Twickenham plan shows no regard for cyclists' lives, critics claim (From This Is Local London)

Twickenham plan shows no regard for cyclists' lives, critics claim

6:00am Saturday 29th September 2012 in News By Rachel Bishop

Richmond Council has been accused of showing “little regard for the lives of cyclists in the borough”.

This follows the announcement the authority intended to remove statutory cycle lanes in Twickenham town centre, despite recent consultation results showing 67 per cent were against it.

Members of Richmond Cycling Campaign (RCC) said the proposals from the council to introduce an advisory cycle lane in place of the current mandatory cycle lane would just create another lane for traffic through the town centre.

The advisory cycle lanes will be open to traffic during peak periods of the day.

RCC communications co-ordinator Alastair Barr said: “This is the time when parents who cycle to school with their children or commuters who cycle to work are at the most risk and need more protection, not less.”

The Highway Code says advisory cycle lanes should be avoided where possible.

Mr Barr said this effectively rendered them legally unenforceable due to the interpretation of the word “avoidable”.

He said: “What is likely to occur is a greater incidence of pavement cycling on the wider pavements as cyclists are intimidated off the road and fewer people choosing to cycle in that part of the borough.

“Overall it is a real missed opportunity to turn Twickenham into somewhere more than where you drive through and pedestrians, local traders and cyclists will lose out for the sake of smoothing the flow of traffic.

“We’re saddened the council has chosen to show so little regard for the lives of cyclists in the borough.”

However, the council said the advisory cycle lanes would “increase cycle safety throughout the town centre and would also help to encourage cars and other vehicles to stay in the central lanes in off peak periods, therefore keeping their distance from pedestrians”.

A further issue with the Twickenham Area Action Plan (TAAP) results erupted following the overview and scrutiny committee meeting on Wednesday, September 19, when council members announced they still intended to push forward with plans to remove some bus stops in King Street.

This was despite Richmond Advice and Information on Disability warning that the proposals would make travel more difficult for those with mobility impairments.

The TAAP consultation said 38 per cent were in favour of moving the bus stops, with 39 per cent against. More than 650 residents signed a petition against moving the bus stops.

Councillor Martin Elengorn, Liberal Democrat planning spokesman said: “To add insult to injury, Councillor Scott Naylor told the meeting that bus passengers in Twickenham had been ‘spoiled’ for many years and stops were less conveniently located in many other towns."

The detailed decisions for the Twickenham plan, and adjustments, will be made at the next cabinet meeting on October 18.

Comments(45)

jmtwix says...
11:23am Sat 29 Sep 12

King Street is Twickenham town centre’s busiest stretch of road with between 10,000 and 20,000 vehicle movements per day.

With the Twickenham Highways and Street Scene consultation the Council have a fantastic opportunity to significantly improve tatty King Street for pedestrians, vehicles and cyclists and thus contribute to the reg,eneration of the town centre.

However, the Council propose to remove the bus/cycle lanes along King Street which currently provide cyclists with a safe route through this busy and congested stretch of road.
Their focus seems to be entirely on pedestrians and vehicles, and they have failed to seize this opportunity to improve King Street for the growing number of cyclists in Twickenham.

The good news is that there is a WIN-WIN-WIN solution which would provide two lanes for vehicles, wider pavements for pedestrians, AND dedicated cycle lanes.

Why didn’t the Council presented residents with this option? Why didn’t the Council consult residents about the removal of the King Street bus/cycle lanes? Why don’t the Council care about the safety of cyclists?

Bizarrely, Council cabinet members Morris and Harrison have tried to convince us that it will be safer for cyclists to mix in with the huge numbers of cars, lorries, and buses on the proposed dual carriageway, rather than use a dedicated cycle lane. They have also suggested that advisory cycle lanes may help in off peak hours, but these lanes are marked within vehicle lanes, can be used by vehicles, and consequently offer cyclists no protection, particularly when the road is at its busiest and most dangerous. Reducing the speed limit to 20mph may help but it does not protect cyclists (being hit by a 20mph vehicle is not recommended!)

I ask R&TT readers - would you like to cycle amongst all this traffic as it swaps and changes lanes, and would you like your children to risk their lives cycling along this dual carriageway on their way to school?

By adding dedicated cycle lanes the Council can make King Street safer and more attractive for cyclists and as a result this will improve accessibility, which is one of the objectives of the proposed scheme.

The Council have stated that ‘this opportunity will not recur’. It is indeed a fantastic and unique opportunity for the Council to improve the highway and street scene for motorists, pedestrians AND cyclists. I ask the Council to change the proposed scheme to include dedicated cycle lanes along King Street to encourage and protect the growing numbers of cyclists in LBRUT.

Time is running out before the Council Cabinet meeting on 18 October when the proposed scheme will be reviewed and approved (probably).

King Street is Twickenham town centre’s busiest stretch of road with between 10,000 and 20,000 vehicle movements per day. With the Twickenham Highways and Street Scene consultation the Council have a fantastic opportunity to significantly improve tatty King Street for pedestrians, vehicles and cyclists and thus contribute to the reg,eneration of the town centre. However, the Council propose to remove the bus/cycle lanes along King Street which currently provide cyclists with a safe route through this busy and congested stretch of road. Their focus seems to be entirely on pedestrians and vehicles, and they have failed to seize this opportunity to improve King Street for the growing number of cyclists in Twickenham. The good news is that there is a WIN-WIN-WIN solution which would provide two lanes for vehicles, wider pavements for pedestrians, AND dedicated cycle lanes. Why didn’t the Council presented residents with this option? Why didn’t the Council consult residents about the removal of the King Street bus/cycle lanes? Why don’t the Council care about the safety of cyclists? Bizarrely, Council cabinet members Morris and Harrison have tried to convince us that it will be safer for cyclists to mix in with the huge numbers of cars, lorries, and buses on the proposed dual carriageway, rather than use a dedicated cycle lane. They have also suggested that advisory cycle lanes may help in off peak hours, but these lanes are marked within vehicle lanes, can be used by vehicles, and consequently offer cyclists no protection, particularly when the road is at its busiest and most dangerous. Reducing the speed limit to 20mph may help but it does not protect cyclists (being hit by a 20mph vehicle is not recommended!) I ask R&TT readers - would you like to cycle amongst all this traffic as it swaps and changes lanes, and would you like your children to risk their lives cycling along this dual carriageway on their way to school? By adding dedicated cycle lanes the Council can make King Street safer and more attractive for cyclists and as a result this will improve accessibility, which is one of the objectives of the proposed scheme. The Council have stated that ‘this opportunity will not recur’. It is indeed a fantastic and unique opportunity for the Council to improve the highway and street scene for motorists, pedestrians AND cyclists. I ask the Council to change the proposed scheme to include dedicated cycle lanes along King Street to encourage and protect the growing numbers of cyclists in LBRUT. Time is running out before the Council Cabinet meeting on 18 October when the proposed scheme will be reviewed and approved (probably). jmtwix

