Cycling Liaison Group 9 January 2012

The next meeting of the London Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames Cycling Liaison Group is Monday 9th January 2012, 630pm, York House, Twickenham.

Click here to read the agenda which includes a report from the police on bike theft and an update on the Cycling Strategy.

Click here for our proposed agenda items which includes asking for an update on the 2nd Local Implementation Plan for Transport and for cycle collisions at identifiable locations, including Richmond, Teddington and Twickenham town centres, to be a priority for action.

Click here to read notes of the last meeting in October, including:

Item 8: Cross Deep, Twickenham

“LBRuT is working in partnership with LB Hounslow, LB Ealing and Royal Borough of Kingston regarding cycle direction signage for LCN Route 75.  The Heath Road / Cross Deep junction has been identified as an important junction on the route and the consultant’s proposals for how people follow route 75 and join / leave this route are awaited.”

Now interestingly, London Cycle Network Route 75, appears to run along Strawberry Vale, Cross Deep and London Road, including the long-standing problem of the roundabout on A316 Chertsey Road.  The route includes significant clusters of cycle collisions at the junctions with Ferry Road in Teddington, Waldegrave Road, Heath Road, King Street and Whitton Road so we’re very interested to know what the consultants have to say about “improvements to route continuity” and how this fits with the Twickenham Area Action Plan and Item 6 on next week’s CLG agenda A310 Strawberry Vale and Twickenham Road Improvements Update

Item 5 20mph zones and limits confirms the requirement for at least 51% households to agree.  We note this is 1 of 4 issues the Liberal Democrat candidate for this year’s London Assembly elections is campaigning on.

Item 8 Adoption of the Elevated Footway in the Terrace includes the Council’s decision on our suggestion, which is “Given the additional responsibility of taking on maintenance of this area, adoption was not possible.”  So, no change here then, which we think is a missed opportunity.

E-mail with your thoughts, comments, questions, issues to raise: we’ve already been asked about the planned works on the footbridge at Teddington Railway Station.

“War: what are we fighting for?”

Safe Cycling on a Cycle Lane in Richmond

Richmond Cycling Campaign, the local group of the London Cycling Campaign, exists to encourage people to cycle.  We do this in different ways:

  • organising two rides a month;
  • running maintenance workshops at different places in the Borough;
  • asking the two relevant highways authorities, London Borough of Richmond upon Thames and Transport for London, for safe and convenient routes to cycle in the Borough;
  • asking the Council for sufficient cycle parking to meet the need;
  • asking the police to work on the problem of bike theft.

No one of these activities is more important than another which is why we supported Sky Ride Local this year, funded by the Council in partnership with British Cycling [click here for their review of the 2011 programme] and why we wouldn’t argue with Councillor Harborne, our Borough Cycling Champion, about the value of “promoting an exciting programme of events to get more people cycling, more often, safely and for fun”.

But because no one of these activities is more important than another we think Councillor Harborne should be concerned when cycling is not safe and is not fun on the Borough’s roads.  That’s why we wrote to the Council, after Liverpool City Council and the local Primary Care Trust agreed to jointly fund 20mph schemes, to ask if:

“there are any comparable discussions going on between the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames and the Primary Care Trust about the public health benefits of 20mph limits?  Are there any plans to do so?”

We received this reply from our Borough Cycling Champion:

“Did you know that:

There are already 46 20 mph zones in the borough and large parts of the rest of the borough where there is no record of any accidents at all, ever.

We are the 3rd safest LB out of 33. Obviously we should be the safest, but that’s a work in progress.

Sometimes campaigning to improve safety is counter productive. It puts potential new cyclist off. Is that what you want to do?

Particularly when the fear of accidents is not backed up by statistics. Don’t you think?

Can we please have RCC encouraging people to cycle not putting them off.  It would be better for everyone.”

