W5) (All directions)Mount Park Road (W5) (All directions)[A4020] New Broadway (W5) (All directions)New Ealing Broadway (W5) (All directions)Oxford Road (W5) (All directions)Spring Bridge Road (W5) (All directions)[A4020,B455] The Broadway (W5) (All Directions)[A4020] The Mall (W5) (All directions)Western Road (W5) (All directions)Windsor Road (W5) (All directions)Woodville Road (W5) (All directions)

Phil Kay ● 553d

There finally looks to be progress on the site with a large amount of traffic light poles having gone up. I wonder what they are for as the last lights seemed to work as they should?

Peter King ● 553d

Definitely not the hypocrisy of our pet idiot and his namesake on the Chiswick form who runs around in a diesel SUV, while criticising other motorists, really knows no bounds.

N V Brooks ● 554d

It would have been difficult with a week's shopping plus a golf bag/clubs plus shoes and a trolley, so no!

Peter King ● 554d

I do wonder if Paul and his LCC chums insist that all their visitors and deliveries have to come on bike, foot or public transport. Does he deny ten acces to his house if they turn up in a motorised vehicle? Does he lecture them about ‘too many cars’? I doubt it.

Simon Hayes ● 554d

No, he is the lack of thought police as he lack the mental capacity to consider any other than his original, narrow narrative, anti car, thoughts.  Surely, friends and family could intervene

N V Brooks ● 554d

Oh God, give it a rest Paul. If you are driving from one place to another you don’t just abandon your car halfway there. Do you not understand that?In your idealised world nobody seems to be allowed to go anywhere unless it’s by your prescribed methods. Traffic is created by more than just cars, you know. Of course, you don’t create traffic by getting deliveries or taking taxis or even driving yourself to Richmond Park. You really are the thought police, aren’t you?

Simon Hayes ● 554d

I'm sorry. Hearing people creating traffic moan about being stuck in traffic lands with me in the same way as people moaning about not being able to park their car because of too many other people with cars parked up.Could you have completed your journey by bus?

Paul James ● 554d

En route from Chiswick Bridge to Pitshanger Lane.

Peter King ● 554d

> South Ealing Road to Haven GreenIn a car?

Paul James ● 554d

Probably the same people within that are tipping off  activists on locations and timings.

Raymond Havelock ● 555d

I tried getting from South Ealing Road to Haven Green around 5.20 tonight and gave up thanks to these ongoing ''roadworks''. I have no doubt that they are essential for the free flow of traffic through the Broadway (tongue well in cheek as I type this rubbish)! I gave up and had to detour left and then come across from there. No doubt some pillock at tfl will be citing excess pollution around the Broadway soon while no-one is actually working on this madcap scheme.

Peter King ● 555d

Very good point.There seems to be no restructuring of the islands or road layouts.I can only assume it’s traffic light phasing, this will inhibit the motorists as usual ( which khan/TfL /council hate.Remember folks, every journey matters!!!!!Oh except cars

Peter Yale ● 557d

What is the end product? Are lights staying where they are?Apart from wasting money, what's the reason for all of this?

Simon Wycombe ● 557d

But aren't Ealing Council Labour "Socialists"?  🤣

Rosco White ● 558d

It could be applied to Labour run Ealing Council, when they ran down library services. Endearing themselves to Carillion seemed more important than keeping up services for the people.Also "the nose in search of a bum" phrase can be applied to Labour run Ealing Council when they want to give away half of Ealing Town Hall (i.e. Victoria Hall) to developers Mastcraft. Labour run Ealing Council seem to be disregarding the efforts and sacrifices of previous generations of people of Ealing, for the future, who subscibed to the building Victoria Hall et al for the People, when endearing themslves to Mastcraft.

Anthony Hawran ● 559d

That was said about Chris Philp

David Burke ● 559d

I recently came across the most wonderful phrase which others probably already know, but was new to me......... "The nose in search of a bum"!!!

Rosco White ● 559d

A few of the most recent appointments appear to have well proven professionals in their field rather than some of the wannabe numpties who have been weaselling their way in.  If only they were diligent and knowledgeable and of the utmost integrity.How the now incumbents fare remains to be seen.  There are damned good people in Transport but they are so very oppressed by the culture and the politics that very few rise to where they ought to be.

Raymond Havelock ● 559d

It seems that at least he has kicked BellEnd off the tfl Board, so not entirely a complete idiot ........ 😉

Rosco White ● 559d

Idiot khan then

Peter Yale ● 559d

This will be TfL as they have overall responsibility for a roads and trunk B roads.But Ealing Highways are supposed to oversee and co-ordinate and lease with all parties. But they are too busy drafting traffic schemes to maximise revenue by stealth.

