Forum Topic

TfLs random dismissal of wise concerns

So we have councillors who have consistently denied any issues with ' Enhanced Bus Stops' originally known as Bus Islands.Same characters have denied the increases in bus journey times even though timetables were altered well before proposals and were made public so as to 'lessen the impact'.Now we have a report that shows a huge increase in journey times but in fact some journeys on local routes are up from 15 to 20 mins to 45 to 55 mins. TFL dismiss incident involving pedestrians, cyclist and other cyclists involved in collisions unless it involves a motor vehicle.  The mislead bt making the assumption that all 'collisions' involving a motor vehicle and a pedestrian or cycles are caused by the motor vehicle.They completely distort the situation and then use local politicians and officers to bolster their desires.They have consistently dismissed complaints and concerns by multiple charities and emergency services and local groups who have first hand knowledge and expertise.Staff at the front line of some emergency services are 'discouraged' by management to lodge reports and complaints caused by traffic schemes and initiatives and in some cases it 'may bear on your career prospects'.The recent consultation was completely full of loaded questions and a tone of we are going to do this whatever, anyway. People are not stupid, they see what is clearly flawed and wasteful expenditure when so much that could make local getting around remains completely neglected.Little wonder so very few participate. Which is a shame but we all know that even if 90% participated and challenged the plans diligently or positively ( which is not permitted anyway) nothing would change.This is why we end up with such idiotic, second rate and for many downright dangerous ' improvements'.Does anyone really care about this endless misleading and misrepresentation towards citizens?

Raymond Havelock ● 48d21 Comments

The whole point Michael, is that separating cyclists from traffic is a good thing but not if it means putting pedestrians at risk which is exactly what has happened.In Chiswick you are now at risk from Buses and HGVs that have mirrors that overhang the reduced kerb to wheel distances.  You are as a pedestrian exposed to the elements and unable to step back or away. There are cyclists behind you.But above all the danger is now beyond avoidable.  If cyclists and scooterists ignore the correct use of the provided facilities and cannot be controlled in any way then what do you suggest?As a Cyclist I know I am in an tiny minority who stop at lights, Have lights on my bike that work and are not obscured, signal correctly, look, and acknowledge other vehicles and cyclists and have mudguards. I have been in CH Rd and been the only cyclist at a red light. Last week in Windmill Lane a woman with two tiny kids rode through the red at the A4 Junction stopping  with her front wheel across the A4 causing a bus to brake hard. One of the toddlers went up the side of a van signalling to turn left. Almost certainly unseen.Accidents and fatalities in this area have been low for decades but you cannot genralise. Each have circumstances.  It is far lower in the UK than almost anywhere of significant conurbations. But any scheme will only work if it does not compromise and I'm afraid it seriously compromises pedestrians in particular if users cannot behave on mass responsibly and correctly.

Raymond Havelock ● 38d

Interesting choice that used that example of a collision.It involves a stationary vehicle. And a door being opened. It may be an error. However most car mirrors are on the door and most cars have blind spots if you try to physically look back.Secondly car designs have blind spots and Cyclists and in particular Moped riders have a bad habit of positioning in the wrong place so cannot be seen.If you are unaware then you should not be riding on the road. Having done not one but two urban cycling courses in North London and the City the very first thing taught is positioning to avoid the very situation of a vehicle door being opened. it is more often a passing who does this.It also warns and teaches techniques of always to expect such things and that includes passenger side doors - which his the most common and due to the fact that many are non driving passengers with no road experience.  That is very seldom reported as the only person is the insured person for the vehicle concerned. You will find that fully tested motor cyclists are well trained and tested for this and underlines the importance of cyclists to be fully competent in riding and using the roads.Training is abysmal in that a tiny percentage have only ever taken a proficiency test and the modern version spends more time telling children about empowerment and riders rights than actually being able to ride sensibly and safely and in control.It is simple. riding a bike on a carriageway requires as much due care as if operating a motorised vehicle. Expect the unexpected at all times and be prepared and ride accordingly to conditions.The Police have a poor record of accurate detail and sloppy reporting of RTAs only Traffic Officers are adept at this and you can always spot the difference in reports.It's all to easy to report the details based on those with documentation and certification than those with none at all. It's far too much bother.It has been well pointed out about the poor stats and definitions for over 25 years.As for Bus Islands. Perfect sight lines. Has it not occurred to you that a great many using buses may not have perfect vision? Or indeed perfect mobility> And how do you address riders using pathways in the wrong directs or riding straight through and not following the path?  I suggest you get involved with assisting elderly or infirm for a few weeks and do a few shopping trips or appointment assists with someone who needs a little help. You will soon understand what they help requires and why it is needed.It could be you one day.

Raymond Havelock ● 40d

What none of the stats show and is not published is whom was at fault.Policy at TfL and Aped by local London Councils deem or assume that the larger vehicle is to be at fault: HGV v Car Car v BikeMotor Bike & Car V BicycleBicycle v PedestrianIt's very obvious that when a car has to have a driver that has to be tested ( at least that's the law ) But the vehicle has to be fully roadworthy at all times when used on a public highway. Lights Horn wipers indicators, yes and brakes should always be checked.But how often does one see Riders of Mopeds with out lights?Cyclists wearing dark clothing, no lights, no bell, no defective anything?Riders on pavements, on the wrong side of the cycleways with none of the above, undertaking near left turn junctions and ignoring signalling vehicles.E bikes overtaking and undertaking at way over 20 mph often well over 30 mph.Delivery riders with boxes on the back that are non reflective and obscure lightingand my biggest bugbear as a cyclist myself,No mudguards. Absolutely fed up with getting soaked from other cyclists who ride way too fast and those Uber Cyclist who are always spitting without realising where that saliva goes.It does not matter what authorities do to enhance cycling, unless there is a serious effort to bring rules and etiquette to riding it is a complete folly. And the stats need to honestly reflect fault.  Sad that it is I lost a great friend to a truck in the City. But she would keep riding up the sides of long vehicles, Buses and Artics. To the point that we fell out over this and I would not ride with her. Her spacial awareness was awful, but she just would not understand the danger she was placing herself in.  It's no different to those who jumped of the backs of buses. It was a risk and yet it was often the driver or the conductor who took the wrap. But if someone won't listen or be aware, then rules need to be enforced.  I might have lost a long time friend but at least she might still be alive.

Raymond Havelock ● 43d