Now, we exist to encourage cycling so being told we’re putting people off is a worry, so we wrote back to our Borough Cycling Champion:

very helpfully we have a map of cycle collisions recorded in the Borough between 2006 and 2010 so we know exactly where they do and don’t happen which is why we’re particularly concerned about the 4 clusters identified below

[Click here for our previous post about where collisions happen in the Borough and here for a searchable map of all collisions for the last 10 years]

As a campaigning group we constantly wrestle with the problem of unintentionally discouraging people from cycling but it’s our view that people make informed decisions about risk when they know the facts, hence our concern about these four clusters.  I am very happy to publicise the fact we are the 3rd safest Borough in London if you tell me the meaning of “safe” and the statistical source.

Do you have a list of the 46 zones in the Borough and do you know how this compares with other Boroughs, say the neighbouring Boroughs of Hounslow and Kingston with whom we share our Assembly Member?  It’s been suggested Richmond has the 2nd lowest number of zones in the country, do you know if that’s the case?

Are you able to answer my original question about talks with the PCT?”

We haven’t received a reply to date.

Early in the New Year LCC will launch “Go Dutch – clear space for cycling on London’s main roads” the single issue campaign to accompany the London Assembly elections.  It’s about safe and convenient cycle journeys not least because of the cyclist fatalties in London this year.

The campaign aims to get 100,000 signatures on a petition and 10,000 cyclists on the road to persuade the candidates for the London Assembly that this important, not just for cyclists, but for everyone who want to improve the quality of life in London, who want people-friendly streets.

Which is what we want in our Borough.  We want Richmond, Teddington and Twickenham town centres to be people-friendly, which is not how you could describe them now.  Was it coincidence that last week’s Richmond and Twickenham Times had “High street havoc” on the front page and Tim Lennon’s excellent letter “Deal with this congestion” inside?

Which is why we’ll go on commenting about the effect of planned highway engineering schemes even though we have to search for them and even though we were told in September we can’t go to the Transport Management Liaison Group.  And thank you to all the Veloteers who replied to our request for comments on these schemes.

[Click here to read what we've done this month]

Which is why we’ll go on asking the Council what they’re doing for people who cycle even though few, if any, of our Manifesto requests at the 2010 local government elections have been realised.

Which is why we’ll keep going to the Cycling Liaison Group and ask the Council questions about cycling in the Borough.

[Click here for the issues we've raised ahead of the next meeting on Monday 9th January 2012]

E-mail your comments to:

“On your bike” – Proposed Highway Engineering Works

This post has been updated on: 15th December 2011

Thank you to all the RCC Veloteers who responded to our request for comments on these 3 schemes.  Click on the locations to read our submissions:

Hanworth Road Whitton, Stanley Road Teddington and Terrace Yard Petersham.

It’s worth noting we have been consulted about a proposed Advisory Cycle Lane in Richmond Road, East Twickenham, but this may be the result of a long-standing working relationship with the Highway Engineer: click here to read our response.


Since the Council told us earlier this year that we couldn’t go to the Traffic Management Liaison Group anymore, and while we wait to hear how they will consult us about the potential impact of proposed highway engineering works on people who cycle, we’ve been picking up proposed work through Richmond Council’s Digest, an e-mail list of Council activity [click here if you want them to tell you what they're doing]

There are 3 this week, all relating to proposals to spend Section 106 Town and Country Planning Act money on highway improvements at:

1. Terrace Yard, Petersham Road, Richmond

2. Stanley Road, Teddington

3. Hanworth Road, Whitton

1. Terrace Yard, Petersham Road, Richmond

3.2 The new layout of the development and the new crossover access to the site has impacted on the existing pelican crossing. To ensure that the crossing is safe for pedestrians it is essential that the crossing is relocated away from the vehicle crossover. Associated footway and surfacing works are considered necessary to ensure that the approaches to the relocated crossing are to an appropriate standard.

3.3 This project will comprise two main elements:

  • A slight relocation of the existing pelican crossing to ensure that it is mid way between the two vehicle crossovers and not partly over one as is the current position;
  • Improvements to the footways and road surfacing in conjunction with the changes to the pelican crossing, with the addition of anti-skid surfacing to improve road safety.”