Raymond Havelock ● 559d

Surprise, surprise after not seeing any work going on Weds or Thu, the clowns are out today when it's raining and there are more people around! Can anyone explain what project management is please?

Peter King ● 560d

It's not safe there as it was when the lights were working if that helps.

Paul James ● 562d

I went past there yesterday at around 5.00 p.m. and no work was going on. Again, today at 12.30 p.m. no workers to be seen. The temporary traffic lights were not working either which made crossing the road very unsafe. I know that the council are basically crap but this is really taking the mick.

Peter King ● 562d

It's simply scandalous that people either going shopping and a great many are elderly and carers are now denied access to a cul-de sac Shopping centre.Even worse that people going to a cemetery ( who can come from almost anywhere get hit and it's less well off who use older vehicles and cannot afford the ideal of EV or are impractical in many home locations.And there's the Public records office - also a cul-de-sac which is for the people of the entire UK not just those who have deep pockets.None of the roads between Kew Green and Mortlake go anywhere. None are through routes or rat runs or indeed choked with vehicle movements bar the shopping mall - which is one of the few facilities designed to accommodate vehicles.And all beside the river which has the best airflow - except the plethora of hi rise buildings rising along it are damaging airflow severely.Never hear a word about that.It's is simply a revenue raising con and this approach to is key focus on recent secret meetings in Ealing's highways is how to manipulate and make rather than any real improvement.

Raymond Havelock ● 566d

Yes unfortunately. Khan is a piece of work as you also enter the ULEZ visiting the crematorium at Mortlake. However, as we now know the ULEZ is all about revenue not pollution even according the FofE data.

N V Brooks ● 567d

Easing into the Kew Retail Park...isn't  one entering  the ULEZ ZONE from the South Circular Road?

Jim Lawes ● 567d

I thought he has armed police protection nowadays that should mean no cowering in a shop?

Peter King ● 572d

Mr King, our mutual “friend” khan got absolutely slated on LBC this morningLtns apparently are being rolled out in Oxford & other places.Every caller slated the schemes.1 said they got the little twerp (sorry khan I mean) to come see traffic congestion.He got so much flak he had to hide in a shop !!!

Peter Yale ● 572d

The Archives has nice gardens too, complete with water feature and swans.

Susan Kelly ● 574d

And The National Archives which is a fascinating place.

N V Brooks ● 574d

'I can’t help but wonder if the Ealing Broadway store is one of those on their hit list.'Given the absence of a department store any nearer than Westfield, I hope M&S Ealing is safe.

Susan Kelly ● 574d

I love the KRP too, and one can easily walk to Kew Gardens from there.

Susan Kelly ● 574d

'Much of Kew Retail Park is earmarked for redevelopment for residential, but the plans actually show an expanded Marks and Spencer store.' Interesting: I thought they wouldn't want to stay if the other shops went. It'll be less useful if one can't pop into Boots, Next and Costa while there.

Susan Kelly ● 574d

Perhaps a bit big to be an M&S Food. M&S, like Waitrose, have really lost their way of late. Waitrose will probably lose customers permanently when they close for redevelopment. If both close it's going to mean more traffic as the number of home deliveries will rocket, especially if the Tesco redeveopments go ahead. Dobtless, our council, in their infinite wisdome, has factored this in to their traffic planning.

N V Brooks ● 574d

I can’t help but wonder if the Ealing Broadway store is one of those on their hit list. It meets the description of those they want to go. Maybe it might become just an M&S Food?

Bettina Margaret Thwaite ● 574d

I love Kew Retail Park, not a single woke snowflake pillock on a push-bike to be seen.

N V Brooks ● 574d

So make use of all road space.Cars are a necessity

Peter Yale ● 574d

Too many cars!

Paul James ● 574d

Free parking, but Kew Bridge traffic can be a nightmare

Peter Yale ● 574d

Much of Kew Retail Park is earmarked for redevelopment for residential, but the plans actually show an expanded Marks and Spencer store.

N V Brooks ● 574d

Agreed but I can't help thinking that the Kew branch will be on the hit list of stores to close.

Susan Kelly ● 574d

M&S at Kew Retail is so much nicer with ample FREE parking.

N V Brooks ● 575d

There are temporary lights to ensure traffic is congested.Some workmen were seemingly digging up old traffic signals.As you correctly forecast Mr King, it will be at great expense & detrimental to motorists

Peter Yale ● 575d