Forum Topic

Hamilton Road Petition

I know the phrase LTN can set people off and it is a shame that transport issues can become so polarised so I would ask that people take a non-dogmatic approach to requests from residents of Hamilton Road for more traffic restrictions. This residential road was supposed to be part of an LTN back in 2021 but the proposals were never followed up. The issues with drivers including HGVs using it as a cut through between Uxbridge Road and the North Circular remains. What residents are asking for seem quite moderate and sensible. No right turn from the NCR into Hamilton Road and no left turn out of Hamilton Road onto the NCR.

Gordon Southwell ● 409d49 Comments

Er, no. I suggested banning HGVs from using that road. Paul James jumped in with his usual nonsense and it was him I was arguing with.Do keep up. As I said, it’s not for the rest of Ealing to decide what happens to that road, it’s up to the residents. If they can’t muster enough support among themselves then that’s their problem. You also have a very eared sense of community spirit.

Simon Hayes ● 403d

It's telling that you have failed to understand how deranged was your response to a community spirited post highlighting a local campaign by people in Ealing to improve their lives.

Mark Evans ● 403d

When you are wrong, you are wrong. If Gordon thinks posting on here to gain support for something that’s nothing to do with him and then gets resistance to it then he’s being naive.You can insult me all you like. It doesn’t really matter coming from you. It’s clear that you don’t actually follow much of what’s going on in Ealing unless it corresponds to your political viewpoint.I’d be happy to work with the council if it proved itself capable of making rational and informed decisions, but instead we get spin, falsehoods and deception.  More fool you if you bend over and take that.

Simon Hayes ● 404d

I think Gordon has hit the nail on the head by bringing up projection - you are a classic case.As a sometime card carrying Labour supporter myself, it is quite clear to me that he isn't one as he has been quite prepared to be very critical of the council on this forum. Compared to your very crude, repetitive and ill-informed rants which you can assume the ruling administration would just disregard, he has sometimes made points which I can tell you have hit home. You seem incapable of understanding that anyone who doesn't automatically go along with your unsophisticated attack points and share your conviction that nobody working or elected to office in local government has any sense of public service isn't necessarily a supporter of the administration. Ben's point about you and the Dunning-Kriuger effect seems a valid one but I think your relentlessly confrontational attitude is a broader symptom of how public debate has been degraded by social media with opinions formed through prejudice and lack of proper understanding reinforced by like-minded individuals similarly unencumbered with any proper insight. When challenged by any level of real world understanding and practical knowledge, the reaction is never reflection but an unshakeable belief that someone who disagrees with you is your enemy.

Mark Evans ● 404d

Coming from a card carrying Labour supporter that’s hilarious.If you are stupid enough to post on a discussion forum and get opinions that differ from yours I would suggest you are one who is simplistic and lacking nuance. As I said, the decision on Hamilton Road is nothing to do with you if you don’t live there.What is also amusing is your slavish devotion to Labour policies, even if they are obviously stupid. There’s widespread incompetence (lost computers anyone) and dishonesty within the council. Only an idiot would think this mob are blessed with infinite wisdom and integrity the way you talk about them.FYI, I’m not bitter and disappointed. I’ll leave you to your projections, such as they are.

Simon Hayes ● 404d

If you are under the impression you disapproving of what I post will make me reconsider what I contribute here, you are sadly mistaken. This is a relatively uncontentious proposal which most balanced minded individuals would not have a particularly strong opinion on either way if, like you, they were unfamiliar with the details of the issue. Your hostility to anyone who doesn't share your simplistic, unnuanced and determinedly confrontational view on any issue is just tiresome and really doesn't contribute anything to the debate.  It is hard to see your conviction that anyone in authority is venal and self-serving is anything other than a form of projection and we should all be thankful that, for reasons that are obvious, you have never been in a position to formulate policies that would have an influence on the lives of others. I don't know what has happened in your life to behave in this way but I am sorry you have ended up as such a bitter and disappointed man.

Gordon Southwell ● 404d

Er, no. You posted here to create a battle beyond the boundaries of Hamilton Road. If the residents are organised and have a petition that’s been presented to the council already then why do they need extra support?All very well you doing it on behalf of them but there’s nothing to stop residents of that road posting here. Basically it’s nothing to do with you. There may be residents on the road who don’t want the changes.Personally if they do what the residents want then that’s a matter for Hamilton Road and the council. Your efforts to enlist support from lame brains like Paul does you no credit.

Simon Hayes ● 404d

As I explained earlier I posted on here about the petition because the resident asked me to. The fact that it has been presented to council doesn't mean that it will automatically be accepted and the proposed changes implemented and I'm sure residents would appreciate additional support. The people with the best understanding of the day to day lives of those living on Hamilton Road will be the residents of Hamilton Road and they have come up with what appears to be a sensible solution. Your attempt to incorporate culture war battles on transport that you are determined to fight at every opportunity doesn't really help anyone.