2. Stanley Road, Teddington

3.2 Residents have reported ongoing issues with vehicles parking on the zig-zag markings on the approaches to the Stanley Road Zebra Crossing and illegal manoeuvres associated with the one way restrictions at the junction of Fulwell Road/Stanley Road. The development site is opposite the junction of Fulwell Road/Stanley Road and just north of the Stanley Road Zebra Crossing.

3.3 This project will have two main elements:

  • Footway widening at the junction of Fulwell Road/Stanley Road to improve the start of the one way working;
  • The introduction of a central refuge on the zebra crossing outside the parade of shops, just south of the development to shorten the crossing distance and discourage parking on the zig-zag markings.”

3. Hanworth Road, Whitton

“3.2 The junction of Hanworth Road/Powder Mill Lane has a history of Personal Injury Collisions.  The junction is currently controlled with a mini-roundabout and has a Puffin Crossing in close proximity to the mini-roundabout.

3.3 The project comprises:

  • Relocation of the existing crossing and the possible provision of a new crossing facility or signalised junction (subject to feasibility/design)
  • Realignment of the mini-roundabout to increase deflection and alterations to the existing parking arrangements.”

E-mail: if you know any of these locations and think there’s an opportunity to make things more safe and more convenient for people who cycle, or you think that what’s proposed could make it unsafe and inconvenient.

And why not e-mail the Council as well:

Maybe they are listening…

1. Twickenham

Back in June we asked you to respond to the Council’s consultation on the Twickenham Area Action Plan [click here for the original post] We said then:  

“Unfortunately the 8 page consultation leaflet ”Twickenham Rediscovered, looking back looking forward” available at yesterday’s public meeting and here doesn’t actually use the words “bicycle”, “cycling” or “cyclist”.  “Cycle” does appear, once, on page 3: “Limited widening of eastern footway in London Road through removal of cycle lane.

Well, a report on the consultation for the Council’s Cabinet has been published [click here] together with a summary of all consultation on the options [click here]  If you live, work or spend time in Twickenham you’ll be interested in all of it but as cyclists we’re particularly interested in what it says on page 49 of the Cabinet report under 3.19 Responses to Traffic and Pedestrian Proposals:   

“Separate comments received within the questionnaires and at various meetings included concerns about sufficient provision being made for cyclists.”  

“It is proposed that further detailed feasibility work and modelling is carried out.  The main areas for further investigative work are:

Station area improvements, including consideration of bus lanes and stops, provision for cyclists and taxis, improved junctions and site access;

King Street/York Street improvements including changes to bus lanes and stops, improvements for pedestrians, cyclists, servicing and consequent environmental improvements;

Water Lane/Church Street/Embankment – further investigation of opportunities to reduce turning movements and through traffic, consequent environmental improvements to public areas.”

So thanks to all of you who responded to the consultation and made sure cycling in Twickenham is on the agenda. 

What we didn’t have in June was the cycle collisions data the Council gave us in September.  This shows clearly clusters of blue squares [serious collisions] and green circles [slight collisions] in Heath Road, King Street and London Road [click on the photo to make it a bit bigger and a bit easier to see]


At last night’s meeting of the Cycling Liaison Group we asked the Council if they use the cycle collision data to 1) prioritise highway engineering works and 2) decide what work is appropriate.  They said “yes we do“, the officers discuss it with the Cabinet Member when deciding on the programme of works for the next financial year.  That time is soon so while we work through the CLG we’re asking those of you living in Twickenham to ask your councillors what’s being done to reduce the number and severity of cycle collisions. King Street and London Road south of the railway are in Twickenham Riverside Ward, London Road north of the railway in St Margaret’s and North Twickenham and Heath Road is South Twickenham, according to My Richmond

Depending on the cause of each collision maybe 20mph zones are the way to go in Richmond [including Richmond Bridge] and Twickenham town centres.  