Report this post »

lucullus says...
9:24pm Sat 29 Sep 12

Cycle lanes "...would also help to encourage cars and other vehicles to stay in the central lanes in off peak periods, therefore keeping their distance from pedestrians”.

So is the council saying that cycle lanes are useful in keeping dangerous traffic away from pedestrians? I bet anyone brave enough to use the new cycle lanes will be delighted to hear that they're a useful safety buffer for others!

It's really disappointing, at a time when we see shared space like Exhibition Road, more pedestrianisation in central London, and better facilities in places like Kingston and Kensington and Chelsea, that Richmond seems to be rowing in the opposite direction.

Report this post »

Twickenham Bob says...
9:04am Sun 30 Sep 12

The problem with this council is that too many of the Conservative Group are deliberately bloody-minded and divisive.

I've sat in resident meetings where Tory Councillors have instantly jeered when a Liberal councilor has suggested a cycle lane.

I believe the real reason the council is opposed to any cycle lane anywhere, is they see them as a 'Liberal Democrat' thing that must be opposed instantly. They are too wrapped up in tribal politics they forget they are there to serve the people of this borough.

This bloody-mindedness also manifests its self in the ban on physical traffic calming measures, and 20 MPH zone.

Report this post »

twickerman says...
10:48am Sun 30 Sep 12

In the council consultation 72.5% of people voted to keep cycle lanes on London Rd.

How many people would have voted to keep cycle lanes along busier King St, if the council had asked?

In response to the Overall Principles of the scheme 49.5% of people made further comments about provision of cycle lanes.

Is the council listening to residents?
Is it hell!

Should the council consult properly about cycle lanes along King St?
Yes.

Report this post »

Scott Naylor says...
3:17pm Sun 30 Sep 12

I do wonder what is going on when a consultation is carried out, comments are made, these are then fed into a safety audit and best practice model, and these will then be implemented, the difficult unknown factor is TFL themselves, they actually have the final say on all of this, and bus movements count for them virtually above all other matters. So we have pedestrians, cyclists, buses and other forms of mechanical vehicles all competing, oh that is aside from the number one All In One matter on Twickenham Town that the street scene needs massive improvement, not half after 30 years. Overriding all of this is safety for the pedestrians whover they are, young old, disabled, children, and of course cyclists.

So we have a lot of competing and complex priorities, and Cllrs Elengorn and Elloy not wanting any change, as that is what will happen if they have their way. A 79 year old lady sadly lost her life just a couple of weeks ago exactly at the place where the new crossing is designed for opposite Greengrocers, they call this stretch of road treacherous for pedestrians crossing at present.

As an avid cyclist and my main form of transport I am acutely aware of this stretch of road, in fact I possibly traveling more than most as the Ward Councillor trying to keep fit too and lose a bit of weight!

So I ask the question, how does Richmond work with a 20mph limit through the centre, two lanes in one direction through King Street, and no cycle lanes at all! I can tell you these pavements were widened in the original Lib Dem scheme, there is no passing through traffic when it is nose to tail, simply no space. So too Twickenham has been under the Lib Dem dreamworlds of just one dicated cycle lane opposite Twickenham Station over the bridge which strangulates anyone, bicycle or otherwise turning left from Railway Approach Albany bus stand area, where effectively nothing gets through in each phase of lights,well maybe two vehicles, because of the the block-up where three streams merge into just one. Just add to that the road divide ahead and all hell let's loose as people cross left and right to go down either the Whitton Road to the RFU or London Road towards Isleworth. Traffic moves down here at no more than about 2mph in rush-hour at present, morning and night. And these so-called cycle lanes are totally over-ridden in any case, as are the chevrons. How many cyclists go through here? No many that I have seen, nothing like the number going down to Richmond.

So back to King Street, if we open up into two lanes much later say by Natwest, and have a dedicated cycle lane from outside the Wimpy in London going around the most dangerous corner I am aware of where the road width is totally limited by the Barclays Bank and Halifax buildings position, through King Street and around the inside of the lights in a much narrowed King Street/Cross Deep junction, another new opportunity, then we have started addressing the problem, by removing one lane on each side of the road by Sandys and Laverstoke Butchers will certainly benefit cyclists regardless, cycling along here is a bit like riding on motorway at present and inconsiderate divers sound their horn at you because they are unsure which lane you are cycling in and are getting totally road raged within a space of 30m (contrary to Richmond Magazine's editor Richard Nye clearly suffering from bad road rage problems, the cure is simple, get all car drivers to take to motorbikes as part of their test, they will soon see that motorcyclists, well the ones who take their 500cc plus test, are highly tuned to seeing every single permutation of anticipations of all types of behaviour, the same shoulder of training should be applied to cyclists with an instructor in your ear). I trained for Rospa Gold standard, I achieved silver within three months of passing my Direct Access test.

