Surrey County Council (SCC) has withdrawn its support for RideLondon from 2022 onwards. Councillors expressed a desire to support smaller “less disruptive events” in future.
SCC put its support of RideLondon to a vote this week after claiming that a survey had revealed that, “a significant proportion of respondents were strongly opposed to the event.”
The survey in fact found that 58 per cent of respondents would support RideLondon’s continuation in Surrey for the next five years, but dissatisfaction with road closures appears to have been a decisive factor.
SCC had already proposed a shorter, 50km ‘inspiration ride’ for 2021 instead of the 100-mile sportive, with only four miles of the route crossing into Surrey.
Explaining that position ahead of the vote, Denise Turner-Stewart, cabinet member for communities, said: “The recommendations in the paper were not easy to make, and we held off making this decision until we had exhausted all available options to try to make the event work for our residents.
“However, the ethos of the smaller event; focusing on inspiring the take-up of cycling by women, families, and Wheels for All, more closely aligns to the Council’s objectives to encourage cycling for everyday journeys.
“Although we can no longer support the larger closed road event, we remain open minded to hosting less disruptive, smaller family focused events in future years.”
Speaking last week, the director of RideLondon warned Surrey businesses, sports clubs and charities that they stood to lose out on millions as a result of SCC’s withdrawal of support.
The London Marathon Charitable Trust awards grants to recreational projects in areas where London Marathon Events Ltd organises events as a way of thanking communities for their support. Hugh Brasher pointed out that Surrey sports clubs and community organisations will now no longer be eligible to apply.
“More than £4.8m has now been awarded to 93 projects in Surrey since 2013 as a direct benefit of RideLondon taking place in the county – that’s an average of £685,000 per year in funding to Surrey projects for the past seven years,” he said.
“Furthermore, millions of pounds have been spent with Surrey businesses and millions of pounds raised for Surrey charities as a direct result of RideLondon.
“Other benefits from the event include more than £50m value of the promotion of Surrey as a tourist destination, the direct benefits to physical and mental health of cycling and a reduction in pollution levels through more people cycling.”
He added: “Events the size and scale of RideLondon are founded once every generation and uniquely, other than officer time, this event cost the county nothing.”
44 thoughts on “Surrey withdraws support for RideLondon in favour of “less disruptive events””
So the caraholics win this
So the caraholics win this round; they haven’t won the war. Keep pushing everyone, challenge every petrolhead who thinks you don’t belong on the roads, every driver who thinks that VED gives them exclusive rights to their road, every car addict who writes, calls, emails their local media to dis cyclists. Fight them, flood the media who publish this stuff with thousands of messages supporting cycling.
And most of all, give your councillors no peace. Cycling is the answer to congestion, pollution, danger and death, climate change, obesity, community severance etc, etc. All their policies support it; make them carry out those policies, not just shrug their shoulders when the car lobby makes a noise.
Exactly.
Exactly.
This is embarrassing for Surrey, they are literally turning it down to placate idiots. I hope RideLondon are seeking other adjoining counties who would love to host such an event and scoop up the good publicity and sizeable sums of money that come with it.
Having looked at the way
Having looked at the way RideLondon have acted in the past I seriously doubt that they will look anywhere else.
I suspect that as far as they are concerned the cash cow is starting to dry up and it is time to shut up shop before anyone can ask any questions.
Brightspark wrote:
Except isn’t it run by the same people who operate the London Marathon? If so, I doubt they will even be considering “shutting up shop”.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Except isn’t it run by the same people who operate the London Marathon? If so, I doubt they will even be considering “shutting up shop”.
[/quote]
I think that the differences between the type of events is the decider. The Marathon has a smaller route and is in an area that is less car dependent, especially at weekends.
The problem they have is coming outside of the Metropolitain Area. Different Police force, different type of local government different type of residents. Being asked to dip their hands in their pockets was not part of the plan.
I am minded of the history of this event especially the debacle in setting out the olympic event and course. It was always about the money. It was never about the long term survival of the sport despite what Seb Coe said.
What hysterical nonsense.