2. A316 Cycle Route

In August we asked you to respond to TfL’s consultation on the proposal to permanently close the junctions on the Chertsey Road at Godfrey Avenue, Redway Drive and Jublilee Avenue [click here for the original post] We’ve received this reply to our response:

TfL considers that this current proposal will reduce illegal rat running through Redway Drive, the proposals will also encourage cyclists to use this adjacent route as an alternative to the shared use footway.

With regard to the bollards at Jubilee Avenue, I can confirm that the bollard on the northern side of the junction between the telecommunications box and the railings will be removed from the proposal and a further bollard will be relocated as per the attached design. TfL considers that the remaining bollards follow the line of the northern timber fence and therefore do not present a significant barrier to cyclists or pedestrians.

TfL is currently investigating renewal of the lighting columns on the A316 and will, subject to feasibility and the availability of funding seek to relocate the lamp columns away from the centre of the footway. Resurfacing of the route will be considered as part of our future maintenance. In the interim we will instruct our maintenance team to trim back the existing foliage to maximise the available width.”

Reasons to be cheerful, 1, 2, 3?

E-mail: with your thoughts about cycling in Twickenham and on the A316 Cycle Route

Cycling Liaison Group Monday 24th October

We’ve not recieved notes yet of September’s CLG meeting, which may be the result of an apparent change in how it’s administered by the Council.

Click here to read our previous post about that meeting and click here to read the questions we’ve asked in advance of the meeting on Monday.

E-mail: if you want an issue raised at the meeting.

Patchwork – put wheels under the Big Society

We’re moving fast towards the end of the campaigning year with RCC’s annual meeting on Monday 14th November and LCC AGM on 16th, so we’ve been thinking about doing things next year, with the London Assembly elections on 3rd May and the associated LCC 2012 campaign “Go Dutch“.

We think we can strengthen what we already do by continuing to develop the veloteer idea used so effectively for the railway station cycle parking audits and the reports on Hammersmith Bridge and London Road roundabout.

Why do we think that?  Because as a local cyclist you know the routes, what works and what doesn’t.  You know the problems and because you know the problems you’re likely to know how to solve them.  So you’ll know whether the works proposed by the Council, and TfL, will actually make your cycle journey better, or worse, or make no difference at all. Living locally means you can use your democratic right to ask your local  councillor what’s going on.  And because the Council’s highway officers have a geographic responsiblity we can develop a working relationship at a practical level.

We think there may be 9 patches in the Borough and if you live in one of them we’re asking you to get involved (and that involvement can be as simple as the occasional email or more involved if you want, the level of commitment is up to you):

1. Barnes, Beverley Brook, Barnes Bridge, Vine Road, Upper Richmond Road

2. Mortlake and East Sheen, Barnes Bridge, Chiswick Bridge, Manor Road, Richmond Park

3. Kew, North A316, Chiswick Bridge, Kew Bridge,

4. Richmond, South A316, Manor Road, Richmond Bridge, Petersham Road, St Margaret’s including north A316

5. Ham and Petersham

6. Whitton, North A316 from Marlow Crescent

7. Twickenham, Twickenham Bridge, Richmond Bridge, Fulwell and Strawberry Hill golf courses, St. Mary’s

8. Teddington, Bushy Park, Kingston Bridge, Hampton Court Bridge

9. Hampton

We also think the A316 Cycle Route should be have its own veloteers because it runs through so many of the patches and is such an important route.

E-mail: to make a difference to cycling in Richmond Borough, we know many of you already do.

“Oi !!!”, “oww !!!” and knee nor, knee nor

The 3 cycling related deaths we know about in our Borough this year prompted us to ask Richmond Council about all accidents, or collisions as they’re called by the responsible authorities, involving cyclists.  At the end of September’s meeting of the Cycling Liaison Group we were given a map for collisions recorded between 1st January 2006 and 31st December 2010.  We’ve only got it on paper at the moment but it looks like this [clicking on it makes it a bit bigger]

Now, whatever the Council, TfL and RCC does to encourage cycling, eliminating, or at the very least minimising, risk of harm to cyclists must be the priority.

