Forum Topic

Boston Road cycle lane

Apparently & finally, installation is starting in March.

David Greane ● 207d129 Comments

Mr B, I admit is a tad more tolerant than me.But this incessant forcing ( or trying to) of cyclists nonsense., going on & on & on & on & on & on & on.3 main suspects, one of whom  is a major hypocrite.Selfish agenda which just does not suit people.Even your survey said - which would be heavily biased in favour of Lycra luvvies.Won’t cycle if to far!!!!!!Want roads to be pristine.What a farce, those with real issues , shouldn’t be forced into this stupid cycling nonsense

Peter Yale ● 15d

Peter, you are wrong. Nigel does actually care and he cares a lot about a lot of things. He is so caring that he makes it his job to be able to give an expert opinion on any single topic you want to name. This is why he comments on every thread.Now we know that Nigel claims that there is a continuous cycle lane between Heathrow and Hyde Park. This is because he has said it is a fact. The problem he has is that he constantly gets himself in to a pickle between what is an opinion and what is a fact. He is unsure of the difference - if you click on the link he and you will find the distinction clearly explained:  https://youtu.be/Gs9ZGW_1oMM?

Ben Owen ● 15d

& the rest of the world, don’t give a toss about some stupid bloody cycle lane.If it’s there or not & hopefully never will be

Peter Yale ● 16d

There are two ways to reach Knightsbridge / Hyde Park Corner from Heathrow. One is to use the A4 to Hammersmith and then continue along the Cromwell Road (A4) / Brompton Road / Knightsbridge and up to Hyde Park Corner. The other way is to do the A4 to Hammersmith and then along Hammersmith Road / Ken High Street / Kensington Gore / Knightsbridge and proceed to Hyde Park Corner.Let us start with the A4 route: David has asked you to confirm if there is a cycle lane on the Cromwell Road? Is there - it is a simple yes or no.Next, the route via Olympia: do you know of a cycle route along Ken High Street?  This is not too complicated - you either know it to be a yes or know it to be a no. What is your answer?Paul wants confirmation from you that you believe that there is a continuous cycle lane from Heathrow to Knightsbridge. Do you believe this still to be the case? This is not a complicated question: it is as simple as being asked to enter 1 for 'Yes' and 2 for 'No' on your telephone keypad.

Ben Owen ● 16d

Apologies everyone that Paul Ben and now David have the collective intellect of an amoeba and cannot be bothered to read the clear explanation I gave. With that most brain power I am surprised they can even manage to stay upright on a bike. Really not gonna waste any more time with people who probably couldn't understand a two-piece jigsaw.  Have fun girls.

N V Brooks ● 16d

Is this dreamy cycle lane supposed to be on Ken High Street?

Ben Owen ● 16d

& the M4. There’s a cycle lane there too, all cyclists should use it

Peter Yale ● 16d

>Is this cycle lane supposed to be on the Cromwell Road ( A4) ?Yup, this is whag Nigel said>The A4, of course, has a segregated cycle path all the way from Heathrow to Knightsbridge

Paul James ● 16d

Is this cycle lane supposed to be on the Cromwell Road ( A4) ?

David Burke ● 16d

Well, if anybody should know about fantasies it's you pal. As I said, if you bothered to read, I had already offered a full explanation to Ben so kindly lose yourself and be ignored somewhere else.

N V Brooks ● 16d

>I have already offered clarification to Ben, l suggest you go back to X with your box of tissues Paul.I don't have an account on X, I deleted it when that Nazi saluting Trump loving idiot Musk took over.Now, let's get back to your fantasy continuos cycle lane along the A4 from Heathrow to Knigthsbridge...

Paul James ● 16d

That again!I have already offered clarification to Ben, l suggest you go back to X with your box of tissues Paul.

N V Brooks ● 16d

>The A4, of course, has a segregated cycle path all the way from Heathrow to KnightsbridgeCan you say that again.

Paul James ● 16d

Indeed it is not and I never said that it was, please read my post where I was clear about the route once one had reached Hammersmith. It is obviously a lack of sleep, looking at the times you post Ben, that makes you unnecessarily aggressively adversarial. Perhaps this is something for which you should seek medical advice or at least a sleeping draft.

N V Brooks ● 16d

So what if there’s no cycle lane or not.Use a different route.I can’t drive down Drayton Green at certain times ( oh risk a fine too)

Peter Yale ● 16d

Olympia is not on the A4. Do you agree or not?

Ben Owen ● 16d

Olympia is not on the A4 nor is there anything along Ken High Street.Before you make your claims, do check your so called facts.

Ben Owen ● 16d

Along the Cromwell Road is a shared route is it, with a cycle lane? Which Cromwell Road are you thinking of? The one in Kingston?

Ben Owen ● 16d

No Ben, just fact. It runs parallel to the A4 from the T1 slip alongside the Bath Road as far as the Jolly Waggoners roundabout then becomes segregated / shared use as far as Chiswick roundabout where you have a choice. Either join CS9 or ride alongside the A4 as far as Hammersmith where you can pick up the dedicated path passing Charles Ho House, onwards past Olympia and then a share but very clearly designated route to Scotch Corner just because you didn't know about it or use it Ben doesn't mean that it isn't there.

