Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Cyclist “seriously concussed” avoiding vehicle on Kensington High Street – where council recently tore out protected cycle lane

Council removed safe infrastructure on key road from west London into city centre last month

A cyclist was left “seriously concussed” today after coming off their bike when they had to swerve to avoid a motor vehicle, but in doing so hit another one on London’s Kensington High Street – where the council last month tore out a protected cycle lane.

We understand that the incident happened towards the western boundary of the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (RBKC) with Hammersmith & Fulham, close to the Olympia exhibition venue.

It is unclear whether it happened on the section of road before the junction with Addison Road, which did not have an emergency bike lane protected with wands but did have painted markings, or on the section further east which until early December, did.

Nevertheless, the incident is bound to lead to campaigners repeating calls for a safe cycle route through the borough, on what is one of the main arteries for cyclists heading from west London into the city centre.

RBKC did install protected cycle lanes on either side of Kensington High Street in September last year, but they were removed less than two months later despite protests from cycling campaigners and a local school.

Following today's incident, Justin Abbott of local volunteer group Better Streets for Kensington & Chelsea told road.cc: “Sadly this is just more evidence of how dangerous this road is – evidence well known to the council, who’ve recently said they want to be a “leader in active travel”.

“Following our pre-action for judicial review they say they will revisit their decision to take out the lanes, but not until the middle of March.  They removed them using a ‘special urgency’ procedure. 

“We simply can’t see why it’s more urgent to take out safety infrastructure than to replace it,” he added.

RBKC has consistently opposed Transport for London plans for protected cycle lanes on two key east-to-west routes – Holland Park Avenue and Kensington High Street – each of which would have run for around a mile across its territory.

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

16 comments

Avatar
eburtthebike | 3 years ago
19 likes

RBKC councillors should not be allowed to claim mileage for their cars, only for public transport, cycling and walking, so that they can actually find out how the other half travel.  The sight of these hypocrites being paid to drive when their constituents suffer the consequences in injury and death of their decisions is a disgrace.

Never mind stopping their mileage allowance, they should be banned from driving on council business.  I'm sure they'll be visiting this victim in hospital to express their sorrow that he got in the way of someone important in a car.

Damn, I'm getting more radical with age.  Best wishes to the cyclist for a full and speedy recovery.

Avatar
brooksby replied to eburtthebike | 3 years ago
5 likes

Offering their thoughts and prayers, perchance?

 

(I hope the cyclist came out of it in a better state than their bike...)

Avatar
BIRMINGHAMisaDUMP replied to brooksby | 3 years ago
3 likes

It was probably the cyclist fault anyway cos he /she wasn't wearing hi viz or something. 

Avatar
Captain Badger replied to BIRMINGHAMisaDUMP | 3 years ago
1 like
Lukas wrote:

It was probably the cyclist fault anyway cos he /she wasn't wearing hi viz or something. 

Shouldn't be on the road....

Avatar
OldRidgeback replied to Captain Badger | 3 years ago
2 likes
Captain Badger wrote:
Lukas wrote:

It was probably the cyclist fault anyway cos he /she wasn't wearing hi viz or something. 

Shouldn't be on the road....

If only the cyclist had paid road tax or something...

Seriously, heal up buddy. Concussion can be nasty, so heal up soon.

Avatar
Captain Badger replied to OldRidgeback | 3 years ago
2 likes
OldRidgeback wrote:

....

Seriously, heal up buddy. Concussion can be nasty, so heal up soon.

Amen

Avatar
Muddy Ford replied to eburtthebike | 3 years ago
11 likes

This is a great idea and would save the Government desperately needed tax. Eliminate all tax allowances for driving a vehicle. Where's the petition... 

Avatar
Jenova20 replied to Muddy Ford | 3 years ago
2 likes
Muddy Ford wrote:

This is a great idea and would save the Government desperately needed tax. Eliminate all tax allowances for driving a vehicle. Where's the petition... 

Quite. Other than subsidised food (not alcohol), which I don't have an issue with, I don't think politicians or councillors should get any subsidised travel allowances, or be allowed to hire their own staff (The civil service should do this to avoid family members being hired).

Avatar
Captain Badger replied to Jenova20 | 3 years ago
1 like
Jenova20 wrote:
Muddy Ford wrote:

This is a great idea and would save the Government desperately needed tax. Eliminate all tax allowances for driving a vehicle. Where's the petition... 

Quite. Other than subsidised food (not alcohol), which I don't have an issue with, I don't think politicians or councillors should get any subsidised travel allowances, or be allowed to hire their own staff (The civil service should do this to avoid family members being hired).

I don't necessarily see an issue with hiring family members if they are best qualified for the position.

