Forum Topic

Boston Road Conversion to Cycle Track

Over a mile of Boston Road and Lower Boston Road in Hanwell is to be made cycle friendly.140 car parking spaces will be lost. There will be some dedicated cycle lanes and some space to be shared by pedestrians and manual and motorised cycles and scooters. You can view the proposed changes and take part in a short online public consultation exercise at:www.ealing.gov.uk/boston-road-improvementsYou can also send free form comments to:highwayservices@ealing.gov.ukI estimate the cost of these changes to be over £1 million. No evidence is presented to even predict whether these changes will encourage more cycle journeys. The Council is encouraging car owners to park their cars in their driveways (converted front gardens).

Eric Alan Leach ● 709d122 Comments

All part of their anti car measures, to  FORCE people to cycle.For a figure of 10%!!So where to resident’s & delivery vehicles go then?

Peter Yale ● 709d

A recipe to destroy what is left of retail and community.It's really easy to cycle this route barely using Boston Manor or Boston Road.The cycle route south of Boston Manor Station is supposed to be two way but the vast majority of cyclists  ( inc me ) use the road heading south. It safer as so many ebike and scooter users heading north do not observe keeping left. This is yet another bit of ageist and ignorant assumptions overriding the real world and will ruin many businesses as well as just like CPZs and LTNs further divide and pigeonhole communities.

Raymond Havelock ● 709d

Join me at St Thomas's next Wednesday. I will be handing out FACT sheets.10 of journeys by bike is already 40% above the London average.The greatest and most economic change would be rigid enforcement of the 20mph limit.

N V Brooks ● 709d

Raymond, I am with you in that I ALWAYS use the road when going south from Boston Manor to GWR, but I also ALWAYS use the track when going north. Why do I do this? One reason only; simply because I don't want to be inconvenienced - in both directions I can stay on the same side of the road that I am already on when approaching that stretch. I always use the cycle track going north as it has a better surface and it certainly protects me from traffic.I find that it is also easier and more encouraging to cycle down Midhurst Road when going south than it is going north, because instead of having to cross the road when I reach Boston Manor Road I can slip left. This makes it easier and safer for me. All this, of course, largely depends on where you start from. It is not improbable that anywhere west of Grosvenor Road one is more likely to cycle from Uxbridge Road down the whole length of Boston Manor Road. I would not make "ignorant assumptions" (to quote you) that CPZ's and LTNs (plus cycle tracks) are the ruin of local businesses. There is lots and lots of evidence that people who walk and cycle do spend more in local shops than those that drive to them. Those that travel locally by bike are more likely to do so because it is quicker. This is probably why the council would like to maximise the number of journeys involving small distances to be made by bike, with the added benefits of improving health and air quality.

Ben Owen ● 709d

Nigel, what time next Wednesday and what is the address of St Thomas's?Why do you want to stop at 10%?

Ben Owen ● 709d

Ben, cycling volumes in Ealing are already 40% above the London average according to the London Cycling Campaign. Enforce the speed limit and use the money that this scheme will cost on improving the pavements. That will benefit many more people.

N V Brooks ● 709d

What does FACT stand for Nigel?

Paul James ● 709d

The facts remain councils/cycling lobby/TfL hate cars (except as cash cows).They are trying to force everyone, regardless of situation, to walk or cycle.They will only be happy when the majority of roads are shut off to motorists

Peter Yale ● 709d

Funny how Paul doesn’t know what a fact is! ;)

Simon Hayes ● 709d

3.30 - 7.00 pm Boston Road , next to Elthorne Park. 10% is over double the current level for this minority method, invest in pavements and public transport.

N V Brooks ● 709d

Do you own a dictionary? Please don'take yourself look amy more foolish Paul.

N V Brooks ● 709d

FACT is an abbreviation for "Failure to Appear in Court for Traffic violations."

Ben Owen ● 709d

Simply the word fact is in capitals so that people like Paul can understand what it means, as opposed to the fantasies that he regularly posts.

N V Brooks ● 709d

I think you mean cyclists, Putins & Hitler types.Invading territory, taking over land  forcefully.Immune from any violation, untraceable

Peter Yale ● 709d

Fogies Against Cycle Tracks?

Paul James ● 709d

Fantasising Asanine Cycling Twat.

N V Brooks ● 709d

Ben, you are right I use it heading north but do get fed up with so many who will not keep left in either direction and riders who ride 2 abreast.I would though far rather that if councils are really serious about making cycling and walking easier and wider then. sort out the potholes, ruts, slippery surfaces uneven  pavements, dreadful signage which make many of the easier quiet routes so hideously lousy and dangerous and not because of motorised vehicles.These showboating schemes are simply a statement and at the expense of pedestrians, bus users and like it or not A and B roads that are vital for the livelihoods and free flow of traffic to keep the quiet routes that really are preferable to local cycling and walking.And whilst not in Ealing the soon to be 100 years old cycleway along the Great West road ( a route I've use all my working and school life remains as neglected and mismanaged as it has for the past 30 years. And even worse since TfL took control of it.Courtesy of indifference of TfL and it's

Raymond Havelock ● 709d

At a glance, this scheme and the one proposed for Park Royal look as if they're basically just allowing cycling on the pavement.  This is hardly to be encouraged, particularly as 'cycles' now include heavy, powered, e-bikes and wide 'cargo' bikes.

