The plans for a new cycleway have been stalled, as police and residents object, believing they will increase anti-social behaviour, worsen motorcycle nuisance, and erode green space.
The plans for the new pathway, near Clarendon Road in Thornaby, North Yorkshire, included twin tracks with a green strip in between them, lighting, landscaping, and tree planting.
Council officers initially approved the plans, but following warnings from Cleveland Police that the plans would worsen the issue of motorcycle nuisance, have agreed to stall, The Northern Echo reports.
The local police team confirmed the issue “with off-road motorcycle nuisance, and any cycle route would exacerbate the issues.”
An objector, who spoke at the planning committee, complained about the motorbike riders: “The mess they make is an absolute scandal. They go up there every day and make an absolute mess, here, there and everywhere.
“It’s an area that’s very prone to flooding. It’s never been sorted. You can go there probably nine months of the year, and parts of it are flooded at all times, so I don’t know why you want to build on that.
“Why you need to go through green space area, of which there’s little in Thornaby to start with, I can’t understand.”
Another objector said: “There’s a lot of drug running along that back field, using e-scooters, bikes, crosses, you name it, that’s massive in the summer.
“If you’ve got easy access along there, it’s a cut-through. It’s going to be a lot more dangerous, even in the winter, if they’re blasting up and down on these bikes.”
More objectors sent 10 letters of objection, which said the path would be “used as a motorway for illicit purposes, including the use of quad bikes, scooters and motorbikes which already travel at speed. The path will increase anti-social behaviour issues.”
There were also complaints that “the open space need is far greater than that of the needs of a few cyclists”, as it is used for dog walkers, children and community gatherings.
Cllr John Coulson agreed: “For years, it’s been a beautiful stretch of grass well used by residents. I think if you ignore the recommendations of the police, it’s a bad route to go down.”
Transport planner, Fran Manancourt defended the plans, saying, “We are actually widening the footpath on the eastern side of Redcar Road, so there’s provision to reduce car parking on that side of the street. We are looking to make safe facilities for schoolchildren and adults, as well as putting that new crossing in.”
He also explained that the cycleway would be raised and not affected by flooding.
Principal planning officer, Elaine Atkinson, also defended the plans. She said: “This is to allow children a safe route to stay away from the roads where all the traffic is and go a direct route. In terms of anti-social behaviour, this area will be lit and it’s considered it would reduce this.
“There’s no evidence to suggest that the creation of this, which is an area which is already used, would actually increase crime in the area.”
However, Cllr Bob Cook said: “I don’t think we’ve addressed what the police have to say. We need to look at other ways of ensuring we don’t get that anti-social behaviour on a new cycle lane and footpath, because it is quite close to the houses.”
Cllr Norma Stephenson agreed that “There’s a really strong recommendation in there from Cleveland Police.
“If the police are saying it’ll be an issue, it’ll be an issue. I hope you don’t expect them to answer to it if we go ahead with this, because if I was the police I’d be saying ‘told you so’.
“You’re talking about young lads on motorbikes with balaclavas on dressed in black and it doesn’t matter how light it is. They’re not going to take any notice of it.”
Cllr Tony Riordan said that the issue of motorbikes had come up before and not been dealt with. “Residents have to live with this; they have to live with our decision. If we don’t get it right, we’re goosed.
“If there’s mitigation for prevention of crime in the wider area, I would support it. At the moment it’s not there.”
He suggested deferring the decision whilst they wait for more information from the police, which was agreed by a unanimous vote.
20 thoughts on “Plans for new cycleway stalled as police warn it will “exacerbate” off-road motorbike “nuisance” issues”
Police confirmed that they
Police confirmed that they were miserably failing to perform their duty in dealing with anti-social illegal electric motorcycling and that the new path would make them look even more ridiculously incompetent.
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
Those in favour of the status quo asking the police “will it stop hoodlums?”
Police: “certainly not – nor will we”.
Complacent councillors and 10 residents: “there’s your answer – the police have said it’ll cause rampant crime, and they’re the experts”.
Funny how the potential for
Funny how the potential for criminal / anti-social types to use it never seems to be a consideration when a new road is proposed. ?
I mean, thats clearly because
I mean, thats clearly because the oiks only use cycle paths. Well known that roads are a rubbish way to get from A to B on your motorbike but cycle paths are brilliant.
So, does that mean that new
So, does that mean that new roads will be stalled as they’ll encourage more speeding/illegal phone usage etc?
So the problem is off-road
So the problem is off-road motorbikes. Which presumably are perfectly capable of driving around off-road, on the grass, as they are at present. The idea that some tarmac will make a difference seems unlikely
Also “they’re making a mess
Also “they’re making a mess of the grass”. Proposal – add tarmac. Objector: “more mess of the grass!”
