| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Increased casualties at Chiswick Lane | |
| Posted by: | Michael Robinson | |
| Date/Time: | 26/11/24 10:44:00 |
| "These numbers also show that the number of pedal cycles on the central section of Chiswick High Road fell from 2020 to 2023 which will also explain reduced collisions." Are you referring to DfT Site Number 36947? As you appear to have looked at these, presumably you will have seen it says 'Estimated using previous year's AADF on this link' for the last 5 years. The DfT haven't actually counted traffic on CHR since 2018. All years since then are estimates. (AADF = Annual Average Traffic Flow). The same is true for DfT Site Number 16867 on CHR nearer to Goldhawk Rd. There are no actual counts since 2018. I certainly wouldn't rely on 6 years of estimates using estimates using estimates x6 which span Covid. However the good news is there is no need to use DfT estimates as TfL have counted the actual numbers of cycles on CHR using 2 different surveys. There is the annual Outer London survey which has been done every year since 2015 and since 2021 there have been traffic survey cameras doing counts every hour 24x7 at 4 locations along the A315. From the actual counts done by TfL annual survey, there was a 59% increase in cycling numbers between 2019 and 2023. So casualties are down, cycling numbers are up, overall cycling casualty rate is down substantially. A reduction in motor vehicle volumes will make the CHR safer for everyone. That is good, isn't it? The cycleway was certainly not 'to all intents and purposes...fully operational' during 2022. Throughout 2022 sections of the cycle lane were closed completely for construction so during year there were various combinations of sections with temporary infrastructure, sections with temporary infrastructure closed for construction and sections of partially completed upgraded infrastructure. You have no information whatsoever about the Chiswick Lane collision circumstances, the status of infrastructure at that time and the movements of vehicles involved in the collision. You really should rewrite your convoluted double negative "can't be absolutely stated that C9 hasn't..." for clarity but your claim that the main reason for reduced collision is fewer motor vehicles does not stand up to any scrutiny. For example, 'Dooring' was a significant proportion of cyclist casualties prior to C9 and these no longer happen on the cycleway. Your doom-laden 'transferring risk in our direction' makes no sense. Restricting through traffic along Rivercourt and Weltje is simply the right thing to do both in terms of improving safety at the junctions and for the people who live on what are residential streets, not relief roads for the A316 and gyratory. I'm certainly not taking any guff from you Francis about safety on the cycleway given the work that I and others have done behind the scenes with Hounslow and TfL, going through the detailed engineering drawings to provide comments and providing feedback on the implementations. That involves far more time and effort that your keyboard warrior shtick. You also seem to have suffered amnesia about your series of predictions about the demise of the cycleway. It appears that you are still in denial that anyone could possible prioritise anything other than cars. |