Peter Evans ● 709d

Ah, nasty Nigel doesn't disappoint!

Paul James ● 708d

Ah, there we go, James predictable response No 2. Predictable and tedious.

N V Brooks ● 708d

You think calling me a twat (part of a long line of suchinsults from you) because you don't want a cycle track along Boston road and I do is acceptable behavior on here?

Paul James ● 708d

Did I call you a twat, talk about a persecution complex. I thought that we were finding four words to fit the FACT acronym. How sad you are, still, makes a change from fantasising about skip lorries.

N V Brooks ● 708d

>Did I call you a twatYes you did Nigel.

Paul James ● 708d

No he didn’t Paul. He merely found four words to fit the acronym. As usual you have found a way to take offence and make it all about you. Why are you so special? Why is everything you think or say the only correct way of thinking?The people who should be listened to are those who live on Boston Road and will face the inconvenience of a bike lane outside their properties.The money might be better spent creating a more robust computer system for TfL, one that isn’t susceptible to hacking by 17 year olds!

Simon Hayes ● 708d

No I didn't, for the reason stated. Please stop playing the victim you silly little man, if you are that vulnerable perhaps you shouldn't be using social media.

N V Brooks ● 708d

Perhaps the Ealing enthusiasts should go and observe the paucity of cyclists actually using the cycle lanes built along Chiswick High Road - originally constructed for the imaginary tsunami of commuters.

Robert Shaw ● 708d

Totally bonkers idea. 140 parking spaces lost! Anti car policies are out of hand. So few cyclists use the cycle lane going south on BM Road. The money that is wasted is scandalous. Cyclists don't  even pay for it or to use it.Totally sick of councils imposing these restrictions on us all.

Elizabeth Price ● 708d

Cyclists don't pay for it? What?

Paul James ● 708d

Yawn. Another digression from Paul.Where has this mythical 10 percent figure appeared from? More dodgy stats from Ealing council to try to justify expenditure on minority interest projects. Cash that could be used to improve pavements and mend roads, benefitting far more people in the community.

Simon Hayes ● 708d

Ha ha ha ha, I knew PC James would say that.He just won’t accept the legal & obligatory requirements of a motorist.I told him 3 times now. Insurance, mot, TAX Cyclists can just jump on a bike with nothing, pay nothing & do what they like with impunity.He also omitted to mention he won’t use cycle lanes & drives  when it suits 🤷‍♀️.The rest of us mustn’t

Peter Yale ● 708d

Peter, these cycle tracks are paid for from council tax, with some from TFL (which is also council tax as it's the mayor's precept) and maybe some from government, which is mostly income tax.I pay council tax and income tax, and VAT etc... so tell me how am I not helping fund this.

Paul James ● 707d

>or to use it.Eh? I see loads of people using this cycle track and use it myself. What do you mean cyclists don't use it?

Paul James ● 707d

You stated in previous posts you wouldn’t use a cycle lane.As I keep saying , cyclists also can just jump on a bike with no tax, mot or insurance

Peter Yale ● 707d

>You stated in previous posts you wouldn’t use a cycle lane.I didn't say that, I use them on a regular basis.Not ALL of them, some of them are dangerous, like cycle lanes that travel right next to car doors, I'm not going to ride along in that, and nobody else should.>?As I keep saying , cyclists also can just jump on a bike with no tax, mot or insuranceSort of, but that has nothing to do with road funding.I say sort of because I DO have insurance for cycling, and also, most people are insured for third party liability through their household insurance which specifically EXCLUDES driving.

Paul James ● 707d

Trouble is Paul, council tax is increasing every year and we are told budgets can’t fund vital services. Khan increased his precept by 8.6 percent last year, and will probably clobber those ‘hard working Londoners’ again this year.They can’t ensure the TfL website firewalls function. They don’t spend on road maintenance to any sensible level. They neglect pavements and keens. Keeping streets clear of leaf litter is a forgotten role, making slip and trip hazards worse. All easily remedied with sensible allocation of funds. Bike lanes aren’t anywhere near a sensible allocation of limited resources.

Simon Hayes ● 707d

You stated categorically you would not use a cycle lane.There’s no such  thing as a non hazard, risk free road,You also now twist words & facing facts that cyclists DONT  pay tax/excise duty, however you try to rephrase it.It’s all anti motorist nonsense

Peter Yale ● 707d

>You stated categorically you would not use a cycle lane. no I didn't, I use cycle lanes and tracks on a regular basis, go out of my way to actually!>There’s no such thing as a non hazard, risk free road,Of couse not, but many roads are TOO hazourdous.Although some cities on mainland europe HAVE acheived vision zero, like no serious incidents in years.>You also now twist words & facing facts that cyclists DONT  pay tax/excise duty, however you try to rephrase itI know cyclists who DO pay vehicle excise duty, for their cars and motorbikes Peter, it's a charge based on CO2 emissions, take a look at the website. It's not and has never news to me that bicycles do not attract vehcile excise duty Peter. Some cars don't either.>It’s all anti motorist nonsenseI'm not anti motorist, I'm anti congestion, pollution and road danger.