Recent research tells us why people don’t cycle. It includes fear of harm stopping adults from allowing their children to cycle to school in significant numbers and a perception of risk of harm among other demographic groups, regardless of the economic and health benefits of cycling to both the individual and society in general.

The London Cycle Network and Cycle Superhighways are 2 examples of responding to the problem of harm, reducing risk by moving cyclists on to roads with less vehicle traffic, creating separation from that traffic and managing conflict with it at high risk locations like road junctions.  And we’ll know more about what London Cycling Campaign means practically by Go Dutch when they tell us in November about their Manifesto for the 2012 Mayoral Elections.  This is what it means to the Dutch. And, if you’re a parent of school age children, have a look at this video of cycling to school and the very different challenges of the school run there.

So, how does the map help us to adopt a problem solving approach to reducing harm?

Remembering mapping is only a first level of analysis, answering the question “where?” but not “who?“, “what?“, “how?” or “why?“, you won’t be surprised to see clusters, concentrations, in certain places like:

East Sheen’s Upper Richmond Road, notably between Clifford Avenue and White Hart Lane:

Richmond Circus, including the southern end of Kew Road and alongside Old Deer Park:

That’s one reason why we took the Green Party Mayoral Candidate, Jenny JONES, there last week. We also took her there because Richmond Town Centre was voted the number 1 priority in our recent e-mail poll.

Teddington, in particular the High Street junctions with Waldegrave Road, Broad Street and Park, but also Ferry Road junction with Kingston Road:

Twickenham, with Heath Road, King Street junction with Cross Deep and then London Road up to A316, standing out:

It’s also interesting to note where collisions, or at least reported collisions, don’t happen, like Hampton [A1] and parts of Whitton [A16]

While the map is only “where?” what all these locations suggest, most clearly the line of blue squares [serious collisions] and green circles [slight collisions] along Upper Richmond Road, is the role junctions play in the “how?” and “why?”  Knowing this should drive 2 things. First, and foremost, a priority list for highway engineering works in the Borough. Second, the test that work at a location does something about the problem there. Will TfL’s work on Upper Richmond Road reduce collisions?

In our view neither Richmond’s Second Local Implementation Plan for Transport or its associated Draft Cycling Strategy make harm reduction a priority or adopt a problem solving approach. Click here to see how our neighbours in the London Borough of Hounslow are encouraged to report problems.

Back in June we pointed out the consultation document for Twickenham Town Centre didn’t actually use the words “bicycle”, ”cycling” or “cyclist” and “cycle” appears only once, on page 3: “Limited widening of eastern footway in London Road through removal of cycle lane”. This is very disappointing when you see the number of blue squares and green circles:

We also said back in May the apparent enthusiasm police showed for issuing fixed penalty notices for cycling on the pavement in Heath Road was likely to mask a problem with cycling on the road; borne out again by the blue squares and green circles.

We said at the beginning this is a map of recorded collisions so reporting them in the first place is important and the Metropolitan Police Service explains when and how to do that here.  They also invite you to report drivers here.  Note they say they are happy to hear about “Road layouts that you think may be dangerous or can be improved.

Finally, you may be interested in:

E-mail with your thoughts on taking a harm reduction approach to cycling in Richmond.

Phew, Kew cycle lane lives on…

We said in our recent post on September’s meeting of the Cycling Liaison Group the Council were removing the cycle lane in Kew Road.  It seems they were mistaken and have now clarified their position.   

This is what we wrote to the Council after the meeting:

“We were surprised to hear…the cycle lane in Kew Road is to be removed.  We were also surprised to hear consultation had taken place “some years ago.”  Do you know:

  1. When the lane will be removed?
  2. When the decision was taken to remove it, who took it, who was consulted and did that include Richmond Cycling Campaign?
  3. What figures for cycle journeys along Kew Road were used in making the decision?