So we mustn't get lathered on this, as the Lycra brigade and others who don't bother with the fancy gear are like pedestrians exposed crossing or cycling on the roads, and in fact the problems of Twickenham are much more complex than a single issue group is representing possibly, we have to design Twickenham Town to meet many challenges as well as TFL with their overriding veto.

Are JMTwix and Twickerman the same person by the way?

On a final note, I have asked for all centres to be connected up with Advisory Cycle Lanes, some roads like Holly Road and Church street to be considered as counter mandatory cycle lanes a proposed by Tim Lennon aka Lucullus when we met up and cycled town then had a beer, an acknowledged system used in Wharf Lane for instance to create a safer route through the middle of town fro cyclists from certain directions. I would be happy with cycle lanes, advisory and mandatory throughout our towns and on all A roads, one has just gone in in East Twickenham Richmond Road as you hit the shopping parade, and although it is advisory, and it gets totally solid through both directions in rush hour, the behaviour of drivers is already noticed of moving slightly further away from the kerb, then the squash over Richmond Bridge, well I have a working group looking at this Village area coming up with specific detailed proposals, and will look to connect Twickenham Town, East Twickenham Village and Richmond Town safely.

I got elected on a platform to bring in a comprehensive Town Plan to make Twickenham a more attractive place, no don't let the Lib Dems or anyone else steer us off purpose where the investment is multi million pound, funded through the LIP, TFL and Richmond Council. Come on guys, we are well on the way, work with me, compromises may be necessary but let's make sure we all win, well you already have with me as a once for reason, so let's focus this onto the specific metre by metre detail.

Cllr Elengorn cares nothing for safety, else he would realise that pedestrian safety comedians that bus stops have to move to physically accommodate this safety, and controlled crossings are clearly the number one place to cross the road safely, and walking a minute or two on only some occasions are surely worth it rather than the risks which have so recently lead to a pedestrian death only two weeks ago? Happy to meet up and discuss, email Cllr.snaylor@richmon
d.gov.uk.

I do wonder what is going on when a consultation is carried out, comments are made, these are then fed into a safety audit and best practice model, and these will then be implemented, the difficult unknown factor is TFL themselves, they actually have the final say on all of this, and bus movements count for them virtually above all other matters. So we have pedestrians, cyclists, buses and other forms of mechanical vehicles all competing, oh that is aside from the number one All In One matter on Twickenham Town that the street scene needs massive improvement, not half after 30 years. Overriding all of this is safety for the pedestrians whover they are, young old, disabled, children, and of course cyclists. So we have a lot of competing and complex priorities, and Cllrs Elengorn and Elloy not wanting any change, as that is what will happen if they have their way. A 79 year old lady sadly lost her life just a couple of weeks ago exactly at the place where the new crossing is designed for opposite Greengrocers, they call this stretch of road treacherous for pedestrians crossing at present. As an avid cyclist and my main form of transport I am acutely aware of this stretch of road, in fact I possibly traveling more than most as the Ward Councillor trying to keep fit too and lose a bit of weight! So I ask the question, how does Richmond work with a 20mph limit through the centre, two lanes in one direction through King Street, and no cycle lanes at all! I can tell you these pavements were widened in the original Lib Dem scheme, there is no passing through traffic when it is nose to tail, simply no space. So too Twickenham has been under the Lib Dem dreamworlds of just one dicated cycle lane opposite Twickenham Station over the bridge which strangulates anyone, bicycle or otherwise turning left from Railway Approach Albany bus stand area, where effectively nothing gets through in each phase of lights,well maybe two vehicles, because of the the block-up where three streams merge into just one. Just add to that the road divide ahead and all hell let's loose as people cross left and right to go down either the Whitton Road to the RFU or London Road towards Isleworth. Traffic moves down here at no more than about 2mph in rush-hour at present, morning and night. And these so-called cycle lanes are totally over-ridden in any case, as are the chevrons. How many cyclists go through here? No many that I have seen, nothing like the number going down to Richmond. So back to King Street, if we open up into two lanes much later say by Natwest, and have a dedicated cycle lane from outside the Wimpy in London going around the most dangerous corner I am aware of where the road width is totally limited by the Barclays Bank and Halifax buildings position, through King Street and around the inside of the lights in a much narrowed King Street/Cross Deep junction, another new opportunity, then we have started addressing the problem, by removing one lane on each side of the road by Sandys and Laverstoke Butchers will certainly benefit cyclists regardless, cycling along here is a bit like riding on motorway at present and inconsiderate divers sound their horn at you because they are unsure which lane you are cycling in and are getting totally road raged within a space of 30m (contrary to Richmond Magazine's editor Richard Nye clearly suffering from bad road rage problems, the cure is simple, get all car drivers to take to motorbikes as part of their test, they will soon see that motorcyclists, well the ones who take their 500cc plus test, are highly tuned to seeing every single permutation of anticipations of all types of behaviour, the same shoulder of training should be applied to cyclists with an instructor in your ear). I trained for Rospa Gold standard, I achieved silver within three months of passing my Direct Access test. So we mustn't get lathered on this, as the Lycra brigade and others who don't bother with the fancy gear are like pedestrians exposed crossing or cycling on the roads, and in fact the problems of Twickenham are much more complex than a single issue group is representing possibly, we have to design Twickenham Town to meet many challenges as well as TFL with their overriding veto. Are JMTwix and Twickerman the same person by the way? On a final note, I have asked for all centres to be connected up with Advisory Cycle Lanes, some roads like Holly Road and Church street to be considered as counter mandatory cycle lanes a proposed by Tim Lennon aka Lucullus when we met up and cycled town then had a beer, an acknowledged system used in Wharf Lane for instance to create a safer route through the middle of town fro cyclists from certain directions. I would be happy with cycle lanes, advisory and mandatory throughout our towns and on all A roads, one has just gone in in East Twickenham Richmond Road as you hit the shopping parade, and although it is advisory, and it gets totally solid through both directions in rush hour, the behaviour of drivers is already noticed of moving slightly further away from the kerb, then the squash over Richmond Bridge, well I have a working group looking at this Village area coming up with specific detailed proposals, and will look to connect Twickenham Town, East Twickenham Village and Richmond Town safely. I got elected on a platform to bring in a comprehensive Town Plan to make Twickenham a more attractive place, no don't let the Lib Dems or anyone else steer us off purpose where the investment is multi million pound, funded through the LIP, TFL and Richmond Council. Come on guys, we are well on the way, work with me, compromises may be necessary but let's make sure we all win, well you already have with me as a once for reason, so let's focus this onto the specific metre by metre detail. Cllr Elengorn cares nothing for safety, else he would realise that pedestrian safety comedians that bus stops have to move to physically accommodate this safety, and controlled crossings are clearly the number one place to cross the road safely, and walking a minute or two on only some occasions are surely worth it rather than the risks which have so recently lead to a pedestrian death only two weeks ago? Happy to meet up and discuss, email Cllr.snaylor@richmon d.gov.uk. Scott Naylor