Paul James ● 707d

You seem to change somewhat hypocritically.We don’t have space like other European countries, hence the congestion, pollution that causes

Peter Yale ● 707d

Then why have you and your cohort not vociferously campaigned for the one thing that would be the greatest asset to cycling road safety? A strict enforcement of the 20 mph limit.

N V Brooks ● 707d

Nigel, check your FACTS before making your claim! You look ludicrous when you claim you know it all, only to be undone by a quick Google search. I used "London Cycling Campaign 20mph" and it brought me the delightful news that Nigel is talking Nigel again. This is the link: https://lcc.org.uk/campaigns/rules-of-the-road/-----We [LCC] help make both London and the UK safer for cycling through improving and enforcing the rules of the road.20 mph: the urban defaultLCC has long backed safer speed limits.Most Inner London boroughs now have a 20mph default speed limit, and Transport for London is increasing the amount of its roads that are also 20mph. This TfL map shows London slowly going 20mph in part thanks to our ongoing campaigning. More than 50% of  motor vehicle collisions with people at over 40mph kill; at 20mph that chance falls to less than 2%. Faster motor traffic is also more intimidating to those walking and cycling too.As of summer 2024, 11 London boroughs currently have 20mph limits as a default. Road traffic offence enforcementBetter rules and lower speed limits are little use if they are not complied with.Speed limit enforcement: LCC is a regular attendee at the Mayor’s Vision Zero stakeholder meetings, where the aim is to achieve zero road fatalities or serious injuries by 2041. We have supported speed enforcement backed by a target of one million speeding tickets issued per year in London by 2026. In 2024 more than half a million speeding tickets a year are already being issued.  Third party reporting: We support the use of public reporting to enforce road traffic offences via phones, dash-cams and helmet cams. The current Met Police road traffic incident reporting portal enables members of the public to report crimes such as phone use while driving and close-passing. Third party reporting has continued to secure high levels of Notice of Intended Prosecutions – with a success rate from public submissions of around 40%. Highway Code ChangesWe welcomed the 2022 updates to the Highway Code that we lobbied for, along with other organisations.We now have clarity on: Turning drivers and cyclists giving way to pedestrians and cyclists proceeding straight ahead (whether on the road, pavement or in a cycle lane).  How close is too close for drivers to pass those cycling: 1.5 metres below 30mph, 2 meters above.  How to avoid so-called “dooring collisions” when a carelessly opened car door can injure a cyclist. Drivers are advised to use their left hand to open the door forcing them to look backwards. It’s a common-sense behaviour that may prevent collisions.

Ben Owen ● 707d

I may speak Nigel but you spout absolute b******* Ben log off and take your medication pal. Cycling volumes in Ealing are 40% above the London average fact, London wide 7 %,Ealing 10% (40% higher). Cycle miles in London are decreasing fact. Cycle sales are down 35% to lower than pre-pandemic levels fact. Cycle shops are closing fact. When you find a fact post it until then just button it.

N V Brooks ● 707d

To add the LCC campaign is totally futile unless it delivers rigid enforcement of the 20 mile per hour limit which is exactly what I stated. Why not learn to read chap.

N V Brooks ● 707d

If hurling insults makes you feel good about yourself, and church is not going to stop you, then The Lord is not watching over you. In Peter 1, it says "don't be hateful and insult people."

Ben Owen ● 706d

Traffic won’t be able to reach 20mph.The cycle lanes cause congestion & consequently pollution

Peter Yale ● 706d

Bring it on.Proverbs 26:4-5 – Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself.  Seems apposite when responding to you Ben.

N V Brooks ● 706d

Peter!"I pay council tax and income tax, and VAT etc... so tell me how am I not helping fund this."Come on!

Paul James ● 706d

Peter, have you been to some of the cities on mainland europe that do vision zero type stuff? Tiny densely packed streets etc... They realised a LONG time ago that there are some places where long streams of motor traffic just isn't a viable option.

Paul James ● 706d

Which doesn't, of course, apply to suburban London, save where supposedly professional transport planners become involved and ruin traffic flows.

N V Brooks ● 706d

Off you go then Paul. Those mysterious European cities (although you yet again don’t cite any supporting evidence) sound perfect for you.

Simon Hayes ● 706d

Further afield, I see that the city of Lancaster PA is hailed and cited as a zero vision community. I had to laugh given that Lancaster is the centre of the Amish and Mennonite communities where there is virtually zero car ownership with most travel by horse-drawn buggy. They also reject television, radio and radical things like zips :-)What a role model.