N V Brooks ● 16d

>The A4, of course, has a segregated cycle path all the way from Heathrow to Knightsbridge.Are you muddling up fact with an opinion?

Ben Owen ● 16d

which the Lycra luvvies dictate & stamp & scream that the lions share must go on cycle ways.Cyclists should have road tax, be registered & insured to go on road.They want equality.You don’t know what I pay in tax, probably substantially more than you.Have you handed in your license yet, or still being a hypocrite??

Peter Yale ● 17d

>Roads must be free of potholes ( which they don’t contribute) as pay no ved.VED is a motor vehicle tax Peter. What's more, is not spent on roads, it just goes into the general account, like income tax.I bet there are people that cycle that don't have a car peter that pay far more income tax than you do income tax and VED together, get off their roads...

Paul James ● 17d

Oh diddums poor hard done by cyclists.Want little fluffy roads & foam kerbs or they won’t cycle.Oh nor if it’s cold, dark & wet & too far!!!!!! 😂Roads must be free of potholes ( which they don’t contribute) as pay no ved.There must be no cars either, in case of any accidents.Cyclists contribute to their own dangers, witness it practically daily

Peter Yale ● 17d

Do let me know which hospital you end up in, when I have finished laughing I may come and visit. TfL specifically recommend against cycling over there Hammersmith flyover as there is both inadequate space and a dedicated cycle route running paralell.

N V Brooks ● 17d

> ( the elevated section of the A4 is actually a Hammersmith flyover which also bans pedestrians)The A4 elevated section at hammersmith? There are no such restrictions. Why wouldn't you walk or cycle over it Nigel?FYI, I've cycled over it. Do you think I'd let my 12 year old son do so?

Paul James ● 17d

Totally safe as neither pedestrians nor cyclists are permitted on the non-existent A4 elevated section about which you fantasise as it doesn't exist.The A4, of course, has a segregated cycle path all the way from Heathrow to Knightsbridge.

N V Brooks ● 17d

Let me know how safe you felt afer you've gone for a walk/cycle over the A4 elevated section Nigel.

Paul James ● 17d

Indeed it is, for as any idiot knows pedestrians, along with horses, learner drivers and motorcycle was under 50cc are not committed on the elevated section which forms part of the M4 motorway ( the elevated section of the A4 is actually a Hammersmith flyover which also bans pedestrians). Never mind you just keep clutching at  straws

N V Brooks ● 17d

>I am basically ignoring the stupidity of the comment that says a route without incidents does not make it safe."There have never been any pedestrian casulaties on the A4 elevated section, therefore it's the safest place on the planet to be a pedestrian".

Paul James ● 17d

Drivers rarely take the most direct route, this is why we are all too often accused of rat running by taking routes that enable us to get to our destination safely and with the minimum of delay. I am basically ignoring the stupidity of the comment that says a route without incidents does not make it safe.

N V Brooks ● 17d

>no reported incidents.I strongly suspected that is how you would think! A road without a reported incident does not make it a safe road or a safe road to cycle on. Why would you let a driver go the most direct route but deliberately discourage someone on a bike from doing so? I do not get that. Making cyclists deviate from a natural route is not a good way in encouraging people to cycle. 

Ben Owen ● 17d

Indeed it is my opinion Ben, supported by the fact that there have been no reported incidents. If, by your own admission alternative 'safer' routes exist then this further undermines the need for expensive infrastructure investment.

N V Brooks ● 17d

>but the reality of life is that Boston Road is a safe cycling route.This is your opinion - it does not make it a fact. A fact is that many people prefer to use Midhurst Road and Burnham Way because it is not as dangerous.

Ben Owen ● 17d

Perception and reality Ben are two different things. I cannot remember the last time, thankfully, there was any incident involving a cycle on Boston Road save for the boy who jumped off the pavement into the side of an articulated truck at the top of Trumpers Way on his bike. Paul will, of course, claim to have seen all kinds of things involving bikes normally including skip lorries flying saucers and little green men from Mars but the reality of life is that Boston Road is a safe cycling route.

N V Brooks ● 17d

>the perception of unsafe roads is something largely postulated by lobby groups and is not supported by evidence.National Travel Attitudes Survey counters that. You obviously have faith in the survey and their figures, because you confidently quote from it. Yet you conveniently ignore the major reason why drivers don't use their bikes as often as they would like to.

Ben Owen ● 17d

The only figures that I claimed being right are those where I can cite a source Unlike yourself and Paul I don't fabricate numbers or imagine things and then hope and claim that they are true.  The perception of unsafe roads is something largely postulated by lobby groups and is not supported by evidence. I will gladly concede that well maintained Road surfaces are a major factor and improvements in this area would benefit all road users, starting with pavements where far more people walk than cycle and, as a consequence, far more would benefit.

