| Topic: | Shooting the Messenger | |
| Posted by: | Francis Rowe | |
| Date/Time: | 28/07/19 09:23:00 |
| Michael Robinson wrote, "A typical post from Paul Corcoran, who confidently predicts the future on the basis of minimal evidence and knowledge." Firstly a disclosure. Paul is a friend of mine and I know he is away at the moment. Anyone who reads Michael's response will see immediately it is a complete misrepresentation. Paul has, unlike most people commenting, actually gone to the location in the light of the new proposals and raised some very important questions by gathering what evidence he can. His original post was a request for more information to see if his initial conclusions about the new plan were correct. Nothing has been posted in this thread that suggests they were not. Michael also accuses Paul of making unfounded assertions about the original plan for the Kew Bridge section. Once again Paul was one of the few people who made the effort to go and visit the location. He spent a long time observing the traffic by the junction with Wellesley Road and quickly noticed that the long phase necessary to allow CS9 to cross the South Circular at this point would cause traffic to tail back to the A4. (This makes him sound like a dull fellow - he is not). This flaw was picked up by TfL and the section was redesigned to be workable. I was told by someone (not Paul) that TfL engineers followed the discussion on this forum and incorporated the local knowledge into redesigns. Paul is an evangelical cyclist nagging me constantly to cycle more so if he says that the latest proposal for CS9 is unworkable his views shouldn't just be dismissed. He is not arguing that the cycleway should be stopped - the alternative he is proposing looks far more practical and uncontentious. If cycle lobby groups such as the Hounslow Cycling Campaign rigidly insist on adherence to designs that can't be implemented and shrilly dismiss anyone who raises legitimate concerns, they increase the risk of the project not going ahead. |