An open letter to Darren Johnson

On Friday, Darren Johnson is coming to Richmond to see what cycling is like here, so we’ve put together an open letter to him about using a bicycle in our borough.

Dear Darren,

Welcome to Richmond. Ours is a borough of extensive green spaces – like the marvellous Richmond Park – and we straddle the river Thames.

This is how we ride in Richmond ...

This is how we ride in Richmond …

But despite the green spaces, the busy town centres, and the significant growth in primary school numbers, we’re still a borough who don’t really like to encourage cycling by providing somewhere safe to do so.

And the recent, tragic death of Henry Lang, at Richmond Circus, is a reminder of just how far there is to go. This happened at a section of road and cycle way which is emblematic of cycling conditions in the borough. If you were driving along the A316 from just before Pools on the Park to Lower Mortlake Road, then you’d have to stop at up to three separate junctions. If you were choosing to use a bicycle, and the cycle lane, and were on the same route, you might have to stop on ten separate occasions to travel the same distance. (And that doesn’t include a junction we’ve previously called ‘the most dangerous cycle lane in Richmond’.)

Richmond Council will tell you that the A316 is part of the ‘Transport for London Road Network’ (TLRN) and is therefore not something that can be sorted out by borough engineers. If they say that, you could always ask them why Mini-Holland bid money was spent on the A316 rather than – for example – making the two lane highway through the centre of Richmond a nice place for families to arrive by bike.

You could also ask them why the last time they did anything for cycling, it involved a big pot of Dulux and a ruler, and the statement that “There are many examples where advisory cycle lanes of less than 1.50 metres [that] provide a safe and convenient facility for cyclists” (pdf) to create a laughable cycle lane which ends just before you need it, crossing Richmond Bridge.

Families ride together in Richmond. On the pavement, of course.

Families ride together in Richmond. On the pavement, of course.

But if you really want to know about cycling in the borough, just look at how much effort has gone into Twickenham – and how much TfL money – for some wider pavements. Richmond Cycling has spent enormous effort to try to help councillors and council engineers understand what might encourage cycling, but our appeals have fallen on deaf ears:  Twickenham is going to carry on being a great place to drive through, and a terrible place either to arrive by bike, or to get through by bike.

How we use the A305 cycle lane. Or 'spot the bike'

How we use the A305 cycle lane. Or ‘spot the bike’

So, Darren – welcome to our borough, it’s a real shame that there’s so little positive news we can offer you.


Richmond Cycling Campaign

The A316 – a correspondent writes …

A local member wrote to us recently, to ask about what’s happening with the A316. The short answer is nothing, although it now features heavily in the mini-Holland bid. Here’s what she said:

Wonder if you can help me? I am a cyclist using 316 to commute to and from work.Most of the times I use cycling lines but I find it very difficult to do that  just after Richmond roundabout when the cycling line moves to the right side of the road, when cycling towards central London. The stretch between the two roundabouts has 10 junctions with extremely poor visibility for cyclists and drivers. I had had 3 accidents there in the past year and have witnessed at least 10 accidents. Since I cycle on the pavement on the left knowing that I commit an offence. What I find very frustrating is the fact that that in the widest and most cycle friendly part of that pavement where hardly ever there are as many pedestrians as on the other side of the road,  the cycling is prohibited but in the narrower bit where there are shops and junctions the cyclist can share the pavement with pedestrians. Have you ever made any attempts to increase the cycling lane on both sides of 316 post Richmond roundabout? Can you also advise me who should I contact to express my views. Also do you know when we will know if the Mini-Holland bid was successful?

We’re aware of a number of issues with the A316, and we’ve endeavoured to highlight some of them on Cyclescape – see Sadly, there’s nothing happening right now: it’s a feature which is very frustrating, because while it’s great to have a clearly built, off-road cycle lane along such a busy road, it’s rendered very annoying because of the choice to require cycling to give way to cars at every junction. As our correspondent writes, this makes it both feel unsafe, and be unsafe.

The stretch identified is especially problematic for cycling. We hear regularly of Police Liaison Groups fielding complaints about cycling on the north side of the A316 between Richmond Circus and Manor Circus. And yes, cycling along here is not allowed. Yet people continue to do so. And why? Because this is not an easy road to cross, with just two controlled crossings throughout this entire section, and traffic routinely passing through at more than the 30mph limit. In terms of relative risk and actual danger, a check of the road statistics for this section indicate pretty clearly from whom pedestrians are at risk along these roads, and it isn’t someone on a bicycle.