What needs to be avoided is people getting employed for no good reason, resulting in a de facto civil list. This is fairly easily combatted by applying reasonable expense rules (although I accept that MPs haven't got the bet record of integrity on this score...).

Avatar
Grahamd replied to Captain Badger | 3 years ago
0 likes
Captain Badger wrote:
Jenova20 wrote:
Muddy Ford wrote:

This is a great idea and would save the Government desperately needed tax. Eliminate all tax allowances for driving a vehicle. Where's the petition... 

Quite. Other than subsidised food (not alcohol), which I don't have an issue with, I don't think politicians or councillors should get any subsidised travel allowances, or be allowed to hire their own staff (The civil service should do this to avoid family members being hired).

I don't necessarily see an issue with hiring family members if they are best qualified for the position.

What needs to be avoided is people getting employed for no good reason, resulting in a de facto civil list. This is fairly easily combatted by applying reasonable expense rules (although I accept that MPs haven't got the bet record of integrity on this score...).

I disagree, as someone who working in a regulated environment such behaviour would lead to dismissal. Given that these parameters are set by regulators in response to public and political demands, then all politicians in any capacity should at least be held to the same standards. 

Avatar
Captain Badger replied to Grahamd | 3 years ago
0 likes
Grahamd wrote:

....

I disagree, as someone who working in a regulated environment such behaviour would lead to dismissal. Given that these parameters are set by regulators in response to public and political demands, then all politicians in any capacity should at least be held to the same standards. 

Is there a pragmatic reason per se why it is inappropriate for a family member to act as a secretary or an assistant? (typically where family members are employed)

Avatar
Jenova20 replied to Captain Badger | 3 years ago
2 likes
Captain Badger wrote:
Grahamd wrote:

....

I disagree, as someone who working in a regulated environment such behaviour would lead to dismissal. Given that these parameters are set by regulators in response to public and political demands, then all politicians in any capacity should at least be held to the same standards. 

Is there a pragmatic reason per se why it is inappropriate for a family member to act as a secretary or an assistant? (typically where family members are employed)

The recent expenses scandal is a good example. There's no good reason MPs should be hiring their own family, even if they are qualified. It's too easy to abuse. The civil service is already set up for procurement, and it's easier to prevent corruption if it's centralised and regulated that way.

Avatar
Captain Badger replied to Jenova20 | 3 years ago
0 likes
Jenova20 wrote:

...

The recent expenses scandal is a good example. There's no good reason MPs should be hiring their own family, even if they are qualified. It's too easy to abuse. The civil service is already set up for procurement, and it's easier to prevent corruption if it's centralised and regulated that way.

Really? I'd say there is probably little good reason why they shouldn't. If an assistant is required, that can be budgeted as far as their own expenses are concerned. Cost of wages for a local assistant v cost for wages + FS pension for a civil servant, + associated departmental admin.

Whether some politicians are corrupt and take the mick, well duck houses and all that. But a rule against family employment would not have prevented duck houses, that prevention would require expenses scrutiny. And if on scrutiny an MP expenses a reasonable sum for an assistant why do I care whether it is her husband, or someone who lives across town?

Clearly, expenses need to be scrutinised - mine are after all. But if there is no pragmatic (security, privacy etc) reason why it is inappropriate, I can't muster too much passion over it. (Except of course enough to while away some time on academic debate....)

Avatar
Grahamd replied to Captain Badger | 3 years ago
0 likes

If for nothing else, transparency that there has been no impropriety such as nepotism which  has received plenty of media attention in the past. 

Avatar
Captain Badger replied to Grahamd | 3 years ago
0 likes

Transparency is absolutely key. Daylight is the best disinfectant!

Certainly nepotism and cronyism is unacceptable, as we have seen recently, particularly where the "services" tendered for were shams and consisted of members f the Tory Govt and their friends dipping their hands into the public purse.

An assistant's role though? This could be key, it is true, to successful MP, but I don't see it is grand larceny if the role is performed by a relative. After all, if the role is fulfilled poorly, it is to the MP's detriment.

Avatar
Jenova20 replied to Captain Badger | 3 years ago
2 likes
Captain Badger wrote:

Transparency is absolutely key. Daylight is the best disinfectant!

Certainly nepotism and cronyism is unacceptable, as we have seen recently, particularly where the "services" tendered for were shams and consisted of members f the Tory Govt and their friends dipping their hands into the public purse.

An assistant's role though? This could be key, it is true, to successful MP, but I don't see it is grand larceny if the role is performed by a relative. After all, if the role is fulfilled poorly, it is to the MP's detriment.

An MP should do their job for the good of the public, and not see it as an easy way to get a bunch of their family on the public teat as staff. This has already been abused before, which is why i'm against MPs being in charge of their hiring.

Latest Comments