Report this post »

Scott Naylor says...
3:21pm Sun 30 Sep 12

Should have typed George Street not King Street for Richmond!

Report this post »

twickeman says...
5:10pm Sun 30 Sep 12

Steering clear of political bickering and getting "lathered", it is hard to understand how the removal of bus/cycle lanes on king street will make things safer for cyclists.

Perhaps Councillor Naylor can provide evidence to support this flawed theory?

Report this post »

Scott Naylor says...
10:12am Mon 1 Oct 12

So Twickeman says my ideas are flawed. I have given you the factors that need balancing and you have come back with a one worded which is hardly a balanced solution. The thing you don't get is that I am not interested in all of this political huffing and puffing, I actually want safety for all to be considered as well as the overall environment to dramatically improve after 30 years plus of intransigence. So come and help, send me your plans, show us all how balanced your plans are, I love design and the detail, if you are going to criticise, then you must have a full worked out alternative with rationalised logic to boot. My email address is Cllr.snaylor@richmon
d.gov.uk Decisions will be made at Cabinet in October, I am trying to get all problems ironed out, not knocking lumps out of people which is not exactly fair since I don't know even who you are, do I? Twickeman, I know Twickerman, JMTwix, one and the same, and Lucullus, this is your opportunity to make a difference, email me or I am happy to meet, all ideas shared are considered, but if you criticise without sharing then what can we do or assume apart from political point scoring which is just pointless here. Cllr Scott Naylor, Twickenham Riverside Ward Cllr.snaylor@richmon
d.org.uk

Report this post »

jmtwix says...
11:07am Mon 1 Oct 12

Dear Cllr Naylor,

I agree with your principles that "overriding all of this is safety for the pedestrians...and of course cyclists."

But unfortunately cyclists safety has been ignored in the Council's proposed scheme.

That's why I proposed the WIN WIN WIN solution (above) for King Street that would benefit pedestrians, motorists and cyclists alike.

Replacement of the wide bus lanes with much narrower dedicated cycle lanes would allow for pavement widening as well as the two vehicle lanes proposed by the Council.

It's only a minor change to the proposed plans, but one that will provide a safer route for cyclists through the centre of Twickenham.

As a cyclist would you rather peddle along a dedicated cycle lane or would you rather risk it in amongst the "inconsiderate drivers sounding their horns at you"?

Report this post »

Scott Naylor says...
11:34am Mon 1 Oct 12

Hey John, draw its up on a copy of the council plan, we are seeing each other at 6.30pm on station noise and interruption issues. Also bear in mind that all of this has to be modelled by/for TFL and plugged into their system on traffic flows too, and crucially for bus route flows and timings, it is not just all simple stuff, there is a lot involved! So pens at the ready! It may not work as you suggest as 1.5 lanes will not help anyone, as per the Twickenham Railway Bridge cycle lane, it just creates uncertainty and driving over it all. Watch the police do it in a hurry. And when we are trying to get some forms of gentle traffic flow, it is all snarled up, when the road splits and relieves 100 metres ahead. Car drivers also have rights too, they all pay incredibly heavy tax, road fund license, and have legitimate reasons robe going from a to be, in fact you have a very lovely car which you use regularly do you not for various reasons, taking your mountain bike to various places etc. The motorist should not be pilloried here either, this should help everyone, and TfL will not allow traffic lows to be impeded through effectively one lane going through past the George, (1 1/2 lanes), and the pavements were designed for the 1930's when the South side of King Street was first built to allow for trolley buses to turn around and provide extra pace for them and cars/horses and carts to get past. Their is the number one thing which the residents have said they want.

No comments on bus stop moving for safety reason then? I ws sure there would be more comments than a ingle issue considering the importance of finding 'balance' for all competing demands as I stated above? Cllr Scott Naylor Cllr.snaylor@richmon
d.gov.uk

Report this post »

jmtwix says...
1:23pm Mon 1 Oct 12

Cllr Naylor

I don't know where you get he idea of 1.5 lanes from?

I have proposed 2 lanes for vehicles, as per the Council plans, + 1 dedicated lane for cyclists (in each direction).

By my maths that is approx 2.5 lanes, in addition to widened pavements (which will also benefit from not being obstructed by bus stops).

Conclusion:
Pedestrians win + Motorists win + Cyclists win = Twickenham town centre wins

Report this post »

Scott Naylor says...
3:41pm Mon 1 Oct 12

I love your idea, so let's see it drawn out all the way through King Street, I look to be educated, I didn't know King Street was wide enough, but please be my guest, we would all love that...

Report this post »

lucullus says...
5:22pm Mon 1 Oct 12

If there were balance for competing demands, this would be a better proposal. As it is, the only demand that really wins is the apparent need for more non-bus traffic to drive through Twickenham.

I surely can't have been the only one who noticed that in central London (Wardour St., Leicester Square, Covent Garden), Kingston, and 'mega-malls' right up and down the country, the unifying theme to them (apart from the fact that they are happily used by thousands every day), is that the motor vehicle is moved away from pedestrians to areas away from the key shopping concourses. People may drive to these places, but they're happy to leave their cars on the periphery, and then walk happily down broad, safe streets, unconcerned by the chance of being taken out by an HGV.