More and more people are using this facility, so it’s to be hoped that something’s going to happen soon – if we win the mini-Holland bid (, then the A316 is going to get a very substantial upgrade that could address almost all of these concerns.

Consultation Watch – Cole Park Road / A316

Junction of Cole Park Road and the A316, a notorious rat run

Post Updated – 13 October 2013
We reported in our 6 August update below that despite overwhelming support for closure of this notorious rat run, TfL had decided to proceed with a partial closure. We were aghast, and many of you joined us in writing to TfL to share your feelings. Well, we can now happily report that TfL have decided to go back to the original proposal and implement a full closure. A great result and in no small part down to the many of you who emailed TfL.

Dear sir or madam,

We wrote to you on 17 July and 5 August about this proposed closure and the consultation we have conducted. Generally there was strong support in the consultation for some action to prevent rat-running along Cole Park Road (backed by almost ninety percent of responses), but opinion was divided on whether a full or partial closure would be preferable.

Since August we have assessed options for a partial closure. Compared with full closure, this would have significant safety disadvantages for pedestrians and cyclists on Chertsey Road. We have also looked into the possibility of testing a temporary closure before making permanent changes to the road layout. However, this would cause problems for large vehicles such as refuse collection, which would have to reverse for a considerable distance.

We have discussed these findings with the London Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames, and the Cabinet Member for Highways and Streetscene has agreed with the other Ward Councillors that we should close the junction completely on a permanent basis.

We are now continuing with the detailed design of the scheme and preparation of the necessary traffic orders, and aim to start implementation of the scheme in Spring 2014.

Yours sincerely,

Post Updated – 6 August 2013
After feeling good that after significant support a notorious rat run that cuts across the A316 cycle lane and causes many near misses would be closed off, we were brought down to earth when TfL announced that after consulting with LBRUT they would only implement a partial closure, leaving those cycling along the path at risk to left hooks from vehicles exiting the A316 into Cole Park Road at speed.

You can see the TfL letter and our responses below, we’re asking everyone who cares about this important route for mums and dads to cycle to school with their children to email TfL to object as soon as you can

Email from TfL

Dear sir or madam,

I wrote to you on 17 July to report on the consultation on this proposed closure.

Following the consultation, discussions with the London Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames and further investigatory work, we propose to implement a partial closure of the junction, with a left turn in (entry only) permitted for eastbound vehicles on the A316. This was proposed by 24 respondents to the consultation. The detailed designs are being finalised in preparation for a safety audit, with a view to implementation of the scheme in Spring 2014.

Yours sincerely,

Luke Howard
Consultation Specialist
Transport for London, Palestra, 197 Blackfriars Road, London, SE1 8NJ

Response from Paul, local CTC representative and RCC Committee member

Dear Mr Howard

I would protest in the strongest terms at this design however detailed. A “left hook” is known to be a major cause of cycle casualties and an eastbound vehicle travelling at speed along the A316 swinging across the cycle track here, probably coming from behind an unsuspecting cyclist, is the worst manoeuvre that you could allow to happen. Counting respondents does not guarantee a safe choice – the original proposal showed more evidence for professional judgement.


Paul Luton

CTC Representative for Richmond

Response from Tim, RCC Campaigns Coordinator

Dear Mr. Howard,

I write concerning your recent letter about the Cole Park Road consultation, and the apparent decision – in consultation with LBRUT – to abandon the decision to make this a safer junction for pedestrians and cyclists, and a more pleasant road for residents.
The original proposal, as per page 9 here – – would have provided:
1. A safe place for cyclists to continue their journey, after the still very sub-standard London Road roundabout
2. A safe place for pedestrians to continue their journey – they and cyclists would not need to play chicken with cars taking the current apex at the high speeds usually seen on this road.
3. A quieter road for residents.
Over half of the respondents gave at least partial support for full closure, and the vast majority sought action on rat-running. Yet you’ve now cooked up an idea with LBRUT which would effectively render the scheme pointless There’s really no reason for this road to egress onto the A316 at all, because only in the very worst of peak periods traffic would people need to take this as an exit to the main road.
It’s a matter of very great disappointment to Richmond Cycling that TfL and LBRUT are once again prioritising the movement of motor traffic – and often high speed motor traffic – over the safety of pedestrians and cyclists. To be honest, it also renders this entire consultation process an expensive and pointless exercise if you’re going to ask for views and then mostly ignore them, don’t you think?