N V Brooks ● 706d

Yes I have actually. Amsterdam, there was a dedicated cycle, tram track.However plenty of room AND more than 1 lane for cars.Less so in Spain, in both cases there’s simply more room & less motorists hating

Peter Yale ● 706d

Coventry would be more appropriate.!!!And there the motor museum, he could glue his hands to the door

Peter Yale ● 706d

I have told you, 5, 6 , 7 times??Specifically as a cyclist- well you & the other  90 or 100.You/they can jump on a bike , with no insurance, mot , tax / however you split hairs , or try to repeatedly.You they can cycle like knobs, slaloming on pavements.Demand any or all road space.This you know full  well

Peter Yale ● 706d

That wasn't the question I asked Peter.I know that you can ride a bike without getting an MOT (because MOT does not exist for them as they are not motor vehicles) motor vehicle insurance (because they are not motor vehicles) or Vehicle Excise Duty (which applies to motor vehicles that emit Co2).I know this, you don't have to keep telling me.Now can you say I, as somebody that cycles and doesn't own a car but pays council tax, income tax VAT etc that I don't contribute to the funding of roads and cycle tracks? I'm not splitting hairs, just asking for some accuracy from you.

Paul James ● 706d

Probably not as many as one might expect as there are simply not as many cycle journeys as some claim.

N V Brooks ● 706d

A friend of mine who is living over here is from Lancaster PA.He states that Lancaster is not car free but has plenty of bikes. The Aimish apparently make up 6% of Lancaster County and being mainly farming folk wouldn't have any influence on the transport make up of Lancaster itself.

David Burke ● 706d

I was there in 1990, fascinating. Certainly very few cars. Just made me smile that it was cited as a paragon for target zero.

N V Brooks ● 706d

You don’t perhaps own a car, but you somewhat hypocritically drive.My point remains, you or any cyclists does not need to pay road excise/tax however you continue to twist it.Motorists do, I don’t care about emissions etc, fact is motorists pay for the roads , your lot don’t. Oh & you want it all, every inch, all roads shut to traffic.Far as I’m concerned, just get on with it, like the old days.Yes accidents happen, same with anything. All roads for everyone, share.And if you use them contribute, penalise cycling luvvies

Peter Yale ● 706d

>You don’t perhaps own a car, but you somewhat hypocritically drive.Why is not owning a car but driving on occasioan hypocritical Peter?> fact is motorists pay for the roads, your lot don’t. No, this is not a fact Peter. Roads are paid for through general taxation, and local roads council tax which I do pay, so "my lot" do pay for roads.>And if you use them contribute,Cyclists do contribute Peter, through taxes and council tax.

Paul James ● 705d

Absolutely correct, it has been over 100 years since 'road tax' was ring fenced to pay for roads. The real issue is how that finite pot of money is spent. Cycle lanes benefit only those making 7% of journeys. Spending that cah on pavements could make a world of difference to many more users.

N V Brooks ● 705d

Speaking this morning to three very committed cyclists at church all of whom will be writing to object the proposal its current form as both unnecessary in his extent in some areas and totally lacking in provision in others for stop one who has been the cycling all over the country for the last 50 years said to me what is the point of a cycle lane the stops and kicks you back into traffic after less than a mile. This chap is very well known locally as a cycling campaigner and he will be urging his cycling friends also to object. If cyclists don't want it in its current form, what's the point?

N V Brooks ● 705d

There is a big different between objecting outright to the plans overall and wanting the plans to be made better Nigel.

Paul James ● 704d

Indeed, that is why my response and those of others are totally unlike those of the "too many cars) no cars" totalitarians and have made constructive observations/ suggestions. As example, a minor outbuild between Trumper's Way and Lower Boston Road with MANDATORY use of a shared pedestrian footpath. Also a reduction of over two metres in the width of the other shared footpath. 5-6 metres wide is frankly ludicrous. Again it has been asked that use is of the new infrastructure is mandated.

N V Brooks ● 704d

If it's shared use you simply can't mandate the use of it by people on bikes I think.

Paul James ● 704d

(also I think mandatory use would require a complex change in laws at national level, so one for your MP Nigel)

Paul James ● 704d

I did ask previously and while there was no scope for inclusion in that parliamentary session it was thought that the changes required to invoke this were relatively straightforward in prohibiting certain users from the carriageway just as is done with other classes of user.

N V Brooks ● 704d

So, like if I'm cycling south on boston road on the two way cycle track,and want to turn left to Northfields on any of the side roads I can't as I'd have to go on the carriagway?And if I don't want to cycle on a shared path that's very busy with pedestrians?I can't use the main carriagway?Legal minefield.You might be onto someting if they made boston road some sort of urban clearway or motorway whenre they can restrict the types of vehicle, but really, you don't want that, like, a motorway with armco and barriers?Ask the people that live along the A4 what that feels like.I can't see the mandatory thing working, but if the cycle track is good enough people on bikes will use it.

Paul James ● 704d

Which would be the case with the proposed scheme if you were using the infrastucture. That said there will be five crossing all adjacent to side roads, four leading to Northfields. The shared paths are only 'busy with pedestrains" at the beginning and end of the school day at EPHS.  Boston Road is not the A4 with three lanes each way so the comparison is really pointless.