All Twickenham's plan does is to push more traffic through, generally at the expense of cyclists, but also at the expense of bus users. It's rather worrying that, with so much money and prestige at stake, the council have basically chosen a bit of expensive redressing of half of the existing problem.

Report this post »

Twickenham Bob says...
7:11pm Mon 1 Oct 12

I note Scott Naylor is repeating the Road Fund Licence myth.

Its Vehicle Excise Duty and has been considered general taxation for generations. The money was only ring fenced for road construction between 1920 until 1937.

However, it is part of the Jeremy Clarkson / angry taxi driver folklore that I pay for the roads so thoes effing cyclists ougth to be banned etc etc. The exact sort of attitude I detect in the local conservatives

Report this post »

Scott Naylor says...
9:35pm Mon 1 Oct 12

As ever, regarding the Twickenham Bob Labour mantra that always seems to dominate, I have asked all interested parties to look at detailed designs with all of the balances and considerations. So far as cars are concerned, I would love to know if in any of your thoughts and schemes they are allowed to exist, and if so where, that argument needs to be with TFL themselves,but if you have a differerent master-plan for Twickenham Town, I haven't seen it yet and how practical it is, and I have read the report with all comments as per Cabinet papers and Council papers past, do tell me where one is, the last one I saw was from about 1970 and then refreshed in 2001 by an independent community group, it involved knocking down significant parts of the rear of Holly Road houses and shops and offices, to create an alternative route for one set of traffic, fantastic in concept, a very difficult prospect in complexity of land owners and decades later, plus the true workability of such a plan.

It is all fine criticising ande popping away at any adminsitration, but how about creating together, or is this thout alien to you, I am happy to be a conduit to bring all ideas forward on the table, so long as you put detail into it which is worked, on paper, in detailed drawn plan form, these ideas have to be put into practice and therefore need to be practical not pipe dreams creating widths of road which simply do not exist however much we try!

I have asked for the Cycle Liason Group to put the design on the agenda, and have asked for half an hour to be given over along with several A2 size blow-ups of the plans to be made available; I am hoping subject to numbers we may break into groups to put our ideas down as a starting point on these plans and then present them briefly one by one to the whole group, then give them to Ben Fryer to take away. Simply having only regard to cyclists is not the exercise, the challenge will be to take all matters into account but with your special regard to cycling.

The Cabinet report for October is simply asking for approval of money for the engineering contractors, up until now Atkins, to go into the detailed work of the plans, and to take all of the comments into account through the Consultation. I have also asked for there to be workshops conducted by the Consultants with Officer support to bring these ideas further together, so Thursday should be a great precursor to the next stage. I hope this all happens and with your support and involvement.

Cllr Scott Naylor cllr.snaylor@richmon
d.gov.uk

As ever, regarding the Twickenham Bob Labour mantra that always seems to dominate, I have asked all interested parties to look at detailed designs with all of the balances and considerations. So far as cars are concerned, I would love to know if in any of your thoughts and schemes they are allowed to exist, and if so where, that argument needs to be with TFL themselves,but if you have a differerent master-plan for Twickenham Town, I haven't seen it yet and how practical it is, and I have read the report with all comments as per Cabinet papers and Council papers past, do tell me where one is, the last one I saw was from about 1970 and then refreshed in 2001 by an independent community group, it involved knocking down significant parts of the rear of Holly Road houses and shops and offices, to create an alternative route for one set of traffic, fantastic in concept, a very difficult prospect in complexity of land owners and decades later, plus the true workability of such a plan. It is all fine criticising ande popping away at any adminsitration, but how about creating together, or is this thout alien to you, I am happy to be a conduit to bring all ideas forward on the table, so long as you put detail into it which is worked, on paper, in detailed drawn plan form, these ideas have to be put into practice and therefore need to be practical not pipe dreams creating widths of road which simply do not exist however much we try! I have asked for the Cycle Liason Group to put the design on the agenda, and have asked for half an hour to be given over along with several A2 size blow-ups of the plans to be made available; I am hoping subject to numbers we may break into groups to put our ideas down as a starting point on these plans and then present them briefly one by one to the whole group, then give them to Ben Fryer to take away. Simply having only regard to cyclists is not the exercise, the challenge will be to take all matters into account but with your special regard to cycling. The Cabinet report for October is simply asking for approval of money for the engineering contractors, up until now Atkins, to go into the detailed work of the plans, and to take all of the comments into account through the Consultation. I have also asked for there to be workshops conducted by the Consultants with Officer support to bring these ideas further together, so Thursday should be a great precursor to the next stage. I hope this all happens and with your support and involvement. Cllr Scott Naylor cllr.snaylor@richmon d.gov.uk Scott Naylor

Report this post »

jmtwix says...
10:02am Tue 2 Oct 12

Scott Naylor wrote:
I love your idea, so let's see it drawn out all the way through King Street, I look to be educated, I didn't know King Street was wide enough, but please be my guest, we would all love that...

Scott,

King Street currently has two vehicle lanes, one bus lane and the pavement (on each side of the road).
So of course it is wide enough for two vehicle lanes, one cycle lane and wider pavements.

The cycle lanes would be where the combined bus/cycle lanes currently are, but because cycle lanes are much narrower the pavements can be widened.

It really doesn't get any simpler than this, and benefits all users.

What's not to like about this proposal? Following our discussion last night, nothing apparently.

I hope you and the Council will give it proper consideration and discuss it at the Cycling Liaison Group meeting on Thursday.

I am happy to participate in any collaborative working groups set up to finalise the plans (providing cyclists safety is not ignored).