Gordon Southwell ● 404d

Yawn. A lot of private cars are used for business purposes Paul, including all those Ubers. You really don’t know anything about anything, do you?If you talk to any tradesperson they will all tell you the same thing. Traffic in London is slow because of roadworks, traffic lights and reduction of speed limits on main roads. It’s not because of private cars.

Simon Hayes ● 404d

>How does a plumber, painter, tradesperson get around with their tools etc????Very slowly 'cause the roads are stuck up by loads of private cars with just a driver in Peter.

Paul James ● 404d

If the petition is closed then why post on here about it?After the LTN debacle the council promised it would be local residents who get the final say on changes to road layouts. Paul doesn’t live anywhere near Hamilton Road, and I’m sure his LCC friends have already been consulted on it anyway. The council will have a sympathetic ear for them anyway.Unfortunately we’ve had too much transport planning emanating from people without any real understanding of people’s day to day lives, with the consequent varieties of pig’s ears across the borough and beyond. If the plan is to get people out of private cars (which is the LCC aim) then why not be up front about it instead of the ploys and plans currently underway? Oh, because it would be a massive vote loser of course.

Simon Hayes ● 404d

Paul, as I understand it the petition was presented at the last council meeting and is no longer open for signatures but I'm sure residents of Hamilton Road will appreciate you writing to your councillor, particularly if you are in the same ward, and expressing support for its aims.

Gordon Southwell ● 404d

How does a plumber, painter, tradesperson get around with their tools etc????

Peter Yale ● 404d

Meanwhile, please cite your data source.

N V Brooks ● 404d

If you want to get around london quickly you do it by train or bike Peter, it's been that way for years.

Paul James ● 404d

Any amount of time. No one likes or needs to be held up by idiotic schemes.You might live in some fantasy world where everything is rosie.The rest of us have to get about asap

Peter Yale ● 405d

Peter, how much time has to be lost until it becomes, to quote, "making people impatient & trying to make up time"? Does it start at 5 minutes, or is it less than that?

Ben Owen ● 405d

Oh dear Paul. A near miss. They don’t count, as your LCC chums elsewhere are keen to point out when it’s cyclists and pedestrians.

Simon Hayes ● 405d

See my video above Nigel where I ride past it and get cut up by a driver turning down Hamilton Road, I've seen a fair few other incidents at this spot. So yes, I'm very interested in that junction becoming safer.

Paul James ● 405d

Typical LCC gesture-waver.I don't live there but I want to be heard as I don't like others having freedom. Pathetic, simply pathetic.

N V Brooks ● 405d

Come on Paul. You live nowhere near there. Maybe you should spend your time answering Nigel’s question.

Simon Hayes ● 405d

So, the basis of your argument is an eight-year-old newspaper article which, in turn, does not cite a source for these supposed serious injuries. Neither the local authority nor the Metropolitan Police Service have any serious injuries recorded at that junction since the year 2000 Paul. Either find a source that actually supports your wild assertions or, to make yourself look less of a total buffoon, simply shut up and post to your ultra gullible cohort on X.

N V Brooks ● 405d

Is there a link to the petition? I'd love to add my comments to it.

Paul James ● 405d

Just to be clear, I don't live in Hamilton Road but a friend does and she drew my attention to the petition.  My suggestion to be non-dogmatic about this seems to have gone unheeded. However, a HGV ban might be a step forward although the general level of traffic is part of the problem. Generally I think that the LTN concept has been very pernicious. The notion that it is right to direct traffic away from quiet leafy streets onto ones that already have higher levels of traffic is a recipe for social injustice as well organised middle class householders have managed to get measures introduced which pushes traffic and pollution onto roads where homes are cheaper (often with lots of social housing) to the extent that exceedances of air quality guidelines are breached. However, in a case like Hamilton Road, where the volume and type of traffic is inappropriate for the road, then some restrictions do seem justified.

Gordon Southwell ● 405d

Peter, you stated they had been "no accidents" at that location.  This is incorrect.

Paul James ● 405d

Nigel, I quoted the article there, did you not read it?

Paul James ● 405d

I said that I would ask once again todat, so:Paul, please cite the data source that supports your claims of "multiple accidents".

N V Brooks ● 405d

Well said Mr  Hayes. The denial or silence is deafening

Peter Yale ● 405d

Or, of course, post his own data source.There’s a strong tendency with the cycle lobbyists to play up supposed dangers and data that doesn’t exist to support their arguments. Then when challenged they deflect or ignore. Paul does it all the time. It’s the LCC playbook.