N V Brooks ● 704d

Yup, know all this, just fyi if a shared pavement is busy with pedestrians that's normaly when those people cyling people want to cycle along that street as well, as it's the time when most people want to move.I'm asking, with your idea that the cycle infra should be mandatory and you want to ban cyclists from the main carriagway, how does that work if people want to turn across it or ride along it as the pavement is too busy for that?

Paul James ● 704d

Read my reply, the pavement on Boston Road is NOT busy save at the start and end of the school day. It simply isn't. There are plenty of places to safely cross the carriageway from the west to the east to join roads towards Northfields, currently six between Boston Manor and Trumpers Way.

N V Brooks ● 704d

Well, I'm happy to agree that if the cycle track is good enough and has all the correct turns and junctions on it that making it mandatory for people on bikes to use it is something I'd go for.I'm just not sure we've got such an urban cycle track in the UK yet, and this new boston road road cycle track certainly won't be it, not as proposed anyway...For example, I was trying to get onto the  park lane cycle track today from a side road on thhe east side and I had to ride along Park Lane a bit to do it. At the side road I came out of there was no way of crossing straight across to the cycle track.Still, let's not let perfect get in the way of good.

Paul James ● 704d

You keep saying this, that there aren't many people cycling so why build cycle paths, but cycle paths aren't being built for the people already cycling (although good ones help), they're built to help encourage cycling, and in some cases, make it possible.Like, I won't cycle to Dormers Wells leisure centre with my son, I take the bus and walk, but I know others that drive that said they'd love to cycle, but just don't feel safe enough.Many more bike journeys means fewerjourneys made by motor vehicle.

Paul James ● 704d

Paul, I keep saying this because it's factually accurate. It would take the percentage of journeys made by bike to more than double for it to even reach one in ten journeys made in London It is, and I can't find another way of expressing this, totally inequitable for so much money to be spent on such a low percentage of journeys; even if it quadrupled which is totally unlikely given the falling number of bike sales and the total number of miles cycled falling almost exponentially, it will still only be one in five journeys and it will never reach that 20% figure.

N V Brooks ● 704d

The problem in actual fact is not motorists, but buses.Drivers darent go in 1 or they are hanged & fined 1000s (even if it’s a mm).Luvvy cyclists need to negotiate them & delivery vehicles.Still without paying & unlicensed.Same resolution, close all roads to traffic.Sorted

Peter Yale ● 704d

>The problem in actual fact is not motorists, but buses.Let's repalce all jhouneys made by buses with car journeys Peter. Given that's 70 people per bus, that's a LOT of cars, there wouldn't be space on the roads for all the vehicles needed. Remember one bus with three people on it takes up less space than three people in three cars, expecailly when moving along.>Drivers darent go in 1 or they are hanged & fined 1000s (even if it’s a mm).£70 I think.>Luvvy cyclists need to negotiate them & delivery vehicles.Luvvy cyclists, don't you cycle?>Same resolution, close all roads to traffic.nobody is suggesting this, you're makign this up.>Still without paying & unlicensed.Without paying for what Peter?

Paul James ● 704d

The problem with this proposal seems to be they’re basically legalising cycling on the pavement for most of its length, which is normally something we want to discourage. It seems a rather lazy and half-baked proposal, with the usual elements of an obstacle course thrown in. This facility might be helpful for a few ‘nervous’ cyclists, but to make all cyclists use it would be ludicrous.

Peter Evans ● 704d

All forced. Why shouldn’t people drive, it’s obvious they want or need to.No one drives for fun.Tough on cyclists, same with everyone. Enough cyclists drive in the dark with no lights, wrong way down roads, slaloming down pavements, on their phones.Register them all

Peter Yale ● 704d

I was unable to get hold of the FACT sheet and wanted to check that Nigel is okay?

David Greane ● 703d

Had to go to Langley at the last minute, so left a stack of them on the table to the left of the left doors, next to the First Aid box.

N V Brooks ● 703d

>Register them allI think they only regime ever to have forced cyclists to register bikes was Nazi Germany, and in modern times North Korea.In Japan you have to buy a sticker for your bike, but it's a bike theft prevention measure.

Paul James ● 702d

About time it was implemented. You want equality (or rather more than that).Raise revenue to help pay for schemes & allow the many cycling infringements tiger punishments, as do motorists

Peter Yale ● 702d

>Raise revenue to help pay for schemes You think it would raise revenue?How much do you want to charge Peter? Is this vehicle excise duty, so like a charge per year for vehicle use? How much. Electric vehicles for instance vehicle pays £0 VED, so how much to do want to charge bike owners?.And a license? I mean we don't pay for this right other than the initial outlay of £40? Do you think that even covers the cost of running the motor vehicle licensing scheme itself?