N V Brooks ● 17d

Alright, alright, Nigel. My figure was wrong but the point is that far more people own a bike and ride a bike than you actually think. And because you think it, you claim your thoughts to be right. You conveniently omitted from pointing out from the same study, two of the three headline figures were that:1. Safer roads were the most popular factor that would encourage people to cycle more, chosen by 61% of all respondents, followed by well-maintained road surfaces (51% of all respondents)2. Safety concerns were cited as the main reason people are discouraged from cycling (48% of respondents), followed by poor weather (36% of respondents) and living too far away from where they need to get to (33% of respondents)

Ben Owen ● 17d

Where do these figures come from. Anyone can manipulate or manufacture them to sort their own need (BHF) etc.I own a bike & use it when I want to.That’s the difference, not forced to & all the other cobblers.People want & need to drive

Peter Yale ● 17d

90% of drivers who own a bike? Ben, are you using the Paul James fantasy statistics manual?According to Government Statistics in the National Travel Attitudes Study (NTAS) Wave 9: Cycling; of all respondents to NTAS wave 9, 39% of people aged 16 and over own or have regular access to a bicycle. This is in line with findings from the main NTS. The 2022 Walking and Cycling statistics release shows that 43% of people aged 5 and over own, or have access to, a bicycle. That falls to 36.5% if you limit the responses to those of driving age.Where are all these driver's bikes being hidden Ben? You really must stop pulling figures out of the air and citing them as fact. It undermines anything else you might say.

N V Brooks ● 17d

Obviously. no objection to the promotion by BHF as they are not spending budgets which would be better allocated elsewhere to wider benefit.Ben, there is traffic isolated and safe cycling infrastructure elesewhere in the borough (Uxbridge Road Southall/ Ruislip Road/ Greenford Road) which barely sees any users. Even the very expensively provided Boston Manor Road cycle lane is totally ignored by a significant number of cyclists despite being unobstructed and routinely swept clean. Another reason not to wasted scarce budget on a minority activity which, even if user numbers doubled would still represent less than one in 12 journeys (source London Cycling Campaign). A waste of money only supported by a very selfish and blinkered minority.

N V Brooks ● 17d

>to meet the needs of a very small minorityYou did not answer my point on whether BHF should be encouraging people to cycle. Do you think they should?In reference to numbers you are only counting the number of people cycling. You are not counting the 90% of drivers who own a bike, of which many would choose to cycle their short trips if the roads were made safer.

Ben Owen ● 17d

One day, when you learn to read Ben, you will see that I have campaigned almost tirelessly for better cycling provision in this area. What I do object to are the fantasist posts from your little chum who I'm surprised has time to post given he is being constantly chased by skips or simply making up 'facts' to meet his narrative.As you say, you have not got accurate figures, try posting again when you have some or anything approaching reality. The budget being wasted to meet the needs of a very small minority could far more profitably and usefully be spent on meeting the needs of those in far greater need like adult social care or the provision of better special educational needs provision. Of course selfish cyclists will deny that time and time again such is their extremely narrow view of the world.

N V Brooks ● 18d

Click on the link below to find a neutral opinion on why, instead of taking your car, cycling is positively encouraged.  https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-magazine/activity/cycling/10-great-reasons-to-cycleWill you now be writing to the BHF to ask them to withdraw their support for cycling, because their facts are "just more fantasy and bullshit"? How many times does it have to be said that segregated cycle lanes play an important part in encouraging more folk to cycle? Is it that you are just unaware that some people are too scared to cycle on the roads, which puts them off cycling altogether? If it is this, take it on board and consider it, please. It is those who dare not cycle, much as they would love to, which you do not see out and about, that we need to cater for. You are unable to count the potential numbers, since they are all invisible. I have not got accurate figures but just through riding up and down the Boston Manor Road I see the number of people cycling on the rise. It has always been accepted by people who are more knowledgeable than you that the build cost of cycle lanes quickly pays for itself, with people being healthier and incurring less delays. If you need to be reminded - and I really do not think you need to - walking and cycling can help a person get to where they want to go more reliably and often even faster, particularly in traffic-congested Ealing! But you know all this, you have been told the same consistent arguments for years. Now BHF are on to it, your position may just change. I hope so.Why quarrel about it any longer?

Ben Owen ● 18d

Has one should expect from New Mr James absolutely no substance just to finally veiled insult, no facts just more fantasy and bullshit. It must be years ago that I called you a busted flush, with every post you simply compound and confirm this. A sad little one trick pony.

N V Brooks ● 18d

>So you would rather see money from an increasingly stretched budget wasted on unnecessary cycling infrastructure would you Paul rather than being spent where it is really needed on the provision of add-out social care and improved children services( Just about sums up your selfishness really doesn't it? Straw man Ad hominem.