Tim Lennon
Campaigns Coordinator, Richmond Cycling.

Email from Twickenham resident Aniello

Dear sir or madam,

My name is Aniello and I commute to work every morning on my bike.
I do not see myself as a cyclist. I see myself for what I am: a person on a means of transport. Same way as people driving a car or a motorbike. I don’t drive, I ride and that’s where all differences stop.

Still, I feel, no, I correct myself, I am SURE that you are
prioritizing and making the road safer ONLY to people who are already safe in their car, surrounded by huge amounts of steel and loads of research to help them make safe while using an unsafe means of transportation.

Even when TfL and the Mayor of London are pushing for safer means of sharing the roads among ALL the users (people walking, driving, riding) you clearly are still aiming at making the roads unsafe to everyone just for the sake of “smoothing traffic” (which, however, you are totally failing to do).

Last morning I was riding my bike to work, I was 1 minute away from my destination, and yet I was close to NOT making it to the office or even back home alive due to a person driving her car thinking (as you suggested her) that the road is all her. She sped past me on the right (despite me riding fast in a primary position, i.e. at the center of the lane so to discourage drivers from passing in that particular stretch of road in Chiswick), with her “left” light blinking and as soon as she passed me, she cut me on the left to make a “left” turn on a road (which, moreover, was busy due to a vehicle maneuvering). I had to force my brakes to avoid hitting her or, worse, being caught up under her car.

Now I hear that there was a consultation for closing Cole Park Road to left turning vehicles from the A316 and that lots of people were happy with the solution, but still you dropped it following consultation with the LBRUT council.

I am, again and again and again, disappointed. Hugely disappointed. You keep claiming you are making our roads safer, and yet at every opportunity you create the ideal conditions for motor traffic to speed and you are actually encouraging people driving their cars into making dangerous actions that could potentially (and are actually) killing people walking or riding. You are clearly aware that the major reason people die on bike is because of left turning vehicle. And yet, you favor it. While still claiming that that is safer for all of us.

Could you please tell me why is that? Why you think that NOT closing access to Cole Park road would make it safer for people living in the area, for people walking in the area, for people riding in the area or even for people driving in the area? And could you please tell me why you dropped the original proposal EVEN IF people LIVING in the area (and thus clearly those who KNOW more about that junction than everyone else) were in favor?

At least that would be appreciated.

Aniello, a guy on his bike.

Original Post – 1 August 2013
We reported back in our May newsletter that TfL were proposing to shut off a notorious rat run on the A316, near to London Road roundabout. Cutting across a well used off road cycle lane, it was the scene of many near misses.
TfL have now published the findings of the consultation, and we’re happy to report that aan overwhelming proportion were in favour of removing the rat run (85%). TfL will now work with the local ward councillors to decide on how the change will be implemented. Thank you to everyone who responded to the consultation.

The report from TfL is worth a read, if only to see the response from the Alliance of British Motorists! Cole Park Road Consultation Report

We continue to push for improvements to the A316 cycle lane, including getting priority for cyclists across junctions, improving Chalkers Corner and sorting out the London Scottish car park exit.

Consultation Watch – Walton on Thames

A special guest post from Walton on Thames cyclist Parimal highlighting an important consultation for anyone who cycles in through that town, or in fact anywhere within Surrey CC’s remit.

Walton Bridge has shared paths for cyclists and pedestrians. Photo by Get Surrey

Surrey County Council are, at the time of writing, consulting on implementing some cycling facilities in Walton-on-Thames to act as a link to the shiny new bridge that has been installed.

Walton-on-Thames proposed cycle plan overview. Shared pavements in lime green. Original image from the consultation plans

The full consultation including plans can be found here (deadline to respond Monday 19 August). In summary, the proposals being consulted upon involve:

  • Widening certain pavements to between 2.5-3m along roads that link to Walton Bridge
  • Marking these widened pavements for shared use between cyclists and pedestrians
  • A limited portion of these shared pavements will be painted to show a separate bicycle lane
  • Plans stop shortly before the road turns into a 40 mph zone
  • At all junctions with side roads, motor vehicles have priority

On superficial analysis the plans appear to be very good in separating cyclists from motorised traffic, providing a subjectively safe space for existing and would be cyclists to go about their business. But that would be superficial analysis indeed.