Simon Hayes ● 405d

I have nothing wrong.You claimed ""There have been a number of accidents at this junction, including two in recent months where pedestrians were seriously injured."  First part correct although you use the term accident indicating, as the police would define it as "a lack of blame" rather than an incident where there is attributable blame (refer to your own post in this thread).There have been FOUR recorded incidents IN TWENTY YEARS (2000-2024). Second part wholly inaccurate according to Crashmap who take their data feeds directly from the Metropolitan Police and local authority feeds.So unless you are referring to police data and council data as wrong, kindly post your wild assertions or, dare I say, total crap, elsewhere.

N V Brooks ● 406d

Nigel, check your comprehension here, you've got stuff wrong.

Paul James ● 406d

In the expectation thatthere would not be a fulsome response from Paul, I did a detailed trwal on Crashmap which records all collisions where there are casulaties ranging from cuts and bruises to fatalities.Crashmap only use official data published by the Department for Transport which is based on records submitted to them by police forces. The juction mentionedby Paul has hadfour incidents, all recorded as 'slight' IN THE LAST TWENTY YEARS.As for Paul's claim that "two in recent months where pedestrians were seriously injured." is absolutely wrong, yet he has the audacity to claim that others are "making this up". If you keep posting falsehoods Paul there will be complaints to Neighbournet.  I would stick to your 'cohort' on X where facts are not something that matters.

N V Brooks ● 406d

I will ask one last time tomorrow. Failure to get a response validating the claims proves that, once again, Mr James is posting bullsh1t.

N V Brooks ● 406d

You won’t get it Nigel. Paul never responds when he’s proven wrong, just plays the victim instead :)

Simon Hayes ● 406d

May I ask you again Paul please state your data source.

N V Brooks ● 406d

Peter you said"there were no accidents at longfield"Is this a true statement or not?(aside from your misue of the word accident, the police use the word "incident" today as accident suggests it was down to chance and not preventable)

Paul James ● 406d

Make up!!!!You mean like your car “statistics” & your ltn pish

Peter Yale ● 406d

Simon, I trust you will the discount people trying to pretend reducing the number of vehicles using a side road junction doesn't improve safety at that junction (and of course on the road being used as the shortcut). There are many people in Ealing trying to pretend all is fine as regards road safety, it clearly isn't.The comparison with Longfield Avenue is a good one and would make a good case for doing similar at Hamilton road, fewer vehicle using the junction to take short cuts, fewer incidents. It's pretty obvious!The argument that it just shifts a problem elsewhere is fallacious too. Main roads have things like proper crossings etc.. which side roads generally do not.

Paul James ● 406d

Talking of making stuff up. Paul, can you please cite your data source for these  "serious injuries" iI can find one where a pedestrian was struck by a motorcycle and nothing else so please show me the data source thank you.

N V Brooks ● 406d

A news story from eight (8) years ago, quoting a council spokesperson. Where’s the actual TfL data to which they were referring?Come on Paul, at least make an effort to produce some proper facts.

Simon Hayes ● 406d

"There have been a number of accidents at this junction, including two in recent months where pedestrians were seriously injured.https://www.mylondon.news/incoming/row-erupts-over-ealing-councils-10619917Please Peter, stop makng stuff up.

Paul James ● 406d

>There were no accidents at LongfieldThis is incorrect.

Paul James ● 406d

There were no accidents at Longfield. It was purely done for the dictatorship in the council to look after themselves.Now St Leonard’s is dangerous for turning right, caused by these knobs shutting every other road, making people impatient & trying to make up time

Peter Yale ● 406d

Usual nonsense from Paul. He ought to get a hobby.

Simon Hayes ● 407d

Simpon, It was the "one ealing" lot that made Ealing Council replace bollards with ANPR, they claimed it was for emergency services, but I think it was just a trick to switch to being able to moan about drivers being fined as they just wanted their shortcuts back.I mean they just wanted the lot gone obviously, although strangly, not the bollards and barriers at half acre and Oaklands In which some of them live I think!

Paul James ● 407d

Where can I sign? It needs something that's for sure, people diving down there to steal a march on the queue at the 406 junction can be a real problem.Ironically in my video here the lorry driver behaves in an exemplary fashion, the driver, not so, but afterwards I did think why such a massive truck was being driven down a tiny side road.At the junction at Longfield Avenue and Uxbridge road there were frequent collisions as it was an attractive shortcut, until they put the banned turn in there, and since then, nothing.Although myself I'd just ask for a bollard at one end really, sorted.https://twitter.com/prj45/status/1775891789901365708

Paul James ● 407d

Ridiculous idea. I guess bollards at the H/Lane end of the road to stop people entering by mistake? No they want people to do that so they can fine them.

Simon Wycombe ● 409d

Simply ban HGVs from the road. a single ANPR camera and two "Max weight 3.5t" signs would cover it else the road will be littered with even more signs.

N V Brooks ● 409d

Maybe ban the HGV turns. Asking everyone in Ealing to support your plan isn’t really how these things are supposed to be done. Residents of the road pnly, otherwise you get all the LCC nutters involved.

Simon Hayes ● 409d