Royston Smith, the Conservative MP for Southampton Itchen, has complained that the City Council is exacerbating congestion by constructing pop-up cycle lanes. The Government has instructed local authorities to swiftly provide more space for cyclists in a bid to prevent gridlock, but Smith believes that “taking out lanes” exacerbates the problem.
Smith told the Daily Echo he had received about 200 complaints about a temporary bus and cycle lane along the A3024 Bitterne Road West inside 24 hours.
“You need to put your programme to the people,” he said. “We all want cleaner air. Taking out lanes and narrowing others does not achieve that. Instead it makes it worse.
“Idling traffic is a significant cause of pollution and by implementing these changes the council will be damaging the health of residents, not improving it.”
The Department for Transport (DfT) appears to see things differently. Yesterday it wrote to councils informing them it wants to see “an even higher level of ambition” when it comes to proposals for emergency active travel measures.
Announcing a first tranche of funding, it said authorities had been given 100%, 75%, 50% or 25% of their respective bids, “based on the extent to which they aligned with the criteria.”
Those with especially strong proposals have been given more than their indicative allocations.
Smith said the pop-up bike lane on the A3024 was not in line with the Government’s recommendations.
Despite owning Bitterne Park bike shop Triangle Cycles from 1993 to 2003, while still working as an aeronautical engineer, Smith appears convinced that only electric vehicles qualify as a viable alternative to cars.
“The Government’s instructions are clear,” he said. “Do not use public transport unless you have to. We need to encourage people to use cleaner, greener transport, for example electric vehicles where possible.
“Of course, public transport is positive where practical but we should also be encouraging commuters to use e-bicycles and e-scooters (when they become legal) to deal with Southampton’s surrounding hills.
“You can’t force people out of their cars without an alternative and currently that doesn’t exist.”
39 thoughts on “Southampton MP complains of City Council “taking out lanes” – says pop-up cycle lanes worsen congestion”
And how are you going to
And how are you going to convince the people on e-bikes to stick with them without decent route provision? Sheesh.
This is from someone who
This is from someone who campaigned for Brexit but only realized (or started talking about) it would cause chaos on the roads leading to ports after the referendum. So his opinion on congestion isn’t worth very much.
Oh no, he said the B word! It
Oh no, he said the B word! It’s gone quiet lately, but it was noticeable that the government “prepare for” publicity on this last year was along the same lines as for a tornado or a major flood. Except people voted for it.
I picked this story up in the Forum – can’t find it now – I conjectured the content of some of the 200 complaints. But there’s at now a tweet, assuming it’s not apocryphal, doing he rounds, from Barbara, complaining that her two mile journey to / from Sale now takes a lot longer – says it better.
I would add that her husband Roy has not subscribed to the local Conservative Association for the past 20 years so that Barbara’s much needed dual carriageway gets removed – no siree – and he’ll be having words with the Secretary about it.
I wonder how this other local initiative will fare:
https://www.newmiltontowncouncil.gov.uk/2020/06/24/new-milton-town-centre-traffic-and-pedestrian-action-plan/
I especially liked the Dads Army / Novelty Rock Emporium-ness of the descriptions.
D1ckh3ad proves he’s a
D1ckh3ad proves he’s a d1ckh3ad.
It’s very disturbing that so
It’s very disturbing that so many of our “leaders” are so ignorant of that which they speak; overwhelmingly tories, but with the odd sprinkling of labour fools too. The only way out of congestion, pollution, climate change and obesity, is by taking significant steps to increase active travel, which the government finally seems to be taking some modest steps towards.
So disappointing that this MP and many others, are so wedded to the great car society that they can’t see past the end of the bonnet.
All that matters for the
All that matters for the likes of Royston is being re-elected so that they can stay on the gravy train. The days of an MP looking at the big picture are long gone. All that matters is being popular, to win the next election.
If, by some miracle, he had been contacted by 200 supporters of the scheme he would have changed his comments to suit his needs first too.
Latter day snakeoil salesman.
Democracy’s a bitch!
Democracy’s a bitch!
Cargobike wrote:
Those pesky voters, eh? The world would be a much nicer place if we were ruled by unpopular dictators.
Cue “but we are run by unpopular dictators!” hyperbole from people who never venture outside their SM bubble.
srchar wrote:
Tell me more about these Sado-Masochistic bubbles.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Cue “but we are run by unpopular dictators!” hyperbole from people who never venture outside their SM bubble.
— hawkinspeter Tell me more about these Sado-Masochistic bubbles.— srcharObviously a reference to “The Prisoner”.
.
.
We’re run by popular, time
We’re run by popular, time-limited dictators?
Why is it, when a Labour MP
Why is it, when a Labour MP makes stupid statements like this, you go to great lenghts not to mention they are Labour, yet when its a Conservative – its right there in the article?
Which Lab MP are you
Which Lab MP are you referring to, ther statement they made and what lengths did Road.CC go to to avoid describing them as Lab?