Removal of the lane was justified because there is a recommended route along Ennerdale Road.  We’re concerned about the credibility of that route because its safety is threatened by use as a rat run and parking makes it impossible for cars and cyclists to share space. Signage also needs to be improved.  

Given a Cycle Superhighway will run past the north side of Kew Bridge, RCC takes the view the Kew Road cycle lane is an invaluable on-road link between it and the A316 Cycle Route and removal of it is unnecessary and short-sighted.

We also note the written response of the Mayor of London to the following cycling related question:

“Will you ask Transport for London to reject any local transport plan produced by a borough which includes the systematic removal of all existing cycle lanes in a 20mph zone when the road is being resurfaced?”

“The Guidance on Local Implementation Plans (LIPs), published in May 2010, makes it absolutely clear that any borough must get written consent from Transport for London prior to removal or substantial alteration of works carried out to infrastructure installed with the benefit of TfL funding. Where a borough breaches the above conditions, TfL may require repayment of any funding already provided and/or withhold provision of further funding.

Accordingly, any LIP proposal to remove cycle lanes will be subject to review and approval by TfL.  However, it may be that in locations where other mitigating measures are being installed, which assist in reducing traffic speeds and volumes, there is no longer a requirement for previously installed cycle facilities.”

Is the answer applicable to Kew Road?”

This is the Council’s reply:

“…apologies for any misunderstanding regarding the part-time mandatory lanes on the A307 Kew Road.

It was always envisaged that once the cycle route using Ennerdale Road as the alternative was completed then the possible removal of the 2 hour route on the west side of Kew Road would be the subject of a feasibility study.  It had been suggested that a two way route on the east side of Kew Road on a widened footway could be investigated or the Ennerdale Road route would be the alternative cycle route to Kew Road northbound.

Since the Ennerdale Road route was completed the removal of the Kew Road west side has not been seen as a priority for removal, so no feasibility study has been carried out.  It is not programmed for investigation in the near future and would be subject to extensive public and statutory traffic management order consultation prior to any decision being made.

In terms of TfL funding, these cycle facilities were put in prior to TfL’s existence so there would probably not be an opportunity for TfL to withdraw/claw back funding on this scheme even if there were plans to remove the cycle lanes.”

Good news then and thank you to members who contacted Councillors to express their concern about the proposal.

Cycling Liaison Group

It’s two weeks since CLG met, arranged after the scheduled one was cancelled, and two weeks before the next on Monday 3rd October so, ahead of publication of the official record, a few things to think about.

Agenda Item 3 Minutes of last meeting

20 mph zones

Discussing this [Item 3g, page 2] we stumbled into a party political difference that became clearer on 9th September when the Richmond and Twickenham Times quoted Councillor Geoffrey Samuel, deputy leader of Richmond Council:

“We are very happy to follow national policies and guidelines and Greater London policies, but we don’t believe Richmond should be singled out for political experiments on the modification of how people get about the borough.”

Now,Political experiments is a very strange and confused characterisation of an intervention the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence said in their report Preventing unintentional road injuries among under 15s

will reduce casualties by around 40%

and went on to say:

Signage, road design and engineering should be used to reduce vehicle speeds on roads where children and young people are likely to be, such as playgrounds, schools, residential roads or where pedestrians and cyclist journeys are frequent.

Interesting also to compare Cllr Samuel’s words with the Mayor of London in his written response to the following cycling related question:

Question No: 2641 / 2011 “Do you believe that 20mph speed limits make the roads safer for cyclists and pedestrians alike?”

“The introduction of 20mph speed limits can improve safety for all road users.  Research by the School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine found that 20mph zones have reduced casualties by up to 40% in locations where they have been implemented in London.

My Transport Strategy acknowledges the benefits of 20mph zones in making streets safer for pedestrians and cyclists.  In addition, TfL looks to include lower speed limits as part of new scheme designs where appropriate.  For example, as part of the implementation of new Cycle Superhighway 8, a 20mph speed limit has been introduced at Old York Road.