What hysterical nonsense. ‘caraholics’, ‘petrolheads’, ‘car addicts’, ‘fight them’, ‘cycling is the solution’ blah blah. No, cycling isn’t ‘the solution’, it’s actually a crap transport solution. How many women cycle more than ten miles each way to work, 52 weeks a year? Very, very few. Some members of my club cycle into London around 20 miles each way but they are 99% male, exceptional, young, tough, brave. Sure, many more people cycle in London a few miles on the flat but all the millions poured into cycle lanes and hot air from politicians won’t change the fact that cycling as a means of modern transport over any distance is for a very small percentage of people. Who here cycles regularly with the weekly shop on the handlebars? I ride around 5000 miles a year but like ALL but a tiny few in my club, I also have a car. Try living out of London without one.
I wouldn’t put shopping on
I wouldn’t put shopping on the handlebars, big courier bag for my trip to the shops, though I hear panniers are excellent for that sort of thing, and when I move away from the walkable supermarket, soon probably, it’s a trailer for me.
I’d say that women cycle commuters outnumber male ones at my place of work. Not that there London either.
Not like the Veit Min used
Not like the Veit Min used bicycles to move howitzers, mortors and all the associated amunition to defeat the French and then the Amerians But yea, its impossible to transport a bit of shopping by bicycles.
GrahamH wrote:
Geez, don’t tell the NIMBY’s that.
“‘Ow am I supposed to transport the battalion’s ammunition without my SUV? Eh? tell me that!”
Hicksi wrote:
Complaining about “hysterical nonsense” seems rather perverse when you write it so much better yourself.
Thats a fail. Who but you
Thats a fail. Who but you suggested cycling 10 miles to work was representative of a commute?
Hicksi wrote:
That also holds true for cars to a certain extent. The majority of journeys in cars are over [edit: I mean within] walkable and cyclable distances, and no, most of the time folk aren’t transporting wardrobes, fridges, plumbers tools, or even for that matter shopping.
For someone who claims to manage a cycling club you seem keen on the main argument used against cycling – that it’s not a magic bullet that solves everything.
Captain Badger wrote:
— Captain BadgerI once had an interesting conversation with a guy who said he had to have a car to take his family to buy the children’s school uniforms. He went quiet when I asked him how often he did that, and pointed out he could get a taxi and save £3k/an.
Hicksi wrote:
How many people commute 10 miles each way? Certainly not most of the people I know.
I don’t think many people carry their weekly shop on their handlebars. I tend do most of my shopping on foot with a trolley, as it can carry a bit more than my panniers – sometimes I’ll take the car but generally I prefer to walk or ride my bike if its something I need to go a bit further for. How many people actually do weekly shops these days? I tend to do 2 or 3 smaller shops throughout the week – that way my food is fresher and I waste less (and the only time I could probably fit in a big shop would be at the weekends, when the shops are heaving and the shelves are bare).
I see plenty of people doing their shopping by bike in my local precinct, certainly not mainly fit young brave men – many are pensioners. Sure there are a great deal more who shop by car – but when you look at the amount they’re buying, it is often an amount that could be carried in panniers.
My commute is about 5 miles and when I’ve driven the route at peak time takes about 20 minutes if the traffic isn’t abnormally bad. If I’m doing the school run (which I do most mornings), I’d have to factor in 5 minutes walk from the school back to the nearest place I can park the car. When the traffic is bad, the drive can easily increase from 20 minutes to 40 or 60+ (if there’s a crash on the M4, it isn’t unusual for every road in Reading to come to a complete stand still). I doubt that the majority of people in single occupant cars, who I cycle past on my commute, are incapable of cycling to work (assuming that is where they are going).
Motorised transport is prevalent because it is the only option, many people will drive when it isn’t even a good option (e.g. your moving at less than walking pace and there’s nowhere to park when you get there). Often the it seems it comes down to habit, convenience and lack of imagination – people get the idea that the only way they can get from place to place is to drive (even when it is a short journey and they have nothing to carry).
jh2727 wrote:
How many people commute 10 miles each way? Certainly not most of the people I know.
I don’t think many people carry their weekly shop on their handlebars. I tend do most of my shopping on foot with a trolley, as it can carry a bit more than my panniers – sometimes I’ll take the car but generally I prefer to walk or ride my bike if its something I need to go a bit further for. How many people actually do weekly shops these days? I tend to do 2 or 3 smaller shops throughout the week – that way my food is fresher and I waste less (and the only time I could probably fit in a big shop would be at the weekends, when the shops are heaving and the shelves are bare).
I see plenty of people doing their shopping by bike in my local precinct, certainly not mainly fit young brave men – many are pensioners. Sure there are a great deal more who shop by car – but when you look at the amount they’re buying, it is often an amount that could be carried in panniers.
