Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Gilligan hits out at "emotive button pushing" cycle scheme critics

Cycling commissioner says arguments cycle infrastructure causes gentrification don't stand up to scrutiny...

London’s Cycling Commissioner, Andrew Gilligan, has dismissed claims cycle infrastructure causes gentrification as “industrial strength, oceangoing rubbish”.

Gilligan says claims London’s rapidly-growing network of cycle superhighways and mini Hollands will benefit mainly the white middle classes, are “emotional button pushing” and “absurd” arguments that don’t stand up to scrutiny.

Some vocal opponents have come forward protesting Enfield and Waltham Forest mini Holland schemes, arguing the majority of people don’t want fewer cars on the streets, and some claiming businesses and the poor will be disadvantaged by the cycling schemes. Most recently the Guardian ran a comment piece on Waltham Forest’s Mini Holland scheme suggesting most local people, aside from estate agents, are against it.

Mini Holland opponents boast of wasting taxpayers' money with legal challenge

Gilligan told road.cc: “Attacking cycling as an agent of gentrification is basically like saying you don’t want any improvements at all, I mean are we saying we shouldn’t build Crossrail because it might drive up house prices in those areas? Are we saying we shouldn’t improve the local school because it might attract members of the dreaded white middle class?”

Dave Hill wrote his Guardian piece earlier this month quoting a local opposition politician as saying Waltham Forest's Mini Holland scheme will “clearly disadvantage all road users including bus passengers other than the small minority of residents who are cyclists, whom a study [funded] by the Camden NHS and TfL has proven are almost entirely middle-class, young white men.”

Hill argued that, following the opening of Waltham Forest’s Mini Holland, estate agents were the only businesses benefiting, marketing expensive housing to “cafe-dwellers, loft-converters, gentrifiers; the sort of people who ride bicycles”, while protesting residents, claiming themselves the vocal majority,  are against it.

“Silent majority” back Enfield’s Mini Holland as Chris Boardman visits borough

However, Gilligan disputes the gentrification claims. He says: “It’s absurd, and it’s not really an argument, it’s a kind of emotional button pushing - quite a smart one - but it doesn’t really stand up. Clearly the reason why housing is too expensive in London is quite a lot bigger than a cycle scheme.

Gilligan asserts “the poor drive less than all other Londoners”, and the gentrification argument is being used to argue for roads that discriminate against the poor.

He said: “The idea that traffic reduction schemes are a kind of conspiracy of the privileged, that the car is a kind of beleaguered chariot of the poor, that’s clearly wrong as well, it just doesn’t stand five seconds of examination of the actual facts.

“The fact is that the poor drive less even less than all other Londoners. Waltham Forest has the 333rd lowest rate of car ownership out of 348 local authorities in England and Wales, 15 from the bottom, and all the bottom 15 are in London as well, and so the idea that the poor of Waltham Forest drive, that we’re preventing them from getting around, is just industrial strength, ocean going rubbish.”

“It’s interesting to see how they’re co-opting arguments of equality to push a case that’s really fundamentally about retaining the rights of the minority,” he added.

“About 75% of all journeys to Walthamstow town centre are not made by car, and yet the streets of Walthamstow, until recently, were dominated by the 25% of people, and we’re just shifting that balance a bit, we’re shifting it a tiny bit back in favour of the majority who don’t drive every day.”

He added consultations on London's cycle schemes have received majority support, because the "vast majority" of people in London don’t drive in the city centre.

Add new comment

4 comments

Avatar
OldRidgeback | 8 years ago
0 likes

Anti-gentrification now opposing cycling schemes? This is just absurd.

Avatar
bikebot | 8 years ago
3 likes

I wonder if Gilligan or anyone else will take on the LTDA at some point, who are now running something approximating a hate campaign against cycling infrastructure, and those supporting it. 

Obviously they've never exactly been cycling friendly, but the language and threats from taxi drivers against certain people across social media and news sites in the last few months has gotten much worse.

 

Avatar
james-o | 8 years ago
5 likes

"Dave Hill wrote his Guardian piece (link is external) earlier this month quoting a local opposition politician as saying Waltham Forest's Mini Holland scheme will “clearly disadvantage all road users including bus passengers other than the small minority of residents who are cyclists, whom a study [funded] by the Camden NHS and TfL has proven are almost entirely middle-class, young white men.” 

 

Build it and they will come. Cause and effect, etc. A mini-Holland scheme should see more children, mums and dads and older people on bikes - the non-cyclist people who are scared off our roads by the current pro-car road layouts. The people who'd just use a bike as it makes sense for short journeys rather that the 'cyclist' that the mainstream media love to point at.

 

As Chris Boardman said not that long ago -

“I want to see our villages, towns and communities prioritising people – putting them and businesses first. I want everybody to think “what’s the nicest place I have been to?” And I can guarantee it was not full of cars.

That’s what we need to be aiming for. It’s not about cyclists, it’s about communities. I want the car to be a visitor not dominating where me and my kids live.

I want my daughter to be able to ride 300 yards to the local park because there is space to do it and the laws and infrastructure allow it. It needs a holistic approach but people will get used to it and prefer it."

 

 

 

Avatar
emishi55 | 8 years ago
10 likes

Good to hear Andrew Gilligan speaking out against the dumb-downers and exhaust addicts.

While it is reassuring to consider that the degree of hostility from those who just like to shout at any attempts to redress the balance, means that worthwhile changes are happening (see recent Easy As Riding A BIke - 'Why Cycling Needs A Backlash'), democracy is shown to be  remarkably lacking. 

Just a few years back, 'the public' demonstrated a persistent lack of social empathy by smoking in eating places. So the government of the day had to head-off bleating about a 'nanny state' and simply pass a law that enabled people to breathe air not contaminated by smokers in cafes and so on.

We have a similar state of affairs now, magnified by an escalating figure wih climate change, health and resultant economic impacts are given their due, for unrestrained, excessive and inappropriate motor vehicle use.

When signs on posts indicating speed limits, (you would assume drivers would understand to minmise risk of injury to vulnerable road users and also to reassure people that it might be possible to try cycling with the kids) - show that actually, it is infantilist behaviour  clearly demonstrated by those who've had it thier way behind the wheel for too long - it is actually time to impose some physical constraints.

Single-occupancy vehicle-users too easily delude themselves that passive/aggressive bursts of aggressive acceleration interspersed with slow death crawling, day in day out, is some unwritten constitutional right.

Some help then, from the mayor of the day would be helpful meanwhile  (tv/cinema public information films, posters, leaflets etc, that get the 'drive considerately if you have to at all' message across. This might save a lot of repetition from campaign groups at consultation and trialling times, and free up some space for getting the all essential connecting and linking routes in. A long way to go still to catch up with the Dutch.

Latest Comments