Of course it’s “fighting over scraps” again. We build over the fields because “development” *, then allocate tons of the remaining space for driving and parking by default. Only then we look at the narrow bits left and let people fight over walking, wheeling, cycling or just “green space”.
* “We *need* more houses” … say the government trying to boost growth and deal with complaints after decades of flogging the social housing stock and nodding along to “buy to rent” etc. As do councils desperately trying to balance the daily budget by selling the inheritance… (yes, i know it’s a bit more complicated…)
chrisonabike wrote:
It is – but Right to Buy and ‘buy to rent’ didn’t reduce the number of homes, nor reduce the need for more of all tenures. Getting rather OT though…
The anticyclists are making
The anticyclists are making up facts again.
So is it a beautiful stretch
So is it a beautiful stretch of grass or is it plagued by drug runners, illegal motorbikes churning up the mud and 9 months of flooding a year? Surely it can’t be both!
Surely it can’t be both!
Surely it can’t be both!
Unfortunately, according to the rabidly anti-cycling protestors and councillors it can! Just like all those Schrodinger cyclists, simultaneously going at 50mph and at less than 10mph when you want to cross unbroken white lines to overtake them, simultaneously clogging up the roads causing pollution and traffic jams, while there are almost no cyclists around when you’re discussing providing traffic infrastructure for them.
The police probably think
The police probably think that using words like exacerbate makes them sound as if they’re doing a competent job. You got a licence for using long words like that, constable?
At leasy we know that roads
At leasy we know that roads aren’t ever used by criminals to aid in crimes like drug running, bank robbery, burglary, kidnapping…
I’m quite sympathetic to the
I’m quite sympathetic to the police, generally. They want to do the right thing. They want to nick wrong’uns. And they are expected to do so with the legacy of swingeing cuts and barrel-scraping exoduses of the experienced end of the workforce.
However, if the complaint is real: if a new cycleway really will facilitate a build-it-and-they-will-knavishly-come [scot-]freeway for ne’er-do-wells, then the obvious point to note is that they know where to focus their intercepts when they plan targeted operations to disrupt that behaviour.
Meanwhile, ne’er-do-wells will always find the line of least resistance, and enforcement action continually has to adapt. Because that is the job of ne’er-do-wells: how often do they do well? Ne’er! So however you plan your infrastreucture, they will do what they can to use it to their advantage – just like now.
<>I’m quite sympathetic to
I’m quite sympathetic to the police, generally. They want to do the right thing. They want to nick wrong’uns
Whereas I’m not and they don’t. The main aim of the police is protecting the interests of police officers, avoiding work and covering up their own and their colleagues misdeeds. Remember Carrick and Couzens, Heroes of the Met.?
Yes.
Yes.
I knew police who turned out to be rotten.
I also knew police who were killed in service – dying while saving others.
It is just as wrong to tarnish (or, for that matter, exonerate) them all the same way people tarnish (or, for that matter, exonerate) people who happen to be cycling at the time.
GMBasix wrote:
“Prejudice is bad … except when it’s against people I don’t like” seems to a common approach by people who think of themselves as one of the good guys.
Also “robust debate is important, but must remain respecful, play the ball, not the player is my mantra … except when someone is wrong about that thing, in which case they deserve it and we don’t need to bother checking our facts”.
It is just as wrong to
It is just as wrong to tarnish (or, for that matter, exonerate) them all
There are at least 2 police forces (that’s forces, not individual officers) which refuse to acknowledge the existence of ‘close-passing’ despite this website approaching 1000 NMotD topics. Lancashire I know for sure ignores all such cases. I have been hit once by an offside side mirror on an oncoming Freelander, where the police excused it as ‘only a momentary loss of concentration, and once by a nearside where the police ignored it. If KentRider is telling the truth, and I think he is, Kent Police officers in general are also of the ‘get yourself KSI’d and we’ll see what we can do’ persuasion. I suspect many other forces agree, but don’t declare it openly. There are a lot of unpleasantly-anti-cyclist police officers and forces- if you’re happy with that then good luck to you
I’m not happy with that. But
I’m not happy with that. But I stand by my comment.
Most officers want to do the right thing; but they are under-resourced and often under-educated on what good looks like. They also have direction on where their policing priorities are. If you want to make a change, take your PCC to court for failing in his public duties. It;s not your job, but you are banging on the cat flap not the door at the moment.
I might have had some
I might have had some sympathy for the residents immediately adjacent to the green area if the new path were planned for close to the housing, but the images show the path to be next to the existing road.
Granted, some of these mini-bikes can be disproportinately noisy, but that is an enforcement issue, and if residents are worried about them in this instance, it’s because they are managing to be annoying without the new path. And cars can also be annoyingly noisy on the roads – even the ones that haven’t adjusted to make extra loud broom broom noises to impress their vacuuous friends.