From the overview of the plans we can see that the shared paths run through the shopping areas of Walton-on-Thames, pavements that are heavily used by pedestrians to go shopping. These plans deliberately put cyclists in conflict with pedestrians because they fail to recognise that shared paths only ever work when there are very few users of vastly different speeds. In these plans at each junction along the main road, cyclists do not have right of way posing a further danger to them and pedestrians.

The plans appear to have been designed to get cyclists out of the way of motorists and put them into direct conflict with pedestrians in an area heavily used by pedestrians.

This excellent video by WokingTrafficSafety shows a walkthrough of the pavements in Walton-on-Thames that these plans are for.

Surrey County Council are willing to take away some road space in an attempt to widen the pavements. However, the use of shared pavements in this area is completely inappropriate. There is enough room on the roads in question to have pavements, wide separated cycle lanes, which have same priority as adjacent roadway, and two way roadway for motor traffic. However, it requires the will to reallocate space properly.

The full consultation details can be found here. Please take 2 minutes to fill in the tick box online questionnaire before the Monday 19 August deadline.

Two years on is it still the most dangerous cycle lane in Richmond?

Back in 2011 we reported on what we thought was the “most dangerous cycle lane in Richmond” where a mum was knocked off her bicycle by a car while cycling with her son. Fortunately the child was not hurt but the mother required medical attention. Serious though it was, they were lucky not to have been knocked onto the dual carriageway and hit by the passing traffic. Located on the A316 at the exit from London Scottish Rugby Club car park between Richmond Circus and Pools on the Park cars often exit as speed without looking for passing cyclists or pedestrians.

The photograph below shows the danger, a lady nearly knocked off her bike by a car exiting the car park.

So what has happened since 2011? Has the source of danger been removed and as we proposed, the exit closed and cars redirected to use the entrance?

The photo below was taken in 2011 from inside the car park. Cars exiting are supposed to Stop or Give Way depending on whether they look at the sign or the road markings. An advisory blue sign says ‘Cycle Track – Look Both Ways’

Is it Stop, or is it Give Way

Fast forward two years to 2013 and the picture below shows the current scene. The exit remains open and a new sign has been added off to the side stating ‘Cycles crossing’. The Stop sign has been replaced by a Give Way sign. No speed bump has been added and we continue to get reports from people cycling along this part of the A316 of close calls with cars pulling out at speed. The sort of person impatient enough to drive out at speed isn’t going to be influenced by the presence of a sign or care that it has changed colour.

New signage but not much else

It’s really disappointing that this is the approach to the safety of those cycling or walking along this stretch. People are quick to jump to ban cycling from paths and parks but there is a real reluctance to remove the danger when it is posed by motor vehicles. When was the last time you saw Motorist Dismount signs? Copenhagenize capture this cultural blindspot really well in this post.

As already said, this is a key route in the Borough, and is used by many families cycling to Pools on the Park and the Thames path. We’ll continue to pressurise TfL on this dangerous section – we met with them earlier this month for an audit of the A316 and this issue was highlighted.

You can do your bit to keep the pressure on – raise it via TFL’s online form and email our London Assembly Members – Tony Arbour (GLA Member for the area ) and Caroline Pidgeon (GLA Member for Transport – and also the Council’s Cycling Champion, Cllr Harborne (, to make the push for this serious safety issue to be resolved (cc us in so we have a record).

There is also an online discussion of the issue at our Cyclescape page complete with more recent photos.

It’s vital that this issue is dealt with, otherwise, next time we may be reporting a more serious incident.

Consultation Watch – Elsinore Way / A316

Post Updated – 1 August 2013
TfL have now published the findings of the consultation, and we’re happy to report that after an overwhelming proportion (over 70%) rejected the removal of the cycle lane, TfL will no longer proceed with this change. Thank you to everyone who responded to the consultation. We shall continue to push for improvements to the A316 cycle lane, including getting priority for cyclists across junctions, improving Chalkers Corner and sorting out the London Scottish car park exit.

The report from TfL is worth a read to see the breakdown of the responses and their analysis of our submission – Elsinore Way Consultation Report

Original Post – 7 June 2013
TfL would like to make it a bit more grim for cycling and walking along the south side of the A316 apparently. (Consultation here, deadline to respond Friday 21 June.)

This is where the A316 runs by a little road called Elsinore Way

And, basically, they’re going to remove part of the cycle lane and pavement, make you jink to the right, beside the tree, then jink back out after the junction. (Here’s their PDF of the plan.)