Paul James ● 702d

Cars are already charged & taxed ( however you phrase it)Not bothered, cyclists should have an identity plate, insurance & pay for use of the roads

Peter Yale ● 702d

If it were true that a cyclist being registered would make them more responsible, then why is it that almost every car crash involves registered drivers in licenced vehicles?The much loved AA has already described the idea as unnecessary, citing that the police already have powers to stop cyclists.Cycling should be encouraged – as it doesn't damage roads and doesn't pollute – so why get in the way to discourage this mode of transport?

Ben Owen ● 702d

Peter. We don't have toll roads any more, driver's don't pay to use them either.If you're talking about VED that's a charge for emitting CO2, check your VED document, it's based on Co2 emissions, electric cars don't pay it.I know you want road tax to exist, but it doesn't, see Nigel's post above.

Paul James ● 702d

Here's the government's vehicle tax bands for motor vehicles Peter. CO2 emissions  VED charge (diesel/petrol/alternative fuel)0g/km          £0  £0  £01 to 50g/km    £10 £30  £051 to 75g/km  £30 £135 £10and it goes up the more CO2 the car emits.More herehttps://www.gov.uk/vehicle-tax-rate-tablesNow, which band to BICYCLES fall under and what would be the the VED for them if they were treated as motor vehicles for VED?

Paul James ● 702d

You’re like a stuck record. Get over “tax” however you try to twist or word  it.Cars need this by law.So to you & Ben, if cyclists want so much of the  road , they should pay .If they flout laws, pay too

Peter Yale ● 702d

M25 has tolls, there is Congestion Charge, effectively a toll, to drive ino London, tolls on the M6 relief road and toll on countless privately operated river crossings. Apart from that, spot on 😊

N V Brooks ● 702d

I don’t like tax/ved whatever you want to call it. However motorists are legally bound to pay it for using the roads.Cyclists should be too.Nothing is free, including ulez, congestion charges, to add to Mr Brooks list.

Peter Yale ● 702d

From the end of next year electric vehicles will have to pay the Congestion Charge, despite being zero emissions. So that is a tax.What Paul also ignores, as ever, is the local authority taxes on car owners. Parking charges are exorbitant in some areas, simply because they know it will raise revenue.

Simon Hayes ● 702d

My God….. read a load of the responses on this thread until it degenerated into usual cr@pWhat jumps out all the time is reinforcement of my view that cyclists are a bunch of self entitled; greedy; elitist; narrow minded A holesYou won’t cycle South in a lane built for you at huge cost; that causes mayhem now for buses and ambulances because it inconveniences you and other cyclists come the other way in a two lane provision?!? I’ve heard it all.Why don’t we just ban all cars full stop.It’s the agendaLet’s do it and see where we end up as I’m intrigued to see this Niverna and how it all works.What will TTK and his Loons tax to make up for the loss of road duty I wonder? The sale of bicycle clips?!?Mental stuff…. Just mental

Colin Goodman ● 702d

>they should payI asked you this before, if you want bicycles to come under the VED regime for motor vehicles, which is based on CO2 emissions, where do I send my £0?If not that, then how do you propose to charge cyclists for using the road Peter?

Paul James ● 701d

Paul, you getting increasingly boring.

Simon Hayes ● 701d

& I told you this before, umpteen times. I’m not saying a ved tax (however you keep trying to word it)Im saying pay the equivalent as motorists do, excluding council tax (as motorists must),issue bikes with a registration or identification plate.They want equal rights , same road use as motorists (or more)

Peter Yale ● 701d

Peter, I have to say, you're not makiing much sense.You do want bicycles subject to VED or not?If you do they would fall uner the 0g CO2 band (along with electric vehicles), wihch is £0 per year.Or do you want say a per mile charge for road use, which would involve fitting all sorts of monitoring equipment to them to measure how far they travle along roads?

Paul James ● 701d

>M25 has tollsTolls? There's a charge for motor vehicles crossing the bridge, that's it right?>there is Congestion Charge, effectively a toll, to drive ino London, Congestion charge, the clue's in the name, not all vehicles are subject to it.>tolls on the M6 relief road bicycles are banned, motoro vehicle sonly on this private road, you want more of those?>and toll on countless privately operated river crossings. Apart from that, spot on 😊which crossings and is this anything to do with ealing?

Paul James ● 701d

Paul, you have been pleasant  of late, what's happened?A charge to pass over a bridge is a toll, simple as that. ALL vehicles except cycles will be subject to the Congestion Charge by next April.There are bridges as close as Sonning which are toll.

N V Brooks ● 701d

Paul seems to have missed the news that the congestion charge in London will be applied to electric vehicles from Christmas Day 2025. That’s regardless of emissions, which makes it a toll (ie, a fee for using a road). As these are roads paid for ‘by taxes’ surely imposing a toll is simply charging twice.For thick people who don’t quite understand how things work, this means the costs for businesses that have to operate in the congestion charge zone will be massively increased. It will bankrupt some businesses, while others will simply pass the costs on to customers. It’s nothing to do with clean air, and all to do with revenue raising.Sadiq Khan says it’s to combat increasing congestion, although his fondness for road closures has probably contributed largely to traffic issues in central London. But if all vehicles are electric there will be no exhaust emissions to complain about.Of course Kjan will still be shuttled about in his armour plated diesel 4x4, adding his own noxious emissions to London air!

