- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
KHS cyclist's bike via Betterstreets4kcCyclist “seriously concussed” avoiding vehicle on Kensington High Street – where council recently tore out protected cycle lane
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.
Safe bike lanes on High St Ken are urgent. Today someone is lucky to be alive after serious concussion, their bike smashed. "Special urgency" used by @rbkc to take the lane out, and they need > 2 months to rethink an unlawful decision? https://t.co/qTu03AxzTo pic.twitter.com/oHePwOd81z
— betterstreets4kc (@betterstreetskc) January 21, 2021
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.
Latest Comments
- brooksby 3 sec ago
So the footpath has always been there too? Doesn't Cllr Lake think its a problem that motorists are apparently pulling out of the garage forecourt...
- Steve K 30 sec ago
Do you just have a massive library of squirrel pictures carefully indexed ready to respond to any post?
- Muddy Ford 3 min 44 sec ago
Would the cutting down of the hedge then enable another access road to the new estate, so do it under the guise of 'active travel'? I agree with...
- brooksby 5 min 32 sec ago
I've seen these enforcement officers completely ignore people travelling past them on illegal electric scooters but (literally) the next moment try...
- David9694 27 min 35 sec ago
Bus hits house as snow causes travel disruption and shuts schools across Yorkshire...
- Carmic0 2 hours 20 min ago
Nice to see the Passoni with external cabling.
- mattw 7 hours 7 min ago
It's owned by the same company. It is hyper-junk.
- mark1a 7 hours 1 min ago
Yes, I agree, and thanks for replying, what I was trying to say (badly) was that Look wasn't really a bike company back then. ...
- George Hill 11 hours 4 min ago
Foxcote Hill in Ilmington - it's steep, it's not too long, and once you get to the top you can see the for miles across the Cotswolds....
- stonojnr 11 hours 12 min ago
well at least they didnt go for British Racing Green as well ,as then theyd have two trademark licensing cases up against them....
Add new comment
16 comments
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.
Offering their thoughts and prayers, perchance?
(I hope the cyclist came out of it in a better state than their bike...)
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.
Amen
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.
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.
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....
)
If for nothing else, transparency that there has been no impropriety such as nepotism which has received plenty of media attention in the past.
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.