Paul James ● 18d

So you would rather see money from an increasingly stretched budget wasted on unnecessary cycling infrastructure would you Paul rather than being spent where it is really needed on the provision of add-out social care and improved children services( Just about sums up your selfishness really doesn't it?  Please point me to a direct  timed and dated link to the "tin tacks" post or is this yet another one of your fantasies? silly little man.I suggest you stick to X where the onanists there are stupid enough to simply swallow your bullshit.

N V Brooks ● 18d

>, my family and many friends included, continue to use Boston Road safely, sharing it with other road users, without the need for dedicated lanes,When I was cycling around london in the late 90s, including along Embankment and Chiswick High Road, I was about the only person on a bike, there was vary little cycling infrastructure and very few people cycling. Chiswick high road was so rammed and stuffed with cars I took to cycling home along lane one on the A4, still often jammed but at least it moved faster with few chances to get left hooked or pulled out on.Now, with protected cycle ways all over london there is an incredible amount of cycling, I'm often agog at the amount of people on bikes on these cycle lanes, the other day I had to wait for TWO traffic light cycles to get past a junction due to the number of people on bikes in front of me.The proof is very much in the pudding for people that want to cycle who are put off by the very obvious sense of danger on unprotected roads, build protect cycle lanes and people on bikes will come.Looking forward to seeing the start of this on Boston Road soon, I know Nigel you want to make sure cycling is surpressed, even going so far as making thinly veiled threats (tin tacks in the new cycle way), but thankfully other people can see straight through this.

Paul James ● 18d

Probably more to do with the closure for 5 months or more of Windmill Road A4 Junction, plus the severe all direction 24/7 congestion at South Ealing Road/Ealing Road A4 Junction, the structural inability of South Ealing Road and Popes lane Junction to take HGVs and and increase in heavy Traffic. Coupled with diversions on the E2 taking up to 30 mins extra and the 65 being the most delayed route in London. TfL has tried blaming the operating company for the 65 failings but is so beset by delays it has gone from one of the most favoured routes for bus drivers to one of the most loathed.  Other routes operated by the same bus operator also suffer similar restrictions and delays in Kingston and it has become too stressful for the money and they cannot keep staff.  Needless to say it's always the drivers who get the end blame.In reality is all from traffic management schemes by TfL and the complete amateur management of road works. The fall out is beyond just longer journeys for passengers, it takes its toll on staff and equipment.So Boston Manor Road will now have to take the vast brunt of displaced local traffic and most of it directly and indirectly vital to the local economy which has already taken a huge battering.  With employment down, a huge underbelly economy undermining stable jobs and overstretched resources of families, volunteers and carers. Boston Manor Road is very likely to become near gridlocked in both directions at times of the day and further restrictions could make it perilous and critical blocking access to Ealing Hospital from the South and East of the whole district.Plus if you can and do ride a bike and know your district these busier roads can be avoided in any case, not so direct but easier on gradients and quieter. I seldom use them on my bike maybe just a bit here and there.But for the commercial traffic that feed us, and enables us to feed, clothe and look after our families welfare, that flow is vital if not directly apparent.The planning and thought into these works - which will be regular, every 4 to 5 years has had to give somewhere or the fallout could affect a great many local people in Ealing, Hanwell and Brentford

Raymond Havelock ● 20d

Now news at all save that the cyclists using Boston Road, my family and many friends included, continue to use Boston Road safely, sharing it with other road users, without the need for dedicated lanes,

N V Brooks ● 21d

Boston Road cycle track.Six months after the seeming go-ahead still no sign of any construction work. Change of heart by LBE or just shortage of funds maybe?Anyone know any details?

Eric Alan Leach ● 21d

Forum clocks appear to have gone haywire.

N V Brooks ● 36d

As I sadly suspected you are nothing more than an offensive construct.You are not at all interested in improving cycling provision or safety which is a shame for all concerned.

N V Brooks ● 37d

Says well known road safety campaigner Nigel Brooks. Thanks but I'll take no lessons from you.

Charlotte Lester ● 37d

Of course it's happening but we all should care, which you obviously do not, that whatever is provided is both fit for purpose and safe.

N V Brooks ● 38d

Don't know, don't care. It's happening, the people who hate it will hate it and the people who use it will be happier and healthier, with or without your permission.

Charlotte Lester ● 38d

Possibly the harsh reality has dawned that the overall design is not really fit for purpose and doesn't provide the safe contiguous route that cyclists have requested.  Elements like raised tables at the junction of side roads have little to do with improving cycle safety and are merely vanity projects.  The whole stretch from Townholme crescent to St Mark's School is a planning disaster and an accident waiting to happen.

N V Brooks ● 52d

Council web site states work on the Boston Road cycle lane will begin in April 2025 - with works starting at Boston Manor Station.Here we are past the middle of June. No sign of work going on north of the tube station. Anyone know why the delay?