My commute is about 5 miles and when I’ve driven the route at peak time takes about 20 minutes if the traffic isn’t abnormally bad. If I’m doing the school run (which I do most mornings), I’d have to factor in 5 minutes walk from the school back to the nearest place I can park the car. When the traffic is bad, the drive can easily increase from 20 minutes to 40 or 60+ (if there’s a crash on the M4, it isn’t unusual for every road in Reading to come to a complete stand still). I doubt that the majority of people in single occupant cars, who I cycle past on my commute, are incapable of cycling to work (assuming that is where they are going).
Motorised transport is prevalent because it is the only option, many people will drive when it isn’t even a good option (e.g. your moving at less than walking pace and there’s nowhere to park when you get there). Often the it seems it comes down to habit, convenience and lack of imagination – people get the idea that the only way they can get from place to place is to drive (even when it is a short journey and they have nothing to carry).
— HicksiI was going to comment about the length, but it’s so well argued and relevant that I’ve bitten my tongue.
Hicksi wrote:
How many women cycle more than ten miles each way to work, 52 weeks a year? Very, very few.
All the millions poured into cycle lanes and hot air from politicians won’t change the fact that cycling as a means of modern transport over any distance is for a very small percentage of people. — Hicksi
My goodness, you are so completely out of touch. Cycling is probably the most efficient way of moving around in a city and there are plenty of women and men who regularly commute the sort of distances you are talking about and it isn’t a small percentage of people either. In 2021 the number is likely to increase further as some people will be reluctant to use public transport.
If you live outside a City, unfortunately everyday activity, location of homes, schools, ameneties etc. and the poor state of public transport makes life without a car very difficult, but this has also encouraged enormous amounts of laziness, with people using their cars for journeys of less than a mile.
You also talk about millions being poured into cycle lanes. Clearly, this isn’t happening in Surrey! And wait till you find out about the Billions being poured into infrastructure for cars.
1/3 of London car journeys
1/3 of London car journeys are under 2km. A further 1/3 are between 2km and 5km.
You’re mistaking your knowledge and understanding of chairing a club of “99% male, exceptional, young, tough, brave” sports cyclists with transposed solutions which work for everyone.
As often the case with cycling discussions in the UK, we need a word to differentiate people who cycle as a sport form those who cycle for utility. We have runner and pedestrian for those who get around on foot.
Less disruptive events? One
Less disruptive events? One day of car free roads is hardly disruptive!
So back to the egg and spoon, sack racing or pancake sprints.
maviczap wrote:
Chess, ludo and tiddlywinks are acceptable pastimes in Surrey, but only as long as you’re quiet.
………And drive there in
………And drive there in your massive 4×4 which you leave parked half on the pavement blocking a disabled ramp because, well the car park was full and walking the 200m to the next one is just too much of a bother.
Surrey County Council is
Surrey County Council is probably, undertstandably, thinking of its council tax payers and residents more than some of the agressive ‘my rights’ type of cyclists pouring out of London who think the roads are a warzone and all motorists are ‘petrolheads’. I am Chairman of a reasonably successful Surrey cycling club and one of our principles is to run rides without p*ssing off residents and car drivers. We run about 300 weekend and weekday rides a year and try not to shove cycling up the noses of people who don’t share our passion for the sport.
There are hundreds of sportives all over the country which don’t annoy the locals (well, there were pre-covid). Many of these are brilliant and raise money for charities. Some are run for profit, to help companies sell overpriced ‘stuff’ to well-off participants. Maybe the pricing of Velo Sussex plus resident objections killed it?
I’m not sure that Surrey cycling clubs have benefitted from Ride London in terms of increased membership; what tends to happen is people buy the bike and all the gear, train for the one hyped up event…and are never seen again. Few go on to serious cycling, Racing or Time Trialling.
Most cycling clubs despair at the lack of interest in cycling by young people, maybe the price tags on bikes, clothing and accessories driven by an industry aiming at a certain demographic/salary level is an issue. People who’ve done Ride London a few times, myself included, conclude it’s a bit of a circus; there are endless holdups, crashes, awful injuries and occasionally deaths because there are simply too many inexperienced riders on the road and too much testoserone; it’s just not good cycling. Join a club, do it properly!
Interesting you mention lack
Interesting you mention lack of interest by young people. One of the points discussed by Surrey County Council was that the organisers had been asked to contribute towards the programme of cycle training of primary school children in Surrey, this they had refused to do.