Report this post »

Scott Naylor says...
10:47am Tue 2 Oct 12

Draw it up John, draw it up, show us how you see it working, open invitation repeated, devil in the detail as you well know, create create! When you look at plans with a scale rule it will become obvious to you where the challenges are, where the restrictions are, how everything needs to be fitted in, how important the mid King Street crossing opposite Cousins is and the overall challenges, the plans are on-line so nothing to stop you or anyone else, we want the best with vision and to get it through TfL and check all modals not just one area or another, has to balance and take our town forward to be far more appealing for the next century! Cllr.snaylor@richmon
d.gov.uk

Report this post »

jmtwix says...
12:04pm Tue 2 Oct 12

Scott

I have presented you with a very simple proposal for inclusion in the council plans.

If you actively support cyclists' safety surely you must appreciate the benefits of including dedicated cycle lanes on Twickenham town centre's busiest stretch of road?

As this also allows for pavement widening and two lanes for vehicles (each way) it is of benefit to all users, not just cyclists.

I'm happy to meet with you and the planners to discuss adding cycle lanes to the plans. I'm also happy to participate in the CLG discussion on Thursday if invited.

BTW, the King Street pavement would be far less congested if Cousins removed their market stall that takes up half the width of the pavement.

Report this post »

lucullus says...
12:11pm Tue 2 Oct 12

For anyone who wants to know how TfL will really look at the plans: http://peoplesfronto
frichmond.wordpress.
com/2012/10/02/what-
influence-will-tfl-h
ave-on-the-twickenha
m-area-plan/

Report this post »

pluton says...
6:05pm Tue 2 Oct 12

An issue with cycle lanes in King Street is the left turn lanes at each end forming a trap for any cyclist going straight on. At the West end there is already a toucan so the lane could lead to that. I suppose any cyclist going towards Richmond could go down Wharf Lane and then along the riverside. Signage is required.

Report this post »

pluton says...
6:08pm Tue 2 Oct 12

It is, however, the retention of the cycle lanes in London Road that is vital. There is no alternative way of linking to the station. (See inter-modal connectivity)

Report this post »

metis says...
12:32am Wed 3 Oct 12

Not much fun being on the receiving end of a very vociferous bike lobby eh Scott.! You are right that it is very difficult balancing all the interest groups and this shouldn't be done by carving up the space into territories for each.(which, to my mind, causes all the road rage) It completely defeats the concept of 'shared space' which few here seem to understand.

Report this post »

Scott Naylor says...
1:32am Wed 3 Oct 12

Metis, I am not quite as you think, maybe this is a revelation to some , but I was elected with a swing of over 15% to make a difference here, massive change is occurring under my and colleagues' watch, I am very happy to hear all view points, isn't that what we do, listen and distill for the best outcome we can broker for all the competing interests? I won't say who didn't listen before, I am just interested in major progress so our Town gets what it needs, yes even get a much larger number of cyclists into town, encourage people out of their cars on short trips, through a carrot of massively improving the environment and access.

Strangely enough, being a motorcyclist and cyclist and car driver and pedestrian with a half dodgy knee with a high number of miles behind me and having been trained to a very high standard by police instructors positions me well hopefully to be able to take on board the various perspectives, and hopefully find common ground enough to bring about a significantly enhanced and massively more pleasant centre of Sporting, Artistic, Musical, Residential highly educated, Commercial and Riverside Town.

Love to have any input from you too Cllr.snaylor@Richmon
d.gov.uk

Report this post »

alex twickenham says...
11:13am Wed 3 Oct 12

I'm with the Council on this initiative - it obviously needs fine tuning but I do hope they won't be bullied into submission by the local bike lobby.

I used to be a member of RUG, a pressure group formed to counter the previous years of sham consultations - it worked and almost certainly helped wrest control of our Council from the LibDems. This administration seem far more prepared to listen to all sides of the argument without a hidden political agenda.

A a test, I got my bike out yesterday, admittedly, for the first time in 6 months (I also have a crocked knee) and was amazed by the civillity and consideration of car drivers. Vans seem to be on a time critical mission, lorries are scary and both are best avoided. Therein lies my message. Why fight them? You will always lose even if you are in a cycle lane. No wonder so many cyclists are killed by left turning lorries - I wonder how many were listening to music on headphones and oblivious to the dangerous position they placed themselves in? Whatever happened to the instinct for self preservation?

My real eye opener was the number of cyclists who intimidated me as I was cruising down the narrow cycle lane along Cross Deep - It felt as though I had strayed into a time trial. Does anyone else feel intimidated by these sort of bike nuts? As with so many other problems in life, it's the few who spoil it for the many.

As a final comment, the bus lane operating hours are very confusing and need sorting - that would do a lot to reduce congestion and confusion/fear of getting a ticket.
Alex

PS: Gareth Roberts repeatedly slams me for daring to remain anonymous whilst never challenging anyone else - virtually everyone else does the same, I wonder why?
PPS: I wonder if "Interested Reader" has a view on any of this?

Report this post »

RiverLover says...
12:16pm Wed 3 Oct 12

Alex, you make some good points. As far as I am concerned cycles and motorists should be seperated by something more than a white line painted on the side of the road. A proper cycling infrastructure is what is needed.

There was a link in one of these debates in the R&TT comments where a cyclist had taken photos of their trip to Amsterdam. What is noticeable, apart from the marvellous infrastructure is the cyclists themselves. No helmets, no lycra, just normal people going from a to b at a gentle pace.

Like anything there are good cyclists and bad cyclists. Some bad cyclists do not realise they are bad and do themselves no favours preferring to blame the dangerous motorist.

As a car driver and cyclist one does know or rather can anticipate what the car driver is trying to do and thus can cycle in a way that accounts for this.

However i stand by my basic premise - a proper cycling infrastructure which separates cars from cyclists is the way forward.

Report this post »

lucullus says...
12:26pm Wed 3 Oct 12

Alex, the cyclists who have died under left-turning HGVs have generally not been 'fighting' them. Brian Dorling was a very experienced cyclist, when he was run down at Bow (https://twitter.com
/adorling90/status/2
53150352147378178), for example. Others who've died in these situations had varying levels of experience, but to imply that these deaths are generally the fault of the victims is deeply unfair.