Eric Alan Leach ● 52d

Ah, if I am 'dastardly', then you must be Muttley, although, as he is not an object of total ridicule, you are akin to the useless Rock or Gravel Slag in the Bouldermobile. Quite happy for you not to'try harder' as it prevents me having to read the rubbish that you post. As to parking permits. Happy to see these limited to, say, two per household, with punitive rates for additional permits,

N V Brooks ● 58d

The rude and dastardly Nigel is at it again. If you can't be bothered to ask your family and friends to help you see some common sense then I'm not going to try any harder with you.  How about one household only being entitled to one parking permit? What you say?

Ben Owen ● 58d

All these surveys, questionnaires, etc are a farce.The councils do what they want , regardless of results.It’s not just a question of anyone answering, it’s certain groups or areas.You have to go through a Krypton factor type test just to answer.Complete fiddle

Peter Yale ● 58d

You have talked your self into a corner Ben. I know that you like to think that you are quite intelligent but you really aren't. Unlike you Ben, I really don't need help to explain what I have wtitten. Sleep well, don't overdo the meds.

N V Brooks ● 58d

It's not, only you would think like that. I will leave it to you to work out and if you cannot do it yourself then ask your friends and family to explain to you why it is no different.

Ben Owen ● 58d

Total red herring as well  you know Ben.We are not electing a political representative merely voting for a traffic scheme. Tray and develop a sense of proportion for pity's sake.

N V Brooks ● 58d

If your wife votes at the next election, you won't be able to then. Are you still comfortable with your one vote per a household opinion?

Ben Owen ● 58d

I do try to keep it simple for you Dominik.Do you not want the best provision? Are you simply content with continuence of the current disjointed approach?

N V Brooks ● 58d

Lends itself to gaming the result does it not?Perhaps you are content with that. I certainly am not.

N V Brooks ● 58d

It means your abject failure to see the bigger picture. IF better infrastructure is needed. Half-arsed patchwork attempts are not the way to achieve this.

N V Brooks ● 58d

>including more responses than physical addresses (Brooks)So what?! It was not one household one vote. Voting was open to all residents.

Ben Owen ● 58d

I was replying to Eric.I don't understand most of what you say. 'Selfishness of your submission'? What does that even mean?

Dominik Klimowski ● 58d

I was replying to Eric.'Selfishness of your submission'? What does that even mean?

Dominik Klimowski ● 58d

No, I am complaining that it will be yet another piece of disjointed infrastructure which brings little benefit to any road user let alone the much needed contigious provision needed by cyclists. I would have thought that as a cycling advocate you would be in favor of the best provision available. Obviously it seems not, which only shows the paucity of your argument and the selfishness of your submission.

N V Brooks ● 59d

Total support South: 54%Total support North: 53%I believe the existingarrangements should be kept, South: 44%I believe the existingarrangements should be kept, North: 43%The numbers don't need any 'massaging', as you put it.It's difficult to argue that 54% and 53% are smaller numbers than %44% and 43%, but I see you’re still trying your best. Are you complaining that a project you don't want, but others do, hasn't started yet?

Dominik Klimowski ● 59d

You’re making stuff up about me.I paid untold tax, N.I etc

Peter Yale ● 59d

To be fair to me, the figures I quoted from the consultation results report are what is actually printed.How the Council in subsequent pages 'massages' the results to go from no to yes is completely beyond me. The question still remains:Why has this £500,000 (or is it £1 million) project not even been started some 4 months after the 11 page results' report was published?

Eric Alan Leach ● 59d

Yes, it makes you wonder why they actually built roads for cars in the first place doesn't it?

N V Brooks ● 59d

Oh of course, I forgot spending on cycling infrastructure comes from the magic money tree. Get bloody real

N V Brooks ● 59d

>Cyclists should contribute, pay more.Many people that cycle pay way more tax than you do Peter, and many also drive too.

Paul James ● 59d

Really Peter?Walk down any residential street in Ealing and you will see that over 50% of road space is taken up by cars. And they're not even moving.

Dominik Klimowski ● 59d

Cyclists should contribute, pay more.As they take up as much, if not more of road space.There’s less carriageway for cars, who are majority of road users.People don’t want these schemes, as shown in Lambeth

Peter Yale ● 59d

> TfL costs was north of £950.000Spending on cycling infrastruture is not a cost, it pays back in spades. Improved public health, less serious injuries, less congestion, less pollution, less noise, I could go on.

Paul James ● 59d

the comedy duo should read what the residents of Lambeth did.Common sense prevailed

Peter Yale ● 59d

Consultations aren’t referendums until they support what the council wants. Even the thick end of Hanwell has to admit that.What did happen recently was the High Court ruling that Lambeth Council ignored overwhelming opposition to its East Dulwich LTN during consultation. As a result it’s being taken out.What Klimowski and James don’t understand is that questions are loaded to stop negative responses. Where’s the ‘please remove the cycle lane’ question? It’s a common trick.

Simon Hayes ● 59d

IIRC the overall cost of the Boston Manor Road cycle lane including TfL costs was north of £950.000, I do remember this figure being bandied about.

N V Brooks ● 59d

"Consultations are not yes/no referendums".Hymn # 1 in the 'we will get whatever result we want' council playbook.When did public opinion ever matter tothis administration?Going  to be an 'interesting' election in 2026.