If anyone want to see the minutes of the meeting they can find the link here.
https://www.surreycc.gov.uk/people-and-community/surrey-matters/out-and-about/prudential-ridelondon-latest
If the organisers decided to
If the organisers decided to contribute to certain projects and not others, is that a reason for pulling the plug on the whole thing? It seems a bit extreme.
If the organisers haven’t
If the organisers haven’t engaged with the local cycling clubs, appear reluctant to change any of the route and don’t mitigate any of the feedback on behaviour of some participants then it all leads to a less than favourable impression when based on the survey the councillors could have swung either way on the decision. The failure to agree on funding cycle education further doesn’t give the councillors the ammunition to fire back at the negative views on holding the event in Surrey. I’m curious as to the public relations strategy of LMCT towards the possibility event permission would not be forthcoming.
If any of you have tried to
If any of you have tried to boosting cycling by committing time and resources to Primary School kids, you’ll know what a hard task this is. As we all know, once young riders get to car driving age and discover the opposite sex, alcohol, university etc, cycling goes out of the window. As I said, this one mass event has a poor record of converting participants into long term serious cyclists.
“…thinking of its council
“…thinking of its council tax payers and residents more than some of the agressive ‘my rights’ type of cyclists pouring out of London who think the roads are a warzone and all motorists are ‘petrolheads’…one of our principles is to run rides without p*ssing off residents and car drivers”
Here is what LTN1/20 Cycle Infrastructure Design says about fear of motor traffic:
Motor traffic is the main deterrent to cycling for many people with 62% of UK adults feeling that the roads are too unsafe for them to cycle on…The need to provide protected space for cycling on highways generally depends on the speed and volume of motor traffic.
So in your world, poor car drivers are the victims of aggressive bicycle riders; in the real world, 62% of people are too frightened of traffic to cycle on the roads.
Such a silly twisting of what
Such a silly twisting of what I said doesn’t warrant a serious response.
Hicksi wrote:
Indeed, look at the responses to my comments on the last story about this.
Look everybody, “normal” people just don’t get why the road should be shut for a whole day for a bunch of lycra clad Bradley Wiggins wannabes.
The thing is, it’s a
The thing is, it’s a shockingly good point.
Look at the numbers out riding in the early days of lockdown, with the bizzarely quiet roads, motorised vehicle speaking, walking and cycling much less so.
And the worldwide bike boom that resulted.
Talked to my LBS mechanic yesterday, he’s rushed off his feet and hasn’t had a holiday since March. Even busy seeing the wet weather we’ve been having.
I quoted you word for word.
I quoted you word for word.
maybe young people just dont
maybe young people just dont like the attitude of joining a club that says you are only a “serious cyclist” if you get into racing or TT’ing…
whenever people say you have to join a club to things properly, Im instantly reminded, why Im not, and never will be, a member of their club.
Awavey wrote:
Exactly why I’m a member of Cycling UK, the club that accepts, encourages and represents all cyclists, not just those who want to compete. Part of the problem was that the government gave all the money to promote cycling to British Cycling, a sports club.
Whilst I tend to agree with
Whilst I tend to agree with the general direction of your comment, calling BC “a sports club” is a bit disingenuous.
Also I don’t think Cycling UK helped themselves by rebranding from CTC to something so similar to BC, having said that I dont think CTC was ideal either – I would also note what the last C of their former name stood for. “Club” has connotations.
Hicksi wrote:
I was born on the borders of London/Surrey and grew up riding there, and I still “pour out” of London to ride Box and Leith when I can. Surrey motorists are some of the worst most entitled 4×4 drivers I’ve ever encountered, speed limits are just something that happens to other people and the concept of sharing the road doesn’t even occur to them.
I feel sorry for all the
I feel sorry for all the charities who will lose out big time with the loss of income, not just from the organisers but from the riders who raise money. Still, so long as the vocal minority get their way, eh? We elect councillors to govern, and Surrey’s councillors have shown their true colours. I will remember this next time I vote (I live in Surrey).
Lets face face Surrey is a
Lets face face Surrey is a safe Tory shire for career politicians. As Vic Callow (the former communist candidate for Guildford) explained to me “You could put blue ribbon on a rabid monkey and providing it didn’t bite too many babies, the silly old ladies with blue rinse hair will still vote it in.”
That would be why in the not
That would be why in the not too distant past there was a LibDem MP for Guildford! 2001-2005
freespirit1 wrote:
Good point – well made.