You can view our initial view of the plan, and another local view on Cyclescape, here. We think this plan is a bad idea for a number of reasons, and we’d like you to get in touch with TfL (fill in the form or email them at to ask them to reconsider.

Key points you might want to make:

1. The fact that poor driving means people are over-running the kerb is not a reason to change the road layout.

2. This new design brings cyclists and pedestrians into serious conflict on what would otherwise by a reasonably quick, simple route for both.

3. Making it wider just invites people to take the junction faster – that can’t be a good thing when children could be happily running home from school down here. (Let alone anyone else using the pavement.)

4. There’s a perfectly simple, cheap solution: mark the eastbound side (FOUR LANES WIDE at this point) for longer vehicles to take a wider turning, using signs or road markings.

So check it out on Cyclescape, and then please tell TfL you’d rather not have another cycling facility spoiled for the sake of a few drivers who struggle to manage their vehicles. Deadline to respond is Friday 21 June.

London Road Roundabout – Did They Start Without Us?

TfL promised to review 100 of the worst junctions for cyclists last year, and you may have seen that work has begun on places like Waterloo Roundabout. But now someone’s told us that work has begun on the London Road junction in Twickenham (Streetview and map).

London Rd / Chertsey Rd from Google Maps:

RCC has looked at this before, (as has the local Green Party) as the junction doesn’t currently work for either walking or cycling, so it’s very worrying that work might be going ahead on this junction with no consultation and no documentation available. In our view it would be better to do nothing than to bridge the work on this junction, considering the volume of potential and actual use by all transport types.

So if they have started work on this, it’s a matter of some concern, and we need to find out what’s going on straight away. If you have a moment, ask your local GLA members (list here – Tony Arbour is member for the area, but others  have London-wide responsibility, like Stephen Knight), and email TfL (use this form or email Enquire@TfL.Gov.UK).

You can also ask your councillors to enquire as well, since it’s their borough …

Do let us know what you find out (at and we’ll keep this post updated.

A316 Cycle Route

This post has been updated [again] on: 21st February 2012

Nothing new in the Mayor’s answers to these cycling questions, except being told work won’t begin until after the Olympics: no surprise there but maybe an opportunity to seek another review after the Mayoral Elections on 3rd May?

A316 cycle route (1) Question No: 200 / 2012 Jenny Jones

Will you look again at the past recommendations for light controlled crossings on the A316 cycle route at London Roundabout?  A constituent informs me that the recent changes by Transport for London to help cater for pedestrians and cyclists travelling east/west along Chertsey Road, crossing both arms of London Road, are minimal and ineffective.

Written response from the Mayor

A feasibility report into the signalisation of London Road Roundabout was completed in 2008.  At the time it concluded that it could be technically feasible to replace the roundabout with signalised crossings, but there would be costs close to £1m to divert the statutory undertakers’ equipment within the roundabout.  The cost benefit ratio of these changes is therefore deemed to be too high.  TfL is currently progressing an option to provide refuge islands for pedestrians and cyclists on the northern and southern arms of the roundabout.  These will alert motorists to the presence of crossing pedestrians and cyclists and will provide a safe waiting space to cross in two phases.  It is anticipated that these works will be constructed after the Olympics.

A316 cycle route (2) Question No: 201 / 2012 Jenny Jones

Will you make public Transport for London’s data for the predicted use of the London Road roundabout on the A316 and the judgement criteria that they used to decide that providing a continuous cycle route via a signalised crossroads at London Road/A316 would result in increased queuing and displacement of traffic?

Written response from the Mayor

Officers are drafting a response which will be sent shortly.

Yes, and we’re looking forward to reading it.

Continue reading

London Road roundabout – the last word?

It took time but we have a written response from Transport for London following the site meeting on 15th July.

2 documents stand out from the 18 sent:

1. 2008 report on the feasibility of replacing the roundabout with a traffic light controlled junction [conclusion: it’s not, p17-18]

2. TfL reply to the series of questions we asked both in writing and in person at the site visit.

Dr Vince CABLE, MP for Twickenham, Teddington, Whitton & The Hamptons, told TfL on 14th July he was familiar with the report but wrote:

I have received a number of emails…about the [London Road] roundabout and the omission of a crossing from TfL’s latest plans.  My understanding is that in the original scheme there were plans for a signal controlled crossing across the northern arm of London Rd when it was concluded that full roundabout signalling could not be done.  This also included closure of the Cole Park Rd/Chertsey Rd northern entrance.  It is not clear to me why it is now being said that such a crossing would not be feasible. If you have visited the roundabout yourself, then you will know that it can be virtually impossible at times to cross the road because of the heavy flow of traffic and its speed.  Enlarging traffic islands will still mean people have to take their chances and cyclists will still have to run across the road with their bikes to and from the cycle lanes. The only solution to make this roundabout safe is a crossing and I hope TfL will now revert to the earlier proposal.”