N V Brooks ● 59d

>The public said no and Ealing Council said yes in February 20251. Consultations are not yes/no referendums2. You wrote "the public" when you meant to write "responses"

Paul James ● 59d

I would be of interest to see how the responses have been 'gamed' this time. Ealing has form in falsifying fgures to meet their required outcome including more responses than physical addresses on two 'consultations'.Nothing at all to crow about as chaos will ensue bothe during and after the changes. Still, hopefully all of the displaced traffic will be noisily making its way along Leighton Road.

N V Brooks ● 59d

Really Eric? That’s strange. Maybe you've accidentally missed something out. Because I looked at the same page and found this:I support the proposals and have no improvements to suggest South: 200 (31.5%) North: 183 (29%) I support the proposals in general, but would like some changes South:144 (22.5%) North:151 (24%)Total support South: 54%Total support North: 53%I believe the existingarrangements should be kept South: 44%I believe the existingarrangements should be kept North: 43%No opinion South: 2%No opinion North: 4%NOW they up to 100%. Hoorah!Here is the link, should anyone wish to see for themselves: https://www.ealing.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/20439/consultation_summary.pdf

Dominik Klimowski ● 60d

I finally got round to reading the 18 page results of the 2024 consultation:'Page 9For proposed changes: cycle track 31.5%. Further north 29%For keeping existing arrangements:  44%. Further north 43%'so... the public said no.However the conclusion on page 18 was to proceed with the changes.....To put the project into perspective - a shorter cycle track linking from the A4 along Boston Manor Road to Boston Manor Station cost Hounslow Council £600,000 a couple of years ago.So the Boston Road project (a longer stretch of road) will cost at least £500,000.The public said no and Ealing Council said yes in February 2025. Now 4 months later, there is no sign of any cycle lane construction going ahead on Boston Road. Anyone know why?

Eric Alan Leach ● 60d

The emergency services were definitely NOT consulted regarding ltns, in a lot of boroughs. Doubt very much any consultations will have taken place with these new works.Even if there was, it’s usually ignored.Where is traffic meant to pull into, to let emergency vehicles through.PJ, are you going to respond to previous question?

Peter Yale ● 199d

Only eight minutes longer by publc transport than by car. Parking at Kingston Hospital is tough at the best of times while the bus stop is adjacent to the main entrance.No need to use the car in this case if you are able bodied. Contrarily I have a friend who has been admitted to Wexham Park Hospital in Slough which is an absolute bloody nightmare by public transport.

N V Brooks ● 199d

Not an assumption, just common sense. Look the term up , if you do it often enough you might start displaying some.

N V Brooks ● 199d

St Bernard’s is long gone from there.Considering you, Paul and now Dominik make sweeping assumptions about everyone else Ben you should be careful what you say.One wonders why Dominik had to drive to Kingston Hospital recently when there are plenty of transport options available from Ealing. Practice what you preach perhaps?

Simon Hayes ● 199d

> So your post about being taken to an hospital is totally irrelevant to the Boston Road cycle lane.Assumptions.....assumptions......

Ben Owen ● 199d

The LAS was never consulted about the wanded cycle lanes adjacent to West Middlesex Hospital which regularly delay ambulances both routine and blue light. We recently had to call an emergency ambulance to my wife who had an allergic reaction to her asthma medication. The attending paramedic was apologetic for the delay citing the diversion reward they had had to take because of a broken down vehicle in the wanded  area which could neither be passed nor mived to the side of the road. I am sure that the LAS approved such a scheme Not! Please think before you post more absolute bloody rubbish Ben.

N V Brooks ● 199d

So your post about being taken to an hospital is totally irrelevant to the Boston Road cycle lane. I was taken to hospital in Tel Aviv once just about as relevant really then. Stop bloody fantasizing use some common sense and stop posting rubbish.God, dealing with you and Paul is like dealing with TeedleDum and TweedleDee except they were brighter.

N V Brooks ● 199d

>So pleased that you made it to Ealing hospitalAssumptions.....assumptions...You might want to check with me if the ambulance was taking me to Ealing Hospital.But hang on, Nigel does not like to check his facts before stating an opinion.

Ben Owen ● 199d

Ben. You are incorrect. If ‘all emergency services’ were consulted before cycle lanes were put in then the one on Twickenham Road in Isleworth wouldn’t exist. Been down there, ever?Too narrow for emergency vehicles (hard luck Dominik), while the road space for motor traffic is very narrow. Even without private cars there are still buses, lorries and vans there.Luckily it’s not near any hospitals. Oh, hang on…..