Simon Hayes ● 701d

Try & concentrate, it’s quite simple to do.Cars pay tax/ved to drive on the road. DONT try yet again to twist words, tax will suffice.If cyclists want so much of the infrastructure, they to must pay.It’s NOT about cars, as you know. It’s making cyclists pay their way.The end goodbye

Peter Yale ● 701d

No point wasting your time with Paul. He only wants to think one way. Rational argument and facts don’t really register with him.

Simon Hayes ● 701d

More cycling benefits everybody, even those who never ride a bike. More cyclists means fewer cars in traffic jams, more space on public transport, less air pollution and healthier peeps.I've said it before and I'll say it again and that is that most adults who cycle also drive – very few people travel exclusively by bike – and are therefore paying the taxes that Peter is claiming cyclists don't. Cycling also causes almost no damage to the roads, which therefore require fewer repairs.

Ben Owen ● 701d

But if the roads are in a bad state of repair but the money that should be used to maintain them is spent on cycle lanes then you can see where the benefit lies. As you know, cyclists use the roads and always complain about them.Once again you overstate the numbers who will actually be cycling. The evidence is that the vast majority of the population prefer other modes of transport, including walking, so your argument is otiose. It’s particularly obvious in poor weather that cycling numbers dwindle, no matter how much the interested parties try to puff them up. If it wasn’t for Deliveroo and Uber eats riders the numbers would be truly embarrassing for the bicycling advocates.

Simon Hayes ● 701d

More dedicated infrastructure for cycling means less room for the other 90% of users on the carriageway. This means more traffic more traffic jams and more pollution; not difficult to comprehend if you think about it for more than two or three seconds and take off your velophile blinkers.

N V Brooks ● 701d

Then can you tell me, knowledgeably, how have cities gone from no one cycling to now almost being car-free?As a core principal, if you give people good public transport - Brentford, Boston Manor and Hanwell Stations for rail services; E8 & 195 for frequent buses (there must be something like 12-15 buses an hour going in either direction) - and good cycle routes in order that they can get to where they want to be quickly and easily, the outcome is that people are more likely to ditch the car in favour of other modes of transport. It is that basic.But please, this is not just me saying this. This is the type of thing I overheard again and again, when visiting The William Hobbayne Centre tonight, from people who actually own cars and were in favour of the proposals! I don't know if it was well attended or not.How did the St.Thomas's day go? I meant to go but got the wrong day so had to do William Hobbayne event instead. How many people attended your one, Nigel?

Ben Owen ● 701d

It wasn't 'my one' but I understand that there was a steady flow with the overwhelming majority vociferously against the proposals in their current form as both over-egged and ill considered. There is already a VERY frequent service on local trains and the E8 / 195.  If you do not know this then yoo cannot live on the route. Peak service is around every eight to ten minutes meaning c.15 buses per hour. Another reason not to spend money on dedicated infrastructure for a minority transport method. Most children arriving at the two schools directly on the route already actively travel why either walking or using public transport yet another reason not to waste money on dedicated infrastructure.

N V Brooks ● 700d

>Cars pay tax/ved to drive on the road.Not all of them Peter. Buy a Tesla or Nissan Leaf and it's not subject to tax/VED to "drive on the road" as it's zero rated.This comes from your fundamental misunderstanding that tax/ved is a charge for driving along a road, it's not, it's a charge for producing CO2 when driving, because look, owners of a teslas/nissan leafs etc... pay £0 tax/ved.I ask again, if you add bicycles to the VED schedule where do I send my £0?Or do you want that to be more than £0 for bicycles? And teslas?A reminder that tax/ved is not ringfenced for spending on roads, it just goes into the governments bank account.

Paul James ● 700d

500th time. I’m NOT  talking about  ved.Cars legally need to pay this (or tax)As indeed should cyclists. A standard fee, say £50.Registration plate & fines for infringements

Peter Yale ● 700d

I fully expect the zero rating for VED to disappear in the forthcoming budget. Electric vehicles take up road space and there is no reason why they should continue to be zero rated.

N V Brooks ● 700d

I already said 12- 15 buses per hour! And I referenced the frequent railway services that people cycle to, giving added reasoning why the scheme is worthwhile. Incidentally, using public transport is not classified as actively travelling. If good public transport takes another car off the road, to make your car journey faster, why would you argue against that?>Most children arriving at the two schools directly on the route already actively travel If most children are arriving by walking or cycling, then it is even more of a case to provide suitable provision for them. It is totally unacceptable to have inferior infrastructure for the majority. One of the planners gave me the explanation behind the proposal of making the western footpath on Lower Boston Road into a shared footpath. This is to assist those who live opposite the hospital and want to cycle to St. Marks. It is a natural route for them and obviously helps in getting them to school safely. I would be keen to know what your response would be to the young children who were telling the planners how dangerous the road layout of Boston Manor Road is to cycle along or cross to get to the leisure centre or school. I described it as "your event" because you wrote on this thread that you would be there to hand out your FACT sheets.