Until a few years ago there
Until a few years ago there was just such a family orientated event in Woking, Ride London wasn’t solely to blame for it’s demise, however it certainly didn’t help. It raised many thousands for Surrey based charities, and thisngs like Bikeability in schools. Which after all is what the County Council asked for.
https://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/woking-bikeathon-organisers-announce-end-11845154
We had the same debarcal in
We had the same debarcal in North East Wales. I think about 2011ish. Tweeks cycles and Etap Cymru. Our councils listened to all the NIBYs and it was shut down, for just one day a year, and people were well informed to plan around ect!! but they got the pitch forks out and cried out like zombies “I cant drive 5 meters to buy milk, how dare you!” nothing changes!!!
I have to strongly disagree
I have to strongly disagree with the comments on here.
Personally, I’m very upset that the event has gone, I’ve ridden it once and know that it has inspired very many local cyclists like me.
Measuring cycling success by club membership is just plan wrong. Many of the guys I go out regularly with would never join a club as we dont like the image or the overly competitive nature of the local clubs. There are hundreds of people like me who have been inspired by the Olympics and this event which cemented the Olympic legacy in Surrey and made many residents proud. We have since arranged a sponsored cycle event every year for our local school and have raised over £50k in a few years. The very fact that the event is 5 times oversubscribed every year should tell you a lot about its popularity/legacy. We have also inspired our kids who cheer us on and love watching the event every year. If that’s not success by certain peoples standards then I despair. True not all kids cycle regularly yet, but they are bought into the sport in a way that past generations never were in the UK. IMO the main issue holding them back is a lack of safe places to practice and the aggressive nature of other road users. That’s not going be solved by this event- but safe cycle routes are a massive step in the right direction.
On the flip side, it has to be said that the route is not very well designed to reduce the impact on local residents with many areas virtually cut off. Yes, it’s only a day but the impact was huge, cutting people off from most shops, local transport and major roads out of the county. Most of the people I heard moaning about this had valid points and were not all car nuts (although undoubtedly some were). Surely some compromises could have been made on both sides eg route amends, running it every other year etc so both locals, cyclists and residents could continue to benefit.
NeilJ1975 wrote:
What, all of them?
An interesting view of being
An interesting view of being a member of a club. It’s a view I have heard before and I think it reflects badly on clubs and club culture if this is the opinion of those outside of that culture.
I wonder was I looking for the legacy in teh wrong place.
If Surrey want to have more low key events that are more focussed on the groups above, the question is will the clubs step up to meet that challange?
Or are clubs just going to become a bunch of elite groups who have no relevence?
Mr Hicksi,
Mr Hicksi,
I salute you. You should be copied, duplicated and given as a guide to anyone that is about to jump on a bike.
You get it, you’ve used your eyes and ears – opposed to some ridiculous biased piece of “study”, or “survey”. You are bang on, and if only more cyclists would listen to you. Who knows, there may be the oppotunity to change behaviours.
There are a couple of very inconvenient truths with cycling that ultimately prevents a mass-cycling culture in the UK:
Now I sit back and wait for some to reference Holland / Amsterdam. (Yawn).
The comments sections on cycling forums are an embarrasment, not only to cycling but to the human race. The Ideology of cycling is peddaled (pun intended) on here, within club culture, at sportives (whats wrong with calling it a bike ride!?) and events by those who are fully immersed in it and without perspective.
The strategy led by Chris Boardman and British Cycling has been, and is still fundamentally wrong. The product of UK cycling roll-out strategies to date has been one of empowerment to the minority fetishists and veloistas who have become more entitled and aggressive (as witnessed in this thread with all the usual “people in 4x4s wwaaaahhh”, “solving national obesity” cycling vomit), which ultimately repels the majority. The MAMIL is the only product of UK cycling culture. All this cycling boom nonsense will fade next year after another winter. Like it did in the 70s.
So to recap, Mr Hicksi, it’s refreshing to hear a chairman of a club make comments as you have, I would be encouraged to join your club! You are entirely correct and it’s a shame more don’t listen to you.
To the ideologic fetishists – At me cyclists! … but but but but but worst motorists! Congestion! Obesity! It doesn’t say anywhere in the law that we’re not allowed to ride 7 abreast! We’re taking up less space than one 4×4! Road tax doesn’t exist! NIMBYS! MGIF! Close pass! WWWAAAAAHHHHHHH.