Simon Hayes ● 199d

Oh dear Ben is off from one of his wild rents again. So pleased that you made it to Ealing hospital that may not have happened with the new Boston Road shared use cycle lane in place although you dont, I believe live on or off Boston Road,vhad there been any traffic. Do you honestly believe that Ealing has checked with the LAS/MPS/LFB? Evidence of this?Once again Ben has let his loave of all things cycling get in the way of basic common sense something that he fails to display in virtually every post that he makes!  I don't give a damn what other trusts in the UK have as an opinion I am concerned about Ealing and the fact is that access to Ealing hospital will be prejudiced by removing road space it is common sense Ben, remember that phrase common sense and try to embrace it before you post yet more fantasist gibberish

N V Brooks ● 199d

>What slows emergency service vehicles down beyond anything is the removal of large parts of the road spaceHere is another example of Nigel thinking he knows the answer on an issue, responding with an air of authority to support his opinion, but is wrong. I will accept that there is a justifiable concern from certain people on this forum of the potential impact of the new cycle lane down Boston Road. What I do not accept is that they should be concerned. All councils, as Ealing and Hounslow will have done, is to engage with the emergency services before a new cycle lane goes in. For the sake of clarity, that is the Ambulance, Fire and Police services. Ambulance Trusts (is that the right term? I am thinking of NHS Trust when I state 'Trust') throughout the UK are completely at odds to Nigel's opinion. Nigel, can you please check your facts before making claims or assertions such as the one you have done, which can scaremonger people? Fairly recently, I was taken to hospital under a Blue Light. I was grateful for being in a motorised vehicle. My biggest scare in not getting there on time, before I was toast, was that there were too many cars on the road and nothing to do with new cycle lanes.

Ben Owen ● 199d

You shouldn’t be driving full stop.The end result was fun, but your driving was a necessity.You are trying to dictate people’s lifestyle.And the petrol strike you have ignored yet again???????

Peter Yale ● 199d

>People drive because they need toSome maybe, but not all.>No one drives for fun.We've been through this, I drove to a swimming pool a while back and we had lots of fun!>As you have been told a thousand times, if roads are closed, people drive down others.Some do, some find another way to travel, overall the amount of motor traffic goes down when roads are restricted, it goes UP when more roads are available for more driving.>There is no  choice [but to drive].This is patent nonsense. For some maybe, but not everybody.

Paul James ● 199d

People drive because they need to, no one drives for fun. As you have been told a thousand times, if roads are closed, people drive down others.There is no  choice.It’s quicker & easier as I proved to you during petrol strike.You have ignored that too

Peter Yale ● 199d

Good to see you up early. What is it today,taking people to hospital appointments, delivering food parcels just checking on their general wellbeing, because we know how involved you are in delivering assistance and goodwill to the people of Old Hanwell Paul don't we?What slows emergency service vehicles down beyond anything is the removal of large parts of the road space to accommodate the occasional entitled cyclist as well you know.

N V Brooks ● 199d

>Going about their lawful business mean.Yes, and probably not realising the impact of their travel choices on everybody else, including emergency services.Evidenced with phrases such as "I'm stuck in traffic", "The traffic was terrible today when I drove to work".

Paul James ● 199d

Going about their lawful business mean.Still at least it’s not you as you don’t drive, hate cars, or am I mistaken.Fact half the roads closed, won’t make a jot of difference of course

Peter Yale ● 199d

What slows emergency vehicles down is too many cars in front of them with just a driver in.

Paul James ● 199d

Well they won't be able to use the ones on Boston Road when implemented because basically is a shared broadened pavement pedestrians /cycles. Dreadful piece of design but of course that doesn't matter because it appeases that tiny minority of road users that ride bikes. Perhaps it would be worth you checking the designs before you comment, unless you envisage ambulances and police cars barrelling down the pavement.

N V Brooks ● 199d

Thankfully emergency services can use cycle lanes to get to where they need to quickly, as has been seen numerous times on London cycleways, including C9.https://www.hdcf.org.uk/emergency-vehicles-and-pop-up-cycle-lanes/https://x.com/joncstone/status/1296532842609090566https://x.com/onechiswick/status/1360985415935807490https://cyclingindustry.news/no-evidence-emergency-services-held-up-by-cycle-lanes-finds-foi-request/https://youtu.be/uFMmKP7qDkI?feature=sharedAnyone who is concerned about emergency services getting stuck will prefer cycleways to parked cars any day of the week.

Dominik Klimowski ● 199d

Just wondering if the silver bullet to this supposed climate emergency that was electric cars are now off the table.Boston Manor Road already been decimated in terms of traffic flow on the Hounslow side and now this.Funny thing was when I did my Town Planning module for my construction degree one of the key things was to ensure speedy routes for emergency serve.It’s not as if that road is a main point of travel to Ealing Hospital or an Ambulance station…. Ooops! Wait a minute!!!Vital minutes added on - be amazed if that hasn’t had devastating effects already but not rolled out publicly.I understand the expression is “blood on your hands”Nighty night all X

Colin Goodman ● 199d

Oh, what a thrilling take Paul. Anything interesting to add or is it just obscure anecdotes? Has it not occurred to you that the bike may not be people’s problem with you? ;)

Simon Hayes ● 206d

I still remember a driver beeping at me as I cycled in lane three under Vauxhall bridge (I was turning right so I was in the correct lane).I stopped and turned round to ask him what the problem was, he sat there shouting something, bouncing up and down in his seat, then got madder and madder and then actually got out of the car and just shouted at me  "but you're a bike!" and got back in his car.After I realised this is what his problem was we carried on and I overtook him soon after and left him in another traffic jam with a smile and a wave.