TfL replied on 10th August:

“TfL investigated the signalisation of the roundabout in earlier work undertaken between 2006 and 2008.  We concluded that provision of signals on each arm would reduce the overall capacity of the junction to accommodate traffic flow, resulting in increased queuing and displacement of traffic to adjacent parts of the network (potentially to residential side roads).  A further option that has been investigated but which was not feasible on cost grounds was to convert the roundabout to a signalised crossroads.  There is a large gas main in the centre of the junction, and TfL would need to pay for it to be moved in order to accommodate a crossroads.  This has an estimated cost of £870,000, in addition to the costs of other civil engineering and design.  The total cost could not be justified in relation to user benefit.  The provision of a stand-alone ‘Toucan’ crossing sited away from the junction cannot be provided due to several vehicle accesses for adjacent properties, and it is the Mayor’s policy to limit the number of traffic signals in London, given their operational and maintenance costs, in addition to their impact on capacity.  Whilst we recognise that some respondents would prefer an alternative scheme, we frequently need to balance competing demands from road users and carefully prioritise available resources.  The response to our recent consultation on the scheme was largely positive and for this reason we will progress it.

We are however investigating as a separate scheme a proposal to close the northern entrance to Cole Park Road and relocate the existing Toucan crossing to the east of the roundabout.  This has the potential benefit of achieving a cycle crossing closer to existing desire lines, increasing the exit capacity of the roundabout through providing additional queuing space and reducing rat-running traffic on Cole Park Road, which is primarily residential.  We do however need to carefully consider both the impact of the proposal on pedestrian desire lines at the junction and its costs.  In the event that we are able to identify a viable option, we will proceed to undertake public consultation on this proposal before determining a way forward.  Work is still at an early concept stage, and we are working closely with the London Borough of Richmond during the design process.”

Key statements are repeated in TfL’s response on 18th August:

“…signalisation of the roundabout would have caused severe delays.”

“…the presence of several dropped kerb accesses nearby mean that we are not able to provide stand-alone toucan crossings in locations that are close to the pedestrian and cyclist desire lines.”

“…the current Mayoral policy is that there should be no net growth of traffic signals on the network.”

“…St Margaret’s roundabout was signalised in 1995 prior to TfL’s formation, the introduction of the 2004 Traffic Management Act and current Mayoral policy to limit the growth of signals in London.” [i.e. we wouldn’t do it now]

So, what’s the evidence to support the statements:

  • reduce the overall capacity of the junction to accommodate traffic flow
  • increased queuing
  • displacement of traffic

Nothing specific to London Road but we’ve been given the Traffic Modelling Guidelines and Model Auditing Process MAP so we’ll read through them to see if they answer questions like:

  1. Is a numerical value ascribed tosevere delayse.g. time taken to travel a set distance?
  2. Does a numerical value trigger the classification “severe e.g. twice as long to travel a set distance?
  3. How is capacity expressed and calculated?
  4. Does a numerical value trigger the classification unacceptable e.g. twice as long to travel a set distance during peak compared to off-peak?
  5. How is increased queuing measured, expressed and predicted?

Thanks to:

Dr Vince CABLE for writing to TfL  [Read more about his views on cycling in Twickenham in his recent column in Richmond Informer although we’d ask what “well appointed safe cycle routes” there are in the Borough];

Caroline PIDGEON, Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group and Chair of the Transport Committee, London Assembly, for her persistence in asking about the roundabout at Mayor’s Question Time;

Monica SAUNDERS, Richmond and Twickenham Green Party, and Phil JONES for writing excellent letters to Richmond and Twickenham Times on 1st and 8th July respectively;

Radio Jackie for giving us air-time at the beginning of July.

Last, but certainly not least, Tim Harris, who, because he cycles the route to work and knows what he’s talking about, has repeatedly challenged TfL: a true veloteer.

More to follow on other parts of the A316 cycle route.