There was an article on this
There was an article on this website last week, regarding a female MP, making a stupid anti-cycling comment. She was a Labour MP, and at no point in the article, was her political party mentioned. I recall it, because I made a comment to that affect, which was followed by the usual childish mob, posting stupid replies. I cannot find that article right now, I would happily share it with you, I did however find this article, regarding a Lib Dem MP making stupid comments. To the point in question, you’ll notice not ONCE, was the MP’s political party mentioned in the article, unlike whenever a Conservative MP makes an stupid comment, in which case the party name is all over the article, and often in the title of the story. Journalisim on this site, has been replaced with misleading political activisim. Its a worrying trend.
https://road.cc/content/news/140302-cambridge-mp-says-thoughtless-cyclists-need-watch-pedestrians
alexuk wrote:
It wasn’t an anti-cycling comment; it was a pro-helmet comment.
That’s fighting talk in these
That’s fighting talk in these parts sonny.
An article last week and one
An article last week and one 5 years ago without a mention of the MPs party – seems like a pretty much open-and-shut case for systemic political bias and manipulation by road.cc and a worrying trend indeed; whatever next….
Particularly when you
Particularly when you consider the paucity of counter-examples. I mean, with a quick search, all I could come up with was
But when you WANT TO SHOUT,
But when you WANT TO SHOUT, it’s best not to try and look too hard, especially if the evidence might not quite support the proposition.
Almost seems biased…
Link is here.
Link is here.
https://road.cc/content/news/cycling-live-blog-june-18-2020-274639
Why would it require going to
Why would it require going to great lengths not to mention something? Surely you just… don’t mention it?
Great lenghts is appropriate,
Great lenghts is appropriate, when there are a number of stories on this site where non-conservative MP’s have made equally stupid comments, and their party is not mentioned, not once. It would indicate that Road.cc are trying to manipulate us into thinking only Conservative MP’s make stupid anticycling comments, which is not true. Not true, hence a lie; the last time I checked, lying is a hard thing, for decent people that is.
I guess roadcc are failing
I guess roadcc are failing too
“It’s very disturbing that so many of our “leaders” are so ignorant of that which they speak; overwhelmingly tories, but with the odd sprinkling of labour fools too. “
hirsute wrote:
You could at least credit the author; me.
Actually, I credit the reader
Actually, I credit the reader with the ability to recognise a quote and to have read a handful of comments and work it out.
Would you like me to give you 2 extra ‘likes’ to compensate for the damage to your feelings?
hirsute wrote:
— hirsuteOf course not; minimum ten, and I might not be spiteful to your next post.
alexuk wrote:
It might indicate that. It might indicate unconscious bias on their part, which would require no effort at all. It might just indicate confirmation bias on your part.
Either way, ‘great lengths’ seems distinctly hyperbolic.
It depends if it is just a
It depends if it is just a coincidence or a coordinated policy.
A coordinated policy would require a reasonable amount of effort.
Congrats, alexuk – you really
Congrats, alexuk – you really know how to extract the most important issue from a news story.
HarrogateSpa wrote:
Look there is a dead cat over there.
SHOCK NEWS: users describe
SHOCK NEWS: users describe website with progressive campaign angle as “biased” and “not even-handed”. Said one, “it’s as though the editors and most Of the users consider one political party to be a better prospect on their issues than the other, which is in office is present, proving the fact every day”.
Leave it OUT, you childish
Leave it OUT, you childish mob, making your silly comments.
According to this guy’s
According to this guy’s ‘logic’, the greenest solution is to widen roads, build new roads and expand road capacity ad infinitum, for fear that an engine might idle.
It is, as the Dutch might say, knettergek.
HarrogateSpa wrote:
Yup. Basically, let’s carry on doing what we’ve been doing for the past fifty years; it hasn’t worked yet, but it will soon. Such astonishing lack of logic and vision and he still gets elected.
but he gets voted in by alot
but he gets voted in by alot of people who probably hold the same views as he does though, just go read any local newspaper (and fine its not necessarily representative overall but then I often feel like Im riding next to cars driven by these people) covering the appearance of these pop up lanes around places and you see alot of people stating the exact same logic, new roads,bigger roads,more bypasses,free car parks, cycling causes congestion, there are even some that claim its been anti democratic to make these changes to roads, without letting them object obviously and thats before you get on the usual cycling buzzword bingo (red light jumpers, insurance,road tax,licenses,Im a cyclist but etc) its never ending, there was a piece the other week in a local paper where a councillor was complaining that a road was being closed to motor vehicles,to enable pedestrians to socially distance more easily across the whole space, because they wouldnt be able to drive past the shops anymore and see if there was anything to buy in them…
I think we forget as weve bought into what cycling represents,or should represent and it seems obvious to us that changes like these being made are largely positive and anyone against them is just being daft, that theres a bunch of folk,and some of those are elected representatives, whose hearts and minds havent been won over at all, and councils dont necessarily do themselves any favours by not explaining more clearly the rationale behind the changes they make and how it fits in with everything and how it should improve everyones lives
Awavey wrote:
I’m sure all you’ve said is great, but try concise; it works better.
Can’t criticise on word count
Can’t criticise on word count, but some punctuation might increase your chances of Eburt taking an interest here…
David9694 wrote:
Yes; stream of conciousness writing went out with the sixties.