Ben Owen ● 700d

If you believe Ben that a nacimum of 7% of journeys overall is a majority then I can recommend some good basic maths books to you. The catchment areas are small for oocal schools, the OVERWHELMING majority walk or arrive by free public transport. No need for expensive dedicated infrastructure for a tiny minority.You have proven your ignorance of the local area by referring to it as Boston Manor Road which isn't even in the borough.

N V Brooks ● 700d

You ARE talking about VED if you're talking about road tax today, same thing, they are synonyms.So you want to make the current VED band for vehicles with 0 CO2 emissions cost £50 instead of £0 and include bicycles in it is what you're saying?

Paul James ● 700d

VED will go, or fundamentally be changed, it's banded on CO2 emissions which in 15 years time will be academic.

Paul James ● 700d

Locally everyone knows it as Boston Manor Road. Congratulate yourself on noticing my mistake. Brilliant....you are the only person on here who would be so picky.  There are hundreds of roads across the borough that are referred to by the wrong name, yet everyone knows where you would mean. Where would people say the Town Hall is? The vast majority would say the Uxbridge Road. Only Nigel would say that they are wrong! I can't imagine anyone giving directions to New Broadway? Not only that but I bet only a teeny weeny percentage of people wandering around New Broadway right now would know where New Broadway actually is! By the way, I cannot think of anybody else who has initiated a petition on Change.org and only received one signatory (their signatory) and then removed the petition themselves!

Ben Owen ● 700d

NO, obviously not, which you are fully aware of.I want  all cyclists to pay for their excessive take over of the highways.Hate to be in a pub with you, be an expensive round

Peter Yale ● 700d

No they don't. It us BOSTON ROAD, known ad BOSTON ROAD by those who live on on near it. Don't be such a dullard.I never removed the Change petition about mobile phones which I noticed that you lacked the intelligence to sign despite being a pet hate of yours. The Town Hall is, as you say, on New Broadway and it is there that I would direct people. Same as anyone wanting directions to Royal Gardens, Hanwell which is on BOSTON ROAD. Noff you toddle and take your meds.

N V Brooks ● 700d

What’s your fixation with ved. There is a tax that needs to be paid to use roads etc.At the moment it’s footed by motorists, however as cyclists are dictating, demanding, screaming for every inch. They should pay too.And don’t say the usual baloney about council tax

Peter Yale ● 700d

Fundamental change is needed. I would move for a flat rate for EVs and a loading on fuel duty to reflct the low mpg of the gas guzzling polluters, the more you drive, the more you pay and no need for expensive pay per mile infrastructure.

N V Brooks ● 700d

>There is a tax that needs to be paid to use roads etc.What is this tax called Peter?Balony about council tax? Peter, check your council tax bill, there's a section on it which states how much of your council tax money is spent on local roads.

Paul James ● 700d

Fuel for cars in its present form is not going to be around for much longer."Of the 2.8 million private cars registered there, 754,303 are now all-electric, compared with 753,905 that run on petrol, according to new figures from the Norwegian Road Federation."https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx25ljxpygeo

Paul James ● 700d

Norway though Paul has heavily subsidised electricity primarily  derived from geothermal sources world leading charging infrastructure and actually very few roads in comparison to the UK.Its no wonder that cars running on virtually free fuel are popular. Worth noting though that Norway is still the leading European nation in the exploration and export of fossil fuels and that bike ownership is the lowest in Scandinavia 🤣

N V Brooks ● 700d

I couldn't remember the name of the Norwegian fossil fuel company it is Equinor (qv) formerly Statoil.

N V Brooks ● 700d

Wow, some spectacularly ignorant cycle lobbyists here.One suspects Ben is of an age where having children at school is a distant memory. If he had a bit of awareness he would know that most children of secondary school age make their own way locally, either walking or using public transport. Buses are free for Zipcard holders, while tube travel is heavily subsidised. Ironically, concessionary fares are paid for by council receipts from parking revenue. Imagine the shortfall when that multimillion pound surplus disappears!I doubt the pupils at St Marks will all be cycling to school either. Local primaries require parents to drop off and collect all children below year 6, and not because the roads are dangerous. Rather because of ensuring the children are not in any stranger danger.As for Paul’s usual ‘road tax’ red herring, he’s becoming increasingly boring on a subject that only he seems fixated on. Spending piles of taxpayer cash on infrastructure used by less than 1 in 10 of the population isn’t sensible, particularly when pavements and road surfaces are shockingly neglected. Read the post on here about wheelchair accessibility. That’s where the authorities should be concentrating their efforts, not pandering to self-important narcissists on bikes!Perhaps the crux of this is that cycling is never going to be the panacea some think. It’s one strand of a complex web of transport infrastructure in London. Tossing in examples from abroad is pointless but a favourite of the lobbyists who can find no substantive facts to support anything they claim.

Simon Hayes ● 700d