This isn't about bullying the council into submission, it's about asking (for example): when there's only one lane each way at the York Street/King Street junction, what is the use of having two lanes from each direction feeding in? Why not narrow earlier, and re-allocate that space to full-sized cycle lanes and more pedestrian space, for example?

Report this post »

alex twickenham says...
2:22pm Wed 3 Oct 12

Lucullus makes a fair comment, however I stand by my point that all too many cyclists put themselves into unnecessarily dangerous situations either through lack of anticipation, foresight, training, distraction, or, dare I say it, sheer bloody minded obstinacy.
There seems to be some sort of weird aggressive pattern of behaviour that bike obsessives adopt. You see them on the road every day and only have to look at Lucullus's Twitter traffic to see what I'm describing - there are an awful lot of strange people, including him, who seem to regard two wheeled pedal powered travel as the only way to go! I suspect that he and his chums have something of a mountain to climb before motor fuel finally runs out. I know it's a hard concept for he and his chums to grasp but why not try to co-exist with your fellow road users and help the Council make it better for everyone, not just yourselves?
Alex

PS: I get off my bike at the York St/King St junction and walk it over - what's so difficult about that? It's usually quicker than waiting for the traffic - as you can see, I'm not a bike obsessive, I just want to get from A to B with the minimum amount of fuss and environmental impact using my choice of the appropriate mode of travel. If it's by bike, that's fine, if it's by car, that's fine, if it's on foot, that's fine - Thankfully, it's still my choice.

Report this post »

jmtwix says...
3:55pm Wed 3 Oct 12

Lets's face it - there are good, bad, stupid and dangerous cyclists, motorists and pedestrians. But the vast majority just want to get safely and efficiently from A to B.

The Council's proposals to widen pavements, improve crossings and move bus stops will improve the street scene for pedestrians and shoppers.

Their proposals for dual vehicle lanes on London Road and King Street will maximise the flow of vehicles (except when blocked by the taxi rank!).

But cyclists have been dealt the short straw with the proposed removal of cycle and bus/cycle lanes on these very busy and congested roads.
What's the point in having advanced cycle stop lines if cyclists can't get through the traffic to use them.

The removal of the bus lanes will create enough space for dedicated cycle lanes without compomising pavement improvements or vehicle flows, and most importantly they will separate cyclists from angry and abusive motorists like Richmond Magazine's Richard Nye.

I personally hate seeing cyclists riding on pavements in central Twickenham, but am concerned that many more people will do so if safe cycle lanes are not provided.

Report this post »

lucullus says...
4:06pm Wed 3 Oct 12

Alex, neither I nor many of the people I speak to think you should need to get off at traffic lights to make a reasonable journey by bicycle. Have a look here link and tell me whether you think Twickenham would look nicer like this: http://www.aviewfrom
thecyclepath.com/201
1/12/so-dutch-do-hav
e-cycle-gear.html

Report this post »

Twickenham Man says...
4:49pm Wed 3 Oct 12

As a resident of Twickenham for 26 years, i have memory of how traffic was before cycle / bus lanes were introduced. London Road, in both directions over the Railway Bridge was not far short of a race track, with cars speeding for first position . King Street was very similar. I remember at least two accidents, one fatal ,that i suspect were caused by speeding cars. I accept that the town centre roads are not ideal (Which Town's are?) but i feel safer driving and cycling through it than i did before. How anyone can say that re opening two lanes will be safer is beyond my comprehension. Just because there is a 20mph speed limit, given more space motorists will use more speed.

Report this post »

alex twickenham says...
6:32pm Wed 3 Oct 12

Sorry Lucullus, I don't do links unless I know they are safe - especially those provided by anonymous posters.

I still remain puzzled why you and your biker chums find it so difficult to dismount and walk across tricky junctions when its often quicker, safer and easier to do so. Some junctions will always be tricky however well they are designed. Could there be an element of pointless bloody mindedness in Lucullus's determination to stay glued to his saddle? I certainly wouldn't like to cycle round Hyde Park Corner, Trafalgar Square, Holborn Cross or any of the other central London junctions - far easier to get off and walk - half the distance!

There seems to be something strange in the psyche of cycle obsessives - perhaps they should play a tape of Michael Winner's advert exhorting them to "calm down dear.." before they mount their trusty steed. Others should have a browse through Lucullus's Twitter traffic to see what I mean.
Alex

Report this post »

metis says...
8:15pm Wed 3 Oct 12

So, Scott you broker for competing interests. This is a laudable ambition in theory - but less so in practice. It is often the ones that shout the loudest that tends to get the lions share. Bear in mind that this is PUBLIC highway and space specifically allocated to one group is always at the expense of other groups. Your 'value judgement' however hard you try will always result in cries of 'unfair'.
I am more wary, however, on using 'inducements' to change behaviour (or nudging people away from one form of transport toward another) which is tantamount to social engineering and full of unintended consequences.

Report this post »

Gareth_Roberts says...
10:36pm Wed 3 Oct 12

I don't want to sideline this interesting conversation but to address Alex's question about anonymous posters - I don't have a problem with anonymous posters per se, what I have an issue with is people who hide behind anonymity yet 'out' others in a nasty, personal manner. Alex's regular comments about Lucullus's school governor position and openly wondering what parents might think about his posts are, in my opinion, sinister. I seem to recall a comment recently like 'Don't worry, I'm keeping a log of all of these exchanges'. Not nice.

So anonymity fine, nasty & cowardly anonymity deserves to be challenged.

Report this post »

Aceminty says...
10:45pm Wed 3 Oct 12

alex twickenham,what planet are you on?
Have you ever tried to push a bike on the pavement,without either getting abuse from pedestrians or accidentally catching them with your handlebars,pedals etc.
You say you always get off your bike at certain junctions, but I suspect that the last time you rode a bike was on a "penny farthing" and the only dangers you faced were horse dung and the hansom cab drivers whip!