In considering the introduction of lower speed limits a number of factors need to be taken into consideration including potential safety benefits, the characteristics and function of the road in question, the impacts on traffic flow and the practicality and cost of implementation and enforcement.  As such, the potential for new 20mph limits will vary by area and road type.”

Presumably Cllr Samuel relies on the last sentence to support his position.

Given the Metropolitan Police Service issue fixed penalty notices to cyclists using the pavement to cross Richmond Bridge, and it’s unlikely the Council will make the footway shared use, we think the Bridge exactly meets the NICE description “where pedestrians and cyclist journeys are frequent” and should be part of a 20mph zone.

We’ve heard our Borough has the second lowest number of 20mph zones in the country but have yet to confirm it.

Agenda 4 British Cycling

During their presentation about SkyRide Local we were interested to hear British Cycling moving into the gap left by the abolition of Cycling England nationally, and Smarter Travel Richmond locally, and talking about cycling to work issues like secure parking and showers.

Agenda 5 CLG The way forward

Carried over to the next meeting in the absence of Cllr SALVONI Cabinet Member for Community Development

Agenda 6 PROW Footpaths

There seemed to be general support for our proposal to de-regulate footpaths on a case by case basis without deciding on the particular paths we suggested.  We’ve asked to be told at the next meeting what the decision making process will be.

We’ve also added to our list:

Blandford Road to Bushy Park, about 4 metres wide and linking to the pelican that should have been a toucan in Blandford Road

Longford Close to Dean Road

linking to the new crossing of Uxbridge Road into Burtons Road

Oldfield Road to Upper Sunbury Road where there’s a toucan and a marked cycle route but also a no cycling sign.

Agenda 7 Draft LBRuT Cycling Strategy

Still in discussion with TfL although we weren’t told why.

Agenda 8 Update 2011/12 cycling scheme programme

Pleased to see one of our quick win suggestions make it on to the list [Scheme 3 Kingston Bridge] and very pleased to see consideration of Hampton Court Bridge [Scheme 4 Hampton Court roundabout] We’ve asked for a timetable so we know when work will be done.

Agenda 9 Any other business

Cycle Lanes

RCC members, both at the meeting and in e-mails ahead of it, asked about vehicles parking in cycle lanes, particularly in Lonsdale Road, Barnes and Staines Road, Hampton.

The definitive word on cycle lanes is in paragraph 16, pages 95 to 101, of the Traffic Signs Manual but by coincidence they were raised in a series of cycling related questions to the Mayor that received written replies, including these two relevant to our members concerns:

Question No: 2649 / 2011 Is it now your policy to allow trucks to use cycle lanes?”

“It is not my policy to allow trucks to use cycle lanes.  Cycle lanes which have a solid white line are only for the use of cycles and no other vehicles may drive or park in them at any time during their hours of operation.  Other vehicles are also not allowed to enter cycle lanes with a dashed white line unless it is unavoidable.  This is set out in the Highway Code.”

Question No: 2773 / 2011 I understand different stretches of cycle lane have distinct levels of authority; mandatory, advisory and the highly recognisable blue surfacing, but what is the penalty for a driver that breaches the rules and drives into any sort of cycle lane? How many drivers have been penalised for such transgressions in each year of your Mayoralty?”

“Officers are drafting a response which will be sent shortly.”

Chris Smith, LBRuT Integrated Transport Planning Manager was quite clear at the meeting:  report it as a parking complaint for enforcement action by their team of 35.

We were also told, out of the blue, that the cycle lane in Kew Road is to be removed.  The local councillor was surprised, particularly when told there was a consultation “years ago“.  The justification for its removal was the LCN route using Ennerdale Road.  Apart from our concerns about the safety of that route we don’t think this is either/or.  With the planned Cycle Superhighway on the north side of Kew Bridge the Kew Road cycle lane provides a link between it and the nearest thing we’ve got to a cycle superhighway, the A316 Cycle Route. The removal of the lane is very short-sighted. E-mail who was at the meeting and surprised to hear about it.

E-mail with your comments or issues to raise at the meeting on 3rd October.