Aren't you one of Francis's mates Andrew?
You can see a 2018 Google Streetview image below from the location where there was a cycling fatality. Francis ignored this because he said it wasn't on the bridge. As far as he was concerned, it didn't matter.
I know you are trying to do spin doctoring for your mate, but he didn't say "some cyclists may prefer the bridge to reopen", he said "a large proportion of cyclists [] will see having to share with vehicles rather than pedestrians as a positive"
Of course, this is classic Francis Rowe bollocks pulling opinions from his posterior with no evidence whatsoever.
He certainly hasn't demonstrated crossing the bridge was "risk free". It really is perverse of you to claim prior to the bridge closing to motor traffic, a stretch of road where there was a fatality and multiple serious and minor casualties was "risk free".
A comprehensive analysis of casualties for the bridge and approach roads would consider the numbers of people cycling as by definition, "risk" considers the likelihood of danger. Casualties can go up but the risk can go down if the number of people cycling has increased by more than casualties.
On Chiswick High Rd for example, since C9 was completed in Jan 2023, the number of cyclist casualties has decreased while numbers cycling have increased so there is no doubt about the reduced risk.
I don't have counts for cyclists using the bridge since the closure to motor traffic, so won't make claims about risk, unlike you and your mate.