Paul James ● 206d

Fully accessible public transport would be a start. However, as this is beyond the remit of a local council all that they can be seen to do is curtail use by restriction which will actually achieve nothing as, similar to public transport, they cannot prevent those from outside the borough transiting throughthe borough. It is certainly not as simple as putting in half-arsed disjointed cycle lanes. The cars will still come and the frustration will grow.

N V Brooks ● 206d

So what do you do about the through traffic, Ben? There’s a huge volume of that in Ealing. Or do you just think penalising residents is the answer?Simple-minded ‘solutions’ to perceived ‘problems’ invariably makes things worse. It’s why the country is in such a mess. There isn’t actually a massive traffic problem in Ealing, it’s just the Labour council jumping on a bandwagon to virtue signal. A lot of councillors, including Mason, happily jump in a car when it suits.Perhaps you should look into the emissions from construction work, which is happening all over the borough, a lot of it in built up areas along Uxbridge Road.  38 percent of all emissions comes from the construction industry. The eco warriors in Perceval House even think it’s acceptable to build on the flood plain at Gurnell. How does that chime with your campaign?Perhaps you should just concentrate on living your own best life instead of pontificating at others.

Simon Hayes ● 207d

The alternatives are not attractive.Forcing people, which is what the council are trying to do, causes resentment.1, they are ballsing up all the traffic, congestion is increasing due to foolhardy schemes.2) people want & need cars for mutiple reasons. There are far far more cars than cyclists. Cars are penalised at every step, pay through the nose, yet get a raw deal.Share the road space as has been normal for ages previously

Peter Yale ● 207d

It is no secret that the council has set a target of reducing car use by 50% by the year 2030. To reach this figure, what do you think needs to be done to help make the alternatives more attractive?

Ben Owen ● 207d

Did I say that? No, please learn to read, else you will fall into the Paul James school of deliberate misinterpretation.I said "Some, not I, may view them as legitimate 'targets'"Which part of that was too difficult for you to understand?I would stick to minority interest film making if I were you.

N V Brooks ● 207d

Don’t be unkind Dominik.There are people on both sides of this who are unhappy, as you well know. Aggressive cyclists, like Paul, go out looking for confrontation with drivers of motor vehicles. Then they post the resultant confrontation on social media. That’s not normal behaviour, so perhaps you need to reassess where the mental illness’ is.

Simon Hayes ● 207d

People have asked for safer streets to travel on, and you describe them as ‘legitimate targets’.Are you mentally ill?

Dominik Klimowski ● 207d

‘(blood on you hands if somebody is injured and you could have stopped it by shopping the person or people that are making the threat to the police before they do it)’Wow, paranoid. Disliking someone or something isn’t a crime, Paul. If it was you’d be doing a very long stretch!!

Simon Hayes ● 207d

I shall be driving along and clearly indicating to cyclists on the carriageway, by means of my horn, my presence."According to the Highway Code, you should only use your horn when your car is moving and when you need to warn other road users of your presence." I shall, dutifully be alerting cyclists to my presence, it would be reckless to do otherwise.

N V Brooks ● 207d

Is leaping to conclusions the only exercise you get?'Some may' is not the same as some will, nothing to report and suspicion is not a crime as much as you might like it to be. Police cant aprehend those who commit crimes let alone acting as the thought police that you wish that they were.

N V Brooks ● 207d

But aren’t you a detective Paul? You seem to think so….At least this new ‘twat run’ means cyclists will have no excuse for riding on the pavement, although many still will. As they do further down Boston Manor Road, endangering pedestrians and others. Selfish’

Simon Hayes ● 207d

(blood on you hands if somebody is injured and you could have stopped it by shopping the person or people that are making the threat to the police before they do it)

Paul James ● 207d

> I would hate to be a cyclist stupid enough to use the carriageway after it is built. Some, not I, may view them as legitimate 'targets'.If you are aware of people talking about the sort of actions you are referring to here Nigel you should talk to police immediately.

Paul James ● 207d

Even if numbers double that is still less than 10%. 90% of users affected including worshippers at two churches in inequitable and shows the pure selfish and disconnected nature of those campaigning for such infrastructure. It will serve only to deepen divisions and I would hate to be a cyclist stupid enough to use the carriageway after it is built. Some, not I, may view them as legitimate 'targets'.

N V Brooks ● 207d

We won't get an increase in journeys made by bike without building protected bike lanes Nigel.

Paul James ● 207d

What dreadful news. Traffic chaos to appease a few selfish road users. Whay should 4.7% of journeys take precedence over the journeys of the other 95.3%A Hapless and hopeless council kowtowing to a handful of cyclists.

N V Brooks ● 207d