Report this post »

metis says...
12:04am Thu 4 Oct 12

I suspect Alex lives on a planet full of reasonable and civil folk not on planet 'Aceminty', where perceived injustice and intolerance lies behind every corner.

Report this post »

jeremyhm says...
9:17am Thu 4 Oct 12

I ride a bike. I do not feel very safe in the bus/cycle lane in King st; I have to pull out into the traffice to pass the stopped buses, and then when going straight on get caught in the traffic stream turning left into Cross Deep. Now, if the busstops were moved.........

Report this post »

alex twickenham says...
10:13am Thu 4 Oct 12

What fun!
This sunny morning I wake up to a stern admonition from the head prefect/self appointed moderator of this forum aka Gareth Roberts and a weird post frome one "Aceminty" who seems to bear out my observation about cycle obsessives - I can just see him glaring at other pavement users as he tries to force his trusty pushbike past their legs just as his compatriots do to car drivers who dare to get in their way or make a misjudgement. Isn't it all about give and take? Why is it that so many people like him seem to have forgotten those two simple little words?

As to Gareth; well whats to say? He's got me banged to rights and, were we still riding around on penny farthings I would probably be up for at least six of the best delivered by his chum Flashman! Fortunately we seem to have moved on a bit however some of these odd people who he defends seem to have an obsession with ordure as well - Lucullus with dog excrement and Aceminty with horse dung. Is there something worrying there?

Gareth might like to reflect on the fact that Lucullus is the only poster I have ever "outed" and that was because he chose to incur my ire with a particularly intemperate post for which he has never apologised - silly man. Google Lucullus you get Tim Lennon, google Tim Lennon you get School Governor, LibDem activist and cycling activist. He may well be an extremely good governor but my experience of his comments on this forum and some of his Tweets would cause me concern. Why is that so wrong? Doesn't everyone deserve to be challenged if they appear to have an alter ego?
Alex

Report this post »

Jon_events says...
10:42am Thu 4 Oct 12

One brief comment to add regarding the traffic modelling that TfL and councils use.

TfL's own data shows that over 50% of car trips in London are 2 miles or less. It would be interesting to know how much modal shift is factored into the models for the wider benefits to both local residents and road users.

It is rare that pedestrian traffic is included as part of a road traffic count. All too often it seems that the needs of motorised road users trump those of non-motorised users.

The DfT still seem to be forecasting growth in motor traffic whilst for over 20 years their forecasts have been wrong, as growth has never met the forecasts and motor traffic levels have levelled off.

Jon

Report this post »

lucullus says...
11:23am Thu 4 Oct 12

You forgot the blog, Alex. But then apparently I don't provide trustworthy links, so there's no point saying http://peoplesfronto
frichmond.wordpress.
com/2012/10/02/reaso
ns-not-to-be-cheerfu
l-about-the-taap-1-2
-11/

Rest assured though, that I won't bother you again. Well probably not, since I don't know who you are.

Report this post »

Twickenham Bob says...
1:31pm Thu 4 Oct 12

Town centers ought to be for people - not dual lane highways.

I suspect that most residents wouldnt mind it taking a minute or two longer to drive to Twickenham in exchange for a much safer road and nicer place to shop.

Plus most of the cyclists I know also drive a car too. Its not a question of cars vs bikes, but making the roads better for everyone.

Report this post »

alex twickenham says...
12:45pm Fri 5 Oct 12

As a follow up to my recent character assassination by LibDem Councillor Gareth Roberts, regular readers might like to note the contents of a letter to this paper from Graham Smith, it's on page 29 of today's e-edition and is about the unfortunate gaffe about cyclists from Richard Nye editor of the Richmond Magazine for which he has already apologised.

Sadly for good old Gareth he couldn't stop himself getting down and dirty with the rest of us, the hoi poloi, and tweeted an unfortunately tasteless joke - which someone spotted. These sort of people can't help themselves and usually cry foul when caught out! So much for his virtuous stand on the moral high ground in front of me, the nasty, sinister, cowardly pleb who dares to challenge and question those who should know better - perhaps we now have two alter ego's?
Alex
PS: This is vaguely on topic if you read Mr Smith's letter.

Report this post »

Gareth_Roberts says...
2:57pm Fri 5 Oct 12

You seem to be somewhat confused, Alex. I tweet using my full name.

As for the way you describe yourself in your post I would agree with 75% of it. I have never described you as a pleb, but if it is a mantle you wish to adopt them who am I to stop you.

Report this post »

alex twickenham says...
5:40pm Fri 5 Oct 12

What a tedious young curmudgeon Gareth has become - sadly, he seems to have lost his sense of humour and is now somewhat like Lucullus, quite incapable of apologising for unseemly behaviour.

Perhaps this stems from a couple of years as a somewhat invisible backbench opposition Councillor. It must be very frustrating for him - poor lamb!
Alex the pleb (with pride)

PS: Who said Gareth didn't use his full name when he tweeted? I didn't

Report this post »

Aceminty says...
10:49pm Fri 5 Oct 12

"alex" The only problem is that when a car driver "makes a misjudgement" the poor pedestrian/cyclist is the person taken to hospital, not the "I didn't see you" fool in their car.
Wouldn't it be easier if we could ban those **** pedestrians and cyclists altogether and then we could drive/park wherever we want!!!!

Report this post »

alex twickenham says...
9:37am Sat 6 Oct 12

What a very silly comment from Aceminty and typical of those few who spoil so much for so many - no wonder cyclists are routinely referred to as lycra louts even though most are nothing of the sort. Most are also drive cars and are well aware of the vulnerability of cyclists.
Self preservation on both sides? There seem to be an increasing number of cyclists wearing headphones. Isn't that extraordinarily dangerous?
Alex

Report this post »

Twickenham plan shows no regard for cyclists' lives, critics claim (From This Is Local London)

News RSS Feed Send your news, pictures & videos

Twickenham plan shows no regard for cyclists' lives, critics claim

click2find

Jobs

Dating

Homes

Cars

About cookies